Signature Campaign Ban Suggestion: Punishment length of time

[Satofan44]

The suggestion:
First offence - 2 week signature campaign ban.
Second offence - 2 month sig ban
Third offence - 2 year sig ban

I do not know if I like this... the principle behind your idea is good, but I think it is "weak" to be applied as an automatic rule... the bitcointalk gains predictability, but I think it would become too lenient in some cases and unfair wqith others.

I can't find where he said it should be automatic, even as he clearly stated it as a suggestion. That's an opinion, and a very good one at that.

I would even suggest further to issue them a fair warning before any ban occurs, to begin with. If a warning is issued, and such an offender is still caught making the same mistakes, a whole one month straight ban should be slammed at first (not even 2 weeks). Upon resumption, if such didn't change, a 3-month ban should follow. The next should be 6 months, then 12 months, and it goes on like that.

That would have carefully shown the leniency of the forum and the inability of the offender to change.

The signature ban itself is the warning, people who are shitposting deserve a ban from the forum. Therefore, stop trying to soften the rules in order to protect your accounts. It is not going to happen, this place was way too soft for a long time and it still is. Only after 99% of shitposters have been eliminated with near-permanent bans will this place become a thriving community of productive Bitcoin-related content once again.

[Lucius]

~snip~
Merit system already failed since years ago, and any requirement with merit now are pointless to solve spamming and farming. Especially if demerit won't be deployed and used severely.

You are not far from the truth, but I wouldn't say that the merits system is a complete failure - because if you remember how it was before it existed, it definitely delayed (slowed down) advancement in the ranks for those for whom the forum is only a source of income and nothing more.

I would even dare to say that the system is not as bad as the decisions of those who implement it and those who directly participate as merits sources. What I really want to say is that the merits sources should be thoroughly analyzed, and those who are inactive or found to be performing their duties poorly should be removed.

The way this system has been maintained in recent years clearly shows that the reduction in the number of sources in the general part of the forum and the increase in local boards has not led to anything good. Some boards have become breeding grounds for alt farms, and the three merit sources that were recently removed show that some have been abusing that position for years.

As for demerits, I think it would be a bad solution because it would cause a lot of controversy among members, whether it is a secret or public demerits. The other forum that many members from this forum use has this function, and it is not something that is a solution for signature spammers.

The solution is to not accept them in the sig campaigns, and we all know whose responsibility that is.

[Rikafip]

That would have carefully shown the leniency of the forum and the inability of the offender to change.

I think that forum already showed leniency by allowing shitposters to pollute the forum for years with no consequences whatsoever (despite having rulesset in place to fight that) and make nice amount of money by doing it. That is, until recently and this new way to fight the spam via signature bans.