Signature ban seems interesting.

[AB de Royse777]

I don't know if this was discussed or noticed yet. When a user has Signature Ban his Signature still shows:
- On Private message.

The avatar shows:
- On the profile page
- Private message.

However, none shows on posts.

[notocactus]

I don't know if this was discussed or noticed yet. When a user has Signature Ban his Signature still shows:
- On Private message.

The avatar shows:
- On the profile page
- Private message.

However, none shows on posts.

theymos posted about that and you missed that post or forgot about it.

The signature ban is only a restriction against using signature and avatar for shilling projects that paid money (mostly in bitcoin) from spammers.

Thanks to nutildah for helping out! Since they are easy to appeal and don't harm the user's ability to speak, sigbans are a good way of addressing users who don't have any single post which breaks the rules, but whose posts seem to contribute more noise than signal.

Note that I just now made a couple of adjustments:
 - Sigbans now also hide avatars, personal text, and website icons next to posts.
 - Sigbans are now listed in the modlog.

[PX-Z]

Probably because signature banning is only for signature campaign participants, they are eye-catching especially if spamming, mostly to not get/apply/participate in a campaign, so disabling it as well on the private message section is not really necessary.

Edit: Thanks to the quoted post above from theymos, that explains all.

[notocactus]

Probably because signature-banned users are only for signature campaigns, mostly to not get/apply/participate into a campaign, so disabling it as well on private message section is not really necessary.

Royse maybe simply reported about his findings or wanted to suggest a stricter ban on profile page and PMs.

Nonetheless, I strongly believe that theymos designed this signature ban by narrowing down where avatar, signature, personal text, and website icon only with public posts. He intentionally did that for signature bans.

[MarryWithBTC]

Probably because signature-banned users are only for signature campaigns, mostly to not get/apply/participate into a campaign, so disabling it as well on private message section is not really necessary.

I do not think this idea is the best.

Once a user receives a signature ban, will they be able to still remove and wear signature? If no, that means making the signature show in private messages doesn't make sense. It will make one unintentionally be promoting a particular project whether they like it or not until the ban is lifted.

I think it's best to deactivate the signature everywhere in the forum;

Otherwise, if a user receives signature ban for posting too much in the gambling board, then they should receive signature ban only in gambling board.

[PX-Z]

Once a user receives a signature ban, will they be able to still remove and wear signature? If no, that mean's making the signature show in private messages doesn't make sense. It will make one unintentionally be promoting a particular project whether they like it or not.

Then the user deserves to be banned for life or xx years for unsolicited "private" messages just like some previous users instead of only sigban.

Nonetheless, I strongly believe that theymos designed this signature ban by narrowing down where avatar, signature, personal text, and website icon only with public posts. He intentionally did that for signature bans.

Yeah, it's very reasonable, there are campaigns offer avatar only campaign, or avatar and personal text, so the user will keep posting or spamming if signature is only disabled.

[MarryWithBTC]

Once a user receives a signature ban, will they be able to still remove and wear signature? If no, that mean's making the signature show in private messages doesn't make sense. It will make one unintentionally be promoting a particular project whether they like it or not.

Then the user deserves to be banned for life or xx years for unsolicited "private" messages just like some previous users instead of only sigban.

I feel you didn't understand me above;

I mean, when someone is sign banned, it's obvious they will not be able to wear or remove signatures again. Now, if the last signature they wore which still shows in pm eventually scams, they won't be able to remove it. Did you understand my concern?

Again, the signature banned user will indirectly be promoting the last signature they wore through pms even without being paid. So, it's better signature is deactivated everywhere.

[PX-Z]

I feel you didn't understand me above;

I mean, when someone is sign banned, it's obvious they will not be able to wear or remove signatures again. Now, if the last signature they wore which still shows in pm eventually scams, they won't be able to remove it. Did you understand my concern?

Again, the signature banned user will indirectly be promoting the last signature they wore through pms even without being paid. So, it's better signature is deactivated everywhere.

Uh, yeah, right. But they can still probably remove them or change them, it's just not shown on posts.

As for your concern it's the same to those banned sigcamp mixer before with inactive users who never updated their signature spaces. You can still see them on their profile, similar to reputed to become scammed services with sigcamp before. Afaik this was raised something the same before but theymos brushed it off or just not interested.

[Catenaccio]

I feel you didn't understand me above;

I mean, when someone is sign banned, it's obvious they will not be able to wear or remove signatures again. Now, if the last signature they wore which still shows in pm eventually scams, they won't be able to remove it. Did you understand my concern?

I have never known that if someone is signature banned, that account will be not allowed to change their signature (wear a new one or remove the current one).
No information about that.
No information about ability of changing avatar or it is disabled together with signature ban too.

How did you know about that obviously?

Again, the signature banned user will indirectly be promoting the last signature they wore through pms even without being paid. So, it's better signature is deactivated everywhere.

PMs are useless as signature campaigns are counting posts for payment, not PMs.

If spammers or scammers are not joining any signature campaigns but only want to use PMs for scamming, they will be reported and spam very quickly.

As for your concern it's the same to those banned sigcamp mixer before with inactive users who never updated their signature spaces. You can still see them on their profile, similar to reputed to become scammed services with sigcamp before.

It's user choice and activity, not a forum ban and does not allow users to remove or wear new avatar and signature.

[MarryWithBTC]

Uh, yeah, right. But they can still probably remove them or change them, it's just not shown on posts.

Okay, if they are able to remove them or change them, there's no problem them...

I feel you didn't understand me above;

I mean, when someone is sign banned, it's obvious they will not be able to wear or remove signatures again. Now, if the last signature they wore which still shows in pm eventually scams, they won't be able to remove it. Did you understand my concern?

I have never known that if someone is signature banned, that account will be not allowed to change their signature (wear a new one or remove the current one).
No information about that.
No information about ability of changing avatar or it is disabled together with signature ban too.

How did you know about that obviously?

The obvious came in the course of my further explanation. I am not certain about that... In my first post, I asked it as a question.

Once a user receives a signature ban, will they be able to still remove and wear signature?

[Riginac111]

If his signature is not showing in the public that means the user signature showing in private does not have any benefit to the bearer, private display of signature can not allow the disabled user to join subscription campaign, the reason to introduce sigban is to stop spammer displaying signature in public with shitpost, but not to display avata, if signature shows in private inbox but not in public no problem for that.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Probably because signature-banned users are only for signature campaigns, mostly to not get/apply/participate into a campaign, so disabling it as well on private message section is not really necessary.

I do not think this idea is the best.

Once a user receives a signature ban, will they be able to still remove and wear signature? If no, that means making the signature show in private messages doesn't make sense. It will make one unintentionally be promoting a particular project whether they like it or not until the ban is lifted.

'Unintentionally promoting a project' sounds awkward, but where exactly? Via pms? This is common sense. Not everyone has access to your pms and the promotions are strictly for the public, so like others have said, it doesn't matter that much.

Otherwise, if a user receives signature ban for posting too much in the gambling board, then they should receive signature ban only in gambling board.

What a terrible idea. So if they are actively promoting a casino that has a compulsory post count requirement on the gambling board, they can't make up the quota so they get kicked out of the campaign anyway? There's no point for that imo.

Uh, yeah, right. But they can still probably remove them or change them, it's just not shown on posts.

@Marrywith BTC thinks a user cannot remove/edit the avatar/signature after a ban.

[xenomorfo]

Probably because signature banning is only for signature campaign participants, they are eye-catching especially if spamming, mostly to not get/apply/participate in a campaign, so disabling it as well on the private message section is not really necessary.

Edit: Thanks to the quoted post above from theymos, that explains all.

sure PX-Z not to mention that theymos explained the reasons very well and sorry if i say it, maybe someone won't like it, over the years theymos has proven to be right.

In fact, i personally trust him as i trust bitcoin. THe combination, Theymos Bitcointalk and bitcoin is the best.

[IjawMan]

^^

I do not think this idea is the best.

Once a user receives a signature ban, will they be able to still remove and wear signature? If no, that means making the signature show in private messages doesn't make sense. It will make one unintentionally be promoting a particular project whether they like it or not until the ban is lifted.

Whether a user can still wear or remove signature code is inconsequential provided that it not going to display under their posts. No one looks into a private message to see a user signature unless something warrants it.

I think it's best to deactivate the signature everywhere in the forum;

The admin does not think in your direction and that could be cause the signature ban was launched to control and reduce post busting and spam and not how users send private messages etc.

Otherwise, if a user receives signature ban for posting too much in the gambling board, then they should receive signature ban only in gambling board.

How helpful is that generally, and what is the sense in it? It is not called a "gambling board signature ban".

[MarryWithBTC]

Otherwise, if a user receives signature ban for posting too much in the gambling board, then they should receive signature ban only in gambling board.

What a terrible idea. So if they are actively promoting a casino that has a compulsory post count requirement on the gambling board, they can't make up the quota so they get kicked out of the campaign anyway? There's no point for that imo.

Otherwise, if a user receives signature ban for posting too much in the gambling board, then they should receive signature ban only in gambling board.

How helpful is that generally, and what is the sense in it? It is not called a "gambling board signature ban".

I wonder why you guys didn't find any sense in the suggestion above. Can you read again for the second time?

I suggested that if the only reason for a particular signature ban is that the user "posts too much in the gambling board", instead of a total signature ban, the user can be sign banned only in gambling board. By this, the user's post in gambling board will naturally reduce and the user may still have the opportunity to promote other projects like exchanges which do not compulsorily require gambling posts.

You can only say that you don't like the idea, but you cannot say that the idea is useless if the goal is to reduce spam in a specific board.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

I do not think this idea is the best.

Once a user receives a signature ban, will they be able to still remove and wear signature? If no, that means making the signature show in private messages doesn't make sense. It will make one unintentionally be promoting a particular project whether they like it or not until the ban is lifted.

Sending unsolicited PMs can be reported with such PMs and accounts with such PM spam reports will be banned too.

Except if people behind signature banned accounts bought the accounts, they will not spam with PMs because they know that they will receive another stricter ban, account ban completely, no longer only signature ban.

Otherwise, if a user receives signature ban for posting too much in the gambling board, then they should receive signature ban only in gambling board.

First possibility is if the poster only posted and spammed on gambling board, a second possibility is that poster posted on different boards and if he spammed in gambling board, he very likely spammed in other boards.

With the second possibility, signature ban on all boards makes sense.
With a first possibility, you can argue that it's unfair policy but it's what it is and it was decided by theymos.

I wonder why you guys didn't find any sense in the suggestion above.

Not make sense.

I suggested that if the only reason for a particular signature ban is that the user "posts too much in the gambling board", instead of a total signature ban, the user can be sign banned only in gambling board. By this, the user's post in gambling board will naturally reduce and the user may still have the opportunity to promote other projects like exchanges which do not compulsorily require gambling posts.

Because theymos want to ban spammers to clean up the forum, not only clean Gambling boards.

The ban message is clearly like "Stop making money from spams" rather than "Stop making money from spams in Gambling board". It's too soft.

[Sandra_hakeem]

Otherwise, if a user receives signature ban for posting too much in the gambling board, then they should receive signature ban only in gambling board.

What a terrible idea. So if they are actively promoting a casino that has a compulsory post count requirement on the gambling board, they can't make up the quota so they get kicked out of the campaign anyway? There's no point for that imo.

I wonder why you guys didn't find any sense in the suggestion above.

... Because the suggestion simply makes no sense.

I suggested that if the only reason for a particular signature ban is that the user "posts too much in the gambling board", instead of a total signature ban, the user can be sign banned only in gambling board. By this, the user's post in gambling board will naturally reduce and the user may still have the opportunity to promote other projects like exchanges which do not compulsorily require gambling posts.

You can only say that you don't like the idea, but you cannot say that the idea is useless if the goal is to reduce spam in a specific board.

There are several reasons a user gets a sigban and "burst posting" in the gambling section is just one of them.
Secondly, it's been reported that other boards have a terrible number of spam post as well--- boards like the Bitcoin discussion, beginners and help, Altcoin section, trading discussion and (someone even mentioned Meta at the time we noticed several merit sourceship applications flooding the whole space).

Why exactly are you trying to suggest leniency? Don't find this dismissive whatsoever, but suggesting this only means we'd have to agree with one user who also suggested that the ban duration starts subtly--- 3 days, to 3 weeks, 3 months and Yada yada !