Appeal in the Sigban Case

[LoyceV]

For anybody reading this - why can't signature campaigns on Bitcointalk be treated as a job?
This job is paid by clients, that pay signature campaign members to select members that they think represent the brand best.

Allow me to selectively only respond to this part, as it stuck with me: you're looking at this from the perspective of a company that earns from advertising. That ignores its influence on the forum. The profit is for the company, the pointless posts are for Bitcointalk.

It's a bit like dumping trash in a river. As long as you don't look at the river, it's great for everyone involved, and everyone earns from it.

[vapourminer]

For anybody reading this - why can't signature campaigns on Bitcointalk be treated as a job?
This job is paid by clients, that pay signature campaign members to select members that they think represent the brand best.

Allow me to selectively only respond to this part, as it stuck with me: you're looking at this from the perspective of a company that earns from advertising. That ignores its influence on the forum. The profit is for the company, the pointless posts are for Bitcointalk.

It's a bit like dumping trash in a river. As long as you don't look at the river, it's great for everyone involved, and everyone earns from it.

very much this

i feel no need to have to read drivel because someone paid them to post drivel

they need to pay a cut of their sig money as for me even to take the effort to put them on ignore costs me time and effort.

how about this: all paid sig posters should have to setup a forum escrow account. to be forfeited and/or drawn upon on any sort of forum abuse.

just consider it a job related expense.

[philipma1957]

For anybody reading this - why can't signature campaigns on Bitcointalk be treated as a job?
This job is paid by clients, that pay signature campaign members to select members that they think represent the brand best.

Allow me to selectively only respond to this part, as it stuck with me: you're looking at this from the perspective of a company that earns from advertising. That ignores its influence on the forum. The profit is for the company, the pointless posts are for Bitcointalk.

It's a bit like dumping trash in a river. As long as you don't look at the river, it's great for everyone involved, and everyone earns from it.

very much this

i feel no need to have to read drivel because someone paid them to post drivel

they need to pay a cut of their sig money as for me even to take the effort to put them on ignore costs me time and effort.

how about this: all paid sig posters should have to setup a forum escrow account. to be forfeited and/or drawn upon on any sort of forum abuse.

just consider it a job related expense.

No wrong. But close. Tax the signatures. 5%

2% goes to the forum
3% goes to a random pool drawing each month 3 prizes

1st  1.5%
2nd 1.0%
3rd  0.5%

If you have no signature you go into the drawing
You must have had no signature for the last 6 months
You must have 10 merits
You must be a full member or higher

This way every signal person on bitcointalk has an actual benefit or a possible benefit from the signatures.

There is a big incentive to not have a signature as 1.5% of all the months signature money is really fucking good prize.

Then the spam is good not bad.
As it represents:
1) money for the forum
2) money for the signature
3) an endless chance for those with no signature.


I do not beg but this solution is good:

if you think it is you can pm me to pay for the idea. 

[cryptofrka]

For anybody reading this - why can't signature campaigns on Bitcointalk be treated as a job?
This job is paid by clients, that pay signature campaign members to select members that they think represent the brand best.

Allow me to selectively only respond to this part, as it stuck with me: you're looking at this from the perspective of a company that earns from advertising. That ignores its influence on the forum. The profit is for the company, the pointless posts are for Bitcointalk.

It's a bit like dumping trash in a river. As long as you don't look at the river, it's great for everyone involved, and everyone earns from it.

Heh, nicely put. But not really.

I'm looking at it from a perspective that some people can truly help their families by doing a task that is definitely on the low side of what we should consider harmful in today's society.
Sure, shitposting happens. It's not everywhere though, and you can either skip some parts of the forum or put 500 people on your ignore list without taking these opportunities away from them.

Please bear in mind that I'm not suggesting that people should run rampant and spam everything everywhere - but let's also not be fully judgmental here and admit the fact that signature campaigns are partially what's keeping this forum alive, and what's giving it significance when evaluating gambling brands.
Gambling is a huge market and gambling boards on BTT alongside with sig campaigns are responsible for a big number of transactions happening daily - therefore helping the ecosystem and doing exactly what Bitcoin was created for. Every guy in a sig campaign is probably doing a few tx weekly. Isn't onchain activity the main thing BTT forum should be supporting?
Many people opened their first wallets because of signature campaigns, many remained here and made businesses starting from small beginnings.

I think that some of us, as senior members of this community, should collectively find ways to grow business on BTT, to empower users that benefit the forum, to strengthen the ecosystem and work towards a unified goal - debanking as many people as possible.
What are we doing? The opposite, we're dividing into camps and acting like fucking politicians instead as a community. I for one hate to see it but now it's spilling everywhere so I started to write a bit more in threads that I hope will become of no interest to me soon again.

Tax the signatures. 5%

Not a terrible idea at all. Then again, for me to even think of supporting something like this, it would require a lot more transparency in BTT's money management.

[joker_josue]

I'm looking at it from a perspective that some people can truly help their families by doing a task that is definitely on the low side of what we should consider harmful in today's society.
Sure, shitposting happens. It's not everywhere though, and you can either skip some parts of the forum or put 500 people on your ignore list without taking these opportunities away from them.

In Portugal we have a popular proverb that says:
"Don't spit on the plate you've already eaten from."

Or as it is known in other countries: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

Basically, it means that one should not be ungrateful for something from which one can obtain benefits.

Speaking personally, and believing you feel the same way, the last thing I want is to harm this forum. Why? Because I benefit from it in several ways.

So, I think that all those who, despite the forum bringing them great financial benefits, prefer to abuse it and don't care about harming it, should stop receiving those benefits. If the signature campaign system benefits many forum members, then those members who participate in these campaigns should have the greatest interest in the well-being of the forum. Unfortunately, we have seen that many don't care, they just want to gain the greatest possible advantage, even if it harms the forum and other users.

Therefore, I think that everyone who participates in campaigns should reflect on how much effort they put into the well-being of that community and its sustainability.

Please bear in mind that I'm not suggesting that people should run rampant and spam everything everywhere - but let's also not be fully judgmental here and admit the fact that signature campaigns are partially what's keeping this forum alive, and what's giving it significance when evaluating gambling brands.
Gambling is a huge market and gambling boards on BTT alongside with sig campaigns are responsible for a big number of transactions happening daily - therefore helping the ecosystem and doing exactly what Bitcoin was created for. Every guy in a sig campaign is probably doing a few tx weekly. Isn't onchain activity the main thing BTT forum should be supporting?
Many people opened their first wallets because of signature campaigns, many remained here and made businesses starting from small beginnings.

That's great! But for that reason, there should be greater interest in the well-being of the forum, in its various aspects. That being said, I'm not saying that one should simply accept everything that is done. But one should strive to be constructive, to improve the forum, even when that requires some more profound changes.

I think that some of us, as senior members of this community, should collectively find ways to grow business on BTT, to empower users that benefit the forum, to strengthen the ecosystem and work towards a unified goal - debanking as many people as possible.
What are we doing? The opposite, we're dividing into camps and acting like fucking politicians instead as a community. I for one hate to see it but now it's spilling everywhere so I started to write a bit more in threads that I hope will become of no interest to me soon again.

Well, I've been on this forum for 13 years. It's true that I've had periods of greater absence. But, you know what I've noticed? Cycles of change and division.

Is this a good thing? Not necessarily, but it's natural in this type of community. It's also very common in forums, especially those that are more traditional in that sense. I've seen this happen a lot in various forums.
Is it bad? Not necessarily. It means that times change, things change, people change. So adjustments end up being necessary, which create these divisions/confusions.

In the end, everything is overcome if the main goal of the majority is for the good of the BTT community.

Sometimes, this is simply a clash between the veterans, those who have been on the forum for some time (but are newer than the veterans), and the newcomers. They are people from other generations, with different experiences within the forum. In short, life as it is...

Therefore, regardless of any situations we may be going through now, if the interest is in the best interests of BitcoinTalk, everything will be resolved and we will continue here for a long time.




@cryptofrka these words are not meant as criticism of you, just a general thought on how I think the community should reflect on these moments.

I'm waiting for you to create that topic you promised. I believe that criticism should be accompanied by ideas and suggestions. (I just hope I don't lose it.  )

Friendly hug.

[Vod]

Tax the signatures. 5%

2% goes to the forum
3% goes to a random pool drawing each month 3 prizes

So who on the forum takes the actual tax hit on that income?

[OgNasty]

For anybody reading this - why can't signature campaigns on Bitcointalk be treated as a job?
This job is paid by clients, that pay signature campaign members to select members that they think represent the brand best.

Allow me to selectively only respond to this part, as it stuck with me: you're looking at this from the perspective of a company that earns from advertising. That ignores its influence on the forum. The profit is for the company, the pointless posts are for Bitcointalk.

It's a bit like dumping trash in a river. As long as you don't look at the river, it's great for everyone involved, and everyone earns from it.

very much this

i feel no need to have to read drivel because someone paid them to post drivel

they need to pay a cut of their sig money as for me even to take the effort to put them on ignore costs me time and effort.

how about this: all paid sig posters should have to setup a forum escrow account. to be forfeited and/or drawn upon on any sort of forum abuse.

just consider it a job related expense.

No wrong. But close. Tax the signatures. 5%

2% goes to the forum
3% goes to a random pool drawing each month 3 prizes

1st  1.5%
2nd 1.0%
3rd  0.5%

If you have no signature you go into the drawing
You must have had no signature for the last 6 months
You must have 10 merits
You must be a full member or higher

This way every signal person on bitcointalk has an actual benefit or a possible benefit from the signatures.

There is a big incentive to not have a signature as 1.5% of all the months signature money is really fucking good prize.

Then the spam is good not bad.
As it represents:
1) money for the forum
2) money for the signature
3) an endless chance for those with no signature.


I do not beg but this solution is good:

if you think it is you can pm me to pay for the idea.  

The forum doesn’t need to tax signature advertisements. The forum is already benefitting from inflated user statistics. The issue is that the forum no longer sells advertisements, so that benefit is being wasted. I think the forum giving back to users is a great idea, but a new tax isn’t needed. Advertisements could be auctioned again and those funds could be used. That would raise a massive amount for giveaways. An interesting addition (but not worth the effort or headache) would be setting up a buyback market for merit. Users could cash in merit for BTC, rewarding the high merit earners should they choose to lower their merit score for sats. The merit system would need a total rework to address fairness in merit cyclers and sources, but it would at least incentivize good posting and give good posters the option of receiving BTC from the forum while providing companies with advertising and nobody has to be taxed.

[libert19]

^ Terrible idea, I swear.