Appeal in the Sigban Case

[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.

[snipie]

It would be better to discuss our ideas in a dedicated place other than a topic of someone else.
I am really surprised by the way some decent members are thinking. I mean it is good, they are trying to make the community get some benefits but in the other hand, this will attract many gold diggers. That without counting the execution of many old members here to keep things profitable within small circles.
It would be better to stay poor and free.

[alani123]

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.

It's odd people can have such a skewed view of value.

I guess the thought process goes a bit like: x thing is convenient for me, so why shouldn't you all let me overdo it?

Well, the simple answer is that because if this situation keeps going on it becomes a lose-lose for everyone.

The forum becomes undesirable to visit for normal discussion, the ads get no clocks, advertisers withdraw and finally financial incentives are taken away from everyone, even good posters.

The value in offering advertising as a service is derived from being able to advertise to a crowd that is potentially genuinely interested in what's being offered. Facebook, twitter and sites with Google ads can offer a chance for businesses to receive exposure to a targeted crowd and potentially also to groups akin to the general population. Bitcointalk is already hyper specific, but the degradation of posting quality in latest years has led to a vicious circle.

Yes, allowing people to treat signature income as a job instead of pocket money leads to this problem directly.

For one it has been YEARS since a business offering actual goods or services has advertised here.
Campaign managers should realise that their job isn't just about fulfilling quotas, otherwise there will be no job for them anymore sooner or later. If most of them aren't going to enforce quality standards someone would have to heavy hand it. The sig bans to spammers are actually mutually beneficial to spammers. They're even lenient enough to give even the worst cases a chance to improve.

[notocactus]

Yes, allowing people to treat signature income as a job instead of pocket money leads to this problem directly.

Forum is not the ATM and the ability of wearing avatar and signature, getting chance of making money is privilege, not rights.

For one it has been YEARS since a business offering actual goods or services has advertised here.
Campaign managers should realise that their job isn't just about fulfilling quotas, otherwise there will be no job for them anymore sooner or later. If most of them aren't going to enforce quality standards someone would have to heavy hand it. The sig bans to spammers are actually mutually beneficial to spammers. They're even lenient enough to give even the worst cases a chance to improve.

The signature campaign industry can be shut down anytime by theymos or Cyrus. Years ago it is one of possibility to take action by theymos.
Ideas for improving post quality?

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 - Removing signatures or sig ads globally.
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.
 - Banning account sales.

Then we had merit system, worked well even theymos had to do Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements about 8 months later. The merit system worked well years after that before people asked for more merit sources, then more smerit assigned for each merit sources 5 years ago, in July 2021.

Then merit distributions began to shrink to local boards, then shitposters ranked up easily, and after having Full member rank they began to spam around the forum.

Code:

     +----------------------------------+
     |      date   meritsource   smerit |
     |----------------------------------|
  1. | 12aug2026            84    30597 |
  2. | 01aug2026            85    30972 |
  3. | 07jun2025            88    33138 |
  4. | 15sep2024           109    33190 |
  5. | 01may2024           109    32990 |
  6. | 22mar2024           108    32890 |
  7. | 28nov2023           109    33140 |
  8. | 31jul2023           109    33940 |
  9. | 11jul2022           110    33989 |
 10. | 06jul2021           111    34139 |
     |----------------------------------|
 11. | 28jun2020            97    21171 |
 12. | 15nov2019            98    21671 |
 13. | 14nov2019            90    18821 |
 14. | 30oct2019           130    20895 |
 15. | 27jun2019           131    21045 |
 16. | 15mar2019           130    20605 |
 17. | 06feb2019           122    20835 |
 18. | 05jan2019           123    20735 |
 19. | 22dec2018           120    22055 |
 20. | 17nov2018           119    22045 |
     |----------------------------------|
 21. | 17sep2018           120    23045 |
 22. | 11jul2018            83    19100 |
 23. | 06jul2018            82    18900 |
 24. | 18may2018            80    18500 |
 25. | 22mar2018            80    17800 |
 26. | 12mar2018            77    17650 |
 27. | 01mar2018            57    11975 |
 28. | 26jan2018            49     9025 |
 29. | 24jan2018            35     8125 |
     +----------------------------------+

I'm still thinking about ways to resolve this issue, possibly involving rejiggering how merit works.

[alani123]

Yes, allowing people to treat signature income as a job instead of pocket money leads to this problem directly.

Forum is not the ATM and the ability of wearing avatar and signature, getting chance of making money is privilege, not rights.

For one it has been YEARS since a business offering actual goods or services has advertised here.
Campaign managers should realise that their job isn't just about fulfilling quotas, otherwise there will be no job for them anymore sooner or later. If most of them aren't going to enforce quality standards someone would have to heavy hand it. The sig bans to spammers are actually mutually beneficial to spammers. They're even lenient enough to give even the worst cases a chance to improve.

The signature campaign industry can be shut down anytime by theymos or Cyrus. Years ago it is one of possibility to take action by theymos.
Ideas for improving post quality?

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 - Removing signatures or sig ads globally.
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.
 - Banning account sales.

Then we had merit system, worked well even theymos had to do Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements about 8 months later. The merit system worked well years after that before people asked for more merit sources, then more smerit assigned for each merit sources 5 years ago, in July 2021.

Then merit distributions began to shrink to local boards, then shitposters ranked up easily, and after having Full member rank they began to spam around the forum.

Code:

     +----------------------------------+
     |      date   meritsource   smerit |
     |----------------------------------|
  1. | 12aug2026            84    30597 |
  2. | 01aug2026            85    30972 |
  3. | 07jun2025            88    33138 |
  4. | 15sep2024           109    33190 |
  5. | 01may2024           109    32990 |
  6. | 22mar2024           108    32890 |
  7. | 28nov2023           109    33140 |
  8. | 31jul2023           109    33940 |
  9. | 11jul2022           110    33989 |
 10. | 06jul2021           111    34139 |
     |----------------------------------|
 11. | 28jun2020            97    21171 |
 12. | 15nov2019            98    21671 |
 13. | 14nov2019            90    18821 |
 14. | 30oct2019           130    20895 |
 15. | 27jun2019           131    21045 |
 16. | 15mar2019           130    20605 |
 17. | 06feb2019           122    20835 |
 18. | 05jan2019           123    20735 |
 19. | 22dec2018           120    22055 |
 20. | 17nov2018           119    22045 |
     |----------------------------------|
 21. | 17sep2018           120    23045 |
 22. | 11jul2018            83    19100 |
 23. | 06jul2018            82    18900 |
 24. | 18may2018            80    18500 |
 25. | 22mar2018            80    17800 |
 26. | 12mar2018            77    17650 |
 27. | 01mar2018            57    11975 |
 28. | 26jan2018            49     9025 |
 29. | 24jan2018            35     8125 |
     +----------------------------------+

I'm still thinking about ways to resolve this issue, possibly involving rejiggering how merit works.

You're very much right about the parts I bolded! Couldn't have said it better myself.

As of the merit source stats, I think the issue here has been that there is an oversupply of merit. It's not just about merit sources but also about the fact that new & good posters stopped entering the forum but merit supply increased somehow as well. The total merit supply should be more elastic imho. Reduced based on how much sMerit actually goes to rank-up eligible users every month for example. Or someone can think of some other way that is smarter. With an oversupply, abuse is more likely. But as of me, I remember seeing posts by non-legendary members that were worthy of meriting less and less over time.

As of right now, 30k sMerit being generated a week, that means we can have 30 people rank up to legendary each week by amounts of merit alone. Do we really have that many good posters entering the forum on a weekly basis? Are they even real people? Because I'm also getting a feeling that the oversupply of merit actually incentivizes account farming especially through the local boards.

[TypoTonic]

As of right now, 30k sMerit being generated a week, that means we can have 30 people rank up to legendary each week by amounts of merit alone. [...] Because I'm also getting a feeling that the oversupply of merit actually incentivizes account farming especially through the local boards.

Small correction, those are being generated every 30 days.

That being said, while ~30k sMerit is the total monthly allocation, not all of those are being used by merit sources.
Take a look at this table for July:



This is from Brief Bitcointalk Forum monthly Statistics with [visual Charts]. Hero-Legendary users (including merit sources) only sent ~17k, imagine what would happen if they deplete their allocation! There is an oversupply for sure, which is perhaps why theymos still hasn't appointed new merit sources.

Do we really have that many good posters entering the forum on a weekly basis? Are they even real people?

Take a look at the Low Ranking Top Merit earners in the past 30 days. The top merit earner Danish Ali was caught using AI for his posts, and got sig-banned for a year.