Sigban Appeal for mitchr4

[mindrust]

As for that the forum is doing well SEO wise, it's not.

Since December last year all the links from BTT have been flagged as spam by all the SEO tools, and the site is failing each and every Google Search Update. The rankings are also trending downwards for almost a year.

https://talkimg.com/images/2026/09/20/Uq8RXq.jpg[/img

This is a Bitcoin forum but maybe we shouldn't limit ourselves with crypto...

I mean AI is the hot topic lately.

Maybe we should expand. Maybe we should outgrow ourselves.

Not related to this topic but I gotta say it.

I have lots of stuff to share about AI but it doesn't make sense to do it here.

[ABCbits]

As for that the forum is doing well SEO wise, it's not.

Since December last year all the links from BTT have been flagged as spam by all the SEO tools, and the site is failing each and every Google Search Update. The rankings are also trending downwards for almost a year.

Until now, i was assuming this forum is still good for SEO spam, since i still regularly see and report SEO spam on daily basis. I guess it's no longer true, but the SEO spammer also not aware of this change.

Related to signature campaign, i wonder how it will impact payment rate from now on. Last big changes happened after mixer banned on this forum.

[Xiestar]

Why would someone preferred user that post on technical board while promoting casino signature campaign if that board was only being viewed by non-gambler user. Maybe there’s only few but you can proved me wrong by sending stats that casino signature can get a lot of  conversion on technical board.

SirJohnVonSlotty wrote a very detailed report with many interesting insights on how to run a signature campaign. One of his key statements was in how being an influential user is something beneficial to campaigns.

In my first month, the top performers were members with a strong historical presence on the forum. These individuals consistently outperformed others because of their influence and activity in key threads.

In fact the two users who generated the most traffic for his casino rarely, if ever, post about anything directly related to gambling. It isn’t that hard to figure out why it might be preferable to have intelligent, often highly regarded members of the community in a signature campaign over the low IQ NPCs that proliferate the gambling boards, who are only capable of formulating the most banal content imagineable.

And here’s the part that you omitted perhaps you are excited to post this findings.

I’m sharing a screenshot of the first month to prove the point around top performers, but I also need to note that the first month is not the best example of what the signatures can do,

Are you concluding immediately with that very limited amount of data. You can see also that some user that was censored with less visit that has same number of invites. There’s no proof also that the visit and invites comes outside gambling board post since that user do some post on gambling board too by the time they are on that campaign.

Surprised that you get lots of merit for that crap post. It proves that merit here is very subjective to user that made the post no matter how half baked the content.

[snipie]

I understand that many people here think that I am defending sigbanned people because I am one of them TryNinja. What some fail to understand is that I am against the way we are treated. If I am a spammer just ban me, if I am not but my posts don't worth anything, then blacklist me from signature campaigns and force managers to apply it. I have the right to wear any avatar I want and show any signature I want like any other user here till I am not breaking any rule.
To respond to your question, it is hard to find a defender for this and I will not look for all his posts to have a bigger picture. There are people hired to do that for the forum. My role is to report spam and it is up for staff to don't handle it or ignore it.

So you’re going around the forum criticizing the signature bans just because you rather get an account ban if you’re a spammer?

theymos gave nutildah the power to strip you of the right of having a signature, that’s basically a new rule: Shitpost and you might lose the right to use a signature. You don’t get to decide your punishment. Deal with it

Nice conclusion for real. Didn't you pay attention that I didn't appel my ban? Didn't you pay attention that I opened a known topic and I was criticised for it although it is a semi solution for the spam that you whine about it the whole day?
If someone don't understand the posts of the others and isn't living the same thing, he shouldn't act like Mr Smart. I have no intention to interfere with the actual process but I am leaning toward fixing the origin of the problem.
Your problem (your refers to many people) is that you don't try to understand and read behind the lines, simply quick scroll and attack the person discussing with you. After all with the posts made everyday and the multitude of sections covered, I can understand why it is easy to make attacks.
By the way, if you see my posts as shit or spam, you (you this time) can ask theymos to ban me. He is one of the rarest members here that I trust and respect his decisions, regardless if I agree or not with it.

[Majestic-milf]

If someone can't write good posts, or they are only posting to collect payment, their posts will be bad no matter where they are, and they shouldn't be in a campaign at all. It shouldn't be a question of where low quality posters can still post to collect payment -- the answer should be "nowhere."

This is the Bitcoin Forum. It is a forum primarily about Bitcoin, but its also about 100 other things in the vicinity of Bitcoin; one of which is gambling. There are other facets of life that are at least tangentially related to the other 99 things, but if you want to get paid for writing about gambling 100% of the time, your post quality should be beyond the bare minimum compared to those who post about multiple subjects.

It's a Bitcoin forum eh? I'm sorry I'm just realizing it now. Probably signature campaigns should restrict all posts to Bitcoin related topics, don't you think so we won't be having this issue of posts being made in the gambling section. Might I ask who created the standard or yardstick at which a quality post should be judged by? I'm assuming it's a human whose rating can be seen as flawed by another, right? The point I'm trying to make is, everyone can't be very perfect. So we're trying to make the forum clean and rid of shit posters hence the reintroduction and reinforcement of the sigban right, so by making the place hot and uncomfortable for those unhealthy posters is what will solve the problem?
 Some of these people who receive these bans don't even know why they are punished and if they don't appeal, they just suffer?. I'm nowhere perfect as in your eyes I could still be a shit poster but someone was kind enough to help me out on where I was failing when I thought I was on the right track. Did I learn from it, yeah! Is the money still a motivator to come here, of course!
 CMs are there to fish out shit posters but it's as though, to you, they are just doing the bare minimum. If you feel low posters aren't deserving of payment, why not also flush those who aren't in any but are shit posters; that way we'd know the forum is being thoroughly rid of shit posters. After all, no one would miss them, eh?

[joker_josue]

Just to ease the tension a bit, because everyone's getting really nervous...

I have lots of stuff to share about AI but it doesn't make sense to do it here.

In fact, you have a lot to say about AI, because this AI doesn't even know exactly where the continents are. It pointed to two correctly, albeit slightly off-center.  

[Lucius]

A signature ban of just three months is practically no punishment at all.

Even a day is something for someone not wearing signature and avatar at all. The sanction itself hurts more than its consequences for old members comparing to the new ones with 10 backup accounts.

Your two biggest problems are that you think everyone has a right to a signature and signature campaign, and that they can exercise that right regardless of their behavior on the forum. If you know someone is abusing signature campaigns with so many alt accounts, there is a Reputation board, anything else is pointless.

If someone is spamming = ban him
If someone is writing poorly in the right topics = ask the manager to remove him.
Sigban is just sending one message: we don't care about what you write, just don't get money from your posts. Some people even expressed that they are not concerned about that because they don't have a signature so they can spam whatever they want.

You are wrong, I would say that the sig ban sends a clear and unequivocal message to anyone who has received the same one, that they have the opportunity to be a better member of this forum. Maybe you think it's an intrusion into some of your private affairs, but I don't see it as a punishment, but as a second chance.

The forum should be a place for discussion, not for someone to have the right to have a signature and be in a sig campaign.

[snipie]

A signature ban of just three months is practically no punishment at all.

Even a day is something for someone not wearing signature and avatar at all. The sanction itself hurts more than its consequences for old members comparing to the new ones with 10 backup accounts.

Your two biggest problems are that you think everyone has a right to a signature and signature campaign, and that they can exercise that right regardless of their behavior on the forum. If you know someone is abusing signature campaigns with so many alt accounts, there is a Reputation board, anything else is pointless.

If someone is spamming = ban him
If someone is writing poorly in the right topics = ask the manager to remove him.
Sigban is just sending one message: we don't care about what you write, just don't get money from your posts. Some people even expressed that they are not concerned about that because they don't have a signature so they can spam whatever they want.

You are wrong, I would say that the sig ban sends a clear and unequivocal message to anyone who has received the same one, that they have the opportunity to be a better member of this forum. Maybe you think it's an intrusion into some of your private affairs, but I don't see it as a punishment, but as a second chance.

The forum should be a place for discussion, not for someone to have the right to have a signature and be in a sig campaign.

I agree with what you said. Nevertheless, the right for wearing a signature (text message, avatar) should be preserved. The right to wear a signature of a campaign, paid or for free, should not be revoked unless a representative of this campaign expressed that you should take it off. The right to get paid for the signature is the only thing that should be limited upon certain criteria and where staff member can interfere by using the ban function for the user, for the manager or for the campaign itself.
The influence of moderators on signature campaigns was reduced a lot after seeing high profiles taking the management and the staff members already joining these signature campaigns while getting paid by the forum funds at the same time but that's another story that I don't care about at all.
To resume, things are being done the wrong way all along. I am not trying to make sigbanned users look 100% innocent or revert the actions done here or defining the right to be paid by your signature. Freedom shouldn't be restricted the way some people here are forcing it to be, nor being unlimited so we witness only no value discussion in almost every section.