why signature banned introduced?

[Redhut]

Signature bans were introduced to help moderators address low quality content particularly a form of spam that may not always be effectively controlled through the forum rules alone.

Issue	Core reason?
High post count	No, by itself
Low merit	No, by itself
Gambling posts	No, not inherently
Having many posts	No, not inherently
Poor English	No, not the main criterion
Posts deleted by moderators	Yes, considered as evidence
Generic/repetitive replies	Yes
Shallow engagement	Yes
Forced conversations	Yes
Posting primarily to satisfy a campaign	Yes
Burst posting	Yes, under the general criteria
Account-farming investigation	Not established as the reason for this particular ban

Act like bot comes and go just to fill post quata, select low quality topic just to shit there. Posting hundreds of words just to express a single word but the same meaning can be described by less than 10 words.

[Bitcoin-Forever]

Signature ban is an additional measure taken to fight against spamming on this forum by those that was signature codes; this will limit their activities when they no longer have the privilege of putting it on for some period of time. In so doing, it will be easily known if they are actually posting to discuss bitcoin or only for the purpose of a signature campaign.

So I will definitely admit it is a measure to combat every form of low-quality contributions on the forum, when the user is not being opened to a permanent ban.

But I think the reason why a signature ban was introduced is already well known, but I'm still not convinced about the reason why you created this thread just to talk about it again.

[Catenaccio]

Issue	Core reason?
High post count	No, by itself
Low merit	No, by itself
Gambling posts	No, not inherently
Having many posts	No, not inherently
Poor English	No, not the main criterion
Posts deleted by moderators	Yes, considered as evidence
Generic/repetitive replies	Yes
Shallow engagement	Yes
Forced conversations	Yes
Posting primarily to satisfy a campaign	Yes
Burst posting	Yes, under the general criteria
Account-farming investigation	Not established as the reason for this particular ban

High post counts, having many posts, generic / repetitive posts, burst posting, posts deleted by moderators, posting primarily to satisfy a campaign, shallow engagement, forced conversations: all of them can be considered as factors that cause spam and low post quality.

You have limited time so if you force yourself to post more than what you're comfortable with, you turn to spam, and it is very natural change of your posting style and post quality.

Keep it simple. Forum rules say about it too.
Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ.

"Account-farming investigation": investigations are only investigations, nobody is guilty after a conclusion but if users are from farm, as said with reasons above, they force themselves to post more and make their post quality declines considerably.

Two big factors for considerations are plagiarism and AI. No genuine members use AI to post for post quota, post for merit, so if they do that, it's like very red flag of likely spammers.
AI guidelines.
Posting in campaigns guideline.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

It would be good if the OP, as well as posting the quote, could include a link to where it comes from. I imagine it’s from Nutildah’s thread, or maybe a former one from theymos.

Act like bot comes and go just to fill post quata, select low quality topic just to shit there.

If you’re going to start a thread – especially one that’s related in some way to poor-quality posts on the forum – it wouldn’t go amiss to polish up what you’ve written. These days, there are plenty of tools available to help you do that. What I’ve just quoted could certainly be improved.

[MarryWithBTC]

It would be good if the OP, as well as posting the quote, could include a link to where it comes from. I imagine it’s from Nutildah’s thread, or maybe a former one from theymos.

Likely those are the words of Op, they might not be quoting anyone. I wonder why they decided to include it in a quote.
Op, can you please explain to me what you meant by 'forced conversation" and how to identify one.

[TypoTonic]

Op, can you please explain to me what you meant by 'forced conversation" and how to identify one.

I'm assuming it means something like this:

If you find yourself in a position where you are forcing yourself to reply to a thread due to your signature campaign then that's a pretty good indication that you're likely making unsubstantial posts.

[_act_]

I think you asked a question and you answered it yourself, but if you want to know the reason people are given signature ban, it is better you read this which is posted by the person that is giving the ban:

Signature Ban Appeal Q&A: read before appealing your sigban

Anyone that is posting in a good way and not spamming will not get a signature ban.

[Joy_learns_crypto]

Signature bans were introduced to help moderators address low quality content particularly a form of spam that may not always be effectively controlled through the forum rules alone.

Dear OP isn't this your post one of them, isn't this a form of spam because you are only rec reciting what has been said before, aren't you trying to force a conversation yourself by making this post.
Now how effectively can the forum control the spam that will come out of this post because the replies would be the same recitation of such post. Now this is almost like the bot behavior you meant.

[Tetu100]

Op, it seems like you already know much about the recent happenings on the forum despite being a newbie. Perhaps it could be you are a old hand trying to find out something from a newbie account. But it's fine since you've already answered all the questions yourself to save us the stress of putting you through. However, if my speculations are wrong it will still be okay since you have known the right thing to do even as a newbie that you are.

[SatoPrincess]

OP, this topic confirms the tag on your account is very much accurate. I don’t see the value of this thread since we all know why signature ban was introduced, and taken more seriously in the past few months.

[nutildah]

I don't know where OP got their quoted material from but it is an accurate digestion of things. I would say straight "No" to the poor English part instead of adding a caveat, that's the only change.

[lovesmayfamilis]

I don't know where OP got their quoted material from but it is an accurate digestion of things. I would say straight "No" to the poor English part instead of adding a caveat, that's the only change.

It seems that the AI was asked to "calculate" the reasons for the bans on the forum. Modern AI is able to analyze events and determine the causes of certain actions. I see a similar behavior in another OP post.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5594724.msg67167899#msg67167899

This is probably the reason the quote exists.

[Sterlino]

When someone intention is to contribute to the forum, which will benefit other users, then post will automatically be good quality . And  for example in the gambling section, if anyone increase post by saying such nonsense that Team A will win, Team X will lose, and if they follow this pattern and make maximum posts regularly same thread or same board , then of course those posts cannot be called good posts.
A person is in a signature campaign, so he has to make all the posts only in the same board then  it is illogical.



I did a little research on sigban issue . I checked the posts of the users on this list, where the post health was low and all of them were below 25%. Looking at their posts, they mostly posted in the gambling section and on boards where they regularly posted and said the same type of things. I think A sigban is not given solely based on this low post score. After their manual checking, if there is no significant contribution in their post, then they are eligible for sigban.