Bring back Newbie Jail

[rugrats]

Well this certainly wouldn't be the first time that we have asked for its return. However this might be the first thread that has a poll (unsure).
Despite of the obvious request by the community, the staff isn't doing anything about it. The question is why?


Note: I've obviously voted yes.

Actually, I created poll relating to this some months back. Like you, I was/remain mystified over the admins' apathy on the subject. Here's what BadBear had to say about it.

<snip>

Restricting accounts will not work. Do you honestly think the scams are just some random newbie that shows up, then leaves? There are rings of scammers operating here. It's the same on any forum revolving around finance, this isn't a phenomenon located just here. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out the majority of them are by the same two or three groups. If we restrict newbies from posting, then we'll just see proxy posts, people paying someone else to post it for them. Then every announcement thread will be prefaced with  *Not my coin, just posting this thread*. Or bought accounts, which will just be considered the cost of doing business by scammers. No matter what restrictions we put on accounts, they'll get around it.

<snip>

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.

[1714887323]

1714887323

[1714887323]

1714887323

[1714887323]

1714887323

[hilariousandco]

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.

That's not really a fair comparison. The point he's trying to make is is no amount of restrictions will ever stop spammers or scammers. They're persitent and they'll just wait their time and bypass any restrictions we put in place and all this then does is penalise genuine users who just want to be able to contribute to the community in whatever way and having restrictions and jails is just really annoying and off putting to them.

[haploid23]

I'd vote for this as it seems like a good idea to stop them from the spam.

Oh the irony. Why don't you look at the first week's worth of posts on that account you bought. If it weren't for him, you never would have gotten that account.

[opossum]

I would say it would almost be a good idea to temporarily re-institute the newbie jail until the ponzi fad goes away. This would make it so people have to at least put a little more effort into making a ponzi scam or risk trashing their real account.

[hilariousetc]

Do you think having a newb jail is going to stop ponzi operators? All you would be doing is delaying the inevitable as Ponzi operators will wait out the restrictions whilst other newbs are penalised.

[opossum]

Do you think having a newb jail is going to stop ponzi operators? All you would be doing is delaying the inevitable as Ponzi operators will wait out the restrictions whilst other newbs are penalised.

It will slow them down and increase the effort required to start one. Most of the ponzis are pretty much cut and paste from eachother so the operators put very little effort into them.

[hilariousetc]

My above point still stands. This will only marginally annoy ponzi operators but they will persist whereas it will greatly annoy and likely put-off genuine posters. No amount of restrictions will ever annoy scammers so much that they just give up but it will for casual posters. The best you can ask for is ponzis to be moved into their own section or ultimately their complete banning (though the latter is less likely).

[opossum]

My above point still stands. This will only marginally annoy ponzi operators but they will persist whereas it will greatly annoy and likely put-off genuine posters. No amount of restrictions will ever annoy scammers so much that they just give up but it will for casual posters. The best you can ask for is ponzis to be moved into their own section or ultimately their complete banning (though the latter is less likely).

It would be temporary until the ponzi fad goes away. You are right that it would only marginally affect the ponzis but it would be a step in the right direction. Other countermeasures against ponzis could be implemented as well against ponzis. Alternatively a rule could be implemented that prevents under a certain rank from creating threads in the gambling section which would probably not "put off" many, if any legit users

 

[ABitNut]

It would surely be good for account farms. Their product would increase in value. Sure, it will make things *slightly* harder for scammers. But I seriously feel it will have a negative impact on true newbie that outweighs the minor discomfort for scammers.

I voted no.

[hilariousetc]

It would be temporary until the ponzi fad goes away. You are right that it would only marginally affect the ponzis but it would be a step in the right direction. Other countermeasures against ponzis could be implemented as well against ponzis. Alternatively a rule could be implemented that prevents under a certain rank from creating threads in the gambling section which would probably not "put off" many, if any legit users

We can't keep adding and removing the newbie jail everytime a wave of (what you consider to be) troublesome activity arises. Who said this fad will go away? It might die down a little eventually but ponzi-type scams will always remain in some form unless they're banned.

It would surely be good for account farms. Their product would increase in value. Sure, it will make things *slightly* harder for scammers. But I seriously feel it will have a negative impact on true newbie that outweighs the minor discomfort for scammers.

I voted no.

I doubt the jail will push sale of accounts up much. Most newbs have little to no bitcoins in the first place and likely won't want to spend the little they have on an account to bypass some restrictions that can be easily averted with just a little patience.

[picolo]

I think the newbie jail as previously implemented detered users from joining our community.

I would support some kind of modified newbie jail that maybe had certain restrictions in posting and/or creating threads in certain sections.

Newbie jail slows down the rate of new joiners which can be seen as positive or negative, newbies already have restrictions to post : the 360 seconds rule.

[princesocapuyo]

I agree with this, it's too easy to spam and trying to scam with alternate accounts. It would reduce the number of newcomers, on the other hand, if someone takes the time to get out of newbe jail, you can be sure they'll be worthy users.

[Lauda]

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.

That's not really a fair comparison. The point he's trying to make is is no amount of restrictions will ever stop spammers or scammers. They're persitent and they'll just wait their time and bypass any restrictions we put in place and all this then does is penalise genuine users who just want to be able to contribute to the community in whatever way and having restrictions and jails is just really annoying and off putting to them.

You need a law that will fight this.
In that you will find your solution.

[Brewins]

It would be temporary until the ponzi fad goes away. You are right that it would only marginally affect the ponzis but it would be a step in the right direction. Other countermeasures against ponzis could be implemented as well against ponzis. Alternatively a rule could be implemented that prevents under a certain rank from creating threads in the gambling section which would probably not "put off" many, if any legit users

We can't keep adding and removing the newbie jail everytime a wave of (what you consider to be) troublesome activity arises. Who said this fad will go away? It might die down a little eventually but ponzi-type scams will always remain in some form unless they're banned.

It would surely be good for account farms. Their product would increase in value. Sure, it will make things *slightly* harder for scammers. But I seriously feel it will have a negative impact on true newbie that outweighs the minor discomfort for scammers.

I voted no.

I doubt the jail will push sale of accounts up much. Most newbs have little to no bitcoins in the first place and likely won't want to spend the little they have on an account to bypass some restrictions that can be easily averted with just a little patience.

Newbie accounts != newbie users.

Only newbie users have little to no money.

But older users that for one reason or other(scam, ban evasion, etc) have money and would easily bypass the newbie jail by buying jr accounts for low

[rugrats]

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.

That's not really a fair comparison. The point he's trying to make is is no amount of restrictions will ever stop spammers or scammers. They're persitent and they'll just wait their time and bypass any restrictions we put in place and all this then does is penalise genuine users who just want to be able to contribute to the community in whatever way and having restrictions and jails is just really annoying and off putting to them.

Don't you see? I am pointing out exactly what you and BadBear are saying, i.e, if a rule cannot be strictly enforced, then such a rule should not be implemented in the first place. That's flawed reasoning. Unless we're living in Airstrip One, there's always going to be someone who's going to break or ignore a rule/law/legislation; such is human nature.

You may not realize this, but these rules (or rather, the absence of them), are an expression of the political beliefs of theymos and the old guards of the forum. Unfortunately, time and experience has demonstrated this anarchist approach does not work in a lucrative forum environment populated by anonymous, unscrupulous characters. Victim blaming can only go so far before the spotlight turns toward the stewards. Digging ones' heels too deep in might just eventually turn one into the elite dinosaur-like monoliths so many here proclaim to detest.

For the record, 'genuine users', as you termed it, do not create accounts out of the blue just to launch new coins, announce new ponzis, make loan requests or engage in character assassinations. You and I know this, and even BadBear alluded to as much. We already have restrictions for newbies now, so we're not exactly selling our souls if we introduce new, much needed ones. Drawing arbitrary invisible lines that cannot be crossed just doesn't make sense.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother getting into these exchanges. It's not as if theymos or BadBear actually gives a damn to what we're saying. They should though, because this forum's reputation is gradually deteriorating by the day. They're both young men entrusted with awesome powers. I just hope they realize making decisions from ivory towers have never worked out well, and relying only on affirmations from sycophants can be misleading.

[ABitNut]

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.

That's not really a fair comparison. The point he's trying to make is is no amount of restrictions will ever stop spammers or scammers. They're persitent and they'll just wait their time and bypass any restrictions we put in place and all this then does is penalise genuine users who just want to be able to contribute to the community in whatever way and having restrictions and jails is just really annoying and off putting to them.

Don't you see? I am pointing out exactly what you and BadBear are saying, i.e, if a rule cannot be strictly enforced, then such a rule should not be implemented in the first place. That's a flawed reasoning. Unless we're living in Airstrip One, there's always going to be someone who's going to break or ignore a rule/law/legislation; such is human nature.

You may not realize this, but these rules (or rather, the absence of them), are an expression of the political beliefs of theymos and the old guards of the forum. Unfortunately, time and experience has demonstrated this anarchist approach does not work in a lucrative forum environment populated by anonymous, unscrupulous character. Victim blaming can only go so far before the spotlight turns toward the stewards. Digging ones' heels too deep in might just eventually turn one into the elite dinosaur-like monoliths so many here proclaim to detest.

For the record, 'genuine users', as you termed it, do not create accounts out of the blue just to launch new coins, announce new ponzis, make loan requests or engage in character assassinations. You and I know this, and even BadBear alluded to as much. We have restrictions for newbies now, so we're not exactly selling our souls if we introduce new, much needed ones. Drawing arbitrary invisible lines that cannot be crossed just doesn't make sense.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother getting into these exchanges. It's not as if theymos or BadBear actually gives a damn to what we're saying. They should though, because this forum's reputation is gradually deteriorating by the day. They're both young men entrusted with awesome powers. I just hope they realize making decisions from ivory towers have never worked out well, and relying only on affirmations from sycophants can be misleading.

So you're saying
1) Current newbie account restrictions (limiting post time) doesn't work
2) Restricting newbie accounts to a single subforum is going to work

Am I getting that right? If so, could you convince me that 2 will work where it has failed in the past and 1 is not working either?

And where did theymos or any staff say that rules that cannot be 100% enforced should not be enacted at all? That sounds silly. Saying, "I guess this person thinks the world is flat" and then start arguing with that person that the world is round doesn't make sense either. But I'll play that game too then. What I guess is more likely on their mind is that some rules will have too much costs (effort to be practically enforced, reduction in genuine new users joining) to warrant the benefit (scammers will need to grow new accounts for 2 weeks, no biggie!). Let's see which one of us is the better mind reader.

And if you want to discuss the morality/politics behind laws and their enforcement feel free to open another thread, because it seems way off topic for the newbie jail poll.

[rugrats]

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.

That's not really a fair comparison. The point he's trying to make is is no amount of restrictions will ever stop spammers or scammers. They're persitent and they'll just wait their time and bypass any restrictions we put in place and all this then does is penalise genuine users who just want to be able to contribute to the community in whatever way and having restrictions and jails is just really annoying and off putting to them.

Don't you see? I am pointing out exactly what you and BadBear are saying, i.e, if a rule cannot be strictly enforced, then such a rule should not be implemented in the first place. That's a flawed reasoning. Unless we're living in Airstrip One, there's always going to be someone who's going to break or ignore a rule/law/legislation; such is human nature.

You may not realize this, but these rules (or rather, the absence of them), are an expression of the political beliefs of theymos and the old guards of the forum. Unfortunately, time and experience has demonstrated this anarchist approach does not work in a lucrative forum environment populated by anonymous, unscrupulous character. Victim blaming can only go so far before the spotlight turns toward the stewards. Digging ones' heels too deep in might just eventually turn one into the elite dinosaur-like monoliths so many here proclaim to detest.

For the record, 'genuine users', as you termed it, do not create accounts out of the blue just to launch new coins, announce new ponzis, make loan requests or engage in character assassinations. You and I know this, and even BadBear alluded to as much. We have restrictions for newbies now, so we're not exactly selling our souls if we introduce new, much needed ones. Drawing arbitrary invisible lines that cannot be crossed just doesn't make sense.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother getting into these exchanges. It's not as if theymos or BadBear actually gives a damn to what we're saying. They should though, because this forum's reputation is gradually deteriorating by the day. They're both young men entrusted with awesome powers. I just hope they realize making decisions from ivory towers have never worked out well, and relying only on affirmations from sycophants can be misleading.

So you're saying
1) Current newbie account restrictions (limiting post time) doesn't work
2) Restricting newbie accounts to a single subforum is going to work

Am I getting that right? If so, could you convince me that 2 will work where it has failed in the past and 1 is not working either?

And where did theymos or any staff say that rules that cannot be 100% enforced should not be enacted at all? That sounds silly. Saying, "I guess this person thinks the world is flat" and then start arguing with that person that the world is round doesn't make sense either. But I'll play that game too then. What I guess is more likely on their mind is that some rules will have too much costs (effort to be practically enforced, reduction in genuine new users joining) to warrant the benefit (scammers will need to grow new accounts for 2 weeks, no biggie!). Let's see which one of us is the better mind reader.

And if you want to discuss the morality/politics behind laws and their enforcement feel free to open another thread, because it seems way off topic for the newbie jail poll.

You're saying those things - not me. My argument is more nuanced than that.
As to whether its silly or not, perhaps you should ask Badbear, since he said it, as I quoted earlier.
As for your displeasure over the rest of my comment, frankly, I don't give a damn. This is meta, and the subject relates to the topic at hand. I can't help it if you can't see the big picture.

[ABitNut]

Actually, I created poll relating to this some months back. Like you, I was/remain mystified over the admins' apathy on the subject. Here's what BadBear had to say about it.

I've never seen so many complaints about people having the right to choose. Do you really want some dudes on a forum deciding what you should be able to invest your money in? If you feel their should be controls of some sorts, then do it, and stop expecting someone else to do it for you. Make an Altcoin Business Bureau or whatever you think will help. I had hopes for that scamcoin buster thing a while back, but it seems to have fizzled out.

Restricting accounts will not work. Do you honestly think the scams are just some random newbie that shows up, then leaves? There are rings of scammers operating here. It's the same on any forum revolving around finance, this isn't a phenomenon located just here. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out the majority of them are by the same two or three groups. If we restrict newbies from posting, then we'll just see proxy posts, people paying someone else to post it for them. Then every announcement thread will be prefaced with  *Not my coin, just posting this thread*. Or bought accounts, which will just be considered the cost of doing business by scammers. No matter what restrictions we put on accounts, they'll get around it. Need to be a Junior member to make a thread? If I were a scammer, I'd just make 50 accounts today, 50 accounts tomorrow, 50 more the day after that, etc. After a few weeks I'm back in business, with tons of disposable accounts to cull the suckers who now have a false sense of security. Pay to post? Just look at how many donators/VIP members turned out to be scammers for proof that no amount is high enough to deter scammers. I remember seeing one scammer post in scammer accusations, he said he made 5k+ a month here, and had been for several months. He's probably still here.  

People are too used to having someone else hold their hand. Many people just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, and don't want to admit they're gullible, greedy idiots, so they run here to post about how it's totally everyone else's fault, and the forum should have stopped it somehow.

You have the freedom to choose, make your choices wisely.

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.

I took the liberty of putting the full quote from BadBear in. Now where in the quote does BadBear say "rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all"? Because I don't see it in that quote. I appreciate that your argument is more nuanced. I agree that if there's a reasonable measure that can be taken to actually hinder scammer it should be implemented. And maybe I came off a tad strong. I'm in a crappy mood and the rest of the world be damned! Also I didn't have coffee yet and I sincerely can't see a picture so big that not wanting to hold everyone's hand on a forum means wanting to get rid of laws against murder, kidnapping and theft.

And, of course, I still don't feel newbie jail will do anything to stop malicious people from doing whatever they want on here.

[rugrats]

Actually, I created poll relating to this some months back. Like you, I was/remain mystified over the admins' apathy on the subject. Here's what BadBear had to say about it.

I've never seen so many complaints about people having the right to choose. Do you really want some dudes on a forum deciding what you should be able to invest your money in? If you feel their should be controls of some sorts, then do it, and stop expecting someone else to do it for you. Make an Altcoin Business Bureau or whatever you think will help. I had hopes for that scamcoin buster thing a while back, but it seems to have fizzled out.

Restricting accounts will not work. Do you honestly think the scams are just some random newbie that shows up, then leaves? There are rings of scammers operating here. It's the same on any forum revolving around finance, this isn't a phenomenon located just here. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out the majority of them are by the same two or three groups. If we restrict newbies from posting, then we'll just see proxy posts, people paying someone else to post it for them. Then every announcement thread will be prefaced with  *Not my coin, just posting this thread*. Or bought accounts, which will just be considered the cost of doing business by scammers. No matter what restrictions we put on accounts, they'll get around it. Need to be a Junior member to make a thread? If I were a scammer, I'd just make 50 accounts today, 50 accounts tomorrow, 50 more the day after that, etc. After a few weeks I'm back in business, with tons of disposable accounts to cull the suckers who now have a false sense of security. Pay to post? Just look at how many donators/VIP members turned out to be scammers for proof that no amount is high enough to deter scammers. I remember seeing one scammer post in scammer accusations, he said he made 5k+ a month here, and had been for several months. He's probably still here.  

People are too used to having someone else hold their hand. Many people just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, and don't want to admit they're gullible, greedy idiots, so they run here to post about how it's totally everyone else's fault, and the forum should have stopped it somehow.

You have the freedom to choose, make your choices wisely.

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.

I took the liberty of putting the full quote from BadBear in. Now where in the quote does BadBear say "rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all"? Because I don't see it in that quote. I appreciate that your argument is more nuanced. I agree that if there's a reasonable measure that can be taken to actually hinder scammer it should be implemented. And maybe I came off a tad strong. I'm in a crappy mood and the rest of the world be damned! Also I didn't have coffee yet and I sincerely can't see a picture so big that not wanting to hold everyone's hand on a forum means wanting to get rid of laws against murder, kidnapping and theft.

And, of course, I still don't feel newbie jail will do anything to stop malicious people from doing whatever they want on here.

I didn't intend to convey the idea that it was a direct quote. It was essentially the point he was trying to make. And it wasn't a one-off, mind. This hands-off, buyers beware approach has been their mantra, even if they've contradicted themselves on occasions.

I appreciate you backing off, and I'll reciprocate. I understand how shitty some days can be, especially in the absence of coffee.

My point is, we have existing newbie restrictions, and we used to have more - but suddenly the idea of implementing new ones or reinvoking old ones are taboo. There are implications when the barriers and costs of entry are raised or lowered. In this particular instance, the lowering of the barriers has yielded a year-long flood of abusers. Isn't it time to raise the barriers up once again?

[ABitNut]

Actually, I created poll relating to this some months back. Like you, I was/remain mystified over the admins' apathy on the subject. Here's what BadBear had to say about it.

I've never seen so many complaints about people having the right to choose. Do you really want some dudes on a forum deciding what you should be able to invest your money in? If you feel their should be controls of some sorts, then do it, and stop expecting someone else to do it for you. Make an Altcoin Business Bureau or whatever you think will help. I had hopes for that scamcoin buster thing a while back, but it seems to have fizzled out.

Restricting accounts will not work. Do you honestly think the scams are just some random newbie that shows up, then leaves? There are rings of scammers operating here. It's the same on any forum revolving around finance, this isn't a phenomenon located just here. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out the majority of them are by the same two or three groups. If we restrict newbies from posting, then we'll just see proxy posts, people paying someone else to post it for them. Then every announcement thread will be prefaced with  *Not my coin, just posting this thread*. Or bought accounts, which will just be considered the cost of doing business by scammers. No matter what restrictions we put on accounts, they'll get around it. Need to be a Junior member to make a thread? If I were a scammer, I'd just make 50 accounts today, 50 accounts tomorrow, 50 more the day after that, etc. After a few weeks I'm back in business, with tons of disposable accounts to cull the suckers who now have a false sense of security. Pay to post? Just look at how many donators/VIP members turned out to be scammers for proof that no amount is high enough to deter scammers. I remember seeing one scammer post in scammer accusations, he said he made 5k+ a month here, and had been for several months. He's probably still here.  

People are too used to having someone else hold their hand. Many people just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions, and don't want to admit they're gullible, greedy idiots, so they run here to post about how it's totally everyone else's fault, and the forum should have stopped it somehow.

You have the freedom to choose, make your choices wisely.

I guess in his mind (perhaps theymos as well), rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all. We should be thankful BadBear is not President of the Galaxy. Otherwise, laws against murder, kidnapping and theft would probably all be repealed as well since people still commit those crimes despite the presence of such laws.

I took the liberty of putting the full quote from BadBear in. Now where in the quote does BadBear say "rules that can't be enforced 100% should not be enacted at all"? Because I don't see it in that quote. I appreciate that your argument is more nuanced. I agree that if there's a reasonable measure that can be taken to actually hinder scammer it should be implemented. And maybe I came off a tad strong. I'm in a crappy mood and the rest of the world be damned! Also I didn't have coffee yet and I sincerely can't see a picture so big that not wanting to hold everyone's hand on a forum means wanting to get rid of laws against murder, kidnapping and theft.

And, of course, I still don't feel newbie jail will do anything to stop malicious people from doing whatever they want on here.

I didn't intend to convey the idea that it was a direct quote. It was essentially the point he was trying to make. And it wasn't a one-off, mind. This hands-off, buyers beware approach has been their mantra, even if they've contradicted themselves on occasions.

I appreciate you backing off, and I'll reciprocate. I understand how shitty some days can be, especially in the absence of coffee.

My point is, we have existing newbie restrictions, and we used to have more - but suddenly the idea of implementing new ones or reinvoking old ones are taboo. There are implications when the barriers and costs of entry are raised or lowered. In this particular instance, the lowering of the barriers has yielded a year-long flood of abusers. Isn't it time to raise the barriers up once again?

Honestly I joined here after the newbie jail was removed. I suffered "only" the posting delay, which I felt was pretty bad but bearable. I don't know the real effectiveness of the newbie jail. I have seen and still see users posting only for signature campaigns (I hope the current exchange BTC - $ exchange rate will fix that for a while), flood of altcoin announcements with many newbie/junior shill accounts as well as (bought) senior/hero account shills) and recently a new influx of ponzi schemes (they call them games cause they're "honest" about it). I'm all for stopping/reducing that flood of useless posts. But I don't really see the newbie jail helping much in that.

I would lean more to having a system where posts can be rated ("Hey, I value this post" and "Wow, this post is crap"). Then we can also easily see which users are contributing and which users aren't. Of course, such a system needs to be maintained too since it's open for manipulation (signature campaign farms valuing between the x number accounts they own?). I'm not sure if something like that would be worth the effort.