Ban all the signature campaign

[shorena]

Why the staff allowed to put a sig ad and after ban a lot of users because they are posting 30-40 posts per day? Isn't it better to ban all the signature campaigns?


aka

If you're genuinely annoyed by the signatures people are wearing, go to this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;sa=theme

And tick the box "Don't show users' signatures".

The signature might contain useful information. This is especially true for signatures of those not participating in a campaign. E.g. BadBear and others link to their PGP key's. Hiding all signatures would also hide this information.

I like the idea of limiting certain aspects of a signature that are typcially "earned" by rank. E.g. background color, color in general, font size etc. I also am very much in favor of BadBears suggestion[1] of selective removal of certain signatures. If everyone could easily maintain a list that excludes certain signatures no one would have to be annoyed. This will certainly reduce the prices for paid signatures, but if you think about it the prices are very good anyway. Essentially you get coins for something you would do anway.


[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985516.0

[Fiiasco]

Why the staff allowed to put a sig ad and after ban a lot of users because they are posting 30-40 posts per day? Isn't it better to ban all the signature campaigns?


aka

If you're genuinely annoyed by the signatures people are wearing, go to this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;sa=theme

And tick the box "Don't show users' signatures".

The signature might contain useful information. This is especially true for signatures of those not participating in a campaign. E.g. BadBear and others link to their PGP key's. Hiding all signatures would also hide this information.

I like the idea of limiting certain aspects of a signature that are typcially "earned" by rank. E.g. background color, color in general, font size etc. I also am very much in favor of BadBears suggestion[1] of selective removal of certain signatures. If everyone could easily maintain a list that excludes certain signatures no one would have to be annoyed. This will certainly reduce the prices for paid signatures, but if you think about it the prices are very good anyway. Essentially you get coins for something you would do anway.


[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985516.0

I am aware of that thread, however, that's all we've got for now, possibly until the new forum software comes into play.

I am aware of people putting addresses, links to PGP keys etc. etc., but right now 99% of people are wearing paid signatures(Including me, and you)

[Muhammed Zakir]

If Advertising campaigns tried moving to PM, all of their members would be banned pretty quickly, and the managers as well I'd imagine. PM spam is much harder to get away with than posting spam. There are also far less warnings with PM spam.

Thank you for your response.

If Admins check inboxes, then it will be hard but if neither admins check the inbox nor the users report them, it is hard to ban. AFAIK Global Mods can only see PMs if they are reported. So it will get away. Correct me if I am wrong.

=snip=
• No bots, only humans for checking.

=snip= and I dont think there is a huge problem with bots. Moderators tend to catch them pretty quickly, far before they could apply for an advertising signature.

I meant bots for checking posts made by enrollees(eg: Bit-X, Bitmixer). Instead if a human is checking, the rules they enforced can be more effective and also if the manager is a good person, he may report too. I think it will help to reduce spam.

[shorena]

If Advertising campaigns tried moving to PM, all of their members would be banned pretty quickly, and the managers as well I'd imagine. PM spam is much harder to get away with than posting spam. There are also far less warnings with PM spam.

Thank you for your response.

If Admins check inboxes, then it will be hard but if neither admins check the inbox nor the users report them, it is hard to ban. AFAIK Global Mods can only see PMs if they are reported. So it will get away. Correct me if I am wrong.

Advertising PMs will get reported. There have been a few people trying to advertise their services via PM and they have been banned very swiftly. AFAIK a few reports are enough to have someone look into it.

=snip=
• No bots, only humans for checking.

=snip= and I dont think there is a huge problem with bots. Moderators tend to catch them pretty quickly, far before they could apply for an advertising signature.

I meant bots for checking posts made by enrollees(eg: Bit-X, Bitmixer). Instead if a human is checking, the rules they enforced can be more effective and also if the manager is a good person, he may report too. I think it will help to reduce spam.

I dont think this should be given by the forum. If you want to run a campaign that is borderline promoting spam, has plenty participants banned for spam including the manager, that sheds some bad light on the service in question. From what is possible today a bot will not be able to detect spam. They can help count posts maybe if you want to exclude certain sections and give you some sort of summary. In the end however a human has to decide whether someone is spamming or not. If the campaign manager will not do it, BadBear will. IMHO a campaign manager should do everything in their power to avoid that BadBear has to act.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Advertising PMs will get reported. There have been a few people trying to advertise their services via PM and they have been banned very swiftly. AFAIK a few reports are enough to have someone look into it.

I think now I understood what SaltySpitoon said. I was actually telling that instead of the manager posting in public(creating a thread), he can target specific people and pay for renting their signature.

Yes, I think even 1 report is enough.

I dont think this should be given by the forum. If you want to run a campaign that is borderline promoting spam, has plenty participants banned for spam including the manager, that sheds some bad light on the service in question. From what is possible today a bot will not be able to detect spam. They can help count posts maybe if you want to exclude certain sections and give you some sort of summary. In the end however a human has to decide whether someone is spamming or not. If the campaign manager will not do it, BadBear will. IMHO a campaign manager should do everything in their power to avoid that BadBear has to act.

Exactly. That's what I said. Forum should ban bots and force campaigns to use a human for checking posts. I have to study on explaining things.

=snip=
• No bots, only humans for checking.

[marcotheminer]

I meant bots for checking posts made by enrollees(eg: Bit-X, Bitmixer). Instead if a human is checking, the rules they enforced can be more effective and also if the manager is a good person, he may report too. I think it will help to reduce spam.

I dont think this should be given by the forum. If you want to run a campaign that is borderline promoting spam, has plenty participants banned for spam including the manager, that sheds some bad light on the service in question. From what is possible today a bot will not be able to detect spam. They can help count posts maybe if you want to exclude certain sections and give you some sort of summary. In the end however a human has to decide whether someone is spamming or not. If the campaign manager will not do it, BadBear will. IMHO a campaign manager should do everything in their power to avoid that BadBear has to act.
[/quote]

I do check as many users as I possibly can for spam and kick/ban them if they spam heavily.

I also encourage anyone to send user reports my way and I'll make sure to deal with them swiftly.

[MadZ]

I think it would be interesting to make a poll and see whether a majority of users favor a ban or not. I'm guessing they wouldn't, since most people have a financial incentive to keep the current system in place.

Reform will only happen if the staff makes an executive decision to do so, despite the fact that the amount of spam this creates should be disturbing to all users. I'm honestly surprised by how little this bothers people, there is no question that an increasingly large amount of posts are being made by people who are being paid to do so. Paying people to post inevitably leads to a level of discourse that is inane and disingenuous, ask yourself why anyone would want to join and stay a member of a forum like that. Giving users the option to hide signatures would not fix this problem, since the problem is the low quality posts people make to display these ads, not the ads themselves.

One thing I will say in favor of sig campaigns is that they give accounts value. People here are desperate for easy BTC, and sig campaigns provide a decent source of income. People are less likely to try and scam now that they have another option to make some BTC. Those who would otherwise try and scam can just sell their accounts if they no longer care about their reputation, which is a good thing for the forum. This is an unintended consequence of sig campaigns, but it is worth mentioning.

[shorena]

I think it would be interesting to make a poll and see whether a majority of users favor a ban or not. I'm guessing they wouldn't, since most people have a financial incentive to keep the current system in place.

Votes can easily be manipulated by alts. On the other hand, theymos used the system for the proposed change to DefaultTrust.

Reform will only happen if the staff makes an executive decision to do so,

Call me naive, but I think this problem could be solved by those running the campaigns alone.

despite the fact that the amount of spam this creates should be disturbing to all users. I'm honestly surprised by how little this bothers people, there is no question that an increasingly large amount of posts are being made by people who are being paid to do so. Paying people to post inevitably leads to a level of discourse that is inane and disingenuous, ask yourself why anyone would want to join and stay a member of a forum like that.

If thats the focus, yes. If you post to earn, this might very well be where we are heading. Id like to think that people here post to post and appreciate the coins they can get for something they would do anyway. As someone who "whored" out their signature since the very beginning, I always felt that this discourages me from posting bullshit. I have written way more posts than I posted.

This is also where I think campaign manager can solve this. Instead of just accepting anyone and weed out the spammers later (or never), they could take some time to read the post history of someone applying. I know this is a buttload of work, but this might very well what keeps them their jobs. Without signature campaigns there is no need for those managing them.

Giving users the option to hide signatures would not fix this problem, since the problem is the low quality posts people make to display these ads, not the ads themselves.

I have BadBears suggestion in mind here. I dont think the "hide all" button is a solution either. I think it would lead to lower prices. If certain signatures or certain features can easily be filtered there is less incentive to pay for a signature and thus less incentive to post bullshit for a few satoshi.

One thing I will say in favor of sig campaigns is that they give accounts value. People here are desperate for easy BTC, and sig campaigns provide a decent source of income. People are less likely to try and scam now that they have another option to make some BTC. Those who would otherwise try and scam can just sell their accounts if they no longer care about their reputation, which is a good thing for the forum. This is an unintended consequence of sig campaigns, but it is worth mentioning.