Ban all the signature campaign

[mashcom]

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

[coinpr0n]

I don't think people are getting banned for just posting 30x - 40x per day. Maybe they are doing other things that aren't OK? Another discussion thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=786662

[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

This has been discussed in the past and while I am biased since I sell my signature I dont think thats a valid option unless there is no other way. This would have to include referal links as they are somewhat paid signatures. A more difficult case would be doog's signature for his own casino just-dice. Would that be banworthy? Its a paid signature in a sense as its advertising for his own casino and he is earning money off of it. How about e.g. SaltySpitoon advertising their sales thread, is that allowed? As you can see this will not be easy to draw the line.

[redsn0w]

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

This has been discussed in the past and while I am biased since I sell my signature I dont think thats a valid option unless there is no other way. This would have to include referal links as they are somewhat paid signatures. A more difficult case would be doog's signature for his own casino just-dice. Would that be banworthy? Its a paid signature in a sense as its advertising for his own casino and he is earning money off of it. How about e.g. SaltySpitoon advertising their sales thread, is that allowed? As you can see this will not be easy to draw the line.

I support the idea of shorena, the staff cannot sort of what is a sig ad and what is not a sig ad. There isn't a valid solution for this problem, maybe the various campaign's manager can collaborate with the admin for find a compromise that can stop the insubstantial posts and keep the forum clean.

[SaltySpitoon]

Some people can post 100 times per day and keep their post quality up. I dont see why punish them for something that some people do. Paid advertising signature spammers are annoying, and something will be done about it, but if possible I think it would be best to continue allowing them. If you are going to post here anyway, why not earn a bit of coin? I dont know, I'm just not big on the whole prosecuting the group for the actions of the few idea. Some changes definitely need to be made, but it would be preferable to target only those abusing paid advertising signatures, rather than everyone.

I honestly have no stake in paid advertising signatures, they benefit me in no way, and cause only annoyance for me through spammers, however I personally have no problem with them at their core. My ideal situation would be that campaign managers take a more active role in weeding out spammers, and we devise a way to allow those who don't want to partake in viewing them to opt out without removing signatures all together.

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

This has been discussed in the past and while I am biased since I sell my signature I dont think thats a valid option unless there is no other way. This would have to include referal links as they are somewhat paid signatures. A more difficult case would be doog's signature for his own casino just-dice. Would that be banworthy? Its a paid signature in a sense as its advertising for his own casino and he is earning money off of it. How about e.g. SaltySpitoon advertising their sales thread, is that allowed? As you can see this will not be easy to draw the line.

I am a huge fan of signatures for the reason above, its very helpful for personal advertising, and as a plain text link, its not overly obtrusive. If it catches someone's attention, it would be because they are interested, not because a wall of color and letters are screaming in their face. I've got 3,000 posts 99% of which I'd like to believe are constructive and well thought out. It would be stupid of me to waste that. While I have no stake in paid advertising signatures, I would fight against the removal of signatures all together for that reason. That said, people can already turn signatures on/off entirely, I'd prefer if they had a few more options, such as turn stylized signatures off, etc.

[mashcom]

I said all the signature campaign that paying you for post here in the forum, I am not against the personal sig 'ad' itself.

[Lauda]

This has been discussed in the past and while I am biased since I sell my signature I dont think thats a valid option unless there is no other way. This would have to include referal links as they are somewhat paid signatures. A more difficult case would be doog's signature for his own casino just-dice. Would that be banworthy? Its a paid signature in a sense as its advertising for his own casino and he is earning money off of it. How about e.g. SaltySpitoon advertising their sales thread, is that allowed? As you can see this will not be easy to draw the line.

Exactly. It was discussed multiple times and no solution/alternative was found. Well the matter is rather complicated. Obviously with every decision there will be a lot of unhappy people. Making the right call is a tough decision.

I said all the signature campaign that paying you for post here in the forum, I am not against the personal sig 'ad' itself.

This is wrong because punishing everyone because of certain individuals is rather illogical. There are several high quality posters that have a paid signature. It's quite obvious who's spamming and who isn't. The most (let's call them) respected people here don't post that often and usually don't have a signature like that. There are individuals who make 20-40+ posts a day mostly consisting out of 1 liners. Those people are the ones that should be punished (if they indeed are spamming), not everyone.

[coinpr0n]

In a way I think that signature campaigns can add value to the forums since it keeps some people coming back and contributing who might otherwise be somewhere else (reddit maybe?). Of course not everyone contributes very much but many do.

[Gyfts]

If you have a problem with someone posting 30-40 times a day, report it if you believe the quality of the posts are low and spam like. There are some campaigns that run at a very high standards that do not tolerate spam posts, account famers, ect, specifically Luckybit. I'm sure there are others. The problem I see is pay per post campaigns that do not have a set monthly pay rate. Usually those warrant the more low quality posts. It's really up to campaign managers to moderate that. The forum moderators can only do so much to deal with the spammers, but I see the campaigns can cut out the problem at its source by enforcing strict posting rules and a monthly pay rate.

[galbros]

In addition to reporting someone posting spam to boost their post count for their signature campaign, also consider reporting them to the signature campaign sponsor.  After all, that person should not want to pay for posts that people are not going to see or care about not to mention being associated with spammers.

Most signature sponsors seem to be more and more concerned about spammy posts, that might be more fruitful than trying to get an virtually impossible forum ban.

Good Luck!

[anshar]

I don't think that signature campaigns encourage spam. They simply encourage posting more. This in the end results in spam, but if campaign managers take the initiative to strict up and be careful paying spammers, I'm sure we will all stop.

[darkangel11]

I said all the signature campaign that paying you for post here in the forum, I am not against the personal sig 'ad' itself.

Let's ban knives, knives are killing people, I'm not against all knives only the sharp ones!

[koshgel]

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

Not a very good train of logic.

Would it make sense to ban all users/trading since there are plentiful amounts of scammers? No, discretion is used.

Signature campaigns can coexist along with productive posting. The solution is to monitor for spam which the mods do quite well.

[qwer312]

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

there is nothing wrong with the sig campaigns, the problem is the users taking advantage of it and posting spammy/insubstantial post to earn coins

[Muhammed Zakir]

I don't like banning signature campaigns and also, even if we ban, it can only be banned public campaigns, you can also start a campaign by sending PMs to users.

IMHO it is better to impose rules on signature campaigns than banning them. A few rules I like to see is

• Limit maximum post count.
• Banning spammers from campaign.
• No bots, only humans for checking.

[SaltySpitoon]

I don't like banning signature campaigns and also, even if we ban, it can only be banned public campaigns, you can also start a campaign by sending PMs to users.

IMHO it is better to impose rules on signature campaigns than banning them. A few rules I like to see is

• Limit maximum post count.
• Banning spammers from campaign.
• No bots, only humans for checking.

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.

Placing a limit on post count doesn't really work, since like I said there are some people who can post large amounts of high quality posts. Banning spammers is what everyone is working on now, 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.

[marcotheminer]

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

30 to 40 or even 80 posts in a day isn't unlikely. That's not the issue but rather the quality of those 50 posts.

[galdur]

Well, I guess discussing the discussion itself is a no-no in most intellectual circles since it obviously shows a paucity of arguments/ability to discuss anything worthwhile.

[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".

[ndnh]

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

People get banned because of spamming, not because they wear signatures, or post more.

(Or you can ban campaign, ban activity, ban member levels, why not simply ban the user who keeps spamming? that is also more fair.)