I think it is instances like this that make a stronger argument to publish some kind of transparency report regarding signature campaigns and the amount of spam/bans each of them produce. If the forum were to publish for example, how many posts by participants of each signature campaign were banned in the last month, how many posts by people wearing a particular campaign's signature had their posts deleted by moderators, how many threads created by people wearing a particular campaign's signature were moved to the trashcan (and other similar metrics) then it would have an overall positive impact.

• First, it would put pressure on signature campaign managers to to do a better job of not allowing people who consistently make low value posts to continue to participate in their signature campaign, which will get people to put more effort into their posts
• If signature campaign managers put a good amount of effort into minimizing the above stats, then over time the forum will be a more pleasant place to converse and the overall viewing experience will be more pleasant
• If signature campaign managers do not do an effective job of minimizing the above stats, then their company's reputation will suffer, and the company will have incentives to replace the signature campaign manager
• If a signature campaign is associated with a large amount of paid signature related spam, then participants will want to disassociate themselves with that signature campaign in order to avoid being associated wit signature related spam. If this were to happen then additional pressure would be put on both signature campaign managers and companies advertising in order to exaggerate my first and third points

As a result of your posts in this (and other) thread, as well as other similar evidence, I have decided to cease participation in the bit-x signature campaign in approximately 5 days, when I receive my final payment (removing the signature is not as urgent that they have recently scammed, but rather this is because they are associated with large amounts of spam). I would also encourage others to do the same

I have thought about this decision for a while, and I am confident it is the appropriate thing to do. Although this will likely result in less bitcoin related income, this is okay because a) I have a job that pays more then the bills b) I have already earned what I would consider a significant amount of bitcoin from participating in signature campaigns and trading on here c) the amount I am earning from bit-x is very small especially considering how frustratingly low the price of bitcoin is and finally d) because I do not want my reputation to be associated with massive amounts of spam/insubstantial posts, especially considering how much effort I put into my work on here.

I do think that it is sad that the forum has the level of spam related posts that it has because of paid signatures, however I do still think that paid signatures are healthy for both the forum and for Bitcoin in general for a number of reasons. I think the overall paid signature environment went downhill since PrimeDice closed to the public, and I do think that PrimeDice would be the best suited to successfully fight the level of insubstantial posts that we see today.

I think it is pretty clear that you do not like/trust marcotheminer and bit-x (this is directed at BadBear), and I do not disagree with your rationale/conclusion, however I think you should be more transparent with your reasons. I had previously been asked to look into his alts, and have found a good amount of shady/unethical behavior, a lot of which likely plays into your above conclusion. I think that both bit-x and marcotheminer are a major source of spam on the forum and additional transparency would likely reduce that to some extent.