I still believe the only way to fully remove the problem of signature campaign abuses is for the moderation team to be stricter (not to say they aren't doing enough currently). While it definitely hurts them slightly, doing things such as leaving negative feedback to the campaign's account won't change anything (e.g secondstrade). I also think that signature campaigns run by bots should be disallowed flat out. It is impossible for a bot to judge a post's quality without relying on some arbitrary figures such as character count. This is essentially an invitation for abuse.
I still don't understand theymos' views on this. Does he not know (which seems unlikely by how much mods have apparently notified him of it)? Does he not care? Is there some sort of magical solution being implemented
"soon"?
but at the same time a dead forum would also be pretty boring.
Forums don't need a lot of members to stay alive; the forum wouldn't die should signature campaigns be banned. I am/have been a member of several online forums with somewhat small communities, and all of these places seemed a lot nicer with such a small but dedicated community behind them. I don't see the loss in traffic as a bad thing whatsoever, and I doubt it will be significant enough to affect the forum financially. IMO it would be akin to filtering water from piss.
Those are not "quality posters."
If your girlfriend leaves as soon as you stop paying her for sex, she's not your GF, she's a whore.
If a friend stops talking to you when you stop paying him, he's not really your friend.
If your "quality posters" stop posting once the money dries up, that's the best possible outcome ever.
Hilarious never said anything about said quality posters no longer posting. He said it would be a shame for quality posters to not "get a little bitcoin
for something they would do anyway". While I agree with your comparison, it doesn't make sense in response to what was said.
Perhaps you should check up on your own English comprehension before insulting others for theirs.