Quote from: OgNasty on May 06, 2016, 06:37:28 PM

However, my favorite solution is this...

BAN SIGNATURES FOR FORUM MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT DONATED TO THE FORUM.
Create a new level of donator called the "Supporter" that can be reached with a 2 BTC donation to bitcointalk.
Only Supporters, Donators, & VIPs are then allowed to have signatures. Perhaps with each level carrying different restrictions.

This would bring in a bit of revenue for the forums from anyone who wants to participate in selling advertising on bitcointalk, and raise the cost of running a signature campaign. All this while reducing the spam, spammers, and those who fund them.

I like the concept behind this idea, although I do think that some of the specifics should be tweaked for it to be something that theymos would consider implementing.

Many people use signature campaigns to "earn" their "first bitcoin" and whatever solution is implemented should continue to allow this to happen. In order to get around this problem, I would suggest that signatures restrictions remain how they are currently for Full Members and below; in order to "unlock" the "signature features" of Senior Members and above, a user must pay/donate an amount that equates to ~1.5-2.5 weeks worth of anticipated signature earnings based on a competitively priced hypothetical signature campaign for a semi-active poster for a senior member.

This will allow people to "earn" a small amount of bitcoin while they are new to the forum and learning about bitcoin. This would also be in line with an amount that would equate to a "tax" on a user's signature campaign earnings. Those who intend on contributing constructively over the long term will have incentives to "donate" because of the higher earnings potential as a result of their "donation". This amount would be small enough so that it would not exclude someone who lives in a very poor part of the world.

This "donation" could be used as somewhat of a deterrent against making very low quality posts because a signature spammer would lose their "donation" if they were to get banned.

If the amount required to unlock signature features is too large then when someone gets banned, there will be a controversy, especially considering the amount of judgment the moderators must put into the decision of banning someone.

I would anticipate that prices accounts with "unlocked signature features" would likely increase by the amount of the required "donation", if not more, and that the rates of competitively priced signature campaigns will increase when using signatures with features that are "unlocked" with a donation.

Quote from: KenR on May 06, 2016, 07:43:16 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on May 06, 2016, 06:37:28 PM

BAN SIGNATURES FOR FORUM MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT DONATED TO THE FORUM.

What ? lol You might have donated to the forum when the bitcoin prices was what $10 ?
Complete illogical statement.

Slightly off topic, however when the price of bitcoin was $10, the forum was in much worse financial shape then it is now. The donations were originally used to pay for hosting and the forum was not financially self sufficient. Now hosting is paid for (it used to be donated in exchange for an ad slot), and the forum can reasonably continue operations without any additional financial assistance. I suspect that the $100 donation in 2011/2 was much more beneficial to the forum then a $4,500 donation to the forum would be today.

Quote from: KenR on May 06, 2016, 07:43:16 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on May 06, 2016, 06:37:28 PM

Create a new level of donator called the "Supporter" that can be reached with a 2 BTC donation to bitcointalk.
Only Supporters, Donators, & VIPs are then allowed to have signatures. Perhaps with each level carrying different restrictions.

If they had 2BTC to donate,why would they post garbage around the forum for few Satoshis ? Roll Eyes

Afterall,2 BTC is a huge amount for a campaigner.What you implied is,allow only rich to earn more money on the forum.

This would be a very good idea if the amount was lowered (see above).

I do not think that many of the shit-posters would donate and would instead choose to take the short-sided approach of continuing to post while receiving a lower signature payment, which I believe will further decrease the market prices of signatures of lower level members. This could potentially (at least temporarily) create an environment in which it is no longer attractive to make low quality posts in exchange for signature payments and the signature spammers will try to make their money elsewhere.