Quote from: Lauda on October 19, 2016, 08:17:48 PM

Quote from: rizzlarolla on October 19, 2016, 08:01:06 PM

I like that Lauda is trying to think of the bigger picture, but i'm a bit worried by hilarious saying "punishments for people who run the campaigns very poorly." - is just poorly ok?

I don't think that *poorly* should be acceptable at all. They are taking the advertising on BTCT via signatures for granted, which should not be happening. They need to prove that they are competent and willing to strictly manager their participants IMO.

Quote from: rizzlarolla on October 19, 2016, 08:01:06 PM

Of the 400 accounts i have identified, probably 90% can be assigned to 1 farmer.

The list is hefty as it is, but still has to be completely handled.

Quote from: deisik on October 19, 2016, 08:14:30 PM

Signature campaigns are not started by bots. There is always some user who fires up a signature campaign thread. That user could be deemed as a campaign manager and should be dealt with appropriately...

As far as I know bots only count posts

So exactly what happens when the campaign manager is banned? Nothing. Bot keep counting for the existing members, they keep participating. The campaign manager goes off to create another account, or buys another one and contacts the service discretely to become their *new* manager. We'd be playing whack-a-mole with manager alts

In this case you have only one entity left out of the three you started with, i.e. spammy and non-spammy users. And the spammy ones should be dealt with as with any spamming users out there, with or without a signature...

As you can see, it still boils down to either taking out the manager, and if this doesn't work out banning the spamming users