Quote from: Your Point Is Invalid on November 29, 2016, 02:34:52 AM

Quote from: yahoo62278 on November 28, 2016, 09:22:02 PM

I think you guys missed the point of this guys post? I feel like he is talking about our SMAS team and we need our opinions moderated. If thats the case i think hes wrong obv. We are not just adding ppl to the list for the hell of it. We are actually adding the ppl who need to be added. Will we stop all the spam? No, but we will stop hundreds of accounts from being able to spam. And we will continue our efforts and try to help the forum be a more enjoyable place for ppl to come to

Im sure the user is speaking directly at Lauda

It's hard to understand quite what his point or proposition is here. I'm not sure whether he's for or against moderator involvement. I think it's lack of staff involvement that has lead to the current situation and the laissez faire attitude to sig campaigners doing whatever they want can't continue. People will cry and complain when they get kicked off a campaign or invent conspiracies about conflict of interest etc but I haven't seen a staff member who didn't have the best interests of the forum at heart. Either way we can't really win. We do nothing and the forum gets spammed massively and people complain about that. We crack down on it in an attempt to clean up the forum and people still complain. Can't really have it both ways.

Quote from: Wendigo on November 29, 2016, 10:34:02 PM

Theymos doesn't want to disable the signatures because the traffic to the forum will start to dry up when everyone has realized they can't earn Bitcoin any more by posting. Less traffic will lead to less paid advertisements and less profit for the staff. How many will continue to post after there is no more cash? Less than 50% I would guess.

Whilst the first part of this is likely the reason, if signature campaigns were banned more people would advertise here via the ads so therefore more money for staff. There's no doubt that traffic would drop drastically but at least it would be quality discussion then but this forum would still be the biggest and best place to advertise so many sig campaign operators would just advertise that way instead. I think it's about finding a balance. If all campaigns are run strictly and only accept and pay for quality posters then that should solve the problem but only if all campaigns are on board. The [SMAS] thread is just those managers trying to do their part but of course people who are affected by not being able to get paid by spamming the forum with poor posts on multiple accounts are going to whinge about it. Their easy source of income has been affected and they don't like it. Well good. If every campaign did this the forum would be cleaned up significantly because they would have to improve or their accounts here are worthless.

Quote from: deisik on November 30, 2016, 08:47:26 AM

Disabling signatures is a measure which has a lot of room for adjustment. In this way, there is absolutely no need to disable all signatures at once. I don't think there are a lot spammers roaming the forum who are Heroes or Legendary members (due to "natural selection" of sorts), and their signatures could be left enabled. In fact, I don't think that any enabled signatures should be disabled at all. Just disabling signatures for new comers will do wonders in due course

But this would also have negative consequences. It's true most of the spam comes from newer members and I wouldn't be against some of the lower ranks having their signatures removed completely, but then this just makes farming more lucrative and more people spamming to hit the desired rank and more threads in Meta asking why their activity isn't going up and when will they be a Hero member etc. It's seems to be swings and roundabouts whatever we do.