Quote from: theymos on December 18, 2017, 12:54:08 AM

1. To attain ranks above Member, you'd have to earn some number of merit points. Merit points would be awarded in a monthly vote on best posts of the previous month, with various measures (TBD) to prevent gaming of the vote. Winning merit points might also come with a BTC prize.

How many users move from Member to Full Member each month? If it's thousands, it'll be a lot of work to vote.

Quote

2. Create or designate some sections as "serious discussion" sections, with no signatures. In those sections or maybe in different ones, also have poster restrictions such as Member rank or above only.

Wouldn't the creation of a "serious discussion" section imply the other sections aren't meant to be serious, while in fact most of the forum should be treated as serious?
If, however, only the topic starter gets to choose this option, I would fully support it! This gives signature campaign managers a lot more work counting posts Tongue

Activity should still be added though, as joining a serious discussion is the best kind of activity someone can have.

Quote

And/or allow topic-creators to set these restrictions on their topics, similar to selfmod topics.

I would LOVE this feature! While you're at it, can you please give the topic-creator the option to restrict people on his ignore list? In my selfmod topics, I keep deleting posts from the same ignored people.

To limit the work load for moderators, I'm only making suggestions that can be automated:
A. If a user's post gets deleted, that user loses 2 Activity points. I've seen Newbies who just spam a lot, and even though more than 50% of their posts gets deleted, they still have enough left to level up.

B. Limit the number of topics a Newbie can create.

C. (slightly offtopic here) It's been requested before, but again: please introduce an account rank "Banned". It saves reporting posts from banned users when I can instantly see who's been banned already.

Quote from: subSTRATA on December 18, 2017, 01:31:42 AM

i'd wholeheartedly agree to the idea of having a 'disable signatures' idea for thread starters; it'd be a simple fix for people who want an actual discussion that would eliminate a lot of spammers. however, i feel these threads would be 'covered up' really quickly by threads that allow signatures, just from the fewer number of users that would post in those threads, and would just die out real quick.

Could topics which have the "no signature" feature enabled get a higher ranking on their respective board, to make up for getting less posts? Or, as an alternative: give these topics a color that stands out on the board.

Quote from: Don Pedro Dinero on December 18, 2017, 05:55:24 AM

The earning merit points part could work to some extent, but I disagree with the BTC part because that wouldnt improve anything, rather you would be overpaying people who are already writing quality posts and getting paid a lot.

Instead of a price in BTC, it could be some forum related perk. Maybe a permanent "Voted user of the month December 2017" in your profile?

Quote from: TheQuin on December 18, 2017, 09:55:12 AM

The no signatures part I don't really like as that doesn't seem fair to advertisers. They, in theory, pay for quality posts in serious discussions that are far more likely to be read.

Signature campaigns already exclude certain sections from payment, it's obvious they wouldn't pay for sections that don't display their signature.

Quote from: Avirunes on December 18, 2017, 03:32:43 PM

I would say fixing a minimum char limits in some of the sections of forum will lower down huge no.of spammy posts that altcoin discussion bumpers or spammers make like:

Quote

Wow

...Interesting project.

The spammer would just make a longer post that's equally useless and takes longer to read.

Quote from: hugeblack on December 18, 2017, 06:19:04 PM

- make post quality trust (like normal trust).

I'd like a simple +/- to click on each post, but if this is anonymous, I'm afraid it will be abused from alt-accounts much more than the current trust system.

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on December 18, 2017, 06:38:05 PM

I think approval for signatures should be done case-by-case basis by a team of members dedicated to do so.I know this doesn't sound feasible but if you had around 500+ members who could review accounts and somehow automate the process,we will only see quality posters with signatures.

This is something the signature campaign manager should do. Instead of reviewing every user, how about only reviewing the campaign managers before they can manage a campaign?
I doubt anybody can really manage more than 100 posters simultaneously, which means they shouldn't take on more than they can manage.

Quote from: marlboroza on December 19, 2017, 12:13:35 AM

6) If you can't fight them - join them, create new child board in "other" section - "spam here and build rank" that would decrease spam in all forum sections

Use this as a honey pot: after 6 months, ban everybody who posted there.

Quote from: hilariousandco on December 19, 2017, 05:45:30 PM

Quote from: family934 on December 19, 2017, 03:13:23 PM

There will be a few two factor alternatives on the new gathering so I get why he hasn't tried coding them for this one, yet in the event that the new discussion is still 1+ years away I figure it would be advantageous executing asap. Requiring email check would be another progression in restricting or backing off record cultivating as it's simply one more band to bounce through.Should be Checked the interset rate of every members.

Anyone notice anything wrong with this post?

Yes. And I would have reported it, but given that you've seen it already, I didn't. ~~Why didn't you delete it?~~ He's banned already.
Here's another wall of random words from the same user. His post quality is exactly what this topic is about, and he doesn't even know it.