What about more aggressive community-driven moderation?
I noticed today that Pharmacist (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=487418) has probably >100 negative trusts sent out that just mark a user as a spammer.
This seems relatively effective, as it would block them from signature campaigns, but somewhat rubs me the wrong way because it seems to detract from the regular purpose of the trust system.
I somewhat like this idea:
Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system:
- On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
- This instantly makes that user's signature invisible for the user who marked him, or add him into the ignore list, to be decided
- If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him
Some details should be discussed, but that would be the idea.
But what about instead of targetting signatures, making it a community moderated "block". When a user is reported, some heuristic could be applied and if the "score" of the users that reported is high enough, the user would be temporarily banned or at least pushed further up a moderation queue.