Quote from: hilariousetc on April 20, 2018, 11:47:08 AM

Quote from: MagicSmoker on April 20, 2018, 11:24:26 AM

Quote from: hilariousetc on April 20, 2018, 10:26:52 AM

The forum is wall-to-wall shitpositng but I don't think this is the solution. Simply banning the crapcoin campaigns that do nothing but pay for any old broken English spam would go a long way and is the bare minimum we should be doing but if we were to charge for anything it should be for a signature.
...

Hah, my suggestion to charge for sigs has taken hold subliminally! Grin

Not quite. I've been suggesting we remove signatures from ranks for years.

Hence the overly-smiley emoticon... I didn't think that suggesting charging for sigs (or avatars, etc.) was terribly original, either.

Quote from: hilariousetc on April 20, 2018, 11:47:08 AM

Quote from: MagicSmoker on April 20, 2018, 11:24:26 AM

such offenders be automatically temp-banned if, say, x different members mark any of offender's posts as "shitposts."

This would be abused. People would just report or bot people's posts they don't like.

That's why I said it had to be x number of different members, where x is greater than 1 (and less than, say, 10), and that the temp-ban could be appealed in meta - if a moderator/admin looks at the offender's post history and sees that they are not, in fact, shitposts/scams/etc. then it would be those who unfairly reported the posts that get the ban.

That said, I have long since grown weary of "free" services/sites on the internet. How is that Facebook doesn't charge any of its is >2B users yet still brings in >$12B in revenue each quarter? Well, that's because you are the product... Honestly, I would much rather pay for a service like that rather than exchange all of my privacy for the proverbial beads and trinkets; same applies here - it is undoubtedly costly to host this site and paying an annual membership and/or to unlock various accessories/accoutrements would not only be fine by me, it would be preferable.