Re: Disable signatures/bounties til a user reaches full member status.
I don't think it will reduce the level of spamming. Jr members can be removed from signature campaigns, member should be accepted.
If we really care about this issue, why don't we start restriction while we manage campaign. As a bounty manager, you can put restriction. For example, if we do have a look on Service(Bitcoin), most of the campaign are limited to full member, in some cases, it's limited to sr member.
However, we also can limit with merits. For example, members can participate if he/she has 50+ merits, full member- 150 merits and thus. If we require only full member for participating in campaign, result will be same cause we have a huge amount of full member by default.
If we really care about this issue, why don't we start restriction while we manage campaign. As a bounty manager, you can put restriction. For example, if we do have a look on Service(Bitcoin), most of the campaign are limited to full member, in some cases, it's limited to sr member.
However, we also can limit with merits. For example, members can participate if he/she has 50+ merits, full member- 150 merits and thus. If we require only full member for participating in campaign, result will be same cause we have a huge amount of full member by default.
Ignoring your first post was about airdropalert and username ending with numbers (85% out of 100 with numbers are alts, kobita*, kobita**, kobita***)
It's the bounty managers that have to act and put mutual restrictions for the betterment of the forum and participants. Be it accepting members from above certain ranks or merits. It could be implemented and enforced. What about someone being a part of a project doesn't want their project to be managed by an already "handled-a-few-projects" manager or don't have the budget for it? Don't you think not allowing them to manage their own campaign would be unfair?
As far as huge number of full members, quoted from, Truth about bitcointalk users 2.0
In this post I have done position analysis on Bitcointalk users in range from id=1'000'000 to id=2'000'000. Users with this range of id's were registered from 2017/05/11 to 2018/04/03.
Without further ado, Here is the distrubution of postions of second million bitcointalk users
How we can see there is no Hero and Legendary users, this is not surprising since these positions requires high level of activity .
P.s. If you have any ideas on what kind of information you would like to see, let me know.
Here is the link to first part: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3333773.msg34863787#msg34863787
Without further ado, Here is the distrubution of postions of second million bitcointalk users
- Brand New 733503 73,35%
- Newbie 212864 21,28%
- Jr. Member 33395 3,34%
- Member 13682 1,36%
- Full Member 6334 0,63%
- Sr.Member 222 0,02%
- Hero 0 0%
- Legendary 0 0%
How we can see there is no Hero and Legendary users, this is not surprising since these positions requires high level of activity .
P.s. If you have any ideas on what kind of information you would like to see, let me know.
Here is the link to first part: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3333773.msg34863787#msg34863787
Disabling sig till a member reaches a full member status is harsh, but with maybe around a hundred managers and half not caring about the forum against thousands of newbies and JM spamming, but restricting them to get merited to rank up seems like somewhat of a balance.