Quote from: Igebotz on Today at 01:43:51 PM

Since the majority of the users on my list are still in their various campaigns and are still getting paid, I don't believe my list has had any impact yet; perhaps managers aren't seeing it as frequently because these users aren't tagged (I see it as inappropriate use of the system).

Yes, especially gambling-related camapigns are of interest, where the respective signature campaign manager is responsible.
But I really believe your list is very useful. Even if there's little impact, a little positive impact is still very positive for Bitcointalk. So far, at least icopress is considering your list and maybe more signature campaign managers will follow because it's not beneficial for advertised services at all to reward excessive spammers for one-liners on page 100 of a topic, only visited by other one-liner spammers.
Regarding a tag, I can imagine that a neutral tag similar to actmyname's approach can be a good solution but it would be quite a lot of work for you and if most signature campaign managers don't care anyways, it's probably wasted time, so I can understand your point here.

Quote from: Igebotz on Today at 01:43:51 PM

Quote from: 1miau on Today at 12:00:48 AM

Yes, I'm a bit surprised why temporary bans are "out" after all. A temporary signature ban is rather soft; people can still write posts as usual. It isn't affecting normal discussions at all. I really don't know why this procedure has been abandoned as it's a great way to see if affected accounts should be given a second chance, if they'll contribute to the forum without paid signature or if they are really just here to spam to earn a few sats.

That would entail the moderators compiling a list of temp banned users and monitoring their activities to determine whether they deserve a second chance or not. This is something I doubt the mods would want to get involved in; it's a good idea, but it would add to their workload.

My suggestion was more about the community monitoring the activity of temporary signature-banned accounts, for example if their post count is dropping significantly, when wearing no signature.
Moderators would only need to issue a temporary signature ban (1 year) as it's being done right now, the account owner could still write posts normally, just not earn from signature campaigns for 1 year (while his signature is deisbaled) and that's it, from a moderator perspective.
It would be up to the community to review it and leave a neutral trust (like actmyname) after the temporary signature ban, if there's a clear drop of weekly posts, indicating that the affected account has only been used toearn a few easy sats or similar.
Such cases could also be handled in a community managed list of temporary signature banned accounts, which couldn't convice our community that they are not just here to spam to earn a few sats.
Once again, signature campaign managers would need to enforce such lists as every abuser would get his signature space enabled again, as it's only a temporary ban.
It's not easy to find a solution here, so it's just an idea right now.