I don't make threats.
I've asked for such an option before, but really if you need that option to delete so many of a user's posts, they should probably be banned anyway. Still a good option to have to clean up after the ban though. Should be suggested for the new forum software.
Well it's our only option at the moment, besides just let it continue. if this doesn't work then we'll need to explore other options, such as disabling sigs, not allowing links, or filtering links from services such as the ones who buy signature space for ads.
I don't think the first option should be banning everybody from having signatures altogether. As a last resort ban the actual paid campaigns or the urls of specific offenders who don't keep in line with policing their own users/deals, but I guess that can even be circumvented as links can just be cloaked easy enough. I think a lot of people will get the message with the recent bans and it'll spread some fear or warning to others though, but I still think a message to offenders first would've been much better.
Maybe, like I said though, most people don't take pm warnings seriously. Hell most people probably don't even know who I am if they don't read meta, which most don't. Why would they listen to me? No use debating what might've been though.
I've asked for such an option before, but really if you need that option to delete so many of a user's posts, they should probably be banned anyway. Still a good option to have to clean up after the ban though. Should be suggested for the new forum software.
BadBear, we obviously have a different opinion on signature campaigns but I'm perfectly fine with that. I won't go far supporting my opinion and I also appreciate that you're here explaining what is happening and giving us some insight. But honestly, what's to earn out of giving people the impression there is a "risk to get banned"?
Well it's our only option at the moment, besides just let it continue. if this doesn't work then we'll need to explore other options, such as disabling sigs, not allowing links, or filtering links from services such as the ones who buy signature space for ads.
I don't think the first option should be banning everybody from having signatures altogether. As a last resort ban the actual paid campaigns or the urls of specific offenders who don't keep in line with policing their own users/deals, but I guess that can even be circumvented as links can just be cloaked easy enough. I think a lot of people will get the message with the recent bans and it'll spread some fear or warning to others though, but I still think a message to offenders first would've been much better.
Maybe, like I said though, most people don't take pm warnings seriously. Hell most people probably don't even know who I am if they don't read meta, which most don't. Why would they listen to me? No use debating what might've been though.
Well you don't have to make 'threats' per se, but a stern warning would be more courteous first and I'm sure they'd then know who you were after a quick PM
. I can only speak for myself, but if I ever got an official warning for something I'd be more likely to tread carefully and change my ways and would be pretty annoyed if I just found out I was banned without warning. I certainly wouldn't ignore it that's for sure, but I can't speak for everyone and obviously you have more experience on this than me, but just my BTC0.00000002 
.