Altcoins Talks - Cryptocurrency Forum
Crypto Discussion Forum => Forum related => Topic started by: Wiwo on December 12, 2024, 10:26:25 PM
-
I don't want to contribute to further draining of the thread that is why I created a separate thread for this discussion.
So I decided to create this poll to let us know the opinions of forum members regarding signature campaign threads and how forum members engage and what they engage on in such a thread.
This thread is motivated based on some past and current happenings in few signature campaign threads, such as this one.
https://www.altcoinstalks.com/index.php?topic=326445.msg1680729#msg1680729
Started by manager:
AB de Royse777
-
There are always rules put in place in every community or organisation and the truth is no matter how flexible or rigid it is we will still have rule breakers. Now signature campaign threads are generally for either announcement or applications. Now anything order than that on the thread would be likely considered as spamming the thread.
The truth is managers would likely think of making threads self moderated and delete unnecessary discussions on the thread but people may view it a bias move or too harsh hence they don't self moderate . I went through the thread and other members here actually answered the member accordingly.
-
I don't want to contribute to further draining of the thread that is why I created a separate thread for this discussion.
So I decided to create this poll to let us know the opinions of forum members regarding signature campaign threads and how forum members engage and what they engage on in such a thread.
This thread is motivated based on some past and current occupancy on few signature campaign threads, such as this one.
https://www.altcoinstalks.com/index.php?topic=326445.msg1680729#msg1680729
Started by manager:
AB de Royse777
I don't see anything unethical here. One can comment or share their personal opinions, but that is only their personal opinion and it is not taken for granted that the world will goes according to their opinions.
Here, the campaign manager can give 500 characters if he wants, in which case those who want to do it will do it and those who don't want to don't do that signature campaign. I think Roysee77 will give his answer very well later. But I don't see see unethical think on regarding commenting on the signature thread.
-
It's fine if it's just one or two comments (or occupies one page) but the thread looks messy if discussions about the rules of the campaign drags on. If there is a need to discuss further, then creating a separate topic and inviting the manager to look at it is more appropriate.
-
unless prohibited by the campaign managers, i think it is just fine for members to comment and engage in discussions under the signature campaign post i even think that it encourages more activity and shows great connection and involvement among the members in the community
if the managers do not want any discussion and wants that thread to be strictly for professional or business related purposes only well they should just say it explicitly so that the members do not get confused
-
If a campaign manager has no issues with that why should we have? If campaign managers will say that it makes too much mess, then there will be a point of changing something. But if users have questions about some campaign it looks like a proper place to ask these questions in the campaign thread, right?
Well, let's wait if campaign managers will give their comments on this topic.
-
In my opinion, it's okay to ask a question or two and someone can answer for that in the campaign thread itself but if it's becoming a long discussion or debate then the people to take the business somewhere else. Since the actual purpose of the campaign thread is to post applications so manager can review and accept participants.
-
Discussion about campaign related matters should be within the thread but discussion about rules and other matters is better done in a separate thread or the campaign manager's ANN, such discussions about rules will not add anything new to campaign and should be deleted.
-
A good number of comments yet no one has voted on poll? Anyway, I have went to second option as that's what I see often happening with signature threads, and as long as comments are relevant to the thread being discussed, it's fair, discussion happening in thread linked is also fair.
-
IMHO, from a regular "peasant" member perspective, it's fine to post anything related to the campaign (written on the opener page). However, if there's something that needs to be specially addressed, it's better to create a separate & specific thread. Not sure why @OP added the word "intervene" on the poll since the one who is most likely to complain is the campaign manager himself. If he's fine with the added difficulty of seeing/reviewing the applications, why not?
-
In my opinion, the threads of signature campaigns should be limited to applications and some other necessary things like payment, payment issues, leaving the campaign, etc.
Of course, the final decision on this matter is up to the campaign managers themselves whether they allow it or not, but mostly through the campaigns I have participated in, the topic of the campaign is only for applications and as for other questions and side discussions, a separate topic can be made for them.
-
IMHO, from a regular "peasant" member perspective, it's fine to post anything related to the campaign (written on the opener page). However, if there's something that needs to be specially addressed, it's better to create a separate & specific thread. Not sure why @OP added the word "intervene" on the poll since the one who is most likely to complain is the campaign manager himself. If he's fine with the added difficulty of seeing/reviewing the applications, why not?
The one that I mentioned intervain is because like a case in stake signature campaign on bitcointalk, there was a time where the community call out the rules of the campaign and which brings much spam on the forum and despite strong defense the manager yielded to the pressure and changed some rules in the campaign.
Although the manager has every right as we have observed with a few managers, not every one of them likes comments aside from applications on the signature campaign page, whatever discussion or requests are better entertained via PM.
-
When it comes to signature campaign related issue, posting on the actual thread is fine, but if it's about your or someone's opinion regarding the campaign, then it should be done on other thread to continue the discussion.
When it comes to rules, at the end of the day it's always the manager who will be followed.
-
In my opinion, the threads of signature campaigns should be limited to applications and some other necessary things like payment, payment issues, leaving the campaign, etc.
Of course, the final decision on this matter is up to the campaign managers themselves whether they allow it or not, but mostly through the campaigns I have participated in, the topic of the campaign is only for applications and as for other questions and side discussions, a separate topic can be made for them.
As much as I want to see only applications on signature campaign threads, I don't mind comments or concerns about specific campaign guidelines on the thread for clarification, but most of the time this discussion devolved into an attack, troll, and other off-topic conversation.
No manager wants their application thread to turn into a discussion, but because the majority of them choose non-self-moderated threads, these unwelcome discussions persist.
-
A little bit of an interaction that connected to the signature campaign would be acceptable, but if it would be 1-2 pages of posts coming from different users with regards to a single problem isn't because like you said, it would create a mess towards the whole thread.
However, the campaign manager could do things to prevent it:
1. Make it self-moderated. I don't see any reason for the campaign managers to delete application, but in deleting some posts that would clog the overall thread is.
2. The campaign manager themselves will say to not interact on that thread anymore. Making a post with regards to this one will take a minute or 2 for the campaign manager, and for sure, all will stop after that.
With regards to what happened with Betfury signature thread campaign, well I also shared my opinion with regards to one concern, but that's it. At the end of the day, the manager will make their own rules, and we will follow it like what most are saying.
-
The one that I mentioned intervain is because like a case in stake signature campaign on bitcointalk, there was a time where the community call out the rules of the campaign and which brings much spam on the forum and despite strong defense the manager yielded to the pressure and changed some rules in the campaign.
Although the manager has every right as we have observed with a few managers, not every one of them likes comments aside from applications on the signature campaign page, whatever discussion or requests are better entertained via PM.
Yeah, it isn't very pleasant since the thread got bumped, thus giving a false sign about new slots opening (or whatever) like on the BTCT chipxxxxx campaign. At the same time, if users cannot freely post, then there's concern about the legitimacy of the campaign. Many times, users have tried to give a heads-up about a campaign being a scam, fake, forum abuse, etc. IIRC Stake is one of the good examples I think (about abusing forum), not a bad one.
1. Make it self-moderated. I don't see any reason for the campaign managers to delete application, but in deleting some posts that would clog the overall thread is.
Self-mod isn't applicable to signature ANN IMHO since it can be abused by scam campaigns or any problems that arise about payment.
-
Yeah, it isn't very pleasant since the thread got bumped, thus giving a false sign about new slots opening (or whatever) like on the BTCT chipxxxxx campaign. At the same time, if users cannot freely post, then there's concern about the legitimacy of the campaign. Many times, users have tried to give a heads-up about a campaign being a scam, fake, forum abuse, etc. IIRC Stake is one of the good examples I think (about abusing forum), not a bad one.
How is Stake abusing the Forum? You should stay on topic and stop spreading false narrative about one of the oldest signature campaign.
-
For every signature campaign launched on the forum, they are always guided by rules and regulations for everyone to abide by, been you a participant or a forum member on the forum the campaign is posted. It looks well organised and duly informations passed to members in the campaigns when it’s not full of unnecessary discussions.
Campaign members can miss vital information about the campaign if the thread is full of irrelevant discussions that will not allow members to want to go through the thread if they already know the type of discussion always going on there. They can also lose vital information when it’s hidden within the many discussions on such threads.
I think the best thing is to say it out in the rules of not posting anything asides from application/relevant information to the campaigns on the thread or campaigns manager having the ability to delete unwanted discussions on the thread (self moderated topics). That’s the best way to keep the thread clean.
-
How is Stake abusing the Forum? You should stay on topic and stop spreading false narrative about one of the oldest signature campaign.
Oh, we have "The Stake Sherrif" over here... Are you new to Bitcointalk/Altcoinstalks so you don't know about this case?
Here are some history lessons of the case I mentioned:
Stake.com (SteveStake) is encouraging spam. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5111069.0)
Re: Report a Signature Campaign Spammer! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5152812.msg51417631#msg51417631)
AND I'm still on-topic about why people should be free to sound their opinion even in the campaign thread:
Many times, users have tried to give a heads-up about a campaign being a scam, fake, forum abuse, etc. IIRC Stake is one of the good examples I think (about abusing forum), not a bad one.
Do you want me to post more links about Stake's unethical behavior in the past? Or do we shake hands, knowing that you, the "The Stake Sherrif," are just lacking knowledge?
-
I don't want to contribute to further draining of the thread that is why I created a separate thread for this discussion.
So I decided to create this poll to let us know the opinions of forum members regarding signature campaign threads and how forum members engage and what they engage on in such a thread.
I think there is nothing bad in making comments because once the applicants will apply and the week starts, the information about the project will be shared on the same thread despite the discussion about the project because that will occur on the ANN. The information needed for the applicants will be shared only.
So I think if a participant has some serious questions, then making posts in the thread is not wrong. If managers don't like it they can also make it part of their rule and must create a separate thread for questions and queries about any campaign on that one thread if that suits them best as I don't know their needs and how they work. But this can save them this mess.
-
How is Stake abusing the Forum? You should stay on topic and stop spreading false narrative about one of the oldest signature campaign.
Do you want me to post more links about Stake's unethical behavior in the past? Or do we shake hands, knowing that you, the "The Stake Sherrif," are just lacking knowledge?
How about you concentrate on the present? I don't care what stuff they did in the past; all I care about is what happened after I joined, and the effort I've done to clean up those messes should not be overlooked. We can't stop spam; there will always be one or two users who do the wrong thing, but we ensure that those spams are not paid for and finally throw them out.
We're already in 2025 and you're bringing a case of 2019 on a 2024 thread.