Originally Posted by
kipper
If you were milking it, would you admit it? Why, when we have rules concerning congas, would we allow others to manipulate the system by using their signatures? Does it matter if there is proof that they are receiving referrals, when they're manipulating the system and showing that either the conga referral isn't enough to them, or that they simply don't care if there is a conga?
So the answer is no, you don't.
And they aren't manipulating the system - they are acting within the rules of FT. That you don't like what they are doing morally does not mean they are in breach of the rules, nor they are manipulating the system.
Before you start asking others to enforce your moral code, I ask again, what is the benefit to be derived from doing so? You are asking others to undertake work on your behalf - as one of those being asked, I don't think I'm asking a great deal for a better quantification of the issue than 'I don't like to see it'.
There are many things I don't like to see on FT - I don't call for them to be banned however (ok, I'll admit (in the interests of disclosure), the one line link to a blog, I have suggested should be banned).
As a data point, I had a signature asking for support for a charity in which I'm associated with for a while. Wasn't asking for money, just for people to click through and vote for that charity. So far as I know, only one person did so - and that was someone with a similar interest in the issue to mine. If that's a measure of the effect that referral links have, then it's not a very big one and IMHO, does not warrant the work you are asking for moderators to carry out on your behalf.