Bitcoin Forum

I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.

So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.

Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.

Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.


EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:

OR,
As many as the CMs wants.

no because sMerits are not infinite, campaign managers wont necessarily be sources.. 

but... I do believe that Campaign managers can and should be using merits to score new applicants, they are a much more viable criteria than trust. Personally if It was me I would be insisting on 10% more than base merits starting in a couple of weeks and then continually raising the bar.

this would enable managers to secure the best campaigns by having the most eloquent posters, the most informed, the most popular and the most knowledgeable people on campaigns.

Hold on there.. You are try to say that manager of campaign should be have a source merit to provide it?
If the source used in good hands then it's good and actually gonna be great idea.
But! If the source used in a wrong hands then.. spams merits going to be happened and it can easily collapse the system.

But if by your mean the manager of campaign should given their available merit that they has then it's excellent idea and you should pm them about it.

I think that's the suggestion yeh, and I like it. If a coin creates and ANN, why not have that thread manager be a source of merit to reward the community of that coin? It has to be limited to ANN threads though I would say, you couldn't have anyone who creates a thread getting this power.

Would be a nice way to give some sort of control to the project itself and empower the dev/creator to reward. It would also incentivise the community to make positive contributions towards the projects.

That's why its only going to be in the hands of the managers, because they are the ones who're reviewing your posts if they're constructive enough to be accepted.

By mentioning the source, yes there has to be a source because the sMerits have expiration. And by this, we could conclude that the one giving us Merits are not just from anywhere.

Bad/lazy campaign managers and sig campaigns are a big part of the reason why the forum is a cesspool of spam right now...

I believe the merit system is in place partly to combat bad/lazy campaign managers who are not doing their job.  It would be truly stupid to then give them the power that essentially makes the new merit system useless.

I would say based on the earliest of evidence that smerit distribution is probably still a little bit low.  But given time we can hope that it will be adjusted.  Finding the balance point of making merit useful and useless will probably take some time but adjusting that balancing point to much before data is available also seems stupid.

I think this will cause more spam post than usual. 25 post a week is a huge number. 10-15 an almost standard requirement for a signature campaign creates so much spam how much more 25. Plus the fact that this will contribute a lot to your rank. I think this will not be good. I hope we can see the system as the way theymos sees it.

This is exactly what I'm saying about "in a wrong hands".
But it's actually a bit a same with the system goes right now.. The legendary(usually the campaign managers are) already have their own enough smerit and rank safety to don't give a damn about it.
Even now as we speak, I already seen some people are trying to gain SOURCE Merit that theymos talking about by focusing about encouraging the Merit system and so on instead of what they actually discussed or post before the system is up.. Didn't you find it very fishy?
Well, I am sorry if it's just my speculation about it.

I have to break it to you mate, the 25 posts that I've mentioned is the normal number of post required for the Signature Campaign that Bitcoin-payment-based , besides its just an example, right from the phrase 'let's say...'.

The system will not be affected, in fact its going to be improved. Why you asked? Because this will not only benefit the participants as they will be reviewed and going to be worthy of merit to their quality posts(if they have one) but also the Managers as they will be focused more to their jobs and you know somehow earn even more trust.

Stop being a lazy dumbass, everybody in here knows that you have probably 100 accounts in here and you have a little butthurt because you can not rank up anymore.
Yeah yeah... sure.. as an example, you will never get merit because you are a lazy dumbass who has less than 10 IQ and is always shit posting in here. Wow, another guy complaining about the Merit System! What a curious thing to realize that you are so frustrated right?
Came on, i can really smell from here how hungry you are for getting those 0.005 - 0.012 a week from your campaign! What a SAD situation right? You can not rank up anymore!

I totally smell the same shit as well

---

@NoNetwork

You can totally quote those two posts and just reply it in one post of yours but instead you made two posts. Lame

---

Edit : it seems he either deleted it or got deleted

They still need the activity...

As a campaign manager, I believe this is one is a good suggestion, It will be helpful to the constructive/ quality posters. I'll try my best to reward it to my campaign participants.

LOL.. It seems to be the former to be more true than the latter.
If only he knew how to.  ::)Hardly anyone is receiving/sending merits to users who are posting in real bitcoin related discussions, the smerit is still being distributed only near and around the meta board.
Mods should have an eye on managers and terrible managers shouldn't be allowed to be merit sources, if ever the suggestion is going to be implemented in action.

Oh really now, I have shit posts? Let's compare then. Why are you so mad mate? This is just a suggestion, nothing to be mad about. Are you a kid or something, hothead? So immature.
Ok less than 10 IQ? I wonder if that kind of person really exist, Oh yeah there's no such person. But no it was you isn't it? Not frustrated really, just want to optimize the system.
Hungry? How funny, Its a shame I have more money than you do.

The current system does most likely already what you are asking for.

If you post high quality posts and you are in a signature campaign then the signature manager either takes a look at the posts of his participants and can most likely merit those which are of higher quality or the manager doesnt even check the posts in which case you most likely dont have to be afraid you need merit for this campaign and you can simply count on other users giving your posts merit.

And since signature campaign managers are generally of higher ranks and therefore earn merit faster then the average, they would have enough merit to spare for the higher quality posts if they would like to.

So if you take place in a signature campaign with a dedicated manager then you can already get the behaviour which you are wishing for  ;)

Immature, yeah. That's exactly what it is.*  Nobody is mad, it's just stating the obvious.
People do exist with terrible IQ, did you not know that? Too bad. Irony much.
OH yes, everybody forgot that you're a bitcoin whale.
*Please note the obvious sarcasm.

I cannot see how the merit system could fight against the bad/lazy CMs. They can easily ignore merits and stay as bad/lazy as they were.

In accordance to the suggestion of OP, having a CM as a merit source does not have a downside IMO. These CMs do weekly reviews on their participants' post history so they are suitable for being a MS. Well obviously not all are qualified. A good MS for me should be yahoo, atriz, darkstar, lutpin and other CMs whom had established their worth as a CM. I am not saying that all of them should be MS but imagine one/some of them being a MS.

---

LOL, I wonder where all these hatred coming from. Also, no proof regarding having 100 accounts. I bet you'll think I'm his alt. Goodluck proving that :D


I haven't seen any complaints. I only see suggestion.

What are you suggesting is not bad, but I really sense that you are scared of not getting any merit. There are lot of great campaign manager in this forum, we all know that so I wont say name in here.
Just be confidence and step up your (us) game, and I am sure manager will give us merits, since they grade our post on a week basis and they know who is worthy of their merits.
For people in here who is scared of not getting your rank up, I guess it is better to think about a strategy to get merits rather than talk negative and suggesting something that is not certain to be accepted by others ( I mean, suggesting things is good, but I guess if you put more of your energy into things that will give you merits, you will get merits already)

I don't see the point. Before taking you to the company Manager watching your posts. He evaluates them and makes a decision.

It is a great idea, it can be a good contest upon the campaign every end of the week. " The best poster chosen by the Signature Campaign will be rewarded with 5 Merit, etc".


I think you should consult this to Campaign managers not here.


I think we are now talking about Bounty Campaigns and not including the Signature Campaigns in the Services Section.


And why is that? Members of the campaign will surely make quality posts to gain these merit every end of the week that will lessen spam posts, depends on the number of campaign with this rule.


And you are implying that the OP is the only member of the campaign who has a quality posts? That is obvious that it will be like a competition. Who would bail out on that one, a payment of bitcoin with additional Merit.


I just hope so.



There are a lot of quality posters here in the forum and some of them are not receiving any merit, how's that?

I already reward the best poster with an extra payment  :D
Will add some Merits for constructive posts too :)

Lutpin is a merit source, and so am I, so there's no need to imagine it. I do award merits to high quality posts I see while doing post counting.

I don't see it happening due to the following facts:
- Not every bounty is managed by a official bounty manager. Often bounties are managed by their own team, with a newbie or jr member accounts.
- Many bounty managers are with negative/red trust. No need to comment more here
- This will be extra job for the bounty managers, I guess you don't understand how much work is to be a Manager /at least for responsible/professional ones/ how they gonna be rewarded?

I can continue...

- What if one manager manage for example 3 campaign at the same time and is running out of points? Then not everyone will get what he deserves and it won't be fair.

Overall idea is good but ... it's not that easy.

I have another suggestion to reduce the spam but, see here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2827369

That makes the Merit a tradeable commodity, which Theymos has disallowed.

So you are going to reward your members with merits when you make money?  Don't you think some will view that as trading?

Depends how often you do it.
If you give out 50 Merits / user, it is.
But if you give out a few merits to few people, for very constructive posts, it shouldn't be.
I had only 200 sMerits so far, I just spent almost 70 (on non-campaign members) even before the payment date is up for my campaign.
But I'm not a merit source though.
I expect to spend 5ish Merits on my 20 campaign participants  :D

EDIT:
@Jet Cash
Seems like a very reasonable argument.

I did suggest that campaign managers should not have the ability to award merit points. This avoids a conflict of interest. But we have to decide if Bitcoin Talk is a forum to talk about Bitcoin, or if it is a forum for the creation and discussion of crypto bounty.

Disclaimer: Obvious bias, as I am a manager and a source

I fail to see how this is a conflict of interest. I gain no benefit by occasionally giving high quality posts I see while managing campaigns a merit. It's essentially the same as giving a random person a merit. Care to explain more?

It's about time that we stop catering towards signature campaigns and start catering towards the discussion of cryptocurrencies. I would have to agree with Darkstar that campaign managers don't have a conflict of interest. In fact if they are reviewing the posts manually then they might be some of the best people to distribute points as they'll probably come across unmerited more often.

It depends on the manager but I think it does'nt make sense to gave merit to those members of his campaign because he is too busy doing that.They have no ability to gave it ,it was their rule and regulations ,,they paid us by working but they cannot gave merit to us.It was a conflict of interest in bitcointalk.

Managers should not be sources just because they manage campaigns.
Likewise, sources should not have to forfeit their position as one just because they manage campaigns.
Coming from a small campaign manager and small source.

If I come across a post I think deserves merit, I will give them some.
How I come across that post doesn't matter. I browse the forum for myself, I read posts during campaign payments.
Good posts are good posts to me, they are one and the same.

If you consider yourself a small campaign manager, what the hell are big campaign managers?

Nice explanation TMAN, That's what i wanted to say smerits are not infinite as you can see. But.....but they are valuable for ranking up on this forum.
For example if you have 1.3k activity but not the required Merits then you will not reach legendary member status on the forum.

I wonder that Manager of those signature campaigns will have enough sMerits to send to all qualified-participants of their campaigns. That's the big problem, bro.

Even if they are merit source, they can not do that, personally.

Okay sorry for the 25 post I'd been on Alts more than Bitcoin threads. Merit contribute a lot to rank. So, if this is most likely to happen it will make Merit like tradable coins. Which I think is not intended so.

In my suggestion, the managers can just pick one suitable member to be given a Merit. Giving all of them are really a huge problem since there are a lot of members in a Signature Campaign.


Yeah, that might be the consequence but I do think that even though this is not suggested there are still CMs that are giving Merits to their Members especially the worthy ones since they are always checking their members posts weekly.

That's good buddy. At least we get a positive response from a campaign manager. 

You have the good point! However, there is a limited source of merit and campaign manager can't give lots of merit for the participants! Let's say, there are 30 participants with almost have idea and creativity in posting, how can campaign manager address merits in each of them?
For me, merit system is favorable for the person with lots of friend in BTT and who are superstars here in forum. Newbies who are starting to learn crypto will definitely cannot undergo with such changes.
In the end, we will follow the rules because this is for the goodness of the forum!

I've got a better idea...

Instead of rewarding with merits, reward for merits.

Campaign Managers could offer a bonus payment for campaigners that receive the most or a lot of merit over the term of the campaign (week, month, etc.). If you've earned the most merit you get a double payment. If you're in the top ten of people in the campaign receiving merit you get a 50% bonus.

That would further motivate signature campaigners to make the best posts possible!

Managers are not like theymos but I love the idea you have stated. If merit is just like payment then it would be great for all participants but rules are rule you get merit for genuine post. But now I think managers are requesting too have some merits before checking the application in every signature campaigns so it will be a good challenge. However, they can add some merit if the post is interesting and educative.

This seems wrong to me. If someone is a merit source, that shouldn’t give them the right to have other members advertising for them for free.

It might be unrealistic, mainly because managers of those signature campaigns might not have so many sMerits to send to pariticpants as a gift. Unfortunately, they might not be merit sources too. Hence, the idea is good, but unrealistic.

This seems very reasonable if you are thinking from the perspective of the camping participant. But as discussed already not everyone is familiar here and even with the signature campaign it will get tough for the managers to look through every single post and read it! Do you really think that it is practical approach? They do read every single post (or may be not  ;)) but the output couldn't be achieved as we think.

Instead of this, I think, we should ourselves start checking out the posts for those people who are in the same camping. For example, if I'm in the X campaign right now then I can focus on that group of people who are in the same campaign thus creating higher outputs as everyone in that campaign will focus on rest making the great odds to qualify.

Thus, if there are 50 participants in campaign then 49 can watch out the post of that 1 person (by checking the signature as identity while posting) and thus he is being getting evaluated by 49 different eyes and chances are there he will truly get rewarded and in faster ways yet quality wise.

This strategy can make focused groups according to the signature campaigns, however juniors, noobs will be ignored in the process. They can enrol themselves into sourced lists.

Or,

Newbie to Member ranked people should be allowed in the campaigns without the payment but for the sake of getting evaluated and earning the merits. This was everyone will be happy.

It is one most amazing idea you have their buddy, I think it's okay if a bounty manager could give atleast 100merit point to everyone, I must quote everyone not to someone, based of course of the campaign rules. Of course depend also if the caliber of your post attract the manager's attention.

I don't think people will likely share sMerits. Also there is an issue that most of the users didn't understand Merits vs sMerits. This system should be told in a better way...

You make an important point! This approach will give newbies opportunities to get more knowledge, information, to be more familiar with the mechanism of our forum.

If those ones dont come from farming accounts, they will readily to do that, I guess. Not bad!

Why you guys think that this system is making everything hard?  I mean we should have faith in ourselves so that we can contribute to the forum in right manner. Believe in the legends, and sources made by the moderators they will come across your quality work and will merit you surely.

Whats the hurry anyway? Just to rank up for the sake of money? I don't find that right way to go with it. You can seriously do your job and you will have some recognition sooner or later. Managers are not seating empty, they might have some more work to look after. FYI: Just the thought that came after reading your whole post, but this line made me confuse. Nothings hard in trying mate!

How would you explain the system? I believe it's fairly straightforward. All you really need to know is in theymos' announcement thread.

I do agree, however, that not many people are inclined to share sMerits yet. People who don't receive any aren't inclined to give any, and nor do they receive any additional sMerits. Maybe specific guidelines on its use will help?

I also think that sMerits should be displayed on the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=[userid] page. Some confused users might not know where to see them.

Since Bounty Campaign managers are well known members of the community and each of them with his own reputation, it should be not too difficult to spot which Bounty Manager deserves to become a merit source and who not. This is actually a very good idea.

There's nothing wrong about this, as it is only a suggestion not a proposal. I am not even against the Merit System in fact I am very aware of it, but not all members of this forum do. So I've come up to the conclusion that I would create such topic.

As mentioned here, we wanted to give opportunities to those members that are not familiar and are confused about the Merit System.

First, I think there should be a place where a post with no or very low merit count and few days age could be added for moderation and eventually awarded with merits. There always will be a chance to get merits for quality content.

Second, especially now early on there should be few merit sources searching for quality posts to award authors with merits.  

I think this will be a lot easier to implement merit system with this two additional sources.

I think this will add burden for campaign managers having  100 participants then will review 25 post each just for is to gain some sort of merits though they really try their best looking at the quality of our post but this one will require them to read deeper. How about those managers having 2 to 3 campaigns running? I also want some merits but there are really managers who give merits so O don't think this is necessary

In other words you want the campaign managers merit their participants who posts very constructively? is that want you to say? Yes they have a right to merit their posters but no offense here it's not the manager's responsibility to give merits to their quality posters it's not their problem that some posters don't get merits and also, if a poster applied to join in that campaign right? so, he/she already accepted the rules and regulations of the manager. They must follow it in order to get paid. If the posters want to get merited then post constructive and helpful posts. This forum isn't made for earning money okay? Iust be happy that you are paid to post here in bitcointalk.

Yeah i agree with this one and a example of that is yahoo.

It might not be the CMs responsibility, then who has then? It is not their problem, true, its not really have to be a problem, in this case its just going to be an incentive to the participants for them to even strive more to have quality posts.


Well, obviously because they've already joined a Signature Campaign. Exactly, that's why I'm suggesting this, in order for the participants to have a chance in gaining merits, because as of now, the topics that people are meriting is only on selected topics.


Burden? Really? Are you serious right now - that is their job for God's sake, its their duty to monitor and review the posts of all the participants. Are you saying that not all CMs are doing their jobs and just looking at the start post count and the end post count - not the exact post of the participants? Man that's some serious issue right there.

Well, yeah. Take a look at over 90% of the altcoin bounty campaigns.

Score! Would you mind explaining about the second type of merit sources.

1. Which kind of ranked-users will be allocated the second merit sources?
2. Which purposes of the second merit sources?
3. How to ensure closely interactions between two type of merit sources in the forum?

Best regards,

Still, its the campaign managers decision on how they will give merits. Its also the responsibility of all the members to give merits on quality posts that they encounter daily in the forum which can also help. Don't just give all the responsibility to a person which they are not accountable. It will just reflecting on how you really eager to have merits over the forum.

Sir I think that your idea is really out of the box and is an excellent idea which should be implemented.Yeah the campaign managers mostly review each and every post of the participants,so they should consider giving merit points to the best posts.
The limited number of smerits is a problem,but hey!!  I have an idea which may solve this problem.
Let's say a campaign has maybe 50 participants.So the campaign manager selects the best person to post the best quality posts in that particular week and he can ask the other participants of the Campaign to merit him 1 point each.

It really depends on them if they will be giving Merits or not. They always check their member's post weekly so I think it is common for them to encounter a quality post of 1 or 2.


That is the reason of the whole new system.


He don't give anyone any responsibility, I think he is just pointing this out since the idea of the CMs is to check their member's post weekly and also this is just one of the suggestions you can read about the new System.  :)



I think the CM can do that since he can give some examples of some posts he give Merits but I think asking the participants to Merit that member is kind of a little over the top? But yeah, I think they can Merit the member without the CMs saying it right?

Ya i think asking the participants to give merits isn't the right thing to do.So i correct my statement,as you said that the CM should give examples of good quality posts is the right thing to do and giving them merits should remain one's personal choice though.Still participants shouldn't hold back their smerits,we can still see that people aren't ready to give their smerits easily.I don't understand the logic,all want merits from others but one isn't willing to give the other that easily.I think we all should change our mentality and give others merit more often.

Well, the system is still new so I think the members are still coping up with this new system. I think this will be normal after some time.


People has their own interpretation of quality post and as I've say this system is still new for them. We don't need to push them to merit other people more often since they might take it in the wrong way. In the mean time let's just sit back and see where it goes.

The members here adjusted with this new merit system, yes it is new for all and some are go with flow by admins decisions but there some opposed on this new merit system. Lucky for those who rank up last update of ranks, like Hero and Legendary rank they had nothing to worried about rank up besides it is the same profit when participating signature campaign.

Upon joining signature campaign the participants who doing their best just to post a quality in order to completed the given weekly task, i think the CM's had noticed about these problem to reduce shit poster member here in forum.

After some research, I have to agree with you. Its a shame for them to not doing their job, that suppose to be one of their responsibilities. So that much number of the campaigns with regards to altcoins have this issue.

There has to be some reason behind this: Is it because the number of participants are greater, that's why they don't have that much of the time to monitor or to review the posts of every members joined ; or are they just making this as an excuse just to make their work less tiring (sarcastically).

But then, since I've pointed out the Campaign Managers, guess I have also included the bounty campaign managers too. Well just to be clear, we know that the majority of ACMs(Altcoin Campaign Managers) don't have the reputation that of those BCMs(Bitcoin Campaign Managers) on the other side have. What I'm trying to say is that those people who've been gained their reputation as being a CM.

Yes I've totally separated the ACMs and BCMs, but that's not intended, its just simply a legend. Because there are BCMs that also manages Altcoin Bounty Campaigns.

I think this would  be a great idea .
The participants would have to post a good quality post to earn some merit while earning some stakes,
I think this would boost other forum users to make a good quality post instead of posting some nonsense replies.

Exactly, and to the fact that the Campaign Managers have to review their posts in that specific week accordingly. The participants will now be able to engage into a more sensible quality posts. So the so called shit posts will now be reduced also because of the system.

Besides one of the goals of the new system is to patronize those people who're worthy to rank up, meaning their posts are qualified enough to receive such Merit. But the thing is, not every quality posters are being noticed at all. And by this, it will be just another motivation for them.

What a dreadful idea. I was tempted to put everyone who supports this idea on my ignore list. Campaign managers should have no rights to give merit or sMerit in my opinion.

Mate, its a shame you're not that familiar with the current system. Dreadful you say? Well back at you mate, because you're being narrow minded and naive. The higher ups granted everyone the sMerits and wanted to monitor if they're really going to use it as what they would've hoped. But, as I can now, most of them are just wasting they're sMerits to those people that are not even worthy of having some. There's no sense of accomplishment here. As they will only feed those that are familiar to them and not extend to those people that are more capable of having quality posts, as the Admins intends to.

Of course, I'm not saying that it will be their obligation, but, it doesn't hurt if, whenever these managers reviews the posts of his/her participants, he/she would also come across with people who have quality in their posts. I might say it is a reward but its more like an incentive. A competition inside the Signature Campaign I par say.

I think what you meant was CMs should not be Merit source.

Well I think being a CM and a MS at the same time is not that bad. Take this for instance, you are a CM. You constantly checks the posts of the participants of the campaign you are managing. If you see posts that are, in your perception, worthy of some merit then give some and do not if not. As simple as that. No conflict of interest. You manage your campaign and acts as a MS at the same time.

Of course not all CM should be MS, only those who are worthy.

Money, always at the center of every fucking problems on earth.

If it wasn't for bounty, every single user would be happy with this system, which might help this forum getting cleaner. And of course, if this wasn't about greed, this system wouldn't be needed in the first place.

Imo, I would even go farther, and distribute signature bounty according to merit instead of quantity. Let's say that instead of 15 posts a week, you must now get 4 merits per week to get your reward:
- You would divide by 2 instantly the number of (shit)posts on the whole forum. Cleaner, but also easier to moderate as well.
- Signatures, paradoxically, would be much more visible. Let me explain: When you have a topic with 100 pages of shitposts, you don't read it, so you don't see any signature ! So 15 or 30 posts doesn't really matter, it is just pointless if no one reads it. Now if you only have 2 pages of quality posts, you would read them before writing your reply, so you would see everyone signature. Plus, you could see if what you're about to say have been said already, which would reduce even more the number of post.

Cleaner forum, with ONLY quality, and signature more visible. Win-win (lose for spammers).

That is great. All people will be more understand about merit system. Moreover, this very easy to implement.
Many people use their signature for bounty campaign, i don't like it. Signature for personal than bounty.

Another idea would be to not only require the 25 posts per week, but also require that your 25 posts receive at least a certain number of merits. This should directly stop the shitposting.

Money is everything practically speaking, but that doesn't mean we're greedy - like you've said.

Everything you've said was by far the most commendable thing in this thread. Yes, we're talking about the sections in the Economics, Bitcoin Discussion, Gambling, etc. where most of the threads have 50~100 pages at least.

You should've created a thread about this. This would make an audience to everyone for sure. This would optimize the system if granted.

I have always suggested this idea. There should be a requirement of getting certain number of posts for all ranks in  a year. This makes sure that they keep posting quality content here. Otherwise, a member may continue with shit posts after achieving desired level with few quality posts.

This is really a good idea if only Campaign managers have enough sMerits to give to signature campaign participants. It will be a really good basis before accepting new participants for a CM to his/her campaign.

Do you mean that the campaign managers can further give merits to the participants along with the weekly or monthly payment going through their posts. This will surely make the merit system more effective and on sending two merits and receiving one will surely get more merits to be sent for users.

Making bounty campaign managers sMerit sources sounds good. But I want to point out something. Let's assume a given signature campaign has 500participants and it's required of each person to come up with 15 posts weekly to qualify for a certain week. Now let's look at the calculation. 500×15 = 7500
Now the manager goes through all these posts assuming 400 persons made 15 quality posts, this equals to 400×15 = 6000posts. The manager gives out 6k sMerits for that single week. And maybe other weeks might have more posts to be merited. Now don't you think sMerit will be exhausted at some point except if it's infinitely sourced. What do you think? Taking into consideration that this is just a single bounty campaign and a numerous others are still in play.

This can only be done if all the bounty managers are made merit sources otherwise they won't have enough spendable merit to give to all quality posts.

But this would disadvantage people who don't participate in signature campaigns.

It depends to the managers if they give merits to their subordinates, it was possibly happen but they can't force their managers to give merits for the reasons that they are parts of signature campaign. Because smerit were given only to the post who have good quality, not the shitty post.

Merit is not something you should be trading or giving away like a payment. Giving it for posting in a campaign would make it into something valuable that can be given away for favors and it wasn't meant for that. I know you newbies would love to get some merit because in your eyes merit = money. You get merit, you can get into a campaign and start shitposting and lack of merit is blocking you from being paid for it, so you're wasting time here complaining about the system.

Basically, Sig campaign Managers can do that, But It does not mean that if you'll receive merits then you'll rank up instantly, managers check post if they are qualified to the given requirement or quota for one week, but you have a nice suggestion, The problem is for example, A manager accepts 100 applicants and 30 posts are required for one week, then the manager will really take time to it. This should be discussed by superiors and admin, OP appreciated.

What do you expect? The world revolves around money.


That's not true. Although a huge majority of the shitposts in this forum is contributed by bounty hunters and signature campaign participants, it cannot be said that every single user would be happy with the merit system even without the presence of any bounty. The merit system has been detrimental for those who need to rank up and participate in bounties which has made a lot of them to complain and hate the system however this does not necessarily mean that the merit system is beneficial or favorable for those who are not involved in bounties.


The thing is, sometimes people don't need a quality post to see a signature. So long as it's in a thread, it would attract attention. (the more times it appears in a thread regardless of it's content, the more attractive it is). And this is probably why some campaign managers hire participants not for the quality or content of their post, but because of often the user posts in numerous threads and sections of the forum. The signature still gets promoted in that way, which is the reality of campaigns so to speak.

The merit system allows us to have the power of judgement, which somehow makes it subjective because I think we all have our criteria of what and what not constructive is. Although your idea has great intentions, I think the new system also implies freedom for each and every one of us to award merits to those who we truly believe are deserving. If a campaign manager is obligated to give out merits as a requirement for their job, they would be urged to give just because they are required. Also, sooner or later, they would run out because not all of them are merit sources. Let's give them the freedom to choose and just let them do what they have to do, managing numerous members is already hard what more to read through all their participants post carefully looking for those that are deserving? That would truly be time consuming and inefficient.

I didn't read the whole thread with all the replies but these are the reason I find that idea to be bad:

• simply not enough sMerit
• it's not something to be handed out like that, it's sort of an indicator
• the manager doesn't have anything to do with the campaign (most of the times) besides just managing it (as I've stated previously), so that would be on his behalf
• otherwise, the ones who appointed the manager should provide merit

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3000308.msg30908118#msg30908118

I think this merit system is good, merit can be given to anyone who make a good post, but only those with higher rank can give merit to others, I think all accounts in this forum can give merit though not bounty manager.

I think that would be selling merit. Because managers are getting paid for their work, and you are suggesting that part of their work would be giving merit. I am participating in bounties, and strugling with merit, but not supporting that.

What about if the campaign manager have a lot of appointment to handle.? I think this system is suitable to cms that have a single or two campaign or maximum of three to meet the requirements.

Maybe the Admin system must give the Manager an maximum of campaign to handle to avoid lazy CM.

If the bounty manager gives merit to those listed in campaigns is it better that they could post reviews of participants and distribute merit orderly posters but not all recieve merit,Especially in short time post not fixed well.

Sadly, there is a lot of Bounty Campaign managers and most of them are not checking their members posts the reason it is the most reason of spams and shit posts because the members do care only on fulfilling their maximum posts and do not care on how they are doing their posts.

I personally find most of them come from Altcoin bounties and not campaigns from the Services section as most campaigns paying out in BTC have better campaign managers that actually do their job and thoroughly look through posts.

Merit is completely opinion-based which is good and also bad, and it'll take a bit more time for it to work correctly, if it ever will. We'll see soon enough whether or not Merit is actually a viable system. People constantly forget the system's only been out for about a month. It's not completely set in with everyone yet.

The idea seems interesting to me. Yes, a manager may not have enough sMerits for all participants, but giving sMerits by the end of every week as a bonus looks great. I've never was rewarded by any bonus, but I suppose those members who will deserve it will be happy to get at least 1 for their job  :)

Well, in my case I call the campaigns from Services Signature Campaigns and the one in the altcoin thread is the Bounty Campaigns. I know it is confusing and I am sorry about that. I'm kind of used to that terms since I am a Member rank.

The idea to reward high quality bounty participants with merits is certainly very encouraging. I have seen Yahoo paying more to those who have higher merits. That is also a good way to encourage high quality posts.
Between, has any major Bounty manager announced to reward their bounty participants?

This is really a great idea, but it seems impossible. I really wait for this. all depends on the people who manage and operate the forum.

I see your point, but the author also mentioned that it will not going to be a forced act, it will solely be up to them. Meaning merits are supposed to be rewards not an obligation or a requirement to do their jobs. It is just simply, they'll somehow shot two birds with one stone.

I mean, to all those participants in the campaign I'm sure he'll find someone who's worthy of having merits(s).


To be franked, you really should've read all the content of the thread.

As stated, it is not part of their work. The author simply suggest that, well seems that the CM's handles participants and review every posts to determine if qualified, then might as well give credits to those members that deserve to have merits. And if he doesn't finds one then don't give any. But I hardly believe that they won't find anyone who's worthy.

Merit will come by patience and quality - no need for such things, instead have some more btc as the reward

Its not a good idea as it would be simply of no help to newbies because they cant take part in signature campaigns

How hard is it for you to become a Junior members. You just need 30 activity for this and no merits at all. I think it is good that newbies have to wait for about a month before leveling up. This way they can know about the forum rules and also about the signature campaigns.

Some of the signature campaigns are also accepting junior members and thus, you can later participate in them.  It is sad to see most of the members just concerned about their own merit or rank and no one is worried about how can this forum move forward.

Just take a look at this guy here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=976210) for an example. He was once a newbie and yet doesnt even care about signature campaign. Hes getting merits because he contributed a lot to the forum and basically "godlike" at what he is saying. If you really want to get merit then follow the path that this guy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=976210) is taking. Contribute more to the forum and definitely you will be rewarded with merits.

---

Before you think on how you can get to a signature campaign to get merit, simple think first on how you can help and contribute something worthy to the forum. Being a newbie rank is not discriminating at all when you have the proper knowledge like him (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=976210).

Indeed. There are some managers that are just calling themselves manager but the real thing is that they are not really a manager since they are not doing their job, what job? A manager should strictly observe the behavior of his applicants, checking post quality, checking their post if it was posted on the right time and not doing burst posting and so on, but what is happening is the opposite.

They are not doing their right job, they are just looking if his applicants hit the required post per week(not judging his applicants post quality) but just ignoring it so his job would be easy, also just to call himself a "Manager".

Merit rewards for bounty campaigns is effectively the same as eliminating Net Neutrality.

Let's be rational and balanced.

I think this is a great idea, to incentivize more constructive posts that also stay on point. But here are my questions & suggestions:

1. Will the one merit be given per post or per week (i.e. based on total posts for that week)?

2. Only campaign managers with a good track record should pilot this system, after all they have some credibility.

With this system, Jnr and Newbie members can have a strong future in campaigns, after all they don't make as much as the others. Thus, when upcoming campaigns come thru, the campaign managers can look at thier merit score vis-a-vis their rank level and award them a spot in the campaign .

Its been a great idea. It could help members to become positive . If a campaign manager , possibly give or share his available merits to the members by his choice, then everybody Will be glad to know that their posts are being recognized and it will push them to be more resourseful especially those members who still wanted to join in this forum , eventhough theres a lot of changes now regarding the merit system that challenges the new members.

Its true! Not all of us here in forum can make 25 "quality" post a week since most of people are here for just several hours unlike those managers and DT members. That is why I suggest that in a signature campaign, if you are a member or below, the recommended post is 15 post a week to ensure the quality of the post.

Some of the signature campaigns here allow up to 60 posts a week and some members are able to manage that. I know that one cannot not make so many high quality posts unless he is doing this full time. But I mean those signature campaigns must be benefiting from those posts as they are paying for them for quite long turn. Why will they keep paying the participants without any returns. Regarding this thing affecting the forum , all those submissions are checked by the campaigns manager and he counts only valid responses.

Participating in bounty campain means advertising of ICO, manager, other what ever you wish. What will promote participant in bounty campain, which was sugested by you? Your idea is good for advesrtising forum at other sourses

good idea, for a bounty hunter, follow the signature campaign. with the reward sMerit then will improve the quality of the post the better and kontruktif.
But the problem is Bounty manager has limited sMerit, let alone the newbie user does not have merit.
There may be a special team to distribute merit on each project.

I strongly agree with your suggestion, give smerit to the build post, for the signature participants.
and it's done by the project development team. and also reports directly to a moderator of a post that is considered spam.
I am sure that this rule will make this forum clean from shitposter!

That's not a bad idea at all especially for the beginners like Jr member to rank up and it's hard for them to get the chance to have merits or even to see if they are eligible to have some for their work, Indeed managers should behave like every user in the forum, give merits and recieve as well, but do you think that a manager of a campaign includes 100 members for example to check every post of every individual , with 25 post required every week, that means 2500 posts to verify ? besides do they actually have enough merits to be fair with everyone ?

Not a bad idea but I think you should think for something that will help the newbie join these programs for earning merits quickly

I've seen some signature campaigns already implemented to give merits . .  But some of them requiring higher ranks like full member to legendary only.. Anyway, nice suggestions you got there. We'll gonna post constructive posts and they'll gonna review it, so it's valid to give merits. Hope managers will review this.

Not a bad idea at all. But will manager enforce it?

I can't see any signature campaign that gives merit to their participants, its because smerit of each one have a limit. Aside on that managers are not required/forced to give smerit to their participants, because it was voluntary given to the post who have high quality. But if the manager's of the signature campaign decided to give smerit as a reward it is depend to him/her, also maybe they had a lot of time to reviewed the post quality of their participants.

It is a good suggestion but it is hard to happen.

Campaign managers give merit for the post of members that they know it was more constructive and very helpful to many members of the forum. But managers wont gives merit to all participants of the campaign because some of the participants are not contributed well in the community. Merit was given for the deserving post of the members and not at giveaway for the successful campaign.

No I don't need merits, yea if you would have said that reward amount of btcs be doubled thenn it was ok

the number of campaign managers is not proportional to the number of signature campaign participants, and certainly takes a lot of merits to meet the plan you describe it. In addition, this can trigger off the signature campaign from its purpose.

I guess that might no be possible as smerit isn't infinite each member has a limited number of sMerits thst he can reward so there will be a point of time where the manager would run out of sMerits and he would be blamed for not distributing the rewards for the signature campaign. The payments that are given to the members are given by the owner of the ICOs but in case if it is decided to reward merit it is the manager who would have to become the source the give merits, here the owners of the ICO can't do anything to give smerits.

In my opinion, this is an excellent idea and, no, I'm not saying this because of my low rank...  :D

Having said that, the campaign manager must be a source of merits obviously, so he can have unlimited merits to give to people who deserve them. Secondly, he must also have the time and the will to do this time-consuming task.

I've noticed that some of the members replying here don't exactly get what you're trying to convey to them, but I did.

So here's the thing, I think the OP just suggested that since the managers manages signature or bounty campaigns when they review posts for their participants they will somehow came upon a good post or a quality post, that may deserve merit. Meaning, its not an obligation, it will always depend on the managers perspective, if they didn't find any then don't reward them. No loss, as simple as that.

I don't know why's the OP not active but anyway, I will be the one providing you links that might help you earn merits quickly.

First of, you should read this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1689727.0). After you read that thread, you should go here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2605767.msg26517436#msg26517436), by then you will be more familiar with the new system.

So about the advice, I would recommend reading these posts I'm sure they will make you motivated and have ideas about you earning Merits:
Jet Cash (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2890454.msg29711248#msg29711248)
Jet Cash (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2832018.msg32012699#msg32012699)
EthanB (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2890454.msg29725564#msg29725564)

---

I think it is not intended to enforced by the managers, its just incentives, so they've been told.

I personally think that this should be allowed, so long as its not abused. However, it leads to a paradox, whereby people who deserve merit would probably be receiving it already, and have high enough post quality to be eligible for the campaign. Whereas those with poor post quality, probably wouldn't get chosen by the campaign as nobody wants to be advertised by a shit poster. Hence they won't actually earn merit that helps them rank up.

I think it could be a useful additional reward, particularly for the top posters of the campaign. But certainly not as the sole reward for the campaign, as that is analogous to trading merit to some degree.

What a great proposal! I agree yo you, campaign managers are qualified to give smerits since they are the one who check the quality of posts of their participants and besides, they already have a basis for accusing what is a trash account or not by looking into their SMAS blacklist, therefore, identifying shitty posters out there are easier. If ever this proposal be implemented, I suggest that every rank could be able to receive an amount of merits within a certain limit, it will not work as an extra reward since participants still need to prove to the campaign manager that they deserve the merit points.

I'm just worrying about something, I know that several of well known campaign managers here already have some couple of merits but I wonder if their smerits are enough to allcocate for their participants. That would be a problem because if the campaign manager only pick someone for his smerits, others might get jelous knowing the fact that they also made quality posts but received nothing in return.

I agree in your idea,because as of now many members stuck in their rank because of merits, it hard to get even a single merits from the other,because many members they try to make their good and helpul post for the reason they got merited by the other,we all know merits is very important to us to rank up but sad to say no one notice to their post for the reason there is so many post in the forum, that's why if the CM think that idea and they include that merits in the signature campaign as bonus or other campaign its very helpful to all members to rank up including my self.

If those members remains in their current its because, they're not making posts that other people find very helpful or informative. Therefore, even if you construct a great post you still need some a little bit of skill in making posts. May that be proper grammar, some images, infographs, etc.

Merit is important in way not only for you to rank up, but also because by earning merit it reflects that you're good at what you're doing; you're being helpful and informative.

If you really wanted to rank up, don't just rely on other people giving away Merit, you really need to step up your game.

Actually that is a good opinion. Where higher rank will give you merits for the signature campaign and those higher rank that will give merits are will recieve tokens in the signature campaign

As sig campaigns seem to be the magnet that pulls all the rubbish posters to the forum, and that many people think that sig campaigns should be banned, or at least subject to strict vetting, I think that all campaign managers should have their ability to award merit or sMerit blocked. There is too much of a conflict of interest, and too much obvious abuse associated with these campaigns.