Bitcoin Forum

Due to the existence of a widespread problem in the forum which is  " the shitposters"  and always present in signature campaigns, also their only goal is to make money in an easy way.

So I suggest an idea and probably it will be  a temporary solution to this issue.

In each signature  campaign there will be  a manager and  a  " controller " ( elite people) , and the mission of this controller is  to monitor the posts  of each member of the campaign  before the paydays and giving a percentage ( % ) on the quality of posts and some behaviours ( like,  posts in megathreads..).
And for example, If someone takes less than 60% , then he/she will be out of the campaign and without payment.

I propose that the moderators will choose those controllers.

In addition to that, anyone who wants a signature campaign for their project ( ICO ) , he/she should look for a manager and a controller.


What do you think guys?

Campaign managers are already a thing and there's already enough of them anyway. Some of them are good and some of them aren't. The staff aren't likely to get involved so heavily by selecting members that are and aren't allowed to run campaigns because it would likely be open to complaints and accusations about them selecting people because they like them etc.

There's already rules in place in most signature campaigns that require quality posts and none of them should be in the megathreads it's not the problem about the lack of rules it's the managers not enforcing it because they accept work which they simply can't look after.

I think campaign manager have thought it very well before start the signature campaign, they have own rules and requirement to looking for the participants.
and talking about shitposters, I have seen many spreadsheet of signature campaign, there is I found the participants who don't have enough quality post can't be qualify to get the payment or stakes.
Every Good ICO, there we can find good management to manage the project, seem like choose participants for signature campaign. If the management pay shitposters for signature campaign, that's meaning the campaign not good enough, and I think this is a misery for their own project.

That is the task of a campaign manager infact in one bounty there is not only 1 who handle the bounties they maybe 2 or 3 but they still cant hanlde the situation about the spampost and that is also why they require 70-100 characted per post but still this it dont affect anything.

Its really too hard to check everyones post on each bounty we cant blame bounty managers and assistants about that try to put yourself on their situation.

And also I think theres no need for this we already have the merit system.

I dont think any moderator would like to do this type of work beyond the scope of their daily work here. In fact the admins have their hands full with cleaning up the shitposter poop and vomit in the forum and another scrutinizing work like this is demanding if not a burden.

Managers themselves scrutinize the posts and keep an eye on all posters. Any shitposts in mega-threads are not counted by some managers and some managers have rules about the interval between posts as well. Overall they are best people to look over this issue and dragging another person for this would be a waste of time.

Yes, may I believe on this that it too hard for them to spot shitposter, but that is part of their task to spot and eliminate shitposter I saw that most CM's are having feedback on the spreadsheet after the weekend grading.
Meanwhile, we have a new rule merit system I think it is the way to force them to have a good quality post in order to get a single smerit.

Or maybe they will lessen the weekly count post instead of 25 posts per week just make it 15 posts per week but 200 characters per post in signature campaign.
Haha, that was only my suggestion, then correct me if I'm wrong.

That is why the managers are picky with their participants for the signature campaigns.Only quality enough posters will have the chance to participate in signature campaigns.But what about the bounties all of the people wholapplied will get selected so they need to change that kind of system in bounties can help to reduce shitposts.Bounties also can have fixed participants is a good option.And decreasing the minimum post count can decrease the shit posts too but the main aim of campaign is advertising their project so they don't care about shit posts at all.

I don't agree with that.
No one does it for free, but they all get paid for doing so. So I don't think any manager should/can make the excuse that checking all the posts is a difficult task, and that is why they just pay everyone regardless of the quality of their posts. If a bounty/campaign has users with even less than 30% quality posts a week and are still getting paid for that then I think the only person to be blamed is the manager in that case.

Are these elite people not duplicating the job of the Campaign manager's assistants that already exist?

While I am not exonerating some managers, I think majority of them are doing their best. You need to take a look at the spreadsheets of the various campaigns and see where the managers do not hesitate to warn or punish campaign defaulters.

I think you are looking for a teacher/ professor not a manager?
Manager manage the campaign and not a professor to tell the participants you have the maintaining grades. Below the said grades will be cast out!

Another responsibility to the manager and it could be another problem to arose.

I don't see this as a horrible idea, but it's never going to actually happen IMO because of the logistical difficulties in getting it implemented.  There are a lot of other things that can go seriously wrong, too, but the main thing would be getting campaigns to spend more money than they already are for the campaigns. 

Theymos probably should tighten up what's required to run a signature campaign or bounty on bitcointalk, because the standards are way too low.  I see users like Hhampuz (most recently), Lutpin, Yahoo62278, Lauda, and Joel_Jantsen (briefly when he ran campaigns) trying to run them with an eye toward blotting out garbage posters, but they're not required to do that.  I think all managers should be held to stricter standards, but Theymos has thus far not done anything of the sort.