Bitcoin Forum

Good Day to everyone.
I would like to know if it is a must to add merit count requirements when participating into a campaign, I mean is it better to hire applicants with merits or by basing on their quality post? I have seen yahoo62278 start to come up with the idea of accepting applicants with merits for high payments  but also accepted applicants without merits since the merit feature is fresh.

For clarification, do managers have to hire applicants with merits in a must or not?

Please do correct me if I'm wrong or if I have said something unnecessary.
Thanks for the consideration.

Currently it is not compulsory. But with so many members competing, we can see merit as requirement as well for participating in signature campaigns.

It's not much required but soon it will be compulsory to participate in the signature campaign and it can only be earned through quality post made in the threads.
The merit will help judging the best with those who actually make irrelevant or off topic posts.

For clarification, the merit system has been implemented to curb the shitposters and account farmers. This forum was the garbage can for the oneliner shitposters to farm accounts - because earlier the post count and activity was what was necessary for ranking up.

Managers like yahoo are very much in agreement with this since they also want quality posters here and not shitposters obviously. If he applies this rule is signature campaigns then its a good move on his part.

Good evening.
No.
No. IMHO It should be based on their post quality not merits.
He can do whatever he wants to do, he is signature campaign manager. He can kick you without any reason and he doesn't have to explain anything and he doesn't need to explain rules of his campaign to anyone.
No. But if they do - their campaign their rules.

---

Competing? You guys really don't get it, do you?

---

No it won't. You can write hundred shitposts and create one nice and constructive topic and receive merits for it.

Although it would have been unfair to those people who are really posting qualitative and constructive post but are not getting credit for it, because of the limited number s-merits sendable or they only select the members that they like. But that's life we would need to embrace and accept the challenge, but for me it is much needed for ranking up not necessarily for joining any campaigns but it would be a great help for managers if he/she requires it.

I also heard that such requirement is our nearly future. I guess it is going to be very common for well paid campaigns, but bounties will stay more loyal as usual. The necessary minimum to enter a signature campaign is goin to be the same as all old users got automatically after merit was involved (member - 10, full member - 50 and so on), se we have nothing to worry about, but new users have.

Managers like yahoo62278 are only trying to impose what's bitcoin forum required users to have. If campaigns will accept participants whether they have no merit at all people will not be obliged to work on their post quality and continue doing what they want. The merit system was implemented to control the forum and it should be applied even in campaigns or any business inside this site.

This is kind of a chicken and the egg problem - Campaigns just won't accept participants that can't have links on their banners - which will then push value of said accounts upwards and discourage users from giving out merit. So in the context of campaigns, merit is not a well thought out concept at all.

Hmm yes true the low ranks

Which then increases the value of said accounts (the low ranks?) Why though? If what i understand was correct, then you're contradicting what you've said.

Ah mixed that up, meant to say it will greatly push up the value of accounts that can actually participate in these campaigns.

A second point is that this creates a flow of merit to people that already have merit, because lower ranked individuals that get sMerit will likely give to higher ranked users for a chance of reciprocated merit.

First of all imho sig bounty participants are getting payed for renting their signature and avatar space and the amount of the ads that could be placed there is limited by the rank, making overpayments for merited ones (like yahoo did in one of his campaigns) is just a sign of a good will from the side of the project. Anyway you need to get merits if you need to change your rank. Bounty managers are still have to check the post history of their applicants so it doesn't look like merit brings any significant changes.

I see this kind of requirement in every campaign in a good way, because it really enhances to all to come up with quality posts. With these also, participants are really assess how far they know about the crypto currency.

It will reduce the spam and shitposting in the forum which is all that happens everyday. We come here for a discussion on bitcoin or so and get the threads derailed by third world shitposters and scumbag account farmers to "I think its good" and "bitcoin is good" aka padded posts.

"Pushing the value of said accounts" - what exactly are you trying to imply? I believe you have connections to the people associated with buying and selling of accounts.

Nobody discorages users to give away merits - but the post must be convincing enough and engaaging to "gather" merit.

The opposite. The shitcampaigns run by alt-rings will slow down.

It is a good idea but there is one downside to this. If there is requirement like having at least 1-2 earned merits, we will see members buying these if they have not got any for their posts.

Following their rules and regulations must have no problem,I think yahoo wants us to improved  our post to be constructive and helpful in the forum.We should learn more to avoid shitposting and off topic to make  a high paid in signature campaign and also to gained more knowledge in crypto.

I think it will be difficult to get merit, especially for me who is new in this forum, I do not know how to get merit. very detrimental to new accounts if bounty payments are based on merit.

Very detrimental indeed. ???

This was precisely the reason why the merit system was added. People who come to this forum with a hundred alt accounts to claim shitcoins airdrops and bounties.

Grow your account by making quality posts as simple as that.

Based on this idiotic thread, I think that I should increase the merit requirement for Full Member and above by another 1-2 hundred. Stop opening threads and asking reasonably stupid questions, such as this one:

---

Nice merit farm you've created over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2827352.0. I can't believe how many users fell for that.

There is no such requirement at the moment but campaign managers can make their additional rules. Merit would be helpful for them to identify the quality posters.


Yes, that was good experiment at the current situation. if any user has less merit then it doesn't mean that they are shitposters, sometimes good posts are getting ignored and they receive less or no merit.


No, its not compulsory. Campaign managers can include anyone if they identify them as a good poster.

Managers can put whatever restrictions they want on users to join their campaign. I think post history/quality is more important than merits, but I'm all for anything that restricts lazy spammers from getting onto campaigns, but merely having merits shouldn't be the definitive factor on who can join especially if their posts aren't as good as somebody else who has less merits. Sadly, it won't really matter though because there are always going to be dozens of crapcoin campaigns run by people who don't care at all and will accept anyone regardless of quality.

Wholy shit. What a shitty topic which received 22 Merits totally (only counting the OP of the topic). The guy is smart, but not smart enough as he/she imagined.
Over time, spammers and merit farms will be destroyed entirely by merit system.
After farming accounts, now we have merit farms, merit trades, which should be taken into consideration.

Merits will not become what trust has.

Trust is given freely and costs the user nothing.

sMerits are not free - everyone has a limit on how much they can send.  They will eventually run out.

Only the sources can continue to send sMerit as they see fit - and those will be identified and flagged by members if they abuse it, which should lead to Theymos removing them as a source.

Well, i think if some manager apply merit as their requirement for someone to apply, it is a good thing, since merit indicates that person is worthy of good posts. And looking from the trend, i guess it will happen often in the future, and the requirement will be a lot higher than what we have now.
But it is all up to the manager of the project to decide, without or with merit, now all people in this forum will likely only make not-spammy posts.

Maybe that's the good idea, but it's too early to imposed that merit system to signature campaign some of those members did not have merit received from the high rank members here. Well, they are right, respect of what is the decisions of sir yahoo's rule in his campaign and i think he was right to reduced some spammer from signature campaign members.
Hopefully some CM's are giving chance for this merit system  to the participants it's too early to imposed that, but their decisions was highly respected on us.