There’s a lot of instances and you are one of this user that benefited on this merit circle jerking. You only sighted an exception but most of the time those high merits got accepted. You are one of those user that has a post on middle page yet you receive merit out of nowhere from your gang.

Also the posting pattern of “want something” on bitcoin discussion or beginners & help is your gang favorite post because merit source preferred this dramatic post.


Not distributed by merit source yet most of the smerit sender merit came from merit source by doing same post pattern. Most of this jerker is on Duelbits and Rollbit.

@Hhampuz is always a victim of this merit circle jerk because he usually accept participants based on the number of earned merit counts alone.

This farmer buddies is having a sweet payday on Hhampuz arms. Not only from this locale but in general. Usual pattern is WO, All merit source thread and local merit thread. There’s a lot of this gang. Check this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=886039. Some user that gave him merit woke up just to send him a merit.

Because obviously you didn’t know what valid document is. A payslip is not official receipt since you just printed it on your own. You can freely fake all the details you right in there.

Does notarizing the documents is not an option given by Stake?

Facts, I already have 1 neutral feedback due to this DT personal view towards my action. Weak has no voice here. As if my feedback will matter here.

The only reason why this user is not -ve tagged is because of his previous action towards other user abusing the campaign that is now bombarded by negative tag by breaking campaign rules only. What if this user got busted first on doing this stuff? I’m sure he will suffer same treatment.

This is the double standard I’m talking on my post. This issue is same cheating but why this user get away with soft neutral tag?

I’m not DT either on my main account. But why you can’t? This is a clear cheating. Maybe because this user is on your soft side?

Here we go again with the double standard. A multiple account cheating on campaign deserves a negative feedback while an AI generated post will walk away with just 1 neutral tag.

Both multiple account and AI generated text rules are both set by campaign manager only.

Multiple account - Post an organic post for quota to qualified payment.

AI generated text - Use of this tool because user is lazy.

This user earned money through lazy tools while multiple account post with effort.


Now this user is already applying on other campaign like nothing happened.  



Scam buster what? If his recent action on busting campaign cheating is scam therefore he is scammer too because he cheat on campaigns.

This analogy means we should not give red trust on spammer and multi account cheater because they didn't stole money.

I'm not trying to single out Little mouse here. I didn’t mention any name of the campaign for the sake of discussion. Even Royse777 campaigns have this kind of rules about discouraging the minimum post quota behaviour. You can check it for yourself as you are already with his campaign.

Ignore my credibility and focus on the subject matter. I'm not active Bitcointalk user but I usually check services board for signature campaign news. If I'm an active user here hence I will notice immediately my issue on my trust feedback.

I only noticed this quirk rules starting to enforce by some campaign manager.

@little mouse this topic is not about you. It's about the general discussion of services. You are not the only one enforced this kind of rules.

I will lock this thread already. I use the distrust feature of the forum to solve my problem. I'm not using this account to deal on any forum businesses.

Thanks everyone.

I will if he will just continue the argument and not use the trust system to retaliate on what I said. He is DT and I'm not. Retaliating trust feedback is useless.
~

He is the one who started mocking on my opinion against his suggestion. He laugh at me while giving a comment on his suggestion.

@Pmalek, Your opinion over my argument doesn't related on my concern. He started the mock on my comment instead of making an argument. How come I become the arrogant here for replying to his mock post. Legendary and DT are untouchable by newbie?

Flow of conversation.

Done

My concern is not burst posting but minimum post requirements. I don't want to quote managers announcement to pay respect but some of them are requiring user to post above minimum post requirements.

I'm not convincing managers to believe me. I'm trying to determine the exact logic for obligating user to post above minimum requirements.

Right, How come my inactivity is connected to my opinion.

Thanks for all the replies.

My concern is how can I be not trusted for pointing out a valid argument. The campaign is public while I just give my opinion.

I have a thick skin but how can I not be trusted for having that kind of argument. I only emphasize his self interest towards his suggestion to manager at that time for choosing participants.

This means a DT can give feedback like this whoever user that against his opinion? I didn’t deal with him to begin with.

~

I'm willing to apologize if my words was rude to him. But he should do the same for sending this feedback.

I understand the premise of your logic. What I'm asking it does user here normally make 25 post per week without any subscription on signature campaign?

If being natural is what the campaign manager wants. Removing the post quota is the answer.

Can you keep posting above 25 post per week without signature campaign to give joy in the forum?

What do you think the right post quota per week?


I read some campaign manager sentiment about this issue. Forcing their participants post above the minimum post requirements they set by themselves. If they want a higher post quota participants, They should increase the minimum post requirements or make the campaign rate per post without any consequences for posting low but quality post.

I'm confused on the minimum post requirements rules. I saw many users being remove on the campaign by posting within the quota.



_{Without rules we are nothing but animals. -Socrates}

I will be honest, This is my dummy account that means I'm not using this frequently. I'm surprised now that I have neutral feedback for having an argument with @bitbollo while I have a proper justification on my side. He is clearly bullying my account by using his rank and trust system.

I'm not informed that talking with expressive words is worthy to have a neutral feedback. He is using my inactivity to justify his feedback for my argument with him.



He is hypocrite for accusing me for using aggresive words while he starts this kind of conversation.

It's funny how you react like that while neglecting my argument that I point out.  What a pity. 

The result is in your favor. No need to be a clown. 

Sandbox was used by many game developers already while Apecoin is a rising star on metaverse. Both project is good but I will still choose Sandbox over Ape because of its established reputation.

Not positng doesn't mean I'm not updated. I'm an ETH holder since 2016.

You can start counting all your merits from gambling board to disproves my opinion. Since you join on this campaign how much merit you get on gambling board?

Only true if the merits that you get is from the gambling thread and not on other thread that is not related on gambling because this campaign is a Casino and you know how hard to get merit on gambling board.

Ico fails for too many reasons, and one of this is due to the idea of the project. It might already be used or there is already an alike platform that uses such a project. Investors didn't see a reason to invest again over the same thing.

I'm coming back to buy more coins at this dip, even joining bounties again. I feel that the next pump of the market is going near that investing now is a good decision to do especially in bitcoin and in ETH.