Show Posts
The only real point you made is that a company is paying a maximum amount per user. However this is for budging purposes and it serves no other purpose when looked at on a per account basis.
Why it is bad to allow people to enroll with multiple accounts (in the same or different signature campaigns) has probably been discussed heavily in several threads. Simply put, one is 'incentivized' to post much more than they can handle (in 'constructive' way). This leads to a consistent drop in their posting quality which has a detrimental effect on the forum. We've surely seen a lot of useful posts in threads such as "If you had X Bitcoin, what would you do?".This is the fault of the company for having a bad screening process. The solution is for the company to use a better screening process that excludes those who will make poor quality posts.
I think you should ask for an username change to QuickColumbus.You have still not given an explanation why alts should not be allowed in signature campaigns that does not involve you farming trust, and does not involve the campaign manager to do a better job in screening applicants. The campaign manager should exclude potential participants that will make lower quality posts despite incentives to make more posts.
Additionally, the majority of campaigns do not have rules against having one account in one campaign and another account in a second campaign, both owned by the same person, making your point further moot. In this situation, the incentives to make more posts are still there.
Also Lauda, unlike you, I do not resort to making immature personal attacks, and trolling those I feel are vulnerable in order to try to get those debating with me to stop responding to my comments.
Farming a signature campaign is a bit different, because it's usually against the campaign rules,
This is an arbitrary rule that serves no business purpose. If a business is paying 0.1BTC in exchange for 50 posts over a month (or during a month), and if 100 posts are made during that month, then it does not make a difference if two people made those posts, or if one person across two accounts made those posts, as the company is receiving the same exposure. Using a "fixed rate" signature campaign also makes much more sense then starting a "pay per post" signature campaign as the company will know exactly how much they will spend on signature advertising, and will generally know how much exposure they will receive. For example if a company uses a "pay per post" signature campaign, then everyone might not make the maximum number of posts, resulting in less exposure then anticipated, and if the company tires to guess the average number of posts each participant will make, and is wrong, then the company may end up going over budget. If one person takes up two spots in a "fixed rate" signature campaign, then the company will spend the same amount of money in exchange for the same amount of advertising as if two people were taking up two spots.
I've been reading this Quickseller vs Lauda argument and just wanted to point out that you seem to be talking about two different problems here. One is joining multiple signature campaigns with your alts, which IMO should be allowed,
If we consider the fact that there's a posting quota for signature campaigns, then we can consider that over all the campaigns, the posting quality in general for the user is inversely proportional to the amount of alts that are registered in campaigns. Say you have 50 posts to make in the month vs 500 posts to make in the month. Do you really think that someone replying will be able to pump out such a massive amount with the same amount of post quality (given that it was high) as a user who would only need to post 50 times?
