Merit rewards for Signature Campaigns!

[Adioliver]

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.

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.

[1714003599]

1714003599

[1714003599]

1714003599

[1714003599]

1714003599

[FlightyPouch]

Still participants shouldn't hold back their smerits,we can still see that people aren't ready to give their smerits easily.

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.

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.

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.

[sheenshane]

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.

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.

[NoNetwork]

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

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.

[cramcram21]

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:

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.

OR,
As many as the CMs wants.

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.

[NoNetwork]

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.

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.

[Jet Cash]

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.

[NoNetwork]

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.

[Mind Control]

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.

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.

[Shitcointalk]

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).

[snowblack]

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.

[chubbyTubby]

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.

[NoNetwork]

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).

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.

[krishnaverma]

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.

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.

[Kim Ji Won]

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.

[n0ne]

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.

[Emilyearl]

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.

[UsernameBitcoin]

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.

[rhamzter]

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.

[pixie85]

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.