[SUGGESTION] Minimum Merit Required for Signature Campaigns

[ajiejot]

I just want to share my idea  for bounty managers conducting signature campaigns. This could be help to minimize spammers in this forum.

What if there are minimum merits required for each participant ? Based on their rank.
If I were the company , I would be glad if the one who wears the signature has lot of merits.

Just what like yahoo66278 signature campaign

Rates
Member- .002/week Must have 15 merit to apply
Full Member- .004/week Must have 120 Merit to apply
Sr- .006/week Must have 275 merit to apply
Hero/Legendary- .008/week Must have 525 merit to apply if hero 1025 merit to apply if Legendary

and by izanagi narukami

We Are looking for :
5 HERO/LEGENDARY at least 510 Merit
5 SENIOR at least 260 Merit
10 FULL MEMBER at least 110 Merit

In this way, we can prevent some shitposters or spammers in the forum. I believe that there are lot of people using this forum just to earn money only and violating the rules because of greediness.


Is it a better idea? What are your thoughts?

[1715556405]

1715556405

[1715556405]

1715556405

[1715556405]

1715556405

[1715556405]

1715556405

[pkmoney]

Idea is really good one.
However, we can't stop spammers in this way. Lots of people are selling merit. Those who are here for signature bounty will manage to get required merits. It will increase merit abusing too.
Also, spammers with higher rank own a lot of alt accounts. So, it will be easy for them while people who don't have alt, will suffer most.
Finally, we are giving priority to the spammers again. Only they will be able to earn huge.

[LoyceV]

Decent campaign managers already don't accept spammers. The merit system even makes their job easier, as they have to check less posts histories.

When it comes to enforcing it, I think theymos chooses freedom over restrictions:

The things on the forum which encourage spam are allowed mainly because it's part of the forum's mission to be as free as possible. Eg. banning bounties would undoubtedly reduce spam, but that'd be destroying an entire economy/population/culture which has been able to develop due to the forum's freedom. I am willing to take this sort of action, but only as an absolute last resort. It's always preferable to handle these problems by reshaping the environment to make them non-problems, rather than removing some freedom.

[coinlocket$]

This is a great idea BUT we know the human's nature and this will increase the merit market.

[KevinHD]

I just want to share my idea  for bounty managers conducting signature campaigns. This could be help to minimize spammers in this forum.

What if there are minimum merits required for each participant ? Based on their rank.
If I were the company , I would be glad if the one who wears the signature has lot of merits.

Just what like yahoo66278 signature campaign

Rates
Member- .002/week Must have 15 merit to apply
Full Member- .004/week Must have 120 Merit to apply
Sr- .006/week Must have 275 merit to apply
Hero/Legendary- .008/week Must have 525 merit to apply if hero 1025 merit to apply if Legendary

and by izanagi narukami

We Are looking for :
5 HERO/LEGENDARY at least 510 Merit
5 SENIOR at least 260 Merit
10 FULL MEMBER at least 110 Merit

In this way, we can prevent some shitposters or spammers in the forum. I believe that there are lot of people using this forum just to earn money only and violating the rules because of greediness.

Is it a better idea? What are your thoughts?

All great idea yet some users who posts with pure and high quality doesn't even get some spotlights to be merited. Nowadays, its hard to gain merits whenever you try your best and whenever you make or start any threads.

[ajiejot]

Idea is really good one.
However, we can't stop spammers in this way. Lots of people are selling merit. Those who are here for signature bounty will manage to get required merits. It will increase merit abusing too.
Also, spammers with higher rank own a lot of alt accounts. So, it will be easy for them while people who don't have alt, will suffer most.
Finally, we are giving priority to the spammers again. Only they will be able to earn huge.

This is a great idea BUT we know the human's nature and this will increase the merit market.

All great idea yet some users who posts with pure and high quality doesn't even get some spotlights to be merited. Nowadays, its hard to gain merits whenever you try your best and whenever you make or start any threads.

Exactly! We can not totally control it but we can manage it to minimize the spammers in this forum.
@KevinHD, I agree to you that it's hard to gain merits whenever you try your best, but for me, it is still the best to make quality posts everytime, not only for merits but it's still for our own good.

Decent campaign managers already don't accept spammers. The merit system even makes their job easier, as they have to check less posts histories.

Yes, merit system is one of the best help for every campaign managers to identify spammers or shitposters, through their merit at the registration, they can decide if they are spammers.


Thank you for all your replies, I am still waiting for some veterans or expert bounty managers to share their ideas about this. This thread is only my suggestion.

[Jet Cash]

All great idea yet some users who posts with pure and high quality doesn't even get some spotlights to be merited. Nowadays, its hard to gain merits whenever you try your best and whenever you make or start any threads.

It isn't really hard to get merits, but in order to receive them you need to get your post read. One of the things that turns me off is the sight of a long quote or list of quotes, especially if it is a full quote of the opening post. I usually just skip the post without looking for the comment ( if any ).

I read you post to enable me to make this comment, otherwise I would have skipped over it.

One tip I used to give to sales trainees is to put themselves in the place of the prospective buyer. If you think about the things that would encourage you to buy, then you can adjust your sales pitch to optimise your chances. The same thing applies with merits. Think of yourself as a merit awarder, and then look at your post. If it doesn't provide any value - then no merits. If it is badly written, and you didn't bother to check for spelling errors -then no meits. If you are rude about the system or the merit awarders - then no merits.

I'm sure you can think of many other reasons for your post being ignored, just try to minimise them, and you will find that you will start to receive merits.

[Thirdspace]

I just want to share my idea  for bounty managers conducting signature campaigns. This could be help to minimize spammers in this forum.

What if there are minimum merits required for each participant ? Based on their rank.

good idea for reducing spammers but main goal of signature campaign is maximum exposure
and seasoned bounty managers already have their own ways to sort out spammers

I would think limiting participants on bounty and signature campaign might be an option
managers should allow a user to participate only on one category: (social media) bounties or signature campaign
if such things enforced, we might see less bounty hunters spammer trying to rank up for better sig camp pay rate

so each user would be compelled to choose path as social media specialist or forum signature specialist
social media specialist (bounty hunters) doesn't need forum rank and activity to apply
their social media specs: friends, followers, etc will be used to gauge their capabilities

this probably creates new issue of multiple accounts, 1 real user creates 2 accounts for each purpose

[CryptoAssasin]

This idea was always being raised but my vote is in favor with this recommendations. Shit posters actually are the zombies of this forum where they only commented on a post just to reach a specific number of activity to rank up to jr member and be eligible for bounty signature. If this recommendation will be considered to most bounty managers, those shit posters will try harder to gain merits and will be more interested sharing their knowledge and skills to others.

[Taki]

Sometimes even that not enough for managers of campaigns. Iznagi Narukami didn't take me into his campaign only because of Ive got 8 merits per one post from one user, like it's my fault that person counted my post deserved for 8 merits at once.
Generally I think such practice is going to be usual and minimal required merits is going to raise.

[Joel_Jantsen]

I have seen some exceptional posters and some good quality posts without any merits. If I had to manage any campaigns, merits wouldn't be the criteria for me to judge a person's post quality. You might have come cross trolls/one line shit posts with high number of merit points and that doesn't count as constructive posting to me. Highly subjective topic again.

[Jet Cash]

Using merit restrictions is an easy way for a lazy manager to appear to be doing his job.

[kiemnhieutien]

The purpose of a bounty campaign is to advertise a project so they don't need a minimum merits required for each participant. All bounty campaigns require their participants to make meaningful posts, spam post will not be counted, so smart bounty hunters will not spam or make shitposts, and spammers will be nature eliminated. If bounty hunters do their job well, they deserve to receive rewards.

[Jet Cash]

The purpose of a bounty campaign is to advertise a project

You see that is the root of the problem. The purpose of a bounty campaign should be to promote a project, not just to advertise it.

[xtraelv]

The purpose of a bounty campaign is to advertise a project

You see that is the root of the problem. The purpose of a bounty campaign should be to promote a project, not just to advertise it.

You are absolutely right. There is nothing that screams "SCAM" more than an army of shills that spam "good project" or "XYZ shitcoin is going to the moon".

I take more notice of one decent poster than 10000 obvious shills. The shills can even drown out the good posts that actually help the project.

[Silent26]

It's a good idea. But, lets tackle about the Quality and Quantity. First not all campaign managers usually in Bounties doesn't really care about the quality of posts. You can find multiple Bounties and campaigns in Altcoins section and they also accepts members who only do shitposts. Because as long as their ICO is being advertised in any way (even their participants are spamming) it's just fine by them.

Second, talking about the "quantity". If ever that all campaigns are requiring a minimum number of Merits for earch rank, the quantity of participants for campaign will decrease because there are only few  members (each rank) who have the amount of Merits required to join a particular campaign. How many campaigns including bounties do we have here in the forum? If all of them requires Merits before getting accepted, number of participants will really decrease but somehow, Managers can assure that posts from their participants will be expectedly "Good Quality posts".

But like what I said, quantity is the basis of some managers not the quality.

[TheUltraElite]

Using merit restrictions is an easy way for a lazy manager to appear to be doing his job.

Actually this topic was brought up a few weeks back and I specifically remember Hilariousetc stating that having a minimum requirement for joining will only encourage people to buy/trade merits.

My take on this is that there are a large number of people who post meaningful content but they dont get merits either because they post in sections where merit sources dont patrol or the merit sources ran out of merits. Bottom line is that we need an increased number of merit sources patrolling every section of the forum if we are to make merit as a "criteria" of being selected as a "good poster".

Due to the subjective nature of merit - this is almost impossible to counter.

[Harlot]

Using merit restrictions is an easy way for a lazy manager to appear to be doing his job.

Actually this topic was brought up a few weeks back and I specifically remember Hilariousetc stating that having a minimum requirement for joining will only encourage people to buy/trade merits.

My take on this is that there are a large number of people who post meaningful content but they dont get merits either because they post in sections where merit sources dont patrol or the merit sources ran out of merits. Bottom line is that we need an increased number of merit sources patrolling every section of the forum if we are to make merit as a "criteria" of being selected as a "good poster".

Due to the subjective nature of merit - this is almost impossible to counter.

Yes I do see that as well. Not to mention that a +10 Merit in difference of their ranks is not that hard to obtain. I mean any account farmer who have at least 1 high ranking alt account can distribute its sMerits to its alt accounts. I am just thinking about the possible scenarios here. I still do see that it is always about the bounty campaign manager and who is and will be accepted in part of their campaign, if they are strict on who will be part of the campaign then minimum merit requirements is not even needed.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

When it comes to enforcing it, I think theymos chooses freedom over restrictions:

Yeah well, you wonder why society has laws.  A small but not insignificant segment of it will try to get away with anything and everything they can, and they make it miserable for everyone else unless they get some consequences thrown in their faces.  If that's how Theymos wants to run his forum, he shouldn't be surprised when the shitposters drive all the constructive ones away, and what he's left with are a bunch of zombie posters all saying the same nonsense in order to advertise shitty ICOs.  Oh, wait.  We're 90% there already.

OP, this idea isn't a new one.  I've suggested it myself in other threads, and there are campaign managers like Yahoo62278 who have already done it.  Theymos doesn't even need to require it.  All it takes is for the managers to want to implement such a thing, and I don't see why they shouldn't.  Seems like a great use of the merit system, though I'm sure we'd be hearing a deafening amount of whining in Meta if shitposters needed a minimum amount in order to get in a campaign.

[ArkiCrypto]

Well It's a great idea to have a minimum required merits in signature campaign because it determines if the certain user is a qualified to be a participants.

But if I think this works only in services section where in the participants are paid by Bitcoin. If you're telling to implement this to the bounties as well I think it's not a good idea because it will result to a merit farming (Using their freaking alts) and buying and selling of merits.

Well it's just according to my perception and perspective.