Signature Campaign which pays for merits?

[kenzawak]

Why is all this necessary ?
How about the BMs just do their jobs, check the posts like they're supposed to and ban the spammers from their campaign ? They're pretty easy to spot.
I don't know how much they're paid but I'm sure it's enough for them to do that simple effort.
You see a guy posting useless stuff in megathreads, you remove him, you see someone saying "great project" or anything similar, you remove him etc...
Why create a rule that will lead to more cheating obviously ?

[1714839998]

1714839998

[1714839998]

1714839998

[1714839998]

1714839998

[1714839998]

1714839998

[JohnUser]

Why is all this necessary ?
How about the BMs just do their jobs, check the posts like they're supposed to and ban the spammers from their campaign ? They're pretty easy to spot.
I don't know how much they're paid but I'm sure it's enough for them to do that simple effort.
You see a guy posting useless stuff in megathreads, you remove him, you see someone saying "great project" or anything similar, you remove him etc...
Why create a rule that will lead to more cheating obviously ?

Indeed !!

And check guys who are red trust by DT. Most don't. (rules say they do it, but you know how it is..)

About twitter ? they don't care, nothing else, 90% twitters posts are made from bots. (yes I know it's not bitcointalk).

And yes... what's about translation ? How many times did I report automated translations..

Reality is that most BM don't have the time to really do their job.

[matthewoz101]

I like how the poster received over 143+ merits from that post alone.

[bitart]

Why is all this necessary ?
How about the BMs just do their jobs, check the posts like they're supposed to and ban the spammers from their campaign ? They're pretty easy to spot.
I don't know how much they're paid but I'm sure it's enough for them to do that simple effort.
You see a guy posting useless stuff in megathreads, you remove him, you see someone saying "great project" or anything similar, you remove him etc...
Why create a rule that will lead to more cheating obviously ?

The bounty managers are paid anyway. Their payment doesn't depend on the quality of the posts of the participants.
If they are lazy enough, they won't care about the post quality...
If those who advertise with the signature campaign would differentiate the payment of the manager based on the post quality, that would be a motivation for the bounty manager to care about quality too.
But, unfortunately those who advertise with the bounty managers, also don't care about quality, just quantity....

[Welsh]

The bounty managers are paid anyway. Their payment doesn't depend on the quality of the posts of the participants.
If they are lazy enough, they won't care about the post quality...
If those who advertise with the signature campaign would differentiate the payment of the manager based on the post quality, that would be a motivation for the bounty manager to care about quality too.
But, unfortunately those who advertise with the bounty managers, also don't care about quality, just quantity....

Wouldn't this require the advertiser to check post quality too, though? Kind of defeating the point of having a campaign manager "manage" the campaign. Well, I guess they still send out payments, but I'm sure if the advertiser is willing to check every single post then they would be willing to send out the payments too, and save themselves some money in hiring a campaign manager.

[9jaflick]

Couple of days ago, I have seen someone sharing such kind of idea. I'm sharing it here just for having some discussion.
I'm not affiliated with this campaign.

Link to the campaign- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2159012.0
Here are some texts from the campaign.

Signature campaign

## Rules

1. This event starts from July 1, 2018 until December 23, 2018; you can joint at any time.
3. Participant requirements:
        - Your bitcointalk account must be registered before June 25, 2018;
        - Your bitcointalk account must have 10+ merits;
        - You need to follow @semuxproject on Twitter;
        - You need to make at least one new post every week on bitcointalk forum (we measure your posts point on Sunday);
        - No spam/multi-account.
4. The rewards will be distributed to participants based on their merit scores:
        - The reward allocation is 20,000 SEM per week;
        - Payments are processed on Sunday.
5. We reserve the right to modify or cancel this event at any time. We reserve the right to refuse participants for any reason.

It's true that there will be less participants as it requires having 10+ merits.
If most campaign managers follow this strategy, will it be efficient for forum or increase merit abusing in the long run?

this is as clearly as it should be, it simply means they don't want Jr members on their signature campaign, they only need member rank and above, to get member rank you must have up to 10 merits

[JohnUser]

this is as clearly as it should be, it simply means they don't want Jr members on their signature campaign, they only need member rank and above, to get member rank you must have up to 10 merits

A fake use of merit as I said and Kenzawak have explain.

The bounty managers are paid anyway. Their payment doesn't depend on the quality of the posts of the participants.
If they are lazy enough, they won't care about the post quality...
If those who advertise with the signature campaign would differentiate the payment of the manager based on the post quality, that would be a motivation for the bounty manager to care about quality too.
But, unfortunately those who advertise with the bounty managers, also don't care about quality, just quantity....

Those who advertise with the signature campaign pay the most well knows, nothing else.

Open your eyes guys, merits are only under test and need adjustment -theymos said.

[zentdex]

I think this idea could be a great help for those who are in the lower rank that is striving hard to earn merit.
But, does it seems like selling merit indirectly? All I am hoping is for the greater good and not opposing the idea.