Obvious cheater is Obvious

[Dig Bicks]

This user:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1064058  Joined a sig campaign which requires 110 merit for a full member, He either buys or uses alts to transfer 10 merit today within a span of 20 minutes to bring his account to the 110 merit level.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4862272.msg43836252#msg43836252

the sig campaign  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4862272.0

[1715073459]

1715073459

[1715073459]

1715073459

[1715073459]

1715073459

[mdayonliner]

This user:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1064058  Joined a sig campaign which requires 110 merit for a full member, He either buys or uses alts to transfer 10 merit today within a span of 20 minutes to bring his account to the 110 merit level.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4862272.msg43836252#msg43836252

the sig campaign  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4862272.0

You can make a post on that topic to get the attention of the bounty manager. Use this post as a reference.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Did you tell the campaign manager or post in that campaign thread letting anyone know this?  Don't assume anybody who could do anything about this to read your thread here.  

And I agree, it looks very suspicious and the posts he got merit for are pure garbage.  It seems pretty obvious what he did--I'm just not sure how he did it.  Probably he bought those merits.  I'm not tagging suspected merit abusers (except for the very, VERY obvious ones like that creampie/cumshot guy), but maybe another DT member will see this and tag him.  It's not likely though.  Nobody is really tagging merit abusers nowadays.

Good catch, however.

Edit:  The spreadsheet is empty, so that user hasn't been accepted into the campaign yet.  I did make a post in the campaign thread calling attention to this thread.  Hopefully Zapo sees it and acts accordingly.

[cabalism13]

This user:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1064058  Joined a sig campaign which requires 110 merit for a full member, He either buys or uses alts to transfer 10 merit today within a span of 20 minutes to bring his account to the 110 merit level.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4862272.msg43836252#msg43836252

the sig campaign  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4862272.0

Yes, you're right. This dude is without doubt a cheater his using his alts to gather Merits.
Eth Addresses used from both accounts are indeed having  only 1 transaction address when he is about to cash out.

I'll send some proofs later on ( Its hard to crop images using a mobile phone ).

This accounts is just owned by a single Filipino person. And that's a fact.(Already Tagged Those Accounts Red)

User must have been using 2 or more wallets for his tokens but he can't deny the transactions made by himself to those accounts he owns. All transactions are connected.
edited:PROOF with Images
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4872435.msg43905592#msg43905592

[Avirunes]

quierx16 posts his facebook profile here:

Hi dev,
i just want to join the facebook campaign.
here's my fb link: www.facebook.com/jhaninv
FB name: Jha Nin

(Archive: http://archive.is/kudLy#selection-6673.0-6673.24)

And same profile was used by jorenpo and s4mp1nt0 here:

Facebook Link: https://www.facebook.com/jhaninv
Link to the first post: https://www.facebook.com/1905979582989363/photos/a.1906658776254777.1073741827.1905979582989363/1914367135483941/?type=3
Link to the first Share: https://www.facebook.com/jhaninv/posts/1412905332164160
Eth adress: 0x6709308Cb6467cF22de8B7159197760AF2aFB745

(Archive: http://archive.fo/MD44h#selection-7595.0-7595.32)


And here,

Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/imynikka/status/932679282056355846
Link to Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/jhaninv /posts/1492802364174456?pnref=story
BTC Address: 1jMmo4DioTBgG8HSjfiz9Eidjj7maKJxw

(Archive: http://archive.fo/2h0eG#selection-3523.0-3523.32)

Jorenpo account was recently hacked as the old user puts up a request to admin for retrieving the account back : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4654555.msg42023524#msg42023524

-W.I.P-

[hilariousetc]

This is why it isn't always necessarily a good idea to require a minimum merit requirement. People will then just try get the merit from somewhere. Is a person who buys or merits his alts more qualified to be in that campaign than another poster who has less merits? Nope. Users should be taken on a case by case basis. If someone has decent or great posts then accept them. Don't just blindly accept a shitposter or someone else just because they've somehow miraculously managed to get the minimum merit requirement or abuses are going to happen.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This is why it isn't always necessarily a good idea to require a minimum merit requirement. People will then just try get the merit from somewhere. Is a person who buys or merits his alts more qualified to be in that campaign than another poster who has less merits? Nope. Users should be taken on a case by case basis. If someone has decent or great posts then accept them. Don't just blindly accept a shitposter or someone else just because they've somehow miraculously managed to get the minimum merit requirement or abuses are going to happen.

I disagree, because setting a minimum number of merits eliminates a lot of work for the campaign managers, and people who haven't earned that minimum are pretty likely to be either shitposters or newbies with a low post count.  You have to admit that it disqualifies most shitposters.  In addition, look at what happened to the guy we're talking about in this thread.  People are watching and taking action when they think shenanigans are afoot. 

Members might be able to buy merit, but when someone meets a merit requirement AND the campaign manager takes a look at his posts, the manager is going to see that those posts are crap and hopefully won't accept the member into the campaign.  Plus you get what happened in this case, people contacting the manager about the shenanigans.  So I very much support merit minimums.  I think it's a great use of the merit system.

[hilariousetc]

This is why it isn't always necessarily a good idea to require a minimum merit requirement. People will then just try get the merit from somewhere. Is a person who buys or merits his alts more qualified to be in that campaign than another poster who has less merits? Nope. Users should be taken on a case by case basis. If someone has decent or great posts then accept them. Don't just blindly accept a shitposter or someone else just because they've somehow miraculously managed to get the minimum merit requirement or abuses are going to happen.

I disagree, because setting a minimum number of merits eliminates a lot of work for the campaign managers, and people who haven't earned that minimum are pretty likely to be either shitposters or newbies with a low post count.  You have to admit that it disqualifies most shitposters.  In addition, look at what happened to the guy we're talking about in this thread.  People are watching and taking action when they think shenanigans are afoot. 

Campaign mangers shouldn't be letting merit do their job for them. A shitposter shouldn't be allowed on to the campaign in the first place regardless of how much merit he may or may not have or how he acquired it. Someone could make great posts initially just to get the merit then turn into a complete shitposter once accepted. I see plenty of decent or even great posters that have little to no merit, some even higher ranked but a lot of people may not merit them because they feel they don't need it or they just don't have the merit to give, and this is why applicants merely shouldn't be judged on merit.

[LoyceV]

Campaign mangers shouldn't be letting merit do their job for them.

True. But it makes the campaign manager's job a lot easier. Without Merit, I wouldn't accept any Members, as going through their posts is 95% of the time a waste of my time. One of the main problems causing spam, is lazy campaign managers. If using Merit can make some of them reject low quality posters, that's a win for the forum.
Having Merit isn't enough though, it has to be earned, which can be checked quickly.

Someone could make great posts initially just to get the merit then turn into a complete shitposter once accepted.

I barely see that, unless the account has been hacked or sold. If that happens, they should be kicked out of course.

I see plenty of decent or even great posters that have little to no merit

I haven't noticed this much, but this would mean the Merit system fails to do what it's supposed to do.

I stumbled upon this:

Don't you think your campaign prices are too low? Me, Sr.Member get for 10 posts a week only about $ 28 at current prices? Just $ 280 for a 10-week campaign? It's small..

It's someone with generic posts, and a bounty spammer. For 1112 posts, he earned received 1 Merit.
He's complaining $2.80 per post is low! If that means spamming bounties pays more (although in Tokens created out of thin air) for useless posts, it explains why so many of them are spamming this forum.

[BitcoinSupremo]

This is why it isn't always necessarily a good idea to require a minimum merit requirement. People will then just try get the merit from somewhere. Is a person who buys or merits his alts more qualified to be in that campaign than another poster who has less merits? Nope. Users should be taken on a case by case basis. If someone has decent or great posts then accept them. Don't just blindly accept a shitposter or someone else just because they've somehow miraculously managed to get the minimum merit requirement or abuses are going to happen.

I disagree, because setting a minimum number of merits eliminates a lot of work for the campaign managers, and people who haven't earned that minimum are pretty likely to be either shitposters or newbies with a low post count.  You have to admit that it disqualifies most shitposters.  In addition, look at what happened to the guy we're talking about in this thread.  People are watching and taking action when they think shenanigans are afoot.  

Campaign mangers shouldn't be letting merit do their job for them. A shitposter shouldn't be allowed on to the campaign in the first place regardless of how much merit he may or may not have or how he acquired it. Someone could make great posts initially just to get the merit then turn into a complete shitposter once accepted. I see plenty of decent or even great posters that have little to no merit, some even higher ranked but a lot of people may not merit them because they feel they don't need it or they just don't have the merit to give, and this is why applicants merely shouldn't be judged on merit.

I totally agree with hilarious here. I see many people here with legendary status and with less than 10 merits but when I see their posts, I see excellent posts from them and I cannot understand why these people have less than 10 merits. On the other hand I see a lot of persons with let's say more than 70 merits and when I compare both persons posts I clearly see that the one with 10 merits has posts of a much better quality.
What I want to say is that every applicant should be judged on the posts he makes and not on the number of merits he has.

[Hexah]

Either he/she buy that merit or that's his/her alt accounts.