[Open] ▄■▀■▄ 🌟Bitvest.io🌟 - Plinko Sign Camp (Member-Hero Accepted)(New2)

[glowing10]

Spreadsheet for round 78 has been turned in to lightlord for payment.

Available spots. Tier E, All rank

Application will be reviewed later in the day, i need some sleep

Note: My DM is always open to any inquiries, complains, observations etc.

Remember,
BrainbossCares❣️

Accepted: 22-06-2020

Applying for Tier E

User: glowing10
Position to Apply: Full Member
Posts Start: 1442
Address: 3HtUEWGshZTAXJ8cw5NALdvhohwGmYVonM

User: AhmadM
Position to Apply: Full Member
Posts Start: 392
Address: bc1qxefmmecsnmxk76wpcwl3r3p7tl0sh5yff747n8

I'll wear the appropriate sig & avatar when accepted

All of my information is correct and have sign and Avatar in place .

[1715390057]

1715390057

[AhmadM]

Accepted: 22-06-2020

User: AhmadM
Position to Apply: Full Member
Posts Start: 392
Address: bc1qxefmmecsnmxk76wpcwl3r3p7tl0sh5yff747n8

I'll wear the appropriate sig & avatar when accepted

Thanks for accepting me, I've checked and confirmed that my details on spreadsheet are correct.

[Lillominato89]

User: Lillominato89
Position to Apply: Member
Posts Start: 81
Address: 12PMhHC4zX5pvMpGVL5vzAe2XFnWGrXvBj

I Will apply the  signature after being accepted.

[Text]

User: Zilara12
Position to Apply: Hero
Posts Start: 2164
Address: 1LNrJjvSRy7zn1KrvfvUqHps9CorKSy9B3

User: Lillominato89
Position to Apply: Member
Posts Start: 81
Address: 12PMhHC4zX5pvMpGVL5vzAe2XFnWGrXvBj

I Will apply the  signature after being accepted.

I have seen your application elsewhere (777coin). I think, you just have to pick one, whether it's here or there. Because the boss might be confused where you are. You can be sure that slots are available in your rankings as well.

[peter0425]

I have seen your application elsewhere (777coin). I think, you just have to pick one, whether it's here or there. Because the boss might be confused where you are. You can be sure that slots are available in your rankings as well.

That's wrong,because everyone can leave their application freely and it is depend on the Manager if where will he accept them either Here or in the other one that he managed.

and also there is no rules upon application to either or both so let @Brainboss decide ,anyway we are not sure if they will be accepted or not so the chance is depend on the managers decision.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Update: after some weeks of closed observation of the spreadsheet I have identified some individuals that unknowingly or intentionally try to outsmart the rules put in place to help combat inactivity in the campaign. They become inactive for the 1st week then get a warning (1st warning). Trying to act smart in retaining their spot, they try as much as they can to make the minimum number of post which is 15 and most of the posts are spams per se, that's meaningless replies or generic posts. I think it's high time I introduced some strict measure to ensure hardworking users in lower tiers aren't been denied the opportunity to rank up and recieve higher rewards that they deserve.

Starting from this week's assessment anyone that has been given a 1st warning and makes just the minimum number of post to keep themselves in the campaign will receive additional strict assessment (reviewing of the posts made for the week). Any of them who fails to make the cut will be demoted to a lower rank so others who're actually been active on the forum and not treating the forum like some platform they just have to make.posts for the sole purpose of been paid, will be giving an opportunity to rank up.

If you're found guilty by me and think you don't deserve to be donated you're free to open a thread for debate on the reputation boards. The additional strict assessment will be cover by the no spam rules.

Do have a lovely weekend ahead...

[GazetaBitcoin]

That's a great decision Brainboss and I congratulate you for taking it! I also noticed this curious behavior of some participants and wondered how is it possible to post one week then stay inactive the next one then post again and again stay inactive and still be a part of the campaign.

But I thought it was not my business, as the campaign rules allowed that. However, I'm happy to see this change. If possible, I'd suggest to update the rules also on the first page of the campaigns, thus they'll be more visible (maybe talk to lightlord for doing this?).

[Lillominato89]

User: Zilara12
Position to Apply: Hero
Posts Start: 2164
Address: 1LNrJjvSRy7zn1KrvfvUqHps9CorKSy9B3

User: Lillominato89
Position to Apply: Member
Posts Start: 81
Address: 12PMhHC4zX5pvMpGVL5vzAe2XFnWGrXvBj

I Will apply the  signature after being accepted.

I have seen your application elsewhere (777coin). I think, you just have to pick one, whether it's here or there. Because the boss might be confused where you are. You can be sure that slots are available in your rankings as well.

Sorry if I was wrong, it is my first time that I send the candidacy for the signature campaign, I thought it would have been me to choose which one to use if I had been accepted in both campaigns

[pilosopotasyo]

Wow Thanks for this I have a good opportunity to rank up, it's now even for all participants whether you are new and old participants I promise to remain active and always reach the minimum posts so I can always candidate to rank up.

[madhavsinghrajput]

User: madhavsinghrajput
Position to Apply: member
Posts Start: 62
Address: 1HobFKRAG7rXZKdmcMd4MUXJqFghXNY9Kg

[GazetaBitcoin]

Following Brainboss' announcement, I took a look at the campaign users which received inactivity warnings in a week then barely met the minimum of 15 posts requirement in the next week, outsmarting the campaign for retaining their spots. The overview is for the period since I joined this campaign (round 68).

- in round 68, Saisher (Tier C), gomariah95 (Tier D), smyslov (Tier D) and Granxis (Tier E) received a first inactivity warning; in round 69 they had 26, 0, 25 and respective 16 posts. Gomariah95 appears again with a first warning in round 69, although it should have been the second one.
- in round 69, Ulven (Tier A), Shimmiry (Tier C) and gomariah95 (Tier D) received a first inactivity warning; in round 70 they had 15, 17 and respective 0 posts. Gomariah95 was demoted to Tier E after 3 warnings, instead of 2.
- in round 70, FatFork and AlexSimion (both from Tier D) received a first inactivity warning; in round 71 FatFork had 18 posts and received a first warning for burst posting; AlexSimion was promoted in Tier C where he was again inactive, but for some reason he appears again with a first warning, instead of having a second warning (maybe consecutive warnings apply only in the same tier (?) although this doesn't seem right to me).
- in round 71 Ulven (again, still in Tier A), Negociation, Subbir (both in Tier B), coinforumgentr, AlexSimion (both in Tier C) and gomariah95 received a first inactivity warning; in round 72 Ulven was again inactive, received a second warning and got demoted to Tier B; Negociation and Subbir had 31 and respective 41 posts; coinforumgentr and AlexSimion received a second warning and got demoted to Tier D; gomariah95 got a second warning and was removed from the campaign.
- in round 72, aioc (Tier C) and cheater_detector (Tier E) received a first inactivity warning; in round 73 they had 17 and respective 16 posts.
- in round 73, Ulven (again, this being his 3rd consecutive warning) and noormcs5 (both in Tier B), Shimmiry (Tier C), AlexSimion (Tier D; this is his third consecutive warning) and iamsheikadil (Tier E) received a first inactivity warning; in round 74 Ulven received a second warning and dissapeared from the spreadsheet (maybe left the campaign on his own will?), AlexSimion received a second warning (and appears as being dropped from the campaign, action which wasn't taken before also for others in his situation - see Ulven's and gomariah95' cases); iamsheikadil received also a second warning (and was dropped from the campaign as his spot was already in Tier E thus he had nowhere to go in a lower tier); the others had 17 and respective 16 posts. Apparently, coinforumgentr left the campaign on his own will, not as a consequence of inactivity.
- in round 74, JohnBitCo (Tier A), Saisher (Tier C), cheater_detector, janggernaut and Granxis (all from Tier E) received a first inactivity warning; in round 75 Saisher received a second warning (and got demoted to Tier D); janggernaut received a second warning and was dropped from the campaign as his spot was already in Tier E thus he had nowhere to go in a lower tier; the others had 17, 18 and respective 18 posts.
- in round 75, noormcs5 (again, Tier B), Artemis3 (Tier D), bits4books and Ulven (both from Tier E; it seems that Ulven rejoined the campaign in this round) received a first inactivity warning; in round 76 bits4books and Ulven left the campaign (bits4books disappeared from the spreadsheet and Ulven appears as "Left"); the others had 15 and respective 24 posts.
- in round 76, Saisher (previously demoted to Tier D) was again inactive and appears as "Demoted"; cheater_detector (again, Tier D) and SacriFries11 (Tier E) received a first inactivity warning; in round 77 they had 17 and respective 15 posts.
- in round 77, Granxis received another first inactivity warning, after the ones from rounds 68 and 74; in round 78 he had 18 posts.
- in round 78, JohnBitCo and noormcs (again, both from Tier A), cheater_detector (again, from Tier D) received a first inactivity warning.

Conclusions
- several users stay inactive in a round then barely meet the minimum requirement in the second round (cheater_detector, JohnBitCo, noormcs5, SacriFries11, shimmiry, Saisher)
- some users are dropped out of the campaign after 3 (2 for Tier E) consecutive warnings, but there were cases where users received more than 3 warnings until being dropped (AlexSimion (he had 5 consecutive weeks of inactivity) and Ulven)
- those which are mentioned here had the following number of posts (in order from round 68 to 78; those marked with "-" are out of the campaign):
        - JohnBitCo: 26, 24, 36, 21, 22, 20, 0, 17, 16, 17, 0
        - noormcs5: 19, 21, 35, 21, 18, 0, 17, 0, 19, 17, 0
        - Granxis: 0, 16, 17, 18, 22, 18, 0, 18, 17, 0, 18
        - SacriFries11: -, -, -, -, 16, 15, 16, 15, 0, 15, 0
        - cheater_detector: 16, 16, 17, 16, 0, 16, 0, 18, 0, 17, 0
        - Saisher: 0, 26, 30, 38, 17, 18, 0, 0, 33, 52, 40
        - Ulven: 15, 0, 15, 0, 0, 0, 0, -, 0, -, -
        - bits4books: -, -, 0, 15, 16, 15, 19, 0, -, -, -
        - Artemis3: 20, 31, 30, 16, 17, 17, 21, 0, 24, 17, 20
        - janggernaut: -, -, -, -, -, 16, 0, 0, -, -, -
        - Shimmiry: 16, 0, 17, 18, 15, 0, 16, 15, 16, 17, 15
        - AlexSimion: 35, 15, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -, -, -, -
        - iamsheikadil: 0, -, -,  -, 0, 0, 0, -, -, -, -
        - coinforumgentr: 55, 40, 24, 0, 0, 0, -, -, -, -, -
        - aioc: 15, 22, 38, 37, 0, 17, 20, 15, 44, 16, 40
        - FatFork: 16, 15, 0, 18, 17, 25, 18, 23, 17, 16, 15
        - smyslov: 0, 25, 15, 26, 26, 36, 24, 32, 42, 36, 33
        - gomariah95: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -, -, -, -, -, -
        - Negociation: 60, 60, 39, 0, 31, 46, 40, 34, 51, 52, 60
        - Subbir: 60, 60, 43, 0, 41, 32, 32, 32, 48, 42, 56
- in my opinion, Brainboss should pay great attention to these users (which are still inside the campaign): JohnBitCo, noormcs5, Granxis, SacriFries11 and cheater_detector
- I'll try to do a similar analysis for 777 Coin campaign, as I was part of it as well, when the time will allow me
- I'd also advise against accepting in the campaign the users which were previously dropped off, no matter the reason (inactivity, burst posting, negative feedback from DT etc.), but excepting those which announced themselves that they are leaving (again, no matter their reasons - for being accepted in another campaign, for knowing they'll be inactive for a while etc.); of course, this is manager's final decision.

[btcltcdigger]

Just gonna put this out there

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Just gonna put this out there

No misunderstanding here please, the rules hasn't changed. Members can only be demoted after been inactive for two consecutive weeks and I won't demoted members that were inactive for the first week but made 15 and above quality posts.

I heard the cries of many members and I'm using my power as the manager to see if something can be done in regards to punishing members that'll be guilty of making generic posts just to make the cut of 15 minimum post to stay in the campaign.

PS: Next time take permission from the other party before posting personal PMs. This is one of the reasons managers don't answer PMs per se although no harm done here.

[btcltcdigger]

PS: Next time take permission from the other party before posting personal PMs. This is one of the reasons managers don't answer PMs per se although no harm done here.

Don't worry, i'm careful what i post and what i don't. I made a judgement call about this post, and it was sound.

[Shimmiry]

       - Shimmiry: 16, 0, 17, 18, 15, 0, 16, 15, 16, 17, 15

I've already talked to CryptopreneurBrainboss in my first week of inactivity and it was because of health issues. Also, I'm shocked that I was mentioned as inactive yet aren't afraid as I myself can prove that I am of worthy promoting the campaign. My posts are both (somehow) lengthy and of pure quality (Better take a look at my posts). Not posting this as a defense nor an action by guilt, I'm just clearing facts that there would really be users whom will have less posts in a week. In fact, I'd really rather post only 20 per week than to post 60 having a two-sentenced comments. But still, kudos for the effort. 

Also its been months of wondering, why does TopTort777 remains on Member ranks yet he's already FM? Imean somehow if a spot would open on FM he must have it right? Just asking lol

[GazetaBitcoin]

        - Shimmiry: 16, 0, 17, 18, 15, 0, 16, 15, 16, 17, 15

I've already talked to CryptopreneurBrainboss in my first week of inactivity and it was because of health issues.

That's perfectly understandable. What about the second week of inactivity, which is followed by a bare reaching of the minimum of 15 posts?

My posts are both (somehow) lengthy and of pure quality (Better take a look at my posts).

Length is not the same with quality. Actually, you are on thin ice here. With a merit vs activity ratio of 0.09 (which means a merit at 10.65 days in average), this is quite the opposite of pure quality. Not to mention the merit vs posts ratio lol. Pure quality posters have at least 0.5 merit vs activity ratio and the real good ones have a ratio bigger than 1.

Also its been months of wondering, why does TopTort777 remains on Member ranks yet he's already FM? Imean somehow if a spot would open on FM he must have it right? Just asking lol

Most likely, he stays on the Member spot as there wasn't any opening in his Tier for Full Member. If there will be such opening, the spot will be taken either by him or by one of the participants with Full Member rank from Tier B, considering which one is the oldest inside the campaign.

[Tipstar]

~ snip ~

Glad to see I am nowhere mentioned in the report and I won't be saving my peers if they are breaking any rules.

But the rules are quite clear and with staying so long in the campaign, one and a half year for myself and users like JohnBitCo (who is in the same tier and group as me) is here for more than 2 years, I can say that we get comfortable with the rules and that shapes our posting habit.
Not all people here are full time blockchain developers or marketing personnel that can give their full time to the forum and their day job might be much more demanding.

Edit: I believe with the new rule in effect, everyone should follow it as well.

[GazetaBitcoin]

No misunderstanding here please, the rules hasn't changed.

Maybe the rules can be improved somehow, with lightlord's approval? At least a part of them. For example, the rules related to excluding someone from the campaign. As of now there is only 1 rule for that: if you get negative score level 2 from DT. I believe that users should be dropped also for consecutive weeks of receiving the same warning.

Let's take as example the warning for inactivity. As now there isn't any rule for excluding inactive users, let's consider a Tier A inactive user. This user could be excluded after 10 weeks of inactivity! Week 1: first warning; week 2: second warning, this being followed by a demotion to Tier B; week 3: although this is the third consecutive warning, the user receives just a first warning as being his first offense in his new tier; week 4: second warning, followed by a demotion to Tier C; week 5: first warning in his new tier; week 6: second warning, followed by a demotion to Tier D; week 7: first warning in his new tier; week 8: second warning, followed vy a demotion to Tier E; week 9: first warning for his new tier; week 10: second warning, followed by excluding the user from the campaign.

Indeed, it never happened something like this, but it could happen. Look at the examples of AlexSimion and gomariah95 posted by me above, which were excluded after 5 weeks of inactivity. They occupied 2 spots for 5 weeks for nothing, as those spots could be used by other members. And in an extreme case, meaning a Tier A inactive user, this means 10 weeks until he can be excluded based on the actual rules.

Can this be changed and exclude users after 3 consecutive inactivity warnings?

[erikoy]

Maybe the rules can be improved somehow, with lightlord's approval? At least a part of them. For example, the rules related to excluding someone from the campaign.

Can this be changed and exclude users after 3 consecutive inactivity warnings?

Whatever rules may be going to apply and will going to exclude inactive users then i will definitely try my luck to join this campaign. After having been inactive for almost a year turns out that i missed to be back here in the forum. Of course still wonderful to earn few cents as well.

[GazetaBitcoin]

In this case, you should apply following the format from the first page of the topic, not just by only expressing your willing here

Post in the following format:

Code:

User: x
Position to Apply: x
Posts Start: X
Address: (Your BTC Address)

Managers tend to accept those which at least read the rules...apparently you didn't bother to do that.