CopperMembership ~ real Member rank in campaigns - Is it fair ?

[hd49728]

Forum has Paid Memberships, by now we have only one type: Copper Membership.
Details:

You can pay a one-time fee in order to increase the capabilities of your account. Be warned that:

• You can still be banned if you break the rules. You will not get any special treatment.
• These memberships are not guaranteed to last forever, or to offer the same benefits forever.
• No refunds will be given.

Available paid memberships:

Copper - 0.00240385 BTC: Allows you to post images even if you are a newbie, reduces the time-between-actions limit, and provides some of the same benefits as being of natural Member rank.

In some campaigns, there are local rules that users who can wear same signature codes (for Copper Members and Members) will be eligible to join, and will be treated equally (same payment rates)

At current rate above, people simply have to pay around 0.0025 BTC to get that CopperMembership, and have rights to post images, and have benefits in signature limitations, they can wear signature for Member rank; at this point I hink it is fair!

However, it is somehow unfair if they have rights to join campaign and treated as Members who have to earn 10 merits to reach that rank.
They have to pay ~ 0.0025 BTC, at the current price of BTC at ~ $10300, the Copper Membership costs around $26.

There are some campaigns have pay rates ~ $5 - $6 per week; or even higher if they luckily get more with bounties.

Member- $.25 cents per post

Copper Members can get their capital back after ~ 2 months; they won't lose nothing, and they can keep spamming.

If there are restrictions on Copper Membership, to better prevent them spend small funds to be eligible for campaigns, bounties; and get money by spamming; I support it.

I suggest an additional rule:
Copper Membership: are restricted to join campaigns if don't reach Member rank from earned merits (10 merits in minimum).

[1713241975]

1713241975

[1713241975]

1713241975

[1713241975]

1713241975

[LoyceV]

I suggest an additional rule:
Copper Membership: are restricted to join campaigns if don't reach Member rank from earned merits (10 merits in minimum).

This has nothing to do with Meta, I think it should be in Reputation.

Back ontopic: I've done that: I accepted Copper Members equal to Members, as long as they earned 35 Merit.
This has nothing to do with "being unfair", all users can buy Copper Membership if they want it. Campaign managers shouldn't pay spammers though, with or without Copper Membership.

Copper Members can get their capital back after ~ 2 months; they won't lose nothing, and they can keep spamming.

Click "Report to moderator", they can still be banned.

[TheBeardedBaby]

It's OK to buy it, if you somehow loose your account (get banned) , you loose money. Those who have build up their account from scratch to reach Member won't risk it (if of course they didn't bought it on the black market) .
The forum makes some profit so that's good.

P. S.  Thinking about it, it actually reduces the need to buy a developed member account for high price when you can officially buy the same functionalities cheeper and helping the forum in the same time

[hd49728]

It's OK to buy it, if you somehow loose your account (get banned) , you loose money. Those who have build up their account from scratch to reach Member won't risk it.
The forum makes some profit so that's good.

They are different:
- One grown up from scratch to become Member;
- Another one created account; bought CopperMembership.
I do not understand it, because I think Meta is for forum-related issues. This one relates to forum issues, in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with Meta, I think it should be in Reputation.

Well done, Sir!

Back ontopic: I've done that: I accepted Copper Members equal to Members, as long as they earned 35 Merit.
This has nothing to do with "being unfair", all users can buy Copper Membership if they want it. Campaign managers shouldn't pay spammers though, with or without Copper Membership.

Before they can be banned, due to community reports, they will be able to spam and get money. Or they are more careful than standard spammers, so they will hardly to get bans, but their posts are far from constructive.

Click "Report to moderator", they can still be banned.

[Findingnemo]

I do not understand it, because I think Meta is for forum-related issues. This one relates to forum issues, in my opinion.

Signature rules were decided by the respective campaign managers so this has nothing to do with forum.

You can bring this topic into Reputation and get the discussion going about the issue.

I don't think there are much bitcoin paying signature campaigns accepts copper members of they don't have atleast 10 merits but on bounties everything accepted because all they want exposure.

[The Cryptovator]

You should blame to manager who is accepting copper member on signature campaign. Forum doesn't have business with signature campaign. Manager should not accept anyone who is spammer even they are legendary rank. Isn't there so many legendary spammer ? Sometimes newbie wrote more constructive post than Hero/Legendary. However I don't think many people's using copper membership for signature, if there is manager should choose at least good poster.

But, I think and believe admin could disable signature for copper membership ( likely it will not happen). Copper membership was implemented in order to post with image & some other benefits, (signature campaign wasn't intention of copper membership).

[hd49728]

What LoyceV did is great, but I still think LoyceV has too high requirements. 35 merits for Member rank, which made me sad months ago. Managers should have requirements like LoyceV, 10 - 15 - 20 merits is enough for that rank, I think.

You know it's impossible, unless signature usage is tightly controlled by this forum and all service/manager are forced to use Content Management System (CMS) provided by this forum to run signature campaign. Is this what you meant?

Or do you mean Copper Member shouldn't get member's rank signature benefit and change it with something else?

It might become a trend, if there is no preventive solution. We all clearly see the fact that scam projects open their threads with Copper Member accounts, if not high rank accounts (probably real-own accounts from their team members or bought accounts).
And if there is no solution, bounties might motivate spammers to buy CopperMembership and keep spaming.
As I wrote above, they pay some money, so they make post more carefully - enough to not be banned, but still far from constructive.

However I don't think many people's using copper membership for signature, if there is manager should choose at least good poster.

Sure. If there are solutions for Yobit, there are solutions for others; especially Copper Spammers.

But, I think and believe admin could disable signature for copper membership ( likely it will not happen). Copper membership was implemented in order to post with image & some other benefits, (signature campaign wasn't intention of copper membership).

[Baronets]

P. S.  Thinking about it, it actually reduces the need to buy a developed member account for high price when you can officially buy the same functionalities cheaper and helping the forum in the same time

I wasn't really in favour of copper memberships, but you make a good point. Anything that helps to reduce the sale of accounts is good for the forum in my opinion.

I'll give you a couple of merits when I log in as Jet Cash.

[hd49728]

If account sales, merit sales are discouraged; misuse of Copper membership should be discouraged too.

Someone buy a Member account, neg tag
Someone buy 10 merits, neg tag

What if someone buy a Coppermembership, and spam (or higher quality than spam, to avoid bans, but too far from constructive posts) ?
Is this behaviour different than buying account or buying merits?

If CopperMembership created with one of functions to fight against spammers/ farmers with evil IPs, and initially for good developers; it should be used correctly, with supports from managers.
Baronet, you now has same rights as Copper Member. Congratulations!

I wasn't really in favour of copper memberships, but you make a good point. Anything that helps to reduce the sale of accounts is good for the forum in my opinion.

[rosezionjohn]

You should blame to manager who is accepting copper member on signature campaign. Forum doesn't have business with signature campaign.

Exactly. It is the campaign manager's discretion to which level they should equate copper members to. I remember when it was first introduced, many  managers consider them as Jr. members (and I think that was fair) but that eventually changed.

[LoyceV]

I do not understand it, because I think Meta is for forum-related issues. This one relates to forum issues, in my opinion.

This forum aims to be as free as possible. It's up to the campaign manager who they want to pay.

I was surprised by your quoting style: it's much more common to reply under the quote, not above it.

What LoyceV did is great, but I still think LoyceV has too high requirements. 35 merits for Member rank, which made me sad months ago.

It was an experiment. Members had many months to earn that much Merit.
Without Merit, I wouldn't have accepted Members at all, as it's too much work to go through 98% bad applications to find a few Members with decent posts. With Merit, posts still need manual review, but it's a great tool to use for a first selection.

[DaddyMonsi]

If account sales, merit sales are discouraged; misuse of Copper membership should be discouraged too.

Someone buy a Member account, neg tag
Someone buy 10 merits, neg tag

What if someone buy a Coppermembership, and spam (or higher quality than spam, to avoid bans, but too far from constructive posts) ?
Is this behaviour different than buying account or buying merits?

If CopperMembership created with one of functions to fight against spammers/ farmers with evil IPs, and initially for good developers; it should be used correctly, with supports from managers.
Baronet, you now has same rights as Copper Member. Congratulations!

I wasn't really in favour of copper memberships, but you make a good point. Anything that helps to reduce the sale of accounts is good for the forum in my opinion.

Even if they buy Copper Membership, that doesn't give them the immunity to be negative tagged for spamming the forum. They will be treated the same like others who already ranked up without paying Copper Membership. Just like what LoyceV said, report to moderator if you found something that you think is a spam post.

[hd49728]

I was surprised by your quoting style: it's much more common to reply under the quote, not above it.

I could be wrong, sorry. Does it relate to any kind of ettiquete? If yes, I will correct it.
Honestly, I quote and type my ideas, and don't have intention with typing above or below quotes. Arbitrarily! But it seems you are right, typing below quotes look more friendly, easier to get flow of ideas, and shows respects. I will correct my quoting style. Thank you for warning me.

It's OK to buy it, if you somehow loose your account (get banned) , you loose money. Those who have build up their account from scratch to reach Member won't risk it.
The forum makes some profit so that's good.

They are different:
- One grown up from scratch to become Member;
- Another one created account; bought CopperMembership.
I do not understand it, because I think Meta is for forum-related issues. This one relates to forum issues, in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with Meta, I think it should be in Reputation.

Well done, Sir!

Back ontopic: I've done that: I accepted Copper Members equal to Members, as long as they earned 35 Merit.
This has nothing to do with "being unfair", all users can buy Copper Membership if they want it. Campaign managers shouldn't pay spammers though, with or without Copper Membership.

Before they can be banned, due to community reports, they will be able to spam and get money. Or they are more careful than standard spammers, so they will hardly to get bans, but their posts are far from constructive.

Click "Report to moderator", they can still be banned.

[Welsh]

Currently signature campaigns are not standardized, and therefore a signature campaign manager can dictate their own rules as long as they're abiding by the forum guidelines. 

I do not understand it, because I think Meta is for forum-related issues. This one relates to forum issues, in my opinion.

Meta is for forum related issues yeah, but this is more related to signature campaigns entry criteria, and would probably be more suited to Service Discussion because its exactly that discussion about signature campaigns rather than the forum. You're not suggesting a change to the forums guidelines, but you're suggesting that campaign managers change their criteria of accepting certain types of users. A common misconception is Signature campaigns are related to the forum, when really they only exist on the forum.

[marlboroza]

If account sales, merit sales are discouraged; misuse of Copper membership should be discouraged too.

You can always complain to signature campaign managers.

What if someone buy a Coppermembership, and spam

Report them to moderator.

or higher quality than spam, to avoid bans, but too far from constructive posts

If you don't like someone's post but they don't break forum rules just put them on ignore.

If CopperMembership created with one of functions to fight against spammers/ farmers with evil IPs, and initially for good developers

Not really, copper membership was mainly created to allow newbies to post pictures:

By popular demand, newbies can now pay to have some of their restrictions lifted. If you pay the fee, you become a Copper Member, and you can post images. That's the main point of this: allowing newbies to post images.

...also, "bigger" signature is bonus:

Copper Members currently have these bonuses:

- Some of the same permissions as Member-rank members, such as reduced signature styling restrictions.[...]

How many newbie copper members exist?
Is this big problem?

[buwaytress]

Noting that most legitimate signature campaigns now also put additional merit requirements, I don't see copper membership as a problem at all.

Fact, even before merit requirement, I'd always only seen Copper as a quick way to get the image permissions necessary for new accounts representing services.

How else would a new service advertise in their own signature? You can't reasonably expect businesses to start posting to earn merit!

[carter34]

They have to pay ~ 0.0025 BTC, at the current price of BTC at ~ $10300, the Copper Membership costs around $26.

If the forum has allowed that such accounts can upgrade their rank or start performing functions that they have not gotten to by the virtue of when they joined or inability to get required merit to move up in rant, I think that the financial attachment to it is very small. It can be increased to a level where it will be reasonable to reconsider and stay back to build and learn for the honest newbies.

[Ridwan Fauzi]

I only see in bounty campaign who paid their participant with their token who allow the coppermembership to join the signature campaign although the rank still newbie. But if you see the signature campaign who paid with bitcoin you will not find there is special requirements against copper membership who make a different thing is the amount merit that must be have by all participant.

I think there is no different thing between copper membership and the common member and I agree it is depend on the bounty manager itself you can ask to them who have a such rule. Maybe the bounty manager try to promote the copper membership on this forum but it is just my perspective.

[Steamtyme]

This is a non issue from all angles as far as I can tell. First off from an advertising perspective, it doesn't matter as long as the member can wear the materials it's fine. They are being paid based on the service they can provide. This is in no way a shield that helps them bypass, shitposting or plagiarism. They can still lose the account or have it rendered worthless as a means of earning by failing to follow the rules of the forum.

Now if a manager is letting in accounts with no post history just because they have a copper membership, then that's more a flag on the campaign than anything. Apart from that you have to trust that a campaign manager wants to maintain their professional reputation. So even if a problematic copper member does appear, they should be removed promptly.

The forum only allows this in the same way that most things are allowed; no comment unless it becomes a real problem.