An appeal to all my fellow Cryptotalk signature campaign participants!

[MFahad]

With cryptotalk I have no control over the sections counted or not counted, so I cannot implement this sort of rule. I would suggest that most users in the campaign only look to make 5 or so posts per day. Worrying about making the max everyday and getting paid will only hurt you in the long run. Not only do you have to worry about me banning you in the campaign, you have to worry about losing the account. Just because the rules say you CAN do 20 per day, doesn't mean you should.

Many people will not understand this. Those who follow the rules are considered as good and obedient citizens,so when they are posting within the limits of the rules (20 Posts), what's the problem ? I can explain this in a layman way.

Well, the cryptotalk campaign rules are not made by any bitcointalk manager, they are solely the cryptotalk rules.
You live in a country where gambling / drugs is allowed but when you to travel to another gambling prohibited country, and there you start gambling too, then you will have to face the consequences maybe court of law or deported.
Another example, like you can smoke everywhere but cannot smoke in "smoking prohibited areas" , so when you post in bitcointalk, you have to abide by the common rules / best practices of bitcointalk and constantly positing 20 posts a day is certainly considered spam in this forum.

[1715272996]

1715272996

[1715272996]

1715272996

[1715272996]

1715272996

[1715272996]

1715272996

[2double0]

Many people will not understand this. Those who follow the rules are considered as good and obedient citizens,so when they are posting within the limits of the rules (20 Posts), what's the problem ? I can explain this in a layman way.

It doesn't bother a manager too much if you make 2 posts or 20 a day, but making high quality posts is what matters. Ok, leaving the high quality thingy aside, unless you are a well established user like Royse777 'giving his example' who can easily surpass this number and still remain in the campaign because he had been posting more than 15, sometimes even 20 or more way before this campaign popped. Basically, you need to be doing it already is what I meant. If you slowly grow your number of posts with improved quality, I or even a manager won't see anything bad in keeping you in any of their campaigns because if you are constructive as well as helpful to the community, they will show their willingness themselves (yes, I have seen managers contacting good high quality posters to join their campaign and some even paid more to those users compared to what an average Hero/Legendary would be getting as shown in their rates).

Well, the cryptotalk campaign rules are not made by any bitcointalk manager, they are solely the cryptotalk rules.
You live in a country where gambling is allowed but when to travel to another gambling prohibited country, and there you start gambling too, then you will have to face the consequences maybe court of law or deported.
Another example, like you can smoke everywhere but cannot smoke in "smoking prohibited areas" , so when you post in bitcointalk, you have to abide by the common rules / best practices of bitcointalk and constantly positing 20 posts a day is certainly considered spam in this forum.

I will repeat my words here - Yahoo or any other manager should have no issues with your ^20 posts or even more^ if you were that active before as well but doing so just for the sake of this campaign will leave you empty handed. I am seeing some old reputed users too getting banned and I would like to thank Cryptotalk 'Yobit' guys who came up with this campaign because this didn't prove to be a curse but a benefit to this forum as it brought too many people under the radar and helped us see who's here for what. Constructiveness and helping out are 2 very great things we are all here for, and I don't see the old forum any more where we had some general yet meaningful talks.

[FIFA worldcup]

I have seen many high reputation accounts getting banned from the signature and talks are going on about banning these people from the forum as well

Not only do you have to worry about me banning you in the campaign, you have to worry about losing the account.

Does this give clues to us what next ? 
Are we setup to get rid of the spammer & shitposters for once and forever. I am seeing a clean sweep 

[Dabs]

And as already written by the others, the greedier posters won't read, no matter how you do it, because all they care is to post.

And once they post, if they post garbage, then they get banned and not paid.

I'm thinking, and it will probably eventually come to this, there should be some sort of standard for signature campaigns, that all managers and whoever runs them will follow. Currently, the average is a fixed pay per week with a minimum of 25 posts.

If all campaigns followed this as a guide, and limited participants to how many they can afford to pay (or even just to fix it to 30 to 50 people) they'd have a campaign that would do well and last long, good for them, good for the posters too.

The good posters will stick around, the bad ones will get kicked out.

The differences would be in the pay rate, and the number of total participants and some would be closed for new people.

Glaringly, the automated yobit / cryptotalk one has the highest number of posts at 20 per day, and the highest number of participants at around 200 to 300 already.

As far as posters are concerned, post/weekly and fixed/weekly are the same thing, they will simply max out the weekly posts.

It's the post/daily which is set at 20 that causes problems.

[2double0]

I have seen many high reputation accounts getting banned from the signature and talks are going on about banning these people from the forum as well

Not only do you have to worry about me banning you in the campaign, you have to worry about losing the account.

Does this give clues to us what next ? 
Are we setup to get rid of the spammer & shitposters for once and forever. I am seeing a clean sweep 

I do not want that to happen because your life should not get over due to a single mistake given the fact that how big the mistake is. I think signature bans are good at the moment and those accounts should be given long term sig bans and the time gap between their signature ban begins and when they are allowed to wear signatures again, if those accounts make less posts or just stop doing it completely and then start posting again once they get their signature wearing ability back, then such users should be punished with a straight ban from the forum 'and these are my personal views'.

For users who are still spamming not in Cryptotalk alone but also in other signature campaigns, I have an example here with some questions:

If you are working for an employer IRL, do you:

+ Do your job at your own convenience?
+ Go to office whenever you want to?
+ Leave your job any time you want to?
+ Find another one and get joined immediately?

If your reply is Yes, I will believe you are one of those very lucky guys who got to do that but you know that is not the case with anyone in this world. If you are at a job, you need to give your 9 to 5 or whatever time you agreed on, to the company alone without any objections. You need to do whatever kind of work is given to you because you need money and you will do anything for it but no shortcuts allowed there. Are you allowed to do all your work in just 3-4 hours in one single day and then you're asked to rest at home, give all your time to your family? Well nobody's that fortunate to get their boss asking such things even once in a year, and if they ask these questions to you probably means you are going to get fired. If you can't do your whole month's job in a day, how can you think that you'll make 20-30 posts in just 5 hours and then the Manager will do applause for you and pay you? These companies that hire you in their signature campaigns want you to work, give your time, spread your posts and indulge in healthy discussions and not just shit just to earn money. You really need to give that damn time to the forum too if you see this as a job, spreading those 20-30 minimum posts cap 'in other campaigns' throughout a week and not in just 1 day and then get paid for that. I hope that many users will learn through this example and stop shit posting while start earning a buck for their real efforts.

[Findingnemo]

I have seen many high reputation accounts getting banned from the signature and talks are going on about banning these people from the forum as well

Not only do you have to worry about me banning you in the campaign, you have to worry about losing the account.

Does this give clues to us what next ? 
Are we setup to get rid of the spammer & shitposters for once and forever. I am seeing a clean sweep 

I guess they will be listed in New Sig Spammer/Blacklist (Clean start for all) so they may not participate in any of his future campaigns,which will be followed by most other campaigns as well.So they will lose their chance forever to join in bitcoin paying signature campaign.

[AB de Royse777]

~snip~
unless you are a well established user like Royse777 'giving his example' who can easily surpass this number and still remain in the campaign because he had been posting more than 15, sometimes even 20 or more way before this campaign popped.

Aww!
It's good to see that I am well established for making a lot of posts :-P but guys, I really slowed down last few days/more than a week. I hope I will come back with the full pace.

By the way, about this campaign thing, if anyone is already making large number of posts then it's common sense that they will not get effected. But some who do not post even 10 a week but in a sudden if they start to post 20+ a day then it is worrying unless they are making really very constructive posts.

Good luck with all the participants.

[NeuroticFish]

It's the post/daily which is set at 20 that causes problems.

Clearly. And your idea for sticking to a relatively low number of posts per week could help, but not necessarily. It needs more than that.

I mean a company that wants exposure no matter what, will just allow lowest ranks possible that can show anything in the signature. And if a 25-30 posts/week will become overall rule, then people will have the incentive to make multiple accounts and (still) spam.

One would say that the power is in the hands of campaign managers (I thought so too at some point). But is it? Let's see... Of course that many posters start and continue completely useless discussions just to increase the post count. But the answers are not meaningful, so managers can count them as spam. Or let's say it is spam, after certain numbers (I don't know numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if cryptotalk gets more than 1000 new posts every day) they simply cannot do the best contextual check for all the posts. I've read that yahoo62278 would clean one one of such campaigns. I fear it's a way too big job for one person.
They are still humans and will not do tremendous job for free. Do the spammy campaigns pay them better? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on that.
Also not all campaign managers do the same quality of works and have the same restrictions.

So maybe we expect too much from them.

I think that the forum could have a rule on that (!). Something like a campaign cannot have more than a certain number of paid posts per day/week/month. (only check the paid, because we don't want to stop people posting if they have anything to say). This means they cannot just hire all the spammers and job done.

[pooya87]

I'm thinking, and it will probably eventually come to this, there should be some sort of standard for signature campaigns, that all managers and whoever runs them will follow. Currently, the average is a fixed pay per week with a minimum of 25 posts.

if a standard is to be followed, in my opinion the minimum post requirement must be removed from the signature campaigns because it could (in many cases) encourage spam. people will have to make that many posts to reach the payment target and not everyone is capable of it so their quality could go down.

[nicecrypto]

Isn't it stated that post don't necessarily needs to be lengthy or in form of an essay for it to be considered, already I see a lot of members wearing this signature putting effort on their post already, I wonder what kind of standard you  want to be set, should all forum members wearing signature start writing easy?

[FIFA worldcup]

Isn't it stated that post don't necessarily needs to be lengthy or in form of an essay for it to be considered, already I see a lot of members wearing this signature putting effort on their post already, I wonder what kind of standard you  want to be set, should all forum members wearing signature start writing easy?

As useless lengthy essay can be a shit post too where you unnecessary prolong your words to convert it into a spam essay. I tried to cover before who can be a good poster .

Point to be noted that a poster

cannot become a decent poster even if he  

1) Write 2,3 meaningless lines or paragraph
2) Write spam posts in 15 - 30 mins interval

But can be a good poster even if he

1) write few meaningful one liners posts
2) write few of his quality posts one after the another (focus is on  few because not all good posts can be one liner or in burst)

[buwaytress]

I must be really behind the times. Heard about the new signature campaign a couple of weeks ago, but only noticed now that some threads in gambling have been getting a lot of spam, and from participants of this campaign.

The last time Yobit had this kind of campaign, it didn't last long. Surprised they launched again, not sure the last one would have brought them any good results. But I guess they know something I don't!

And good to have guys like OP remind us not everyone in the campaign's a shitposter. But if they didn't read the forum rules and follow them, not sure why they'd listen to OP. No harm trying I suppose.

[Dabs]

I'm thinking, and it will probably eventually come to this, there should be some sort of standard for signature campaigns, that all managers and whoever runs them will follow. Currently, the average is a fixed pay per week with a minimum of 25 posts.

if a standard is to be followed, in my opinion the minimum post requirement must be removed from the signature campaigns because it could (in many cases) encourage spam. people will have to make that many posts to reach the payment target and not everyone is capable of it so their quality could go down.

25 posts per week / 7 days = 3.5 posts per day.

If they don't post on weekends or holidays, that's still only 5 posts per day.

They can't set that as the maximum, because there are others who, regardless of signature, post more than that anyway.

What I'm saying is that the minimum shouldn't be much higher than this. There also shouldn't be a maximum as that doesn't make sense, but then any posts above that same number wouldn't get paid either.

If some campaigns set their maximum to 50 or 60 per week, most of the participants will hit that number or die trying. (The account will die = get banned / not paid due to spam or other violations.)


On the other hand, come to think of it, maybe a minimum of say, 7 (which means one post a day), and a maximum (paid) of 25 ... So the campaign may actually pay less to people. But then that makes it a paid per post, instead of a fixed payment per week.

[NeuroticFish]

They can't set that as the maximum, because there are others who, regardless of signature, post more than that anyway.

They actually can set 25 posts/week as maximum paid. Why not? Then some won't just post for the sake of posting.
Just some campaign owners want more than that. Would one think that the owners of a campaign for another crypto forum (the owners of a competitor forum) would care to keep the post quality here on high levels?!

That's why, as I said, theymos should step in with some rules for the maximum paid.

Edit: by maximum paid I meant max number of posts / a certain period of time.

[Dabs]

My last sentence did clarify that, maximum paid. I guess it depends on whether it's paid per post or fixed per week, or as the table puts it: p/w or f/w.

Anyway, I think I know what you mean, we're after the same end result which would be good for the forum, as well as good for the campaign owner and the posters themselves. The competitor forum would care enough to keep the campaign active, as if it gets banned or they lose too many posters with signatures, they lose the traffic they want. Posting quality would increase just enough they don't lose everything. At least it would be better than the last time.

Even without any enforced rules, there will be some sort of equilibrium reached, some sort of self-regulation. I see it as something close to weekly scheme as opposed to any other time frame. I don't see any campaigns doing monthly anymore and that's not likely to come back.

[2double0]

My last sentence did clarify that, maximum paid. I guess it depends on whether it's paid per post or fixed per week, or as the table puts it: p/w or f/w.

Anyway, I think I know what you mean, we're after the same end result which would be good for the forum, as well as good for the campaign owner and the posters themselves. The competitor forum would care enough to keep the campaign active, as if it gets banned or they lose too many posters with signatures, they lose the traffic they want. Posting quality would increase just enough they don't lose everything. At least it would be better than the last time.

Definitely, because they are trying to gain slaves 'based on what they are paying there = 0.00001 BTC per post * 30 max posts per day and they expect their users not to spam. What are they trying to gather is not understandable.

Even without any enforced rules, there will be some sort of equilibrium reached, some sort of self-regulation. I see it as something close to weekly scheme as opposed to any other time frame. I don't see any campaigns doing monthly anymore and that's not likely to come back.

Monthly timeframe is unlikely to enter the signature campaigns as users don't like to wait longer and this will also kill the interest of users who post just for money, to spread their posts during the whole month while shitpost and make the minimum posts reached in a 2-3 days period. Monthly campaigns were good actually because such could save managers a lot of hassle and time and save the hiring companies some extra bucks because the rates will be fixed or even pay per post will be lower with less number of required posts rather than posting weekly.

I have opened up a discussion with Yobit panel too, you can watch and participate in the debate here:

A humble request to Yobit Officials!