Tagging people who don't follow local rules

[Little Mouse]

I had asked users to apply only if they have 5 merits earned in the last 120 days. But there are some people who have applied without having this requirement filled. I want to mark them so that I don't have to waste my time in the future.
A neutral tag can be perfect or not? Please share your opinion on this particular issue.

[1714845833]

1714845833

[1714845833]

1714845833

[shasan]

I had asked users to apply only if they have 5 merits earned in the last 120 days. But there are some people who have applied without having this requirement filled. I want to mark them so that I don't have to waste my time in the future.
A neutral tag can be perfect or not? Please share your opinion on this particular issue.

I don't think it is necessary to give any trust either that is negative or neutral. Though there is no impact on neutral trust. If you want to spare them from others then it is okay. I have never seen any campaign manager who has given any trust to them who has not followed their list. If you think they are spammer and/or you do not like them then better ignore them, thank you.

[yahoo62278]

You'll have many applicants apply whom do not meet or read requirements. Just make a spreadsheet and add  names to the list whom blindly apply without reading, or create a blacklist.

You could also just ignore the user and never read another post of theirs.

[YOSHIE]

My opinion:
You just focus on the participants you want to accept, just let them register, sometimes in situations like this there are many things a campaign manager like you should consider.

• today a manager saw a participant without a 5 merit requirement, maybe in the next campaign the participant marked as having 10-15 merits he has, today maybe a manager can't hire that participant, maybe in a future campaign it's eligible in the campaign rules.

Conclusion: the wheel is always turning, sometimes down, sometimes up, today is not worth it, maybe in the future it is worth it.


In this situation, sometimes I've also seen CM campaigns, participants who register have (red trust and 0 Merit) the manager still thanks the participants who apply the application when the slot is open, although not accepted.
So, let's just let a situation like that float without having to mark it, with a situation like that, participants think they work harder to do constructive posts to be included in certain campaigns.

That's my opinion.
Regards.

[logfiles]

It isn't necessary to tag them, even if you are planning to use a neutral. Let them waste their time to apply, but you know which participants you are going to select. Eventually they will get back to their senses after applying for so many campaigns where they are not accepted because they didn't meet the requirements.

[Charles-Tim]

A neutral tag can be perfect or not?

I too will not advice the tagging of account due to this, tagging should be as a result of scam or an account planing to scam through posting of scam attempt contents, but this is not the case. This is even still better, I have seen on one Hhampuz signature campaign before when a user that had only 1 merit in the last 120 days inputed 1o (one and letter o), but I know Hhampuz will know about this and will not take the users. Such people can be on someone's blacklist which is perfect enough, if you can not tolerate that at all, you can as well ignor the user.

[Rikafip]

You could also just ignore the user and never read another post of theirs.

+1

This seems like an elegant solution if someone feels so strongly about signature campaign applicants not following the rules, and even more noticeable than neutral tag.

I too will not advice the tagging of account due to this, tagging should be as a result of scam or an account planing to scam through posting of scam attempt contents, but this is not the case.

Bolded part is not really true, because tag doesn't have to be necessarily negative. Neutral can be used for a wide variety of things, for example tagging shitposters, and I agree with LoyceV when he said in said in his Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system that neutral tag is underused at the moment.

[lovesmayfamilis]

You can also check those users who apply and claim 5 merits. Sometimes it happens that merit is sent specifically for registration with a subscription company. It is often suspicious of receiving merit at this very moment, as users transfer merit between their alternative accounts.
Therefore,  trying to register without reading the rules does not deserve any trust. Much more serious are the machinations of merit that are either bought or transferred to meet the manager's requirements.

[Upgrade00]

A neutral tag can be perfect or not? Please share your opinion on this particular issue.

I don't think breaking local rules is a sufficient reason for a tag. If not at user can make a shady rule, like xxx profile shouldn't comment under this thread and then call then out, if such user still comments, they could then be tagged leading to abuse of the system. The trust system has its uses, enforcing local rules isn't one of them, I think.

You can also check those users who apply and claim 5 merits. Sometimes it happens that merit is sent specifically for registration with a subscription company. It is often suspicious of receiving merit at this very moment, as users transfer merit between their alternative accounts.

Such users would rarely get selected as any merit requirement is only a minimum to get considered for a campaign, the users are still competing with other applicants and would struggle to get in if they have not been posting quality content on the forum and they'll eventually run out of merits to purchase

[isaac_clarke22]

~

Is this the campaign? [Live Now]- [OPEN] BETJA Signature Campaign | Hero/Legendary only ($50 Per Week)
Adding "Earned merits in the last 120 days: " to the application format would help, but sometimes I read that other users try to cheat on this by putting >5 in their application.
Blacklisting them, like others mentioned here, would be great.
I was about to suggest that self-mod thread could be done, but it could be an additional work for you.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't think it is necessary to give any trust either that is negative or neutral.

It isn't necessary, true, but it wouldn't be inappropriate to leave a neutral trust either.  It certainly would be wrong to leave a neg.

Personally, I've had members disregard local rules I've set in some threads I've created, but I've always reported them to the moderators and if I recall correctly they were all nuked.  That's the route I think you ought to take, OP.  Even though a neutral doesn't affect someone's overall trust score, it's still kind of a black mark against them if anyone looks at their trust--and it's not that big of an infraction if you ask me, especially since you can probably get any posts in violation of your local rules deleted by hitting the report to moderator button.

A lot of members (and newbies especially) just don't read anything except the title of a thread, and yes it's annoying as hell, but it takes less time to report a post than it does to leave a neutral for someone, not to mention the fact that they might bug you to remove it.

[examplens]

I don't think it is necessary to give any trust either that is negative or neutral.

It isn't necessary, true, but it wouldn't be inappropriate to leave a neutral trust either.  It certainly would be wrong to leave a neg.

any feedback is unnecessary here. someone did not read the rules carefully or did not understand them well, I don't see a connection to reputation here. It happens especially on newbies and non-native English speaker.
simply ignore is most effective for such cases.

[Lucius]

I had asked users to apply only if they have 5 merits earned in the last 120 days.

This is an unwritten rule that is completely meaningless to me, because any active member who has not received at least x5 (25 merits) has certainly not post even 1% of quality content from all his posts. The exceptions to the rule are those who for some reason were inactive and could not get 5 merits in that period - and maybe they are much better quality members than someone who managed to get as many as 5 merits in last 120 days.

But there are some people who have applied without having this requirement filled. I want to mark them so that I don't have to waste my time in the future.
A neutral tag can be perfect or not? Please share your opinion on this particular issue.

Classic non-readers of anything, including campaign rules - but I'm not sure if you should tag them even with a neutral tag - for your own records it would be better to make a blacklist or even better to put them on ignore like some others already suggested.

[LoyceV]

Upper management says this:

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

My opinion: just click Ignore I'm only the sixth person to say this

I was about to suggest that self-mod thread could be done, but it could be an additional work for you.

That's what I would do. Deleting a post (middle mouse button on the delete button) takes half a second.