Characters long rule, in signature campaign.

[Perfectbaby]

Constructive post implies that they shouldn't be that spamming and of course when you look at some post you would definitely find out that those people are degenerate those post to meet their quota for the week. Naturally when making post or comments you should try to engage yourself with what they are discussing. This makes you comment without even thinking of meeting up post quota, and there are some people who do post everything in just 2 days. This is not acceptable by managers at least participants should be spreading their post within the week instead of just 2-3 days, this is called shit post and spamming just to meet up with the requirements to get paid. Post difference and space should be at least 10-30 minutes above, before making additional posts.

[Findingnemo]

This isn't a forum-related matter, should be moved to service discussion and reported from my end.

Forum allows even a single word to be replied as long as it is not a troll or zero value post, and the character lengths are implemented because of the campaign requirements, not sure exactly why but I guess the paid posts should be a decent length to make other to click the below signatures?

[Itz-prisigold]

In my own opinion Campaign managers asking users to comment a certain number of characters is both good and bad and probably to avoid spamming. And I think why campaign managers add at least 150 to 200 characters is simply  to avoid one line spam posts like: “I agree” or “great project” e.t.c . I believe that the forum should have quality discussion and not all this empty post to get paid.

And truth be told, I honestly think that this rule can indirectly encourage people to start making off topic posts. Because it's very possible that when a person has already made he's/her point in 80 or 100 characters, they may start adding unnecessary sentences or points just to reach the requirement. But if someone really does have more points to add to the discussion, then yes, the extra characters are a big advantage.

But for me, I think the quality should not be measured mainly by character count, it's just the mindset of the poster and if the person genuinely wants to contribute to a topic then even 100 characters can spark a strong discussion. But if the user is just posting to complete he's/she post count because of the pay, then even 500 characters won't save quality, So length alone does not really guarantee quality.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Can this rule also be the reason why some people usually go off topic, so they can meet up to the required number of characters needed by campaign managers.

One of the first things I noticed when I joined here is that people generally tend to write longer posts than in other forums I've been active on. So, instead of making a clear point in a few sentences, they repeat the same idea in different words, and stretch simple thoughts into full paragraphs without adding real value, thinking that it will look better when managers check their posts, and wanting to make sure that they get paid for them.

Longer posts are sometimes needed ofc, but more often than not its just a fluff.

Right. There are several tools where fans of being verbose could check how much of their texts contain useful "thoughts" and how much "water". Very often, "water" literally "floods" one small thought.