Merit count as consideration on signature campaign

[Xiestar]

Maybe it’s time to revisit this subject matter because there’s already a lot of case that involves merit abused including merit source.

I don’t to mentioned specific local board or cases to avoid drama but it’s obvious that each local board with high number of merit distribution has suspicious merit transfer.

Campaign manager usually choose member based on their merit count or else it shouldn’t be stated during the application or on the campaign thread itself. This requirements give an opportunity to merit abuser to join on campaign easily by merit begging and jerking to each other even though their post is not good quality.


New account earning merit like hell by targeting thread that spam merit and local board merit thread. The end result is this merit jerker syndicate control most of the spot from most signature campaign being branded as “new blood member” while their post quality are all garbage mostly on gambling board which they are required to post. They are just accepted mainly due to merit count.

I can rebut all day to hypocrites that will depend merit count doesn’t matter on selecting campaign member.

[notocactus]

Maybe it’s time to revisit this subject matter because there’s already a lot of case that involves merit abused including merit source.

I don’t to mentioned specific local board or cases to avoid drama but it’s obvious that each local board with high number of merit distribution has suspicious merit transfer.

If you see their abuse on merit source or merit distributions, reporting them.

New account earning merit like hell by targeting thread that spam merit and local board merit thread. The end result is this merit jerker syndicate control most of the spot from most signature campaign being branded as “new blood member” while their post quality are all garbage mostly on gambling board which they are required to post. They are just accepted mainly due to merit count.

It's fact that merit system failed in last two or three years. It has no longer worked well to control spammers ranking up like it did in earliest months after merit system kick off. Even with spams from Junior members that triggered the Enhanced newbie restrictions & requirements, spammers actually struggled to rank up, but in latest years it has no longer worked like this.

Campaign manager usually choose member based on their merit count or else it shouldn’t be stated during the application or on the campaign thread itself. This requirements give an opportunity to merit abuser to join on campaign easily by merit begging and jerking to each other even though their post is not good quality.

I can rebut all day to hypocrites that will depend merit count doesn’t matter on selecting campaign member.

Signature campaign is not a right but privilege that can end anytime. Let me remind that there was time theymos put that idea in his thinking and to-do list.
Ideas for improving post quality?

What are everyone's ideas for improving post quality?

I have mostly ruled out:

 - Removing signatures or sig ads globally.
 - Requiring payment to wear sig ads.
 - Banning account sales.

Eventually we have the merit system and signature campaign industry continues to be allowed in this forum.

Merit system worked well until it was abused since like two or three years ago - I can not remember exactly the time but it was when people asked for increasing their source merit as well as new merit sources.

You can find more information there.
Merit source observations.

Signature campaign managers can use earned merit in last 120 days or any time period as one of their criteria for applications to be valid, but their selection can be based on merit stats mainly or based on other criteria, it's their works. Some campaign managers even did not use that condition for applications.

Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)

[Xiestar]

Signature campaign managers can use earned merit in last 120 days or any time period as one of their criteria for applications to be valid, but their selection can be based on merit stats mainly or based on other criteria, it's their works. Some campaign managers even did not use that condition for applications.

Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)

Thank you for the input. I agree on all the point that you mentioned. I only want to extend the discussion with this since it’s my main point concern because everything with this merit issue is because of the interests on signature campaign.

You can check participants on this specific campaign Rollbit and Rainbet are full of the user that I’m describing which is the product of this system.

Most of these users climb up merit system abnormally either through merit begging or jerking on their local board. They slowly infiltrate it until they all rank up and join together occupying most of the slot. Not only on the mentioned campaign, some user have questionable merit transfer from their merit buddy whenever there’s a signature campaign opening.


Merit now is being use to deprive user to not rank up if you don’t belong to a board with high merit transfer. Worst is only user belong to this specific group with merit jerker circle can only join campaign and they can repeat the process on unlimited account in the long run without being bust. We can see now that some of these jerker being caught but who knows how many account still active and there’s a clear sign of many user which is a product of this system.

[TokenTikas]

Maybe it’s time to revisit this subject matter because there’s already a lot of case that involves merit abused including merit source.

You probably know that if there is any misuse of merit, it can be reported on the reputation board. If I come across such a case myself, I report it directly. If you also notice anything like that, it is better to report it on the reputation board.

Campaign manager usually choose member based on their merit count or else it shouldn’t be stated during the application or on the campaign thread itself. This requirements give an opportunity to merit abuser to join on campaign easily by merit begging and jerking to each other even though their post is not good quality.

Most campaign managers carefully review an account before accepting it into a campaign. Along with checking the 120-day merit requirement, they also look at the quality of posts before making a decision. However, due to being busy at times, some low-quality posters may still get accepted but they usually do not last long in the campaign. There is also an option to report such cases, so if you notice low-quality posters, you can report them as well.

[_act_]

Merit now is being use to deprive user to not rank up if you don’t belong to a board with high merit transfer.

The general boards on this forum is still better. If you post good, you will receive merits.

Worst is only user belong to this specific group with merit jerker circle can only join campaign and they can repeat the process on unlimited account in the long run without being bust.

This is not true, you can give examples. This forum has not gotten to that. Local boards have advantages of merit abuses, not campaign slots are distributed to everyone. Even people that are not having local board on this forum or that have local board but prefer not to post there still join campaign of they lost good.

[rat03gopoh]

I can rebut all day to hypocrites that will depend merit count doesn’t matter on selecting campaign member.

What if a manager says that?? I've noticed that some of them no longer require merit criteria for recruiting participants. They may have used other metrics such as bpip or bitlist as a reference, idk.

I don't think this thread has anything to do with Meta.

[un_rank]

Campaign manager usually choose member based on their merit count or else it shouldn’t be stated during the application or on the campaign thread itself.

From the threads of most managers, it is just a requirement to make you eligible to apply and not what determines their choices. It could vary from a minimum of 5-50+ within the last 120 days to show you have been active and contributing effectively, most times the number is very small and easy for any regular poster to achieve. After getting eligible applications the managers will still do their due diligence on all the users that applied to pick who they consider the best.

If you check each campaign announcement, they usually pick way less than the total number that applied and are eligible. There has to be more they are checking to reach a decision.

You probably know that if there is any misuse of merit, it can be reported on the reputation board. If I come across such a case myself, I report it directly. If you also notice anything like that, it is better to report it on the reputation board.

You need some proof that the merits were bought or are being used as trades or being sent to an alt for your report to prompt an inquisition.

- Jay -

[joker_josue]

New account earning merit like hell by targeting thread that spam merit and local board merit thread. The end result is this merit jerker syndicate control most of the spot from most signature campaign being branded as “new blood member” while their post quality are all garbage mostly on gambling board which they are required to post. They are just accepted mainly due to merit count.

I don't think the merit has failed.

Merit has been around for 8 years, if I'm not mistaken. Although for every 2 merits given, it only generates 1 merit to give, over time there will be more merit to give. That's because sources of merit, whether numerous or few, are always acquiring new merits to bestow.

So, this means there are more people with merits to distribute. When you have more and more people with merits to distribute, it becomes more difficult to guarantee the same allocation logic as you can when you have fewer people.

Furthermore, I highly doubt that campaign managers only look at the merits received when choosing a user.

On the other hand, when I see these observations about the "combination of merits", it's never related to the quality of the posts, but rather to the campaigns (as highlighted by the OP). This, to me, means that the merit system is working.

[Daniel91]

I think that campaign managers have more criteria for selecting campaign participants and that the merits are just one of those criteria, and certainly not the decisive factor.
Campaign managers are usually long-time members of this forum with a good reputation and I'm sure they understand well that there are abuses of merits.
In fact, it is enough to look at the post history of each member who applies for a campaign and you can very quickly check the quality of their posts and see where they usually write.
Different campaigns have different requirements. Some campaigns insist on posts in the gambling section and for other campaigns it is not such an important condition.
I think that the merits certainly do not have as much importance for campaigns as they used to and are more of an initial, minimum requirement for someone to even be considered for a campaign.
I often see that some people, with a smaller number of merits, are accepted into the campaign and those with more merits are not.

[Rikafip]

It's fact that merit system failed in last two or three years. It has no longer worked well to control spammers ranking up like it did in earliest months after merit system kick off.

Things escalated last year, when theymos approved bunch of new merit sources, with focus on those coming from local boards. Its not something that can't be sorted out in a relatively easy way though, but I guess we gonna have to wait for a little bit longer to picks up theymos attention.

What if a manager says that?? I've noticed that some of them no longer require merit criteria for recruiting participants. They may have used other metrics such as bpip or bitlist as a reference, idk.

Afaik, majority of the managers don't ask for "merit earned in the last 120 days".

[Alone055]

Campaign manager usually choose member based on their merit count or else it shouldn’t be stated during the application or on the campaign thread itself. This requirements give an opportunity to merit abuser to join on campaign easily by merit begging and jerking to each other even though their post is not good quality.

First of all, members in signature campaigns are not selected using an automated system that looks at the merit count or the merits earned in the last 120 days and selects members that meet that criteria immediately. It's a manual process, having a specific amount of earned merits is just one criteria added by managers probably to avoid wasting their time on accounts that aren't actively posting but are posting their applications right after a campaign is open, but the managers definitely go through the posts of the participants before selecting them, and you can't tell me that campaign managers can't see if someone is posting garbage but has earned merits.

So, even though I get your point, but it sounds like you are saying that campaign managers are accepting participants only because they are earning merits and not because they are making good posts, which isn't true, mostly.

[Findingnemo]

How participants are selected for a signature campaign is not the concern of this forum; this board is only for discussing matters related to the forum.

So reported to move to the service discussion.

Every campaign manager has their own way of picking the participants, and I am sure this is another vent-out thread after being not accepted after applying.

[mcdouglasx]

Campaign administrators and those being promoted have every right to choose whomever they want based on whatever criteria they choose. I don't think anyone should be bothered by that; it's like complaining about laws because a certain group breaks them. Now, imagine if there were no merit-based filtering system. The result would be an exponential increase in injustice, plus more work during the selection process, and more new accounts created just for that purpose. Ideally, if you see someone doing something wrong and you have proof, you should go to the reputation section and start a thread, clearly stating everything with evidence. It's always been like this; there are no perfect systems. Some will get away with it, others will be caught. We can't do anything about that.

[Darker45]

Well, if merit is one basic requirement for users to get into a signature campaign, it's logical that it's going to be abused. Secondly, if merit is one requirement for a user to rank up and therefore get a better deal for his/her signature space, it's also logical that it'll be abused.

Ever since things ran this way, merit has been recycled, begged, hunted for, asked, bought indirectly or directly, and so on. It's also noticeable how tutorials, compilations, translations, fake stories, and whatnot are created obviously for the sake of merit.

Generally, however, the forum must be better off with merit than without. As to signature campaigns, merit isn't the only requirement. And I believe campaign managers are doing a decent job in screening applicants beyond the number of merits earned.

[FinneysTrueVision]

Campaigns that have such a low requirement for merits earned set a standard that is trivially met by any reasonably competent merit farmer. We see it again and again that low ranking accounts belonging to old bounty spammers can wake up and within a week or two they are accepted into a campaign. Some campaigns, like JacksClub, don’t even require you to earn any merits. As long as you are willing to spam 25 posts per week in gambling threads you are eligible to participate.

[aioc]

I can rebut all day to hypocrites that will depend merit count doesn’t matter on selecting campaign member.

It's not just the qualification; I have also seen one with only 10 merits beat others with over 100 merits. I love to believe campaign managers have other parameters, like where you post, how you post, and the gap between your posts and your reputation in the community.
Managers are serving the client's needs, and the manager needs a good poster to maximize the visibility of the client banner on their profile.

[coupable]

Campaign manager usually choose member based on their merit count or else it shouldn’t be stated during the application or on the campaign thread itself. This requirements give an opportunity to merit abuser to join on campaign easily by merit begging and jerking to each other even though their post is not good quality.

But this is not true. If you are referring to btc based payment campaigns, I think by saying this, you are questioning the integrity of most managers. Requiring a mi,imum of earned merits during the last 120 days is just one criteria among other conditions. Honest managers check post history and frequented boards before checking the number of earned merits. At many occasions, users with less merit points get the slot from users with higher merit score.

If you can catch merit abuse, why don't you report it? Users in local boards have the privelage to get more merits from local merit sources which is not wrong or a bad thing. Managers should be aware about this and that merits is not a proof of high quality poster outside his local board.

[Comeacross]

I have read something like this in the past but I can't recall the exact thread again. Someone deliberately called out the manager and the manager responded that they should launch their own service and practice what they think is best. I don't want to mention the manager here for some reasons but I can tell you for free that merit alone is not the only criteria managers look after when hiring participants.
I checked Duelbits thread now and someone with 60+ merits got accepted ahead of people with over 100+ merits in the last 120 days. I sight one application with over 300 merits in the 120 days. This justified our claim that it's not just merits, there are other criteria they are not sharing publicly to avoid people abusing it as seen with merits already.

[TheUltraElite]

Managers are checking old post history and posting habits along with the entry criteria of having some number of merits in the last 120 days.

If you have been in campaigns previously you do have a chance to get into another campaign if you have maintained a more or less healthy posting habit. Merits from outside of local board might be one of the personal selection criteria of many managers, I would keep it if I were one.

OP, do you have any other accounts that got rejected in the recent campaign slot shuffling?

[Basels]

I'm trying to make sense of what you just wrote up there, OP. It is wrong to villify people who got the chance to participate in the signature campaign just because you didn't. I think the opportunities for participation is probably unlimited and over time you could be hired. Unless you have a solid evidence that those who were selected cheated to earn their merit, there is absolutely no reason for this post.