Merit jerking in relation to signature campaign

[Xiestar]

In relation to the recent event of signature ban and newly caught farm account that involves merit source or planning to be a merit source, do you think merit should still be highly consider on signature campaign?

If you view most of the merit gained by new bloods high merit user, you will notice that it’s just belong to their merit circle jerking of friends or from a merit source that is pond of bitcoin hype post.

Now, in relation to signature campaign. If the brand you are promoting is a casino while campaign participants acquire bunch of merits from local board, buy buy buy shit, wall observer and non related to the product you are promoting, do you think this merit still matter?

Same to user that joining on casino campaign that post mainly outside gambling boards. I mean, gambling is even discourage or view in a negative way on technical boards and so on. Is this some kind of hypocrites or pajeet move?

[RGBTC]

do you think merit should still be highly consider on signature campaign?

This is not a Meta issue. Again, that is at the discretion and judgment of the campaign manager; they are even entitled to accept accounts that are only one second old. Afaik, 2 managers have stopped enforcing the merit requirement. You need to tag all the relevant campaign managers in the thread if you want them to consider this too.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

This is not a Meta issue.

It is not in Meta board but only somewhat. I think this topic belongs to Service discussion board but in my opinion at least, it's somewhat only because if campaign managers do their management bad, it will cause spams that affect the forum in general.

Again, that is at the discretion and judgment of the campaign manager; they are even entitled to accept accounts that are only one second old. Afaik, 2 managers have stopped enforcing the merit requirement. You need to tag all the relevant campaign managers in the thread if you want them to consider this too.

I don't see the need of tagging signature campaign managers. Because this forum is not like social media platforms where you can tag an user and the user will know about that.

Campaign managers can use Telegram notification bots or don't use these bots, so if you tag them like @, they might or might not know about your post.

Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign). I believe all signature campaign managers know about this thread.
And they might know about another thread. Campaign Ettiquette(Signature, twitter, facebook, or any other type). You see this thread is in Service discussion board.

[Shishir99]

Of course, overall earned merits should be considered when a campaign manager accepts the participants. The 120-day earned merits help to understand how the poster is doing lately. Someone could be a good poster, but they could turn into a shit poster after joining a signature campaign. I have seen dozens of forum members who had rapid growth at first; they earned a significant amount of merits in the first few months.

However, once they rank up and join the signature campaign, they turn into shitposter and they don't even earn 10 merits in the last 120 days. As for the threads you mentioned, I think the managers are aware of this as well. I often notice that those people earn merits from those threads and even submit their posts in fillippones thread to be merited again. I believe those posts do not deserve merits.

Anyway, I would suggest you move this to either Service Discussion or maybe the Reputation board.

[_act_]

It is like you are asking everyone a question that does not belong to them to answer. Who you can ask this question are the campaign managers. Regardless of what people will post on this thread, the campaign managers will not change the way they are accepting participants into the campaign that they are managing. Also there will always be users that will be removed after being selected by campaign managers if the removal is necessary.

[snipie]

Is this some kind of hypocrites or pajeet move?

There is nothing you can do about that. For the stuff everything is fine. For the signature campaign managers, it is a way to eliminate many candidatures that fails to earn a minimum of 5 or 10 merits in three months which is not that hard to trade between a circle of friends. Just try to detect them and report them.
Ironically that sentence reminds me of satofan, aka Professor Paj, and I find him infesting you too by his red tag. There is nothing the forum can do to such attitude too

[Alvin_talk]

Do you think merit should still be highly consider on signature campaign?

Yes, I think so. Everything narrows down to human psychology, which is what I feel most campaign managers are more concerned about. Anytime I am surfing through the forum and I see a user whose activity over merit ratio is high, I usually admire it and wish it could be me one day. I most likely will pay more attention to what such user is posting and if the user displays a signature, it is most likely I will admire that brand because I admire the achievements of the user displaying the signature. CM wants more users who can promote brands effectively, therefore they hire such users. Same applies to users who post useful technical content.

If you view most of the merit gained by new bloods high merit user, you will notice that it’s just belong to their merit circle jerking of friends.

If you feel so, then I will encourage you to make more friends to increase your chances.

or from a merit source that is pond of bitcoin hype post.

So what is limiting you from making such posts?

Now, in relation to signature campaign. If the brand you are promoting is a casino while campaign participants acquire bunch of merits from local board

I wonder why you included local boards in this.

Same to user that joining on casino campaign that post mainly outside gambling boards. I mean, gambling is even discourage or view in a negative way on technical boards and so on. Is this some kind of hypocrites or pajeet move?

This is bitcoin forum not gambling forum. Bitcoin is primary while other activities including gambling are secondary. Nobody discourages gambling here but if all your posts are pointing towards gambling then you should leave bitcointalk.org and create another platform to promote gambling. The point is this; while gambling is not discouraged, it is not expected to be your major activity here. Imagine if every user here only post majorly in the gambling section, how then are we promoting bitcoin?

[FinneysTrueVision]

Now, in relation to signature campaign. If the brand you are promoting is a casino while campaign participants acquire bunch of merits from local board, buy buy buy shit, wall observer and non related to the product you are promoting, do you think this merit still matter?

Same to user that joining on casino campaign that post mainly outside gambling boards. I mean, gambling is even discourage or view in a negative way on technical boards and so on. Is this some kind of hypocrites or pajeet move?

Merit is just a basic way to filter out the worst garbage posters on the forum. You don’t really see users with 0 merits in 120 days getting accepted into higher paying campaigns from brands that care more about quality over quantity. Merit farmers do distort things in a way, so it is up to managers to look at those kinds of accounts and determine if they are getting their money’s worth.

Budgets could be spent more efficiently, but I think sites like Rainbet, Rollbit, and Stake are solely focused on reaching the greatest amount of people possible even if it means incentivizing some amount of spam.

I see casino ads on non-gambling sites such as block explorers. Brand visibility is certainly important for marketing, so you can’t be entirely dismissive of local board and technical board posters.

[hugeblack]

Merits are not the only criterion for joining the signature campaign, and they may be part of different criteria that differ depending on who applies to join the campaign. In short, the criteria are different, and only campaign managers can answer.

[Satofan44]

In relation to the recent event of signature ban and newly caught farm account that involves merit source or planning to be a merit source, do you think merit should still be highly consider on signature campaign?

If you view most of the merit gained by new bloods high merit user, you will notice that it’s just belong to their merit circle jerking of friends or from a merit source that is pond of bitcoin hype post.

Somewhere between 95% to 99% of newly established full members in 2026 that are applying to campaigns for the first time are the result of merit farming or merit circle jerking. You can easily identify such members by following the applications on signature campaign service threads. Whenever I have looked, I don't remember seeing a single high quality full member that deserved the amount of merits that he is applying with. To earn such an amount of merit without high technical competency is near impossible here without the use of merit farming or cycling methods, which is confirmed by individual investigations of such users. When an user does appear to be a bit better than the herd, it almost always ends up in a situation such as the one with TokenTikas. This is also partially a consequence of extremely biased merit sources, which is easily leveraged by bad individual such as that one -- they simply suck up to the ego of established fools here and it works like a charm.  

Merits are not the only criterion for joining the signature campaign, and they may be part of different criteria that differ depending on who applies to join the campaign. In short, the criteria are different, and only campaign managers can answer.

This would be true if there was an oversupply of quality members on this forum, but it is not true in the current case. There is an extreme under supply of such members, and therefore this kind of argument does not apply anymore. If you have 2 full member slots, and if each of the 20 full member applicants are newly-farmed accounts through merit cycle jerking how exactly would your other criteria do anything at all? Choosing 2 members out of 20 cheaters with whatever criteria does not do anything to prevent cheaters from entering the campaigns.

[lovesmayfamilis]

If you view most of the merit gained by new bloods high merit user, you will notice that it’s just belong to their merit circle jerking of friends.

If you feel so, then I will encourage you to make more friends to increase your chances.

It seemed to me that you were talking about yourself.

or from a merit source that is pond of bitcoin hype post.

So what is limiting you from making such posts?

And here I also confirmed my opinion😉. Didn't you see his signature? He doesn't care about participating in signature company , at least not from this account. But he often speaks to the point and notices important details.

Now, in relation to signature campaign. If the brand you are promoting is a casino while campaign participants acquire bunch of merits from local board

I wonder why you included local boards in this.

Are you really interested in this point? The question will hang in the air, because it's the local sections that multiply the "friends,🤷‍♀️" to use your tone.


OP, you're quite experienced, and you understand that managers will be the ones to decide whether something can be done on the forum or not, especially when it comes to selecting users for a signature company . You're smart enough, and instead of regularly criticizing, you could one day establish yourself as a manager and put your ideas into practice directly, selecting useful people and filtering out unnecessary ones for your company.

[yahoo62278]

In relation to the recent event of signature ban and newly caught farm account that involves merit source or planning to be a merit source, do you think merit should still be highly consider on signature campaign?

If you view most of the merit gained by new bloods high merit user, you will notice that it’s just belong to their merit circle jerking of friends or from a merit source that is pond of bitcoin hype post.

Now, in relation to signature campaign. If the brand you are promoting is a casino while campaign participants acquire bunch of merits from local board, buy buy buy shit, wall observer and non related to the product you are promoting, do you think this merit still matter?

Same to user that joining on casino campaign that post mainly outside gambling boards. I mean, gambling is even discourage or view in a negative way on technical boards and so on. Is this some kind of hypocrites or pajeet move?

Not all merit earned on boards like WO or from the other merit thread like buy, sell, hodl or whatever are bad merits, but I do agree that a good portion of the merits earned in those threads are bs gained merits from merit hunters.

The local boards on the other hand I put a lot less stock in, I don't mean to be offensive to the local board folks because some are legit people, but your sections are flooded with cheaters trying to share merits and rank accounts up in an unethical way. Very disgraceful behavior honestly.

Should managers look into the merits more? Maybe, I think merit cheaters are going to find a way to cheat if they need to rank up there accounts regardless, so finding these farms and cheaters and tagging them makes more sense.

[un_rank]

I think post quality is more important than merit count and should be to managers too. They have their merit minimum most of the time to help reduce the amount of users they have to check, but after then the quality the user posts should be the most important factor. If there is clear quality requirement it will help the forum to discourage users from sharing merits.

This is not a forum issue and should not be in meta. The selection process for a campaign is between the manager and the service they are collaborating with.


- Jay -

[Hamza2424]

Everything depends on the managers, they can pick someone who has zero merits and they can ignore someone who even has enough merits in the 120 days, it is their game and their rules, you can't do anything except you can become a manager.

Although merits are not bad, from wherever you are getting them, it is a subjective thing to many members here, who see things from different angles and their angles are worth it. Those who visit WHO and try to get merits are not so liked but if you are not a newbie, have real sense and knowledge of BTC, and you are here for some time, things won't matter if you are getting merits from WHO or from wherever. It sounds a bit off yep but it matters if you are a newbie the most, it won't matter if you are a reputable member of the forum.

But bro, what happened, is that sig ban for real, like when BTC will hit 1 million haha, all I saw members getting banned for 1 to x years, not like this, what did you do!

[Sandra_hakeem]

First of all, I'm starting to feel like the general concern about the unremitting abuse of the merit system is becoming more heavily debated. These abusers have shown no attempt to slow down, rather they have become more innovative in different ways. It's drifting us closer to a different era (as Theymos had already promised) where merit itself would take a different course, or get completely obliterated.

Now, in relation to signature campaign. If the brand you are promoting is a casino while campaign participants acquire bunch of merits from local board, buy buy buy shit, wall observer and non related to the product you are promoting, do you think this merit still matter?

Aside the "non-related to the product you are promoting", I agree that all other ways should not count.

Merits are not the only criterion for joining the signature campaign, and they may be part of different criteria that differ depending on who applies to join the campaign. In short, the criteria are different, and only campaign managers can answer.

The aforementioned is a criterion that most campaign managers would die to consider their "top priorities" before every other ones. Speaking of "different criteria" , what about that? The quality of post they make versus the large amount of merit they receive?

Why do you think those brainrot posters run around as much they want on merit-seeking threads? I'll answer that--- because they have understood that merit was equivalent to value, so one didn't have to scroll through a pile of post to know your quality, the merit spoke for itself.

[Odohu]

Merit is going to be important for signature campaign as that is part of what you need to grow in ranks but that is not the only criteria campaign managers use in hiring people.  Post quality should be the first requirement from most of the managers, although some managers believes that people earning good amount of merits are invariably making quality posts and this is technically correct except for few cases of people who abuse the merit system.

My take on this topic is that every campaign manager has the sole rights and power to decide how they recruit people, I don't anyone will be able to compel them to change that.