Merit jerking in relation to signature campaign

[GeorgeJohn]

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?

Already each signature campaign has it's rules on merit before been hired or accepted participants into signature campaign...but some doesn't make it to be open..but you most at least earn a merit....

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.

They're people who like to award a merit to the beginners, and they're people who like to award a merit to their local boards, depends the board a merit source like visiting, why some award a merit due to your posting style and the information you are passing to across to the community..it's doesn't mean it's a circles, but it's choice to award a merit...

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?

What you should know is that, merit is not a brand, and people that earn merit regularly is not promoting merit, rather they're promoting brand of casino or exchange the signature campaign they're into...

[Rhow]

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?

Yes, I think it should be taken seriously. But the problem is that most farm accounts post well and even earn a lot of merit before they get ranked and participate in the campaign. Later, when they get the opportunity to participate in the campaign, they cheat the campaign manager and start posting badly and cannot earn merit. I can mention many such accounts whose start was quite good, but in the end, the merit number in their account is almost zero after participating in the campaign. One of the reasons for this may be that they are busy creating and managing multiple farm accounts, nothing else. So those accounts will be on my list of suspicions, which earn a lot of merit before entering the campaign, but in the end, their account is suffering from merit.

Merits are not the only criterion, campaign managers also look out for other things such as;
boards of interest;
quality of post;
support to project among others.

I do not support op that merits should be disregarded in selecting campaign participants. If merits are totally neglected in campaign processes, it might lose it's value in the forum.

Even though merit is not the only criterion, you can go to the service board and see how much opportunity accounts with a lot of merit are getting (whether it's farming merit or shitposting).

[AakZaki]

Indirectly, you advise the Campaign Manager, not to embrace participants who get a lot of merit or merit from their circle of friends. Actually, it's not necessary, because I think the Manager already knows better than you, who will be accepted into the campaign.

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?

As an illustration when someone gets a lot of merit for their post, doesn't it mean that the person gets attention from other members for their post, imagine if the one who gets the merit uses a signature, doesn't the signature also be seen longer by the member who sent the merit.

I think it also has something to do with what I said above, why some managers consider merit acquisition before their participants join.
Regardless of who gives the merit, the manager won't care about it. The most important thing for him is that his post is good and then he gets merit, and his signature is seen longer by many people, including those who send the merit.

Regarding farm accounts involving merit as you said, the Manager again won't care, but for sure when those farm accounts are found by cheater hunters I'm sure the Manager will take them out.

[Xiestar]

As an illustration when someone gets a lot of merit for their post, doesn't it mean that the person gets attention from other members for their post, imagine if the one who gets the merit uses a signature, doesn't the signature also be seen longer by the member who sent the merit.

I think it also has something to do with what I said above, why some managers consider merit acquisition before their participants join.
Regardless of who gives the merit, the manager won't care about it. The most important thing for him is that his post is good and then he gets merit, and his signature is seen longer by many people, including those who send the merit.

Regarding farm accounts involving merit as you said, the Manager again won't care, but for sure when those farm accounts are found by cheater hunters I'm sure the Manager will take them out.

It’s not about having a huge number of merit per se rather how they acquired it.

Are you suggesting that users like the recently bust multiple account on both Pakistan, Nigeria and Turkey are good for you. There guys are caught after cheating the campaign for a long time while their source of merit is through merit cycling with “friends”.

They can easily enter the campaign with their merit count since they can outshine organic users that use the forum without butt buddy system for merit despite their post quality just add noise specifically on gambling board which they are required to post for campaign quota.


I’m not suggesting anything to campaign manager. The heck if they will listen.

[EarnOnVictor]

-Snip-
Is this some kind of hypocrites or pajeet move?

The merit system may be good, and can't be perfect, but it's obviously not even near the "perfect." That near perfection is what the forum should work around to further strengthen the system and reduce abuse, but that has not been taken seriously. Asking for individual's ideas about this would have given the admin idea to work around it. But in the absence of that, you had better look way because more would happen. Once it's human beings involved in a system, there is no way the system will not be hacked with human nature; more reason why the overall system should be restructured with fairer rules backing it.

[PrivacyG]

I can not remember the last time Merits were so important that they were the decisive factor in choosing a participant.  In fact.  I can perfectly remember managers talking about how while they do have some kind of importance, there are members who they would accept simply because they are very active and useful in a particular part of the Forum, such as the 'Development & Technical Discussion' Board.

I would like to imagine that managers do not simply look at the applications list and sort them by Merits, descending to pick the first for the available slots.  It is more complicated than that, people change too, some become high quality posters, others become shit posters, there is no singular way of choosing a new participant.  What I can say is that I see them very often active in the Reputation board, which means they are aware and take in to account things that happen around here too, including the 'Merit jerking'.

[Repeat06]

Before each campaign manager adds someone to the campaign, he or she looks at the quality of each person's posts very carefully. If the quality of a person's post is good, then he or she is added to the campaign.

In the case of Merit, the issue you raised. Merit, the moderators are always working to prevent fraud and whenever they see any kind of illegal transaction, they immediately take action.

[Nathrixxx]

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?

Merit was introduced to prevent spammers from ranking up, those that operate signature campaigns are managers and not the forum, of which merit is not the only criteria that some signature campaign managers look into before accepting members, I believe the check and other involvement like trust among others before selecting their participants, so this has nothing to do with the forum than they can pay managers having their desired qualities they look into before selection is being made.

[Woodie]

OP you seem like someone that reincarnated from the ashes, but whatever the case if you were to become a campaign manager, I see you can make a good one with the logic you are using  

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?

Merit in such a  case certainly wouldn't take preference because profile doesn't fit the intended audience to market the brand..and now that you have presented it this way, perhaps this board should not show sigs and this should be cosmetic fix to spam.

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?

Let's be honest with ourselves, if Campaign managers went all out following this, the most influencial users on the forum would miss out for obvious reasons, they simple don't fit the niche for the brand !!

------

pajeet move

Lol you have been on meta and reputation board for such a long time and now picking some words of your own

[Satofan44]

I can not remember the last time Merits were so important that they were the decisive factor in choosing a participant.  In fact.  I can perfectly remember managers talking about how while they do have some kind of importance, there are members who they would accept simply because they are very active and useful in a particular part of the Forum, such as the 'Development & Technical Discussion' Board.

I would like to imagine that managers do not simply look at the applications list and sort them by Merits, descending to pick the first for the available slots.  It is more complicated than that, people change too, some become high quality posters, others become shit posters, there is no singular way of choosing a new participant.  What I can say is that I see them very often active in the Reputation board, which means they are aware and take in to account things that happen around here too, including the 'Merit jerking'.

This kind of criteria does not work when the majority of applicants are cheaters, which is the case for at least the Full Member rank. I have talked about this in another post. Additional criteria are completely ineffective when all you are doing is trying to pick 2 applicants out of a pool where all of them are cheating in one way or another. Perhaps in some points of the past it was more effective during times where the situation was not so grave, but in recent times the whole ordeal is a joke. The most well-connected users are farming accounts en masse through local boards, that is why signature bans have to be handed out much more rapidly and with a faster progression to a permanent signature ban. Even that is only a bandaid solution, when the issue itself lies in the merit system and with those that are able to distribute merit.

[Xiestar]

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?

Let's be honest with ourselves, if Campaign managers went all out following this, the most influencial users on the forum would miss out for obvious reasons, they simple don't fit the niche for the brand !!

Why do they need to be included on signature campaign if their post style doesn’t fit to the brand they are promoting. @Theymos doesn’t wear a signature code and even the great @loyceV doesn’t join on casino signature campaign because he is not a gambling board poster. FYI, @LoyceV can beat most of the regular gambling board poster if he will do it.

This reasoning of you is illogical. This board including reputation shouldn’t display signature to avoid insignificant comment like this.

[Woodie]

This reasoning of you is illogical. This board including reputation shouldn’t display signature to avoid insignificant comment like this.

And how do you bring in the two users in this conversation, you really want to be noticed? And since when did you see Theymos putting on a signature   tbh that's now you going off topic.. clearly you like the attention and for your own information do you know how much of a brand approval that would mean if MVP1 Theymos did that !

And btw read my reply slowly, I was simply saying saying the most technical users on BCT, the sigs that appreciated them aren't supported, and if say they wanted to be part of the rodeo then most likely they would have landed a custom offer... I know in your past life you know this stuff.

[LoyceV]

@loyceV doesn’t join on casino signature campaign because he is not a gambling board poster.

That's not the reason. You're on my Ignore list already, but please don't spread the wrong information about me. The topic with the reason for not joining casino campaigns is linked from my signature:

the Netherlands no longer allows advertising for gambling sites (including affilates), unless they can prove less than 5% of the players are under 24 years old. I don't like this level of government involvement, but it applies nonetheless.

[The Cryptovator]

Do you have any specific allegations against any specific merit sources or users? Then it's better to create thread on Meta or move that thread. I know people sometimes exchange or abuse the merit system, but unless there is strong evidence about the merit source, then we can’t point them out, especially about merit sources.

Admin seems isn’t too strict about sending merits, so it doesn’t matter which section the user's earnings merits are from. Managers require a specific merit to join the signature campaign. That’s why possibly a few users may abuse merits between each other. If you find any users really abusing the merit system, then raise the concern on the reputation board.