Topic: Are there needed general (common sense) rules for signature campaigns? (Read 658 times)

I'd like to answer this one, for me, it's not mandatory merit are subjective and it's all up to who appreciate your posts, well I do appreciate your posts because it invites lengthy conversation for a long period of time so I gave you merit, I have seen a lot of great posts on this forum and they do reserve merits but they hardly getting one, I once applied to a bounty campaign and I only have 2 merits but I beat those who have 10 merits or more maybe because on how I post, where I post and when I post, a good manager knows how to pick a good poster merit or without merit, and it's not about the length of post but how the post connects to the subject or topic.

Unsustainable as fuck. In all my years I've seen scores of hundreds of worthless threads, and I've only created a handful of threads I considered decent.

---

Perhaps it's a panacea answer, tautological in nature, but...

If you can't report it for subsequent deletion, it's constructive.

Actually my first time to encounter such signature campaign rule on where participants would need to make some thread topics on weekly basis for some number and also need to have some post or comment
on further 1-3 pages.Who the hell created such stuff?

This would be no doubt to generate some spam and ive been wondering on how those recent accepted participants do able to deal with such camp requirements.

Update (March 4th, 2020): I added a 12th suggestion, after the apparition of a campaign asking for a certain number of threads created each week, but also a certain number of posts in the first three pages of a thread. Maybe this rule should be considered.

Theymos will never take care of this type of regulation. The answer is simple, because it would conflict with the principles and policies of this forum. It refers to decentralization, i.e. what Bitcoin and Blockchain technology are related to. It is the community that must decide and regulate itself. Top-down regulation would be against the principle of decentralization, thats why I am sure that the administration will never do it.

I totally agree that the forum administration has no responsabilities in businesses running in the forum as long they don't break forum rules. And if the forum decides one day to moderate signature campaigns, it will also have to make a set of rules for all other kinds of businesses.

And we can't tell that there is a management issue as the campaign announcement is publicly made in the forum so users can discuss it and tell their opinions about it in an honest way. But the main problem here, imo, is with campaigns lunched outside the forum behind closed doors; i can give the example of signature campaigns lunched in different bounty portails and other campaigns announced in other forums, where terms & conditions of the campaign are not reviewed by forum mods and may result in spamming the forum or banning participants; i remember there was a platform managed sig campaigns here and required from participants to post in a specific thread (spam boost) which is against forum rules and many users were banned because of their ignorance.
Briefly, it's fundamental that signature campaign terms and conditions should be publicly shown here in btt forum and that participants have to check that those terms don't break forum rules .

Not every necro bumps were signature spams but 99% it will be.So it should be under manager surveillance not under forum rules because sometimes it will be necessary to reply to such topics for whatever reasons.

9. As long as the post not only humor, but the post is also constructive, on topic, and suitable with the campaign rules... the post can be counted as well.

10. I think it's depends on the history post of each user. If the user is very knowledgeable, constructive & useful post, and have many total posts... that user should be accepted. Usually some users with high activity does not mean he is a good member in this forum, we could see this case in bounties sections. They're very active for apply and post his report social media, not in the forum.

11. I think this rule should be accepted for any signature campaign. While we want to replying old topic we will see this warning
I believe he knows this warning before he want to reply. This kind sig spam should get temp ban or deny the post.
Or maybe this forum will good if have auto locked for thread in 120 days old.

Everything I said above it's just my own opinion since I never been a manager campaign, cheers  

That's one of the reasons I started this topic: maybe if more users agree with some of the proposals, theymos would instate a rule (or more), thus taking the decision out of managers' hands into his hands. Let's remember a part of the OP (the part with bold):


Besides, has anyone seen also the two edits (questions / suggestions 9-11)?

For me 15-35 post a week is normal for an active forum members its equal to only 5 post perday which is really possible to do if you are always visiting this forum.
But having more than that its means that you only want to earn higher than minimum required for a campaign chasing more post just to earn higher to others.
Still the final decision will be in the manager even you post morethan what required if manager think that you are making many post that doesnt reach what  they want they can denied the post and iit will not added as qualified post, and all the effort you give will be wasted.

Yeah, limiting posts doesn't really matter. It's the quality not quantity. Even if you did limit it to x amount of posts it's irrelevant if a user can have x amount of accounts on that campaign. 15 posts a week is not a lot at all and there wouldn't be an issue with making 15 a day as long as the quality is there. Chipmixer is 50 posts a week and that's ten posts a day for five days a week. 10 posts is not a lot to do within 24 hours, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with people making double, triple of even quadruple that as long as the posts were relevant. I think people really need to get away from the idea of limiting certain things and concentrate more on the managers of the campaigns because limitations are irrelevant if the quality just isn't there and restrictions can be bypassed anyway. If we had all excellent managers who did their jobs running campaigns then there would be no issue with spam regardless of whether they're allowed to do 15 posts a week, a day or even an hour.

Most likely min posts. 15 is the sweet spot; average 2 daily.

Even if the minimum is halved, we can't control if the person prefers to shitpost though. In the end, it's the CM's decision on counting them or not.

15/wk min. or max.? Being obliged to make 15 posts/week can still incentivize users to make posts of subpar quality if they have a busier period in their life. If it's about transaction fees they could wait with processing a payment until enough posts are made, or simply add balance to the user's account if it's something like a gambling site and let them withdraw at will with some withdrawal fee charged.

Anyone can start a campaign thread in service section and start recruiting people to promote something so having election won't stop people from managing campaign but if all the managers starts to compile a list of people who should not be allowed to participate in the campaign with the reasons can be helpful for anyone to manage a campaign.This happened in the past which is called SMAS list but it is not anymore active and lot of new managers came here.

There are really, really a lot of things where I don't agree with you (I won't quote all proposal, just answer to your questions like [1] [2] and etc).
[1]
There are a lot of things that are individual tasks, like sending merits too.
Campaign manager counts your post and pays you money, if he mistakenly counts your nonconstructive posts as a constructive ones, it means they pay you money in what they don't have to pay, it's their, campaign manager and campaign owner's fault (cause he hired manager). But I guess it's not that hard to decide whether post is constructive or not.
Again, if manager thinks that your posts are constructive, it means you are beneficial for his campaign, depending on aims and etc.

[2] Of course, no. It really depends on campaign. For example campaign of gambling website won't have a need of posts in politics and etc. But if I am USAID for example and started accepting of bitcoin and want to run campaign, I may accept posts in politics so why to deny it? Posts are denied in some boards because campaign manager doesn't think that posts in particular boards will be beneficial for campaign.

[3]
I have one question for you: If you post constructive posts, should all of them be merited by campaign manager?
So I would say no on your proposal. Again imagine a person that posts in gambling section but you need such person. This is the section where merits are rarely sent so...

[4]
It depends on post quality, not on merits and merits aren't sent to all high quality posts.

[5]
That depends on signature design, Hero and Legendary ranks offer you higher space that gives you an ability to write better and nicer signature in bb code.

[6]
Why?

[7]
This will cause that a lot of users will start getting fake trust scores, it will 100x abuse trust system, believe me.


What you don't understand is that campaign isn't run by forum so why do you set rules on them?
Campaigns are run by individuals to help achieve their marketing goals, if it doesn't cause damage for forum (spam and etc), then everything is okey. If it causes, then forum can ban certain campaigns.
And if campaign manager doesn't choose good participants, of course he/she won't achieve goal of campaign owner and such person won't get offers of campaign management.
It's like you won't get customers if you produce bad, disgusting food.
The worst thing in campaign is to force someone to post what they don't want to.

I will not answer point by point since some did very good and you have the info you need.

I'll tell it short: different campaigns require different minimum quality, hence their requirements in rank, merit, exigences in deciding the posts to be paid are different. And different campaigns wants different exposure too, hence the different logic in selecting their members and boards to be paid.

I'll add something about trust rating. Positive trust means trading and most don't do that. But negative trust means something bad was done. Maybe at least the campaign managers should not have negative trust from DT though.


Although most campaigns are okay - meaning that they have pretty good "minimum quality" requirements, there were in history some quite well known exceptions, hence some minimal rules may not be a bad idea at all. And all campaigns and bounties should obey at least those. One example that comes to my mind would be that if a campaign encourages spam, the campaign itself is getting removed.
As the title tells though, they are common sense. But some may need to have them written down.

I am youth and have less knowledge about the forum than most of you but as I see there are many wrong usages of the trust system, feedback, merits, and reports. If those things can not have strict and mandatory standards for all, I doubt that the forum will go with a fixed set of rules for signature campaigns. Signature campaigns that are not officially managed by the forum, and people here only have priviledges to wear signature and earn a few cents and managers have their jobs there are priviledges too.

The forum does not have a fixed official rules too.

OP wrote some excellent points but to make them become really applied on the forum, it is a very different side.

No offense, but why are you posting a link already posted by two members before you?



Not reading previous posts and only responding based on the title or OP, is also something that campaign managers should pay attention. A post may look very good and constructive, but what is the point of it if it is merely a repetition of what has already been written?


This is the reason why any rules of this type are very likely never to be introduced into the forum, not only because it is impossible to reach a consensus, but also that it would be impossible to control them.

Thank you all for sharing your opinions! Much appreciated!

It is interesting to see so many people having so may opinions about each suggestion / question.

I updated the topic today, as two more questions came up my mind - one regarding humor and one regarding users which have enough merits to meet a minimum rank but don't have yet the activity required.

Besides, I'm also looking forward for yahoo's update, as he said he intends to add some more. Also regarding the statement regarding the campaign managers competences - can be done anything about that? Maybe have an election list for them similar to the DT system? What yahoo said was a truth, a truth hard to be digested but still a truth.

This forum doesn't stop you from posting one liners or even a word so campaign rules are not related with forum rules so it doesn't seems to be fit in META.

Better have this thread on service discussion.

Only simple rule for campaigns,it doesn't have to generate spams and this should be only handled by the campaign managers by checking the quality of the posts.

Merit requirement is just for an idea but that should not be implemented in a strict way like you mentioned because merits are not distributed equally even if the quality of same between two posts.