Topic: Bounty Manager as a good Merit source! (Read 612 times)

The other question
Are all new and old sources having the same rules for granting merit?

As for campaign managers
It is not right to make them sources because they are campaign managers.

It is not a wise decision. We have a problem with the bounty managers, not with the bounties. I think the best option is to limit the merit activities on bounty managers.

All that is missing here is great project or an application to join a campaign.

My favorite is the lapse from logical thinking where they would do the work because they aren't doing their other work.

Edit: Maybe OP wants to lock their topic now

In my opinion, the Merit system in Bitcoin Forum is such a thing that merit will be proved by those who will be a better quality of post quality. There will be a lot of maintenance. There is some number of Bounty managers who do not do any work, they will be doing this work.

I think the bounty manager has the right to award for sMerit to keep the bounty participants who have very good post quality.

Worst idea for this year. It will be famous way to abuse merit system.
It will be better is disable merit option for bounty hunters . Even BM not doing their own job how they will distribute merit fairly? As far as I know most of bounty managers have assistant for count post and update spreadsheet. So how we expect good result from them? They never check an ICO before start work how they will check the post of hunters.

Word.  I don't know any of the altcoin bounty managers, but my gut feeling is that they shouldn't be trusted as merit sources--I base that on the fact that I've seen a lot of them who couldn't care less about the post quality of some of the members they select for their signature campaigns. 

I don't know how Theymos chose the 36 new merit sources, but hopefully those individuals are ones he trusts not to abuse the system by either selling merits or trading them with friends and/or alt accounts.

I disagree. There will be a conflict of interest and question of integrity.

Also, not all BM are totally responsible and check bounties and rank of bounty managers. Many are either newbies, copper member or jr. member. How can you give them the responsibilities of giving smerit when they themself have not earned enough merit yet to rank even to full member.

Most of the time I try not o be rude, but this is one of the most Stupid ideas regarding merit distrubution which i have seen .
i would say that 90% of bountymanagers do not care about the forum , they just are makeing money, thus they are not a good merit source. There is enough bad bounty mangers getting merit for their threads just because the ICO was succes, not because they have done a great job of managing spam or their campaigns in general.

This OP's suggestion is empty since we knew that some BM are all just after their payment and it will just have a conflict of interest since they can abuse the smerit for their participants yet might as well returning of favor. Let's just leave this to merit sources so everything will be fair and square.

Actually I have not participated in Sylon's campaign but I based my ideas on the spreadsheet where I saw how they marked the posts as red and banned them from campaign. Many of the top ranking forum members are so critical in examining posts. You only mentioned more about Sylon how about the other high ranking FMs. It only shows that not all are really doing bad at managing. So we can put it this way, select only good bounty managers to become merit source. I could agree that some did receive negative trust and that is because they banned spammers and in retaliation they give negative trust. I understand your point, not all or everyone is good but these managers are responsible for the posts and they are the one to read it first, so I just think it would be feasible for them to encourage good post by rewarding bounty hunters and what is 1 point merit to do anyway with ranking to position like yours? It will be funny how many campaigns that needs to be finished just to reach your position. Actually up a little above this post, I don't have to quote, are high ranking bounty managers as well and are known to be doing good, I even read your name from the posts here that means this includes you, which I think you would certainly agree on me that you can be a good merit source. How about that? I am sure you would not allow spam to get in! If you can only understand my point and have read books you would discover that "Rewards are better than Punishment" and that is why the word bounty lives. Had it not for rewards nobody would be interested to post daily on a limit per week because it takes a lot of time to wait for nothing. I am not really arguing you but I only wanted you to see some good points. This is only a suggestion anyway.

I believe most of them are sources.

Should we make them moderator also?
I do not know why Theymos mentioned Copper Member word while demoting Jr. Members.

Paying approximately $15  is really become equivalent to earning 10- 99 Merits?

I saw in the past some bounty manager abusing the bounty where they was managering paying their alts.
Now, you want really the risk to get a bounty manager as merit source and get the risk to have a bounty manager with 10 or more leveled up accounts?

I stand to agree with you. In fact they shouldn't be allow to receive merits in the first place so they don't get any smerit to award . Making a bounty campaign manager a merit source sound like a suggestion someone who thinks bitcoincash (bch) is the main bitcoin who suggest. Funny to see some users buying into the idea. While what can i say, people will buy anything if you market it right.

For what I can see in DmrDmr dashboard for merit, there is a ridiculous ammount of merit being sent / received in the ANN section. I simply do not understand how is this even possible. A campaign and an ANN is simply a commercial thing, I more in favor of not allowing merit in those sections at all. It is just a bunch of people trading and possibly selling it for actions that do not contribute to BC Talk.

I am talking about 12% of the total merit in the forum being exchanged, basically sold, in the Ann section. I do hunt for bounty, so I am probably not the most popular person here in Meta, but I tend to keep my posts on topic and do a honest work for a not very large pay. As far as preventing farming, I am on the same boat as the Admins and Legendaries.

Exactly my point, bounty managers should have been the people to implement good post in the forum, but most of them don't care about the spam post in the forum, they care about their marketing in the forum, if they care about the forum, how can they ask the signature members to make a minimum of 15 - 20 post per week? assuming the signature campaign have 300 members, that will translate into 300 X 20 = 6,000 post per week for that bounty alone. Spam freely forum should have started with the bounty managers, but most of them are not living by it.  

Bounty managers in most cases are terrible. They aren't looking at anything except a google form. Just checking to make sure the user in question filled out the correct things on the form and moving on. I don't think half of them even open a users profile or click any links to make sure the work was done correctly.

Giving them merits to hand out would be a disaster. I honestly feel like most of these "bounty" companies likely own a few accounts and would make sure their own accounts were ranked up as quickly as possible.

Now signature campaign managers such as LoyceV, Lutpin, Darkstar, Hhampuz, hilariousandco, or Lauda I would 100% support being a merit source. These guys have shown either through reporting alts, users accepted to their campaign, SMAS, or other forms of anti spam that they actually look at users posts and pay attention to what's going on. Some of these users are already merit sources i believe.

Merit sources need to be a wide range of users. By that I mean users that visit sections other than just the altcoins section for their bounties. Users that have a lot of time on their hands. Bounty managers are too busy to have time to deal with this. I mean look at how they manage their time on grading bounties. Users that are here to learn, and whom actually read the forum are the best users for the job.

Bounty managers do not care whether hunters send spam or not. They need the signatures of the campaign they appear in as many postings as possible. I think they will not be able to evaluate objectively in non- their project posts.

Bounty managers should do their job no matter what, they don't need to be a merit source to do so. You don't seem to understand the cause of the spam problem at all.

You maybe right I can understand how you look at bounty managers as someone who only works for money. But protecting the integrity of the site would be so easy for them, because they are the main person who can really see directly how their bounty hunters are doing in the campaign. Moderators won't be having a hard time looking at each post each day. And besides this is what the bounty managers are supposed to do and is paid for, they are responsible for checking the posts of their bounty hunters and would be the same person who warns them if they are not doing good posts. They can also remove bounty hunters from the campaign anytime when they are not doing their job. Maybe you are just so pessimistic about ideas that seem to you as impossible especially from a newbie. There are so many bounty managers that are really good, I see Lauda as a good example. I have not participated in the campaign manage by him but as I have looked at the spreadsheets you can see how each spammers and shitposters are marked red or maybe banned. There are so many good bounty managers if you would only open your mind and not to dismiss them easily like...Sylon, wapinter, hotachy, olcaytu2005 and many others that are too many to list down, and they are not just anybody they are hero and legendary forum members that knows a lot. And if your problem is that they could only increase spam, then there is a solution to that, like when merits will be given only at the end of the campaign and only a few selected Bounty hunters will have the chance to receive it. This reward system can help bounty hunters create good and meaningful post. And because BMs are responsible for allowing bad posts they can be liable such that they can be warned and eventually be given demerit if still allowing bad post even if they have been warned.


Calling these as a stupid suggestion is like calling good bounty hunters as stupid as well. Note that many BMs that are good are really high ranking forum members, the ones who ranked legendary and hero members.  I have a lot of respect to the good BMs especially the ones I have mentioned even if I have participated or not in their campaigns. They are good and hardworking. I am very sorry to disappoint you but I really can't agree with you on this. Don't make it too general and complicated...thanks!

But Surely the people who are allowing the floods of shiposts to count towards bounties would be the best people to hand out merits.

I'm shocked - this would mean that bounty managers couldn't become merit sources.

This is an excellent idea, but we can't do that.
If you think that way than if a forum is generating spams than the whole forum should shut down. But we don't do that we are trying to solve this issue as much as we can. we should just try solving problems not deleting a whole section as it could affect in the forum in many ways!

I've got a better idea - ban bounties on the forum!

Probably pointless as I doubt most bounty managers even have many merits, nor care enough to give it to the newbies. I do think that being a bounty manager and merit source should be mutually exclusive though as otherwise it couldeasily be used just to gain a competitive advantage.

Much better idea to pay bounty managers same time bounty hunters receive their tokens 
This will force them to choose campaigns more wisely and protect hunters rights when devs tries to scam/decrease pool/etc.

This is really a stupid suggestion, as this could just be solved by not giving stakes to the spammers by the bounty managers rather than making bounty managers as merit source.

I guess OP whats every bounty manager to be a merit source like you.

Such a great idea, you made my day op

I've got a better idea - don't allow bounty managers to award any sMerits.

Bounty managers who don't do their job and pay spammers are the reason we have the Merit system. Making them merit sources would be just as bad as removing Merit entirely.

It has been a problem to maintain and check bitcointalk forum member's posts. Spams and so many posts that are not meaningful can best be seen by bounty manager. Thus it is good in my own analysis to make bounty managers as a merit source. Giving them the automatic sMerit value intended only to be given to the bounty hunters will probably give them the chance to promote only the deserving bounty hunters and allowing better opportunities for ranking up. This will also help the entire site to be checked constantly of posts that bounty hunters have created on the shortest time possible due to the direct access the BMs have over his bounty hunters. What do you think of this?