Topic: Icopress ' Merit Source Application 🚩 - page 5. (Read 5504 times)

this aspect i hadnt really thought of. as the cm would (i would think) prioritize reading the campaign posts (thats their job after all) those campaign posts may get a disproportionate amount of merits simply because they were read 1st before the cm "spends down" their merits.

so basically anyone joining a campaign where a cm is also a ms looks to have a better chance of earning merits in that campaign than other campaigns.

does this gives the a cm whose a ms an advantage over other cms?



 

I believe those possibilities you described could happen even if a campaign manager is not a merit source. Campaign managers often get a lot of merits, simply because they are always in plain sight, and their posts are followed by a large number of users, so they will not go unnoticed. That means they already have lost of sMerits and could do what you suggested. I mean, if there is an intention to abuse merit system, there are plenty of opportunities for campaign managers to do so.

But we don't see such a behaviour from behalf of icopress. That is why I personally don't see any reason why he shouldn't be a merit source and what potential conflicts of interest could occur because of that.

Each merit source gets additional power, I guess the administrators should evaluate who will not abuse it. For example, Ratimov was not a manager, but certain manipulations with his distribution of merits were recognized. The matter is quite individual, and it can't be generalized.
One more example, LoyceV managed the campaign a long time ago, and as far as I know he is still open to such offers. Do you doubt that he would abuse his merit source status by running a campaign?


To repeat, merit source status certainly gives a certain power here on the forum. But the example of the conflict you mention is probably not the best.
If the manager himself decides who to accept in the campaign, why would he force anyone by giving him an unrealistic number of merits? He can accept them even if he earns only one merit in 120 days.

Campaign managers today generally have their hands free over management. So, for example, they can always make a custom deal with a user, regardless of their (rank) merit count. there is no need to build someone's rank, it is enough just to accept him in a higher-tier position in the campaign.

I don't think any intelligent manager would risk his reputation for merit abuse. As far as I know, most of their clients come from outside the forum and don't know much about things like merit, sources etc... Certainly, the label "abuser" reduces the chances of someone being hired.

Merit sources have a responsibility to give merits in an unbiased manner but can we really state as a matter of fact that has been the case throughout? We all have seen merit sources give over the top merits (excessive merits) to posts others would find not worthy of any attention and likewise, we all have seen quality or deserving posts being ignored by merit sources whereas others have picked up on them.

None of this means anything because merit sources are not held to account in order to justify their merit distribution, they give merits just as you and I non-merit sources do and they/others could also view some of our merit distribution as dubious/deserving/non-deserving therefore the concept of conflict of interest does not really stand up.

Hypothetical scenarios about manufactured conflicts of interest that do not exist is a topic in itself which should have a thread created by those wanting to discuss it.

Time to let this thread be about either supporting icopress because of historical statistical data proving he is an asset to the community or to post here with historical statistical data proving he is not a good candidate.

Are you suggesting icopress has a history of favoring certain clients or participants? If so, can you point to specific examples? If not, what do you think prevented him from doing it already? What specific changes do you predict if he becomes a merit source?



Why are you adding campaign participants to the mix now? Are you suggesting that merit sources should not even participate in campaigns, let alone manage them?

I agree with philipma1957. I have been thinking about this thought for a long time, but maybe my opinion could make me not accepted in the campaign managed by icopress, but this thought bothers me enough that I want to convey it here.

Honestly, I don't doubt Icopress's objectivity because he is an old member who has contributed a lot to this forum, but with him as a merit source there is the possibility:

~ As a selling point and perhaps sending more merit to the client's account
~ Send merit more often to campaign participants because he see their campaign participants' posts every week

If I look at campaigns that have merit source participants, usually those client accounts get more merit and rank up faster compared to campaigns that are not participated in by merit sources.

---

This is just my brief assumption, maybe I will revise my opinion if it turns out that my opinion is wrong. Sorry for icopress, I don't have a special intention, I just said what was on my mind

I've said many times here that the merit system is not as people think of it, and I've sided with those who claimed some impartial sharing is going on. Seeing you now again saying a similar thing, I conclude that unbiased people can think beyond the bracket and those who are favoured by the impartiality will always look away.

Well, I am not against the campaign managers becoming a merit source, but it might be biased towards the people in their campaigns. They have enough work to do already, and for this, they can't move around like those who are not CMs.

Not only that, but a certain group of DT1 users gift each other absurdly high numbers of merits between themselves (on the pretext that somehow the merits will trickle down the slippery slope) then do little to gift those merits to up an coming users.

I agree there needs to be a separation between anyone dispensing merits and those administering signature campaigns.

I normally wouldn't mind having a signature campaign manager be a merit source. After all people that have a job related to this forum spend a lot of time here and could spot valuable posts easily due to their experience. 

But right now I know that there's an oversupply of merit. Merit sources have thousands of sMerits and there's a distinct lack of influx of new users. You're a very weird exception to this rule becoming a legendary user pretty fast compared to others. But most new people that come into this forum are either interested in bounties or local boards. So it doesn't make much sense at this moment to have even more merit sources in my opinion, especially when there's years worth of backlog for local board merit sources.

For one, our local Greek board hasn't had even a moderator in months, let alone merit source applications from Greek speakers pending for years! Theymos' attention should be directed to older requests imo with a focus on other things like local boards.

I understand what you mean, but in the end, I think there is no conflict of interest.
The campaign manager makes the rules, he can even book the campaign by invitation only. And then you can invite whoever you want and pay whatever you want, regardless of the ranking.

Either way, I understand what you mean.

Yes.

And it gives an extra level of power and control to a campaign manager.

A} he or she can pick and choose anyone he wants to be in the campaign = true.
B} he or she can get rid of anyone he wants to get rid of = true.
C} he can ask the person to be sure to post in certain sections for credit = true.

D} with source merits he can boost a person to earn more = not true for icopress as I think is is not a source.


I think no source should be a campaign manager. It has been claimed a source already is a campaign manager there was a post that said this.  If true It is a conflict of interest and that person should surrender  his source for the good of bitcointalk.

A manager can do this only if he is incredibly interested in a particular user. Personally, I doubted the reality of such a situation. There are quite a lot of participants on the forum who write good, qualified posts, and that is why there is serious competition when applying to signature campaigns. Why would a manager risk his reputation as a merit source by upgrading a specific user faster when he can simply choose another user with the required rank already?

Am I noticing a bit of a hatred on signature campaign managers lately? Some people keep talking about "conflict of interest" between icopress and its hired participants, whereas it's just not true. Usually, merits are counted as a unit to encourage managers hire you. Merits sent by other people, and it's just an indication; managers (or at least, good managers) look on more than that. If the manager likes your posts and overall presence and influence, they'll hire you regardless them being merit source or not.

I'm not the most eloquent either, but maybe I can explain what I understood from your words.

You say that it could be a conflict of interest, because the manager could use his ability to give merits to a certain user to increase his ranking and thus be able to participate in the campaign or have a higher level of payment. Doing so can provide one user with advantages over another.

For example: imagine that I was still a Hero, and a manager wanted me to participate in a campaign that only accepts Legendary. I need 50 merits to level up. The manager being a source of merit, would give me these merits to raise my level, and so I could participate in the campaign.

Was this your idea @philipma1957?

I bolded what I said yep to.

Unfortunately people do not understand what conflict of interest means.

I sorry I was unable to explain the issue to you.

Or anyone else that does not understand my explanation.

I wish I could be more eloquent , but I am not good enough to get my point of view across to all that disagreed with me.

I don't know why you pontificate in such a categorical way in a forum that is not yours, but theymos'. I have said before that I find it reasonable in principle to see a potential conflict of interest, but if theymos has already appointed a manager as a merit source it is clear that he studies the cases one by one and does not see things as categorically as you do.

Unless you're abusing your role there isn't a conflict of interest if you're sig campaign manager & merit source. I'm happy your topic's at the top of meta because you're a good candidate for merit source.

What exactly do you say “yes” to?

yep which is why I don't  try too manage a campaign. So my merits are not tied with my handing peoples cash.

In reality, both support and criticism have no effect on who the admin assigns as a merit source. The admin personally told me to create an application for the reason that when he assigns new merit sources, he does not consider users individually, but looks for relevant threads in the meta using keywords.

It seems that the difference between first and second place is 159 merits, and one can assume that my favorite author is GazetaBitcoin.

I should probably mention that you also have a favorite author, since the difference between the first and second place of those you sent merits to is 177.


Although in reality you probably should have looked at the other panel which says that I submitted 3267 merit 2180 times, to 471 profiles (not being the merit source). Btw, you sent 8790 merit 4496 times, to 1259 profiles (being a merit source).

To be honest, I have no idea how all these discussions regarding conflicts of interest relate to my appointment. But I am sincerely grateful to everyone who participates in the discussion, regardless of your opinion, since active discussion allows this thread to continuously remain at the top of the meta section.