I agree there needs to be a separation between anyone dispensing merits and those administering signature campaigns.
Topic: Icopress ' Merit Source Application 🚩 - page 5. (Read 5206 times)
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 agree there needs to be a separation between anyone dispensing merits and those administering signature campaigns.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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?
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.
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'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?
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 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'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?
yep which is why I don't try too manage a campaign. So my merits are not tied with my handing peoples cash.
What exactly do you say “yes” to?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.
it means no campaign manager should be a source.
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.
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.
yep which is why I don't try too manage a campaign. So my merits are not tied with my handing peoples cash.
What exactly do you say “yes” to? 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.
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.
that leader got 256 merits.
number 2 merit reception was only 97
number 3 merit reception was only 82. [...]
It seems that the difference between first and second place is 159 merits, and one can assume that my favorite author is GazetaBitcoin.number 2 merit reception was only 97
number 3 merit reception was only 82. [...]
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.
Quote
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.
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.
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.
that leader got 256 merits.
number 2 merit reception was only 97
number 3 merit reception was only 82. [...]
It seems that the difference between first and second place is 159 merits, and one can assume that my favorite author is GazetaBitcoin.number 2 merit reception was only 97
number 3 merit reception was only 82. [...]
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.
Quote
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.
Last time I checked merit records are public - so what exactly is the issue here? If a merit source were to "abuse" their power it won't take long until the community calls them out for it. Besides that, what's the worst a campaign manager could do by being a merit source? Rank up business accounts for their clients? lol.
Not more than any campaign participant if we follow this logic... Any source could merit bomb a manager in exchange of a good campaign position/payrate.
I could not agree more with Hhampuz and paid2. And, of course, with all the others which expressed same thoughts. But I think the parts I quoted above are explaining the situation in best possible way.
Other than that, even if a campaign manager (icopress in this case) would actually misuse his Merit Source "powers" (assuming that his application will be approved), then he can also be demoted by theymos. There were many cases in the past, when other Merit Sources lost their status, for various reasons. The process of being "promoted" to Merit source is not irreversible and all Merit sources are aware of this. As a consequence, all which act in good faith are doing their best to preserve their status and use their "powers" in the way they were meant to: to help the forum, to help users deserving to rank up to actually achieve this, to highlight quality posts, to appreciate the ones which are good forum contributors by sending them merits.
I am sure that if icopress' application will be approved he will do a very good job in this new position, same as he did a very good job in anything else he did on this forum for years.
do you know the leading receiver of merits from icopress.
that leader got 256 merits.
number 2 merit reception was only 97
number 3 merit reception was only 82.
sorry for double post on an ipad and hard to merge them.
number
1
2
3
all supported icopress to be a merit source.
its another conflict of interest with zero transparency on their part.
decodex gave me the link showing all of icopress’s merits given.
and just by viewing the first three merit received people there is a lack of transparency and a conflict of interest.
my thanks to decodex for the link. 🔗
I want to trust manager x.
Then check his trust feedback. 
First I can’t see his long term merit history.
Sure you can. Then again, I really doubt that an average business looking to advertise here cares about manager's merit history or even knows what merit is. So if you really want to allow any manager to be a merit source you need to have a list of every merit they ever gave.
There is already at least one active manager who is also a merit source. and whom ever he is or she is they should not be a merit source.
But theymos obviously doesn't think so, so this argument is a mute point in someone's merit source application thread.
As far as I know icopress's merit sharing history has been exemplary so far and there is no particular reason why he shouldn't be a merit source, and I think it is unfair to judge someone based on some speculations about what could happen. Does that mean no one should be a merit source due to potential misuse?
it means no campaign manager should be a source.
Is theymos back to sleeping hibernation mod again? 
His last post was on February 6 and I am sure he is busy with other things in his life, but maybe it's time to check merit source applications again.
We know there is one less merit source now and I think icopress will be a good choice to fill the empty spot.
His last post was on February 6 and I am sure he is busy with other things in his life, but maybe it's time to check merit source applications again.
We know there is one less merit source now and I think icopress will be a good choice to fill the empty spot.
I want to trust manager x.
Then check his trust feedback. First I can’t see his long term merit history.
Sure you can. Then again, I really doubt that an average business looking to advertise here cares about manager's merit history or even knows what merit is. So if you really want to allow any manager to be a merit source you need to have a list of every merit they ever gave.
There is already at least one active manager who is also a merit source. and whom ever he is or she is they should not be a merit source.
But theymos obviously doesn't think so, so this argument is a mute point in someone's merit source application thread.
As far as I know icopress's merit sharing history has been exemplary so far and there is no particular reason why he shouldn't be a merit source, and I think it is unfair to judge someone based on some speculations about what could happen. Does that mean no one should be a merit source due to potential misuse?
I want to trust manager x.
Then check his trust feedback. First I can’t see his long term merit history.
Sure you can. Then again, I really doubt that an average business looking to advertise here cares about manager's merit history or even knows what merit is. So if you really want to allow any manager to be a merit source you need to have a list of every merit they ever gave.
There is already at least one active manager who is also a merit source. and whom ever he is or she is they should not be a merit source.
I want to trust manager x.
Then check his trust feedback. First I can’t see his long term merit history.
Sure you can. Then again, I really doubt that an average business looking to advertise here cares about manager's merit history or even knows what merit is. So if you really want to allow any manager to be a merit source you need to have a list of every merit they ever gave.
There is already at least one active manager who is also a merit source. Any campaign manager could merit 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 people. Do it for a month. Then let them join as heroes getting them higher fees.
What's exactly stopping a manager to pay Sr Member as Hero member (or getting him on a private deal) if he thinks that member is good and will bring him extra visibility? So why going through that hassle of ranking members up in the first place. Dunno, I think that you guys are just overthinking things.
Nope it lowers the campaign’s integrity.
Pretend I want to pay for a campaign.
I want to trust manager x.
First I can’t see his long term merit history.
So I have no idea if he grooms people by hiking them up long ago .
So if you really want to allow any manager to be a merit source you need to have a list of every merit they ever gave.
If I pay a hero 100 a week and he is a hero due to many merits given by the campaign manager I need to be able to see that pretty much with no effort.
the look at merits goes back 120 days.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1137579
so basically not just for icopress but for all of us.
so in order for a campaign manager to have a proper check you need his or hers merit history to go back way way way more than 120 days.
thats why I keep saying this is not about icopress it is about all campaign managers.
Jump to: