Topic: If you were a campaign manager would you select these members for campaigns? - page 2. (Read 1197 times)

I took my time to read almost all replies on this thread, and as for me, I believe that some campaign managers have more to do, and also, no single campaign has it all. Truly, I see a whole lot of shitposters, and you will hardly exonerate a single campaign out of this. Some would apply to a campaign like an angel but would become bad over time due to too much freedom or whatever reason. I think the overwhelmingness of the campaign managers makes it go unchecked for too long.

Contrary to what a user said, in my opinion, it's not only a matter of traffic to be generated for the company, most of the CMs care genuinely about the forum and their integrity too. However, the inability of CMs to detect flaws most times may be linked to posts being checked randomly. They are also humans, they can't check everything all the time. And the more the campaign they are managing and the people thereof, the more work they have to do.

Some like Little Mouse and icopress are really trying, I hardly see nonsense posters in their campaigns despite Little Mouse not being so particular about the merits for selection. This is why I would like those who suggested merits as criteria here to perish the idea. We've seen many shitposters having more merits and less-merited users talking the most sense.

Proactive reading and effective verifications by CMs are key here. Doing this, naturally, they can detect the shit posters all by themselves.

What is very easy to notice is that over time there are fewer and fewer members who can be considered quality posters, and we have more and more campaigns that have their own requirements. Every manager therefore has to face the problem of whether he will fill the spots with someone or he will turn out to be incompetent and, accordingly, he will not get the opportunity to manage other campaigns in the future.

---

He has been spamming with that account for years and there have already been discussions about how it is possible that someone pays him to be in campaigns that pay above average. The only logical explanation is that the account belongs to the company it promotes.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/please-do-somethingban-request-5148657

One of them is running the Stake campaign. There is no logical reason one can think of that would provide any explanation as to why certain members have been selected to participate in that campaign.

The other, he was affected when mixers were banned. Eventually several of those participants I referred to were dropped because the pool to select participants became larger. It is still did not negate the fact he used far too many members with tags during that period but that is a different matter.

Here is another account. The previous spamming, news spamming and low quality posts have improved but nevertheless it being included in a high paying campaign raises questions:

==========
Campaign: Bitcasino
Member: mich
Trust:    # +0 / =1 / -4
Reason: Account changed hands. Previous low quality posts/news spammer.
==========

Perhaps you are right, but from my own example I can say that sometimes it seems to us that we are not paying enough to the manager who runs our campaign.

I saw this on the other thread and had to see for myself. Though we cannot indisputably prove merit sales, some cases are very difficult to prove I believe these accounts are connected. I doubt the accounts will reply to this as they have nothing to say in their defense. I think it’s time we have a set of points to prove merit sales and abuse, so if we can get 2/3 points the accounts involved should be tagged accordingly.

Campaign managers may not always have the time to check the merit history of applicants. I believe they make their assessment from the recent post history and merit count. A neutral tag referencing the accusation would help the manager make a more informed decision.

I would also like to draw attention to two accounts whose merits are transferred at high speed. This behavior very loudly indicates that one account is brazenly raising the rank of another account, taking advantage of the fact that we still do not have a mark in the rules for the overflow of merits.

But if I were a manager, I would certainly notice such behavior and would not accept both accounts, only because the forum is not two people but a whole community, and besides my friend, or alternative account, dad, mom, or dog, there are other people whose posts are much better that should also be appreciated.
If these people, of course, understand what a community is.

I would note that a post that contains copy-paste with a link is rated three merits, which indicates that the sender and recipient are clearly not playing fairly on the forum.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63902838

And if a person is deceived once, then a second deception will not be far off.

Very interesting Thread idea

My serious question is whether I am allowed to post here one or the other @member who is participating in a signature campaign and who is using foul language such as

You are one of the biggest pieces of shit...............
you illiterate moron
Remember, when you were kissing his (Signature Manger) ass,............
.............. for being a massive dick.

I have no doubt AI is already starting to really fuck things up here, and it's only going to get worse.  The big problem I have personally as a merit source is that I don't have any way of knowing if a member is using an AI tool or not.  The last thing I want to do is help some pants-pissed shitposting account farmer rank up his stable of cookie-cutter alts.  Has it come to the point where I need to start using an AI detection tool before handing out merits to members I'm not familiar with?

I don't know the managers of which you speak, but I surmise that their mindset is "I don't give a fuck".  That's how this forum gets polluted, and it's sad.

A poll cannot be added because this thread is designed for other members to post the names of accounts they deem to have a dubious enough background to not be enrolled on campaigns and then to question why any manager would bother enrolling them in the first place. That was discussion could take place but adding a poll would limit the narrative to just the name (or names) in the OP.

Personally, I would do the same as you but it would be interesting to see how many back that view.

Well, the aim has to be Hero/Legendary rank and the reason for that is obvious. That arimamib account like a huge number of accounts is trying to increase rank as soon as possible in order to join campaigns. Generally speaking, it might not be an issue but when it comes to account farming and using AI, it probably is changing the way the forum operates.

There were are/only two campaign managers that enrolled an unnecessary number of members with negative tags (or highly critical neutral tags). It does make you question theie mindset.

Yee Haa! You sound like one of those tobacco-chewing baddies from a western. I am on it Sheriff  

If was not supposed to come across as rhetorical, I was inviting discussion and/or debate.

As for chatbot spammers, clearly this will get worse over time. If Carollzinha were to take action on many of those enrolled in the Stake campaign, I think it would have a profound effect in helping to clean up the forum.

What it cannot do is stop AI being used by account farmers because before those accounts can apply for campaigns they need to be of a certain rank but at least Carollzinha would be sending out a signal to those hoping to spam their way to Hero/Legendary rank before applying to join the Stake campaign.

I assume the question in the topic title is rhetorical, right? Just in case: I wouldn't hire (chatbot) spammers.

We've had Signature Campaign Guidelines since 2016, but they're not really enforced.

SmartGold01 is misinterpreting my post (again):

The result is this:
It would probably help if he would proofread his own text before posting. Use the Preview button and edit a few times.

Since we're in a topic about who to hire, I'll address this: I noticed in this post that you're just repeating what has been said already, and then say the same thing again with different words. In this post you type a lot, but you don't say much. This comes to mind:

OMG, I would absolutely reject that member (arimamib).  I took a look at the first page of his post history, and he's writing long, bloated posts that usually mention words of the thread title in the first sentence but that contain very little of interest.  The paranoid little devil that lives on my shoulder suspects he might be getting some AI help, but even if that isn't the case, arimamib is a complete shitposter.

I could list dozens, probably a hundred examples for the community to analyze--but why bother?  The only opinion that matters as far as whether any shitposting moron gets into a campaign is the manager, not the rest of us who don't manage campaigns. 

That's certainly true, but it didn't seem to be as bad a few years ago aside from oddball campaigns like Yobit and secondstrade, who would accept anybody and probably didn't even have managers monitoring the campaign participants.  I don't think either of those accepted members with negative feedback, however.  That should be a rule for any campaign, if only out of self-interest on the part of the project.  Who'd want members with red trust advertising for them?

Give 'em hell, JollyGood!

If I ever manage a campaign then I won't consider such users in my campaigns. If the member in my managed campaign use AI content in a mistaken way then I may give that member a second chance with a warning that if he/she found to be using AI generated content again then I'll blacklist him/her and he/she won't be able to participate in campaigns that I may manage in future.

If I become a campaign manager then my focus will be to select those members who are active members of the forum and who make post themselves not copy/paste AI generated content and consider it as their own. I would look for each post of the participants that I accept in my campaign and if any of those contain AI generated content then I will personally send that user a private message with warning that if he/she continue positing such content then I will remove him/her from the campaign.

At initial stage of my management career I would only consider those members who actively contribute to the forum and are some of the known names of the forum. But, overtime I may select all those members that make quality posts and contribute to the forum in one way or other. I would give main priority to the quality/contribution of the member that I accept in my campaign. I may look for merits, reputation, trust ratings, and some other details of that user, but again my main priority should be quality of the posts and contribution of that member.

If I were to be a campaign manager, I would accept the above two users only if these conditions are met;

• I have large number of participants to hire.
• More credible users are not showing interest in my campaign.

However, I think for you to have a more organised response, you could just add a poll to this thread.

The bar seems to have fallen extremely low when it comes to getting enrolled in the Stake campaign but I completely understand your views on the subject about managers implementing their own rules and interpretations. Having said that, what would you do? If you were a campaign manager would you select these two members for campaigns?

I believe there was a time the Stake manager Carollzinha updated Stake campaign rules and included a rule that prohibits Stake participants from using AI. If such a rule is still being recognised by her, she should therefore remove anyone proven to use the forum with AI.

As of neutral tags or negative tags, it is at the manager's discretion to choose who will promote her project, especially if the tags are not related to scam. Sometimes inaccurate ratings are given, so the manager should decide the severity of each tag and act to the best interest of the project.

The campaign mangers work for their clients. It's a job for them and I think they need to show results to continue their clients impressed. Since you and me are not qualified yet, never managed a campaign, discussing about who to have in a campaign and who not to, is not a good use of time. If anyone have a different idea then isn't it better to have their own campaign management?

You don't have a PhD [Where is that PhD member LOL], you are not qualified to understand a PhD holder and his papers. The knowledge is out of your reach.

It is good to see the community engage with their views in this thread.

Overall, we know campaign managers do not have an easy job and can on occasions overlook signs that demonstrate why particular participants should not be enrol on campaigns but Carollzinha (campaign manager for Stake) has enrolled several highly dubious characters that seem to defy logic.

Keeping that aside, as nobody has added any member names of their own to raise discussion and comments on, I will put another name out there for there to be discussion on:


==========
Campaign: Bitvest
Member: Zanab247
Trust:    # +0 / =2 / -0
Reason: Ban evasion and account farming.
==========

You’re not a bad poster and shouldn’t take what LoyceV said to heart (at least not in a negative way). It was his merit thread after all and he has the right to spend smerits on posts he considers top quality. A large proportion of your posts are in your local board and in the gambling board, I don’t believe LoyceV visits those areas of the forum often, that could also be a reason why you were not considered for the merit thread.

It's a shame. There are already too many spammers/shitposters in some sections like the Gambling one but not only, posting random off-topic, nonsense, low value or irrelevant content, or just repeating what they've read in the previous pages of the thread from other posters. So the forum doesn't need users posting AI generated posts on top of that. In my opinion, campaigns enrolling or maintaining such spammers should be banned or restricted to a very limited number of participants. Otherwise campaign managers accepting this shouldn't be allowed to manage a campaign here anymore, at least.

Posting differs from between users because they are of different educational standard and their merits counts is also one thing to be considered, when a campaign is launched or let me say for example I launched a campaign what to consider is locality. Yes locality matters, because some of the users here might not be an English speaking users or who is seeing their English communication skill to be very poor (using translator to post here), and for that I won't accept much of those localities rather focused on those that are passing meaningful messages.

The reason I brought it up was because of reputable users here who says my post are not of good quality, and I asked him how he evaluates his post yet there is no good reason than pointing hands at punctuation, comas, full-stop and whatever.., that is byegone.
As a manager, looking at what they are posting and reading their post from end to ends also matter to know whether these users are passing real messages or not, if they aren't passing reasonable messages then there is no need accepting those users.

Trust ratings is also one important thing to be considered which most of us here calls it reputation. There are lots of people who writes good quality post but lack merits, it could be that they don't always post in a visible boards where some users can merits their post therefore making them not to earn enough merits for the last 120 days. Although if they earned the required merits for the last 120 days duration then I will have to accept them without considering how copious their merits are, since I think merits are cyclic (revolving) between some reputable members, maybe as they think other doesn't meet their standards hence they won't give merits to them. But seeing a reputable member with just no meaningful post you would see lot of merits flowing over there as if it was raining.