Thanks again for running this! I have seen some great informative post from so many different members as a result of this. I have been trying to branch out of the Altcoin section more and more every week. Hopefully my post distribution this week will be a little more balanced.
Great to see the forum move away from spam and more toward education.
Topic: Joe's Signatureless Challenge Archives - page 9. (Read 10696 times)
Anyway, that said, I'm obviously only applying with this account for this round. Btw, the main official rules still don't state anywhere that alts aren't allowed.
I'm not sure anyone really cares about alts on this thread. All we want is good constructive posts here. If a user can do that with more than one account (unless I have this wrong) then they may as well do and promote this scheme further.
@btcforjoe, you should try to get everyone to at least change their personal message to promote this campaign.
Also, can I sponsor the next two weeks of payments? (with 0.01BTC, do I send this to your escrow address in the op or another address - just in case you don't want there to be too much in that address or can't recieve from bech32 addresses). This is a good campaign and hopefully it'll continue.
I'm participating again this round:
BitcoinTalk Username: MyLitecoin
Starting Post Count (including this one): 39
Current Rank: Newbie
BTC Address:
Disclosure: I was participating as MyIota, but now I am participating as MyLitecoin.
I got your note. I just wanted to let you know that I did look through the rules with careful reading and so no mention of alts, which I thought was weird because most sig campaigns have something about that. And then I realized it's becauase you wanted to encourage everyone to not join sig campaigns, so it made sense that you'd want to catch everyone and their alts too in that net.
Anyway, that said, I'm obviously only applying with this account for this round. Btw, the main official rules still don't state anywhere that alts aren't allowed.
BitcoinTalk Username: MyLitecoin
Starting Post Count (including this one): 39
Current Rank: Newbie
BTC Address:
Disclosure: I was participating as MyIota, but now I am participating as MyLitecoin.
I got your note. I just wanted to let you know that I did look through the rules with careful reading and so no mention of alts, which I thought was weird because most sig campaigns have something about that. And then I realized it's becauase you wanted to encourage everyone to not join sig campaigns, so it made sense that you'd want to catch everyone and their alts too in that net.
Anyway, that said, I'm obviously only applying with this account for this round. Btw, the main official rules still don't state anywhere that alts aren't allowed.
I love seeing Newbies who post quality instead of just spamming like the majority, this is what the Merit system is designed to reward on this forum, and users like this are the ones who should be able to level up.
Thanks for noticing! Really appreciate your support. Round 3: Notes & Critique
Thank you Joe for for the kind words and for your encouragement. I really enjoyed the challenge, and I'm in it for another round. Congratulation to the winners, and to all participants.
@BTCforJoe I truly appreciate your kind words. I really enjoyed participating in the contest, and I wasn't expecting a second place!!
Thank you very for all your efforts, analyzing each participants posts.
Congratulations to nullius, Blue Tyrant and all participants!
This is for sure the best signature campaign.
I believe my most meritorious posts are my Portuguese translation of an article on the Lightning Network , why I am not worried with the price and Can Proof of Work hasten renewable energy adoption? and 2FA - Important Precautions with Google Authenticator .
On round 4 I will try to improve my text format, which was my lowest grade.
This is going to be a busy week for me, as I going to travel for a few days to a place with limited internet access, but I will do my best to produce good quality content.
Thank you very for all your efforts, analyzing each participants posts.
Congratulations to nullius, Blue Tyrant and all participants!
This is for sure the best signature campaign.
I believe my most meritorious posts are my Portuguese translation of an article on the Lightning Network , why I am not worried with the price and Can Proof of Work hasten renewable energy adoption? and 2FA - Important Precautions with Google Authenticator .
On round 4 I will try to improve my text format, which was my lowest grade.
This is going to be a busy week for me, as I going to travel for a few days to a place with limited internet access, but I will do my best to produce good quality content.
I've Merited this post with 2 Merit points. I only give 2 instead of 1 for a post if it's a Newbie making an effort, which is clearly the case here.
I love seeing Newbies who post quality instead of just spamming like the majority, this is what the Merit system is designed to reward on this forum, and users like this are the ones who should be able to level up.
@BTCforJoe: very good job, again! I was thinking this thread should find an official sponsor instead of users paying from their own pockets. "Joe's Signatureless Challenge (Round 4) - Sponsored by xxxxxxxx".
I love seeing Newbies who post quality instead of just spamming like the majority, this is what the Merit system is designed to reward on this forum, and users like this are the ones who should be able to level up.
@BTCforJoe: very good job, again! I was thinking this thread should find an official sponsor instead of users paying from their own pockets. "Joe's Signatureless Challenge (Round 4) - Sponsored by xxxxxxxx".
Congratuations to bitmover, Blue Tyrant, and the runners-up!
Joe, your critique described my past week on the forum similarly to how I myself would have put it.
In the hope of spreading some old-school antispam culture here, I will select The Rules of Spam, Bitcointalk.org Edition as the post to receive my prize merits.
It is true that frankly, Cloudflare’s Javascript checks have been driving me away from the forum. For that reason, I was away for two whole days this past week; and I think that in the time since I started actively using my account, the only period during which I posted less than this week was when I took a three-week forum hiatus in January. I also lost the draft of an extensive Dev & Tech post, due to a mishap with the ephemeral VM which contains a browser running scripts I distrust. Going forward, I hope that some means can be found to fend off Internet arsonists without impact on legitimate users.
And now, with a bow and my thanks to Joe for running this contest, I must sadly decline to enter Round 4—well, sort of.
I may have inadvertently entered a fictional character who has limited purview, and thus far makes few posts. Such is life in the æthereal0 mists of the.nym.zone: She approached me, offered her PGP key (0x69696969), and pleaded with tremulous eyes that she must enter Joe’s contest for the greater glory of her bitcult.faith. What could a flesh-and-blood mortal man say to that? I must stand down, lest she be barred by the alt-account rule.
Can she be competitive against people who actually exist? The contest grows more exciting yet! I am curious to see what Joe’s critique will be.
0. Not “ETHereal”. Bitgod forbid.
nullius: Man. You had me worried at the beginning of the week. I know the CloudFlare issue is a huge one for you, as a proponent for security and privacy. So seeing posts repeatedly about the issue had me concerned that you would not be able to deliver. But you did. [...]
Joe, your critique described my past week on the forum similarly to how I myself would have put it.
In the hope of spreading some old-school antispam culture here, I will select The Rules of Spam, Bitcointalk.org Edition as the post to receive my prize merits.
It is true that frankly, Cloudflare’s Javascript checks have been driving me away from the forum. For that reason, I was away for two whole days this past week; and I think that in the time since I started actively using my account, the only period during which I posted less than this week was when I took a three-week forum hiatus in January. I also lost the draft of an extensive Dev & Tech post, due to a mishap with the ephemeral VM which contains a browser running scripts I distrust. Going forward, I hope that some means can be found to fend off Internet arsonists without impact on legitimate users.
And now, with a bow and my thanks to Joe for running this contest, I must sadly decline to enter Round 4—well, sort of.
I may have inadvertently entered a fictional character who has limited purview, and thus far makes few posts. Such is life in the æthereal0 mists of the.nym.zone: She approached me, offered her PGP key (0x69696969), and pleaded with tremulous eyes that she must enter Joe’s contest for the greater glory of her bitcult.faith. What could a flesh-and-blood mortal man say to that? I must stand down, lest she be barred by the alt-account rule.
Can she be competitive against people who actually exist? The contest grows more exciting yet! I am curious to see what Joe’s critique will be.
0. Not “ETHereal”. Bitgod forbid.
Round 3: Notes & Critique
thank you! i did took the foot off the floor lately being a little disappointed in overall dynamics of the market progression and forum reactions. plus some sensitive posts are being deleted or ignored, which is kinda vibe killer) i do agree i could provide more links instead of statements, forgetting how much time im spending on google
However i'd like to leave this challenge as i did not really apply for any kind of signatures yet because i did not even get any information.
But you did apply. This is what I had to think long and hard about. You publicly left your application in his thread and clearly stated your terms:
I would like to rent my signature to you, as long as you can prepay or escrow the amount.
We can discuss the amount on PM, my only requirements are a signature which im comfortable with wearing, as well as that the funds are on a safe place so im sure that i will get paid after a certain time (like for example a week).
We can discuss the amount on PM, my only requirements are a signature which im comfortable with wearing, as well as that the funds are on a safe place so im sure that i will get paid after a certain time (like for example a week).
I would not have left the campaign for a paid signature, but however i think that disqualifing all of the posts because of showing a interest of renting a signature is not in my opinion same as acting on it.
But by you replying in his thread with specific requirements is the same as acting on it. It's easy to state that you would not leave this challenge because you weren't accepted. But can you understand how it looks to me? I spend hours of time and my own personal money to help users who showed interest in wanting to be a part of something cool that positively affects the forums. But when they go against the core fundamental of what makes this challenge so unique, it's kind of insulting. Whether you were accepted or not, you still applied. Which to me is a big no no.
I didn't ban you from the challenge; I just disqualified you from Round 3 because I truly believe that there is a real possibility that you just made a simple mistake. But if you'd really like to stick by your decision and remove yourself from the challenge, I cannot stop you.
Thank you for your donation and effort to make this a better challenge for all! I truly appreciate it.
Sellingaccs: Ugh. You've applied to rent your signature space to someone during this round (reference: http://archive.is/9NFuu#selection-6399.0-6401.230). While wearing a paid signature at any point during this challenge is clearly written as a no-no in the rules, I guess I didn't specify that you shouldn't apply for any paid signatures either. But this should be obvious that it goes against the very nature of this challenge, which is why I have made the decision to disqualify you for this round. I'm sorry, @Sellingaccs, this was a tough decision, but I will state that after giving your post history a brief scan, you would have scored above average, but I honestly don't believe you would have ranked if given the full criteria for the scoring process.
I have merited flip4flop for This post.
However i'd like to leave this challenge as i did not really apply for any kind of signatures yet because i did not even get any information.
I would not have left the campaign for a paid signature, but however i think that disqualifing all of the posts because of showing a interest of renting a signature is not in my opinion same as acting on it.
I thank you for letting me be part of this challenge, and wish all the luck.
Best Regards.
Round 3: Notes & Critique
Here are my notes for all of the participants. Please remember that this is my personal opinion, and in no way reflect the views of the moderators, staff, or any other members of this forum. If you don't like it, start your own challenge. These notes can also be seen on the spreadsheet.
cheefbuza: All of your posts are straightforward and to the point. You were not repetitive, and I don't find any of them to be shitposts (with the exception of your post about USDT). With the exception of the two posts that I find to be meritorious, however, I don't find your posts to be highly substantial. Your posts, however, are above average and can be used as an example of keeping it "short, sweet, and to the point!" Great job!
sull.kureen: While I do like the intent behind several of your posts (trying to steer newbies away from just joining bounties, and using yourself as an example of how you started "incorrectly" on the forums), a lot of your posts are what I consider to be shitposts. English is not your first language, and it is VERY apparent. If you're going to partake in an English-speaking challenge, I would highly advise you to start learning more of it. One thing I will tell you, however, is to stop quoting and thanking original posts in your replies. This is considered to be a shitpost, in my eyes, and it provides no true value to the discussion (whether your post was in the thread or not would have no significant value to it). Great job on your topic about the historical value of Bitcoin, but it's one that has been covered repeatedly in the past. If you're truly willing to continue receiving feedback and learning English, please check out https://www.duolingo.com/course/en/ar/Learn-English-Online and sign up (free!) to spend 5 minutes a day (or more) to learn it!
epidose: I like the overall gist and essence of your messages; I just wish that you didn't participate in so many of the threads that are obviously there to shill member ranks and activity. Your posts remind me of that nerd in a high school classroom that is trying to do your school work when there's a substitute teacher is present, but all the kids around you are goofing off. You're obviously doing the right thing, but you're in the wrong place and time to do it. Please be more mindful of where you decide to post, as posting in the Bitcoin/Altcoin Discussion topics that you've chosen just means that your well thought-out reply gets lost in a sea of shitposts. You obviously spend a lot of time on your posts, which is great, but I'd love to see more references and sources of examples to support your ideas on some occasions. Keep it up, and try to find less "spammy" topics; your posts are too good for them.
charlie137: You make a lot of definitive statements without supporting references/sources, and you also make a lot of blanket statements that really don't contribute to the ongoing discussion within the topic you're posting. It's obvious that you have above average knowledge of technical aspects of cryptocurrencies (good luck with AXE!), so I'd like to see you apply more of that to become a semi-source of knowledge and authority about topics you decide to post in, even if it's your own. Lately, you've been posting in megathreads with one-liners that provide no (or very little) value. This really hurt your score for the week, and I KNOW you have the potential to write some amazing content, as is evident by many of your posts from your history. This just shows laziness to me, if I'm being honest.
asrifki99: Does not qualify: There are no active posts within the duration of Round 3
bitmover: Wow. You came out of nowhere. You are obviously very knowledgeable about Bitcoin/crypto, and you navigate the forums here very well. Your posts indicate that you have users' best interest at heart, and I haven't seen a single shitpost from this round. Other participants, please take a look at @bitmover's post history since March 18. Their ability to do outside research and stay relevant is way above par, and if I may be honest, they are the newest user that I am proud to have representing this challenge. Amazing job, @bitmover!
MyIota: First of all, your ten-year prediction format and post is amazing. AMAZING. I really enjoy your writing style and opinions throughout your posts, but be careful; some of your posts are in borderline megathreads that were designed to shill and rank member accounts. You have to be careful where you post, and I believe your posts are good enough to where they should not be posted in threads where the OP and other posters will never/rarely return... I also truly appreciate your willingness and desire to make the forums a better place, as is seen on your stances on the merit system. Kudos to you. In the future, when posting outside references, try to include a link or image to backup your claims/posts; it will just provide that much more validity to your posts. Overall, great job, and you're another contender to watch out for in the future!
MyLitecoin: This is an obvious alt to @MyIota. If you would like for me to critique this account, please let me know. But be warned of two things: (1) If you'd prefer for me to critique and score this account, you will lose and forfeit your score for @MyIota and (2) please do not enroll more than one account at a time in future rounds. Because the discussion of allowing alts was being considered during the time you sent your applications, neither of your accounts will be disqualified from this round.
De4ted: Your posts are below average. They are either trolling or unsubstantial. Your English is passable, but it's not great. This makes it hard to convey high quality posts, so if you want to start posting more substantially, I would recommend that you start spending 5 minutes a day to learn English (https://www.duolingo.com/course/en/ar/Learn-English-Online). Great job on finding the users who are obviously merit-farming, and thank you for adding it to the list of suspected merit abusers. In the future, please do not post in topics that were clearly designed to shill member ranks and promote shitposts.
vlad230: Your post in the "Is it a bug" thread shows me that you can think outside the box, and that you care about privacy. I added that post as a meritorious post because of your out-of-the-box thinking, and validity to how a private person would want to anonymize their online activity display. It's a short and simple post, but reveals the type of mental capacity you have for privacy. Kudos. You've also shown a lot of interest in helping others and helping yourself. You've posted in a lot of Merit threads, and started your own service, which is great to help other users rank their accounts. But I'd like to see more activity in other boards besides mainly Meta and your topic. Your knowledge about altcoin is great, so why not help support some other discussions regarding mining activities and technical help? I see a lot of great potential for you; keep it up!
butka: Another user to watch out for! You show a lot of potential, and your willingness and desire to learn about and contribute to the technical aspect of Bitcoin/altcoins is endearing. You're a great addition to this challenge, and you're one of the top contenders. Your posts are yet another example of what it means to be "short, sweet, and to the point". It's obvious that you're new to Bitcoin compared to a lot of other users, but you display some great knowledge and are asking all the right questions. You're going to integrate very nicely with the forums. Keep it up, and I hope you decide to stick around the challenge for a while!
flip4flop: Another solid week for you. Your stance on Merit and users and these forums is growing stronger in what I believe to be the right direction, and I'm glad that you're continuing to partake in conversations using your opinion. I know that your strengths lie in altcoin mining, but your score was affected because of your limited reach by sticking to only a few subcategories of the forum this week. Part of the overall full crypto experience, in my opinion, is to branch out and either (a) offer insight and knowledge or (b) request insight and knowledge in all aspects of the community. Either way, you've got some great posts, and I love your meritorious post in response to a newbie question. Keep it up!
yazher: Disqualified. Posts are solely in merit or bounty threads. This does not match the intent of this challenge.
buyandsale: Does not qualify: There are only 6 posts within the duration of Round 3
Blue Tyrant: This is the round where I see you familiarizing with the forum and add to your already extensive knowledge of how it works. I like the way that you've started building character for your account, and the manner in which you interact in topics with other users. While a lot of your technical knowledge is lacking in this round, you've contributed in a fun and charismatic fashion across multiple boards of the forums. I think your previous rounds have set the bar high for you. While you did get to undoubtedly make some new friends this round, you've made far fewer exceedingly substantial posts than other participants, which hurt your score. That's fine, as I still consider you a highly-contributing member of the forums.
r1s2g3: While most of your content is original, and several of your posts took a good amount of time and thought to produce, I think you can do much better. No offense, but the way in which you choose topics to answer is carefully thought out, but overall, your posts lack major contribution. Maybe it's because of your limited English, as it's apparent that English is not your first language, but there are so many posts that I wish you would have detailed more than just making blanket statements and posting your reference/source links. While none of your posts are bad, they could be embellished a bit more in order for you to score higher according to my [mysterious] criteria. Keep it up!
Verde_Mantis: Disqualified. This user joined a paid signature campaign after applying to this challenge.
dmonrey002: Besides your posts in Trading Discussion, your posts include a lot of definitive replies that would be better supported if you backed them up with references. You shouldn't make statements like "One example, if I'm right is..." This is considered unsubstantial and provides no value to the topic. However, your knowledge in trading and investing seems to be above par of the average user here. Do you have a background in trading fiat currencies? You've shown initiatives to help other users understanding trading terminology, which is a great step towards showing that you care about wanting others to benefit from Bitcoin/crypto. Just be careful as not to give financial advice without providing some form of liability clause. You don't want to be responsible if someone follows your advice and loses in the market. While English is not your first language, you are a rare example of someone who gets their point across in the majority of your posts.
Sellingaccs: Ugh. You've applied to rent your signature space to someone during this round (reference: http://archive.is/9NFuu#selection-6399.0-6401.230). While wearing a paid signature at any point during this challenge is clearly written as a no-no in the rules, I guess I didn't specify that you shouldn't apply for any paid signatures either. But this should be obvious that it goes against the very nature of this challenge, which is why I have made the decision to disqualify you for this round. I'm sorry, @Sellingaccs, this was a tough decision, but I will state that after giving your post history a brief scan, you would have scored above average, but I honestly don't believe you would have ranked if given the full criteria for the scoring process.
detector: You've posted in a lot of speculative threads which I find to be solely for the purpose of shilling member ranks and posts. You have also made a lot of blanket and safe statements that don't provide any true substance to the topic at hand. Your posts wouldn't make much of a difference to the overall topic if they were removed from it. Please try not to post definitive answers like "Yes it's true because..." if you cannot support your opinion with facts. You can't claim that something is true based on your opinion by saying that statement, and then following it up with words/phrases like "maybe", "some groups", "is basically" and "may have". In the future, if you are posting opinion, rather than fact, don't make it sound like you are posting a fact. I know that English isn't your first language, and that has a huge factor in how you respond to posts, so if this critique doesn't make any sense to you, then I'm reluctant to say that this challenge isn't really for you. Let me know what you think.
draculaaa: You don't have enough posts outside of topics that are about bounties in order for me to be able to critique you. The few posts that you have made are horrible, and it's obvious that you just joined this challenge for a chance to win some money. I will not waste my time with scoring you.
vishnu_g: Does not qualify. There are only 6 posts within the duration of Round 3 (5 of which are in bounty threads)
Toughit: Does not qualify. There is only 1 post made within the duration of Round 3, and it was in the challenge thread. WHERE DID YOU GO, TOUGHIT?!
nullius: Man. You had me worried at the beginning of the week. I know the CloudFlare issue is a huge one for you, as a proponent for security and privacy. So seeing posts repeatedly about the issue had me concerned that you would not be able to deliver. But you did. Not only did you provide humorous posts, spam/scam warnings, and viable solutions for the current meta issue overload, you threaded it all together with the development and technical aspect of Bitcoin. Reviewing your posts, I actually learned a ton. One thing I should remind you of, however, is that often times, you elevate yourself to another level. I don't mean this as a compliment; some of your posts tend to resonate with a very limited audience (not your technical posts; rather, your personal humor posts), which I am a part of, for the most part. Some of your posts had me literally o.O'ing in speechlessness with literally no way of being able to score them lol. Either way, your posts are extremely entertaining to follow. You really are a tough act to follow.
Here are my notes for all of the participants. Please remember that this is my personal opinion, and in no way reflect the views of the moderators, staff, or any other members of this forum. If you don't like it, start your own challenge. These notes can also be seen on the spreadsheet.
cheefbuza: All of your posts are straightforward and to the point. You were not repetitive, and I don't find any of them to be shitposts (with the exception of your post about USDT). With the exception of the two posts that I find to be meritorious, however, I don't find your posts to be highly substantial. Your posts, however, are above average and can be used as an example of keeping it "short, sweet, and to the point!" Great job!
sull.kureen: While I do like the intent behind several of your posts (trying to steer newbies away from just joining bounties, and using yourself as an example of how you started "incorrectly" on the forums), a lot of your posts are what I consider to be shitposts. English is not your first language, and it is VERY apparent. If you're going to partake in an English-speaking challenge, I would highly advise you to start learning more of it. One thing I will tell you, however, is to stop quoting and thanking original posts in your replies. This is considered to be a shitpost, in my eyes, and it provides no true value to the discussion (whether your post was in the thread or not would have no significant value to it). Great job on your topic about the historical value of Bitcoin, but it's one that has been covered repeatedly in the past. If you're truly willing to continue receiving feedback and learning English, please check out https://www.duolingo.com/course/en/ar/Learn-English-Online and sign up (free!) to spend 5 minutes a day (or more) to learn it!
epidose: I like the overall gist and essence of your messages; I just wish that you didn't participate in so many of the threads that are obviously there to shill member ranks and activity. Your posts remind me of that nerd in a high school classroom that is trying to do your school work when there's a substitute teacher is present, but all the kids around you are goofing off. You're obviously doing the right thing, but you're in the wrong place and time to do it. Please be more mindful of where you decide to post, as posting in the Bitcoin/Altcoin Discussion topics that you've chosen just means that your well thought-out reply gets lost in a sea of shitposts. You obviously spend a lot of time on your posts, which is great, but I'd love to see more references and sources of examples to support your ideas on some occasions. Keep it up, and try to find less "spammy" topics; your posts are too good for them.
charlie137: You make a lot of definitive statements without supporting references/sources, and you also make a lot of blanket statements that really don't contribute to the ongoing discussion within the topic you're posting. It's obvious that you have above average knowledge of technical aspects of cryptocurrencies (good luck with AXE!), so I'd like to see you apply more of that to become a semi-source of knowledge and authority about topics you decide to post in, even if it's your own. Lately, you've been posting in megathreads with one-liners that provide no (or very little) value. This really hurt your score for the week, and I KNOW you have the potential to write some amazing content, as is evident by many of your posts from your history. This just shows laziness to me, if I'm being honest.
asrifki99: Does not qualify: There are no active posts within the duration of Round 3
bitmover: Wow. You came out of nowhere. You are obviously very knowledgeable about Bitcoin/crypto, and you navigate the forums here very well. Your posts indicate that you have users' best interest at heart, and I haven't seen a single shitpost from this round. Other participants, please take a look at @bitmover's post history since March 18. Their ability to do outside research and stay relevant is way above par, and if I may be honest, they are the newest user that I am proud to have representing this challenge. Amazing job, @bitmover!
MyIota: First of all, your ten-year prediction format and post is amazing. AMAZING. I really enjoy your writing style and opinions throughout your posts, but be careful; some of your posts are in borderline megathreads that were designed to shill and rank member accounts. You have to be careful where you post, and I believe your posts are good enough to where they should not be posted in threads where the OP and other posters will never/rarely return... I also truly appreciate your willingness and desire to make the forums a better place, as is seen on your stances on the merit system. Kudos to you. In the future, when posting outside references, try to include a link or image to backup your claims/posts; it will just provide that much more validity to your posts. Overall, great job, and you're another contender to watch out for in the future!
MyLitecoin: This is an obvious alt to @MyIota. If you would like for me to critique this account, please let me know. But be warned of two things: (1) If you'd prefer for me to critique and score this account, you will lose and forfeit your score for @MyIota and (2) please do not enroll more than one account at a time in future rounds. Because the discussion of allowing alts was being considered during the time you sent your applications, neither of your accounts will be disqualified from this round.
De4ted: Your posts are below average. They are either trolling or unsubstantial. Your English is passable, but it's not great. This makes it hard to convey high quality posts, so if you want to start posting more substantially, I would recommend that you start spending 5 minutes a day to learn English (https://www.duolingo.com/course/en/ar/Learn-English-Online). Great job on finding the users who are obviously merit-farming, and thank you for adding it to the list of suspected merit abusers. In the future, please do not post in topics that were clearly designed to shill member ranks and promote shitposts.
vlad230: Your post in the "Is it a bug" thread shows me that you can think outside the box, and that you care about privacy. I added that post as a meritorious post because of your out-of-the-box thinking, and validity to how a private person would want to anonymize their online activity display. It's a short and simple post, but reveals the type of mental capacity you have for privacy. Kudos. You've also shown a lot of interest in helping others and helping yourself. You've posted in a lot of Merit threads, and started your own service, which is great to help other users rank their accounts. But I'd like to see more activity in other boards besides mainly Meta and your topic. Your knowledge about altcoin is great, so why not help support some other discussions regarding mining activities and technical help? I see a lot of great potential for you; keep it up!
butka: Another user to watch out for! You show a lot of potential, and your willingness and desire to learn about and contribute to the technical aspect of Bitcoin/altcoins is endearing. You're a great addition to this challenge, and you're one of the top contenders. Your posts are yet another example of what it means to be "short, sweet, and to the point". It's obvious that you're new to Bitcoin compared to a lot of other users, but you display some great knowledge and are asking all the right questions. You're going to integrate very nicely with the forums. Keep it up, and I hope you decide to stick around the challenge for a while!
flip4flop: Another solid week for you. Your stance on Merit and users and these forums is growing stronger in what I believe to be the right direction, and I'm glad that you're continuing to partake in conversations using your opinion. I know that your strengths lie in altcoin mining, but your score was affected because of your limited reach by sticking to only a few subcategories of the forum this week. Part of the overall full crypto experience, in my opinion, is to branch out and either (a) offer insight and knowledge or (b) request insight and knowledge in all aspects of the community. Either way, you've got some great posts, and I love your meritorious post in response to a newbie question. Keep it up!
yazher: Disqualified. Posts are solely in merit or bounty threads. This does not match the intent of this challenge.
buyandsale: Does not qualify: There are only 6 posts within the duration of Round 3
Blue Tyrant: This is the round where I see you familiarizing with the forum and add to your already extensive knowledge of how it works. I like the way that you've started building character for your account, and the manner in which you interact in topics with other users. While a lot of your technical knowledge is lacking in this round, you've contributed in a fun and charismatic fashion across multiple boards of the forums. I think your previous rounds have set the bar high for you. While you did get to undoubtedly make some new friends this round, you've made far fewer exceedingly substantial posts than other participants, which hurt your score. That's fine, as I still consider you a highly-contributing member of the forums.
r1s2g3: While most of your content is original, and several of your posts took a good amount of time and thought to produce, I think you can do much better. No offense, but the way in which you choose topics to answer is carefully thought out, but overall, your posts lack major contribution. Maybe it's because of your limited English, as it's apparent that English is not your first language, but there are so many posts that I wish you would have detailed more than just making blanket statements and posting your reference/source links. While none of your posts are bad, they could be embellished a bit more in order for you to score higher according to my [mysterious] criteria. Keep it up!
Verde_Mantis: Disqualified. This user joined a paid signature campaign after applying to this challenge.
dmonrey002: Besides your posts in Trading Discussion, your posts include a lot of definitive replies that would be better supported if you backed them up with references. You shouldn't make statements like "One example, if I'm right is..." This is considered unsubstantial and provides no value to the topic. However, your knowledge in trading and investing seems to be above par of the average user here. Do you have a background in trading fiat currencies? You've shown initiatives to help other users understanding trading terminology, which is a great step towards showing that you care about wanting others to benefit from Bitcoin/crypto. Just be careful as not to give financial advice without providing some form of liability clause. You don't want to be responsible if someone follows your advice and loses in the market. While English is not your first language, you are a rare example of someone who gets their point across in the majority of your posts.
Sellingaccs: Ugh. You've applied to rent your signature space to someone during this round (reference: http://archive.is/9NFuu#selection-6399.0-6401.230). While wearing a paid signature at any point during this challenge is clearly written as a no-no in the rules, I guess I didn't specify that you shouldn't apply for any paid signatures either. But this should be obvious that it goes against the very nature of this challenge, which is why I have made the decision to disqualify you for this round. I'm sorry, @Sellingaccs, this was a tough decision, but I will state that after giving your post history a brief scan, you would have scored above average, but I honestly don't believe you would have ranked if given the full criteria for the scoring process.
detector: You've posted in a lot of speculative threads which I find to be solely for the purpose of shilling member ranks and posts. You have also made a lot of blanket and safe statements that don't provide any true substance to the topic at hand. Your posts wouldn't make much of a difference to the overall topic if they were removed from it. Please try not to post definitive answers like "Yes it's true because..." if you cannot support your opinion with facts. You can't claim that something is true based on your opinion by saying that statement, and then following it up with words/phrases like "maybe", "some groups", "is basically" and "may have". In the future, if you are posting opinion, rather than fact, don't make it sound like you are posting a fact. I know that English isn't your first language, and that has a huge factor in how you respond to posts, so if this critique doesn't make any sense to you, then I'm reluctant to say that this challenge isn't really for you. Let me know what you think.
draculaaa: You don't have enough posts outside of topics that are about bounties in order for me to be able to critique you. The few posts that you have made are horrible, and it's obvious that you just joined this challenge for a chance to win some money. I will not waste my time with scoring you.
vishnu_g: Does not qualify. There are only 6 posts within the duration of Round 3 (5 of which are in bounty threads)
Toughit: Does not qualify. There is only 1 post made within the duration of Round 3, and it was in the challenge thread. WHERE DID YOU GO, TOUGHIT?!
nullius: Man. You had me worried at the beginning of the week. I know the CloudFlare issue is a huge one for you, as a proponent for security and privacy. So seeing posts repeatedly about the issue had me concerned that you would not be able to deliver. But you did. Not only did you provide humorous posts, spam/scam warnings, and viable solutions for the current meta issue overload, you threaded it all together with the development and technical aspect of Bitcoin. Reviewing your posts, I actually learned a ton. One thing I should remind you of, however, is that often times, you elevate yourself to another level. I don't mean this as a compliment; some of your posts tend to resonate with a very limited audience (not your technical posts; rather, your personal humor posts), which I am a part of, for the most part. Some of your posts had me literally o.O'ing in speechlessness with literally no way of being able to score them lol. Either way, your posts are extremely entertaining to follow. You really are a tough act to follow.
The winners of Round 3 have been selected!
Winners, please post the links to your post(s) that you believe to be the most meritorious. If the merit sponsors agree, they will merit that/those post(s) to award you for winning this challenge.
Merit sponsors, please post when you have awarded the winners. If you do not agree with the winners' selections, please use your discretion to choose a post (or multiple posts, if applicable) to award merit to.
First Place: nullius
$50USD (0.00595542BTC at the time of this post) (transaction)
8 Merits
(sponsored by DarkStar_)
—————
Second Place: bitmover
$10USD ( 0.00119108BTC at the time of this post) (transaction)
6 Merits
(Cash prize sponsored by bill gator. Merit prize sponsored by bill gator [1 Merit], BTCforJoe [2 Merits], and Stedsm [3 Merits])
—————
Third Place: Blue Tyrant
3 Merits
(sponsored by bill gator [1 Merit] and Geraldo [2 Merits])
—————
Consolation Prize 1: butka
2 Merits
(sponsored by LoyceV)
—————
Consolation Prize 2: flip4flop
2 Merits
(sponsored by Sellingaccs)
Congratulations to the winners of Round 3! Overall, great job again this week, folks! You guys really stepped up the game, as is evident with the 4+ hours it took me to critique and score this round.
Round 3 Merit Stats: This round, a total of 98 Merits were earned by 13 participants, for an overall average of 7.54 Merits earned from those participants. Great job!
Is there any issue with the spreadsheet? I tried to view it but it wants me to login.
I have disabled it during the scoring process. I will enable it again after the winners are announced.
I'm almost done, but I have come to the final two participants, which just happens to be Toughit and nullius. This may take a few hours...
Just kidding, I'll be done within a half an hour. brb.
Is there any issue with the spreadsheet? I tried to view it but it wants me to login.
So many great participants this week. I am about halfway through the critique and review process. I'll update again as the winners are decided!
Dude, just shut the fuck up already. You've tried to make your point, failed miserably, and now you're beating a dead horse. I'm done being polite to you. Please keep your opinion to yourself. I am not breaking any rules; if I was, I would have been reprimanded already. Just because you don't agree with what I'm doing does not give you the right to come and tarnish this thread with your repetitive babble. If you truly have a problem with it, message me in private so we could have a civil discussion, rather than you trying to convey your bullshit upon users that have already disagreed with your opinion.
Your replies here are now borderline trolling. They are repetitive and slanderous in nature. While I respected your opinion before, I do not now. If you feel that I'm breaking rules with the way that merits are distributed here, simply report me to a moderator. Until then, please kindly fuck off.
-snip-
Dude, just shut the fuck up already. You've tried to make your point, failed miserably, and now you're beating a dead horse. I'm done being polite to you. Please keep your opinion to yourself. I am not breaking any rules; if I was, I would have been reprimanded already. Just because you don't agree with what I'm doing does not give you the right to come and tarnish this thread with your repetitive babble. If you truly have a problem with it, message me in private so we could have a civil discussion, rather than you trying to convey your bullshit upon users that have already disagreed with your opinion.
Your replies here are now borderline trolling. They are repetitive and slanderous in nature. While I respected your opinion before, I do not now. If you feel that I'm breaking rules with the way that merits are distributed here, simply report me to a moderator. Until then, please kindly fuck off.
I did not understand it, when theymos himself publicly do not want to disclose this information then why you are so vocal on it.
You have snipped my quote where I have asked Joe to announce the 2nd round winners, there is no mention of theymos publicly denying to disclose information. if you are referring to the list of merit sources, of course he wouldn't want to disclose it publicly, that would put a lot of responsibility on sources. he wouldn't tell anything I have said, that doesn't mean that he disagrees with them.
--snip--
From below quote, I think Theymos is also in agreement for starting the Merit awarding threads.I also agree with the idea of (free) "reviewer" topics in general, for finding high-quality posts that went unnoticed.
In a signature campaign everybody is getting paid. here only 3 members are. note what theymos said, free reviewer topics. this is not reviewing quality posts, this is asking people to post for money and merits. would any of the participants post without the promise of money and merits? if the answer is no, then what they are doing is farming merits. somebody like nullius would post if there is no merit or money prize. find his posts and merit them, find people like him and merit them. not only this is merit farming, they are advertising it on their signatures to invite more people to come here and farm merits.
When they do come here to farm merits, only the best quality posts would receive merits, what about other posts of participants? if 3 out of 25 users are receiving a prize, 22 members are posting garbage, for what? nobody needs their posts. they are not even going to rank up just with posting, so what they have done, is producing more garbage, there is already plenty of such posts. we should merit anybody who is not posting for merit.
Why do we have merit sources? if every forum member without being a merit source decides to do the same, what would happen here?
Contributing would be finding 25 members with unmerited and ignored high quality posts, then helping merit sources by introducing them to each other.
ROUND 3 IS OVER & ROUND 4 HAS BEGUN! Get your applications in before tomorrow if you haven't already!
I'm just tallying up the entries from Round 3. Give me a couple hours, and the results will be posted here!
Please follow instructions in order to submit your application.
I'm just tallying up the entries from Round 3. Give me a couple hours, and the results will be posted here!
Hi Joe, thank you.
I joined Round 4
BitcoinTalk Username: zangleerb
Starting Post Count (including this one): 175
Current Rank: Jr.member
BTC Address: 14UHdB9wcN2xtaDma65AFZMUNMUGN6HgLa
Good luck to me to get merit.
I joined Round 4
BitcoinTalk Username: zangleerb
Starting Post Count (including this one): 175
Current Rank: Jr.member
BTC Address: 14UHdB9wcN2xtaDma65AFZMUNMUGN6HgLa
Good luck to me to get merit.
Please follow instructions in order to submit your application.
To apply for Round 4, please fill out this Google Form and submit your application.
Can you please re check this google form. I filled the form once but I am finding link of my profile from excel row number 5 to 10. Also I am not finding the application of other people who claimed to fill the form before me.
You're in. The form isn't automated to the spreadsheet that I have. I thought I had automated it last night, but it's apparently not working for new applicants; just ones who have filled out the form before I tried to automate it.
To apply for Round 4, please fill out this Google Form and submit your application.
Can you please re check this google form. I filled the form once but I am finding link of my profile from excel row number 5 to 10. Also I am not finding the application of other people who claimed to fill the form before me.
Jump to: