Topic: Merit rewards for Signature Campaigns! (Read 1953 times)
this is actually a great idea i'll jump to something like this, if someone would make a signature campaign that the rewards will be merits, i will try my best to post some constructive post's thumps up for your idea bro. i think this idea will work.
As sig campaigns seem to be the magnet that pulls all the rubbish posters to the forum, and that many people think that sig campaigns should be banned, or at least subject to strict vetting, I think that all campaign managers should have their ability to award merit or sMerit blocked. There is too much of a conflict of interest, and too much obvious abuse associated with these campaigns.
I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.
So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
Actually that is a good opinion. Where higher rank will give you merits for the signature campaign and those higher rank that will give merits are will recieve tokens in the signature campaign So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
In my suggestion, the managers can just pick one suitable member to be given a Merit. Giving all of them are really a huge problem since there are a lot of members in a Signature Campaign.
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
I agree in your idea,because as of now many members stuck in their rank because of merits, it hard to get even a single merits from the other,because many members they try to make their good and helpul post for the reason they got merited by the other,we all know merits is very important to us to rank up but sad to say no one notice to their post for the reason there is so many post in the forum, that's why if the CM think that idea and they include that merits in the signature campaign as bonus or other campaign its very helpful to all members to rank up including my self.
If those members remains in their current its because, they're not making posts that other people find very helpful or informative. Therefore, even if you construct a great post you still need some a little bit of skill in making posts. May that be proper grammar, some images, infographs, etc.
Merit is important in way not only for you to rank up, but also because by earning merit it reflects that you're good at what you're doing; you're being helpful and informative.
If you really wanted to rank up, don't just rely on other people giving away Merit, you really need to step up your game.
I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.
So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
In my suggestion, the managers can just pick one suitable member to be given a Merit. Giving all of them are really a huge problem since there are a lot of members in a Signature Campaign.
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
I agree in your idea,because as of now many members stuck in their rank because of merits, it hard to get even a single merits from the other,because many members they try to make their good and helpul post for the reason they got merited by the other,we all know merits is very important to us to rank up but sad to say no one notice to their post for the reason there is so many post in the forum, that's why if the CM think that idea and they include that merits in the signature campaign as bonus or other campaign its very helpful to all members to rank up including my self.
What a great proposal! I agree yo you, campaign managers are qualified to give smerits since they are the one who check the quality of posts of their participants and besides, they already have a basis for accusing what is a trash account or not by looking into their SMAS blacklist, therefore, identifying shitty posters out there are easier. If ever this proposal be implemented, I suggest that every rank could be able to receive an amount of merits within a certain limit, it will not work as an extra reward since participants still need to prove to the campaign manager that they deserve the merit points.
I'm just worrying about something, I know that several of well known campaign managers here already have some couple of merits but I wonder if their smerits are enough to allcocate for their participants. That would be a problem because if the campaign manager only pick someone for his smerits, others might get jelous knowing the fact that they also made quality posts but received nothing in return.
I'm just worrying about something, I know that several of well known campaign managers here already have some couple of merits but I wonder if their smerits are enough to allcocate for their participants. That would be a problem because if the campaign manager only pick someone for his smerits, others might get jelous knowing the fact that they also made quality posts but received nothing in return.
I personally think that this should be allowed, so long as its not abused. However, it leads to a paradox, whereby people who deserve merit would probably be receiving it already, and have high enough post quality to be eligible for the campaign. Whereas those with poor post quality, probably wouldn't get chosen by the campaign as nobody wants to be advertised by a shit poster. Hence they won't actually earn merit that helps them rank up.
I think it could be a useful additional reward, particularly for the top posters of the campaign. But certainly not as the sole reward for the campaign, as that is analogous to trading merit to some degree.
I think it could be a useful additional reward, particularly for the top posters of the campaign. But certainly not as the sole reward for the campaign, as that is analogous to trading merit to some degree.
Not a bad idea but I think you should think for something that will help the newbie join these programs for earning merits quickly
I don't know why's the OP not active but anyway, I will be the one providing you links that might help you earn merits
First of, you should read this. After you read that thread, you should go here, by then you will be more familiar with the new system.
So about the advice, I would recommend reading these posts I'm sure they will make you motivated and have ideas about you earning Merits:
Jet Cash
Jet Cash
EthanB
Not a bad idea at all. But will manager enforce it?
I think it is not intended to enforced by the managers, its just incentives, so they've been told.
I've noticed that some of the members replying here don't exactly get what you're trying to convey to them, but I did.
So here's the thing, I think the OP just suggested that since the managers manages signature or bounty campaigns when they review posts for their participants they will somehow came upon a good post or a quality post, that may deserve merit. Meaning, its not an obligation, it will always depend on the managers perspective, if they didn't find any then don't reward them. No loss, as simple as that.
So here's the thing, I think the OP just suggested that since the managers manages signature or bounty campaigns when they review posts for their participants they will somehow came upon a good post or a quality post, that may deserve merit. Meaning, its not an obligation, it will always depend on the managers perspective, if they didn't find any then don't reward them. No loss, as simple as that.
In my opinion, this is an excellent idea and, no, I'm not saying this because of my low rank... 
Having said that, the campaign manager must be a source of merits obviously, so he can have unlimited merits to give to people who deserve them. Secondly, he must also have the time and the will to do this time-consuming task.
Having said that, the campaign manager must be a source of merits obviously, so he can have unlimited merits to give to people who deserve them. Secondly, he must also have the time and the will to do this time-consuming task.
I guess that might no be possible as smerit isn't infinite each member has a limited number of sMerits thst he can reward so there will be a point of time where the manager would run out of sMerits and he would be blamed for not distributing the rewards for the signature campaign. The payments that are given to the members are given by the owner of the ICOs but in case if it is decided to reward merit it is the manager who would have to become the source the give merits, here the owners of the ICO can't do anything to give smerits.
I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.
So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea make any sense? Let me know guys what is your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough merits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea make any sense? Let me know guys what is your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough merits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
In my suggestion, the managers can just pick one suitable member to be given a Merit. Giving all of them are really a huge problem since there are a lot of members in a Signature Campaign.
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
the number of campaign managers is not proportional to the number of signature campaign participants, and certainly takes a lot of merits to meet the plan you describe it. In addition, this can trigger off the signature campaign from its purpose.
No I don't need merits, yea if you would have said that reward amount of btcs be doubled thenn it was ok
Not a bad idea at all. But will manager enforce it?
Campaign managers give merit for the post of members that they know it was more constructive and very helpful to many members of the forum. But managers wont gives merit to all participants of the campaign because some of the participants are not contributed well in the community. Merit was given for the deserving post of the members and not at giveaway for the successful campaign. I've seen some signature campaigns already implemented to give merits . . But some of them requiring higher ranks like full member to legendary only.. Anyway, nice suggestions you got there. We'll gonna post constructive posts and they'll gonna review it, so it's valid to give merits. Hope managers will review this.
I can't see any signature campaign that gives merit to their participants, its because smerit of each one have a limit. Aside on that managers are not required/forced to give smerit to their participants, because it was voluntary given to the post who have high quality. But if the manager's of the signature campaign decided to give smerit as a reward it is depend to him/her, also maybe they had a lot of time to reviewed the post quality of their participants.
It is a good suggestion but it is hard to happen.
Not a bad idea at all. But will manager enforce it?
I've seen some signature campaigns already implemented to give merits . . But some of them requiring higher ranks like full member to legendary only.. Anyway, nice suggestions you got there. We'll gonna post constructive posts and they'll gonna review it, so it's valid to give merits. Hope managers will review this.
Not a bad idea but I think you should think for something that will help the newbie join these programs for earning merits quickly
I was wondering about the new system that has been implemented. We all know that it can be challenging to earn even a single merit, I mean not all the members of this forum are that familiar to what really is going on, especially to the new members.
So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
That's not a bad idea at all especially for the beginners like Jr member to rank up and it's hard for them to get the chance to have merits or even to see if they are eligible to have some for their work, Indeed managers should behave like every user in the forum, give merits and recieve as well, but do you think that a manager of a campaign includes 100 members for example to check every post of every individual , with 25 post required every week, that means 2500 posts to verify ? besides do they actually have enough merits to be fair with everyone ? So I will get to the point, so how about this, let's say we joined a Signature Campaign it lasts for four weeks. And every week you will be required a number of post, let's say 25 posts. So you've already met that requirement and has been confirmed by the Manager. We also know that the Manager reviews your posts if those are constructive, here's the thing why not reward Merits to those participants that have quality posts, by the Manager.
Then its not going be hard as before for the participants to earn Merits and eventually rank up.
Does this idea makes any sense? Let me know guys what are your opinion about this.
EDIT:
I have noticed that few people are saying that the CMs don't have enough sMerits or Merits to provide for all the participants but as the suggestion of:
In my suggestion, the managers can just pick one suitable member to be given a Merit. Giving all of them are really a huge problem since there are a lot of members in a Signature Campaign.
OR,
As many as the CMs wants.
I strongly agree with your suggestion, give smerit to the build post, for the signature participants.
and it's done by the project development team. and also reports directly to a moderator of a post that is considered spam.
I am sure that this rule will make this forum clean from shitposter!
and it's done by the project development team. and also reports directly to a moderator of a post that is considered spam.
I am sure that this rule will make this forum clean from shitposter!
Jump to: