What about if the campaign manager have a lot of appointment to handle.? I think this system is suitable to cms that have a single or two campaign or maximum of three to meet the requirements.
Maybe the Admin system must give the Manager an maximum of campaign to handle to avoid lazy CM.
Topic: Merit rewards for Signature Campaigns! - page 3. (Read 1953 times)
I think that would be selling merit. Because managers are getting paid for their work, and you are suggesting that part of their work would be giving merit. I am participating in bounties, and strugling with merit, but not supporting that.
I think this merit system is good, merit can be given to anyone who make a good post, but only those with higher rank can give merit to others, I think all accounts in this forum can give merit though not bounty manager.
I didn't read the whole thread with all the replies but these are the reason I find that idea to be bad:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.30908118
- simply not enough sMerit
- it's not something to be handed out like that, it's sort of an indicator
- the manager doesn't have anything to do with the campaign (most of the times) besides just managing it (as I've stated previously), so that would be on his behalf
- otherwise, the ones who appointed the manager should provide merit
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.30908118
The merit system allows us to have the power of judgement, which somehow makes it subjective because I think we all have our criteria of what and what not constructive is. Although your idea has great intentions, I think the new system also implies freedom for each and every one of us to award merits to those who we truly believe are deserving. If a campaign manager is obligated to give out merits as a requirement for their job, they would be urged to give just because they are required. Also, sooner or later, they would run out because not all of them are merit sources. Let's give them the freedom to choose and just let them do what they have to do, managing numerous members is already hard what more to read through all their participants post carefully looking for those that are deserving? That would truly be time consuming and inefficient.
Money, always at the center of every fucking problems on earth.
What do you expect? The world revolves around money.
If it wasn't for bounty, every single user would be happy with this system, which might help this forum getting cleaner. And of course, if this wasn't about greed, this system wouldn't be needed in the first place.
That's not true. Although a huge majority of the shitposts in this forum is contributed by bounty hunters and signature campaign participants, it cannot be said that every single user would be happy with the merit system even without the presence of any bounty. The merit system has been detrimental for those who need to rank up and participate in bounties which has made a lot of them to complain and hate the system however this does not necessarily mean that the merit system is beneficial or favorable for those who are not involved in bounties.
Imo, I would even go farther, and distribute signature bounty according to merit instead of quantity. Let's say that instead of 15 posts a week, you must now get 4 merits per week to get your reward:
- You would divide by 2 instantly the number of (shit)posts on the whole forum. Cleaner, but also easier to moderate as well.
- Signatures, paradoxically, would be much more visible. Let me explain: When you have a topic with 100 pages of shitposts, you don't read it, so you don't see any signature ! So 15 or 30 posts doesn't really matter, it is just pointless if no one reads it. Now if you only have 2 pages of quality posts, you would read them before writing your reply, so you would see everyone signature. Plus, you could see if what you're about to say have been said already, which would reduce even more the number of post.
Cleaner forum, with ONLY quality, and signature more visible. Win-win (lose for spammers).
The thing is, sometimes people don't need a quality post to see a signature. So long as it's in a thread, it would attract attention. (the more times it appears in a thread regardless of it's content, the more attractive it is). And this is probably why some campaign managers hire participants not for the quality or content of their post, but because of often the user posts in numerous threads and sections of the forum. The signature still gets promoted in that way, which is the reality of campaigns so to speak.
Basically, Sig campaign Managers can do that, But It does not mean that if you'll receive merits then you'll rank up instantly, managers check post if they are qualified to the given requirement or quota for one week, but you have a nice suggestion, The problem is for example, A manager accepts 100 applicants and 30 posts are required for one week, then the manager will really take time to it. This should be discussed by superiors and admin, OP appreciated.
Merit is not something you should be trading or giving away like a payment. Giving it for posting in a campaign would make it into something valuable that can be given away for favors and it wasn't meant for that. I know you newbies would love to get some merit because in your eyes merit = money. You get merit, you can get into a campaign and start shitposting and lack of merit is blocking you from being paid for it, so you're wasting time here complaining about the system.
This can only be done if all the bounty managers are made merit sources otherwise they won't have enough spendable merit to give to all quality posts.
But this would disadvantage people who don't participate in signature campaigns.
It depends to the managers if they give merits to their subordinates, it was possibly happen but they can't force their managers to give merits for the reasons that they are parts of signature campaign. Because smerit were given only to the post who have good quality, not the shitty post. But this would disadvantage people who don't participate in signature campaigns.
This can only be done if all the bounty managers are made merit sources otherwise they won't have enough spendable merit to give to all quality posts.
But this would disadvantage people who don't participate in signature campaigns.
But this would disadvantage people who don't participate in signature campaigns.
Making bounty campaign managers sMerit sources sounds good. But I want to point out something. Let's assume a given signature campaign has 500participants and it's required of each person to come up with 15 posts weekly to qualify for a certain week. Now let's look at the calculation. 500×15 = 7500
Now the manager goes through all these posts assuming 400 persons made 15 quality posts, this equals to 400×15 = 6000posts. The manager gives out 6k sMerits for that single week. And maybe other weeks might have more posts to be merited. Now don't you think sMerit will be exhausted at some point except if it's infinitely sourced. What do you think? Taking into consideration that this is just a single bounty campaign and a numerous others are still in play.
Now the manager goes through all these posts assuming 400 persons made 15 quality posts, this equals to 400×15 = 6000posts. The manager gives out 6k sMerits for that single week. And maybe other weeks might have more posts to be merited. Now don't you think sMerit will be exhausted at some point except if it's infinitely sourced. What do you think? Taking into consideration that this is just a single bounty campaign and a numerous others are still in play.
This is really a good idea if only Campaign managers have enough sMerits to give to signature campaign participants. It will be a really good basis before accepting new participants for a CM to his/her campaign.
Do you mean that the campaign managers can further give merits to the participants along with the weekly or monthly payment going through their posts. This will surely make the merit system more effective and on sending two merits and receiving one will surely get more merits to be sent for users.
This is really a good idea if only Campaign managers have enough sMerits to give to signature campaign participants. It will be a really good basis before accepting new participants for a CM to his/her campaign.
Another idea would be to not only require the 25 posts per week, but also require that your 25 posts receive at least a certain number of merits. This should directly stop the shitposting.
I have always suggested this idea. There should be a requirement of getting certain number of posts for all ranks in a year. This makes sure that they keep posting quality content here. Otherwise, a member may continue with shit posts after achieving desired level with few quality posts.
Money, always at the center of every fucking problems on earth.
If it wasn't for bounty, every single user would be happy with this system, which might help this forum getting cleaner. And of course, if this wasn't about greed, this system wouldn't be needed in the first place.
Imo, I would even go farther, and distribute signature bounty according to merit instead of quantity. Let's say that instead of 15 posts a week, you must now get 4 merits per week to get your reward:
- You would divide by 2 instantly the number of (shit)posts on the whole forum. Cleaner, but also easier to moderate as well.
- Signatures, paradoxically, would be much more visible. Let me explain: When you have a topic with 100 pages of shitposts, you don't read it, so you don't see any signature ! So 15 or 30 posts doesn't really matter, it is just pointless if no one reads it. Now if you only have 2 pages of quality posts, you would read them before writing your reply, so you would see everyone signature. Plus, you could see if what you're about to say have been said already, which would reduce even more the number of post.
Cleaner forum, with ONLY quality, and signature more visible. Win-win (lose for spammers).
If it wasn't for bounty, every single user would be happy with this system, which might help this forum getting cleaner. And of course, if this wasn't about greed, this system wouldn't be needed in the first place.
Imo, I would even go farther, and distribute signature bounty according to merit instead of quantity. Let's say that instead of 15 posts a week, you must now get 4 merits per week to get your reward:
- You would divide by 2 instantly the number of (shit)posts on the whole forum. Cleaner, but also easier to moderate as well.
- Signatures, paradoxically, would be much more visible. Let me explain: When you have a topic with 100 pages of shitposts, you don't read it, so you don't see any signature ! So 15 or 30 posts doesn't really matter, it is just pointless if no one reads it. Now if you only have 2 pages of quality posts, you would read them before writing your reply, so you would see everyone signature. Plus, you could see if what you're about to say have been said already, which would reduce even more the number of post.
Cleaner forum, with ONLY quality, and signature more visible. Win-win (lose for spammers).
Money is everything practically speaking, but that doesn't mean we're greedy - like you've said.
Everything you've said was by far the most commendable thing in this thread. Yes, we're talking about the sections in the Economics, Bitcoin Discussion, Gambling, etc. where most of the threads have 50~100 pages at least.
You should've created a thread about this. This would make an audience to everyone for sure. This would optimize the system if granted.
Another idea would be to not only require the 25 posts per week, but also require that your 25 posts receive at least a certain number of merits. This should directly stop the shitposting.
That is great. All people will be more understand about merit system. Moreover, this very easy to implement.
Many people use their signature for bounty campaign, i don't like it. Signature for personal than bounty.
Many people use their signature for bounty campaign, i don't like it. Signature for personal than bounty.
Money, always at the center of every fucking problems on earth.
If it wasn't for bounty, every single user would be happy with this system, which might help this forum getting cleaner. And of course, if this wasn't about greed, this system wouldn't be needed in the first place.
Imo, I would even go farther, and distribute signature bounty according to merit instead of quantity. Let's say that instead of 15 posts a week, you must now get 4 merits per week to get your reward:
- You would divide by 2 instantly the number of (shit)posts on the whole forum. Cleaner, but also easier to moderate as well.
- Signatures, paradoxically, would be much more visible. Let me explain: When you have a topic with 100 pages of shitposts, you don't read it, so you don't see any signature ! So 15 or 30 posts doesn't really matter, it is just pointless if no one reads it. Now if you only have 2 pages of quality posts, you would read them before writing your reply, so you would see everyone signature. Plus, you could see if what you're about to say have been said already, which would reduce even more the number of post.
Cleaner forum, with ONLY quality, and signature more visible. Win-win (lose for spammers).
If it wasn't for bounty, every single user would be happy with this system, which might help this forum getting cleaner. And of course, if this wasn't about greed, this system wouldn't be needed in the first place.
Imo, I would even go farther, and distribute signature bounty according to merit instead of quantity. Let's say that instead of 15 posts a week, you must now get 4 merits per week to get your reward:
- You would divide by 2 instantly the number of (shit)posts on the whole forum. Cleaner, but also easier to moderate as well.
- Signatures, paradoxically, would be much more visible. Let me explain: When you have a topic with 100 pages of shitposts, you don't read it, so you don't see any signature ! So 15 or 30 posts doesn't really matter, it is just pointless if no one reads it. Now if you only have 2 pages of quality posts, you would read them before writing your reply, so you would see everyone signature. Plus, you could see if what you're about to say have been said already, which would reduce even more the number of post.
Cleaner forum, with ONLY quality, and signature more visible. Win-win (lose for spammers).
What a dreadful idea. I was tempted to put everyone who supports this idea on my ignore list. Campaign managers should have no rights to give merit or sMerit in my opinion.
I think what you meant was CMs should not be Merit source.
Well I think being a CM and a MS at the same time is not that bad. Take this for instance, you are a CM. You constantly checks the posts of the participants of the campaign you are managing. If you see posts that are, in your perception, worthy of some merit then give some and do not if not. As simple as that. No conflict of interest. You manage your campaign and acts as a MS at the same time.
Of course not all CM should be MS, only those who are worthy.
What a dreadful idea. I was tempted to put everyone who supports this idea on my ignore list. Campaign managers should have no rights to give merit or sMerit in my opinion.
Mate, its a shame you're not that familiar with the current system. Dreadful you say? Well back at you mate, because you're being narrow minded and naive. The higher ups granted everyone the sMerits and wanted to monitor if they're really going to use it as what they would've hoped. But, as I can now, most of them are just wasting they're sMerits to those people that are not even worthy of having some. There's no sense of accomplishment here. As they will only feed those that are familiar to them and not extend to those people that are more capable of having quality posts, as the Admins intends to.
Of course, I'm not saying that it will be their obligation, but, it doesn't hurt if, whenever these managers reviews the posts of his/her participants, he/she would also come across with people who have quality in their posts. I might say it is a reward but its more like an incentive. A competition inside the Signature Campaign I par say.
Jump to: