Pages:
Author

Topic: Merit rewards for Signature Campaigns! - page 7. (Read 1953 times)

full member
Activity: 756
Merit: 112
January 29, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
#7
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.

I think this will cause more spam post than usual. 25 post a week is a huge number. 10-15 an almost standard requirement for a signature campaign creates so much spam how much more 25. Plus the fact that this will contribute a lot to your rank. I think this will not be good. I hope we can see the system as the way theymos sees it.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1756
Verified Bernie Bro - Feel The Bern!
January 29, 2018, 10:19:01 AM
#6
Bad/lazy campaign managers and sig campaigns are a big part of the reason why the forum is a cesspool of spam right now...

I believe the merit system is in place partly to combat bad/lazy campaign managers who are not doing their job.  It would be truly stupid to then give them the power that essentially makes the new merit system useless.

I would say based on the earliest of evidence that smerit distribution is probably still a little bit low.  But given time we can hope that it will be adjusted.  Finding the balance point of making merit useful and useless will probably take some time but adjusting that balancing point to much before data is available also seems stupid.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 292
January 29, 2018, 10:07:11 AM
#5
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.
Hold on there.. You are try to say that manager of campaign should be have a source merit to provide it?
If the source used in good hands then it's good and actually gonna be great idea.
But! If the source used in a wrong hands then.. spams merits going to be happened and it can easily collapse the system.

But if by your mean the manager of campaign should given their available merit that they has then it's excellent idea and you should pm them about it.
That's why its only going to be in the hands of the managers, because they are the ones who're reviewing your posts if they're constructive enough to be accepted.

By mentioning the source, yes there has to be a source because the sMerits have expiration. And by this, we could conclude that the one giving us Merits are not just from anywhere.
full member
Activity: 274
Merit: 100
January 29, 2018, 09:57:10 AM
#4
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.
Hold on there.. You are try to say that manager of campaign should be have a source merit to provide it?
If the source used in good hands then it's good and actually gonna be great idea.
But! If the source used in a wrong hands then.. spams merits going to be happened and it can easily collapse the system.

But if by your mean the manager of campaign should given their available merit that they has then it's excellent idea and you should pm them about it.

I think that's the suggestion yeh, and I like it. If a coin creates and ANN, why not have that thread manager be a source of merit to reward the community of that coin? It has to be limited to ANN threads though I would say, you couldn't have anyone who creates a thread getting this power.

Would be a nice way to give some sort of control to the project itself and empower the dev/creator to reward. It would also incentivise the community to make positive contributions towards the projects.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 16
Begone junkers!
January 29, 2018, 09:50:59 AM
#3
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.
Hold on there.. You are try to say that manager of campaign should be have a source merit to provide it?
If the source used in good hands then it's good and actually gonna be great idea.
But! If the source used in a wrong hands then.. spams merits going to be happened and it can easily collapse the system.

But if by your mean the manager of campaign should given their available merit that they has then it's excellent idea and you should pm them about it.
legendary
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1808
Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do
January 29, 2018, 09:48:58 AM
#2
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.

no because sMerits are not infinite, campaign managers wont necessarily be sources.. 

but... I do believe that Campaign managers can and should be using merits to score new applicants, they are a much more viable criteria than trust. Personally if It was me I would be insisting on 10% more than base merits starting in a couple of weeks and then continually raising the bar.

this would enable managers to secure the best campaigns by having the most eloquent posters, the most informed, the most popular and the most knowledgeable people on campaigns.

sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 292
January 29, 2018, 09:43:16 AM
#1
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:
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.
Pages:
Jump to: