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.