I'm sure it has probably been mentioned on a Meta thread somewhere... But perhaps we need some rules (guidelines?) governing the running of campaigns... Especially ones that "pay to post".
Having said that, is there actually a way to make campaign managers more accountable for the output of their campaign participants? If there are viable solutions... should we make them (the managers) accountable? Or should we simply continue to name and shame the users who are shitposting?
I don't think it's necessarily the pay-for-post aspect of campaigns (though that certainly contributes to the problem) but lax campaign management and not enough rules put in place for the participants. I don't think managers are checking posts manually for length OR quality, and I seriously doubt whether many of these altcoin bounty managers even have the language skills necessary to properly evaluate quality posts. From what I've seen, a lot of them are just as ignorant as the shitposters are.Having said that, is there actually a way to make campaign managers more accountable for the output of their campaign participants? If there are viable solutions... should we make them (the managers) accountable? Or should we simply continue to name and shame the users who are shitposting?
I would love it if all campaigns were like Chipmixer, only accepting people who've proven themselves to NOT be shitposters, not enforcing a minimum number of posts per week or minimum character lengths. Unfortunately if all campaigns were like them, there wouldn't be enough applicants to fill them.