Quote from: kryptqnick on July 19, 2018, 10:39:12 AM

1. Smerit limit per post. Earning merits is generally hard, which makes them valuable on this forum. However, some people receive 15 or 20 merits for a single post, while others have only 15 merits, which they earned slowly from different people and for different posts. I think it would be better to make it impossible to send more than 5 merits for a specific post by one person. So, if the post is really good, then it can earn about 20 merits, but those merits must be sent by at least 4 different people.

I wouldn't necessarily be against limiting the amount of merit you can give a post, but on the flip-side it's much easier to spot abuse when 20-50 merits are given to shitposts.

Quote from: kryptqnick on July 19, 2018, 10:39:12 AM

2. Maximum 2 merits per post per merit sender in local boards. I think that people usually trade merits in small threads in local boards, because the moderation there is not as strict as in the English sections of this forum. If one can send 5 merits for a post written in English, I think it is fair that only 2 merits can be sent for a non-English post.

It's already much more difficult to get merit in the local boards, but again, it's easier to spot abuse when huge amounts of merit are being given for mediocre posts.

Quote from: kryptqnick on July 19, 2018, 10:39:12 AM

3. No Signature campaigns without escrows. I know that scamming on signature campaigns is not common, but why not to make it impossible? Most of legit campaigns escrow the funds anyway, so I guess making it a must should not be a problem.

What if the escrow then runs off with the funds? I doubt this is something theymos wants to get involved with directly and is better left to the community to police. If you think a campaign is shady and there's no guarantee they will pay then leave them appropriate or a warning feedback.

Quote from: kryptqnick on July 19, 2018, 10:39:12 AM

4. No Signature campaigns for projects with bad reputation. Betcoin.ag accounts had red trust on this forum due to the infamous jackpot scam, but they were still advertising themselves for at least a year after that incident. I think it would be fair to forbid scamming projects to advertise themselves on this forum.

Again, this is something for the community to police as the forum doesn't moderate scams. But who would get to decide what is a sufficiently bad reputation? There are worse casinos than Betcoin.AG, but if you feel people are advertising scams then leave them appropriate feedback.

Quote from: kryptqnick on July 19, 2018, 10:39:12 AM

5. No ANN threads for shady ICOs. We all know the statistics on ICOs. While I find the general idea very appealing, the fact that most of ICOs are scamming people harms the reputation of the crypto market. I think there should be some requirements every ICO has to meet to officially enter bitcointalk.org. Among such requirements I would name an official website with a whitepaper, team and roadmap listed on it.

Again, who get's to decide the shadiness of the ICO? Just because an ICO has a website and roadmap etc doesn't make them legit. I wouldn't be against some restrictions being placed on ICOs, and I think charging them to list their project here would help and at least cut down on those who spend absolutely zero on their ICOs so there's nothing for them to lose by scamming.

Quote from: kryptqnick on July 19, 2018, 10:39:12 AM

6. Rank requirement for signature campaign managers. Sometimes people with zero trust on Member or perhaps even a Junior Member rank lead signature campaigns. I think that people need experience on the forum to be Signature campaign managers. They need to know what it considered good post quality and what is bad; in which topics participants should not be welcomed to post; which projects mainly prefer specific forum sections and childboards etc. It truly seems strange to me when a Member decides which Legendary members to accept to a specific campaign. From my experience they usually don't bother making hard decisions, so they simply accept the first ones who applied. Anyway, I suggest that only people with membership rank of Senior Member and higher are allowed to lead Signature campaigns. I guess we should exclude copper members here as well, but I am not sure about that.

Rank means little here. Any rank can be bought and for a few hundred dollars you can robably get yourself a Hero account. A Newbie account could probably run a better campaign than some of the Legendary managers around here, but people who run bad campaigns should be tagged appropriately regardless of rank.