Quote from: SteveStake on June 11, 2019, 11:37:53 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 11, 2019, 06:19:13 AM

Your participants have a median of 3 merit, nearly 40% have zero or 1 merit, and nearly 2/3 have 5 or less merit. There are 51 accounts that posted in your signature campaign thread that are perma banned, and although they all might not have been participating in your campaign when they were banned, I suspect the majority of them probably were.

Are you making this stuff up to try and bait me to count the merits?
If over 80% of the campaign is full member+ how can 40% have 1 merit? I'll give you something more accurate than the median merits of the campaign, the average including Jr/Members

367.94 average merits for a Stake campaign member. It doesn't take much effort to find out your claim is 100% false

My claim is not false. It assumes that everyone who posted an application and is still wearing a stake.com signature is a participant in your signature campaign, which I have every reason to believe considering it appears you have accepted everyone who applied except those with negative trust.

If you had an account when the merit system was implemented, you were grandfathered in and received merit equal to the minimum needed for your then-current rank. My post was referring to the merit that people received subsequent to the implementation of the merit system and excludes any grandfathered merit received.

My numbers were accurate as of this past Sunday when I obtained my data, and are almost certainly still accurate.

Quote from: SteveStake on June 11, 2019, 11:37:53 AM

I look at your list of 51 banned accounts and I don't even know who majority of them even are. This is completely flawed because you're making your own list of people so your information is false.

These are not random people, nor are they my own list. They are people who have posted in your signature campaign thread and are currently banned. When I have more time, I will cross reference these people against those who actually submitted applications, which I would assume to by the majority of those banned.

Quote from: SteveStake on June 11, 2019, 11:37:53 AM

Low merits does not mean someone is incapable of a good post either. Are you incapable of being trusted or making a good post because your trust level is so negative?

1 - Not receiving many merits is a good indication the person is not making very many good posts. It is possible that some people who make a lot of good posts may not have merit, however this is not the case with participants in your signature campaign. The amount of merit a person has received is a quick way to objectively measure a person's post quality
2 - You appear to believe having negative trust is a reason why someone is "incapable of being trusted or making a good post" as you do not accept negative trusted people into your signature campaign. Also, I did ask to join your campaign, which you ignored, however if I was participating in your campaign, I would have left because of a) the low pay rates, and b) because I do not want to be associated with the amount of spam your campaign generates

Quote from: SteveStake on June 11, 2019, 11:37:53 AM

Another thing, I'm fully aware what some of you are doing when you put a Stake signature on and then start trolling without being part of the campaign.

Example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg51190436#msg51190436

There was never a point Souldream was ever in this campaign yet he was wearing the signature getting banned for plagiarism.

That is strange because he applied to your campaign, and I don't see any evidence of you rejecting anyone who applied. Why did you not accept this person?

Quote from: SteveStake on June 11, 2019, 11:37:53 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 11, 2019, 06:19:13 AM

However the root cause is that you are paying garbage rates

Higher pay rates will only encourage people to post more and lower pay rates encourage people to post less. If we truly want to see spam gone then remove all pay per post features because that will always encourage spam. Once I lowered the pay rates I saw an instant decrease in spam and it worked out well. I suggest other campaign managers stop over paying for posts because your supply of posters far surpasses your demand for them. But sure everyone is going to hate me for saying that even though it's true because so many are making a career out of Bitcointalk

You are ignoring the fact that your low pay rate is not going to attract those who are capable of making coherent posts. You are also ignoring the fact that the majority of people in your campaign have no business getting paid to post.