This is pretty accurate, and I prefer the forum like this way. During the past year, there was way too many people joining and opening new signature campaigns, and the forum userbase wasn't big enough, and therefore allowed a lot of shitposters/copy-pasters to join signature campaigns and earn crazy amounts of money for doing little to nothing.
Some good advice for shitposters. But I think you have posted it in the wrong section. If I was you then I would move it to the B&H section. :-)
I think this is a service discussion post, because we are talking about a popular service (signature campaigns). A beginners version of this would be if this was a guide on how to get into signature campaigns.
Thank goodness its getting harder to get into a signature campaign. Anyone, and I mean anyone was able to get into a signature campaign a few years ago, and with the introduction of the merit system we are now seeing a more functional forum with actual quality posts rather than the garbage which was spewed out, because users were getting paid for it. I honestly thought monetary gain would be the ultimate motivator to making good posts, but as with everything users got complacent, and now we have a system which prevents that from happening. I also believe signature campaigns should have a rule that every participant should earn a certain amount of merit each period. If they don't they get removed, and someone else gets put in their place. This would mean you'll only be hiring those that are actively earning merit rather than have done in the past which means it would prevent them from getting complacent.
If I was in charge of a signature campaign I would probably only want the elite advertising the service, and even if I had spaces left I wouldn't hire someone just for the sake of it. I would probably recommend actually approaching noteworthy users, and not just relying on applications too.
Yeah, I'd agree. Money should have increased post quality, but we had too many signature campaigns so the standards just dropped for a lot of them.