Re: CopperMembership ~ real Member rank in campaigns - Is it fair ?
I was surprised by your quoting style: it's much more common to reply under the quote, not above it.
I could be wrong, sorry. Does it relate to any kind of ettiquete? If yes, I will correct it.Honestly, I quote and type my ideas, and don't have intention with typing above or below quotes. Arbitrarily! But it seems you are right, typing below quotes look more friendly, easier to get flow of ideas, and shows respects. I will correct my quoting style. Thank you for warning me.
It's OK to buy it, if you somehow loose your account (get banned) , you loose money. Those who have build up their account from scratch to reach Member won't risk it.
The forum makes some profit so that's good.
They are different:The forum makes some profit so that's good.
- One grown up from scratch to become Member;
- Another one created account; bought CopperMembership.
I do not understand it, because I think Meta is for forum-related issues. This one relates to forum issues, in my opinion.
This has nothing to do with Meta, I think it should be in Reputation.
Well done, Sir!Quote
Back ontopic: I've done that: I accepted Copper Members equal to Members, as long as they earned 35 Merit.
This has nothing to do with "being unfair", all users can buy Copper Membership if they want it. Campaign managers shouldn't pay spammers though, with or without Copper Membership.
Before they can be banned, due to community reports, they will be able to spam and get money. Or they are more careful than standard spammers, so they will hardly to get bans, but their posts are far from constructive.This has nothing to do with "being unfair", all users can buy Copper Membership if they want it. Campaign managers shouldn't pay spammers though, with or without Copper Membership.
Quote
Click "Report to moderator", they can still be banned.