Please do not ONLY bring adhominem. The other points you raise are already clearly answered previously and debunked by the answers I have already given. Especially if you are at all concerned about the honest members here getting fleeced. Which you claim to be. Just because you seem to not understand those points is not our problem. Have another read. If there are no transparent rules that are objectively and independently used to measure each applicant equally against then of course there are endless shady and scammy implications for that. Hence why similar rules exist in RL. Although really they are far more important here than in many cases in RL.

Those "rants" contain important central points that have never been debunked. You should address them for what they clearly are insightful posts that get right to the truth of the matter.

@actymyname.

Well better slightly "fuzzy" borders between transparent clear rules that are applied equally to all members than observably and undeniably misleading and dangerous bogus metrics.

I mean those examples were really just a rebuttal to the IN RL claims ioeieoei was making.

Here on this board we can actually do things a little better since we ALL have access to ALL the posts made by members so we can ALL analyse them.

ANY attempt to roll back subjectivity (the home of abuse) is an improvement over what we have now. Even the law is a work in progress right?

So if we are claiming access to campaigns is based on

= no clear examples of financially motivated wrong doing (apparently what red trust is for)

= the highest value posters or a threshold of minimum standard of posting = merit score


then these need to be made robust so that public examination and scrutiny corroborates the campaign managers choices.

AKA

the member should have ZERO clear and objective instances of financially motivated wrong dong  CHECK

and

let's say we were to set standard of less than 5 shitposts (opinions that were not corroborated with observable instances and did not add any real value to reaching the optimal decision or solution in that thread .. I mean this can be thrashed out as one member already attempted to do previously when defining a post of value which was very interesting) from your last 100 posts.

OR any clear transparent rule that ALL applicants are measured against.

I mean it should be first come first served that meet some good thresholds we can put in place. Any argument that ONLY the best posters are allowed in would clearly require the campaign manager has a larger capacity or equal to the best posters applying. This is likely not possible so a minimum threshold will be required.

If campaign managers do not want to put in the work so that their decision stand up to public scrutiny then chuck them out and get some that will put in the work and be fully accountable.

Of course it will be a work in progress nothing is perfect straight away. However that is no reason to leave it WIDE OPEN and TOTALLY BROKEN.

There is NO reason NOT to approach it just like this if we want to claim only the BEST posters and most TRUSTWORTHY members are being selected for the BEST paying sig campaings. Or it is a clearly bogus claim.

This was hammered out on the way to the gym so there may be a rethink required ... improvising to plug up subjective and gamed holes is part of the process.