Someone who's capable of acquiring 2.000 merit in the first place is likely to earn more without any extravagant effort, firstly due to their status and secondly due to their knowledge. It's unlikely that someone with a legendary account with so much merit would sit back and relax and start posting gibberish. Creating constructive content isn't that difficult after all; it's possible if you're determined and patient enough.
-snip-
Extensive knowledge will affect the quality of the constructive content created.
Seniors or even those who are new but have good knowledge and content quality will easily get many merits, they are really serious in responding to every discussion, thus providing a solution, not just nonsense.
Some other legendary accounts with minimal merit may just create nonsense posts, because they are already in a safe zone with a signature campaign that pays for it, but in the end, when the rules change it will be the reason why they are kicked out.
That's correct; your rank doesn't necessarily mean that you're knowledgeable. I've seen plenty of Jr. Members up to Full Members contributing vastly to the forum and assisting other users by providing technical knowledge regarding Bitcoin, networks, wallets, and so on. On the other hand, there are high-ranking members who had ranked up before the merit system was introduced and are still posting gibberish in known spam sections of the forum.
-snip-
I agree, and i think most managers usually leave notes of warning to participants that they think aren't advertising the project well and even for some who don't leave notes, they do not just remove members if they have a 'bad' few weeks, but after months and months of really poor posting habits.
A manager who leaves a note about how they did in 1 week is a warning that should be evaluated.
Sometimes there are managers who don't give any warnings, but as the rules change in the campaign and developers want quality participants, those who don't have good progress will be kicked out immediately.
Improving all the time is necessary.
It's also a warning to myself to keep improving and not just give crap.
[/quote]
I also believe that warnings should be given before removing a signature campaign member if a deteriorating performance is found. It could be a case of personal matters that may have impacted his or her performance. However, if it's a continuous issue, no more than two warnings should be given.