Right now I cannot think of any campaign manager that asked to become merit source but having said that icopress asked to become a merit source he did not ask for members (including you) to merit his posts in order for him to be able to send out more merits to other members.
Hypothetically, if you asked to be merit source, given a choice would you prefer a member post his support for you to become merit source or receive merits from a member because he likes your work but has become a vocal opposition to your merit source application citing a possible conflict of interest.
It seems you do not want icopress to become a merit source yet you are happy to give him merits for posts that might or might not deserve them on the basis you like his work. For me, the two simply do not equate.
If I understand the situation correctly, icopress has made a merit source application like many other members but I do not recall any of them receiving merits for the sake of helping the applicants to merit other posts.
I do not recall icopress ever asking for help at all and definitely not via merits. If he did not ask for members to merit his posts in order for him be able to merit more posts, why should any member take it upon themselves to merit his posts for the sake of increasing the number merits he can send? I am confused.
Also, if this type of generosity was aimed at just one merit source applicant while the others were not given merits, it is clearly unfair and would raise questions.
63 merits = 31 merits to give out.
he is the only one that handles signature campaigns.
if you can point out an application from a person that did not get the merit source and is a signature manager I may award merits to that person. If I like his work. Which is my entire point about Icopress I like his work.