Quote from: hosemary on Today at 12:21:44 AM

Quote from: yahoo62278 on May 04, 2025, 11:54:21 PM

This type of activity could lead to managers not allowing edited posts to count which IMO I think would be great.

I don't agree with this. Posts can be edited for good reasons.
Sometimes, I edit my posts to correct typos or grammatical errors. Sometimes, I edit my posts to add some information that were not available when I created the post.

What Saint-loup is doing is completely different. He posts a few words just to have a reserved post and edits it to make the post longer after days. That's probably done to spread the posts throughout the week and not be accused of burst-posting.

I edit now and then myself and not counting edited posts would be an extremely radical act, but maybe a radical act is needed. Trial and error.

Quote from: MotoLM on Today at 01:30:08 AM

Quote from: yahoo62278 on May 04, 2025, 11:54:21 PM

This type of activity could lead to managers not allowing edited posts to count which IMO I think would be great. Is he cheating? Technically no, but other managers may not feel the same way. Depends on the rules for the most part.

You have one bold rule in your campaign and I have the same rule at the very first of my campaigns. We don't tolerate post bursting. It usually brings no good output. Besides, I consider post bursting as less effective in terms of impression count. That's something else.

Well, Saint loup is post bursting here but beating the manager. This is something a manager can barely notice, the chance of noticing this is very close to zero. Isn't it cheating? Post bursting isn't allowed but they are doing exactly that. I checked last 7/8 post and they were edited within a little more than half an hour. Would you count that valid post? I didn't check more, it's possible that he has edited many more posts in the same day and in the same hour.

I'll put a neutral tag so I don't have to accept him in any of my campaigns.

You know as good as I do that if rules aren't made 10000000% clear users will exploit them in campaigns which is why I say technically he isn't cheating. There is no rule that you can't mass edit or whatever this user is trying to pull off. Am I all for this user not being allowed to be in campaigns? Of course, Just playing a little devils advocate.

Quote from: TryNinja on Today at 03:40:51 AM

Quote from: yahoo62278 on May 04, 2025, 11:54:21 PM

This type of activity could lead to managers not allowing edited posts to count which IMO I think would be great. Is he cheating? Technically no, but other managers may not feel the same way. Depends on the rules for the most part.

I think this is too overkill. I edit a lot of my posts due to typos and because sometimes I think about something else and add it to the post (an extra phrase or two).

Probably a better idea to check the original post instead (i.e using ninjastic.space) and not allow posts that were clearly made to bypass the weekly cut time (and if they are < 200 characters, low quality etc).

We all edit here and there, just offering a suggestion.

Quote from: Free Market Capitalist on Today at 06:26:28 AM

Quote from: yahoo62278 on May 04, 2025, 11:54:21 PM

This type of activity could lead to managers not allowing edited posts to count which IMO I think would be great.

To not paid edited posts would only be done by lazy managers IMO. Every week I edit my posts, usually to correct mistakes or clarify something, once I read them after they are published (and I check them before publishing), which is far from what Saint-loup does. So a responsible manager if he doesn't want to pay for edited posts should check if they are shitpost-like IMO, like the case mentioned above, or responsible post improvements.

I will not go deeper into this as I see that the rest of the opinions expressed are similar to mine.

Assuming someone decided to not pay for edited posts, I am sure that certain users would be exempt from the rule and it would be on a case by case basis. As stated everyone makes an edit or 2 now n then. It's a forum though, not a class assignment that has to have perfect grammar so I can't really see why someone would be editing 100 posts a week.

I'm guessing the cheater is likely a part of an alt farm who is doing this activity from multiple accounts. Then going back and editing, likely doing a few accounts a day. Someone should be looking for more users doing this and connect the dots.

Quote from: Woodie on Today at 11:32:05 AM

Best punishment would have been to suspend a week's pay , just to let him and all other campaign members know what the consequences are for this..and probably some comments on the spreadsheet to alert everyone that you have an eagles eye on them.

Secondly, it would be interesting to see the pattern of the quota's... If it's always say 30 posts as required by sig, doesn't show natural contribution towards the forum as I know some managers don't like members that hover just around the maximum allowed post numbers.

Now with this, hope his not tainted for this.

This is unethical behavior and just not paying the user for 1 week wouldn't be a suitable punishment IMO. Would you lat plagiarism go with a 1 week suspension and a smack on the wrist? Just another unethical behavior.

I am not for this type of activity and I don't want any users to think that I would be. I am simply giving a suggestion which wouldn't be popular and playing a little devils advocate. There is more than 1 account involved here, of that I am sure.