Bitcoin Forum

I'm not sure this is the right place to post, if not please move it to the right board.

I'll keep this simple. Projects pay the signature campaign managers and participants to promote them in the forum, they will not pay you willing for not promoting them.
I see that one of the most reputed Signature Campaign Managers seems to be paying a particular participant for severals weeks, who has been making posts only in sections where signatures are not shown. I am not sharing the names because the campaign rules doesn't say anything about posts made in sections where signatures are banned.
This particular user has been making below average posts in sections where signatures are not shown. So my question is why pay him, when he is not promoting the project, as supposed to be.  Are the reputed campaign managers doing their job properly?

You're going to have to give examples, or report it to the campaign manager directly.

In general, there are good and bad campaign managers.

This is the correct board imo.


Usually, posts on boards where signatures aren't displayed like WO aren't paid also but if it is not stated in the rules, then the manager probably missed that. It would be unfair for the company if a participant continues to get paid by posting on those boards.


It's better to drop the name of the campaign and the participant to allow us have a better understanding of the matter. We cannot just assume that what you are saying is true.

Are you sure you are seeing all the user in question's posts? If you have any sections on ignore, then posts made in these sections will not be visible to you on the user's "Recent posts" page. I'm thinking in particular about the local boards, which many users have on ignore and some campaigns pay for.

If this isn't the case, then it's up to the manager to stop paying them and there is nothing anyone else can do. Contact the manager directly.

Serious discussion and its child board doesn't show any signature,and thread like WO has the same things but not sure about local boards.

Basically signature campaigns paying their participants for carrying their signature under the post they were making,so yes they need to have required number of posts under the allowed sections to get payment,but you can make any number of posts on any section but it won't have to counted towards your reward posts.

I don't think any campaign manager will count post where signature is not displayed. I have managed one signature campaign till now and after accepting some of the users, I had PMed them notifying that on certain section or WO topic, post will not be counted although it common sense that no publicity is there for the campaign.
Have you contacted with the campaign manager? It may be a mistake from the campaign manager. No campaign will pay user who will bring nothing to the campaign, at least campaign manager who think of their reputation.
If possible, you can enclose the campaign manager name and questioned user.

If it's not against the rules, then it's not hurting the campaign. Unless that specific poster has posted a large % of his posts in that board(75% or greater) over the course of all his/her posts.

Posts still display the signature in all that users other posts from the start of his posting career.

Now with all that said, maybe us campaign managers need to make it a rule that posts where signatures aren't displayed do not count. Unless that rule is there though, it's not illegal for the user.

Just an fyi, if it is a cryptotalk participant I have no control over what cryptotalk pays for, but pm me and I'll look at the users post history and remove them if they're going overboard in certain sections.

There is WO too and reading at OP my guess is that he is meaning WO topic.
This is what I think, in a signature campaign all comes down to the manager and his employer. They are the end one who make a choice and if they are okay with this then I really do not see any issue as long as the forum is not flooding by spams.

No, I'm not talking about Crypto talk campaign. Maybe every campaign manager should implement that rule. Because, Out of the last100 posts, only 2 were posted in boards where signatures are displayed. I didn't see any violation of the campaign rules mentioned in the campaign. But I think this is a basic requirement to make your signatures visible when you are getting paid for it.
Anyhow I'll take LoyceMobiles suggestion and will inform the campaign manager about the participant through PM and see what he decides.
Thanks for all of your inputs.

Coming from a member who is not even eligible to display the signatures yet... :'(

I don't really understand how the newbie accounts on the forum get to learn about the signature campaigns, good and the bad managers on the forum and form an opinion about them within such a short period of time. These multi-account scumbags I tell ya.

There is no universal rules for signature campaign, every campaign might have different rules and its only the manager who can implement the rules .
he can even put a phrase where he can change the rules at his own discretion, so we should be aware of that.

I am sure the manager who are reputable knows their job, and if he is paying a participants which are posting on section where signature is not shown, then its up to him because this might not give a positive result to the business he is promoting and the owner will not be happy, so most likely the signature will be stop.

Lastly, I suggest you share the name, there's nothing wrong with that, it's your observation and I believe its nothing personal here.

people are scared of negative tag and bully from some higher rank members in the forum but am surprised cause a lot the bullies in the forum on break, I saw terrible bullies in 2016. Have seen a lot of these newbie account with similar complains mainly towards the high rank members/ bounty managers. 

4 months is long enough to gather information, if you are reading rather than posting in threads unnecessarily. My finding is purely accidental and I wouldn't have made this post, but I felt that the user is cheating money out of the project. But there is no break of rules, that's why I posted here. I don't want to damage the reputation of any user here.

If you think that I'm an alt of any account, you can quote/archive my post and keep watching me, I'm here only for knowledge and will never participate in Signature or other campaigns in future.

So now that you didn't give us any reference to work with, what are you expecting to hear from us, some generic response like he isn't or is a good manager etc. Next time you decide to bring up such senstive accusation, kindly drop reference as that's the only way we can examine the situation and probably call the manage to order as a community or alert the sponsors of the campaign. If you're not ok with been the whistle blower with your main account, the forum isn't against creating alts for such purpose.

You should also understand that signature isn't the only form of advertisment as the avatar/profile message campaign participants wear are also a form of advertisment so when the signature ads isn't doing the job, the other ad medium steps in to do the job.

What you mention is just another instance of campaign managers being garbage for the most part.

They are too lazy (or corrupt) to do their own investigations or research. You may as well have bots running them ( that would be fairer)

1. they just simply defer responsibility for selection/rejection to the gamed and abused metrics of merit / trust
2. they refuse to produce any transparent clear rules that they enforce equally to all members leaving them wide open to corruption.

They should be able to produce a reasonable and rational reason for refusing people or accepting them that stands up to scrutiny... not just oh well they earned x merits or have x trust.  Those scores when investigated are VERY MISLEADING resulting in a lot of untrustworthy and low quality shit posters getting the best sig spots.

3. Of course as you say, their lazy or corrupt ways often leads to them making ZERO effort to ensure that the people are posting in the correct places or that their posts are not just trolling, net negative shit posts made by undeniable scammers.

Campaign manager should be placed under a lot more scrutiny.

I think OP is referring to Negotiation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2635513) who is right above my name in Bitvest Signature Campaign list (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16OFEpH8h9d0Y_HAnG7dihMj9cRMDMxn_bhqaXooNaAE/edit#gid=403605590) managed by Hhampuz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=881377)(most trusted campaign manager).

If this is the case, the Signature Campaign Terms are set by lightlord (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088858.0), who is the owner of BitVest(if I am not wrong). Hhampuz is just managing the campaign for lightlord. As per the campaign terms, Negotiation has not broken any rules, so he is eligible to be paid.

BTW, all reputed campaign managers know perfectly well how to manage a campaign.

I always assumed that posts in Ivory Tower and Serious Discussion, where sigs aren't displayed, were never counted for campaigns.  I thought posts in those sections didn't even increase your post count--but I haven't checked the rules of those sections to verify that.

I agree, they all do a good job and I've never heard of any of this being a problem before.  I'm assuming it's a non-issue and that if it ever was a problem, campaign rules would be updated.  The small group of bitcoin-paying sig campaign managers in general do an excellent job and don't put up with a lot of BS.  I trust that if any of them thought members were being paid for posts where their signature wasn't being displayed, they'd fix that quickly.

Edit:

So it's the Wall Observer thread that's the issue? 

If they're cheating any project out of the money, you should open a scam accusation and you know it would be taken seriously by the community. Opening threads will get you only general opinions.

To be honest, there is no knowledge involved in judging campaign managers unless you want to contribute to the forum constructively. You should probably spend more time in Development and Technical sections.

Maybe campaign owner not aware that signatures are not displayed on that thread so this should be fixed soon by letting know Hhampuz or Lightlord.Signature campaigns paying for advertising their signature but if someone getting paid when he is making post where signatures are not shown constantly then its being not loyal to the campaign. :)

You cannot call them reputable manager if they are not doing their job properly, by not naming the campaign or the manager we can only speculate and it will only harm the reputation of all managers here, better drop the name and put the burden on one manager instead of all.

If you are not willing to disclose which participant is doing this and who is managing that campaign, then you are opening a thread for trolling only. There will be endless views here. By not telling the exact manager name, you cannot just point your fingers with the argument that all the managers are not doing the job correctly.
Either point out the exact participant or close this Pandora box.

OP should ask directly to manager via PM. I don't think this is wise decision to pay them who are posting on section where signature isn't visible. But you should make sure if manager paying him for that boards. Posting here doesn't mean managers are counting that post although doesn't mentioned on rules. Like if anyone need to make 15 post to eligible for weekly payment, so he could make post anywhere once he already made post on signature visible boards. But if you are right then no meaning to pay them, sometimes manager hire helper to help them who have much campaign to manage. So they might abuse it. Better discuss with that manager, if he still doing same than you may mentione name here.

You created a new account to report this and what is reason for not revealing anything but wanted answers ::).

There is no evidence presented whether he is getting paid for the posts he make in the sections you claim nor planning to reveal the user nor planning to tell which campaign he is enrolled, you being the good Samaritan just show us where this is taking place and then we will have a discussion rather than having a vague representation.

The WO thread is quite popular and people like to share their point of view there. I think there is nothing wrong if few of the posts are in that section, but if more than 50% of the weekly required posts are in no signature sections, then he should be warned becasue companies are paying for their signatures to be visible. Another option is to include the rule that posts from speculation section would not count.

There are campaugn managers that usually does theur job right by banning the participants right away if they posted a one liner content, low quality posts, shows neg representation of the campaign for instance, promoting scams and such. There are also campaignnmoderators or manager gives warning before anything else.
      Well sometime the irresponsibility of the participants about what they are doing for the campaign is really within their acccountability, its jus sad that it wil reflect the campaign manager's way of handling the campaign and its members.

Ok. I messaged Hhampuz about this but he didn't reply to my PM yet. Since almost all are asking for the names and one has already found the case, yes, Negotiation is who I am talking about.

When I made the post I didn't know the owner created the signature terms. But I don't agree with the fact that lightlord is willingly paying him. Hhampuz is the one managing the campaign, if he had informed lightlord about the issue, I think Negotiation would have been warned or even removed.

I know, I am not very experienced or reputable as you are. But I think every campaign manager should add this to their campaign terms. I would also suggest you do the same for Cryptotalk, aswell. Just inform the Yobit team that they are paying users even for the post that are not displaying signatures. If they are Ok with it then it's fine. But the project owners need to know what they are paying for, that's why they are paying someone reputable like you, to give them inputs on the campaign.

---

Thanks for the suggestion. But I am a super newbie to crypto and not a tech guy. When I checked a few posts there, I was not able to understand most of the terms used there. But I like the wallet software section(helped a lot). I read almost all the pinned threads and now I am going through the list of guides given here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4928968.0 and the basic videos of Andreas Antonopoulos. Next planning to read the Bitcoin Whitepaper. Apart from that, I read Meta, Beginner & Help, Bitcoin & Altcoin Discussion, Speculation, Project development etc. So, I think in a year or two, I'll also start contributing towards the forum.  :)

Bitvest has been here for a very long time and I guess Lightlord has seen it all including where participants usually posts. He/She is probably aware that there are sections where signatures are disabled since that has been implemented a long time ago.

As already mentioned, it's not against the rules to post in WO. Lightlord has changed the campaign rules multiple times already when it comes to payment rates but never really bothered to limit where participants could post. I'm not sure but I think even off-topic board is allowed.

In any case, it's best to message the owner who sets the rules.

With the given scenario you have the short answer is no. If they are paying someone who isn't meeting the minimum requirements the project paying for his services and the participants are actually losing money because they are overpaying for something that isn't even meeting the requirements for their project. It's actually also the project's job to see if their campaign manager is doing the right job leaving them alone without counter-checking is a careless thing for a project to do.

Exactly right and its expected from the side of campaign owner. Just blindly depending on managers isn't a proper way to run an signature campaign. Although its their job but if they don't do that than there is nothing to do actually. In my view signature manager will also love to have this kinda help from project owners.

Its pretty much simple that managers can make mistakes on counting posts or selecting qualified members but if they get extra hand from the owner side then chances of making mistake will be definitely lower. If owners don't feel it necessary to make scrutiny then others thinking will not gonna make any difference. 

Looks like Hhampuz has taken some action by depriving this week's payment for Negotiation. But, the thing which is clear in this case is that, just because someone is managing many campaigns doesn't make him reputable. There is no break of rules, but the work ethics is lost.