Bitcoin Forum

Some users apply in signature campaign without reading the rules. They apply sometimes even if they don't have the criteria to participate in the campaign. That's really stupid sometimes, at least when people don't read the most common rules. For example, Hhampuz requires at least 5 merits in his campaign to be eligible for participating but some people apply with having earned 0 merit within the last 120 days. This is stupid I think. They are wasting campaign managers time.

Now, as I have managed two campaigns and have plan to manage more once I get an offer, should I tag such users to avoid their application in future? Or should I simply put them on ignore list? If I tag, I will give a neutral tag with short message like, "This user doesn't read campaign rules."
Share your opinion please.

I'd just make a spreadsheet or a list on your own where you can put users you don't want on your campaign. That's what I do at least, using the trust system for it would probably be both more time consuming for you and perhaps not an appropriate use of it (since it'll mainly be notes for yourself).

At the end of the day though, do whatever you feel most comfortable with.

That's abusing your trust power. Let me ask you how does someone not following campaign rules makes someone not trustable in forum? That's not the intended use of trust system.

Best is to just put their names in a list and screen them out from applicants list for the future. I think there are managers who do that already.

no, it's too stressful for them, sometimes those who register don't know what they are doing, cases like that often happen to accounts that are being sold, even though their positions are full or SR and so on, but those who hold it are new to the Forum, that's what I often find.

So, in my opinion, tag them, not good for your image as a campaign manager, solutions.
Create a self-moderated ANN campaign, if you don't like it you can delete it and other solutions you can mark them in your notebook, if the member doesn't change and continues to re-register.

That way he will realize why my application was deleted or not accepted, meaning that he realized his own mistake, maybe that's better.

Some of ways you can do:

Build up your own list.
Ignore shitposters.

However, for your list, you need to have plans to review it after few months because people can change from bad to good.
For the use of Ignore, I don't think use it is needed because if you are a manager and your campaign rules have one rule for min earned merit in last 120 days (example your rule says the min amount is 5 or 10) I doubt that shitposters can meet that rule.

Ignore restricts your opportunities to see good changes of few shitposters.

At the end, it is your campaign, it is your decision so build up your method.

It's someone attempting to enter a deal/contract without reading it - might be important for others to know. This doesn't call for red trust (I wouldn't say it's "high risk") but a neutral is ok I think.

Is there a violation or abuse in leaving a neutral tag? I thought it's universal. You can leave a neutral feedback if you think someone's a troll or a helpful member.

Correct me if I'm wrong about the process for leaving a feedback
1. You need to put a reference link as proof.
2. You have archive the application post since they can delete it after 24 hours.

I think that's time consuming. I would just skip the applicant since there are probably more deserving members to review.

If you tag a user for not reading your campaign rules then it will be one of the poorest apply of feedback system. Tagging is for scammers and shady users who you think can steal money from others. I think some other already gave you the answers however here are some practice I saw other users to do:
- put them in the ignore list
- maintain spreadsheet
- has a blacklist in the forum by their own.

Well you can use neutral feedback as putting a reference about something. You might not think it is useful but it is really actually. It's optional to put reference and archive the link but that's what makes a feedback solid whether it be positive or negative or neutral.

It's upto people to post a feedback or not but I think it's worth it. Because you are posting and reference something useful which someone in future could get a help before dealing with a person or how to deal. For example: I take a no collateral loan for a long term and no one marks a feedback on my profile referencing to it. I can again take a bit of time and ask for another loan over to that and run away. That kind of incident could be avoided if someone puts a neutral in that case and if I ask for loan in over to a loan already in process someone can point that out to others- it is helpful a lot.

Here is my view at last- you might think it takes a lot of time but if I am doing something helpful for others even it take 1 hour to do this I don't mind and never will.

Some of you guys are messing the tag with neutral tag (which refers to other comments and I think neutral is referring to such comments, see what suchmoon said above, that was my intention). But maintaining a spreadsheet as Hhampuz said, and I'm going to follow that.
Thanks for your opinion. End of the discussion here.