Concerning level of inactivity on the ranks of global moderators and higher.

I don't owe you an explanation why I don't want you to be part of my campaign. It's not my job to give that explanation either.
Selecting participants, making sure they post constructively, counting their posts, making the payments, those are my areas of operation.
No part of my job says I need to stand and defend my decisions. They are mine to make and yours to accept.

I'm not talking about campaign rules, I'm talking about forum rules, which you are in open violation of.
What is this, if not a clear sign that you think you are not bound by the rules and can act like you want to?

It's "worse". If you want to criticize my work, feel free to do so. I can take it. But don't hold your breath for me giving a shit about your opinion. I won't.

Way to start a discussion, juvenile attempts at belittling the other party. How nice.

I think you're running a bit to deep into that rough comparison.

You have been banned several times. Independently. With different accounts. That is not being judged instantly. You've shown again and again the same habits.

You are "still alive" because nobody bothered to look into you. I did. I found your past. At that second, you fell back and since you're posting like you did back then.

You're deceitful, you've shown yourself to believe standing over the rules, you have obvious troubles judging a situation. All reasons for which I do not trust you.

Payments for the last week have been sent (79d6d42b678f4af64f12dacaa24fc73d36a322c0d0dd69524938cf1fae2bb580).

This isn't. The current forum is running on a pretty old version of SMF (though heavily customized and modified).
The new forum software is supposed to bring new features for both, users and moderators. It should ease up a thing or two.
Especially since it's custom built and it can be adjusted to the needs of the forum.

I would guess design is a point that comes a little later in the developing processs.
From what I've heard, there will be several "skins" available and the current design isn't final yet, either.
Besides that, looks aren't everything.

As the forum is right now aswell.

Not only new, but also custom made for this forum specifically. We could argue about the "new" part though, given how long there's being worked on already.

That would be called beta testing
Have fun.

Enlarginig the group didn't work out previously, hence the smaller attempt this time.

Actually, it's easy to find out (for me at least). How is that related to who I ban for spamming?

This is independent from forum moderation and should stay this way. We're an effort started from signature campaign managers.

We spend additional, unpaid time on this. Running a lazy ass, half-managed campaign would be more easy and faster.
This doesn't get you an advantage (if all, you get a big group of haters, don't believe it? Read the thread and related threads).

Is the list in the second post alright for that purpose, or do you need it in another format?
I'm planning to keep the second post (first reply) as it is right now, a plain list of names/accounts, nothing more.
All further information has been moved into OP and will stay there.

---

I (aswell as Lauda and yahoo) never voiced any intentions to get active with trust feedbacks in the matter of SMAS.
If you read my posts and understand that I am arguing against those "concerns" brought up by cjm, you would realize your post is hence moot.

I already see the critics flying in "you're being one-sided, this is only what managers expect" or "of course you think like that, you are a manager yourself", blablabla, the usual stuff.
Having read through it, I agree with most, if not all, of the points being brought up. Thanks for taking the time and collecting all of them in a single post.
Seeing as Lauda and I both think in a similar way, this could also be considered #SMAS-approved.
(We wanted to do something roughly like this in the old smas, IIRC.)

Thanks

There's a lot of potential for discussion in the two short questions you've posted.
Let me try to give a brief (or not so brief, upon rereading my draft) answer to each, without getting too far into details and examples (I still got a little, sorry),
but still one that should give you sufficient information (not trying to textwall this thread).

When a project fails, there are several possible reasons for it. In the rarest cases, one thing is solely responsible.

I always try to set up the best possible campaign, or what I (based on my experience) think to be the best possible campaign.
In many cases, that works out pretty good, for example with CryptoGames, we're running since June 2015 now and when we ran into problems, we found a way to adjust the campaign. If the effort would have been useless, that campaign would have been cancled a long time ago.

A few other examples would be OneHash and HeatLedger, both terminated campaigns of mine, but also both successful projects (last I checked).
HeatLedger simply had served it's time, the ICO was over and there were little resons to continue a big budget campaign for the coin. We had created a lot of awareness for the ICO though (still doing alright: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/heat-ledger/).
OneHash was from the beginning designed to be a short, introductory campaign, and when we completed that time, the campaign had been "completed". Today, the site is doing a lot better than before they ran the campaign.

But I guess the campaigns you're after are none of those, you speak of failed coins, so it probably is either Opair or SocialKapital (no offense to the guys involved with those projects).
Both campaigns went alright, at least from my pov, however, with both projects there have been some unrelated problems, things I couldn't influence, besides the task of advertising which I was a part of.
I'm not really keen on discussing those problems in this thread (it's not directly related to the campaigns), but there were certainly other reasons for the projects standing where they are today.
Maybe I'm partly to blame aswell, can't rule it out, but be sure I did the best I could, as I always try to do.

Even though those projects might be considered "failed" by some, I wouldn't call my efforts useless. I ran a nice campaign with each of them and the participants were quite happy about that. In the end, I can't guarantee a projects success via an advertising campaign alone, but if we're talking about the right project, I can certainly help it being successful by running a campaign with them.

A decent amount of my campaigns are escrowed by myself (currently, 3 of 6 are). I usually prefer to run campaigns in this way, as it not only ensures payments, it also eases up the process for both me and the advertiser. Hence my initial suggestion is always to escrow funds with me (or another escrow of their choise).
Some advertisers don't want to do this or can't. The campaigns I run without escrowed funds currently are CryptoGames/CryptoNews and BetKing.
For CG/CN, I've been working together with them for over a year now, I have no doubt they take the campaigns as serious as I am and they will make payments to the point, as they have done in the last 18 months.
BetKing currently is in control of over 6000BTC of users funds invested in their bankroll, I'm not worrying about them misjudging their responsibility for payments either.

That being said, in the end, users know the risk of joining an unescrowed campaign. In case of any payment disputes (/missing funds/missing advertisers/...), I'm going to do my best to make sure everyone gets what they are owed (like I did with opair, if you want to catch up on that), but I can't guarantee it. I would love to, but I can not. There stays a little risk.
So far, I never had to face this situation. I'm pretty sure I won't have to in the future, but never say never (right?).

---

I hope that answers your questions sufficiently.

Is OP up to date including every recent addition?
(If so, I can update SMAS with it)

Stop blaming others for your mistakes. And if you want to blame somebody, go ahead and blame me.

---

Then please leave it there.

Potential activity is the amount of activity you can earn right now (without any further activity periods).
Your potential activity equals to the amount of activity periods you have posted in times 14 (In your case, that would be 126, based on 14 times 9).

(Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582736.0; Adjusted time to potential activity.)

You had potential activity. At 99 posts and 99 activity, your potential activity was 116.
Now you start posting in a new activity period, your potential activity goes up to 126.
You will continue to earn activity until you reached your potential (126 posts/activity).

This is perfectly fine, your understanding of the activity system is just lacking some details.

EDIT: Updated with correct potential activity numbers.
https://www.bctalkaccountpricer.info/?token=gukcoq3o

Activity can't be greater than the post number (unlike potential activity, that can).
You either meant 120 activity and posts (which would make you full member) or 126 activity and posts (which is their current potential).

It takes some time for the avatar to update. For what it's worth, I already do see your new one.
Suggestion? Wait. Or clear your cache.

---

Didn't happen for me, and seeing as you changed your avatar recently aswell, you can probably tell if it works that way for you.

So you're telling me the user wasn't? And they still paid him for the fun of it?
eceff766d3e349adce9e62d1bc0be771980ef9b7479cce34d198043aefe171d8


Public Note: CloudThink.IO Signature Campaign Payout - June 15

Would be pointless, as you're in one of the campaigns that clearly won't participate in any coordinated anti-spam effort.

Again, how are we using trust feedbacks in the matter of SMAS? I just don't see where DT positions could play a role here, when we don't even leave feedbacks related to SMAS.

How are we abusing our "reputation" with this? We're doing what we are allowed to do by the responsibilities given to us from advertisers upon hiring us.

Concerns that have been addressed in the past (as Lauda said, read the thread) or that don't hold up when thinking 5 minutes about them.

We've had some more funds coming in meanwhile, so we're pretty good covered for the rest of the year.

---

Payments for the last round have been sent (9374fcdf0169a3dd2b54e1c3e7b2344f8390172c292d9f46b112b127af256319).

---

---

One of your posts was a tad bit short of our minimum length.

As of OP:

When did SMAS go against non-participating managers? When did we attack services with campaings not managed by SMAS for the sake of gaining an advantage?
There are managers adopting to the SMAS lists who aren't a part of the current team (notaek for example uses the lists IIRC).

yahoo isn't in any DT relation (and further in none to me), neither was Lauda at the point we re-activated this.
Further, the feedback system is independent from that, we're currently not using trust feedbacks in the act of SMAS.

Neither, we eliminate posters with low quality from our campaigns, taking their incentives to continue spamming the forum (which is currently one of it's biggest problem), the more coverage we have, the more effective we can do that and the better the reading experience for genuine forum users will become once again.
Things are still far from being good, but I think SMAS is already showing a little impact and clearly showed it's potential by now.

---

Part-time spammer?!

1BTC.

Enrolled (you'll earn the bonus for that one).

Set your things up.

---

We're filled with that.

Might wanna recheck your sources there. it's not "if you wonder what it means" but "even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious".
Source: Wikipedia.

---

I guess that was indeed meant as a compliment and we're overinterpreting a simple pop-culture reference here