A Song of Vices and Ire: Alternate Account Campaign Enrollment

[DireWolfM14]

But getting one personal exception from one campaign manager if you're an exceptional poster should be easier than convincing everyone to change their campaign rules for every participant, right?

This is a good point, but imagine the cataclysmic fallout if DarkStar_ were to allow both of Hilarious' accounts into ChipMixer.  The kvetching would lead to countless threads by numerous trolls across half a dozen boards, and would last for months.  There would be accusations of favoritism, inside dealings, conflicts of interest, and who knows what else.  To a large extent it would be difficult to justify and harder to defend against the allegations.

If the accounts were not publicly known as alts, but the manager allowed the exception he would be at the mercy of the user keeping the accounts' connection a secret.  Should the manager accept risking his reputation to allow one exceptional user to register an alt?  If the accounts and the exception ever do become exposed the fallout would be even more cataclysmic in proportion.

[suchmoon]

~

Might be true. Trolls are trolling even now so it's hard to say if a transparent logically justified exception would make much of a difference (come to think of it, I don't really know why hilarious uses two accounts).

Along those lines, simply raising/removing the limit of paid posts might be less cataclysmic - some campaigns would probably disappear since they couldn't afford to pay farmers churning out posts 18 hours a day, and some would have to drop a few (or a lot of) users to make space for the farmers.

Bottom line: it makes business sense for the campaigns to do what they're doing. Whether its for budget management purposes, or for better ROI, or for better quality - it's up to the campaigns.

[actmyname]

Bottom line: it makes business sense for the campaigns to do what they're doing. Whether its for budget management purposes, or for better ROI, or for better quality - it's up to the campaigns.

I can accept that, but from a reputation standpoint, I'm still somewhat standing in my original soil - I'm going to let these ideas fester for a bit from an external perspective and analyze the discussion before making any further replies.

I'm open to changing my mind on this  - just wanted to make sure you knew this was in regard to the negative feedback (and perhaps flags, though I have not done full dives on trust yet) that was created because of this communal consensus against alts.

Lifting the post limit for everyone is probably not going to happen since it would blow the budget of a campaign. But getting one personal exception from one campaign manager if you're an exceptional poster should be easier than convincing everyone to change their campaign rules for every participant, right?

I can accept this as a sensible solution if we are strictly talking campaign-side (that of business and not of ideological values).

[suchmoon]

I'm open to changing my mind on this  - just wanted to make sure you knew this was in regard to the negative feedback (and perhaps flags, though I have not done full dives on trust yet) that was created because of this communal consensus against alts.

About that - considering that most reputable campaign managers are in DT, it would probably make more sense if it went like this:

Someone spots alts in a campaign -> informs the manager -> manager tags and/or flags them (or not) -> others tag them and/or support the flag once the manager confirms they're abusing the campaign.

Instead of:

Someone spots alts in a campaign -> TAG!!!!!

But a neutral rating is fine and probably desirable in either case, as is public shaming. I would definitely want to know about users sockpuppeting their way into sig campaigns, regardless of how lenient the manager is.

[Timelord2067]

We do, in fact, have an example of a user who participates in multiple campaigns with publicly-announced alternate accounts: hilariousandco, hilariousetc.

You forgot to add hilarious* u=1424594 is an alt of hilariousandco u=164822 and also has a confirmed second alt of hilariousetc u=397737

http://archive.is/p50G7#selection-5631.0-5631.63 / http://archive.ph/EtcLc#selection-10385.0-10393.57

The problem you ultimately have with alts / known or otherwise is that they will eventually give each-other merits, or trust wall/feedback (or even default trust) and put themselves onto DT to get a higher payout from any campaigns they are posting in.

As we've seen once someone is on DT as hilarious is, they then use their only bargaining chip to slap others with distrust such as when I posted (the already known) information on his trust/feedback wall.


(before hilarious clicks reply to re-flame and or troll, perhaps he should go and read these posts http://archive.ph/mXJMk#selection-5735.0-5743.56 / http://archive.ph/BRI0o#selection-8803.0-8833.3 / http://archive.ph/hrHEv#selection-2365.0-2789.2 / http://archive.ph/Pqj9p#selection-9093.0-9111.2 / http://archive.ph/e3EyL )

[The-One-Above-All]

With bitcoin based payouts it does not really matter. Although to me it does not seem fair if the places are highly desirable and limited.

With tokens then you should not allow alts if it is possible to prevent them. That is not to say from a reputation pov that they are essentially untrustworthy but only that it should be strongly discouraged.