Signature Campaign And Their Managers

[Nobitcoin]

I've been on several campaigns in my time on Bitcointalk and many have been rewarding. My question is what if the campaign manager isn't abiding by the set guidelines ? Meaning who scrutinises the managers work if anybody or is it more about putting more hurdles in front of the campaigner say they don't have to payout.

[1714887015]

1714887015

[1714887015]

1714887015

[1714887015]

1714887015

[1714887015]

1714887015

[1714887015]

1714887015

[mexxer-2]

Didn't understand your question much, could you explain "set guidelines" , do you mean forum guidelines or campaign guidelines, if its the latter I believe this thread should be in Service Discussion as this has nothing to do with the forum directly. Another thing, campaign managers are chosen most of the time due to their previous works being good(yahoo---) or because of their reputation(hilariousandco) or because of the success of their lat campaign(izanagi and vervoliman) , most of the factors seem same but they are slightly different.

[Quickseller]

The campaign manager is accountable to the person/business the campaign is suppose to be advertising. If the campaign manager is doing things to cause the campaign to not be cost effective (including the possibility of not following his own rules) then the business will likely either close the campaign or replace the campaign manager.

[steveds]

The campaign manager is accountable to the person/business the campaign is suppose to be advertising. If the campaign manager is doing things to cause the campaign to not be cost effective (including the possibility of not following his own rules) then the business will likely either close the campaign or replace the campaign manager.

even if this is not the case ,some managers do over - react the situation and just abuse the opportunity,

[tarsua]

i've seen mods complain to campaign managers, i think mods had a talk with the yobit mods and then they stopped accepting newbies

[yahoo62278]

The campaign rules are set by the manager and the company they represent. All rules are subject to change due to the needs of the company IMO. The rules are not there to just screw everyone out of being paid. Its really the total opposite. If everyone followed the rules then they would have no problem getting the max pay they qualified for, but if you look at the campaigns half the ppl dont try to follow the rules.

I personally have to read 3000-5000 posts per week and make a decision on what's a constructive post and what's not. Am I being too strict? According to some moderators I am not being strict enough.

OP what exactly do you feel is being abused? I think alot of users have no clue as to what a constructive post is. They feel like they're owed period for even wearing a signature but that's not the case. When you sign up and are accepted to a signature campaign you're basically signing a contract saying you'll follow all the rules. If you don't understand those rules or dont like the rules then you should not join that campaign as you will most likely be disappointed with your payout.

[Nobitcoin]

The campaign rules are set by the manager and the company they represent. All rules are subject to change due to the needs of the company IMO. The rules are not there to just screw everyone out of being paid. Its really the total opposite. If everyone followed the rules then they would have no problem getting the max pay they qualified for, but if you look at the campaigns half the ppl dont try to follow the rules.

I personally have to read 3000-5000 posts per week and make a decision on what's a constructive post and what's not. Am I being too strict? According to some moderators I am not being strict enough.

OP what exactly do you feel is being abused? I think alot of users have no clue as to what a constructive post is. They feel like they're owed period for even wearing a signature but that's not the case. When you sign up and are accepted to a signature campaign you're basically signing a contract saying you'll follow all the rules. If you don't understand those rules or dont like the rules then you should not join that campaign as you will most likely be disappointed with your payout.

Well its the fact that you changed the rules during the campaign which is kind of sneaky and it shows a distrust on the person that is on the campaign. For example I'm just posting away following guidelines and after I've spent most of the week trying to help with the campaign I get some bs about how I'm trying to work the system and the 100 posts that I have made only 70 are eligible and I get threatened to get kick of the campaign. Not talking about magicaldice just another campaign that said I was milking them. I followed the rules and he clearly said that all the posts in offtopic and games and rounds will not be couted then he turns around and lectures me on not posting to these sub's. I know they wont be counted but like I not allowed to post at all to these sub's ? So I goes year later to the facist asshole.

[Lauda]

I personally have to read 3000-5000 posts per week and make a decision on what's a constructive post and what's not. Am I being too strict? According to some moderators I am not being strict enough.

Not even remotely close to the word 'strict'. I'm not trying to attack you, nor the campaign that you're managing in specific. The problem lies within multiple campaign. You're essentially paying people to spam when you do not punish those that are spamming. Campaign payments should not be a incentive to post, but rather a bonus for posting. Most of the participants see it as a incentive and are thus spamming with low quality posts (which are unnecessary at best).  

[mocacinno]

I personally have to read 3000-5000 posts per week and make a decision on what's a constructive post and what's not. Am I being too strict? According to some moderators I am not being strict enough.

Not even remotely close to the word 'strict'. I'm not trying to attack you, nor the campaign that you're managing in specific. The problem lies within multiple campaign. You're essentially paying people to spam when you do not punish those that are spamming. Campaign payments should not be a incentive to post, but rather a bonus for posting. Most of the participants are seeing it as a incentive and are thus spamming with low quality posts (which are unnecessary at best).  

Offcourse, the fact that most campaigns require a minimum amount of posts does not help the spam-factor...
If i would live in a poor part of the world, and needed this money to pay for stuff... I would do anything to get the minimum required post count, by all means...

Lately, i try to join campaigns that have no minimum post count (i'd rather have a maximum post count than a minimum)

[yahoo62278]

The campaign rules are set by the manager and the company they represent. All rules are subject to change due to the needs of the company IMO. The rules are not there to just screw everyone out of being paid. Its really the total opposite. If everyone followed the rules then they would have no problem getting the max pay they qualified for, but if you look at the campaigns half the ppl dont try to follow the rules.

I personally have to read 3000-5000 posts per week and make a decision on what's a constructive post and what's not. Am I being too strict? According to some moderators I am not being strict enough.

OP what exactly do you feel is being abused? I think alot of users have no clue as to what a constructive post is. They feel like they're owed period for even wearing a signature but that's not the case. When you sign up and are accepted to a signature campaign you're basically signing a contract saying you'll follow all the rules. If you don't understand those rules or dont like the rules then you should not join that campaign as you will most likely be disappointed with your payout.

Well its the fact that you changed the rules during the campaign which is kind of sneaky and it shows a distrust on the person that is on the campaign. For example I'm just posting away following guidelines and after I've spent most of the week trying to help with the campaign I get some bs about how I'm trying to work the system and the 100 posts that I have made only 70 are eligible and I get threatened to get kick of the campaign. Not talking about magicaldice just another campaign that said I was milking them. I followed the rules and he clearly said that all the posts in offtopic and games and rounds will not be couted then he turns around and lectures me on not posting to these sub's. I know they wont be counted but like I not allowed to post at all to these sub's ? So I goes year later to the facist asshole.

when the campaigns rules were changing they were posted in the thread and they were also posted at the start of the new week as soon as I took over the campaign.

Also it is not my responsibility to pm all of you and let you know the rules have changed. It is your responsibility to pay attention the the thread to see if any rules have changed.

As far as you not being able to post on certain boards that's 100% untrue. Users may post anywhere they wish, youre just not being paid for posts on certain boards. It seems like you're saying youre not gonna make posts period unless youre being paid for it

[Nobitcoin]

I personally have to read 3000-5000 posts per week and make a decision on what's a constructive post and what's not. Am I being too strict? According to some moderators I am not being strict enough.

Not even remotely close to the word 'strict'. I'm not trying to attack you, nor the campaign that you're managing in specific. The problem lies within multiple campaign. You're essentially paying people to spam when you do not punish those that are spamming. Campaign payments should not be a incentive to post, but rather a bonus for posting. Most of the participants are seeing it as a incentive and are thus spamming with low quality posts (which are unnecessary at best).  

But what do you determine as low quality post ? As you well know a signature campaign is about getting your name out there. As to about quality of post what is that exactly ? Like saying that you should wipe you ass after you go for a dump. Everything runs on advertising these days and the reason you have these campaigns is that the company will become a recognised name when it comes to whatever product that they are promoting. Take Primedice for instance they didn't have all this bs when it came to posting look how successful they are now. It only shows with the stringent guidelines in order to post that the company is not at all solvent.

[Nobitcoin]

The campaign rules are set by the manager and the company they represent. All rules are subject to change due to the needs of the company IMO. The rules are not there to just screw everyone out of being paid. Its really the total opposite. If everyone followed the rules then they would have no problem getting the max pay they qualified for, but if you look at the campaigns half the ppl dont try to follow the rules.

I personally have to read 3000-5000 posts per week and make a decision on what's a constructive post and what's not. Am I being too strict? According to some moderators I am not being strict enough.

OP what exactly do you feel is being abused? I think alot of users have no clue as to what a constructive post is. They feel like they're owed period for even wearing a signature but that's not the case. When you sign up and are accepted to a signature campaign you're basically signing a contract saying you'll follow all the rules. If you don't understand those rules or dont like the rules then you should not join that campaign as you will most likely be disappointed with your payout.

Well its the fact that you changed the rules during the campaign which is kind of sneaky and it shows a distrust on the person that is on the campaign. For example I'm just posting away following guidelines and after I've spent most of the week trying to help with the campaign I get some bs about how I'm trying to work the system and the 100 posts that I have made only 70 are eligible and I get threatened to get kick of the campaign. Not talking about magicaldice just another campaign that said I was milking them. I followed the rules and he clearly said that all the posts in offtopic and games and rounds will not be couted then he turns around and lectures me on not posting to these sub's. I know they wont be counted but like I not allowed to post at all to these sub's ? So I goes year later to the facist asshole.

when the campaigns rules were changing they were posted in the thread and they were also posted at the start of the new week as soon as I took over the campaign.

Also it is not my responsibility to pm all of you and let you know the rules have changed. It is your responsibility to pay attention the the thread to see if any rules have changed.

As far as you not being able to post on certain boards that's 100% untrue. Users may post anywhere they wish, youre just not being paid for posts on certain boards. It seems like you're saying youre not gonna make posts period unless youre being paid for it

I'm not talking about you campaign at all I was just shocked with what happened when you took over. My example was from a recent campaign. You want me to out them ?

[yahoo62278]

I personally have to read 3000-5000 posts per week and make a decision on what's a constructive post and what's not. Am I being too strict? According to some moderators I am not being strict enough.

Not even remotely close to the word 'strict'. I'm not trying to attack you, nor the campaign that you're managing in specific. The problem lies within multiple campaign. You're essentially paying people to spam when you do not punish those that are spamming. Campaign payments should not be a incentive to post, but rather a bonus for posting. Most of the participants are seeing it as a incentive and are thus spamming with low quality posts (which are unnecessary at best).  

Offcourse, the fact that most campaigns require a minimum amount of posts does not help the spam-factor...
If i would live in a poor part of the world, and needed this money to pay for stuff... I would do anything to get the minimum required post count, by all means...

Lately, i try to join campaigns that have no minimum post count (i'd rather have a maximum post count than a minimum)

I dont think a 15-20 post minimum per week is asking too much from users at all. That's 2-3 posts per day.

[Nobitcoin]

I personally have to read 3000-5000 posts per week and make a decision on what's a constructive post and what's not. Am I being too strict? According to some moderators I am not being strict enough.

Not even remotely close to the word 'strict'. I'm not trying to attack you, nor the campaign that you're managing in specific. The problem lies within multiple campaign. You're essentially paying people to spam when you do not punish those that are spamming. Campaign payments should not be a incentive to post, but rather a bonus for posting. Most of the participants are seeing it as a incentive and are thus spamming with low quality posts (which are unnecessary at best).  

Offcourse, the fact that most campaigns require a minimum amount of posts does not help the spam-factor...
If i would live in a poor part of the world, and needed this money to pay for stuff... I would do anything to get the minimum required post count, by all means...

Lately, i try to join campaigns that have no minimum post count (i'd rather have a maximum post count than a minimum)

I dont think a 15-20 post minimum per week is asking too much from users at all. That's 2-3 posts per day.

Dude I'm not having a go at you at all there was another campaign that I got signed up to who was a joke.

[mocacinno]

I dont think a 15-20 post minimum per week is asking too much from users at all. That's 2-3 posts per day.

Well, in the past i was in a couple campaigns that did require 20 posts/week, excluding posts in meta, alt, ... . Some weeks, i was on training during the week, and wanted to spend some time with my family during the weekend.
If i really needed the money, i would be seriously tempted to quickly make 20 spamposts and call it quits...

But in the end, everybody has to decide this for him/herself... I just chose to go for campaigns without minimum post counts...

[yahoo62278]

I dont think a 15-20 post minimum per week is asking too much from users at all. That's 2-3 posts per day.

Well, in the past i was in a couple campaigns that did require 20 posts/week, excluding posts in meta, alt, ... . Some weeks, i was on training during the week, and wanted to spend some time with my family during the weekend.
If i really needed the money, i would be seriously tempted to quickly make 20 spamposts and call it quits...

But in the end, everybody has to decide this for him/herself... I just chose to go for campaigns without minimum post counts...

making 20 posts in a day isn't what any campaign manager is looking for really. If I see a guy logs in 1 day a week to make his post count then i start viewing that acct as someones alt and I will start investigating to find if they have another acct in tha campaign and ban both accts.

IMO when you join a campaign you need to be a consistent daily or every other day poster. Youre being paid for a service when you are accepted. How much of a service are you providing if you male 20 posts in a day and all your posts are not read once 10 other ppl reply in that thread that day?

[Nobitcoin]

I dont think a 15-20 post minimum per week is asking too much from users at all. That's 2-3 posts per day.

Well, in the past i was in a couple campaigns that did require 20 posts/week, excluding posts in meta, alt, ... . Some weeks, i was on training during the week, and wanted to spend some time with my family during the weekend.
If i really needed the money, i would be seriously tempted to quickly make 20 spamposts and call it quits...

But in the end, everybody has to decide this for him/herself... I just chose to go for campaigns without minimum post counts...

making 20 posts in a day isn't what any campaign manager is looking for really. If I see a guy logs in 1 day a week to make his post count then i start viewing that acct as someones alt and I will start investigating to find if they have another acct in tha campaign and ban both accts.

IMO when you join a campaign you need to be a consistent daily or every other day poster. Youre being paid for a service when you are accepted. How much of a service are you providing if you male 20 posts in a day and all your posts are not read once 10 other ppl reply in that thread that day?

Yes I agree with you that someone making all the posts in a couple of days is taking advantage of the system but a person posting near enough the full week with at least 75 characters in their post and making the maximum amount of posts excluding the extra posts to the sub's which isn't allowed should get paid the full amount right ?

[Nobitcoin]

You know that I getting trigger happy these days and thinking that I should neg more people. Since people neg me for no reason.

[Lauda]

Offcourse, the fact that most campaigns require a minimum amount of posts does not help the spam-factor...
If i would live in a poor part of the world, and needed this money to pay for stuff... I would do anything to get the minimum required post count, by all means...

Lately, i try to join campaigns that have no minimum post count (i'd rather have a maximum post count than a minimum)

I do not see the point in that. Pay the users for the posts that they've did. I'm all up for the maximum weekly number of posts being lower than 100. A manager can not complain about the work that he/she has to go through. Nobody is forcing him/her to do the said job.

But what do you determine as low quality post ? As you well know a signature campaign is about getting your name out there. As to about quality of post what is that exactly ? Like saying that you should wipe you ass after you go for a dump. Everything runs on advertising these days and the reason you have these campaigns is that the company will become a recognised name when it comes to whatever product that they are promoting. Take Primedice for instance they didn't have all this bs when it came to posting look how successful they are now. It only shows with the stringent guidelines in order to post that the company is not at all solvent.

You can't define as rule that would apply to all posts. It's just not possible. Analogy: how could you make a rule that would say if art A = bad, or B = bad? You can not make a single rule that would determine this for all pieces of art that have been made/are going to made. With posts it's pretty much the same. I don't understand people that are unable to perceive a good post from a bad one though. Each post is assessed on a case by case basis and gets handled accordingly.
Campaign managers should pay Carra23 to give them lessons.