If site turns out scam,is the signature campaign manager to blame?

[pjsonowal]

Today am making this thread to come over the point what do users here think when a site turns out scam ,so do you think user managing signature campaign is to blame?

Recent case : Oremine.org was siezed by United States Global Illicit financial team scammed(proof). And campaign manager was given some negative feedbacks for that. Do you guys think that was right?

campaign manager yahoo62278 answered

~snip~Ore mining paid out for 2 years that's why I accepted the managing position. Everyone who has ever enrolled in the campaign has always been paid. I took a job as a manager that's all so ots pretty unfair to neg tag me period especially after the campaign runs for 4 months.~snip~

So what do you guys think?

[Robertt]

No, he is not to blame.
Don't deny the fact that if you were offered the job at the time you would have accepted it without looking back. You loved ore-mine, it scams, you decide to blame campaign manager. It's your own fault for losing money if you decide to be lazy and invest on sites for free money. He makes the thread, you sign up with your own free will. The site was legit for a year so he didn't think it would collapse this soln

[pjsonowal]

No, he is not to blame.
Don't deny the fact that if you were offered the job at the time you would have accepted it without looking back. You loved ore-mine, it scams, you decide to blame campaign manager. It's your own fault for losing money if you decide to be lazy and invest on sites for free money. He makes the thread, you sign up with your own free will. The site was legit for a year so he didn't think it would collapse this soln

Exactly it was running two years and no one would expect after that it would come out to be a scam. For the users who gave those feedbacks, i would like to point out something he was only a campaign manager and not the admin. And the decision of closing it or scamming it lies with the admin. See the campaign manager as an employee, so if manager scams out and runs away with the money,does it means that employee is also with him?.

Also i think someone had made the signatures for the oremine signature campaign. So as he made the promotion part for the site, does it means he was also with the scammer? Think!!!

[Alaki]

So as he made the promotion part for the site, does it means he was also with the scammer? Think!!!

Yep. Promoting = supporting. There're ponzi campaigns in the service board; people who incline to promote 'em get neg'd. Basically, yahoo did the same.
P.S. I'd entreat you to move the thread to reputation board.

[Quickseller]

I think it really depends on how the campaign manager reacts once a site officially scams. If a site scams then the manager attempts to get participants to continue to advertise the (what is now a) scam site, then the manager should be at least partially responsible. On the other hand, if they are neutral or encourage people to leave the campaign then I don't see any reason to blame them for something they have no control over.

There are a number of companies that have advertised via signature ads, and most likely many more will advertise in the future. Some of them will turn out to be a scam.

I assume this is about the "yahoo" situation involving ormine. I'm not sure if negative trust is appropriate in his situation, although I don't know much about the situation beyond that he was running their signature campaign. Unless there is evidence that he knew they were planning a scam, or if he tried to get people to continue to advertise after they scammed (like EvilPanda) then I would not leave negative trust.

[notlist3d]

I think it really depends on how the campaign manager reacts once a site officially scams. If a site scams then the manager attempts to get participants to continue to advertise the (what is now a) scam site, then the manager should be at least partially responsible. On the other hand, if they are neutral or encourage people to leave the campaign then I don't see any reason to blame them for something they have no control over.

There are a number of companies that have advertised via signature ads, and most likely many more will advertise in the future. Some of them will turn out to be a scam.

I assume this is about the "yahoo" situation involving ormine. I'm not sure if negative trust is appropriate in his situation, although I don't know much about the situation beyond that he was running their signature campaign. Unless there is evidence that he knew they were planning a scam, or if he tried to get people to continue to advertise after they scammed (like EvilPanda) then I would not leave negative trust.

I would agree there is not a cut and dry we can say yes they are or no.  I think it really depends on how they acted and what knowledge they had.  With being campaign manager I think you do have the responsibility as a ambassador for lack of better term to be in talks with the company and know how it is going.  You should know if buisness looks good or hearing things that are scary.

Now if business said all the right things and kept paying for campaign, and there was nothing to point to scam.  It's harder to blame campaign manager.   Also if everyone is paid or not I think is a factor.   If all that were part got paid... then it again leans to manager doing job right.  If they have anyone who was not paid... then it leads twords possible reason for neg as they should be keeping track of if they are able to pay everyone.

So i guess it comes down to if you trust the campaign manger did not see the signs of it coming, and was out of that loop.  Which I think is hard to prove in a lot of cases.  

[sukamasoto]

Actually if someone want to manage sig campaign, first they must notice what kind of sig campaign that they want to manage.

If they aware that they are managing ponzi sig campaign or semi ponzi , they have some risk to manage it ( whenever they're responsible even they are associate with it )

[redsn0w]

No, I don't think he is to blame.

[onlinedragon]

In my eyes the negative feedback need to removed by a admin. But he have to take his hands of that topic and don't manage anything anymore for ore-mine so far they not back online anymore.

[TriggerX]

No he is just the campaign manager for a signature campaign. The only fault I can think of is if you manage a campaign that has a high potential of become a scam. What yahoo was not his fault and he shouldn't get negative trust for that.

[MyBTT]

Why would he be the one to blame? He is not the owner of the website. He was just trying to make some extra money by managing the campaign.

[Astargath]

He is to blame if he knew the site was a scam beforehand, I remember a mod that was participating in the cloudthink or some cloud ponzi signature campaign and someone made a post here on Meta to kick him out of the staff position and everyone agreed, he took the signature down.

[mexxer-2]

He is to blame if he knew the site was a scam beforehand, I remember a mod that was participating in the cloudthink or some cloud ponzi signature campaign and someone made a post here on Meta to kick him out of the staff position and everyone agreed, he took the signature down.

He was dsserano5, he too wasn't given a negative nor removed from staff, and is currently the part of DefaultTrust level 1.

[Joel_Jantsen]

The site has been running for more than 2 years. I can personally vouch that the owner isnt abandoning his signature campaign. We have ran that for 4 months total now with noone ever having to worry about being paid.

I'm not recommending anything. I'm just saying its paid out for over 2 years. I did a little homework before accepting the job period. I manage his campaign and that's it. Of you look at all my posts here you'll see I'm only defending the part I have to deal with which is SIG campaign. I also don't feel like you can label the site as a scam ponzi since it has been around for 2years plus. True ponzis collapse well before then but its whatever here. You guys wanna play internet police n ruin the acct value then do what you must. I think the trust system is a joke half the time cause half have no clue and the other half trying to get noticed.

Well,yahoo seemed extra supportive of the owner and the campaign.

[coolcoinz]

No, the manager should not be blamed for something he has no control over. His job is to make signatures, register users, count their posts and pay them, not to read in the business owner's mind to know his intentions. If he fails at his job he deserves red trust, if his employer scams someone only the employer is responsible.

So as he made the promotion part for the site, does it means he was also with the scammer? Think!!!

Yep. Promoting = supporting. There're ponzi campaigns in the service board; people who incline to promote 'em get neg'd. Basically, yahoo did the same.
P.S. I'd entreat you to move the thread to reputation board.

Is that so? Then bitcointalk as a forum was supporting all the Bitcoin businesses that failed by showing their banners.

[Astargath]

He is to blame if he knew the site was a scam beforehand, I remember a mod that was participating in the cloudthink or some cloud ponzi signature campaign and someone made a post here on Meta to kick him out of the staff position and everyone agreed, he took the signature down.

He was dsserano5, he too wasn't given a negative nor removed from staff, and is currently the part of DefaultTrust level 1.

Only because he was already a staff member, people hesitated to give him negative trust and because he also stopped advertising the scam company, I'm sure if he continued, he would have gotten a negative rating, eventually... But as I said, if the campaign manager knows about the scam, then he is a bad person and basically a scammer himself.

[notlist3d]

In my eyes the negative feedback need to removed by a admin. But he have to take his hands of that topic and don't manage anything anymore for ore-mine so far they not back online anymore.

They can't remove the negative, this is something they have stayed away from moderating.  It opens a huge can of worms if they start deleting feedback when requested.

yahoo can explain his side and ask people to remove.  But in no way do I expect forum to remove negatives.  For better or for worse.

[redsn0w]

In my eyes the negative feedback need to removed by a admin. But he have to take his hands of that topic and don't manage anything anymore for ore-mine so far they not back online anymore.

They can't remove the negative, this is something they have stayed away from moderating.  It opens a huge can of worms if they start deleting feedback when requested.

yahoo can explain his side and ask people to remove.  But in no way do I expect forum to remove negatives.  For better or for worse.

In some case theymos has removed few neg. trusts (for example trust spammer, or hacked account used to leave negative trusts).

[crazywack]

Most sig managers are hired so I would say no. If the manager is affiliated with the site then yes he has an idea of the inner workings.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

Today am making this thread to come over the point what do users here think when a site turns out scam ,so do you think user managing signature campaign is to blame?

Recent case : Oremine.org was siezed by United States Global Illicit financial team. And campaign manager was given some negative feedbacks for that. Do you guys think that was right?

~snip~

Can you please do some research before saying things like this, the domain was not seized and the US government has nothing to do with this, the admin just put that picture up to fool people like you