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

[guitarplinker]

The campaign manager definitely isn't to blame if the site turns out to be a scam.

I used to run the Rollin signature campaign and have no financial investment or ownership in the website. I simply ran their signature campaign for them under their rules. If Rollin turned into a scam, why should I be to blame? Sounds like you'd be grasping at straws to blame the campaign manager for anything, unless people find out that the campaign manager was affiliated with the website, and was in on the scam (ex. the guy running the GAW signature campaign - he was in on the GAW scam and received negative trust). From what I've seen it doesn't sound like the Oremine campaign manager was related to the website at all other than running their campaign, so people leaving him negative trusts are definitely leaving negative trusts on the wrong person - leave them on an official Oremine account instead.

[1714951553]

1714951553

[1714951553]

1714951553

[1714951553]

1714951553

[1714951553]

1714951553

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yahoo was definitely not to blame in this case.  He ran the sig campaign and by all accounts did a fine job and I'm sure he didn't know they were going to turn out to be scammers.

Edited to add:  Just saw the new feedback for Yahoo62278.  Those users are fucking idiots anyway, looking to heap blame on someone for their own idiocy.

[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. 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

Actually i made the post before the proofs provided wpstudio and i already knew that it was a picture but needed a proof to explain that i cannot get assuming that he has putted that picture and he has scammed. No problem am re editing the main post

If it was seized then it would have been moved to new IP address
Read this:- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759702.msg13578902#msg13578902

Also some more proof: - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759702.msg13578902#msg13578902

[Everybitbit]

no campaign manager just doing their job,
as a manager they need to manage post quality, not like encouraging people to join campaign to promote scam site.
so thats my opinion.. if you invested thats your own fault.. if you join the campaign its also your own fault.
campaign manager just check quality or your spam post..

[erikalui]

Was the site a scam website when he "yahoo" started as a manager? If not, I don't think the manager is liable for the website's crime as he was seeing to the fact that the users get paid which is the only duty of the manager. I can see the campaign is closed now and yahoo has received ratings from non-DT members and hence it doesn't matter as yahoo still holds his reputation in the community.

[mexxer-2]

I can see the campaign is closed now and yahoo has received ratings from non-DT members and hence it doesn't matter as yahoo still holds his reputation in the community.

No offense meant to yahoo, but he was actively promoting it via his signature even when warned it is highly likely a ponzi. And continued defending it in the past.
P.S: Those are two DT-4 ratings, not that it matters.

[erikalui]

I can see the campaign is closed now and yahoo has received ratings from non-DT members and hence it doesn't matter as yahoo still holds his reputation in the community.

No offense meant to yahoo, but he was actively promoting it via his signature even when warned it is highly likely a ponzi. And continued defending it in the past.
P.S: Those are two DT-4 ratings, not that it matters.

@bold: I don't think this proves much as many other campaign managers have done the same in the past as they communicate with the owners and build a certain trust level when they get hired as a manager. Defending your owner is just because they have known the owner but this no way proves that "yahoo" is equally responsible for the scam. It's just like when one works in a company, the person has a trust built for the company and dismisses any speculation of it being a fraud one until PROVEN that the  website/company is FRAUD.

DT-4 members aren't taken into consideration while evaluating a person's trust here. It's usually only upto DT-3 level.

[mexxer-2]

@bold: I don't think this proves much as many other campaign managers have done the same in the past as they communicate with the owners and build a certain trust level when they get hired as a manager. Defending your owner is just because they have known the owner but this no way proves that "yahoo" is equally responsible for the scam. It's just like when one works in a company, the person has a trust built for the company and dismisses any speculation of it being a fraud one until PROVEN that the  website/company is FRAUD.

True thats why neither I or any of DT 3+ members(DT 2 and DT 1) tagged yahoo(I believe), as he immediately removed the signature after Ore-mine started acting shadily and later scammed
I'd say anything less than DT 2 is as good as DT 10.

[Joel_Jantsen]

@bold: I don't think this proves much as many other campaign managers have done the same in the past

As far as I know ,they all have been neg'd,there are a few exceptions but recently DT members are quite serious about it.You could see doublecoin or whatever ,its running since a month with negative to all the participants.

Defending your owner is just because they have known the owner

Not quite well...from the comments made by yahoo ,he seems extra supportive of the owner and the campaign,he mentions it,that he had done his part of research before becoming the manager.

but this no way proves that "yahoo" is equally responsible for the scam. It's just like when one works in a company, the person has a trust built for the company and dismisses any speculation of it being a fraud one until PROVEN that the  website/company is FRAUD.

Take example of xyz financial scheme company.Assume the company runs away with people's investment.The people who lost their funds won't care if you're the manager or just a level 1 employee as long as you have the company's name associated to you,you should be equally blamed.

[Quickseller]

warned it is highly likely a ponzi.

I don't think he can be blamed for supporting something that is "likely" some kind of scam. When someone says that a site is "likely" a scam then that person is giving an opinion. In other words, the person is saying that they do not like the business practices of a site.

[erikalui]

@bold: I don't think this proves much as many other campaign managers have done the same in the past

As far as I know ,they all have been neg'd,there are a few exceptions but recently DT members are quite serious about it.You could see doublecoin or whatever ,its running since a month with negative to all the participants.

Defending your owner is just because they have known the owner

Not quite well...from the comments made by yahoo ,he seems extra supportive of the owner and the campaign,he mentions it,that he had done his part of research before becoming the manager.

but this no way proves that "yahoo" is equally responsible for the scam. It's just like when one works in a company, the person has a trust built for the company and dismisses any speculation of it being a fraud one until PROVEN that the  website/company is FRAUD.

If yahoo strongly believed in this website, I don't know what research he did to find it legitmate. However, it doesn't prove anything as that's his belief. It does sometimes make people defending a "wanna be scam/scammer" look like alts or a person promoting a scam but for me if "yahoo" did not himself encourage scams/scammers and have a share in the investment, he cannot be blamed for the same.

Take example of xyz financial scheme company.Assume the company runs away with people's investment.The people who lost their funds won't care if you're the manager or just a level 1 employee as long as you have the company's name associated to you,you should be equally blamed.


Also, no signature campaign manager can know if the website will turn scam or not. It's not that the managers get details of the inner operations of the website. They just manage the funds and monitor the participants. Online jobs work the same way.

The people who lost their money can blame anyone but that does not mean they can sue or file a case against the employees of the fraudulent company if the employees have not been a part of that. The employees cannot be tagged as well as scammers/fraud.

[Bardman]

warned it is highly likely a ponzi.

I don't think he can be blamed for supporting something that is "likely" some kind of scam. When someone says that a site is "likely" a scam then that person is giving an opinion. In other words, the person is saying that they do not like the business practices of a site.

Well if you are a person who does not like the business practices of a site why would you promote them? It's like hey look at this site is great but they are probably a scam. That doesn't make any sense to me besides he is already a campaign manager for a lot of other campaigns, did he really need the dirty money from ore-mine? In my opinion if you promote a scam you are a scammer as well.

[coolcoinz]

warned it is highly likely a ponzi.

I don't think he can be blamed for supporting something that is "likely" some kind of scam. When someone says that a site is "likely" a scam then that person is giving an opinion. In other words, the person is saying that they do not like the business practices of a site.

Well if you are a person who does not like the business practices of a site why would you promote them? It's like hey look at this site is great but they are probably a scam. That doesn't make any sense to me besides he is already a campaign manager for a lot of other campaigns, did he really need the dirty money from ore-mine? In my opinion if you promote a scam you are a scammer as well.

The manager did not warn but was warned.
If you were managing a campaign and got such warning would you resign? Should a person resign the moment someone accuses the company of stealing money or any other dishonesty? A huge number of these accusations is usually false.

[Astargath]

warned it is highly likely a ponzi.

I don't think he can be blamed for supporting something that is "likely" some kind of scam. When someone says that a site is "likely" a scam then that person is giving an opinion. In other words, the person is saying that they do not like the business practices of a site.

Well if you are a person who does not like the business practices of a site why would you promote them? It's like hey look at this site is great but they are probably a scam. That doesn't make any sense to me besides he is already a campaign manager for a lot of other campaigns, did he really need the dirty money from ore-mine? In my opinion if you promote a scam you are a scammer as well.

The manager did not warn but was warned.
If you were managing a campaign and got such warning would you resign? Should a person resign the moment someone accuses the company of stealing money or any other dishonesty? A huge number of these accusations is usually false.

Actually that depends, pretty much all websites that were accused to be ponzies by highly trusted members here turned out to be ponzies because it's not that difficult to spot a ponzi scheme however as you said that doesn't mean the site is a scam so if he didn't know for sure I would say he shouldn't be blamed.

[Jet Cash]

If you promote a site in your sig, then you are putting your reputation on the line. You need to be sure that it is honest and of benefit to forum members. If you just want the money, then be prepared for people to be cautious about your trading ethics.

Just my humble opinion.

[suchmoon]

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.

Exactly. It's one thing to be an impartial manager, escrow, etc. The above statements go too far beyond that.

[Zeroxal]

If the campaign manager is a trusted, high reputable member that runs multiple signature campaigns, but has nothing to do with the service provided by the sites, then there is no one to blame other than the admin of the site.
However, there are some Jr. Members or even Newbies that claim they are only "sig campaign managers" and have nothing to do with the site, that definitely is fishy. Why would a site admin let their site advertised by a member that has no reputation at all? So the sig campaign manager is probably an alt of the site admin or vice versa.

[InvoKing]

Why you people complicate things? If the compagn manager didn't pay the participants in the middle of the period or continued to promote the site which turned scam then he should be negged otherwise NO!