Should paid sig accounts be negd on bad campaigns.

[o0o0]

Simple thought for accountability and integrity.

If an ico/project doesnt deliver then should the campaign manager and members getting paid for their sigs and profile pic be neg rating for spreading the word?

icos are rampant many scams and account farming for this. is it time to neg them if the ico or proj is a scam later? it makes people accountable for their account and posts.

skincoin for example
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1944508.0

the whole topic is mainly sig members promoting it as they arent going to say anything not positive as they get paid. this falsely drags people in to invest. the sig member likely doesnt even have the coin.

by neging their account if it doesnt deliver or scam results that sig wearer cant use account for another sig campaign and ensures they vet what they are being paid to promote.

should campaign managers be responsible in the same way so they run reputable campaigns? or should campaign managers be responsible to neg members if the campaign results in lies or not delivering?

thoughts?

seems to be a way to police the rampant icos and campaigns.

[1713992278]

1713992278

[1713992278]

1713992278

[The Sceptical Chymist]

DT members would have to get onboard with this for the negs to mean anything,  and as much as I can't stand these idiots who constantly shitpost in sig campagns, they--like me--are renting out their signature space.  They don't necessarily endorse whatever it is they're advertising.   And this was already done with betcoin.ag and that didn't really stop anyone from advertising.   Also it's hard to know in advance what's actually a scam.  But most ICOs are, I guess.

Damn you got legendary fast!  Congrats.   Never seen you around before. Lol

[o0o0]

DT members would have to get onboard with this for the negs to mean anything,  and as much as I can't stand these idiots who constantly shitpost in sig campagns, they--like me--are renting out their signature space.  They dony necessarily endorse whatever it is they're advertising.   And this was already done with betcoin.ag and that didn't really stop anyone from advertising.   Also it's hard to know in advance what's actually a scam.  But most ICOs are, I guess.

Damn you got legendary fast!  Congrats.   Never seen you around before. Lol

i post in other forums been here for couple of years.

i meant after the fact its proven scam go back and neg them theres records of members.

whilst you are renting your space i agree, just like renting real life space you are accountable that it doesnt cause damage. i just think it would cut back on fake canpaign posts. at present they dont care for what they support and its once paid move to the next.

by vetting what they support it adds to integrity by putting their account onthe line as well

[dillpicklechips]

Don't you think all are victims including the investors of course, the participants in bounty campaigns and the campaign manager. They can only be held accountable if and only if they know beforehand that it is a scam. Also this can only be made possible with the cooperation of the DT members.

[actmyname]

They dony don't necessarily endorse whatever it is they're advertising.   And this was already done with betcoin.ag and that didn't really stop anyone from advertising.   Also it's hard to know in advance what's actually a scam.

The threat was given out but no action was actually taken.

Scummy services/products/sites in signatures from campaigns seem to have this holy grail pedestal upon them. Why not look at it from this angle?

Suppose you have a scam in your signature. A straight-up scam. Are you negged?
Now suppose you have a ponzi in your signature. Are you negged?

If you said yes to the above, why would you not be negged for a scammy site?If there was a user promoting a site that was known to cheat users, then the former should be splattered with red paint. I still hold that same regard with Betcoin (especially the shills like cj)
Get your paintguns out! ^TM

[coin-investor]

I will not have second thought putting out my signature if there's a complaint about the coin I'm promoting,there's a lot of good programs to promote so why be persistent promoting a scam sites or program, people might think you are part of the team because of your persistence to promote a known scam site

[o0o0]

Don't you think all are victims including the investors of course, the participants in bounty campaigns and the campaign manager. They can only be held accountable if and only if they know beforehand that it is a scam. Also this can only be made possible with the cooperation of the DT members.

when investing how do you come to a decision on if you think its valid or not?

apply this same logic to sig campaigns you manage or join.  without risk youd say who cares as i get paid anyway.

reputation is something for investors like warren buffet etc. would he invest or promote something he didnt think legit?

[Lauda]

Short answer: Yes. Managers, project owners and even the participants themselves should be neg. rated with a very nicely written rating.

DT members would have to get onboard with this for the negs to mean anything,  and as much as I can't stand these idiots who constantly shitpost in sig campagns, they--like me--are renting out their signature space.

Sometime in mid-late 2016 I was gathering support for this. Almost every single DT member that I've talked with has pledged support to the idea (although some were only limited to managers, others to participants, et. al.). Meaning, there was strong support for this. However, when I've presented this to theymos he shot it down stating that it would not be appropriate use of the DT system. It is quite unfortunate that the DT system is heavily centralized solely on what theymos wants with it. It is possible that with public pressure, along with strong support from DT members (of both depths) he may possibly reconsider his stance.

[o0o0]

Short answer: Yes. Managers, project owners and even the participants themselves should be neg. rated with a very nicely written rating.

DT members would have to get onboard with this for the negs to mean anything,  and as much as I can't stand these idiots who constantly shitpost in sig campagns, they--like me--are renting out their signature space.

Sometime in mid-late 2016 I was gathering support for this. Almost every single DT member that I've talked with has pledged support to the idea (although some were only limited to managers, others to participants, et. al.). Meaning, there was strong support for this. However, when I've presented this to theymos he shot it down stating that it would not be appropriate use of the DT system. It is quite unfortunate that the DT system is heavily centralized solely on what theymos wants with it. It is possible that with public pressure, along with strong support from DT members (of both depths) he may possibly reconsider his stance.

im unsure how its abuse of the trust system. should someone blindly supporting a project because they get paid be trusted? if i see high posts and think hey high posts i can trust his advice when they've promoted two shady projects? reputation is a level of trust on ones actions. with getting paid there is conflict of interest. i think if you promote something you should research and stake your reputation.

people can be wrong not on purpose so maybe the neg rating should stand for 6 months to discourage blind paid shilling. in neg trust add date then remove after. would be nice if trust had decay where you could set a date to auto remove.

i dont understand the use or design of trust if it cant be used for a purpose such as this. in that case its just semi trust ruled by a select small government of forum people.

[Lauda]

However, when I've presented this to theymos he shot it down stating that it would not be appropriate use of the DT system.

im unsure how its abuse of the trust system.

I think that "not appropriate use of" and "abuse" are quite different, the latter being a much stronger word. Now, what is abuse of the current system is very relative and subjective. You need to start with the question: What is deemed as appropriate use of the system? Only the way that theymos specified that it should be used (a few years ago)? The general implicit or explicit consensus by the majority of DT members? There is also a general misconception that this is a web-of-trade, whilst actually being a web-of-trust. Here are two example points that are relevant to this part of the discussion:
1) If you don't trust someone who didn't do anything (at least as far as the public is informed) worth leaving a negative rating over: I don't trust quite a number of individuals, and I imagine that many others do not either but we don't generally neg. rate them even though, and I am stating this again, it is a web-of-trust. Whether it would be appropriate or not to tag is open to debate.
2) Retaliatory ratings: Since ratings aren't moderated, they get abused like this quite often. Building upon point 1, for example: If I do not trust someone, and I neg. rate them, then they usually just neg. rate you back. Obviously this is clear 'abuse' of the system. Individuals, especially the egoistical ones, can always argue "but I do not trust you either because X, Y, Z".

should someone blindly supporting a project because they get paid be trusted? if i see high posts and think hey high posts i can trust his advice when they've promoted two shady projects? reputation is a level of trust on ones actions. with getting paid there is conflict of interest. i think if you promote something you should research and stake your reputation.

I am not arguing against this idea, so there's no point in statements/questions of such when responding to me. I am strongly pro-doing this to:
1) Unmanaged campaigns.
2) Very badly managed campaigns.
There is absolute zero gain from letting them stay like that. They have nothing but a detrimental effect on the forum.

i dont understand the use or design of trust if it cant be used for a purpose such as this. in that case its just semi trust ruled by a select small government of forum people.

There are quite a few faulty policies around here. Theymos either does not: 1) Understand the problems. 2) Does not have enough time. 3) Does not care. 4) ?.

[NeuroticFish]

Short answer: Yes. Managers, project owners and even the participants themselves should be neg. rated with a very nicely written rating.

I also agree to this, although I want to add a few words from my experience.
I go for signature/twitter campaigns and sometimes I even do translations.
It happened to me too to cross path with scam coins and whenever my experience told me it's something wrong, I didn't join or I stepped back.
But nobody can check everything. Even the campaign managers, which should be the first to do the checks are careless or get fooled sometimes.
Of course, such system will enforce people get more careful, but I'd advocate something somehow a little more permissive, like first or first 2 such "strikes" should go as neutral feedback and only the rest get red negative. Or something like this, I think that you've got my point.

They have to be woken up, but not harmed badly, since it's only (only?) greed and carelessness, not really bad intention imho.

[Lauda]

Short answer: Yes. Managers, project owners and even the participants themselves should be neg. rated with a very nicely written rating.

I also agree to this, although I want to add a few words from my experience.
I go for signature/twitter campaigns and sometimes I even do translations.
It happened to me too to cross path with scam coins and whenever my experience told me it's something wrong, I didn't join or I stepped back.

I am not talking about those cases. Advertising for pretty much anything in this industry is risky. If a project that you're advertising ends up being a scam, then that is not your fault. I wouldn't neg. rate someone for advertising such as long as they remove their signature as soon as they are aware of the situation.

They have to be woken up, but not harmed badly, since it's only (only?) greed and carelessness, not really bad intention imho.

I am talking about owners, managers and users who: 1) Don't do their due diligence or try to be cheap (owners). 2) Don't do their jobs properly (managers). 3) Just shitpost for money (users).

[Xavofat]

The campaign manager should receive negative trust.  To run a signature campaign, they should have done their research on the legitimacy of the project and been happy letting many people promote it.  The only exception to this is if the project was extremely good at appearing legitimate (though this is a subjective judgement).  Frankly, most of the campaign managers of ICOs deserve negative trust anyway, just for allowing shitloads of people to cover the forum in bullshit.

As for the participants, I say the first thing you should do is a group PM.  Contact them all directly telling them that you believe that the project is a scam, explaining all the evidence that you have.  If it's not common sense that the project is a scam, they don't deserve negative trust.  If it is common sense, then wait 2-3 days for them to respond and if they don't remove their signature, give them negative trust.

I think there is an important distinction between DT negative trust and ordinary negative trust as well.  If we're talking about an ordinary member giving them negative trust, they can do so without waiting.

[DarkStar_]

The campaign manager should receive negative trust.  To run a signature campaign, they should have done their research on the legitimacy of the project and been happy letting many people promote it.  The only exception to this is if the project was extremely good at appearing legitimate (though this is a subjective judgement).  Frankly, most of the campaign managers of ICOs deserve negative trust anyway, just for allowing shitloads of people to cover the forum in bullshit.

That will cause the ICO spam campaigns to become even worse, as it's can be hard to tell if a project is a scam, and if they appear legit, they could change their minds at any point. Most ICO campaigns are horribly managed with many spammers/alt accounts, and driving managers away from them would likely increase the spam.

[Xavofat]

The campaign manager should receive negative trust.  To run a signature campaign, they should have done their research on the legitimacy of the project and been happy letting many people promote it.  The only exception to this is if the project was extremely good at appearing legitimate (though this is a subjective judgement).  Frankly, most of the campaign managers of ICOs deserve negative trust anyway, just for allowing shitloads of people to cover the forum in bullshit.

That will cause the ICO spam campaigns to become even worse, as it's can be hard to tell if a project is a scam, and if they appear legit, they could change their minds at any point. Most ICO campaigns are horribly managed with many spammers/alt accounts, and driving managers away from them would likely increase the spam.

With negative trust, the managers could still be able to run campaigns.  The ones who allow spam are not reliant on a huge reputation and the negative trust can be informative about exactly why they received negative trust.

The point is to warn people that the managers are willing to pay people for advertising what was a likely scam, and thus that any other trades from them in the forum are likely to be shady.  It also means that legitimate projects will look for competent managers (you, Lauda, Lutpin, yahoo etc), because the managers of those scam campaigns look shady.
 

[Spoetnik]

It really doesn't matter.
You are all trying to make this broken trust system work for your own personal agenda's.
Should people be doing business on a forum that permits scams being posted ?
How about a forum that allows rampant chronic abuse ?

Lauda for example has rattled off some defense speeches for why doing deals in the forum is good.
Well sweety it's 2017 now and this shit ain't 2012 no mo'
People doing deals here are fucking idiots.
Why she is obsessed on making it work is beyond me.

Her examples she posted were obscure and not usually the case either.
Most trades are not about buying physical coins from old trusted members.

Like who the fuck is doing deals with random noobs ?
I sure as hell wouldn't.

I've done deals with people you all know by name and i sure as hell didn't need or use a fucking escrow.

The FUD has come to the reputation section now ladies & gentleman and ..pedo's / extortionists. 

TL:DR / ADD victim translation..
Who gives a fuck.
No seriously.. who and WHY ?

You all think i care if my rating is twice as bad as Mark from Gox's ?
You think it would have any bearing on things if mine was -999 ?
Nooooope.

Maybe wake up and see what is going on.

[hatshepsut93]

cryptodevil was actually doing it some time ago, and he was removing neg rep as soon as a member had taken down their signature. And it makes sense, because participants of bounty campaigns usually get scammed too, so there's no point to keep neg trust forever.

[Lutpin]

I wouldn't neg. rate someone for advertising such as long as they remove their signature as soon as they are aware of the situation.

That's the key point here.
Once it becomes evident a project is bad, managers and participants have to react. If they fail to, then yes, a negative rating might be warranted.
However, someone who is no longer advertising a project should not be tagged for previously doing so in times there was nothing speaking against it.

[mammabitcoin2u]

Simple thought for accountability and integrity.

If an ico/project doesnt deliver then should the campaign manager and members getting paid for their sigs and profile pic be neg rating for spreading the word?

icos are rampant many scams and account farming for this. is it time to neg them if the ico or proj is a scam later? it makes people accountable for their account and posts.

skincoin for example
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1944508.0

the whole topic is mainly sig members promoting it as they arent going to say anything not positive as they get paid. this falsely drags people in to invest. the sig member likely doesnt even have the coin.

by neging their account if it doesnt deliver or scam results that sig wearer cant use account for another sig campaign and ensures they vet what they are being paid to promote.

should campaign managers be responsible in the same way so they run reputable campaigns? or should campaign managers be responsible to neg members if the campaign results in lies or not delivering?

thoughts?

seems to be a way to police the rampant icos and campaigns.

Most won't like my answer but since you asked 

1-The Campaign Mangers -outright promoting a scam. YES Before you endorse something, at least know about it and be willing to stand behind it. 

2-Accounts promoting-YES-most are throw away accounts used for the sole purpose of gaining small or big $, it's all the same.  If those newbie accounts aren't Tagged, they will just pop up later, be farmed and sold and blah blah

3-When I see sig spam/posts that make no sense, except to qualify for a "post count" I don't look further.  If the CM doesn't care about Quality, then they aren't concerned about their "investors".

You really aren't gonna like this:

The campaigns, good ones and bad, do provide advertising revenue/traffic/etc. 

Its a double edge sword 

LOL@actmyname......Trademarked eh lol

@hats I believe ANY feedback should be left as it.  It helps people make a decision-don't take it from them.

[Lauda]

cryptodevil was actually doing it some time ago, and he was removing neg rep as soon as a member had taken down their signature. And it makes sense, because participants of bounty campaigns usually get scammed too, so there's no point to keep neg trust forever.

I don't think advertising scams is an issue that is remotely as severe as signature spam/incompetent managers/no managers. This is due to the lack of cases where people continue advertising a known scam, whilst the problem with spam is present daily.

I wouldn't neg. rate someone for advertising such as long as they remove their signature as soon as they are aware of the situation.

That's the key point here.
Once it becomes evident a project is bad, managers and participants have to react. If they fail to, then yes, a negative rating might be warranted.
However, someone who is no longer advertising a project should not be tagged for previously doing so in times there was nothing speaking against it.

I fully concur.