Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2019, 10:07:50 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Do you agree Anon11073's counting: include posts before wearing the signature to the post count?
Yes: it is usual counting - 5 (41.7%)
No: it looks like an abuse - 7 (58.3%)
Total Voters: 12

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Bounty manager Anon11073 counted his posts before wearing the signature  (Read 257 times)
cotiniber
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33
Merit: 17


View Profile
May 06, 2018, 09:29:50 PM
Last edit: May 07, 2018, 11:57:56 PM by cotiniber
Merited by Anon11073 (3)
 #1

I reported a potential abuse by a bounty manager Anon11073 here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3488441.0
[ Off-topic but he is a merit source and his abuse of 30 source merits was reported here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3443147.0 ]

He is the bounty manager of cosplay token and joined the signature campaign of his own bounty on 6th April.  After 6th April he made 6 posts by Monday, which is less than the minimum requirement of 10 posts per week.  Nevertheless, he gave himself a stake for his first week...  He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature, which is why he added a stake.  He argues that all the participants' counting follow this rule.

I was not sure if it is normal or not... such a counting rule is not written in the rule of the signature campaign, and obviously it is not logical simply because they were posted before wearing the signature.  Finally, while he wrote "all the participants", he is the only person who benefits from this special rule.  

There certainly was no other user applicable, but posts when not signed were also counted.
I did not add a rule. If I do a bounty campaign in the future, it will count in the same way.

To me, it looks like he added the special rule only for himself, which is an abuse of his position as the bounty manager, but I was not sure if it is normal counting or not...  Any feedback from senior bounty managers/participants would be helpful.
1575799670
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575799670

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575799670
Reply with quote  #2

1575799670
Report to moderator
1575799670
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575799670

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575799670
Reply with quote  #2

1575799670
Report to moderator
1575799670
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575799670

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575799670
Reply with quote  #2

1575799670
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
mangkanor
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 06, 2018, 11:14:55 PM
 #2

The bounty managers are  normally shouldnt be in the spreadsheet,because the ICO developers would pay these people weekly and having those accounts in the spreadsheet is clearly an abuse,only those bounty participants should be all there,theres no one can cheat in bounties.You should put this  thread into the reputation board so that he will be punished if ever,but i dout be because DTs wont give a shit.

Anon11073
Staff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 285


Twitter: @BTY_11073


View Profile WWW
May 07, 2018, 02:11:53 PM
 #3

I reported a potential abuse of a bounty manager Anon11073 here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3488441.0
He is the bounty manager of cosplay token and joined the signature campaign of his own bounty on 6th April.  After 6th April he made 6 posts by Monday, which is less than the minimum requirement of 10 posts per week.  Nevertheless, he gave himself a stake for his first week...  He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature, which is why he added a stake.  He argues that all the participants' counting follow this rule.

I was not sure if it is normal or not... such a counting rule is not written in the rule of the signature campaign, and obviously it is not logical simply because they were posted before wearing the signature.  Finally, while he wrote "all the participants", he is the only person who benefits from this special rule.  

There certainly was no other user applicable, but posts when not signed were also counted.
I did not add a rule. If I do a bounty campaign in the future, it will count in the same way.

To me, it looks like he added the special rule only for himself, which is an abuse of his position as the bounty manager, but I was not sure if it is normal counting or not...  Any feedback from senior bounty managers/participants would be helpful.
You insist that I added the rules, but the counting method was definitely the same for everyone.
However, I was the only user in this bounty.

I certainly do not think this is fair.
It reflects your opinion. Please check the spreadsheet.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will send Merit to you.

Bitcointalk Japanese board moderator.
Decred is a true community governance cryptocurrency.
cotiniber
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33
Merit: 17


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 11:29:13 PM
 #4

The bounty managers are  normally shouldnt be in the spreadsheet,because the ICO developers would pay these people weekly and having those accounts in the spreadsheet is clearly an abuse,only those bounty participants should be all there,theres no one can cheat in bounties.You should put this  thread into the reputation board so that he will be punished if ever,but i dout be because DTs wont give a shit.
I agree, that should be a clean bounty management.  Moved the topic to Reputation section.
cotiniber
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33
Merit: 17


View Profile
May 07, 2018, 11:32:13 PM
Last edit: May 08, 2018, 12:12:16 AM by cotiniber
 #5

You insist that I added the rules, but the counting method was definitely the same for everyone.
However, I was the only user in this bounty.

I certainly do not think this is fair.
It reflects your opinion. Please check the spreadsheet.

Thank you for pointing that out. I will send Merit to you.
No way... you shouldn't give me your source merits... again it is your personal use, and even worse for this time, it looks like a bribe...

Furthermore, now the poll is "Yes:1 vs No:0" and I'm sure you've just voted "yes", which conflicts with the fact that you admitted your fault and eliminated your stake.  If you are really acknowledging me about that and thought that such a counting was inappropriate, the answer should be "No"...

You just wanted to finish the argument asap, sending merits to me and voting "yes"...
Quickseller
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1770



View Profile WWW
May 08, 2018, 04:46:19 AM
 #6

This is ultimately up to the person who is paying *for* the advertising.

As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.

If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.

Find the fire hydrant in my Avatar for a prize.
LoyceV
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694
Merit: 5310


ArtIst > AI rtst


View Profile WWW
May 08, 2018, 11:04:56 AM
Merited by DarkStar_ (1), SFR10 (1)
 #7

He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature
I've never seen or managed any campaign that counts posts like this.

The bounty managers are  normally shouldnt be in the spreadsheet,because the ICO developers would pay these people weekly and having those accounts in the spreadsheet is clearly an abuse
Even if it's all according to the rules, it's a conflict of interest. I've excluded myself from entering any of the (Bitcoin) giveaway campaigns I've managed in the past, even though Admin told me I could join too. Conflicts of interest can lead to biased decisions, or at least it can appear to be biased. As a campaign manager, it's in your own interest to prevent that from happening, and I choose being neutral over a quick buck.

This is ultimately up to the person who is paying *for* the advertising.
True, but it defies common sense, which means that it should explicitely be discussed and published.

Quote
As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.
That works both ways: if you start wearing a signature on Monday, someone might read a post you made 3 days earlier on the same day too. One way or another, wearing your signature for less days gives it less exposure.

Quote
If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.
As a campaign manager, I would strongly advise against this if a company asks for it. So far I haven't read whether or not they knew about it.

Zapo
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 156


Stay Dangerous!


View Profile
May 08, 2018, 11:11:19 AM
 #8

This is ultimately up to the person who is paying *for* the advertising.

As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.

If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.
Very well said, if the company is fine with this, it shouldn't be an issue, especially if he's the only user in the bounty. Maybe we should inform the devs?

cotiniber
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33
Merit: 17


View Profile
May 08, 2018, 07:20:54 PM
Last edit: May 08, 2018, 07:53:27 PM by cotiniber
 #9

He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature
I've never seen or managed any campaign that counts posts like this.

The bounty managers are  normally shouldnt be in the spreadsheet,because the ICO developers would pay these people weekly and having those accounts in the spreadsheet is clearly an abuse
Even if it's all according to the rules, it's a conflict of interest. I've excluded myself from entering any of the (Bitcoin) giveaway campaigns I've managed in the past, even though Admin told me I could join too. Conflicts of interest can lead to biased decisions, or at least it can appear to be biased. As a campaign manager, it's in your own interest to prevent that from happening, and I choose being neutral over a quick buck.

This is ultimately up to the person who is paying *for* the advertising.
True, but it defies common sense, which means that it should explicitely be discussed and published.

Quote
As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.
That works both ways: if you start wearing a signature on Monday, someone might read a post you made 3 days earlier on the same day too. One way or another, wearing your signature for less days gives it less exposure.

Quote
If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.
As a campaign manager, I would strongly advise against this if a company asks for it. So far I haven't read whether or not they knew about it.

Thanks for sharing your experiences and perspectives.  It's good to know that it is actually unusual counting and it is usually recommended for bounty managers not to participate their own campaigns.  I was trying to send them PM but I couldn't as I am a newbie...  What I can do is to post the links to these threads to the original announcement thread of the token.

Edit:
Just posted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2821548.msg36713477#msg36713477
cotiniber
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33
Merit: 17


View Profile
May 11, 2018, 07:49:04 PM
 #10

Bump.  No more votes?
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!