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.
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.
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.
Poll
