License for bounty managers

[demonic098]

What if there's a license for bounty managers? Bounty managers would be screened before giving them the bounty manager license. I think this would help with our problems about shitposting, because bounty managers will surely check the posts of their participants if they failed to do it and reaches the tolerable limit they're licensed will be removed.

[LoyceV]

Bounty managers would be screened

Who's going to screen them? This forum gives users a lot of freedom to say and do as they please. As much as I hate spam, what you're saying could easily be abused to give more power and money to a few users.

[mdayonliner]

What if there's a license for bounty managers? Bounty managers would be screened before giving them the bounty manager license. I think this would help with our problems about shitposting, because bounty managers will surely check the posts of their participants if they failed to do it and reaches the tolerable limit they're licensed will be removed.

If members start to avoid spammy bounties then these bounty managers will not get the job to manage shit bounties. They will have to restructure their rules or they will have to disappear.  

Besides, it's not forums job to recommend bounty managers, it's the project team's job to pick a good manager for the success of their projects. If they feel happy with a shit bounty manager then let it be. Let them waste their money (actually they do not waste much money, those tokens are their money which are useless most of the times IMO).

As a community we need to focus on reporting more then creating this kind of suggestion types post. These are useless because theymos does not have much time to look on these issues.

I'm the only person who does development on the current code, and my time is limited.

I wonder if theymos is really helping the forum by making this forum a one man army team or making it worse as we are going. I also wonder why does not he still found anyone who he can trust where there are a lot of DTs around us. Does he not trust his own DTs, to help him out with sensitive issues?

Sorry, I had to spell it. I am with those people who really want the forum to perform better than it is now. One man against hundreds of thousands members seems impossible to me. We are growing in number rapidly but seems like if anything happens (I wish him live long) to theymos then everything will shut down from that very moment. Their will be no bitcoinTalk.org and the community surrounding it (I guess?).

[hilariousetc]

What if there's a license for bounty managers?

"What if?" What if we didn't allow ICOs to shit up the forum without repercussions? What if Junior Members couldn't even have a signature without earning some merit first? What if we didn't allow people to shitpost on 200 accounts? What if theymos actually started delegating workload between staff instead of ignoring the multitude of problems we have here? What if theymos actually implements just one of the hundreds of suggestions that have been made to improve the forum over the years? What if, what if, what if? Anything that requires any sort of effort by the admins or staff likely won't get implemented anytime soon if at all and we'll just continue to hide behind "freedom" and a laissez faire attitude. Well, when you let people do whatever they want this is what you get. Anarchy and mass abuse by people cutting corners to maximise profits for themselves whilst not caring about the damage they do in the process. The closest you'll likely get to your suggestion is enforcing the signature campaign guidelines we created. If a campaign comes here and is either lazy and/or incompetent then they should be given warnings and then punishments if nothing changes. If this happened then the culture would quickly change around here and campaigns would start doing their job because they can't afford to not be able to advertise here. As long as we let them get away with doing nothing then they will continue to do so. Nobody is going to do work that they don't need to, especially when running even a small campaign of 50 users likely amounts to the hours of a part time job. Some of these ICO campaigns accept anyone and have thousands of users on them and yet do nothing to police them and as such they are exploited by hundreds of bots and farmers that just exacerbates the problems. They don't care about that either because anyone who is wearing their signature is another person advertising for them whether they're shitposting, botting, or not. Until that changes then nothing else will change.

[pugman]

"What if?" What if we didn't allow ICOs to shit up the forum without repercussions? What if Junior Members couldn't even have a signature without earning some merit first? What if we didn't allow people to shitpost on 200 accounts? What if theymos actually started delegating workload between staff instead of ignoring the multitude of problems we have here? What if theymos actually implements just one of the hundreds of suggestions that have been made to improve the forum over the years? What if, what if, what if? Anything that requires any sort of effort by the admins or staff likely won't get implemented anytime soon if at all and we'll just continue to hide behind "freedom" and a laissez faire attitude. Well, when you let people do whatever they want this is what you get. Anarchy and mass abuse by people cutting corners to maximise profits for themselves whilst not caring about the damage they do in the process. The closest you'll likely get to your suggestion is enforcing the signature campaign guidelines we created. If a campaign comes here and is either lazy and/or incompetent then they should be given warnings and then punishments if nothing changes. If this happened then the culture would quickly change around here and campaigns would start doing their job because they can't afford to not be able to advertise here. As long as we let them get away with doing nothing then they will continue to do so. Nobody is going to do work that they don't need to, especially when running even a small campaign of 50 users likely amounts to the hours of a part time job. Some of these ICO campaigns accept anyone and have thousands of users on them and yet do nothing to police them and as such they are exploited by hundreds of bots and farmers that just exacerbates the problems. They don't care about that either because anyone who is wearing their signature is another person advertising for them whether they're shitposting, botting, or not. Until that changes then nothing else will change.

Honestly when people say r/btc is better than bitcointalk, I don't agree with them because there's a lot of FUD and other shit, but now I really think r/btc is better than bitcointalk,maybe I am being delusional at the moment, but bitcointalk is struggling to survive. People have to beg, and go to much lower levels to get tiniest of things done here. I don't want to blame the admins here, but they aren't doing so very well in delegating work.

This forum is also turning into a Battle Royal, to see who survives till the end. It would actually help if theymos can explain why some of the more important suggestions can't be implemented. Just saying 'no' gives us a blank feeling. It would be a long post, but at least then people will get why it can't implemented. People are living here in the dark.

Hello darkness,my old friend.

[friends1980]

More rules. Absolutely what people want when they ask for decentralization.

[CoinEraser]

What if there's a license for bounty managers? Bounty managers would be screened before giving them the bounty manager license. I think this would help with our problems about shitposting, because bounty managers will surely check the posts of their participants if they failed to do it and reaches the tolerable limit they're licensed will be removed.

Somehow i don't like the idea. In the first moment it seems to be a good thought, but if i think about it for a while i come to the conclusion that the idea is not very good. It certainly wouldn't change anything in the current situation here in the forum. Besides, it would certainly cause even more problems if some people decide who can work as a bounty manager and who can't. That alone has a lot of potential for a lot of trouble. So i don't think and hope that something like that comes into the forum.   

[hugeblack]

You can consider this topic[1] to be a license for campaign managers.
If advertisers are committed to selecting trusted members, most of the problems will end, but their goal is to get the ad to the most significant number with the lowest possible cost.[pay for shits  ]

In addition to the in-house forum ads, it is common for forum users to sell ad space in their signatures. These ads are not intermediated by bitcointalk.org in any way. If you are interested in advertising in this way, it is recommended that you hire a signature manager.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4412712.0

[AverageGlabella]

More rules. Absolutely what people want when they ask for decentralization.

Rules doesn't mean centralization though. So I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Licensing managers would be centralization. But maybe its exactly what we need.

[cabalism13]

What if there's a license for bounty managers?

-snip

My eyes are burning! someone has already nailed it.

Who's going to screen them?

The one that gives the idea , and the ones who's fraud.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Bitcointalk has no authority to license anyone for anything, and I'm sure if the government found out about anything like that happening, they'd take a very keen interest in it.

Theymos can run the forum how he wants to, though, and I think that should include some consequences for being a shitty campaign manager.  The managers of bitcoin-paying campaigns are pretty good, but those bounty managers totally suck.  They'll take anyone and I think some of them have even been caught abusing their own bounties with alt accounts.  A lot of them are a bunch of greedy, unethical cretins who are also irresponsible and couldn't care less if the forum gets wrecked because of all the spam.  Theymos could do something about them, but he's into letting people basically do what they want.  

He did make the merit system, which was huge, but I do think he needs to crack down on the managers--but it's not going to be in the form of licensing.

I don't think he meant a license as the literal sense.

Well, I'm just going by his words.  In the real world, the word "license" means a very specific thing.

[Welsh]

Bitcointalk has no authority to license anyone for anything, and I'm sure if the government found out about anything like that happening, they'd take a very keen interest in it.

I don't think he meant a license as the literal sense. Probably, just whitelisting certain members to be able to run campaigns rather than allowing everyone, and anyone like it is right now. theymos would be perfectly in his rights to limit who can, and can't run campaigns on the forum. Although, I doubt that it will happen.

[hilariousetc]

Honestly when people say r/btc is better than bitcointalk, I don't agree with them because there's a lot of FUD and other shit, but now I really think r/btc is better than bitcointalk,

Reddit and web-forums are different beasts altogether but both have positives and negatives. I don't really like reddit and don't use it, but they don't have the issue of sig spam and if they did then it would just be the same as it is here.

maybe I am being delusional at the moment, but bitcointalk is struggling to survive..

I don't think this place is struggling to survive at all. In fact, quite the opposite. The board continues to grow, but the majority of traffic and new users coming here are just shitposters looking to earn and it's certainly struggling to be a place that is actually useful for anything other than earning by spamming.

I don't want to blame the admins here, but they aren't doing so very well in delegating work.

Delegating workload would have a huge impact, and I'm not sure why things haven't been done already. I'm not just talking about making new admins either. Most sub boards need their own dedicated mod and this is something I've been requesting for years. More staff should be added as well to help with the clean up. If some users can spend hours upon hours reporting tens of thousands of posts then they'll probably make a pretty good staff member and they can then handle these things themselves without having to waste time reporting them which in turn just puts more pressure and stress on the current staff. New staff members and sub-board mods could be made/assigned with the click of a few buttons for theymos and this can be done today. If theymos doesn't have time to run things like the forum ad slots of respond to emails and restore accounts etc then this business should all be delegated.

It would actually help if theymos can explain why some of the more important suggestions can't be implemented. Just saying 'no' gives us a blank feeling. It would be a long post, but at least then people will get why it can't implemented. People are living here in the dark.

What annoyed me the most about that is he didn't even put them into simple 'yes' or 'no' categories. He's smart and careful what he says so nobody can hold it against him and say, well you said yes to this or you would do that, or you said you would never do this etc, and at the same time he didn't commit to anything either so he doesn't have to do any of them at any point. My only solace is that he didn't actually outright slam them all with an exclusive 'no'. I'd really like to get his reasoning for why he is against some suggestions though, especially things like requiring at least one merit to become a Junior Member etc. That is essential in my opinion if we're not going to remove their signatures altogether and nobody else has really made a workable suggestion on how to stop or at least limit how we can prevent spammers and bots getting paid to post or copy and paste here. Hopefully he just thinks it needs tweaking etc rather than outright never doing it in some capacity.  

More rules. Absolutely what people want when they ask for decentralization.

This forum isn't decentralised. There needs to be some minimal rules and they need to be enforced otherwise it is just chaos and disorder and the greedy and nefarious dominate over everything ruining it for everyone else. The forum can't continue on as it is or we might as well just rename/rebrand it shitcointalk or getpaidtopost.org because that's all this place has become. A forum for people just to post generic crap to get paid. 95% of people here don't care about contributing to a discussion, just churning out a mindless sentence of drivel then moving on to the next thread. Rinse and repeat all day over however many accounts you have. This can't be acceptable and is why there needs to be rules and regulations to make sure it doesn't happen and ruin the board in the first place making it unfit for its true purpose.  

He did make the merit system, which was huge, but I do think he needs to crack down on the managers--but it's not going to be in the form of licensing.

It is huge, and I'm glad it's here, but it needs tweaking. It stops people from ranking up by shitpositng but it does nothing about bots and spammers being able to get paid as Juniors. Requiring merit or removing their signatures would help with this. People also need to start giving out merit more and more merit sources need to be added. There's quite a lot of people making decent or even great posts that just go unmerited a lot of time and I think even decent posters will take a very long time to get to Hero or Legendary if they start from scratch.

[Cosette]

In the deep of my laziness, i show you my bounty manager license!


Should i write "Verified Awesomeness ✔" so its looks like Mitchell personal text? Lol.
/s

[coinlocket$]

If we will ever have one thing like this, we will have over 50% of managers here without licence.
I don't think it will never happen, I hope it will happen but I can't see who decide the licences.
I'm seeing some managers with red trust account(s) but they post new campaings with no problems, so clearly the red trust does not limit them, perhaps other measures are needed.

[Welsh]

If we will ever have one thing like this, we will have over 50% of managers here without licence.
I don't think it will never happen, I hope it will happen but I can't see who decide the licences.
I'm seeing some managers with red trust account(s) but they post new campaings with no problems, so clearly the red trust does not limit them, perhaps other measures are needed.

Well, it would have to be theymos that decides on who can post, and who can't. I think just implementing restrictions on who can create threads in the bounty section should be more than enough. That way we aren't selecting a few to license, and only restricting it by rank. Then we should actually punish the campaign managers that aren't looking after their campaigns, and quite honestly promoting spam.

[finaleshot2016]

While reading stuffs here in meta, there are so many ideas and suggestions to avoid shitposting. Each topics is quite interesting and I know it can help the community and delete those spammers.

There are alternative ways to check if the bounty manager is good or not. First, check his/her recent projects, if he/she has a good success rate then he can be qualified as one of the best bounty managers. Why would you make another system about campaign if you can personally check his/her background on bounty managing.

I don't get it, do you really want to avoid spamming in threads or check if the bounty managers are qualified to handle a good campaign and gain a sure profit to them because they have the license?

[pugman]

I don't think this place is struggling to survive at all. In fact, quite the opposite. The board continues to grow, but the majority of traffic and new users coming here are just shitposters looking to earn and it's certainly struggling to be a place that is actually useful for anything other than earning by spamming.

How can a forum survive if all good knowledgeable members leave and its only shitposters and bots that are left(with a few members here and there)? theymos himself said it, managing this forum is more than just a headache. Like it or not, the forum is getting worse by the day. And we are sitting here with our hands tied and not able to do anything about it.

Delegating workload would have a huge impact, and I'm not sure why things haven't been done already. I'm not just talking about making new admins either. Most sub boards need their own dedicated mod and this is something I've been requesting for years. More staff should be added as well to help with the clean up. If some users can spend hours upon hours reporting tens of thousands of posts then they'll probably make a pretty good staff member and they can then handle these things themselves without having to waste time reporting them which in turn just puts more pressure and stress on the current staff. New staff members and sub-board mods could be made/assigned with the click of a few buttons for theymos and this can be done today. If theymos doesn't have time to run things like the forum ad slots of respond to emails and restore accounts etc then this business should all be delegated.

It surprises me that there are only 26 staff members. In other forums(like reddit), there are like 8-10 moderators per board(subreddit). We need like 2 mods per sub-board, and one Global mod for entire board,if that makes any sense. It doesn't have to be a Global Mod, but a new type of mod just to handle an entire board, and helping other mods of that specific board.

We don't need more admins, but the admin power certainly could be little delegated. I don't think theymos will ever delegate things like running ad slots or responding to emails or restoring accounts. He'd be potentially putting a lot at risk.

What annoyed me the most about that is he didn't even put them into simple 'yes' or 'no' categories. He's smart and careful what he says so nobody can hold it against him and say, well you said yes to this or you would do that, or you said you would never do this etc, and at the same time he didn't commit to anything either so he doesn't have to do any of them at any point. My only solace is that he didn't actually outright slam them all with an exclusive 'no'. I'd really like to get his reasoning for why he is against some suggestions though, especially things like requiring at least one merit to become a Junior Member etc. That is essential in my opinion if we're not going to remove their signatures altogether and nobody else has really made a workable suggestion on how to stop or at least limit how we can prevent spammers and bots getting paid to post or copy and paste here. Hopefully he just thinks it needs tweaking etc rather than outright never doing it in some capacity.  

theymos doesn't want to remove signatures, because he encourages people to earn from this forum, but he also said that people shouldn't shitpost to earn. I am starting to wonder if theymos gets pissed everytime someone says "theymos said this." "theymos said that."

It could be really annoying sometimes.

This forum isn't decentralised. There needs to be some minimal rules and they need to be enforced otherwise it is just chaos and disorder and the greedy and nefarious dominate over everything ruining it for everyone else. The forum can't continue on as it is or we might as well just rename/rebrand it shitcointalk or getpaidtopost.org because that's all this place has become. A forum for people just to post generic crap to get paid. 95% of people here don't care about contributing to a discussion, just churning out a mindless sentence of drivel then moving on to the next thread. Rinse and repeat all day over however many accounts you have. This can't be acceptable and is why there needs to be rules and regulations to make sure it doesn't happen and ruin the board in the first place making it unfit for its true purpose.  

People think this forum is decentralized because one, it has bitcoin in its name, and two, it was created by satoshi. theymos, increase your standards, lighten things up a notch.

It is huge, and I'm glad it's here, but it needs tweaking. It stops people from ranking up by shitpositng but it does nothing about bots and spammers being able to get paid as Juniors. Requiring merit or removing their signatures would help with this. People also need to start giving out merit more and more merit sources need to be added. There's quite a lot of people making decent or even great posts that just go unmerited a lot of time and I think even decent posters will take a very long time to get to Hero or Legendary if they start from scratch.

How can you expect decent users to rank up especially when they make posts in the spamfest discussion boards. People come here to "talk" about bitcoin and that itself stops them from ranking up, and that is got to be a shocking but not so shocking truth.

[Welsh]

There are alternative ways to check if the bounty manager is good or not. First, check his/her recent projects, if he/she has a good success rate then he can be qualified as one of the best bounty managers. Why would you make another system about campaign if you can personally check his/her background on bounty managing.

I don't get it, do you really want to avoid spamming in threads or check if the bounty managers are qualified to handle a good campaign and gain a sure profit to them because they have the license?

We already know who the good campaign managers are. That's not the problem here. The problem is that anyone can be a campaign manager, and the people behind the funding of the advertising don't care who the bounty manager is, and whether there's spam or not. Okay, not entirely true. Some projects do tend to hire more trustworthy, and ethical managers, but the majority won't.

[audaciousbeing]

What if there's a license for bounty managers? Bounty managers would be screened before giving them the bounty manager license. I think this would help with our problems about shitposting, because bounty managers will surely check the posts of their participants if they failed to do it and reaches the tolerable limit they're licensed will be removed.

I believe you have good intentions by coming up with this suggestions but the practicability is way more difficult than the theory and from the way I see it, we tend to bring in another round of controversy on the forum and several questions need to be answered and the onus is now on you to go beyond suggestion to coming up with a model by answering questions like

1. What will be qualification to even apply for the licence?

2. What will be the category of licences that will be issued we know there are different levels of campaign participants while some would be 50 participants, others might be as much as 200 participants.

2. Who are those that will issue the licence? This is the key part and we should be ready for round of name calling, attacks, allegations of favoritism and abuse of power.

The current situation is not the best but we are better of and I think campaign managers especially in the bounty section of the forum should be made accountable for the attitude of their participants.