Red Trusted Managers Don't Accept Red Trusted Participants

[beeelzebub]

Isn't it unfair?

Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?

[1714599100]

1714599100

[1714599100]

1714599100

[1714599100]

1714599100

[1714599100]

1714599100

[1714599100]

1714599100

[rijaljun]

People can get redtrusts for various reasons. Promoting scam projects, cheating bounty, etc.
In my opinion, a project is okay to hire a redtrust managers as long as the redtrust is not related to bounty campaigns. A redtrust managers that don't accepted redtrust bounty hunters must be because the bounty hunters has been bumped for cheating bounty or anyting bad regarding bounty campaigns. If not, then it's nonsense.

[MakeMoneyBtc]

I think it's very important to check and see what that red trust is related to. If it's something related to bounties, campaigns or payments then you should definitely avoid that but if it something different than I don't think there should be any problem. Many projects are hiring people with red trust to manage their campaigns because they have previous experience doing this and their prices are also lower. The managers don't play such a big role in promoting the project as the members of the campaign and that's why they accept him with a red trust but.

[Wale777]

A redtrust bounty manager rejecting redtrust bounty hunters is like a kettle calling pot black, no matter what reason the bounty manager get his redtrust, either by cheating bounty hunters or promoting scam bounty he's as bad as the bounty hunters with redtrust, they're both birds of the same feather

[Pearls Before Swine]

If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?

What ico are you referring to specifically?  Sometimes a manager gets red trusted after becoming the manager if the ico is determined to be a scam, and not before.

No project or any business using campaigns and bounties to advertise here should hire members with negatives from DT members.  It doesn't reflect well on them and I believe that's the most important reason why they don't.

Whether it's unfair or not, that's life.  We're all in the same unfair roller coaster ride, and complaining about it doesn't help and no one wants to hear it anyway.

[IVEXO]

Isn't it unfair?

Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?

 I believe it is totally unfair; but bounty laws are bounty laws

But I'm another angle, bounty manager get negative trust because of few projects that refuses to pay hunters, sometimes managers are faulty; sometimes projects dev don't want to pay

[aprilnot]

this is only purely for the reputation of the project. if the average "project promoted by the redtrus person can reduce the image of the project. however, not all campaigns are blocked, those who have redtrust can participate in social media, articles / videos and others that are not directly related to the bitcointalk account.

[Mcmich]

Hahaha.. This is just funny. It's just like a thief making noise or lamenting when he is stolen from. It's a shame if there are managers that do this.

[tenakha]

Unfortunately, we can not determine conditions. BM has already proven himself with his previous works. And red trust is often given for reasons that do not originate from himself. But are hunters so reliable? abselutely no.

[Mr.Good]

Isn't it unfair?

Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?

Maybe they think that participants with negative trust will have a bad impact on the reputation of their project.  
After all, bountists with a negative trust are equated with fraudsters.  
That is, it turns out that scammers advertise the project.  And who needs it?
This is just my guess.

[kaya11]

Isn't it unfair?

Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?

There are no sane people who would hire negative members to manage their campaign if they knew he was cheating his own campaign or doing illicit activities unless the employers also want to fool people. If you ever came across one then that project or that manager conspire to scam the investors and should definitely be avoided. We and the managers are only humans that made mistakes, we get easily dazzled if we see big money is coming right through us. If they are still continuing such projects, whatever the costs you should just disengage to avoid being dragged into the mess. It is most likely you could get negative trusts ratings also so. Or you could report to the admins and let them fix the issues.

[bitsurfer2014]

Unfortunately, we can not determine conditions. BM has already proven himself with his previous works. And red trust is often given for reasons that do not originate from himself. But are hunters so reliable? abselutely no.

I think its a case to case basis and ultimately the BM has the final decision whether to accept a particular applicant or not because he/she is also constrained with agreements from project team members especially in not allowing red trusted participants. But ideally, its should be "compromise and not confrontation" mantra that will prevail so that hopefully, everybody will be in a win-win situation.

[sandra_x]

People can get redtrusts for various reasons. Promoting scam projects, cheating bounty, etc.
In my opinion, a project is okay to hire a redtrust managers as long as the redtrust is not related to bounty campaigns. A redtrust managers that don't accepted redtrust bounty hunters must be because the bounty hunters has been bumped for cheating bounty or anyting bad regarding bounty campaigns. If not, then it's nonsense.

It sounds reasonable as one should always check why the redtrust is there for the bounty hunters. Its just that a lot of persons do not bother to check the reason for the red trust of the bounty manager,even when it is unrelated to the project, I am kind of weary of redtrusts

[Psynthax]

Isn't it unfair?

Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?

We know that even those scam managers are only accepting new participants with neutral trust caused by the fact that they don't wanna destroy their own credibility. It looks unfair because basically, they are holding everything. But move to another campaign if you are thinking if that's not unfair for you.

[zhea]

His campaign, his rules. As simple as that.

Managers may be red trusted but the reason why may be different from that of the would be participants of the his campaign.

[giletto]

When an account has a red trust, it tells that someone the person behind the account has a questionable character. Red trust accounts should be rejected because most times, the Bitcointalk trust system is a valid proof on character

[BeManga]

Isn't it unfair?

Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?

its better not to join the bounty campaign when the bounty manager have red trust

[fuer44]

this rule is the same as the rules about kyc, where kyc is only required for participants and managers do not do it and run away when their responsibilities cannot be fulfilled. not fair indeed, but the crypto industry which has not been legalized by the government is indeed still a lot that is unfair.

[crwth]

Who are you talking about anyway? I'm just curious. When I checked your feedback history, I'm not sure if you are part of that team but it's not that big of a deal. Maybe your quality of posts or for bounties, fewer followers or something.

I don't see how much "unfair" it is. If you don't want to accept the person because of his trust, then so be it.

[rijaljun]

this rule is the same as the rules about kyc, where kyc is only required for participants and managers do not do it and run away when their responsibilities cannot be fulfilled. not fair indeed, but the crypto industry which has not been legalized by the government is indeed still a lot that is unfair.

Have you found a project that run like what you just said? Then you can complaint to the team and ask them why they are doing so. Your complaint might not be heard but then you can avoid a new project from that manager.