Campaign Managers - Ineligible users based on Feedback and Flags

[Steamtyme]

I've been wondering lately if managers have been thinking about adjusting who they allow in campaigns with the new Flag system. In the past 99% of users with Negative trust from a DT member were not eligible for the majority of campaigns.
Some allowed certain users to take a shot despite negative feedback, most of the time these cases had no issues and it was more personal feedback than anything. So now we have the Flag system, and no trust score. I'm just curious as to what people plan to change if anything, as not all flags will have feedback left, and vice versa. I know it really comes down to optics for the company paying for advertising, so I was inclined to assume most will still deny users with Negative feedback, as well as Flagged users.

Will it matter if a flag has become inactive? Seeing as they can still be found under the profile just not displayed prominently.

[actmyname]

Campaign managing is more of a laissez-faire system at least in my opinion. If the advertiser wants to allow people who have negative feedback or flags to represent their product, then they could definitely do that.

In this case though, negative feedback is less impactful than it was before: there's no warning on the profile (outside of the trust page) and hence there won't be as large of an association between a "trade with caution" tag and the advertisement.

[1miau]

It would be appropriate if they only accept accounts with less negative ratings than positive ratings. Neutral would also be allowed of course. That would come closest to the rules we had before the update.

Of course, the optic is different now but the users have remained the same and are still tagged for bounty abuse / purchasing accounts or similar. If they are allowed again to join with all of their tagged (multiple) accounts we'll see masses of spam again and people starting to sell red trusted accounts. I would not underestimate it and hope that bounty managers will not consider to let tagged accounts enroll in their signature campaigns.

I'm sure the most BTC paid campaign managers will consider to do it like that but I doubt if some altcoin managers will do the same... I hope so.

[actmyname]

I'm sure the most BTC paid campaign managers will consider to do it like that but I doubt if some altcoin managers will do the same... I hope so.

A high (and significant) number of bounty managers don't give a damn about the negative feedback and they didn't care back when it had the warning associated therein.

Much of that whole section is dedicated to just flopping about on the forum, paying bounty hunters with useless tokens. Why would they care about quality? On either end?

[yahoo62278]

Since most bounty activity in a bounty I manage is done OFF the forum I allow users with neg rep to join. Nothing they do is supposed to be done on the forum period. They fill out a google form for all their work. (not managing any bounties currently) I also do not allow a bounty company to run a signature campaign for tokens.

Now as far as btc paying campaigns go, this will be handled on a case by case basis. It's not hard to look at a users trust and see what they have been tagged for. So, depending on the reasoning, users with neg rep will possibly have a chance to join campaigns. (Kinda gonna be a longshot due to what happened when Hhampuz allowed QS to join a campaign and look at the DRAMA that ensued.)

[Quickseller]

(Kinda gonna be a longshot due to what happened when Hhampuz allowed QS to join a campaign and look at the DRAMA that ensued.)

You mean that Hhampuz stole money shortly after kicking me from his campaign?

Solution: don't steal money 

[1miau]

Much of that whole section is dedicated to just flopping about on the forum, paying bounty hunters with useless tokens. Why would they care about quality? On either end?

Yeah, Shitcoin business as usual. The only thing they want is to spread the word spam their shitcoin advertisements everywhere.

A high (and significant) number of bounty managers don't give a damn about the negative feedback and they didn't care back when it had the warning associated therein.

As far as I know most altcoin managers don't allow red trusted accounts to join their altcoin signature campaign. There are some campaigns managed in-house by the shitcoin issuers, these are the worst and sometimes they allow everyone to wear the signature and get paid.
But I think the rate is quite low and if there's a campaign allowing everyone to join, the payrates are bad because all red-trusted accounts are participating there. I don't have exact numbers but my estimation would be around 90-95% of all altcoin signature campaigns aren't accepting tagged users. I guess the numbers will change after the trust adjustments when tagged users try to PM the manager and argue that they "aren't tagged".

Since most bounty activity in a bounty I manage is done OFF the forum I allow users with neg rep to join. Nothing they do is supposed to be done on the forum period. They fill out a google form for all their work. (not managing any bounties currently) I also do not allow a bounty company to run a signature campaign for tokens.

Now as far as btc paying campaigns go, this will be handled on a case by case basis. It's not hard to look at a users trust and see what they have been tagged for. So, depending on the reasoning, users with neg rep will possibly have a chance to join campaigns.

I think that's a good solution for BTC paid signature campaigns to decide case by case and allow them to join if they are not tagged for signature-related abuse or if the tag is questionable.

For altcoin social media campaigns or other campaigns done off the forum it's usual to allow everyone to join because 1) they don't need a Bitcointalk account to do the task (apart from their proof of authentication) 2) they can just create a new account to join and that verifies 1)
Exceptions would be if someone applies for ANN- or whitepaper translations and has an account tagged for fake-translations.

[ChemicalSpillage]

You mean that Hhampuz looked like he stole money, from my perspective and linking of circumstantial evidence, shortly after I was removed from his campaign?

FTFY. No need to state it as a fact
Excuse my skepticism considering the vengeful nature of many forum users that I've encountered.

[Steamtyme]

~snip~

You're OT and I'm sure you have a thread about it somewhere just can't seem to find it. Please delete your own comment or edit it to be an entirely on topic reply, currently it has no on topic content.
I never even really considered Bounties, as the activity doesn't happen on forum except for their reports.

It would be appropriate if they only accept accounts with less negative ratings than positive ratings. Neutral would also be allowed of course. That would come closest to the rules we had before the update.

This would be an interesting metric to see used. I think it would still be to rigid though as it still gives a single Dt user out of hundreds the ability to taint an account for what they believe to be a good reason. Then the user would have an uphill battle to get someone to counter it, if they have no history with any other DT. Just a possible issue.

Now as far as btc paying campaigns go, this will be handled on a case by case basis. It's not hard to look at a users trust and see what they have been tagged for. So, depending on the reasoning, users with neg rep will possibly have a chance to join campaigns. (Kinda gonna be a longshot due to what happened when Hhampuz allowed QS to join a campaign and look at the DRAMA that ensued.)

I prefer this approach case by case sounds better than a hard line. It also feels a little more in keeping with a forum vibe of taking everything into consideration. Ideally a few bad experiences won't taint everyone, for the campaigns that don't explicitly forbid them. I do recall Mdayonliner doing okay with his red paint.

[1miau]

It would be appropriate if they only accept accounts with less negative ratings than positive ratings. Neutral would also be allowed of course. That would come closest to the rules we had before the update.

This would be an interesting metric to see used. I think it would still be to rigid though as it still gives a single Dt user out of hundreds the ability to taint an account for what they believe to be a good reason. Then the user would have an uphill battle to get someone to counter it, if they have no history with any other DT. Just a possible issue.

That's somehow true and maybe a mixture out of this suggestion and the one from yahoo62278 would be better, especially with an increasing number of random users in DT. After all, the previous red trust was still much harsher, where a single DT user could ruin accounts and 2 positive ratings were needed to encounter one negative to turn the account into neutral again.

A good bounty manager will review the accounts anyway and if the reason for the tag is not justified the account might get accepted. Like you said, the mdayonliner issue could be an example where a reconsideration makes sense, he's currently at  +2 / =3 / -3

[yahoo62278]

(Kinda gonna be a longshot due to what happened when Hhampuz allowed QS to join a campaign and look at the DRAMA that ensued.)

You mean that Hhampuz stole money shortly after kicking me from his campaign?

Solution: don't steal money 

He may have stolen money, no concrete proof has been presented by you or anyone else. Until the mixer company posts a scam accusation you should let it die for now. If a scam accusation pops up, then you'll have every right to call all of us morons and retards for not believing you're accusation.
 
What I don't like is you blew up with the thread and your circumstantial evidence shortly after being let go from the livecoin campaign. Basically it looks like an I'll show you asshole move because you were removed.

I'd like to think everyone deserves a chance in most cases unless they are a campaign abuser or a total asshat to deal with. I agree with your solution though, "don't steal" and you will be fine.

[Quickseller]

He may have stolen money, no concrete proof has been presented by you or anyone else. Until the mixer company posts a scam accusation you should let it die for now.
 

I strongly disagree with your assessment (underlined), but I will stop pushing the issue. I would note that I did ask him about the issue prior to opening up my thread.
IMO, the best way to decide if someone should be accepted into a campaign is to check how good of posts they have been making recently, and how often others will respond to the person's posts.

The problem in the past was that certain people were using the trust system as a weapon, rather than a tool to warn others about scammers, or those who objectively will scam in the future, which affected these people's ability to conduct business, including to join a signature campaign.