Solved.

[Astargath]

Here is the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13qaEUDmgR70Lp5stodgjsaNEBCnOGht--kgNQ7NFeug/edit#gid=0

The manager of this sig campaign wrote this: ''X - Posts in Politics & Society doesn't count'' I know, those posts do not count but the campaign rules do not mention anything about being kicked for making posts there if you made the min 15 posts total, which I did.

I pm'd the manager and he didn't even respond, seems like a really bad manager to me, he doesn't even seem to be counting the actual posts.

[1713897314]

1713897314

[1713897314]

1713897314

[1713897314]

1713897314

[1713897314]

1713897314

[Findingnemo]

Did you made enough posts to get eligible for weekly reward?

I can see 44 posts denied and no eligible posts.

Manager holds the rights to decide which should be counted as eligible and who should be continue next week so you can't really blame him.

Maybe you can flag him and wait for the support.

[actmyname]

Did you made enough posts to get eligible for weekly reward?

If you had bothered to check his post history you would know the answer.

[Astargath]

Did you made enough posts to get eligible for weekly reward?

I can see 44 posts denied and no eligible posts.

Manager holds the rights to decide which should be counted as eligible and who should be continue next week so you can't really blame him.

Maybe you can flag him and wait for the support.

I understand but not even 1 post was eligible? Seems kind of weird like perhaps he thought all my posts were in Politics and Science?

[Findingnemo]

I understand but not even 1 post was eligible? Seems kind of weird like perhaps he thought all my posts were in Politics and Science?

You got most posts in gambling,politics and off-topic.

But you got 17 posts in gambling which satisfy the requirements to qualify for the weekly rewards but not sure he denied it for non constructive or for not in proper english.

Wait for his reply in this thread.

[Patatas]

I don't know if you read the campaign rules but they have clearly mentioned

I reserve the right to remove anyone, for any reason from the campaign.
I reserve the right to change the rules or pay rates for new rounds.

So you getting removed without a logical reason won't surprise anybody. The pay could be argued and I believe you deserve to get paid for the valid posts you made. If you want to take it forward, you can maybe start a flag since it's sort of violating a direct contract with you? See how the community responds to that flag.

[actmyname]

I don't know if you read the campaign rules but they have clearly mentioned

I reserve the right to remove anyone, for any reason from the campaign.
I reserve the right to change the rules or pay rates for new rounds.

So you getting removed without a logical reason won't surprise anybody.

See, I don't like that. Blanket removal statements are absolutely ridiculous. It seems foolish to justify any unconscientious act by citing something absurd in the ToS/rules. It's the same thing with casinos writing in their ToS something vague about balance seizure or KYC checks.

Rigor above all.

[Patatas]

I don't know if you read the campaign rules but they have clearly mentioned

I reserve the right to remove anyone, for any reason from the campaign.
I reserve the right to change the rules or pay rates for new rounds.

So you getting removed without a logical reason won't surprise anybody.

See, I don't like that. Blanket removal statements are absolutely ridiculous. It seems foolish to justify any unconscientious act by citing something absurd in the ToS/rules. It's the same thing with casinos writing in their ToS something vague about balance seizure or KYC checks.

Rigor above all.

I concur but most of the counter-arguments are supported by what you called vague statements. It would still make sense in the case of Casinos as they have to cite conditions as such "US players not allowed" or "Multi-accounts get banned with no pay" but here it's literally a post without any actual meaning to it. Let's hope for the manager to respond and not use those rules in defense.

[suchmoon]

non constructive or for not in proper english.

I can assure you there is no problem with Astargath's English and I find it hard to believe that the posts could have been deemed not constructive enough seeing the garbage some other members of that campaign are posting.

Blanket removal statements are absolutely ridiculous.

I think campaign managers should be able remove anyone for any reason (at-will employment). It's ultimately their reputation at stake if they start abusing that, e.g. don't provide a sensible explanation. But refusing payment for a service that has already been completed is a different - and very much scammy - story.

[Astargath]

non constructive or for not in proper english.

I can assure you there is no problem with Astargath's English and I find it hard to believe that the posts could have been deemed not constructive enough seeing the garbage some other members of that campaign are posting.

Blanket removal statements are absolutely ridiculous.

I think campaign managers should be able remove anyone for any reason (at-will employment). It's ultimately their reputation at stake if they start abusing that, e.g. don't provide a sensible explanation. But refusing payment for a service that has already been completed is a different - and very much scammy - story.

He might have thought all my posts were in P&S section but I did send him a pm about the situation and he didn't even answer. I'm also fine with the rule of removing anyone for any reason but I'm also fairly sure I was only removed because he thought I didn't meet the min requirements.

[actmyname]

Blanket removal statements are absolutely ridiculous.

I think campaign managers should be able remove anyone for any reason. It's ultimately their reputation at stake if they start abusing that (e.g. don't provide a sensible explanation). But refusing payment is a different (and very much scammy) story.

An all-encompassing remark prior to a removal shows foresight. A rationale brought forth after the fact only shows creativity."for any reason" could well be changed to fit the variety of criteria that would make any reasonable person kick a participant.

The following are some (but not all) that I believe would fit that:

• Getting banned, regardless of duration
• Modifying the signature
• Spamming (which can be further broken down)
• Getting negative trust (debatable)
• Abusing merit
• Repeatedly breaking forum rules
• Burst-posting
• Potential account hack (paused payment would be appropriate)

[yahoo62278]

non constructive or for not in proper english.

I can assure you there is no problem with Astargath's English and I find it hard to believe that the posts could have been deemed not constructive enough seeing the garbage some other members of that campaign are posting.

Blanket removal statements are absolutely ridiculous.

I think campaign managers should be able remove anyone for any reason (at-will employment). It's ultimately their reputation at stake if they start abusing that, e.g. don't provide a sensible explanation. But refusing payment for a service that has already been completed is a different - and very much scammy - story.

He might have thought all my posts were in P&S section but I did send him a pm about the situation and he didn't even answer. I'm also fine with the rule of removing anyone for any reason but I'm also fairly sure I was only removed because he thought I didn't meet the min requirements.

If he is doing his job correctly, then there should be no confusion as to whether you had enough posts outside the non qualifying boards.

Managers should manually be looking at users posts to avoid any confusion.

I did pm Zwei on telegram and ask him to look at this thread.

[Zwei]

Thanks yahoo for bringing this to my attention.
@Astargath I just checked my PM history, and indeed you sent me one, I really don't know how I missed it, I'm terribly sorry.
I promise everyone that I would look it to this and make things right.

[Welsh]

I think campaign managers should be able remove anyone for any reason (at-will employment). It's ultimately their reputation at stake if they start abusing that, e.g. don't provide a sensible explanation. But refusing payment for a service that has already been completed is a different - and very much scammy - story.

Speaking generally here as this case seems to be in the process of being addressed. It should be in the campaigns manager best interest to publicly state why a user has been removed, unless its obvious. I personally, would want to keep a log, and evidence of why a user was removed for transparency.  I would agree with actmyname that blanket statements are annoying, and because of the campaigns managers position of power they generally don't give reasons why they have removed someone. Although, I would disagree with actmyname that specifying specific removal criteria would likely be abused, and loop holed as well as complaints from users who get removed from the campaign for any unforeseen circumstances.

I'm glad Zwei will be looking into the issues though.

[suchmoon]

"for any reason" could well be changed to fit the variety of criteria that would make any reasonable person kick a participant.

Supplemented with a sample list thereof perhaps. You can't expect them to list every possible scenario. I think inability to fire someone from a campaign due to some technicality in stated rules would be a much bigger problem than firing someone for no reason.

[actmyname]

I would agree with actmyname that blanket statements are annoying, and because of the campaigns managers position of power they generally don't give reasons why they have removed someone. Although, I would disagree with actmyname that specifying specific removal criteria would likely be abused, and loop holed as well as complaints from users who get removed from the campaign for any unforeseen circumstances.

Supplemented with a sample list thereof perhaps. You can't expect them to list every possible scenario. I think inability to fire someone from a campaign due to some technicality in stated rules would be a much bigger problem than firing someone for no reason.

I agree, and that was something I was considering. The best thing would to adopt a communal protocol and to adjust it to the scope of all possible activity, or as large a space thereof as possible.

I do not want loopholes, therefore a clause similar to this may suffice:

You may also be given a warning of removal from the campaign for an alternative reason not found in the aforementioned rules, to which a rationale and subsequent discussion thereof will be given. If a consensus/majority has reasonably deemed the reason sufficient for a removal then it will be enacted immediately. A period of one campaign round will be reserved for the discussion in the Reputation section and a private message will be sent to the participant regarding such. The payment will proceed as standard for the campaign and further participation thereof will be decided by the thread.

How's that? Sound fair?

[suchmoon]

How's that? Sound fair?

I don't know, still sounds like some UAW contract

I've never held a job that I couldn't get fired from or quit at a moment's notice so I don't really understand the appeal. If someone doesn't want me working for them, forcing the issue is not going to help and if I'm not entirely horrible at what I do - I can get another job. But some sort of dispute resolution process could be useful, I can agree with that. Mistakes and misunderstandings do happen.

[Little Mouse]

You may also be given a warning of removal from the campaign for an alternative reason not found in the aforementioned rules, to which a rationale and subsequent discussion thereof will be given.

This is what Hhampuz practice, may be. I have seen him to write some comments in the spreadsheet of the campaign. However, I can't remember if someone got kicked out but some warning was there in the spreadsheet.

[Flying Hellfish]

I would agree with actmyname that blanket statements are annoying, and because of the campaigns managers position of power they generally don't give reasons why they have removed someone. Although, I would disagree with actmyname that specifying specific removal criteria would likely be abused, and loop holed as well as complaints from users who get removed from the campaign for any unforeseen circumstances.

Supplemented with a sample list thereof perhaps. You can't expect them to list every possible scenario. I think inability to fire someone from a campaign due to some technicality in stated rules would be a much bigger problem than firing someone for no reason.

I agree, and that was something I was considering. The best thing would to adopt a communal protocol and to adjust it to the scope of all possible activity, or as large a space thereof as possible.

I do not want loopholes, therefore a clause similar to this may suffice:

You may also be given a warning of removal from the campaign for an alternative reason not found in the aforementioned rules, to which a rationale and subsequent discussion thereof will be given. If a consensus/majority has reasonably deemed the reason sufficient for a removal then it will be enacted immediately. A period of one campaign round will be reserved for the discussion in the Reputation section and a private message will be sent to the participant regarding such. The payment will proceed as standard for the campaign and further participation thereof will be decided by the thread.

How's that? Sound fair?

I think we need more lawyers and more complicated lengthy contracts here on BTCT!!

[actmyname]

I think we need more lawyers and more complicated lengthy contracts here on BTCT!!

You should call up game-protect... or Thule's wife.