Are the campaign managers doing the job correctly?

[BitcoinsGreat]

4 months is long enough to gather information, if you are reading rather than posting in threads unnecessarily. My finding is purely accidental and I wouldn't have made this post, but I felt that the user is cheating money out of the project. But there is no break of rules, that's why I posted here. I don't want to damage the reputation of any user here.

If you are not willing to disclose which participant is doing this and who is managing that campaign, then you are opening a thread for trolling only. There will be endless views here. By not telling the exact manager name, you cannot just point your fingers with the argument that all the managers are not doing the job correctly.
Either point out the exact participant or close this Pandora box.

[The Cryptovator]

OP should ask directly to manager via PM. I don't think this is wise decision to pay them who are posting on section where signature isn't visible. But you should make sure if manager paying him for that boards. Posting here doesn't mean managers are counting that post although doesn't mentioned on rules. Like if anyone need to make 15 post to eligible for weekly payment, so he could make post anywhere once he already made post on signature visible boards. But if you are right then no meaning to pay them, sometimes manager hire helper to help them who have much campaign to manage. So they might abuse it. Better discuss with that manager, if he still doing same than you may mentione name here.

[BChydro]

I see that one of the most reputed Signature Campaign Managers seems to be paying a particular participant for severals weeks, who has been making posts only in sections where signatures are not shown. I am not sharing the names because the campaign rules doesn't say anything about posts made in sections where signatures are banned.

You created a new account to report this and what is reason for not revealing anything but wanted answers .

This particular user has been making below average posts in sections where signatures are not shown. So my question is why pay him, when he is not promoting the project, as supposed to be.  Are the reputed campaign managers doing their job properly?

There is no evidence presented whether he is getting paid for the posts he make in the sections you claim nor planning to reveal the user nor planning to tell which campaign he is enrolled, you being the good Samaritan just show us where this is taking place and then we will have a discussion rather than having a vague representation.

[noormcs5]

OP should ask directly to manager via PM. I don't think this is wise decision to pay them who are posting on section where signature isn't visible. But you should make sure if manager paying him for that boards. Posting here doesn't mean managers are counting that post although doesn't mentioned on rules. Like if anyone need to make 15 post to eligible for weekly payment, so he could make post anywhere once he already made post on signature visible boards. But if you are right then no meaning to pay them, sometimes manager hire helper to help them who have much campaign to manage. So they might abuse it. Better discuss with that manager, if he still doing same than you may mentione name here.

The WO thread is quite popular and people like to share their point of view there. I think there is nothing wrong if few of the posts are in that section, but if more than 50% of the weekly required posts are in no signature sections, then he should be warned becasue companies are paying for their signatures to be visible. Another option is to include the rule that posts from speculation section would not count.

[panganib999]

I'm not sure this is the right place to post, if not please move it to the right board.

I'll keep this simple. Projects pay the signature campaign managers and participants to promote them in the forum, they will not pay you willing for not promoting them.
I see that one of the most reputed Signature Campaign Managers seems to be paying a particular participant for severals weeks, who has been making posts only in sections where signatures are not shown. I am not sharing the names because the campaign rules doesn't say anything about posts made in sections where signatures are banned.
This particular user has been making below average posts in sections where signatures are not shown. So my question is why pay him, when he is not promoting the project, as supposed to be.  Are the reputed campaign managers doing their job properly?

There are campaugn managers that usually does theur job right by banning the participants right away if they posted a one liner content, low quality posts, shows neg representation of the campaign for instance, promoting scams and such. There are also campaignnmoderators or manager gives warning before anything else.
      Well sometime the irresponsibility of the participants about what they are doing for the campaign is really within their acccountability, its jus sad that it wil reflect the campaign manager's way of handling the campaign and its members.

[lucifer_8]

Ok. I messaged Hhampuz about this but he didn't reply to my PM yet. Since almost all are asking for the names and one has already found the case, yes, Negotiation is who I am talking about.

I think OP is referring to Negotiation who is right above my name in Bitvest Signature Campaign list managed by Hhampuz(most trusted campaign manager).
 
If this is the case, the Signature Campaign Terms are set by lightlord, who is the owner of BitVest(if I am not wrong). Hhampuz is just managing the campaign for lightlord. As per the campaign terms, Negotiation has not broken any rules, so he is eligible to be paid.

BTW, all reputed campaign managers know perfectly well how to manage a campaign.

When I made the post I didn't know the owner created the signature terms. But I don't agree with the fact that lightlord is willingly paying him. Hhampuz is the one managing the campaign, if he had informed lightlord about the issue, I think Negotiation would have been warned or even removed.

Now with all that said, maybe us campaign managers need to make it a rule that posts where signatures aren't displayed do not count. Unless that rule is there though, it's not illegal for the user.

I know, I am not very experienced or reputable as you are. But I think every campaign manager should add this to their campaign terms. I would also suggest you do the same for Cryptotalk, aswell. Just inform the Yobit team that they are paying users even for the post that are not displaying signatures. If they are Ok with it then it's fine. But the project owners need to know what they are paying for, that's why they are paying someone reputable like you, to give them inputs on the campaign.

To be honest, there is no knowledge involved in judging campaign managers unless you want to contribute to the forum constructively. You should probably spend more time in Development and Technical sections.

Thanks for the suggestion. But I am a super newbie to crypto and not a tech guy. When I checked a few posts there, I was not able to understand most of the terms used there. But I like the wallet software section(helped a lot). I read almost all the pinned threads and now I am going through the list of guides given here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4928968.0 and the basic videos of Andreas Antonopoulos. Next planning to read the Bitcoin Whitepaper. Apart from that, I read Meta, Beginner & Help, Bitcoin & Altcoin Discussion, Speculation, Project development etc. So, I think in a year or two, I'll also start contributing towards the forum.  

[rosezionjohn]

When I made the post I didn't know the owner created the signature terms. But I don't agree with the fact that lightlord is willingly paying him. Hhampuz is the one managing the campaign, if he had informed lightlord about the issue, I think Negotiation would have been warned or even removed.

Bitvest has been here for a very long time and I guess Lightlord has seen it all including where participants usually posts. He/She is probably aware that there are sections where signatures are disabled since that has been implemented a long time ago.

As already mentioned, it's not against the rules to post in WO. Lightlord has changed the campaign rules multiple times already when it comes to payment rates but never really bothered to limit where participants could post. I'm not sure but I think even off-topic board is allowed.

In any case, it's best to message the owner who sets the rules.

[Theb]

With the given scenario you have the short answer is no. If they are paying someone who isn't meeting the minimum requirements the project paying for his services and the participants are actually losing money because they are overpaying for something that isn't even meeting the requirements for their project. It's actually also the project's job to see if their campaign manager is doing the right job leaving them alone without counter-checking is a careless thing for a project to do.

[TalkStar]

It's actually also the project's job to see if their campaign manager is doing the right job leaving them alone without counter-checking is a careless thing for a project to do.

Exactly right and its expected from the side of campaign owner. Just blindly depending on managers isn't a proper way to run an signature campaign. Although its their job but if they don't do that than there is nothing to do actually. In my view signature manager will also love to have this kinda help from project owners.

Its pretty much simple that managers can make mistakes on counting posts or selecting qualified members but if they get extra hand from the owner side then chances of making mistake will be definitely lower. If owners don't feel it necessary to make scrutiny then others thinking will not gonna make any difference. 

[lucifer_8]

With the given scenario you have the short answer is no. If they are paying someone who isn't meeting the minimum requirements the project paying for his services and the participants are actually losing money because they are overpaying for something that isn't even meeting the requirements for their project. It's actually also the project's job to see if their campaign manager is doing the right job leaving them alone without counter-checking is a careless thing for a project to do.

Looks like Hhampuz has taken some action by depriving this week's payment for Negotiation. But, the thing which is clear in this case is that, just because someone is managing many campaigns doesn't make him reputable. There is no break of rules, but the work ethics is lost.