Who are owners of this forum? (Bounty Manager or Users?)

[jayguar]

Additional:
The forum rules say "you can use alternative accounts".
Rules don't say, "You can't join the same ad campaign."
So you can use your account as you like.
The purpose of advertising campaigns is to show more people.
Researching people like the police is not the goal.

...

Why isn't it considered ethical to participate in the same ad campaign?
Whose ethical judgments will we accept? There is no such jurisdiction in the forum rules.
This is not fraud. This situation does not deserve negative trust.
Because the rules fit this situation. We're just discussing ethically.
...

Neither users nor bounty managers are owners of the forum. Bounty threads are managed by bounty managers on behalf of the respective coin/token owners. The bounty campaign rules are put forth by the respective coin/token owners or the campaign manager approved by the respective coin/token owners and has nothing to do with the Bitcointalk forum, the rules of the forum or the owner of the forum. Since an user participating in a bounty campaign is paid for his/her participation, it is only ethical if the user follows all the rules of the campaign. Just because an user is allowed to create multiple accounts does not mean he/she can use this liberty to cheat (SCAM) bounty campaigns. Why is there a need to enter a bounty campaign with multiple accounts when you can post the same thing with 1 account? Isn't that FRAUD against the campaign owners. If an user purposely joins a bounty campaign with multiple accounts he/she definitely deserves a negative trust for scamming or trying to scam the campaign owners. Why should it be considered ethical when you are trying to scam a bounty campaign? Sure, the purpose of advertising is to show more people and you can do that with a single account. If you are going to get paid for doing something, do what the person who pays tells you to do. Its their money, their rules. Either follow it or don't join the campaign. You are not doing a favor to the campaign owners by posting with multiple accounts in the same campaign. If you are confusing this with certain programs paying a handful of people posing as hundreds of people promoting the same program in multiple places, you are wrong. That is unethical as well.

[Tom Bombadil]

Some managers allow multiple accounts, some don't.

Because it doesn't matter to the advertiser.
The important thing for the advertiser is to advertise under quality messages.
This can only be achieved using the merit system.
I think campaign managers should look for these terms.
It doesn't make sense to set a counter-rule for something the forum allows.

It is also not true to give negative trust because of this counter-rule.

Thank you Yahoo.

My friends, just try to understand what I'm saying.

[marlboroza]

But, Bounty manager and some DT member says, "You can't use different accounts."
That's exactly where all the fights start.
If alt-account is allowed in this forum, then I should be able to use the account as I wish.

That is correct but someone who hired you told you that you are not allowed to use more than one account in their campaign so you are not allowed to use more than one account in their campaign. You still can post from multiple accounts whatever you want whenever you want (as long as you don't break forum rules) and you can use accounts in other campaigns, no one can really forbid you to do that nor should tag you or ban you.

[jayguar]

...
Because it doesn't matter to the advertiser.
The important thing for the advertiser is to advertise under quality messages.
This can only be achieved using the merit system.
I think campaign managers should look for these terms.
It doesn't make sense to set a counter-rule for something the forum allows.

It is also not true to give negative trust because of this counter-rule.

Thank you Yahoo.

My friends, just try to understand what I'm saying.

It does matter to an advertiser more since no advertiser would want 1 individual posing as multiple individuals. Why does it not get to you that there is no need for multiple accounts for things you can do with 1 account. You seem to ignore this completely. Campaign managers are not against any forum rules. If a campaign wants only 10 individuals of a particular rank, what is the point when 1 individual fills all the 10 positions available? Why are you ignoring the fact that joining a campaign with multiple accounts is UNETHICAL? No one would give a negative trust if the campaign allows multiple account usage. Negative trust is a must if a user joins with multiple accounts when the campaign does not allow. Even if the campaign allows multiple accounts, I would still say that joining a bounty campaign with multiple accounts is unethical. Give a genuine reason what you are trying to prove by joining a bounty campaign with multiple accounts. An user who joins a bounty campaign with multiple accounts when he/she is not supposed to as per the campaign rules can be tagged as a scammer. Don't bring in forum rules here. It has nothing to do with bounty campaigns. Its simple. If you are paid to post as 1 user, follow and post as per the rules of the person paying you. If you don't agree to the campaign rules, you are free to not join the campaign. You want to get paid more so you want to scam the bounty campaign with multiple accounts. What is wrong in tagging with a negative trust for such scams?

[o_e_l_e_o]

It doesn't make sense to set a counter-rule for something the forum allows.

There is no law against holding two jobs, but the same business isn't going to employ the same person twice in two different positions.

There is no law saying a customer can only buy one item, but businesses limit some items to one person customer during promotional events.

There is no law against using multiple coupons or discounts, but businesses will only let you apply one discount at a time.

At the end of the day, bounty campaigns operate like a business - you are employed by them to provide a service, and they pay you for your time (even if the payment is some utterly worthless token). They are free to stipulate any rules they wish, regardless of what the forum rules say. If the bounty rules clearly state "no alt accounts", and you willingly ignore/break that rule, then you are liable to receive red trust for dishonesty. If you don't agree with this rule, then you are free not to work for these companies/projects.

The forum rules also allow local rules to be implemented on top of forum rules, and allow self-moderated threads where posts can be deleted by the topic starter for any reason they so wish, regardless of whether or not these posts break forum rules.

[actmyname]

It's strange to see people referencing the forum rules when they join a campaign, as if people are not allowed to establish their own rules to facilitate their own operations.

The forum rules may govern what we post here but those rules can be further limited if you are applying for a campaign which may have stricter requirements than what the forum allows. After all, as far as the forum rules are concerned, you can be a massive scammer, possibly stealing hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins, and still be allowed to post here. But, if you happen to plagiarize content, that's no good.If someone is hiring you for a job, they can dismiss you at their discretion. Duh.

[The-One-Above-All]

From your post it looks like this forum is a desert for the mind, void of emotions and barren of thoughts but in reality it's not like that. I am posting what I want and where I want and was always doing that, otherwise tell me any idea why to post? Signature campaigns are the result of freedom that is on this forum.
But when someone creates sig campaign and in requirement state that you mustn't have alt account, then what's wrong with it? They run campaign with their own rules, it's not their duty to meet your requirements but if you want to be in their campaign or bounty or etc, you have to meet their requirement. Is there any job that asks you what you want to do and how much salary do you want to get in doing particular thing that you wish to do? I think no.
Don't join sig and you'll be 100% free with as many alt accounts as you wish. I have no idea why these people want to dramatize normal things.

The problem is when campaign managers are corrupt and do not apply the same transparent rules to all members, this opens them up to back handers and ALL KINDS of legitimate criticism.

We should probably insist that all campaign managers present transparent clear rules that can be applied to all members. They should also be able to detail why a person was excluded or accepted with their own examples. Not just relying on the self awarded merits and self awarded trust positions/scores of those system controllers that BY COINCIDENCE happen to award only themselves enough trust and merit to be accepted by the very best paying sig campaigns ACCORDING to those campaign managers. Sadly though the level of trust and merit each is REALLY deserving is easily debunked as FALSE.

I mean many people on chipmixer are the same people that have clear and undeniable observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their histories BUT apparently are accepted due to being so TRUSTWORTHY lol. Same for merit many of the top merit holders are unable to present even 10 of their best original thought inspiring posts for analysis because they know they have no really made any that will stand up to scrutiny.

YOU ARE CORRECT that sig campaigns and campaign managers are actually the ROOT of many of the problems on this forum. The only people you will find claiming there needs be no transparent clear rules applied to all members ARE THOSE ON THOSE HIGHLY PAID SIG CAMPAIGNS. They do not want fair competition.

This is EVEN MORE dangerous when dealing with the initial distribution of tokens if the bounties make up a substantial amount of the initial minting available when it hits exchanges. If you allow corrupt and back room deals and manipulation here then you are placing the entire board in danger.

Something should be done about it and campaign managers need to be accountable for their OWN decisions not pass the buck and accountability to DT who are proven untrustworthy already.

Clear transparent rules stated. Applied equally to all forum members. NOT relying on the undeniably gamed metrics of merit and trust. They need to some some work themselves or move over for campaign managers that will stand by their own decisions.

[o_e_l_e_o]

We should probably insist that all campaign managers present transparent clear rules that can be applied to all members.

The vast majority of signature campaigns quite clearly state their rules in the opening post, and those rules frequently contain a clause about no alt accounts.

They should also be able to detail why a person was excluded or accepted with their own examples.

You can be hired and fired in the real world without giving reasons or examples. Why should campaigns for trash tokens be held to a higher standard?

The only people you will find claiming there needs be no transparent clear rules applied to all members ARE THOSE ON THOSE HIGHLY PAID SIG CAMPAIGNS. They do not want fair competition.

If I did not want fair competition, then surely I would be arguing for alt accounts so I could try to get my alts on to ChipMixer as well?

The bottom line is an individual or company who is hiring people to perform a task is allowed to set the rules of that employment. If you don't like those rules, don't apply.

[TalkStar]

You have described a lot of things but unfortunately responsible members of his forum will not gonna agree with your thinking. Firstly i am not so happy to see a topic title like that. I don't know why you think its a matter of ownership of this forum. Every manager have their personal choices to run their campaign where someone is so strict on the matter of alt account and someone on other fields. Basically its important to apply proper rules during managing campaign and its the only way by which they are able to keep their campaign appropriate according to forum rules.

You have mentioned that some managers require last 120 day merit for accepting participants and i am not seeing anything wrong with that. Campaign owners have their requirements and in most cases they want to take quality poster for their campaign. There is no way deny that merit earners are far better than regular spammers and alt account farmers. By applying the requirements of enough amount earned merit in last 120 days managers can make their acceptation process much easier than checking unnecessary posters post history. In the matter of accepting alt account on same campaign is just an useless debate IMO.

[The-One-Above-All]

@ioieioe

Their clear rules are open to abuse. As we clearly detail. Their rules rely on abused metrics. Therefore the rules are not valid  nor transparent. They need to be thrashed out so that they are objectively verifiable and a clear detailed explanation can be given with examples that substantiate that the person was either rejected or accepted in a fair way that is not easy to abuse. No alt accounts can be seen as an objective transparent and fair rule but there must be clear and compelling evidence that it is an alt.


SHIT TOKENS or perhaps ico's of projects that get market caps of HUGE USD totals. Are even more cause for danger for the entire board. Giving out btc dust to individuals does not pose such a danger in terms of market manipulation. I am actually agreeing alts must NOT be permitted in the same campaign but it is far more important for tokens where the bounty makes up a large proportion of the initial distribution.

You have alts?? we I do not think it would be fair for alts to be on chipmixer because it is very limited and others should have a chance. Actually those spots should be on rotation really.

No they are not allowed to set the ANY rules and if they do set them they need to be transparent. You will find that discrimination charges can be brought quite frequently where there is suspected discrimination.  Try putting no females, no gays, no black people, and see how your rules go.

So if you say must have x merit and you had merit clearly being a cycled bunch of bogus garbage cycled among 0.01 that allocated it mostly to each other. OR must not have negative trust (where that has been clearly demonstrated to be so abused another system was required to be devised) then in real life started trying to use those undeniably broken and gamed metrics to hire people you will find you will have a lot of criticism and problems cropping up rather shorty. Especially when they then notice the campaign managers are all pally pally with those mates getting the jobs.

The only thing transparent about the big campaign managers is that they enforce and reward the corrupt abuse and gaming of the systems of control and are the MAIN part of the problem.

No alts should be quite sensibly denied though we can agree on that part.

[actmyname]

No they are not allowed to set the ANY rules and if they do set them they need to be transparent. You will find that discrimination charges can be brought quite frequently where there is suspected discrimination.  Try putting no females, no gays, no black people, and see how your rules go.

Well, my issue with setting limits on what someone can/cannot designate on a rule is that you have fuzzy borders.

"No gays" -> Not OK?
"No scammers" -> Not OK?
"No shady individuals" -> Not OK?
"No spammers" -> Not OK?
"No gang members" -> Not OK?

Where do you draw the line? And if it's case-by-case, then does that mean we're just making this up on the fly?

[o_e_l_e_o]

They need to be thrashed out so that they are objectively verifiable and a clear detailed explanation can be given with examples that substantiate that the person was either rejected or accepted in a fair way that is not easy to abuse.

Why do they? As I said above, people are not hired or are fired in real life without any sort of detailed explanation all the time. Everyone knows from your endless rants that you don't like the merit system, but why should the rest of the forum have to live by your opinions? If a project is paying money to hire someone to do a job, then it is entirely up to them what metrics they use to select the person they are going to hire for said job, even if you think those metrics are flawed. You're not paying to hire the person, so why should you get a say in who they hire?

You have alts?? we I do not think it would be fair for alts to be on chipmixer because it is very limited and others should have a chance.

I don't have alts and that's not what I said. Alts are banned on ChipMixer anyway.

[The-One-Above-All]

They need to be thrashed out so that they are objectively verifiable and a clear detailed explanation can be given with examples that substantiate that the person was either rejected or accepted in a fair way that is not easy to abuse.

Why do they? As I said above, people are not hired or are fired in real life without any sort of detailed explanation all the time. Everyone knows from your endless rants that you don't like the merit system, but why should the rest of the forum have to live by your opinions? If a project is paying money to hire someone to do a job, then it is entirely up to them what metrics they use to select the person they are going to hire for said job, even if you think those metrics are flawed. You're not paying to hire the person, so why should you get a say in who they hire?

You have alts?? we I do not think it would be fair for alts to be on chipmixer because it is very limited and others should have a chance.

I don't have alts and that's not what I said. Alts are banned on ChipMixer anyway.

Please do not ONLY bring adhominem. The other points you raise are already clearly answered previously and debunked by the answers I have already given. Especially if you are at all concerned about the honest members here getting fleeced. Which you claim to be. Just because you seem to not understand those points is not our problem. Have another read. If there are no transparent rules that are objectively and independently used to measure each applicant equally against then of course there are endless shady and scammy implications for that. Hence why similar rules exist in RL. Although really they are far more important here than in many cases in RL.

Those "rants" contain important central points that have never been debunked. You should address them for what they clearly are insightful posts that get right to the truth of the matter.

@actymyname.

Well better slightly "fuzzy" borders between transparent clear rules that are applied equally to all members than observably and undeniably misleading and dangerous bogus metrics.

I mean those examples were really just a rebuttal to the IN RL claims ioeieoei was making.

Here on this board we can actually do things a little better since we ALL have access to ALL the posts made by members so we can ALL analyse them.

ANY attempt to roll back subjectivity (the home of abuse) is an improvement over what we have now. Even the law is a work in progress right?

So if we are claiming access to campaigns is based on

= no clear examples of financially motivated wrong doing (apparently what red trust is for)

= the highest value posters or a threshold of minimum standard of posting = merit score


then these need to be made robust so that public examination and scrutiny corroborates the campaign managers choices.

AKA

the member should have ZERO clear and objective instances of financially motivated wrong dong  CHECK

and

let's say we were to set standard of less than 5 shitposts (opinions that were not corroborated with observable instances and did not add any real value to reaching the optimal decision or solution in that thread .. I mean this can be thrashed out as one member already attempted to do previously when defining a post of value which was very interesting) from your last 100 posts.

OR any clear transparent rule that ALL applicants are measured against.

I mean it should be first come first served that meet some good thresholds we can put in place. Any argument that ONLY the best posters are allowed in would clearly require the campaign manager has a larger capacity or equal to the best posters applying. This is likely not possible so a minimum threshold will be required.

If campaign managers do not want to put in the work so that their decision stand up to public scrutiny then chuck them out and get some that will put in the work and be fully accountable.

Of course it will be a work in progress nothing is perfect straight away. However that is no reason to leave it WIDE OPEN and TOTALLY BROKEN.

There is NO reason NOT to approach it just like this if we want to claim only the BEST posters and most TRUSTWORTHY members are being selected for the BEST paying sig campaings. Or it is a clearly bogus claim.

This was hammered out on the way to the gym so there may be a rethink required ... improvising to plug up subjective and gamed holes is part of the process.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Please do not ONLY bring adhominem.

Calling your endless rants "endless rants" is not an ad hominem. It is a statement of fact, and as it is not an attack on your character as a way to criticize your argument, it is not an ad hominem. For someone who goes around calling people dirty turds and other pathetic insults, you should probably learn the meaning of the words you use. (That also was not an ad hominem, simply an insult. The two are not synonymous.)

The other points you raise are already clearly answered previously and debunked by the answers I have already given.

I, like everyone else, will not be trawling through your back catalogue of almost 1000 pointless rants. If you wish to directly answer why you should be able to dictate rules to all bounty managers on the forum, please do so. If bounty managers agree that the merit system is flawed, then they are entirely allowed to ignore it and select participants on whatever criteria they like.

[The-One-Above-All]

Please do not ONLY bring adhominem.

Calling your endless rants "endless rants" is not an ad hominem. It is a statement of fact, and as it is not an attack on your character as a way to criticize your argument, it is not an ad hominem. For someone who goes around calling people dirty turds and other pathetic insults, you should probably learn the meaning of the words you use. (That also was not an ad hominem, simply an insult. The two are not synonymous.)

The other points you raise are already clearly answered previously and debunked by the answers I have already given.

I, like everyone else, will not be trawling through your back catalogue of almost 1000 pointless rants. If you wish to directly answer why you should be able to dictate rules to all bounty managers on the forum, please do so. If bounty managers agree that the merit system is flawed, then they are entirely allowed to ignore it and select participants on whatever criteria they like.

Stop ranting please.

This is also a bogus claim because you are not setting the full context as if to make it appear we randomly act in that way without first having exactly those sorts of behaviors inflicted upon us first. Calling people dirty scammer supporting turds is not adhominem either when we are discussing their scammer supporting ways and their undeniable observable instances of doing just that. THOSE are statements of fact too. Either way let's stay on topic.

Now as to the point that you feel you would need to sift back through 1000' of "rants" to get your answer, when it was in the last post I made to you clearly illustrates that you do NOT understand the issue with letting campaign managers operate without transparent and clear rules that ALL members are measured against equally.

Now can you present a list of pro's and cons to support your nonsense that we should leave it totally subjective or just confess you are only claiming this because you seek to not be in competition with other members fairly because you fear that your chipmixer sig will be vulnerable. I say it will clearly just be gone instantly because you do not have the capacity to demonstrate you are one of the top 57 best posters here and certainly not one of the most 57 top posters that are clearly not a scammer supporter.

But skipping the adhominem/not adhominem debate on that part list your pros and cons and clearly debunk my assertion that transparent and clear rules/thresholds should be introduced and that campaign mangers should stop hiding behind their DT pals manipulated metrics so that they can GIVE THOSE SAME DTS ALL THE BEST SIG SPOTS LOL.

Who would have guessed you would not like the idea of being measured against transparent rules/thresholds in fair competition with other honest members but prefer your campaign manager DT loving pals keep giving the chipmixer spots to you hahahaha


WHY WOULD ANYONE object to some transparent rules/thresholds being set that are not obviously gamed and abused to match applicants against??? you really have to consider that question first. YES the only reason is that they are likely already benefitting from this current subjective gamed abused mess. THAT IS EXACTLY what we see here oeeieie is a chipmixer spammer already hey??? that is not adhominem is it? that is a statement of fact that you are one already?? the motivated is questionable but what other motivation is there for NOT wanting transparent rules for all members to be measured against??? let him supply them.

Alts we agree on since you don't have any. Then again if you had some perhaps we would no longer be in agreement??? who can say.

Alts are certainly not a good idea in the same sigs especially on new tokens.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I really don't know how much clearer I can make this:

At the end of the day, bounty campaigns operate like a business - you are employed by them to provide a service, and they pay you for your time (even if the payment is some utterly worthless token). They are free to stipulate any rules they wish, regardless of what the forum rules say.

The bottom line is an individual or company who is hiring people to perform a task is allowed to set the rules of that employment. If you don't like those rules, don't apply.

If a project is paying money to hire someone to do a job, then it is entirely up to them what metrics they use to select the person they are going to hire for said job, even if you think those metrics are flawed. You're not paying to hire the person, so why should you get a say in who they hire?

You don't get to dictate to campaigns who they can and cannot hire. End of story.

[The-One-Above-All]

I really don't know how much clearer I can make this:

At the end of the day, bounty campaigns operate like a business - you are employed by them to provide a service, and they pay you for your time (even if the payment is some utterly worthless token). They are free to stipulate any rules they wish, regardless of what the forum rules say.

The bottom line is an individual or company who is hiring people to perform a task is allowed to set the rules of that employment. If you don't like those rules, don't apply.

If a project is paying money to hire someone to do a job, then it is entirely up to them what metrics they use to select the person they are going to hire for said job, even if you think those metrics are flawed. You're not paying to hire the person, so why should you get a say in who they hire?

You don't get to dictate to campaigns who they can and cannot hire. End of story.

The only thing you have made clear is that

1. you are unable to debunk my points
2. you have motivation for CLAIMING they should be able to avoid transparent rules
3. you have no idea what you are talking about

You don't get to dictate what MOST scammers chose to do. That does not mean we should not change things so it is fairer and better for all members here.

PRETENDING you are allocating positions to the BEST posters and MOST trustworthy when you are clearly not is DECEPTION and pretty much scamming.

ONLY scammers and untrustworthy are afraid of transparent rules that are applied equally to all members.

Saying we have no control over this is wrong. If the board decides we want campaign managers to have transparent rules or else the projects are branded deliberate SCAMS then that is what can happen.

If you are refusing to have your actions scrutinized against then you are refusing for a reason. Refusing transparent rules is refusing scrutiny.

This is dangerous for honest members and pressure should be applied to campaigns and projects to makes sure they do. For the sake of all honest members here. This is UNDENIABLE.

[actmyname]

-snip-

This is where I will step in.

You're trying to get people to be transparent in campaign rules to ensure fairness (i.e. equal opportunity) and that's a commendable thing, kind of.

But the issue here is that we don't intrinsically have a right to campaigns, really... and they shouldn't have to be utterly transparent in everything they do. I want you to try a simple thought experiment: start tunneling down to the intent of your transparency, start asking questions like "why do this?" and let me know how the results flow.

[The-One-Above-All]

-snip-

This is where I will step in.

You're trying to get people to be transparent in campaign rules to ensure fairness (i.e. equal opportunity) and that's a commendable thing, kind of.

But the issue here is that we don't intrinsically have a right to campaigns, really... and they shouldn't have to be utterly transparent in everything they do. I want you to try a simple thought experiment: start tunneling down to the intent of your transparency, start asking questions like "why do this?" and let me know how the results flow.

I need not investigate my own intentions other than I see no reason for us not to make things as transparent and provably FAIR as we possibly can and to roll back subjectivity and room to abuse where we can. I would ask you conduct your own thought experiment and start investigating your support of NON transparency and No rolling back subjectivity and room to abuse. Let me know how this goes for you.

Actually I have no idea what you are getting at regarding this. Motivation should be irrelevant only the merits of the plan for the entire forum should be considered, neither my own or your own personal gain/loss.

Now it seems that nobody has presented any NEGATIVES of making things more transparent and fair. Certainly they have not debunked the positives because that would be impossible.

It seems nobody has debunked the high risk to the honest members by NOT making it more transparent and fair.

They only seem to be saying IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FAIR.

However in saying this they are also claiming the members here have NO RIGHT to only accept projects that are not deliberately choosing to put them at higher risk and also have no right to be treated fairly.

I disagree. It would only take perhaps a handful of people that will not accept projects and campaign managers deliberately putting them at far higher risk of being scammed to ensure it was in the projects best interests to hire campaign managers who behaviors can stand up to public scrutiny and therefore NOT being deliberately putting the boards honest members at far higher risk of being scammed.

I see no rebuttals to the negatives of NOT having transparent rules. I see only people that are currently benefitting from the lack of transparent rules claiming they don't believe it is fair that they have to compete fairly against other members.

I will say this may NOT apply as strongly to actmyname as it may other members since it is quite conceivable that he could compete fairly and still retain his sig.

I see no debunking of our central points at all. I simply see a bunch of excuses to keep the status quo that benefits them in place.

This is the same for merit and trust. This is the issue with it being discussed in META. META is a concentrated bunch of people that benefit strongly from the status quo so any suggested changes to the status quo are immediately non beneficial to these members. Hence even though there is STRONG negatives for the majority of the board for it to remain as it is which they are unable to refute they will still find any excuse not to change it.

Here the only excuse is we have no right to ask for all members to be treated fairly.  We have no right to order them to change. However we clearly have the right to voice our opinions en mass regarding their proclaimed right to treat the majority of members unfairly and perhaps endanger them financially deliberately.

When you start to understand that without transparent selection rules and that they can allocate positions to who they want for whatever reasons they make up, then you start to realize that they are saying they clearly set you up to be manipulated and scammed.

That's fine but if you want to deliberately set people up to be scammed through market manipulations then your project can clearly be classed as dangerous and tainted. Else why not choose to go transparent and be scrutinized.

I have no idea why you are asking me to present my own intentions. It really has no bearing on things. Things are either transparent and fair and open to public scrutiny or else they are private, backroom, gamed, abused, and unfair and perhaps deliberately deceptive and scamming. They will be what they will be regardless of the person suggesting or seeking to prevent.

 think every member here has the right to prefer and state preference for fair treatment and more security against getting scammed. The key is transparency. Scams thrive behind the curtain, pull the curtain away and let in the day light and those sucking the blood of honest members soon scream out with excuses and indignation.

I mean do you have the right to NOT be scammed?? if you say no we do not have that right then why punish scammers? why not reward scammers? why take any action at all to prevent ? why have default trust?  Do we have the intrinsic right to read valuable posts??

This is larger than having the right to be paid 2 post. There are many other implications.

Anyway we will have to agree to disagree on the ALTs part. I see you feel alts should be allowed.  Again though there I think you are not considering all implications of this.

It is a shame we so often find ourselves on opposite sides of things actmyname, still makes for better debating that if we have to suffer those that are clearly lacking in the capacity for reason. At least a worthy challenge and some effort at presenting a thought process that can be followed.

There is nothing snide there for your personally actmyname. I believe you are a fan of playing what they may call devils advocate, this is not a bad thing I suppose. It is good that you seek to help us close any holes in our proposals or points.


Some of what this thread seeks to discuss seems to have been touched upon here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205864.0

for further reading.

[Vispilio]

From your post it looks like this forum is a desert for the mind, void of emotions and barren of thoughts but in reality it's not like that. I am posting what I want and where I want and was always doing that, otherwise tell me any idea why to post? Signature campaigns are the result of freedom that is on this forum.
But when someone creates sig campaign and in requirement state that you mustn't have alt account, then what's wrong with it? They run campaign with their own rules, it's not their duty to meet your requirements but if you want to be in their campaign or bounty or etc, you have to meet their requirement. Is there any job that asks you what you want to do and how much salary do you want to get in doing particular thing that you wish to do? I think no.
Don't join sig and you'll be 100% free with as many alt accounts as you wish. I have no idea why these people want to dramatize normal things.

This is probably the best post I've read on this thread so far, and deserves a lot of merit. In bounties, your employer calls the shots obviously,

have you ever heard of a situation where the employee goes out to his employer and starts dictating his own working conditions, but still expects to get paid on the original terms of his contract ?  

Also I have to point out of course it makes a difference for the projects to make sure that only 1 account / user enrolls in their bounty; for one they would much rather have a user post comfortably more than the min. msg limits for the same pay, than having that participant just fulfill the bare minimum then move on to his alt accounts...