Okay, I am going to do the unthinkable and try to make sense of what TOAA is trying to say here. I think he/ they/ The Swarm does say a lot of things that need to be said, albeit in a different manner. I am just going to try and see what they are saying. I am also going to try to snip some portions of their reply so it makes more sense.
There is no point continuing to claim alts are not allowed purely because project owners can set their own rules. Their rules don't mean shit if they are opening up deliberately honest members to scams.
Should scammers have the right to set their own project rules that gives them an obvious and scammy advantage ??
IMO, bounties/sig campaigns don't look like DIRECT scams so most people do NOT realize this is actually the way the BIGGEST scams operate.
You may as well say scams can set any rules they like since they are the project owners right??
The question is whether these bounty projects, which are inevitably linked to ICO scams should be allowed to formulate their own rules when they use the BCT forum as a cheap way to spread their scammy tokens?
The opinion that the forum should have certain guidelines that don't allow such scams to be free to make whatever rules they want holds some merit. Yet, this issue has been long settled on this forum.
Go to the Sl no: 6 of this message here. It was settled long ago that there won't be any policing. People are free to judge.
Also if there are only a few high paying sig spots these should be given to the REAL best posters and NON SCAMMERS and rotated if possible if you want it to be fair and not again be open to abuse and kick backs.
FAIR TRANSPARENT RULES where the campaign manager actually does his job and weeds out the best posters ( or posters above a certain threshold of quality) and NO SCAMMERS - first come basis (but watch out if he is selecting the same people who mysteriously come to his campaigns first everytime) perhaps some rotation if that keeps happening to give everyone a fair chance who meets the required thresholds.
Read it, Undestand it, then agree or debunk it.
Now, TOAA has come to the issue of Signature campaigns. This is where a@actmyname gave them a chance to come clean.
--snip--
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.
Although he/ they/ the swarm refused to go down the intention rabbit-hole as suggested by actmyname, the intention is that some people think they deserve to be on better campaigns and to be making more SATS here on the forum compared to a lot of others. Hell, even i think that i deserve to be on a comfortable campaign that doesn't make me post 25 shitty posts for 0.002 BTC per week. Unfortunately, and to my continued chagrin, this is where the facts come in:
we don't intrinsically have a right to campaigns, really.
We all wish that the sig campaigns chose us over those who seem to be have much lesser post quality. Yet, a majority of them don't need your content. I was rejected multiple times by pretty famous managers because of non-gambling/ low post count in the past days. I promised that I'll spew a lot of banter but to no avail. LOL.
But yeah, this is how things work in the "25 posts for 0.002 BTC". They want more eyeballs. There are many many users willing to spend more time than me here at the forum. A lot of them are doing much better work compared to me too. So the facts remain, no matter how
I may "feel" about my post quality or merit history.
As far as the higher paying campaigns are concerned, I think Darkstar does a pretty unenviable and good job at removing old people and ensuring that a few better ones get the chance. There just isn't enough space at the White-house.
Some of the other high paying gambling ones maybe a bit questionable but more or less, those are awarded fairly. What maybe going on "behind the curtains" is simply conjecture and mere opinion.
