Any Rules for Bounty Manager?

[Digital_Lord]

Hello All DT Members!
Some Bounty Manager doing very unfair with Hunters.
 I have created this thread. If any hunters have issue with BM which Do whatever is wrong using  BM power then you can Report Here. There are top Class DT member here in this Forum which will look report and if they find any unfair situation they will ask BM to solve the issue.

Recently Top Class BM which are old member of this forum doing very Unfair. In his recent Bounty "Darth" which he run for 6 weak. At the End he delete all Signature participants from Spreadsheet and Say

There is less than 3 legit participants and we decided to cancel the signature campaign

First time I experienced that one BM delete while page of any Compaign. Other BM just reject users but everybody can see the details in spreadsheet.
I humbly request all DT member to check this issue and ask Murat to solve this.

[lovesmayfamilis]

There have already been misunderstandings from other accounts about his strange behavior.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5369921.msg58385147#msg58385147

I can also say that for me, this is a very strange manager who does not pay attention to the participation of cheaters in his company. Moreover, the negative feedback from DT members does not mean anything to him. He accepts everyone in the company.

The only thing that can be advised, in order to avoid disappointment from him in the future, is to ignore all the bounties that he leads.

[Erdogan]

The bounty manager has the rules on the bounty terms that his decision is final and you agree on that when you decided to participate in his campaign. But I agree that he should compensate the user that he acknowledges as a legit user even with the minimum payment because they already spend time and effort to complete the task. @Murat is already involved in many drama on inappropriate bounty management but the user keeps joining his campaign hoping they will get income by doing bounty task.

You can't do anything about this as he has reason and is protected by his own selfish terms. Just follow @lovesmayfamilis advice to save your time.

I think he should have a chance to explain this situation.
Of course, the manager can change the rules as he wants, but do you imagine that in the BTC paid campaign the manager would not pay for the whole week because he just don't want? He would have immediately been given a few red tags. It should be the same in this case.

[examplens]

OP, what kind of BM power you are talking about here?
Any bounty manager was only hired by the owner of the project and campaign, while every hunter is not obliged to participate in a campaign managed by specified BM. Just ignore them.
I also don't see what is not legitimate here, if the campaign is closed due to the low response of quality participants. I would say that it is closely related to the quality of campaign management with the quality of participants (ignoring it may yield results).

[Erdogan]

OP, what kind of BM power you are talking about here?
Any bounty manager was only hired by the owner of the project and campaign, while every hunter is not obliged to participate in a campaign managed by specified BM. Just ignore them.
I also don't see what is not legitimate here, if the campaign is closed due to the low response of quality participants. I would say that it is closely related to the quality of campaign management with the quality of participants (ignoring it may yield results).

If the manager accepts the participants, it means he is letting them know that they can start writing campaign posts.
The manager can stop the campaign and pay out as much (usually in proportion) as participants have done.
If the manager closes the campaign without paying for the time participants have been working in campaign, it is cheating.

[_BlackStar]

The only thing that can be advised, in order to avoid disappointment from him in the future, is to ignore all the bounties that he leads.

I'm sure that's perfect idea, but most bounty participant probably don't mind staying under the management of certain well-known campaign even if they have things that end in disappointment. Usually they will complain when there is a change in the rules or anything that makes the bounty stop even though at first they don't mind anything based on their personal decisions. I know they understand the risks, but they are not brave enough to ignore them because usually most of them just rely on luck.

I'm not sure that it's all the fault of the manager and his management ^{[they can be weird or very nice],} but some bounty participants also deserve to be blamed for the decisions they agreed to in the first place, especially joining without doing any analysis.

[Erdogan]

I'm not sure that it's all the fault of the manager and his management ^{[they can be weird or very nice],} but some bounty participants also deserve to be blamed for the decisions they agreed to in the first place, especially joining without doing any analysis.

If a participant sees that the bounty manager has a +12 green trust, what more research do they need?
If even after creating such a thread with the information that the manager did not pay participants for the work done, and not even one of the DT members will give him a red tag, how do you think inexperienced users should do research?

[examplens]

If a participant sees that the bounty manager has a +12 green trust, what more research do they need?

Green trust is important but not the only measure of whether a manager is running a good campaign.

If even after creating such a thread with the information that the manager did not pay participants for the work done, and not even one of the DT members will give him a red tag, how do you think inexperienced users should do research?

here are a lot of threads about scammers from 1xbit, you don't seem inexperienced but you still wear their signature. They steal money from their users and pay you to promote them here. You didn't do any research on that or what?

[YOSHIE]

At the End he delete all Signature participants from Spreadsheet and Say.

Are you talking about this campaign: [Bounty][DARTH] 383,000.00% APY! DARTH Protocol [BEP20] $100k $DARTH 🔥🔥, if that's what you're talking about, it does look a little weird to me, looks like the campaign is running for 6 weeks and it's over, from the data: SPREADSHEETS, especially the empty sig section with no participants.

Indeed, every manager has their own rules for accepting participants, that's the manager's privilege, I admit it, but there are questions here that must be asked.

1. You know the total number of participants, before the manager deletes them.
2. Did the signature participant work during the 6 week Bounty campaign running.
3. Does the manager record the Total Stakes/week, before it is deleted.
4. Of the total participants who registered how many members were accepted, were you accepted.

Well, from the four questions above, if points number two and three participants/managers do it, it must be asked, the reason why the manager deletes all participants...! Obviously the manager has the answer for that.

the manager needs to clarify all this, so that there is no confusion between the manager and the participants.

[GeorgeJohn]

A campaign manager either bounty or signature has the right to deny any participants payment with a qualified reason. I'm very sure that no management officer who doesn't know what is obtainable via the collaboration between it participants and payment. If the manager clear all the post via the spreadsheet maybe their is announcement ahead before deletion of post of people working under he/her. So therefore if it's what happened really and their is no announcement before deletion of post's,  the manager have a public clearance of doubt to its participants because it's unethical.

[cabron]

The bounty manager has the rules on the bounty terms that his decision is final and you agree on that when you decided to participate in his campaign. But I agree that he should compensate the user that he acknowledges as a legit user even with the minimum payment because they already spend time and effort to complete the task. @Murat is already involved in many drama on inappropriate bounty management but the user keeps joining his campaign hoping they will get income by doing bounty task.

You can't do anything about this as he has reason and is protected by his own selfish terms. Just follow @lovesmayfamilis advice to save your time.

I think he should have a chance to explain this situation.
Of course, the manager can change the rules as he wants, but do you imagine that in the BTC paid campaign the manager would not pay for the whole week because he just don't want? He would have immediately been given a few red tags. It should be the same in this case.

As I said, He provides a valid reason that the quality of the signature campaign output is not good. The bounty manager has the right to stop or halt a campaign that's not effective because his job is to give a positive result to the client that pays for a quality promotion service. I don't say that he should not pay all participants but rather pay only the participants that he finds only doing the task properly.

To clarify the situation, I'm basing my statement on what's the given proof above. Murat reason is there are only 3 legit participants on his campaign, Do you think this will happened on BTC signature? Bounty managers like Hhampuz will never accept low-quality poster and if ever this will happen, I'm sure the bounty manager will kick immediately the participants or stop the campaign because they are not giving a good result to their client.

I find it crazy. Why do they have to wait for the campaign to be over before cancelling the campaign?  

OP said it run for 6 weeks and after 6 weeks which the campaign is over, they end with  the  cancellation while the participants are already expecting pay.
Maybe they should have decided to cancel when they saw there were only 3 participants in the 1st or 2nd week at least. If they are not good posters, they could have been removed in the first week of participating the campaign.

Maybe I did misunderstand this or did they wait for the 6 weeks to be over?

[Mpamaegbu]

Honestly, it beggars the question of why scam accounts and activities aren't banned here but plagiarism is, at the slightest discovery. A few bounty managers are effortlessly disparaging this forum by their activities. They sign on to bounties and mostly only care for their paycheck. Hunters are often left in the lurch and this isn't good. Rewards aren't paid as when due. Most times rewards aren't paid out at all and that ends it. The BMs, knowing that DT and highly ranked members who could call them out don't participate in bounties have utilized this to go rogue. I remember calling a BM out a few years ago and all they could do was retaliatory, instead of amicably resolving the issue. I know there are users here who would argue that if anyone didn't like the way they're treated they shouldn't participate in bounties. Sadly, arguing that way won't be an approach to resolving this lingering scamming activity. In 2017/18, a few signature campaigns managers who wanted to go that route were severely dealt with and that straightened the whole thing up. That's why we see the type of sanity we have in BTC paying campaigns today. I think that should also be the call of action for rogue BMs. Enough of this maltreatment of bounty hunters.

[GeorgeJohn]

To clarify the situation, I'm basing my statement on what's the given proof above. Murat reason is there are only 3 legit participants on his campaign, Do you think this will happened on BTC signature? Bounty managers like Hhampuz will never accept low-quality poster and if ever this will happen, I'm sure the bounty manager will kick immediately the participants or stop the campaign because they are not giving a good result to their client.

Murat should come and clarify this, because i think this needs more clarification from the manager precisely not by pointing out what he said. This a proposed that's campaign launched. and if that should be a cancellation is from the initial when the campaign started. And it's not supposed to be after the campaign has run for some weeks intervals.

I know vividly that scam campaign's also come to way of managers and if they are not smart enough to detect the ability of the contract, they will end up giving their self debts. So it's unbalanced from my perception, if theirs is changes or you observe the level of competency from your participants your it make openly and remove them and is proper, but a process whereby you notice their default and you kept silent and allow campaign to run to an end before you deleting their file's, it's not legit theory. That's while i said that should not be the major factor, so let the manger portray it own view.

[TheUltraElite]

I have a simple solution for this. If you dont like the bounty manager, dont join in their campaigns. Nobody is forcing you to join a campaign, you are doing it on your free will.

Besides, bounties are never guaranteed payments, so that is a clause that you have to accept when you are participating.

I dont think DT is going to polic bounty managers for this. The decision of the manager is final, whether you like it or not.

Again, dont join a bounty if you cant cope with the outcome, which is often bad in bounties.

[Erdogan]

If even after creating such a thread with the information that the manager did not pay participants for the work done, and not even one of the DT members will give him a red tag, how do you think inexperienced users should do research?

here are a lot of threads about scammers from 1xbit, you don't seem inexperienced but you still wear their signature. They steal money from their users and pay you to promote them here. You didn't do any research on that or what?

My research is very good. I have been participating in the 1xbit signature campaign for a year and I have been paying solidly on time and fairly during all this time. My experience with 1xbit signature campaign manager is purely positive.

[Nagin]

At the End he delete all Signature participants from Spreadsheet and Say.

Are you talking about this campaign: [Bounty][DARTH] 383,000.00% APY! DARTH Protocol [BEP20] $100k $DARTH 🔥🔥, if that's what you're talking about, it does look a little weird to me, looks like the campaign is running for 6 weeks and it's over, from the data: SPREADSHEETS, especially the empty sig section with no participants.

Indeed, every manager has their own rules for accepting participants, that's the manager's privilege, I admit it, but there are questions here that must be asked.

1. You know the total number of participants, before the manager deletes them.
2. Did the signature participant work during the 6 week Bounty campaign running.
3. Does the manager record the Total Stakes/week, before it is deleted.
4. Of the total participants who registered how many members were accepted, were you accepted.

Well, from the four questions above, if points number two and three participants/managers do it, it must be asked, the reason why the manager deletes all participants...! Obviously the manager has the answer for that.

the manager needs to clarify all this, so that there is no confusion between the manager and the participants.

Users were more than 8 and 4 of them already recieved stake for 5 week and then at the end admin delete all users from list. It's very Unfair seen ever I see.

[Coyster]

The thing is this, all of these isn't really moderated by the forum, and even if we are to agree that that it is an an offense worthy of negative feedbacks, it still wouldn't bring back the time and efforts the bounty hunters have already wasted whilst promoting the project for the number of weeks it went on.

Having said that, while the BM reserves the right to do X and Y in a campaign, i don't think ending a campaign without pay after 6 long weeks is quite a nice thing to do, yes i know people should look away from bounties, i also know they should not join bounty campaigns if they do not like the manager, etc, but it still doesn't make it right when BM don't act nice to their bounty participants after long weeks together. If the issues raised now by the BM came up in the first or second week of the campaign resulting in its closure then, i doubt the participants will have too much of a problem with that, but what increases their agony is the 6 long weeks they worked with and for this project, and on the basis of that, i consider their complaints somewhat valid.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I can also say that for me, this is a very strange manager who does not pay attention to the participation of cheaters in his company. Moreover, the negative feedback from DT members does not mean anything to him. He accepts everyone in the company.

Yeah, his username rings a bell from a while back, but since I don't really follow what's going on in the bounty world I can't remember why that bell's ringing.  

I'm trying to understand exactly what went on here, since OP's post is extremely hard to process.  Those bounty hunters did six weeks of "work" before Murat stopped the bounty without paying anyone?  Is that the gist of this complaint?

The only thing that can be advised, in order to avoid disappointment from him in the future, is to ignore all the bounties that he leads.

Exactly right.  OP is apparently not a new member of the forum (I have a feeling he's not the original owner based on his post history), so you'd think he'd be aware of which bounty managers are crap and which are reputable--especially since that's about all OP does on bitcointalk.

On a related note, this feedback from OP's trust page is kinda funny:



Ultimately I have no sympathy for bounty hunters getting scammed, because all they do is basically spam for money.  I'm a DT member, but there's no way in hell I'm making an issue like this one of my battles to fight.

[yahoo62278]

I'm trying to understand exactly what went on here, since OP's post is extremely hard to process.  Those bounty hunters did six weeks of "work" before Murat stopped the bounty without paying anyone?  Is that the gist of this complaint?

That's what it looks like. If there is a pool of tokens set aside for a specific portion of a bounty and only 3 users participate, I would expect the bounty manager to cancel the bounty after week 1.

Normally tokens end up being mostly worthless but the company should compensate these 3 users they say were legit something.

[Erdogan]

I'm trying to understand exactly what went on here, since OP's post is extremely hard to process.  Those bounty hunters did six weeks of "work" before Murat stopped the bounty without paying anyone?  Is that the gist of this complaint?

That's what it looks like. If there is a pool of tokens set aside for a specific portion of a bounty and only 3 users participate, I would expect the bounty manager to cancel the bounty after week 1.

Normally tokens end up being mostly worthless but the company should compensate these 3 users they say were legit something.

It is not difficult to understand whether the manager is paying for the work done or not. This verification may take up to a few minutes - just check the history of the participants. If he doesn't pay for the work done, he's a cheater. If he has an explanation, let him explain it. If there's no explanation, it means he is a cheater. Simple.