cryptomus_com why isn't the Sig+Cam.. working properly? What is their purpose?

[examplens]

I joined the Cryptomus Signature Campaign and have been accepted to promote the signature. I worked a long week, but I have been told by message that they are kicking me out without paying. I don't see why they are kicking me out. I asked why I was being kicked out, but they didn't reply to me. I don't know why they didn't reply, and I don't even understand their purpose.

The manager of each campaign reserves the right to exclude someone from the campaign without any further explanation. You have to accept it and move on. Certainly, no one except their manager can give you an exact answer, but only a guess.

I've tagged him and here's the type 1 flag, you can support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3321

Do you even understand when and why you leave someone a flag?

As for their campaign and overall appearance on the forum, I must say that it was quite poorly implemented, starting with the code signature, the absence of ANN, and poor communication with the members of the forum.
It's a pity for the money they put in, they probably won't be satisfied with the result in the end, but the mistake started by appointing an incompetent person to represent the service here.

[Despairo]

Since some members were paid, we cannot give him negative trust or support flag, but campaign management was unprofessional^*. Let us wait for his answer, and then we must convince them to appoint a campaign manager and review the payments themselves.

Even he did pay half of all participants, it's still fall to scam if he didn't want to pay the participants when they're eligible. The manager use double standard, if the campaign didn't count gambling posts, then why the other participants gets paid.

But yeah, let's wait how he will answer this case, I'm open to revise my feedback though.

Do you even understand when and why you leave someone a flag?

I do, the campaign manager still owes participants money, it's not scam?

Oh well, the signature participants did take a big risk in this campaigns and there are a lot of red flags in the beginning. This is 2024 already, if we are in the 2017 or even the latter part, we might appreciate this kind of signatures.

Because they have no choice, there are no good campaigns opened, if they're waiting the project team to hire reputable campaign manager, escrow the money and hire signature designer, they would lost their spots since there's always someone willing to take and risk it.

So, if they get scammed, then it's what it's, at least they have a chance to get paid than posting without get paid.

[GeorgeJohn]

I'm sure that the manager is a reputable member of this forum that choose to disguise to be a new member to promote its business, because when looking at the methods he applied by keeping it spreadsheet secret you will know that it's old forum user.

The manage not paid her participants is unethical, because  all the participants meet up weekly quota requirements, the excuse he/her portray for posting in gambling was not stipulated in the terms and conditions of the campaign,

So I will like some of the reputable members to review all the assigned participants profiles to see that most of them that did not receive payment merit payment, so that another user will come with same method of disqualifying participants post in order not to pay participants their weekly payment, if everyone fold hands for this unethical issue it will become norms of this community, because people like to emulate what's negative than positive

If manger wants to hire new participants he can clear this week payment and ask them to leave the campaign than keeping them on suspense.

[examplens]

Even he did pay half of all participants, it's still fall to scam if he didn't want to pay the participants when they're eligible.

It is still their campaign and they have the right to decide who is eligible and who is not. So neither you nor I can say who is eligible.
The campaign is confused and badly set up, it is to be expected that it will cause a lot of controversy. It's simple, if you're not ready to take risks with this kind of campaign, if you don't like the management, don't apply.

[Kemarit]

The campaign have no spreadsheet for participants to see numbers of post they made for the week, and for the campaign manager to be able to make  comments on participants that are not meeting the standard of the signature campaign.  Spreadsheet would have been better to make things easy  for the CM and participants to see reason for not being paid.

That is the standard though for signature campaigns that the manager will have a spreadsheet shared in public so that everyone that is accepted can see if their information is correct and sometimes manager will add the when is the week starts or ends so that everyone will not missed it.

The problem is that campaign is not managed by a experience manager and then the rules are not very clear. Although for participants it should be, but the manager might have missed rules in top of his head like which board local or not or gambling posts are not going to be counted.

[GeorgeJohn]

Even he did pay half of all participants, it's still fall to scam if he didn't want to pay the participants when they're eligible.

It is still their campaign and they have the right to decide who is eligible and who is not. So neither you nor I can say who is eligible.
The campaign is confused and badly set up, it is to be expected that it will cause a lot of controversy. It's simple, if you're not ready to take risks with this kind of campaign, if you don't like the management, don't apply.

The eligibility of any participants will be dependable on the rules and regulations the management presented to the signature thread, the manager can't wake up just a sudden and introduced it's rules without making it visible to the participants that's under his care, he/she needs to pay every participants that completed it weekly post .

Nobody is dragging his campaign with him, and I know quite well that if they will be a resolution that should be done after he has clear first payment...selecting few participants and credit them is unethical and some of them he refused to pay doesn't know their offence, many persons has commenting on the signature thread and its yet to respond including other thread established because of signature and is yet to clarify both the participants and entire forum users.

[letteredhub]

The problem is that campaign is not managed by a experience manager and then the rules are not very clear. Although for participants it should be, but the manager might have missed rules in top of his head like which board local or not or gambling posts are not going to be counted.

Okay, let assume the manager missed adding more few intended rules in top of his head as you have said. Does that make it the fault of campaign participants that warranty their not been paid or are campaigns now working outside the presented rules? In his PM to my being unqualified for payment he mentioned gambling posts as a prohibition of the campaign terms.

But checking the term of the campaign in the quote below I am yet to see gambling board as a prohibited or excluded posting board's just as others like politics adns society, WO & Serious, and sign threads etc, are clearly stated and which I observed them all by not posting in any of those.  This is why am seeking for explanation from the manager to clarify me and in extension it will also help those still participating in the campaign to be aware too.

Participant Requirements:
- You must be aware of and comply with the rules for participating in subscription campaigns
- Make a minimum of 20 constructive posts per week
- Removing the signature leads to disqualification
- The link in the signature must remain correct and unchanged
- Excluded boards (WO & Serious, Sig Threads, Press, Politics, Games, Off-topic, Bounty)

And as you can see, am yet to remove my sig while waiting for his response, to avoid any claim of  not wearing the right sig as his/her excuse.

[yahoo62278]

Even he did pay half of all participants, it's still fall to scam if he didn't want to pay the participants when they're eligible.

It is still their campaign and they have the right to decide who is eligible and who is not. So neither you nor I can say who is eligible.
The campaign is confused and badly set up, it is to be expected that it will cause a lot of controversy. It's simple, if you're not ready to take risks with this kind of campaign, if you don't like the management, don't apply.

I think you're oversimplifying it here. If the rules are not clear and the participants did the work, then they are scamming users by just kicking them out without an explanation.

It is their right to have rules and not pay based on those rules, but if the rules are not posted how can they expect users to comply with them? There's interpreting a rule incorrectly and there's breaking a rule but in this case looks like there were no rules to comply with.

Tagged the company for now as I see the manager/owner has been online and hasn't replied yet. Willing to revise the tag if they explain themselves.

Pm also sent to cryptomus so they know about this topic

[Poker Player]

It is still their campaign and they have the right to decide who is eligible and who is not. So neither you nor I can say who is eligible.

What you say is not so. A campaign can't pay its members based on whether or not the manager damn well feels like it, it must establish objective criteria in the OP that in this case have not been met.

[Oshio-man]

If cryptomus_com are new in the forum, why can't them hire manager or ask question to know the way other team are handling their campaign before starting the signature campaign, well, maybe they think they can handle the signature campaign without hiring a manager to help them to manage the signature campaign, see what they have caused to those people that used one week to promote for cryptomus_com and no spreadsheet to see the post the manager has recorded for them not to get paid for the one week, I notice that cryptomus_com have never responded to this thread or they have realized their mistakes in the rules and conditions they sent on the signature campaign?

[Awaklara]

If manger wants to hire new participants he can clear this week payment and ask them to leave the campaign than keeping them on suspense.

that's what his manager should have done. although it is the manager's right to assess posts and whether they are worthy of being counted in the weekly quota. but everything should have been included in the campaign rules from the start. Suppose there are corrections or additions that you want to make and apply for the following week. In that case, they should still pay participants who have fulfilled the weekly post quota and the manager can remove some participants based on his assessment. that's their right.

I saw his campaign manager account was active a moment ago. he should be able to respond here to clarify.

[AB de Royse777]

In terms of posting I see there are two clauses

- Make a minimum of 20 constructive posts per week

- Excluded boards (WO & Serious, Sig Threads, Press, Politics, Games, Off-topic, Bounty)

The word constructive can be interpreted differently by different members. For me as a campaign manager only a one word post can be constructive if the word is appropriate to the topic. Similar way I can consider a 500 word posts as a garbage post and will hesitate to pay.

There are some users who will make exact number of posts too. As like they are doing the job perfectly. I don't like this perfectionist too and I hesitate to pay them.

Anyway, I see there is another clause

- If a participant does not fulfill the conditions, they will be replaced by another participant the following week or excluded from the campaign without payment.

When members joined their campaign they must have read it. If someone was not paid then it's very simple that the conditions (didn't make 20 constructive posts excluding excluded boards) they asked were not met.

Can someone check the posts of the members who were not paid and make a list of their posts those did not comply the constructive criteria?

[Poker Player]

In terms of posting I see there are two clauses

- Make a minimum of 20 constructive posts per week

- Excluded boards (WO & Serious, Sig Threads, Press, Politics, Games, Off-topic, Bounty)

The word constructive can be interpreted differently by different members.

Hey AB de Royse777, did you read the thread? Especially the analysis that Despairo has done? Because it seems you haven't. Here the question is not whether the posts are constructive. The issue is that the manager is sending PMs to participants to tell them that he doesn't pay them because (he invents) posting in the gambling section is forbidden, when it doesn't say that anywhere in the OP. In fact it doesn't say it in those excluded boards you quote, which normally, and as it is written, means that if you write in those boards you won't get paid for the posts there, not that if you write 1 post in a section you won't get paid for any post of the week.

Apart from the fact that everything surrounding the campaign is nonsense.

Let's look at some quotes:

Well, this just shows that the campaign is actually paying, but the requirements for participants to get paid is somewhat not clear.
- No spreadsheet to start with
- Users are being removed without proper explanation whatsoever.
- Their signature code isn't that attractive as well. I will suggest paying a signature designer for their signatures if they want to get noticed.

Is this due to weekly budget factors that can't be ascertained?
As this week's budget won't cover enough payments, I'll fire several participants instead.

[Wapfika]

- Excluded boards (WO & Serious, Sig Threads, Press, Politics, Games, Off-topic, Bounty)

I've tagged him and here's the type 1 flag, you can support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3321

Supported the flag. The inconsistency on his statement compared to the actual terms of campaign looks like the manager is doing a selective payment for users just to avoid payment.

He should highlight the rules against gambling if the is crucial to receive the payment. This is the reason why hiring a reputable campaign manager in the forum is a must on signature campaign. Surely, there are some campaign that becomes successful without forum campaign manager but that is just a rare scenario.

[Upgrade00]

The manager of each campaign reserves the right to exclude someone from the campaign without any further explanation. You have to accept it and move on. Certainly, no one except their manager can give you an exact answer, but only a guess.

The manager actually owes the participant an explanation and that has to be in the terms of the campaign the participants agreed to when they applied to join. Not giving clear explanation or making up new rules after the work has been done is shady business and deserving of a red trust, a flag may be to excessive but is also not off the table.

I believe the campaign manager should be giving the opportunity to defend themselves and answer to the numerous questions being asked, without their side, I will not be giving them a negative rating yet.

[yahoo62278]

If cryptomus_com are new in the forum, why can't them hire manager or ask question to know the way other team are handling their campaign before starting the signature campaign, well, maybe they think they can handle the signature campaign without hiring a manager to help them to manage the signature campaign, see what they have caused to those people that used one week to promote for cryptomus_com and no spreadsheet to see the post the manager has recorded for them not to get paid for the one week, I notice that cryptomus_com have never responded to this thread or they have realized their mistakes in the rules and conditions they sent on the signature campaign?

Companies are not forced to hire managers, but hiring 1 is advantageous to a company as managers are experienced in the hiring process and will try to hire the best applicants as well as make applicants feel at ease as the weekly payment is usually held by the manager.

I actually pmed them June 27th and offered my help for free if they had questions and never got a response. If someone with experience is offering free consultation you would think a company would accept and ask a million questions so they can do the job correctly themselves.

The manager of each campaign reserves the right to exclude someone from the campaign without any further explanation. You have to accept it and move on. Certainly, no one except their manager can give you an exact answer, but only a guess.

The manager actually owes the participant an explanation and that has to be in the terms of the campaign the participants agreed to when they applied to join. Not giving clear explanation or making up new rules after the work has been done is shady business and deserving of a red trust, a flag may be to excessive but is also not off the table.

I believe the campaign manager should be giving the opportunity to defend themselves and answer to the numerous questions being asked, without their side, I will not be giving them a negative rating yet.

I'm all for letting them explain, but I think a red tag in the meantime while we wait is appropriate given what participants have complaints about. The tag can be removed if all turns out to be a misunderstanding.

[aioc]

I actually pmed them June 27th and offered my help for free if they had questions and never got a response. If someone with experience is offering free consultation you would think a company would accept and ask a million questions so they can do the job correctly themselves.

That's strange not responding to you I don't know what you wrote to the representative but he should know instantly how reputable and unique you are here because you're the only one with an animated avatar.
These people did not know what they missed.

With so many accusations and questions I doubt they can address them one by one so they should issue an official announcement or they will ignore us all or they will stop the campaign, Let's see what will it be.

[AB de Royse777]

Hey AB de Royse777, did you read the thread? Especially the analysis that Despairo has done? Because it seems you haven't.

I will appropriate to use better wording when you are addressing someone. I can throw the same statement for you but let's just be normal.

The campaign manager giving an excuse that they ban user that post in gambling board is really hilarious.

Why it is hilarious is also explained by Despairo in the next line.

Tipstar, as one of their participant create 9 posts in gambling board and 11 posts in non-gambling board, but he's get paid! (Tipstar's post history).

[Coyster]

With so many accusations and questions I doubt they can address them one by one so they should issue an official announcement or they will ignore us all or they will stop the campaign, Let's see what will it be.

The campaign manager has been online in the forum today, and i am sure he must have seen this topic, as well as the red tags he has received, but we are yet to get any response from him. It is either the manager does not have a good explanation as to why some participants were denied payments, or he is still in the process of coming up with a solid response.

[Poker Player]

Hey AB de Royse777, did you read the thread? Especially the analysis that Despairo has done? Because it seems you haven't.

I will appropriate to use better wording when you are addressing someone. I can throw the same statement for you but let's just be normal.

Well, we have a long history of not understanding each other but it really seemed to me that you didn't read the whole thread before replying, which is quite normal on the forum. How would you like me to express that?

Why it is hilarious is also explained by Despairo in the next line.

Tipstar, as one of their participant create 9 posts in gambling board and 11 posts in non-gambling board, but he's get paid! (Tipstar's post history).

What is hilarious about this? The manager is kicking people out of the campaign without payment with the excuse that writing on gambling boards is prohibited:

And then he pays Tipstar, who writes on gambling boards? I sincerely believe that you have missed something about what's going on here.