Do you think campaign managers enrol their alts in their own campaigns?

[babo]

The poll was not based on facts, it was based on opinions 

None of the members (including myself) are obligated to produce evidence of certain campaign managers cheating because they (and I) are expressing opinions. Believe me, if I had evidence that a certain manager was cheating his employers I would have posted it.

I cannot speak for others but in my opinion just by looking at some of the participants selected by a certain campaign manager in a recent campaign raises questions.

Don't worry, I was just talking, I don't care, I was also giving my opinion.
Everyone has and should have their own opinions and that's right.

Telegram bot notifier helps me and saves my life, thanks for your reply.
In any case, it is legitimate to have doubts, it helps to understand and improve.

[Fiasem20]

It's actually a greedy act for any campaign manager to enroll their alts in their own campaigns.A reputable manager would never do such.Come to think of it,it will be stressful too for a CM to carryout such activities,for example counting constructive posts and marking spreadsheets and many other duties of a campaign manager, don't you think it would be cumbersome for a campaign manager to enroll their alts and still carryout the duties of a manager.Just imagine if a manager has 5 alts and all 5 alts are in he's campaigns and it's expected of all he's employees to make 30 eligible posts weekly in all he's campaign, meaning the manager will make 150 posts weekly, that would be too stressful for any unreputable campaign manager to make such decision to maximise profit.

[JollyGood]

You raise valid concerns but without evidence nothing can be stated as a matter of fact. That was the reason I created the thread with the question asking members if they thought certain campaign managers were enrolling their alts in their own campaigns. As the poll shows, over 55% believe certain campaign managers are cheating their employers.

Operating an account farm is usually the work of more than person therefore if a dubious campaign manager enrolls alt-accounts in their campaigns, the chances are they are operated by others on their behalf.

It's actually a greedy act for any campaign manager to enroll their alts in their own campaigns.A reputable manager would never do such.Come to think of it,it will be stressful too for a CM to carryout such activities,for example counting constructive posts and marking spreadsheets and many other duties of a campaign manager, don't you think it would be cumbersome for a campaign manager to enroll their alts and still carryout the duties of a manager.Just imagine if a manager has 5 alts and all 5 alts are in he's campaigns and it's expected of all he's employees to make 30 eligible posts weekly in all he's campaign, meaning the manager will make 150 posts weekly, that would be too stressful for any unreputable campaign manager to make such decision to maximise profit.

[NotATether]

They don't need to. Most campaigns usually pay out a bonus to the manager that is larger than what a participant would get. Why would anyone want the extra work of having to make 30 more posts a day? 

[Rikafip]

They don't need to.

They don't need to, but some of them probably do that, and more likely those are considered as "low level' managers that accept basically any offer and don't choose much. So when they get to manage ionce, why not maximize the profit.

Having said that, I don't think that happens often, at least not in bitcoin signature campaigns, while I can see it happening en masse in altccoin bounty campaigns.

[JollyGood]

They would probably want to do it because they can enroll their own farmed accounts and take the money instead of hiring worthy accounts and sharing the payments with fellow members. If they follow the "borovichok" farmed account process, it is very easy to do.

They don't need to. Most campaigns usually pay out a bonus to the manager that is larger than what a participant would get. Why would anyone want the extra work of having to make 30 more posts a day? 

[BenCodie]

Interesting results in the poll. The farmed and alt accounts voting for 0% while those who see through the veil voting 20%+?

I think it's less likely that a single campaign manager is enrolling their own alts in campaigns, and that it's more likely that a group of people affiliated with campaign managers/trusted members of the forum are cheating campaigns.

I think what could be quite confidently said is that there is a problem of farmed accounts on the forum, and that the corruption that exists within merit sources and trusted members has enabled this problem.

[nutildah]

I think it's less likely that a single campaign manager is enrolling their own alts in campaigns, and that it's more likely that a group of people affiliated with campaign managers/trusted members of the forum are cheating campaigns.

I think what could be quite confidently said is that there is a problem of farmed accounts on the forum, and that the corruption that exists within merit sources and trusted members has enabled this problem.

I think you don't know what you're talking about and are just making stuff up. For the 5th or so time, your assumption about "corruption" would be more convincing if you actually bothered to provide the slightest shred of evidence that supports your accusations, but yet again, you refuse to do so; I'm guessing out of sheer laziness. You want to just talk shit with zero recourse. So there's absolutely no reason to take anything you have to say seriously. Anyone can make any kind of accusation, but without something to back it up, it means nothing.

[BenCodie]

I think it's less likely that a single campaign manager is enrolling their own alts in campaigns, and that it's more likely that a group of people affiliated with campaign managers/trusted members of the forum are cheating campaigns.

I think what could be quite confidently said is that there is a problem of farmed accounts on the forum, and that the corruption that exists within merit sources and trusted members has enabled this problem.

I think you don't know what you're talking about and are just making stuff up. For the 5th or so time, your assumption about "corruption" would be more convincing if you actually bothered to provide the slightest shred of evidence that supports your accusations, but yet again, you refuse to do so; I'm guessing out of sheer laziness. You want to just talk shit with zero recourse. So there's absolutely no reason to take anything you have to say seriously. Anyone can make any kind of accusation, but without something to back it up, it means nothing.

Time will show that I am not making anything up, and for anyone who can not wait and wants to use their eyes (which for some reason you choose not to do), they can see the corruption (account farming, campaign abuse, merit abuse, and so on) happening by merit sources and trusted members of the forum, if they look closely enough using a tool like bpip.

I don't refuse to provide evidence, I am just refusing to do so prematurely. I don't want to post something with holes in it, I want it to be indisputable (especially due to it lacking blockchain evidence in some areas, given the sophisticated nature of who is involved). There's a very big difference between refusing to publish something and not being ready to publish something. I have compiled enough to be certain enough in what I am saying, though have not completed the full extent of work to present it publicly. It's also not laziness, I've said the latter and the following reasons why I have not posted dozens of times before too:
1. There are several cases I am building which all involve members/entities that have a lot of power on this forum therefore the threads need to be delicately presented and indisputable, otherwise it will backfire and my ass will be handed to me from people like you who would purposefully find holes/missing info in order to invalidate the claims.
2. I am time poor. I do not spend an awful lot of time on this forum and the task of getting the threads into a presentable and indisputable form is one that takes time and effort that ultimately does not serve me in the slightest, other than the satisfaction of taking down some assholes that are exploiting the forum, and to prove the 20+ (maybe 30+ at this point) quotes of yours wrong.

Why you won't accept these answers and continue to post the same thing over and over and over again still bamboozles me, because each time you post the same thing, you are making it clearer now and in the future that you are someone who is willing to leverage their name and trust in attempt to hurt the credibility of others.

You may feel like you're successfully leveraging your name and status to invalidate mine with each of your posts, though you should be aware that it will all backfire when a wall of 20+ quotes from you posted denying the problem is posted alongside the main topics, showing that you not only denied existence of a big problem on the forum, but you did so in such an extensive way that it is one reason (among others) that show you may even be involved in it (another reason being that you have investigative ability and yet refuse to use it for this topic).

You should realize that when this is all over, someone (or I) will reference the wall of 20+ quotes of you denying existence of a problem, trying to take away someone's credibility, labeling them as a troll and so on, just as you are doing to me. I almost want to delay this process further than circumstance just so you can continue adding to the quotes (I won't, I'm working at the pace my time allows).

I should note too that I am speaking to you as if you are innocent. I still highly doubt you are based on the way you are behaving. You have shown that you are an investigator and that you can easily see a problem like this one if you wanted to, though it seems you're choosing negligence instead. The question I ask myself is if it's out of spite for me (I find it unlikely as this problem existed long before I pointed it out) or if it's due to involvement/protecting people who are involved/profiting from the issue.

[nutildah]

Time will show that I am not making anything up, and for anyone who can not wait and wants to use their eyes (which for some reason you choose not to do), they can see the corruption (account farming, campaign abuse, merit abuse, and so on) happening by merit sources and trusted members of the forum, if they look closely enough using a tool like bpip.

Blah blah blah... this is like the 10th time you've said the exact same thing, just giving excuses for talking trash with nothing to back it up. I'm putting you on ignore as you're clearly wasting everyone's time. I suggest everyone else do the same.


Edit: I know I rip on this guy a lot but I haven't seen this level of hubris on display in quite a while. When anyone makes shitty claims against anyone here, accusing someone of wrongdoing or basically attacking their reputation, we as a forum should demand proof to back it up. If such proof isn't provided, then we should just assume the person is lying and their words should be deemed non-credible.

[BenCodie]

Time will show that I am not making anything up, and for anyone who can not wait and wants to use their eyes (which for some reason you choose not to do), they can see the corruption (account farming, campaign abuse, merit abuse, and so on) happening by merit sources and trusted members of the forum, if they look closely enough using a tool like bpip.

Blah blah blah... this is like the 10th time you've said the exact same thing, just giving excuses for talking trash with nothing to back it up. I'm putting you on ignore as you're clearly wasting everyone's time. I suggest everyone else do the same.

"Blah blah blah"? How old are you
My response can't be much different when you follow me around just to instigate the same debate, and then never respond to the replies.

Time will show that I am not making anything up, and for anyone who can not wait and wants to use their eyes (which for some reason you choose not to do), they can see the corruption (account farming, campaign abuse, merit abuse, and so on) happening by merit sources and trusted members of the forum, if they look closely enough using a tool like bpip.

Edit: I know I rip on this guy a lot but I haven't seen this level of hubris on display in quite a while. When anyone makes shitty claims against anyone here, accusing someone of wrongdoing or basically attacking their reputation, we as a forum should demand proof to back it up. If such proof isn't provided, then we should just assume the person is lying and their words should be deemed non-credible.

You see it as ripping, I see it as setting yourself up for damaging your own credibility. Yes, I am certain in what I say, because I have all of the necessary proof to prove what I'm talking about - it just hasn't been posted yet. You are only posting what you are posting to try and trick readers into thinking my word is not credible in advance, so that when the proof is posted, you can try to dismiss it once it is posted. I am not lying, and I will provide the proof. I've already explained the reasons why it has not been provided. You are dismissing those (quite valid) reasons so that you can call me a liar.

Also, let me ask you, who specifically am I attacking in my more recent posts? I've asked you and other specific questions so that I can get answers and yet I've been left unanswered or answered in a way that only incriminates you/who I've asked further in most cases. Though recently, when you come here to respond to me (for example in this post), who's reputation am I attacking in my original post?

I think it's less likely that a single campaign manager is enrolling their own alts in campaigns, and that it's more likely that a group of people affiliated with campaign managers/trusted members of the forum are cheating campaigns.

I think what could be quite confidently said is that there is a problem of farmed accounts on the forum, and that the corruption that exists within merit sources and trusted members has enabled this problem.

I don't see any names here. Is it because you already know the names?