Is sig campaign with 3 separate threads and 3 different CM allowed?

[lovesmayfamilis]

Does this mean the company is checking managers' ability to recruit participants according to company standards? After all, only the people themselves will be an indicator of a manager's success. Similarly, applicants themselves should choose one manager under whose "flag" they would prefer to promote their casino. Given that the reputation of one is already somewhat tarnished, a choice must be made between two, as I understand it. And here the choice should be made not only between the managers, whose skill I do not question, but also between the participants themselves.

[dkbit98]

I don't see anything wrong with this, it's not breaking any forum rules, and those campaigns probably have slightly different rules.
If I was a manager I would probably do things differently, but maybe there is a good reason to split campaigns for some reason, and company maybe wants to see what manager is best working for them.

[Moreno233]

Below response from God of Thunder shows that the company intend to run three parallel campaigns which is not against the forum rules. As GOT stated in his reponse, they might be experimenting something, probably to see which manager return the most traffic to their platform. From what I have seen, each of the manager's signature are given unique code which make it easy to track the service they are driving to the platform.

My campaign has nothing to do with the other ones.
Bitz team is doing an experiment. The escrow wallet is likely to be refilled today or tomorrow.

Cheers!

Edit: Escrow wallet was refilled.

[Man of peace]

Well I have gone through some many comments concerning the topic of discussion and I find out that almost everyone that i have gone through their replies is saying  the same thing,point hands at the same place that there's no rules against signatures campaign being managed by 2 or 3 persons which I agree with them because since the very  signature campaign in question is not the first signature campaign that have been managed by more than one person and nothing has happened ,it therefore means that there's no rules in the forum that is against such act in the signature campaign ..

And I believe that the company who wishes to have more than one person to manage their campaign have their reasons best known to them and that is not really our concern rather our focus should be on how they were able to move on and provide a good service to their company and  to the customer at large..

[FirmWars]

To my knowledge, one of the manager has confirmed that the team are doing experiment for the other 2 campaigns,  another manager said that he is not sure if the campaign will last more than a week or two. So, it's obvious that this is not a spam but the team of this company did want this and they are doing it for a reason to select one best manager at the end of the day. Based on the comment of a moderator about issues like this, it's not against the community rules. The project team can chose what they want too for their campaign and the manager might not actually have too much of an objection.

[GeorgeJohn]

I already asked about the other campaigns, and they said that those campaigns have nothing to do with mine. They want to check the campaign managers and the results they get from the campaigns.

They wants to evaluate every campaign manager working with them results...You need to let them know that given campaign to different managers, it will cause a controversial issues...evaluating results of work done, by 3 different managers needed to be done one after the other...by pausing one and start another one...I think their's a competition in signature management.

I don't see anything wrong with this, it's not breaking any forum rules, and those campaigns probably have slightly different rules.
If I was a manager I would probably do things differently, but maybe there is a good reason to split campaigns for some reason, and company maybe wants to see what manager is best working for them.

After reading the rules of signature campaign management, I found out that the 3 managers did not break the rules, maybe the casino needed expansion...

With the look of things and some explanations here, it seems that the representative of the casino is the one contacting this managers...it would have been problem if the managers is the one contacting the reps of the casino for promotion...or the managers seems management as a competition

[The Cryptovator]

This post is nothing against any campaign manager or the campaign itself. My goal is simply to ask whether this setup is allowed and if it aligns with bitcointalk’s effort to reduce spam and keep the forum clean.

There are no such specific rules regarding launching a signature campaign, which means they are allowed as long as they pay the participants. I don't think it does increase spam, because hiring 100 participants through a single manager or dividing it among 3 different managers doesn't change anything. The fact is if managers choose spammers, then it would increase spam. Often new campaigns have been launching; it doesn't mean it's to increase spam.

I want to make this thread self moderated but it looks like I can't as this being posted in meta board. I want to delete the reply if someone mentioned the site.

Doesn't make sense; everyone knows about it. Posting on Meta just doesn't mean they will be focused, either negatively or positively. As long as they aren't breaking forum rules, they might launch multiple campaigns through different managers to check the outcome. I am not sure if it does work; if you can't create a self-moderator thread, then you may add the rules to the bottom of your post about not posting the link or campaign name. So you may report to the moderator that they are breaking your post rules. I haven't tested it, but you may try.

[Chibit01]

They wants to evaluate every campaign manager working with them results...You need to let them know that given campaign to different managers, it will cause a controversial issues...evaluating results of work done, by 3 different managers needed to be done one after the other...by pausing one and start another one...I think their's a competition in signature management.

Tracking this won’t be hard for the company if they are using same method which governs affiliates marketing every manager will have a separate tracking ID or link attached to their signature code which from the company side they could be able to track how much traffic was generated from one manager it’s easy for such to be tracked if they know how to handle it the right way.

The only place which it could become controversial is, many people might not access a site through signature code seeing a particular company being promoted everywhere could give them a reason to test it which some will prefer to go through the ANN thread of that company than just clicking on the code, which is such is done none of the managers might take credit for such.

[rat03gopoh]

They wants to evaluate every campaign manager working with them results...You need to let them know that given campaign to different managers, it will cause a controversial issues...evaluating results of work done, by 3 different managers needed to be done one after the other...by pausing one and start another one...I think their's a competition in signature management.

I don't see the benefit, unless the bitz will submit their evaluation results to their respective managers or present them on this forum for other companies to see.
I don't think that's the motive; this isn't about selecting the best managers.

[God Of Thunder]

They wants to evaluate every campaign manager working with them results...You need to let them know that given campaign to different managers, it will cause a controversial issues...evaluating results of work done, by 3 different managers needed to be done one after the other...by pausing one and start another one...I think their's a competition in signature management.

I disagree.
The companies could choose to go with anyone. They can run three or even more campaigns at the same time, if they want, as long as the forum rules do not forbid them. If you think that there will be a problem between the managers, that's not correct either. We all are aware that the company is running the other campaign for experiment purpose and they will go with someone with better result. It is understandable. None of the campaign manager reached the company, but the company itself reached the campaign managers. So, I don't see any problems at all.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I don't see the benefit, unless the bitz will submit their evaluation results to their respective managers or present them on this forum for other companies to see.
I don't think that's the motive; this isn't about selecting the best managers.

What? Are you drunk already? Every signature from every campaign run by every manager has a different tracking code, so they simply look at the results and see which one has brought in the most traffic. I don't think they're going to present those results to other companies or publicly on the forum unless they're drunk too.

[macson]

I bet you're talking about the sigs I'm wearing right now.

I haven't found any rules prohibiting a campaign from using three or more campaign managers at once. Well, that's their business, whatever the reason, but as long as they pay the CM and participants, it's no problem at all.

My goal is simply to ask whether this setup is allowed and if it aligns with bitcointalk’s effort to reduce spam and keep the forum clean.

Moderators and reputable users are already making greater efforts to combat spammers. Reputable CMs are also more selective about participants for their campaigns. So this shouldn't be a problem.

[rat03gopoh]

What? Are you drunk already?

Yes, I'm drunk, everyone's drunk, except you. These manager's recruiters is drunk too, haha...
Rollbit
?topic=5475372.0, By Hh
?topic=5326641.0, By Hh

Epicbet
?topic=5561906.0, By GoT
?topic=5561905.0, By GoT
 
So do you think the company's motive for having each manager compete with each other will work this way? And why would they do it?
I agree with you on this part,

so they simply look at the results and see which one has brought in the most traffic.

but making managers compete is just a hyperbolic perspective.

[Mpamaegbu]

Maybe the casino wants to compare the "results" from each of the managers, so they know which one to move forward with.

It was the same thought that occured to me when I observed that. Perhaps all three campaigns with their managers will have peculiar links that relate to each manager. Otherwise, tracking what came from what won't be possible. By the way, even those who click and sign up from users wearing campaign logos and signature do that at random. I'm not sure anyone looks at who's wearing what signature before they click on it. Yeah, I know where one posts also determines if they're going to have enough clicks or not because of traffic there. I believe that's why sometimes managers choose from certain demographics while making their selections.

[GeorgeJohn]

<...>

I disagree.
The companies could choose to go with anyone. They can run three or even more campaigns at the same time, if they want, as long as the forum rules do not forbid them. If you think that there will be a problem between the managers, that's not correct either. We all are aware that the company is running the other campaign for experiment purpose and they will go with someone with better result. It is understandable. None of the campaign manager reached the company, but the company itself reached the campaign managers. So, I don't see any problems at all.

Based on my experience here, I haven't seen a same campaigns running with 3 different manager at a time, but i have seen same campaign split into three managed with same person, i think it's convenient for same campaign manager split it campaigns than spreading same campaigns to different person's at a time....

I have said it before and I will say it again, with this method of expansion, it will bring dislikes between the managers, because I know that, at end of this drama one manager will stand firm and manage the campaign and others will not be happy, despite that we are not seeing each other faces.