It's just like any other deal. You have a promise to pay and a risk of not getting paid. Like e.g. if you buy a trinket and risk that the seller won't deliver. Nothing wrong with positive trust here, if it's not extorted/solicited/begged/reciprocated etc.
Edit: another way to look at it - if the opposite happened, i.e. campaign manager didn't pay on time/correctly/etc, would they get a type 2/3 flag (contract violation). If so, then positive trust rating for paying on time/correctly/etc is justified IMO.
Topic: About giving campaign managers positive feedback for 'just' doing their job. (Read 96 times)
Today at 05:22:47 PM
Today at 04:32:53 PM
But I simply wonder if it is not more optimal to leave a positive feedback if there is a reason other than that.
Most campaign managers are entrusted with huge sums of money and they disburse them adequately without bias and complaints. Anyone who can be trusted with money deserve positive trust and all the good praises showered on them. I remember some managers that even pay from their pocket in weeks that their client stop communicating, I don't want to mention name but I have seen at least two managers do that which shows that they value their integrity more than anything, and hence deserve appreciation in anyway we deem necessary. If you see how greedy some bounty managers (in the altcoins service board) are in terms of stealing the funds of campaign given to them to manage after collecting service charge, you will know that the bitcoin service board managers are decent and should be appreciated for job always well done.
Today at 04:28:00 PM
If someone receives Bitcoins worth thousands of dollars from a company, but then decides to distribute it as intended by the brand that is being advertised rather than scam it, then tell us why they don't deserve positive feedback.
If the manager is doing a great job with different signature campaigns and handling the funds well, then other brands that may be planning to advertise around the forum need to know this, thus the positive feedback. That's the whole purpose of the feedback system. Simple as that.
If the manager is doing a great job with different signature campaigns and handling the funds well, then other brands that may be planning to advertise around the forum need to know this, thus the positive feedback. That's the whole purpose of the feedback system. Simple as that.
Today at 03:30:57 PM
Giving a feedback is been determined on the transaction you have done with someone, it be determined on how sincere the person is to you, so your feedback to any user means you trust the user and other people who wants to partner with the user will not be scared of working with person....so you can give a manager of signature campaign feedback base on holding of the funds company paid to their escrow for them to discharge payment at appropriate time to people who promotes their brands....so the trust you have on them and love you have on their managerial activities is due for you to give them feedback...but it's not compulsory that everyone most give same feedback, it's individual concerns.
Today at 03:11:04 PM
Making payments on time could trigger positive feedback. Simply choosing your application for one of the last spots (for example) would not be nearly as good of a reason, imo.
Today at 02:52:47 PM
But I simply wonder if it is not more optimal to leave a positive feedback if there is a reason other than that.
This is among the criteria I believe those clients will possibly checked. It's about handling funds and being good manager in regards to meeting to time and the likes. Although I won't disregard the fact that some might do this just to gain the manager attention...
Today at 02:36:06 PM
But I simply wonder if it is not more optimal to leave a positive feedback if there is a reason other than that.
Managers with a proven track record of integrity on the forum can be trusted beyond just campaign management. Holding large funds and delivering reliable services is akin to acting as a reputable escrow, prioritizing their client satisfaction along the way.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1565
The first decentralized crypto betting platform
Today at 01:56:55 PM
This is something I have thought about many times as I have participated in many campaigns over time and have not, so far, left positive feedback to any manager.
Should we give them positive feedback for doing their job?
When I see the many positive feedbacks that different managers have on their profiles, I think that the most optimal ones are those that refer to something other than simply doing the job they have to do, such as having taken money out of their own pocket when they had not yet received the funds from the company, or relocating participants to other campaigns when a campaign is over.
I don't want this to be understood as a criticism of those who do leave positive feedback simply because they have been involved in the ‘xxx’ campaign for a long time or in various ‘xxxx’ manager campaigns, because after all it is logical that if someone manages campaigns that over time add up to a lot of bitcoins dealt with, this will be reflected in their profile. That's why I put ‘just’ in quotation marks because if at the end of the year they have handled a lot of bitcoins that is an clear indication of their trustworthiness.
But I simply wonder if it is not more optimal to leave a positive feedback if there is a reason other than that.
Should we give them positive feedback for doing their job?
When I see the many positive feedbacks that different managers have on their profiles, I think that the most optimal ones are those that refer to something other than simply doing the job they have to do, such as having taken money out of their own pocket when they had not yet received the funds from the company, or relocating participants to other campaigns when a campaign is over.
I don't want this to be understood as a criticism of those who do leave positive feedback simply because they have been involved in the ‘xxx’ campaign for a long time or in various ‘xxxx’ manager campaigns, because after all it is logical that if someone manages campaigns that over time add up to a lot of bitcoins dealt with, this will be reflected in their profile. That's why I put ‘just’ in quotation marks because if at the end of the year they have handled a lot of bitcoins that is an clear indication of their trustworthiness.
But I simply wonder if it is not more optimal to leave a positive feedback if there is a reason other than that.
Jump to: