Topic: Bounty manager Anon11073 counted his posts before wearing the signature (Read 329 times)
May 11, 2018, 02:49:04 PM
Bump. No more votes?
May 08, 2018, 02:20:54 PM
He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature
I've never seen or managed any campaign that counts posts like this.The bounty managers are normally shouldnt be in the spreadsheet,because the ICO developers would pay these people weekly and having those accounts in the spreadsheet is clearly an abuse
Even if it's all according to the rules, it's a conflict of interest. I've excluded myself from entering any of the (Bitcoin) giveaway campaigns I've managed in the past, even though Admin told me I could join too. Conflicts of interest can lead to biased decisions, or at least it can appear to be biased. As a campaign manager, it's in your own interest to prevent that from happening, and I choose being neutral over a quick buck.This is ultimately up to the person who is paying *for* the advertising.
True, but it defies common sense, which means that it should explicitely be discussed and published.Quote
As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.
That works both ways: if you start wearing a signature on Monday, someone might read a post you made 3 days earlier on the same day too. One way or another, wearing your signature for less days gives it less exposure.Quote
If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.
As a campaign manager, I would strongly advise against this if a company asks for it. So far I haven't read whether or not they knew about it.Thanks for sharing your experiences and perspectives. It's good to know that it is actually unusual counting and it is usually recommended for bounty managers not to participate their own campaigns. I was trying to send them PM but I couldn't as I am a newbie... What I can do is to post the links to these threads to the original announcement thread of the token.
Edit:
Just posted: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.36713477
May 08, 2018, 06:11:19 AM
This is ultimately up to the person who is paying *for* the advertising.
As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.
If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.
Very well said, if the company is fine with this, it shouldn't be an issue, especially if he's the only user in the bounty. Maybe we should inform the devs? As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.
If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.
May 08, 2018, 06:04:56 AM
He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature
I've never seen or managed any campaign that counts posts like this.The bounty managers are normally shouldnt be in the spreadsheet,because the ICO developers would pay these people weekly and having those accounts in the spreadsheet is clearly an abuse
Even if it's all according to the rules, it's a conflict of interest. I've excluded myself from entering any of the (Bitcoin) giveaway campaigns I've managed in the past, even though Admin told me I could join too. Conflicts of interest can lead to biased decisions, or at least it can appear to be biased. As a campaign manager, it's in your own interest to prevent that from happening, and I choose being neutral over a quick buck.This is ultimately up to the person who is paying *for* the advertising.
True, but it defies common sense, which means that it should explicitely be discussed and published.Quote
As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.
That works both ways: if you start wearing a signature on Monday, someone might read a post you made 3 days earlier on the same day too. One way or another, wearing your signature for less days gives it less exposure.Quote
If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.
As a campaign manager, I would strongly advise against this if a company asks for it. So far I haven't read whether or not they knew about it. May 07, 2018, 11:46:19 PM
This is ultimately up to the person who is paying *for* the advertising.
As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.
If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.
As I mentioned previously, if you make a post on Monday, start wearing a signature advertisement on Wednesday, on Thursday someone might read that post.
If this is something the person paying for the advertising is okay with there is no issue here. It is not your place to tell others how to conduct business.
May 07, 2018, 06:32:13 PM
You insist that I added the rules, but the counting method was definitely the same for everyone.
However, I was the only user in this bounty.
I certainly do not think this is fair.
It reflects your opinion. Please check the spreadsheet.
Thank you for pointing that out. I will send Merit to you.
No way... you shouldn't give me your source merits... again it is your personal use, and even worse for this time, it looks like a bribe... However, I was the only user in this bounty.
I certainly do not think this is fair.
It reflects your opinion. Please check the spreadsheet.
Thank you for pointing that out. I will send Merit to you.
Furthermore, now the poll is "Yes:1 vs No:0" and I'm sure you've just voted "yes", which conflicts with the fact that you admitted your fault and eliminated your stake. If you are really acknowledging me about that and thought that such a counting was inappropriate, the answer should be "No"...
You just wanted to finish the argument asap, sending merits to me and voting "yes"...
May 07, 2018, 06:29:13 PM
The bounty managers are normally shouldnt be in the spreadsheet,because the ICO developers would pay these people weekly and having those accounts in the spreadsheet is clearly an abuse,only those bounty participants should be all there,theres no one can cheat in bounties.You should put this thread into the reputation board so that he will be punished if ever,but i dout be because DTs wont give a shit.
I agree, that should be a clean bounty management. Moved the topic to Reputation section. 
May 07, 2018, 09:11:53 AM
I reported a potential abuse of a bounty manager Anon11073 here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bounty-manager-staff-merit-source-anon11073-embezzling-4000-3488441
He is the bounty manager of cosplay token and joined the signature campaign of his own bounty on 6th April. After 6th April he made 6 posts by Monday, which is less than the minimum requirement of 10 posts per week. Nevertheless, he gave himself a stake for his first week... He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature, which is why he added a stake. He argues that all the participants' counting follow this rule.
I was not sure if it is normal or not... such a counting rule is not written in the rule of the signature campaign, and obviously it is not logical simply because they were posted before wearing the signature. Finally, while he wrote "all the participants", he is the only person who benefits from this special rule.
To me, it looks like he added the special rule only for himself, which is an abuse of his position as the bounty manager, but I was not sure if it is normal counting or not... Any feedback from senior bounty managers/participants would be helpful.
You insist that I added the rules, but the counting method was definitely the same for everyone.He is the bounty manager of cosplay token and joined the signature campaign of his own bounty on 6th April. After 6th April he made 6 posts by Monday, which is less than the minimum requirement of 10 posts per week. Nevertheless, he gave himself a stake for his first week... He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature, which is why he added a stake. He argues that all the participants' counting follow this rule.
I was not sure if it is normal or not... such a counting rule is not written in the rule of the signature campaign, and obviously it is not logical simply because they were posted before wearing the signature. Finally, while he wrote "all the participants", he is the only person who benefits from this special rule.
There certainly was no other user applicable, but posts when not signed were also counted.
I did not add a rule. If I do a bounty campaign in the future, it will count in the same way.
I did not add a rule. If I do a bounty campaign in the future, it will count in the same way.
To me, it looks like he added the special rule only for himself, which is an abuse of his position as the bounty manager, but I was not sure if it is normal counting or not... Any feedback from senior bounty managers/participants would be helpful.
However, I was the only user in this bounty.
I certainly do not think this is fair.
It reflects your opinion. Please check the spreadsheet.
Thank you for pointing that out. I will send Merit to you.
May 06, 2018, 06:14:55 PM
The bounty managers are normally shouldnt be in the spreadsheet,because the ICO developers would pay these people weekly and having those accounts in the spreadsheet is clearly an abuse,only those bounty participants should be all there,theres no one can cheat in bounties.You should put this thread into the reputation board so that he will be punished if ever,but i dout be because DTs wont give a shit.
May 06, 2018, 04:29:50 PM
I reported a potential abuse by a bounty manager Anon11073 here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bounty-manager-staff-merit-source-anon11073-embezzling-4000-3488441
[ Off-topic but he is a merit source and his abuse of 30 source merits was reported here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-abuse-by-merit-source-anon11073-update-30-merits-abused-3443147 ]
He is the bounty manager of cosplay token and joined the signature campaign of his own bounty on 6th April. After 6th April he made 6 posts by Monday, which is less than the minimum requirement of 10 posts per week. Nevertheless, he gave himself a stake for his first week... He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature, which is why he added a stake. He argues that all the participants' counting follow this rule.
I was not sure if it is normal or not... such a counting rule is not written in the rule of the signature campaign, and obviously it is not logical simply because they were posted before wearing the signature. Finally, while he wrote "all the participants", he is the only person who benefits from this special rule.
To me, it looks like he added the special rule only for himself, which is an abuse of his position as the bounty manager, but I was not sure if it is normal counting or not... Any feedback from senior bounty managers/participants would be helpful.
[ Off-topic but he is a merit source and his abuse of 30 source merits was reported here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/merit-abuse-by-merit-source-anon11073-update-30-merits-abused-3443147 ]
He is the bounty manager of cosplay token and joined the signature campaign of his own bounty on 6th April. After 6th April he made 6 posts by Monday, which is less than the minimum requirement of 10 posts per week. Nevertheless, he gave himself a stake for his first week... He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature, which is why he added a stake. He argues that all the participants' counting follow this rule.
I was not sure if it is normal or not... such a counting rule is not written in the rule of the signature campaign, and obviously it is not logical simply because they were posted before wearing the signature. Finally, while he wrote "all the participants", he is the only person who benefits from this special rule.
There certainly was no other user applicable, but posts when not signed were also counted.
I did not add a rule. If I do a bounty campaign in the future, it will count in the same way.
I did not add a rule. If I do a bounty campaign in the future, it will count in the same way.
To me, it looks like he added the special rule only for himself, which is an abuse of his position as the bounty manager, but I was not sure if it is normal counting or not... Any feedback from senior bounty managers/participants would be helpful.
Jump to: