Bounty manager trust rating | Bitcointalksearch.org

Welsh

staff

Activity: 3304

Merit: 4115

Quote from: SFR10 on April 29, 2018, 04:07:32 AM

Quote from: humantraffic on April 28, 2018, 05:03:43 PM

I propose to introduce an internal rating of the forum manager with feedback on the similarity of the trust system. For objectivity, this rating will be available only to three ranks: Sr. Member, Hero, Legendary.

I understood and disagree that this would benefit. The trust system is already in place for this kind of thing and I'll say it again bounty campaigns/signature campaigns shouldn't determine the forum. The trust system can be used for identifying bad/good bounty managers. The way I see it is if a campaign manager isn't doing their job like they are promising to their clients then they aren't trustworthy. They are basically receiving Bitcoin or what ever for doing nothing.

I may have gone on a little rant, but that's because it's a huge problem and people seem to think that the forum should be accommodating for the campaigns rather than the other way around.

finaleshot2016

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1009

Degen in the Space

Quote from: coin5haker on April 29, 2018, 10:46:22 AM

Would people choose the bounty based on the trust rating? I doubt so, people check hype, team and mature bounty hunters research about the project first. I see BMs with a negative trust and still running the bounty campaign. They are probably connected with the team or simply doing an excellent job despite the trust. Funny though they only accepting people without a negative trust in the campaign, clearly a double standard.

I definitely agree to you, why should we based on trust rating, seriously? as of now there are massive scams today. The reason why, there are known bounty manager being paid by some ICO to post their promising scam project. Some of them have +trust but doing some fishy things without us knowing it. There are talks behind the devs and the managers. Therefore, it's hard to trust ICO now, it's a full of scam.

Green thingy are just designs, there are also high rank members with huge number of trust are being paid to create fud and accusations to the opponent project. So now if there is someone who disagree about this tell me something that proves i'm wrong.

Note: im not referring all ICO are scam, there are great ICO that has a true goal.

coin5haker

member

Activity: 350

Merit: 16

~bitcoin enthusiast~

Would people choose the bounty based on the trust rating? I doubt so, people check hype, team and mature bounty hunters research about the project first. I see BMs with a negative trust and still running the bounty campaign. They are probably connected with the team or simply doing an excellent job despite the trust. Funny though they only accepting people without a negative trust in the campaign, clearly a double standard.

SFR10

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 3406

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: humantraffic on April 28, 2018, 05:03:43 PM

What do you think about this?

IMO, it's an "unnecessary use of resources":
- If someone (a neutral person) can maintain a similar thread to these (and add some sort of a rating), then there will be no need for such thing (internal rating system for managers):

List of Best Campaign Managers in BCT
Overview of Bitcointalk Signature Campaign managers [Last update: 10-Jan-2016]
Overview of Bitcointalk Campaign managers [Last update: 1-March-2016]

Quote from: Welsh on April 28, 2018, 05:15:34 PM

I would agree that bounties need to have restrictions, but I don't think your suggestions are the way to go about it.

I think you misunderstood his/her proposal (he/she proposed in adding an "internal rating system for managers" and only allowing Sr. members and above to rate):

Quote from: humantraffic on April 28, 2018, 05:03:43 PM

I propose to introduce an internal rating of the forum manager with feedback on the similarity of the trust system. For objectivity, this rating will be available only to three ranks: Sr. Member, Hero, Legendary.

Welsh

staff

Activity: 3304

Merit: 4115

Bounty campaigns/signature campaigns shouldn't determine the forum. I would disagree that bounties are an integral part of the forum. It's great that they are making people money and making their life better, but the forum quality has paid. I would agree that bounties need to have restrictions, but I don't think your suggestions are the way to go about it.

I was initially against hilariousandco's suggested of paid signatures, but I see it as the only solution to end this epidemic.

humantraffic

member

Activity: 616

Merit: 42

Hello everyone!

I understand that many do not like the theme of bounty on the forum. But bounty campaigns are an integral part of this forum. Many forum participants become managers of bounty campaigns. Some of them begin to look down to members of the bounty campaigns, someone works alone, others create whole teams. Every manager/team has its own feature. On this so that a person who decides to participate in the bounty, must know in advance the features of the introduction of the manager.
I propose to introduce an internal rating of the forum manager with feedback on the similarity of the trust system. For objectivity, this rating will be available only to three ranks: Sr. Member, Hero, Legendary. Sr. Member can raise or lower the rating by 0,5, Hero ± 1 and Legendary ± 1,5.
I think this rating will improve mutual understanding between managers and participants.
What do you think about this?

Kind Regards.

Not native English

Topic: Bounty manager trust rating (Read 267 times)