Topic: Bounty managers and newbie bounty hunters (Read 772 times)

Well, I suspect I do know a bit about bounties. I participated in the past, saw the good and the ugly of it. I benefited from some as a hunter and lost many too. I dare say that not all bounties are scams and I believe it's on that premise that many hunters subscribe to help advertise them. However, I don't think that feeling is mutual between hunters and the bounties because some of these bounty projects have it set to scam the public from the beginning. I once called out a project here in the past and it was on a scammy behaviour. Going forward, my candid advice is for newbies who indulge bounties to put in more efforts at their posts so they can rank up. With that they can get into Bitcoin paying campaigns.

I'm only speaking in defence of the innocent ones who are in genuine need of money and erroneously believe that enrolling in bounties is the way out.

How interesting. I think you know the whole purpose of bounty companies, don't you? Bounty hunters must advertise the project to attract new investors. Do all hunters care what and when to advertise? If they attract people with their diligence who later invest their money in a scam and then turn out to be deceived, how many of them will be very upset? You know, I don't think there's even one. The only thing your poor bounty hunters care about is getting their shitcoins, no matter how or in what way they are mined. I do not deny that someone is really honest, but mostly cheaters "work." Why should we pity them? They deceive some and then get the opposite.

No one is forcing them to advertise scams at gunpoint. So stop being very compassionate. If a thief has nothing to eat, this does not justify his theft.

Sometimes, I feel for these beginners because I know an appreciable number of them enrol in bounties so they can make some money to put food on the table. Sadly, most projects exploit their navity and deny them what is rightly due to them at the end of bounties. They often don't get paid. These scumbag managers know newbies are likely not going to open threads to drag their reputations or have the ability to get DTs to tag those fraudulent projects and their managers. They exploit them to no end. I hate to see this and have ceased visiting bounty threads for a long time now. The altcoin section, honestly, needs to be sanitizer.

This discussion will remain as discussion only if managers will just talk about this and doesn't implement this new rules to their campaign so there must be one reputable campaign manager should implement this rule so that the rules on bounty campaigns will slowly change and we can see a huge decline of newbie accounts abusing some campaigns here.

Hm I don't see how this Twitter blue thing will affect the bounty campaigns as everyone will still be able to use twitter normally like before, without paying. Its just that blue checkmark thing will be easily available for everyone willing to pay $8 per month ( I read that is already available in a few countries). Well, unless manager don't start putting that as a requirement to join, which of course won't happen.

Whether they are paid in tokens or anything else the number of users that join should at least be real, not 10 people with 50 accounts. Anyways, I think we are going to start seeing a lot less participants in Twitter campaigns once the 8$ per month fee starts nor that Elon Musk is monetizing Twitter. 

I was going to say the exact words of yours.
I'm sorry that I am unable to read through the whole thread, but replying based on this last comment. I have been kinda busy.
I have seen some accounts with legendary activity buy still newbies.
Someone who is promoting a project on Twitter has no business with the forum but to drop daily or weekly links. And no one gives merit to bunches of bounty links. This means some accounts can stay upto 6 months without receiving a single merit. So, waiting for aome accounts to rank up to jr member might not happen.

Usually in bounty campaign we see thousands of hunters to join and almost all of them are newbie who joined long ago but never received any merit or ranked even above to Jr. If you ask Members minimum and tell the payment will be in worthless token then all of them will drop. In a campaign finding may be 20 users will be difficult.

On the other hand, someone who is promoting a project on Twitter, he really do not need to have a good forum account. It's require for signature campaign.

Setting an entry level to Member and above will certainly reduce on spam tremendously but then again most campaigns won't get the desired exposure as this is a game of numbers when it comes to marketing a project, I suppose a condition of say 100 constructive posts should be made in the last 120 days or previous 3months and things should get better from here.

I know many of them cheated but 67 accounts could belong to a few people who work in a group. I am not taking any side here but I still think most of the newbies are legit users. The problem is few cheaters hold too many accounts that look like there are lots of bounty cheaters. I support your decision though it will hurt all types of hunters. But sometimes we need to be curled to be kind.

Sure, they'll get reported, but if hundreds of Newbies start shitposting the tech boards hoping to earn some Merit, good users will abandon those boards too.

I have nothing against Newbies on the tech boards, but they should be there for the right reasons.

Most people do That brings us back to the few people with many alt-accounts who earn from spamming.

They need to receive merits to get higher ranks and that is not so easy if someone is shitposting spam everywhere, and they will certainly get reported sooner or later.
I would suggest members to spend they merits more carefully, but you can't force newbies to stay isolated in bounty boards, unless some rule change happens.

Most of them accept Bitcoin, but you can check their individual topic pages to see what coins they accept for payment.
I know for a fact that Lauda accepted bunch of shitcoins like Elrond and others for his work (along with Bitcoin), but he probably sold them all for Bitcoin or fiat later.

Every merchandise finds it's buyer, and it's like cat and mouse game, trying to sell this tokens on time.
No name managers with shitty campaigns are attracting no name spammers, so they are almost living in parallel bitcointalk universe.
I think we should have some rating for managers, and people should generally avoid participating in any campaigns that don't pay at least partially in escrowed Bitcoin.

From my view manager should allow only from member rank on a certain bounty campaign and I believe it will reduced the act of being cheated because losing a member account could be very painful to them but just Jr. Members can be easily generated since it requires only a merits to rank up to jr by which manager risk could also be reduced and you know when there is no much newbies tension reduces, trust me newbies are the worst sets of people to deals with.

This proves a point I was making.

When paying with altcoin will not be allowed then 99.9% of those scam projects can not advertise on the forum. Since they can not advertise, 382 newbie account will not be created and send abusive merit to rank to Jr. The remaining 0.1% are considering legit project and they would have fair amount of budget to spend. Since they will pay cash, they will obviously hire users who have good work ethics and capable to follow instructions.

It's both way beneficial. Forum will get rid of those newbie bounty hunters accounts, at least they know that they will need to have a good account reputation to join a bounty so they will become serious. Legit projects will get organic traffic to their projects who will actually buy their offers.

Here is my opinion,
Tagging managers won't be a good point. Because spam and DT system isn't the same. If a newbie can create a bounty thread then why should the manager be tagged due to accepting newbies? We don't have a manager's community here where we can discuss everything. It seems anyone could be a manager even newbies. So I do not agree with tagging managers unless they do a crime.

I agree with not allowing newbies to the bounty campaign but this is only possible if the forum prevents them to post on the bounty section or all the managers together decide that. Everyone here has the right to earn, but let them become mature. Just joining bounty isn't a good practice. Whoever even can't earn merit we can't expect a good result from them whether it's a bounty or any other thing. We know most bounty hunters are just like bots. Even their social media are botted.

Eventually, it's will exist the same if the forum doesn't prevent them from posting on the bounty section.

Unfortunately this will never happen. As a few have already said, these companies pay in shit tokens which makes it little risk for them. It's done that way deliberately, so they have little to no risk. They lose the cost of making the token ($20-100), the cost of a manager (tokens-$200 or whatever is negotiated, and they risk time to possibly sell a load of worthless tokens. 99.9% of bounties are a scam that never list or if they do they list on a shit exchange with little to no buy support.

So getting them to pay everyone in an established coin will be nearly impossible. Also like others have stated, there are plenty of no named managers who will always take a campaign no matter what their payment method is.

I think starting with junior member will be kind of low, one person can just struggle to rank one of his account to member rank which after getting to member rank, he will start giving his alt accounts 1 merit which automatically his alt accounts are already in junior member, but if managers set standard to be member rank and above, it will be difficult for a bounty hunter to rank all his account to member rank, if you receive 10 merits, you will be able to send only 5 merits, so even if he will be sharing merits among his alt accounts it won't be easy, and he will be exposed easily if the alts account are not making quality posts and they keep on receiving merit from the same user.
Just assume a user with 5 alts accounts was caught and given negative trust, am sure it will really affect the user and he won't just create another multiple accounts because he knows even if he create them it won't be easy to rank up to member rank, so the user will just create one and focus on it, which some people wont even be able to rank 1 account up to member rank so they will have to give up.

If I look roughly, there are more beginners than the Jr. members. Members in this forum, probably a larger percentage of beginners than members who rank high as Jr. equivalent, if beginners are no longer allowed to register in the Bounty campaign, I think many bounty companies die, the company's target is not achieved, as well as the forum will have a negative effect.

I see a bigger percentage of Bounty campaigns promoting on YouTube, Articles, Tiktok, Telegram, Twitter, Facebook etc. this media is mostly used by beginners, high ranking members rarely use these media, Moreover, the Bounty campaign for signatures is also very minimal, plus tokens that have no selling value in the market, I think that banning beginners in Bounty can have a negative effect on the forum and also Bounty companies that want to advertise.

---

In my opinion, if the Bounty campaign, beginners are not allowed to enter, it's better to just change the Bounties (Altcoins) board into a discussion board, all Bounty companies that advertise on this forum must take Bitcoin payment methods, not tokens, implement a full (signature) based campaign.
Question...! is it possible, of course I don't think so, it's the same if all Bounty managers forbid newbies to promote their Bounty campaigns in social media methods, regardless of the Alt account involved or not...that's a different story.

The problem is here.

That's the source of the problem, I know beginners often create Alt accounts with more than two or three accounts to get profit and luck in the same Bounty/token.

Back to the basic rules, having multiple accounts is not banned, while they obey the existing rules, both forum rules and bounty rules, this is a problem that has not been resolved so far, they still violate, even though they have been caught several.

Back to the main problem, just think of it in this forum as living in the real world, the problems are endless, criminal acts still exist, even though the laws and rules are enforced, let the rookies do their activities in the Bounty campaign and let the police work by the existing rules.

Theymos don't care what happens in the bounty section because it doesn't benefit the forum financially. It's an independent business, and only the campaign managers can set a certain set of rules, but the community still has the right to fight dishonesty by informing and suggesting managers rules, and anyone who does not follow it may face some sort of punishment...

Haha, no genuine newbie will find his way to the bounty sections on his first day, isn't that one of the forum's hidden sub-boards? It was one of my key findings alts back then. Hah

Some time ago I talked to one of the team members of one altcoin project that had bounty campaign here and because altcoin was already listed on some solid exchanges there was a lot of interest. After bounty campaign was over they distributed tokens and since they weren't satisfied with the results, he did some blockchain analysis that showed how in reality no more than 10 people grabbed 90% of the tokens, while ~500 people were awarded with tokens. So yeah, its definitely controlled by a small group of people.


That's the thing, they don't get good exposure as all those alt accounts usually follow each other so reach is non existent while I"m sure that bounty managers promise something else.


From what I noticed, bounty managers usually have their own Telegram groups from where they got all those bounty hunters to join, and joining that group is a must, like for example in this bounty campaign so i don't think that it would be that hard to identify them even if they use alt accounts.


Aren't managers usually paid in BTC or some other already listed currency? Well, at least those with some reputation.


Bounty hunters destroying the projects? They usually get tokens when they are completely worthless so if bounty hunters manage so i seriously doubt that.

---

@yahoo62278 have you ever tried implementing this rule, of no newbies joining the campaign? If not, maybe its worth a try just to see how it will work out and how many participants you would get.

Let the bounty hunters to get paid by established coins if not bitcoin for their work. Managers will not need to worry about allowing newbies because the genuine members will start showing interests. The promoters want free marketing and expect to have massive good things from that marketing? Nothing is free.

Are you sure that most of the DT even deserve to be in the DT network? Forget about the feedback they leave. These days the DT network is filled with vulnerable users who are doing everything to have a place in the network.

All these 382 newbie will find a way to receive 1 merit and will post the proof of authentication. Result is 382 merit used in abuse LOL

In my opinion, stop paying for any service in token/altcoin but accept only bitcoin (it's a bitcoin forum). 1st: Scam projects will not come here and spend cash in advertising. 2nd: Since scam projects will stop coming, the genuine projects will start getting their attention and they will feel encouraged to spend money on marketing. 3rd: Since it will be paid by bitcoin (genuine cash), good users will start joining bounty and managers will not need to worry about having less participants  to accept newbies.

I honestly think of this before, I carefully checked each of the user's report and that's where I find them cheating (Aside from checking the addresses). Most of the cheater's I've caught are all newbies and new created accounts and even if we tagged them they are just going to change the social media username, address and create new account.

I was thinking of only allowing member and above accounts to join the campaign as jr member (1 merit requirement) is easy to achieve and probably a lot of people would sell their merits to these people. The only disadvantage I can think of is the number of participants would be limited and not all the higher rank members in the forum are interested in joining the bounty as we all know most of them are really not worth joining as only few of them managed to be successful projects.

I don't think tagging managers for allowing them to join newbies would be a good idea as there's some users/newbie accounts only owned one account and actually working fair, what solution that came to my mind is prohibiting newbie users to access the bounties section unless they've meet at least 10 merits as I think tagging them a negative trust wouldn't do good but personally I was planning soon to accept only a jr member and above users.

I took the latest thread on patrol: this one. It has 21 pages, so "All" is available. It has 415 posts, 2 of those from OP.
In the page source, I can easily search for:
Somehow the total adds up to 415 again, despite not counting OP. I'm not sure why, but you get the idea:
92% of the posts come from Newbies.

@LoyceV, since you are here-
Can you take any of the bounty threads which has both Twitter and Facebook campaign and share the data with us which rank have posted there in that bounty thread in the below format-
X amount - Newbies
Y amount - Jr Member
and goes on.
Though I know more than 95% will be newbie only.

Yahoo62278 , He is undoubtedly a bounty manager of a different scale.  He has a great reputation on the forums, especially because his projects get a lot of participants that other bounty managers don't.  Nowadays it can be seen that most of the bounty hunters participate in the bounty by creating multiple accounts.  Bounty managers must take some important steps to stop this criminal trend.

Currently, bounty hunters without understanding the value of the project immediately sell the token at a cheap price in the market, so the project becomes a dead project.  In this case, Hundet Persen is responsible for the bounty hunters destroying the project.

Especially when creating an account can add to the bounty without any activity.  In this case, if it is not possible to participate in the ranking system, especially the minimum junior member or the bounty without the member, then only the participation of multiple accounts will be reduced, and if the punitive measures can be taken immediately, then not only the tendency of cheating will be reduced but the forum will be improved.  .  Therefore, along with the ranking system, punitive measures should be taken.

yahoo62278, I support your idea. the use of this ranking restriction rule would be good enough to suppress novice account farms. but there will be resistance from some bounty managers. how to manage most bounty managers do the same in their campaigns? especially now, I can see more new accounts creating campaign threads on the bounty board.

it's pretty good to implement.
it reminded me of the thread @Pandu Geddon made. Ndasmu Njeblug, spam in the bounty thread.
it will not be a problem to increase the activity. even a newbie account can qualify with just one day of spam in the bounty thread.

if the Member+ rank is considered to be too difficult. why not start with Junior members?

My assumption is always that most of the bounty spam accounts belong to a small group of people.

I wrote Why not tag all bounty hunters? earlier this year. To summarize my clickbait:
Even if you don't allow them to join your bounty campaign, someone else will.

As long as they pay in made-up tokens, I'm sure they don't care who spams for them, as long as they get maximum exposure.

I expect the opposite: it's not worth it for normal people with friends and family on their social media, but it's still profitable for spammers with 50 accounts, each with thousands of followers who are all bounty spammers too.
The fact that the bounty spammers all have that much followers while all they do is spam should be a dead giveaway they're not normal social media users but dedicated spammers.

That's the thing: they don't waste money, they share some of the BS tokens they created out of thin air.

---

---

If you require bounty spammers to have a higher rank, they'll spam other boards to fill up 30 posts and earn Merit. Please keep them isolated on the bounty boards!

Here I agree entirely with you. And precisely because many are poor, I would like everything to look at least not so bold. , they are just as disrespectful to other hunters who are just as poor. I can assume that others have alternate accounts as well, but this is done very carefully. No one will ever catch alts if they don't have matches.
But because the people from this farm are very greedy, they continuously create even more accounts, thereby getting confused in them.
But in addition, no one will forbid beginners to create and subsequently participate in subscription companies. This is much more profitable than wasting time on incomprehensible tokens. At the same time, seeing that the newcomer has the first post in the bounty section, it becomes clear that this is not a newbie but someone else's alt. And then the "catch me if you can" game begins.

Some bounty managers are also newbies so they won't even care, but I think if the reputable bounty managers set high standards for hunter's then am sure it will reduce the way newbies just create new accounts and join bounties again after their previous account have been tagged. Let's assume managers set standards that they only accept member rank upward in their campaign, then am sure any bounty hunters that can rank their account up to member rank then they won't want to go against the bounty rules so that they won't lose the account, and if they are caught cheating and their accounts are tagged, it won't be easy for them to create new accounts and rank all up. I notice @CryptopreneurBrainboss managed a bounty campaign recently, it was stated in the rules that account with less than 100 actives won't be accepted, and I noticed lot's of hunters were rejected, am sure most of those accounts that he rejected are people that their previous accounts was tagged and they created new accounts.
The way hunters are cheating in bounty, I don't think their task will have impact on the project because most of them are just spamming.
I think that will be better but some managers don't care, their are some managers that even encourage ban invation, I was going through some messages in a bounty Telegram group few months ago and a user complained that his account got ban, he then asked the manager if he can create another forum account and countinue with the task and the manager asked the user to send him private message, which I was suprised because I was expecting the manager to say No and not to request for the user to send him private message.

Not every newbies are alt of course. As you said, managers are intentionally/unintentionally being dishonest though I can guarantee not every manager is. Anyway, if someone participates from 30 account in a single bounty and there are 10 different such farm participating in a bounty, it will be almost half of the total participants.

Of course he is not an Englishman, nor someone who will honestly work for you. I can't trust anyone to work 100% when they charge this lower amount.

If there are seriously that few that join a bounty and 95% of the rest are multis, then what the hell are companies wasting money running a bounty on here then? Kind of proving my point as well, managers are being dishonest to companies by saying they will get you loads of participants if they know its all alts.

I know what you mean on pricing and companies hiring the cheapest guy out there. Heres a message I got on telegram this morning.

Hello Mate

Iam Jason and I'm from lithe beautifull country of the England

1 humbly offer my campaign management service to any project for company that is in need of someone who will handle their bounty campaign here on.

I am a very skilled and experienced spreadsheet manager. I provide two types of services at the same time. Spreadsheet Management and Telegram Admin Services Friendly community managers. I am active 24 hours a day and service 8 to 12 hours a day.

If you want to hire me. Then definitely contact me.

Requisites Fees
Fees are negotiable I charge $50 per month.

Please feel free to inquire about my services. I'll be glad to help with no obligations or pressure until you are comfortable. Thanks for looking. thanks again have a great day

Yours Sincerely,
M. Jason

Not sure why the person messaged me about it, but I def don't believe the name or where they're from. Well I guess it could be a 15 year old living at home wanting to work a month for $50, but I highly doubt $50 a month is anything for an Englishman.

If you exclude newbies, you will be ended up with less than 50 participants in your campaign. Wait, actually, I should lower the number. I can't remember if I have seen a few Jr Member or above in a social media bounty. Will this rule be applied for every bounty managers? Actually, will it be a forum rule? No. Then any bounty manager who will allow newbies participation will be picked by the project. You of course know how bounty management is working these days. Most of campaign managers are newbies or Jr member with no history of managing bounty but still getting campaign because of their charge.

Rule from the forum? I don't think it's going to happen. Also, management doesn't necessarily depend on rank though I agree that having a high rank CM is advantage for the project in numerous ways.

I thought newbies won't allow any bounty campaign, it must be a jr. member rank, AFAIK.

..this and

this...
I tend to agree with them.
The only way to eliminate those bounty hunters but I don't think if, all those bounty managers will follow this rule, especially newbies.

This isn't a new problem, it has been discussed here so many times about irresponsible bounty managers, and yet, even tagging them they can still run bounty campaigns by using newbie rank, as long they get paid they continue doing the same.  What do you think if there's a new rule that newbies won't allow to run bounty campaigns and also there are merit and rank requirements the same as the bounty participants?

I think this is a good suggestion as well. Bounty managers should give merit points more meaning in their campaign conditions. Merits should be used for other purposes than just requirement for ranking up.

Probably most of them already automated the procedure. They just checked their account get the link and post it. When you check those scammers accounts you'll noticed one common thing. More than 30 activity and there isn't any merit. Why? Isn't it obvious they don't care the forum. At least with their multi accounts Most of the project (those who want to get easy money or the project dev which absence of vision) probably wont care this situation because advertise is advertise. But if I were a project manager i would care it. And if there is a campaign manager who be careful about this situation I prefer him/her.

Ideally this would be a good requirement, but it will be a very controversial topic.


The forum has rules that are not official rules, for example selling accounts is allowed, but look how many get tagged for it. So I think if the forum decided we should not allow newbies and see a manager doing so, DT could tag said manager. Or they could say fuck off we aren't tagging anyone over bounty shit.



This is a rule that could be left up to each individual manager, but I would sway towards not allowing personally.

The admin isn't gonna step in and limit a manager and how many campaign he can do unless the manager is banned, but if DT was tagging managers for legit rule infractions( or unofficial infractions) then companies may look for a better reputed manager. Companies may also not care and go with the cheapest option available, trust be damned.

Agreed with newbies needing to participate in the community before coming here trying to earn a load.

Not a bad idea either, even if the users start trading merits between each other they would run out pretty quick.

I think meser# is right man. This would just make bounty hunters double the amount of cheating accounts they have in a campaign.



Let's be honest for a second. If you are a bounty hunter in 1 campaign and that campaign has Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Instagram, and telegram in it, you will spend a total of 5 minutes on that campaign in a week. It's not very time consuming to retweet or share a post on all these platforms, and if original content and hashtags needs to be added the users post some bullshit as their original comment and copy/paste the hashtags. This is why bounty hunters can join 1000 bounties a week per account. It's simple work.

One is always higher than zero mate. In my opinion it wont decrease the cheater number unlike it will be reason to increase. If amount of the reward is lower than their rivals qualificated members dont want to attend it. This forum is allowing to earn money by campaigns but this cheater is only using for it. They dont contribute to forum i think this is one of the major scale to reveal cheater. 

What about decreasing bounty reward allocation for social media campaigns? Will it decrease the amount of newbie cheaters, because it will be unprofitable to join even with multiple accounts? It is hard to tell which newbie account is used for cheating, and who is a real newbie that is trying to earn a bit. And for a project - is it huge difference if his project is promoted by one person with lots of accounts or by many people? Project is getting his promotion anyway (but the quality of it is low, I agree with that, but that is a different question).

But, I suggest to accept only accounts starting with Jr.Member rank. Those who are cheating, will get caught during merit distribution most likely. And with time it will be hard to get merit for new accounts to cheat. Or, maybe accepting accounts, that have registration date more than half of a year and some posts (not spam)(lets say 100 posts is enough) are the key to success? During this half year a person could rank up, or at least show that he is not here just to post bounty reposts. I think it will be hard for cheaters to generate some good posts, and one-liners/shit posters will be spotted quick.

I recently saw that a signature campaign has a merit requirement. If you want to be eligible for that round you must acquire at least 1 merit. Lets say its 6 week campaign and the bounty hunters must acquire 6 merit during the campaign if they want to be eligible. Probably you will say they will make circle on merits but those are only posting their report it will make easier to find them. My idea might be nonsense but there is many people trying to scam projects and managers. If no action is taken, they will continue in the same way.

^^
You have a good idea. I've considered this before while bursting alt and discovered that it's very easy to farm newbie accounts and nearly impossible to farm Members+ accounts because most bounty spammers are shitposters who can't rank up his farm accounts to a member rank, which would automatically reduce bounty cheating. Sometimes I wonder why a manager would accept a bunch of newbies accounts with less than 30 activity or less into their campaigns; if they truly cared about the company they are promoting, they would not accept a bunch of alts into their campaign, but since the majority of them don't give a fuck as long as they get paid, I don't mind..

If we're being honest, bounty hunters farm the most accounts because they want to take all of the tokens from the project they're managing. If I ever host a bounty campaign, my minimum acceptable rank would be Member +; it's the only way to eliminate a slew of newbie farms.


His suggestions is for bounty and potential bounty managers and not for the admin.

I generally support both suggestions. Newbies should really be active in the community before they can apply for bounty campaigns. This would significantly reduce cheating and bounty farming. Regarding the second suggestion, I agree with dkbit98. Each case should be looked at individually because some negative tags may be unfounded.


This is the tricky part. Even if all existing bounty managers agreed to this, what's to stop new bounty managers who don't want to follow these community rules? Tagging them may be a solution, although I'm not sure everyone will agree on this. But even after that, they can still continue with bad practices. Case in point: 1xbit campaigns.

If I was a manager I honestly would never accept newbies in my campaigns, unless not until I investigate their post history and establish they are worth including.
This would be in very rear occasions, and I would wait until they rank up and show some real effort for improving.

Yeah, it's probably best to stop accepting all newbies in bounty campaigns, but this rule should be accepted by all managers.
I think this is impossible to implement, and someone could always become new manager and play outside this rules.
This would mean that moderators would have to make this a new unofficial forum rule, if possible.

This is tricky.
You can't look all negative trust feedbacks equally, and we know there are some people who enjoy tagging everyone, and they are still in DT
Maybe think about not allowing anyone who has more than one negative trust feedback would be better, but not perfect.

I would create some kind of ratting system for managers, and managers with lower ratings could have limited amount of campaigns they can create.
Highest ratings would have everything unlocked, but ratings can be changed anytime.
However, this idea needs to discussed and checked for all the pros and cons.

You may need to read the full excerpt from that post, but I'm willing to quote it again for you.


About the question in your thread, I totally support the idea of ​​limiting or eliminating newbie from bounty participation. Of course I don't want that to be done by the forum because maybe the admin doesn't want any restrictions on newbie participating regardless of whether they want to make money or something. In my first post in this thread, it's clear that managers can apply that rule to any campaign/bounty they manage ^{[I support it],} of course.

In the days when users were giving negative feedback to shitposters, I said the bounties managers should receive too because the spam is somehow generated by them. Why not? if we would have tagged these managers, for sure the others would have paid much more attention to the people they accept in their campaign, because red tags=no more campaigns to manage.

Of course, the majority of the forum was afraid to do it.

Let's face the reality, when a manager accepts a bag of newbies, he knows what will be the result. Why keep doing it? Because the manager needs to provide results, and the project behind needs to hit a return on investment.
It's all about the hype, and sometimes, managers are ready for everything to create this hype and to make the project happy!

I don't mind a newbie participating in conversations on the forum, which is what I believe theymos is referring to in your quoted post. I have an issue with a Newbies participating in bounties making money. 2 totally different things IMO.

I welcome Newbies to post and interact on the forum. We were all Newbies at some point.

First, your campaign is your rules. If you don't want to allow newbie to participate in your campaign at any section because probably most of them are alts ^{[as you described in the OP],} then you have the right to apply that rule to your campaign.

Second, I have asked or suggested the same question in the past about limiting the participation of newbie in the campaign, but look at the reaction community.

Should every newbie have a limit in the bounty of social media?

Then I'll have to think twice about this post even though I've suggested the same a few times about newbie when some cheaters hunter catches big farms.

I'd like to start a discussion on Bounty managers allowing Newbies to join in bounties. How does everyone feel about that? A good number of you really could care less, I know that, but those who care about the forum might care and join in on the discussion.

Let's start with I personally am guilty of allowing Newbies in bounties myself. It doesn't matter that I barely manage bounties, what matters is when I do, I have allowed Newbies. I kind of looked at it as they aren't hurting anyone and may live in poorer areas of the world. They need money too.

Then I see THIS TOPIC by lovemayfamilis and it really kind of pissed me off. Not because lovemayfamilis was catching cheaters, but because every single account out of 67 was a fucking Newbie. I hate to start a controversial topic that might take away a Newbies ability to earn money, but if a good number of you are going to cheat then fuck off.

We make it so easy for Newbies too because what's going to happen if they're caught? Not a damn thing! They get tagged and create a new account as if nothing has changed. On top of that, managers are kind of being dishonest too because we are allowing these accounts to join. Companies contact us and we give them an idea of the participation we might get them in a bounty campaign, but the numbers are way off since we are allowing these cheaters to join. Essentially, we are no better than the bounty cheaters because we are unknowingly lying. Well most are unknowingly lying. Others just down right don't give a damn long as they get paid.

So what's the solution? Here's my thoughts on Newbies and what can be done.

1. No more allowing Newbies in campaigns. Make newbies rank up and have something to lose if they're gonna cheat.
2. No neg trusted accounts can join period

Now, what about managers? Should we tag managers who are outright being dishonest by allowing Newbies? Or tag managers who really aren't caring about the forum? Should we just hope they will try to make a change? Or does anything really matter?

I don't know the answers, but I think together we can all make some good suggestions to try and slow these cheaters down. Maybe also change managers ways. Thoughts?