The forum has had successful signature campaigns like bitmixer.io run for a long time with technically speaking no public spreadsheets available to the community thanks to SMAS and a campaign manager who was doing their job. Now the issue at hand of whether signature campaign spreadsheets should be open or not is at the discretion of the campaign manager provided he or she ensures the participants are in line with forum rules.
But then again a public spreadsheet has its advantages as this could help fish out cheating users, help bystanders know if there is an open spot for them to apply and also allow any interested party to know what standards the campaign manager works with which could work in his favour and be recommended for future jobs.
Topic: Community opinion on Signature campaign spreadsheets (Read 1322 times)
I like it when spreadsheets are made public. In fact, it's a matter of policy for me not to apply to any bounty that won't publish the spreadsheet. Also, making it public helps curtail the activities of scammers who enroll with other people's username or with multiple accounts. However, the only thing I don't like about this is putting out our emails. Exposing participants' emails to be sold to data criminals and causes junk mails.
As I stated earlier... I believe that managers should be free to run their campaigns as they see fit and/or have negotiated with the project/business... if users don't agree with the methodology, then don't subscribe to the campaign.
Yes this is a valid point but if spreadsheet are hidden how you can spot abusers?
Hidden spreadsheet can be a big exploit for old members with more than one account and IS a big exploit for old rings of high rank accounts.
A spreadsheet profs nothing but is a valid point where to start the investigation, since we have not a "alarm" for accounts using the same IP.
In my opinion, "Cryptocurrency" more about freedom... and what a number of users here are advocating is taking away freedom of choice from managers/campaigns. For instance, what happens if a bounty manager chooses to keep all the records offline in a notebook? Are you now saying that all managers must use and publish a spreadsheet to manage a campaign?
Ones freedom stops where the freedom of other starts. In this case the freedom of the whole community.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just playing devil's advocate here... I personally prefer if a manger would use a spreadsheet for most of the reasons that have been listed in this thread... however, I do not advocate for this being forced upon managers if they do not want to do so.
That's what I thought
It seems I may have been too obtuse with my point...
In my opinion, "Cryptocurrency" more about freedom... and what a number of users here are advocating is taking away freedom of choice from managers/campaigns. For instance, what happens if a bounty manager chooses to keep all the records offline in a notebook? Are you now saying that all managers must use and publish a spreadsheet to manage a campaign?
In the general clamour for "transparency" and "openness"... it seems that no-one cares for the freedom of managers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just playing devil's advocate here... I personally prefer if a manger would use a spreadsheet for most of the reasons that have been listed in this thread... however, I do not advocate for this being forced upon managers if they do not want to do so.
As I stated earlier... I believe that managers should be free to run their campaigns as they see fit and/or have negotiated with the project/business... if users don't agree with the methodology, then don't subscribe to the campaign.
In my opinion, "Cryptocurrency" more about freedom... and what a number of users here are advocating is taking away freedom of choice from managers/campaigns. For instance, what happens if a bounty manager chooses to keep all the records offline in a notebook? Are you now saying that all managers must use and publish a spreadsheet to manage a campaign?
In the general clamour for "transparency" and "openness"... it seems that no-one cares for the freedom of managers.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just playing devil's advocate here... I personally prefer if a manger would use a spreadsheet for most of the reasons that have been listed in this thread... however, I do not advocate for this being forced upon managers if they do not want to do so.
As I stated earlier... I believe that managers should be free to run their campaigns as they see fit and/or have negotiated with the project/business... if users don't agree with the methodology, then don't subscribe to the campaign.
What about Monero? or any of the other privacy based "blockchains"? Granted Privacy =/= Transparency, but still... they don't "transparently" identify participants... neither does Bitcoin for that matter, being pseudo-anonymous.
So, would you be happy with spreadsheets that redacted all "user identifiable" information?
So, would you be happy with spreadsheets that redacted all "user identifiable" information?
Not engaging in playing dumb & dumber with you. I believe you understood my point.
Also privacy is already guaranteed since your forum alias =/= your personal information.
I think this is the right of every bounty manager. He can decide for himself whether to make the spreadsheet public or not. If this does not suit the participants, then they may refuse to participate in this bounty campaign.
If participants distribute spam, you can complain to the moderator of the corresponding branches.
Cryptocurrencies were created to give people more freedom. And it is not right to equate all under the same standards of someone invented.
If participants distribute spam, you can complain to the moderator of the corresponding branches.
Cryptocurrencies were created to give people more freedom. And it is not right to equate all under the same standards of someone invented.
I voted also YES, the spreadsheet would be better displayed in everyone in the public way, for me it would be easier for me to know if it is in the public spreadsheet and here we can find the right payment rewards and also we'll see spammers because here we will not find it difficult to find our proper names in the spreadsheet if we accept or not, so an open spreadsheet in a public is easier and better.
My position on that is cristal. All blockchains are basically advocating one thing in common, transparency. It should be the same here. Only way to be transparent is to keep the sheet public for everyone to see.
What about Monero? or any of the other privacy based "blockchains"? Granted Privacy =/= Transparency, but still... they don't "transparently" identify participants... neither does Bitcoin for that matter, being pseudo-anonymous.So, would you be happy with spreadsheets that redacted all "user identifiable" information?
I just discovered this poll.
My position on that is cristal. All blockchains are basically advocating one thing in common, transparency. It should be the same here. Only way to be transparent is to keep the sheet public for everyone to see.
It adds another layer of governance (by forum users interested in it) and in the end it is just compilation of data that is already public.
My position on that is cristal. All blockchains are basically advocating one thing in common, transparency. It should be the same here. Only way to be transparent is to keep the sheet public for everyone to see.
It adds another layer of governance (by forum users interested in it) and in the end it is just compilation of data that is already public.
You mean Grincoin is not a blockchain?
I'm just joking, I understood your point and I'm of the same opinion.
When there's no real reason to not have the spreadsheets publicly available, the default should be to provide them. Even more so when hiding them can raise questions as to the credibility of the campaign.
Imagine a campaign which is supposingly running but in truth there are no participants. Yet the manager asks for people to apply and wear their signatures while waiting to be accepted. Then they delay to reply and they get free advertisement without ever accepting anyone!
I just discovered this poll.
My position on that is cristal. All blockchains are basically advocating one thing in common, transparency. It should be the same here. Only way to be transparent is to keep the sheet public for everyone to see.
It adds another layer of governance (by forum users interested in it) and in the end it is just compilation of data that is already public.
My position on that is cristal. All blockchains are basically advocating one thing in common, transparency. It should be the same here. Only way to be transparent is to keep the sheet public for everyone to see.
It adds another layer of governance (by forum users interested in it) and in the end it is just compilation of data that is already public.
I will agree that spreadsheet should be public.
There's nothing wrong with showing it on public and this will show some transparency, you know when things go wrong like the manager will scam the members, at least we have some proof to see when participants will seek for help from the community.
Note : The spreadsheet that OP posted is for the first campaign, I would love to see the new one since I believe we have more spammers in this new campaign.
There's nothing wrong with showing it on public and this will show some transparency, you know when things go wrong like the manager will scam the members, at least we have some proof to see when participants will seek for help from the community.
Note : The spreadsheet that OP posted is for the first campaign, I would love to see the new one since I believe we have more spammers in this new campaign.
Answer to your question: Yes, make them public. The community should be able to view into who's getting paid what as a measure for monitoring spam.
As for Stake, i think it's even more important because what they're running is essentially a lottery. Whose to know if the Stake campaign admin is just paying off friends or alt accounts without the transparency.
---
All that said...this forum is mostly "fuck all" on rules. Anyone can do almost anything they want so long as they don't do it to someone more powerful, at which point they get punished (regardless of whether their actions warranted said punishment).
As for Stake, i think it's even more important because what they're running is essentially a lottery. Whose to know if the Stake campaign admin is just paying off friends or alt accounts without the transparency.
This poll has been created due to Stake.com Signature campaign. I believe that since the website is using the bitcointalk platform to advertise their website, that all information regarding the campaign should be made public.
---
All that said...this forum is mostly "fuck all" on rules. Anyone can do almost anything they want so long as they don't do it to someone more powerful, at which point they get punished (regardless of whether their actions warranted said punishment).
Yes it should be public especially if the campaign manager is also a poster.
It makes it harder for the manager to hire his own alts and cheat.
Serves as a proof that counting and paying is being done properly and on time.
Allows members to check on their status in the campaign and see warnings and statistics.
Makes it easy to see when a member resigns or gets red trust or gets banned. This can be important if you're waiting for a spot.
It makes it harder for the manager to hire his own alts and cheat.
Serves as a proof that counting and paying is being done properly and on time.
Allows members to check on their status in the campaign and see warnings and statistics.
Makes it easy to see when a member resigns or gets red trust or gets banned. This can be important if you're waiting for a spot.
Before now the motivation was to gain reputation as signature abusers busters but now they have another motivation earn merit. Let me use your example to explain better consider the stores owner decided to pay a prize to those who catch shoplifters, that's exactly what's happening in the forum. When you bust signature abusers you gain either ruptation or merit.
Sure man, Avirunes is legendary and with green trust from years and he is keeping doing it for merit and trust, cmon man accept the fact that some users do this because they like it, don't whine on other people especially if you here are the only one who brags for his merit https://puu.sh/CVGwW/13e5851b17.png
OT: yahoo I've added 2 more probable accounts on the ring on your signatures, I will look more but I don't think they are more on this ring. Here the others 2 accounts https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/known-alts-of-any-one-a-user-generated-list-mk-iii-2021-q2-2544574
Unless there is something shady going on, I don't see a valid reason for hiding them.
I still don't understand why it is that people who have no vested interest in these campaigns get so worked up about so-called campaign abusers... it's akin to wandering around a random store trying to catch shoplifters like some sort of voluntary store security!!?! 
Before now the motivation was to gain reputation as signature abusers busters but now they have another motivation earn merit. Let me use your example to explain better consider the stores owner decided to pay a prize to those who catch shoplifters, that's exactly what's happening in the forum. When you bust signature abusers you gain either ruptation or merit.
I find it shocking that there are people who think we are doing is because of some reputation/or feedbacks or some merit. I've never expected to receive merits or feedbacks while dropping reports.
If people feel that way and its something that is a problem that we need to consider at this point then I will stop making such reports as it is getting more like an abuse of some sorts maybe?
I earlier also faced this kind of discussion and yet it pops up again. You are free to PM me anytime what you think about me and my investigations that I do.
legendary
Activity: 2240
Merit: 4133
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
I still don't understand why it is that people who have no vested interest in these campaigns get so worked up about so-called campaign abusers... it's akin to wandering around a random store trying to catch shoplifters like some sort of voluntary store security!!?!
Before now the motivation was to gain reputation as signature abusers busters but now they have another motivation earn merit. Let me use your example to explain better consider the stores owner decided to pay a prize to those who catch shoplifters, that's exactly what's happening in the forum. When you bust signature abusers you gain either ruptation or merit.
No.
Campaign managers role is to check the project he is managing for any possible abuse of the users, it is not the job of a normal user.
Such information should only be made public if there are complaints about the Campaign manager not doing their job properly.
It makes Campaign managers vulnerable as it feels like they are being investigated/monitored even though there are no existing complaints.
Campaign managers role is to check the project he is managing for any possible abuse of the users, it is not the job of a normal user.
Such information should only be made public if there are complaints about the Campaign manager not doing their job properly.
It makes Campaign managers vulnerable as it feels like they are being investigated/monitored even though there are no existing complaints.
I also have a question,
My question still unanswered. As majority of voters have voted yes (including reputed users) can this be translated into a factor to consider before joining a paid signature campaign?. If the community believe making spreadsheet public is very important should users be discourage from joining campaigns that don't publicize their spreadsheets.
I would go ahead and say Why? If users which to join campaigns that don't have public spreadsheets... that is their choice. Just like I believe it is the choice of the campaign manager (and/or campaign owner) to decide whether or not the spreadsheet should be public (or even exist... who knows, maybe they do it all on napkins, post-its and old receipts 
)I have a question (or three) for you... There are a lot of "it helps stop campaign abuse" claims being made here, but why should the general public care? Should that not be the campaign manager's responsibility to "police" their campaign? Isn't that what they're being paid to do?
I still don't understand why it is that people who have no vested interest in these campaigns get so worked up about so-called campaign abusers... it's akin to wandering around a random store trying to catch shoplifters like some sort of voluntary store security!!?!
Jump to: