Please don't go off-topic, I don't want to start reporting posts..
Well tell them to pull in their false accusations then.
Also if you stop refusing to be transparent then we can leave you to go about your business in peace. There is no need to look shady if you are not shady is there? Why not be transparent if you have nothing to hide.
Any person you refuse should be able to receive a transparent answer that stands up to scrutiny. You can not just hide behind your friends red trust and their gaming of the merit system and defer responsibility to them.
YOU are paid to find the best posters that are NOT scammers. Not just use gamed metrics to ensure your pals get the best spots.
First come first served, unless you can demonstrate they do not meet the threshold of being a good enough poster or they are a scammer. Anything else is discrimination and open to gaming and corruption. It is not difficult to see that asking for transparent fair rules for everyone so that each person is treated equally is the ONLY acceptable way to go.
You don't even know what you are talking about so why should I give you an answer?
You can ask several of my "pals" that I have removed from campaigns due to several reasons, guess what they are still my "pals". Why are you on a crusade regarding one member? I gave QS an honest chance to earn some
BTC for posting for 6 weeks straight and then decided that it no longer looked good for him to be in my campaign while spewing out his bullshit that does no good for the community. I never owe it to anyone to explain why I've removed someone from MY campaigns.
I am not focusing on QS. This is something that MUST be established for all campaign managers concerning the acceptance/denial of all applicants. Once this is fixed the red trust abuse and merit cycling is irrelevant to large number of people here so free speech will have a greater chance.
These concepts seems fairly simple. We have no idea why people are not able to see this for themselves.
It is not a matter of "YOU OWING" an explanation to a specific person. There must be transparent fair rules that are applied equally to all persons. What is hard to see about this. Anything else leaves you open to legitimate criticism regarding corruption and other shady practices.
It is not that hard. You need a threshold of posting quality and NOT to be a scammer. Those meet those criteria are accepted on first come first served basis.
If you can when called on it present a case and say look this persons posts are poor quality or look he has scammed that is different. That means you are doing your job fairly and people can see it is a first come first served basis or that all persons are given equally stringent criteria to be selected.
NO PROJECT wants to be accused of hiring someone to game the distribution of new tokens among colluders or be abusing their position or taking back handers from certain people to assure they get on to the campaigns. I mean there are many accusations that could be leveled at a project that hires a community manager that is not able to present a case that stands up to sensible reasonable scrutiny for their selection process.
There is no reason NOT to be transparent other than if you are shady. Then if you dropped QS and said he was saying things that reflected poorly upon the sponsor this could be examined and verified (if it were true). Of course though you would need to demonstrate what he was saying was NOT the truth. Hiding the truth is very untrustworthy as is punishing someone for speaking the truth.
We are not specifically targeting you. Although your meriting of OG dox seems again to align you with a shady bunch many of whom are wearing sigs from your campaigns. This looks bad for YOU and your projects.
We believe that yahoo91328749 is even worse but we have not look at him yet. ALL campaign managers must be transparent over their decisions or ALL projects that use them are going to be wide open to legitimate criticism. It is just a matter of applying the correct pressure to the correct spots to force projects to be more careful in their manager selection. It is better if all of that could be avoided and you guys just get transparent of your own volition.
All those fighting against transparent fair rules that applied equally to all members must be removed in time. That is the only acceptable way forward. All members should have a fair chance to say what they want without fear of their incomes being targeted and trashed.
If theymos removes all sigs and allows projects to ONLY advertise directly with the board that could be far more sensible if campaign managers do not makes sure they are being fair.
