You are the person who brings campaign management to next level by managing 6 or 7 long running highly paying signature campaigns with on time payments.
Topic: Hhampuz Reputation Thread - page 7. (Read 4153 times)
+40 trusted feedback speak out about your reputation bro.
You are the person who brings campaign management to next level by managing 6 or 7 long running highly paying signature campaigns with on time payments.
You are the person who brings campaign management to next level by managing 6 or 7 long running highly paying signature campaigns with on time payments.
Taking forum members opinion is always a pretty way to find the solution. Its not only having solution in a proper way but also giving everyone the chance to discuss and sharing their own thoughts. Controlling a signature campaign isn't an easy task when there's been a couple of matters to look after. I think you have already build your reputation through your work of excellency and its worth respect. Yeah its true that sometimes something could be missing from our research or investigation and that's not impossible because we are not machines. But holding average perfection is not so easy to maintain and you are doing this with your great effort.
Hopefully will try to put your attention if anything looks unusual to me and I think its a responsibility for me after having a thread like that.
Hopefully will try to put your attention if anything looks unusual to me and I think its a responsibility for me after having a thread like that.
Hhampuz, my thoughts on you as a poster are that I regard you very highly on the forum. I don’t know you off it but I consider yourself as very trustworthy. You always seem positive & you seem a nice guy. You obviously manage campaigns well which in itself comes with a level of trust. You look after escrowed money & pay your campaign participants on time. You’re DT1 & are active red tagging scammers etc.
The forum would be a worse place without you.
Keep up the good work
LFC
The forum would be a worse place without you.
Keep up the good work
LFC
I think Hhampuz is a horrible campaign manager. For months he has been paying me the regular signature payouts while, apparently, DT members should get paid more (source).
*obviously joking*
*obviously joking*
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 4282
eXch.cx - Automatic crypto Swap Exchange.
Having been a constant participants of your campaigns and having qualified for anyone i apply to join and looking at other users been accepted too I can say you're doing well when it comes to accepting quality non shitposters in all your campaigns. As a result I notice your campaigns don't always have open slots that's great news as it says a lot about the campaign manager accepting only quality rule abiding users.
Your payment are always on time in all your managed campaigns (haven't seen any complains of deserving members not receiving their earned payouts) and from my timezone that's the first thing I see every morning on payments days
and having recieved the following benefits from joining your campaigns and I haven't seen any accusations of you abusing your power as a CM nor abusing your DT privileges, I can boldly say you're doing a great job Hhampuz. +1
Your payment are always on time in all your managed campaigns (haven't seen any complains of deserving members not receiving their earned payouts) and from my timezone that's the first thing I see every morning on payments days
and having recieved the following benefits from joining your campaigns and I haven't seen any accusations of you abusing your power as a CM nor abusing your DT privileges, I can boldly say you're doing a great job Hhampuz. +1 
Correct me if I'm wrong Hhampuz, but I'm sure I've seen you say previously that you would be willing to overlook the rule anyway if you thought a poster was particularly good. Given that, there is literally no downside to having a recent merit requirement.
You are absolutely correct! I may look at merit first, but in some cases I'll dig into the post count of someone who earned 0 merit and from time to time they may just be posting in the "wrong" sections while still creating quality posts.
If all the other campaign managers decide to enforce a similar rule, we may see cases of merit abuse,
At least you are seeing what am saying. Also you have to know that most merited posts do not deserve the merits. It does not mean the posters are great with their posts. It is a friendship exchange sometimes.
-snip-
It also serves to reduce the number of bought accounts joining campaigns. If you are buying an account because you are unable to rank up on your own merits (pun intended), then you will be similarly unable to earn any merit on your bought account, and so you will be excluded from joining campaigns with a "recent merit" requirement.At the very least the rule requires alt farms or account buyers to buy merit to stay within the time frame requirements, therefore reducing the profitability of spamming, which can only be a good thing. Merit sellers will also run eventually run out of merit, preventing these accounts from joining at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong Hhampuz, but I'm sure I've seen you say previously that you would be willing to overlook the rule anyway if you thought a poster was particularly good. Given that, there is literally no downside to having a recent merit requirement.
Your idea of insisting that participants applying to your campaigns must have some merits within 1-2 months even when they have the required merits cutoff is, is unnecessary. It encourages merit farming
On the contrary, I believe this merit requirement, though not fully guaranteeing a perfect selection of candidates, is a good defense mechanism against abuse of people who want to get in with more than one accounts.
Account farmers I've observed/tracked over the past few months don't have that much merit, and they would find it very difficult to manage and repeatedly supply their alt accounts with merit.
If all the other campaign managers decide to enforce a similar rule, we may see cases of merit abuse, but it will be extremely obvious, easily traceable and who knows...it may end once and for all multi-account applications.
It's your willingness to not only discuss issues with people but invite it, that made you an easy addition to my list.
The only thing I would maybe change is using the reference link if available, as well as the BTC risked amount. The clearest example of this would be the latest deal with blockforge. I am a little curious as to why this trade wasn't rated as positive?
I also noticed you had changed a lot of positives to neutrals. Iirc there was a bit of pressure when the new system was put in place and you were under a lot of scrutiny with your list. Personally I like to see trades rated positive or negative based on the outcome, neutral is acceptable if there were hiccups. With appropriate weight for risked BTC and a reference.
Not to pile on, as I did also see some negatives re-rated. I do like to see someone who is flexible in their ratings. I don't agree with one rating being set in stone with no chance at redemption.
All in all the minor differences in how we manage feedback don't affect me overall. I look through the list of anyone I'm dealing with, and have untrusted feedback set to show as default.
The only thing I would maybe change is using the reference link if available, as well as the BTC risked amount. The clearest example of this would be the latest deal with blockforge. I am a little curious as to why this trade wasn't rated as positive?
I also noticed you had changed a lot of positives to neutrals. Iirc there was a bit of pressure when the new system was put in place and you were under a lot of scrutiny with your list. Personally I like to see trades rated positive or negative based on the outcome, neutral is acceptable if there were hiccups. With appropriate weight for risked BTC and a reference.
Not to pile on, as I did also see some negatives re-rated. I do like to see someone who is flexible in their ratings. I don't agree with one rating being set in stone with no chance at redemption.
All in all the minor differences in how we manage feedback don't affect me overall. I look through the list of anyone I'm dealing with, and have untrusted feedback set to show as default.
Your idea of insisting that participants applying to your campaigns must have some merits within 1-2 months even when they have the required merits cutoff is, is unnecessary. It encourages merit farming
I hear what you are saying but this is probably one rule that I won't be able to budge on. I always look at each application individually (incl. post history) which means that merit is not the be all, end all. I don't think it would encourage merit farming though?
Your idea of insisting that participants applying to your campaigns must have some merits within 1-2 months even when they have the required merits cutoff is, is unnecessary. It encourages merit farming
Am I enrolling spammers in my Signature Campaigns and it has to stop? Just let me know and I'll review that too!
I'm not sure about your recent campaign but prior to the latest, I believe you never allowed spammers in your campaign. I appreciate your effort.Offtopic though-
Yahoo was supposed to one of the best campaign managers but the truth is he is allowing spammers/shitposters in his campaign- https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/christian07-1059850
I wouldn't mention it here unless you were asking about this, no campaign manager did this prior to you.
It would be much better if you could make the thread as self moderator.
You can't have a serious reputation thread if you can delete negative posts by yourself. Just report all off-topic posts. 
Am I enrolling spammers in my Signature Campaigns and it has to stop? Just let me know and I'll review that too!
Have you checked one of your participants, played in your campaign from the first to the present.Yes, maybe a signature manager, takes time, to open this kind of: Topic: Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk III (2019 Q2)
But occasionally it doesn't matter, visit this multi-account field.
1. jademaxsuy
Code:
ETH address connected: 0x0ecAf2785E1a3D3Ee56Eb8d1BB2A90b696883Af6
SIGNATURE
Bitcointalk username: jademaxsuy
Forum rank: member
Starting post count: 533
Ethereum address: 0x0ecAf2785E1a3D3Ee56Eb8d1BB2A90b696883Af6
Bitcointalk username: jademaxsuy
Forum rank: member
Starting post count: 533
Ethereum address: 0x0ecAf2785E1a3D3Ee56Eb8d1BB2A90b696883Af6
( archive )
You can see here:
Multi-account proof, connected.
Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46458020
Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46458094
And one more participant in your campaign.
And 2 connected accounts:
2. akram143
3. Burks
Evidence: Reference (Offering "ICO bumping" services, also known as paid shill bumping. This is a highly shady offer which helps generate fake buzz for various projects.)
Like Xenioblockchain : yes
Follow same page : yes
Post link to your Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/akram.raja.143
Follow same page : yes
Post link to your Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/akram.raja.143
( archive )
Applying for the facebook campaign.
Bitcointalk username: akram143
Link to facebook profille: https://www.facebook.com/akram.raja.143
Bitcointalk username: akram143
Link to facebook profille: https://www.facebook.com/akram.raja.143
( archive )
Now what you ask has been given, the decision is in your hands.
Nobody is perfect but we can always strive to be a better version of ourselves tomorrow.
Yes, agree with it since we are all human here. No one is perfect, but they are the best who try to correction their mistakes (IMO).One thing I like about you, that is you discussion with community regarding your confusion and mistakes. Once when I know you and working with seems you are transparent enough with your profession/work. However, I have not seen you yet with any corruption and obviously I will notice you if I found in future. Best of luck.
what kind of a 2 year-old uses a vanity address?
skam
skam
I have actually not used that addy for a loooong time. Guess I should finally retire it, hah.
Those people who usually trolls may spam this thread. It would be much better if you could make the thread as self moderator. Pardon me if I am wrong. Thanks.
what kind of a 2 year-old uses a vanity address?
skam
skam
I'm always looking for ways to better myself and becoming a better cogwheel in the machinery that is bitcointalk. Thus I've opened this thread where you are free to voice opinions on my trust list, my trust ratings, my campaign management or anything else I'm involved with.
Have you received negative trust from me and feel it was unjustified? State it here and we'll try and sort it out.
Have I included users on my trustlist that are outright scammers and I've just not paid attention to it? State it here and I'll review it.
Am I enrolling spammers in my Signature Campaigns and it has to stop? Just let me know and I'll review that too!
Nobody is perfect but we can always strive to be a better version of ourselves tomorrow.
Have you received negative trust from me and feel it was unjustified? State it here and we'll try and sort it out.
Have I included users on my trustlist that are outright scammers and I've just not paid attention to it? State it here and I'll review it.
Am I enrolling spammers in my Signature Campaigns and it has to stop? Just let me know and I'll review that too!
Nobody is perfect but we can always strive to be a better version of ourselves tomorrow.
Jump to: