Topic: Is it a right approach a campaign decides where you to post? - page 2. (Read 544 times)

I was loooking for these information which campaign. BESTCHANGE!! One of the high paying campaign. But its definitely one of the abuse that the participants are doing actually. It may not be a violation to some campaigns but bestchjange are looking to advertise. Post on mega threads I guess will not be seen by users as matter of fact there are less users reading those replies. Bestchange I guess have learned and still trying to find ways to make use of their spending.

OP you are making this topic a BIG issue. The CM never imposed to avoid posting in MegaSpam thread but rather not counting it as paid post so everyone is free to post on any topic here just like what Yahoo said. If you are posting just for signature post then you should skip spam thread, there's thousand of threads out there that's still get few new reply and most of the MegaSpam thread receives already hundreds of redundant opinion.

The CM has the right to decide what topic should be counted because they are one who pays for it and also they apply the rules at the beginning of the round so everyone can see it before they start posting for that round.

---

This thread is misleading. It should be "Is it a right approach a campaign decides what post can be counted for payment?"

So, it came from the Bestchange decision last week. Already explained by logfiles. You are going to follow what manager instruct, otherwise, you are free to leave or manager will force you to leave.
In bestchange participants exclusion, manager gave early warning before 1 week so that users can change their posting habit. In fact, it's not about changing posting habit but to change posting in spam topic where no one gives attention which will be a total loss for the campaign.
Now again, bestchange campaign manager has said that they will allow couple of posts in spam Megathreads, may be it is 2/3 in their 25 weekly requirements. Now if you still have to post on such megathread to fulfill the requirement, I think manager has done the right step.
Take a loot at Chipmixer, they are paying for what? For quality. We have seen many people to get removed times to times. Why did Darkstar_ removed them? To get better output from the campaign and because the posters were spamming (may be, not sure). There's nothing wrong if campaign manager filter the participants times to times.

Not really. Although the rule is saying something which do not look good, but their intention is to prevent people posting in spam megathread. In such topics, advertiser got no benefits at all. That's why they wanted to filter participants who used to post on such topics.

Strange decision. There are plenty of long threads that are very worthy indeed and they'll have a much higher readership for much, much longer, and therefore exposure, than the countless 'where does we make most excellent profitings?' threads that run out of gas before they started.

Their rules of course but not very good ones. If I was financing the campaign I'd be a bit unimpressed myself.

OP, if the Campaign manager or the people behind the service being advertised decided to pause or end the signature campaign after payday citing negative results from what they are retrying to pay for, Is it considered infringement to basic rights and freedom of speech?

The answer to this question will help you figure out the answer to your post.

Exactly. Signature campaign users are not career people or hires. They are independent contractors that are getting paid to do ridiculously easy work... and when they can't even manage that, they get angry that they were fired for a shit job.

Entitlement city.

Capitalism yet again!

I think it’s time for us to form an union for the hard working signature campaigners. Who’s with me?! We deserve more! Maybe a minimum wage, vacations, health care and lambos as bonus?

It's as simple as.... if they are paying it's their rules... PERIOD!  If you don't like the rules, don't do the campaign.  Not sure why there is even a debate TBH.  This has absolutely NOTHING to do with free speech!



edit:
....and I have no skin in this game.  It's just logical. 

In the signature campaign rules it is clearly stated about the conditions Bestchange Signature Campaign.

It is clearly stated as the third point
- We reserve the right to make any changes to the conditions or end a campaign at any time.

Here everything gets included, the manager himself can make any changes to the campaign rules. So here we can't question the Campaign Manager. He has done everything within the written rules.

Myself too haven't met the campaign requirements of 25 posts at times, but with warnings for the next week I've been paid. This decision is the campaign manager's. Those are the kind heart and a way of helping.

When they pay for not meeting the requirements, they can also remove when one doesn't fulfill what the campaign manager and company running the campaign expect from an user.

Every campaign was the launch for a purpose and for the purpose to be achieved a certain rules and regulations must to be established so participants who cant deal with it may choose not to apply not to talk about joining.

I perfectly understand once i saw the OP message.

Absolutely, since the rules are clearly stated and all the participants are also aware that "they reserve the right to make any changes to the conditions or end a campaign at any time"

OP is referring to bestchange's signature campaign.
They removed few members because of posting on spam megathreads. According to the CM, any thread with more than 5 pages of replies is a spam megathread and some participants do not agree with this.

Honestly, I don't see what this have to do with freedom of speech! And if we are going to talk about rights, then they are within their rights to remove any participant who doesn't meet their standards.

Since you posted a link to this thread in best change signature discussion, i'll reflect on what was the issue there.

Firstly, i believe a signature campaign compan/manager HAS complete right to choose where he wants people he sponsors to posts. It's similar to non-crypto targeted advertising, basically you're paying money to reach out to certain groups of people.

Secondly, the issue with best change was, they didn't want people to post in certain boards and/or megathreads, which is fine. The problem is that most of the participants only fill out the minimum required post count for the week, that is 25 in this case. And when the manager deducts the posts which he doesn't want/like, those users are left with insufficient posts to meet the minimum required.
Now, if those users did 50 posts in a week, and lets say 20 of them are disqualified, they would still meet the minimum with their 30 posts that are left. But they didn't. They put minimal required effort, and now they cry about it.

Honestly, it was to be expected when you don't put anything but minimum effort into something

They can do what they want, it is their campaign and they pay people for promotion. No one is forcing anyone to participate in the campaign if you don't like how they work or how they make their decisions, but hey, everyone wants to get money and get their way...

It's not a communism or a socialism, it is a business partnership and if the results are not satisfactory one partner can pull out of the deal, end the deal, or find a better partner/s. Simple as that.

The problem is for people who participate in forum mostly because of money and sig campaigns, not the rules of campaigns. Campaigns should be like a hobby, not like a job.

That was my gut reaction when I read that part of OP's post, but I don't think he's saying anybody's rights are violated--that's my take on it at least. 

As far as a campaign kicking you out for posting in certain sections: I've never seen that as a campaign rule though I'll admit that I haven't read through all of the rules of every campaign.  But even if it was one of the rules, it's still completely fair.  If the campaign owner doesn't want posts being made in certain sections (like maybe in Gambling), it's their right to either not pay you if you post in a forbidden section (which is usually the case) or to even kick you out of the campaign if you violate that rule. 

And why?
That's why.  Be grateful these campaigns exist in the first place, because they may not be around forever.

Their money, their rules.
If they stated clearly that one will be excluded from their campaign if they made many posts in the threads they don't like. Then where is the problem?

Why it that when one is excluded from the campaign, they make it an issue, Why not also make it an issue when the sponsors or CM selects you to join their campaign out of the other hundreds of applicants?

If you feel the campaign does not satisfy your "basic rights and freedom of speech" then i believe also have a right to leave or not to apply for the campaign, No?

Oh, the freedom of speech! Oh, our rights are being violated!!!
You have the freedom of writing everywhere you want, that doesn't mean you have the right to get paid!

If they pay for let's say 20 posts and you make 10 posts in the boards they pay for and 10 in off-topic the campaign manager might think he has a better alternative, a poster who posts in the areas where he needs to maximize his advertisement and since they have probably limited slots it doesn't sound right for them to keep someone who is not adding as much as others to the pile. Just because you reached the minimum requirement it doesn't mean you have some legal contract and the manager must preserve your place for eternity.

Are you referring to spam threads/mega threads? The people paying for the ads campaign have the right to create the rules that fits their agenda. If they don't accept posts in mega threads, that is their decision. If the majority of your posts are in such threads, you will not offer them the visibility they want.
I think a warning should be issued before, and if the posting behavior doesn't change those running the campaign have the right to take more serious actions. In this case excluding users from their campaign. It is their campaign and you need to play by their rules.  

Users are normally free to post wherever they want but some sections/posts may not be counted. For example I exclude many sections I feel are spammy as well as I do not count bounty posts or posts in other campaign threads. Posts in Games & Rounds, Off topic, Lending, Auctions, Politics & Society, Beginners and help,Tokens, or Archival will not count are my normal restricted sections.

If users post in these sections, they simply are not counted and a user must post in the other sections to get his/her weekly quota.

No, it doesn't sound right at all. I never saw such a ridiculous rule. Do you have an example? Is there now a campaign running and having this rule


Yes, that's how all of them do. At least this is what I saw so far.

A campaign can have rules on what are the board's/topic's posts are countable for payment and what are not.

But, a rule like if you post on some topics or boards then you will lose your slot, is it right approach?

The better rule should be, not counting those posts.

As per basic rights and freedom of speech, we all should be allowed to write anywhere of this forum (as long as this forum allows) and a campaign may exclude posts as per their rules from counting toward payment and should not cost the spot if minimum post count is reached after excluding posts which are done on excluded section/board/topics.

I like to listen your views on this.