Topic: Legendary trying to enroll 2 Alt Accounts at the same signature campaign - page 2. (Read 505 times)

Sounds reasonable.

---

DT is based mostly on community standards / unwritten rules.  


Because his feedbacks are based on community standards? If abusing bounties with multiple accounts was a problem back then, then tagging accounts which were abusing it makes totally sense. I'm still following the point of view that participating with multiple accounts is only ok if it's mentioned explicitly in the signature campaign rules. Because if someone would allow multiple accounts, the campaign would be messy. That's why most likely rules didn't include "multiple alts are not allowed" because it was simply a forum standard.
At least for me that would make sense.

It’s no unwritten rule..
It’s pretty simple, if the campaign does not say “no alts allowed”, then Alts ARE allowed..

No tag.. If yahoo forgot to insert the rule that’s his fault..

Edit: Holy shit this happened in 2017??
What are you doing? Digging for dirt on this legendary(s) specifically, or just looking for anything, even ancient, to tag users for?


Yahoo tagged others for breaking a rule that wasn’t even a rule?
He should remove those tags..

You have a point here.

I guess it's the manager's choice. If some other tags the user and if they (the victim in this case) convince the manager that it was not written in the campaign rule, so they took the chance. Considering this if the manager thinks it's fine to give him the benefit of the doubt then he can request the person who tagged the user to remove the tag. However, The person who tagged the victim is not in any condition that they will have to listen the manager's suggestion.

This is how I am looking at this case now, it's my own personal interpretation by the way.

Yeah, I don't know if it was a thing back in 2017 that such a rule needs to be mentioned in the signature campaign rules or it was simply an unwritten forum standard to refuse from enrolling 2 or more accounts in the same signature campaign and if someone did it against forum standards, he received negative trust.
On the other hand we could say: maybe it's only allowed to enroll multiple accounts in the campaign, if the rules say explicitly: multiple accounts are allowed. If no further rules are stated, unwritten forum standards are applied? 

Recently I am in campaign management. In a campaign if I ask, "no alt account can be enrolled, only one account" but later if I find that someone enrolled more than one account - it does not matter if I accept one account or more than one account that they enrolled, I will take it as an offence of my rules and if there is something said that it will be tagged then I will likely tag the account.

If there are no rules about enrolling or accepting alt (more than one account) then there are no need to tag but here again, I will not want anyone to reserve more than one spot in any campaign I manage.

I am not sure about other guys but would like to hear their thoughts in it.

Edit: There could be a scope of making mistakes and if it found out that it was a genuine mistake from the member then maybe I would give them a chance before tagging for the Alt rule of my campaign.

There was no special rule for Alt accounts but there were other participants also enrolling Alt Accounts and they got a negative Trust from the Bounty Manager (someone I would consider one of the most reliable managers here) for enrolling Alts in that campaign.

Edit: Campaign was Byteball Signature Camapaign managed by yahoo62278: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/byteball-signature-campaignclosed-1760807

Does the campaign have a rule against enrolling multiple accounts?

If not, no problem..

Users get red trust for it for breaking campaign rules, not simply for having multiple accounts in one campaign..

Recently, I came over 2 Legendary Alt accounts (not yet tagged, I'll present my evidence tomorrow) and noticed that they had applied simultaneously for the same signature campaign. One account was accepted and one account was rejected.

Now my question: enrolling two accounts at the same campaign is clearly a red trust but is it also red trust for trying to enroll two accounts at the same signature campaign?

In my opinion, it's a difficult decision. Finally, these 2 accounts didn't participate because only one was accepted but the important point is: what would have happened, if both accounts were accepted? For the Alt Account owner, there could have been different reactions:
- the Alt account owner posts a reply: "Hello, SIR! I have applied multiple accounts here. To follow the rules, I will only enroll account ..., for the other spot, you can take another applicant" => extremely unlikely => probably no punishment?
- just enroll one account and the other account gets silent = > possible => probably no punishment?
- enroll both accounts => likely => taggable offense

It's another question if the outcome matters (finally enrolling both accounts) and it's only a question if there was any possible malicious intent (trying to enroll 2 Alt Accounts at the same signature campaign).

---

tl;dr
Would such a behaviour (trying to enroll 2 Alt Accounts at the same signature campaign) result in red trust or only a neutral trust for linking Alt Accounts? What's DT's opinion?