Topic: List of banned participants in the Cryptotalk Campaign - page 6. (Read 32189 times)
How do you other DT members feel about this sort of tag?
Negative rating - If they were able to withdraw their campaign earnings.Negative rating - Finding connections between them, regardless of them getting paid or not (based on those 3 users, all of them were active on similar boards [perhaps threads as well] + there might be other connections as well).
Neutral rating (+ placing them on your blacklist [all of the campaigns] for a certain amount of time) - If they never got to the point of withdrawing their earnings.
I have decided that users need to be held accountable for their actions, so when they sign up for this campaign that clearly states sr member and higher only may join, they will be tagged with the below statement
Taking advantage of auto sign up for cryptotalk campaign, not reading rules and applying when they know they don't qualify.
How do you other DT members feel about this sort of tag? They are basically stealing from a site and know they are not allowed. Yes they get nuked from the campaign within a day but that hasn't deterred 50 of them from trying.
Taking advantage of auto sign up for cryptotalk campaign, not reading rules and applying when they know they don't qualify.
How do you other DT members feel about this sort of tag? They are basically stealing from a site and know they are not allowed. Yes they get nuked from the campaign within a day but that hasn't deterred 50 of them from trying.
Does Cryptotalk have a checking mechanism to verify that members actually have the correct ranking prior to paying out their posts? If they do, it's a bit harsh for a DT member to tag their profile permanently for something that could be an honest mistake. I think it would be appropriate to bar them from the campaign for not properly reading terms though.
If they are in fact getting paid by Cryptotalk despite them not having the correct rank, it would be stealing which in that case the tag would be appropriate imo.
I have decided that users need to be held accountable for their actions, so when they sign up for this campaign that clearly states sr member and higher only may join, they will be tagged with the below statement
Taking advantage of auto sign up for cryptotalk campaign, not reading rules and applying when they know they don't qualify.
How do you other DT members feel about this sort of tag? They are basically stealing from a site and know they are not allowed. Yes they get nuked from the campaign within a day but that hasn't deterred 50 of them from trying.
Taking advantage of auto sign up for cryptotalk campaign, not reading rules and applying when they know they don't qualify.
How do you other DT members feel about this sort of tag? They are basically stealing from a site and know they are not allowed. Yes they get nuked from the campaign within a day but that hasn't deterred 50 of them from trying.
Does Cryptotalk have a checking mechanism to verify that members actually have the correct ranking prior to paying out their posts? If they do, it's a bit harsh for a DT member to tag their profile permanently for something that could be an honest mistake. I think it would be appropriate to bar them from the campaign for not properly reading terms though.
If they are in fact getting paid by Cryptotalk despite them not having the correct rank, it would be stealing which in that case the tag would be appropriate imo.
I have decided that users need to be held accountable for their actions, so when they sign up for this campaign that clearly states sr member and higher only may join, they will be tagged with the below statement
Taking advantage of auto sign up for cryptotalk campaign, not reading rules and applying when they know they don't qualify.
How do you other DT members feel about this sort of tag? They are basically stealing from a site and know they are not allowed. Yes they get nuked from the campaign within a day but that hasn't deterred 50 of them from trying.
If there are alot of disagreements with the tag then I may have to think of another way to deter them. Opinions welcome. So far only 3 that applied today have the tag. If the majority agrees this is appropriate, then I have no issues tagging the rest who joined the campaign earlier.
Taking advantage of auto sign up for cryptotalk campaign, not reading rules and applying when they know they don't qualify.
How do you other DT members feel about this sort of tag? They are basically stealing from a site and know they are not allowed. Yes they get nuked from the campaign within a day but that hasn't deterred 50 of them from trying.
If there are alot of disagreements with the tag then I may have to think of another way to deter them. Opinions welcome. So far only 3 that applied today have the tag. If the majority agrees this is appropriate, then I have no issues tagging the rest who joined the campaign earlier.
If the user does not read the terms of the campaigns, then he is a bot.
If he reads them, but does not understand, then an idiot.
If he reads them, understands and deliberately tries to deceive the campaign, then he is a scammer.
In all three cases, the tag looks like the right solution.
Added to the list of banned.
I have decided that users need to be held accountable for their actions, so when they sign up for this campaign that clearly states sr member and higher only may join, they will be tagged with the below statement
Taking advantage of auto sign up for cryptotalk campaign, not reading rules and applying when they know they don't qualify.
How do you other DT members feel about this sort of tag? They are basically stealing from a site and know they are not allowed. Yes they get nuked from the campaign within a day but that hasn't deterred 50 of them from trying.
If there are alot of disagreements with the tag then I may have to think of another way to deter them. Opinions welcome. So far only 3 that applied today have the tag. If the majority agrees this is appropriate, then I have no issues tagging the rest who joined the campaign earlier.
I have decided that users need to be held accountable for their actions, so when they sign up for this campaign that clearly states sr member and higher only may join, they will be tagged with the below statement
Taking advantage of auto sign up for cryptotalk campaign, not reading rules and applying when they know they don't qualify.
How do you other DT members feel about this sort of tag? They are basically stealing from a site and know they are not allowed. Yes they get nuked from the campaign within a day but that hasn't deterred 50 of them from trying.
If there are alot of disagreements with the tag then I may have to think of another way to deter them. Opinions welcome. So far only 3 that applied today have the tag. If the majority agrees this is appropriate, then I have no issues tagging the rest who joined the campaign earlier.
HI, I just saw that I was banned because of : "not following all campaign rules".
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
When you join a campaign, the 1st thing you do is read all the rules and requirements. At least that's what you should do. To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
You apparently did not and didnt add the personal message text. May seem like a pretty excuse to be removed from a campaign but I feel users should be held accountable.
And that is what I do, but I thought I add it, my bad.
Thanks for the answer and I will be careful next time.
HI, I just saw that I was banned because of : "not following all campaign rules".
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
When you join a campaign, the 1st thing you do is read all the rules and requirements. At least that's what you should do. To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
You apparently did not and didnt add the personal message text. May seem like a petty excuse to be removed from a campaign but I feel users should be held accountable.
I assume it's because of burst posting as I know (probably) yahoo hates it when his participants burst posts just to get to their max quota.
You made 4 posts in 8 minutes
on: November 21, 2019, 01:45:55 AM ~ November 21, 2019, 01:53:24 AM
You made 4 posts in 11 minutes
on: November 19, 2019, 07:01:27 AM ~ November 19, 2019, 07:12:41 AM
Ok, that's what i thought. I'm always doing it since I am on the forum and never had a problem, but I will correct it for next campaigns with BTC pay. Thanks
HI, I just saw that I was banned because of : "not following all campaign rules".
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
Probably because of burstposting. For example:
.
.
.
.
All your post is on local Français board (which is not recommended to be a quality poster), it is hard for a manager to check the quality of your posts and it is very possible that someone from your local board suggested to manager if you spam there.
Yes and all these posts were made a "long time ago" before the signature, because that is how I am thinking, but I will correct it.
After for the local board in the rules you don"t have a limit for local board, but next time I will do both.
I don't think someone from the french board report me for spam, because the majority of my post are about articles or papers I wrote, or meeting I attempt (visible in my merits).
Anyway, I know I will not get another chance here so thanks for your answers
HI, I just saw that I was banned because of : "not following all campaign rules".
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
Probably because of burstposting. For example:
.
.
.
.
All your post is on local Français board (which is not recommended to be a quality poster), it is hard for a manager to check the quality of your posts and it is very possible that someone from your local board suggested to manager if you spam there.
HI, I just saw that I was banned because of : "not following all campaign rules".
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
It means you broke a rule. Next time, you can avoid that by not breaking rules.To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
Ok so if you prefer : I understand the meaning of the text but I don't get which rule(s) were broken. So I just want to understand that.
Is it clear for you ?
I assume it's because of burst posting as I know (probably) yahoo hates it when his participants burst posts just to get to their max quota.
You made 4 posts in 8 minutes
on: November 21, 2019, 01:45:55 AM ~ November 21, 2019, 01:53:24 AM
You made 4 posts in 11 minutes
on: November 19, 2019, 07:01:27 AM ~ November 19, 2019, 07:12:41 AM
HI, I just saw that I was banned because of : "not following all campaign rules".
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
It means you broke a rule. Next time, you can avoid that by not breaking rules.To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
Ok so if you prefer : I understand the meaning of the text but I don't get which rule(s) were broken (I have my idea but just want a confirmation if it's possible). So I just want to understand that.
Is it clear for you ?
HI, I just saw that I was banned because of : "not following all campaign rules".
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
It means you broke a rule. Next time, you can avoid that by not breaking rules. To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
HI, I just saw that I was banned because of : "not following all campaign rules".
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
To avoid to do the same mistake the next time, what does it mean ?
Thanks and have a nice day
As I understand it now the campaign rules have changed and those users who have a negative trust should be excluded from campaign?
It is right?
It is right?
As per black & white rule, the manager will decide depending upon why the red trust was given but i believe 99% of the cases the red trusts given were justified and hence very little chance of red tags to survive in the campaign.
Users with negative feedback from Default Trust users will be reviewed and removed at my discretion. Burstposting and or spamming to be paid is grounds for immediate removal. No matter the reason.
I just reported a SIX year necropost by one of your punters.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53154877
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bitcoinsgreat-789757
As I understand it now the campaign rules have changed and those users who have a negative trust should be excluded from campaign?
It is right?
This was a rule since day 1. Even in the previous campaign (prior ban), while very often not enforced. It is right?
As I understand it now the campaign rules have changed and those users who have a negative trust should be excluded from campaign?
It is right?
It is right?
yahoo62278
I can assume that hacked accounts should not take part in your campaign.
Pay attention to this user: skivrmt
An investigation revealed that he had changed his owner.
My account is not actually hacked. In addition, I do not violate neither forum rules, nor signature rules. I understand that my further participation is anyway at the discretion of admin. But, please, take into account what I said. Thanks.I can assume that hacked accounts should not take part in your campaign.
Pay attention to this user: skivrmt
An investigation revealed that he had changed his owner.
You account has already been banned from the campaign because of the 4 negative trusts. Nothing can be done about it.
If you think you do not deserve this red trust you can take this conversation to the reputation thread and avoid having a discussion on your case here.
My account is not actually hacked. In addition, I do not violate neither forum rules, nor signature rules. I understand that my further participation is anyway at the discretion of admin. But, please, take into account what I said. Thanks.
Just saying that your account was not hacked won't save you from the negative feedback. Nobody is going to believe such stuff. Bring forth the evidence and explain Why your account's posting styles and patterns changed instantly over the years.If the posts styles and pattern changed for the worst than his current and previous post then its clearly there is something suspicious, but if his post improved that is called progress on posting. I can't comprehend his post cause mostly his post were on his local boards. But reading it considering his rank could be really something fishy on his account.
Jump to: