Topic: Red Trusted Managers Don't Accept Red Trusted Participants - page 2. (Read 823 times)
Some mangers have been given red trust when project team changed the terms of bounty engagement, and for not doing a good research before accepting to manage a bad project. If a BM is good at the job, I vote it should be given the bounty management regardless of the red trust. Although I personally avoid red trust manager. I fear the project might fail or hunters will run into problem.
Isn't it unfair?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
Everything falls on the developer teams themselves. At the end of the day, the decision will be theirs to make. If they give paramount importance to their brand, they should try to avoid managers with red trust and promoters with red trust as well. This is very basic here, at least on this forum.
Im fine with bounty managers with red trust but devs should not give red trust bounty managers projects to manage for them because it can stain the projects reputation too but for me i will like to check why the bounty manager have red trust because we have many reasons why someone gets red trust.
Isn't it unfair?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
I can see your thoughts mate since I have also asked this in my mind how a red tag manager managed to deny applicants that has red tag as themMost of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
But when I get deep to th conclusion,there’s a thing that I understand because it’s their reputation again that at stake if they take those red tags account because this will reflect to the company they represent,the managers usually don’t wear the signatures and avatar of the company so I think it’s won’t damage the reputation
But there are some managers that accept some tagged account depending to their respective cases,because I saw some signatures that has red tagged members until now actively campaigning
Isn't it unfair?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
the blame is on the developers of the ICO's, they are not thinking logically, I never trust bounty managers with red trust, even if the project is good it cast doubts if the dev is honest in establishing a good and legit ICO, bounty hunters should stay away with red trust managers they scam you and there are bounty hunters that are also scamming bounty hunters.
So it should not really be a criteria for them rejecting hunters in participating in a campaign, what the hunter needs are the social media tools and as long as those tools has not rejected them from promoting these companies, why should they also reject them? What is not right is not right, the platform is for everyone.
It should be a criteria, but maybe it should be carefully reviewed why the red trust rating actually came into existence.
Isn't it unfair?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
the blame is on the developers of the ICO's, they are not thinking logically, I never trust bounty managers with red trust, even if the project is good it cast doubts if the dev is honest in establishing a good and legit ICO, bounty hunters should stay away with red trust managers they scam you and there are bounty hunters that are also scamming bounty hunters.
So it should not really be a criteria for them rejecting hunters in participating in a campaign, what the hunter needs are the social media tools and as long as those tools has not rejected them from promoting these companies, why should they also reject them? What is not right is not right, the platform is for everyone.
Isn't it unfair?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
the blame is on the developers of the ICO's, they are not thinking logically, I never trust bounty managers with red trust, even if the project is good it cast doubts if the dev is honest in establishing a good and legit ICO, bounty hunters should stay away with red trust managers they scam you and there are bounty hunters that are also scamming bounty hunters.
A bounty managers have a red trust because of dissatisfied with the payment to bounty hunters. But the bounty manager can not know what awaits the project, he only does his job, the payment is carried out by the developers of the project. So do not blame the bounty managers in injustice.
A redtrust bounty manager rejecting redtrust bounty hunters is like a kettle calling pot black, no matter what reason the bounty manager get his redtrust, either by cheating bounty hunters or promoting scam bounty he's as bad as the bounty hunters with redtrust, they're both birds of the same feather
This isn't entirely correct. I have seen redtrusted members getting accepted by redtrusted managers and even managers who don't have redtrust. It would be hypocrisy if redtrusted CM don't accept redtrusted posters just by the virtue of the negative trust on their profile without clicking to read why a poster got redtrusted in the first place. Sometimes, redtrust are given for flimsy reasons other that scam it was originally set up to curb. We all know howr insensitive some DT members can be most times with the trust thingy. 
Isn't it unfair?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
It's fair for me. Fyi there are so many accounts get red trusted because of cheating multiple accounts on the same signature or bounties and it's good, so these accounts can't join bounties anymore. They are hiring a red trusted manager because of his/her record manage previous bounties.
Hah it is interesting... One scammers do not allow to join other scammers in the scam bounty projects 
I think it is very funny 
I think it is very funny
Very ridiculous but I think its for our own good. Red trust manager knows what red trust members are capable of. But I think it to place limitation on the number of participants and also bring some level of sanity and trust.
It is only natural that red trusted bounty hunters will not be accepted in any signature campaign. Though there are very few campaigns that I saw in the past that they accept red trusted one.
But most of the bounty campaigns right now they want to eliminate the spammers, cheaters and etc. so they are upgrading their terms and conditions.
It depends also to the project owner what type of bounty manager they hire. In some cases also, there are few bounty managers that received negative trust because of competition as there are other managers that wants to eliminate their competitors by giving negative trust.
But most of the bounty campaigns right now they want to eliminate the spammers, cheaters and etc. so they are upgrading their terms and conditions.
It depends also to the project owner what type of bounty manager they hire. In some cases also, there are few bounty managers that received negative trust because of competition as there are other managers that wants to eliminate their competitors by giving negative trust.
some red trusted managers are not scammers their just only promoting a scam ICO but the fault is not with them is with the ICO company. and when the managers get red tag it is almost impossible for them to remove it. but in most cases they are the one can decide if they want to hire a red tag participant or not but most of the time they will not hire those users with the red tags.
It's not about fair or unfair. The campaign is their and they make the rules, if you join, you must follow the rules. Remember that dealer always wins. Sometimes managers get red trusted but they did nothing wrong, i met some cases like that.
right. managers who have negative confidence I will not participate in their bounty. You can know now that many projects are fake. So choosing a project, the manager is also an important factor to choose a good project
Many managers are here for long and managing lots of campaigns and some of them can turn out a scam and they get negative trust. So, they can earn negative trust without having bad intentions. On the other hand if hunters get red trust usually it happens with reason. We cannot compare these two situations.
Yes it’s a puzzling matter for me as well! It’s unfair with that red trust and moreover, it makes you think they are better than you just because they are at a managing position.
yes, they should not be compared on the basis because they have a higher position, if they have red trust it is clearly bad. so if management or participants are clear in the same situation it must be fair. but the facts are different.It is surprising that some bounty campaigns accept a manager with red trust in the first place.
Yes it’s a puzzling matter for me as well! It’s unfair with that red trust and moreover, it makes you think they are better than you just because they are at a managing position.
yes, they should not be compared on the basis because they have a higher position, if they have red trust it is clearly bad. so if management or participants are clear in the same situation it must be fair. but the facts are different.
I think it all depends on the reasons why the red trust was given. If developer and team decided to hire a red trust manager, it is justified.
Jump to: