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.
Topic: Red Trusted Managers Don't Accept Red Trusted Participants - page 3. (Read 803 times)
This really is, but I think that all this is due to the fact that people can really set their own rules, because these are their projects and they have the right to make such conditions, but I agree that this is not entirely fair, but it is.
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?
No, it is fair enough. Red trusted bounty manager should prevent spammers to joining their campaign.
They red trust maybe will be lifted if they don't allow red trust members to participating.
Im afraid if the manager allow red trusted member to join, they trust maybe getting worse later.
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?
Basically in the first place, we cannot blame the bounty managers as they are not really responsible on how the projects will going through on the entire process. But to consider the fact that they are tasked to run a bounty that is filtered out and have a standard, they need to do such things and limiting the participants to make the process better.
yes, I also think about it, it seems that it is unfair for managers and participants if in the same situation but we do not know further whether it is appropriate or not in accordance with their respective judgments and for me for managers with red trust that they have bad experiences and same as participants if in the same situation.
Some bounty managers got red trust for the project team's scam so he ca't do anything to remove it but it doesn't mean that he can't manage the bounties anymore.If a project team trust his bounty management skills then he can be hired but when it comes to participants it will be different scenario.
The rules that have been made by the team may not be changed, managers with red devices can pass and this is a policy by the team. For gift participants whose red rank is prohibited, chances are the team only wants to limit the undesired things. All returns to the team and its policies.
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?
Why do you want to join a campaign managed by a red trust manager? Doesn't it say a lot about the ICO? If they are willing to let a red trust manager run their campaign, they cannot be trusted. Do not waste your time on them. There are lots of campaigns run by a good manager, join them.
I think that is indeed unfair. But that's the name of the rule, if all who get the red trust can follow it, then everyone will go around on their own.
I think this is the decisions of the owner of the project and maybe they have assigned that manager because of that someone recommended to them, and as a mandatory rules having a negative trust should not participate in signature bounty.
The reason why participants may not have a red trust may be because the members in the forum will not read our comments that have been written in the forum, they think because we already have less trust, and maybe also because if the signature we use will affect the results that will be obtained by the ICO project,
Trust system is not moderated and there is so many discussion around the trust system. It affects the reputation and low reputable users can't take advantage of being part of the signature campaigns.
In fact, this is a very relevant topic. Now, if there were rules that a person with a red trust could not be a bounty Manager, then they would study the project more carefully before they start supervising it.
You need to understand that the bounty managers do not write from their main accounts. Many developers and organizers of the ICO to buy a bitcointalk account for their actions. Yes, most of these accounts have a good title but have a red trust. And participants who have a red trust he is often scammers.
It sounds really funny, probably they think that they are better than that, but I don’t think that it’s right, but in general I think that red trust is given for the cause, therefore the reasons for which it is given are unequivocal.
Hahaha.. This is just funny. It's just like a thief making noise or lamenting when he is stolen from. It's a shame if there are managers that do this.
we cannot equate managers who get red trust with thieves like you say, Remember Red Trust has a variety of reasons, not always those who get red trust are thieves. different when managers reject participants who get Red trust for theft or a spammer. 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?
Hehehe, I see mate. But there are various reason behind red-trust, I guess the team also made a research before contact the red-trust manager. And for the red-trust manager who didn't accepted red-trust participant, I guess yes it's not unfair (IMO), it would be good if manager not make that terms but manager also should to make a research before accept the red-trust participant, and never accept scammer, multi-account, and content thief. 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?
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 a bit hypocritical, but it's the norm in the industry so I can't fault any bounty managers engaging in this practice. The only thing people can do is avoid behaviors that might earn them negative trust!
Red trust means they already broke the forum rules, but sometimes they don't. I do not know why most of the bounty managers only accept high trust and normal trust users. :/
There are some red trust bounty managers that have got red trust for working for scam ICOs (which may because of their irresponsibility to check the campaign) and I don't think that's a valid reason for them getting negged as they did not scam themselves but may have not known about the ICO they are managing and hence they get hired but they don't accept negative trust members who have valid feedback (like scam accusations) against them. They should accept users on case-by-case basis but it doesn't always happen as they need to consider more than 200-300 applications and plus the ICO team may not accept these users.
Usually there are reasons for the red trust right? Normally it is not a good sign, although sometimes it happens unexpectedly to them. Make sure the project is serious that you are trying to join.
Jump to: