Topic: Red Trusted Managers Don't Accept Red Trusted Participants - page 4. (Read 823 times)
Sounds weird
Red trust is not always obtained because they are evil but maybe because they are not careful about what they do or promote so they get red trust because the project is fraudulent, even though BMs have red trust they are not necessarily bad and commit fraud to the bounty hunter. they also retain their principles as BM who have rules in what they do so they still want the people who participate to have a good reputation for taking work
I think its depending the menagers to meke a rules. Everything depends on the perspective of each. The manager has reason not to accept bounty hunters who have redtrust.
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?
For me, i think its unfair, they should accept red trust participants too, because the manager itself has red trust, and if all members has red trust, who can join then the 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,
most of that, even though there are some who accept participants with red trusted. but it is indeed unfair when the bounty manager has red trusted and rejects participants who also have red trusted.
it has become the rule of the manager and inevitably we must be able to follow it because the protest will also not change the rules. some managers must have reason for what he decided for the projeckSame deal with others have already been said, Managers campaign, managers Rules.
Well its really up to them, and i think what really matters is actually not people having a red trust, but WHY they are having a red trust
Somehow i've seen one with red trust and it is marked for sub account verification from their main
Thus, its back to why and managers do have the rights to reject any participants.
(It may sound unfair but yeah, the are the managers, we can't do anything. Was once accused i copyright other's article and not paid $4,000 in tokens, such a douche)
and know what, the project is not a fake, copy pasting project, but a genuine project and it's currently in the top 100 Rank NOW)
So yeah, life is somehow unfair, good luck and go over it!
Somehow i've seen one with red trust and it is marked for sub account verification from their main
Thus, its back to why and managers do have the rights to reject any participants.
(It may sound unfair but yeah, the are the managers, we can't do anything. Was once accused i copyright other's article and not paid $4,000 in tokens, such a douche)
and know what, the project is not a fake, copy pasting project, but a genuine project and it's currently in the top 100 Rank NOW)
So yeah, life is somehow unfair, good luck and go over it!
It goes back to the marketing team of the company of an ICO.
There must be a reason behind it. Some users here do have a red trust but their case is still in pending. I mean, they may have an appeal for it but is still in process. If those can be proved then a manager can still keep on going like a normal member here.
Do you have a specific name? Maybe we could do some research in the Meta section for us to know if they really scammed or stolen something from another user to deserve a red trust.
There must be a reason behind it. Some users here do have a red trust but their case is still in pending. I mean, they may have an appeal for it but is still in process. If those can be proved then a manager can still keep on going like a normal member here.
Do you have a specific name? Maybe we could do some research in the Meta section for us to know if they really scammed or stolen something from another user to deserve a red trust.
most of that, even though there are some who accept participants with red trusted. but it is indeed unfair when the bounty manager has red trusted and rejects participants who also have red trusted.
it has become the rule of the manager and inevitably we must be able to follow it because the protest will also not change the rules. some managers must have reason for what he decided for the projeck
most of that, even though there are some who accept participants with red trusted. but it is indeed unfair when the bounty manager has red trusted and rejects participants who also have red trusted.
I never joined any more with bounty campaign manager have red trust score in their account, I can trust him because never paid for bounty campaign participants and I ask you the same thing with never joined their campaign.
It is a nice question actually.
I think just not accepting all negative trusted people is not the right way. I think red trusted people should accept or deny by why they got that red trust.
In that case, it will a hell lot of works for the bounty managers because they need to check the reason for the red tag and later verify the reason. In bitcointalk, some people are unlucky that got negative trust for almost no reason. Bounty managers can't verify that you know. That's why it's better to avoid them. I think just not accepting all negative trusted people is not the right way. I think red trusted people should accept or deny by why they got that red trust.
Well is their choice, no one can make them to accept red trust, but in my opinion their should not be red trusted managers, because people maybe will not invest on that coin, is just my opinion.
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?
Life is unfair.
I suspect it is because the ICO teams don't know or maybe even don't care about Bitcointalk politics. To them, delivering results is what they concern themselves with. In fact, if you don't log in, you don't see these red tags. Only the managers want clean profiles because they want to avoid cheating members from signing up.
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?
There are no official rules that red trust managers can't handle bounty jobs.
However, ever since bounties/campaigns have started in this community, red trust are not accepted because it is what it is. That's why you need to be very careful of your account not to be tag because it will be hard for you to join bounties or btc paying campaigns.
you have to accept it, there are rules that you do not like yourself. even if it looks a lot unfair, there are managers who also accept people with red trust. people without red trust find something like that maybe unfair too. so you should just accept that every bounty manager does it differently.
Managers with red trust don't accept participants who have trust in their accounts while some bounty managers who don't have red trust but accept participants with red trust. so in my opinion it's fair because we can't do anything
It is a nice question actually.
I think just not accepting all negative trusted people is not the right way. I think red trusted people should accept or deny by why they got that red trust.
I think just not accepting all negative trusted people is not the right way. I think red trusted people should accept or deny by why they got that 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?
Red trust given for different reasons by DT members so you can't say that red trusted members were just scammers.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 they don't want to hire red trusted participants because it can create some bad reputation for that project,the decision of picking red trusted manager is on the hands of project team.
If the bounty manager was hired by the team, it certainly say the campaign manager was entrusted by the team. He must set the rules for it and what he sets are just as what he wants, you can contest but its still going to give you a hard time winning. The forum users somehow we can say dislikes projects accepting red trusted users though, this will affect the project's reputation.
Jump to: