Topic: Red Trusted Managers Don't Accept Red Trusted Participants - page 6. (Read 823 times)
The manager who got the red trust, I thought it would be very difficult to get participants. And the projects they handle also do not accept participants with red trust. But there are various reasons why these managers get red trust, so they are trusted to be project managers.
Your point is right and personally i too feel the same even i sometimes hesitated as well before joining a campaign from a red trust manager but such managers have their argument that they are flagged by bounty hunters if any bounty rewards are delayed or are not paid wherethey are not directly involved because they just manage the campaign and the real culprit is the team behind the project.
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?
I disagree. It is absolutely fair.
It is the ICO owner's decision to hire a red tagged Campaign Manager. That is fair. They have all the right to hire anyone they chose to manage their bounty campaign.
It is the Campaign Manager's decision not to hire red tagged bounty campaigners. That is fair. They have all the right to reject anyone they deemed not fit for their bounty campaign.
You also have a choice. You have the right not to join a campaign managed by a red tagged manager for your own safety.
this rule is the same as the rules about kyc, where kyc is only required for participants and managers do not do it and run away when their responsibilities cannot be fulfilled. not fair indeed, but the crypto industry which has not been legalized by the government is indeed still a lot that is unfair.
Have you found a project that run like what you just said? Then you can complaint to the team and ask them why they are doing so. Your complaint might not be heard but then you can avoid a new project from that manager. 
Who are you talking about anyway? I'm just curious. When I checked your feedback history, I'm not sure if you are part of that team but it's not that big of a deal. Maybe your quality of posts or for bounties, fewer followers or something.
I don't see how much "unfair" it is. If you don't want to accept the person because of his trust, then so be it.
I don't see how much "unfair" it is. If you don't want to accept the person because of his trust, then so be it.
this rule is the same as the rules about kyc, where kyc is only required for participants and managers do not do it and run away when their responsibilities cannot be fulfilled. not fair indeed, but the crypto industry which has not been legalized by the government is indeed still a lot that is unfair.
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?
its better not to join the bounty campaign when the bounty manager have red trustMost 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?
When an account has a red trust, it tells that someone the person behind the account has a questionable character. Red trust accounts should be rejected because most times, the Bitcointalk trust system is a valid proof on character
His campaign, his rules. As simple as that.
Managers may be red trusted but the reason why may be different from that of the would be participants of the his campaign.
Managers may be red trusted but the reason why may be different from that of the would be participants of the his campaign.
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?
We know that even those scam managers are only accepting new participants with neutral trust caused by the fact that they don't wanna destroy their own credibility. It looks unfair because basically, they are holding everything. But move to another campaign if you are thinking if that's not unfair for you. 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?
People can get redtrusts for various reasons. Promoting scam projects, cheating bounty, etc.
In my opinion, a project is okay to hire a redtrust managers as long as the redtrust is not related to bounty campaigns. A redtrust managers that don't accepted redtrust bounty hunters must be because the bounty hunters has been bumped for cheating bounty or anyting bad regarding bounty campaigns. If not, then it's nonsense.
It sounds reasonable as one should always check why the redtrust is there for the bounty hunters. Its just that a lot of persons do not bother to check the reason for the red trust of the bounty manager,even when it is unrelated to the project, I am kind of weary of redtrusts In my opinion, a project is okay to hire a redtrust managers as long as the redtrust is not related to bounty campaigns. A redtrust managers that don't accepted redtrust bounty hunters must be because the bounty hunters has been bumped for cheating bounty or anyting bad regarding bounty campaigns. If not, then it's nonsense.
Unfortunately, we can not determine conditions. BM has already proven himself with his previous works. And red trust is often given for reasons that do not originate from himself. But are hunters so reliable? abselutely no.
I think its a case to case basis and ultimately the BM has the final decision whether to accept a particular applicant or not because he/she is also constrained with agreements from project team members especially in not allowing red trusted participants. But ideally, its should be "compromise and not confrontation" mantra that will prevail so that hopefully, everybody will be in a win-win situation.
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 sane people who would hire negative members to manage their campaign if they knew he was cheating his own campaign or doing illicit activities unless the employers also want to fool people. If you ever came across one then that project or that manager conspire to scam the investors and should definitely be avoided. We and the managers are only humans that made mistakes, we get easily dazzled if we see big money is coming right through us. If they are still continuing such projects, whatever the costs you should just disengage to avoid being dragged into the mess. It is most likely you could get negative trusts ratings also so. Or you could report to the admins and let them fix the issues.
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?
Maybe they think that participants with negative trust will have a bad impact on the reputation of their project. 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?
After all, bountists with a negative trust are equated with fraudsters.
That is, it turns out that scammers advertise the project. And who needs it?
This is just my guess.
Unfortunately, we can not determine conditions. BM has already proven himself with his previous works. And red trust is often given for reasons that do not originate from himself. But are hunters so reliable? abselutely no.
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.
this is only purely for the reputation of the project. if the average "project promoted by the redtrus person can reduce the image of the project. however, not all campaigns are blocked, those who have redtrust can participate in social media, articles / videos and others that are not directly related to the bitcointalk account.
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?
I believe it is totally unfair; but bounty laws are bounty laws
But I'm another angle, bounty manager get negative trust because of few projects that refuses to pay hunters, sometimes managers are faulty; sometimes projects dev don't want to pay
If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?
What ico are you referring to specifically? Sometimes a manager gets red trusted after becoming the manager if the ico is determined to be a scam, and not before.No project or any business using campaigns and bounties to advertise here should hire members with negatives from DT members. It doesn't reflect well on them and I believe that's the most important reason why they don't.
Whether it's unfair or not, that's life. We're all in the same unfair roller coaster ride, and complaining about it doesn't help and no one wants to hear it anyway.
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
Jump to: