Topic: Who are owners of this forum? (Bounty Manager or Users?) (Read 938 times)

Okay, I am going to do the unthinkable and try to make sense of what TOAA is trying to say here. I think he/ they/ The Swarm does say a lot of things that need to be said, albeit in a different manner. I am just going to try and see what they are saying. I am also going to try to snip some portions of their reply so it makes more sense.


The question is whether these bounty projects, which are inevitably linked to ICO scams should be allowed to formulate their own rules when they use the BCT forum as a cheap way to spread their scammy tokens?
The opinion that the forum should have certain guidelines that don't allow such scams to be free to make whatever rules they want holds some merit. Yet, this issue has been long settled on this forum. Go to the Sl no: 6 of this message here. It was settled long ago that there won't be any policing. People are free to judge.

---

Now, TOAA has come to the issue of Signature campaigns. This is where a@actmyname gave them a chance to come clean.

Although he/ they/ the swarm refused to go down the intention rabbit-hole as suggested by actmyname, the intention is that some people think they deserve to be on better campaigns and to be making more SATS here on the forum compared to a lot of others. Hell, even i think that i deserve to be on a comfortable campaign that doesn't make me post 25 shitty posts for 0.002 BTC per week. Unfortunately, and to my continued chagrin, this is where the facts come in:
We all wish that the sig campaigns chose us over those who seem to be have much lesser post quality. Yet, a majority of them don't need your content. I was rejected multiple times by pretty famous managers because of non-gambling/ low post count in the past days. I promised that I'll spew a lot of banter but to no avail. LOL.

But yeah, this is how things work in the "25 posts for 0.002 BTC". They want more eyeballs. There are many many users willing to spend more time than me here at the forum. A lot of them are doing much better work compared to me too. So the facts remain, no matter how I may "feel" about my post quality or merit history.

As far as the higher paying campaigns are concerned, I think Darkstar does a pretty unenviable and good job at removing old people and ensuring that a few better ones get the chance. There just isn't enough space at the White-house.
Some of the other high paying gambling ones maybe a bit questionable but more or less, those are awarded fairly. What maybe going on "behind the curtains" is simply conjecture and mere opinion.

There are enough answers to the OP question but i want to address the statement which is mentioned in the title  

"Who are owners of this forum? (Bounty Manager or Users?)"

For me the USERS are the owner of this forum. Some reputed bounty managers and DT members, Staff , moderators have additional roles which is helping the forum but all of them are still USERS.

The Real Owner of the forum is one and only, Theymos

From revisiting this thread is is apparent most people simply do not understand the reasoning we have presented. Of course they can not debunk it because it is undeniable once you do understand it.

They are correct that alts should not be permitted but still are promulgating the INCORRECT reasons for this. AKA projects make their own ruled ...end of story.

There is no point continuing to claim alts are not allowed purely because project owners can set their own rules whatever they may be. It is completely moronic. Their rules don't mean shit if they are opening up deliberately honest members to be scams. Do you say scammers have the right to set their own project rules that put them and an obvious and scammy advantage ?? NO that's just because it is clearer to most people that they are DIRECTLY scamming so they call them scammers not project mangers/dev teams, well ..... bounties/sig campaigns are just not as DIRECT so most people do NOT realize this is actually the way the BIGGEST scams operate.

You may as well say scams can set any rules they like since they are the project owners right??

Let us try and explain it in another way that you may understand better.

Say the project owners said ONLY alts are allowed to join are of the first 5 people to join the promotion (sig campaign)(who will be them and their pals since they know exactly when it is launched). It's their rules right?? Imagine a project where a substantial amount of the initial distribution is given in that bounty. So how would that end up??  YES completely dangerous for all members to get involved with. The easier for a few people to control and collude and market make = SCAM or if you don't believe it meets the criteria of scam it is fucking super super dangerous to get involved with or trade those tokens. You want a WIDE initial distribution, the narrower the more dangerous and scammy.

The rules projects make here are NOT UP TO THEM really. Well, they can make any rules they like, but honest members can certainly call them out for dangerous / scam projects and make them pariahs unless their campaign managers provide transparent rules to ensure all members have a fair(ish) chance of acceptance. 

ALTS must be prevented where possible else you are opening up the honest members to be fleeced and scammed. Also if there are only a few high paying sig spots these should be given to the REAL best posters and NON SCAMMERS and rotated if possible if you want it to be fair and not again be open to abuse and kick backs.

If you do not have TRANSPARENT RULES that ensure fair treatment of all members then you have ABUSE AND GAMING = dangerous and scamming. It is not difficult to understand. Have another read and think about it.  If campaign managers can NOT present a clear and strong case where you have been fairly assessed in the context of others that were accepted/denied and demonstrate clearly why you were accepted/denied then they are NOT doing their job and are very very very LIKELY to be corrupt and dangerous. I mean behind the curtain of WE DO WHAT THE FUCK WE WANT FOR WHATEVER REASONS WE THINK BEST  then anything can be going on.

Most DT members here have no clue, most highly merited members here have LESS of a clue. I laugh when I read their reasoning and ideas. Most are likely housewives or other unemployable stay at home dregs. How can you expect them to understand anything that is not completely obvious??


TLDR = no fucking alts in the same project for numerous reasons. FAIR TRANSPARENT RULES where the campaign manager actually does his job and weeds out the best posters ( or posters above a certain threshold of quality) and NO SCAMMERS - first come basis (but watch out if he is selecting the same people who mysteriously come to his campaigns first everytime) perhaps some rotation if that keeps happening to give everyone a fair chance who meets the required thresholds.

Read it, Undestand it, then agree or debunk it.

Ahh yeah, fair point. I always forget how much people play fast and loose with their personal details and link all their online activities to their real identity.

I have nothing against alt accounts, and people should be absolutely free to use them to post things which they don't want linked to their main account for whatever reason. My issues are only when people use alt accounts to cheat the system, by enrolling multiple times in campaigns which don't allow it, enter multiple times in to giveaways or competitions, evade bans or red trust, etc.

Wow,Looks like the thread blew up with TOAA coming into the fray. Haven't really read yet whats going on. Just going to reply oeleo and then read.
There are accounts which maybe established but can be linked back to real world identities without too much work. You want to start some kind of p2p trading and realize that it is better to keep it completely anonymous for privacy purposes. I think in that case someone may decide to start an honest business from scratch with a new account. Those are in fact the kind of scenarios due to which the forum allows unknown alts. Like every other good thing, this is also misused. Humans!!

That is why I remain so interested in him. He is quite a persevering operator in sneaky activities.

There are many people trying to accuse people who own multiple accounts by checking their wallet address. I am sure you know this. And I am a victim. No matter how I explained it, they still didn't accept it. As a result, I have a lot of negative trust. Even when I and my friends were working together on this forum, I received an additional negative trust. And you see, I can't take part in any campaign right now 

I have not follow all the comments in this thread but just few before this quoted post above. Your answer is here already given by the user taufik123.


And you indeed is having problem to understand it. Read his full post.


I hope it already made sense to you.

Is the OP still confused? I think i should just drop my opinion although it won't be different from what most well reputed users on the forum have said but it might add some additional thoughts, first the OP should understand the bounty campaign aren't regulated by the forum so they're a body of their own but since they're been hosted on the forum, they're obligated to follow the guidelines of the forum's unofficially rules and regulations, that's why most of their campaign rules is drafted out of that of the forum. (e.g no spamming etc)

That a campaign doesn't accept alts doesn't automatically mean you can't have alt on the forum although since they (campaign) have stated clearly you won't get paid when you're caught that's the punishment you will get. And in the scenario of recieving red tagged, it's due to the fact your actions can be deem untrustworthy on the forum since you were willing to cheat a member of the forum (the BM). If you observe most bounty managers don't tagged bounty cheaters but definitely they won't pay them since that repercussion was already indicated on their campaign rules.

PS: Your freedom ends where the BM freedom begins, you have freedom to have alts but the BM has freedom not to accept your alts into his campaign and when you try to cheat your way in by denying the BM he's right, you get the consequence of your actions

This is probably the best post I've read on this thread so far, and deserves a lot of merit. In bounties, your employer calls the shots obviously,

have you ever heard of a situation where the employee goes out to his employer and starts dictating his own working conditions, but still expects to get paid on the original terms of his contract ?  

Also I have to point out of course it makes a difference for the projects to make sure that only 1 account / user enrolls in their bounty; for one they would much rather have a user post comfortably more than the min. msg limits for the same pay, than having that participant just fulfill the bare minimum then move on to his alt accounts...

I need not investigate my own intentions other than I see no reason for us not to make things as transparent and provably FAIR as we possibly can and to roll back subjectivity and room to abuse where we can. I would ask you conduct your own thought experiment and start investigating your support of NON transparency and No rolling back subjectivity and room to abuse. Let me know how this goes for you.

Actually I have no idea what you are getting at regarding this. Motivation should be irrelevant only the merits of the plan for the entire forum should be considered, neither my own or your own personal gain/loss.

Now it seems that nobody has presented any NEGATIVES of making things more transparent and fair. Certainly they have not debunked the positives because that would be impossible.

It seems nobody has debunked the high risk to the honest members by NOT making it more transparent and fair.

They only seem to be saying IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FAIR.

However in saying this they are also claiming the members here have NO RIGHT to only accept projects that are not deliberately choosing to put them at higher risk and also have no right to be treated fairly.

I disagree. It would only take perhaps a handful of people that will not accept projects and campaign managers deliberately putting them at far higher risk of being scammed to ensure it was in the projects best interests to hire campaign managers who behaviors can stand up to public scrutiny and therefore NOT being deliberately putting the boards honest members at far higher risk of being scammed.

I see no rebuttals to the negatives of NOT having transparent rules. I see only people that are currently benefitting from the lack of transparent rules claiming they don't believe it is fair that they have to compete fairly against other members.

I will say this may NOT apply as strongly to actmyname as it may other members since it is quite conceivable that he could compete fairly and still retain his sig.

I see no debunking of our central points at all. I simply see a bunch of excuses to keep the status quo that benefits them in place.

This is the same for merit and trust. This is the issue with it being discussed in META. META is a concentrated bunch of people that benefit strongly from the status quo so any suggested changes to the status quo are immediately non beneficial to these members. Hence even though there is STRONG negatives for the majority of the board for it to remain as it is which they are unable to refute they will still find any excuse not to change it.

Here the only excuse is we have no right to ask for all members to be treated fairly.  We have no right to order them to change. However we clearly have the right to voice our opinions en mass regarding their proclaimed right to treat the majority of members unfairly and perhaps endanger them financially deliberately.

When you start to understand that without transparent selection rules and that they can allocate positions to who they want for whatever reasons they make up, then you start to realize that they are saying they clearly set you up to be manipulated and scammed.

That's fine but if you want to deliberately set people up to be scammed through market manipulations then your project can clearly be classed as dangerous and tainted. Else why not choose to go transparent and be scrutinized.

I have no idea why you are asking me to present my own intentions. It really has no bearing on things. Things are either transparent and fair and open to public scrutiny or else they are private, backroom, gamed, abused, and unfair and perhaps deliberately deceptive and scamming. They will be what they will be regardless of the person suggesting or seeking to prevent.

 think every member here has the right to prefer and state preference for fair treatment and more security against getting scammed. The key is transparency. Scams thrive behind the curtain, pull the curtain away and let in the day light and those sucking the blood of honest members soon scream out with excuses and indignation.

I mean do you have the right to NOT be scammed?? if you say no we do not have that right then why punish scammers? why not reward scammers? why take any action at all to prevent ? why have default trust?  Do we have the intrinsic right to read valuable posts??

This is larger than having the right to be paid 2 post. There are many other implications.

Anyway we will have to agree to disagree on the ALTs part. I see you feel alts should be allowed.  Again though there I think you are not considering all implications of this.

It is a shame we so often find ourselves on opposite sides of things actmyname, still makes for better debating that if we have to suffer those that are clearly lacking in the capacity for reason. At least a worthy challenge and some effort at presenting a thought process that can be followed.

There is nothing snide there for your personally actmyname. I believe you are a fan of playing what they may call devils advocate, this is not a bad thing I suppose. It is good that you seek to help us close any holes in our proposals or points.


Some of what this thread seeks to discuss seems to have been touched upon here
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-song-of-vices-and-ire-alternate-account-campaign-enrollment-5205864

for further reading.

This is where I will step in.

You're trying to get people to be transparent in campaign rules to ensure fairness (i.e. equal opportunity) and that's a commendable thing, kind of.

But the issue here is that we don't intrinsically have a right to campaigns, really... and they shouldn't have to be utterly transparent in everything they do. I want you to try a simple thought experiment: start tunneling down to the intent of your transparency, start asking questions like "why do this?" and let me know how the results flow.

The only thing you have made clear is that

1. you are unable to debunk my points
2. you have motivation for CLAIMING they should be able to avoid transparent rules
3. you have no idea what you are talking about

You don't get to dictate what MOST scammers chose to do. That does not mean we should not change things so it is fairer and better for all members here.

PRETENDING you are allocating positions to the BEST posters and MOST trustworthy when you are clearly not is DECEPTION and pretty much scamming.

ONLY scammers and untrustworthy are afraid of transparent rules that are applied equally to all members.

Saying we have no control over this is wrong. If the board decides we want campaign managers to have transparent rules or else the projects are branded deliberate SCAMS then that is what can happen.

If you are refusing to have your actions scrutinized against then you are refusing for a reason. Refusing transparent rules is refusing scrutiny.

This is dangerous for honest members and pressure should be applied to campaigns and projects to makes sure they do. For the sake of all honest members here. This is UNDENIABLE.

I really don't know how much clearer I can make this:




You don't get to dictate to campaigns who they can and cannot hire. End of story.

Stop ranting please.

This is also a bogus claim because you are not setting the full context as if to make it appear we randomly act in that way without first having exactly those sorts of behaviors inflicted upon us first. Calling people dirty scammer supporting turds is not adhominem either when we are discussing their scammer supporting ways and their undeniable observable instances of doing just that. THOSE are statements of fact too. Either way let's stay on topic.

Now as to the point that you feel you would need to sift back through 1000' of "rants" to get your answer, when it was in the last post I made to you clearly illustrates that you do NOT understand the issue with letting campaign managers operate without transparent and clear rules that ALL members are measured against equally.

Now can you present a list of pro's and cons to support your nonsense that we should leave it totally subjective or just confess you are only claiming this because you seek to not be in competition with other members fairly because you fear that your chipmixer sig will be vulnerable. I say it will clearly just be gone instantly because you do not have the capacity to demonstrate you are one of the top 57 best posters here and certainly not one of the most 57 top posters that are clearly not a scammer supporter.

But skipping the adhominem/not adhominem debate on that part list your pros and cons and clearly debunk my assertion that transparent and clear rules/thresholds should be introduced and that campaign mangers should stop hiding behind their DT pals manipulated metrics so that they can GIVE THOSE SAME DTS ALL THE BEST SIG SPOTS LOL.

Who would have guessed you would not like the idea of being measured against transparent rules/thresholds in fair competition with other honest members but prefer your campaign manager DT loving pals keep giving the chipmixer spots to you hahahaha


WHY WOULD ANYONE object to some transparent rules/thresholds being set that are not obviously gamed and abused to match applicants against??? you really have to consider that question first. YES the only reason is that they are likely already benefitting from this current subjective gamed abused mess. THAT IS EXACTLY what we see here oeeieie is a chipmixer spammer already hey??? that is not adhominem is it? that is a statement of fact that you are one already?? the motivated is questionable but what other motivation is there for NOT wanting transparent rules for all members to be measured against??? let him supply them.

Alts we agree on since you don't have any. Then again if you had some perhaps we would no longer be in agreement??? who can say.

Alts are certainly not a good idea in the same sigs especially on new tokens.

Calling your endless rants "endless rants" is not an ad hominem. It is a statement of fact, and as it is not an attack on your character as a way to criticize your argument, it is not an ad hominem. For someone who goes around calling people dirty turds and other pathetic insults, you should probably learn the meaning of the words you use. (That also was not an ad hominem, simply an insult. The two are not synonymous.)

I, like everyone else, will not be trawling through your back catalogue of almost 1000 pointless rants. If you wish to directly answer why you should be able to dictate rules to all bounty managers on the forum, please do so. If bounty managers agree that the merit system is flawed, then they are entirely allowed to ignore it and select participants on whatever criteria they like.

Please do not ONLY bring adhominem. The other points you raise are already clearly answered previously and debunked by the answers I have already given. Especially if you are at all concerned about the honest members here getting fleeced. Which you claim to be. Just because you seem to not understand those points is not our problem. Have another read. If there are no transparent rules that are objectively and independently used to measure each applicant equally against then of course there are endless shady and scammy implications for that. Hence why similar rules exist in RL. Although really they are far more important here than in many cases in RL.

Those "rants" contain important central points that have never been debunked. You should address them for what they clearly are insightful posts that get right to the truth of the matter.

@actymyname.

Well better slightly "fuzzy" borders between transparent clear rules that are applied equally to all members than observably and undeniably misleading and dangerous bogus metrics.

I mean those examples were really just a rebuttal to the IN RL claims ioeieoei was making.

Here on this board we can actually do things a little better since we ALL have access to ALL the posts made by members so we can ALL analyse them.

ANY attempt to roll back subjectivity (the home of abuse) is an improvement over what we have now. Even the law is a work in progress right?

So if we are claiming access to campaigns is based on

= no clear examples of financially motivated wrong doing (apparently what red trust is for)

= the highest value posters or a threshold of minimum standard of posting = merit score


then these need to be made robust so that public examination and scrutiny corroborates the campaign managers choices.

AKA

the member should have ZERO clear and objective instances of financially motivated wrong dong  CHECK

and

let's say we were to set standard of less than 5 shitposts (opinions that were not corroborated with observable instances and did not add any real value to reaching the optimal decision or solution in that thread .. I mean this can be thrashed out as one member already attempted to do previously when defining a post of value which was very interesting) from your last 100 posts.

OR any clear transparent rule that ALL applicants are measured against.

I mean it should be first come first served that meet some good thresholds we can put in place. Any argument that ONLY the best posters are allowed in would clearly require the campaign manager has a larger capacity or equal to the best posters applying. This is likely not possible so a minimum threshold will be required.

If campaign managers do not want to put in the work so that their decision stand up to public scrutiny then chuck them out and get some that will put in the work and be fully accountable.

Of course it will be a work in progress nothing is perfect straight away. However that is no reason to leave it WIDE OPEN and TOTALLY BROKEN.

There is NO reason NOT to approach it just like this if we want to claim only the BEST posters and most TRUSTWORTHY members are being selected for the BEST paying sig campaings. Or it is a clearly bogus claim.

This was hammered out on the way to the gym so there may be a rethink required ... improvising to plug up subjective and gamed holes is part of the process.

Why do they? As I said above, people are not hired or are fired in real life without any sort of detailed explanation all the time. Everyone knows from your endless rants that you don't like the merit system, but why should the rest of the forum have to live by your opinions? If a project is paying money to hire someone to do a job, then it is entirely up to them what metrics they use to select the person they are going to hire for said job, even if you think those metrics are flawed. You're not paying to hire the person, so why should you get a say in who they hire?

I don't have alts and that's not what I said. Alts are banned on ChipMixer anyway.

Well, my issue with setting limits on what someone can/cannot designate on a rule is that you have fuzzy borders.

"No gays" -> Not OK?
"No scammers" -> Not OK?
"No shady individuals" -> Not OK?
"No spammers" -> Not OK?
"No gang members" -> Not OK?

Where do you draw the line? And if it's case-by-case, then does that mean we're just making this up on the fly?

@ioieioe

Their clear rules are open to abuse. As we clearly detail. Their rules rely on abused metrics. Therefore the rules are not valid  nor transparent. They need to be thrashed out so that they are objectively verifiable and a clear detailed explanation can be given with examples that substantiate that the person was either rejected or accepted in a fair way that is not easy to abuse. No alt accounts can be seen as an objective transparent and fair rule but there must be clear and compelling evidence that it is an alt.


SHIT TOKENS or perhaps ico's of projects that get market caps of HUGE USD totals. Are even more cause for danger for the entire board. Giving out btc dust to individuals does not pose such a danger in terms of market manipulation. I am actually agreeing alts must NOT be permitted in the same campaign but it is far more important for tokens where the bounty makes up a large proportion of the initial distribution.

You have alts?? we I do not think it would be fair for alts to be on chipmixer because it is very limited and others should have a chance. Actually those spots should be on rotation really.

No they are not allowed to set the ANY rules and if they do set them they need to be transparent. You will find that discrimination charges can be brought quite frequently where there is suspected discrimination.  Try putting no females, no gays, no black people, and see how your rules go.

So if you say must have x merit and you had merit clearly being a cycled bunch of bogus garbage cycled among 0.01 that allocated it mostly to each other. OR must not have negative trust (where that has been clearly demonstrated to be so abused another system was required to be devised) then in real life started trying to use those undeniably broken and gamed metrics to hire people you will find you will have a lot of criticism and problems cropping up rather shorty. Especially when they then notice the campaign managers are all pally pally with those mates getting the jobs.

The only thing transparent about the big campaign managers is that they enforce and reward the corrupt abuse and gaming of the systems of control and are the MAIN part of the problem.

No alts should be quite sensibly denied though we can agree on that part.

You have described a lot of things but unfortunately responsible members of his forum will not gonna agree with your thinking. Firstly i am not so happy to see a topic title like that. I don't know why you think its a matter of ownership of this forum. Every manager have their personal choices to run their campaign where someone is so strict on the matter of alt account and someone on other fields. Basically its important to apply proper rules during managing campaign and its the only way by which they are able to keep their campaign appropriate according to forum rules.

You have mentioned that some managers require last 120 day merit for accepting participants and i am not seeing anything wrong with that. Campaign owners have their requirements and in most cases they want to take quality poster for their campaign. There is no way deny that merit earners are far better than regular spammers and alt account farmers. By applying the requirements of enough amount earned merit in last 120 days managers can make their acceptation process much easier than checking unnecessary posters post history. In the matter of accepting alt account on same campaign is just an useless debate IMO.