Quote from: shorena on November 12, 2016, 01:27:51 PM

Quote from: CryptoDatabase on November 12, 2016, 11:09:13 AM

-snip-
A good signature campaign manager will do their job and inspect every account applying for their campaign.

Which takes time.

Quote from: CryptoDatabase on November 12, 2016, 11:09:13 AM

If by 'doing nothing' you are referring to campaign managers doing nothing to ensure they are committed to the job they were hired for then sure. It shouldn't be difficult to click on someones trust and read a neutral feedback. That is if the campaign manager isn't just a lazy scammer suckering people in with lies and false security.

But the lazy ones get the job, because they are cheaper. They can afford to be cheaper because they have to invest less time. The majority of campaigns with spammer problems are those where the manager is hard to reach or is barely active here.

Quote from: CryptoDatabase on November 12, 2016, 11:09:13 AM

As for Laura being staff, is there a point in this being mentioned?

Yes, I answered "whoever Laura is"

Quote from: CryptoDatabase on November 12, 2016, 11:09:13 AM

I really couldn't care if she was the pope. I said what I said for a reason, someones position in a forum isn't going to change my view.

Staff usually does not have to change someones view, they enforce the view of the admin how certain situations are to be handled. In this case however Lauda is unable to, because they are not given to powers needed to ban spammers. The trust rating is a crutch.

They give this guy a negative DT rating but don't bother with confronting the lazy campaign manager that is enabling this spam to go on. That doesn't make sense to me. It reminds me of the police going after drug users and not the ones dealing the drugs.

Clearly the OP thought it was okay as he was still being accepted in the campaign for his posts and why not? If you are doing something for a while and nothing out of the ordinary is mentioned why would you stop?

But, the thing that tops it all off and is the real reason I came to this thread. Laura is Staff, everyone knows this, and she gave him negative trust for spamming. This is her decision and it was made.

The problem here is if she felt he was spamming so badly that he deserves a negative rating then why didn't she delete his spam? It can't be as bad as she is saying, 'severe spam', if it is still there. That seems like common sense to me, how did she miss the exact reason she negged him?

In addition as I am curious, did this user receive any sort of warning beforehand about his behavior? I've been found guilty of spam myself but staff didn't come at me with negative trust they simply deleted the posts they considered spam from different threads.

Granted the posts they deleted were not spam, they were simply notices posted on different coins ANN threads letting them know that their coin was added to my database website and to let me know if stuff needed updated. It is essentially the same thing except over 100 of my posts were deleted during this time. Nothing was said to me, I said nothing. I understood from that point on that it isn't allowed on the forum.

Now that I think of it, this has happened to me twice. The HYPER dev had asked me to post copies of my announcements in his thread whenever I made them and a mod went through the entire thread almost and deleted those posts.