Quote from: Lauda on February 28, 2018, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: ibminer on February 28, 2018, 03:40:41 PM

It is disappointing(concerning?) that a Jr. Member e-whore would have gotten a 5 month upfront payment from aTriz on a 3 year contract with a clause stating that red trust doesn't matter. Huh

That is not correct I believe. There is no clause addressing a potential trust rating of any kind; there are also no clauses addresses other potential *situations*

I'm going based off of what aTriz stated himself here:

Quote from: aTriz on February 28, 2018, 04:39:48 AM

Quote from: tmfp on February 27, 2018, 09:42:27 PM

Do you get your money back if she gets negative trust?

Nope I don't that was in the contract. Technically the contract means I have to buy her sig for 3 years, correct?

..which sounds like there was a clause in the contract exempting this user from negative trust and allowing them to continue in the campaign regardless of what negative trust they get.

Quote from: ibminer on February 28, 2018, 03:40:41 PM

Maybe it is because I'm not active in the campaign management business but this seems highly irrational to me? Undecided

Quote from: Lauda on February 28, 2018, 03:45:47 PM

Campaign management has nothing to do with striking private (custom) advertising deals. In campaign management, negative trust of members is usually a no-go.

I guess I can separate the two as a publicly run signature campaign and a privately run signature campaign, but in either case, why would a private advertising deal on this forum include a clause allowing the user to get red trust and still be paid for advertising?

UPDATE:

Quote from: Lauda on February 28, 2018, 04:02:32 PM

Again, there is no clause at all let alone one exempting someone from negative trust. Read the actual contract: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3017111.msg31023940#msg31023940.

Thanks, I did not realize the private deal was publicly posted Roll Eyes

I'm not quite sure what aTriz meant with his post then?