Quote from: HCP on June 30, 2019, 09:57:45 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on June 30, 2019, 04:07:42 PM

Really it does not matter who is a campaign manager.. so long as if people meet a certain posting standard and are not scammers they get to join the campaign first come first served and they get paid for their posts as per the transparent rules. ANYTHING else is rightly to be termed SHADY and should be rejected.

That's such a ridiculous concept. That's akin to saying an employer should simply accept the first applicant that comes through the door for a job if they met the minimum specs? Companies pick and choose employees all day every day using all sorts of arbitrary metrics. It isn't shady, that's their right and their freedom of choice. You can't force someone to hire somebody just because they happened to be the first one to put an application in...

At the end of the day, campaign managers are free to have arbitrary rules for joining, that's their prerogative (assuming the employer is fine with it)... So, if you don't like their rules, complain to their employer... or become a campaign manager and run campaigns how you think they should be run. Continually lambasting managers to run campaigns in a manner you find acceptable is not going to change anything. Talk to the people who are actually paying for the campaigns. They are the ones who ultimately control the campaign managers.

No.

I wouldn't start drawing too many direct comparisons between legitimate organisations that are accountable for their actions legally and an anonymous forum, anonymous projects, anonymous employers and anonymous employees. This is a very different situation and to ensure people are treated fairly (as much as possible and there is not gaming , abuse and discrimination) you will need to take a bit of a different approach.

There can be NO ARGUMENT for not having TRANSPARENT rules and thresholds.

You are correct first come first served is not OPTIMAL. However if you want to select the very BEST posters that post the most objectively valuable content then you will need only the VERY SMARTEST campaign managers that can recognize the most valuable post. This makes the work load far larger.

Set a minimum post quality level and go first come first served cuts the workload dramatically and allows the less able minds to be campaign managers.

You claiming campaign managers can use HIDDEN ARBITRARY rules means you are leaving this entire arena WIDE OPEN TO GAMING AND ABUSE. This leave the projects themselves open to legitimate criticism ESPECIALLY with initial token distribution resulting in collusion and market making. The campaign managers are also open to legitimate criticism regarding kick backs, bribes and favoritism. It leaves the ENTIRE BOARD open to scamming via collusion and market making with regard initial distribution of tokens (if not a btc based payout)

TRANSPARENT RULES that are applied equally to all members is the ONLY way to avoid such criticism and ensure fair opportunities to all members.

You want the very best posters then you better have the VERY SMARTEST campaign managers matching people against TRANSPARENT CRITERIA.

You want a good standard of posters you better have a good standard of campaign managers matching people against TRANSPARENT CRITERIA.

You want gaming, backhanders, colluding, market making, unfair treatment of all members except those paying back handers, bribes, colluding, "pals" that are not even meeting in most cases a basic level of posting value. Then continue screaming for the right of campaign managers to use HIDDEN ARBITRARY PERSONAL reasons to hire and fire.

NO. Sorry. TRANSPARENT RULES that are applied equally to all persons. THE ONLY FAIR WAY TO ENSURE FAIR TREATMENT AND PROTECT PROJECTS AND CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND THE ENTIRE BOARD OF INVESTORS. Since if you allow the initial distributions of projects to be gamed then you bring the danger to every person here.

"hidden arbitrary rules like....errr must be called tman, cabalism13 LOL or some other low functioning schmuck " lol

No thanks. Transparent criteria ALL members are matched against EQUALLY.

Hhampuz REFUSES to be transparent. Hhampuz opens himself and his projects up to legitimate criticism.

This is going off topic. So to bring it back on topic let' agree to take this debate off to another thread if you do not believe I have demonstrated you are incorrect.

This is only partially relevant to this thread and the matter of hhampuz potentially taking 0.5btc that was not his to take. If he was not refusing to be transparent with regard his selection process. I think that would cause the readers here to feel it "less" likely he was stealing the money for himself and perhaps there was another more legit explanation. Same the with supporting of doxxing the forum treasurer. If people see a pattern of potentially shady behaviors then that can cast a shadow other ambiguous behaviors... possibly.

We notice also you happen to be one of the lucky few chosen to wear the chipmixer sig? this the reader should also factor into the possible motives for wishing for these hidden arbitrary "reasons" for the selection process to remain AS THEY ARE NOW. People generally that benefit from the status quo are generally loath change for the "better". We do NOT say that IS your reason. Perhaps you believe the specious argument you presented for real. Hopefully now we have given you cause to reconsider and have helped you see it would be far better for ALL if it was more PROVABLY FAIR.