...
Because it doesn't matter to the advertiser.
The important thing for the advertiser is to advertise under quality messages.
This can only be achieved using the merit system.
I think campaign managers should look for these terms.
It doesn't make sense to set a counter-rule for something the forum allows.
It is also not true to give negative trust because of this counter-rule.
Thank you Yahoo.
My friends, just try to understand what I'm saying.
It does matter to an advertiser more since no advertiser would want 1 individual posing as multiple individuals. Why does it not get to you that there is no need for multiple accounts for things you can do with 1 account. You seem to ignore this completely. Campaign managers are not against any forum rules. If a campaign wants only 10 individuals of a particular rank, what is the point when 1 individual fills all the 10 positions available? Why are you ignoring the fact that joining a campaign with multiple accounts is UNETHICAL? No one would give a negative trust if the campaign allows multiple account usage. Negative trust is a must if a user joins with multiple accounts when the campaign does not allow. Even if the campaign allows multiple accounts, I would still say that joining a bounty campaign with multiple accounts is unethical. Give a genuine reason what you are trying to prove by joining a bounty campaign with multiple accounts. An user who joins a bounty campaign with multiple accounts when he/she is not supposed to as per the campaign rules can be tagged as a scammer. Don't bring in forum rules here. It has nothing to do with bounty campaigns. Its simple. If you are paid to post as 1 user, follow and post as per the rules of the person paying you. If you don't agree to the campaign rules, you are free to not join the campaign. You want to get paid more so you want to scam the bounty campaign with multiple accounts. What is wrong in tagging with a negative trust for such scams?