Quote from: Stedsm on Today at 11:00:44 AM

So them being the reason behind a user's negative tag is fine for them, knowing that those users will never get their tags removed and got their account ruined while also trying to enroll more in order to get their cheap advertisement done at the cost of those accounts' ruination is truly unacceptable and should be stopped because some good members may fall for this, at most for the reason of any specific IRL emergency or whatever reasons. Pity for them who join such campaigns.

Yeah, they apparently don't consider such tags as valid reasons why a member should not be allowed to participate in their signature campaign. I have seen warning messages posted in scam campaigns recommending that members shouldn't apply and wear the signatures, otherwise they could get tagged. If people see those warnings and apply anyways, they only have themselves to blame for what happens next.

Quote from: DaveF on Today at 12:02:51 PM

Here is the rub, you and I might have a different opinion about exchange 'x'
You think it's the worlds best exchange and see all these users using it with no problem.
I see a bunch of users who have had issues with it.
You keep telling people it's fine. I keep seeing bad things. You are going to probably either get a ~ from me or a neutral feedback.
Some people would neg you. It's a different view of what to do.

I think that adding that user to your distrust list is the maximum that should be applied in such a situation. Neutral and especially negative feedback is excessive in my opinion. If people were to do that, than where does it stop? Everyone has different experiences with wallets, exchanges, and other services. Punishing someone for having had a good experience because you had a bad one doesn't seem right.

Quote from: acroman08 on Today at 01:09:02 PM

<Snip>

That's really something that only their campaign manager can answer. I remembered that part regarding negative feedback when I read the campaign requirements. It could be that they don't consider those tags as valid reasons for that member to be excluded. Or they simply don't care and only made that rule to sound more professional than they are.