Quote from: yahoo62278 on Today at 05:54:12 PM

I'd like to start a discussion on Bounty managers allowing Newbies to join in bounties. How does everyone feel about that?

If I was a manager I honestly would never accept newbies in my campaigns, unless not until I investigate their post history and establish they are worth including.
This would be in very rear occasions, and I would wait until they rank up and show some real effort for improving.[/quote]

Ideally this would be a good requirement, but it will be a very controversial topic.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on Today at 05:54:12 PM

1. No more allowing Newbies in campaigns. Make newbies rank up and have something to lose if they're gonna cheat.

Yeah, it's probably best to stop accepting all newbies in bounty campaigns, but this rule should be accepted by all managers.
I think this is impossible to implement, and someone could always become new manager and play outside this rules.
This would mean that moderators would have to make this a new unofficial forum rule, if possible.[/quote]

The forum has rules that are not official rules, for example selling accounts is allowed, but look how many get tagged for it. So I think if the forum decided we should not allow newbies and see a manager doing so, DT could tag said manager. Or they could say fuck off we aren't tagging anyone over bounty shit.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on Today at 05:54:12 PM

2. No neg trusted accounts can join period

This is tricky.
You can't look all negative trust feedbacks equally, and we know there are some people who enjoy tagging everyone, and they are still in DT Tongue

Maybe think about not allowing anyone who has more than one negative trust feedback would be better, but not perfect.[/quote]

This is a rule that could be left up to each individual manager, but I would sway towards not allowing personally.

Quote from: yahoo62278 on Today at 05:54:12 PM

Now, what about managers? Should we tag managers who are outright being dishonest by allowing Newbies? Or tag managers who really aren't caring about the forum? Should we just hope they will try to make a change? Or does anything really matter?

I would create some kind of ratting system for managers, and managers with lower ratings could have limited amount of campaigns they can create.
Highest ratings would have everything unlocked, but ratings can be changed anytime.
However, this idea needs to discussed and checked for all the pros and cons.
[/quote]The admin isn't gonna step in and limit a manager and how many campaign he can do unless the manager is banned, but if DT was tagging managers for legit rule infractions( or unofficial infractions) then companies may look for a better reputed manager. Companies may also not care and go with the cheapest option available, trust be damned.

Quote from: decodx on Today at 07:45:35 PM

I generally support both suggestions. Newbies should really be active in the community before they can apply for bounty campaigns. This would significantly reduce cheating and bounty farming. Regarding the second suggestion, I agree with dkbit98. Each case should be looked at individually because some negative tags may be unfounded.

Agreed with newbies needing to participate in the community before coming here trying to earn a load.

Quote from: meser# on Today at 07:56:36 PM

I recently saw that a signature campaign has a merit requirement. If you want to be eligible for that round you must acquire at least 1 merit. Lets say its 6 week campaign and the bounty hunters must acquire 6 merit during the campaign if they want to be eligible. Probably you will say they will make circle on merits but those are only posting their report it will make easier to find them. My idea might be nonsense but there is many people trying to scam projects and managers. If no action is taken, they will continue in the same way.

Not a bad idea either, even if the users start trading merits between each other they would run out pretty quick.

Quote from: meser# on Today at 08:21:15 PM

Quote from: bakasabo on Today at 08:15:53 PM

What about decreasing bounty reward allocation for social media campaigns? Will it decrease the amount of newbie cheaters, because it will be unprofitable to join even with multiple accounts? It is hard to tell which newbie account is used for cheating, and who is a real newbie that is trying to earn a bit. And for a project - is it huge difference if his project is promoted by one person with lots of accounts or by many people? Project is getting his promotion anyway (but the quality of it is low, I agree with that, but that is a different question).

But, I suggest to accept only accounts starting with Jr.Member rank. Those who are cheating, will get caught during merit distribution most likely. And with time it will be hard to get merit for new accounts to cheat.

One is always higher than zero mate. In my opinion it wont decrease the cheater number unlike it will be reason to increase. If amount of the reward is lower than their rivals qualificated members dont want to attend it. This forum is allowing to earn money by campaigns but this cheater is only using for it. They dont contribute to forum i think this is one of the major scale to reveal cheater.

I think meser# is right man. This would just make bounty hunters double the amount of cheating accounts they have in a campaign.

Let's be honest for a second. If you are a bounty hunter in 1 campaign and that campaign has Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Instagram, and telegram in it, you will spend a total of 5 minutes on that campaign in a week. It's not very time consuming to retweet or share a post on all these platforms, and if original content and hashtags needs to be added the users post some bullshit as their original comment and copy/paste the hashtags. This is why bounty hunters can join 1000 bounties a week per account. It's simple work.