What Do you think about such users

[Alvin_talk]

Well, I guess it is no longer new that some users wear signature and avatar of campaigns they were not hired for. I would have classified this as a voluntary service but this habit has its downside. The major one is that it leads false accusations on managers. Imagine a user with a negative tag wearing an avatar of a campaign, it might be assumed the manager of the signature is aware of the tag yet allows him in his signature campaign such as this one:

The fact that he's accepted in a signature campaign while doing all that says a lot about the state of this forum.
Make everyone's life worse, act like an insufferable moron and still some signature campaign manager will get you paid for it.

LoyceV managed to confirm the users name was not in the spreadsheet

I don't see him in Hhampuz' spreadsheet. He's not the first one with that signature who's not listed.

Then Hhampuz had to defend himself:

You'd be surprised how many users do this. I get notifications on telegram almost daily about some spammer/scammer or whatever being part of my campaign (they're not, just wearing the sig). I appreciate LoyceV for actually checking spreadsheets to confirm this at least, others.. not so much. This is the only reason why I always advocate for keeping open and transparent sheets, can't be arsed with all the drama, lol.

From the above, it shows that alot of users who are not part of a paid signature campaign go ahead to wear the signature and avatar anyways, which can tarnish the image and reputation of a manager if they have been tagged for spamming, scamming etc. For me, I see this as an abuse of signature campaigns and I believe their are other oterior motive attached to this act. Some users do this so that a manager can see they are in a signature campaign already and therefore are capable of participating in other campaigns but this act is not so favourable for managers.

Personally I think it might be appropriate to atleast give a neutral tag to such users (the tags can be removed once the remove the signature and avatar) because such user is passing false information for others and managers to believe and so they are not to be trusted.

[_act_]

Personally I think it might be appropriate to atleast give a neutral tag to such users (the tags can be removed once the remove the signature and avatar) because such user is passing false information for others and managers to believe and so they are not to be trusted.

Such users should not be tagged until they are seen to have done something bad like trying to borrow money, thinking the person that wants to borrow him the money will be fooled by the signature campaign that he is wearing.

Are you referring to Satofan? He is in Rainbet and I can see him on the spreadsheet.

People do not need to abuse the trust system.

[Hazink]

For those who just wear their signature after the application, I don’t see it as something wrong, but for the set of members who are actively being reported, I consider such ads on the user bad and spreading indirect negative messages about the campaign and the CM itself.

Most of the users who are wearing the signature code of a campaign which they are not part of, at least the recently discovered users some of them are just all woke up account which there reason for doing that could be to deceive not just managers but the forum members at large that they are active enough to get accepted into a campaign. 

From the same thread as those other members commented, I made the suggestion below.

There might be a need in future to push for rules which will prevent non-participants from wearing a signature code without permission. It might be free promotion, but their spamming nature will be viewed differently.

Now, aside from most of those members spamming the forum, they could also take advantage of the signature they wear on the profile, modify the code and add a phishing link which no one will suspect, as it will all be covered up with the signature design and anyone who clicks on the signature code from their profile turns out to be their potential victim.

[Obim34]

Signature code and Avatar are publicly displayed on campaign threads, you can't stop users from wearing them unless the signature board creates new rules against wearing signatures without being accepted in the campaign by any manager.

The bad side is towards manipulating lenders to give them loan without collateral, using the signatures as a disguise to be qualified for the loan, in this case i expect them to receive tags for manipulation.

[alani123]

It appears as though loyce made a mistake initially because Satofan looks to be part of the spreadsheet for a while now

[PX-Z]

...
Personally I think it might be appropriate to atleast give a neutral tag to such users (the tags can be removed once the remove the signature and avatar) because such user is passing false information for others and managers to believe and so they are not to be trusted.

Tag or report them if they're spamming, not just because they're wearing the signature or avatar. Unless a manager/campaign explicitly states that only accepted members can wear it, there's nothing wrong with others wearing it freely.

[hd49728]

Well, I guess it is no longer new that some users wear signature and avatar of campaigns they were not hired for. I would have classified this as a voluntary service but this habit has its downside. The major one is that it leads false accusations on managers. Imagine a user with a negative tag wearing an avatar of a campaign, it might be assumed the manager of the signature is aware of the tag yet allows him in his signature campaign such as this one:

You can wear any avatar or signature that is not prohibited by forum rules. Companies publicly post their avatars and signatures, so forum members can wear if they want.

For people in a campaign, sometimes campaign manager will ask participants to remove avatar and signature when a campaign is finished, paused or held. If participants don't remove these things, companies will get benefit while they don't refill wallets for campaign managers and companies don't pay anything while still get traffics.

I see nothing wrong with users who were not accepted in campaigns but continued wearing avatar and signature. Like I can wear a signature of a company with an affiliate link to my account, it's my personal choice.

[Alvin_talk]

Are you referring to Satofan? He is in Rainbet and I can see him on the spreadsheet.

No. I only used that as a reference and for clarity.

Like this thread JollyGood also taught krishnaverma was part of the signature campaign which is wrong.

For a prolonged period he was quite desperate to join a signature campaign therefore used his thread seeking one for a long time until he was selected.

When I noticed the signature a couple of weeks ago I decided to look at his posting and noticed that apart from using that thread to state he was seeking to join campaigns, he was hardly ever posting. As soon as he joined the campaign, he started posing a lot in order to meet the campaign quota.

Then @Hazink corrected this impression.

The user has a habit of wearing the signature code of any campaign he has just applied for. I just checked the public spreadsheet of the campaign he last applied for and is not part of it, which means he's never had any signatures. Maybe the increase in posting is just to increase his chance of getting accepted into one campaign.

So I'm not specifically referring to a user rather I am talking about many users who practice this act and what could be done to reduce it.

[EarnOnVictor]

-Snip-
Personally I think it might be appropriate to atleast give a neutral tag to such users (the tags can be removed once the remove the signature and avatar) because such user is passing false information for others and managers to believe and so they are not to be trusted.

First, the spreadsheet is the only true authenticator here!

Wearing the signature of the campaign you are not accepted into is like a two edged-sword to the campaign, as it might further the help the campaign, or paint it bad, depending on the activities of the unauthorized person wearing it.

That said, your suggestion of the neutral tag (without a warning) might have been a good way to go, but it's not, as it might hurt the freelancers who are writing and engaging well, but needed to wear it in case the CM could notice them and accept them later into the campaign. Some might even wear it not to enter the campaign, but might just love the particular campaign and wear their signature for one reason or another.

My advice:
1. Forum's rules should be updated to capture the violation in wearing unauthorized campaign signature.
2. Anyone who is not in a campaign, but wants to wear its signature, must first seek the permission of the CM before wearing thei signature.
3. The violators should either be red-tagged or banned after adequate warnings.
    

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Well, I guess it is no longer new that some users wear signature and avatar of campaigns they were not hired for. I would have classified this as a voluntary service but this habit has its downside. The major one is that it leads false accusations on managers. Imagine a user with a negative tag wearing an avatar of a campaign, it might be assumed the manager of the signature is aware of the tag yet allows him in his signature campaign such as this one:

I don't know if the campaign managers may enforce on this to make users who are not participating in a campaign not to wear their signature of avatar except by their approval, Secondly, when a campaign pauses or ends and participants are still wearing the signature codes or avatar, they are passing across a message in which they don't even know the implication, because they are spoiling the business for the managers, if the casinos can see as many users wearing their signature, they may not want to resume back, wearing a signature code or avatar should be with he intent to make promotions as the managers were hired to do that for the platforms.

[Hazink]

So I'm not specifically referring to a user rather I am talking about many users who practice this act and what could be done to reduce it.

My suggestion for this will still remain as what I quoted above Since it's already been made obvious that the forum admin and staff are not ready to amend the forum rules, and since many suggestions have remained pending and unattended, my suggestion should be that managers add them as part of the rules to limit users who are not part of the campaign from wearing the code, with such rules anyone found breaking the rule can be punished by DT for rules violations, the mangers can start especially if they feel uncomfortable with such act.

[macson]

There are many users on the forum who use signatures without permission from the CM, either to gain trust for loans or for whatever reason. But the CM can't control this, as the signature rules don't prohibit other users from using their signatures, and the forum rules don't prohibit it either. So perhaps it's simply a matter of etiquette; if you're not participating in the campaign, you shouldn't use it- and people who violate it also don't need to be tagged, unless they use it to get loans, scam, spam, or violate forum rules.

[LoyceV]

Personally I think it might be appropriate to atleast give a neutral tag to such users

If anyone is going to do this, it should be the campaign manager and nobody else. Some users have a custom deal for a campaign, so you can't just assume anyone who isn't in a spreadsheet is doing bad things.

It appears as though loyce made a mistake initially because Satofan looks to be part of the spreadsheet for a while now

I see it now, I'm not sure where I looked previously, especially since Hhampuz posted this:

You'd be surprised how many users do this.

[Satofan44]

So let me get this straight, you are salty that you are not enrolled with yet another account of yours in this campaign?   Based on where you post and how you post, it is clear that you are an account farmer.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My suggestion for this will still remain as what I quoted above Since it's already been made obvious that the forum admin and staff are not ready to amend the forum rules, and since many suggestions have remained pending and unattended, my suggestion should be that managers add them as part of the rules to limit users who are not part of the campaign from wearing the code, with such rules anyone found breaking the rule can be punished by DT for rules violations, the mangers can start especially if they feel uncomfortable with such act.

The problem is not in amending rules, the problem is in enforcing them. It is possible to make a rule and try to enforce it, but it would create a lot of work for the moderators for little to no benefit at all. Automated tools would not work well either because people could bypass them by making small changes to the signature codes. There are many ways to play this cat and mouse games, and it would not accomplish anything at all.

There are many users on the forum who use signatures without permission from the CM, either to gain trust for loans or for whatever reason. But the CM can't control this, as the signature rules don't prohibit other users from using their signatures, and the forum rules don't prohibit it either. So perhaps it's simply a matter of etiquette; if you're not participating in the campaign, you shouldn't use it- and people who violate it also don't need to be tagged, unless they use it to get loans, scam, spam, or violate forum rules.

Permission is not required to wear signatures.

[Lida93]

Now, aside from most of those members spamming the forum, they could also take advantage of the signature they wear on the profile, modify the code and add a phishing link which no one will suspect, as it will all be covered up with the signature design and anyone who clicks on the signature code from their profile turns out to be their potential victim.

Interrupting the original signature code of a campaign in your profile would obviously change the outlook of the signature design and I think when compared to other participants signatures in same campaign the difference could be easily spotted except for a newbie. However, I don't think there's anything wrong in wearing a signature code of any paid campaign even while you're not an accepted member, where I finds it wrong is when the purpose for wearing it is for abuse or scam.

[Satofan44]

Now, aside from most of those members spamming the forum, they could also take advantage of the signature they wear on the profile, modify the code and add a phishing link which no one will suspect, as it will all be covered up with the signature design and anyone who clicks on the signature code from their profile turns out to be their potential victim.

Interrupting the original signature code of a campaign in your profile would obviously change the outlook of the signature design and I think when compared to other participants signatures in same campaign the difference could be easily spotted except for a newbie. However, I don't think there's anything wrong in wearing a signature code of any paid campaign even while you're not an accepted member, where I finds it wrong is when the purpose for wearing it is for abuse or scam.

Sure, but I don't see how it would give you any more credibility at all. When evaluating a user for potential dealings, if their enrollment in a signature campaign is of any relevance for whatever business you are trying to do, then it is part of basic due diligence to verify yourself that they are in fact enrolled. Perhaps with some very naive users that do not do any due diligence at all, but they would get scammed using other ways anyway. I don't think it makes any significant difference on this.

The main reason that those spammers are doing it is that it gives them more credibility when applying to other campaigns. I don't expect the managers to verify that each person who is applying to a new campaign is or was enrolled in a campaign previously based on the signature that they are wearing. However here I also expect the benefit to be limited as quality should be the main concern, and not whether they were enrolled somewhere else or not.

[Findingnemo]

Just imagine that people are ready to wear a signature without have to be paid for it, why would anyone doesn't want that even if the user is making shit because negative advertisement is still also going to bring exposure so no one would be tag them for their free service. If they are making post that are consideres as spam then always use the report to mod button, trust feedback is not the appropriate system for that unless it turns out to be habitual and repeated no matter how many times others tries to teach them.

[BitBakerr1]

Signature code and Avatar are publicly displayed on campaign threads, you can't stop users from wearing them unless the signature board creates new rules against wearing signatures without being accepted in the campaign by any manager.

The bad side is towards manipulating lenders to give them loan without collateral, using the signatures as a disguise to be qualified for the loan, in this case i expect them to receive tags for manipulation.

Obim34 you are correct, signature and Avatar are publicly displayed on campaign thread and because of this it's impossible to stop people from using them however it will be nice if there's a rule that will stop people that are not accepted into a campaign to wear the signature and Avatar but when this rule is made it will stop freedom of support because some people do this because they want to push the company and it could be they are benefiting from the company in one way or the other so it'll be better no rule is given in that area.

If you are lending money to any member in this forum do well to check the spreadsheet of the campaign you can know if a person is in the campaign paying role or not for wearing there signature and Avatar in the forum. Don't Lend money to a member without checking spreadsheet.

[libert19]

...but this habit has its downside. The major one is that it leads false accusations on managers. Imagine a user with a negative tag wearing an avatar of a campaign, it might be assumed the manager of the signature is aware of the tag yet allows him in his signature campaign such as this one.

I don't consider this to be a problem. If people assume, it's their problem, users should be confirming the facts by verifying with the BM/checking the sheet.

...

Now, aside from most of those members spamming the forum, they could also take advantage of the signature they wear on the profile, modify the code and add a phishing link which no one will suspect, as it will all be covered up with the signature design and anyone who clicks on the signature code from their profile turns out to be their potential victim.

This is wild and whoever does so should be deserving of red tag, has there ever been a case(s) like that? Whatever the case may be, I'd say, responsibility always lies in the end of user, people should be verifying what they click.

[Ultegra134]

A considerate number of users seem to be wearing Rainbet's signature for no apparent reason, without being in the spreadsheet. Most, if not all of them, are AI spammers, or simply shitposters, creating one-line replies of zero effort and contribution. Quite a few of them have been reported on the AI Report Thread, and I believe its part of an account farm. I'm unsure if there's an ulterior motive behind it, why is it Rainbet in particular and what are they getting out of it remains unknown. I would agree with LoyceV about being part of a private deal that may not be included in the spreadsheet (public), but most users I've personally seen are the AI spammers I mentioned earlier.

Perhaps it's a way to associate Rainbet's campaign with spamming shitposters? Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Another scenario is that they might be doing it to go under the radar of AI posting; someone who's in a campaign is less likely to use AI to write posts than a new account.