I have a feeling we have quite a few fans in the Haters Club. Since revisiting this SMAS idea ive gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 pms a week over a user being on blacklist or being denied in a campaign.

I will no longer give reasons as to why youre being denied folks. You are either on blacklist already, shit poster, spammer, an obvious alt account, or whatever. Point is oure denied and you need to deal with it and improve your accounts.

Something i will point out to you people. If you apply to a campaign and have say 56 activity(can be any number) and 56 posts(again can be any number long as both are same) odds are youre a bought account or an alt account and youll be auto denied

eh...tried to educate one of your guys Lutpin....

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1448684.msg16919417#msg16919417

Cool story bro! I don't see any links pointing to the said imaginary complaints, I'm not even on any of these lists.
I even plan to delete my feedback for yahoo and apologize to him and then apply to one of his campaigns when I'll rank up to Sr,member status.
I'm having a hard time to remember ever talking or interacting with you, where is this coming from?

Hello SMAS. Great effort, it makes me wonder why the initial attempt was unsuccessful.

I am a new user on bct, as you can tell, and I have just joined my 2nd sigcampaign managed by yahoo. The first was successful but will have to wait some weeks to receive remuneration.

If I could offer a suggestion: all campaigns supporting SMAS could also adopt a common standard or statement which would be added to all its campaign rules.

Examples would be a requirement for each applicant to read and agree to a minimum standard for post activity, or even a simple guide for beginners to better understand what makes quality posts. It might mean just 2 links added to each smas campaign.

This would help beginners (even like myself) understand how they can contribute to improving the quality of bct content. I didn't know, for example, that my earliest activities as a newbie on bct would be harmful to some of my applications as they were in micro earning and gambling sections.

Again, great effort and the community thanks you.

That will not/can not work. The campaign rules are usually set by the services themselves (at least in my case) with tweaks/adjustments from the manager. Having a standard banlist for all our campaigns is very effective on its own.

I guess someone could write up some sort of 'guide' for improving your posting quality. However, I am more inclined to say that it would be a waste of time. If you truly are interested in improving and contributing to the forum (rather than posting to get paid) you are going to do your own research and use your own brain to figure out how to do this.

---

That said, there should be an updated today with new additions and some removals. There are over 300 people banned from Bitmixer, however my blacklists only include people that I have personally reviewed and banned.

"Account Activity Farming" ?? now what is this? something different than account farming? another self made reason and accusation of lauda to blacklist peoples?

I never heard about that before honestly.

Everyone screws up and im not gonna say i will never remove my feedback on someone. I may change it to a neutral if i feel a user has made changes. Depends on the feedback honestly.

Okay....I understand the necessity to have a process to reduce spam by eliminating those who abuse the signature campaigns but isn't that the responsibility of each individual campaign manager?  I don't understand the intent of building a collusion network of managers to centralize all campaigns under a single rule....What is the goal of such a network?  Will it end up being a method by which a single group of advertisers, with common interests and investments, have the ability to eliminate their competition via labeling  other advertisers as "rogue" members then working together to label other advertisers' campaign members as spammers and coloring their competition's reputation with red for not falling in line?  What is the ultimate intent of this organization?  Mob rules?  I understand the necessity to eliminate spam; I don't understand the intent of building a centralized authority to accomplish that goal....it seems like a slippery slope.

Okay, I apologize if my line of questioning seems intrusive, but if each manager has the ability to reduce spam in their campaigns on an individual bases, what is the intent of the organization?  Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets?  And, what mechanism might their be put into place that would mitigate collusive marketing practices?  And, three members who share levels of default trust do have a collusive power to implement their will via "mob rules" because their voices are more esteemed by default and the "band wagoning" nature of the trust rating system.  It goes back to my original concern; What is the function of this organization: is it to reduce spam by eliminating "rogue" campaigns, or to eliminate "rogue" campaigns by disenfranchising competitive services?