Loyalty of the participants to their campaign?

[poGium]

I'm loyal more so to the managers I've worked with than to the projects.  They're just renting my sig space, and I have no affiliation with any of them.  I don't even understand the projects most of the time.

That's what I'm talking about. You do not have to be loyal to the project, but at least to the manager. He does his best to check all participants, if he is a good manager.

[1714037983]

1714037983

[legendster]

I'm loyal more so to the managers I've worked with than to the projects.  They're just renting my sig space, and I have no affiliation with any of them.  I don't even understand the projects most of the time.

That's what I'm talking about. You do not have to be loyal to the project, but at least to the manager. He does his best to check all participants, if he is a good manager.

Some value money more than kissing ass, some value kissing ass more than money (which would eventually get them money). On the retrospect, even though it is not supposed to be a job. It defaults to becoming a job. You do have to DO something to expose your signature in relevant boards. You DO have to make sure your posts are not shit. You won't be paid squat if you don't do anything. An obvious fact.
So yeah, people will jump ship when offered a better paying job. BUT there could be certain regulations on the matter.

[NavI_027]

I agree to you, I hate those participants who suddenly leave and join other campaigns just because of higher rewards. This is not only a bad habit but also shows disrespect to the campaign manager, their act only reflects that they didn't appreciate the trust they've got from the him/her.

Just a reminder for those "campaign jumpers" out there, always think twice before joining. If you don't find contentment to the reward of a particular campaign then better for you to avoid applying and just wait for another one. (no offense at all )

My question is, why do managers allow it? After all, if I was hypothetically a manager, I want to be able to rely on my participants. The participants also rely on their managers and demand loyalty. Should not the managers do something against it?
 

Your opinion?

I guess they think that it's not their loss already so they easily allow those kind of participants. Honestly, there's no rule stating that a participant don't have a right to leave a campaign if he wanted but at least they should learn to confront first the manager telling the reason behind it and show some gratitude.

I think what managers can do is to include them in their own SMAS blacklist for having a bad conduct during a campaign and refuse to accept them if ever they will apply again.

[sitnikov]

I agree to you, I hate those participants who suddenly leave and join other campaigns just because of higher rewards. This is not only a bad habit but also shows disrespect to the campaign manager, their act only reflects that they didn't appreciate the trust they've got from the him/her.

Just a reminder for those "campaign jumpers" out there, always think twice before joining. If you don't find contentment to the reward of a particular campaign then better for you to avoid applying and just wait for another one. (no offense at all )

I think greed is a common trait of all human beings but we should think of long term. For instance, if I will always prefer a campaign running for six months or so over a new one for two weeks, even if I get less rewards in former.

[belyaevi]

I guess they think that it's not their loss already so they easily allow those kind of participants. Honestly, there's no rule stating that a participant don't have a right to leave a campaign if he wanted but at least they should learn to confront first the manager telling the reason behind it and show some gratitude.

I think what managers can do is to include them in their own SMAS blacklist for having a bad conduct during a campaign and refuse to accept them if ever they will apply again.

Yes, this is a good idea that they should not be allowed to apply for the same campaign again once they leave it. One should make all the comparisons between campaigns before applying for one.

[ducdr]

It's a free market, members can leave whenever they want. If you don't want people leaving your campaign, you should pay them better.

Agree! Managers of each campaign should release their rules as strict as possible. For example, participants who stop wearing signature, or leave the campaign before the paymemt day of each week will not be paid. Or participants who posted lower than the minimum posts required won't be paid, etc.

Furthermore, as you said, it's a free campaign, so participants can move to lower-paid campaigns to higher-paid ones. They have their rights and their choices. Managers of campaigns can lift up rewards if they want and think it is necessary for their project to run massive marketting campaign.

[Zackgeno96]

There are no such guidelines for changing the campaigns so its not against the forum rules. I agree that its not a good practice to change the campaigns frequently but we can not force anyone to stay in the campaign against their wish. I know, it increases the campaign manager's work but they are also getting paid to manage the campaigns and to handle such situations, so its not a big deal. If the campaign is good, manager is good and if the campaign period is longer then i don't think that people will switch the the campaigns in the middle.

In order to stop this, new rules should be introduced. People should also inform the managers before leaving the campaign so they can fill the vacant slot on time and it will not affect the promotion of that project. There are so many users who are queued to get into the campaign and who are always ready to occupy the slots. Managers can also introduce a blacklist for such users who are taking the advantage of this situation and changing the campaigns continuously.

[Vannie12]

I can't stand changing campaigns.  I stayed in Yahoo62278's Bitdouble campaign for many weeks, even though I could probably have found a higher-paying one, and I did that because the stability of the campaign and the manager suited me. 

I'd much prefer a long-running one that pays less to a high-paying one that will run only a few weeks.  That's just me.  My thought is that if you got accepted into a campaign that you applied for, stick with it.  I'm loyal more so to the managers I've worked with than to the projects.  They're just renting my sig space, and I have no affiliation with any of them.  I don't even understand the projects most of the time.

I usually stay in long-running campaigns too. And it's just Yahoo that always provide his service that way. I am not against any managers because I have been in some that managers are very efficient and organaized.
Or maybe I don't get accepted in other campaigns 

Well I find the thought of jumping to other campaign during mid-run is very sad. It's just campaign managers are selecting workers that seems to be qualified but in the end some of them are unreliable.

Maybe you can add that in campaign rules. I also don't like the RESERVE post while applying.
Sometimes it goes 9 pages of reserves. Hahaha.

[richminded]

I'm loyal more so to the managers I've worked with than to the projects.  They're just renting my sig space, and I have no affiliation with any of them.  I don't even understand the projects most of the time.

That's what I'm talking about. You do not have to be loyal to the project, but at least to the manager. He does his best to check all participants, if he is a good manager.

If the manager is well informed about this thing you might get blacklisted on his campaign ever, so better to stay on your campaign what ever the payment rate is for you to be more safe though. don't focus much on money, support the project you think will succeed in after the ICO and in the long run.

[Shamie1002]

Those people behaving like that are too greedy. Though I prefer a long run campaign, I still do consider the rate because I honestly needed it but not by jumping to other campaigns with higher rates.
I also consider my capabilities in doing the required posts and my constructiveness. I'm not good and quite grateful if somehow I get accepted. That is why I don't do that.

As for loyalty, sometimes it's rather slavish when you don't trust the manager.
Sometimes, when they see a much trusted manager or the one they trust, they quickly jump.
Maybe they got scammed before or for other reasons.


As a suggestion, why not make it as a rule of campaigns, that once they leave, they will not be able to comeback until the next campaigns are created.

[FRJ]

The topic you discussed is a common sight  in the forum.You are absolutely correct. The participants of a campaign must be loyal to the argument that they do when they join a campaign.But most of the time, as you as well as all of us observed, some participant leave a campaign in the greed of another campaign which is giving a few more bitcoin!!It is really very unjustified. I don't like this leaving method. They leave their campaign without the permission of the campaign manager who has given them oppurtunity to join the campaign and earn bitcoin.

I think,their should be a rule..Like,one cannot leave a campaign until the campaign ends and if he does so,his ID will remain blocked for a certain time.This was just an example.But this kind of step can only reduce the treachery of the participants of a campaign.

[xuan87]

Yeah more and more people like to jump ship especially when they know that the campaign near the end, whenever a new campaign come out, people will apply in another campaign, I think that is not ethical

the manager spend some time to check the history post and when the candidate not accepted he /she will try to pm the manager and asked for explanation, but when they find another campaign they just neglected the previous campaign, sometimes even without any warning

I will support if there will be rules regarding to this problem