Loyalty of the participants to their campaign?

[poGium]

I read a few campaign threads and realized that many participants are jumping from campaign to campaign.A behavior like this I call very disloyal, because if the manager makes the effort to check the participants, which I totally understand, then they should be fair enough and not participate in another campaign by the next best opportunity. After all, they "sign" a "contract" that they should actually stick to. I always read "I'll do my best ... blabla", but what they really want to say is that they just want to get the money and if there is something better, they're gone.

I can understand that when there are problems with the manager, they change a campaign, but most of the time, the participants simply switch because a new campagne has started where they only get a few dollars more. Of course, I also noticed that many who are constantly changing the campaign are "shitposter".

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?

[carlfebz2]

I read a few campaign threads and realized that many participants are jumping from campaign to campaign.A behavior like this I call very disloyal, because if the manager makes the effort to check the participants, which I totally understand, then they should be fair enough and not participate in another campaign by the next best opportunity. After all, they "sign" a "contract" that they should actually stick to. I always read "I'll do my best ... blabla", but what they really want to say is that they just want to get the money and if there is something better, they're gone.

I can understand that when there are problems with the manager, they change a campaign, but most of the time, the participants simply switch because a new campagne has started where they only get a few dollars more. Of course, I also noticed that many who are constantly changing the campaign are "shitposter".

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?

First of all this shouldn't be posted on this board. Maybe this would be suited on Meta section regarding on what you do have observed on loyalty matters of people when joining campaigns.I do agree on this thing about loyalty of participants but you wont able to stop these behavior since people would really always after on much better offers and when they do see it on other campaigns.They don't really mind if they do leave and don't think on the chance being given  by managers on selecting them.

[poGium]

First of all this shouldn't be posted on this board. Maybe this would be suited on Meta section

Sorry, can a mod please move it into the meta section? Thanks  

Edit: Done, thanks to ralle14.

[ralle14]

Managers allow it because they can't control the signature space of users they accept in the campaign. When leaving a campaign users should always notify the campaign manager about it and not just leave without any notice. I think managers only check the list every week depending when the campaign pays out so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle for them to remove one or more users from the list.

First of all this shouldn't be posted on this board. Maybe this would be suited on Meta section

Sorry, can a mod please move it into the meta section? Thanks 

You could just do it yourself by clicking the "move topic" on the lower left of the page.

[Potato Chips]

The thing is there's no written rule about that which allows users to jump from another campaign without finishing their previous one. It also depends on who's the manager on the particular campaign since some may allow it and some may not which can lead to being blacklisted but from what I observed most managers allows it as long as you will inform them beforehand.

So in short it is more like an etiquette here not a rule which is must.

[HabBear]

Your opinion?

You should move this thread to the Services Discussion, you'll find it HERE.

There is zero impact on the campaign manager when someone leaves, they don't have to pay them for the period. If campaign managers want to reduce the turn over they should reduce the number of people they allow in and raise the rates. This will keep people from leaving and ensure there's a long line at the door for the next open spot.

[LoyceV]

There is zero impact on the campaign manager when someone leaves

I've only shortly been a signature campaign manager, and I can telll you it was a lot of work to select a candidate. Or more accurately: it was a lot of work shifting through dozens of accounts that get rejected.
If they quickly leave for a campaign that pays more, that's just work lost.

If campaign managers want to reduce the turn over they should reduce the number of people they allow in and raise the rates. This will keep people from leaving and ensure there's a long line at the door for the next open spot.

True, but not all services can afford that.

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?

What would you suggest to do against it? The only thing that could work, is having a long payment period, increasing the financial risk when a participant leaves.

My previous signature campaign was my first, I joined as Full Member, and stayed in there until the site closed about 1.5 years later. This is my second, and I don't plan to leave.
As hilariousandco puts it:

Slots for this are like gold dust and most people who are lucky enough to be on it aren't going to be looking to give up their slot any time soon.

[JanEmil]

Like with all other work. Find good people. Trust system and merit should be there for that reason.

[SamsungBitcoin]

Some of the participants of one campaign are jumping to other campaign and the reason are; if they got ranked up and there is no available spots in his/her current campaign they want to be paid suited for their rank.

And also some of them are looking for huge payment (gold digger) that is not good a behavior of one participant of any campaign they are the members who are only looking for income and not helping our society.

Eventhough this is not prohibited because all the managers cant controll all their participants of what they want to do but this shows they disrepect or unloyal to the manager as well as in the project (campaign).

[superjeyy]

For a member to transfer from one campaign to another from time to time, it can quickly say so much about that person's personality and motif. As you've said they are disloyal. I don't think it's the manager's loss if a participant wishes to withdraw their participation on a certain campaign. I think as a manager, you don't need people who are disloyal instead you need people who will work hard to promote the campaign and have the courtesy to stay during the whole duration of the campaign because they were chosen among hundreds of other participants. If a member is in a campaign just for the pay, then that person is not deserving of the spot. I guess managers are greatly aware of these people.

[legendster]

This has happened a few times in my micro campaign. I was wondering if I should actually leave a 7 day Neutral trust warning on their profile letting other managers know about these user's fickle-mindedness when it comes to participating in a signature campaign.
I mean I get it, if you want to jump ship, at least wait for the round to end.

I also understand that the campaign I am running is paying very little but still. There could be some control in this matter.

[MadZ]

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.

[legendster]

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.

Exactly the point. Every campaign is not the same and its not on the signature managers to decide the budget. Each website / project has it's own budget. And all a CM does is aggregate the data from the applicants and judge their post content and then decided whether to allow them or not. When someone leaves mid round, it means all that work would have to be repeated because someone else is a bit greedy.

On the flip side, it is actually a good thing for the CM's and their campaigns. They get that promotion for this duration for free without having to pay these quitters.

[MadZ]

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.

Exactly the point. Every campaign is not the same and its not on the signature managers to decide the budget. Each website / project has it's own budget. And all a CM does is aggregate the data from the applicants and judge their post content and then decided whether to allow them or not. When someone leaves mid round, it means all that work would have to be repeated because someone else is a bit greedy.

On the flip side, it is actually a good thing for the CM's and their campaigns. They get that promotion for this duration for free without having to pay these quitters.

As you said, leaving mid round means you won't be paid for that round or for the campaign you're joining most likely. The pay has to be pretty bad for any reasonable person to leave in the middle of a round. Imo users don't owe anything to whoever is running the campaign, if running it was so easy then there would be no reason to hire managers. I don't leave in the middle of rounds, but I don't fault people for doing so.

[Elhindinho]

I think business doesn't demand a high loyalty, but it is all about fulfill the contract (rules). not every people switches the campaigns because of higher offers, but mostly because of trusted managers or projects. this is the most important thing when some one joins a campaign. at least, I won't join a campaign that disallows the participants quit in middle round of campaign, because no one can guarantee the project won't fail or even scam. how can I imagine that the campaign has run for several months is suddenly fail/scam, at least they change the rule of bonus / payment become lower, that would waste my time. so, I think it's normal when people switch campaign when they find another trusted project/manager.  

[madwica]

Some of the participants of one campaign are jumping to other campaign and the reason are; if they got ranked up and there is no available spots in his/her current campaign they want to be paid suited for their rank.

Agree that this is the main reason why they are leaving but it wont say they are not loyal for the campaign they only want to received the payment according to their rank.

And also some of them are looking for huge payment (gold digger) that is not good a behavior of one participant of any campaign they are the members who are only looking for income and not helping our society.

Yes, there are lots of member here are looking for huge payment for their work, and they treat signature campaign as their job.

Eventhough this is not prohibited because all the managers cant controll all their participants of what they want to do but this shows they disrepect or unloyal to the manager as well as in the project (campaign).

Yes no one can control the members here, all of us has a freedom as long us you dont break the rule of this forum it will be good.

[poGium]

The thing is there's no written rule about that

Yes, unfortunately there is no rule, but you do not need a rule for every little thing. Such properties should actually be self-evident. Nevertheless, I think it's the right way that some managers create a blacklist.

You should move this thread to the Services Discussion, you'll find it HERE.

I was told that the thread in the meta section is correct. I leave the thread here.

There is zero impact on the campaign manager when someone leaves

There is an impact on the manager. If the participant leaves at the end of the week (after the payday), then the manager has to make an effort again and select a new participant. I do not think that a good manager takes any participant, which I think is right. He has to choose the participant he can rely on. There's a lot more work behind it than you think.

What would you suggest to do against it?

Unfortunately, I have no exact answer. But a blacklist is right, I think.

My previous signature campaign was my first, I joined as Full Member, and stayed in there until the site closed about 1.5 years later. This is my second, and I don't plan to leave.
As hilariousandco puts it:

Slots for this are like gold dust and most people who are lucky enough to be on it aren't going to be looking to give up their slot any time soon.

That's what I call loyalty and stick to his word! I know that there are also people who do not just jump from campaign to campaign and I think managers should focus on those participants.

As hilariousandco puts it:

Slots for this are like gold dust and most people who are lucky enough to be on it aren't going to be looking to give up their slot any time soon.

That's a very smart sentence.

Like with all other work. Find good people. Trust system and merit should be there for that reason.

I think and hope the merit system will fix it.

And also some of them are looking for huge payment (gold digger) that is not good a behavior of one participant of any campaign they are the members who are only looking for income and not helping our society.

I think that's the biggest problem. There are people here who want to make it a main source of income. Mostly the shitposter. These people should not be allowed to participate in campaigns.

This has happened a few times in my micro campaign. I was wondering if I should actually leave a 7 day Neutral trust warning on their profile letting other managers know about these user's fickle-mindedness when it comes to participating in a signature campaign.
I mean I get it, if you want to jump ship, at least wait for the round to end.

That's exactly my opinion. I think the suggestion that one gives a neutral trust is excellent. Than participants would think twice about whether they simply changes the campaign.

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.

Even in the free market you should have decency and reason. I do not think the problem lies with the managers. I also noticed that some of the participants switched to another campaign, although the payment was quite good during the first campaign.

On the flip side, it is actually a good thing for the CM's and their campaigns. They get that promotion for this duration for free without having to pay these quitters.

The problem is that many participants only get out after the payday. Then you have to pay these participants and the manager has to choose a new participant again. I do not need to tell you that at all. You probably know it best. 

[hilariousetc]

This isn't a Meta issue. Probably Reputation or even Service Discussion. Campaign managers can do what they want regarding "disloyal" users coming and going on their campaigns, but people shouldn't be expected to stay with a campaign forever. Jumping from a campaign you've been on for a while just for a few cents more seems pretty flaky, but on the flip side there isn't a contract so if a better campaign arises then they are free to leave. It's not like you wouldn't turn down a higher paying job in the' real world' and this is not much different. I've stayed with campaigns in the past even though higher paying ones of popped up, but at the same time I wouldn't have an issue in leaving one for better pay but it would depend on numerous factors. With that being said, I think there are bigger things to worry about on this forum right now and this is a non-issue.

I've only shortly been a signature campaign manager, and I can telll you it was a lot of work to select a candidate. Or more accurately: it was a lot of work shifting through dozens of accounts that get rejected.

Yeah, people don't realise how much work it is and this is what frustrates me about shitmanagers like sylon who do absolutely nothing other than pay anyone who signs up as long as they bothered to make the posts. It took me hours yesterday to go through all the applicants on a new campaign I started managing and most of the users were depressingly shit not to mention the numerous likely alts from multi accounters trying their luck. Shit managers wouldn't even notice this and as such that's why their campaigns are easily abused yet they get paid the same for doing very little work and the forum suffers in the meantime.

[poGium]

It's not like you wouldn't turn down a higher paying job in the' real world' and this is not much different.

That's the problem. Some see it as job, but it should not be. It should be more of a hobby. Making a few dollars is not a bad thing, but to make a full-time job out of this I see as a danger to the forum, because then you post only to have made the contribution for the campaign. A real forum discussion will not take place if we do not act against these people as soon as possible. 

[The Sceptical Chymist]

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.