Why do members switch campaigns always?

[348Judah]

But what I really don't like is when the user changed/switched campaign without notice or without letting the manager that they are accepted in other campaign and you will only notice that they switched campaign when you check their profile that they are not wearing the signature and avatar when checking. I think that was a big disrespect for any manager and not just for me.

It's not just disrespect, it could be considered scamming. The user made a deal with the campaign, and leaving unannounced is like taking another job IRL and still expecting payment from your old job.

It could be both, depends case by case basis. I'm not sure how often cases when user get paid from 2 campaigns on same week, but probably such things happens. But I think that in most cases it's just disrespect for manager and showing bad etiquette. Is it really so difficult to drop PM to manager that you're leaving?

I think sometimes earlier this year, a user was caught violating the campaign rule with the use of two signatures and switches them whenever the current weeks ends and the manager want to make posts count, he did that for some couple of times before he was finally caught, it's not something good to participate in two campaigns at the same time, another thing that seems common is when a user got accepted in a campaign but yet have other pending applications on other threads, instead of them informing the other ones they have applied for that they have been accepted and delete their application, they tend to occupy other applicants chances of being accepted and they hold on the two just to found out they they lately reported leaving one for the other, taking other's spot or chances of being accepted.

[1714597499]

1714597499

[1714597499]

1714597499

[1714597499]

1714597499

[1714597499]

1714597499

[examplens]

Maybe this discussion started the matter, but icopress implemented a new rule when we talked about switching from campaign to campaign. It is clear what is to be achieved in this way, but I am not sure about the sustainability of this rule.
To me, this seems wrong in several ways, and I am not sure of the final motive for introducing such a rule. What comes to my mind is certainly not related to improving the quality of the campaign. However, the manager writes the rules of his campaign.

However, I am interested in the application of this rule, how the payment will be made, in case the participant refuses, and what will be the penalty. Red tag for changing the signature? And will it be applicable to all members, without exception, regardless of rank, status, influence...

Please note that by applying to this campaign you agree that if you are accepted, for any reason you want to leave the campaign in favor of a competitor's campaign, then you will have to pay compensation (the same amount that you received during the first week of your participation). This does not apply if you decide to switch to another campaign that is not advertising the mixer, or if you switch to a campaign that I manage.

[Pmalek]

2. Preferred company or service that they do like to advertise

I think this rarely happens. Most advertisers on Bitcointalk have always been crypto casinos, and if they pay good, people will apply. One exception is if it's a scam casino with a history of defrauding its clients. A perfect example is 1xBit that never attracted respected individuals even if they paid decent amounts.

A more common reason for a switch between two almost identical campaigns could be different campaign managers. Maybe I had a better experience when I was in the campaigns run by Manager A than B. Some rules aren't always as strict for all posters if the campaign manager likes you and the quality you bring to the project. 

[Oilacris]

Maybe this discussion started the matter, but icopress implemented a new rule when we talked about switching from campaign to campaign. It is clear what is to be achieved in this way, but I am not sure about the sustainability of this rule.
To me, this seems wrong in several ways, and I am not sure of the final motive for introducing such a rule. What comes to my mind is certainly not related to improving the quality of the campaign. However, the manager writes the rules of his campaign.

However, I am interested in the application of this rule, how the payment will be made, in case the participant refuses, and what will be the penalty. Red tag for changing the signature? And will it be applicable to all members, without exception, regardless of rank, status, influence...

Please note that by applying to this campaign you agree that if you are accepted, for any reason you want to leave the campaign in favor of a competitor's campaign, then you will have to pay compensation (the same amount that you received during the first week of your participation). This does not apply if you decide to switch to another campaign that is not advertising the mixer, or if you switch to a campaign that I manage.

Signature campaign rules do really have those kind of changes and this is where it comes from those managers who do have the right to apply such conditions on which neither it could or could not affect the signature campaign or not. I have read up those terms about once you do get hired on a certain signature manage by him and on the time that you do make out some switch with some competitor
or other company then you are really that obliged on paying up those the amount that you had get from sig payment which i do see that it is really just that too much?
On this way then for sure people wouldnt really be that easily trying to switch up campaigns, if icopress did make out such rule just to avoid such condition or scenario then
its not a bad idea but a little bit too tight since you wont really be giving those participants some options.

Speaking about loyalty then this is something that have a lesser concern or not really that something that could imply among on the participants.They would always
be loving on spotting those campaigns which does pay more or better.

[Pmalek]

<Snip>

It's a free market and nobody should be forcing anyone to be where they don't want to be. Loyalty can't be forced upon you, otherwise it's not real loyalty. It's based on fear and uncertainty. You choose who or what you want to be loyal to because it's not a requirement that someone should make you respect.     

[wallet4bitcoin]

This question has occured to me many times but whenever it happens I push it off my mind. But I want to ask now and get opinions of members on it. I do not know if this section is right place to post it. Please moderator move it if I posted it wrongly. My question is why do members move from one campaign to another? I will not mention names of some that I have seen move from campaign to campaign every time there is opening so no one feels am attacking him.

I know alot of us will say it is the difference in weekly reward, that the higher the reward the more people move to campaigns with better payments. But I have seen where members go from better pay rates to the ones with lower rates and lower posts requirements. Some apply to campaign of the same manager in less than a week of getting accepted and they want to move again, the same payment and number of posts. I have also seen those who have refused to move to campaigns with better rates, they will be picked if they applied because of their good posts. They choose to remain. Is it about loyalty? Is it that they are scared of switching? Is it about fulfilment with where they are?

And for those who move always, is it money driving the motive? Is it about going to where those they see as family move to? I want to know. Some days ago I was surprised to see someone who has stayed in a campaign for more than three years. He was with BestChange. Alot of people can not remain there because there are many campaigns paying higher rates than the campaign he was with but he remained until yesterday that he moved to another campaign. Three years is like a lifetime, both for the campaign running and the member who remained faithful to it.

What makes members move everytime? I need your contribution on this to make me understand it better.

I consider it imperative to move to campaigns with better pay and lesser rigid terms. The major reason why I will most likely leave a campaign is because it is the best campaign that offers better terms than I currently hold. Apart from this, the league of applicants in that campaign, for example, campaigns with only legendary, hero and senior members of the forum as eligibles. It tells that such campaigns are dire serious and conditions will be standard.

[CCMS]

This reminded me of the question : "WHy do people change partners always" .

[Woodie]

Maybe this discussion started the matter, but icopress implemented a new rule when we talked about switching from campaign to campaign. It is clear what is to be achieved in this way, but I am not sure about the sustainability of this rule.

I think the icopress approach is meant to preserve value on all the past work done and paid for and I like it , especially incorporated with the rule of not jumping to a competitor project means all posts benefit the project that paid for it and not the new sig company being promoted, hence jumpers are most likely not his target market.

This reminded me of the question : "WHy do people change partners always" .

Lol now this is funny   but honestly can we compare signature campaigns to a real life relationship lol

[EarnOnVictor]

<Snip>

It's a free market and nobody should be forcing anyone to be where they don't want to be. Loyalty can't be forced upon you, otherwise it's not real loyalty. It's based on fear and uncertainty. You choose who or what you want to be loyal to because it's not a requirement that someone should make you respect.    

I'm 100% with you when it comes to campaigns, I don't expect the most qualified people to be held somewhere in the name of loyalty. If at all, the loyalty must always be relative to something (pay and value), not on a compulsion basis.

It happens in real life in a centralized system as well, once you are qualified for higher benefits, you try your luck and let the market forces play their role, especially if you are a dedicated campaigner. In the second to the last campaign I was in, the value was paid in BTC and there was a time I received $49+ in a week while elsewhere with a bonus of the same rank as mine received almost twice it.

It will not pinch if I did less work, I did more posting than anybody there and my posts are of quality. I don't expect to be loyal to such a campaign in the long run. It was only hurt that I parted ways early with a new campaign manager.

[Dunamisx]

This reminded me of the question : "WHy do people change partners always" .

You can't compare this to changing campaigns, having a partner is a lifetime contract under for better for worse, except for death, another instance is when there's separation due to misunderstandings, they may decide to part ways, but how many people are involved in this kind of act, the conditions given in joining a signature campaign may not be favourable for you anymore and you can make a decision of changing or leaving at any time, everyone work for the organization that signed us in because we are fine with the conditions attached.

[BitcoinsGreat]

<Snip>

It's a free market and nobody should be forcing anyone to be where they don't want to be. Loyalty can't be forced upon you, otherwise it's not real loyalty. It's based on fear and uncertainty. You choose who or what you want to be loyal to because it's not a requirement that someone should make you respect.     

It's more related to the better signature payments than the Loyalty itself. When anyone gets selected in a campaign, which pays more than the current one, the people will usually switch the campaigns. There may be few so called "Loyal" to the company who will not switch but do you think that the company they are promoting with always remain loyal to them?

We sometimes see that the company downsizes the signature participants and sometimes if a more trusted member applies to a campaign, the company may not take time to replace those "Loyal" participants.

To be straightforward, just like the company wants the best participants in the campaign, it is the right of the Signature participants to keep finding the best campaign for themselves too.

[taufik123]

-snip-
To be straightforward, just like the company wants the best participants in the campaign, it is the right of the Signature participants to keep finding the best campaign for themselves too.

As in some signature campaigns that update the rules to find the best members with high-quality contributions.
And it won't look at who is more loyal, but at how qualified the member is while in the campaign.

If there is no good development or just paying off the posting target without any quality improvement, there is nothing to care about.
And this also depends on how the developer wants the best participants and replaces them with other and more competent ones.

See how @Royse777's signature campaign gave special payouts to members with over 3.5k merits and higher minimum posts.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5419242.0

and in the signature campaign @yahoo62278 uses a rule for selected participants to get 1 merit/week,if you can't get it you can still get half the payment.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415844.msg61057317

[Pmalek]

and in the signature campaign @yahoo62278 uses a rule for selected participants to get 1 merit/week,if you can't get it you can still get half the payment.

I didn't know about that rule. Getting at least one merit shouldn't be difficult even for decent posters, let alone the best ones but I still don't like it. Regardless of what anyone says, getting merits is also a popularity contest and it greatly depends on where the person posts the most. Those posts could be merit-worthy, but because they are in subs where there aren't any merit sources or the person isn't very likable by the community for whatever reason, they might not even get that one merit a week. That doesn't necessarily mean their posts weren't good enough. Besides, the campaign got the promotion they wanted and so they should pay for it in full, not half.

The first person that comes to mind is franky1. I don't even think he can get into a good campaign because of his many negative tags, and there are many people on the forum that he irritates, and they don't like him. No idea how many merits the dude gets per week, but I don't think it's many because he gets on everyone's nerves all the time. Whatever he receives, he would earn many more if he wasn't like that. Still, he isn't an unknowledgeable shit poster that shouldn't get paid because he lacks the needed popularity.

[BitcoinsGreat]

-snip-
To be straightforward, just like the company wants the best participants in the campaign, it is the right of the Signature participants to keep finding the best campaign for themselves too.

As in some signature campaigns that update the rules to find the best members with high-quality contributions.
And it won't look at who is more loyal, but at how qualified the member is while in the campaign.

If there is no good development or just paying off the posting target without any quality improvement, there is nothing to care about.
And this also depends on how the developer wants the best participants and replaces them with other and more competent ones.

See how @Royse777's signature campaign gave special payouts to members with over 3.5k merits and higher minimum posts.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5419242.0

and in the signature campaign @yahoo62278 uses a rule for selected participants to get 1 merit/week,if you can't get it you can still get half the payment.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415844.msg61057317

Those examples of different campaigns of getting the perfect members for the campaign are perfectly fine. Since the companies are promoting their products, they will always want to hire the best of the best. We never mind that, do we?

My only point of view is that if a Signature Campaign Member changes the campaigns often, he should not be looked in a bad way as not being loyal or something. For sure, he got selected in campaigns because he is a quality poster. He also got a better opportunity and he moved.

[taufik123]

I didn't know about that rule. Getting at least one merit shouldn't be difficult even for decent posters, let alone the best ones but I still don't like it. Regardless of what anyone says, getting merits is also a popularity contest and it greatly depends on where the person posts the most.

I also only found out about the rules made by yahoo after looking through the old campaign.
But in the new campaign, the rule is no longer written.
Yes, but it's a rule that can be changed at any time because he is the manager.

Those posts could be merit-worthy, but because they are in subs where there aren't any merit sources or the person isn't very likable by the community for whatever reason, they might not even get that one merit a week. That doesn't necessarily mean there posts weren't good enough. Besides, the campaign got the promotion they wanted and so they should pay for it in full, not half.

This is what I often feel, when I'm in the wrong circle no matter how good the quality is it won't mean anything.
But when I find a good circle that accepts me, it's even easier to get.
And yes, the home that I still love is in my Local Board.

The first person that comes to mind is franky1. I don't even think he can get into a good campaign because of his many negative tags, and there are many people on the forum that he irritates, and they don't like him. No idea how many merits the dude gets per week, but I don't think it's many because he gets on everyone's nerves all the time. Whatever he receives, he would earn many more if he wasn't like that. Still, he isn't an unknowledgeable shit poster that shouldn't get paid because he lacks the needed popularity.

In regards to @franky1, he's a pretty cool member, active, and always full of controversy.
A few days ago had a debate in my thread about Lightning Network with senior members.
He doesn't seem to like Lightning Network very much and keeps attacking it.
Although full of controversy and some negative assumptions, he is a genius member and often gets on everyone's nerves.
And he's a poster who doesn't support any projects.

[Pmalek]

This is what I often feel, when I'm in the wrong circle no matter how good the quality is it won't mean anything.
But when I find a good circle that accepts me, it's even easier to get.

My point exactly. Your posting didn't change from good quality to bad quality and back to good quality, you were just writing in the "wrong" places at the time. I am someone who likes to visit many subs, probably about 10 or so. Everyone knows that certain boards receive more merits than the others. So, when I am reading and writing in less merited subs, I sometimes go 3-4 days without getting a single merit. That negative run could potentially increase to more days. And then I find something worth discussing in a "better" place on the forum and get 10-20 merits for those posts. That only goes to show that you have to be at the right place at the right time and with the right sets of eyes looking at you.   

In regards to @franky1, he's a pretty cool member, active, and always full of controversy.
A few days ago had a debate in my thread about Lightning Network with senior members.
He doesn't seem to like Lightning Network very much and keeps attacking it.

Yeah, franky1 hates LN with a passion and considers it an altcoin. He was also banned from posting in the technical discussion areas of the forum for that and other reasons, which would again limit his abilities to regularly receive merits.

[yahoo62278]

and in the signature campaign @yahoo62278 uses a rule for selected participants to get 1 merit/week,if you can't get it you can still get half the payment.

I didn't know about that rule. Getting at least one merit shouldn't be difficult even for decent posters, let alone the best ones but I still don't like it. Regardless of what anyone says, getting merits is also a popularity contest and it greatly depends on where the person posts the most. Those posts could be merit-worthy, but because they are in subs where there aren't any merit sources or the person isn't very likable by the community for whatever reason, they might not even get that one merit a week. That doesn't necessarily mean their posts weren't good enough. Besides, the campaign got the promotion they wanted and so they should pay for it in full, not half.

The rule was 1 I was trying out, Compared to what some of the other managers require to even be accepted, I don't think it's a bad ask from participants. Trying to give some of the people who get passed over a chance to grow.

Regardless, you are semi correct. I do feel like merit is a popularity contest. It's totally worthless for Legendary members, just bragging rights yet you see Legendary members getting merited for everything.

[Ultegra134]

<Snip>

It's a free market and nobody should be forcing anyone to be where they don't want to be. Loyalty can't be forced upon you, otherwise it's not real loyalty. It's based on fear and uncertainty. You choose who or what you want to be loyal to because it's not a requirement that someone should make you respect.    

I'm 100% with you when it comes to campaigns, I don't expect the most qualified people to be held somewhere in the name of loyalty. If at all, the loyalty must always be relative to something (pay and value), not on a compulsion basis.

It happens in real life in a centralized system as well, once you are qualified for higher benefits, you try your luck and let the market forces play their role, especially if you are a dedicated campaigner. In the second to the last campaign I was in, the value was paid in BTC and there was a time I received $49+ in a week while elsewhere with a bonus of the same rank as mine received almost twice it.

It will not pinch if I did less work, I did more posting than anybody there and my posts are of quality. I don't expect to be loyal to such a campaign in the long run. It was only hurt that I parted ways early with a new campaign manager.

As someone who generally prefers a stable environment, I don't mind staying loyal. I've been in the Roobet campaign for over two years and I'm satisfied with the requirements and the payment rates are generally fine, not the highest paying one, but decent enough. Thus, I personally don't see a reason to look for another. It's understandable that people are switching campaigns, as newer ones keep appearing and may pay higher rates. It's nothing different with job hopping, it's way more probable to achieve a higher salary by changing jobs, rather than wait for an increase.

[Z-tight]

That only goes to show that you have to be at the right place at the right time and with the right sets of eyes looking at you.    

This is true, to earn merits you have to earn them from others and to do that you have to show up in sections where merit sources and generous merit givers read and post in, most of the members who earn a lot of merits make really good posts in a lot of sections. So if for any reason you make most of your posts in sections where the most generous merit givers do not have their eyes on, you'll probably go long periods without being merited.

I also believe your 'merit fans' and how popular you are is also important, there are certain members who would naturally like most of the things you post, and if you are so good or lucky enough to have a lot of merit sources as merit fans, you'll be earning a lot of merits.

[taufik123]

-snip-
That only goes to show that you have to be at the right place at the right time and with the right sets of eyes looking at you.   

Yes, I understand about that, the point is that we have to be in the right circle to get more benefits compared to other places that do not have the same view and like being a stranger in someone else's place.

Yeah, franky1 hates LN with a passion and considers it an altcoin. He was also banned from posting in the technical discussion areas of the forum for that and other reasons, which would again limit his abilities to regularly receive merits.

franky1 is just one of those forum members who are passionate about his arguments, always consistent with what he likes and what he doesn't like.
There are several other members who have the same disposition as franky1 and they continue to attack what they think is right and oppose anyone who disagrees.

The rule was 1 I was trying out, Compared to what some of the other managers require to even be accepted, I don't think it's a bad ask from participants. Trying to give some of the people who get passed over a chance to grow.

Regardless, you are semi correct. I do feel like merit is a popularity contest. It's totally worthless for Legendary members, just bragging rights yet you see Legendary members getting merited for everything.

And thank you @yahoo62278 for being there to explain the rule, even though in the latest campaign the rule is no longer used.
But it was a different rule to the other managers, suppressing those who missed out on developing, but it did become a bragging point for the legendary members.

-snip-
Thus, I personally don't see a reason to look for another. It's understandable that people are switching campaigns, as newer ones keep appearing and may pay higher rates. It's nothing different with job hopping, it's way more probable to achieve a higher salary by changing jobs, rather than wait for an increase.

You are a member who is loyal to your current campaign.
Moreover, if some of the rules have changed and you can still survive, then you deserve to be in that campaign.
However, you can still look for other campaigns that are still accepting new participants.

-snip-
I also believe your 'merit fans' and how popular you are is also important, there are certain members who would naturally like most of the things you post, and if you are so good or lucky enough to have a lot of merit sources as merit fans, you'll be earning a lot of merits.

Getting many sources of achievements is an advantage, but it will be proportional to the quality of the posts you provide.
If the quality of your posts decreases they won't give you anything either.
But some local or non-local achievement sources will always reward those who deserve it.