All matters on what managers decision when it comes to this.They do have their own criteria on choosing one neither they do allow high ranks to apply or get lower rank spots
or would totally just allow those specific ranks on a certain spot but there are some considerations basing off on managers discretion or choice.
So this isnt really an issue because they can choose whom do really fits out on said position.
Topic: Applying for a lower member rank - read what popular managers say. (Read 279 times)
February 18, 2021, 06:30:55 PM
February 15, 2021, 07:18:22 PM
I like it when managers make it specific to ranks (choosing from the ranks asked for), especially when it has to do with the low ranked members. I have often made that observation on several counts here (on other threads) as I believe low ranked members don't often get a chance at campaigns like higher ranked accounts do. It feels disgusting for me when Legendary members apply to slots asking for category lower than a Hero rank. Well, whatever the justifications are for such "self" debased decision I wouldn't know except that I see it as desperation on the part of the applicant. I don't blame the managers if they decide to pick from such higher rank while ignoring the requested rank. But I blame the higher ranked fellows for not acting the big brother part by allowing the low ranked members that opportunity.
February 03, 2021, 08:05:21 AM
Essentially it really comes down to what is best for the campaign. If I have 2 open spots for members, and let's say Hhampuz and Coolcryptovator apply along with 20 other users, why wouldn't I want to help the company out as best I can by accepting 2 very known members on the forum?
This is just an example but it is a true example of adding value to a company vs adding a random basically newbie poster. Does this mean all member ranked users are worthless? Of course not, I have seen some actual newbies who can make extremely valuable posts. Bottom line is, when you manage a campaign you need to look for the users that actually are going to be valuable to the campaign.
More users pay attention to higher ranked users posts vs lower ranked users in most cases. I'm not anti low rank, hell I have hired somewhere in the range of 3000-4000 users of all ranks on this forum for campaigns. That might be a conservative number. Depends on the campaign and the number of spots.
This is just an example but it is a true example of adding value to a company vs adding a random basically newbie poster. Does this mean all member ranked users are worthless? Of course not, I have seen some actual newbies who can make extremely valuable posts. Bottom line is, when you manage a campaign you need to look for the users that actually are going to be valuable to the campaign.
More users pay attention to higher ranked users posts vs lower ranked users in most cases. I'm not anti low rank, hell I have hired somewhere in the range of 3000-4000 users of all ranks on this forum for campaigns. That might be a conservative number. Depends on the campaign and the number of spots.
February 03, 2021, 01:37:49 AM
Bounty managers have different set of rules, to apply you got to understand what you want and want you don't like, it's a matter of choice, high ranking members can apply for low rank just to avoid missing out but the reward will be lower, it's users choice anyways
January 31, 2021, 07:22:06 AM
Not to enter the debate, but the main reasons for a campaign to have a different pay for different rank has less to do with quality than with what is allowed in the signature (the higher the rank, the more you can do with your signature space).
I think, and this is important to say, we can and should talk about meritocracy and equal opportunity, but we also have to talk about the needs of the campaign owner (not manager). They want the best possible coverage for their campaign, the best possible exposure, with the most attractive possible graphics -- post quality is important, but probably not as important.
So it makes sense for them to allow, sometimes, a Legendary to fill in a Member slot, for example.
I think, and this is important to say, we can and should talk about meritocracy and equal opportunity, but we also have to talk about the needs of the campaign owner (not manager). They want the best possible coverage for their campaign, the best possible exposure, with the most attractive possible graphics -- post quality is important, but probably not as important.
So it makes sense for them to allow, sometimes, a Legendary to fill in a Member slot, for example.
January 29, 2021, 01:26:50 AM
PS: if other campaign managers want to share their views post below, and I’ll add them to the op.
Here's my opinion in regards to this subject [even though since coming back, I had no luck in getting hold of a single campaign [yet]]...- My view is more in line with Hhampuz than other managers.
- IMO, every single member of this forum deserves to have equal amounts of opportunity when a campaign pops out [regardless of their ranks, reputations, and whatnot]. If I take away someone else's spot, that would be unfair to those that have that particular rank so personally, I prefer to keep that spot open for someone with that rank [even if it means nobody is going to occupy it for a week].
January 28, 2021, 05:40:08 AM
Why does signature campaigns always get a lot of controversy? It depends mainly on the nature of mods and who are being paid to run the campaign. Relieving the pressure on them won't change much.
Each person may have a different look, but the campaigners and in agreement with the managers are the ones who define the rules as long as they do not conflict with the rules of the forum.
If higher-ranking members are willing to get less money, why not reduce the funds to all members?
Each person may have a different look, but the campaigners and in agreement with the managers are the ones who define the rules as long as they do not conflict with the rules of the forum.
If higher-ranking members are willing to get less money, why not reduce the funds to all members?
It creates controversy because there's money involve in discussion, this will never ending talks since mostly there's something that needed to discuss when many notice something related on how the camp runs.
Although it's managers decision on who will be chosen to be part of his campaign but as we are higher ranks we should giveway to lower member ranking if there slot for them opened. There are so many opportunity for higher members so it's unfair for them if high rank member take there supposed to be slot.
January 28, 2021, 05:30:58 AM
Why does signature campaigns always get a lot of controversy? It depends mainly on the nature of mods and who are being paid to run the campaign. Relieving the pressure on them won't change much.
Each person may have a different look, but the campaigners and in agreement with the managers are the ones who define the rules as long as they do not conflict with the rules of the forum.
If higher-ranking members are willing to get less money, why not reduce the funds to all members?
Each person may have a different look, but the campaigners and in agreement with the managers are the ones who define the rules as long as they do not conflict with the rules of the forum.
If higher-ranking members are willing to get less money, why not reduce the funds to all members?
January 28, 2021, 03:54:06 AM
PS: if other campaign managers want to share their views post below, and I’ll add them to the op.
Here's my opinion in regards to this subject [even though since coming back, I had no luck in getting hold of a single campaign [yet]]...- My view is more in line with Hhampuz than other managers.
- IMO, every single member of this forum deserves to have equal amounts of opportunity when a campaign pops out [regardless of their ranks, reputations, and whatnot]. If I take away someone else's spot, that would be unfair to those that have that particular rank so personally, I prefer to keep that spot open for someone with that rank [even if it means nobody is going to occupy it for a week].
January 28, 2021, 01:49:13 AM
For me I prefer to stick to apply on what rank are you on, since stealing a slot for supposed to be intended for low ranking member is so greedy act, we should let low ranking members enjoy the benefits of sig campaigns and don't block their chances to gain a possible slot on the camp.
But anyhow the managers still have the final say about this discussion since they know what's better for their camp to achieve the traffic they targeted for promoting here.
But anyhow the managers still have the final say about this discussion since they know what's better for their camp to achieve the traffic they targeted for promoting here.
January 27, 2021, 09:53:23 AM
It highly depends on the campaign managers, some managers accepts and some don't the higher ranks for lower rank positions.
When the user itself ready to accept the lower rank payments then there is nothing to debate about it but IMHO the managers will look for other ranks only if there is no deserving rank in the announced rank.
When the user itself ready to accept the lower rank payments then there is nothing to debate about it but IMHO the managers will look for other ranks only if there is no deserving rank in the announced rank.
January 26, 2021, 10:08:41 PM
I suppose the confusion primarily comes from the fact that there is no clear-cut rule on this even by the most reputable managers in the forum. Yes, they have mentioned their specific standards somewhere, but I guess I have yet to see a specific rule in a signature campaign's OP itself stating something like members of higher ranks are not allowed to apply for low rank slots.
Unlike rules on number of posts, number of characters per post, cheating, disallowed boards, and so on, rules on ranks in relation to campaign slots are not strictly specified.
Unlike rules on number of posts, number of characters per post, cheating, disallowed boards, and so on, rules on ranks in relation to campaign slots are not strictly specified.
January 26, 2021, 04:14:24 PM
Dont have any problems with these set of rules yet manager is different when it comes on handling out their own campaigns.They had their own standards when it comes to selecting
participants on a specific rank. One might be considering higher ranks and one would just stick out on what he's been looking for but i do agree that when theres a spot which is only for
member ranks then it should really be sticking out on choosing member ranks for giving out some chance for them to take part and that would really be fair for everyone and as
one of the managers above do see that no one fits for the said position then thats the time on getting some higher ranks to fill the spot.
Anyways, each manager do have its own criteria and preference.So lets respect it.
participants on a specific rank. One might be considering higher ranks and one would just stick out on what he's been looking for but i do agree that when theres a spot which is only for
member ranks then it should really be sticking out on choosing member ranks for giving out some chance for them to take part and that would really be fair for everyone and as
one of the managers above do see that no one fits for the said position then thats the time on getting some higher ranks to fill the spot.
Anyways, each manager do have its own criteria and preference.So lets respect it.
January 26, 2021, 12:13:02 PM
There are no official campaign management rules. So every manager has the right to implement any campaign rules that aren't conflicting with the forum rules. The rest depends on the participants either they want to apply or not. Each campaign manager has its own standard of select participants. So below is my own opinion about accepting hire rank users.
"Usually I allow to apply hire rank participants on my campaign, but there are some standard (of my own). If there are no appropriate participants for the desired ranks, then I accept from hire ranks candidates. Doesn't matter if a high reputed and high earned merit users apply there, I will not accept them if I feel there is an appropriate candidate for the desired rank who meets the campaign requirements. Because, otherwise low ranks members wouldn't join in the campaign since there are lots of high-rank members ready to take a spot from lower ranks."
"Usually I allow to apply hire rank participants on my campaign, but there are some standard (of my own). If there are no appropriate participants for the desired ranks, then I accept from hire ranks candidates. Doesn't matter if a high reputed and high earned merit users apply there, I will not accept them if I feel there is an appropriate candidate for the desired rank who meets the campaign requirements. Because, otherwise low ranks members wouldn't join in the campaign since there are lots of high-rank members ready to take a spot from lower ranks."
January 26, 2021, 08:22:33 AM
Hhampuz had stated he doesn’t accept higher ranking members for lower ranking positions for the campaigns he manages, but I can’t find his exact quote so leaving his profile you’ll can search if you’ll want.
Here is what you looking for, i've found it after searched from many campaigns managed by him
Thank you all for the applications! It is tempting to hire someone with a higher rank but I prefer to stay true to the positions and to not get confused about moving members up (essentially don't want to create a queue).
This could serve as a guiding thread for the most famous campaign managers right now. Whether or not you would like to join in a lower-ranking position in a signature campaign, it's still in the power of the manager. So at least with this thread, they get to know what their views are. I think there's nothing wrong with applying, though.
Maybe there would be a thread like this but focused on ChipMixer? Lol
Maybe there would be a thread like this but focused on ChipMixer? Lol
numanoid thanks added to the op, crwth I believe it’s annoying for managers and following their guidelines helps them, and prevents unnecessary spam in signature campaign threads. Also ChipMixer is managed by Darkstar so if he chooses to leave his reply here I’ll add it to op, I’m not reaching out to campaign managers as it’s up to their discretion to leave their views here.
January 26, 2021, 08:10:54 AM
This could serve as a guiding thread for the most famous campaign managers right now. Whether or not you would like to join in a lower-ranking position in a signature campaign, it's still in the power of the manager. So at least with this thread, they get to know what their views are. I think there's nothing wrong with applying, though.
Maybe there would be a thread like this but focused on ChipMixer? Lol
Maybe there would be a thread like this but focused on ChipMixer? Lol
January 26, 2021, 07:56:55 AM
Hhampuz had stated he doesn’t accept higher ranking members for lower ranking positions for the campaigns he manages, but I can’t find his exact quote so leaving his profile you’ll can search if you’ll want.
Here is what you looking for, i've found it after searched from many campaigns managed by him
Thank you all for the applications! It is tempting to hire someone with a higher rank but I prefer to stay true to the positions and to not get confused about moving members up (essentially don't want to create a queue).
January 26, 2021, 07:38:21 AM
I believe every manager has their own rules and they can change that anytime they want.
In some campaign rules I read, it's not stated there that high rank is not allowed to apply for low rank, it usually state about the requirement of the signature campaign. In any occasion sometimes a manager says that he will not accept a high rank member to apply for a lower spot, but sometimes it does not say so, meaning it's okay to apply.
IIRC, I also see Hhampuz accepted a higher rank for a lower position, and actually it's not a big deal or a problem that concerns the community.
The only rule here is what the manager says, there's no standard rules in a signature campaign.
In some campaign rules I read, it's not stated there that high rank is not allowed to apply for low rank, it usually state about the requirement of the signature campaign. In any occasion sometimes a manager says that he will not accept a high rank member to apply for a lower spot, but sometimes it does not say so, meaning it's okay to apply.
IIRC, I also see Hhampuz accepted a higher rank for a lower position, and actually it's not a big deal or a problem that concerns the community.
The only rule here is what the manager says, there's no standard rules in a signature campaign.
January 26, 2021, 07:29:47 AM
There’s a lot of debate about whether a high ranking member can apply for a lower position in a signature campaign or he/she can’t, and I know responses of two popular managers, and as and when I find more managers views I’ll add them.
This shall stop campaign participants from spamming the signature campaign thread, cause it’s freaking annoying to read posts from users who have no control over who’s gonna be selected.
PS: if other campaign managers want to share their views post below, and I’ll add them to the op.
If a Legendary wants to apply, it it allowed. They will sit in the member rank position until they are eligible to be moved up. That means, everyone who is eligible to rank up moves up ahead of the last person that joined. I also will choose the best candidate for the position. Looking at who earns merits more often, who posts in more boards, who posts in the gambling section, who has a good reputation, who stays out of most of the discussion boards, and lastly who isn't an asshat on the forum
As seen above yahoo62278 is okay with higher members applying for lower ranks for the campaigns that he manages.
Thank you all for the applications! It is tempting to hire someone with a higher rank but I prefer to stay true to the positions and to not get confused about moving members up (essentially don't want to create a queue).
Hhampuz has stated he doesn’t accept higher ranking members for lower ranking positions for the campaigns he manages.
"Usually I allow to apply hire rank participants on my campaign, but there are some standard (of my own). If there are no appropriate participants for the desired ranks, then I accept from hire ranks candidates. Doesn't matter if a high reputed and high earned merit users apply there, I will not accept them if I feel there is an appropriate candidate for the desired rank who meets the campaign requirements. Because, otherwise low ranks members wouldn't join in the campaign since there are lots of high-rank members ready to take a spot from lower ranks."
Hope this helps all who’re keen to participate in signature campaigns, and saves signature managers time too.
This shall stop campaign participants from spamming the signature campaign thread, cause it’s freaking annoying to read posts from users who have no control over who’s gonna be selected.
PS: if other campaign managers want to share their views post below, and I’ll add them to the op.
If a Legendary wants to apply, it it allowed. They will sit in the member rank position until they are eligible to be moved up. That means, everyone who is eligible to rank up moves up ahead of the last person that joined. I also will choose the best candidate for the position. Looking at who earns merits more often, who posts in more boards, who posts in the gambling section, who has a good reputation, who stays out of most of the discussion boards, and lastly who isn't an asshat on the forum
As seen above yahoo62278 is okay with higher members applying for lower ranks for the campaigns that he manages.
Thank you all for the applications! It is tempting to hire someone with a higher rank but I prefer to stay true to the positions and to not get confused about moving members up (essentially don't want to create a queue).
Hhampuz has stated he doesn’t accept higher ranking members for lower ranking positions for the campaigns he manages.
"Usually I allow to apply hire rank participants on my campaign, but there are some standard (of my own). If there are no appropriate participants for the desired ranks, then I accept from hire ranks candidates. Doesn't matter if a high reputed and high earned merit users apply there, I will not accept them if I feel there is an appropriate candidate for the desired rank who meets the campaign requirements. Because, otherwise low ranks members wouldn't join in the campaign since there are lots of high-rank members ready to take a spot from lower ranks."
Hope this helps all who’re keen to participate in signature campaigns, and saves signature managers time too.
Jump to: