Applicants on a signature campaign (which shouldn't be around in the first place) shouldn't rush the managers in any way since they're the ones who need something from the campaign.
Indeed. I think the longest I've received feedback from my application(whether or not I got accepted or not) from past campaign managers was like 3-5 days maximum. 3-5 days is nothing; sometimes it can take you a whole month before you know if you got accepted or not when applying for a real job. I can't even imagine how hard it is for campaign managers that manage campaigns that accepts Jr member accounts. So much applications to filter through. 
Topic: Signature Campaigns: New Rule Suggestion - page 2. (Read 699 times)
I get your concern here and it does have sense, but all rules for the upcoming and running campaigns, came from the one who or who will manage. And since they have their own personal life so it might caused to delay their works here like a couple of hours but if it takes a day or days then that is not good enough.
This suggestion is nonsense tbh.
Applicants on a signature campaign (which shouldn't be around in the first place) shouldn't rush the managers in any way since they're the ones who need something from the campaign. Also, the reason why this forum is full of shitposts and spammers is because some campaign managers don't even take their time in reviewing their applicant's post history, which to me is contributing largely to the number of non-native English speakers' influx on this forum to go on and take a spot on a campaign.
Also, these services aren't even obliged to follow certain campaign rules made by users as long as they aren't breaking the forum's own rules. If you aren't accepted by a campaign, take it as a man and just move on. Nothing there to bitch about it.
Applicants on a signature campaign (which shouldn't be around in the first place) shouldn't rush the managers in any way since they're the ones who need something from the campaign. Also, the reason why this forum is full of shitposts and spammers is because some campaign managers don't even take their time in reviewing their applicant's post history, which to me is contributing largely to the number of non-native English speakers' influx on this forum to go on and take a spot on a campaign.
Also, these services aren't even obliged to follow certain campaign rules made by users as long as they aren't breaking the forum's own rules. If you aren't accepted by a campaign, take it as a man and just move on. Nothing there to bitch about it.
The rule of wearing the signature at the time of applying is not actually implemented on every campaign, but there are just a few of them which are doing this thing, and i don't think someone can ask anyone to change their rules or add new rules. It is totally up to the manager or the owners of the project to implement any rule to the campaign. As long as the rules aren't against the forum rules, they cannot be questioned, but it is up to the person if he can take the rules or not. If a user do not like the rules, he simply should move to another campaign.
Some Signature Campaigns have the rule to wear signature, when participants want to apply, before they know, wether they will be in or not.
My suggestion is to have a new rule for all those signature campaigns:
When participants are demanded to wear signature already before they get approaved, then campaign managers should aporove or denie within a day or call a date, when participants are prooved.
Reasons:
1. This rule should prevent against cheating the participants and other campaigns, which are not able to pay such high pay rates.
2. Participants know, when they get approaved and are not blocked to apply for other campaigns instead of waiting several days and posting for free for this campaign.
Most campaigns are led by honorable campaign managers, who clear out, when participants should apply and when they get approaved or the approval happens even within hours or one day. That is ok.
But some managers or devs don't. The rule would be for them. We had a good example, how the system was cheated (nexchange opened three campaigns and one of them only collected participants, who posted several days for nothing with their signature. They had highest payment promises Then nexchange closed this campaign without choosing any participants and just opened a new campaign with low pay rates. So they had free advertisment from many members in this forum)
My suggestion is to have a new rule for all those signature campaigns:
When participants are demanded to wear signature already before they get approaved, then campaign managers should aporove or denie within a day or call a date, when participants are prooved.
Reasons:
1. This rule should prevent against cheating the participants and other campaigns, which are not able to pay such high pay rates.
2. Participants know, when they get approaved and are not blocked to apply for other campaigns instead of waiting several days and posting for free for this campaign.
Most campaigns are led by honorable campaign managers, who clear out, when participants should apply and when they get approaved or the approval happens even within hours or one day. That is ok.
But some managers or devs don't. The rule would be for them. We had a good example, how the system was cheated (nexchange opened three campaigns and one of them only collected participants, who posted several days for nothing with their signature. They had highest payment promises Then nexchange closed this campaign without choosing any participants and just opened a new campaign with low pay rates. So they had free advertisment from many members in this forum)
Jump to: