Topic: Advertised services and participants in a paid sig campaign (Read 1007 times)

The opinions are completely clear, you've even lost your misleading poll by 12 : 14...


All I can see in this topic is reputable members pointing out your hypocrisy...  


The result of our discussion could not be much clearer: Your hypocrisy is a very blatant one and combining that with your other recent incidents it's no surprise at all that you are now trying to invent your very own facts.  
We have tons of reputable members here calling it out.
We have two polls, where your position lost on both, you've lost even your misleading poll...





I'm sorry but it's 100% hypocrisy to oppose gambling, even calling it "unethical" and "destroying lives", while on the other hand, you are promoting such a service in your signature and your profile picture because you can get a nice amount of valauble BTC every week.
You'll have to live with it that people will point that out.


Again, you are inventing your own facts.
The numbers couldn't be much clearer.
7 voters for your option are a defeating result for your hypocrisy, considering how many trolls and shitposters we have here on Bitcointalk.
Some people might misclick / just click one of the responses to see the result.
Some of the 7 votes might be troll alt accounts.
Considering this, your 7 votes are basically nothing...


Yes, opinion process is done, look at the polls.  


Calling a vote of 7 : 32 "ultimately mixed" is truly showing, how you are inventing your own facts in this.
Imagine a football team gets beaten up 7 : 32 and their coach is giving an interview, calling the result "ultimately mixed".
So, nope. The result could not be any clearer.  


I don't know what your repetition of your nonsense should achieve at this point but if you feel like that, go ahead, if you want to keep embarrassing yourself.  
As said before, you can call gambling "unethical", "destroying lives" etc. and also advertise it in your signature for some nice sats every week but then, you'll have to live with it that people will call you out for your hypocrisy.


JollyGood is a very experienced DT1 member, who's doing a great job to keep abusers and spammers at bay. A very important job to keep the forum sane. Considering the shitshow going on sometimes on the forum, such possible cases are definitely having some Merit to look at further. We all know how many cases have turned out in the end after diligent investigation and we will never know until we know.  
You have caught the attention of many experienced DT members already (my attention now as well), where you've jumped directly to apply for the best-rewarded signature campaign after coming back (while the campaign was full, too), so it's not the DT members who are to blame. DT is just doing its job and that's a good thing to keep trolls, abusers and other strange folks at bay.  

Well... whether or not you are endorsing the thing that you advertise is a matter of personal concern.

On one hand, we have webmasters selectively choosing which kind of advertisements they do not want to be displayed on their websites (which I agree with, because we don't want to see things like hate speech and misogyny being advertised right next to the articles we are reading, now do we).

And on the other hand, you have celebrities on Instagram shilling for scams and crypto pumps & dumps on a daily basis.

Many people have tried to be the "good policeman" in these scenarios and try to mandate the endorsement part, but it almost never works because people don't really care about what other people on social media say.

Obviously it's better if you can endorse whatever it is you are advertising, but that is up to the person themselves.

Both threads should be kept open. They both ask similar questions in different forms, the opinion changes depending on which poll you look at.


That's fine, it could he 100:7 and that would still be 7 people who are not on the same page. Combine that with the reputable members who share my opinion, and a valid conclusion can be made: the interpretation is not clean cut

You can take your poll as a win, but really, it's not. It's just a reflection of the lack of clarity around signatures and how much they mean to viewers and wearers.

You can have as many opinions as you want in your poll but until it is clearly defined by the community in an official way, the opinion process is already done. Further opinions really do not mean much now that it is already clear that the opinion is ultimately mixed.

I intend on replying to a lot of the other things posted earlier when I have some minutes to do so. That mightn't be soon' as it's been nice to ignore this in the meantime.

I think making subtle accusations that someone is an alt account instead of just silently waiting and investigating, is a pointless thing to do....and quite rude, especially if you are wrong. That's to say the least. As if I say more I can almost guarantee that you will start firing your gun at me again as well.

He has been posting in the Reputation board since he created his PytagoraZ account. He will eventually will make an error and that will cost him the account as it will receive more tags. It clearly is not his only account here but he would not want it tagged because enrolling on a signature campaign will make it difficult for him to let go. If he wants to post in a typical duplicitous manner, he is not doing himself any favours.

It is 30:7 now 

Yes. 
He's complaining here now about my topic, while he gladly deleted my comment in his censored self-moderated one. Other way round, if I would cause his self-moderated topic to grow more than 4 pages long, my comments would be already gone.

---

Definitely, we will keep this one open.
And it's about time to have a screenshot from our poll:



It's 29:7. 

Why not keep it open? People are still voting in the poll and actively engaging in the debate and sharing their arguments and opinions. At least this thread is not censored so anyone can leave any comment they want without fear of it being deleted.

Why not ask BenCodie why his thread is still open?

1miau, how many times have you told him it is an option (if you want to contact the coins.game campaign manager) yet he keeps reverberating the same chorus. I have no idea why he is trying to divert the point of the thread.

At least you have not allowed him to derail it by you bringing it back on track, namely that you had a post of yours deleted by BenCodie in a self-moderated thread which was the reason you created this thread. And, it is about shocking levels of hypocrisy and the justifications/explanations being provided in attempt to try to come across in a better light.

Honestly, I am surprised you are still posting in this thread.

Goodbye.

Of course, I'm at fault again...  
I'm at fault for pointing out BenCodies hypocrisy - not BenCodie himself is at fault to think about his actions even one second...
This thread is no reference for a negative trust, what are you even talking about?  


You can look at the poll, our position has huge support and BenCodie was called out for his hypocrisy multiple times by many different members...


The only ones who are looking childish here are BenCodie and your lack of knowledge about DT.
Please, do yourself a favor and get informed about DT before replying here.
I don't even know, what your comment is intended to achieve...  


And thats a pretty legitimate opinion to oppose gambling because many people don't like gambling. I don't know how often I've said that in this topic. They can think whatever they want.
But when someone is of the opinion that gambling is unethical, no need to advertise it in their signature to give such unethical business visibility. I wouldn't advertise a fraudulent shitcoin as well because I don't like most of them.


According to BenCodie, these services are unethical and destroying lives.
So he's contributing to destroying lives with your sign up...


Arguments of lower rank members will get heard. But if these arguments are nonsense, higher rank members will debunk them.  

If you want to ruin someone's reputation maybe you can tag them negatively, you're a DT, and you have the assumptions of this thread to reference. From what I've read, when someone agrees with one's disagreement then it's an agreement, yet here you are insisting that your statement be agreed with by everyone. It looks childish

I'm sure many people agree that gambling is a bad act, and I'm sure all gamblers know that but they still gamble. So?

But from this discussion I became curious about coins.game so I created an account there. Ah, maybe this is one of the best promotions

---

But never mind, I don't have enough level to argue with you, I'll step back and feel free to do whatever you like, I know the arguments of low rank members won't be heard

No shit, Sherlock!

Luckily, it's not your business what I'm allowed to think or what I'm allowed to write here.

You can do that yourself, I dont even know what your strange questions are trying to achieve here except from derailing the discussion because you have no valid arguments left...

Looks like you've missed that the topic isn't intended to convince coin.game but a clarification topic regarding BenCodie's misleading poll...  

---

The evidence about your hypocrisy is visible for everyone in the OP.
It's really sad that you don't admit that.
But considering your past "incidents", this one is not surprising at all.

Don't you realize that even your own, biased poll backfired and your poll result is tied now?
The people defending your hypocrisy is a small minority because for every issue, there's a strange, small minority.
If you don't like gambling, you can write walls of text against gambling but then, you should not advertise it in your Signature to get paid every week for advertising that.
That's common sense or your opposition to gambling is not credible at all.
It's so simple!


Who is causing trouble here, when he started to bring the issue to reputation because his post was exposed by me and added to the topic of CryptopreneurBrainboss? We are well allowed to point that out or it's not allowed anymore to criticize hypocrisy on the forum?
You were the one taking the issue to reputation by taking things out of context with your initial poll.
And no surprise, even your own poll backfired completely because your actions are 100% hypocrisy.
You can spin that how you want, it won't change the fact that it's hypocrisy.
You'll have to live with it, that people will criticize you for that.

---

Probably yes, because obviously some people here are having an issue with my topic because it's exposing their hypocrisy.  
But speaking of damaged reputation, I can see that Little Mouse already has one neutral DT feedback and one negative, although Lauda is not frequently in DT. Still, it seems to be an interesting case to be explored.  

Honestly, I'm surprised why this thread is still open. I think only 2 people can solve it, the first is LM and the second is Ben, these two people have come and expressed their opinions. Does OP still have other goals? We cannot force what we believe on other people, we are all adults and have our own views on life. Both OP, LM, and Ben, you are great members here, will this continue to be opened until someone's reputation is damaged?

Just ignore him. It is clear that his opinion is conflicting with the fact that his opinion is not gospel.

1miau what you are failing to understand is that according to your perspective, I am a hypocrite. According to other people's perspective, I am maintaining my honesty and I am not changing my opinion for a signature campaign. The campaign still gets their advertising, while I make valid posts.

If I was in the gambling board quite literally campaigning against using casinos here in bitcointalk, slandering, damaging brands, then yes maybe you would be right. But I do not do that. I only point out when a casino is malpracticing and stating factual information about the gambling industry. So really, I'm not damaging coins game or any legitimate casino, only those who deserve to be called out for their malpractice.

You should stop causing trouble...I think we are at a point in the debate where we have gone deep enough to know that I am not doing anything severely hypocritical, nor damaging to those who choose me to advertise for them. If you want to continue your tangent, go ahead.

Regarding using me as a stupid example, you can defend that all you want. However, it is not legitimate. According to your perspective it is, however it is clear after the discussion in this thread and in my thread that it is not a globally shared perspective, so you have no right to criticize those who have a different perspective to you.

I believe coins.game isn't a service operator owned by you. Better you stop thinking about what coins.game CM is doing here. If you do care, why don't you reach coins.game and explain your point/argument to them and recommend your preferred CM? Explaining here makes no sense as no one from coins.game is here to hear you.

Of course, everyone can have different perspectives and opinions. I don't know how often I should mention this, again and again. Everyone can hate gambling, they are entitled to have that opinion. But then, the person in question should not get butthurt if their hypocrisy gets called out for participating in a paid signature ad campaign and we called that out, backed up by legitimate proof, like the picture I've posted in the topic of CryptopreneurBrainboss.
We should always remember that BenCodie started the whole discussion when he acted butthurt that other people called him out for his hypocrisy.

So, BenCodie has shown his hypocrisy to everyone (he even opposed cryptofrka's Merit source application) and at the same time, he's not able to face any criticism for his actions.

---

That's an option, but PMing a bounty manager is something I'm very hesistant because all the other options need to have failed already, like nice explanations for the abusers in question.
PMing a campaign manager for such things might result in more unnecessary spam for campaign managers.
But yes, it's an option.

---

It's neither irritating nor unnecessary, it's very important to mention that. Because campaign managers are getting paid to provide a good service and that includes to select the participants, which are suited best to give a service the best advertising.
We have had some very lazy campaign managers here but luckily the whole situation has improved. I can personally outline the practices of icopress, whose professionality is key to provide a good campaign management.
As a service operator, I would hire him without hesitation because I would consider my advertising funds spent very wisely.

---

It's a big difference if someone just doesn't care much about gambling or if he's opposing it openly. What are we even talking about, if someone doesn't like gambling, no need to advertise it for him. That's what we are talking about the whole time.
Most gambling sites are know for requiring gambling-related posts and it's just not making any sense to have low-quality posters participating there or even people opposing gambling.
For example, as a gambling service owner, I would go for people like Trofo, cryptofrka or CLS63 as participants over BenCodie any time.

---

All the comments written by JollyGood here are very legitimate.
And not just JollyGood was a bit surprised about your hypocrisy, many more members shared the same view.

---

Nice reminder, I totally forgot about it.  
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61460727
"Full" means "apply now".  

I saw the campaigns when I got back and thought "Oh, cool, nice bonus for being here" and tried my luck with CM, despite not knowing how everything was working here at the time.

As for when I started disliking gambling, long ago, as mentioned in other posts I have seen it hurt those close (and once close) to me. The reason I started posting there was the first campaign that required posts there, and I thought... "Well, I'll try my luck being honest until I get kicked"

Honesty doesn't mean attacking gambling, it just means being my version of realistic with myself and the industry ..everyone has different experiences, my third hand experience has shown that ultimately gambling can do serious damage if the wrong kind of person touches it. It can be fine for some, detrimental to others.

I am glad that at least Little Mouse sees the posts as honesty, and not hypocrisy. I believe it's a little more rational to view it that way than to take this one fact, and using to to label me as a complete hypocrite, when I've shown no valid signs of such in my existence here.

In other news, I've come up with an amazing idea, inspired by past ideas and these conversations . I'll post about it sooner or later!

Until then, taking a break (as I have been) from this thread, with posts I feel the absolute need to reply to as an exception.


@JollyGood just stop. There has not been any past hypocrisy instead of your misinterpretation of whirlwind where
- I applied to the campaign when it started
- Saw red flags months later
And which where you completely disregard time, and say that I did both at the same time, and thus I am a hypocrite.

Other than that, the only debate about my hypocrisy is this one in regards to my honesty about the gambling industry while being a part of a gambling campaign.

Let's not forget that the only reason you've hugely exaggerated this post, and so many others against me, is because I had the nerve to point out how much of a robotic stickler you were....which thankfully is less such now, other than the continuous biased comments you add against me at any chance you get.

@suchmoon thanks for enabling this guy with your ridiculously inflated post. Hypocritical lunatic and untrustworthy are not the accurate words to describe me, and that inflated post allowed JollyGood to follow on with his inaccurate post. Maybe be a little bit more levelled with your words next time? Or if you truly think that I'm a hypocritical, dishonest lunatic, then just disregard this post.

I've been trying to figure out when BenCodie started hating on gambling so much.  He came back to the forum last December after taking a long break and  seemed like he just wanted to join some signature campaigns to earn money.  He put in an application with Chipmixer like two days after he started posting again.  But before that, I never saw him post anything about gambling on here.  Makes me wonder if he's telling the truth that he's always felt this way about it.  Hard to get a read on what his deal is.

Everyone may have different perspectives and opinions.
I'm trying my best to give maximum exposure to coins.game through the signature campaign. I'm following my strategy for achieving so. If you feel like CM isn't doing the job perfectly, feel free to reach out to them and explain.

This is irritating and unnecessary here I think (not obvious because you are free to say anything you want).

---

Do you think in the gambling section, everyone is a gambler or likes gambling? Of course, no. There are a lot of users pretending to be a gambler/like gambling just for the sake of filling their weekly posting requirements. The difference between Bencodie and those impersonators is- they are impersonators while Bencodie isn't. He is honest at least.

---

There are different users in the campaign with different attributes. Bencodie is one of them and he isn't required to post in the gambling section to get paid.

You have identified the part he (and maybe some others may) have missed, it clearly is not fine line that he walks and it is clearly over the line because the hypocrisy on his part is staggering. After all he did state (and after that he began his vendetta against me) that he was happy to apply to join a signature campaign even though he was convinced it was a scam and not only that he opted to not bring up his concerns to discuss with the community. On the contrary, he applied to join the campaign but was not selected.

Now what he is saying about gambling but then has no issues with promoting it on the basis that if he were not to do it, someone else would and that he should not be missing out on an income even it goes against what he preaches to what he practices because it would make no difference to the industry.

Again, it would have been unbelievable hypocrisy had it come from another member but as he has been hypocritical in the past, it was not that much of a surprise coming from him.

Possibly but then, a small reward for anyone else who's disproving his claims would be a nice gesture. Like a special contest campaign (reviews / ad drawing campaign etc.).  
At least, his revent gambling upheaval has caused some of the "criticism" getting debunked.  

Campaign managers want to give better exposure to the brand they are working for. Sometimes, negative promotion gives better exposure than positive promotion does. Let's say BenCodie is opposing gambling and casinos and believes it's unethical while wear the signature. Which is the reason for creating a conflict or let's say a discussion regarding his point of view. Now, the company he promotes is getting more views from his signature as people pay attention to him. He might have negative thoughts about gambling, but the viewers do not.

The company gets the benefit because its primary benefit is to get as many views as possible. If his negative point of view gives them more views, they may like to take it. But it's also true that negative promotions do not always work. I am pretty sure that the campaign managers are aware of his posts and his point of view. But the point they may have is that BenCodie is not a spammer! He has been constructive with his posts and tried to write in detail about his point of view, even though it's controversial.