Topic: Advertised services and participants in a paid sig campaign - page 2. (Read 1007 times)

Yes, it's a legitimate opinion for BenCodie to be against gambling, he can even write a whole topic how "unethical" gambling is or how it can "destroy lives" and express his opposition to gambling.
But then, he should not wear a gambling signature at the same time, as his opposition against gambling wouldn't be credible at all.

And yes, campaign managers not checking his comments properly are an issue too.
A campaign manager is responsible to select suited participants to ensure that the service is advertised the best way. Campaign managers are getting paid for that by the service.
And obviously, someone who openly hates gambling is not a good pick to advertise a gambling brand.

---

That would be hypocrisy on behalf of Ronaldo, if he thinks it's an unhealthy drink but still signs a sponsorship deal to get money for advertising Coca Cola.
Of course, CocaCola is well advised to nullify their personal sponsorship deal with Ronaldo if Ronaldo doesn't like CocaCola obviously.
(I don't dislike CocaCola but of course, we should not drink it every day  )

Firstly I'm sorry for not being able to explain myself clearly. I also know that there is a big difference between these two situations. I just used this image as Ronaldo's incident came to my mind after giving the Coca-Cola example.

The thing I actually want to say is that BenCodie doesn't keep his thoughts to himself. He is writing them openly. I think that the real problem here is the truth of there are managers who are accepting him to the ad campaign of gambling companies despite knowing that BenCodie is talking negatively about gambling websites.

Then let me ask you a question like this: Isn't there any fault of Coca-Cola here if Ronaldo shares an Instagram story every day telling people not to drink Coca-Cola and still he signs a sponsorship deal with Coca-Cola?

There's a big difference between Ronaldo's "Coca Cola incident" and BenCodie's "Gambling incident".
Ronaldo didn't choose to advertise Coca Cola personally. I don't believe any player of that team choose it because it's a management decision (here UEFA as tournament organizer), which brands get displayed there.
It wasn't Ronaldo's decision that Coca Cola does advertising there.

BenCodie decided to join a gambling campaign solely based on his own decision.

So, completely different from Ronaldo's incident, where the team /organizer made the decision and Ronaldo had no say.


It's often an issue for a team sport.
Players don't have a say, which sponsors will be displayed on their shirts or stadium surroundings because it's a team management decision / tournament organizer decision (here UEFA).
For example, Sebastian Vettel doesn't like the oil industry due to CO2 emissions. But he had to accept that Aramco sponsored Aston Martin's car.
That wasn't Vettel's decision, because it's a team decision.

While for the BenCodie case, BenCodie is the one, who made the call himself to join the campaign and is getting paid for it despite he hates gambling and thinks, it's "unethical".

I don't think that BenCodie did a thing that is wrong. I think that the main problem here is coins.game's paying someone who has these thoughts to advertise.

For example, let's think that Coca-Cola is organizing an ad campaign on the forum. If I make a post saying "Don't drink cola, it's unhealthy." and if there is an ad of Coca-Cola right below the post this doesn't benefit that company. If I was a bounty manager I would have paid attention to these things.

Whether signatures are personal endorsement or not doesn't really matter because by wearing a signature you are getting paid for spreading the awareness about something you think is extremely damaging/negative etc and that's what makes you a hypocrite.

But if it makes it easier for you to rationalise your stance and wear the gambling signature, be my guest.

Okay, if you want to spin it in that direction you sure can do that. Can't say I'm surprised that you're making this a trust debate when it hasn't touched the topic the whole time...it does make sense though, given most posts I see from you these days is about that topic.

As for directly replying to what you said...
Hypocritical lunacy...I am not a normal person...insane....
wow, very big labels, and big words. I'm (Almost) speechless since usually one would need to do something quite significant to earn those labels. I do not believe this classifies, not even close. We're talking about a paid ad here.

I know that in my circumstance and with all of the provided reasoning as well as all of these discussions, that it is a fine line. You can say otherwise but if it was as clean cut as me being an insane, hypocritical lunatic as you say I am, why is this the first we've heard it after the months of debate and discussing with opinions widely varying?

Also, properly selling out would be adjusting the way I post to be pro gambling. That would be hypocritical lunacy, sure. At that point I'd agree that a negative trust rating or distrust of judgement would be warranted if I did such a thing, as it would mean my words will change for payment. not the case though and there is a big difference between that and the reality of things here.

So, I'm a hypocritical, insane, not normal lunatic by your standards just because of this discussion? Thanks for coming and chiming in with that extremely harsh and irrational opinion, super useful to us all here!

I could only imagine the thunder that would crack down on me if I made the same kind of comment to other members. Heck, I said a very general comment about low IQ and got a 3-day long thread for it...what a joke.


I thought it was a given through my actions, I suppose no one would really paying attention to that though.

Of course, if there are equal campaigns with my preferred managers available, there's no doubt about gambling campaigns being my last preference. Managers are pretty fine with the way I post even with where I sit on the gambling fence, which is why I still choose them. If I had to change an opinion for a campaign, I'd not participate. I doubt that will ever happen though as it would be a freedom of speech concern to say the very least

It's not a fine line at all, not to a normal person anyway. You're way over the line in the hypocritical lunacy territory.

And while no one can really "exclude" you from selling out, these impressive flips of mental gymnastics should probably exclude you from trust lists of sane users of this forum.

This line catches my eye and I guess you haven't said this in any of your previous posts. Have you ever said that you believe gambling is unethical I am wearing the signature because there are no non-gambling campaigns at this moment. I don't think I have seen this from you yet. I am not a big fan of gambling. I do gamble sometimes but later I promised myself that I should quit gambling.

I am also planning to move to non casino campaigns but that should be a reliable one. But while I am wearing the signature of a casino, I shouldn't spread negativity about these platforms.

BTW: Last night BenCodie sent me a PM regarding the trust exclusion. He removed me from his distrust list last night.

This whole time I have understood the point of others but I think that the grander picture also needs to be understood to see where I am coming from.

That is, my participation in a signature campaign does not make any difference as to whether or not the gambling industry exists or not. My participation also doesn't make any difference in its promotion (as another member will take my place, and thus the advertising is still there).

Besides, if I have it in my signature over a proponent, then at least with my advertising comes warnings about gambling and objective discussion surrounding it, rather than someone who promotes it hardcore or shills.

It is clearly a fine line that I walk. I understand both sides, I just don't see why I should be excluded from the opportunity when (for the reasons stated above), my participation ultimately does not make a difference to the industry.

IF I was a heavy advocate, one who is trying to make change, one who is actively trying to negatively impact the industry, then the level of hypocrisy would be ludicrous...but that simply isn't the case. My existence in this forum isn't to damage that industry, but I am not afraid to point out its flaws and give warnings as there is definitely a lack of it on the forum, probably because of the hand that the industry has over this forum.

However, despite my beliefs about the industry, and the knowledge of the detriment that it can cause, I am fine with accepting the opportunity as my participation makes virtually no difference.

It's clear that this view is not understood by most, and if people would like to view me as a hypocrite, then by all means they can...and believe me, if an opportunity to not be in a gambling campaign arises, I will jump at that opportunity...but for the time being that isn't the case, and the reasons above are enough for me to rationalize my own participation to myself and others.

I think, for the reasons above and the bigger picture, I should not be wholely viewed as a hypocrite. This is one of the only circumstances where a hypocrisy is valid thing to say, if signatures are personal endorsements...but I don't believe that they are.

I think that a true hypocrite would not only join the campaign after expressing disbelief in an industry, but additionally post in a way that is opposite to past beliefs. At least I have not done this, and have no intentions to. I participate in discussions just as I would with/without a signature, and always will.

So BenCodie wrote all of that negative stuff about gambling/casinos not being a positive influence on the bitcoin economy while he himself is participating in a gambling-based sig campaign?  That surprises me.  I know he's a ball-buster with his opinions, which I respect, because I think a lot of things need to be challenged (and loudly, too), but unless I'm seeing things wrong his statement is quite hypocritical.

I've always had the opinion that if you're in a sig campaign, you're not necessarily endorsing something.  But if you openly oppose whatever a campaign is advertising, I'd expect you'd not want to be a part of it.  That only makes sense, no?

It's obvious that while people joined a high paying campaign is not because of the brand they advertise, and I notice that reputable members doesn't join a campaign because the campaign is paying high or not, what they concentrate in a campaign is about what they are promoting which is the most necessary thing to do in brand..

Some people do not work according to instructions of a signature campaign when they joined a campaign..as you stated that  some people post in a gambling section whereas their brand doesn't accept that but they continued making a post there, I think its abnormal from my understanding and my views..last week Best_Change has officially made it known to some of the participants that doesn't abid on the rules and regulations of the campaign, if you know you are in interested in posting where the signature campaign you are promoting as you not to post, I think its better to leave the campaign instead going against their rules and regulations.

Sometimes some signature don't like their participants to post in gambling section even in the politics and societies section but some participants doesn't adhere to that,while they know that the brand they are projecting don't like them posting in such sections, so I don't know what some participants see for disobeying the brand their promoting, for them to go against the rules and regulations that means they don't want a development and the growth of the campaign contrary that is what it means.

There's no problem at all.  


We might have many mixers and gambling sites advertising here but your claim is not true.
One of the most established campaigns is from BestChange: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cfnp-bestchange-signature-campaign-sr-member-5217201
In the past, we have had many more where no mixer or gambling was involved, like TenUp.io or Bonkz from LittleMouse.
If you are still not happy, feel free to contact any service and suggest them to do a signature campaign here on Bitcointalk.  


That's exclusively your issue, that you don't like Gambling or Mixers personally.

---

Gambling is an offer to have some fun and wager money on it. They can also play UNO cards if they don't want to wager money on it...
It's up to everyone if someone wants to participate there. If you don't like that, don't advertise it in your signature...

---

First, we need to do our due diligence about a mixer. There's quite a difference between scam mixers and proven ones.
Yes, we can also discuss what WE can do to prevent trust issues, like setting up an trusted escrow fund.
This was discussed as you know from your "mixing incident".  


There's no problem at all, you are creating one...

---

Pretending to like something isn't helpful for anyone, if you don't like it at all.
It's not beneficial at all for:
- the advertised service
- your principles
- your credibility

If you don't like something, no need for you to participate in it.

I'm not able to read minds, so I don't know if there are pretenders here. But we can see from one's comments, who's interested in gambling and who's just writing nonsense to get paid every week...
And yes, such garbage posting is a problem. No need for anyone to leave boring shitposts just for the sake of making a gambling-related post.
But that's a known issue and called "paid shitposting" or "sigspam".

If the opportunity is a monetary one: it's not beneficially at all for the forum.

Yes, in that case you would be part of the problem because you are giving visibility for the advertised service. Otherwise, signature campaigns wouldn't make sense.

The question is: what's worse? Someone who's pretending to like gambling while advertising it or someone who's openly opposing the advertised industry entirely while advertising it. I think we know the answer.  

---

There haven't been any "attacks", just some comments pointing out your hypocrisy, backed by quotes.
We have always said you can have whatever opinion you want to have.

Rikafip summed up the whole issue perfectly:

---

---

From a neutral point of view, your "principles" are quite strange...  

That's all fine.

There is only one thing that is the problem with what you are saying.

If people want to be a part of signature campaigns, they generally have two choices
Gambling
Mixers

Both are quite similar, in the sense that you can find an ethical problem with both based on their history.

With gambling, it is exploitation of human greed, and on top of this, mistreatment of players, unfairness of games, and as you can all see quite often, unjust KYC enforcement in order to profit from locked balances.

With mixing, it is simply that there have been so many scams. Much less mixers have closed legitimately in comparison to scamming, so one could consider mixers to be somewhat of a time bomb based on the data.

So thus leads to the problem in this part of what you are saying ...


Your post is mostly reasonable but there is one flaw in the reality of it, which can be highlighted with two questions...

1. Do you think that for other people like me (who like this forum, and enjoy the bonus of having a paid advertising opportunity) should pretend if they want the opportunity?
2. Do you think there are pretenders here? If so, do you think that is a problem in itself?

Another question slightly related
Is it wrong to want the opportunity despite going against beliefs? Because at the end of the day, does myself participating in a campaign really make an impact on the gambling industry? If it is not me in the campaign, someone else will be...maybe someone who is pretending...isn't that worse?

I would like to have a conversation from here forward, I am happy to participate in the conversation with you if we can minus the attacks, and if we can just be civil...as I am sure you can agree, everything before these two posts has been too inflated with our own mutual distaste, caused by our difference in opinion.

I hope you can answer the 2/3 questions there and we can dig deeper into the topic!

You mean I can't question that? and I can't join the mixer campaign?

You can suggest to the campaign manager to remove me or suggest to the campaign manager if they are looking for campaign participants then ask them whether they have knowledge about the service or not.

Emmmhhh.. But it doesn't seem like that's your goal, you're just looking down on me.. It doesn't matter, I'm not a good poster 


In the end, none of us can decide, only the campaign manager himself can decide. Maybe the longer this thread exists will only make BenCodie's reputation questionable, if that is one of your goals, then you can open this thread longer.

All the long text for...nothing.

It's not about my standard, it's not about my conditions.

It's about objectively verifiable standards. And I think it's quite a verifiable double standard to oppose gambling heavily (which is a legitimate opinion) but to advertise it on the other hand while even getting paid for that handsomely.
No need to pretend now, that you like gambling because you don't like it. It's okay if you don't like it but then, please stick to your standards.

If you are convinced, that gambling is bad, no need to participate in a signature ad campaign to get paid for it.
Otherwise, you'll have to live with people pointing out that double standard.

Since I can't debate apparently, I'm no longer participating in this thread. Worthless discussion gets no one anywhere, and if I apparently can't debate, then what's the point in me putting effort into replying? I'm not defending my philosophy as there is never a conclusion or fair medium when it comes to philosophy.

I will continue to wear the coins.game signature
I will continue to dislike the nature of the gambling industry and definitely do not endorse anyone to gamble, as it is a fact that gambling only provides negative effects to the majority of people who try it. Everyone is an adult and should be able to make their own decisions, so, if anyone joins through my signature, that is their adult decision (and why I do not care to be paid to wear a signature representing an industry that I personally dislike).

Despite this, I have no intentions of disqualifying myself from opportunity just because I don't support the gambling industry in their ethically questionable profit machines. Anyone else who has similar beliefs shouldn't disqualify themselves either. Money in a non-gamblers pocket is always better than into a gamblers pocket. There's also no reason why people should be disqualified from earning sats just because their opinion is of a different moral ground than those who do fully support things like gambling, and think that it's good for people as a whole.

As long as the service in my signature is operating fairly and legitimately toward their players, that is my only prerequisite.

I will proceed not to care about the opinion of of 1miau, jollygood, and the rest, you can all continue to judge my opinion and philosophy as you please, I will watch on and continue to enjoy how much time you are wasting, as you all have in this last few days.

I will just add these though. I think these opinions highlight the problem.


I think it's more credible and noble than deluding yourself into thinking that gambling is an overall positive thing, and crucifying those who get paid for gambling-related advertising campaigns just for having a difference in opinion.

That doesn't sound very good. Sounds quite communist actually.
Like gambling, get soup.
Dislike it, no soup for you!

Here...

Gambling is very grape - BenCodie

I qualify now by your standard. Thanks for the guidance in qualifying based on your conditions. If you like, I can continue to promote how grape gambling is across the forum if that is what you are asking for, great master.

The boldened part.
Either he hates gambling and opposes it or he doesn't hate it and doesn't oppose it, then, he's eligible to wear a paid signature. No one is forced here to participate in signature campaigns of services, they don't like.
Opposing gambling and getting paid the same time for advertising gambling via signature isn't credible at all.

---

+1
As a campaign manager, I wouldn't have replied as well. We all know the famous campaign managers here on Bitcointalk are very busy, so we can imagine how much work they had to do, should all of the participants start sending PM's about meaningless stuff. 

Fair enough. People do these jobs in real life even though they hate it because they want to make money and they do not have other options at this moment. If you ask them, most of them will say they are trying to leave this job and they are finding a better one.

Meanwhile, they still do the job and work for the company even though they do not like it. Have you ever seen an advertiser saying do not buy this product, it's worse and get paid for that?

BenCodie is not a helpless guy who needs money to feed kids so you can promote casinos even though he does not like them. Please do not compare him with real-life guys who are helpless.

If he is someone who need money from his signature to feed his kids and family. That is another thing. Only then you can compare him with the people you mentioned in your post.

I haven't seen any waiter works in a restaurant and ask customers to leave without serving the food.  

I fully agree with the principle defended by 1miau in his OP. It's even supposed to be a pleonasm IMO.

We can't follow the "money is money" idea for our signature campaigns. We have the privilege and luxury of being paid to post, and for that we need to be legitimate, credible and to post quality content. Without this, we risk gradually to lose our credibility, and therefore losing the privilege of being paid to post.

---

Are you surprised you didn't get an answer?

In almost all of Royse777's posts related to his campaigns, including Sinbad, he writes:

But is that surprising coming from someone who posts this 3 weeks after joining up a BTC mixer's sig campaign?


This falls squarely within the scope of the questions posed by 1miau: is a user who doesn't have the slightest idea about a product, credible to promote it?

In any case, it's up to the manager to make his  own decisions. But I'm not sure that in these cases, this will be beneficial to the community in terms of credibility.

I don't know if this is the practice in your country, but in my country, it is very popular to get a job where people have no profession, no experience, and, of course, no love for the work they do. But they only do this because they get paid, and they often get paid better than where they would happily work. In the same way, I am sure that some popular people advertise things that, in everyday life, they do not like at all. But they do it for the money. So I think the attack on BenKodi is not worth that much discussion. A person does a job he doesn’t like, but he is not alone in this; now, many people do work that is not their profession and not their love.