Topic: Advertised services and participants in a paid sig campaign - page 3. (Read 1007 times)

Oh no, your explanation makes perfect sense to me. Yes guys, I think everyone has a negative view towards gambling but gambling is still a fun activity and I agree with you that everyone can choose to gamble or not.

Maybe you think that if BenCoodie doesn't agree with gambling then it's better if he doesn't join the gambling campaign and if he has joined the gambling campaign then don't express his disagreement with gambling openly, is that like that?


So are you still talking about bullshit accusations without evidence? It doesn't matter, I already knew that you were that kind of person from the last time I argued with you. Of course this is a freedom forum, you can accuse me of being an alt, a liar, a cheater, a gay, a lesbian, a drug dealer and anything else that comes to your mind. Don't worry, I won't question whether you have proof or not. Because evidence is not important to you

Yes, you can also tell other people not to argue with me, because often you are the one who disappears when I argue with you

This PytagoraZ account is an attention-seeker that has has been getting involved the Reputation board from almost day one of it being created, this is clearly an alt-account who wanted nothing more than to rank up as fast as possible. He has managed to enrol on a signature campaign therefore he will not want to sabotage his account now but eventually the guard will slip. I would advise members to not engage with either BenCodie or PytagoraZ on an intellectual angle as they are incapable of debating.

Having the opinion that gambling can destroy our finances, can lead to gambling addiction etc. is completely fine. I'm not denying that gambling can have negative side-effects. But many activities can have side-effects, impact our mental health and our finances negatively. So, my point of view is: let everyone decide if they want to gamble or not.
And yes, opposing gambling is a legitimate opinion, definitely.
The whole issue here is BenCodie's participation in a paid signature campaign of a gambling service and opposing gambling heavily at the same time. 
While he's calling gambling "unethical" etc. he's getting paid to advertise it via his signature at the same time, which will cause more people to sign up for it.
Like Rikafip said, this is undermining his credibility to advocate against gambling and BenCodie is actively giving views for the gambling site via his paid signature because that's what wearing a signature does.

---

The only one who needs to be embarrassed is BenCodie, who's getting paid from a gambling site, while he believes, Gambling is unethical. 
It's not credible at all to oppose gambling on one hand and on the other hand, to wear a paid signature of a gambling site.

Slightly different scenario. But, another view.

On another board (motorcycle related) a long time ago I wore a signature for a company that had the best prices and possibly the worst customer service.
Everyone knew it. When people had issues, it was what it was. I don't think anyone ever thought that since I and others were wearing their signature did we support or endorse them. It was just a way to make a few bucks and keep their name out there.

In the end the new owners of the company turned out to be scammers and cut and ran with a lot of peoples money. Out of all the people who were still wearing their I don't think anyone cared since they were well known to be a crap company.

Most places that display ads are more or less neutral. I don't think a magazine that has an ad for tire rack thinks they are a good company or a bad one. Just that their check cleared so to speak.

The other side is that people placing the ads tend to be more discerning. Campaign managers here don't want people with massive negative feedback. You will not find certain advertisements in 'adult' magazines. With Musk taking over twitter most of their advertisers left and are still gone.

So the counter question is, do businesses that do advertise in certain locations but not in others show support for the ones they are giving money to OR show their opposition to the places that they do not.

-Dave

His opinion about gambling is not uncommon or controversial at all (on the contrary, I know plenty of people who share his opinion), but if you want people to believe you and not think of you being a clown, you have to back it up with actions otherwise its just hipocrisy and empty words.

Everyone is free to have his own beliefs and his own stance on something!
When you try to push your beliefs on somebody else then you must be prepared for the other one to do the same to you!
This is how it works if you want to truly believe in a democratic way and freedom of speech.

The moment you believe somehow that your point of view must be respected at all costs and not contradicted by anyone but you refuse to accept somebody else opinion then you're a piece...of something!

As for this topic, it's pretty simple, distancing yourself completely from what you promote is impossible!
A clear as possible example for anyone who is against gambling:
Do you consider gambling should be banned from TV and street advertising?
- if yes what happened to the whole thing of do your own research it's not influencing anyone
- if no, then you admit advertising gambling poses no harm, so why is the guilty conscience present in the first place?

Everyone has to deal with the consequences of his actions, I did wear a CM campaign, does that make me some hacker or Lazarus group member? No! I did wear a WW campaign, I will never forgive myself for not seeing the red flags!

But saying something like I'm just wearing this sig I'm not influencing anyone is just BS!
Why the hell are you then getting paid if your sig makes no difference?  

To be honest I have the same view towards gambling. Gambling has a high probability of destroying a person's finances. I'm not against gambling, sometimes I gamble too, I like blackjack and sports betting. Although I am not an active gambler. But BenCodie should have been prepared for the consequences of being kicked out of the campaign if he made a statement like that, but if the campaign manager doesn't mind it, why should we bother?


Of course you are free to say anything here, as far as I know this forum gives freedom to anyone. But I think the issue of BenCodie's campaign and statements can only be resolved between him and the campaign manager

Yes, you can complain and create a thread about your comment being deleted. If you feel your comment has had a significant impact and Bencodie is trying to cover it up, then he feels it is necessary to delete your comment.

---

To be honest, I'm a little embarrassed to argue with you, because you are a high-level member

Okay,
I had to lock my thread because I respect the seniors and heard them. lovesmayfamilis asked me to lock my thread and move ON which I did. Now I am a spectator of this thread and loving everyone's opinion regarding this matter. I do not see any neutral feedback on your profile yet like I got one after I created my thread. I am still in his exclusion list because of that thread. He said I harmed him mentally by creating this thread.

---

Fuck me I'M dead

No one here in this topic denied this.
In fact, we stated multiple times that BenCodie can have whatever opinion he wants. The issue of the whole topic is that BenCodie advertises a gambling service in his signature to get a nice amount of BTC for free, while he believes gambling would be "unethical" and "destroying lives". We have to be honest here: that's 100% hypocrisy.


Final decision is up to the campaign manager but I believe we can agree, that campaign participants, which are opposing the service in their comments, they are advertising in their signature and are getting paid for, are awful picks for the advertised service. Which service operator would pay for comments, where the service is labeled to be "unethical"?  


I can only quote Rikafip here, who summed up the whole issue perfectly:

---

No one imposed any principles on BenCodie.
Is it not allowed to talk about certain issues on Bitcointalk now?
Is it fair, that BenCodie censored my opinion in his self-moderated topic?
He can do whatever he wants but he should not be surprised if there's criticism for his clownery.

---

Maybe you should get informed about the whole issue. It's linked in the OP.
I've created the topic after BenCodie took the issue out of context, after he didn't link the whole discussion and just tried to fabricate his strange poll. Of course we will point out that there are some parts of important information missing, that readers can get the whole picture of the issue. But BenCodie deleted my reply in his self-moderated topic to stifle the discussion. This is not helpful at all.

In general, it's always recommended to get informed about the whole issue before jumping to conclusions.  

Yes, you can have an opinion and convey your beliefs. However, since this is a thread specifically directed at him, it seems like he has to accept other people's beliefs and follow those beliefs. Honestly, I don't know BenCodie either, but he is one of the people who dares to speak here and convey what he believes. I don't think there are many people like that because most people are afraid of being tagged by DT.

What the hell are you talking about, where I said that he can't join signature campaign or that there are any reules that would stop him? Read my post with understanding.


Ah, so he is free to share his views and beliefs onto others, but we shouldn't share ours onto him? And no, no one is imposing principles on him, people are mostly just calling him out on his hipocrisy.

Are there any rules against it? otherwise, anyone can join, regardless of principle. I think the people who have the most right to judge this are the campaign managers and BenCodie himself. We do not need to interfere with his principles and impose our principles on him.

What principles are we talking about here?

He strongly believes that gambling is awful, immoral, destroy people's lives etc yet he has no issue taking money from the  gambling companies to help them "ruin" people's lives. Someone with such opinion about gambling and with principles would never join gambling signature campaign.

I voted for the first option because this is my conviction, but of course I do not oblige others to accept my opinion or point of view. Each person has his own way of looking at things.

Sometimes a person faces difficult circumstances that make him abandon some of his convictions. For example, I am against gambling because it is forbidden in my religion, but I faced difficult financial circumstances and did not have any campaign, so I had to submit an application to join a gambling campaign despite my lack of conviction in the service, fortunately. I was not accepted into the gambling campaign, but the idea is that I changed my conviction due to special circumstances.

Therefore, I believe that in general, people should not be judged without knowing their circumstances.

Let me prefix by saying anyone can advertise what they want as long as it is not a scam.

Now to the point of the discussion, I don't think users should wear signatures of projects they do not agree with, they feel may be detrimental and will not use for themselves. The world is not utopian and people do things for money in the real world due to situation and circumstances, but this is an online forum and what you do here is well within your control.

There are also numerous campaigns available, granted majority of them are gambling related but there are definitely others.
You can simply apply for some other campaign.

---

There's another argument that endorsement can have different meaning. Advertising a site can be me telling you that it's not a scam website. I'm not encouraging you to gamble, but if you must this is a good website to do it on.

Maybe you have free time so you have time to write something like this. I think benCodie is entitled to whatever his stance and beliefs are. Apart from that, if the campaign manager considers this to be a problem then he will remove Ben from the campaign participants

I have read BenCodie's comments several times, I think he is a person who has principles and beliefs. I don't think it's necessary to give him advice, let him be himself. I once PM @royse777 regarding campaign issues, because I was afraid that my comments would damage the good name of the Sinbad brand, but I didn't get a reply.



But this is just my personal opinion, I don't have much experience in campaigns


Oh yeah..... There are also those who accuse me, even though that person has no evidence. Just speculation. But that's okay, lower level members don't get much attention. Indeed, sometimes we remember more when we are accused by someone than when we accuse someone 

Speaking of misguided thinking, consider this: Is sitting detrimental to an individual's health? No? I dare you to publicly say that you think sitting is good for your overall health! See how stupid that sounds?

Sitting, much like gambling, is an activity, and like many other activities, it can have both negative and positive effects on one's health. You claim that gambling (as an activity) is inherently bad for the individual, but you are being purposefully ignorant and refuse to acknowledge that there is a clearly defined distinction between gambling as an activity and gambling addiction as a psychological disorder.

But we digress here. The main point of this discussion is that YOU believe that gambling is harmful and that it destroys lives, and yet, you have no problem promoting this activity with your personal signature. This means that you are purposefully and directly contributing to the number of gambling victims you speak of, all for your own personal gain. Well, if you dont see anything wrong with that, then you are not right and I cannot help you there.

---

You have never heard those stories about folks keeling over from heart attacks after they win the jackpot? But you know, it makes me think maybe we should all stop having sex too, because, apparently, thats a gamble that could kill you too!  

LOL 
That's some nice word twisting.
You are joining these gambling campaigns because you are able to get your hands on quite some additional sats, nothing else. Otherwise you would not add a signature of a service you deem to be from "one of the most unethical sections of the forum" and you think, that:


You are such a funny clown. 

---

Oh dear, this is so funny.
Your poll got optimized. 
Well, considering how far from the initial discussion your poll in your topic is, there's really a lot of space for improvement... 
And even funnier: your accusation that I would have "retaliated with this poll".
LOL, this is comedy gold. 
Maybe I've "retaliated" as well by linking the initial discussion from Beginners and help to give all readers the full picture?

---

It's a very accurate way to put it because it's exactly describing your anti-gambling comment while wearing the sig and getting paid handsomely for that...

Well, we just need to quote some of your posts and it's pure comedy already.
But that's not our fault, so please don't blame us... 

---

Your interpretations are very strange and they don't make any sense at all. There is a clear community consensus about the issue when it comes to joining a (scam) signature campaign:
If there's undeniable proof, that a service is a scam, only then your concern applies.
Everyone who still joins a campaign at that point or continues to promote it, despite the community has shown undeniable proof about the service being a scam and this consensus is accepted by DT, only then we are liable for knowingly advertising a proven scam.
But we can't know if any service turns out to be a scam in the future, so everything what happened before the service goes scamming, is not our responsibility.

So, yes: we are liable if we are knowingly promoting a proven scam service and the result will be a negative trust from DT....


Yes 

---

Okay, let's assume that's a reasonable argument and of course, it's completely okay, that you really hate gambling, that's your opinion and you are allowed to have it.
But then, why THE F*UCK are you advertising a gambling site in your signature / profile picture? So, you are complicit in "destroying lives" according to your viewpoint.   
Your gibberish doesn't make any sense!
Of course, people will call you out for that. 
In which world are you living in?

---

I don't even know what he's trying to achieve.
Right now, his clownery is a good example of Streisand Effect, where very soon, the whole forum will know about his "gambling incident", every campaign manager will be aware of it and the following picture might become a meme:   

This is a great way to put it.

In line with this, my belief is that if a user wants to take an opportunity and the opportunity is a legitimate one, then why not. If they don't like gambling, mixers, etc. then I don't think that personal opinion disqualifies them from the opportunity.

I participate in signature campaigns because it incentivizes me to be a part of the forum that I enjoy using. I don't like the gambling industry, but who cares? It makes no difference if I am a part of a campaign or not, if I am following the rules and adding value to the forum.

1moose you can make all the threads you want but I don't think anyone really cares. I have made a thread and tried to optimize the poll in a way that is fairest to both sides, while you retaliated with this poll which is so much more worthless than the poll that I created. You have clearly skewed the poll options to your liking...and while you think I did that on my thread, I think any third party can read my poll options vs. yours and see that I have been as fair as possible and accurately labelled the options to the best of my ability for this blurred line.


Please don't cause drama with incorrect recounts.

I applied for the campaign before it displayed red flags. It displayed red flags much later, and they were only red flags. Nothing is conclusive until there is evidence, which is why I posted minimally about it.


This came up not because of my actions, but brainboss and 1miau. They decided to cut the screenshot in this thread, add it to a beginners and newbies thread as an example.of what not to be like. I disagreed with it strongly, as my ideology is one that is clearly shared by other members of the community, and yet, I am the one being personally attacked for not liking the gambling industry but having a gambling ad in my signature, and being objective in the gambling board.


Gambling destroys lives. If you guys genuinely disagree with that, you're not right. Go look at the data of gambling related deaths and bankruptcies ... And think about how many are not considered in the data.

Stop being purposefully ignorant just to prove the validity of your attacks against my opinion. That is worse than anything we are discussing in these threads

But if you really believe in your opinions, I dare you to say publicly that you think gambling is good for your overall health. What a stupid opinion that would be, but still, go right ahead

Don't join the centralized exchange campaign, it's full of manipulation and centralization is evil for privacy.
Don't join the decentralized exchange campaign, it's a way for money laundering and against of regulations.
Don't join the shitcoins campaign, it's full of exit scam.
And the list goes on...

I wouldn't argue if joining a campaign is to earn money, someone could advertise the project or service they like without wear the paid signature isn't? but I feel it's ridiculous when you're not agree with the project you're promoting.