Topic: Advertised services and participants in a paid sig campaign - page 4. (Read 1007 times)

BenCodie created false accusations about me by alleging that I took discussions out of context and he even accused me of censoring my threads. After all the drama he tried to create surrounding my locking of my threads and citing fake censorship, BenCodie ended up deleting your post from his own self-moderated thread because he did not like what you wrote.

He is a multi-level hypocrite because he says one thing about joining signature campaigns and another thing about ethics and another thing about censorship yet ends up doing the very things he claims (he and) others should not. Giving him any attention is a complete waste of time and energy therefore he is remaining on my ignore list.

I agree with you because we have seen him behave that way regularly in other threads (and before I added him to my ignore list).

Having said that, it is not just about viewpoints but also a reflection of the way a member puts forward their case, arguments and debates. When there is no humility and not even a miniscule amount of acceptable level of tone in writing, you cannot expect much from the main protagonist.

Add to that posts in a self-moderated thread by a member that has an oversized ego, maybe posting there is not a good idea especially when he himself posts walls upon walls of text to suffocate any intellectual debate.

Well, next point: what's a scammer according to him?
Are there similarities between scammers and gamblers?

I'm afraid of placing a bet now, because it's unethical...

---

But taking money to advertise for both is fine. 
Probably the only thing what's really a bit unhealthy is his mental gymnastik...


Maybe in gambling, it can be dangerous to hit the jackpot? 
Sounds a bit dangerous at least...

Whether we like it or not, it's an endorsement; you're inevitably part of what you're advertising. If you're posting gibberish or generally something negative, it may actually act negatively on the product's or service's image, which is why the highest-paying campaigns prefer established and well-known members with high merit scores who are trusted by the community. While a single post might not make much of a difference in a signature campaign's product, we've all seen some users here who are generally disliked by the community because they're unable to participate in campaigns. Their views are certainly one of the reasons.

However, I'll have to disagree with the claim you mentioned, as quoted below.

We all know that it's more than a few sats, as there are people here making a living or earning a decent side income, myself included. However, that doesn't mean we should promote whatever is served on our plate. I wouldn't even think about joining a signature campaign of a scammy service, such as 1xbit's, even if it paid double what I'm earning now. Its users were warned, but most of them ignored the warnings and kept promoting a scam.

Funny how he ends up being the "relevance referee" in open discussions!  Maybe he needs a dictionary to define the term "censorship."   
But, thats not exactly shocking coming from him.



And just to show how his arguments tend to distort reality:


No Dr. Phil! These are not universally accepted facts; they are your opinions. And, as we know, opinions can often be misguided. Gambling, by itself, does not pose a health risk.  Im not sure where you got that idea from.  In fact, it is a source of entertainment for millions of people around the world, and the WHO still has not declared a gambling pandemic. 

Don't join the Mixer signature campaign either
About BenCodie, he seems to have a history of conflicts with his signature, there is another similar crazy episode with whirlwind.money mixer and their signature. He stated that he knew it was a scam (though in the end, whirlwind didn't hurt anyone, at least not here on the forum and their escrow is still active). However, at some point, he applied to the signature campaign because he has nothing against the scammers while paying him to wear their ad in signatures. At least until the scam is proven.

Yeah, seemed to be quite clear that his self-moderated rules were only in place to get applied completely arbitrarily:

(Obviously, I've not provided relevant value  )

And I'm not an enemy of self-moderation, there are quite a few occasions, where self-moderation is useful to prevent outright troll spam or to ensure a good posting quality but I can't see how removing my post there is in any way beneficial. It's just to censor the information, I've brought up there...

Well, happy to have a healthy discussion about the issue here, without posts getting deleted arbitrarily. There are so many opportunties where we can join a signature campaign from a service, where we can get behind...
Or at least, where we don't fundamentally oppose what's advertised in our signature. 

I wasnt even planning to comment in there because I already know from his previous threads that he does not really care what people think unless they agree with his wacky views.  Not sure why he decided to bring up this old debate from a while back, but its cool we can talk about this stuff again without his censorship. Only people scared of the truth or healthy debate try to shut down different views! Over the years, we have witnessed what type of people wanted to silence opposing viewpoints.

BenCodie can accept whatever he wants.
I just wanted to point out some context in the original topic and (no surprise), my reply is now deleted there. I've not violated any of his rules but if he doesn't want me there bringing the necessary context that readers will get the entire picture, it's up to him.
My reply is archived: https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6305/63059641.html
Here, anyone can write anything, no self-moderation, just forum rules will apply accordingly. 

Why do you think BenCodie needs to accept your philosophy in his life and can't have his own and vice versa. Ask 99% people who works in a company, you will find they are complaining, marketing department will sell you their product because they were asked to do so. They don't even believe in the product but that does not mean they are going to leave the job.

If a signature manager wants you to endorse their product they are promoting and you don't like it then don't promote anything they bring in the forum.

After BenCodie was able to take the discussion completely out of context to "prove" his point, let's have the discussion about the issue without taking it out of context.


About the issue:

Here's where it started: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63055617
Well, actually here already: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63017210

The question was about BenCodie's statement, while participating in a gambling signature campaign:


Where the OP (CryptopreneuerBrainboss) pointed out that:


After denying all this, BenCodie started a misleading poll by taking the entire topic out of context.



Option 1 is what we said:

Wearing a paid signature is (inevitably) an endorsement:
The brand name appears directly right next to our forum name and our forum profile. High paying campaigns are selecting the most reputable forum members for a reason.
Therefore, we should select the campaigns carefully and if we hate gambling, think gambling is harmful and we oppose gambling, it's hypocritical to join such a gambling campaign just for the sake of getting a few sats.
As a participant in such a campaign, we should be able to say about the service: "yes, the advertised service is a service I can get behind"

What any viewer does, when coming over our signatures is not our business. It's not something like "hey, please use this service in my signature", like written by BenCodie in his misleading poll. We've never claimed that.
So we, as a participant in that campaign, should always be able to get behind the advertised project. Otherwise, we should not join that campaign.
We should also know that viewers will think a project advertised in a signature from highly reputable forum members is more legitimate than advertised from a red tagged shitposter account. This is inevitably tied to signature campaigns.

---

Option 2 is what BenCodie said:

BenCodie said, that joining a signature campaign doesn't mean an endorsement at all. He even did it himself, that he openly opposed the service, a gambling service. So, what's even the point to join such a campaign, if he thinks it's unethical? Just to get a few sats, most likely.  
In addition, BenCodie says, that we would have said that "the wearer encourages you to use the advertised service". No one ever said that. It's up to the viewer if he signs up or not.
You can read his entire "argument" here, here and here.  


Our conclusion:

Yes, joining a signature campaign and displaying the brand right to our name is (inevitably) an endorsement, that's inevitably part of a signature campaign . We can have a simple solution if we can't get behind a certain service: no need for us to join a certain signature campaign, if we don't like it, if we think it's an unethical / risky / shady business.
Why even joining that campaign if we called it harmful somewhere? Participating there, would mean to advertise a "harmful" service, if we called this service like that somehow.
There's also no point for such a service to pay posts opposing the service or industry entirely, like BenCodie did.
As simple as that.


The solution for BenCodie: Don't join gambling signature campaigns, if you really hate gambling and think it's harmful. Otherwise, you would inevitably contribute to be "harmful" as well by wearing that paid signature.  
Only join a campaign, where you agree with the advertised service.
And that's exactly, what CryptopreneurBrainboss pointed out in his topic.