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.

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.

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.

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.