Topic: Question about signature campaigns - paid advertising, or personal endorsements? (Read 394 times)

If the project turns out to be fraudulent, other forum members will warn the user about this and ask him to remove the signature. But if a forum member has an advertising signature, then he must follow the project.
I fully support the project that is in my signature, because I have been using it for more than 6 years. This project is useful for the crypto community, but I will never support a gambling project, because such projects make gambling people poor.

Truth be told, i probably wouldn't join a campaign offering a service i didn't like. In the last (many) years, I've only promoted chipmixer and exch, and i can honestly say i liked them both. There might be a bit of a grey area where it's harder to draw a line: there might be goods or services you don't particularly like, but you don't dislike them either. In that case, i have no idear what i would do.

Off course, my beliefs might be different from other's, for example when it comes to mixers: i believe privacy tools are an important part of our ecosystem. A mixer could be used by honest people to increase their anonymity but also by criminals to launder money. I don't believe that one should prohibit such services just because bad people could also use them, so i feel ok promoting them (even tough recently i did have the chance of getting into a higher paying mixer campaign, but i didn't take it because my beliefs do not correspond with the beliefs of the lawmakers in my country, and even tough i think their views on this matter are nonsense, i still try to follow the law so i don't end up with legal problems in the future).

When it comes to casino's, i'm a bit torn... I know very little about gambling, i also know some people are addicted, but on the other hand it's not up to me to make sure an adult doesn't get confronted with a legal service they're addicted to.
Now, i don't have to make a decision about promoting gambling anyway, since (as i mentioned), i don't know enough about gambling to make an informed decision about whether or not a casino is legit, so at the moment i won't promote them anyways (so i'm not confronted with the ethical aspect)

It is not something very difficult to understand here, you all have said it the better way, what i see is that participating in a signature campaign is by choice and personal decision, we can choose to promote any organizations all because they are paying us and we also think they are offering the best service that deserves our own promotional efforts, like in the case of mixers, only the staffs of this forum were exempted to promote such but aside that, they can promote any other organizations, members have no restriction on promoting any signature campaign including bounties as long as we wanted to, it's not by force going against ones wish all because of promoting another ones business.

That's appropriate. You checked them out, they're working fine at the moment, their business model is fine to you.

Everything else is fine.

Let's bring beliefs into this.

Let's say you are a very analytical person. You don't like mixers because they have a high scam rate. You don't like casinos because they exploit people's inherent vulnerability (greed), but whether you are in a campaign or not makes no difference in effecting these industries.

If it's been more than a year, you like the forum, and you like the bonus of being a part of a campaign ... Would you join one anyway, despite you not liking mixers and casinos? Of course, considering that beliefs aside, the advertised service has no legitimate scam accusations.

It's a personalized question to my dilemma, and I'm only asking you because I respect your opinion based on your posts here (and elsewhere). You don't have to answer if you don't want to, and you can PM me the answer if that is more comfortable for you.

Well... I'm actually in a case like that right now, the signature i'm wearing now hasn't been around for more than a year, but i did check them out and used them (a couple of times actually, spread over a couple of weeks), there are no complaints, their profit model seems ok so they don't have to scam to make money, and they did accept me

So, i don't think there's a cutoff for how long the service should be online before i'd join a signature campaign. New services deserve some promotion to, as long as i can check them out and test them, there are no big red flags popping up in my mind and there are no valid scam accusations that i'm aware of.

Fixed it. Changed it to

Personal endorsement: The user supports the advertised service and the advertised service industry.

To endorse is to support, so it's accurately worded now. My apologies

If anyone wants me to reset the poll, following this change, let me know by PM or in your next post.

As for lower moral standard....I disagree with that, presumably. I think what truly represents low moral standard, is compromising your beliefs by posting how a campaign wants you to post, so that you can join the campaign. Imagine how many people are actually not pro-gambling but wearing the sig and joining the culture because it is a good opportunity? That is lower moral standard.

Having a paid ad while continuing to represent yourself and your beliefs with no compromise, that is hardly lower moral standard, at least that's how I see it.


Thank you. I agree.
My opinion on gambling is clear, I think it's a profit industry only. Profit by basically, any means
It is up to the campaign manager to decide if the paid ad is still suitable. Based on my post qualify, style, etc.


I won't delete this post. But I'm not responding to it.

I fixed your complaint about "encouraging" in my last post.

Otherwise, ignoring the rest of your post. You're just causing drama at this point.

Okay, so that's why it's self-moderated here?  

Self-moderation is fine to prevent rule-breaking posts, to improve posting quality by deleting pyramid quotes or spelling mistakes and ask people to post it again without pyramid quotes, spelling mistakes etc. or to delete one- or two-liner shitposts or off-topic troll spam. That's where self-moderation is fine. But not to stifle valid arguments...  


Okay, so because my reply is valid and is adding the necessary context regarding your strange poll, it "disrespected the rules of the topic".  
LOL

I don't see how I'm violating your simple rules.  


My reply is helping the community to get some context regarding your strange poll and therefore not violating any rule here.

And my name is 1miau.  

---

Wow, no context allowed here?  
Why so, maybe some people will read up on the issue and you don't like it, that people are getting the full picture here?


Your misleading, out-of-context poll proves exactly nothing about our discussion.  


But according to your post, gambling is:



Sorry for bringing some context regarding your topic.  


The only post violating a rule here is your post (archive):


And no valid post from me will get deleted here or I'll give you a neutral trust about your gambling "incident" right on your profile that signature campaign managers will see that right away.  

I wouldn't call it a "personal endorsement" but then again, why would you use your signature space to advertise something you don't trust or believe in? Like advertising A bitcoin mixer or a gambling platform, yet you wouldn't ever use it in any scenario. To me, that's more like shilling (to talk about or describe someone or something in a favorable way because you are being paid to do it - source). Especially for us Bitcoiners, who have a chance to test out and use these platforms when they just get launched.

Post deleted and out into 2nd post of OP. As stated in the OP, any further discussion that is not addressing the thread topic will be deleted.

1mau's post is a good example of someone relating other threads to this one. It serves as a good example of someone who directly disrespected the rules of the topic.

This thread is helping the community clear blur lines. Disrespecting that, as 1mau has, is disrespecting the natural opinion and voting process that helps others to understand the community better.

---

I've cut 60% out of 1mau's post below in order to respond to what was on topic. I have put the rest of it in the second post of this thread.


- Endorsement = Approval or support for a project. Which can be read as: "I support/use this service, and so should you." Or "the community uses this service, so should you" by the person reading the ad.
- Paid ad = If the content interests you, research it, and if you want, try it. No one is saying anything positive about it by having it in their profile. However if it's in someone's profile, it's probably at least legitimate. Do your own due diligence.

If signatures are a personal endorsement, that is a form of encouragement for those already considering using it. Especially if we rule out that all signatures can now rightfully be read as personal endorsements.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, despite being a tool about it with the other 70% of your content which forced me to delete your post.

Now vote in the poll, and move on.

When you are paid by a company for advertisement, i think the most important part of doing your due diligence is to ensure that the company is not a scam, potential users have to do their own research on other aspects of the company. For example you might not personally like the UI/UX of the service your promote, but does that mean you'd not promote the campaign? of course you would, because someone else might like it. Imo, i think it is just paid advertisement, and endorsing the project is when you make posts encouraging/advising users to use the service.
If i (correctly) think that coinjoin give users a higher level of privacy than mixers, does that mean i shouldn't advertise mixing campaigns? Mind you that there are quite a lot of users who prefer to use mixers for their own personal reasons, and what you think doesn't matter to them, as long as they can get a good mixer through your sig space.

When you are paid by a certain company, you are indirectly the person representing that company in public. You should not spit on your own plate of rice while you still want to eat it, unless your rice is stale and poisonous. So you should not promote anything that you don't actually want to support, because after all you are a representative of those who are paid in full to attract the attention of other people using their services.

If you do not support gambling for any reason, do not promote gambling campaigns. It's that simple. 

I would. When wearing the CM signature and even now wearing a different mixer sig I have pointed out that there are more private ways of mixing BTC then using a centralized service. Perhaps not as quick and easy but very doable. Years ago when I was wearing a Roo signature I posted in a now deleted thread that there were better bonus options for someone. (turned out to be a scammer who left but that's not the point here)

-Dave

The signature campaign is considered as advertising or social support for individuals. For me, the response is better. I consider the signature campaign to be an advertising method, Every individual who wants to use the advertisements on their profile, always refers to sources that may be obtained from other people or outside this forum, without referring to one individual, Doing this greatly affects the welfare, especially of the individual concerned when operating and using the advertisement, the social support available outside can avoid negative actions in the future for the user.

To place a signature as a method of advertising or with social support, it will make users feel that the advertisement can individually feel comfortable, accepted or stopped on the basis of advertising and social support globally.

Simple response:



Complicated one
Normally it should be seen as a paid advertisement, but what happens when there is bias involved?

We can take for example a very long-running campaign I was a member and did not make any demands on where we post or quota post or use bumping power yet a lot of the members including myself when finding a topic where someone was asking for advice on mixing coins we would, not surprisingly, recommend the above not to be mentioned again service which after 6 years it ended as we all know,
Was that post which recommended the service personal endorsement, yup, it was!
Would one person carrying a competitor sig have made the same? No, let's not kid ourselves!
Would we have recommended another one and not CM? Again, let's be serious!

How many users carrying a sportsbet sig would say in a topic, hey!!, roobet has better odds, 2.5 instead of 2.25 on this event! 

I vote for advertisement only.

There's no obligation for the users to try or use the project that they use in their signature. You're one of the example, you wore a gambling signature, but you have a view if gambling is bad and you're not encourage people to gamble. It sounds like a hypocrite, but isn't that the campaign manager's risk? he know you're not support gambling, but he want to accept you in gambling project. He can easily not to accept you if he feel you're not the right person or a threat for the project.

I personally don't necessarily endorse it, but I can recommend it to others on several occasions and I can confirm it is legit and safe as far as my experience with it goes.

I haven't joined many campaigns since I was on this forum, and what I remember is that all the services I've campaigned for in my profile attributes have been tested to some extent.

By definition, endorsements can be considered a form of advertising. Your forum signature space is your personal territory, and you're free to put whatever you like there, based on your own judgment. Whether you call it advertising or endorsement, the key factor is your personal moral perspective. Would you be okay with promoting something you'd never use yourself? If your answer is yes, it might suggest lower moral standards. If your answer is no, then whether it's an endorsement or another advertising form doesn't really change the ethical aspect.

---

By the way, your poll is still a bit misleading. Endorsing and encouraging are not the same thing. Even if I were to endorse a brand or service, it doesn't mean I would encourage everyone to use it.

A beginner, of course, will have more confidence in an advertising message that advertises by a legendary. And this is one of the reasons for the high payment of such a poster, compared to other ranks. Those who have been wearing such a paid signature for a long time understand the true reasons for choosing this or that paid advertising, which is usually determined by the price.

Advertisement only.

You are renting space nothing more. If I had a AirBnB and you rented a room it's the same thing. You are just renting space that I have.

Personally I have never seen something that someone had in their signature (here are other boards) and thought that they endorsed it at all. Just generating some money from space they had.

-Dave

I agree with this. Would you say the minimum requirement is that the service should be legitimate? Or more than just that?


If it's safe to use, is that not good enough?

I think everyone wearing signatures aren't encouraging gambling and mixers generally. There is nothing generally wrong with both of them if they are currently legit, so it's fine to be paid to advertise them, as people can do what they want when it comes to using them...

Gambling is not good for health and mixers have a high rate of eventually becoming a scam, both of these are factual. Does that mean we, as a community, are encouraging the usage of them?

I don't think so, personally, but I'd like to hopefully hear more about this topic too.


Interesting, so how responsible are you, for example, if they eventually scam? I think considering people are representatives adds liability that I am sure, no one wants.


They pick by who has contributed the most value to the forum, and the sections that the users post in. This theoretically brings the most traffic. There are probably more factors, but those two I would guess are the main factors.

I don't think users would be impressed if they found out that they are representing the business, especially if that business turns into a scam. What happens then?


Campaign managers are good marketers. I'm sure icopress is doing that more so that the business gets more reviews, than for users to "do research" about what they're promoting. People should be doing that anyway, and you only need to read the thread and website to understand a service, you don't also have to share your experience in order to have researched it.

I would assume that users at least read the thread, website and understand the service, before they wear the signature.


There is a difference.

The signature I am wearing is legitimate to-date. However, I do not personally endorse people to gamble, as it is factually unhealthy. Though one you wants to use them, go ahead, conduct due diligence and gamble responsibly.

Is it wrong for me to be wearing the coins.game signature with this view?

Not to make this about me but it's the quickest example I could give you.


I would be proud to personally endorse them too, I'm sure anyone would as they're a fair and useful service with a good business model and a reputation that is pretty much impeccable. Not all signature campaigns are this easy to personally endorse though, you are one of the lucky ones



Thank you for sharing, I appreciate this opinion.


If there were no campaigns that you use for yourself for more than 1 year but there were legitimate ones with no complaints that would accept you, what would you do?

---

I just modified and reset the poll to take into account the assumption that we are talking about legitimate campaigns. Of course, no one should be wearing campaigns advertising known scams.