Topic: Super High IQ BenCodie vs Low IQ forum posters about gambling. (Read 749 times)

I just wanted to have a discussion with him regarding his point of view and you can consider the title as clickbait. I wouldn't have created this thread but I did because Cryptofrka requested to be on-topic on his merit source application thread. Since I wanted to know more from him regarding his point of view and why he chose to insult others, I created this thread.


This is not an average behavior we expect from everyone. If someone insults me, I am curious to know what triggered him to do that. Everyone talks about different points of view. Okay, I agree with that. People could have different points of view. But if you expect others to respect your opinion, you have to respect their opinion too. Isn't it? Criticism and insult are two different things.

I am not mad at him. I just wanted to have a healthy discussion with him regarding the behavior he started very recently. He is acting weird and insulting almost everyone who does not agree with him.

Good to know that you are okay with him. I also respect your professionalism. I don't want to talk about the warning on his trust page because it's neutral. I am locking this thread as lovesmayfamilis suggested.

You're probably right. I'll be cooling for a few days and being a bit more casual in terms of my presence.

Between this thread, the merit source for gambling board thread, and the WW thread, it's been a lot....much more than I signed up for when I was sharing my opinion - which I admit could have been worded better, for the sake of preventing this giant mess.


Thank you for that Royse.

I doubt JollyGood will remove his feedback, even though it's an untrue representation of my trust, and what he said in the feedback was misconstrued and inaccurate. I already explained how it's untrue earlier so I won't defend what I've already defended...But I will say that this is simply the result of pointing out the giant stick I pointed out earlier in the thread. For that, I think he'll leave his feedback unmodified.

Thank you to the last few posters who restored some rationale and reasonable comments to the thread.

@Shishir99, learn to forgive people if anything from them hurts you. It does not lower your guard at all.

BenCodie may have some witty views to look into things, to write his words but that does not mean he deserves a warning in his trust page.

There was an uncomfortable incident between me and BenCodie in a review campaign. I banned him from joining any of my review campaign (it's public) but as you can see I am more than happy to have him in signature campaigns I have. He is a good forum member, good forum poster, constructive in his wording, in cases to be honest better than some of you who are trying to lower his guard. Your opinion and his opinion do not need to be same. Respect is A two-lane expressway.

@BenCodie, I see this whole incident about Whirlwind has you worked up. You should cool down and possibly take a few days off so that this whole thing passes by.

Buddy, there's no need to defend me as I've been on forums for far too long to get offended by words of some random guy on the Internet. Those who get offended can always use ignore button (even though I suggest them to grow a thicker skin).

I agree. In this thread, which should not have been created, the OP got his way, his insulted ego was satisfied, and he added more enemies to BenCodie. OP, is that what you wanted to achieve?
Acting as a lawyer in defense of other people, there is always a second side (which is usually beneficial to the author), where someone becomes very good and someone becomes bad.


OP, close the topic and try using the ignore button.


The words "I didn't start" remind me of my little son fighting for a spatula in the sandbox.

This is a good point and it should apply to those who started it first. Did you see his argument in the Whirlwind ANN thread? Did you see his response in cryptofrka's merit source application thread? Both are different cases but in both places, this guy started insulting reputed guys and then some others wrote back to him. At first, the question was about whether it's ironic to call something unethical and then promote it for money. But, instead of giving his cool answer, he added some name-calling words to Rikafip and then whoever does not agree with him, he claims those guys have low IQ. Please see the quoted posts;

After reading most of the responses in the topic I came to a conclusion.

Some of you proved that you are SUPER TROLLs [LOL] where BenCodie's real IQ is still in question.

It seems some members have already decided what he is.

When some people are constantly hurting a person and insulting his opinion as a group, what would we expect in return from him? Hate spread hates.

I guess it's already understandable that BenCodie does have Super IQ and even though he admits he called one or two people low IQ because of their arguments, indeed everyone has low IQ because they do not agree with what he says. He name calls Rikafip because Rikafip did not agree with him. While he says everyone has their own opinion, the irony is he cannot accept others' opinions and begin name-calling them.

I do not understand in what sense people quote another campaign's rules to defend his morals. Maybe because I am a low low IQ guy around. A friendly question to BenCodie, If you cannot take healthy criticism, why are you on the internet? People might get criticized because of their opinions, but if you expect respect from others, you have to respect them as well. What do you receive by insulting and name-calling others?

It must be an IQ thing surely. It seems that we low IQ people can't understand the brilliance that you super high IQ people have in quoting the rules of another campaign that is not the one you currently participate in and that is not a gambling one in order to defend your contradictory moral principles.

I have had a good laugh with this but what I am going to do is add you in my ignore list because I think arguing with you is not going to do any good.

I was merely quoting a general campaign rule set to explain that there is no requirement to endorse a service. Even if you quote the Moneypot campaign rules:


No where does it say this:

I was not specifying anything to do with the campaign that I'm enrolled in currently - I was generally stating that campaign rules don't require you to condone or endorse the service to be able to participate. I could have quoted any campaign rules and the point that I was making would have been exactly the same.

Great post Don. 10/10.

LMAO. It seems Super High IQ BenCodie does not know which campaign he works for. Those are indeed Mixero thread rules.

He probably thinks he works for a mixer and therefore sees no contradiction in what he does.

 

You can go to the Mixero thread yourself and see that I did not edit anything from those rules.

The point was that there is no rule saying that you must condone or endorse the industry/service in order to participate in a campaign.

No, I don't "falsify information" when I am in the gambling section. The only difference between my participation in the gambling section is that I don't endorse services, I am very critical (rightfully so considering how many scams there are/have been, IMO) and if I am not either of these things, I'm participating normally. Just because I have my opinion about the gambling industry, it doesn't mean that it has to be expressed in every single post in that board. I won't compromise my opinion but I also won't express it at every chance, that would be annoying...and I'm not here to preach.

I am ready to bow down from this thread and take the spectators seat, but just two questions, where do you snip that rules from? And are you deliberately falsifying information? Because I got curios of it and take a look at it, here's the screenshot of the real rules [screenshot taken instead of a quote to prove it's an original text and not being tampered like what seems to happen with yours].

Everyone has their own point of view, and all members have freedom of expression. Now if you don't like any member or his opinion is not acceptable to you then you can ignore him here is easy option available for you. On the other hand, if there is a complaint about his post, then you can also complain to the campaign manager about the member that what he is posting is going against the industry. Then that manager would take the appropriate decision against this participant and remove him from the campaign.

- My gambling view has been formed by seeing people lose their lives to gambling. It is exploitative. Do I gamble? Rarely. If I were to ball park yearly gambling, it would extremely low volume. Responsible, for fun. Not daily, or weekly, no near that. Do I think it deserves promotion? Not really, there's better services to promote. But that and mixers seem to be what the forum thrive on in terms of advertising. I can speak out about it, I don't see a problem with that.

- I detailed my red flags on the thread about WW. I already said multiple times that they are red flags, not indicative of the service being a scam until it's a scam. It wouldn't have wavered anyone's usage, IMO. I simply don't have enough time to be a guardian of the forum, nor argue with WW administration while they were operating.

- I tagged BBC reporter because BC Game has multiple valid allegations against them. I have never promoted a service, nor will I ever promote a service, that has valid accusations against them (which I have reviewed and concluded my own judgement on). WW was not a scam when I applied. It was brand new, and somewhat promising. Until further viewing and research was done, much later down the track.

- The whole thing started with 3 gamblers giving skewed and uninformed opinions, that, IMO, is low IQ behaviour. If you aren't capable of taking all information into account before posting, the post is skewed, therefore IQ is seemingly lower in that instance.

Once again, I never claimed or compared my IQ to the entirety of the forum. Just 3 gamblers who expressed skewed opinions from my post (opinions that did not take all information into account)

Oh, here we go again, the hero who wanted to save everyone from gambling is here again!



So, you are not a gambler, and if you weren't a gambler in a previous life, just how long is this long-standing opinion on gambling you have?
Just asking, you know, because it really feels weird, really....weird!


You're actually still withholding information since you claimed you know more about WW and the buys behind the whole scheme than everyone, yet, you refused to show any info.

Further down the road, I'm curious about one more thing, you say you don't care about a campaign, you don't care what that is about as long as you get paid, all this feels weird when I look at your trust :


you've tagged bbc.reporter for promoting a scam, which alone would be strange seeing how you defend your right to promote everything as long as you get paid but far more interesting, you haven't tagged the casino itself for being a scam. Why?
You see, you're full of contradictions, and this is quite ironic, since the whole thing started with you claiming to have a higher IQ, and high IQ gamblers such as yourself aren't known for doing stupid things as you do right here right now.

No, though I am able to give my opinion on people's IQ if I would like to, as I did to two/three users who blatantly disregarded 90% of my post, and skewed my post into something that it did not mean. Which in my opinion, is a low IQ act. My opinion means nothing, I am just exercising free speech. I never inflated the value of my opinion though I am definitely entitled to it. I never said I was a part of a committee that makes judgement on every persons IQ either. I saw low intelligence, I pointed it out, so what? Now I'm a narcissist and apparently judged everyone's IQ (so untrue, once again, not sure how it is being blown into this proportion).

As for the gambling signature space + my opinion on the gambling industry. Would you rather me change my long-standing opinion on the gambling industry because I have a signature for a gambling site in my signature? That's a genuine question.

Or are you telling me that I don't qualify to get paid to post because of my opinion on the gambling industry? That's another genuine question.

In my opinion, when I explained myself at the top of this page, I think I already made it clear of my rationale and I think that it's reasonable. No one has really directly addressed it.

If you guys want to call me a narcissist, you can do that. You're all using very few posts to come to that assumption, and you are completely disregarding my rationale - so once again, I could not care less about your skewed opinion. When you want to take into account all data about me, my past posts, etc, then I'm sure narcissism is not the correct label. I know me, I know I'm not that. I've met many narcissists in my life to know that I do not exude that energy.

Being a hypocrite for being paid to post by a gambling company, but not sharing a positive opinion about the gambling industry? I'm happy to get paid $65 a week for that hypocrisy, if that's even what it is. I don't believe it is, I believe it is taking opportunity while being true to self/not corrupt by the company renting my signature space. If that is hypocrisy, then it doesn't bother me at all, nor is it against the rules. That fact alone definitely does not make me a narcissist, nor do my other posts IMO.

All in all, the company gets promotion, I stay true to myself and my opinion, I see no issue with it. If others do, that's their opinion. I honestly don't care, because the fact that gambling is exploitative is true. It's not debatable. I know I'm on the right side of the fence in terms of opinion - apparent hypocrisy aside.

Is there is anything else to say other than "you're a hypocrite for judging the gambling industry while having a signature for a gambling side" and the unreasonable "you're a narcissist" comments which are all of a sudden being made (after I insulted JollyGod?)

@BenCodie, I am genuinely curious here. Is it you who gets to hand out the "High IQ" label to your own posts and toss the "Low IQ" badge onto someone else's? Or is there a committee for that? Just trying to get a handle on this prestigious ranking system! 

Yup, that's textbook narcissism, in case you missed the memo. Might wanna grab yourself a freaking dictionary or something!




And by the way, going on a rant about the gambling industry while simultaneously promoting a crypto casino in your signature? Well, that is some top-notch hypocrisy, at least in my book. Looks like you have a track record of that too, right after your two-year forum break. 

Whatever you say JollyGood. You are god. The only thing I'll do, is once again is quote this post:


Which still can not be refuted - because I never said or claimed that I had a higher IQ than everyone else on this forum - only one or two dimwits who were misconstruing what I was saying while calling me a hypocrite, completely unreasonably.

As for the WW thread, I simply haven't had time to go back there and respond. Responding to this thread was first priority, I responded, I have nothing else to say. I'll go back to the WW thread when I can be bothered. This forum is no where near my top priority for time, let alone when there is drama. Not everyone sits here, like yourself, for hours and hours and hours on end and can respond to things instantaneously.

As for saying that I knew WW was a scam BEFORE it was a scam. Yes, there were several red flags - however none had conclusive evidence Whirlwind was a scam UNTIL Whirlwind was a scam. So it's BS to say that I "held back this information" and even more BS to act as if I am worse than the perpetrators.

If I had 100% proof that WW was a scam, I would have posted it with no hesitation and with nothing holding me back. However, that is not the case. Stop making out as if it is, that's utter nonsense and lies.

Oh and claiming that I feel self-important and narcissistic, is very ironic coming from yourself. I completely disagree that's how I am, but whatever you say. Once again Jolly - you are god - whatever you say is correct, and you are never wrong.

That stick must really feel good since you decided to push it further in than pull it out like I suggested