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

I know he has been ruffling too many feathers with his hypocritical posts and his claims of superior intellect which resulted in the OP creating this thread but the primary problem from my perspective is related to BenCodie stating he had enough information and belief (with 5 flags) to conclude that Whirlwind was a scam. Yet with that certainty he did not raise his concerns with anybody nor did he have a problem with trying to join their signature campaign as long as he was paid on time.

I asked him have a period of self-reflection on his recent conduct but rather than offer somewhat of even a half-hearted apology to those he insulted, he has gone on the offensive.

BenCodie is a complete and utter narcissist. After he was confronted for his unacceptable conduct in the Whirlwind thread, he refused to post there. It is not as though he has contributed anything to the forum yet he goes around lecturing members on matters that portray himself as a hypocrite, which is self-defeating. He wants to give the impression of superior intellect yet fails spectacularly because he comes across as nothing more than someone who has a bloated opinion of self-importance.

Reminder:

Also:
Here's an excerpt of some campaign rules:

Are you BitcoinTalk's AI? You literally respond to everyone with the idea that everyone must be appropriate as possible, just like AI would.

Are we now a profanity and minor insult-free forum? Can someone please point me to the memo that I missed about this?

If I want to hurl very minor insults to someone who is being silly, I have a right to. Is it bullying? Maybe. If we are children under 18. Otherwise, it's expression, unless it's seriously something that would effect someones mental health (anyone who reviews ANY of my posts, could not possibly conclude that I'm hurting someones mental health).

I have never given serious personal and major/disgusting abuse to anyone on this forum. I think if it's based on what someone said about a relevant topic, then it's fine. Maybe not conventional, but definitely not worth being complained about.

I'll continue to be this way; and I'll now be the same way to you JollyGood

You need to take that giant stick that is in your ass, out.

I have refrained from saying anything to you in the past, but you need to hear that.

If you don't understand it, read this.

It's a very valid insult based on who you are and how you are on this forum. It definitely should not effect your mental health. If it does, ask yourself, if you were the same on the forum as you were in real life, would people tell you the same thing? I think you take this forum wayyyyyy to seriously and this insult is my best way of expressing that truth.

My first question to this user was why he thinks that the gambling board is an unethical board which is why he does not support the merit source application. He believes there is no need for merit sources for the unethical board while he himself wearing a casino signature and promoting it. Isn't it ironic? He might have a different point of view but how is it when you say dealing drugs is unethical and you promote it through a billboard you own just because someone pays you money for that?

I noticed whoever says something against his opinion, he starts talking to them aggressively and he believes they have low IQ and this user is the only person with super High IQ. I do not see any reason for insulting reputed members just because they shared their opinion about him and yet he expects everyone to accept his opinion (whoever does not agree with his opinion = Low IQ). Isn't it Ironic?

As I have said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Pushing that opinion on others is where you go wrong, otherwise he is allowed to feel a certain way, be a hypocrite, and even be a dick.

If people do not like it, there is that ignore button, if managers do not like his controversial statements, they can fire and exclude him.

BenCodie has made a series of unacceptable posts in the Whirlwind thread therefore he seems to have a very high opinion of himself. It is probably that narcissistic attitude that has made him become noticed recently, when he most probably would have stayed unnoticed. He seems highly opinionated on matters of gambling and mixers but is willing to push sentiments aside if it means participating in signature campaigns.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62744027
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62746026
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62746469


Care to post here BenCodie:

There is certainly some controversy between his right to free speech and the signature campaign he is promoting - but I'd rather disagree that it deserves special attention on the reputation board.

Shishir99 - report to your manager about your intended user if you think he is not suitable to promote the campaign just because of his opinion. But I don't think someone should decide anything about it even if you feel offended - meaning you can ignore the user for whatever reason. It's just a advice - but get back to work.

It's his way of expressing what he thinks good or bad. I don't think if he is part of a gambling signature campaign he has to always talk good about it. Furthermore the BM doesn't think that he is doing anything wrong for the campaign then why are we judging him. I don't think that this a big issue and should have been dragged into the reputation board. If he is not breaking any rules of campaign or the forum then I have nothing further to discuss here.

Gambling signature participants I understand need to post a minimum number on the gambling section If you don't like gambling and you are on this, you will have to make your post genuine and convincing that you know this category, and for me, it's a struggle, you need experience, or knowledge about the subject.

But since this forum was created as an open forum, I let him have his way, Anyway, he is a good contributor on many subjects this is something we cannot take away from from Ben.

If one observes this forum very well, you will notice that there are some signatures that they will not want to wear on their signature space. This is not because they have anything against the line of business that they are in, but this could be as a result of them not wanting to protect any of them.

Although one doesn't need to say much or directly promote what is on their signature by shilling them around the forum, at least if you don't want to talk about it, it should be better to avoid cases where you will have to criticise their line of work in order to make a point.

BenCodiie could have just followed in the footsteps of others who don't like promoting what they don't support. Well, all of us have different ways of doing things, and we have individual choices as well. I just wonder what the few people who will want to visit the gambling site the member is promoting are going to think of the signature wearer if they come across such a post.

Erm... what?


Just to be clear of your moral principles, you're against gambling due to its capitalist nature, and you'll speak out when matters being involved is about you and your opinion [which, I have to say, kinda natural], but you'll keep things to yourself when you know a platform is a scam because it's not your responsibility to keep the forum safe, and as long as the said platform paid you good money to post, you'll do that? I think I'm confused, isn't that a branch of capitalism?

I think I have seen this kind of behavior in an user who claimed that mixers signatures should be banned from the forum after one of the mixers here in the forum did an exit scam yet the user had a mixer in his signature space.

We have different services here in the forum that are running a signature campaign and if you feel that casinos are a shitty business and gambling is unethical and not something you’ll ever indulge in why still wear them in your signature space? And the funny part is that he claimed not to be promoting, if you’re not promoting them what then is the campaign manager paying you for?

Sometimes we just tell ourselves things just to get rid of a guilty conscience and in this case that’s exactly what’s is happening, as long as you’ve a casino in your signature space you’re part of the casino and also indirectly involved in whatever happens to those that use the site. OT, but take 1xbit.com signature participants for example if they are not involved or promoting the site and just have them in their signature space as you have said then explain why they were tagged?


If an user does not know anything about a service that they are promoting it is the duty of the campaign manager to remove them from the campaign and if possible add them to a more appropriate campaign if available. If you check some campaign threads you’ll see the capacity manager advising participants to get familiar with the service that they are promoting and not just delve blindly into promoting them.

My only comment

I called one or two members low IQ because of the logic they used. I do not think that the whole forum has low IQ nor do I think that my IQ is superior to the majority of the forum

This is what happens when you speak out ladies and gentlemen.

I also do not care at all about this thread and I will continue to share my opinion freely, as I have a right to.

If we're going to skew and misconstrue words or make threads about people when they have a controversial opinion, then we're up for a lot of threads just like this one if people exercise their freedom of speech and right to an opinion.

Grow up OP.

Omar Khayyam has a verse: "Everything is bought and sold, and life frankly laughs at us: We are indignant, we are indignant, but we are sold and bought." It's all about the price. If someone cannot be bought at one price, they will be bought at another. People primarily live for themselves and their own benefit. Of course, each of us always has the choice of participating in and promoting a particular company. But the main fact is the price. I think there are a lot of people on the forum who are forced to write posts on topics that they cannot justify in real life. And BenCodie isn't the only one. Another thing is important: how we, knowing this, begin to dissemble and pretend, proving a different point of view.
Again, why is it here on the forum, on the Internet, to show your weaknesses by reacting negatively to posts that do not coincide with your opinion?

Thick skin is relevant for all occasions and at any time of the year.

By wearing the signature code on signature space located on the bottom part of our post. We are being paid per post since the banner is display on our post. Doing negative post about the brand you are promoting right below your post is like disrespecting the company that paying you. You shouldn’t advertise a service that is against your principle since there’s a lot of user that applying for his spot which the company will not receive criticism while paying.

It’s technically promoting the company through post since we are like a moving billboard in the forum. We don’t need to directly promote the casino on our post but it will be helpful since the longevity of the campaign depends on the result of the promotion which both party will benefit in the end.

I'm pretty sure you're getting offended by him and this thread is somewhat like a sarcasm.

So what's the thing we need to discuss here? are we talking about gambling is bad or good, or we're talking about BenCodie?

If most of forum posters are low IQ, I think most of the posts should have been deleted since this forum has a rule about zero, low value, and pointless post. If the posts from these low IQ forum posters weren't deleted, it means they're not low IQ.

Yes, the signatures we wear. As you can see, I wear vbet signature.

There is a campaign thread where it specifies the requirements to be able to apply and if you are accepted, the requirements to be able to receive payment depending on the number of posts. You can see the campaign I am currently in for example:

[CFNP] vbetFTN.com | Leading Online Gambling Operator Signature Campaign | Sr. +

As for BenCodie, I already said it in the other thread. He is simply a hypocrite. He goes around giving moral lessons about how bad gambling is while promoting a gambling house on his signature and gets paid for it.

It's the most serious case of hypocrisy I can remember in the time I've been on the forum. And neither his ranting nor his bonobo IQ is going to hide the truth.

How do signature campaigns work? Do people have to promote the casino with posts?

Everyone has their own point of view where someone may consider something as good while others many consider it bad. There's nothing wrong with gambling if someone is willingly doing it because it's someone's personal choice to spend their money on gambling activities and no one else can interfere with their personal matters. Gambling is a choice and if someone is spending his/her money to gambling activity then he/she has the complete right to do that. I don't know about that guy but I believe that the casinos we promote through our signature space are the ones who trust and we believe that they can be helpful for other users as well.

I know that promoting their signature can also give us some rewards in the form of Bitcoin, but I don't think that promoting a service solely to earn Bitcoin is the real reason of promoting it. Most of the casinos that we promote have been doing really great from the day the have launched their services and if we contribute to their success then there's nothing unethical in that approach. I also won't favor the casinos that are known for their shady ways and no other member of the forum would rent his/her signature space to those shady casinos. If we take the example of 1xBit then you can see that there are hardly any good members of the forum who promoted that casino after realizing that the casino was doing shady business.

But will you choose someone to promote your brand that calls it highly unethical? Do you think the owner will be happy that he is paying for someone that doesn’t like the brand? I believe the manager doesn’t know this fact when he accepted the user since he is really contributing on other aspect of the forum aside from gambling.


This topic will surely revolved around the user that you include in the title since the quoted post you provide is a heated argument regarding the user perspective on gambling against the ironic signature campaign that he is promoting.

---

Being OT here, Gambling is a legit business with licensed to operate. I don't see the point on how it's being unethical while it's probably fair to players. Gamblers have a fair chance to win and lose here. It's our choice on how do we spend our money for entertainment.

For some reason, I believe this thread should belong in the gambling board since the main question in the OP is why do you think the Gambling board is unethical. You can consider the title as clickbait and I used it because almost nobody has the same point of view as him. I already explained why it should depend on a person's point of view.

The campaign manager has nothing to do with it. The campaign manager will look for the posts he writes and he will get paid only if he writes five posts in gambling boards. If he does not, he is unlikely to get paid.

This topic should be move on reputation since it’s all about forum member behavior towards the gambling discussion and this is not a gambling discussion thread.

His point of view against gambling while promoting one on his signature is responsibility of his campaign manager for accepting him to promote the brand. Heated argument is normal on discussion. Just ignore him if you don't like his post.

I do not want to write these off-topic things in someone's merit source application thread. My first question to you was why do you think gambling board is unethical? If you think so, why are you promoting gambling through your signature space? What I believe is it depends from person to person and perspective. If you consider gambling as an unethical thing, Bitcoin is unethical as well from that perspective. Gambling is considered a sin in some religions. Having a girlfriend or an open relationship with any other girl is considered a sin as well. It's unethical to have a relationship with a girl without marrying her. It varies from culture to culture. You can have a girlfriend and have sex with her without even marrying her and it's not a problem in Western countries. If you do the same thing in Arab, the punishment is death in front of a thousand people. From that perspective, Bitcoin is unethical as well.

If you want to talk against gambling, you still need a gambling board to discuss why it's bad and why people should not gamble. You cannot discuss gambling-related things on other boards. While you consider it as an unethical thing, you are promoting a casino through your signature space. People pointed it and you started attacking them while you claimed they attacked you. If you believe you are the only person with a super high IQ, then I have nothing to say about it. But it's an irony to promote something that you consider an unethical thing. Your campaign requires you to write five posts a week on a gambling board while you claim it as unethical and you asking them to move where they came from (Gambling board).

If you cannot take healthy criticism, why are you on the internet forum?

Let's have a healthy discussion about it. But, if you start using foul language and start throwing mud, I will lock the thread.