Topic: Where do we draw a line? Signature campaigns or shilling campaigns (Read 1457 times)

Absolute scum thing to do. Standard for Wasabi though. All they do is lie about not being a government honeypot. So of course they will punish people for suggest wallets which are not government honeypots.

icopress also created a Wasabi thread here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitlistco-mixers-exchanges-services-casinos-5483310

When we show the lies and show Wasabi funds BC analysis, he deletes his post and locks the thread. Such scum. Wasabi are the enemy of bitcoin.

Wasabi censor your coins if BC analysis/feds want it
Wasabi censor your speech if icopress wants it

No matter the excuses/reasons he has given as an attempt as justification, I am unsure as to what the actual reason is for his unprovoked attack on you. I cannot be the only member baffled by his bizarre behaviour. Clearly he applied to join your campaigns many times: Ninjastic 1 and Ninjastic 2 therefore the main theory is him being upset at you not selecting him to join.

The fact your offered him $1000 to provide the name of the member he made claims about, yet he ignored you. It shows he is lying in the hope of bringing negativity to your name because he cannot provide a name and the incident did not happen.

People often confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences".  Everyone has the right to say what they like, but doesn't have any innate right to get paid for it.  Being part of a sig campaign is a choice, not a human right.  It would actually be a bigger attack on freedom if a campaign manager didn't have the right to remove a participant that is in breach of agreed terms.

---

Another point people need to remember is that campaign managers can be judged on their performance and it could impact their chances of future employment.  Imagine you have a company.  You take the decision to use your money to hire someone here on the forum to promote your company by running a signature campaign.  Then imagine all the participants kept promoting other companies and not yours.  Would you consider that money well spent? 

I don't see how anyone who isn't running a campaign thinks they're in a position to pass judgment on this matter when it isn't their livelihood on the line. 

I wanted to say: "I strongly disagree", but had my doubts about semantics.

I looked it up:

I still strongly disagree again with what you said. Freedom of speech means nobody, and especially the government, is allowed to force you to keep quiet on any subject. But it seems totally fine to me to pay someone to say something. That's like a job, and if you take the job, you'll have to do it.

Imposing advertised projects on participants of bounty campaigns under the guise of ethics is not good. This looks like an attack on “freedom of speech”. Each participant on the forum has the right to write what he considers necessary (within the framework of the rules and that same ethics) and with the help of such forcing conditions (that disregard personal ethics) of the signature campaign “purchasing” the user’s word seems unacceptable to me. If you like the project, praise it in your posts. If you don’t like it, but posted it in the signature only because of the high rates in the signature campaign, then there is no need to force participiants to praise this project. Posts on the forum should be as honest (based on the boundaries of personal morality) and objective as possible.


My opinion on this matter is categorical: don't allow managers to impose abuse the terms of signature ampaigns by obliging recommending them to mention the project whose name the participants wear on their signature. This should be optional and at the discretion of the campaigner.

This should be punished (temporarily). Better yet, add it to the set of unspoken forum rules and, if find something like this on the part of bounty managers, give them a warning. For the first time.

If the BTC-community fails to influence, it will lead to a flood of paid lies ethically recommended information on this forum.

One thing is clear from it. Nike is a better product than Adidas.

You get the point of the example, not football boots under the contract, but the jerseys are.
Here I will give you a direct example when we are already talking about large sponsorship contracts in sports. 2008, Wimbledon, Novak Djokovic was then under contract with Adidas, but their sneakers were too slippery. Later it came out in Nike, but with the logo covered. Maybe it was all part of the agreed marketing, but he still covered the competitor's logo to avoid being kicked out of the signature campaign, a violation of the active contract.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/25346774

They say there's no such thing as bad press.
-
I get why people post for coin but financial incentives can really degrade post quality from most (but not all) users here.

I think some definitions to a "quality" poster should have a good merit to post ratio while participating in these campaigns, character count and post count shouldn't be the defining metric of your payouts. But since it is, majority would/should be considered "shilling campaigns"

At the same time , a lot of post are skipped on merit.
I treat merit as a Like, acknowledgement, or a genuine article with merit post. 
Enforcing merit on campaigns could lead to more merit cycling so there is definitely pros and cons to a merit approach.

I saw some quality posters apply for campaigns this last week that seem to have been skipped in favor of lesser known individuals, I think campaign managers could hire enforcers, like a %100 bonus to an enforcer that identifies shit posters in each campaign , especially campaign managers running 2-3+ campaigns.

This would lighten the load of the manager and potentially save the manager/campaign money and increase post quality. 

My 2 Satoshi fwiw

Go and get how many times ive applied to your campaigns yourself. I already know myself how many times I have applied to your campaigns in the last 3-6 months, it is less than the fingers I have on one of my hands. This, again, is irrelevant to my comments and I have explained further for you below.

As for your other comment, I will correct it, to "members are threatened to be kicked" instead of "a member got kicked" as I misunderstood that pawel7777 got kicked originally, which I said in that thread already.

Is that what this your feedback was all about? I didn't even notice that until you quoted your post about the $1000 btc right now.

Aside from that singular misunderstanding, everything else is a legitimate and honest opinion that is motivated none other than your actions lately.


This is partially untrue as you directly quote the post I made in your merit source thread, in the reference post that you used for the first feedback:

The other 3 comments are very legitimate comments, aside from a slight miswording in the last quote, which says a member got kicked when it should be that you said you will kick anyone who recommends another wallet while wearing wasabi's signature.


1. To kick a member from a campaign because they recommended another wallet instead of what was in their signature is saying that signatures should influence speech, otherwise they should not be in the campaign. Not only is that wrong, it's bad business, and if anyone reads that post, I suggested better business right after it:


It's funny that my post was made as a bad one, when it was actually very constructive. Kicking a member for recommending another wallet is bad business, in comparison to the following example I gave, which is undeniably a better way to do business.

2. We should not be entertaining point 1. as if we do, we will have rampant manipulated speech and fake user experiences when it comes to discussions that relate to services being advertised by signature campaigns. False reviews/purposeful shilling for advertisers = not good for the integrity of the forum. It's plain and simple:
[/quote]

3. There us nothing wrong with me highlighting that a member can get kicked for recommending another wallet over what was in their signature as per icopress' actions. I again admit, that this should be reworded to "members can be kicked" instead of "a member was kicked", and I will do that as I see my mistake on that part. Though that is all that I will change.

[/quote]

Use ninjastic.space and see how many times you have applied. I don't care much about this, but I can't find any other reasonable explanation for why you are deliberately spreading slander. In any case, this whole dialogue no longer makes any sense because you wrote such a long post, but did not bother to say “one” main word.

Excuse me, can you please quote the last time that I applied for a campaign of yours? Can you please also provide proof that I apparently started attacking you "a short period of time" after not being accepted into one of your campaigns?

I am going to address this very clearly.

You need to provide proof. This is definitely a false accusation. I can't even remember the last time I applied to one of your campaigns and if I did, I certainly would not be upset to not get accepted. This is not at all a part of my nature and it never has been for the entire time I've existed on this forum. It's a baseless accusation that can not be proven whatsoever.

What I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with being in your campaigns. I was last a member of mixtum campaign, and I think after that I maybe applied to one or two of your campaigns. To say that my opinions are based off of not being accepted into your campaigns is an outright lie. I have never complained about not being accepted into a signature campaign and I have never been ungrateful about signature campaigns. I appreciate when I am accepted and understand there are more qualified members when I am not accepted.

The truth about the basis of my comments against you is that you have behaved inappropriately and displayed that you care more about your advertising/business interests than the community.
1. You continued to promote the BC.Game campaign even while there were many open accusations. You only stopped that campaign once they stopped filling your wallet. Unlike Royse777, who will pause a campaign until any open dispute is resolved, and who is therefore acting in the interests of not just the advertiser but also in the interests of the community.
2. Leo said a lot of valid facts about Wasabi that have proven they are potentially risky to deal with, and yet you have completely ignored this and you still work with them, proving that you care less about Leo's findings and more about the money that wasabi give you.
3. After the thread by pawel7777, you have shown that you care more about the desires of Wasabi and its campaign than the freedom of opinion that users should have whether they have a signature or not.

Let's not mention Betnomi and your involvement with acting in their interests all the way until it was plain as day obvious that they scammed their players en mass as well?

The above are 3-4 reasons for my opinions about you which have been compiling over time. I have never spoken badly about a campaign manager for not accepting me into a campaign. This is downright absurd and anyone who has been reviewing my posts and existence here would surely know that this is an outright false accusation. Using this as an excuse for your actions which lead to my comments is a cheap way out, and I hope you get called out for it by another member as well.

This quote was added for reference because after his applications to participate were rejected several times, he apparently took it as a personal insult. And he began to attack, creating FUD within a short period of time. The user then added to this the spread of slander (which was the main reason for the tag).

It is this position that is reflected in the tag, since there is a significant difference between when someone expresses their critical position (for example what pawel7777 touched on in this thread... or m2017's objections in the application thread) and when the user has malicious goals.

I can already say that he will soon come to this thread with a statement that he does not need this 1000 dollars. But everything is much simpler... lies cannot be supported by facts.

You made me surprised. So you have not read anything that was happening in LEO's farewell thread and even before the farewell thread. Not even the topic I created? Or you are still convincing others that it's all about Kruw and his recent mental disorder. The other things do not matter?