Topic: Would you consider wearing signature = shilling? (Read 579 times)

Jobs make people do odd things, like killing millions of Jews.  Luckily, the guards didn't see it as wrong, because their actions were constructive and they were paid. 

Morals are for the rich. 

As long as posts are constructive & not breaking any rules I just consider it a job, working. I don’t think you can class it as shilling.

Shilling is what I’d deem as unhelpful, repetitive, non constructive posting.

You have to go into the metalanguage to see that in this situation, what you have done is changed the definition of shill to fit "anyone who wears a signature" thereby conveying no outside meaning to the phrase, "everyone is a shill" - that phrase would effectively translate to, "everyone who wears a signature wears a signature".

Meaningless rhetoric and linguistic bullshit. No one makes such an argument without an agenda or indoctrinated ignorance.

To be honest what I take the word ''shilling'' is something (It can be done by wearing sig or without sig, That means when you blindly trust a project and advertise them even after knowing the project is not good. Again when you force someone to a project again and again. Or when a user continuously posting some good words about a project by which he is hired... etc

So in this case I will not say that you/we are shilling for which signature we are using. If so then all are here is Shiller? LOL

From the definition above and from the way I understand it, it can't be considered shilling, if only the project aren't scams but genuine businesses only promoting their service through your signature space. It should be considered shilling if the project is an obvious scams and you're still promoting it for your personal benefits. The definition stress that the shiller has something to gain.

With your signature promotion you gain monetary rewards and if your promotion reach a widen audiences and bring about patronage there's a higher chance the scam campaign will last long and keep paying you to promote their project since they're profiting from it.

Therefore when you're promoting a scam on your signature space you're also shilling that project. We can't deny the fact when advertising a project we're indirectly recommending that project to who even views it in our profile. You shill when you're trying to con people into patronizing a project for your personal benefits.

Don't put the cart before the horse. Reputation is gained and maintained over time - part of that could involve shilling. Any time you think in absolutes, you open up the opportunity for exploitation.

It's like believing that every time someone decides to shove in poker, they have pocket aces.

I thought so, can't really find the exact definition of shilling since it's not in the dictionary, correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the meaning you posted.


IMO, you would not shill a scam project if you are not getting anything in return, and the fact that you know you are promoting a scam project, that means you are an accomplice and you are a scammer as well. In terms of determining its reputation, I think that's one of the hardest thing to do especially if the basis is our opinion here, unless a certain project is deemed declared illegal by the regulators.

Again for me it would be complex.  Our = good?  Turn coat =  forced to take a side initially? Enemy = bad? Mercenaries = always self interest first.

Every instance is different as is perspective.

Still motive is always key.

For me anyway sig spammer is not a shill, but yes can be far worse.   Shill to me = subtle to diplomatic to sneaky to deliberately deceptive to liar. Motives ranging from good to bad.

You must be of the philosophy, "turncoats and mercenaries are vermin worse than our enemy's strongest soldiers".

Everything gets more complex the more you dig into it.

Shilling or being a shill is usually meant as a negative comment.
To me shilling has a sneaky element to it rather than a " pumper" or "spammer" or " advertiser"

Is a shill worse than and advertiser? Not always

So an example of a shill to me would be going to an competitors alt thread and start saying like " this is a great project it is very similar to project X except they are further ahead and their approach is bla bla bla whilst making project X look favorable. I mean good shills are much more subtle than that and very valuable resources.

Some may say that's just down right sneaky and devious and bad. However an intelligent shill that is versed in conceptual design,coding and can correctly assess the probability of success of both projects may say it would be doing those reading their posts a solid.
I mean if you were enticing investors out of a doomed over hyped shit project where they are certain to have their pants pulled down into another far more credible and valuable project with far greater chance of success. Then give me those shills all day over those that will advertise gambling or shady exchanges.

If you are overtly advertising something you know is a possible scam or scam or shady gambling site etc that makes you far more of a cunt. Sure you are not being stealthy in your approach but you are not at all considering those you are enticing in via the adverts or sigs you are spreading around everywhere.

That is just one possible possible example and one point of view.  There are many.
Shill is often thought of as far more negative term than advertiser. That's not always the case.

Obviously there are layers and layers here. It is complex but boils down to motive and sensible consideration for others.
Primary consideration for all is self first here, only tools deny this. However at what lengths and what cost to others is what separates the good from the less good through to total cunts. Shill is not a useful term generally unless you're using it as a reference for your own notes. To me sig spammers I suppose are not what I would consider shills. They are thought worse than shills in some instances.

Only in the loosest sense of the word as what I'm doing falls under the broad umbrella of what shilling could mean to some people.

Going by the definition linked above, shilling means:


You could have just said "shilling means different things to different people."

All the nonsense pedantry over what is considered shilling or not shilling doesn't matter when the end-goal of the entire pursuit is to place the idealized negative semantic association of "shill" upon the grouping you decide corresponds to the given parameters.

If the terminology used to define a set is so flexible that there are many connotations to vast groups of individuals, then the clear solution is to increase the granularity and restrict one's definition to a new term.

I think a lot of even “good posters” and “great posters” post a lot more than they naturally would, just to get paid..
Great/informative posts or not, a lot of them are done for the BTC..

I might do the same though tbh, but I don’t post enough in the first place to get a decent signature deal..

Shilling though? I think most don’t care much at all about what they are advertising and if anything they care to little about what they are advertising..

Like for me, advertising a casino? Kinda Neh..
I’d feel better advertising cocaine..

Chipmixer? Sure whatever.. But I think they glow a little..

Sorry for the late reply here, I guess this is initiated by my post from here
I didn't want to accuse anyone there, just want to say that every type of marketing is a way of a shilling.
It is most pronounced on Social media, Reddit etc... but also signature campaigns cannot be excluded from that program. My opinion can be accepted but not 100% as neutral when I say anything positive about Best Change because I promote them.


Obviously, Lucius fully understood what I meant in a thread where this discussion started.


And for sure, no one will wear signatures from any company, be paid for it, and at the same time writing negative things about the same company.

I would oppose this as owlcatz said above. Shilling doesn't necessarily stands for project which doesn't have good reputation. User Velkro is promoting a scam service but I can't remember if I have ever seen him he was suggesting his service anyone. I wouldn't call his signature shilling. What he is doing certainly unethical but that can't be called shilling IMO.

Therefore, you are shilling for bestchange, I wouldn't agree with that though.

So by that logic, if Roobet did not have a good reputation, you would call him a shill?

Shilling is negative, it looks like a crime according to the definition posted by @owlcatz.
Wearing a signature is a form of advertising, and as long as you advertise a services or products that are legit, then you should not consider it as shilling.

In your case, you are not shilling roobet because this site has a good reputation IMO.

I would not generalize when it comes to a specific example, because one of the bad things that exists with signature campaigns is the minimum number of posts that are set as a condition for payment, which aims to achieve as much exposure in the shortest possible time. There are forum members who can easily make more than 50 quality posts a week, and some do not even have paid sigs, but promote some of their personal stuff that includes ref links.

Campaigns should not limit and impose ways on which forum users behave, a minimum number of posts should not exist - CM is more than an obvious example that this has been working for years and brings the best results.

I think its on the lower end of the range of what is considered to be "shilling." The scale of shilling goes something like this:


 - Somebody telling you to use a product even though they don't get paid to do so.
 - Somebody advertising something (sig campaigns).
 - Somebody telling you to use a product and getting paid for it.
 - Somebody telling you to use a product, getting paid for it, and pretending they're not doing one or the other.

Putting an advertisement in your sig space isn't shilling, and I think the dictionary definition would agree with that.  If you're shilling, you're doing it actively of your own salesmanship and not passively as one does in a signature campaign.  Members who actually "shill" for a service/company/whatever are usually spammers in my experience, breaking the rules in an attempt to get you to visit whatever site they're shilling for. 

Sometimes they also create advertising threads masquerading as a real topic, and that's so fucking annoying.  Like "Hey guys, did you ever hear of [insert shill company here]?!".

Right, and that's why I wouldn't consider it shilling.