Quote from: marlboroza on February 15, 2020, 04:05:40 PM

Hypothetically if someone pays me to place advertisement on my car, I would expect them to pay me, if they say they can't pay me because company didn't pay them it is only up to me to say "it is ok, you don't have to pay me" or "I don't care, pay me from your pocket".

This not an accurate analogy when we are talking about signature campaigns, though. It isn't the campaign manager who is paying to have something advertised (excluding, of course, the scenarios where campaign managers pay to advertise themselves and the services they offer). It is the company in question who is paying for the advertisement - the campaign manager is really only a middleman in this situation.

It would be more like it someone came to you and said "I am the manager for company X in this town. We are paying people to place an advertisement on their cars. My job is to come round every weekend to check your car, and if the advertisement is still there, we'll pay you weekly". If company X suddenly goes bust and doesn't pay either me or the manager one weekend, then I don't think any reasonable person would demand that the manager should pay people for the last week out his own pocket - they'd simply remove the advertisement and move on.

To go back on topic regarding the initial post: We can all repeat the statement that no user is going to be tagged for asking a question, and certainly, that is the way it should be. However, the mere fact that users keep posting from alt accounts means that the belief that they will be attacked exists, regardless of whether or not that is true. It points to wider issues with the culture of the forum, a forum which is one of the best in terms of freedom of speech not being moderated, that people are scared of exercising their free speech because of the trust system.