Re: [Guide] Factors to consider before joining paid signature campaigns.
I also already said to you multiple times in multiple ways about having an advertisement in my signature. Just because I don't like the gambling business, doesn't mean I won't take their money for having an advertisement in my signature. Doesn't mean I am a hypocrite either. Hypocrisy would be if I was in my position but then personally endorsed casinos with my words and my posts. That would be hypocrisy. However, signatures are not personal endorsements and never will be.
Wearing a paid signature is a personal endorsement, it's directly appearing next to your forum name. I disagree with that completely. Please provide a reference where it states officially that a signature is a personal endorsement.
...And why should a gambling site even pay for your anti-gambling posts? You wouldn't pay for an ad on TV as well, where it says "our product is shit, please don't buy". 
Everything is said about the issue.
You are wearing gambling signature and are getting paid for that, while you are actively advocating against gambling. So, why are you wearing that signature if you don't like gambling at all but you are still advertising for it in your signature? You are wearing the signature just to get some cheap sats for free!
I do not spam in that board, I advocate against casinos and their usage because I am for the people, not for the casinos.
Everything is said about the issue.
You are wearing gambling signature and are getting paid for that, while you are actively advocating against gambling. So, why are you wearing that signature if you don't like gambling at all but you are still advertising for it in your signature? You are wearing the signature just to get some cheap sats for free!
If you actually bothered to look at my posts, I do not consistently post about "anti-gambling" in the gambling board/I do not go around screaming "gambling is bad, don't do it" to people, but I do not go around saying "gambling is good, go ahead and do it" either. I warn of the dangers, I make my position clear (more on the "don't gamble" side than "gamble" side) and I only criticize casinos if they have done something unethical toward players, which unfortunately, is a lot of the time. If my post doesn't fit into the latter descriptions, then I am just participating in conversation like normal. I don't have to be a gambler to participate in conversation, just like I don't have to be a developer to post in the technical discussions board. If campaign sponsors had a problem with my posts, I'd have been kicked out of campaigns long ago.
A campaign manager is paying me because my posts are naturally of good quality and I probably generate traffic for whatever is in my signature. That's why I get paid. It's a fair deal. I go about my activity here as normal, and get paid because my activity has value. That's the same for everyone.
Also, are you saying that people are wearing signatures because they love and believe in the project they are promoting? If you took the money away from the signature campaign today, I'd bet that at least 90% of people will leave their campaigns or change it to an affiliate ad of some sort. Your rationale here is totally invalid, to put it most politely.
I ask you again to reconsider your usage of my profile in the OP of your thread, as it is inaccurate (again, unless your agenda is to disqualify objective thinkers against gambling from signature campaigns by labeling them as hypocrites)
It's not inaccurate, it's a perfect example for the point "Join a campaign you agree with and not just for the payout."Heck, it couldn't get more accurate.
And if you really want to keep looking butthurt like you are looking currently, please complain to me, as I'm the one who created the picture.
Your attacking of CryptopreneurBrainboss here just for doing his job is beyond hypocritical.
If you don't like the picture, you should have thought twice before typing such nonsese while wearing a gambling signature.
I see it as that I'm defending my honor, I have a right to do that and I am sure others would do the same. Sure though, call me butthurt.
Also I'm not attacking brainboss either, I am responding to his decision and telling him my side of things since clearly, he is not aware of how I look at things. If he is ignorant to that purposefully then of course I'm going to ask him things like, "do you have an agenda?"...because why else would someone blatantly ignore good reasoning? I have a right to complain to him as you did not insert that image into the thread, he did.
As for you, you are and have been saying:
- For people to wear a signature, they must no motivation about the money AND they must be doing it because they like the project AND they must be willing to promote in the interests of the project OR ELSE they are not fit for the campaign.
and also that
- People who aren't speaking in the interests of the campaign are hypocrites
- People who voice an opinion that against the interests of the campaign industry are hypocrites
If there were actually official guidelines that enforced your ideology, then this would manipulate how people post, and also would be an attack on freedom of speech. It would not be a viable way to run things, and it would add too many checkpoints and liabilities.
Also, whether a merit source is there or not will make no difference to whether I post there or not. If I was a spammer, Little Mouse and Royse777 wouldn't allow me into their campaigns. The truth is, my posts are if anything of higher quality than majority of the other posts in that board.
I agree with you there that you are not a spammer nor a shit poster. You engage in conversation with genuine interest which is why you are able to write in detail. Your posts are constructive. They hired you because of their professionalism. I can guarantee you that even if their known enemies apply in their signature campaign but that user writes good posts, those campaign managers probably accept them because of their professionalism. The problem is in your mind. You are promoting gambling through your signature space while you believe it's unethical. Another point is you cannot take criticism. You jump towards others who write against your point of view.
Hey, thank you for the honesty in your post. You are partially right, I like to think of it as continuing the conversation by expanding on my viewpoint. I can breakdown and articulate my rationale/viewpoint on a nano level, so I always have something to reply, whether it be explaining where I am coming from or disagreeing. I won't say that I always do that though, I do see the other side if it makes sense on a logical and rational level.