Re: Question about signature campaigns - paid advertising, or personal endorsements?
Important to read: this topic was taken out of context by BenCodie in an attempt to get his preferred answers.
Here's where it started: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115291.msg63055617#msg63055617
Well, actually here already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115291.msg63017210#msg63017210
The question was about BenCodie's statement, while participating in a gambling signature campaign:
View this as an example.
Where the OP (CryptopreneuerBrainboss) pointed out that:
That's why BenCodie created the poll, to "prove us wrong" and to do that, he's taking the question out of context.
Now, BenCodie says, that we would have said that "the wearer encourages you to use the advertised service". No one ever said that.
What we said is: wearing a paid signature is an endorsement:
The brand name appears directly right to our forum name and our forum profile. High paying campaigns are selecting the most reputable forum members for a reason.
Therefore, we should select the campaigns carefully and if we hate gambling, think gambling is harmful and we oppose gambling, it's hyporitical to join such a gambling campaign just for the sake of getting a few sats.
As a participant in such a campaign, we should be able to say about the service: "yes, the advertised service is a service I can get behind"
What any viewer does, when coming over our signatures is not our issue. It's not something like "hey, please use this service in my signature", like written by OP.
So we, as a participant in that campaign, should always be able to get behind the advertised project. Otherwise, we should not join that campaign.
The solution for BenCodie: Don't join gambling signature campaigns, if you really hate gambling and think it's harmful. Otherwise, you would be "harmful" as well by wearing that paid signature.
And that's exactly, what CryptopreneurBrainboss pointed out in his topic.
Here's where it started: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115291.msg63055617#msg63055617
Well, actually here already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115291.msg63017210#msg63017210
The question was about BenCodie's statement, while participating in a gambling signature campaign:
View this as an example.
Where the OP (CryptopreneuerBrainboss) pointed out that:
[2]: Join a campaign you agree with and not just for the payout.
That's why BenCodie created the poll, to "prove us wrong" and to do that, he's taking the question out of context.
Now, BenCodie says, that we would have said that "the wearer encourages you to use the advertised service". No one ever said that.
What we said is: wearing a paid signature is an endorsement:
The brand name appears directly right to our forum name and our forum profile. High paying campaigns are selecting the most reputable forum members for a reason.
Therefore, we should select the campaigns carefully and if we hate gambling, think gambling is harmful and we oppose gambling, it's hyporitical to join such a gambling campaign just for the sake of getting a few sats.
As a participant in such a campaign, we should be able to say about the service: "yes, the advertised service is a service I can get behind"
What any viewer does, when coming over our signatures is not our issue. It's not something like "hey, please use this service in my signature", like written by OP.
So we, as a participant in that campaign, should always be able to get behind the advertised project. Otherwise, we should not join that campaign.
The solution for BenCodie: Don't join gambling signature campaigns, if you really hate gambling and think it's harmful. Otherwise, you would be "harmful" as well by wearing that paid signature.
And that's exactly, what CryptopreneurBrainboss pointed out in his topic.
What is wrong with you, honestly? Why are you bringing that conversation here when it has been said already that those posts would be deleted?
Just post your opinion like everyone else and continue your opinions about me in the other thread, where they belong.
The purpose of this thread is to clarify two opinions. Right now, yours is outvoted. So you can post that image all you want, it means nothing, as you're painting a picture that is, according to the current vote, invalid.
I have coins.game in my signature as they're legit (according to my due diligence). I don't have to be a gambler to be a part of that campaign, or any gambling campaign.
Is your way of discrediting this thread bringing that discussion here?
I should delete your post, since you've completely disrespected the rules of the thread. So disappointing.