Re: Advertised services and participants in a paid sig campaign
The solution for BenCodie: Don't join gambling signature campaigns, if you really hate gambling and think it's harmful. Otherwise, you would inevitably contribute to be "harmful" as well by wearing that paid signature. 
Only join a campaign, where you agree with the advertised service.
And that's exactly, what CryptopreneurBrainboss pointed out in his topic.
Only join a campaign, where you agree with the advertised service.
And that's exactly, what CryptopreneurBrainboss pointed out in his topic.
Maybe you have free time so you have time to write something like this. I think benCodie is entitled to whatever his stance and beliefs are.
In fact, we stated multiple times that BenCodie can have whatever opinion he wants. The issue of the whole topic is that BenCodie advertises a gambling service in his signature to get a nice amount of BTC for free, while he believes gambling would be "unethical" and "destroying lives". We have to be honest here: that's 100% hypocrisy.
Apart from that, if the campaign manager considers this to be a problem then he will remove Ben from the campaign participants
Final decision is up to the campaign manager but I believe we can agree, that campaign participants, which are opposing the service in their comments, they are advertising in their signature and are getting paid for, are awful picks for the advertised service. Which service operator would pay for comments, where the service is labeled to be "unethical"? 
I have read BenCodie's comments several times, I think he is a person who has principles and beliefs. I don't think it's necessary to give him advice, let him be himself. I once PM @royse777 regarding campaign issues, because I was afraid that my comments would damage the good name of the Sinbad brand, but I didn't get a reply.
I can only quote Rikafip here, who summed up the whole issue perfectly: I have read BenCodie's comments several times, I think he is a person who has principles and beliefs.
What principles are we talking about here?He strongly believes that gambling is awful, immoral, destroy people's lives etc yet he has no issue taking money from the gambling companies to help them "ruin" people's lives. Someone with such opinion about gambling and with principles would never join gambling signature campaign.
We do not need to interfere with his principles and impose our principles on him.
No one imposed any principles on BenCodie. Is it not allowed to talk about certain issues on Bitcointalk now?
Is it fair, that BenCodie censored my opinion in his self-moderated topic?
He can do whatever he wants but he should not be surprised if there's criticism for his clownery.
However, since this is a thread specifically directed at him, it seems like he has to accept other people's beliefs and follow those beliefs. Honestly, I don't know BenCodie either, but he is one of the people who dares to speak here and convey what he believes. I don't think there are many people like that because most people are afraid of being tagged by DT.
Maybe you should get informed about the whole issue. It's linked in the OP. I've created the topic after BenCodie took the issue out of context, after he didn't link the whole discussion and just tried to fabricate his strange poll. Of course we will point out that there are some parts of important information missing, that readers can get the whole picture of the issue. But BenCodie deleted my reply in his self-moderated topic to stifle the discussion. This is not helpful at all.
In general, it's always recommended to get informed about the whole issue before jumping to conclusions.