If someone joins the campaign, isn't it to be expected that he will first be interested in the service he is going to promote? at least to know what they are promoting
A company that pays for promotion through such campaigns, of course, want the best results from there, thanking the participants is certainly not the final goal they want to achieve. Holders of paid signatures seem to me to rarely think about whether their participation is worth the campaign owner.
Yes of course, if you do not believe in the product then you will not be able to offer it to others.
I certainly support managers when forcing campaign participants should try the product they are promoting, or at least get to know it better.
Campaign managers need to set a rule if they want to
force the members to use the product, on the other hand if it is not on the rules then they can
request the members to try the product because the product marketing starts from the campaign participants. I don't think any campaign manager can force me to do a certain job but with a request he or she can easily use me do so many volunteering tasks.
So contrary to the topic of this discussion, if we don't allow shilling (I'm definitely against this), is ignoring service from the campaign OK? Where is the line?
A few years ago I was a participants of a reputable high paying sportsbook. At that time they paid us 0.015 BTC if I can remember correctly. Several times I was asked to defend them in the scam accusations because I was not willingly joining the discussions. But just because I was not joining the discussion does not mean they can ask me to join there. When they noticed I don't response and following their instructions, finally they decided to remove me. I did not mind at all because I will stay without a campaign instead of someone offering me a signature spot and set me a set of rules that you can not do this and you can do that.
Shilling is not okay, ignoring service is okay. As long as you don't feel to recommend a service you are free not to recommend it. If you are a reputable member and everyone knows that you are not biased by anything but suddenly you started to change your mind because your campaign manager is not going to like it and started doing the things to make your campaign manager happy, then [1.] you sold yourself including your reputation to the money [2.] you started to cheat the community that trust you.
It seems the incident happened in Wasabi campaign. I am sure many of the participants don't feel comfortable to wear their signature because of what we experienced after LEO posted his farewell thread. But because the manager managed to offer good payment in the campaign, those users are tempted to stay in the campaign and compromising their unwillingness. If Wasabi was paying regular payment like $70 to $80 or even $100, I am sure we will see a lot of members were leaving the campaign.
It's not only the LEO saga, Wasabi team are lying, they advertise themselves heavily involved in privacy but in reality they support censorship, practice questionable privacy, even they don't mind to ddoxx their competitors. There are many reasons to avoid Wasabi and any product related to the brand. But all of it unfortunately won over $150 per week.
There is a big chance that for the member who did not add Wasabi in the list had a lot of thoughts but because it's his own list he wanted to be biased free. Too bad that the campaign manager felt it's not okay and he wants to interfere in the freedom of what his campaign participants can post and what they can't.
I don't say it's not okay for icopress because I always see a rules which tell, as a campaign manager they can add-remove anyone anytime. But it's bad practice that manager use this rule and force members to act according to their own (managers) interest. Signature campaigns were used to be a privilege than a regular job. Signature campaigns used to be boss-less but it now has a boss and you can not ignore his order or you are out. This is insulting.