Quote from: icopress on Today at 01:55:10 PM

Use ninjastic.space and see how many times you have applied. I don't care much about this, but I can't find any other reasonable explanation for why you are deliberately spreading slander. In any case, this whole dialogue no longer makes any sense because you wrote such a long post, but did not bother to say “one” main word.

Quote from: icopress on Today at 12:02:49 PM

Therefore, I decided to pay you $1000 in bitcoins if you name the person who was removed from the campaign for the reason you refer to. But if this person says that this is a lie, then you undertake not to participate in any campaign for the next three months. I think this is an excellent agreement considering that you only need to give a “name” to back up your words. Then the next time you want to soak me in shit you will have more arguments.

Go and get it yourself, I know myself how many times I have applied to your campaigns in the last 3-6 months, it is less than the fingers I have on one hand

As for your other comment, I will correct it, to "members are threatened to be kicked" instead of "a member got kicked" as I misunderstood that pawel7777 got kicked originally, which I said in that thread already.

Is that what this your feedback was all about? I didn't even notice that until you quoted your post about the $1000 btc right now.

Aside from that singular misunderstanding, everything else is a legitimate and honest opinion that is motivated none other than your actions lately.

Quote from: icopress on Today at 12:27:25 PM

Quote from: BitcoinGirl.Club on Today at 12:17:27 PM

Saw the neutral feedback you left. I seems he was sarcastic and the rag no way is right, it is a bad use of feedback system. Even though it is neutral, I don't think anyone will care about it but you made it easy for others to realize that he was right about saying if you are granted as a merit source you will use it to influence your business.their fraudulent mindset and cheating their clients behind the slogan of non custodial open source wallet.

His personal position regarding the merit source has nothing to do with what I wrote in the tag and in the post above.

This is partially untrue as you directly quote the post I made in your merit source thread, in the reference post that you used for the first feedback:

Quote from: icopress on Today at 12:25:57 AM

Quoted for reference.

Quote from: BenCodie on February 16, 2024, 11:11:54 PM

If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased [...]

Quote from: BenCodie on February 15, 2024, 08:51:25 AM

That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have [...]

Quote from: BenCodie on February 14, 2024, 06:50:02 AM

We should not be entertaining icopress's behaviour if we want to preserve integrity here in this forum [...]

Quote from: BenCodie on February 14, 2024, 06:41:41 AM

See this thread where a member got kicked from their campaign just for recommending another wallet instead of the wallet that was being advertised in their signature. [...]

The other 3 comments are very legitimate comments:

Quote from: icopress on Today at 12:25:57 AM

Quoted for reference.

Quote from: BenCodie on February 15, 2024, 08:51:25 AM

That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have [...]

1. To kick a member from a campaign because they recommended another wallet instead of what was in their signature is saying that signatures should influence speech, otherwise they should not be in the campaign. Not only is that wrong, it's bad business, and if anyone reads that post, I suggested better business right after it:

Quote from: BenCodie on February 15, 2024, 08:51:25 AM

That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have. I'd say a business would be better off respecting honest consumer/publisher opinions and instead being constructive by asking "We see you recommended Sparrow rather than Wasabi, so that we can improve to change that opinion in the future, tell us what made you recommend Sparrow over Wasabi?" instead of punishing honesty. I think that is a much better way to interact and build a relationship with a user (or publisher) and gain value from them, rather than breaking that relationship and taking somewhat of an aggressive approach.

It's funny that my post was made as a bad one, when it was actually very constructive. Kicking a member for recommending another wallet is bad business, in comparison to the following example I gave, which is undeniably a better way to do business.

2. We should not be entertaining point 1. as if we do, we will have rampant manipulated speech and fake user experiences when it comes to discussions that relate to services being advertised by signature campaigns. False reviews/purposeful shilling for advertisers = not good for the integrity of the forum. It's plain and simple:

Quote from: icopress on Today at 12:25:57 AM

Quoted for reference.

Quote from: BenCodie on February 14, 2024, 06:50:02 AM

We should not be entertaining icopress's behaviour if we want to preserve integrity here in this forum [...]

3. There us nothing wrong with me highlighting that a member can get kicked for recommending another wallet over what was in their signature as per icopress' actions. I again admit, that this should be reworded to "members can be kicked" instead of "a member was kicked", and I will do that as I see my mistake on that part. Though that is all that I will change.

Quote from: icopress on Today at 12:25:57 AM

Quoted for reference.

Quote from: BenCodie on February 14, 2024, 06:41:41 AM

See this thread where a member got kicked from their campaign just for recommending another wallet instead of the wallet that was being advertised in their signature. [...]

[/quote]