Kann mich da auch noch dran erinnern, dass im am anfang das Tools Menü auch suchen musste. Wenn ich mich recht erinnere dann ging das nur wenn man sich im blockexplorer eine Transaktion angeschaut hat. Bei btc-adressen gabs das Menü meine ich nicht bzw. es wurde nicht eingeblendet.
Ja, irgendwie taucht es manchmal auf, manchmal nicht. Habe noch nicht herausgefunden, wann genau aber wenn es irgendwann doch auftaucht, sofern man genug vor- und zurück klickt, passt es ja so einigermaßen. Denke auch, dass solche Seiten mit der Zeit noch deutlich zulegen von der Benutzerfreundlichkeit als auch von der Informationsdichte. Wie bei allem trennt sich irgendwann die Spreu vom Weizen.  Naja, hat dann jedenfalls letztendlich funktioniert.  |
|
|
|
All the long text for...nothing. I qualify now by your standard. Thanks for the guidance in qualifying based on your conditions.
It's not about my standard, it's not about my conditions. It's about objectively verifiable standards. And I think it's quite a verifiable double standard to oppose gambling heavily (which is a legitimate opinion) but to advertise it on the other hand while even getting paid for that handsomely. No need to pretend now, that you like gambling because you don't like it. It's okay if you don't like it but then, please stick to your standards. If you are convinced, that gambling is bad, no need to participate in a signature ad campaign to get paid for it. Otherwise, you'll have to live with people pointing out that double standard. |
|
|
|
Maybe you think that if BenCoodie doesn't agree with gambling then it's better if he doesn't join the gambling campaign and if he has joined the gambling campaign then don't express his disagreement with gambling openly, is that like that?
The boldened part. Either he hates gambling and opposes it or he doesn't hate it and doesn't oppose it, then, he's eligible to wear a paid signature. No one is forced here to participate in signature campaigns of services, they don't like. Opposing gambling and getting paid the same time for advertising gambling via signature isn't credible at all.
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.
Are you surprised you didn't get an answer? In almost all of Royse777's posts related to his campaigns, including Sinbad, he writes: --snip-- I appreciate not to DM or PM me on the forum. My inboxes are always filled with messages and unfortunately I can not response everyone individually.
--snip--
If you have any issues, please leave a message in the Telegram group or in the thread below. I will check. Please refrain from sending me PMs or DMs regarding post counts, etc.
+1 As a campaign manager, I wouldn't have replied as well. We all know the famous campaign managers here on Bitcointalk are very busy, so we can imagine how much work they had to do, should all of the participants start sending PM's about meaningless stuff.  |
|
|
|
@1miau I will like to translate the op to pidgin in Nigeria local board with your permission.
Hello You have my permission to translate if of course. SegWit is a very important topic of Bitcoin and it's also helping us to lower transaction fees. It's nice to get a translation for a topic about SegWit. I've reserved your translation: | Language | translated by | Title | | ___________________________ | _____________________ | _______________________________________________________________________ | | Nigeria | knowngunman (reserved) | reserved |
|
|
|
|
The service is controversial and not popular among some individuals who value privacy so much because they feel it promotes doxxing.
If it's not very beneficially for our Bitcointalk community in general, we are better to keep it off of our list? At least I can see more reasons to avoid listing it. We have a big list already, so there are plenty sites to choose from. But of course, if someone wants to list it and provides a good argument, we can consider to list it. |
|
|
|
To be honest I have the same view towards gambling. Gambling has a high probability of destroying a person's finances. I'm not against gambling, sometimes I gamble too, I like blackjack and sports betting. Although I am not an active gambler.
Having the opinion that gambling can destroy our finances, can lead to gambling addiction etc. is completely fine. I'm not denying that gambling can have negative side-effects. But many activities can have side-effects, impact our mental health and our finances negatively. So, my point of view is: let everyone decide if they want to gamble or not. And yes, opposing gambling is a legitimate opinion, definitely. The whole issue here is BenCodie's participation in a paid signature campaign of a gambling service and opposing gambling heavily at the same time. While he's calling gambling "unethical" etc. he's getting paid to advertise it via his signature at the same time, which will cause more people to sign up for it. Like Rikafip said, this is undermining his credibility to advocate against gambling and BenCodie is actively giving views for the gambling site via his paid signature because that's what wearing a signature does.
To be honest, I'm a little embarrassed to argue with you, because you are a high-level member
The only one who needs to be embarrassed is BenCodie, who's getting paid from a gambling site, while he believes, Gambling is unethical. It's not credible at all to oppose gambling on one hand and on the other hand, to wear a paid signature of a gambling site. |
|
|
|
Ich habe es nun auch endlich einmal geschafft, mich dort anzumelden. Aber wie kommt man denn dort hin, dass die Transaktionen nachverfolgbar visualisiert werden?  Bei mir sieht das aktuell nicht anders aus, als ein normaler Blockexplorer, bei dem man die Adressen lediglich manuell nachverfolgen kann...
Edit: funktioniert nun, irgendwie war das benötigte Menü auf der linken Seite zu Beginn nicht verfügbar... Warum auch immer... |
|
|
|
Hello A translation for our local naija board would be very nice to have. I hereby give you a permission to translate my topic and I've reserved your translation in my OP: | Language | translated by | Title | | ___________________________ | _____________________ | _______________________________________________________________________ | | Nigeria (Naija) | Chilwell (reserved) | reserved |
Trade vs. HODL is a very important issue to make aware of. |
|
|
|
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. 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. No one here in this topic denied this. 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 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. |
|
|
|
https://anontransfer.com/explorer/block/btc/COPY BLOCK HASH HERE Interesting discovery but like you've said very difficult to navigate and not even suited for normal checks like we know from common Block explorers. Still, I've added it to our list and I've also linked your post in my OP (behind SFR10). In addition, I've updated my code in the OP as what's been still there until now was still for the old version. It's updated now. |
|
|
|
I participate in signature campaigns because it incentivizes me to be a part of the forum that I enjoy using.
LOL That's some nice word twisting. You are joining these gambling campaigns because you are able to get your hands on quite some additional sats, nothing else. Otherwise you would not add a signature of a service you deem to be from "one of the most unethical sections of the forum" and you think, that: Gambling destroys lives.
You are such a funny clown.
1moose you can make all the threads you want but I don't think anyone really cares. I have made a thread and tried to optimize the poll in a way that is fairest to both sides, while you retaliated with this poll which is so much more worthless than the poll that I created.
Oh dear, this is so funny. Your poll got optimized. Well, considering how far from the initial discussion your poll in your topic is, there's really a lot of space for improvement... And even funnier: your accusation that I would have "retaliated with this poll". LOL, this is comedy gold. Maybe I've "retaliated" as well by linking the initial discussion from Beginners and help to give all readers the full picture?
Our opinion of the service does not matter, we can advertise everything even if we fundamentally oppose it because wearing a signature doesn't mean to endorse it What a terrible way to put it. You make out as if my opinion is that it doesn't matter if it's legitimate or not, that anything goes, and that one who shares the opinion of the poll does not care at all about the detriment that the service could entail to a user who uses it. It's a very accurate way to put it because it's exactly describing your anti-gambling comment while wearing the sig and getting paid handsomely for that... Thank you for devaluing your opinion so much in this whole process though. It has helped me realize the true value of your opinion, which is much lower than I originally valued it, and low enough for me to not care about in the slightest. I'm sure this thread will serve no other purpose than to attack me and my viewpoint and I look forward to reading more responses.
Well, we just need to quote some of your posts and it's pure comedy already. But that's not our fault, so please don't blame us...
To all those who voted the first option, be careful what you wish for. If we are personally endorsing something, we are adding liability to all outcomes. Members are better off advertising services while they are legitimate, and endorsing them publicly via posts, not the signature. If this is not the case, you could be blamed and held liable for someone who got scammed because they found about a service from your signature, IF we classify signatures as personal endorsements.
Your interpretations are very strange and they don't make any sense at all. There is a clear community consensus about the issue when it comes to joining a (scam) signature campaign: If there's undeniable proof, that a service is a scam, only then your concern applies. Everyone who still joins a campaign at that point or continues to promote it, despite the community has shown undeniable proof about the service being a scam and this consensus is accepted by DT, only then we are liable for knowingly advertising a proven scam. But we can't know if any service turns out to be a scam in the future, so everything what happened before the service goes scamming, is not our responsibility. So, yes: we are liable if we are knowingly promoting a proven scam service and the result will be a negative trust from DT.... Tell me if I'm wrong.
Yes
Gambling destroys lives.
Okay, let's assume that's a reasonable argument and of course, it's completely okay, that you really hate gambling, that's your opinion and you are allowed to have it. But then, why THE F*UCK are you advertising a gambling site in your signature / profile picture? So, you are complicit in "destroying lives" according to your viewpoint. Your gibberish doesn't make any sense! Of course, people will call you out for that.  In which world are you living in?
He is a multi-level hypocrite because he says one thing about joining signature campaigns and another thing about ethics and another thing about censorship yet ends up doing the very things he claims (he and) others should not. Giving him any attention is a complete waste of time and energy therefore he is remaining on my ignore list.
I don't even know what he's trying to achieve. Right now, his clownery is a good example of Streisand Effect, where very soon, the whole forum will know about his "gambling incident", every campaign manager will be aware of it and the following picture might become a meme:  |
|
|
|
However, at some point, he applied to the signature campaign because he has nothing against the scammers while paying him to wear their ad in signatures. At least until the scam is proven. Well, next point: what's a scammer according to him? Are there similarities between scammers and gamblers? I know that I'm not a scammer, a gambler, a scumbag, or anyone who contributes negatively to this community.
I'm afraid of placing a bet now, because it's unethical...
~
Gambling is not good for health and mixers have a high rate of eventually becoming a scam, both of these are factual. But taking money to advertise for both is fine. Probably the only thing what's really a bit unhealthy is his mental gymnastik... Gambling, by itself, does not pose a health risk.
Maybe in gambling, it can be dangerous to hit the jackpot? Sounds a bit dangerous at least... |
|
|
|
Not sure why he decided to bring up this old debate from a while back, but its cool we can talk about this stuff again without his censorship.
Yeah, seemed to be quite clear that his self-moderated rules were only in place to get applied completely arbitrarily: This thread is self moderated as it is for opinions on this topic only and I'd like to keep it that way. I don't want to censor people though, so I posts that are not providing an opinion or providing relevant value to the conversation will be removed and quoted in the second post.
(Obviously, I've not provided relevant value ) And I'm not an enemy of self-moderation, there are quite a few occasions, where self-moderation is useful to prevent outright troll spam or to ensure a good posting quality but I can't see how removing my post there is in any way beneficial. It's just to censor the information, I've brought up there... Well, happy to have a healthy discussion about the issue here, without posts getting deleted arbitrarily. There are so many opportunties where we can join a signature campaign from a service, where we can get behind... Or at least, where we don't fundamentally oppose what's advertised in our signature. |
|
|
|
Why do you think BenCodie needs to accept your philosophy in his life and can't have his own and vice versa.
BenCodie can accept whatever he wants. I just wanted to point out some context in the original topic and (no surprise), my reply is now deleted there. I've not violated any of his rules but if he doesn't want me there bringing the necessary context that readers will get the entire picture, it's up to him. My reply is archived: https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6305/63059641.htmlHere, anyone can write anything, no self-moderation, just forum rules will apply accordingly. |
|
|
|
Any further discussion that is not addressing the thread topic will be deleted.
Okay, so that's why it's self-moderated here? Self-moderation is fine to prevent rule-breaking posts, to improve posting quality by deleting pyramid quotes or spelling mistakes and ask people to post it again without pyramid quotes, spelling mistakes etc. or to delete one- or two-liner shitposts or off-topic troll spam. That's where self-moderation is fine. But not to stifle valid arguments... I have decided to leave 1mau's post here as it serves as a good example of someone who directly disrespected the rules of the topic.
Okay, so because my reply is valid and is adding the necessary context regarding your strange poll, it "disrespected the rules of the topic". LOL This thread is self moderated as it is for opinions on this topic only and I'd like to keep it that way. I don't want to censor people though, so I posts that are not providing an opinion or providing relevant value to the conversation will be removed and quoted in the second post.
I don't see how I'm violating your simple rules. This thread is helping the community clear blur lines. Disrespecting that, as 1mau has, is disrespecting not just me, but the natural process that makes this community better.
My reply is helping the community to get some context regarding your strange poll and therefore not violating any rule here. And my name is 1miau.
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.
Wow, no context allowed here? Why so, maybe some people will read up on the issue and you don't like it, that people are getting the full picture here? 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.
Your misleading, out-of-context poll proves exactly nothing about our discussion. 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.
But according to your post, gambling is: No one should be a merit source for one of the most unethical boards/sections of this forum. There is no shortage of merit for the amount of quality/merit worthy posts in the gambling section; which is very little in comparison to other, more important and non capitalistic boards of the forum.
I also think merits should not be focused on posts in this section. It does not positively contribute to the Bitcoin economy. It only concentrates wealth to unethical network participants who are exploring other users with unfair odds, ridiculous terms of service, extensive and intrusive kyc checks to ban accounts, questionable provably fair claims, and more.
Is your way of discrediting this thread bringing that discussion here?
Sorry for bringing some context regarding your topic. I should delete your post, since you've completely disrespected the rules of the thread. So disappointing.
The only post violating a rule here is your post ( archive): 1. Such posts as "SELL SELL SELL", "I agree", "+1", "Support", "Watching", "Interesting", "LOL", "SCAM", "LEGIT", "FAKE", other one word posts, posts consisting mostly of swearing, quote pyramids, useless introduction threads, threads about a topic already recently discussed in several other threads.
And no valid post from me will get deleted here or I'll give you a neutral trust about your gambling "incident" right on your profile that signature campaign managers will see that right away. |
|
|
|
After BenCodie was able to take the discussion completely out of context to "prove" his point, let's have the discussion about the issue without taking it out of context. About the issue: Here's where it started: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115291.msg63055617#msg63055617Well, actually here already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115291.msg63017210#msg63017210The question was about BenCodie's statement, while participating in a gambling signature campaign: Where the OP (CryptopreneuerBrainboss) pointed out that: [2]: Join a campaign you agree with and not just for the payout.
After denying all this, BenCodie started a misleading poll by taking the entire topic out of context. Option 1 is what we said: Wearing a paid signature is (inevitably) an endorsement: The brand name appears directly right next 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 hypocritical 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 business. It's not something like "hey, please use this service in my signature", like written by BenCodie in his misleading poll. We've never claimed that. 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. We should also know that viewers will think a project advertised in a signature from highly reputable forum members is more legitimate than advertised from a red tagged shitposter account. This is inevitably tied to signature campaigns.
Option 2 is what BenCodie said: BenCodie said, that joining a signature campaign doesn't mean an endorsement at all. He even did it himself, that he openly opposed the service, a gambling service. So, what's even the point to join such a campaign, if he thinks it's unethical? Just to get a few sats, most likely. In addition, BenCodie says, that we would have said that "the wearer encourages you to use the advertised service". No one ever said that. It's up to the viewer if he signs up or not. You can read his entire "argument" here, here and here. Our conclusion: Yes, joining a signature campaign and displaying the brand right to our name is (inevitably) an endorsement, that's inevitably part of a signature campaign . We can have a simple solution if we can't get behind a certain service: no need for us to join a certain signature campaign, if we don't like it, if we think it's an unethical / risky / shady business. Why even joining that campaign if we called it harmful somewhere? Participating there, would mean to advertise a "harmful" service, if we called this service like that somehow. There's also no point for such a service to pay posts opposing the service or industry entirely, like BenCodie did. As simple as that. 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.
|
|
|
|
The most important part of my responseI 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. I don't disagree with coins.game, I don't agree with them either as they are a casino. I am neutral. IF coins.game started scamming users or doing wrong by them, then I would disagree with them and then, I would leave the campaign as I would not agree with them. Is that not acceptable? (You don't have to answer any of this reply but I want you to at least answer this question). You are definitely NOT neutral, when writing such a statement: View this as an example. It could not get any clearer... The majority of people join signature campaigns for the payout, otherwise, do you think forum signatures would look the same tomorrow if all payouts no longer paid any btc?
Shitposting for a few bucks is a different issue.... Otherwise, what you are saying is that in order to join a campaign, you must:
- Have no motivation about the BTC you are being rewarded
This is not what I or anyone else here said. No need for that strawman... We can wear a legitimate campaign and still be happy to get some sats. But we should not wear any shady signature just to earn a few bucks. - Join because they like the project only
No need to like the project, but we should not oppose it fundamentally (like you did). - Promote in the interests of the project EVEN if it is not in line with their opinions
That's coming close to what people have written here. You are also saying that:
- People who aren't speaking in the interests of the campaign are hypocrites
Wrong, I've said that when wearing a signature campaign, we should not oppose it fundamentally. - People who voice an opinion that against the interests of the campaign industry are hypocrites
Wrong again... People wearing a signature campaign, should not oppose it fundamentally. Otherwise, they are hypocrites. If there were actually official guidelines that enforced your ideology, then this would manipulate how people post, it would create influence over people via signature campaign, and it would destroy the forum.
Misguided clowns like you are destroying the forum whith your nonsense sigspam: View this as an example.
The rest of my responsesI 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. The brand name appears directly right to your forum name and your forum profile. Of course it's an endorsement and we should select the campaigns carefully. High paying campaign are selecting the most reputable forum members for a reason. What anyone else does, when coming over our signatures is not our issue. But we, as a participant in that campaign, should always be able to get behind the advertised project. Otherwise, we should not support it. ...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". 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. Then, maybe a gambling signature is not suited for you... Why advertising it then, if you think, it's harmful for other people? Your advertisements are even leading to damage according to your previous statements. You are just hypocritical, nothing else. This is so nuts, if we think about your hate against gambling, while your are happily advertising it in your signature to gain a few bucks. If you don't like gambling and you are opposing it, fine. But then, don't wear a paid gambling signature... Also, are you saying that people are wearing signatures because they love and believe in the project they are promoting?
No one said that... Wearing a signature just means that we can get behind that project and would use it. No need to be in love with the project. Your way of twisting words is so massively misleading. 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)
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. They way you are twisting our words here, saying things, no one has ever said in the topic and other strange conclusions are just pointless. Of course people will point out, that your comment about gambling while wearing a gambling signature, is not how this works. If you don't like gambling, no need to join a paid signature campaign about gambling. Easy as that...
Edit after initial reply
It seems that you both genuinely think that signatures are personal endorsements.
Wearing a signature IS a personal endorsement, as said before.
So I made this thread. If you choose to go there and share your opinion, please do not include the drama in this thread. They way you are asking the question is already completely misleading because no one here ever said by wearing a signature "The wearer encourages you to use the advertised service". Wearing a signature doesn't mean to "encourage anyone to use the advertised service". Wearing a signature just means that a participant agrees, that the service is legitimate to use. Wearing a signature just means that a participant could say: "Yes, I can get behing using that service". What any viewer of this possible signature does, is completely their choice.
I genuinely think that they are paid advertisements and should not be perceived as personal endorsements (as not ad should, imo). We will never settle this debate until we get more opinions.
And we won't settle this debate as well, when you are asking completely misleading questions. You are taking this purposefully out of context to get your preferred answer... |
|
|
|
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! 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. 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". 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
