Would you consider wearing signature = shilling?

[RapTarX]

What's exactly shilling for a project refers to? I guess bringing the project name every now and then while you can write a post without mentioning the name of that project.
Would you consider wearing signature does also mean shilling for that project? Am I shilling for Roobet here? The other day examplens said me I'm shilling for Roobet (beacause I have used their paid signature) while I barely did direct recommend Roobet to others in this forum (did IRL though).

[owlcatz]

What's exactly shilling for a project refers to? I guess bringing the project name every now and then while you can write a post without mentioning the name of that project.
Would you consider wearing signature does also mean shilling for that project? Am I shilling for Roobet here? The other day examplens said me I'm shilling for Roobet (beacause I have used their paid signature) while I barely did direct recommend Roobet to others in this forum (did IRL though).

According to Google, "Shill" means: "an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others"

I wear an unpaid signature for a friend who runs a business I truly believe in. Does that make me a shill? I don't get any special benefits from it, so I don't think so. It's just advertising. You can get choose to get paid or not. I used to join paid signature campaigns, but that never meant I really believed in the project/business that paid me either.

Many here dislike paid signature campaigns for the simple reason it adds mostly useless, long-winded posts so that people can meet their minimum posting requirements. Some people here, believe it or not, depend on such campaigns to put food on their table, so I guess I am not one to complain about it. Ignore them if you don't like them. /shrug

There's my long winded-unpaid post about it.  

[JeromeTash]

Wearing a signature for a service or company is some way of advertising without actually forcing or persuading anyone to use the service. The potential customer sees the advert and it's their choice to use the service or not. Shilling on the other hand as I understand is when someone aggressively markets a product to an extent of making up fake reviews about it. The person then goes ahead to persuade a potential customer into using the service promising that they will have a great experience or make huge returns. Someone can even reach an extent of making unsolicited PMs or spam the forum with links of the service they are trying to promote in different topics

Here is another definition I got about shilling

to help another person to persuade people to buy something, especially by pretending to be a satisfied customer

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/shill

[Upgrade00]

Wearing a signature is a sort of advertisement for the site in question, in order to create publicity for it, this could be financially motivated or not. It works in the same way we have billboards, TV or radio ads, the owners have an advertisement space and may choose to sell it to a business to advertise their product. This of itself is not shilling as I'm neither endorsing the site or convincing users to register on them, they design their ad concept; either a signature or a 30 seconds TV commercial.
I on my part perform my due diligence to ensure I do not advertise a scam site, as there are users who would trust you based on your reputation.

The forum auctions signature space, but doesn't shill the advertised sites, infact a warning is included;
"Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction."
This is how everyone should view signatures both from the forum and personal users. Do your own research before registering regardless of who advertises it.

When would advertisment become shilling?
If I began to spam the forum with links to the site I'm advertising as well as giving glowing recommendations and reviews or if I jumped to defend then at every turn without due consideration, I could be termed a shill.

[Lucius]

The other day examplens said me I'm shilling for Roobet (beacause I have used their paid signature) while I barely did direct recommend Roobet to others in this forum (did IRL though).

I read the thread in which this happened and someone completely misinterpreted it what actually means to shill something. By the way, he thinks everyone who has a signature (paid or free) is shilling for some project - and there is something that is usually called advertising. So just because you have a signature doesn't mean you're shill, but if someone has that opinion, that's their problem.

A paid signature should be the privilege of those who have earned it through years of active participation in the forum, but also each member should think about their reputation when becoming a member of a paid campaign. Surely everyone will agree that it is not the same to advertise YoBit or Roobet.

[Beparanf]

You misunderstood the use of shilling for incorporating it to signature campaign. You are being paid by signature campaign by means of displaying there signature whenever you do post. That's what they are really paying you when you join the campaign, the content quality is just part of it so that you will attract user to read your post which means your signature will be view more often.

Shilling is blatantly promoting something that will benefit you or you are being paid to post good feedback for them. Signature campaign doesn't work like that. Campaign manager never required to promote the project you are endorsing via posting in different thread.

I hope it helps to clear this misunderstanding.

[The Cryptovator]

For me,
Shilling = "Badly advertise anything for own benefits".
Usually, I wouldn't consider the Signature Campaign as a shill, but it's not limited to. For example, you wore a Signature that allowed you to use your referral links. Campaign post requirements are 25/week, but you are making 100 or above posts per week to gain referral and financial benefits, then I will consider it is a shill. But everyone's opinion wouldn't be the same, some users thought whoever wears a Signature he is shilling. We can't really prevent any thoughts.

[Eureka_07]

Signature campaigns and shilling aren't the same. Those signature campaigns are like advertising someone's product/services through the use of your signature space. It means they rent this signature space; this could be like advertising on billboards on which the company needs to pay you because you own that billboard space.
However, I think signature campaigns can only be considered as shilling if the one who wears it makes falsely claims or over-advertising the product/service.
As of now, I don't see anyone shilling their sig camps, I beleive this is because of the strict forum rules, specifically sig campaign rules and guidelines that we are following.

[LTU_btc]

I think we should divide advertising and shilling. I don't think that simply wearing paid signature can be called shilling. I wanted to give comparison with billboards on streets, but I see it's already giving. Or it can be ad banners on website. I don't think that it can be called shilling. I would call it passive advertising.
While shilling is active form of advertising. Calling others to use your advertised service, promote them outside your signature area, defending it in scam accusations and etc - this is what can be called shilling IMO.

[owlcatz]

Calling others to use your advertised service, promote them outside your signature area, defending it in scam accusations and etc - this is what can be called shilling IMO.

Best way of putting it right there, bravo.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Putting an advertisement in your sig space isn't shilling, and I think the dictionary definition would agree with that.  If you're shilling, you're doing it actively of your own salesmanship and not passively as one does in a signature campaign.  Members who actually "shill" for a service/company/whatever are usually spammers in my experience, breaking the rules in an attempt to get you to visit whatever site they're shilling for. 

Sometimes they also create advertising threads masquerading as a real topic, and that's so fucking annoying.  Like "Hey guys, did you ever hear of [insert shill company here]?!".

Wearing a signature for a service or company is some way of advertising without actually forcing or persuading anyone to use the service.

Right, and that's why I wouldn't consider it shilling. 

[nutildah]

I think its on the lower end of the range of what is considered to be "shilling." The scale of shilling goes something like this:

<Least Severe>
 - Somebody telling you to use a product even though they don't get paid to do so.
 - Somebody advertising something (sig campaigns).
 - Somebody telling you to use a product and getting paid for it.
 - Somebody telling you to use a product, getting paid for it, and pretending they're not doing one or the other.
<Most Severe>

[Lucius]

Campaign post requirements are 25/week, but you are making 100 or above posts per week to gain referral and financial benefits, then I will consider it is a shill.

I would not generalize when it comes to a specific example, because one of the bad things that exists with signature campaigns is the minimum number of posts that are set as a condition for payment, which aims to achieve as much exposure in the shortest possible time. There are forum members who can easily make more than 50 quality posts a week, and some do not even have paid sigs, but promote some of their personal stuff that includes ref links.

Campaigns should not limit and impose ways on which forum users behave, a minimum number of posts should not exist - CM is more than an obvious example that this has been working for years and brings the best results.

[Vaculin]

Shilling is negative, it looks like a crime according to the definition posted by @owlcatz.
Wearing a signature is a form of advertising, and as long as you advertise a services or products that are legit, then you should not consider it as shilling.

In your case, you are not shilling roobet because this site has a good reputation IMO.

[owlcatz]

In your case, you are not shilling roobet because this site has a good reputation IMO.

So by that logic, if Roobet did not have a good reputation, you would call him a shill?

[RapTarX]

In your case, you are not shilling roobet because this site has a good reputation IMO.

I would oppose this as owlcatz said above. Shilling doesn't necessarily stands for project which doesn't have good reputation. User Velkro is promoting a scam service but I can't remember if I have ever seen him he was suggesting his service anyone. I wouldn't call his signature shilling. What he is doing certainly unethical but that can't be called shilling IMO.

- Somebody advertising something (sig campaigns).

Therefore, you are shilling for bestchange, I wouldn't agree with that though.

[examplens]

What's exactly shilling for a project refers to? I guess bringing the project name every now and then while you can write a post without mentioning the name of that project.
Would you consider wearing signature does also mean shilling for that project? Am I shilling for Roobet here? The other day examplens said me I'm shilling for Roobet (beacause I have used their paid signature) while I barely did direct recommend Roobet to others in this forum (did IRL though).

Sorry for the late reply here, I guess this is initiated by my post from here
I didn't want to accuse anyone there, just want to say that every type of marketing is a way of a shilling.
It is most pronounced on Social media, Reddit etc... but also signature campaigns cannot be excluded from that program. My opinion can be accepted but not 100% as neutral when I say anything positive about Best Change because I promote them.

..

Obviously, Lucius fully understood what I meant in a thread where this discussion started.

- Somebody advertising something (sig campaigns).

And for sure, no one will wear signatures from any company, be paid for it, and at the same time writing negative things about the same company.

[eddie13]

I think a lot of even “good posters” and “great posters” post a lot more than they naturally would, just to get paid..
Great/informative posts or not, a lot of them are done for the BTC..

I might do the same though tbh, but I don’t post enough in the first place to get a decent signature deal..

Shilling though? I think most don’t care much at all about what they are advertising and if anything they care to little about what they are advertising..

Like for me, advertising a casino? Kinda Neh..
I’d feel better advertising cocaine..

Chipmixer? Sure whatever.. But I think they glow a little..

[actmyname]

All the nonsense pedantry over what is considered shilling or not shilling doesn't matter when the end-goal of the entire pursuit is to place the idealized negative semantic association of "shill" upon the grouping you decide corresponds to the given parameters.

If the terminology used to define a set is so flexible that there are many connotations to vast groups of individuals, then the clear solution is to increase the granularity and restrict one's definition to a new term.

[nutildah]

- Somebody advertising something (sig campaigns).

Therefore, you are shilling for bestchange, I wouldn't agree with that though.

Only in the loosest sense of the word as what I'm doing falls under the broad umbrella of what shilling could mean to some people.

Going by the definition linked above, shilling means:

to help another person to persuade people to buy something, especially by pretending to be a satisfied customer

So for most of us, the second part is right out. Though I've had pleasant experiences using some services I've advertised before, and indeed talking about them would be shilling.

The first part: wearing a sig could arguably be interpreted as "persuading people to buy something" as the ad wouldn't be there without your post. I don't personally have a problem with this and probably wouldn't call it "shilling," but some undoubtedly would and do.

All the nonsense pedantry over what is considered shilling or not shilling doesn't matter when the end-goal of the entire pursuit is to place the idealized negative semantic association of "shill" upon the grouping you decide corresponds to the given parameters.

If the terminology used to define a set is so flexible that there are many connotations to vast groups of individuals, then the clear solution is to increase the granularity and restrict one's definition to a new term.

You could have just said "shilling means different things to different people."