Advertised services and participants in a paid sig campaign

[1miau]

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#msg63055617
Well, actually here already: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115291.msg63017210#msg63017210

The question was about BenCodie's statement, while participating in a gambling signature campaign:

View this as an example.

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.  

[1714513319]

1714513319

[1714513319]

1714513319

[1714513319]

1714513319

[1714513319]

1714513319

[1714513319]

1714513319

[1714513319]

1714513319

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Why do you think BenCodie needs to accept your philosophy in his life and can't have his own and vice versa. Ask 99% people who works in a company, you will find they are complaining, marketing department will sell you their product because they were asked to do so. They don't even believe in the product but that does not mean they are going to leave the job.

If a signature manager wants you to endorse their product they are promoting and you don't like it then don't promote anything they bring in the forum.

[1miau]

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.html
Here, anyone can write anything, no self-moderation, just forum rules will apply accordingly. 

[Stalker22]

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.html
Here, anyone can write anything, no self-moderation, just forum rules will apply accordingly. 

I wasnt even planning to comment in there because I already know from his previous threads that he does not really care what people think unless they agree with his wacky views.  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. Only people scared of the truth or healthy debate try to shut down different views! Over the years, we have witnessed what type of people wanted to silence opposing viewpoints.

[1miau]

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. 

[examplens]

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.  

Don't join the Mixer signature campaign either
About BenCodie, he seems to have a history of conflicts with his signature, there is another similar crazy episode with whirlwind.money mixer and their signature. He stated that he knew it was a scam (though in the end, whirlwind didn't hurt anyone, at least not here on the forum and their escrow is still active). 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.

[Stalker22]

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  )

Funny how he ends up being the "relevance referee" in open discussions!  Maybe he needs a dictionary to define the term "censorship."   
But, thats not exactly shocking coming from him.

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. 

And just to show how his arguments tend to distort reality:

~
Gambling is not good for health and mixers have a high rate of eventually becoming a scam, both of these are factual.

No Dr. Phil! These are not universally accepted facts; they are your opinions. And, as we know, opinions can often be misguided. Gambling, by itself, does not pose a health risk.  Im not sure where you got that idea from.  In fact, it is a source of entertainment for millions of people around the world, and the WHO still has not declared a gambling pandemic. 

[Ultegra134]

Whether we like it or not, it's an endorsement; you're inevitably part of what you're advertising. If you're posting gibberish or generally something negative, it may actually act negatively on the product's or service's image, which is why the highest-paying campaigns prefer established and well-known members with high merit scores who are trusted by the community. While a single post might not make much of a difference in a signature campaign's product, we've all seen some users here who are generally disliked by the community because they're unable to participate in campaigns. Their views are certainly one of the reasons.

However, I'll have to disagree with the claim you mentioned, as quoted below.

So, what's even the point of joining such a campaign if he thinks it's unethical? Just to get a few sats, most likely.

We all know that it's more than a few sats, as there are people here making a living or earning a decent side income, myself included. However, that doesn't mean we should promote whatever is served on our plate. I wouldn't even think about joining a signature campaign of a scammy service, such as 1xbit's, even if it paid double what I'm earning now. Its users were warned, but most of them ignored the warnings and kept promoting a scam.

[1miau]

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...

[JollyGood]

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.

BenCodie created false accusations about me by alleging that I took discussions out of context and he even accused me of censoring my threads. After all the drama he tried to create surrounding my locking of my threads and citing fake censorship, BenCodie ended up deleting your post from his own self-moderated thread because he did not like what you wrote.

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.

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.html
Here, anyone can write anything, no self-moderation, just forum rules will apply accordingly.  

I wasnt even planning to comment in there because I already know from his previous threads that he does not really care what people think unless they agree with his wacky views.  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. Only people scared of the truth or healthy debate try to shut down different views! Over the years, we have witnessed what type of people wanted to silence opposing viewpoints.

I agree with you because we have seen him behave that way regularly in other threads (and before I added him to my ignore list).

Having said that, it is not just about viewpoints but also a reflection of the way a member puts forward their case, arguments and debates. When there is no humility and not even a miniscule amount of acceptable level of tone in writing, you cannot expect much from the main protagonist.

Add to that posts in a self-moderated thread by a member that has an oversized ego, maybe posting there is not a good idea especially when he himself posts walls upon walls of text to suffocate any intellectual debate.

[Plaguedeath]

Don't join the centralized exchange campaign, it's full of manipulation and centralization is evil for privacy.
Don't join the decentralized exchange campaign, it's a way for money laundering and against of regulations.
Don't join the shitcoins campaign, it's full of exit scam.
And the list goes on...

I wouldn't argue if joining a campaign is to earn money, someone could advertise the project or service they like without wear the paid signature isn't? but I feel it's ridiculous when you're not agree with the project you're promoting.

[BenCodie]

Why do you think BenCodie needs to accept your philosophy in his life and can't have his own and vice versa. Ask 99% people who works in a company, you will find they are complaining, marketing department will sell you their product because they were asked to do so. They don't even believe in the product but that does not mean they are going to leave the job.

If a signature manager wants you to endorse their product they are promoting and you don't like it then don't promote anything they bring in the forum.

This is a great way to put it.

In line with this, my belief is that if a user wants to take an opportunity and the opportunity is a legitimate one, then why not. If they don't like gambling, mixers, etc. then I don't think that personal opinion disqualifies them from the opportunity.

I participate in signature campaigns because it incentivizes me to be a part of the forum that I enjoy using. I don't like the gambling industry, but who cares? It makes no difference if I am a part of a campaign or not, if I am following the rules and adding value to the forum.

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. You have clearly skewed the poll options to your liking...and while you think I did that on my thread, I think any third party can read my poll options vs. yours and see that I have been as fair as possible and accurately labelled the options to the best of my ability for this blurred line.

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.

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. Have fun with it as I will


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.

Otherwise, It's advertising. Get paid, advertise if it's legit, remove it if something bad happened, move on...which is (AFAIK) how it is currently ... Tell me if I'm wrong.

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. 

Don't join the Mixer signature campaign either
About BenCodie, he seems to have a history of conflicts with his signature, there is another similar crazy episode with whirlwind.money mixer and their signature. He stated that he knew it was a scam (though in the end, whirlwind didn't hurt anyone, at least not here on the forum and their escrow is still active). 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.

Please don't cause drama with incorrect recounts.

I applied for the campaign before it displayed red flags. It displayed red flags much later, and they were only red flags. Nothing is conclusive until there is evidence, which is why I posted minimally about it.

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.html
Here, anyone can write anything, no self-moderation, just forum rules will apply accordingly. 

I wasnt even planning to comment in there because I already know from his previous threads that he does not really care what people think unless they agree with his wacky views.  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. Only people scared of the truth or healthy debate try to shut down different views! Over the years, we have witnessed what type of people wanted to silence opposing viewpoints.

This came up not because of my actions, but brainboss and 1miau. They decided to cut the screenshot in this thread, add it to a beginners and newbies thread as an example.of what not to be like. I disagreed with it strongly, as my ideology is one that is clearly shared by other members of the community, and yet, I am the one being personally attacked for not liking the gambling industry but having a gambling ad in my signature, and being objective in the gambling board.

~
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...

Gambling destroys lives. If you guys genuinely disagree with that, you're not right. Go look at the data of gambling related deaths and bankruptcies ... And think about how many are not considered in the data.

Stop being purposefully ignorant just to prove the validity of your attacks against my opinion. That is worse than anything we are discussing in these threads

But if you really believe in your opinions, I dare you to say publicly that you think gambling is good for your overall health. What a stupid opinion that would be, but still, go right ahead

[1miau]

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:   

[Stalker22]

~
Gambling destroys lives. If you guys genuinely disagree with that, you're not right. Go look at the data of gambling related deaths and bankruptcies ... And think about how many are not considered in the data.

Stop being purposefully ignorant just to prove the validity of your attacks against my opinion. That is worse than anything we are discussing in these threads

But if you really believe in your opinions, I dare you to say publicly that you think gambling is good for your overall health. What a stupid opinion that would be, but still, go right ahead

Speaking of misguided thinking, consider this: Is sitting detrimental to an individual's health? No? I dare you to publicly say that you think sitting is good for your overall health! See how stupid that sounds?

Sitting, much like gambling, is an activity, and like many other activities, it can have both negative and positive effects on one's health. You claim that gambling (as an activity) is inherently bad for the individual, but you are being purposefully ignorant and refuse to acknowledge that there is a clearly defined distinction between gambling as an activity and gambling addiction as a psychological disorder.

But we digress here. The main point of this discussion is that YOU believe that gambling is harmful and that it destroys lives, and yet, you have no problem promoting this activity with your personal signature. This means that you are purposefully and directly contributing to the number of gambling victims you speak of, all for your own personal gain. Well, if you dont see anything wrong with that, then you are not right and I cannot help you there.

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...

You have never heard those stories about folks keeling over from heart attacks after they win the jackpot? But you know, it makes me think maybe we should all stop having sex too, because, apparently, thats a gamble that could kill you too!  

[PytagoraZ]

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. Apart from that, if the campaign manager considers this to be a problem then he will remove Ben from the campaign participants

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.



But this is just my personal opinion, I don't have much experience in campaigns

BenCodie created false accusations about me by alleging that I took discussions out of context and he even accused me of censoring my threads. After all the drama he tried to create surrounding my locking of my threads and citing fake censorship, BenCodie ended up deleting your post from his own self-moderated thread because he did not like what you wrote.

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.

Oh yeah..... There are also those who accuse me, even though that person has no evidence. Just speculation. But that's okay, lower level members don't get much attention. Indeed, sometimes we remember more when we are accused by someone than when we accuse someone 

[Upgrade00]

Let me prefix by saying anyone can advertise what they want as long as it is not a scam.

Now to the point of the discussion, I don't think users should wear signatures of projects they do not agree with, they feel may be detrimental and will not use for themselves. The world is not utopian and people do things for money in the real world due to situation and circumstances, but this is an online forum and what you do here is well within your control.

There are also numerous campaigns available, granted majority of them are gambling related but there are definitely others.
You can simply apply for some other campaign.
There's another argument that endorsement can have different meaning. Advertising a site can be me telling you that it's not a scam website. I'm not encouraging you to gamble, but if you must this is a good website to do it on.

[yhiaali3]

I voted for the first option because this is my conviction, but of course I do not oblige others to accept my opinion or point of view. Each person has his own way of looking at things.

Sometimes a person faces difficult circumstances that make him abandon some of his convictions. For example, I am against gambling because it is forbidden in my religion, but I faced difficult financial circumstances and did not have any campaign, so I had to submit an application to join a gambling campaign despite my lack of conviction in the service, fortunately. I was not accepted into the gambling campaign, but the idea is that I changed my conviction due to special circumstances.

Therefore, I believe that in general, people should not be judged without knowing their circumstances.

[Rikafip]

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.

[PytagoraZ]

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 very same gambling company to help them "ruin" people's lives. Someone with such opinion about gambling and with principles would never join gambling signature campaign.

Are there any rules against it? otherwise, anyone can join, regardless of principle. I think the people who have the most right to judge this are the campaign managers and BenCodie himself. We do not need to interfere with his principles and impose our principles on him.

[Rikafip]

Are there any rules against it? otherwise, anyone can join, regardless of principle.

What the hell are you talking about, where I said that he can't join signature campaign or that there are any reules that would stop him? Read my post with understanding.

We do not need to interfere with his principles and impose our principles on him.

Ah, so he is free to share his views and beliefs onto others, but we shouldn't share ours onto him? And no, no one is imposing principles on him, people are mostly just calling him out on his hipocrisy.