Advertised services and participants in a paid sig campaign

[PytagoraZ]

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.

Yes, you can have an opinion and convey your beliefs. 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.

[1714652891]

1714652891

[1714652891]

1714652891

[1714652891]

1714652891

[1714652891]

1714652891

[1714652891]

1714652891

[1714652891]

1714652891

[1miau]

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.  

[Shishir99]

Okay,
I had to lock my thread because I respect the seniors and heard them. lovesmayfamilis asked me to lock my thread and move ON which I did. Now I am a spectator of this thread and loving everyone's opinion regarding this matter. I do not see any neutral feedback on your profile yet like I got one after I created my thread. I am still in his exclusion list because of that thread. He said I harmed him mentally by creating this thread.
Fuck me I'M dead

[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.

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.

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. But BenCodie should have been prepared for the consequences of being kicked out of the campaign if he made a statement like that, but if the campaign manager doesn't mind it, why should we bother?

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.

Of course you are free to say anything here, as far as I know this forum gives freedom to anyone. But I think the issue of BenCodie's campaign and statements can only be resolved between him and the campaign manager

Yes, you can complain and create a thread about your comment being deleted. If you feel your comment has had a significant impact and Bencodie is trying to cover it up, then he feels it is necessary to delete your comment.

To be honest, I'm a little embarrassed to argue with you, because you are a high-level member

[stompix]

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.

Everyone is free to have his own beliefs and his own stance on something!
When you try to push your beliefs on somebody else then you must be prepared for the other one to do the same to you!
This is how it works if you want to truly believe in a democratic way and freedom of speech.

The moment you believe somehow that your point of view must be respected at all costs and not contradicted by anyone but you refuse to accept somebody else opinion then you're a piece...of something!

As for this topic, it's pretty simple, distancing yourself completely from what you promote is impossible!
A clear as possible example for anyone who is against gambling:
Do you consider gambling should be banned from TV and street advertising?
- if yes what happened to the whole thing of do your own research it's not influencing anyone
- if no, then you admit advertising gambling poses no harm, so why is the guilty conscience present in the first place?

Everyone has to deal with the consequences of his actions, I did wear a CM campaign, does that make me some hacker or Lazarus group member? No! I did wear a WW campaign, I will never forgive myself for not seeing the red flags!

But saying something like I'm just wearing this sig I'm not influencing anyone is just BS!
Why the hell are you then getting paid if your sig makes no difference?  

[Rikafip]

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.

His opinion about gambling is not uncommon or controversial at all (on the contrary, I know plenty of people who share his opinion), but if you want people to believe you and not think of you being a clown, you have to back it up with actions otherwise its just hipocrisy and empty words.

[DaveF]

Slightly different scenario. But, another view.

On another board (motorcycle related) a long time ago I wore a signature for a company that had the best prices and possibly the worst customer service.
Everyone knew it. When people had issues, it was what it was. I don't think anyone ever thought that since I and others were wearing their signature did we support or endorse them. It was just a way to make a few bucks and keep their name out there.

In the end the new owners of the company turned out to be scammers and cut and ran with a lot of peoples money. Out of all the people who were still wearing their I don't think anyone cared since they were well known to be a crap company.

Most places that display ads are more or less neutral. I don't think a magazine that has an ad for tire rack thinks they are a good company or a bad one. Just that their check cleared so to speak.

The other side is that people placing the ads tend to be more discerning. Campaign managers here don't want people with massive negative feedback. You will not find certain advertisements in 'adult' magazines. With Musk taking over twitter most of their advertisers left and are still gone.

So the counter question is, do businesses that do advertise in certain locations but not in others show support for the ones they are giving money to OR show their opposition to the places that they do not.

-Dave

[1miau]

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.

[JollyGood]

This PytagoraZ account is an attention-seeker that has has been getting involved the Reputation board from almost day one of it being created, this is clearly an alt-account who wanted nothing more than to rank up as fast as possible. He has managed to enrol on a signature campaign therefore he will not want to sabotage his account now but eventually the guard will slip. I would advise members to not engage with either BenCodie or PytagoraZ on an intellectual angle as they are incapable of debating.

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.

[PytagoraZ]

~cut~

Oh no, your explanation makes perfect sense to me. Yes guys, I think everyone has a negative view towards gambling but gambling is still a fun activity and I agree with you that everyone can choose to gamble or not.

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?

This PytagoraZ account is an attention-seeker that has has been getting involved the Reputation board from almost day one of it being created, this is clearly an alt-account who wanted nothing more than to rank up as fast as possible. He has managed to enrol on a signature campaign therefore he will not want to sabotage his account now but eventually the guard will slip. I would advise members to not engage with either BenCodie or PytagoraZ on an intellectual angle as they are incapable of debating.

So are you still talking about bullshit accusations without evidence? It doesn't matter, I already knew that you were that kind of person from the last time I argued with you. Of course this is a freedom forum, you can accuse me of being an alt, a liar, a cheater, a gay, a lesbian, a drug dealer and anything else that comes to your mind. Don't worry, I won't question whether you have proof or not. Because evidence is not important to you

Yes, you can also tell other people not to argue with me, because often you are the one who disappears when I argue with you

[lovesmayfamilis]

I don't know if this is the practice in your country, but in my country, it is very popular to get a job where people have no profession, no experience, and, of course, no love for the work they do. But they only do this because they get paid, and they often get paid better than where they would happily work. In the same way, I am sure that some popular people advertise things that, in everyday life, they do not like at all. But they do it for the money. So I think the attack on BenKodi is not worth that much discussion. A person does a job he doesn’t like, but he is not alone in this; now, many people do work that is not their profession and not their love.

[paid2]

I fully agree with the principle defended by 1miau in his OP. It's even supposed to be a pleonasm IMO.

We can't follow the "money is money" idea for our signature campaigns. We have the privilege and luxury of being paid to post, and for that we need to be legitimate, credible and to post quality content. Without this, we risk gradually to lose our credibility, and therefore losing the privilege of being paid to post.

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.

But is that surprising coming from someone who posts this 3 weeks after joining up a BTC mixer's sig campaign?

I have been following the sinbad avatar campaign for 3 weeks. Today I just understood that in some cases, hiding bitcoin transactions may be necessary to protect our privacy from the public or for certain purposes. I have never had experience using a mixer, and if I may ask. How much does it cost for one mix? Service fees and network fees. Maybe I want to try it

Sorry, maybe my question is very basic, but I have no experience with mixers and I don't have much bitcoin so I thought I'd find out the actual costs involved. I hope those who answer have experience using a Sinbad mixer

This falls squarely within the scope of the questions posed by 1miau: is a user who doesn't have the slightest idea about a product, credible to promote it?

In any case, it's up to the manager to make his  own decisions. But I'm not sure that in these cases, this will be beneficial to the community in terms of credibility.

[Shishir99]

But they only do this because they get paid, and they often get paid better than where they would happily work. In the same way, I am sure that some popular people advertise things that, in everyday life, they do not like at all. But they do it for the money.

Fair enough. People do these jobs in real life even though they hate it because they want to make money and they do not have other options at this moment. If you ask them, most of them will say they are trying to leave this job and they are finding a better one.

Meanwhile, they still do the job and work for the company even though they do not like it. Have you ever seen an advertiser saying do not buy this product, it's worse and get paid for that?

BenCodie is not a helpless guy who needs money to feed kids so you can promote casinos even though he does not like them. Please do not compare him with real-life guys who are helpless.

If he is someone who need money from his signature to feed his kids and family. That is another thing. Only then you can compare him with the people you mentioned in your post.

I haven't seen any waiter works in a restaurant and ask customers to leave without serving the food.  

[1miau]

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. 

[BenCodie]

Since I can't debate apparently, I'm no longer participating in this thread. Worthless discussion gets no one anywhere, and if I apparently can't debate, then what's the point in me putting effort into replying? I'm not defending my philosophy as there is never a conclusion or fair medium when it comes to philosophy.

I will continue to wear the coins.game signature
I will continue to dislike the nature of the gambling industry and definitely do not endorse anyone to gamble, as it is a fact that gambling only provides negative effects to the majority of people who try it. Everyone is an adult and should be able to make their own decisions, so, if anyone joins through my signature, that is their adult decision (and why I do not care to be paid to wear a signature representing an industry that I personally dislike).

Despite this, I have no intentions of disqualifying myself from opportunity just because I don't support the gambling industry in their ethically questionable profit machines. Anyone else who has similar beliefs shouldn't disqualify themselves either. Money in a non-gamblers pocket is always better than into a gamblers pocket. There's also no reason why people should be disqualified from earning sats just because their opinion is of a different moral ground than those who do fully support things like gambling, and think that it's good for people as a whole.

As long as the service in my signature is operating fairly and legitimately toward their players, that is my only prerequisite.

I will proceed not to care about the opinion of of 1miau, jollygood, and the rest, you can all continue to judge my opinion and philosophy as you please, I will watch on and continue to enjoy how much time you are wasting, as you all have in this last few days.

I will just add these though. I think these opinions highlight the problem.

Opposing gambling and getting paid the same time for advertising gambling via signature isn't credible at all.

I think it's more credible and noble than deluding yourself into thinking that gambling is an overall positive thing, and crucifying those who get paid for gambling-related advertising campaigns just for having a difference in opinion.

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.

That doesn't sound very good. Sounds quite communist actually.
Like gambling, get soup.
Dislike it, no soup for you!

Here...

Gambling is very grape - BenCodie

I qualify now by your standard. Thanks for the guidance in qualifying based on your conditions. If you like, I can continue to promote how grape gambling is across the forum if that is what you are asking for, great master.

[1miau]

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.

[PytagoraZ]

But is that surprising coming from someone who posts this 3 weeks after joining up a BTC mixer's sig campaign?

I have been following the sinbad avatar campaign for 3 weeks. Today I just understood that in some cases, hiding bitcoin transactions may be necessary to protect our privacy from the public or for certain purposes. I have never had experience using a mixer, and if I may ask. How much does it cost for one mix? Service fees and network fees. Maybe I want to try it

Sorry, maybe my question is very basic, but I have no experience with mixers and I don't have much bitcoin so I thought I'd find out the actual costs involved. I hope those who answer have experience using a Sinbad mixer

This falls squarely within the scope of the questions posed by 1miau: is a user who doesn't have the slightest idea about a product, credible to promote it?

In any case, it's up to the manager to make his  own decisions. But I'm not sure that in these cases, this will be beneficial to the community in terms of credibility.

You mean I can't question that? and I can't join the mixer campaign?

You can suggest to the campaign manager to remove me or suggest to the campaign manager if they are looking for campaign participants then ask them whether they have knowledge about the service or not.

Emmmhhh.. But it doesn't seem like that's your goal, you're just looking down on me.. It doesn't matter, I'm not a good poster 

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.

In the end, none of us can decide, only the campaign manager himself can decide. Maybe the longer this thread exists will only make BenCodie's reputation questionable, if that is one of your goals, then you can open this thread longer.

[BenCodie]

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.

That's all fine.

There is only one thing that is the problem with what you are saying.

If people want to be a part of signature campaigns, they generally have two choices
Gambling
Mixers

Both are quite similar, in the sense that you can find an ethical problem with both based on their history.

With gambling, it is exploitation of human greed, and on top of this, mistreatment of players, unfairness of games, and as you can all see quite often, unjust KYC enforcement in order to profit from locked balances.

With mixing, it is simply that there have been so many scams. Much less mixers have closed legitimately in comparison to scamming, so one could consider mixers to be somewhat of a time bomb based on the data.

So thus leads to the problem in this part of what you are saying ...

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.

Your post is mostly reasonable but there is one flaw in the reality of it, which can be highlighted with two questions...

1. Do you think that for other people like me (who like this forum, and enjoy the bonus of having a paid advertising opportunity) should pretend if they want the opportunity?
2. Do you think there are pretenders here? If so, do you think that is a problem in itself?

Another question slightly related
Is it wrong to want the opportunity despite going against beliefs? Because at the end of the day, does myself participating in a campaign really make an impact on the gambling industry? If it is not me in the campaign, someone else will be...maybe someone who is pretending...isn't that worse?

I would like to have a conversation from here forward, I am happy to participate in the conversation with you if we can minus the attacks, and if we can just be civil...as I am sure you can agree, everything before these two posts has been too inflated with our own mutual distaste, caused by our difference in opinion.

I hope you can answer the 2/3 questions there and we can dig deeper into the topic!

[1miau]

There is only one thing that is the problem with what you are saying.

There's no problem at all.  

If people want to be a part of signature campaigns, they generally have two choices
Gambling
Mixers

We might have many mixers and gambling sites advertising here but your claim is not true.
One of the most established campaigns is from BestChange: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217201.0
In the past, we have had many more where no mixer or gambling was involved, like TenUp.io or Bonkz from LittleMouse.
If you are still not happy, feel free to contact any service and suggest them to do a signature campaign here on Bitcointalk.  

Both are quite similar, in the sense that you can find an ethical problem with both based on their history.

That's exclusively your issue, that you don't like Gambling or Mixers personally.

With gambling, it is exploitation of human greed, and on top of this, mistreatment of players, unfairness of games, and as you can all see quite often, unjust KYC enforcement in order to profit from locked balances.

Gambling is an offer to have some fun and wager money on it. They can also play UNO cards if they don't want to wager money on it...
It's up to everyone if someone wants to participate there. If you don't like that, don't advertise it in your signature...

With mixing, it is simply that there have been so many scams. Much less mixers have closed legitimately in comparison to scamming, so one could consider mixers to be somewhat of a time bomb based on the data.

First, we need to do our due diligence about a mixer. There's quite a difference between scam mixers and proven ones.
Yes, we can also discuss what WE can do to prevent trust issues, like setting up an trusted escrow fund.
This was discussed as you know from your "mixing incident".  

So thus leads to the problem in this part of what you are saying ...

There's no problem at all, you are creating one...

Your post is mostly reasonable but there is one flaw in the reality of it, which can be highlighted with two questions...

1. Do you think that for other people like me (who like this forum, and enjoy the bonus of having a paid advertising opportunity) should pretend if they want the opportunity?

Pretending to like something isn't helpful for anyone, if you don't like it at all.
It's not beneficial at all for:
- the advertised service
- your principles
- your credibility

If you don't like something, no need for you to participate in it.

2. Do you think there are pretenders here? If so, do you think that is a problem in itself?

I'm not able to read minds, so I don't know if there are pretenders here. But we can see from one's comments, who's interested in gambling and who's just writing nonsense to get paid every week...
And yes, such garbage posting is a problem. No need for anyone to leave boring shitposts just for the sake of making a gambling-related post.
But that's a known issue and called "paid shitposting" or "sigspam".

Another question slightly related
Is it wrong to want the opportunity despite going against beliefs?

If the opportunity is a monetary one: it's not beneficially at all for the forum.

Because at the end of the day, does myself participating in a campaign really make an impact on the gambling industry?

Yes, in that case you would be part of the problem because you are giving visibility for the advertised service. Otherwise, signature campaigns wouldn't make sense.

If it is not me in the campaign, someone else will be...maybe someone who is pretending...isn't that worse?

The question is: what's worse? Someone who's pretending to like gambling while advertising it or someone who's openly opposing the advertised industry entirely while advertising it. I think we know the answer.  

I would like to have a conversation from here forward, I am happy to participate in the conversation with you if we can minus the attacks, and if we can just be civil...as I am sure you can agree, everything before these two posts has been too inflated with our own mutual distaste, caused by our difference in opinion.

There haven't been any "attacks", just some comments pointing out your hypocrisy, backed by quotes.
We have always said you can have whatever opinion you want to have.

Rikafip summed up the whole issue perfectly:

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.

His opinion about gambling is not uncommon or controversial at all (on the contrary, I know plenty of people who share his opinion), but if you want people to believe you and not think of you being a clown, you have to back it up with actions otherwise its just hipocrisy and empty words.

I would like to have a conversation from here forward, I am happy to participate in the conversation with you

I hope you can answer the 2/3 questions there and we can dig deeper into the topic!

Since I can't debate apparently, I'm no longer participating in this thread.

From a neutral point of view, your "principles" are quite strange...  

[GeorgeJohn]

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"

It's obvious that while people joined a high paying campaign is not because of the brand they advertise, and I notice that reputable members doesn't join a campaign because the campaign is paying high or not, what they concentrate in a campaign is about what they are promoting which is the most necessary thing to do in brand..

Some people do not work according to instructions of a signature campaign when they joined a campaign..as you stated that  some people post in a gambling section whereas their brand doesn't accept that but they continued making a post there, I think its abnormal from my understanding and my views..last week Best_Change has officially made it known to some of the participants that doesn't abid on the rules and regulations of the campaign, if you know you are in interested in posting where the signature campaign you are promoting as you not to post, I think its better to leave the campaign instead going against their rules and regulations.

Sometimes some signature don't like their participants to post in gambling section even in the politics and societies section but some participants doesn't adhere to that,while they know that the brand they are projecting don't like them posting in such sections, so I don't know what some participants see for disobeying the brand their promoting, for them to go against the rules and regulations that means they don't want a development and the growth of the campaign contrary that is what it means.