Advertised services and participants in a paid sig campaign

[1miau]

As a service operator, I would hire him without hesitation because I would consider my advertising funds spent very wisely.

I believe coins.game isn't a service operator owned by you.

No shit, Sherlock!

Better you stop thinking about what coins.game CM is doing here.

Luckily, it's not your business what I'm allowed to think or what I'm allowed to write here.

If you do care, why don't you reach coins.game and explain your point/argument to them and recommend your preferred CM?

You can do that yourself, I dont even know what your strange questions are trying to achieve here except from derailing the discussion because you have no valid arguments left...

Explaining here makes no sense as no one from coins.game is here to hear you.

Looks like you've missed that the topic isn't intended to convince coin.game but a clarification topic regarding BenCodie's misleading poll...  

..

Just ignore him. It is clear that his opinion is conflicting with the fact that his opinion is not gospel.

1miau what you are failing to understand is that according to your perspective, I am a hypocrite.

The evidence about your hypocrisy is visible for everyone in the OP.
It's really sad that you don't admit that.
But considering your past "incidents", this one is not surprising at all.

According to other people's perspective, I am maintaining my honesty and I am not changing my opinion for a signature campaign. The campaign still gets their advertising, while I make valid posts.

Don't you realize that even your own, biased poll backfired and your poll result is tied now?
The people defending your hypocrisy is a small minority because for every issue, there's a strange, small minority.
If you don't like gambling, you can write walls of text against gambling but then, you should not advertise it in your Signature to get paid every week for advertising that.
That's common sense or your opposition to gambling is not credible at all.
It's so simple!

You should stop causing trouble...

Who is causing trouble here, when he started to bring the issue to reputation because his post was exposed by me and added to the topic of CryptopreneurBrainboss? We are well allowed to point that out or it's not allowed anymore to criticize hypocrisy on the forum?
You were the one taking the issue to reputation by taking things out of context with your initial poll.
And no surprise, even your own poll backfired completely because your actions are 100% hypocrisy.
You can spin that how you want, it won't change the fact that it's hypocrisy.
You'll have to live with it, that people will criticize you for that.

will this continue to be opened until someone's reputation is damaged?

Probably yes, because obviously some people here are having an issue with my topic because it's exposing their hypocrisy.  
But speaking of damaged reputation, I can see that Little Mouse already has one neutral DT feedback and one negative, although Lauda is not frequently in DT. Still, it seems to be an interesting case to be explored.  

[1714593386]

1714593386

[1714593386]

1714593386

[PytagoraZ]

will this continue to be opened until someone's reputation is damaged?

Probably yes, because obviously some people here are having an issue with my topic because it's exposing their hypocrisy.  
But speaking of damaged reputation, I can see that Little Mouse already has one neutral DT feedback and one negative, although Lauda is not frequently in DT. Still, it seems to be an interesting case to be explored.  

If you want to ruin someone's reputation maybe you can tag them negatively, you're a DT, and you have the assumptions of this thread to reference. From what I've read, when someone agrees with one's disagreement then it's an agreement, yet here you are insisting that your statement be agreed with by everyone. It looks childish

I'm sure many people agree that gambling is a bad act, and I'm sure all gamblers know that but they still gamble. So?

But from this discussion I became curious about coins.game so I created an account there. Ah, maybe this is one of the best promotions

But never mind, I don't have enough level to argue with you, I'll step back and feel free to do whatever you like, I know the arguments of low rank members won't be heard

[1miau]

will this continue to be opened until someone's reputation is damaged?

Probably yes, because obviously some people here are having an issue with my topic because it's exposing their hypocrisy.  
But speaking of damaged reputation, I can see that Little Mouse already has one neutral DT feedback and one negative, although Lauda is not frequently in DT. Still, it seems to be an interesting case to be explored.  

If you want to ruin someone's reputation maybe you can tag them negatively, you're a DT, and you have the assumptions of this thread to reference.

Of course, I'm at fault again...  
I'm at fault for pointing out BenCodies hypocrisy - not BenCodie himself is at fault to think about his actions even one second...
This thread is no reference for a negative trust, what are you even talking about?  

From what I've read, when someone agrees with one's disagreement then it's an agreement, yet here you are insisting that your statement be agreed with by everyone.

You can look at the poll, our position has huge support and BenCodie was called out for his hypocrisy multiple times by many different members...

It looks childish

The only ones who are looking childish here are BenCodie and your lack of knowledge about DT.
Please, do yourself a favor and get informed about DT before replying here.
I don't even know, what your comment is intended to achieve...  

I'm sure many people agree that gambling is a bad act, and I'm sure all gamblers know that but they still gamble. So?

And thats a pretty legitimate opinion to oppose gambling because many people don't like gambling. I don't know how often I've said that in this topic. They can think whatever they want.
But when someone is of the opinion that gambling is unethical, no need to advertise it in their signature to give such unethical business visibility. I wouldn't advertise a fraudulent shitcoin as well because I don't like most of them.

But from this discussion I became curious about coins.game so I created an account there. Ah, maybe this is one of the best promotions

According to BenCodie, these services are unethical and destroying lives.
So he's contributing to destroying lives with your sign up...

But never mind, I don't have enough level to argue with you, I'll step back and feel free to do whatever you like, I know the arguments of low rank members won't be heard

Arguments of lower rank members will get heard. But if these arguments are nonsense, higher rank members will debunk them.  

[JollyGood]

If you do care, why don't you reach coins.game and explain your point/argument to them and recommend your preferred CM?

You can do that yourself, I dont even know what your strange questions are trying to achieve here except from derailing the discussion because you have no valid arguments left..

1miau, how many times have you told him it is an option (if you want to contact the coins.game campaign manager) yet he keeps reverberating the same chorus. I have no idea why he is trying to divert the point of the thread.

At least you have not allowed him to derail it by you bringing it back on track, namely that you had a post of yours deleted by BenCodie in a self-moderated thread which was the reason you created this thread. And, it is about shocking levels of hypocrisy and the justifications/explanations being provided in attempt to try to come across in a better light.

Honestly, I'm surprised why this thread is still open.

Honestly, I am surprised you are still posting in this thread.

But never mind, I don't have enough level to argue with you, I'll step back and feel free to do whatever you like, I know the arguments of low rank members won't be heard

Goodbye.

[Stalker22]

Honestly, I'm surprised why this thread is still open.
~

Why not keep it open? People are still voting in the poll and actively engaging in the debate and sharing their arguments and opinions. At least this thread is not censored so anyone can leave any comment they want without fear of it being deleted.

Why not ask BenCodie why his thread is still open?

[1miau]

At least you have not allowed him to derail it by you bringing it back on track, namely that you had a post of yours deleted by BenCodie in a self-moderated thread which was the reason you created this thread. And, it is about shocking levels of hypocrisy and the justifications/explanations being provided in attempt to try to come across in a better light.

Yes. 
He's complaining here now about my topic, while he gladly deleted my comment in his censored self-moderated one. Other way round, if I would cause his self-moderated topic to grow more than 4 pages long, my comments would be already gone.

Why not keep it open? People are still voting in the poll and actively engaging in the debate and sharing their arguments and opinions.

Definitely, we will keep this one open.
And it's about time to have a screenshot from our poll:



It's 29:7. 

[JollyGood]

Honestly, I'm surprised why this thread is still open.
~

Why not keep it open? People are still voting in the poll and actively engaging in the debate and sharing their arguments and opinions. At least this thread is not censored so anyone can leave any comment they want without fear of it being deleted.

Why not ask BenCodie why his thread is still open?

He has been posting in the Reputation board since he created his PytagoraZ account. He will eventually will make an error and that will cost him the account as it will receive more tags. It clearly is not his only account here but he would not want it tagged because enrolling on a signature campaign will make it difficult for him to let go. If he wants to post in a typical duplicitous manner, he is not doing himself any favours.

It's 29:7. 

It is 30:7 now 

[BenCodie]

Honestly, I'm surprised why this thread is still open.
~

Why not keep it open? People are still voting in the poll and actively engaging in the debate and sharing their arguments and opinions. At least this thread is not censored so anyone can leave any comment they want without fear of it being deleted.

Why not ask BenCodie why his thread is still open?

Both threads should be kept open. They both ask similar questions in different forms, the opinion changes depending on which poll you look at.

At least you have not allowed him to derail it by you bringing it back on track, namely that you had a post of yours deleted by BenCodie in a self-moderated thread which was the reason you created this thread. And, it is about shocking levels of hypocrisy and the justifications/explanations being provided in attempt to try to come across in a better light.

Yes. 
He's complaining here now about my topic, while he gladly deleted my comment in his censored self-moderated one. Other way round, if I would cause his self-moderated topic to grow more than 4 pages long, my comments would be already gone.

Why not keep it open? People are still voting in the poll and actively engaging in the debate and sharing their arguments and opinions.

Definitely, we will keep this one open.
And it's about time to have a screenshot from our poll:



It's 29:7. 

That's fine, it could he 100:7 and that would still be 7 people who are not on the same page. Combine that with the reputable members who share my opinion, and a valid conclusion can be made: the interpretation is not clean cut

You can take your poll as a win, but really, it's not. It's just a reflection of the lack of clarity around signatures and how much they mean to viewers and wearers.

You can have as many opinions as you want in your poll but until it is clearly defined by the community in an official way, the opinion process is already done. Further opinions really do not mean much now that it is already clear that the opinion is ultimately mixed.

I intend on replying to a lot of the other things posted earlier when I have some minutes to do so. That mightn't be soon' as it's been nice to ignore this in the meantime.

Honestly, I'm surprised why this thread is still open.
~

Why not keep it open? People are still voting in the poll and actively engaging in the debate and sharing their arguments and opinions. At least this thread is not censored so anyone can leave any comment they want without fear of it being deleted.

Why not ask BenCodie why his thread is still open?

He has been posting in the Reputation board since he created his PytagoraZ account. He will eventually will make an error and that will cost him the account as it will receive more tags. It clearly is not his only account here but he would not want it tagged because enrolling on a signature campaign will make it difficult for him to let go. If he wants to post in a typical duplicitous manner, he is not doing himself any favours.

It's 29:7. 

It is 30:7 now 

I think making subtle accusations that someone is an alt account instead of just silently waiting and investigating, is a pointless thing to do....and quite rude, especially if you are wrong. That's to say the least. As if I say more I can almost guarantee that you will start firing your gun at me again as well.

[NotATether]

Well... whether or not you are endorsing the thing that you advertise is a matter of personal concern.

On one hand, we have webmasters selectively choosing which kind of advertisements they do not want to be displayed on their websites (which I agree with, because we don't want to see things like hate speech and misogyny being advertised right next to the articles we are reading, now do we).

And on the other hand, you have celebrities on Instagram shilling for scams and crypto pumps & dumps on a daily basis.

Many people have tried to be the "good policeman" in these scenarios and try to mandate the endorsement part, but it almost never works because people don't really care about what other people on social media say.

Obviously it's better if you can endorse whatever it is you are advertising, but that is up to the person themselves.

[1miau]

Both threads should be kept open. They both ask similar questions in different forms, the opinion changes depending on which poll you look at.

The opinions are completely clear, you've even lost your misleading poll by 12 : 14...

That's fine, it could he 100:7 and that would still be 7 people who are not on the same page.
Combine that with the reputable members who share my opinion,

All I can see in this topic is reputable members pointing out your hypocrisy...  

and a valid conclusion can be made: the interpretation is not clean cut

The result of our discussion could not be much clearer: Your hypocrisy is a very blatant one and combining that with your other recent incidents it's no surprise at all that you are now trying to invent your very own facts.  
We have tons of reputable members here calling it out.
We have two polls, where your position lost on both, you've lost even your misleading poll...





I'm sorry but it's 100% hypocrisy to oppose gambling, even calling it "unethical" and "destroying lives", while on the other hand, you are promoting such a service in your signature and your profile picture because you can get a nice amount of valauble BTC every week.
You'll have to live with it that people will point that out.

You can take your poll as a win, but really, it's not. It's just a reflection of the lack of clarity around signatures and how much they mean to viewers and wearers.

Again, you are inventing your own facts.
The numbers couldn't be much clearer.
7 voters for your option are a defeating result for your hypocrisy, considering how many trolls and shitposters we have here on Bitcointalk.
Some people might misclick / just click one of the responses to see the result.
Some of the 7 votes might be troll alt accounts.
Considering this, your 7 votes are basically nothing...

You can have as many opinions as you want in your poll but until it is clearly defined by the community in an official way, the opinion process is already done.

Yes, opinion process is done, look at the polls.  

Further opinions really do not mean much now that it is already clear that the opinion is ultimately mixed.

Calling a vote of 7 : 32 "ultimately mixed" is truly showing, how you are inventing your own facts in this.
Imagine a football team gets beaten up 7 : 32 and their coach is giving an interview, calling the result "ultimately mixed".
So, nope. The result could not be any clearer.  

I intend on replying to a lot of the other things posted earlier when I have some minutes to do so. That mightn't be soon' as it's been nice to ignore this in the meantime.

I don't know what your repetition of your nonsense should achieve at this point but if you feel like that, go ahead, if you want to keep embarrassing yourself.  
As said before, you can call gambling "unethical", "destroying lives" etc. and also advertise it in your signature for some nice sats every week but then, you'll have to live with it that people will call you out for your hypocrisy.

He has been posting in the Reputation board since he created his PytagoraZ account. He will eventually will make an error and that will cost him the account as it will receive more tags. It clearly is not his only account here but he would not want it tagged because enrolling on a signature campaign will make it difficult for him to let go. If he wants to post in a typical duplicitous manner, he is not doing himself any favours.

I think making subtle accusations that someone is an alt account instead of just silently waiting and investigating, is a pointless thing to do....and quite rude, especially if you are wrong. That's to say the least. As if I say more I can almost guarantee that you will start firing your gun at me again as well.

JollyGood is a very experienced DT1 member, who's doing a great job to keep abusers and spammers at bay. A very important job to keep the forum sane. Considering the shitshow going on sometimes on the forum, such possible cases are definitely having some Merit to look at further. We all know how many cases have turned out in the end after diligent investigation and we will never know until we know.  
You have caught the attention of many experienced DT members already (my attention now as well), where you've jumped directly to apply for the best-rewarded signature campaign after coming back (while the campaign was full, too), so it's not the DT members who are to blame. DT is just doing its job and that's a good thing to keep trolls, abusers and other strange folks at bay.