Where do we draw a line? Signature campaigns or shilling campaigns

[pawel7777]

I just came across this post by Icopress (one of the most active campaign managers currently):

(...)
There is something else I would like to discuss.

As you know, a signature campaign is a type of advertising that is shown under a member's profile through discussions in various sections of the forum without explicit indication. And I have never forced anyone to mention or recommend an advertised project directly in posts as this should be voluntary.

But today, as a manager, I was extremely outraged because I observed a situation where a user wears a Wasabi signature, and recommended other open source wallets.

After advertising for mixers was banned here on the forum, payout rates began to decline due to lack of competition, but Wasabi decided to be understanding and respectful of the contributions of quality posters while maintaining a high level of rates. At the very least this deserves respect.

I don’t mind at all if you recommend this or that wallet as long as you list the list of available options. But if you recommend open source wallets without mentioning the one whose advertisement you are wearing, then you have no place on my team, since I see this as a disparaging attitude towards my work and the advertised project.

I will respond to similar incidents in the future.

Bits emboldened by me.

As much as I understand his logic and I even respect him for stating that publicly rather than kicking out "misbehaving" participants without stating the reason - I think we have a precedent here where the campaign manager is openly policing (to a small degree but still) the content of the posts by telling participants what they can't post, or what they must include (i.e. you can't say you like product X without mentioning product Y).

This alone might not sound like a big deal, but the unwritten rule was that signature campaigns are nothing more than renting out advertisement space, and there was no expectation of participants to endorse advertised services.

I feel that if we leave things like this unchecked, that's a short way to the introduction of shilling campaigns, where participants will be openly required to make a minimum number of positive posts about advertised service, or maybe even negative posts about its competitors.

So again, I don't imply any ill will in Icopress' post, in fact, I think he acted in participants' best interest, but I see this as a small step in a potentially very bad direction.

So the question is, should the forum introduce any rules on compelled/restricted posting, or do we let anything go, including shilling campaigns?

[1714490913]

1714490913

[1714490913]

1714490913

[1714490913]

1714490913

[Hatchy]

So again, I don't imply any ill will in Icopress' post, in fact, I think he acted in participants' best interest, but I see this as a small step in a potentially very bad direction.
So the question is, should the forum introduce any rules on compelled/restricted posting, or do we let anything go, including shilling campaigns?

On reading through the post made by icopress, I then recalled a similar advice I read from a thread by CryptopreneurBrainboss some time ago

[2]: Join a campaign you agree with and not just for the payout.
The user in question is promoting/wearing a gamble related signature but speaking bad against the board isn't that contradicting what he's advertising. Join a campaign you agree with don't join just because of payouts

Although it's not totally explains the topic in question but it's give a little idea of what I'm about to say.

A signature campaign is essentially an optional promotion where participants are paid in return. By joining these campaigns, you agree to follow their rules. Many people promote products or services they don't personally use, purely for the payment. For example, someone who isn't interested in Casino X but wears its signature is likely only doing it for the money and wouldn't genuinely recommend it. The same applies to wallet services. Perhaps the user isn't comfortable with using the wallet in question or simply prefers other options.

I agree with @icopress point, as he raised a valid concern. However, do campaign participants really need to consider this? If, for instance, all casinos, wallets, and exchanges imposed a rule stating that users couldn't recommend alternatives while participating in a campaign, it would cause confusion and potential conflict on forum. While we should only promote campaigns we agree with, recommending other options shouldn't be restricted. It should be stated somewhere on the campaign thread (not a strict rule but) users may recommend their said campaign if need be and not imposed on them.

[icopress]

You should have put this in bold as well.

As you know, a signature campaign is a type of advertising that is shown under a member's profile through discussions in various sections of the forum without explicit indication. And I have never forced anyone to mention or recommend an advertised project directly in posts as this should be voluntary.

The essence of this conversation comes down to the fact that you need to respect the advertising opportunities that are available to you. And also the fact that in my eyes it looked like Wasabi was paying for Sparrow advertising. There's nothing wrong with saying "I use" (any brand you like), but when you say "I recommend" and list several similar wallets, then I believe that mentioning a project that spends resources on the campaign is an issue of ethics.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

But if you recommend open source wallets without mentioning the one whose advertisement you are wearing, then you have no place on my team, since I see this as a disparaging attitude towards my work and the advertised project.[/b]

I don't agree with icopress's above statement at all.  It might be bad etiquette to bad mouth whatever you're advertising in your signature space (and it would certainly cause a bit of confusion/head-scratching to anyone who might not know much about sig campaigns), but requiring members to mention the product/service in their sig space if they're engaged in a discussion about a set of products/services in which it belongs is just not good--unless that sort of posting is explicitly prohibited in the campaign's rules, and even then I think it's crossing a line.

So the question is, should the forum introduce any rules on compelled/restricted posting, or do we let anything go, including shilling campaigns?

No.  Any issue like this should be a matter between the campaign manager and the participants.  There's no way Theymos would institute a rule of any kind dealing with how members should post when they're advertising stuff.

In any case, people probably shouldn't be renting advertising space to a wallet that they wouldn't even mention in a list of wallets they'd recommend to others.  I understand icopress's point, but if he was truly "extremely outraged" I think that's an overwrought reaction.

[icopress]

[...] but requiring members to mention the product/service in their sig space if they're engaged in a discussion about a set of products/services in which it belongs is just not good--unless that sort of posting is explicitly prohibited in the campaign's rules, and even then I think it's crossing a line.

This has nothing to do with what I said, since I do not require anyone to run around the forum and advertise a service or product.

We're talking about something else... that when you list a list of competitors, mentioning a project that rents your signature is a matter of business ethics.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This has nothing to do with what I said, since I do not require anyone to run around the forum and advertise a service or product.

We're talking about something else... that when you list a list of competitors, mentioning a project that rents your signature is a matter of business ethics.

Well, you are the manager and your statement speaks for itself as far as what you expect from the participants you manage, no?  A lot of those members are deathly afraid of losing a spot in a campaign or pissing off a campaign manager, so they'll avoid doing what you were so outraged about even if you didn't explicitly tell them to.  Doubt me?  Remember lightlord's campaigns and his failure to pay the participants?  Very few of them even said a word about it, and there were even some who'd defend him in spite of them being in the process of being fucked over.  Just saying that as a campaign manager, even a statement that doesn't include any new requirements might very well do so simply because of the power they wield. 

[PX-Z]

It's quite reasonable, you are "hired" as a campaign participant as "indirectly/directly promoter" of that service/product, but you instead suggest the product of its competitors when you can also mention that product/service you are wearing as suggestions.
It's more like an SEO optimized article blog of top 10 xxx, mentioning other and your products but the difference is you have a link(signature campaign) to your product in "part" of your post.

In this forum, it's like an unwritten rule that "promoters" should do in a forum that avoid advertisements in their posts...

So the question is, should the forum introduce any rules on compelled/restricted posting, or do we let anything go, including shilling campaigns?

There is already forum rule about that, let me quote it with bold part.

Advertisements (including signatures within the post area) in posts aren't allowed unless the post is in a thread you started and is really substantial and useful.[9][e]

Shilling campaign is different for a single post/reply that engage discussion, answers a question and suggest a signature campaign-related product, its reasonable for a "campaign participant". Unless the poster blatantly spamming that product in off-topic way of posting.

[Poker Player]

Where do we draw a line? Signature campaigns or shilling campaigns

That is a false dilemma.

As much as I understand his logic and I even respect him for stating that publicly rather than kicking out "misbehaving" participants without stating the reason - I think we have a precedent here where the campaign manager is openly policing (to a small degree but still) the content of the posts by telling participants what they can't post, or what they must include (i.e. you can't say you like product X without mentioning product Y).

This alone might not sound like a big deal, but the unwritten rule was that signature campaigns are nothing more than renting out advertisement space, and there was no expectation of participants to endorse advertised services.

That is simply untrue and what you call an unwritten rule is something you made up. It's much simpler than that:

➥ I reserve the right to change the rules and disqualify any post and any participant for any reason.

The signature campaigns operate under a free market regime. I don't know what supposed problem there is here, and I'm telling you that I was expelled from that same campaign for leaving a red tag to a Wasabi worker. You could also have applied that same argument and with more reason in my case. But the thing is as simple as that you are free to go to another campaign whenever you want and the manager can fire you if he sees that you do something that does not favor the company that has hired him to advertise.

Remember lightlord's campaigns and his failure to pay the participants?  Very few of them even said a word about it, and there were even some who'd defend him in spite of them being in the process of being fucked over.  Just saying that as a campaign manager, even a statement that doesn't include any new requirements might very well do so simply because of the power they wield. 

This is a bit O/T but Lightlord is at it again.

[yahoo62278]

As a person that has been on the forum for nearly 10 years now and also managed my fair share of campaigns, I feel like all managers should already know that a large % of people in campaigns don't care about the product they are advertising for. They care about getting their account in a campaign and getting paid, that's it mostly. If a campaign asks for 30 posts a week, they do 30 posts and not 1 more usually.

Managers are not allowed to tell users to make posts in this thread or that thread, they all know this. They do not even care to try and help out the company they are advertising for in most cases, they just want paid at the end of the campaign week. They will even leave a campaign for an extra dollar a week if they can.

@icopress I can see your reasoning, but I probably wouldn't have mentioned it. Send the user a message and save yourself the drama. I don't get upset when users mention hire royse or you to manager a campaign and not mention me. Feels like the same thing to me.

[LoyceV]

I think we have a precedent here where the campaign manager is openly policing (to a small degree but still) the content of the posts by telling participants what they can't post, or what they must include (i.e. you can't say you like product X without mentioning product Y).

This isn't new. And it's not a Meta "problem", it fits better in Reputation or Service Discussion.

I've seen a campaign manager complain about posts in spam megathreads. My take: just don't pay those posts, but you shouldn't tell someone where he can or can't post.
I've seen demands not to discuss the Russia/Ukraine-situation, because the service wants to remain neutral. Bitcointalk allows this, as part of it's mission to be as free as possible. Just like Bitcointalk allows users to choose which campaigns to ignore. I wouldn't want to be in a campaign where the campaign manager tells me what I can or can't post. I'm totally fine not getting paid for posts that don't qualify, but I am not going to adjust my posting based on the signature I wear.

TL;DR: I don't see a problem here. It's a free market. If you don't like it, leave the campaign. If the campaign manager doesn't like it, don't pay for the posts or remove the user from the campaign. It's not a big deal.

when you say "I recommend" and list several similar wallets, then I believe that mentioning a project that spends resources on the campaign is an issue of ethics.

Can you link to the post in question?
I think Hatchy has a point: this sounds like someone who has no idea what he's advertising. I saw another one recently:

You're advertising a "private Bitcoin wallet" in your signature, but your posts make it sounds like you have no idea what that means.

[EarnOnVictor]

You don't even have anything to say against Icopress even though you are cautious enough in your construction. I must also say that I love what he did, people are ugly in thoughts, and they need to be guided at times. You don't have to wait to be told what is wrong or right all the time as an adult and also as a sensitive person, so it is not all things that must be written by the campaign managers under a campaign before people know what is right and what is not right to do.

You don't just collect a company's money and nonchalantly praise another company that is a competitor. Who does that? That's not fair.

But people like to collect a company's money and do not even care about their success, that is what I see here, and it is bad. Once you are campaigning for a company, whether you like it or not, you are part of their team. So, why then act like you are not? I think the campaign managers feel the burden better than people who are just keen to collect the money and not the progress of the company. So I know how he feels.

[LoyceV]

You don't just collect a company's money and nonchalantly praise another company that is a competitor. Who does that?

Allow me to surprise you:

Bisq is one and the only truly decentralized exchange which we often recommend to our customers without any greed feelings, since our primary goal is not to make money but to defend some cypherpunk ideas instead.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

On reading through the post made by icopress, I then recalled a similar advice I read from a thread by CryptopreneurBrainboss some time ago

[2]: Join a campaign you agree with and not just for the payout.
The user in question is promoting/wearing a gamble related signature but speaking bad against the board isn't that contradicting what he's advertising. Join a campaign you agree with don't join just because of payouts.

[Guide] Factors to consider before joining paid signature campaigns.

Thank you for pointing that out and in future include the link or quote in a way people interested in reading more can get access to the thread or any other threads on the forum. Some people might have missed the thread when it was created but as it gets mentions they should be able to get access to the thread so they can contribute too.

As for the topic at hand, I side with Icopress on his decision, I'm a manager too so I understand his point. Why should anyone advertise something they can't recommended to others, I understand signature aren't typically an endorsement of the projects that we're wearing but it's an advertisement and for you to continue getting the privilege of advertising that project or product, you should contribute to the growth of the product being advertised. You're not advertising a scam so what's holding you back from presenting that product as the option in the market. Your employer is spending money weekly it's just unfairly to be adverting a competitor, ask yourself if you were in their position how will you feel.

If you have a favourite platforms that's a competitor to your current campaign, you can basically give a shout to the both of them and let the user decide on which one to use but it just doesn't make sense you're giving a 100% validation to a competitor. You can't be a brand ambassador for Nike and publicly say Adidas is the best but you can give your recommendation on both and leave it for the user to choose. Whether we like it or not, we're brand ambassadors for the brands we're promoting on the forum. No campaign manager should force you to shill a project but as adults that we all should be on the forum, you should know the right thing to do and lastly don't join a campaign you don't agree with.

[PytagoraZ]

Most of the campaign participants are well-known members and experts in knowledge about bitcoin and wallets. Since the statement was made public, are we going to doubt their answer? maybe their answers are not as objective as before

Of course this is a difficult condition for managers and participants, hopefully participants can be wise and maintain objective answers to questions about wallets, because they are role models in this forum

[Despairo]

Props to @OP for bringing the discussion.

Very agree with Poker Player and yahoo62278, it's either the manager need to fire the participants or let know the participants through PMs.

Most of the campaign participants are well-known members and experts in knowledge about bitcoin and wallets. Since the statement was made public, are we going to doubt their answer? maybe their answers are not as objective as before

I guess so, but it's easy to notice it, when it comes to wallet and privacy topics, pay attention on their posts.

Allow me to surprise you:

Bisq is one and the only truly decentralized exchange which we often recommend to our customers without any greed feelings, since our primary goal is not to make money but to defend some cypherpunk ideas instead.

They're not a same brand though.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

@icopress I can see your reasoning, but I probably wouldn't have mentioned it. Send the user a message and save yourself the drama. I don't get upset when users mention hire royse or you to manager a campaign and not mention me. Feels like the same thing to me.

I thought of that after I made my last post here--since it isn't likely that multiple participants are going to do what the member icopress called out, a PM would have sufficed instead of making a post that sends a strong (and obviously somewhat controversial) message to every person who's in one of icopress's campaigns.

And yahoo62278, you've got it right that campaigns are all about the money and I don't think I've ever seen a manager try to micromanage people's posts like this.  I'd also agree with whoever said there are a certain percentage of campaigners who don't even know what kind of service/product they're renting out their sig space to.  Most members just try to get into the highest-paying campaign they can and don't care what's being advertised and don't even care to even know exactly what it is. 

You don't just collect a company's money and nonchalantly praise another company that is a competitor. Who does that? That's not fair.

I disagree with that to an extent.  Renting out your signature space is simply a financial transaction, and unless there's a rule in the campaign that you can't express your own opinion about competitors, members should be able to do so.  Bashing whatever it is you're advertising is another story, but praising a competitor?  Eh.

[Shishir99]

If you talk about ethics, if you are promoting a service through your signature, it deserves to be mentioned when you recommend a similar service. I understood the point icopress mentioned. It's something we could consider as the gray side of the member. But, you shouldn't be outraged because they did it. You could have PM the user just like Yahoo said.

This is not something that happens every day. So, sending a PM to one of your participants won't be a bad idea. I understand that it's like I work for Samsung but I suggest users buy Apple products. That is all about ethics.

[KingsDen]

I just came across this post by Icopress (one of the most active campaign managers currently):

(...)
I don’t mind at all if you recommend this or that wallet as long as you list the list of available options. But if you recommend open source wallets without mentioning the one whose advertisement you are wearing, then you have no place on my team, since I see this as a disparaging attitude towards my work and the advertised project.

I will respond to similar incidents in the future.

I understand with Icopress, even if it is not a rule, it should be ethical to recommend what you promote when the need arises. But then, there are some exceptions such as; a situation where the signature participant doesn't actually know that wazabbi is an open source wallet. It is very possible and if that is the case, I wouldn't blame the signature campaign participate.

For we to treat this matter honestly, we need to address another rule which is fast becoming a trend among some managers. The rule of making it compulsory for signature campaign participants to use the service they are promoting. I saw it in the mixer campaigns. If the signature campaign participants of wazabbi are compulsorily made to use the service, everyone of them will know that it is an open source wallet.

After testing the service, if you can't recommend it, it means you shouldn't promote it at all. So, it is just a two way something. Even me as a manager, I will not be comfortable seeing you wearing a signature of one service and recommend the nearest competitors of that service. It might be like an ambassador of Nike advertising addidas.

[SamReomo]

When someone has joined a signature campaign then that member should understand that he/she is getting paid for applying a brands signature, avatar, and sometimes personal text on his/her profile. The brands want to get more attention via the posts of such users who are accepted in the campaigns which the brands are funding, and that's why they somehow hope to get more exposure via the posts as well.

If you believe that the signature you're applying on your profile fits into a list that you're mentioning then nothing is wrong in that. I won't say that you should mention that service in each post but when in some posts it can be mentioned then one should try to mention it. But, if you're making posts and not suggesting other services in the list then that's also okay because readers can easily spot the signature on your profile and understand that which service you're trying to promote.

Icopress and all other reputed managers of the forum are doing a great job by managing the campaigns and it isn't a simple job by any means. If they want the participants to mention a service that they are advertising then I think a participants should have no obligation in that. But as far as I know, they haven't forced anyone to shill a service in each post to get paid, they simply say that whenever you're mentioning a list of similar brands then also consider mentioning the one that you're applying on your signature space. That would help that brand to get some attention nothing else.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

I personally think it's a bit extreme. If the manager feels the members he hired are not “productive”, he could just remove them or make a reshuffle without raising dust.

If not mentioning/recommending the service one is having in their signature space is an issue and can get one booted out of the campaign, then how about constructive criticism of the service? Let's say the service I am advertising is having some issues, an open scam accusation etc. and I try to say something about it. Isn't that an automatic disqualification as well in that context??
Aren't we going to see cases where members fear to make comments about the service they are advertising because the fear has been instilled in them?

The next thing we shall see is all members recommending the service they are advertising in every related thread they come across for fear of being thrown out. Worse still, avoiding posting in competitors threads because boss might not be happy.