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

[LoyceV]

If someone joins the campaign, isn't it to be expected that he will first be interested in the service he is going to promote? at least to know what they are promoting

I only promote things I like, but I get that most people don't care. And you can't even blame them: any advertising company doesn't care, and is totally fine taking offers from competitors.

Holders of paid signatures seem to me to rarely think about whether their participation is worth the campaign owner.

That's not their job, it's up to the campaign manager to get the best candidates.

So contrary to the topic of this discussion, if we don't allow shilling (I'm definitely against this), is ignoring service from the campaign OK? Where is the line?

I'd say it depends. I'll argue from my own perspective: I've been in a casino campaign in the past. I'm not much into gambling, and the posts (1, 2) I made in their ANN thread weren't really "participating". And yet:

Similar to Loyce, he didn't do anything special, he was just being himself and took care of his eco-system of threads and helped out people when needed - which is exactly what you want from a forum member.

This is how I like it: the campaign chooses candidates based on how they're already posting, and all that's expected from them is to continue that way.

Signature campaigns used to be boss-less but it now has a boss and you can not ignore his order or you are out.

From my perspective, it's not a "boss" relationship, but more like being self-employed. That means both parties can end the relationship at any moment.

Are there any specific rules for operators?

See: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign).

Can they threaten campaign positions for content that is not actually dangerous to anyone, just like the OP?

Yes, of course "If you post about Kitchenaid mixers again, I'll stop paying you" is a perfectly fine deal. Take it or leave it.

[1714543256]

1714543256

[1714543256]

1714543256

[1714543256]

1714543256

[1714543256]

1714543256

[1714543256]

1714543256

[dkbit98]

I can see from the operators perspective why they wouldn't want this just like if you were advertising for Pepsi they wouldn't want you advertising for Coca Cola or promoting any other drinks but this would all be laid out in their contract and I think it should be the same here and made part of their rules if it's something they don't want.

Yeah but Pepsi can't make you stop drinking CocaCola and saying that you like it ^{(I don't like both btw)}
I personally would never advertise something I don't like, but if you look at advertisement outside bitcointalk it's mostly BS propaganda and people would say anything for the right price  
For example, does anyone in the right mind really thinks that Cristiano Ronaldo is actually using Binance exchange?
He is one of the biggest paid influencers in the world but I think he never used it in his life, except maybe to dump some tokens binance gave him for free.

There were cases where individuals criticized mixer services, treated them as harmful, and at the same time carried mixer advertisements in their signature.

There is a word for such people, they are hypocrites.
And how about some members who are constantly talking how this services are illegal and in the same time they are wearing gambling signature that is also illegal in their region.  
That doesn't prevent them at all to participate in of the biggest spam campaigns in forum.

[JollyGood]

If the casuistry is far too extensive to the degree not every angle and permutation can be covered (and it would be), one would expect common sense to at least apply where common sense is due.

For example, if a world famous personality earned money to sit in a press conference because they have been hired to promote tourism to the Seychelles and wears a "I love the Seychelles. You should visit soon" t-shirt, you would expect them to use their common sense when they are giving answers.

Operators can run their campaigns however they want as long as they're within the rules of the forum, but I think things like this should be stated upfront as part of the terms of the campaign if it's an issue but I don't think users should be expected to refrain from promoting competitors without warning. I can see from the operators perspective why they wouldn't want this just like if you were advertising for Pepsi they wouldn't want you advertising for Coca Cola or promoting any other drinks but this would all be laid out in their contract and I think it should be the same here and made part of their rules if it's something they don't want.

Really? I think it's simpler than that, it's understood when you join a campaign. If we get into specifying everything as it is done in the contracts we will not cover all the possible casuistry even if the OP occupies two pages. Contracts are full of specifications and even then they sometimes end up in court, which is not going to happen here.

[examplens]

I only promote things I like, but I get that most people don't care. And you can't even blame them: any advertising company doesn't care, and is totally fine taking offers from competitors.

There are not many members who pay attention to what they promote.
The last time I applied for a gambling campaign, it turned out that that casino did not allow users from my country to register. I withdrew my application because there was no possibility to even test the platform. I cannot represent them (even if only through a signature) if I cannot have personal experience with them.
I'm not saying this because I'm a moral stone, I just can't represent something I know nothing about, I don't even have a chance to find out.

That's not their job, it's up to the campaign manager to get the best candidates.

I meant the perception of understanding the purpose of sig. campaigns. If they have already joined the signature campaign, they need to know the very essence of the existence of campaigns. A large number of users only know what the payment rate is and how many posts are needed per week. I got the impression that it is considered, hey, there is already a lot of money behind the name of the signature campaign, just needs to come and get his share.

I'd say it depends. I'll argue from my own perspective: I've been in a casino campaign in the past. I'm not much into gambling, and the posts (1, 2) I made in their ANN thread weren't really "participating". And yet:

Similar to Loyce, he didn't do anything special, he was just being himself and took care of his eco-system of threads and helped out people when needed - which is exactly what you want from a forum member.

This is how I like it: the campaign chooses candidates based on how they're already posting, and all that's expected from them is to continue that way.

SirJohnVonSlotty is a very intelligent person with very good reasoning. Much earlier, before you participated in his campaign, he gave an excellent summary of why to choose one participant instead of another. I wouldn't have much to add here.
(I believe that translating will not be a problem for you)

Moraš se ubaciti u naše šuze i razmišljati kao advertiser da shvatiš situaciju.

Zakupom siga i avatara ne dobiješ samo nove postove, već i postojeće postove/threadove. Što je autor popularniji na forumu i što više "bitnijih" threadova vodi, to ti je veći presence kao oglasivacu. Osobno sam to segmentirao na posting value i historical value.

Ajmo reć da se želim oglašavati na našem boardu. Jedan FatFork ima ogroman historical value, dok Slackovic ima ogroman posting value. Ak imaš budget, ideš na obojcu, ako nemaš, ideš samo na jednog - u ovom slučaju bi išao na FatForka jer ima ogroman historical value, frajer owna dosta kvalitetnih threadova i ažurira ih često. Znači instantno from day 1 ću imat ogroman presence kao brand na forumu. (ako ovo nije istina, slobodno ignorirajte imena i iskoristite ovo kao neki random primjer za historical vs posting value).

Isto tako ako usporediš Loycea i Efialisa na stranim boardovima, prije bi išao na Loycea jer owna znatno više toga na forumu i historical value njegovog accounta je through the roof.

Uvjeren sam da dosta managera koji vode te kampanje ne razmisljaju tako, ali čisto ti htio napomenuti da ne zaboraviš taj historical value. To je dio koji instantno donese dosta prometa, pogotovo ako osoba owna neki užasno popularni thread i konstantno ga ažurira.

[BenCodie]

Are there any specific rules for operators?

See: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign).

Nothing here addresses campaign managers/advertisers manipulating speech.

Can they threaten campaign positions for content that is not actually dangerous to anyone, just like the OP?

Yes, of course "If you post about Kitchenaid mixers again, I'll stop paying you" is a perfectly fine deal. Take it or leave it.

Would that not cause people to compromise their honesty?
Did the OP really go out of their way to recommend Sparrow, or did they just participate in normal conversation?

If I have a signature for Bitcoin Core and someone asks "what is everyone's favourite wallet?"
Does that mean I have to say Bitcoin Core even though my honest preference is Electrum?
If I say Electrum can Bitcoin Core kick me from the campaign rightfully?
If I say Bitcoin Core instead of Electrum just to keep my signature, isn't there a big problem with that?

These are a lot of questions. I suppose the main one is: Does signing up to a signature campaign now mean that we have to be mindful (or have to compromise) our honest opinions?

[mikeywith]

If I say Electrum can Bitcoin Core kick me from the campaign rightfully?

Yes they can, and probably should.

I see your point, but I feel like things are a little mixed up here, there is a huge difference between telling someone "what to say-- what not to say", Icopress would be in the wrong if he said

"Users who don't recommend x wallet would be removed"

or

"You have to post in the ann thread every day to get paid"

These things are against the forum rules, and this is where the forum rules end as far as signature campaigns are concerned.

Things like

"You shouldn't be recommending y wallet when x wallet is paying you to advertise it"

is pretty reasonable, and is not against the forum rules, you may call it whatever you want, but it's not against the forum rules, and it's within the boundaries of real business, if I was paying Icopress to manage my campaign and I see him pick users who recommend other competitor services I would be mad at him, I want the best results for the money I spend, what the users feel shouldn't be my problem, it's only business.

If I see someone wearing x wallet, and goes to recommend y, z wallets without mentioning x, I would think that x wallet team and their ad campaign are dumb as fuck and probably their whole product is, not because they didn't "force" that user to recommend their business, but because they picked someone who is so incompetent to advertise for them.

The real question however is, if Sparrow wallet had a running campaign with a much lower pay rate, would said user join that campaign instead? pretty hard to tell, personally I wouldn't like to be in a campaign where I am told what to say or not say, but out of respect to the people paying me -- I would not recommend competitors without recommending them, despite the fact that I have also stressed on the difference between advertising and endorsement, it's only ethical that you don't advertise for a competitor.

If the service you advertise sucks to the extent that you can't even recommend it -- you are in the wrong place, and you are just desperate for money.

[BenCodie]

If I say Electrum can Bitcoin Core kick me from the campaign rightfully?

Yes they can, and probably should.

I see your point, but I feel like things are a little mixed up here, there is a huge difference between telling someone "what to say-- what not to say", Icopress would be in the wrong if he said

"Users who don't recommend x wallet would be removed"

or

"You have to post in the ann thread every day to get paid"

These things are against the forum rules, and this is where the forum rules end as far as signature campaigns are concerned.

Things like

"You shouldn't be recommending y wallet when x wallet is paying you to advertise it"

is pretty reasonable, and is not against the forum rules, you may call it whatever you want, but it's not against the forum rules, and it's within the boundaries of real business, if I was paying Icopress to manage my campaign and I see him pick users who recommend other competitor services I would be mad at him, I want the best results for the money I spend, what the users feel shouldn't be my problem, it's only business.

If I see someone wearing x wallet, and goes to recommend y, z wallets without mentioning x, I would think that x wallet team and their ad campaign are dumb as fuck and probably their whole product is, not because they didn't "force" that user to recommend their business, but because they picked someone who is so incompetent to advertise for them.

The real question however is, if Sparrow wallet had a running campaign with a much lower pay rate, would said user join that campaign instead? pretty hard to tell, personally I wouldn't like to be in a campaign where I am told what to say or not say, but out of respect to the people paying me -- I would not recommend competitors without recommending them, despite the fact that I have also stressed on the difference between advertising and endorsement, it's only ethical that you don't advertise for a competitor.

If the service you advertise sucks to the extent that you can't even recommend it -- you are in the wrong place, and you are just desperate for money.

I suppose my idealistic view of advertising is different then. I don't think advertising should influence speech, period. That just feels what is most right to me...

That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have. I'd say a business would be better off respecting honest consumer/publisher opinions and instead being constructive by asking "We see you recommended Sparrow rather than Wasabi, so that we can improve to change that opinion in the future, tell us what made you recommend Sparrow over Wasabi?" instead of punishing honesty. I think that is a much better way to interact and build a relationship with a user (or publisher) and gain value from them, rather than breaking that relationship and taking somewhat of an aggressive approach.

That's much smarter than damaging the relationship with the end user/publisher imo, which I'm sure both icopress and Wasabi have done with pawel7777. It sure would with me.

I still think the view of influencing speech is ok opens the door to damaging publisher integrity. If campaigns make readers unsure that what they are reading is honest and uninfluenced, that will surely lead to problems down the line...like not being able to trust any discussions about services being discussed by a user with a signature containing a service in the same sector as what is being discussed. Does this way of doing things benefit advertisers? Yes, like you said, better value for money for them. Does this benefit the forum, users and its readers? I can't say so, I don't think anyone can...and who do we prefer to have as a first priority here? Advertisers and their value for money, or users, readers and post integrity/quality?

[LoyceV]

Are there any specific rules for operators?

See: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign).

Nothing here addresses campaign managers/advertisers manipulating speech.

Correct. It's not forbidden.

Can they threaten campaign positions for content that is not actually dangerous to anyone, just like the OP?

Yes, of course "If you post about Kitchenaid mixers again, I'll stop paying you" is a perfectly fine deal. Take it or leave it.

Would that not cause people to compromise their honesty?

Maybe. But if their loyalties can be bought, I'd argue they were never honest to begin with.

Did the OP really go out of their way to recommend Sparrow, or did they just participate in normal conversation?

I don't think OP was talking about himself.

If I have a signature for Bitcoin Core and someone asks "what is everyone's favourite wallet?"
Does that mean I have to say Bitcoin Core even though my honest preference is Electrum?

That's up to you. Lying is allowed on Bitcointalk.

If I say Electrum can Bitcoin Core kick me from the campaign rightfully?

Of course. They can choose who they pay or don't pay.

If I say Bitcoin Core instead of Electrum just to keep my signature, isn't there a big problem with that?

You could just say nothing.
I've often seen the opposite argument too: if you say the thing in your signature is good, people say you're shilling. It's a fine line, which is why I don't want to adjust my posting based on my signature.

Does signing up to a signature campaign now mean that we have to be mindful (or have to compromise) our honest opinions?

I try not to. That's all I can do. I'm glad no one wants to pay me to say Hamilton Beach mixers are better than Kitchenaid mixers

I suppose my idealistic view of advertising is different then. I don't think advertising should influence speech, period. That just feels what is most right to me...

In the real world, advertising influences pretty much everything around you.

[BenCodie]

Are there any specific rules for operators?

See: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign).

Nothing here addresses campaign managers/advertisers manipulating speech.

Correct. It's not forbidden.

It's not addressed period. Since some here argue that it's not right and some argue that it's an acceptable power for advertisers/campaign managers to have, I believe admins/mods should make it clear whether a signature campaign implies a purchase of your freedom to speak honestly or not.

It's obvious enough that if you are hurting the reputation of a brand, you don't deserve to be paid by them. It's not obvious that you can't talk honestly about similar services or brands in a positive light based on experience or opinion. I'm sure if a campaign manager made it as clear as what's in bold, they'd receive backlash for manipulating speech.

If it's allowed, then icopress should add that to the wasabi campaign rules. I'll be the first to judge against it.

Can they threaten campaign positions for content that is not actually dangerous to anyone, just like the OP?

Yes, of course "If you post about Kitchenaid mixers again, I'll stop paying you" is a perfectly fine deal. Take it or leave it.

Would that not cause people to compromise their honesty?

Maybe. But if their loyalties can be bought, I'd argue they were never honest to begin with.

I see your point, though I don't think it's entirely relevant nor accurate enough to be considered a very strong point.

Did the OP really go out of their way to recommend Sparrow, or did they just participate in normal conversation?

I don't think OP was talking about himself.

Did the user the OP is referring to* Apologies. I will admit I misinterpreted that pawel7777 was the victim.

If I have a signature for Bitcoin Core and someone asks "what is everyone's favourite wallet?"
Does that mean I have to say Bitcoin Core even though my honest preference is Electrum?

That's up to you. Lying is allowed on Bitcointalk.

Just because it's allowed, it doesn't mean that one should. Especially while helping someone with a choice or giving them your opinion. Since you've raised my curiosity, how often do you lie on BitcoinTalk? Maybe that's a good topic to give me a reality check...even though the data would probably be inaccurate

If I say Electrum can Bitcoin Core kick me from the campaign rightfully?

Of course. They can choose who they pay or don't pay.

Doesn't sound like that's right, though I can't argue with that specific comment.

If I say Bitcoin Core instead of Electrum just to keep my signature, isn't there a big problem with that?

You could just say nothing.
I've often seen the opposite argument too: if you say the thing in your signature is good, people say you're shilling. It's a fine line, which is why I don't want to adjust my posting based on my signature.

So helping another member who is asking for experience or opinions would then be foregone, just for the advertiser? Still doesn't sound right to me.
Shilling is a little bit different...it's repeated subtle promotion, no? If I share my opinion once when an OP asks for it, it's a little bit different to me running around the forum posting about (shilling) a specific thing.

Does signing up to a signature campaign now mean that we have to be mindful (or have to compromise) our honest opinions?

I try not to. That's all I can do. I'm glad no one wants to pay me to say Hamilton Beach mixers are better than Kitchenaid mixers

Well in my opinion, you shouldn't have to try if it's not directly harming anyone/any brand

I suppose my idealistic view of advertising is different then. I don't think advertising should influence speech, period. That just feels what is most right to me...

In the real world, advertising influences pretty much everything around you.

And is that right? Wasn't Bitcoin created to change a part of the world that is wrong? Are we aiming to be like the real world on Bitcointalk, or something better? That is an option and power that we as a community have, one of the beauties of the internet...Why not have the goal to be better, instead of using the real world as justification not to be better?

[LoyceV]

It's not addressed period. Since some here argue that it's not right and some argue that it's an acceptable power for advertisers/campaign managers to have, I believe admins/mods should make it clear whether a signature campaign implies a purchase of your freedom to speak honestly or not.

The fact that it's not even mentioned says it all: it's up to the community. And that's the only way: there's no way for Admin to check who makes what deal in private.

I'm sure if a campaign manager made it as clear as what's in bold, they'd receive backlash for manipulating speech.

I wouldn't mind. You can't have selective freedom of speech. Freedom of speech comes with campaign managers having the same freedom. If you don't like it, don't join the campaign.

That's up to you. Lying is allowed on Bitcointalk.

Just because it's allowed, it doesn't mean that one should. Especially while helping someone with a choice or giving them your opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I agree. But that doesn't mean the freedom to do so shouldn't exist. I think we disagree on how much freedom anyone should get on this forum, and I always think of theymos as a bit of an anarchist, so I'm pretty sure he's not going to restrict this freedom.

Since you've raised my curiosity, how often do you lie on BitcoinTalk? Maybe that's a good topic to give me a reality check...even though the data would probably be inaccurate

Interesting question, I've actually thought about it before. I think I've never lied, but I'd instantly have to add a disclaimer: at least not intentional. But that doesn't mean I answer all questions. See this interview for example.
On the other hand, lying is a social construct. Everyone lies many times per day, and most people wouldn't like you if you're always brutally honest.

So helping another member who is asking for experience or opinions would then be foregone, just for the advertiser? Still doesn't sound right to me.

I'm not saying it's right. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. The longer I'm here, the more I appreciate theymos' "hands off" approach. Who's going to decide what's right or wrong? There will always be edge cases, and it can quickly become a slippery slope.

In the real world, advertising influences pretty much everything around you.

And is that right?

No. But we don't live in an utopian world. I'd love to see 99% less advertising in my life. My browser alone has literally blocked millions of ads.

Wasn't Bitcoin created to change a part of the world that is wrong? Are we aiming to be like the real world on Bitcointalk, or something better? That is an option and power that we as a community have, one of the beauties of the internet...Why not have the goal to be better, instead of using the real world as justification not to be better?

Great questions! But let's keep it up to the community to find an answer, while "upper management" gives us the freedom to choose.

[notblox1]

Signature promotion has always been controversial subject in this forum.
I dont think that someone who is wearing signature from one casino cant say anything good about some other casino.
When someone is promoting Bitcoin I think he should be allowed to talk about good stuff in other form of payments, and it should be the same for bitcoin wallets.

I have only good things to say about icopress and I respect him, but I dont want to see members wearing signature to always write fake positive stuff about service they promote.

[JollyGood]

My understanding is that did not happen and from what I can deduce by reading posts in this thread, it is not disputed either. What does however seem to have taken place was something different. icopress did not ask anybody to make posts containing fake-positive comments, he asked for common sense to prevail in circumstances when it obviously should.

I have only good things to say about icopress and I respect him, but I dont want to see members wearing signature to always write fake positive stuff about service they promote.

[SmartGold01]

My understanding is that did not happen and from what I can by reading posts in this thread, it is not disputed either. What does however seem to have taken place was something different. icopress did not ask anybody to make posts containing fake-positive comments, he asked for common sense to prevail in circumstances when it obviously should.

I have only good things to say about icopress and I respect him, but I dont want to see members wearing signature to always write fake positive stuff about service they promote.

I know it is hard to understand that he is not in any way trying to make it as a compulsion or mandatory where every sig member must write good about the wallet they are promoting, to my greatest knowledge what he is also trying to do is for them (participants) to give a little credit or lift about the wallet they are advertising at least to make people feels comfortable about it. I know out of 100 percent of sig participants only few that has tested that service, so that is why they aren't comfortable with it or could find it very difficult to list them among the open source wallet because they haven't test the service before. I could remember the case of mixer where they runs a review and test campaign and many people will give their points they finds while using the service at this point it makes anyone using that service to be more comfortable and easily listed it for people who is needing their services.

[OgNasty]

I have only good things to say about icopress and I respect him, but I dont want to see members wearing signature to always write fake positive stuff about service they promote.

My only interaction with him was when I reached out to him to let him know that one of his signature campaign participants was spreading lies about me in an attempt to damage my reputation because a moderator deleted one of his posts insanely criticizing myself and Elon Musk.  His response was to join in on attacking me in defense of his signature campaign participant, which I felt was not only unprofessional of a campaign manager, but also seemingly shady and out of place.  No shock that the registration date of the user he was protecting was right after his registration date, and they have similar posting styles, but I would never dare allege that the accounts of dkbit98 and icopress are controlled by the same person.  I already know the attacks that would come along with such an allegation and I'm sure icopress is a stand up guy that would never double dip into his own signature campaigns.

[LTU_btc]

There were cases where individuals criticized mixer services, treated them as harmful, and at the same time carried mixer advertisements in their signature.

I will give an example of the BestChange campaign. One of the longer-lasting ones, with a solid payment rate, stable campaign, and it cannot be said that the participants produce spam. I have been in this campaign for a long time, so I am quite familiar with everything.
So, there a 25 participants, and the campaign is currently at 213 weeks. Out of 25 participants, only 6 of them wrote at least one post in the BestChange ANN thread. (I checked this on ninjastic.space, I believe it gives accurate results)
To me, this is more a lack of interest in the service they promote than avoiding shilling.

Here is some more reality from this campaign.
At one point, a Best_Change official asked for the community's opinion on a certain implementation of features on their service. In order not to go unnoticed, I shared it in the campaign thread. Clearly, there is much more activity when we talk about the BC service.

I agree with your point, I also couldn't advertise service that I don't use, I just wouldn't feel good doing it. But I don't think that number of posts made in ANN thread is good indicator. From my personal experience in multiple campaigns, most of services didn't had very active threads. Usually it's just their PR stuff, but not much what to say about it. Commenting it would look like shilling. I think that better indicator would be to check how many times campaign participant mentioned service name in his posts.

I remember that one participant of the Sinbad campaign, after several months of participating in it, accidentally found out about their ANN thread. And that's because there was a voting contest for the avatar

Damn, that's some new level of hypocrisy.

For example, does anyone in the right mind really thinks that Cristiano Ronaldo is actually using Binance exchange?
He is one of the biggest paid influencers in the world but I think he never used it in his life, except maybe to dump some tokens binance gave him for free.

Who knows, maybe after matches and training he spending his free time to make some trades And if he would start doing something simiar what Musk did on social media, I gues that his influence would be quite big lol.

[decodx]

My understanding is that did not happen and from what I can by reading posts in this thread, it is not disputed either. What does however seem to have taken place was something different. icopress did not ask anybody to make posts containing fake-positive comments, he asked for common sense to prevail in circumstances when it obviously should.

I have only good things to say about icopress and I respect him, but I dont want to see members wearing signature to always write fake positive stuff about service they promote.

I think we're making this more complicated than it needs to be.  I tend to like stuff simple.

For those joining these campaigns - Don't participate in the promotion of a product or service that you have nothing good to say about. Yeah, money's appealing, but good judgement still matters.

For campaign managers . Don't hesitate to warn participants whose behavior on the forum may harm the brand they are promoting. And, if necessary, it is your right to remove such members from the campaign even if it is only a matter of opinion. You run a business, not a charity.

[icopress]

My understanding is that did not happen and from what I can by reading posts in this thread, it is not disputed either. What does however seem to have taken place was something different. icopress did not ask anybody to make posts containing fake-positive comments, he asked for common sense to prevail in circumstances when it obviously should.

Right

My only interaction with him was when I reached out to him [...]

Don't tell a lie about me and I won't tell the truth on you 

[OgNasty]

My only interaction with him was when I reached out to him to let him know that one of his signature campaign participants was spreading lies about me in an attempt to damage my reputation because a moderator deleted one of his posts insanely criticizing myself and Elon Musk.  His response was to join in on attacking me in defense of his signature campaign participant, which I felt was not only unprofessional of a campaign manager, but also seemingly shady and out of place.  No shock that the registration date of the user he was protecting was right after his registration date, and they have similar posting styles, but I would never dare allege that the accounts of dkbit98 and icopress are controlled by the same person.  I already know the attacks that would come along with such an allegation and I'm sure icopress is a stand up guy that would never double dip into his own signature campaigns.

Don't tell a lie about me and I won't tell the truth on you 

Fixed the quote for you. I wonder why you cut part of it out…

Telling the truth about me. LOL. If there’s one thing I’m absolutely not concerned about, it’s you telling the truth about anything. I’ve been here for over a decade so it is possible our paths have crossed, but you were not memorable to me until it became clear you were a con artist. 

[dkbit98]

Who knows, maybe after matches and training he spending his free time to make some trades And if he would start doing something simiar what Musk did on social media, I gues that his influence would be quite big lol.

Elon Musk is a clown and fake puppet.
I just gave one example but it's the same thing with everything else that is advertised, especially with people involved with sports.
People advertise stuff they don't use, eat or drink all the time.

Don't tell a lie about me and I won't tell the truth on you  

Look I will tell you something about scammer that registered in 2011 called MemoryDealers and I know his ''alt account'' but he has pigeon size brain and serious mental problems.
He registered in forum in the same year 2011 and he is from the same country, so he must be the same guy, that is the logic of the bird size brain pathetic ev driver.  
Someone seriously need to sign him up in Pilgrim Center and I hear Cook County has very nice facility also.

[bitmover]

If someone joins the campaign, isn't it to be expected that he will first be interested in the service he is going to promote? at least to know what they are promoting

I only promote things I like, but I get that most people don't care. And you can't even blame them: any advertising company doesn't care, and is totally fine taking offers from competitors.

I think people don't have to "like" the company that is paying them, but they need to respect it.

If you work for a company and go on social media talking shit about it you will probably get fired.
This is almost the same.

And what really has value is this forum, not the users who rent their signature.  Just go to altcoinstalks and see how much they will pay for the same posters signature.  So the manager can just hire someone else with more respect for the company.