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

[m2017]

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.

Imposing advertised projects on participants of bounty campaigns under the guise of ethics is not good. This looks like an attack on “freedom of speech”. Each participant on the forum has the right to write what he considers necessary (within the framework of the rules and that same ethics) and with the help of such forcing conditions (that disregard personal ethics) of the signature campaign “purchasing” the user’s word seems unacceptable to me. If you like the project, praise it in your posts. If you don’t like it, but posted it in the signature only because of the high rates in the signature campaign, then there is no need to force participiants to praise this project. Posts on the forum should be as honest (based on the boundaries of personal morality) and objective as possible.

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

My opinion on this matter is categorical: don't allow managers to impose abuse the terms of signature ampaigns by obliging recommending them to mention the project whose name the participants wear on their signature. This should be optional and at the discretion of the campaigner.

This should be punished (temporarily). Better yet, add it to the set of unspoken forum rules and, if find something like this on the part of bounty managers, give them a warning. For the first time.

If the BTC-community fails to influence, it will lead to a flood of paid lies ethically recommended information on this forum.

[1714528733]

1714528733

[1714528733]

1714528733

[1714528733]

1714528733

[1714528733]

1714528733

[LoyceV]

This looks like an attack on “freedom of speech”.

I wanted to say: "I strongly disagree", but had my doubts about semantics.

I looked it up:

the right to express any opinions in public

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I still strongly disagree again with what you said. Freedom of speech means nobody, and especially the government, is allowed to force you to keep quiet on any subject. But it seems totally fine to me to pay someone to say something. That's like a job, and if you take the job, you'll have to do it.

[DooMAD]

This looks like an attack on “freedom of speech”.

I wanted to say: "I strongly disagree", but had my doubts about semantics.

I looked it up:

the right to express any opinions in public

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I still strongly disagree again with what you said. Freedom of speech means nobody, and especially the government, is allowed to force you to keep quiet on any subject. But it seems totally fine to me to pay someone to say something. That's like a job, and if you take the job, you'll have to do it.

People often confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences".  Everyone has the right to say what they like, but doesn't have any innate right to get paid for it.  Being part of a sig campaign is a choice, not a human right.  It would actually be a bigger attack on freedom if a campaign manager didn't have the right to remove a participant that is in breach of agreed terms.


Another point people need to remember is that campaign managers can be judged on their performance and it could impact their chances of future employment.  Imagine you have a company.  You take the decision to use your money to hire someone here on the forum to promote your company by running a signature campaign.  Then imagine all the participants kept promoting other companies and not yours.  Would you consider that money well spent? 

I don't see how anyone who isn't running a campaign thinks they're in a position to pass judgment on this matter when it isn't their livelihood on the line. 

[JollyGood]

No matter the excuses/reasons he has given as an attempt as justification, I am unsure as to what the actual reason is for his unprovoked attack on you. I cannot be the only member baffled by his bizarre behaviour. Clearly he applied to join your campaigns many times: Ninjastic 1 and Ninjastic 2 therefore the main theory is him being upset at you not selecting him to join.

The fact your offered him $1000 to provide the name of the member he made claims about, yet he ignored you. It shows he is lying in the hope of bringing negativity to your name because he cannot provide a name and the incident did not happen.

Use ninjastic.space and see how many times you have applied. I don't care much about this, but I can't find any other reasonable explanation for why you are deliberately spreading slander. In any case, this whole dialogue no longer makes any sense because you wrote such a long post, but did not bother to say “one” main word.

That was a really cute neutral feedback you just left  . Birth of another troll? Malicious slander? Laughable comments...and the fact is that if it were true, the feedback would be red...and if you left a red, the reliability of your trust would be in question because the fact is that my comments are based on true & recent events. [..]

You are right, this tag is really good, because it most accurately describes the situation where you were caught by your tongue. Malicious slander differs from ordinary lies in that in the first case you go around the forum and spread lies in threads that have nothing to do with the original discussion, lies that can easily be refuted by the available facts. But the tag will definitely change to red if you do this systematically.

Btw, the funny thing is that you lie even about the fact that you didn’t lie.

Therefore, I decided to pay you $1000 in bitcoins if you name the person who was removed from the campaign for the reason you refer to. But if this person says that this is a lie, then you undertake not to participate in any campaign for the next three months. I think this is an excellent agreement considering that you only need to give a “name” to back up your words. Then the next time you want to soak me in shit you will have more arguments.

See this thread where a member got kicked from their campaign just for recommending another wallet instead of the wallet that was being advertised in their signature. [...]

[kayirigi]

Absolute scum thing to do. Standard for Wasabi though. All they do is lie about not being a government honeypot. So of course they will punish people for suggest wallets which are not government honeypots.

icopress also created a Wasabi thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5483310.0

When we show the lies and show Wasabi funds BC analysis, he deletes his post and locks the thread. Such scum. Wasabi are the enemy of bitcoin.

Wasabi censor your coins if BC analysis/feds want it
Wasabi censor your speech if icopress wants it