Satofan44: biggest moron on Bitcointalk

[Satofan44]

Don't make me look at the same pajeet's posts again over nothing, bring something more challenging and entertaining to me.  

I thought you weren't among those who used to post for signature earnings because you used to say this and you often accuse others of being third-world shitposters because they post only to make money. Would you mind letting us know why you have barely been making a couple of posts per day and also having gaps in between after getting removed from the signature campaign by the manager?

A signature campaign does not let you have gaps in posting, which is a ridiculously stupid idea by all managers. I am enjoying the freedom of not being restricted by anything. There are very few topics that actually have interesting posts, @nutildah is still being too soft because he is afraid to lose his newly acquired volunteer position. In the meantime LoyceV can continue scamming, I mean farming money off of the forum instead.  
Satoshi would be quite sad to see what has happened to this place, but letting theymos take over was a mistake. That is why most of the real Bitcoin activity is no longer happening here. Actually from what I can see, almost nothing at all in relation to Bitcoin has been happening here for many years.

[mindrust]

A signature campaign does not let you have gaps in posting, which is a ridiculously stupid idea by all managers. I am enjoying the freedom of not being restricted by anything.

Agreed.

I can get away with it since this current campaign I am in doesn't require me to post 20 messages every week but the other campaigns still do.

There used to be more campaigns like that. Bit**xer for example was completely automated (before lauda was managing it) and you'd get paid for the number of posts you made every week. If you didn't make any, you wouldn't get anything but you would still keep your spot.

This bitz campaign is the second campaign in the last decade I remember doing something similar. (I haven't tried posting nothing though, that probably wouldn't work but I can make 8-10 posts and the manager doesn't seem to be annoyed by it.)

Every campaign should do it imo. People should be able to keep their spot in the campaign even if they posted 1-2 messages in the last week.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I thought you weren't among those who used to post for signature earnings because you used to say this and you often accuse others of being third-world shitposters because they post only to make money. Would you mind letting us know why you have barely been making a couple of posts per day and also having gaps in between after getting removed from the signature campaign by the manager?

In general, there’s a lot of hypocrisy about that on the forum. It’s always blown my mind how, on a forum about money, so many people brag about supposedly not being interested in money. If signature campaigns were banned, we’d see more than a few of them drastically cut back on the number of posts they make.

It happened, for example, with the Chip Mixer campaign. As soon as it ended, people who used to make 50–55 posts—since that campaign paid for a maximum of 50—started making 25–30, since the other campaigns paid for 25.

The world runs on incentives, which is what socialists and most of society seem unwilling to understand. Cultural Marxism has largely achieved what it set out to do.

[mindrust]

I thought you weren't among those who used to post for signature earnings because you used to say this and you often accuse others of being third-world shitposters because they post only to make money. Would you mind letting us know why you have barely been making a couple of posts per day and also having gaps in between after getting removed from the signature campaign by the manager?

In general, there’s a lot of hypocrisy about that on the forum. It’s always blown my mind how, on a forum about money, so many people brag about supposedly not being interested in money. If signature campaigns were banned, we’d see more than a few of them drastically cut back on the number of posts they make.

It happened, for example, with the Chip Mixer campaign. As soon as it ended, people who used to make 50–55 posts—since that campaign paid for a maximum of 50—started making 25–30, since the other campaigns paid for 25.

The world runs on incentives, which is what socialists and most of society seem unwilling to understand. Cultural Marxism has largely achieved what it set out to do.

I even saw people blaming other forum users for shitposting while themselves are also wearing paid signatures and committing shitposting. I mean, if a person is shitposting and you are making a post pointing out that he is shitposting, aren't you also shitposting yourself? (my post isn't aimed at you, i used "you" in a general sense.)

It is indeed hyposcrisy. A very blatant one.

[Alone055]

A signature campaign does not let you have gaps in posting, which is a ridiculously stupid idea by all managers. I am enjoying the freedom of not being restricted by anything.

Agreed.

I can get away with it since this current campaign I am in doesn't require me to post 20 messages every week but the other campaigns still do.

There used to be more campaigns like that. Bit**xer for example was completely automated (before lauda was managing it) and you'd get paid for the number of posts you made every week. If you didn't make any, you wouldn't get anything but you would still keep your spot.

I don't know why you guys say "all managers" or "all campaigns" when you talk about minimum post requirements, because that's obviously not the case. There are so many campaigns that don't have a minimum post requirement, which means that you will get paid for the number of posts you make even if you don't complete the max number of posts. I've worked with icopress, AB, and a bunch of other managers who didn't have a minimum post requirement for their campaigns, even some of the campaigns Hhampuz manages don't have this requirement. If you don't get a slot in such a campaign, or if you choose ones with a minimum post requirement only because they have a better payrate then that's a difference case.

In general, there’s a lot of hypocrisy about that on the forum. It’s always blown my mind how, on a forum about money, so many people brag about supposedly not being interested in money. If signature campaigns were banned, we’d see more than a few of them drastically cut back on the number of posts they make.

I even saw people blaming other forum users for shitposting while themselves are also wearing paid signatures and committing shitposting. I mean, if a person is shitposting and you are making a post pointing out that he is shitposting, aren't you also shitposting yourself? (my post isn't aimed at you, i used "you" in a general sense.)

It is indeed hyposcrisy. A very blatant one.

That's exactly what I pointed out with Satofan because I've seen him having similar thoughts on multiple occasions, but now he's doing the same thing, and I believe this is just an excuse to say that signature campaigns didn't allow you to have a gap because they have a minimum post requirement, because if you are not posting for money in the first place, why would you care? Just post the way you would normally do even if you don't get paid if your motive is not to make money from posting.