Let's look at things from another angle, what the service/project owner and their manager see here.
I hear you guys, but need to try something new. If it looks shitty and non organic, then I can always remove the rule.
I think you may rethink once again before making that rule a compulsory one. I also agree with the users who said that such rule could lead to spamming on an announcement thread and nothing else.
Although I would act differently, this is a completely legitimate condition for participating in the campaign. (Unlike Btt, it is not forbidden to set such a condition in the campaign here)
However, instead of making it a rule, you may make it a suggestion to the applicants of the campaign as that won't be a forced thing and users who get paid from a campaign might spend sometime on their announcement thread willingly.
Let's talk about when a rule is set but seems isn't mandatory, and how the participants will behave.
For example, for participation in Unijoin's signature campaign, icopress added a rule that all participants are expected to test Unijoin's service at least once.
The campaign lasts 3+ months, can you check how many participants of their signature campaign tested the service and wrote a review? I found only 3 out of 18 members.
➥ By submitting your application, you agree that once accepted you will test UniJoin and post your review.
An obvious example that justifies yahoo62278's position, if you leave things like this as optional, nobody will care.
I'm curious, how would it look if the manager decided to exclude from the campaign everyone who didn't do a test/review? He would have every right to do that, right?