Rules in the signature campaign, weird or not?

[examplens]

I just updated the post with all currently active signature campaigns on the Altt forum. Honestly, everything looks better, 7 paid and two volunteers. 

However, the new campaigns brought some unusual rules, somewhat unclear. at least for me.
Cryptomus have quite unusual rules. Not only are posts in the gambling section not counted, but they lead to disqualification for payment.

• Posting in gambling-related boards and threads will disqualify payment for the week.

I would really like to hear a meaningful explanation for such an aggressive rule, isn't it enough to just not count posts in gambling? Some users write there regardless of the signature payment, why such a restriction?

[hugeblack]

I would really like to hear a meaningful explanation for such an aggressive rule, isn't it enough to just not count posts in gambling? Some users write there regardless of the signature payment, why such a restriction?

I think this rule was originally for the forum campaign on BTT and since most of the signature campaigns there are gambling campaigns you will find that 50% to 80% of the posts of many accounts in that board.
It is the same reason for excluding sections such as politics, wall, and altcoin.


As for here I see no reason to add that rule, the forum is still small and many boards need activation.

[Freemind]

I was not aware of such a strict rule in the campaign, and I think it can be counterproductive both for the users and for the campaign itself, since the final objective is for the greatest number of people to know about the product. I don't think a rule like that makes sense, especially when the forum is growing, but I suppose the manager will have his reasons, I hope he can give his opinion in this thread.

Thanks for a thread and some interesting questions for the forum.

+1.

[Charles-Tim]

I think Cryptomus representative or AB de Royse777 would be the best to answer this. I skimmed through the site ToS but I still do not know the reason why people posting under gambling discussion should not be paid. I also think this is harsh.

I guess the site might be like Coinbase that do not accept payment from gambling site.

[Kemarit]

Yes, I did check their business policy and I can't connect gambling and their platform.

Perhaps they just wanted to build their brand in the good way and does not want to expose it in gambling boards or anything related to gambling.

But as we all know, there are also gamblers who traded as well. This community is still growing and they would need every exposure they can get here, including gambling boards.

[bitbit97]

Maybe a bit off-topic, but maybe it will help to find the truth - why coinbase refuse to accept transactions from gambling sites? Because they see money laundering in that? Because the origins of  gambling site funds are shady? I have transferred funds from gambling to crypto.com and Binance directly for example and everything went well.

Nevertheless, the rule is really strict. That really limits free speech rights. Now counting towards weekly quota would be more reasonable.

[Charles-Tim]

Maybe a bit off-topic, but maybe it will help to find the truth - why coinbase refuse to accept transactions from gambling sites? Because they see money laundering in that? Because the origins of  gambling site funds are shady? I have transferred funds from gambling to crypto.com and Binance directly for example and everything went well.

Most money laundered are in banks. Exchanges can try with their KYC but money laundered are there also. If you want to know the truth about this, read more about people that laundered money and that were later known. You will see how they are connected to banks or properties that they used the bank fiat to buy. If the money is in bank, it can be used on exchanges and the exchange will do nothing.

[Husires]

Nevertheless, the rule is really strict. That really limits free speech rights. Now counting towards weekly quota would be more reasonable.

Due to the different gambling regulations, some countries have strict policies with online gambling, other countries require KYC, and others see the need for gambling to be under the supervision of the treasury authorities and not Olanen because it is one of the main sources of money laundering.

[mu_enrico]

It's up to the advertiser; maybe they just don't want to be associated with gambling. Restrictions on gambling posts aren't new, but usually, gambling-related posts are just not counted. Being disqualified for payment is new to me, though -- I've just read about it here for the first time.

They have the right to demand that, so just don't apply if you don't like it.

[Baofeng]

But isn't it contracting though? They say that they want exposure, and so spread awareness here.

How can they do that if they excluded a board that has a lot of members posting there as we have a lot of gamblers here.

And we all know that the first use case of Bitcoin or crypto in general is gambling per se.

[Cantsay]

Before the representative were banned in Bitcointalk we never got an explanation from them about this rule yet they enforced it and excluded some of their campaign participants from their campaign without payment.


image source

I guess the site might be like Coinbase that do not accept payment from gambling site.

Not in this forum but several other exchanges have hosted signature campaign and none of them had this rule - it’s okay to not count posts in gambling board but excluding the board totally doesn’t feels odd.

[Zed0X]

The only logical reason that I could think of is that they do not want to be associated with anything related to gambling. They do not want gamblers as part of their user base. Perhaps it's the owners' religion or personal beliefs/morals?

[bitmover]

However, the new campaigns brought some unusual rules, somewhat unclear. at least for me.
Cryptomus have quite unusual rules. Not only are posts in the gambling section not counted, but they lead to disqualification for payment.

• Posting in gambling-related boards and threads will disqualify payment for the week.

I would really like to hear a meaningful explanation for such an aggressive rule, isn't it enough to just not count posts in gambling? Some users write there regardless of the signature payment, why such a restriction?

This is indeed very unusual.

In btt gambling is just a sea of spam, so I can understand such rule.

Here, however,  the situation is different.  Probably some local legislation of where the wallet is based forbid gambling? This could be an explanation

[examplens]

I was not aware of such a strict rule in the campaign, and I think it can be counterproductive both for the users and for the campaign itself, since the final objective is for the greatest number of people to know about the product. I don't think a rule like that makes sense, especially when the forum is growing, but I suppose the manager will have his reasons, I hope he can give his opinion in this thread.

Someone already mentioned that they started the campaign themselves on the Btt forum.
It was quite clumsy and amateurish, then they wrote this rule about not writing in certain parts of the forum. After the ban on Btt, they realized that they should let someone more professional manage their campaigns.
However, it is very strange that the manager did not manage to explain to them the senselessness of such a rule.

[Jating]

They have the right to demand that, so just don't apply if you don't like it.

I think it's not like that, of course, there will still be members who are going to apply no matter what. But they will have to restrict themselves not to post on boards that they are more familiar.

I don't know if this is going to be the trend here or in the other community. And other members are obviously seeing this as not healthy, in my opinion.