Rules in the signature campaign, weird or not?

[kai]

.....

May I give my opinion about my personality who lives in the surrounding environment?
It seems that the founder of Cryptomus is a Muslim, so he created a platform and marketed it must be Halal or not contrary to Islamic law.

As far as I know, in Islam, gambling is strictly prohibited so that Cryptomus for its campaign prohibits posting on the gambling board section. This is just my personal opinion and please ignore my post if I violate the forum rules because I bring religion into the cryptocurrency discussion.

To be honest, this sounds the closest to a logical explanation. Although at least the little I know about the Muslim faith, similar restrictions are missing here.
I still think that disqualification from the campaign is a bad choice, it is enough just not to count such posts. In the end, if their product is aimed at all people from all over the world, why discriminate against people who gamble or any group?

If my guess is correct that Cryptomus is founded by a Muslim, it seems that this will be less effective in terms of marketing because in business it is not good if there is something that hinders such as Gender, Ras, Religion, certain groups, etc. (sorry I made this statement in cryptocurrency but sometimes there are real businesses that limit certain groups).

But if I look at this quote:

What is Cryptomus?_______ Cryptomus is a crypto payment gateway and crypto wallet...

Cryptomus is a wallet platform, and I will guess again if the marketing of Cryptomus Wallet (maybe) according to its founder will not be effective if it is marketed in the "Gambling Subforum" section because the basic concept of Gambling is Games and Fun. While the function of Cryptomus is a wallet which basically has the function of storing coins, sending, receiving, staking and farming coins.

[Crypto Library]

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?

Every project have their personal strategy for the promotion may be there is a reason for that strict rules. In my personal opinion this is hardline but I would also want to say that when the gambling project disqualifies the payment of participants when they couldn't require the post in gambling quota then why these kind of rules not should be implemented?
Even then I want to say this quite strict rule.

[ZAINmalik75]

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 agree with you those who want to post in gambling boards will not be able to join this campaign. The best solution to this can be not counting gambling posts and counting others. But for the sake of the campaign if a member is asked to not post in the gambling section and if a member agrees with it then they should apply in that campaign otherwise there is no rule that Royse is breaking by implementing this rule.

Managers make such aggressive rules for the success of the project so if participants agree with the rules they should apply otherwise there are members who don't actually post in gambling section so they can join such a campaign.

[armanda90]

I agree with you those who want to post in gambling boards will not be able to join this campaign. The best solution to this can be not counting gambling posts and counting others. But for the sake of the campaign if a member is asked to not post in the gambling section and if a member agrees with it then they should apply in that campaign otherwise there is no rule that Royse is breaking by implementing this rule.

Managers make such aggressive rules for the success of the project so if participants agree with the rules they should apply otherwise there are members who don't actually post in gambling section so they can join such a campaign.

Its depend on manager campaign rule, we can't assume by our self when appointing which one board have valuable count as post or not. I don't think problem with all campaign manager allowed make post all sub board including in gambling depend their post not dominance in one board only. Separated post on several board and have maximum post allowed in gambling seems its worth regulation.

But keep depend on project rule if some project not gambling platform maybe not allowed make post on gambling, but if project as gambling platform how possibility not make post on gambling board?

[Stompix]

I believe that everyone has the right to determine the rules of their campaign, even if those rules do not make sense to everyone. One sig campaign that was present on BTT for a long time had a rule that you cannot be a member if you have a political opinion on certain things, and actually asked for neutrality and non-participation in political discussions.

Even that makes sense to me, but personally I would never participate in a campaign where I literally have to be careful in which board I write, or if I have to be careful if I write that someone or something is bad/evil just because it is not politically correct for someone.

Yeah, that one was a first, I wonder how Theymos would have felt if he knew about it, him with his freedom of speech and his fright for anyone to voice their opinion despite not agreeing with theirs. I did understand that from the website point of view, especially with all the arrests and defenestration happening in Russia, you don't want a critique of the madman running the country posting stuff with your sig below like he is some employee or else.

Anyhow, it's their campaign, their rules so that's it, it's not the end of the world if you get kicked out of a campaign.

[bee]

The company only doesn't want to be associated with casino activities, managers only want campaign participants from the best posters (regardless of their past activities). I think such a policy is the best middle way that the manager should take so that the business deal can be started.
The point is, as long as the strict rules are conveyed transparently before the campaign starts, then it is okay. You apply, you agree to the rules.

[Z-tight]

The rule is unnecessary, like a lot of people have already said, they should simply not count posts made in the gambling section. However, i believe the company has sonething against gambling, for those of us in BTT, we remember what happened when they launched a campaign for the first time. Now they decided to make things clearer, but i still consider the rule to be harsh.

[bayu7adi]

If that is the rule, managers should not look for participants who have posted anything on gambling boards.. because, previous posts before joining the campaign can still be read by anyone here, and what applies is the current active signature. Or another option is to enforce the deletion of previous posts related to gambling for prospective participants so that the campaign platform is completely free from any association with gambling.

Finally, it comes back to prospective participants, if they agree with the rule, take it. If they don't agree, leave it.

[NotATether]

Guys, it's cryptomus, it does not have anything to do with the campaign manager.

If you don't like it then don't apply. It's not like this forum even has a functioning gambling board anyway. I mean to say, if the board on Bitcointalk looks like your average Altcoinstalks board, imagine what this one looks like.

Payment processors generally do not like to deal with gambling operations anyway.

[examplens]

Guys, it's cryptomus, it does not have anything to do with the campaign manager.

If you don't like it then don't apply. It's not like this forum even has a functioning gambling board anyway. I mean to say, if the board on Bitcointalk looks like your average Altcoinstalks board, imagine what this one looks like.

Payment processors generally do not like to deal with gambling operations anyway.

I completely agree with you, but it is quite twisted that they will ban users from the campaign who write something in the gambling section. Therefore, it is not enough just to count the posts.
Otherwise, on their website, I did not find any clear information that their service cannot be used in gambling programs. If they are so strictly against gambling, it would be expected that something like that is highlighted in their TOS