Is raffling an NFT for free breaking any forum rules in the collectables section

[krogoth]

  Would like to get some clarity on free NFT raffles in the collectables section.

  I would like to create a free raffle in the collectables section where the winner wins an NFT. Will this break any forum rules?

  Thanks!

[1714859254]

1714859254

[1714859254]

1714859254

[1714859254]

1714859254

[1714859254]

1714859254

[jackg]

I don't think it will but it might be moved to the altcoin section because you're raffling off an NFT. Although if you plan on making the raffle free, it'll probably experience less moderation anyway.

It might be one of those things you'll just have to try and see what happens to it (unless a mod confirms either way here).

[krogoth]

I don't think it will but it might be moved to the altcoin section because you're raffling off an NFT. Although if you plan on making the raffle free, it'll probably experience less moderation anyway.

It might be one of those things you'll just have to try and see what happens to it (unless a mod confirms either way here).

     Thanks for the reply....but why would it be moved to the alt section when there are collectable items sodl with alt coins?

     Also it is the collectables section after all, regardless of what is being sold or raffled, and an NFT is a collectable item.

[Welsh]

    Thanks for the reply....but why would it be moved to the alt section when there are collectable items sodl with alt coins?

     Also it is the collectables section after all, regardless of what is being sold or raffled, and an NFT is a collectable item.

If you were selling tickets for Bitcoin, that might mean its more suited to the Bitcoin section since the collectibles section is indeed in the main Bitcoin marketplace section. The only other option is contacting the dedicated moderators there, and see what they think.

Personally, I would think if you were selling tickets for Bitcoin, then you could probably put it in that section without much of a problem. Due to it being a raffle for free entries, and then the actual thing being raffled being more related to altcoins than Bitcoin, it probably does fit in the Altcoin section better.

Many things in the collectibles section aren't strictly related to Bitcoin, but are using Bitcoin as a method of payment, and therefore are on topic in that section. Its a bit like the services section in that regard where services could be related to theoretically anything, but must be accepting Bitcoin as a payment method to be on topic.

[krogoth]

    Thanks for the reply....but why would it be moved to the alt section when there are collectable items sodl with alt coins?

     Also it is the collectables section after all, regardless of what is being sold or raffled, and an NFT is a collectable item.

If you were selling tickets for Bitcoin, that might mean its more suited to the Bitcoin section since the collectibles section is indeed in the main Bitcoin marketplace section. The only other option is contacting the dedicated moderators there, and see what they think.

  I was told to open a thread here in Meta by one moderator.

  So if I charged tickets for the raffle in bitcoin I can leave in the collectables, but if for free I have to goto the alts?

[Welsh]

 I was told to open a thread here in Meta by one moderator.

  So if I charged tickets for the raffle in bitcoin I can leave in the collectables, but if for free I have to goto the alts?

I'm going by my interpretation of the following;

Collectibles (child board of Goods) - Trades of physical collectible items ("Including physical Bitcoin coins" as the board's subtext states). If you are selling these collectibles on another site (e.g. have an online store), it doesn't belong here.

Digital goods (child board of Goods) - Trades of digital goods on-forum for Bitcoin (except for invites and accounts). If you are selling goods on another site (e.g. have an online store), it doesn't belong here.

Invites & Accounts (child board of Digital goods) - Trades of site invites and accounts. If you are selling accounts on another site (e.g. have an online store), it doesn't belong here.

Computer hardware (child board of Goods) - Trades of mining hardware on-forum for Bitcoin. If you are selling goods on another site (e.g. have an online store), it doesn't belong here.

Services (child board of Goods) - Services provided/demanded on-forum for Bitcoin. If you are providing/demanding services on another site (e.g. have a hosting site), it doesn't belong here.

Basically, all of the sections within the main Bitcoin sections are requiring the trade to be at least related to Bitcoin, usually by having it paid for via Bitcoin. Since, all sections have "for Bitcoin" or as a matter of fact the collectibles section actually states it being a Bitcoin physical collectible. By this definition its not suited to the collectibles section.

Then, I'm just trying to think where this would be most appropriate, since its a free raffle, doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin, you could argue it could go in the off topic section, though personally I'd say that it being a NFT, while still being a free raffle it probably is more suited to that section simply because it includes a NFT.

The only reason I suggested contacting the dedicated moderators is because sometimes certain things are waived from time to time. For example, theymos allowed this thread here to remain in another section which it didn't typically suit. Maybe, due to the circumstances of it being a free raffle, an exception like the above could be made following the reply from theymos.

[krogoth]

 I was told to open a thread here in Meta by one moderator.

  So if I charged tickets for the raffle in bitcoin I can leave in the collectables, but if for free I have to goto the alts?

I'm going by my interpretation of the following;

Collectibles (child board of Goods) - Trades of physical collectible items ("Including physical Bitcoin coins" as the board's subtext states). If you are selling these collectibles on another site (e.g. have an online store), it doesn't belong here.

Digital goods (child board of Goods) - Trades of digital goods on-forum for Bitcoin (except for invites and accounts). If you are selling goods on another site (e.g. have an online store), it doesn't belong here.

Invites & Accounts (child board of Digital goods) - Trades of site invites and accounts. If you are selling accounts on another site (e.g. have an online store), it doesn't belong here.

Computer hardware (child board of Goods) - Trades of mining hardware on-forum for Bitcoin. If you are selling goods on another site (e.g. have an online store), it doesn't belong here.

Services (child board of Goods) - Services provided/demanded on-forum for Bitcoin. If you are providing/demanding services on another site (e.g. have a hosting site), it doesn't belong here.

Basically, all of the sections within the main Bitcoin sections are requiring the trade to be at least related to Bitcoin, usually by having it paid for via Bitcoin. Since, all sections have "for Bitcoin" or as a matter of fact the collectibles section actually states it being a Bitcoin physical collectible. By this definition its not suited to the collectibles section.

Then, I'm just trying to think where this would be most appropriate, since its a free raffle, doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin, you could argue it could go in the off topic section, though personally I'd say that it being a NFT, while still being a free raffle it probably is more suited to that section simply because it includes a NFT.

The only reason I suggested contacting the dedicated moderators is because sometimes certain things are waived from time to time. For example, theymos allowed this thread here to remain in another section which it didn't typically suit. Maybe, due to the circumstances of it being a free raffle, an exception like the above could be made following the reply from theymos.

    Fair enough. Well its the collectables community loss that they will not receive any free NFTs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    I have done over 400 free raffles  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3910520.0 giving away free physical coins and those were removed from the collectables section and placed in gambling for whatever reason, as this had nothing to do with gambling....all because it was fun for me to do and also giving back to the collectable community which I have been a part of for many years now.

   

[LoyceV]

Due to it being a raffle for free entries, and then the actual thing being raffled being more related to altcoins than Bitcoin, it probably does fit in the Altcoin section better.

Wouldn't that make it an on-forum altcoin giveaway, which can get the creator and anyone who joins a (temporary) ban?
See:

Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections. From now on, posting or replying to such threads could result in being banned. Existing threads will be locked.

Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc. You can do giveaways off-site and link to the giveaway page in a thread, but you can't give people any bonus for replying to your thread.

[mprep]

  Would like to get some clarity on free NFT raffles in the collectables section.

  I would like to create a free raffle in the collectables section where the winner wins an NFT. Will this break any forum rules?

  Thanks!

Yes. See rules 14 and 15 in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0.

-snip-

     Thanks for the reply....but why would it be moved to the alt section when there are collectable items sodl with alt coins?

     Also it is the collectables section after all, regardless of what is being sold or raffled, and an NFT is a collectable item.

If an item is being sold for altcoins (with no option to pay in BTC), that thread should be moved to Marketplace (Altcoins). Feel free to report ("Report to Moderator" link, bottom right side of the post) any such threads. As for it being collectible, see the aforementioned rule 14.

-snip-

If you were selling tickets for Bitcoin, that might mean its more suited to the Bitcoin section since the collectibles section is indeed in the main Bitcoin marketplace section. The only other option is contacting the dedicated moderators there, and see what they think.

Personally, I would think if you were selling tickets for Bitcoin, then you could probably put it in that section without much of a problem. Due to it being a raffle for free entries, and then the actual thing being raffled being more related to altcoins than Bitcoin, it probably does fit in the Altcoin section better.

Many things in the collectibles section aren't strictly related to Bitcoin, but are using Bitcoin as a method of payment, and therefore are on topic in that section. Its a bit like the services section in that regard where services could be related to theoretically anything, but must be accepting Bitcoin as a payment method to be on topic.

NFTs are a tough case cause in the end they are still altcoins and BTC<->Altcoin exchanges already don't belong in the main boards (as opposed to people exchanging BTC<->fiat in the Currency Exchange board). Not sure if there's any precedent for NFTs being an exception when it comes to NFT<->BTC sales (even if they're more lottery / raffle based).

-snip-

  I was told to open a thread here in Meta by one moderator.

  So if I charged tickets for the raffle in bitcoin I can leave in the collectables, but if for free I have to goto the alts?

If you only charged a very nominal amount (one that could be considered as an attempt to dodge the "no on-forum altcoin giveaways" rule) then even the paid one might not be allowed. If you're giving away free entries, you can do that as long as claiming an entry doesn't require you to post on one or more threads (e.g. accepting entries via PM, via off-site forms, etc.)

--snip

    Fair enough. Well its the collectables community loss that they will not receive any free NFTs. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    I have done over 400 free raffles  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3910520.0 giving away free physical coins and those were removed from the collectables section and placed in gambling for whatever reason, as this had nothing to do with gambling....all because it was fun for me to do and also giving back to the collectable community which I have been a part of for many years now.

I'm gonna guess that they were probably placed in Games and Rounds (which is a sub-board of Gambling) as opposed to the Gambling board itself. Technically, all BTC-based giveaway threads that require posting in them to claim an entry belong in Games and Rounds and incentivized posting (be it for BTC or alts) is prohibited outside it. Now, I (prompted by a user's question) did PM theymos a while ago about the raffles in the Collectibles board (since I don't moderate the board as often as I do others and the raffles themselves seem to give away things that are neither BTC nor alts) but I never did receive an answer...

Due to it being a raffle for free entries, and then the actual thing being raffled being more related to altcoins than Bitcoin, it probably does fit in the Altcoin section better.

Wouldn't that make it an on-forum altcoin giveaway, which can get the creator and anyone who joins a (temporary) ban?
See:

Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections. From now on, posting or replying to such threads could result in being banned. Existing threads will be locked.

Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc. You can do giveaways off-site and link to the giveaway page in a thread, but you can't give people any bonus for replying to your thread.

100%

[suchmoon]

Due to it being a raffle for free entries, and then the actual thing being raffled being more related to altcoins than Bitcoin, it probably does fit in the Altcoin section better.

Wouldn't that make it an on-forum altcoin giveaway, which can get the creator and anyone who joins a (temporary) ban?
See:

Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections. From now on, posting or replying to such threads could result in being banned. Existing threads will be locked.

Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc. You can do giveaways off-site and link to the giveaway page in a thread, but you can't give people any bonus for replying to your thread.

100%

Doesn't the second part matter at all anymore? About the incentive to post insubstantial posts? It's not like krogoth is trying to shill his shitcoin project or something.

I'm getting a feeling that for a forum with no written official rules we are swinging the ban hammer way too often for things that don't harm the forum in any conceivable way.

[mprep]

-snip-

Doesn't the second part matter at all anymore? About the incentive to post insubstantial posts? It's not like krogoth is trying to shill his shitcoin project or something.

I'm getting a feeling that for a forum with no written official rules we are swinging the ban hammer way too often for things that don't harm the forum in any conceivable way.

IMO "insubstantial" isn't referring to purely just content but the meaning behind that content. If the second part was removed, it'd, by definition, ban anything that follows the "user posts a post->gets paid in altcoin" routine (which includes entries for bounties such as creating videos or blog posts, signature campaign signups, etc.). AFAIK theymos doesn't want all altcoin bounties banned so the wording stays as it is.

As for "no written official rules" and "swinging the ban hammer way too often", since theymos doesn't want a definitive list of rules for reasons he's outlined in the past it's left up to individual moderators to enforce theymos's policy. Some of that policy is more concrete and based on actual hardline standards theymos has publicly posted in the past (e.g. "no altcoin giveaways"), some of it more ambiguous and up to subjective interpretation (e.g. rules based on past precedent, rules that require evaluating whether something is low value or not, etc.). This distributed enforcement will naturally lead to different moderators being lenient or strict on different aspects of a forum and the combination of those strict judgements is what leads to all the bans being issued.

[suchmoon]

IMO "insubstantial" isn't referring to purely just content but the meaning behind that content. If the second part was removed, it'd, by definition, ban anything that follows the "user posts a post->gets paid in altcoin" routine (which includes entries for bounties such as creating videos or blog posts, signature campaign signups, etc.). AFAIK theymos doesn't want all altcoin bounties banned so the wording stays as it is.

Isn't the intent of that rule to prevent mass-spam-bumping altcoin threads? How does this get twisted into banning something as benign as a free raffle?

[PrimeNumber7]

Due to it being a raffle for free entries, and then the actual thing being raffled being more related to altcoins than Bitcoin, it probably does fit in the Altcoin section better.

Wouldn't that make it an on-forum altcoin giveaway, which can get the creator and anyone who joins a (temporary) ban?

Only if people have to post in the thread in order to claim a spot (which is usually the case for raffles).

If the user needs to send a PM, visit a website and/or fill out a form, the giveaway would not violate the rules, according to my reading of the rules. It would still need to be in the altcoin (tokens) sub though.

[mprep]

Isn't the intent of that rule to prevent mass-spam-bumping altcoin threads?

It's meant to prevent the creation of a large number of completely disposable low value posts within disposable threads:

<...>
Similar threads are already restricted to Games and Rounds in the non-altcoin sections, but the giveaway-related post volume is so high in the altcoin sections that I've decided to just ban them entirely here.
<...>

You could argue social media bounty applications (as well as <insert thing you think is low value yet not prohibited by the forum here>) fall into this criteria as well (and based on my interpretation of the rule some of them do) however theymos hasn't decided (for now) that the negatives of such posts outweigh the positives.

How does this get twisted into banning something as benign as a free raffle?

Because a free raffle giving away NFTs (non fungible tokens) is exactly that - an altcoin giveaway that generates a large amount of low value posts. Anyone can pick an altcoin, deploy their NFT for cheap on a non-congested blockchain and then give it away as an attempt to promote their project or business. The pieces are all the same - (1) large amount of low value replies (2) in exchange for an altcoin (or a possibility to get an altcoin).

As I mentioned in my first post (and as PrimeNumber7 pointed out in his), you can sidestep the entire rule by simply accepting entries via PM or off-site (e.g. via Google Forms).

[suchmoon]

Because a free raffle giving away NFTs (non fungible tokens) is exactly that - an altcoin giveaway that generates a large amount of low value posts. Anyone can pick an altcoin, deploy their NFT for cheap on a non-congested blockchain and then give it away as an attempt to promote their project or business. The pieces are all the same - (1) large amount of low value replies (2) in exchange for an altcoin (or a possibility to get an altcoin).

Come on now, slippery slope argument, really?

Do you honestly believe that this is what krogoth intends to do?

[Welsh]

Due to it being a raffle for free entries, and then the actual thing being raffled being more related to altcoins than Bitcoin, it probably does fit in the Altcoin section better.

Wouldn't that make it an on-forum altcoin giveaway, which can get the creator and anyone who joins a (temporary) ban?

Probably right. Definitely overlooked that in this instance. I don't think krogoth was looking to do the usual giveaway though, and it was probably going to be very much like the existing raffles over in the collectibles section. I'll be honest I'm not totally familar with how they usually run over in that section since I rarely deal with reports there. Depending on how Krogoth or anyone else for that matter decided to run it could potentially be conflicting with the rules set out about giveaways.

The key part is; NFT, and free entry. If it was over a physical Bitcoin item it wouldn't be a problem, its the fact that the Altcoin section has a history of giveaways becoming problematic, and believe you me the section is rather overrun in spam despite the ongoing moderation there. Obviously, mprep mentioned it using a nominal fee in order to sidestep the rule probably wouldn't float that well here either.

[mprep]

Because a free raffle giving away NFTs (non fungible tokens) is exactly that - an altcoin giveaway that generates a large amount of low value posts. Anyone can pick an altcoin, deploy their NFT for cheap on a non-congested blockchain and then give it away as an attempt to promote their project or business. The pieces are all the same - (1) large amount of low value replies (2) in exchange for an altcoin (or a possibility to get an altcoin).

Come on now, slippery slope argument, really?

Do you honestly believe that this is what krogoth intends to do?

I don't think I understand. There is no slippery slope - NFTs are altcoins. In theymos's pinned thread about prohibiting altcoin giveaways, he didn't specify whether tokens (altcoins that run on an existing coin's blockchain) count, but IMO it's pretty clear that they do. Unless he says otherwise for NFTs, I don't think that whether a coin / token is fungible or not is relevant here either.

Do you think the rules (or at least this rule) should not apply to reputable / well known / experienced users? If so, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on how rules should be applied. While AFAIK theymos has on several occasions mentioned more lax punishments for long time members when it comes to serious offenses (e.g. a long time value-add user might not get permabanned for plagiarism but instead given a temp ban + a long signature ban) which I can totally understand, I don't think reputable / well known / long time users not being subject to pretty clear cut rules with a rather harsh punishment would set a good precedent.

[OgNasty]

There are so many NFT giveaways these days on Twitter and Instagram.  I read an article recently that someone made $500,000 last year just claiming free NFT offerings and airdrops.  Odd that we wouldn't want to bring this sort of revenue here to benefit the forum's users and vendors.

Maybe it is time to add NFT and/or giveaway child boards to the altcoins sections?  I have friends I've been trying to get to buy Bitcoin for 10 years now that had no interest but are excited about NFTs.  It's the first crypto offering that I've seen any "normies" care about at all.  A shame that it can't even be discussed properly here.  I get that this is a Bitcoin forum, but maybe supporting the overall innovation of the crypto industry might not be a bad thing?  At some point I assume the Lightning network will be developed and have a robust NFT market.  I guess we are to wait until then before discussing this innovation and hope that we are able to catch up?

[suchmoon]

I don't think I understand. There is no slippery slope - NFTs are altcoins. In theymos's pinned thread about prohibiting altcoin giveaways, he didn't specify whether tokens (altcoins that run on an existing coin's blockchain) count, but IMO it's pretty clear that they do. Unless he says otherwise for NFTs, I don't think that whether a coin / token is fungible or not is relevant here either.

I think there is a huge difference between what krogoth wanted to do and "pick an altcoin, deploy their NFT for cheap on a non-congested blockchain and then give it away as an attempt to promote their project or business". This isn't about giving someone a pass on breaking the rules, this is about the intent of the rules and the intent of the person doing the raffle. It'd be like banning me for plagiarism for copying your words above. Because someone else somewhere might copy words for nefarious purposes. And the rules don't specify that double quotes are allowed.

[mprep]

I don't think I understand. There is no slippery slope - NFTs are altcoins. In theymos's pinned thread about prohibiting altcoin giveaways, he didn't specify whether tokens (altcoins that run on an existing coin's blockchain) count, but IMO it's pretty clear that they do. Unless he says otherwise for NFTs, I don't think that whether a coin / token is fungible or not is relevant here either.

I think there is a huge difference between what krogoth wanted to do and "pick an altcoin, deploy their NFT for cheap on a non-congested blockchain and then give it away as an attempt to promote their project or business". This isn't about giving someone a pass on breaking the rules, this is about the intent of the rules and the intent of the person doing the raffle. It'd be like banning me for plagiarism for copying your words above. Because someone else somewhere might copy words for nefarious purposes. And the rules don't specify that double quotes are allowed.

There are plenty of users who had pure intentions when giving away altcoins: they just wanted to give away actual money to promote crypto use (doing so via an established altcoin), they made a new experimental coin with actually innovative features and want to give other users some coins to test these features / uncover bugs, etc. The rule is not about intent, it's about the result of such actions - high volume of very low value disposable posts. If theymos set out to provide exceptions for certain cases (e.g. community-focused or genuinely altruistic giveaways), he would've done so and documented said exceptions somewhere. AFAIK he didn't so instead we have a blanket ban on altcoin giveaways that incentivize posting, no matter how pure or innocent the intentions are.

And I can understand why - it's not always easy to determine a person's intentions and even if you can, allowing some altcoin giveaways will make quite a few people think that all altcoin giveaways are allowed. There's a reason as to why I made and maintain the unofficial list of rules - when it comes to rules and forum policy, ignorance is usually a bigger issue than malice. Whether we like it or not, quite a few (if not most) people on this forum will never read my thread or any other content stickied by admins / moderators. A lot of them are going to learn through observation and what they will observe is a bunch of altcoin giveaways being run without any issue. Now, if theymos were to decide that these exceptions are important enough to warrant the potential confusion and increased complexity of forum policy, then sure. But AFAIK there is nothing of the sort that suggests that is the case.

You're free to disagree with the rule and attempt to get it changed, but in that case you're better off PMing theymos instead of discussing it with someone who can't change forum policy.

[LoyceV]

I don't think reputable / well known / long time users not being subject to pretty clear cut rules with a rather harsh punishment would set a good precedent.

The way I see it: altcoin giveaways aren't allowed because of the spam they cause. Krogothmanhattan's giveaways in Collectibles are appreciated by (most of) the users on that board. I wouldn't see it as an exception for a long time user, I'd see it as an exception for a user who has proven to be appreciated by other forum users. And honestly, I can't get why thousands of brainless posts spamming Twitter and Facebook links aren't worse than this.
That being said: I do appreciate you strictly apply the same rules to all users.

The rule is not about intent, it's about the result of such actions - high volume of very low value disposable posts.

What if it's limited to only 16 or 100 users who can join? I've seen topics with much more replies for a small amount of Bitcoin (which is allowed in Games and rounds).

You're free to disagree with the rule and attempt to get it changed

I tried. It failed.

[jackg]

There are plenty of users who had pure intentions when giving away altcoins: they just wanted to give away actual money to promote crypto use (doing so via an established altcoin), they made a new experimental coin with actually innovative features and want to give other users some coins to test these features / uncover bugs, etc. The rule is not about intent, it's about the result of such actions - high volume of very low value disposable posts. If theymos set out to provide exceptions for certain cases (e.g. community-focused or genuinely altruistic giveaways), he would've done so and documented said exceptions somewhere. AFAIK he didn't so instead we have a blanket ban on altcoin giveaways that incentivize posting, no matter how pure or innocent the intentions are.

The forum might want to get better at deciding whether it wants to maintain its "we only have unofficial rules" stance.

The dark gray area might want to have a label on the topics that might've been approved by a mod and wouldn't ordinarily be allowed.

For example: "this topic violates rules 14 or 15, however the community elected to keep this topic where it was as they think this users' interpretations of the rules benefit the forum." - even if it worked a bit like the trust system so the mods don't get too full of stuff to do. Or just don't make them visible to certain users (such as: anyone under 100 distinct merit transactions or full/Sr members if you really want to avoid spam).


I'll get a bunch of sassy and sarky responses from this but we could maybe try to express some slight affinity towards users and notice them a bit. Krogoth has done a lot of free raffles and given a lot back to the forum, it'd be nice for the community to try to look into users' histories a bit before posting.

[Pmalek]

The forum might want to get better at deciding whether it wants to maintain its "we only have unofficial rules" stance.

The rules are official, it's the list that mprep made that is unofficial.
The way I see it. If I am not allowed to give away altcoin A, you shouldn't be allowed to give away altcoin B. If altcoin B can't be given away, altcoins C and D shouldn't be either.
I wouldn't have anything against the idea, same way as I wouldn't mind people give away altcoins if that is what they desire. But, it's not allowed.

[mprep]

I don't think reputable / well known / long time users not being subject to pretty clear cut rules with a rather harsh punishment would set a good precedent.

The way I see it: altcoin giveaways aren't allowed because of the spam they cause. Krogothmanhattan's giveaways in Collectibles are appreciated by (most of) the users on that board. I wouldn't see it as an exception for a long time user, I'd see it as an exception for a user who has proven to be appreciated by other forum users. And honestly, I can't get why thousands of brainless posts spamming Twitter and Facebook links aren't worse than this.
That being said: I do appreciate you strictly apply the same rules to all users.
<...>

As theymos has pointed out multiple times, he doesn't believe in definitive lists of rules or rule of law when it comes to forum policy. He's (publicly) made exceptions for certain rules in certain cases (e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5346118.0 being allowed to stay in Speculation). However, AFAIK he hasn't made any exceptions when it comes to running altcoin giveaways. If he did, that's fine and Krogothmanhattan would be free to run his NFT giveaway with no issues. While I personally think that making exceptions to hardline rules with harsh punishments (as opposed to maybe making the punishment more lax) for reputable / well respected / long time / <insert other criteria of notability here> users is a bad idea, I'm not the owner of Bitcointalk nor would I be arrogant enough to claim to know everything about what it takes to manage a community as old and as large as this forum.

The rule is not about intent, it's about the result of such actions - high volume of very low value disposable posts.

What if it's limited to only 16 or 100 users who can join? I've seen topics with much more replies for a small amount of Bitcoin (which is allowed in Games and rounds).

People would find ways to bypass the restrictions by framing giveaways as a series of giveaways (one ends, another begins), splitting giveaways across alts, etc. If we were to exempt certain giveaways from the "no altcoin giveaways" rule, IMO it should lean more on subjective measures (e.g. allowing community-focused or genuinely altruistic giveaways), rather than objective. While objective measures are usually much better (especially when it comes to clarity, consistent enforcement, reducing rule complexity and just general fairness), creating a hole in this rule gives bad actors a pretty big incentive (and ability) to game whichever objective measure was set. Sure, moderators would interpret the exceptions differently but users are free to appeal moderator decisions and over time what's allowed and what's not would start to emerge in a more concrete way.

You're free to disagree with the rule and attempt to get it changed

I tried. It failed.

Unless theymos is ideologically (or in some way practically) against altcoin giveaways, it makes sense for the rule to exist as it is right now. However, post bumping changes made to some boards, I think making a "Games and Rounds (Altcoins)" board, strapping the new bumping system to it and restricting all incentivized posting in exchange for altcoins to that board shouldn't cause any major issues with spam. I can, however, see a couple of other (practical) reasons as to why he might not want to do that - (potentially) degraded quality of Google search results and the additional load on the database servers come to mind. But if neither of those are an issue and theymos isn't against the concept itself, I personally wouldn't be against such a change.

There are plenty of users who had pure intentions when giving away altcoins: they just wanted to give away actual money to promote crypto use (doing so via an established altcoin), they made a new experimental coin with actually innovative features and want to give other users some coins to test these features / uncover bugs, etc. The rule is not about intent, it's about the result of such actions - high volume of very low value disposable posts. If theymos set out to provide exceptions for certain cases (e.g. community-focused or genuinely altruistic giveaways), he would've done so and documented said exceptions somewhere. AFAIK he didn't so instead we have a blanket ban on altcoin giveaways that incentivize posting, no matter how pure or innocent the intentions are.

The forum might want to get better at deciding whether it wants to maintain its "we only have unofficial rules" stance.

The dark gray area might want to have a label on the topics that might've been approved by a mod and wouldn't ordinarily be allowed.

For example: "this topic violates rules 14 or 15, however the community elected to keep this topic where it was as they think this users' interpretations of the rules benefit the forum." - even if it worked a bit like the trust system so the mods don't get too full of stuff to do. Or just don't make them visible to certain users (such as: anyone under 100 distinct merit transactions or full/Sr members if you really want to avoid spam).


I'll get a bunch of sassy and sarky responses from this but we could maybe try to express some slight affinity towards users and notice them a bit. Krogoth has done a lot of free raffles and given a lot back to the forum, it'd be nice for the community to try to look into users' histories a bit before posting.

There are official rules, they just aren't (officially) framed in such a way that you would expect. Due to theymos's aforementioned attitude towards definitive lists of rules, the actual rules are more of a loose collection of policies left up to the moderators to interpret. Some of them are more concrete (e.g. hardline "no, you can't do this" rules posted and usually stickied in a board by theymos), others - more up to interpretation (e.g no trolling or https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=749961.0). Each of those policies are subject to a moderator's discretion through assessment of individual situations. What my (unofficial) thread attempts to achieve is to compile all these loose policies and lay them out. When I notice a pattern in enforcement (e.g. when X situation occurs, pretty much all moderators do Y), I can drill down a more abstract policy to a more concrete rule. For some policies (e.g. "no off-topic posts.") there is no easily discernible pattern hence why they stay at that vague level of abstraction.

You could ask: how is a person supposed to learn all these loose policies without relying on an unofficial resource made by a 3rd party ? Well... lurk, I guess. It's definitely not ideal (hence my unofficial thread), but it is an option. Reading around different boards for several months (on and off) will give you a general understanding of how the forum functions. If you're already an experienced user but mostly hang around in a few boards, you're free to lurk in whichever board you intend to post in next.

As for exceptions, just editing in a moderator's / administrator's note that "this thread is an exception and shouldn't be trashed or moved" I think is sufficient for the exceptions that are usually made. Any substantial modifications to the current forum software are probably gonna be a no go though (at least based on what I've seen of similar community suggestions).