Subject review and feedback

[AB de Royse777]

I am running a review campaign for a mixer, yet to approve the qualified users though. The job is to explore the mixer, test their service, take notes of any bugs to fix, functionality that can be improved, take notes of the way the service could have better user interface, and anything else that you think is vital to improve their mixer. Then in their ANN thread give a review of your experience, tell them what you found, things you liked and disliked, give them suggestions or extreme criticism to improve their service. They will take your feedback and revamp the site if it needed. They want a community based mixer to serve the community.

For the time a user will put into their site then to write the feedback and suggestions, they would like to honor 20 $BTC for each. That's all for the campaign. I am holding 750 $BTC to secure the payment that is required for testing.

I am pretty sure that this campaign is not violating any the forum rule. There is a rule about giveaway but it's for Alternate cryptocurrencies especially when giving users incentive to post insubstantial posts. But icopress (thanks bud) raised a concern which is giving me a kick to reassure with the rule just to avoid any unnecessary confusion. However, still my interpretation seem correct. I am quoting the rule that will be found in  Altcoin Discussion board.

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.

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.

I would like your input to find a consensus in case we do not hear from any official of the forum. Do you think this campaign is breaking this rule that is applied for Alternate cryptocurrencies sections and for insubstantial posts?

Code:

No
Yes
Confused

Also please give me a brief reason to back your vote too.
Hero+ members who have at - least 500 earned merits please.
Minimum 10 votes to reach consensus

Cheers,

My vote is: No
The campaign is not asking for insubstantial posts rather a full user experience of the site. It's asking to review and suggestions to improve their service. Besides it's a BTC paying campaign which is why in the Service Section. There in no way this is going to generate spam since participants will be selected before then test the site, it's just like a BTC paying signature campaign difference is you are not asked to post x amount each week but review a service and share the experience.

[Coyster]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5196634.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140688
The campaign is just fine, i used the search button and above is a few threads similar to yours and there was no problem raised with them as far as i know, your campaign is also in the correct section just like those above, and is likewise paying in Bitcoin; the only problem i could possibly think of would be the sort of review users would be posting, but that should not be a problem as i am pretty sure you will moderate that and ensure volunteers for this review do not post insubstantial stuff, but genuine review of what they experienced while testing the site. I have been on the forum for a while and i have seen this sort of "pay for reviews" a few times without any eyebrows being raised, i expect the same for yours too.

[BlackHatCoiner]

This has already been done with MyCryptoMixer in the past and there weren't any problems, so I suppose it's okay. However, I hadn't read that restriction.

Perhaps theymos could enlighten us here.

[tranthidung]

I think the rule is against bumping service, not against user reviews. If review posts are authentic, they should be accepted.

In addition, it is unaccepted if the payment method is altcoin. Theymos stop altcoin giveaway years ago to avoid scam exposure in the forum community as much as possible.

• Altcoin give-away rule results in temporary bans. Read before posting. Some banned cases and answers from global moderators.

[Bttzed03]

From the Swapmixer link posted by @Coyster:

~
Step 4. Write your review on the announcement thread. It must be more than 125 characters. (Review about your experience, how easy it was, speed, etc). Include your BTC address.

UniJoin rules:

~
- Write constructive review and your suggestions in their ANN thread within the next 4 weeks (deadline will be given on the next post).

In Swapmixer, their ANN has not been taken down and I don't recall anyone getting banned temporarily for posting their reviews. It is safe to assume that what they did wasn't against the forum rules. The same treatment should be applied to UniJoin which has similar rules. No, not in violation.

[icopress]

Sorry guys but I don't agree with one of you, although I don't deny that you may be right in part. You and I can interpret the unofficial rules however we like, but the truth is that I personally equate such comments with bumping (no matter how meaningful the posts are). If a project really wants to get independent feedback, then for this you should create a separate thread and improve your service or product based on such feedback. I also find it acceptable to encourage users to leave constructive feedback if the user adds a note to the comment. A note that will say that the user received payment for a particular comment.

Otherwise, an ordinary user visiting the main thread of a project will think that all these comments from trusted participants are organic, which means the project is reliable. Whatever it was, if paid constructive comments were indeed allowed in ANN threads, then campaign managers would use this loophole and indicate this in the rules, something in the spirit (make a minimum of 2 constructive posts ...). In addition, if a global mod appears in this thread and says that such actions are allowed, then I, in turn, will regard this as another marketing trick that can be adopted.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Otherwise, an ordinary user visiting the main thread of a project will think that all these comments from trusted participants are organic, which means the project is reliable.

You make it sound as if the paid participants would necessarily lie or mislead, just to fulfill the requirement. I've written feedback, and have got paid to do so, but I was as objective and sharply critic as possible.

Yes, it would be, indeed, another marketing trick, but I'm not convinced by the downsides.

[mprep]

If their ANN thread is outside Games and Rounds, yes, it's breaking the rules. Some examples from various rule-related posts around the forum (emphasis added by me):

Games and rounds (child board of Gambling) - "Spreadsheet games, forum-based games, and discussion of individual rounds/games on other sites." All Bitcoin giveaways, raffles, contests also go here.

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.

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.

To be specific, I'm referring to "Post in this thread for free x". That belongs in Games and Rounds. Though it isn't limited to that, in general you shouldn't be giving people incentives to post in your thread, it's disruptive to actual discussion.

(all threads are stickies in their respective boards)

[LoyceV]

Games and rounds (child board of Gambling) - "Spreadsheet games, forum-based games, and discussion of individual rounds/games on other sites." All Bitcoin giveaways, raffles, contests also go here.

But it's not a game, nor a contest or raffle. It's a review, which belongs in the ANN thread on the Services Announcement board.

Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections.

This is posted in Altcoin Discussion, and specifically points out the problems caused by large numbers of insubstantial giveaway posts. I'd argue that's not relevant here.

If this really isn't allowed by the rules, then I have broken the rules several times in the past. Sorry for that, it was unintentional. But I'd love to see this rule change: paying a small number of serious users some Bitcoin to write a review is not what lead to giveaways being banned.

When ChipMixer was looking for alpha testers, they asked people to PM them. That could work for OP's campaign too: they'll still get to read the reviews, but it won't lead to extra publicity.

[mprep]

Games and rounds (child board of Gambling) - "Spreadsheet games, forum-based games, and discussion of individual rounds/games on other sites." All Bitcoin giveaways, raffles, contests also go here.

But it's not a game, nor a contest or raffle. It's a review, which belongs in the ANN thread on the Services Announcement board.

Most giveaway threads are no longer allowed in the Alternate cryptocurrencies sections.

This is posted in Altcoin Discussion, and specifically points out the problems caused by large numbers of insubstantial giveaway posts. I'd argue that's not relevant here.

If this really isn't allowed by the rules, then I have broken the rules several times in the past. Sorry for that, it was unintentional. But I'd love to see this rule change: paying a small number of serious users some Bitcoin to write a review is not what lead to giveaways being banned.

When ChipMixer was looking for alpha testers, they asked people to PM them. That could work for OP's campaign too: they'll still get to read the reviews, but it won't lead to extra publicity.

It's moreso a thread with incentivized posting in exchange for BTC being off-topic in boards outside Games and Rounds so any such reported giveaways simply get moved there so it's not nearly as big of a deal as incentivized posting for altcoins. As for a rule change, you're going to have to appeal to theymos as I don't have the power to change policy.

[AB de Royse777]

It's moreso a thread with incentivized posting in exchange for BTC being off-topic in boards outside Games and Rounds so any such reported giveaways simply get moved there so it's not nearly as big of a deal as incentivized posting for altcoins.

With due respect you are confusing me and possibly others too. Is this your personal opinion how you look into it or there are a clear direction from forum moderation board and theymos - are you acting on behalf of the entire staffs?

So far except you and icopress is interpreting it other way round where seven of us (Coyster, BlackHatCoiner, tranthidung, Bttzed03, BlackHatCoiner, LoyceV and me) think it's not going to apply the rule that was specifically declared for Alternate cryptocurrencies sections and insubstantial posts that encourage spam in an usual giveaway thread we used to see. Those were like post your username and we will award you some pointless tokens. Frankly speaking you can not tell any of us who thinks it's just fine are not familiar with forum standard and rules. It's now 7 against 2 LOL

Besides, we have already seen many services (several mixers and even those 1Xbdt scammers too) paid for genuine feedback to improve their service, isn't that creating a conflict, a conflict of standard that you just explained? What do you suggest if a bitcoin service genuinely wants to take community inputs and discuss to improve their user experience? I hope you are not saying that no we do not need any bitcoin service, just hold what you have and let bitcoin be lost in the wallets. Or I am an alien from the spaceship trying to read your old school signals but struggling to figure it out before eventually invading the bitcoin community? :-D

Looking forward to hear from you.

[mprep]

Is this your personal opinion how you look into it or there are a clear direction from forum moderation board and theymos - are you acting on behalf of the entire staffs?

A bit of both. Incentivized posting in specific threads in exchange for BTC is usually (I'll come back to that) restricted to Games and Rounds. If someone reported an ANN thread that was involved in an incentivized posting campaign, I'd probably move it to Games and Rounds and have seen similar things done by other moderators. What the consensus is I don't know - as with all rules on Bitcointalk, there's a ton of gray areas and different enforcement by different moderators.

So far except you and icopress is interpreting it other way round where seven of us (Coyster, BlackHatCoiner, tranthidung, Bttzed03, BlackHatCoiner, LoyceV and me) think it's not going to apply the rule that was specifically declared for Alternate cryptocurrencies sections and insubstantial posts that encourage spam in an usual giveaway thread we used to see. Those were like post your username and we will award you some pointless tokens. Frankly speaking you can not tell any of us who thinks it's just fine are not familiar with forum standard and rules. It's now 7 against 2 LOL

Neither of whom are moderators. What you (and those 6 other users) are interpreting is an "unofficial list" maintained by me at my own initiative and on my own free time that (by it's own admission at the very top) is "meant to serve as a reference/educational/informational thread, NOT a rock solid list of rules". The entire reason as to why that thread exists is written down at the top as well (additional emphasis added by me):

Recently I noticed that a lot of new members don't know all the rules and I don't (usually) blame them since not all rules are written and even those written down can be overlooked by users who don't pay much attention to some stickies in select boards

Besides, we have already seen many services (several mixers and even those 1Xbdt scammers too) paid for genuine feedback to improve their service, isn't that creating a conflict, a conflict of standard that you just explained? What do you suggest if a bitcoin service genuinely wants to take community inputs and discuss to improve their user experience? I hope you are not saying that no we do not need any bitcoin service, just hold what you have and let bitcoin be lost in the wallets. Or I am an alien from the spaceship trying to read your old school signals but struggling to figure it out before eventually invading the bitcoin community? :-D

Coming back to that "usually", now if you were to pay for feedback about your site, you can argue that what you are paying for is more akin to a service rather than a giveaway / game / raffle / etc. In that case, a thread in Services that collects said feedback and pays out for said feedback in BTC is probably on topic (as long as it isn't trying to circumvent the rules with the feedback being just the word "good" or "bad"). However, asking for that feedback to be posted on an ANN thread seems more like a ploy to pump up the ANN thread with activity / posts rather than a legitimate attempt at getting constructive feedback.

[bitbollo]

My vote is: No
A few years ago I have participated in an evaluation of a service practically identical to the one you propose in which they were asked to test their mixer. Here you can find the topic for reference.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140688.0

-   All participants need to have Senior or higher rank (Hurry up! We will offer free testing opportunity ONLY for first twenty members who will write to us)
-   Reply us on this thread with the readiness to participate and  send us your btc address in private message to which we will send you money for mixing
-   Perform mixing with this exact amount (0,0015 BTC) on our website  https://[banned mixer] or its TOR version  mixtum5lbuslyow2.onion. Choose “Mix my coins” option, but not “Try now for free”.  By the way, you may mix any amount but not less than 0,001 BTC
-   Publish your review about the [banned mixer] service in this topic.  This review should contain at least 300 characters. Comment on the speed, accuracy, user interface, website design

At this point, I don't think your offer violate the forum rules. Among other things, this is a bitcoin and not an altcoin service/review... at least to me it sounds pretty on topic.

[Upgrade00]

My vote is: No
A few years ago I have participated in an evaluation of a service practically identical to the one you propose in which they were asked to test their mixer. Here you can find the topic for reference.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140688.0

The major difference between this two scenarios is that the one you linked asked that the review be posted on that exact topic in services, while this one which is being discussed is referring participants to their ANN thread. That's the clause which gives the impression that participants are being motivated to post in their ANN thread; boosting discussions.

[Coyster]

Neither of whom are moderators. What you (and those 6 other users) are interpreting is an "unofficial list" maintained by me at my own initiative and on my own free time that (by it's own admission at the very top) is "meant to serve as a reference/educational/informational thread, NOT a rock solid list of rules". The entire reason as to why that thread exists is written down at the top as well (additional emphasis added by me):

And the said 'unofficial list' is pretty much what every user has read and understood to be rules guiding the forum, i know it is written as 'unofficial', but let us be honest, that list is where most users get their interpretation of Bitcointalk rules, even when new users join the forum, that it is the thread they are directed to read in order to understand the forum rules and what have you. What am i saying? Since that thread has existed for a pretty long time, was written by a global mod and pinned in the meta section, it can pass to be a 'rock solid' set of btt rules, cause i do not think there is going to be another, now or in the future. And having said that, whatever interpretation made from ones understanding of that thread should be correct.

Coming back to that "usually", now if you were to pay for feedback about your site, you can argue that what you are paying for is more akin to a service rather than a giveaway / game / raffle / etc. In that case, a thread in Services that collects said feedback and pays out for said feedback in BTC is probably on topic (as long as it isn't trying to circumvent the rules with the feedback being just the word "good" or "bad"). However, asking for that feedback to be posted on an ANN thread seems more like a ploy to pump up the ANN thread with activity / posts rather than a legitimate attempt at getting constructive feedback.

If i understood you correctly, you are saying that if the feedbacks were to be posted on OP's thread in the service section then it would be just fine, but since OP isn't basically just choosing any user, but those he feels are constructive posters and would actually make substantial feedback in their ANN thread would that still be a problem? Then again, i have paid particular cognizance to your use of the word "usually", but i still have to say that i have seen a few sites run their pay for review in the same way as OP did and can be found in one of the links i posted above, but there was no eyebrows raised then, any particular reason why?

[mprep]

And the said 'unofficial list' is pretty much what every user has read and understood to be rules guiding the forum, i know it is written as 'unofficial', but let us be honest, that list is where most users get their interpretation of Bitcointalk rules, even when new users join the forum, that it is the thread they are directed to read in order to understand the forum rules and what have you. What am i saying? Since that thread has existed for a pretty long time, was written by a global mod and pinned in the meta section, it can pass to be a 'rock solid' set of btt rules, cause i do not think there is going to be another, now or in the future. And having said that, whatever interpretation made from ones understanding of that thread should be correct.

In regards to incentivized posting, the thread isn't wrong. Unclear? Sure, but AFAIK not wrong. As opposed to altcoin giveaways (which are prohihited as per a separate rule), incentivising posting in a thread for BTC usually just makes that thread off-topic for boards outside Games and Rounds. I'll probably adjust the guidelines for threads some time in the future once I figure out the right wording as well as the edge cases, nuances, different enforcement by different mods, etc.

As for my thread being official, I'm sorry but it's not. I try my best to keep it accurate but I'm not Bitcointalk's owner nor do I have the authority to create or change forum policy. To quote yet another excerpt from my thread:

this forum post is a collection of personal observations on how Bitcointalk.org moderation functions at this point in time. It is not a codified set of rules or policies and may be partially or wholly inaccurate. I did not decide upon these policies and have no legal power to change or remove them. All legal queries, requests and demands regarding actual forum policy should be directed at the owner of Bitcointalk.org.

No offense but if you want the 100% accurate rules, ask Bitcointalk's owner. I can only observe and (to the best of my ability) document what I remember or notice.

If i understood you correctly, you are saying that if the feedbacks were to be posted on OP's thread in the service section then it would be just fine, but since OP isn't basically just choosing any user, but those he feels are constructive posters and would actually make substantial feedback in their ANN thread would that still be a problem? Then again, i have paid particular cognizance to your use of the word "usually", but i still have to say that i have seen a few sites run their pay for review in the same way as OP did and can be found in one of the links i posted above, but there was no eyebrows raised then, any particular reason why?

If someone was running a review campaign (paying in BTC) in the Services board (with all reviews posted within the campaign thread), it's most likely fine. Unless they were trying to circumvent the rules with those reviews (e.g. with the reviews just being short low value posts akin to a giveaway or raffle), I wouldn't move it anywhere. I can't vouch for other mods though.

As to why similar campaigns weren't moved? Either the mod who saw it didn't think it broke the forum's rules (and it's completely possible his interpretation was correct at that point in time and for that specific thread) or the thread wasn't reported and wasn't noticed by a moderator. I'll look through the threads some time later and see if they should be moved.

[LoyceV]

Coming back to that "usually", now if you were to pay for feedback about your site, you can argue that what you are paying for is more akin to a service rather than a giveaway / game / raffle / etc. In that case, a thread in Services that collects said feedback and pays out for said feedback in BTC is probably on topic (as long as it isn't trying to circumvent the rules with the feedback being just the word "good" or "bad"). However, asking for that feedback to be posted on an ANN thread seems more like a ploy to pump up the ANN thread with activity / posts rather than a legitimate attempt at getting constructive feedback.

If you put it like this, I can agree to it And I vaguely remember reading something similar a while back: paying for reviews should happen on the Services board.

No offense but if you want the 100% accurate rules, ask Bitcointalk's owner.

That's not going to happen:

I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases.

[FatFork]

My vote is: No

After carefully reading all the arguments, my opinion is that such a campaign does not violate community rules (guidelines) when it comes to inciting unsubstantial posting. As some have already mentioned, if review posts are authentic, factual and well written then they do not violate community rules, and there should be no problem. However, I partially agree with @icopress; it would probably be best to open a separate thread for such a campaign in the Services or Service Discussion board. We should avoid potential arguments against excessive ANN thread bumping. From what I understand, the mpreps' opinion is aligned with this one as well.

I would just like to add that we had a similar discussion last year, in the case of El duderino_'s BTC price prediction game. And to quote words from the big man himself:

<cut>
Almost all rules are subject to mod discretion. The reason for the rule against games with incentivized posting outside of "Games &amp; Rounds" is to prevent unfair/excessive bumping and "last-posts"-filling except in "quarantine" sections which people can ignore.  In El duderino_'s games:
 - El duderino has no incentive to cause spammy replies. The prize is a true gift.
 - The game has a pretty high entry requirement which prevents the replies from actually becoming spammy.
 - El duderino_ very much prefers that the games be in Speculation rather than Games &amp; Rounds.

Therefore, it's most appropriate in this case to apply mod discretion and make an exception to the rules as written; El duderino_'s future games of this sort can stay in Speculation.

So, to paraphrase the same arguments here, it is my belief:
 - Royse777 (and [banned mixer]) have no incentive to cause spammy replies.
 - The campaign has a pretty high entry requirement which prevents the replies from actually becoming spammy.
 - Royse777 would rather have this thread in some other section than Games & Rounds. (I am just speculating here based on what has been said so far)