Mixer restrictions

[DYING_S0UL]

As far as I could see, the only link was a link to the mixer on the explorer site, and that is much less invasive compared to the part of the rules where the presentation of mixer aggregators is allowed.

By link you mean any direct domain links? That redirect users to the mixer platform? The only 2 links i found was, one they have similar names omnisee & omnimix and at the explorer site, at home page, it says we support this mixer. Other than that I haven't noticed any direct clickable links. I could be wrong though. Don't know whether any links are hidden somewhere. CMIIW anywhere.

Again this whole thing is a bit confusion. So enlightened me if I have any misconceptions/misinformation.

-snip-

Quick questions

Case 1:

What if - Same owner - But nobody knows about this fact
- 1. randomMixer.abc  2. randomExplorer.abc

Would the mixer rule still be applied? Not quite, right?

Case 2:

What if - Same owner - And everyone knows about this fact
- for example omni (ownership revealed)

But then later omnisee (explorer) rebrands themselves as let's say seeAll.abc (explorer). Note that this time there is no direct connections, keywords, identical name to the older mixer brand. The only connection is that it's owned by the same company/owner.

Would the mixer rule still be applied?

I agree with theymos, this whole mixer restrictions rules is still confusion and somewhat complex.  

[Stalker22]

Would the mixer rule still be applied?

It is simply not possible to have such a definitive boundary set as to whether it is allowed to do this or that. There will always be a grey area.  This is where admin will have the discretion as to what, to him in his view is the best action for the good of the forum community as a whole.  Its a thankless job for sure because there will always be those that dont like what is decided.  but as has been said many times before - This is not a democracy.  Like it or not, the admin calls the shots.

[DYING_S0UL]

Would the mixer rule still be applied?

It is simply not possible to have such a definitive boundary set as to whether it is allowed to do this or that. There will always be a grey area.  This is where admin will have the discretion as to what, to him in his view is the best action for the good of the forum community as a whole.  Its a thankless job for sure because there will always be those that dont like what is decided.  but as has been said many times before - This is not a democracy.  Like it or not, the admin calls the shots.

Ok you have a fair point! We cannot always have rules for every situations. There will always be a loophole or gray areas. And when that is discovered, the admin must change/improvise/update/add new rules.

My intention is simply to LEARN! If such situation ever occurres again in the future. I'm not against admin's decision or anything. Of course, he knows better, have better knowledge on such matters.

[theymos]

Like not allowing the owner of a supermarket because he also owns a casino in a country casinos are illegal

In this case, it's more like a supermarket with a casino at the back.

This is an excellent analogy. The point of the "obviously owned by a mixer" thing is to prevent the equivalent of a supermarket with a casino in the back, or one right next door but with signs in the supermarket saying "Not enough money to buy this TV? Try our casino!" But we are not trying to do the equivalent of banning supermarkets which are subsidiaries of casinos, or are owned by people who also own casinos.

I added a clarification to the OP:

* On whether a promoted site is "obviously owned by a mixer": If a promoted site doesn't mention or point towards a mixer in any way whatsoever, then it cannot be considered to be "obviously owned by a mixer". Otherwise, the standard is: Only stuff on or linked-from the promoted site and stuff on or linked-from the mixer is considered, not information from search engines or other sources. If a reasonable person with common sense but no special knowledge considered the two sites (within those limits), if they would conclude that the two sites are more likely to be affiliated than to be unaffiliated, then the promoted site is "obviously owned by a mixer".

[icopress]

Unfortunately, I overlooked the clause about the owned by a mixer. [...]

It's not prohibited for a single team to own multiple projects, including a mixer advertised outside the forum and a non-mixer project presented on Bitcointalk. The projects may have similar names or even designs, but a project presented on Bitcointalk should not directly endorse the mixer on its website. In this particular case, the main page literally stated "The project we support OMNISEEEMIX" in the center, and OMNISEE campaign users were receiving advertising money. Therefore, this is considered covert advertising of the mixer.

Anyway, a poker tournament is in progress and the sponsor is another mixer.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5589815.0 [...]

This is not prohibited if nothing indicates the mixer (except when the same tournament is announced on different forums, but in one case the logos are removed and in the other, not). I believe this also does not apply to cases where the design clearly bears corporate characteristics (even if you removed the logo). For example, if you removed the main McDonald's logo but still left Ronald McDonald on the banner, this would be considered covert advertising.

In this particular case, the Mixero poker tournament on Bitcointalk is fine.

1. Lack of mixer logo in design materials.
2. Because no one associates the purple color with Mixero and no one else.
3. The announcement on Bitcointalk is timed solely to attract more people to the tournament.
4. The tournament itself is held on a platform unrelated to Mixero.

[AB de Royse777]

Unfortunately, I overlooked the clause about the owned by a mixer. [...]

It's not prohibited for a single team to own multiple projects, including a mixer advertised outside the forum and a non-mixer project presented on Bitcointalk. The projects may have similar names or even designs, but a project presented on Bitcointalk should not directly endorse the mixer on its website. In this particular case, the main page literally stated "The project we support OMNISEEEMIX" in the center, and OMNISEE campaign users were receiving advertising money. Therefore, this is considered covert advertising of the mixer.

I noticed this text "The project we support OMNISEEMIX" on Omnisee homepage half an hour ago. However, I don't think this is the case here. I still read the bold part from theymos:

- In signatures and other profile fields, you're not allowed to write the name of a mixer or link to a site which is a mixer or is obviously owned by a mixer.
- In posts, you're not allowed to accept payment to write the name of a mixer or link to a site which is a mixer or is obviously owned by a mixer.

In your interpretation it seems the project banned because of the text only and removing it will have no restriction to restore the project.

Anyway, it seem there is a point to take direction directly from theymos.

Regarding the Poker tournament, theymos response is A GO with the current setup. However I think, I need a disclaimer to put on the discussion topic that when discussing about hands and game developments, the players should not post the screenshot that shows the sponsor logo just to stay in the safe zone. However I feel that, if they even do post the screenshot with the logo, it still should be fine, because the intention is not to display the sponsor but to discuss the game experience.

[icopress]

[...] I need a disclaimer to put on the discussion topic that when discussing about hands and game developments, the players should not post the screenshot that shows the sponsor logo just to stay in the safe zone. However I feel that, if they even do post the screenshot with the logo, it still should be fine, because the intention is not to display the sponsor but to discuss the game experience.

That's not correct.

The current configuration is fine, and even in a poker thread, it's appropriate for someone to thank a sponsor by mentioning their name.

But what you're saying implies that a user will intentionally take a screenshot of a banner with a sponsor's logo, which has nothing to do with discussing gameplay, especially considering the poker tournament itself will be held on a third-party platform unaffiliated with mixer.

This, of course, implies that any screenshots will be of gameplay taking place on a third-party platform, and I don't see any way a user would include a mixer logo in these screenshots without explicit intent.

In your interpretation it seems the project banned because of the text only and removing it will have no restriction to restore the project.

You missed this part.

[...] In this particular case, the main page literally stated "The project we support OMNISEEEMIX" in the center, and OMNISEE campaign users were receiving advertising money. Therefore, this is considered covert advertising of the mixer.

[MVPoker]

[...] I need a disclaimer to put on the discussion topic that when discussing about hands and game developments, the players should not post the screenshot that shows the sponsor logo just to stay in the safe zone. However I feel that, if they even do post the screenshot with the logo, it still should be fine, because the intention is not to display the sponsor but to discuss the game experience.

That's not correct.

The current configuration is fine, and even in a poker thread, it's appropriate for someone to thank a sponsor by mentioning their name.

But what you're saying implies that a user will intentionally take a screenshot of a banner with a sponsor's logo, which has nothing to do with discussing gameplay, especially considering the poker tournament itself will be held on a third-party platform unaffiliated with mixer.

This, of course, implies that any screenshots will be of gameplay taking place on a third-party platform, and I don't see any way a user would include a mixer logo in these screenshots without explicit intent.

You can design the tables on Pokernow.com. It's usually a great tool and you can design them whichever way you want. Now if you screenshot a hand, the table will display the respective logo. Is it a problem?

[icopress]

You can design the tables on Pokernow.com. It's usually a great tool and you can design them whichever way you want. Now if you screenshot a hand, the table will display the respective logo. Is it a problem?

If the poker table design is manually configured and you know that mixer advertising is prohibited on Bitcointalk and you also know that users will post screenshots, then yes, this is a problem, as it's intentional. Just warn users not to post screenshots of the logo here on the forum, and that's it.

[OgNasty]

I am of the opinion that theymos' decision to turn off omnisee explorer ANN and campaign, is wrong. This could open a rabbit hole and making decisions based on guesswork and personal assumptions.

Open a rabbit hole?  You've distrusted me for guesswork and personal assumptions.  Maybe worry about your own actions before you start throwing stones at others...

The amount of people willing to shill for money laundering operations in order to make a buck while pretending to have the moral high ground here is shocking.  I can't wait for the tide to turn.

[AB de Royse777]

In your interpretation it seems the project banned because of the text only and removing it will have no restriction to restore the project.

You missed this part.

[...] In this particular case, the main page literally stated "The project we support OMNISEEEMIX" in the center, and OMNISEE campaign users were receiving advertising money. Therefore, this is considered covert advertising of the mixer.

Without having the text "The project we support OMNISEEEMIX" on OMNISEE homepage, OMNISEE campaign members receiving payment was just like receiving campaign payment from another service. And since there were no such support text, in your interpretation it was fine to advertise.

[examplens]

Open a rabbit hole?  You've distrusted me for guesswork and personal assumptions.  Maybe worry about your own actions before you start throwing stones at others...

I understand that your vanity is hurt, but there is nothing here for you. You as a person definitely don't have that much respect.
You are on my distrust list because of your bad behaviour and your actions.
I think I've already told you once, but I'll say it again, I'm not interested in any drama with you, and if that's what you're looking for, I am not the one.

The amount of people willing to shill for money laundering operations in order to make a buck while pretending to have the moral high ground here is shocking.  I can't wait for the tide to turn.

You are probably the last person who should be giving moral lessons.

[AB de Royse777]

The projects may have similar names or even designs, but a project presented on Bitcointalk should not directly endorse the mixer on its website. In this particular case, the main page literally stated "The project we support OMNISEEEMIX" in the center, and OMNISEE campaign users were receiving advertising money. Therefore, this is considered covert advertising of the mixer.

I see where you are coming from now. Just saw the Olw Mail is advertising on this forum where they own a mixer called owl mix (altcoin topic=346640.0) which is advertising on altcoinstalks. Theymos banned omnisee because the owner is a mixer owner (at-least that's what I interpreted)

- In signatures and other profile fields, you're not allowed to write the name of a mixer or link to a site which is a mixer or is obviously owned by a mixer.
- In posts, you're not allowed to accept payment to write the name of a mixer or link to a site which is a mixer or is obviously owned by a mixer.

If my interpretation is wrong and yours is correct then the endorsement text was the cause of banning Omnisee. Now this raise the question that if the team remove the endorsement text from their homepage then Omnisee is good to advertise on this forum?

What am I missing @theymos (already PMed you for clearance though).

Bet Karma was also advertising here (removed though) as Pocket casino but on altcoinstalks as mixer.

[decodx]

<...>
What am I missing

Perhaps you missed theymos's latest update to the OP:

* On whether a promoted site is "obviously owned by a mixer": If a promoted site doesn't mention or point towards a mixer in any way whatsoever, then it cannot be considered to be "obviously owned by a mixer". Otherwise, the standard is: Only stuff on or linked-from the promoted site and stuff on or linked-from the mixer is considered, not information from search engines or other sources. If a reasonable person with common sense but no special knowledge considered the two sites (within those limits), if they would conclude that the two sites are more likely to be affiliated than to be unaffiliated, then the promoted site is "obviously owned by a mixer".

I've bolded the part that I think applies here. Omnisee was banned because there was an obvious link to the mixer service (they promoted it on their homepage). That makes sense; otherwise, if we arbitrarily link services based merely on a similar name or unsubstantiated evidence, anyone could intentionally fabricate such "evidence" to frame and harm a legitimate business.

[theymos]

Now this raise the question that if the team remove the endorsement text from their homepage then Omnisee is good to advertise on this forum?

If they remove anything that "mentions or points toward a mixer in any way whatsoever", then I suppose they can be promoted again. But if new stuff is later changed/discovered which causes them to be become un-promotable again, then I'm definitely going to be handing out some harsh bans, including sigbans to everyone who wears their signature. So everyone involved should consider carefully whether they trust omnisee, in that case.

[Shishir99]

If they remove anything that "mentions or points toward a mixer in any way whatsoever", then I suppose they can be promoted again. But if new stuff is later changed/discovered which causes them to be become un-promotable again, then I'm definitely going to be handing out some harsh bans, including sigbans to everyone who wears their signature. So everyone involved should consider carefully whether they trust omnisee, in that case.

This is interesting. In this case, the campaign manager and the campaign participants have to keep the website in check. Right now, the text is on the homepage, which links to the mixer. Since they own both websites, I assume they will add a link on other pages such as F.A.Q and Roadmaps. What if they remove the link from the homepage, but add the link in other pages? The campaign manager or the signature participants can't keep checking the website every day.

If you notice something before the campaign manager and the signature campaign participants, then I guess they are screwed.
I do have another question: if they remove those texts from the website, would you restore their discussion thread?

[stompix]

If they remove anything that "mentions or points toward a mixer in any way whatsoever", then I suppose they can be promoted again. But if new stuff is later changed/discovered which causes them to be become un-promotableagain, then I'm definitely going to be handing out some harsh bans, including sigbans to everyone who wears their signature. So everyone involved should consider carefully whether they trust omnisee, in that case.

This is interesting. In this case, the campaign manager and the campaign participants have to keep the website in check. Right now, the text is on the homepage, which links to the mixer. Since they own both websites, I assume they will add a link on other pages such as F.A.Q and Roadmaps. What if they remove the link from the homepage, but add the link in other pages?

Well, he turned this into a matter of trust, and ironically, it would be interesting to see this as the standard.
I will bold a different part than you in Theymos' message, he flipped the script and made it so that you're a bit responsible for what you promote. Now, if you as a participant, can't trust the one you promote not to do anything shady, why promote them in the first place?

I'm pretty sure that if this rule would be applied to every service that has either broken the rules, exit scammed or just scammed a few users and so on, probably at least half of us would end up with at least one sig ban in a few years, but ....would this not be, at least from a moral point of view, justified?

Oh, and in this scenario I assume he talks about temp sig bans 1-3 months, not permanent otherwise... let be real here.


 

[snowpega]

This is interesting. In this case, the campaign manager and the campaign participants have to keep the website in check. Right now, the text is on the homepage, which links to the mixer. Since they own both websites, I assume they will add a link on other pages such as F.A.Q and Roadmaps. What if they remove the link from the homepage, but add the link in other pages? The campaign manager or the signature participants can't keep checking the website every day.
...

Yeah, you are correct that now everyone needs to check the signature links or website pages if there is any link or element which connects the brand with the mixer directly/indirectly that they are representing. Meaning, it's obvious our duty to check the site as a representative of the product that we are promoting. Aside from this, now the message is clear-cut and bold about what the admin aforementioned.

So after this, I think every manager also knows their responsibility and reputation on this forum. Whatever the confusion was regarding this matter is now clear, so I am pretty sure no one is going to repeat the same mistake again. Because if the same mistake is repeated again, then we all know the consequences, which are that both managers and participants will have to pay for the same mistake if it happens.

[JeromeTash]

This is interesting. In this case, the campaign manager and the campaign participants have to keep the website in check. Right now, the text is on the homepage, which links to the mixer. Since they own both websites, I assume they will add a link on other pages such as F.A.Q and Roadmaps. What if they remove the link from the homepage, but add the link in other pages? The campaign manager or the signature participants can't keep checking the website every day.

But now you know that they are linked to a mixer. Why risk advertising them, as they can put back the links anytime they want?
Even if their thread got restored, I don't think it's worth the risk to advertise them anymore

I'm pretty sure that if this rule would be applied to every service that has either broken the rules, exit scammed or just scammed a few users and so on, probably at least half of us would end up with at least one sig ban in a few years, but ....would this not be, at least from a moral point of view, justified?

The thing is that scam is not moderated, so this is never going to happen. The DT members will handle the scam part and the people who try to promote it. Also, some scams are well-crafted. They start out as genuine and then later on exit scam. Imagine getting banned for advertising a service that initially did not show signs of being a scam but then later on exit scammed