Mixer restrictions

[mikel_012]

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.


 

We can never trust any website 100%

Can you trust dex.fo will not exit the market at any moment? I really think they are a real and good company, but you do not know the owner in person and you do not know the website for 10+ years

The truth is they can do bad things at any moment like many websites can, including my signature campaign casino Spinly.io

If we need to trust the website with our accounts or with our life, we will never use any signature

[Pablo-wood]

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?

Well, you have a point here.
I should not promote a brand that I do not trust. But that's where the question arises. Can you guarantee that a platform won't scam its users? I have seen a lot of exchanges, mixers, and casinos start very well, build a reputation, run their service well, and then turn into a scam. I can say that I need to act at the right time. If I notice something bad early, I should stop promoting them. But I cannot know if a service will scam or do something bad from the beginning. The platforms come to this forum to build a reputation. We barely know them before they come to this forum.

It is best we all take responsibility of what we promote, this way every signature participant will review their application before submitting or participating. It will be disturbing if a mixer becomes unpromotable again in the future and the forum gets dragged for promoting their service. It is hard to tell the future reputation of any platform so diligent and careful consideration is needed to avoid shady outcomes.

[cryptofrka]

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.

As a campaign manager myself - nope, not the way to go.
Just make a call and don't let people second/tripleguess stuff nor give reasons for more 'grey area' shenanigans.

I'm against any bans on a free speech forum anyway - but if we do have them let them be strictly defined.

What happens if they post links overnight? Or if I am in their sig campaign and don't visit BTT for 5 days and they post these links in the meantime?.
There's so much that can go wrong here, and these are discussions we want to avoid having.

We have a rule now, it's a shitty one but at least it's properly defined. Let's keep it at that.

[NotATether]

What happens if they post links overnight? Or if I am in their sig campaign and don't visit BTT for 5 days and they post these links in the meantime?.
There's so much that can go wrong here, and these are discussions we want to avoid having.

We have a rule now, it's a shitty one but at least it's properly defined. Let's keep it at that.

I agree with you here - this happened today with Telegram and CSAM content that got them removed from the App Store briefly, but at least the rules were clear and unequivocal.

[FinneysTrueVision]

We can never trust any website 100%

Can you trust dex.fo will not exit the market at any moment? I really think they are a real and good company, but you do not know the owner in person and you do not know the website for 10+ years

The truth is they can do bad things at any moment like many websites can, including my signature campaign casino Spinly.io

If we need to trust the website with our accounts or with our life, we will never use any signature

At one point or another there is an accusation brought against almost every casino. For now, the revised rules only apply to websites that are trying to get around the mixer restrictions by overtly promoting their mixer on a site unrelated to mixing. It is fairly reasonable to apply this to narrowly specific situations related to the mixer ban. It would be unfair to, for example, signature ban the Winna campaign participants because somebody was secretly bribing a moderator to remove negative posts about their casino.

Had it been done out in the open and people were still wearing their signature months later, being fully aware of the situation, then I don’t think a written rule is necessary. Those members should be red tagged and a ban of some sort should be strongly considered.

[JollyGood]

I stated this before and still have not changed my mind. Personally, I think a 90 days ban for AB de Royse777 would have sent out a strong message. It would probably have worked as the perfect deterrent for others if he was banned as it would demonstrate strong action being taken for violating the rules.

AB de Royse777 has a special responsibility to ensure he does not violate any rules because he continued to manage the Sinbad campaign after I created a thread warning that it was reported to be laundering money and was launched using laundered funds from another mixer that was shutdown. It was after this selfish conduct by AB de Royse777 that mixers were banned from the forum: After Chipmixer, Is Sinbad.io Next To Be Shutdown?

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.

As a campaign manager myself - nope, not the way to go.
Just make a call and don't let people second/tripleguess stuff nor give reasons for more 'grey area' shenanigans.

I'm against any bans on a free speech forum anyway - but if we do have them let them be strictly defined.

What happens if they post links overnight? Or if I am in their sig campaign and don't visit BTT for 5 days and they post these links in the meantime?.
There's so much that can go wrong here, and these are discussions we want to avoid having.

We have a rule now, it's a shitty one but at least it's properly defined. Let's keep it at that.

[Mpamaegbu]

What happens if they post links overnight? Or if I am in their sig campaign and don't visit BTT for 5 days and they post these links in the meantime?.
There's so much that can go wrong here, and these are discussions we want to avoid having.

Those are the same questions that were on my mind since this latest imbroglio began. For those who think it's only an explorer campaign or a casino that might sneak in a mixer link into their website, they're likely to soon find out how wrong they're. A supposedly harmless signature campaign for a regular site not related to those I've pointed out may run a campaign here and still insert a mixer link into their site after several weeks of being here. It's a possibility and those advertising them here may not suspect it. What this means invariably is that theymos could spot it before those advertising them here do or someone reports it to him and users promoting them are banned just like that?

Besides, apart from the apprehension of every campaign participants regularly checking sites they promote; it's a win for those sites as traffic will increase there too. This, indeed, is an interesting time.

[MarryWithBTC]

What happens if they post links overnight? Or if I am in their sig campaign and don't visit BTT for 5 days and they post these links in the meantime?.
There's so much that can go wrong here, and these are discussions we want to avoid having.

We have a rule now, it's a shitty one but at least it's properly defined. Let's keep it at that.

The question of posting links overnight or unannounced as others have raised such concern is already answered by theymos

...So everyone involved should consider carefully whether they trust omnisee, in that case.

It is now a matter of trust. Do you trust omnisee that they will not try playing smart in the future. I think the campaign manager has to give participants this re-assurance.

Even at that, the campaign manager has to trust omnisee on a personal ground and also on behalf of the campaign participants. I wonder how many people will be willing to play the trust game.

[JeromeTash]

...So everyone involved should consider carefully whether they trust omnisee, in that case.

It is now a matter of trust. Do you trust omnisee that they will not try playing smart in the future. I think the campaign manager has to give participants this re-assurance.

Even at that, the campaign manager has to trust omnisee on a personal ground and also on behalf of the campaign participants. I wonder how many people will be willing to play the trust game.

Or simply just don't even think of ever marketing or advertising them here. They should now be in some sort of forum blacklist. By the time they included the mixer link on their website, they knew exactly what they were doing.

[stompix]

~
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 truth is they can do bad things at any moment like many websites can, including my signature campaign casino Spinly.io
If we need to trust the website with our accounts or with our life, we will never use any signature

With our "life" ? Like ...common...
And I already mentioned that if this were applied to everyone, half of us, this includes me, this is why I used "us" would somehow get a punishment in a couple of years..

I said it's somehow a moral dilemma: are you only advertising something but you do so, earning money with no consequences, and when that service flops or scams or goes dark or anything, you just hope to another one, you can't say at any moment with a clear heart that it has nothing to do with you. I'm not excluding myself from any of those, I was part of CM, it was the most trustworthy mixer, it got seized, people lost money on it...there is a pretty thin line here are it's also full of holes.

Well, you have a point here.
I should not promote a brand that I do not trust. But that's where the question arises. Can you guarantee that a platform won't scam its users?

Nope, nobody can, if all things were clear as the sky we would not have any kind of discussions on the subject here.
I intervened only because of Theymos response, and from one point of view that is justified, of course, one might see as an exaggerated punishment for something beyond their control, but again, anyone can have his own views on things.

[mikel_012]

With our "life" ? Like ...common...

Do you think I mean this literally? It is not that deep

I said it's somehow a moral dilemma: are you only advertising something but you do so, earning money with no consequences, and when that service flops or scams or goes dark or anything, you just hope to another one, you can't say at any moment with a clear heart that it has nothing to do with you. I'm not excluding myself from any of those, I was part of CM, it was the most trustworthy mixer, it got seized, people lost money on it...there is a pretty thin line here are it's also full of holes.

For me this is very simple and there is absolute zero moral dilemmas. A new website looks real and they want to advertise, I take the money and help the service grow. I do not know the owner so how can I confirm they are good people that will never scam?

Many companies go bust or close after many years, some scam or close without proper resolutions to the customers. This happens all over the world and not just in the crypto world. And it is not in the hands of the advertiser to know the future if the service will do well or close at any moment or how they will handle any failure

The only moral dilemma is if you advertise a website that we know is a scam and you continue to advertise because of money