A campaign can have rules on what are the board's/topic's posts are countable for payment and what are not.
But, a rule like if you post on some topics or boards then you will lose your slot, is it right approach?
The better rule should be, not counting those posts.
As per basic rights and freedom of speech, we all should be allowed to write anywhere of this forum (as long as this forum allows) and a campaign may exclude posts as per their rules from counting toward payment and should not cost the spot if minimum post count is reached after excluding posts which are done on excluded section/board/topics.
I like to listen your views on this.
Since you posted a link to this thread in best change signature discussion, i'll reflect on what was the issue there.
Firstly, i believe a signature campaign compan/manager HAS complete right to choose where he wants people he sponsors to posts. It's similar to non-crypto targeted advertising, basically you're paying money to reach out to certain groups of people.
Secondly, the issue with best change was, they didn't want people to post in certain boards and/or megathreads, which is fine. The problem is that most of the participants only fill out the minimum required post count for the week, that is 25 in this case. And when the manager deducts the posts which he doesn't want/like, those users are left with insufficient posts to meet the minimum required.
Now, if those users did 50 posts in a week, and lets say 20 of them are disqualified, they would still meet the minimum with their 30 posts that are left. But they didn't. They put minimal required effort, and now they cry about it.
Honestly, it was to be expected when you don't put anything but minimum effort into something