So again, I don't imply any ill will in Icopress' post, in fact, I think he acted in participants' best interest, but I see this as a small step in a potentially very bad direction.
So the question is, should the forum introduce any rules on compelled/restricted posting, or do we let anything go, including shilling campaigns?
On reading through the post made by icopress, I then recalled a similar advice I read from a thread by CryptopreneurBrainboss some time ago
[2]: Join a campaign you agree with and not just for the payout.
The user in question is promoting/wearing a gamble related signature but speaking bad against the board isn't that contradicting what he's advertising. Join a campaign you agree with don't join just because of payouts.
Although it's not totally explains the topic in question but it's give a little idea of what I'm about to say. A signature campaign is essentially an optional promotion where participants are paid in return. By joining these campaigns, you agree to follow their rules. Many people promote products or services they don't personally use, purely for the payment. For example, someone who isn't interested in Casino X but wears its signature is likely only doing it for the money and wouldn't genuinely recommend it. The same applies to wallet services. Perhaps the user isn't comfortable with using the wallet in question or simply prefers other options.
I agree with @icopress point, as he raised a valid concern. However, do campaign participants really need to consider this?
If, for instance, all casinos, wallets, and exchanges imposed a rule stating that users couldn't recommend alternatives while participating in a campaign, it would cause confusion and potential conflict on forum. While we should only promote campaigns we agree with, recommending other options shouldn't be restricted.
It should be stated somewhere on the campaign thread (not a strict rule but) users may recommend their said campaign if need be and not imposed on them.