Author

Topic: [BIT-X.com] [CoinsBank.com] Earn Bitcoins by Posting | Signature Campaign - page 277. (Read 554255 times)

legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1000
So I am re-enrolled? Hero member now.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
Ever wanted to run your own casino? PM me for info
Wow redsn0w is back, left for only a couple days. Must've felt lonely without bitcointalk for days...
legendary
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043
#Free market
@marcotheminer, I've sent you a PM .


Thanks for the attention.
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1008
Delusional crypto obsessionist
So to make it clear. You've accepted that some of your posts were not counted and now your goal is to get Lobster kicked out from campaign or get his earning reduced?

Yes, people who are banned should not be in this campaign and certainly not be paid.

Quote
Do I get this right? Is this what you're trying to do?

You don't have a problem with that now don't you?
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1011
enrolling.

Posts:   1629
Address:  3Hv27nuJH6HJ9P92EG2PdCWhJGWU65i9X3

You have not been accepted.



good to know.

is there a way to delete my account on your exchange?
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1008
Delusional crypto obsessionist
No payment is being withheld.
Except for the .17 for the 170 posts that are in dispute, in addition to the .1 that he would potentially be entitled to for being a top poster in the month of January

It's not being withheld since the user wasn't entitled to the payment in the first place.
That is something he obviously does not agree with. You gave examples of posts that you did not count that were allowed according to your rules.

Must be constructive to the thread posted in.

I deemed that those posts were not constructive and thus were disqualified.
The term "constructive" is very subjective. He is clearly disputing the fact they were not constructive. Additionally having 100+ posts that are not constructive is spamming and that much spam would have gotten him banned. From what I can tell he was not - his post history is generally even.

On the other hand someone making 400+ posts in a week and then not posting the rest of the month is a sign that someone was in fact banned.

LOBSTER basically earned 0,6 BTC in 6 days which means 0,1BTC a day.  Shocked
Must have been the best sig campaign payout rate ever. Grin
Spread the same amount in a month and he would have earned 3BTC with multiple accounts.

I would just like to have this thing cleared up and hope it will not happen again.
Everybody makes errors, it's human.

I assume that bit-x have a certain budget for this campaign.
If people who break the rules still get paid, there is less budget for the remaining people in this campaign.

This month I will try my best to make things fair and either be tough on everyone or allow all posts (even spam ones) through (which I don't want).

This. This is all I'm asking. Same rules for everyone. Thanks.

Quote
As I have said, there will be users who get past and may get a few more posts counted while others might be caught and their post count reduced. This should serve as a lesson to not spam.

It's just my posting style (in that thread), and the "spamming" is just the way people talk over there.

The wall observer thread is just a garbage bin filled with trolls and junk posts. It's the place where people come to post and run, especially when they are drunk.
You should not take anything serious over there, you like it or you hate it. We should be happy to have this junk concentrated in one thread and not spread around the forum. But in the end it is the most active and read thread of the forum which gives the biggest exposure to the signatures.

I don't mind to have *all* posts over there rejected, it makes counting easier for you.
I could also imagine that those posts fit in a certain category which is unfavorable for the campaign, fair enough.
But I hate it when it only applies to some people...

My faith in this campaign has been restored with all you said. For a moment I also thought you might own LOBSTER account, but not anymore.

I hope I'm still allowed in this campaign with all my criticism, I would like to re-enroll for the new period if necessary.
I still keep a close eye on the enforcement of the rules.





sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
Payment recieved, thank you Smiley


On another note, I tried to login from my phone to withdrawal, but I didn't get the confirmation code... Thankfully my session was still active on my computer! Is this just my issue or someone else had the same?


yes same happens with when i login i never got sms i click on call button to receive confirmation code is other are facing this problem
legendary
Activity: 2072
Merit: 1049
┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴
enrolling.

Posts:   1629
Address:  3Hv27nuJH6HJ9P92EG2PdCWhJGWU65i9X3

You have not been accepted.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 500
No payment is being withheld.
Except for the .17 for the 170 posts that are in dispute, in addition to the .1 that he would potentially be entitled to for being a top poster in the month of January

It's not being withheld since the user wasn't entitled to the payment in the first place.
That is something he obviously does not agree with.

Doesn't matter, he doesn't run the campaign.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1011
enrolling.

Posts:   1629
Address:  3Hv27nuJH6HJ9P92EG2PdCWhJGWU65i9X3
legendary
Activity: 2072
Merit: 1049
┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Hi
In fact he has not posted period since January 4th. He even logged in today but has not even re-enrolled.

If he were to re-enroll on Feb 4 or Feb 5, what do you think happened to him?
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Hi
No payment is being withheld.
Except for the .17 for the 170 posts that are in dispute, in addition to the .1 that he would potentially be entitled to for being a top poster in the month of January

It's not being withheld since the user wasn't entitled to the payment in the first place.
That is something he obviously does not agree with. You gave examples of posts that you did not count that were allowed according to your rules.

Must be constructive to the thread posted in.

I deemed that those posts were not constructive and thus were disqualified.
The term "constructive" is very subjective. He is clearly disputing the fact they were not constructive. Additionally having 100+ posts that are not constructive is spamming and that much spam would have gotten him banned. From what I can tell he was not - his post history is generally even.

On the other hand someone making 400+ posts in a week and then not posting the rest of the month is a sign that someone was in fact banned.
legendary
Activity: 2072
Merit: 1049
┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴
No payment is being withheld.
Except for the .17 for the 170 posts that are in dispute, in addition to the .1 that he would potentially be entitled to for being a top poster in the month of January

It's not being withheld since the user wasn't entitled to the payment in the first place.
That is something he obviously does not agree with. You gave examples of posts that you did not count that were allowed according to your rules.

Must be constructive to the thread posted in.

I deemed that those posts were not constructive and thus were disqualified.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Hi
No payment is being withheld.
Except for the .17 for the 170 posts that are in dispute, in addition to the .1 that he would potentially be entitled to for being a top poster in the month of January

It's not being withheld since the user wasn't entitled to the payment in the first place.
That is something he obviously does not agree with. You gave examples of posts that you did not count that were allowed according to your rules.
legendary
Activity: 2072
Merit: 1049
┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴
No payment is being withheld.
Except for the .17 for the 170 posts that are in dispute, in addition to the .1 that he would potentially be entitled to for being a top poster in the month of January

It's not being withheld since the user wasn't entitled to the payment in the first place.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Hi
You are wrong here. Marco is essentially acting as an employee in managing and paying out for their signature campaign. Going to bit-x would be very similar to to someone escalating a dispute to someone's boss. If he did escalate to bit-x, got payment from them and them marco were to remove him from the signature campaign he could simply do the same thing again, which would likely result in him being reinstated back in the campaign.

Wrong, what I say in this campaign goes. If I decide a user will not be allowed in, they will not be allowed in.
If someone has a valid concern and brings it to the attention of the owner of bit-x then the owner of bit-x is going to have the final say. It is their money right?

I have been given full permission to have the final say in all matters regarding the signature campaign.
If someone complains loud enough they will get paid. Trust me on this. It is their reputation at stake, if someone is making a valid point and payment is being with held it will hurt their image and hurt their ability to attract and maintain customers.

No payment is being withheld.
Except for the .17 for the 170 posts that are in dispute, in addition to the .1 that he would potentially be entitled to for being a top poster in the month of January
legendary
Activity: 2072
Merit: 1049
┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴
You are wrong here. Marco is essentially acting as an employee in managing and paying out for their signature campaign. Going to bit-x would be very similar to to someone escalating a dispute to someone's boss. If he did escalate to bit-x, got payment from them and them marco were to remove him from the signature campaign he could simply do the same thing again, which would likely result in him being reinstated back in the campaign.

Wrong, what I say in this campaign goes. If I decide a user will not be allowed in, they will not be allowed in.
If someone has a valid concern and brings it to the attention of the owner of bit-x then the owner of bit-x is going to have the final say. It is their money right?

I have been given full permission to have the final say in all matters regarding the signature campaign.
If someone complains loud enough they will get paid. Trust me on this. It is their reputation at stake, if someone is making a valid point and payment is being with held it will hurt their image and hurt their ability to attract and maintain customers.

No payment is being withheld.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Hi
You are wrong here. Marco is essentially acting as an employee in managing and paying out for their signature campaign. Going to bit-x would be very similar to to someone escalating a dispute to someone's boss. If he did escalate to bit-x, got payment from them and them marco were to remove him from the signature campaign he could simply do the same thing again, which would likely result in him being reinstated back in the campaign.

Wrong, what I say in this campaign goes. If I decide a user will not be allowed in, they will not be allowed in.
If someone has a valid concern and brings it to the attention of the owner of bit-x then the owner of bit-x is going to have the final say. It is their money right?

I have been given full permission to have the final say in all matters regarding the signature campaign.
If someone complains loud enough they will get paid. Trust me on this. It is their reputation at stake, if someone is making a valid point and payment is being with held it will hurt their image and hurt their ability to attract and maintain customers.
legendary
Activity: 2072
Merit: 1049
┴puoʎǝq ʞool┴
You are wrong here. Marco is essentially acting as an employee in managing and paying out for their signature campaign. Going to bit-x would be very similar to to someone escalating a dispute to someone's boss. If he did escalate to bit-x, got payment from them and them marco were to remove him from the signature campaign he could simply do the same thing again, which would likely result in him being reinstated back in the campaign.

Wrong, what I say in this campaign goes. If I decide a user will not be allowed in, they will not be allowed in.
If someone has a valid concern and brings it to the attention of the owner of bit-x then the owner of bit-x is going to have the final say. It is their money right?

I have been given full permission to have the final say in all matters regarding the signature campaign.
Jump to: