Topic: [FULL] DiceBitco.in Signature Campaign - Continued - page 8. (Read 6544 times)

so, since i'm in the september list, i don't need to sign again. Thanks

I think this should be considered as spamming. You have no connection to this campaign, so you are not entitled to demand anything from the participants in this campaign. Threats of negative feedback are really pathetic from a guy who himself has a negative trust as low as -539...

No.

---

I'm think that I'm going to ignore most question until Dooglus gets back, because I cannot do anything without him. TradeFortress, I do appreciate the input, even though it might not seem that way. If you want to continue talking, just send me an email.

Yes.

322685
256837
131711
131716
132620
66776
173984
154721
19897

A question, has anyone actually dropped out yesterday? Other than those 2 guys who had no posts anyway. If not, the problem is non-existent.

Just a question: for october, you will open a new thread where i can sign in?

This is the conversation that Dooglus and I had about that paying people when they drop out part. Dooglus was sure we could payout, I am not (which is why I added the note).


I would love to payout everyone, but if we can't, well, we need to change something. I am not saying that what I said is what is going to happen. Because I need to talk to Dooglus before we change anything. Not going to say that again.

Yes it is. My internet plan has a contractual obligation where I must pay about $30 per remaining month if I terminate it early. This 'fixed rule' was waived when surrounding circumstances changed.

You are applying *this* statement literally, to the letter, and overriding any other circumstance or context. Despite the rule never existing in the first place in this campaign. But there's no point in debating that, I'm simply asking you to treat all creditors equally.

-----


So it seems like bitcoininformations's claimed preferential treatment is something he invented himself, which I have suspected (as I believed dooglus's intelligence is much higher than that).


No? I am simply asking you to treat people who drop out the same way as you treat people who stick to the campaign. You'd pay both groups out at the end of the month, but shouldn't give any sort of preference to any group.

Well, this isn't a normal situation. Normally someone that does escrow doesn't have to do all of this. They either send back the money to the owner of the campaign or pay the campaign members fairly. Us running the whole campaign was never the plan nor something we wanted. We just stepped up and are trying to do our best.
Your internet plan isn't a good example, since signature campaigns have a fixed rule: "If you drop out, you get nothing". Period. Dooglus and I decided to pay people who dropped out as good as possible, because it seems unfair to us to not get paid, because you don't want to advertise a website that is highly suspicious and scamming people.

TradeFortress, what do you want us to do? Pay out right now? I would love to, but I can't do anything without Dooglus (like I said before).

I already stated why he said this and what my opinion is about this. Please read the whole topic.

No, read the OP and the title.

Can I join this? And can I have others things in my signature despite DiceBitco.in sig?

What's more important, Dooglus stated (yesterday) that whoever decide to drop their sig , will get paid for that period:

Yes. However, normally when conditions change, people are given the choice of opting out of the contract at no penalty.  Treating these people second does apply a strong penalty.

Example: My internet plan rose from $60 to $70 a year ago. The plan is on a 2 year contract. I was notified and had the opportunity to break out of the 2 year contract (no early termination fee) if I do not wish to continue.

I'll be sending out PMs and leaving feedback to the people that still carry this signature.

Well, people that drop out normally don't get paid at all, because they didn't fulfill the requirement to keep the signature for the period you agreed upon. We decided that that isn't fair and we will use the leftovers to pay people anyway. I know that this isn't optimal and we might have to change it to just pay out right now.

I think it is irresponsible to continue this campaign if you are not certain if it is enough, actually. Imagine if you escrowed selling a miner, but couldn't pay the seller in full because the buyer never sent enough. Is that acceptable? [/quote]It is not, which is why I will talk to Dooglus as soon as I get back, which I stated before if I am not mistaken.

You previously have said that you will pay out in order, instead of proportionally. Here's the quote from your OP:


You shouldn't be prioritizing any signature ad campaign creditor over another signature ad campaign creditor. So, you shouldn't 'pay out group X, then pay out group Y if there is any left'. Rather, you should add the sum of all owed amounts, find the % that is covered by the 10 BTC deposit, and spread out all shortfall equally at the end of the contract.

----

re email response: "We did say that we will payout people that drop out as good as possible, but this is done with the funds that we get when we paid out everyone that sticked with the campaign (so the funds that are left over from the campaign itself). I hope this explains that":

People who did not drop out are owed money from the signature campaign which you have escrowed.
People who dropped out are owed money from the signature campaign which you have escrowed.

They have the same claims to the escrowed amount, and should not be treated any differently.

----


I think it is irresponsible to continue this campaign if you are not certain if it is enough, actually. Imagine if you escrowed selling a miner, but couldn't pay the seller in full because the buyer never sent enough. Is that acceptable?

Dooglus created the list posted in the OP, so I don't know how he got the addresses and starting posts. I'm assuming he copied it from the DiceBitco.in OP. Please do check that list if everything checks out.

---

TradeFortress, please tell me what rules we changed, as far as I know we didn't change anything. We did say that we will payout people that drop out as good as possible, but this is done with the funds that we get when we paid out everyone that sticked with the campaign.

The "no changes allowed"-rule is nothing more then a clarification in my opinion. All signature campaigns enforce this by either assuming that people will respect that common rule or by stating this in their OP:
So I do not think that this is a equitable decision.

---

I have always been for this option, but that would violate the contract I have with DiceBitco.in. It clearly states that we use the escrow-ed funds if they don't pay out. Yes, the situation has changed, but that doesn't make the contract invalid as far as I known.

The contract is the following (if you find anything that could be used as a loophole, do tell me):

---

In the end I will have to talk with Dooglus about how we continue this. You can disagree as much as you like, but I can't do anything until he gets back (since this is something we both agreed upon doing). This, however, doesn't mean I am behind it. I really prefer to just pay people for the posts they make and be done with it.

Good point. Everyone should double-check their details, just to make sure. My addy and number of posts are correct.

I will drop for campaign, since the new events.

I made only 8 posts so far, not including this one, so I won't be paid anyway.

Good luck for those who stay.

I was not aware of this.
My point is they lost all their money. The reason they were not able to payback everyone that was owed all of what they were owed is because they had no money left to give and thus had to prioritize. What they were doing was making bad business decisions in refunding people the incorrect amount of money. It essentially means that people were able to gamble there without risk during the time in question, if their account ended with more money then it started with then they would take all of their money plus their profits, if their account ended in the negative, they would likely have had at least one nonce skipped and thus would be made whole. They were likely rushing to make decisions in order to attempt to maintain credibility.

I wouldn't think it would have been that difficult to search their database for skipped nonces and paid out what should have been winning bets the winning amount. 
Fair enough, but I think he likely did not notice it before because it is such an obvious statement.
You are correct that they could make 200 posts on the last day, however most users would likely not do this. They likely priced their campaign based on likely averages of posts made over time. It would also remove any incentive for people who have already posted the max to stay in the campaign as they would gain nothing by doing so. Dicebitco.in would be loosing out on this exposure they are due.

It would also be unfair to users who are not posting as much now (for example because they are on vacation) but would post more towards the end of the month. People that leave now would be guaranteed a full payout , while the people that stay may not get the same rate per post. They would essentially be penalized for giving dicebitco.in the exposure they are paying for.

I am not saying that bitcoininformatoin and dooglas are doing anything less then a good job at managing the campaign, I am just speculating that the source of their information may not be the best source of information. Kind of like recommending them to CYA