On an semi-unrelated note, blenderio now has three positive trust feedbacks from three newbie that all recently woke up, with their last post in 2018.
I would not hold it against an established company if they were to receive fake reviews/fake trust ratings. Just as they could be from the company in question, they could also be from a competitor, a disgruntled employee/customer, or a troll. When it is stupidly obvious the reviews/ratings are fake, I am most inclined to believe the purpose of the fake reviews/ratings are to make the established company look bad. 
Topic: How should this be interpreted? (Read 722 times)
The requirements were somewhat ambiguous. I am not sure I would support a negative rating, though I agree this could potentially be interpreted as shady behavior. I would make this suggestion for a solution. The terms should first be clarified, then the people who participated but did not meet the post requirement should have their stakes rolled over to the next drawing after meeting the new clarified requirements (assuming the program is still active). This IMO is an equitable solution for all parties and is mutually restorative for all.
Eh, no you didn't, you kind of just demanded the part you want and left the rest out.
The issue with the other parts is that they only ran the program for a week (so there is no 'next drawing'). I would be all for them perhaps putting all valid entries after the first week and raffling based on that. Note that that post was made prior to your post. I've made a new suggestion to them here and quoted your post.
What do you think about my previously suggested method of resolution? At the end of the day you want to be part of the drawing right? Wouldn't this course of action do that? Why not suggest it to them?
I did suggest it, but they insist that the below term applies for everyone (even if you don't enter via forum):
For the Week 2 we have the additional requirement: you will need to post at least 10 messages before the next round for each of your forum's links, otherwise those will not be counted.
On an semi-unrelated note, blenderio now has three positive trust feedbacks from three newbies that all recently woke up, with their last post in 2018.
The requirements were somewhat ambiguous. I am not sure I would support a negative rating, though I agree this could potentially be interpreted as shady behavior. I would make this suggestion for a solution. The terms should first be clarified, then the people who participated but did not meet the post requirement should have their stakes rolled over to the next drawing after meeting the new clarified requirements (assuming the program is still active). This IMO is an equitable solution for all parties and is mutually restorative for all.
Eh, no you didn't, you kind of just demanded the part you want and left the rest out.
What do you think about my previously suggested method of resolution? At the end of the day you want to be part of the drawing right? Wouldn't this course of action do that? Why not suggest it to them?
I did suggest it, but they insist that the below term applies for everyone (even if you don't enter via forum):
For the Week 2 we have the additional requirement: you will need to post at least 10 messages before the next round for each of your forum's links, otherwise those will not be counted.
On an semi-unrelated note, blenderio now has three positive trust feedbacks from three newbies that all recently woke up, with their last post in 2018.
What do you think about my previously suggested method of resolution? At the end of the day you want to be part of the drawing right? Wouldn't this course of action do that? Why not suggest it to them?
Again, it appears this is your interpretation, I have not seen evidence to back this up. Please see my previous statement:
I think that Newbies would qualify (and that the Member restriction was only Bitcointalk actions) because of this statement:
3 retweet and 3 likes, nickname twitter: Morskoy22
https://twitter.com/blender_io/status/1076138591800254467
https://twitter.com/blender_io/status/1076870483453399041
https://twitter.com/blender_io/status/1075846130095796224
https://twitter.com/Morskoy22/status/1077227157246611461
https://twitter.com/Morskoy22/status/1077226798524649472
https://twitter.com/Morskoy22/status/1077206330195304448
http://bittogether.com - user: Morskoy22, image banner + link
https://twitter.com/blender_io/status/1076138591800254467
https://twitter.com/blender_io/status/1076870483453399041
https://twitter.com/blender_io/status/1075846130095796224
https://twitter.com/Morskoy22/status/1077227157246611461
https://twitter.com/Morskoy22/status/1077226798524649472
https://twitter.com/Morskoy22/status/1077206330195304448
http://bittogether.com - user: Morskoy22, image banner + link
Hey there, great to see you, could you please provide a link to your profile on http://bittogether.com
User Morskoy22 is a Newbie, and it would make no sense for blenderio to tell someone who doesn't even qualify to change some stuff to fix the entry. Unfortunately, both the spreadsheet they had and the video they posted were taken down which would provide concrete proof on the entries that they consider qualifying.
None of us participated in that, so it comes down to are you satisfied with how they handled themselves? I left them neutral, for my benefit if I come across them in the future, I'll know what questions to ask.
I don't even know if I would qualify if they did run it as I entered fairly late on the last day. I'm unsatisfied with the way they did things, which is completely ignoring the second week of the giveaway until they were denied forum ad spots in May due to having negative trust. If they announced the day after the week ended that there weren't enough entries and just closed it or make it a double/triple week for entries, I'd probably feel disappointed but agree that it was a fair decision.
Like I said originally I agreed with your use of a negative here. It at a minimum would encourage them to engage in an open dialogue about what happened an push for a need to find a resolution everyone ca be happy with. That's when I would review the feedback and make changes if warranted. Now they don't really have to worry/care about that failed week of free advertising they received. I personally still believe they only cared about the feedback because theymos rejected their Bid for forum advertising.
None of us participated in that, so it comes down to are you satisfied with how they handled themselves? I left them neutral, for my benefit if I come across them in the future, I'll know what questions to ask.
None of us participated in that, so it comes down to are you satisfied with how they handled themselves? I left them neutral, for my benefit if I come across them in the future, I'll know what questions to ask.
What about, rather than a neutral, a countered negative?
The mark of 0: -1: +0 incites investigation from people who don't always look at the trust pages of regular 0: -0 / +0 profiles and doesn't have any impact on their primary trust rating. The cautionary message is also removed from the top of their owned topics as the negatives and positives are in balance.
Again, we don't have anything that serves as an in-between but I would say that this is some feasible option.
The mark of 0: -1: +0 incites investigation from people who don't always look at the trust pages of regular 0: -0 / +0 profiles and doesn't have any impact on their primary trust rating. The cautionary message is also removed from the top of their owned topics as the negatives and positives are in balance.
Again, we don't have anything that serves as an in-between but I would say that this is some feasible option.
To be honest, I am not getting the exact point on their additional terms for second week.
It was pretty simple... In the first week, a lot of users had just signed up to the various forums, added the signature to their account and then never actually used any of the forums... so, no "free" signature advertising for blender.io as there were no posts 
So they added in the additional requirement that if you wanted stakes from having forum signatures, you had to post at least 10 messages on each of the forums... otherwise no forum stakes.This seems to have been too much work (I guess no one wanted to spam 10 messages on 10 different forums) for most people... so only two people qualified for forum stakes... blenderio then apparently decided that wasn't enough free advertising and just called the whole thing off.
If two did actually complete the requirements and they did in fact renege on the actual give away I would in this case support a negative rating. If there is evidence of this I would like to see it.
I believe they did complete requirements. The task wording here implies that you must have a 'Member' rank to do the Bitcointalk tasks, and there was no global rank restriction. rat03gopoh's twitter account @FaranisaRatu did retweet and like their tweets (linked is one example).
For Quickseller's statement about how future weeks were not guaranteed, this post does very very strongly imply that another iPhone X would be given away:
Good luck and we will see who will be the owner of another iPhone X after the New Year! 
This is the main reason I've switched to a neutral for now:
The first round started Dec 21, and ended on the 28th29th. The second round would have ended on Jan 5, which is 7 days later. There were two entries posted on Jan 5, one at 12:34 AM and the other at 9:54 PM.
I didn't see anything in their thread announcing the specific cutoff times for entries. Technically speaking, they could argue the cutoff was before anyone completed their entry.
I didn't see anything in their thread announcing the specific cutoff times for entries. Technically speaking, they could argue the cutoff was before anyone completed their entry.
However they do imply that there were entries before the cutoff point: (archive)
No, I meant the ones who didn't make 10 posts won't be counted as a participants. Unfortunately, there were too few ppl for 2nd week and none of them completed requirements. Stay tuned for the next event, it will be as big as this one, if not even bigger.
So I'm leaning towards negative trust being deserved at this point.
Again, it appears this is your interpretation, I have not seen evidence to back this up. Please see my previous statement:
The requirements were somewhat ambiguous. I am not sure I would support a negative rating, though I agree this could potentially be interpreted as shady behavior. I would make this suggestion for a solution. The terms should first be clarified, then the people who participated but did not meet the post requirement should have their stakes rolled over to the next drawing after meeting the new clarified requirements (assuming the program is still active). This IMO is an equitable solution for all parties and is mutually restorative for all.
To be honest, I am not getting the exact point on their additional terms for second week.
It was pretty simple... In the first week, a lot of users had just signed up to the various forums, added the signature to their account and then never actually used any of the forums... so, no "free" signature advertising for blender.io as there were no posts So they added in the additional requirement that if you wanted stakes from having forum signatures, you had to post at least 10 messages on each of the forums... otherwise no forum stakes.This seems to have been too much work (I guess no one wanted to spam 10 messages on 10 different forums) for most people... so only two people qualified for forum stakes... blenderio then apparently decided that wasn't enough free advertising and just called the whole thing off.
If two did actually complete the requirements and they did in fact renege on the actual give away I would in this case support a negative rating. If there is evidence of this I would like to see it.
I believe they did complete requirements. The task wording here implies that you must have a 'Member' rank to do the Bitcointalk tasks, and there was no global rank restriction. rat03gopoh's twitter account @FaranisaRatu did retweet and like their tweets (linked is one example).
For Quickseller's statement about how future weeks were not guaranteed, this post does very very strongly imply that another iPhone X would be given away:
Good luck and we will see who will be the owner of another iPhone X after the New Year!
This is the main reason I've switched to a neutral for now:
The first round started Dec 21, and ended on the 28th29th. The second round would have ended on Jan 5, which is 7 days later. There were two entries posted on Jan 5, one at 12:34 AM and the other at 9:54 PM.
I didn't see anything in their thread announcing the specific cutoff times for entries. Technically speaking, they could argue the cutoff was before anyone completed their entry.
I didn't see anything in their thread announcing the specific cutoff times for entries. Technically speaking, they could argue the cutoff was before anyone completed their entry.
However they do imply that there were entries before the cutoff point: (archive)
No, I meant the ones who didn't make 10 posts won't be counted as a participants. Unfortunately, there were too few ppl for 2nd week and none of them completed requirements. Stay tuned for the next event, it will be as big as this one, if not even bigger.
So I'm leaning towards negative trust being deserved at this point.
I reported the thread around that time, as they were running a giveaway on the wrong board. After that, it was moved to Games and rounds. I can imagine that's what caused the lower exposure for the second round.
If two did actually complete the requirements and they did in fact renege on the actual give away I would in this case support a negative rating. If there is evidence of this I would like to see it.
Actually... it looks like I misinterpreted something that QS mentioned upthread... my bad. I've edited my post.But blenderio did indeed say that there were "too few people"... and also claims that they meant that anyone who didn't make 10 posts would not be counted as participants.
No, I meant the ones who didn't make 10 posts won't be counted as a participants. Unfortunately, there were too few ppl for 2nd week and none of them completed requirements. Stay tuned for the next event, it will be as big as this one, if not even bigger.
In the end, I don't believe they were running a "scam"... TryNinja did get an iPhoneX as promised... tbh, it seems like just a very poorly run giveaway... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Depending on how they counted their week - again they are very vague. These 2 would have earned stakes for their twitter activities
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49053567
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49069102
Then depending on time zones DarkStar_ and Bl4nkcode below that on the 6th could have also potentially counted. Even if only one of those 2 got one of their twitter actions right that still means someone had a valid "stake" in for the draw.
I believe they wanted their feedback reviewed for advertising on the Forum. They were denied last round
I personally don't like to tag someone if I'm not part of the transaction; especially if the aggrieved party chooses not to. In this case I think it was them working in their own self interests to try and get the negative trust removed and not at all with trying to rectify the wrongdoing on their part.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49053567
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49069102
Then depending on time zones DarkStar_ and Bl4nkcode below that on the 6th could have also potentially counted. Even if only one of those 2 got one of their twitter actions right that still means someone had a valid "stake" in for the draw.
I believe they wanted their feedback reviewed for advertising on the Forum. They were denied last round
I personally don't like to tag someone if I'm not part of the transaction; especially if the aggrieved party chooses not to. In this case I think it was them working in their own self interests to try and get the negative trust removed and not at all with trying to rectify the wrongdoing on their part.
To be honest, I am not getting the exact point on their additional terms for second week.
It was pretty simple... In the first week, a lot of users had just signed up to the various forums, added the signature to their account and then never actually used any of the forums... so, no "free" signature advertising for blender.io as there were no posts So they added in the additional requirement that if you wanted stakes from having forum signatures, you had to post at least 10 messages on each of the forums... otherwise no forum stakes.This seems to have been too much work (I guess no one wanted to spam 10 messages on 10 different forums) for most people... so only two people qualified for forum stakes... blenderio then apparently decided that wasn't enough free advertising and just called the whole thing off.
If two did actually complete the requirements and they did in fact renege on the actual give away I would in this case support a negative rating. If there is evidence of this I would like to see it.
To be honest, I am not getting the exact point on their additional terms for second week.
It was pretty simple... In the first week, a lot of users had just signed up to the various forums, added the signature to their account and then never actually used any of the forums... so, no "free" signature advertising for blender.io as there were no posts So they added in the additional requirement that if you wanted stakes from having forum signatures, you had to post at least 10 messages on each of the forums... otherwise no forum stakes.This seems to have been too much work (I guess no one wanted to spam 10 messages on 10 different forums) for most people...
To be honest, I am not getting the exact point on their additional terms for second week. It should be asked them about the new term on their thread before for clarification.
I’m not sure what to think about this as it seems like he just wants me to counter your feedback.
Likely he was asked for counter feedback's. If I were you then I would leave a neutral feedback for bagging positive feedback.
The requirements were somewhat ambiguous. I am not sure I would support a negative rating, though I agree this could potentially be interpreted as shady behavior. I would make this suggestion for a solution. The terms should first be clarified, then the people who participated but did not meet the post requirement should have their stakes rolled over to the next drawing after meeting the new clarified requirements (assuming the program is still active). This IMO is an equitable solution for all parties and is mutually restorative for all.
I switched to a neutral. If someone else wants to leave them a negative, go ahead, but I agreed with most of Quickseller's points and don't think a negative is fully warranted.
He PM’ed me this right after you negged him.
I’m not sure what to think about this as it seems like he just wants me to counter your feedback.
Hello! Could you please give me positive feedback, as we held that giveaway as fair as it comes. People who had posted there leaving negative feedback in my profile for no reason. Your feedback would help greatly to negate that unfairness. Thank you!
I’m not sure what to think about this as it seems like he just wants me to counter your feedback.
I actually read through this thread about a week ago while following feedback references. Without to much reading of it your tag made sense. I agree with QS on the lack of professionalism they brought to this giveaway promotion mostly due to transparency. Even if this is a language issue, it is the promoters responsibility to ensure they are accurately communicating in all languages they choose to operate.
When I read the additional requirement for week 2 my interpretation is that it only applies to the stakes regarding "forum account entries" - This means that to earn the stakes from placing the Sig ad and Banner ad for each forum you need to have made 10 posts on that forum. This is separate from any other stakes earned from telegram and twitter. (Which is where you would have been due an entry)
For me this would fall into the realm of Negative feedback for a few reasons -
I'm very fluid with my feedback and would work with them to find a resolution in everyone's interest, at most going to neutral and explaining past problems with their giveaways. I'm not sure how many people did the twitter or telegram campaign but perhaps hosting the giveaway with those who qualified based on our understanding of their stipulations.
When I read the additional requirement for week 2 my interpretation is that it only applies to the stakes regarding "forum account entries" - This means that to earn the stakes from placing the Sig ad and Banner ad for each forum you need to have made 10 posts on that forum. This is separate from any other stakes earned from telegram and twitter. (Which is where you would have been due an entry)
For me this would fall into the realm of Negative feedback for a few reasons -
- I feel they did not honor the second round of the giveaway whether this is poor communication or what. They should have rewritten the entire giveaway requirements for round 2 to be clear.
- From what I can tell they were a newer Mixer and Account promoting it - Not hard to giveaway 1 phone to make everything seem great then start scamming hard ( Not an accusation just a consideration)
- Lack of communication afterwards
I'm very fluid with my feedback and would work with them to find a resolution in everyone's interest, at most going to neutral and explaining past problems with their giveaways. I'm not sure how many people did the twitter or telegram campaign but perhaps hosting the giveaway with those who qualified based on our understanding of their stipulations.
Jump to: