Topic: How should this be interpreted? - page 2. (Read 722 times)

This is why the trust system, which deals in more "absolutes" rather than a gradient, needs a secondary proponent of reputation. Especially after the guest change with the scammer notice.

You can choose to think that someone is untrustworthy or shady and not a scammer.

In my opinion, at face value, it reads that you need to make 10 posts for your forum links to be counted. It doesn't say that forum posts are required for other tasks to count.


The original requirements never specified that you must have "forum links" to participate... they were just one option of many... like tweets/retweets/blog posts etc. So, if all you did was use Twitter, you should still have been given the appropriate number of stakes (ie. Like a post: 1 stake; Retweet a post: 1 stake. etc)

If that is not want blenderio meant, then the requirements (original or additional) should have clearly stated that you needed to complete ALL the tasks to be eligible... or at least that forum posting was a "compulsory" task and if it wasn't done, then none of your tasks would count.

As QS has mentioned, it might just be a language issue and failure to communicate clearly... but it certainly does seem that they just decided that they didn't get the advertising they wanted (10 posts per user per forum) so they decided to cancel it... Which, seems a bit unfair to those who did complete the non-forum posting tasks in good faith.

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.

They also said they would host the giveaway up to 4 times per month
Even though they didn't technically say the giveaway was going to stop, they did not specifically say it will continue, and my reading of the post announcing the giveaway doesn't obligate them to continue additional rounds.

It also says only forum members that are "member" rank or better can participate, although this is listed under "bitcointalk" and could be read as the contest is only open to "members" and better. cornl was the 2nd person to enter and his merit history reflects he only had 2 merit as of when the round was over, but the other person who entered in time, rat03gopoh did have enough merit to rank to member.

The additional requirement is ambiguous, and it is not clear to me what was expected to be eligible. It appears they speak Russian, perhaps as their primary language. I tried translating the additional requirement into Russian and back into English to see if ambiguity is removed, this is the result:
Still not very good.

I don't think how they conducted themselves is very professional, but I would not consider being unprofessional a reason to call the person a scammer.

I am not going to advocate one way or another for or against their tag. Some people have avoided getting tagged for a bigger stretch of logic, but I think that logic was completely BS, however it is precedent -- there is no need to re-litigate that here.

Having "too few people" that met the sufficient requirements does not mean that they get to omit the prize from the lot. There was no stipulation that contained such a remark.

https://archive.is/up66g

---

If you can't trust their word to give away a prize that they had no issue with a week prior, then how can you trust them at all?

User blenderio ran an iPhone X giveaway to promote their mixer. (archive)
To participate, you had to do various tasks, such as adding their signature on forums, retweeting/liking their tweets, reposting a telegram post, etc. You were awarded stakes for each task that you did.

TryNinja won in the first week and received their prize. For Week 2, there was a new change: (archive)


They now required you to make 10 posts for each forum profile link that you put (one of the actions was to wear their signature on various forums, and a bunch of users made a new account and just added the signature without doing anything else).

A winner for Week 2 was never announced. I left them negative trust a few months later for never paying out what was promised.

On May 20th (about 5 months later), they said that there was no winner because no one qualified:

My interpretation of that term was that all forum signature entries required the user to post 10 messages. I believed that this specifically applied to forum links and nothing else, as the statement talked about forum's links. There were non-forum ways of entering, such as Telegram or Twitter. I personally entered via Twitter. This was their response:


Did I misinterpret their post? I can't wrap around my head how the statement resembles the supposed meaning at all. Am I missing something?
Also, was leaving them a negative trust feedback is warranted?