Topic: [Solved] asuryan180 left false feedback (Read 763 times)

Just to confirm payment has been received and I hope I don't look like some greedy member because I am really not, you would know that by me blocking you and not getting on your case to pay me, however I was disappointed as I felt I put enough effort into reaching the required posts and no spam to make them posts. I never made threats to start a scam accusation and all the carry on, my feedback has been changed to reflect the change. Lock this whenever you are ready Carra. Thanks for payments.

The remaining amount has been payed. Another participant, erwin45hacked was in a similar situation (joined for 1 week but posted above the minimum required for the full term) and has also been payed.

https://blockchain.info/tx/aa8aa071de5adfba48b5d136cd97917bf2045694aeffba1d0d847288acbf862e

I will leave this open for some time in case asuryan180 wants to make some statement, and then I will lock it.

Yeah that's a wonderful idea Carra. Personally I feel that if someone accepts the position of a campaign manager, they should make sure that they are no "loopholes" in their campaign for incidents like this. Probably more will do so after reading some of the latest scam accusations concerning sig campaign payments. My case being one of them too.

I took it to be as pro-rata payment. You quite clearly took it be something else. We could have resolved this over PM but you simply blocked me and logged out.

Anyways, 3 members here feel that the terms were not clear enough and that it is better I pay you the remaining amount. I am tending towards that decision, and it seems I need to revise the terms in all the campaigns to leave out any ambiguity.

Not once did you tell me I would get paid less for posting between the 13th and the 18th and you had every chance to before I started! Never got angry I just told you not to BS me and after calling me the scammer lol! I am thinking of changing my feedback to something more appropriate.



Make of it what you want guys I joined and posted the required posts and was clear it would be between the 13th and 18th.

EDIT: 1, Please provide these raging pms?  

EDIT: 2, I have now unblocked and pmed Carra telling him he is very cheeky starting a scam accusation against me.

I have to agree with MZ. While you thought that it was "given" that their sig camp rate would be pro rated, they can play the ignorance card because its not listed on the thread. I do suggest changing the post in the thread to one that states what would happen in the event of "X". Users will be pro rated due to dates conflict with campaign. I do not think there is no need for cursing and not trying to resolve this in a calm and reserved manner. I know situtations arise where people get frustrated and lose control. I am not beyond that. 

I know you have been fair to enrollees or at least I experienced it.

IMHO you should pay 0.02BTC because what mentioned in OP isn't clear like EcuaMobi told. If you want to avoid this in future, please be precise about this in OP.

What i dont really understand is this thread, whats the point exactly? Trust is not moderated, thats one thing, second he gave you neutral feedback whats the big deal? Even if it was negative it wouldnt change your trust rating at all

Thanks for your feedback. I would like to see what other members think about this.
As I have mentioned, I believed that it implied pro-rata based on time (in the end I averaged between time and posts), but I am willing to revise that stance.

Personally I don't think those terms are clear enough to authorize you to pro-rate the payment. You should add a clear rule regarding that for the future.

I think you should send the remaining 0.02. Hopefully he will remove his rating afterwards. He should as clearly this was just a misunderstanding.

I was under the impression that he was joining the campaign according to the rules. I get participants all throughout the time (in this as well as other campaigns), and I usually pro-rata the payments if they have joined quite late.

Since the specific issue of rules have come up, I would like to point to these two:
(note the OP was edited today to update the post requirements, but the relevant portion is still the same)

Minimum required posts for two weeks campaign:

and Must post in multiple sections of the forum during a whole week.


I do not want the issue to remain unresolved. Normally I would have sent him a PM explaining, but I am unable to. In case there is the small chance that he deserves the 0.02BTC I would like to know that too. I never leave any of my participants unpayed for their time and effort.

I was under the impression I was actually giving him more as pro-rata payment (considering time) would have been around 0.03BTC, but I did anyway as he did manage a lot of quality posts.

OP where did you state you'd pay less (0.06 instead of 0.08) if the user joins for less time? I can't find it in your thread, am I missing it? Or was it via PM?

You shouldn't make a big deal for an untrusted neutral feedback anyway.

From what I can see (and I use DefaultTrust) - you have a perfect trust rating - no negatives on both trusted and untrusted feedback!

I have never done, or indeed needed to do anything like this before. However, I am forced to post this as I was given, IMO, false feedback and when I tried to contact the accuser I found that I was blocked from sending him PMs.

What happened::

asuryan180 rejoined the BitBingo.io campaign, being managed by me, on 13th May. Today, 18th May payment was done (payment is on every alternate Monday). In this time the participant made 25 posts in gambling and an additional 6-7 posts elsewhere. All the posts were deemed to be quality.

At the time of joining, the rule was 30 posts, with 10 in gambling, else 35 posts (all constructive)done over the 2 weeks were needed for payment which is 0.08BTC for Sr. Member. Since the participant was enrolled for 5 days at the time of payment, but had completed the posting requirement, I payed him 0.06BTC.

After that the participant send several PMs to me in anger, and then proceeds to leave a neutral feedback and blocks me from sending him PM.

The rating reads
Met requirements with 25 constructive posts in gambling as per the pm deal we had. Carra paid 25% less than I should of got. As you will see from the 13th May to the 18th of May not 'one' spam post and all constructive to the thread. Finished campaigns due how they are being managed now.

with a risked BTC amount set to 0.08BTC.

The main issue seems to be a PM conversation which he has mistaken to be me offering him a deal of paying him 0.08BTC for 25 gambling posts+other posts. The PM is provided below.

Scammers Profile Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/asuryan180-210100

Reference Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/closed-bitbingo-casino-signature-campaign-fixed-rate-bi-weekly-pay-1013170

Amount Scammed: Wasting my time having to do all this. I am losing money as I actually have some deadline to meet. In addition there is a chance that business owners looking for a campaign manager may read the rating and forms a negative opinion of me.

Payment Method: Bitcoin

Proof of Payment: https://blockchain.info/tx/13527dc98b0c75310d914edaea36957449f5f4e27cabce8d8bf099e870c5fc5e
PM/Chat Logs:


Additional Notes:

I believe I am always fair to the participants. Instead of raging, asuryan180 should have tried resolving it in a calm manner.
I request asuryan180 to remove the false feedback.