need.... to....have....can´t....resist

*irony on* Where is your evidence that martijnp cheated? You dont have any protocols to present and he could be lying. *irony off*

That's the point, Ashmasser, 1. you don't have to proof the obvious and 2. this is no court, this is a forum. If you really want to argue that there was no fakery going on before, please go ahead. But looking back in the thread, you'll find out that you need to claim gullibility for a lot of members who raised concerns that cheating was going on before martijnp started his arguable attack on the contest.

I also don't see the "fun" part, because martijnp never planned to keep the prize.

Btw. Your date of registration makes me curious. You seem to be quite aware of the whole crypto scene. I guess you are active on other forums, would you mind posting a link to other profiles?

@Ashmaster


Noone here can prove who created those fake accounts. Everyone could have created them and then let them vote for another contributor to make it looks as if he_she cheated. Actually, that doesn´t matter at all. If you prefer to deny that different people created fake accounts to manipulate poll results, then I´m unsure whether it´s me who´s gullible.

I only pointed out that it is not necessary to look for "admitted cheaters" when it is obvious that the contest was flawed long before martijnp registered his own fake voters. But maybe you are questioning that, and believe that the massive increase of registrations (partwise with identical names) was pure coincidence. Otherwise I don´t get your argument.

I am not defending martijnps cheating. Imho there were other and better options to question the competition. Maybe there was only one to blast it.

@Ashmaster

If martijnp would have cheated to get the reward I´d say your argument was valid. Martijnp sabotaged the contest after it was already sabotaged. The only difference is that he admitted to it and that he had no intentions to disappear with the prize. I don´t think it was a sort of heroic act, but to me it doesn´t seem helpful to have only the admitted cheater in sight but rather the flawed contest and a mud-slinging, in which it was hard to come out clean, even for those who mobilized their voters properly.

I also think that handing the prize over to the foundation wouldn´t be fair for the participants. However, I wonder why splitting should be a fair option? It would be the easiest, sure. To split berween all participants would be a good choice if its only about forgetting this contest. However, the participation in this community contest was never a promised salery for interested designers. Everyone knew it was highly plausible that the invested effort wouldn´t be rewarded financially. I honestly wonder why so few are interested in a fair relaunch of the contest and so many interested in a payout. Is it only about the money?

I agree with professorY, the only fair way is a new vote. If people don´t want to take part in a new vote - which I would understand - I don´t see any reasons why the prize shouldn´t be given to the Quark Foundation.

Flip, to say that the contest should have carried out differently, is not to say that you did everything wrong and by doing so caused this mess. I guess, most of you didn´t think what 120.000 could cause when you started the contest. Whatever happened is partwise human and would have happened in other communities as well. Also, there has been a development: I guess some people felt cheated and then started cheating. I certainly don´t want to excuse this behaviour, but I´d say unfortunate things combined and turned into a huge mess. Not all cheated and not all cheaters had the same reasons to do so. I can understand your frustration but in my opinion we shouldn´t be harsh towards the community as a whole.

 

Hm, I must say that I didn´t expect that turn. Personally I don´t believe that one fraudulent behaviour legitimates the other, but while I don´t want to gloss-over what martijn did, professorY is right, we musn´t forget that he wasn´t the only one and certainly not the first to make this contest an unfair challenge.

I think we should reconsider what happened in this contest. At the beginning there were motivated designer who wanted to contribute to the community. Some of them invested a lot of time to invent something smart and beautiful. I guess - at least that´s what I would have done if I had been a participant - most of you didn´t do it for the money only but also because they felt inspired by the idea to create something for the community. The way the contest was carried out brought anger and mistrust into the community.

In my opinion, this shouldn´t be the moment to blame others but to look forward. 120.000 Quarks aren´t worth ANYTHING with a fighting community.

We can figure out a way that is fair and acceptable, but we need to stop looking backwards and start to work together.

Its alright, no hurt feelings and apologies accepted.

It doesnt matter whether it will or will not be the new logo. There should be a fair contest especially if many people are involved. As you said yourself - it seems that it isn´t. 

Barry, if there is something fishy going on, how can a distribution between the frontrunners be a fair option?

I know for all of us, especially for the contributors, it has been a tough time and all of you were waiting for ages for this poll. But can a start over really be worse than ending this flawed contest with a change of share? Good contributors like leigrecc have already left the contest early and as far as I understand martijnp from his posts on forum.qrk-board he is also considering to leave the contest without coming back. We should use the opportunity to turn the mess into something positive for the community.

I already made a proposal and I´ll try to elaborate

Prizes:

The distribution of the prizes is changed from winner-takes-it-all to 4 different position so that competitors will identify with the result even if they don´t win the 1st place.

1st final round: 50.000 QRK
2st final round: 25.000 QRK
3rd final round: 10.000 QRK
Community prize final round: 5000 QRK (most votes in the public poll)

Additionally, the winner can dedicate 30.000 to a community project that currently needs funding @ http://www.quarkfoundation.cc/projects/

Procedure:
 
1. All contestants are asked to hand in a logo for standard formats (horizontal, squared, "quark accepted") in three scaled sizes >> this way the proposals become comparable.

2. All entries are presented in a gallery >> this way the voter can actually look through it.

3. Every contributor has a max. of 5 sentences to explain the design in the gallery >> this way community members can see the "bigger picture".

4. Before the 1st public vote starts there is a vote between the contestants (3 days). The result are managed secretly (each participant sends a mail to an address kept by a neutral person) until the public poll is closed (after 7 days). The results are revealed after the poll closed and counted 50:50.

5. All contestants that reached the mark of e.g. 5% take part in a second round

6. In the 2nd round the gallery is reduced to the lasting contributors. This time everyone can present whatever else they want to present (mobile devices, webpages, metal coins etc.).

7. There is a final vote between the contestants (3 days) and after that again a public poll (7 days) like in point 4.

This whole procedure would cost us between 20 and 30 days and I believe the result will be accepted in a much broader way than a settlement between the current frontrunners. It will also ensure that this voting won´t be portrayed as a bizarre and unfair event.

@barry

It´s not his video, it´s mine and flatlands. I used the logo because it was my favourite from all contributions. I also step back from the assumption that the traffic was for the most part caused by the video. However, I don´t think that it´s starting to smell like rat - it smelled before.

There has been a lot of bad blood in a contest that could have brought the community together. It´s not too late to reconsider and rearrange. FlipPro stated from the beginning that he wouldn´t act against the community and I think we reached a point where we all, including martijnp, agree that there are flaws that need to be corrected.

It would.



Without sarcasm, I feel sorry for you.

Lol, I didn´t say that you were accusing martijnp of cheating. Quote me or stop accusing me! You suggested that someone was rigging the results in the case of martijnp and I pointed out that this was hypocritical, given the fact that you complained that people accused you for rigging when your own results were skyrocketing. Remember?


I don´t mind if you think you have to insult my grammar, but I must tell you that it rather casts an unfavourable light on your argumentation. I can communicate in five languages, I make errors all the time and I don´t have a problem with that as long as people understand what I am saying - which is, as KeyserSozeMC pointed out - the only important thing.



Btw. I am out. Talk to yourself  or insult others that are pointing to the same hipocrisy.

Here we go, personal attacks. Maybe you missed the point that my crappy English is completely irrelevant and does not change your strange behaviour. Besides, bitcointalk has no "homeland" or whatever you try to imply here. We´re talking english for pragmatic reasons.


Nope, and I didn´t say you were accusing martijnp, quote me if I´m wrong. Fact is that you started to complain like a Diva when it turned out that you were overtaken by others and immediately suggested some sort of conspiracy aginst you. You never thought that the result could actually be legitimate, why would you, right?

I am sorry, but your reaction to my post is even more embarrasing than my english and certainly more embarrasing than your behaviour before.

@Ultimist

Just  a few lines:  Your reaction seems to me really shameful. As long as you were taking the lead you were defending your method of gaining votes ALL THE WAY and discredited people who were rising critical thoughts. I don´t think that all reactions to your strategy were fair but your comments on the current voting are exposing your own utter hypocrisy.

I can´t prove where exacxtly the traffic comes from. Fact is that flatlands and me produced a popular promotion video (check my signature) for the Quark song contest that is also hosted on Quarkcoinpromo. There we used a slightly changed version of martijnps logo and referred to this thread in the description. We didn´t expect this to happen, given the fact that martijnp was only in 5th position but with all due respect the source of voters seem to me at least as legitimate as your posts on cryptoforums and others.

Now you come up and go all along cheating and manipulation, even though the exploding voting looks exactly the same like yours. Obviously you invested a lot of time in campaigning but this doesnt legitimate your screaming and complaining.

As I said from page 6 on. I am still in favour of a fair reboot of this challenge. However, I would like to underline that the current development is likely to be influenced by the video and not by fraud.

It seems that the use of martijnps logo in the Quark Coin Theory brings some voting traffic.

This Maxcon...ehh...MaxcoIn is pretty entertaining  

I downloaded the CPU miner, now it seems to be offline. Was there anything wrong about it?

It´s not too late. Registering on bitcointalk won´t take you more than 3 minutes and you still got 2 days

Seems like hordes of new Quarkers were found in some remote part of the universe and they are just going crazy for the neat logo of Ultimist