Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns

[shorena]

I think 0.1 btc for every enrolled user is perfect .

Why not proportionally payout in case of insufficient funds? Its not like has never been done before. Why would you want to pay a "Full member" the full rate for 200 posts and everyone else less?

[1714017151]

1714017151

[dooglus]

Your signature isn't correct yet.

Its all good now.

Please check again. The rules say you can't advertise other services.

I would recommend that everyone who is concerned that DB is a scam should stop wearing the DB signature completely, switch to some other campaign, and at the end of the month we'll pay you out for the 9 days you wore it for.

Then you don't need to add a disclaimer.

It seems unreasonable to expect anyone to pay you for advertising a site with "this is a scam" tagged onto the ad. Even if the rules don't explicitly prohibit it, common sense does. Why would anyone pay you to say they suck?

[dooglus]

I know about that arrangement macrotheminer, but if Dooglus and I need to pay people we will most likely stop counting after the maximum of 200 posts per month, since we have a very limited amount of funds.

I understand. The plan is that dicebitcoin pays out (the final test wether they want to continue the site, IMO)

I don't know why they asked up to pay out, rather than continuing as normal. I've asked, but they didn't tell me.

My guess is that they are concerned that if they pay out, we keep the 10 BTC and use it to refund people who are owed money for bets that weren't paid out. Basically trust has broken down which is exactly when escrow kicks in.

Perhaps once we have paid out the 10 BTC to advertisers, they will resume the campaign as before.

[redsn0w]

I think 0.1 btc for every enrolled user is perfect .

Why not proportionally payout in case of insufficient funds? Its not like has never been done before. Why would you want to pay a "Full member" the full rate for 200 posts and everyone else less?

Yes your thinking is  correct , but it isn't our decision .. there are only a suggestions , the  two escrows will decide the correct payout for everyone .

[dooglus]

I just found out I have to be offline for the next day or so. I have a lot of driving to do. So no I didn't run off with the escrow coins or anything...

I'll be back when I can.

[Mitchell]

A new topic is being created for the DiceBitco.in Signature Campaign. All information and stuff will be posted in there. Thank you.

[shorena]

A new topic is created for the DiceBitco.in Signature Campaign. All information and stuff will be posted in there. Thank you.

link?

[williamj2543]

Wait what? What the hell is happening with dicebitcoin. Is it seriously closing?

[Mitchell]

A new topic is created for the DiceBitco.in Signature Campaign. All information and stuff will be posted in there. Thank you.

link?

I forgot the word "being", sorry. I will post the link as soon as it's done.

[alani123]

Wait what? What the hell is happening with dicebitcoin. Is it seriously closing?

There's uncertainty all around. He's probably moving away from the forums for now after getting his reputation damaged due to the recent drama.

[counter]

Wait what? What the hell is happening with dicebitcoin. Is it seriously closing?

This is all pretty much news to me also.  I seen a person who had the Dicebitco signature crossed out and the sig read "don't use the site" before the crossed advertisement..  Can't recall who it was but from the little I read on the topic yesterday.  It's not going so well and people are muttering scam accusations.  Maybe there is more info on this in the actual campaign thread. 

[Mitchell]

Please continue all "DiceBitco.in Signature"-related stuff to the new topic: [FULL]DiceBitco.in Siganture Campaign - Continued by Dooglus and BitcoinInformation.

[ReBoRn]

Wait what? What the hell is happening with dicebitcoin. Is it seriously closing?

There's uncertainty all around. He's probably moving away from the forums for now after getting his reputation damaged due to the recent drama.

Yes he need to be away because he is one of legit person here on this forum and done great job with JD without any problem

[jbrnt]

A new one called dice.ninja popped up:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776010.0
Rates are good for a biweekly campaign, but no escrow offered (yet).

[shorena]

Wait what? What the hell is happening with dicebitcoin. Is it seriously closing?

There's uncertainty all around. He's probably moving away from the forums for now after getting his reputation damaged due to the recent drama.

Yes he need to be away because he is one of legit person here on this forum and done great job with JD without any problem

DB =|= doog = JD

A new one called dice.ninja popped up:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776010.0
Rates are good for a biweekly campaign, but no escrow offered (yet).

allready in OP

[Mitchell]

allready in OP

I added it to the OP, because he reminded me that you posted that.

[shorena]

allready in OP

I added it to the OP, because he reminded me that you posted that.

You are too fast sometimes

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I'm posting this in here because I think it's relevant.

BitcoinInformation has decided to enforce a provision made by DiceBitco.in retroactively. There is no authority for him to do so.

1. DiceBitco.in added in a statement on Sept 5th.
2. This statement has no merit whatsoever to anyone who enrolled before the date.
3. BitcoinInformation has said that he will enforce this statement that is without merit.
 
As an example, a signature ad campaign cannot add a clause saying "We are lowering this payout by 90%." and have it apply to people who have enrolled under the original rates. Contracts may not be changed unilaterally retroactively - any supposed changes are null and void to people who have enrolled. They are only bound by the rules present when they enrolled.

I welcome your thoughts on the matter.

[Mitchell]

I'm posting this in here because I think it's relevant.

BitcoinInformation has decided to enforce a provision made by DiceBitco.in retroactively. There is no authority for him to do so.

1. DiceBitco.in added in a statement on Sept 5th.
2. This statement has no merit whatsoever to anyone who enrolled before the date.
3. BitcoinInformation has said that he will enforce this statement that is without merit.
 
As an example, a signature ad campaign cannot add a clause saying "We are lowering this payout by 90%." and have it apply to people who have enrolled under the original rates. Contracts may not be changed unilaterally retroactively - any supposed changes are null and void to people who have enrolled. They are only bound by the rules present when they enrolled.

I welcome your thoughts on the matter.

The clause you described is something entirly different then the rule we are enforcing. Not changing your signature is a common sense rule, all signature campaigns trust you to not change/alter it or they enforce it in their OP:

...
3. Do not remove your signature or edit your initial post for 30 days
...

...
You will be disqualified and barred from the campaign if:
 - you change or alter the signature during participation
 - you do not meet the 50 post requirement after your time is up
 - you make the majority of your qualified posts in a small time frame
 - you cause serious trouble on this forum such as a flamewar or scam
...

In my opinion it's a clarification and not a new rule. Also, how can you be certain that this has been added at 5 September and not before that date? The last edit was at 5 September, but that doesn't mean anything.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

The clause you described is something entirly different then the rule we are enforcing.

Then I advise you to edit your post.

Note 3: The "You need to have the Dicebitco.in signature AT ALL TIMES you are enrolled. Fail to do so will void all/any outstanding payments owed to you. Dont try to cheat!" was added before all this happened and will be enforced. (The last edit on the DiceBitco.in Signature topics is 4 days ago).

This is the note I am referring to.

In my opinion it's a clarification and not a new rule

Then why did you refer to it and say "[it] will be enforced"? It's clear you haven't actually read what you posted.