How should this be interpreted?

[DarkStar_]

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)

-snip--
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.

Good luck and we will see who will be the owner of another iPhone X after the New Year!

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:

Giveaway for the second week didn't happen, because none of the participants successfully completed additional requirements as stated in the quoted post above:

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.

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:

Giveaway for the second week didn't happen, because none of the participants successfully completed additional requirements as stated in the quoted post above:

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.

So don't count the forum links, and do the raffle based on the Twitter entries? You only specify that the forum submissions would not be counted if 10 messages were not posted. (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.

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?

[1714005835]

1714005835

[1714005835]

1714005835

[actmyname]

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/up66gIf 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?

[Quickseller]

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

[...]The Blender.io team will pick out winners randomly via https://www.miniwebtool.com/ up to 4 times a 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:

For week 2 we have an additional requirement: you will need to publish at least 10 messages before the next round for each link of your forum, otherwise they will not be taken into account.

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.

[HCP]

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.

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.

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.

[actmyname]

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.

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.

[Steamtyme]

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 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.

[TryNinja]

He PM’ed me this right after you negged him.

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.

[DarkStar_]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[The Cryptovator]

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.

[HCP]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[Steamtyme]

Depending on how they counted their week - again they are very vague. These 2 would have earned stakes for their twitter activities
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5052876.msg49053567#msg49053567
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5052876.msg49069102#msg49069102

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.

[HCP]

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)_/¯

[LoyceV]

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.

[DarkStar_]

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.

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

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.

[actmyname]

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.

[Steamtyme]

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.

[DarkStar_]

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

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.