Quote from: DarkStar_ on May 23, 2019, 10:00:37 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 23, 2019, 08:11:00 AM

Quote from: HCP on May 23, 2019, 04:17:19 AM

Quote from: Coolcryptovator on May 23, 2019, 04:09:57 AM

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 Tongue

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:

Quote from: blenderio on December 29, 2018, 06:05:05 PM

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

This is the main reason I've switched to a neutral for now:

Quote from: Quickseller on May 22, 2019, 11:54:05 PM

The first round started Dec 21, and ended on the ~~28th~~29th. 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)

Quote from: blenderio on May 21, 2019, 07:31:40 AM

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:

Quote from: TECSHARE on May 23, 2019, 03:23:10 AM

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.