| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
pinkerton (0)
|
It's a tricky one. On the one hand you don't wanna discourage prolific reviewers but on the other, if other members are crowded out from a good chance of winning first prize in the raffle, then that'll discourage them and that hurts them and PU.
|
02-26-21 10:19am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
pat362 (0)
|
Of course they should because the contest rules are simple and anyone can win multiple times but few ever do. Now if the powers that be decide that you can only win once every few months then I'd be fine with that.
Ultimately PU doesn't have to offer any prizes so I'm okay with whatever they decide. I have won many times but now in many years but then again I have joined plenty of sites and not bothered to write a review so can't win.
|
02-26-21 03:22pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
LKLK (0)
|
The less rules the software tries to implement, the better.
What if they update the software, and it turns out there are no raffle winners?
|
02-26-21 06:59pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
elephant (0)
|
I think its best to make things fair as can be cause that's what will keep people returning more often, so I think wins should be spread out and not the same people winning too often, that said it all depends on the entries if there not many entries then sure award someone for the second month in a row with a prize.
|
03-04-21 07:09am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
KayTBuffs (0)
|
I picked, "yes, but only 2nd and 3rd prize". That is the way the raffle used to be and I don't remember any problems coming from it. I do remember when the raffle changed to a winner couldn't win the following week and that led to weeks where there weren't even enough eligible reviewers to win. I believe with the format being monthly now it would be taking a huge risk to say all 3 winners one month would be ineligible the next month.
|
03-10-21 01:51am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
TheSeasonedVet (0)
|
Obviously I would like to say no but that’s just thinking selfishly and I believe in the idea of a group of likeminded people helping each other out like this group here! Raffles are pure luck and I believe in what you put into the universe you will receive back to you! Nice guys don’t always finish last!! I think a possible idea might be to have it on a rotating basis depending on how many people are in the raffles. For ex. I win the prize on Jan next month, I would then not be eligible for the top prize for an X amount of time. Or make it incentive based. If I want to be eligible every other month I would have to meet a certain goal of reviews to do or donate money or content maybe? Idk…. I’m just a thinker and a daydreamer and this is what I got right now!
|
12-13-21 10:01pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
SavvySatisfied (0)
|
let the lucky be lucky geez
|
12-30-21 03:54am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Philip (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - TheSeasonedVet :
I.love you
|
04-07-23 08:29pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
curious (0)
|
I haven't seen anything yet; can I respond at a later date?
|
08-22-23 02:00pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Explorer (0)
|
Lets make it fair
|
09-09-23 05:01pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
slippery slope (0)
|
It’s a new contest; what’s the argument against? It hurts muh feelers? There’s no carried advantage in a lottery. In what way is a raffle any different than a hand of poker or a round of BINGO?
“But I wanna” isn’t an argument and envy is a sin iirc
|
05-03-24 11:43am
Reply To Message
|
12
|
slippery slope (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - elephant :
. “Fair” how and to whom? What’s more fair than random chance? Nothing. That’s why we invented the raffle. The really solves the fairness problem by giving everyone an equal chance. That’s what they do. It’s solved problem.
If fairness to you is a game started on unequal footing you have a hard position to defend or I’ve been using “unfair” all wrong
edit: this comes off way more contentious than is sane. it’s mostly how I write. a bit of jerk too
|
05-03-24 11:58am
Reply To Message
|
