Like I told you we since then fixed our memos to make this more clear. But the memo format is <weeks> <user> and your memo has no weeks number, so it defaults to 1 and the user is clearly @for
This may not be what you expect but that is why the correct format for a memo is important. The bot cannot read minds sadly. And @smooth-a owns 45 steem like I said since he filled the order.
When it is obvious that there was a human mistake in communication with a bot that resulted in an unfair delegation of 2500 Steems to some one named @for. Then is there a problem in taking back your delegated rights and confer it to the one who deserves it rightfully???
The problem is that taking back the delegation takes one week, so 25 STEEM are already gone. Delegating to the other user means a second week gone. So 'refunding' means paying a second 50 STEEM.
We can refund the 5 STEEM in BuildTeam possesion once we are sure you know how to send a right memo from now on. But the other 45 STEEM are not ours to give.
ok. But I think your post should be prepared to handle such goof ups. If the memo format sent to the bot is not in the format suggested e.g. "<weeks <user" or whatever then no such request should be entertained. Slightest deviation from the standard format should be rejected asking to give request in proper format.
good plan, @week exists already @weeks not. there is probably @for@please@thanks@thank@you stuff like that. Once you allow natural language it becomes a mess.
OMG! Which would also cost us ~50 Steem? You seem to think this is Microsoft and not a small blockchain startup. Do you realize that with more than 22 000 users, this is our first serious complaint? That's not a product of bad service or a faulty user interface.
Yes, we are observing what he wrote and what he meant. Now we want to see how you resolve this issue amicably. How much human are the humans behind this automated bot is my prime concern before entering into any business relationship with this bot.
See my reply below. We make 10% on these orders and we have over 22 000 happy users, a lot of whom are Steemians who have invested in our services. We would have to sacrifice revenue from 10 orders of this magnitude or 100 smaller orders just because your friend made a mistake. Does that sound fair to you? Fair to the people who already have entered 'into a business relationship with this bot?'. We need to find a solution that is fair to all.
Like I told you we since then fixed our memos to make this more clear. But the memo format is
<weeks> <user>and your memo has no weeks number, so it defaults to 1 and the user is clearly @forThis may not be what you expect but that is why the correct format for a memo is important. The bot cannot read minds sadly. And @smooth-a owns 45 steem like I said since he filled the order.
When it is obvious that there was a human mistake in communication with a bot that resulted in an unfair delegation of 2500 Steems to some one named @for. Then is there a problem in taking back your delegated rights and confer it to the one who deserves it rightfully???
The problem is that taking back the delegation takes one week, so 25 STEEM are already gone. Delegating to the other user means a second week gone. So 'refunding' means paying a second 50 STEEM.
We can refund the 5 STEEM in BuildTeam possesion once we are sure you know how to send a right memo from now on. But the other 45 STEEM are not ours to give.
ok. But I think your post should be prepared to handle such goof ups. If the memo format sent to the bot is not in the format suggested e.g. "<weeks <user" or whatever then no such request should be entertained. Slightest deviation from the standard format should be rejected asking to give request in proper format.
That is true. I am currently planning to implement it so that all memos with too many parameters get rejected.
fun fact: There exist a memo that cannot be detected, for example
4 weeksand if @weeks exists there is nothing we could do.OMG! Try registering all such accounts like @week, @weeks etc. yourself 😉
good plan, @week exists already @weeks not. there is probably @for @please @thanks @thank @you stuff like that. Once you allow natural language it becomes a mess.
OMG! Which would also cost us ~50 Steem? You seem to think this is Microsoft and not a small blockchain startup. Do you realize that with more than 22 000 users, this is our first serious complaint? That's not a product of bad service or a faulty user interface.
See how you wrote 'for 4 weeks delegation of 2500 steem, thanks'?
Yes, we are observing what he wrote and what he meant. Now we want to see how you resolve this issue amicably. How much human are the humans behind this automated bot is my prime concern before entering into any business relationship with this bot.
See my reply below. We make 10% on these orders and we have over 22 000 happy users, a lot of whom are Steemians who have invested in our services. We would have to sacrifice revenue from 10 orders of this magnitude or 100 smaller orders just because your friend made a mistake. Does that sound fair to you? Fair to the people who already have entered 'into a business relationship with this bot?'. We need to find a solution that is fair to all.
could @fyrstikken please look into this, the service was clearly not provided, and the refund was never given, 50 Steem stolen from me.
Better not confuse minnowbooster with booster 🐐