I’m in.
Yeah, I’m in.
Thanks for GAW.
I’m in.
The giveaway is over and a winner has been selected! Video to follow when I get home this evening. In the meantime, congrats, Mandrake50 for the win (post 95)!
WOW. Thank you very much!!
This is great.
Good Win—-Enjoy
Thanks for this giveaway. 
The winner posted twice—should be disqualified for multiple posting.
Congrats to the winner! 
Nah, he deleted the second entry before the draw.
Nice going, Mandrake50.
Thanks for the giveaway, Rusty Joe.
Congratulations, Mandrake50.
Congrats to the winner! 
Didn’t he double post?
I saw the double-post - and deletion of it - but the problem becomes that with this format, there is no way for me to delete a post and/or disqualify someone without doing the same to someone else who might accidentally do so. And if said disqualifying post is in the middle of posts, I can’t see a way to preserve the post # selection process from then on. Ultimately, a random.org selection takes the total number of posts and selects, irregardless of one particular person. So in this case, I put in 3-99 and a selection was made.
I don’t see a huge problem here. The selected number was actually prior to the additional accidental post. So, to me, we are okay. And in the interest of true randomness, I’ve let it stand.
Maybe there should be rules with more specific guidelines than we presently go by?
It might be a pain but keeping a numbered list of eligible participants in post #1 or #2 would solve any double post issues. For example, since you drew a # up to #99 it could potentially skew the randomness since you are increase the # of random #’s to choose from
There is a difference. It doesn’t matter where a second post is made - it reduces the probability of others winning.
Or use a shared spreadsheet to be filled by the candidates. Easy to eliminate double entries.
In the only GAW I’ve ever conducted I entered all qualified users into a spreadsheet myself. Not too many users over there, but this is BLF …
It reduces the probability of everyone participating to win, even the one who has the double entry (if one entry is correctly marked as invalid). But in case the invalid post number is drawn, the procedure could be repeated, rectifying the problem.
Plain and Simple rules as stated in Post #1
We will be doing a giveaway, thanks to Cyansky, of the 3,000 lumen Cyansky P25 tactical torch.
Any current BLF member, US or international, is eligible to participate and win (see rules below). Winner to be determined by post count and selected by random.org and announced Monday after the posting of my review on Youtube at some point later today or tomorrow.
Just post: “I’m in.”
Rules (disqualifications):
- No sock puppets
- No multiple postings
- No one who already owns or has received a review sample of the light.
Stay tuned.
I don't think it's a big deal. Hopefully, we're all having fun here, and I'm sure nobody wants to make this a difficult or contentious thing for Rusty Joe.
The only change I would make is to add a rule reserving the right to make any modification to the rules you may see fit to make.
Thanks, Joe!