Hacker News Reader

Comment by cft | Hacker News Reader

I used Sprig a lot in the end of 2014 when I had to say at the office late due to DDoS attacks, but I have no use for it otherwise. I received a poorly penned up email from a recent Berkeley MBA graduate, working for Sprig. It asked to give Sprig another chance and offered the first $20 credit. I used up that credit on basically a single lunch $13+ tax +$2.75 delivery fee. Then suddenly I received a push notification with another $20 credit the next day! Then since I liked that game I invited my dev phone to Sprig and got another $10...

With Lyft, I actually received $150 in credit total. I picked a coupon for $50 at SoMa food park. Then I received $50 credit for my 5 star rating, and then suddenly my dev phone also received the same $50 credit since it had a dormant Lyft account that I only used in 2014: apparently it had a perfect 5 star rating too.

View on HN

Violating the limit 1 per customer policy is stealing.

EDIT: I wasn't going to engage but with this many downvotes I feel obligated to explain myself. Like I commented below, I'm not trying to tell you how to act. I merely wanted to point out that just because it's easy doesn't make it not wrong. As a group of people who actually run their own companies I would expect us to know better.

We already have a term for what he did, he broke the terms of service. That was clearly laid out in his comment. I don't think you added any new information to it.

I think you are getting down voted because he explained the entire situation, and you generalized it in a way that strips his actions of context.

For instance if someone told me your were a thief, I would instantly form a poor opinion of you. However I would form a very different opinion if I knew the reason you were a thief was because you posted your bike on craigslist, and then broke the terms of service by re-posting those pictures elsewhere. Thus anyone who introduces you as a thief is doing you and communication a disservice.

Is it stealing if the company gives you the coupons? They could have detected that his account already benefited from a 50$ rebate, no?

Sort of, sort of not. I have a 'two chances' rule, when someone screws up and gives me something extra that I don't believe I should get, I ask them to check it again. If they repeat the offer, I explain that as I understand things I shouldn't be getting the largesse. And if after both them re-checking it, and hearing my explanation snd still wanting to give it to me, I say "Ok, thanks." and move on.

Look, I'm not the ethical police or anything, but I think it clearly is.

I had a second phone with an existing dormant Lyft account that I have used in the past, and I involuntarily received a promotion on that phone, in addition to my active phone. Both phones were configured with the same payment method by the way, same name, same card. How is this stealing?

With Sprig, I invited my second dev phone as an experiment, but I have never used the remaining credit- I simply have very little use for their service. And I can prove that. How is that stealing? I think you should be careful laying anonymous accusations.

I wasn't dismissing your point of view, but I still think they could have easily made due diligence and verified if the account already had used a coupon.

it's still stealing if the anti-theft mechanisms in the store don't go off, right? Terms of Service likely stipulate this sort of thing. Just because they aren't enforced with technology doesn't make it legal.

Is it "stealing" if I'm walking by the store and an employee comes out to the sidewalk and offers me free samples, even though they did the same thing yesterday?

Some of you guys have a promising career waiting for you at the RIAA.

What if they said "Please don't take one if you took one yesterday?" Would you still take it?

No, but if I did, it still isn't "stealing," any more than jaywalking is "rape of traffic."

IMHO it'd be more of a Tragedy of the Commons type of scenario, where a few users taking advantage of loopholes in the rules might hose the deal for everybody.

I agree and that's why I've turned down the freebies the Lyft people are always handing out -- they claim it's for new users and I want to respect that. But then again, I also assumed they'd make a token effort to reject people that already have a registered number with them.

I don't understand how breaking a private organisation's terms of service makes you a criminal. As a taxpayer I don't give a shit what any business's TOS are, and I don't think a penny of my money should be spent enforcing them. Enforce them technically or stfu; it's not my problem and none of my concern. Someone gets too many free vouchers from some retarded dot-bubble startup's shitty software and suddenly I'm forking out for the cops and judges to get involved? I don't fucking think so! Get me on a jury for one of those cases please!

Time to rig up all my dev phones...heh. This is awesome, and kind of crazy. That's so much money to be spending on user acquisition. There's no way even traditional restaurants spend $50+ on customer acquisition. Sprig's margins must be ultra slim. I too have gotten many many free meals from Sprig.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com