We compiled all eligible comments and input them into an AI (ChatGPT), instructing it to randomly pick six comments as winners. After the initial results were announced, users pointed out that some winners did not participate. We re-examined the comments and confirmed that four selected winners had not participated, while the other two (including the grand prize winner) were valid participants.
Given that the initial prize pool contained errors, we decided to redraw the lottery. However, we retained the two originally valid winners and used the same AI random selection method to choose four new winners from the remaining comments (excluding the two already selected) to complete the winner list.
This is your own statement. And by your own admission, it proves that the contest was never fair from the start.
If you truly compiled only eligible comments and gave them to ChatGPT, then four out of six winners being ineligible is impossible. That means either:
- The list was never limited to eligible entries, or
- Your eligibility checks were so flawed that “eligible” was meaningless.
In both cases, the result is the same — the process was broken before it even began.
You didn’t just make a “small mistake”; you ran a contest that violated the very basics of fairness and transparency, and then admitted it publicly.
In any legitimate redraw, all participants should have been included again. Retaining any winners from a failed draw is against every accepted standard of fairness.
By your own words, two-thirds of the “winners” were invalid. That alone is enough to classify this as an unfair and invalid contest under EU consumer protection principles — regardless of whether or not a license was required.
“While our intention was to keep the process simple, we recognize that this approach may have inadvertently created an unfair advantage for some users.”
Here you openly admit that the contest gave certain users an unfair advantage.
It makes no difference whether this was intentional or accidental — in both cases, it means the contest was never fair to begin with and should never have proceeded, let alone awarded prizes.
This is not about jealousy — it’s about showing just how poorly Bambu Lab handles things on MakerWorld, perhaps even on the same level as how they handle their support.