Yes the OP lost mediation. The mediator gave their logic as to why they came to the conclusion they came to, and this was largely based on FJs TOS. To my knowledge, the mediation was not binding.

If you agree with the mediators logic, you will support FJ, and if you don’t you will support the OP.

The bickering between GP and TMAN will cause others to ignore the thread and controversy.

---

My primary concern with this situation is that FJ was effectively able to freeroll their customers. The OP had lost a decent amount playing this game he won the jackpot before won the jackpot. The amount was greater than his initial deposit. I would question if a FJ would have invalidated the bets of the second game if he lost more than his deposit when he stopped gambling. 

From the looks of it, both you and TMAN have collectively derailed this thread and likely have removed any realistic possibility the OP will receive additional compensation due to community pressure.

I think you forgot about all the calls for violence against the kids, and harassment by the hate group at the event against the kids.

The kids likely have a case for defamation against many in the MSM along with the Phillips fellow.

 

How did you determine who is in which column?

That has been debunked:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/22/alunmni-covington-catholic-high-school-push-back-against-medias-new-blackface-claim/
There are pictures of school students participating in "whiteout" and "blueout" events in which students were in all white and blue respectively, including face/body paint.   

I don't think there is any basis for this statement.

I would be strongly against doing that. As others have mentioned, stealing from a scammer is still stealing, and donating to charity doesn't change the fact that money was stolen.

I am shocked to see how little detail some of these escrow contracts for signature campaigns (and others) have. I remember seeing this escrow contract, and believing it has an appropriate amount of detail as to what all parties should expect so everyone will be on the same page depending on various outcomes and/or a dispute (this thread has a portion of the escrow contract regarding a potential dispute). Ideally, any (escrow) contract should detail what happens if work cannot be performed for any reason.

A problem with "giving the money to charity" is there is always the possibility the "scammer" will be able to later provide proof of innocence (or something to give doubt to their guilt) after the money is given away.

 A bigger problem is that you said you will do one thing, and end up doing something else.

Forfeiture laws and practices are horribly unethical, and IMO are likely to get stricken down in the fairly near future.

Also, you are incorrect as funds that can be directly tied to the crime are seized, which does not apply to the case described in the OP. Also, from what I can tell based on the description in the OP, the team in question has not actually scammed anyone yet, as it sounds like they are likely planning on scamming -- it would be appropriate to not work for this person, and to warn others of the likely scam attempt, however it does not sound like they obtained any money illicitly.

I don't think it matters who money is stolen from. Stealing is stealing no matter what.

The reaction of those in the MSM and on the left was disgusting. There were people calling for these kids to get punched in the face, doxed, harassed, and worse. The school these kids go to was closed on Tuesday because of threats of violence against the school.

What these kids were originally accused of is wrong, however none of this is an appropriate response to what they were accused of doing.

---

It turns out that the Indian was actually the one who instigated the incident, along with another racist, anti-white, anti-jew hate group, and the kids were actually the victims of the underlying incident. There were multiple racial epitaphs yelled at the kids.

After it came out the kids were the actual victims, many on the left doubled down and refused to admit they were wrong.

You think it is okay to steal from an alleged scammer? That doesn’t sound right.

Unless a third party can lay a claim to the money, any excess funds belongs to the person who procured the work. Even in this case, without a court order, giving money to a third party is legally dubious.

A refund should be given for work not completed, however there is an argument that a full refund should be given, depending on the terms agreeed to.

What is this specifically? Can you point to additional information about this?

The OP can go away

Why was Dzhus banned? The posts appear to be written in Russian

He likes to give them though. He doesn't like criticism either.

Ahh, gotcha.

So if you wanted to, you could sell excess power at off-peak prices, but you are storing excess electricity in the battery, and using it during times at which peak prices are charged in order to avoid paying peak prices.

There is no reason to be exchanging private keys for any transaction of any size. There is no reason to be providing credentials to exchange accounts.

Also the "blockchain" does not have prices, and the "blockchain" does not "provide" private keys.

It sounds like the OP is a scammer who does not even understand how "blockchain" works :

He goes to extremes to voice his points, and that turns people off from wanting to support him.

Theymos has said what a negative rating is for:
I know you believe this should be updated, but it has not been updated. Perhaps I will create a new thread for this elsewhere, as I do feel strongly about this.

However if I were to concede that negative ratings can be given for reasons other than "someone is a scammer, or strongly believe someone is a scammer", then I would ask what purpose the negative rating to CH gives? From what I can tell, the negatives do not affect him in any way. I see little purpose in giving the ratings against CH beyond stroking the ego of those who gave the negatives.

Again the harm in the negative ratings is that CH can now complain (and troll) about one more issue.

It will take some time because the forum does not take excluding people from the community lightly.

One of my favorite trolls was WoodCollector (I believe this was from before your time here, unless you browsed before creating an account). Unlike CH, he actually tried trading around here, but when he was caught being a scammer, he turned into a troll. Here are some WC threads for your reading pleasure:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930649.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=933888.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=864472.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=931472.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935115.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=932131.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=931109.0

I think the above links are in a good order. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a decent amount of time, but eventually the facts came out that cemented him as a scammer.

Does this mean you are not being allowed to sell excess electricity back to the electric company?

It was my impression (based on newspaper reports) that power companies were required to buy back excess electric production via solar (and other "green" methods) in your part of the country.

I have seen more of his posts, and believe he is most probably a troll.

I am on the fence if he even agrees with the positions he takes. It is possible he (and a few others) are going to extreme lengths to criticize certain people, so that legit criticism of these people are assumed to be trolling and are ignored.

It is my opinion that the negative ratings others have given him are inappropriate for a number of reasons. First of all, he does not appear to trade with anyone, so leaving the negative ratings will not actually warn anyone against doing business with him. Secondly, the negative ratings only give him more to complain about. Lastly, I don't think him trolling is an indication that he is a scammer.

My prediction is he will eventually get banned for trolling, and he will try to appeal that ban, and eventually his appeal account will get banned for trolling.

I find it interesting that Anduck has received multiple ratings for what was effectively backing out of his auction a single time, yet when Minerjones backs out of six of his auctions, he maintains an unblemished trust rating.

It remains my opinion that Anduck should compensate the winner of his auction (or agree to sell the coin on terms similar to his auction), however I also believe there should be consistency in giving out these types of ratings. 

Would it be difficult to enforce?

From a technical standpoint, no. It would be very easy.

From a fairness standpoint, yes. There could be some people who are advertising a company outside of the signature campaign, for example because they have an ownership stake in the company, or work for the company in a role that benefits when the company has increased sales/volume.

Even if this rule were to be enforced, campaigns could be managed entirely outside of the forum, which would make it difficult to rule out someone using a bunch of accounts to wear a particular signature, and post a bunch of garbage, making it look like the campaign has a lot of people enrolled making lots of shit posts, when in reality, these people have nothing to do with the campaign.

That is still a de-facto license. I also have a feeling changes will eventually be made to the DT system moving it in the opposite direction from where it has recently gone.