Ok,

So he was labeled a scammer not because he didn't pay his, but because he asked to be labeled a scammer.

So if someone makes a bet, then doesn't pay, but DOES NOT ask to be labeled a scammer, will that person also get a scammer tag?

It is a question that has not been answered in spite of all the responses inciting FUD.

 

I just counted at least 10 (maybe more) active threads about MNW.

Unbelievable.

This is what happens when the price of bitcoin stabilizes.

The natives get restless.

Good point EskimoBob.

MNW is clearly enjoying this.

There has already been a request for a "douchebag" tag.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105100.80

Maybe that would be appropriate here as well.

I do see the tag.  That is why I am asking.  

So as I understand it there are two additional ways to get the scammer tag.

1.  welch on a bet.
2.  Ask for it.

edit: (I was not previously aware of these)

If there are any others I'd be curious to know that too.

Thanks.

Correct.  But there are a LOT of people on this board who would be labeled SCAMMER  right now if that is now the definition of scammer.

Would I have to present evidence of my work for you that I created the logo that I did not get paid for?
Have those betting with Matthew provided evidence they were caused financial harm by entering into an obviously unrealistic bet?

I'm not defending MNW.  I'm just requesting clarity.  Right now its a mob raging against against MNW's obvious incitements.

Boycotts are fine.  Name calling is obviously fine on BCT.  However, I still lack clarity on the scammer tag.   MNW obviously, much to his pleasure, provoked a mob, but does that make him a scammer?

Wagering is rarely enforceable in court, depending on your jurisdiction.  So what Theymos is saying by labeling MNW a scammer is that wagering IS enforceable on Bitcointalk.org.  Correct?  Theymos, could you please confirm.

Thanks.

I would be supprised if Theymos "jumped the gun."

watching...

Can someone please explain to me how the people who bet with matthew are "victims"??

No funds changed hands. 

Obviously folks on this board have a lot of choice words for him but scammer does not seem to fit if we are defining the term scammer as someone who is fraudulently in possession of someone else's good or funds as a result of a trade or deal in which one party did not uphold their end of the agreement.  "Possession of funds or goods" being the operative term.

Theymos,

Can we get a clarification on the Scammer tag. Mathew N Wright may have welched on his bet but did he actually scam any one.  Is Mathew N Wright actually in possession of any of the funds from the bets?   If not I would think he can be labeled a welcher, but not a scammer.    A little clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Interesting that retropcdos now has a scammer tag.  Theymos must know something we don't.

The user you mention is not a scammer.  This is a user watch list.  That user was removed by me the OP.  You have already twice mentioned this user as a "scammer"  with is not the case so you are currently not adding any value to this conversation and in fact causing damage to this users reputation for anyone doing a future  search.  If you would like to accuse a user as a scammer, including the OP,  please post in the scam accusations thread.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0

Please read the original posts to understand the nature of this thread.  Your opinion of this thread's usefulness is welcome.

Thank you.

This is not a scammer list.  Read the op.  That use is being removed.

150 BTC for $1914.75

Don't mess with bitcoin.

Bitcoin Justice

So I just asked one of the Dwolla Newbees who was prevented from sending to me for 30 days  to send Stephen a buck (minimum payment) and it evidently went through.  (Stephen , I paid him back for his trouble!).  So I guess it is quilt by association.  hmmmmmm......