Scammer: Dank

[drekk]

I demand a "dank" tag for everyone posting in this thread.

[squall1066]

I demand a "dank" tag for everyone posting in this thread.

[repentance]

I demand a "dank" tag for everyone posting in this thread.

Yay, gang tags!

On a more serious note, dank's thread doesn't belong in Long Term Offers.  He's asking for donations and not offering people who give him funds for the Gathering of the Dankalos any return other than "good karma".  The only other "business" he uses that thread for is taking out the occasional pay-day style loan, which belongs in general Lending not Long-term offers. 

[greyhawk]

Well, with his track record, he'll have to rely on survival investments donations for the long term.


Also, totally wanna get a dank tag.

[Rarity]

1) Was payment required for services?
2) Is there sufficient evidence of a contract? Verbal or otherwise, though written is preferred (shouldn't be so hard since this is on the internet...)
3) What was your net loss as a result of working with Dank?

Yes, Yes, I called out the scam before my payment was required.  My loss in not getting the recording I promised is vast, the value of an early rare personalized recording from a great musician is vast.

As Dank is offering no explanation, denial, or defense I believe this case remains open and shut.

Part 1)
So let me get this straight. You were going to pay him for the song...but didn't pay him because you didn't get what you wanted (but you did, in fact, receive something)?

I did not receive the product that was promised.  The fact that I did not make payment is irrelevant as the purpose of the tag is to warn people in the future that the tagged breaks their agreements.  The user in question solicits large amounts of money through this forum and can not be trusted to stand by his word.  

Dank did deliver a recording to you that very very very vaguely resembles a shitty quality "Mary had a little lamb", did he not? You can claiming he's scamming you because the quality didn't match your standards? From what I'm gathering, Rarity, you are the scammer as you haven't paid for services rendered by Dank.

By no standards was this the requested song according to the provided tab.  It was not poor quality, it was a different song.  If you maintain a standard where people can lie entirely about the products they sell on the forum there will be no reason for anyone to ever continue to buy and sell here.  If someone promises to sell an iPhone and instead sends a low quality flip phone they should not receive leniency for simply sending a phone.

You're view of a "great musician" needs a bit of work my friend. I'm not entirely sure rubbing your testicles on some guitar strings to make sounds qualifies as music...but I suppose who am I to judge.

Dank himself has made the promise of music greatness, if you are telling me he has misrepresented this than it is just more proof he is untrustworthy and has operated a scam.

Part 4)
I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm just giving an outside opinion on the matter after reading through this thread. Honestly, it's utterly idiotic. Unless there's a substantial amount of evidence posted I don't think I can vote either way yet. But based on what I've seen already there isn't a scam here.

We have a written agreement for a product to be provided, it was not.  There is nothing to debate.

[dank]

Repentance, why is it that I've paid back all my investors, and will pay the remaining two I have, early, once my BTC comes through?

I didn't realize people gave back donations.

Dank Bank has been the longest lasting weekly interest program, has it not?

[repentance]

Repentance, why is it that I've paid back all my investors, and will pay the remaining two I have, early, once my BTC comes through?

I didn't realize people gave back donations.

Dank Bank has been the longest lasting weekly interest program, has it not?

Why are you asking for donations in "Long Term Offers"?  Dank Bank may offer interest and pay back lenders but your musical festival is not a Dank Bank project - as you just said, you're asking for donations which won't be paid back.

Your Dank Bank thread should only be about your "legitimate" Dank Bank business.  Instead, you now solicit donations for your music festival in the OP of your Dank Bank thread when the music festival is clearly not being offered as an investment on which people will be given a return, whether as a fixed loan or as a share of the *cough* profits.  The Long Term Offers forum is for lending and borrowing and soliciting donations for your music festival is neither.

[dank]

I already said, I am not seeking donations for any of my ventures.  Show me a post where I asked for donations on this forum.

[Korbman]

1) Was payment required for services?
2) Is there sufficient evidence of a contract? Verbal or otherwise, though written is preferred (shouldn't be so hard since this is on the internet...)
3) What was your net loss as a result of working with Dank?

Yes, Yes, I called out the scam before my payment was required.  My loss in not getting the recording I promised is vast, the value of an early rare personalized recording from a great musician is vast.

As Dank is offering no explanation, denial, or defense I believe this case remains open and shut.

Part 1)
So let me get this straight. You were going to pay him for the song...but didn't pay him because you didn't get what you wanted (but you did, in fact, receive something)?

I did not receive the product that was promised.  The fact that I did not make payment is irrelevant as the purpose of the tag is to warn people in the future that the tagged breaks their agreements.  The user in question solicits large amounts of money through this forum and can not be trusted to stand by his word.  

Dank did deliver a recording to you that very very very vaguely resembles a shitty quality "Mary had a little lamb", did he not? You can claiming he's scamming you because the quality didn't match your standards? From what I'm gathering, Rarity, you are the scammer as you haven't paid for services rendered by Dank.

By no standards was this the requested song according to the provided tab.  It was not poor quality, it was a different song.  If you maintain a standard where people can lie entirely about the products they sell on the forum there will be no reason for anyone to ever continue to buy and sell here.  If someone promises to sell an iPhone and instead sends a low quality flip phone they should not receive leniency for simply sending a phone.

You're view of a "great musician" needs a bit of work my friend. I'm not entirely sure rubbing your testicles on some guitar strings to make sounds qualifies as music...but I suppose who am I to judge.

Dank himself has made the promise of music greatness, if you are telling me he has misrepresented this than it is just more proof he is untrustworthy and has operated a scam.

Part 4)
I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm just giving an outside opinion on the matter after reading through this thread. Honestly, it's utterly idiotic. Unless there's a substantial amount of evidence posted I don't think I can vote either way yet. But based on what I've seen already there isn't a scam here.

We have a written agreement for a product to be provided, it was not.  There is nothing to debate.

Rarity, *sigh*, you're really trying to create the thinnest argument possible here. The reality is that you're just butthurt your niece wasn't happy about the twanging Dank submitted.

No one lost any money. No one gained any money. There is no scam here. Based on the evidence you've currently provided in this thread, all you did was ask for a favor. Just because Dank might have been an asshole doesn't mean he's going around scamming people.

People's definition of "Scammer" on this forum is ridiculously construed.

[Rarity]

I did not ask for a favor, I had a written agreement as documented in the very first post of this thread.  I was not "satisfied" because the agreed upon product was not delivered and was falsely represented as genuine in an attempt to get me to comply with our agreement.  This is a scam by the most basic of definitions.  

The monetary gain for Dank in this scam was to silence a vocal critic of his business practices and the monetary value of recorded music is well established.

[legolouman]

We had a written agreement of barter for the delivery of a recorded musical performance of a specified song.  Recorded music has a well established monetary value.   Delivery was made of a fraudulent, misrepresented product.  

Normally, yes, recorded music does have a monetary value. However, what ever Dank is trying to do with his guitar is not music.

[dank]

Rarity, that is my version of Mary Had a Little Lamb, just for you.  Perhaps if you didn't spam my threads with the same questions, I would have turned the distortion down and tuned my guitar before recording.

[Rarity]

Rarity, that is my version of Mary Had a Little Lamb, just for you.  Perhaps if you didn't spam my threads with the same questions, I would have turned the distortion down and tuned my guitar before recording.

You cannot sell a car and deliver a bike and act as if it is all the same.  The product did not match the tune or rhythm of the provided tab.  It is not a matter of interpretation.  Even properly tuned and undistorted the notes played would not be identifiable as the requested song.

In a false attempt to claim this as the product promised and not the entirely distinct song it was, you have now admitted instead to purposefully providing a low quality unrecognizable product.  Such an intentional action out of spite to provide an unrecognizable product is an admission of scamming.   You may as well have agreed to sell me a hamburger but instead sold a hot dog you spit on.  Clearly not the agreed upon product.

If you are indeed capable of playing Mary Had A Little Lamb in a recognizable manner which as an expert guitar player you surely can, you can provide your defense by recording it and posting it for this thread.  Given your history of fraud, however, you should do it on video and provide us with identification.

[Korbman]

I did not ask for a favor, I had a written agreement as documented in the very first post of this thread.  

Are you referring to...

http://soundcloud.com/dankm/untitled-101
http://soundcloud.com/dankm/untitled-102

These are pretty good, though a little derivative of Dank Untitled 64 and Dank Untitled 75 which are my favorites.  While you are recording could you take a moment to record Mary Had A Little Lamb for my niece?  She is heading home tomorrow and I won't see her again until December.

http://www.music-for-music-teachers.com/mary-had-a-little-lamb-guitar.html

...as the written agreement? Unfortunately, that is not what you think it is. You're asking if he could, not if he will. There is a difference, which is why I made the original note that you were asking for a favor, and not formally agreeing to a service. Not only that, but I see absolutely NO mention that Dank agreed to perform the specified tab. I see the quote where he mentioned that if you listened to what he played you'd have to stop posting stuff or whatever, but there's no detail.

Rarity, you HAVE to understand that there needs to be quoted proof of an ACTUAL agreement. This would entail that you say "I would like for you to do this for me", and he would say "Why yes, I will do this for you by [specified date]". THAT is the most basic verbal (written in this case) contract you can have.

I was not "satisfied" because the agreed upon product was not delivered and was falsely represented as genuine in an attempt to get me to comply with our agreement.  This is a scam by the most basic of definitions.

Ah, I see. Well since that's the case, let me enlighten you a bit. The most basic definition of scam is "to defraud; swindle". You also seem to be lacking the basic knowledge of "defraud; swindle" so I look the liberty of looking it up for you:

de·fraud  (d-frôd)
tr.v. de·fraud·ed, de·fraud·ing, de·frauds
To take something from by fraud; swindle

swin·dle  (swndl)
v. swin·dled, swin·dling, swin·dles
v.tr.
1. To cheat or defraud of money or property.
2. To obtain by fraudulent means: swindled money from the company.
v.intr.
To practice fraud as a means of obtaining money or property.
n.
The act or an instance of swindling.

As nothing was taken from you, this is not a scam. You're right in saying this is an easy open-shut case. There is no scam.

The monetary gain for Dank in this scam was to silence a vocal critic of his business practices and the monetary value of recorded music is well established.

This is just an opinionated statement and absolutely not possible to prove in under the best of circumstances.

[Rarity]

...as the written agreement?

No, the written agreement was made over several posts and is quoted in full in the first post of this thread.  Please stop wasting my time.

As nothing was taken from you, this is not a scam. You're right in saying this is an easy open-shut case. There is no scam.

It's like saying somebody shouldn't be charged with bank robbery if the guard thwarts them.  You are an idiot.  Nothing was taken from me because I identified the scam as it was in progress.

This is just an opinionated statement and absolutely not possible to prove in under the best of circumstances.

Neither of those statements are opinions.  They are facts.

"I would like for you to do this for me", and he would say "Why yes, I will do this for you by [specified date]". THAT is the most basic verbal (written in this case) contract you can have.

We had an agreement, and this is all spelled out in writing, that if he played Mary Had A Little Lamb (and was given a tab to show what song I meant) I would agree to perform certain actions.  There is no need for dates or "Why Yes" since it was conditional on Dank making the effort.  I later asked him to post the song in accordance to our agreement, and he claimed he was doing so with the posted song.  This is when the scam occurred, had he simply never claimed to have played it there would be no complaint.  The agreement did not require him to.  The scam is in claiming to have fulfilled the agreement when he did not in an attempt to falsely claim payment.

[repentance]

dank's fast becoming the Chris-Chan of Bitcoin.  He'll probably be "famous" by the end of the year, but only because it can't be all that much longer before 4chan becomes aware of his existence.

[organofcorti]

I demand a "dank" tag for everyone posting in this thread.

I actually did have a dank tag at one point. Luckily it could be removed using plastic surgery and I could then fit into my underwear once more.

[CJGoodings]

Rarity should be the one receiving the scammer for starting this shit storm of a thread. Wtf are you serious, in the scam accusations board??? Get over it if he hurt your feelings, this is not what the tag is for.

[Rarity]

The emotional damages to my niece are only one aspect of this case.  In attempting to defraud me into believing he had played the song requested in accordance to our agreement he was attempting to silence a vocal critic of his business.  He had an economic motive in this scam.

[CJGoodings]

Its a life lesson for your niece, the world is filled with liars and cheats, tell her to get used to it.