Scammer: Dank

[repentance]

It's hard to put soul in music when you're doing it for someone's ego.

So how are you going to manage to put soul into providing a custom beat for 420?

[1715107106]

1715107106

[1715107106]

1715107106

[1715107106]

1715107106

[1715107106]

1715107106

[1715107106]

1715107106

[dank]

He smokes weed, he's somewhat intact with his consciousnesses.

[CharlesPonzi]

Dank  promised something and lied about creating it making his soul worth less and thus his insurance offer is null and void  

[dank]

Except, I did create it.  I can't help if you don't like it, you control your feelings.

[JohnBigheart]

So services were requested, found lacking in expected quality, and thus not paid for. The only useful tag in this case would be 'incompetent'.

I think this sums up the situation. Except there is a fine line between "lacking in expected quality" and "intended deception":

If I would hire Elton John to play "Mary Had A Little Lamb" on my nieces birthday party and Elton would have a bad day and would not live up to my expectations because he hit a few bad notes on the piano and wore a soulless outfit not featuring his extravagant sunglasses, I would call it "lacking in expected quality". This would entitle me to negotiate reduction or waiver of fees on the grounds of quality issues. This would in no way make Elton a scammer. He made reasonable attempts to deliver the services agreed but we are all humans, sometimes even Elton can't charm all his fans.

However if instead of Elton a poor imitator would show up with false hair, a cheap nylon suit and a Greek accent.. Well I would not call that "lacking in expected quality". I would call that intended deception. And even if the payment would not be made I would still call it an attempted fraud.

I can't decide which side of the line Dank's delivery of services was. However I believe that Rarity's claims can't be simply dismissed as "you didn't pay for it, so it's not even a scam".

[AndrewBUD]

^ I second this motion.

[MildBill]

So services were requested, found lacking in expected quality, and thus not paid for. The only useful tag in this case would be 'incompetent'.

I would pay good money for Dank to get an 'incompetent' tag.   

[BitcoinINV]

Lmfao maybe lost stoner tag?

[BorderBits]

Is there a tag for fleecing a couple thousand dollars from your parents to pay for your internet funbux schemes? 

[Phinnaeus Gage]

So services were requested, found lacking in expected quality, and thus not paid for. The only useful tag in this case would be 'incompetent'.

I think this sums up the situation. Except there is a fine line between "lacking in expected quality" and "intended deception":

If I would hire Elton John to play "Mary Had A Little Lamb" on my nieces birthday party and Elton would have a bad day and would not live up to my expectations because he hit a few bad notes on the piano and wore a soulless outfit not featuring his extravagant sunglasses, I would call it "lacking in expected quality". This would entitle me to negotiate reduction or waiver of fees on the grounds of quality issues. This would in no way make Elton a scammer. He made reasonable attempts to deliver the services agreed but we are all humans, sometimes even Elton can't charm all his fans.

However if instead of Elton a poor imitator would show up with false hair, a cheap nylon suit and a Greek accent.. Well I would not call that "lacking in expected quality". I would call that intended deception. And even if the payment would not be made I would still call it an attempted fraud.

I can't decide which side of the line Dank's delivery of services was. However I believe that Rarity's claims can't be simply dismissed as "you didn't pay for it, so it's not even a scam".

You bought up some very fine points in your post above but, by doing so, I now recognize another issue. There is no proof that Dank is the one playing the guitar in that audio.

[dank]

That's why if you don't set expectations, you can't be let down.

[Francesco]

That's why if you don't set expectations, you can't be let down.

Great, I hope you don't expect to excape the scammer tag.

(really, I do live my life according to this advice, but using it like this is just lame)

[dank]

I don't expect anything, but who have I scammed?

[repentance]

So services were requested, found lacking in expected quality, and thus not paid for. The only useful tag in this case would be 'incompetent'.

I would pay good money for Dank to get an 'incompetent' tag.   

I'd pay good money for half the service operators around here to get that tag.

[mobodick]

In response to our agreement, Dank has uploaded a song that is not "Mary Had A Little Lamb" and misrepresented it as such. 

I disagree.
Hearing Danks repetoir i think there is no way you could have expected his version to be different than it is.
You fully knew Danks style and by not specifying how you wanted it to sound you are bound to his musical interpretation.
Did you provide him, for instance, with sheet music of MHaLL or other guidelines of what you expected the work to be?

[AndrewBUD]

I think this was "it's" sinister plan to show dank that changing on a whim is easy. But the plan backfired... Now "it's" pissed and started this crap.

[repentance]

In response to our agreement, Dank has uploaded a song that is not "Mary Had A Little Lamb" and misrepresented it as such.

I disagree.
Hearing Danks repetoir i think there is no way you could have expected his version to be different than it is.
You fully knew Danks style and by not specifying how you wanted it to sound you are bound to his musical interpretation.
Did you provide him, for instance, with sheet music of MHaLL or other guidelines of what you expected the work to be?

Rarity provided dank with tabs.

dank has also said that he'll supply 420 with a custom beat by today.  It will be interesting to see the quality of what he supplies and whether it meets the specifications set down by 420.

[mobodick]

In response to our agreement, Dank has uploaded a song that is not "Mary Had A Little Lamb" and misrepresented it as such. 

I disagree.
Hearing Danks repetoir i think there is no way you could have expected his version to be different than it is.
You fully knew Danks style and by not specifying how you wanted it to sound you are bound to his musical interpretation.
Did you provide him, for instance, with sheet music of MHaLL or other guidelines of what you expected the work to be?

Rarity provided dank with tabs.

Aaah, that changes things.

[CharlieContent]

If Matthew Wright deserves a scammer tag, then Dank does too.

They both made a promise and then failed to keep it. No money changed hands in either situation, but lies were told and agreements were broken.

While this thread may appear frivolous to some, it brings up an important point: What exactly is the criteria for the scammer tag?

As an individual, I feel that the scammer tag is useful because it is a signal that the person tagged is dishonest and therefore I shouldn't do business with them. Therefore my personal feeling is that any instance of dishonesty should be punished with the tag, even if the person involved didn't gain any money or stand to gain any money in that particular instance.

However, of course instances of dishonesty vary in seriousness, and people make mistakes. No one should be branded with the scammer tag for life in a situation like this. In my opinion, Dank should definitely get the tag, but it should be removed as soon as he comes up with "Mary Had a Little Lamb" played to the tablature that Rarity provided for him. As anyone who has read any of his threads can see, he claims to be well on his way to becoming one of the world's finest musicians, so Mary Had a Little Lamb should be very easy for him. A refusal to provide it is just obstinacy and should be punished with the scammer tag.

[SaltySpitoon]

A little fun fact here. Did you know that Baa Baa Black Sheep, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, and the Alphabet song are all the same tune?