Should this Op of this thread get negged ?

[Nobitcoin]

Dunno if this is the right place to post this.

Well I'm uncertain if the Op said he would pay a bounty for information about a pair of sunglasses he would reward the closeist with $15 after 48 hours.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1207996.20

Am I being to trigger happy ?

[1714836782]

1714836782

[1714836782]

1714836782

[1714836782]

1714836782

[shorena]

Dunno if this is the right place to post this.

Well I'm uncertain if the Op said he would pay a bounty for information about a pair of sunglasses he would reward the closeist with $15 after 48 hours.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1207996.20

Am I being to trigger happy ?

For reference #13:

-snip-
Closest answer wins. I'll leave this thread open for 48 hours and then declare the winner.

as well as the entire thread -> https://archive.is/0Aq2r

I will leave a rating, but honestly the lot in the thread pretty much asked to get scammed. Everyone freely provided possible answers without a single one even posting the word escrow.

[SFR10]

I do agree with shorena as I'm also one of those who participated on the thread and not sure why I did the research for the bounty on this case before seeing an actual proof of the reward until it was too late to act for getting it to escrow in which all of us are affected by wasting our effort for the guy

[lemipawa]

same here, I was one of those who participated on this and I see a lot who joined the hunt and made some effort to look for the glasses but yes no escrow was asked from OP. Everyone was busy searching I guess, and that includes me.

[bitcoin revo]

Am I being to trigger happy ?

Probably.

Even though everyone who participated in the contest is basically asking to be "scammed" (for their research), I'd say that leaving a negative trust rating would be overkill in this situation. There's a decent chance that the OP is going to actually pay.

But here's what you should do, instead of just negative repping him.

1) Someone (preferably on DT) PMs him to accept escrow.
2) If they refuse without a valid reason, neg rep them.

Done.

[Nobitcoin]

Am I being to trigger happy ?

Probably.

Even though everyone who participated in the contest is basically asking to be "scammed" (for their research), I'd say that leaving a negative trust rating would be overkill in this situation. There's a decent chance that the OP is going to actually pay.

But here's what you should do, instead of just negative repping him.

1) Someone (preferably on DT) PMs him to accept escrow.
2) If they refuse without a valid reason, neg rep them.

Done.

Now that sounds like a much better idea. Whoever is going to PM the Op from that thread should also do this one :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1214498.0

[shorena]

Am I being to trigger happy ?

Probably.

Even though everyone who participated in the contest is basically asking to be "scammed" (for their research), I'd say that leaving a negative trust rating would be overkill in this situation. There's a decent chance that the OP is going to actually pay.

But here's what you should do, instead of just negative repping him.

1) Someone (preferably on DT) PMs him to accept escrow.
2) If they refuse without a valid reason, neg rep them.

Done.

They are 4 days (106 hours to be exact) over the "Ill pay you" time. If they come back and pay the bounty im perfectly fine to remove the rating.

[erikalui]

The amount was quite small compared to other users who offered a bounty for similar tasks. There were many such threads earlier with people offering 0.2 BTC and that time also nobody asked for an escrow but now I think it is very important that I and other users should demand the OPs to hold their funds in an escrow else people like "Hello Im me" and others will escape with just a negative rating as it doesn't matter to them as they have new accounts.

[bitcoin revo]

They are 4 days (106 hours to be exact) over the "Ill pay you" time. If they come back and pay the bounty im perfectly fine to remove the rating.

Ah, sorry, missed that. Yeah, if he is overdue then a negative rating is definitely in order. I got to the 2nd page and figured that the next 2 would be the same. However, the topic the OP mentioned here should be PMed.

[lemipawa]

I don't think he will pay, everyday he logs in and ignores that thread, today he logged in he might have noticed that there's a negative trust in his account which is a giveaway actually since it's a Newbie rank. Lesson learned here.

[yurinov]

Dunno if this is the right place to post this.

Well I'm uncertain if the Op said he would pay a bounty for information about a pair of sunglasses he would reward the closeist with $15 after 48 hours.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1207996.20

Am I being to trigger happy ?

i think the neg is not necessary until he has committed a crime...
maybe neutral stating he is doing something this absurd is ok?

[shorena]

-snip-
i think the neg is not necessary until he has committed a crime...
maybe neutral stating he is doing something this absurd is ok?

So when I promise you and your friends that one of you gets paid if you clean my messy car and just drive off once you are done, thats ok in your book?

[Smithy337]

I just realized that my account has negative rep. Sorry for the confusion.

It clearly states in the OP terms:

https://i.imgur.com/iXHILoh.jpg


Whoever can find me the EXACT name/ brand of the sunglasses in the above picture will earn $15 USD (paid in BTC).

During the comments I state that the closest answer wins, however, this is a subjective comment and not part of the original terms. In my opinion, no one found sunglasses that were close to what I was after and I did not end up buying any of the suggestions. If the terms changed, why would only half of the agreement change, which means I pay full price for something that I did not want? How is this fair? Notice how critical my subsequent posts are in the thread? Obviously I am seeking something very specific.

I am saddened that people act before using common sense. Not one person messaged me about this thread.

[shorena]

I just realized that my account has negative rep. Sorry for the confusion.

It clearly states in the OP terms:

[ img]https://i.imgur.com/iXHILoh.jpg[/img]


Whoever can find me the EXACT name/ brand of the sunglasses in the above picture will earn $15 USD (paid in BTC).

During the comments I state that the closest answer wins, however, this is a subjective comment and not part of the original terms. In my opinion, no one found sunglasses that were close to what I was after and I did not end up buying any of the suggestions. If the terms changed, why would only half of the agreement change, which means I pay full price for something that I did not want? How is this fair? Notice how critical my subsequent posts are in the thread? Obviously I am seeking something very specific.

I am saddened that people act before using common sense. Not one person messaged me about this thread.

So when I change our deal midway I dont have to honor the changes? You motivated people to invest time in finding something for you with this statement, this is what you wanted according to your own words. Obviously you looked for something specific, but you also said

-snip-
Closest answer wins. I'll leave this thread open for 48 hours and then declare the winner.

[Smithy337]

I just realized that my account has negative rep. Sorry for the confusion.

It clearly states in the OP terms:

[ img]https://i.imgur.com/iXHILoh.jpg[/img]


Whoever can find me the EXACT name/ brand of the sunglasses in the above picture will earn $15 USD (paid in BTC).

During the comments I state that the closest answer wins, however, this is a subjective comment and not part of the original terms. In my opinion, no one found sunglasses that were close to what I was after and I did not end up buying any of the suggestions. If the terms changed, why would only half of the agreement change, which means I pay full price for something that I did not want? How is this fair? Notice how critical my subsequent posts are in the thread? Obviously I am seeking something very specific.

I am saddened that people act before using common sense. Not one person messaged me about this thread.

So when I change our deal midway I dont have to honor the changes? You motivated people to invest time in finding something for you with this statement, this is what you wanted according to your own words. Obviously you looked for something specific, but you also said

-snip-
Closest answer wins. I'll leave this thread open for 48 hours and then declare the winner.

The terms were in the OP. Were the terms changed and was the OP updated? No.

Here's a car wash example; I state that I'll pay $15 for my car to be washed (this takes x amount of time, effort and material). As I want my car washed promptly, I then tell the washers that they only need to clean the tyres.

So I originally was going to pay $15 for a full car wash, why would I pay $15 for only my tyres (that takes significantly less time, effort and material)? What if I deem the tyre clean unsatisfactory? Would you still pay for a half assed job? No. IF someone still washed my car fully, then they would be entitled to the original agreement.

I think your reasoning is flawed and I'm not sure why you have 'trust'.

[shorena]

-snip-
The terms were in the OP. Were the terms changed and was the OP updated? No.

So only the first post counts? Was that a rule that was clearly known to those involved? Is that a normal and common behaviour in trades?

Here's a car wash example; I state that I'll pay $15 for my car to be washed (this takes x amount of time, effort and material).

To make it clear here, x is unknown for everyone involved. Finding a specific pair of glasses is not a priori achievable with fixed amounts of time, effort and material. From taking a look at a dirty car its pretty evident how much work, efford and material is involved/needed.

As I want my car washed promptly, I then tell the washers that they only need to clean the tyres.

This is not what you said though. You said - to stay with the example - "wash it as good as possible in the next 48 hours and I will pay the person that did the best job."

So I originally was going to pay $15 for a full car wash, why would I pay $15 for only my tyres (that takes significantly less time, effort and material)?

Because you said you would.

What if I deem the tyre clean unsatisfactory? Would you still pay for a half assed job? No. IF someone still washed my car fully, then they would be entitled to the original agreement.

If you dont want to change the agreement you should not announce a change in the agreement.

I think your reasoning is flawed and I'm not sure why you have 'trust'.

I dont think so, but this is hardly the topic here. I have the impression you tried to weasel out of a statement you made and later regretted.

[Spoetnik]

Dunno if this is the right place to post this.

Well I'm uncertain if the Op said he would pay a bounty for information about a pair of sunglasses he would reward the closeist with $15 after 48 hours.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1207996.20

Am I being to trigger happy ?

For reference #13:

-snip-
Closest answer wins. I'll leave this thread open for 48 hours and then declare the winner.

as well as the entire thread -> https://archive.is/0Aq2r

I will leave a rating, but honestly the lot in the thread pretty much asked to get scammed. Everyone freely provided possible answers without a single one even posting the word escrow.

I never used an escrow nor would i.
I trust the people i trade with.
WOW what a concept huh..

NO i have not had a bad trade ever either.
So what now we're going to give people negative trust for NOT "talking" about Escrow's ?  

DO i have to point out the obvious ?

People with no reputation should not be doing deals.. if you choose to work with a noob then it's your prerogative / risk.

Trying to make some little faggy economy out off lending money to noob accounts
on a forum that has NO rules about scamming AND has a horrendous track record is fucking retarded..
Escrow or not !

Who the fuck goes and uses their forum account as collateral to borrow Bitcoin ?
apparently shitloads of you here do  
Can you say that out loud to yourself and not laugh ?
What a fucking joke. ROFL

[shorena]

Dunno if this is the right place to post this.

Well I'm uncertain if the Op said he would pay a bounty for information about a pair of sunglasses he would reward the closeist with $15 after 48 hours.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1207996.20

Am I being to trigger happy ?

For reference #13:

-snip-
Closest answer wins. I'll leave this thread open for 48 hours and then declare the winner.

as well as the entire thread -> https://archive.is/0Aq2r

I will leave a rating, but honestly the lot in the thread pretty much asked to get scammed. Everyone freely provided possible answers without a single one even posting the word escrow.

I never used an escrow nor would i.
I trust the people i trade with.
WOW what a concept huh..

NO i have not had a bad trade ever either.
So what now we're going to give people negative trust for NOT "talking" about Escrow's ?  

Yes, I gave everyone in that thread a negative rating because they did not insist on escrow. I think you are smarter than this.

DO i have to point out the obvious ?

People with no reputation should not be doing deals.. if you choose to work with a noob then it's your prerogative / risk.

Yes and a common way for this is to involve someone with reputation.

-offtopic rant-

[minifrij]

People with no reputation should not be doing deals.. if you choose to work with a noob then it's your prerogative / risk.

If this is the case, then how do people with no reputation then gain reputation? The reason I have my reputation is because people traded with me and I followed through with my word, though if they followed your logic I wouldn't have any of it as no one would have traded with me.
Escrow is a way to trade with people with no reputation and be sure that you won't be scammed. Though apparently using escrow is a bad move because you should trust the people that you trade with.

[Smithy337]

-snip-
The terms were in the OP. Were the terms changed and was the OP updated? No.

So only the first post counts? Was that a rule that was clearly known to those involved? Is that a normal and common behaviour in trades?

Here's a car wash example; I state that I'll pay $15 for my car to be washed (this takes x amount of time, effort and material).

To make it clear here, x is unknown for everyone involved. Finding a specific pair of glasses is not a priori achievable with fixed amounts of time, effort and material. From taking a look at a dirty car its pretty evident how much work, efford and material is involved/needed.

As I want my car washed promptly, I then tell the washers that they only need to clean the tyres.

This is not what you said though. You said - to stay with the example - "wash it as good as possible in the next 48 hours and I will pay the person that did the best job."

So I originally was going to pay $15 for a full car wash, why would I pay $15 for only my tyres (that takes significantly less time, effort and material)?

Because you said you would.

What if I deem the tyre clean unsatisfactory? Would you still pay for a half assed job? No. IF someone still washed my car fully, then they would be entitled to the original agreement.

If you dont want to change the agreement you should not announce a change in the agreement.

I think your reasoning is flawed and I'm not sure why you have 'trust'.

I dont think so, but this is hardly the topic here. I have the impression you tried to weasel out of a statement you made and later regretted.

Since you are clearly struggling to justify your rating, here is another example.

Let's pretend the terms were stated in the OP; that I will pay $15 for someone to find the EXACT sunglasses. Let's say the thread is 6 pages long and somewhere in those 6 pages I state that I no longer plan on paying a reward. Obviously everyone will see the OP but it is unlikely that they will see that the terms have changed, which would be deemed unfair.

Even though the unchanged OP clearly states the terms, I no longer have to pay a bounty because I buried a response in that thread that overrules the original terms?

Is this what you're trying to say? Because if this is so, the mods need to review your account. All I have done in that example is switch the current scenario, thus highlighting your misjudgement.