Lauda, as a member of the Crypto Escrow Team (CET) can you let me know which comments show either member, TMAN or OgNasty accepting terms without changing them in a further comment.
No. Things were changing on the go, by both parties.
The "complete misunderstanding" of terms is why an escrow agent would be used and would be deemed by them nullification of said agreement. What further would happen that if two members, any members, decide to bypass yourself as an escrow agent and sent money to another person without having any agreement agreed upon.
I don't find this situation extremely complex. Generally you use an escrow when you're dealing with a non-reputable member because you are unsure how they are going to:
1) Transact (i.e. concerns regarding the safety of the actual funds/goods).
2) React in case of complications (such as this one).
If I were the escrow agent in this particular transaction, I would have nullified it (as per my previous post). OgNasty has made several fatal flaws here:
1) He asked for Blazed who was unavailable at the time, and dismissed Zepher as a reputable escrow.
2) Furthermore, he implicitly stated that Blazed and he were the only *reputable* escrows even though several escrows were participating in this thread (Zepher, Lutpin, myself).
3) Changing terms (TMAN is guilty of this as well).
4) Not posting a time-stamped picture. Are we crypto amateurs? In what reality would someone educated in this field consider a non-time-stamped (which is a bare minimum) picture as proof of anything?
Due to the way that OgNasty has handled some complicated situations in the past (of which I'm sure you are not informed about), I would never use him as an escrow yet alone consider him a *reputable escrow*.
I didn't agree to those terms after people pointed out he kept changing them, which is why my quote showing the terms is ~40 minutes after yours.
The terms of the picture were already designed previously and posted. This has not changed. Regardless, if there was a complete misunderstanding regarding the terms, then the only rightful thing would be to nullify this agreement and return any funds to their respective owners.
Yes, there were misunderstandings so TMAN made it really simple.
Terms are post a pic or fuck off - pretty simple OG
I wholeheartedly disagree. TMAN is under the impression that his initial list of terms were the ones that were to be used in this arrangement. On the other side, you do not think the same. I, as a participant of this thread, was under the impression that the picture had to be:
1) Posted within 60 minutes.
2) *Time proofed* (as TMAN has put it).
If either one of those was not fulfilled, you would be on the losing side. I am sure that many others have understood this the same way as I did. Therefore, this is a huge misunderstanding which is why it would only be righteous to nullify the arrangement and move on.
