Can you still believe aTriz words? Reopened, too many open questions

[arallmuus]

Holy shit... for fuck's sake. MY SCRIPT WAS NOT A SCAM, IT PAYS ME AND PAID INVESTORS OUT MONEY.

Enough said, promising return for a EV- games is a scam to begin with. You may win now but in the end it remains as EV- games

Also this is out of topic already

I don't care about what I look like to the community.

FYI, the community rules in here also your red trusted account will now be much more attractive . Sad truth huh but if you stick to the so called 'guidance' then everything should be fine



Here is the guidance, red tag = scammers, no matter what it is ( happened to me once  )

[1714686507]

1714686507

[1714686507]

1714686507

[alia]

Holy shit... for fuck's sake. MY SCRIPT WAS NOT A SCAM, IT PAYS ME AND PAID INVESTORS OUT MONEY.

Enough said, promising return for a EV- games is a scam to begin with. You may win now but in the end it remains as EV- games

Also this is out of topic already

I don't care about what I look like to the community.

FYI, the community rules in here also your red trusted account will now be much more attractive . Sad truth huh but if you stick to the so called 'guidance' then everything should be fine



Here is the guidance, red tag = scammers, no matter what it is ( happened to me once  )

All casinos are EV- in the long run and thus all strategies. In the short run, many strategies can be profitable.

[Astargath]

Holy shit... for fuck's sake. MY SCRIPT WAS NOT A SCAM, IT PAYS ME AND PAID INVESTORS OUT MONEY.

Enough said, promising return for a EV- games is a scam to begin with. You may win now but in the end it remains as EV- games

Also this is out of topic already

I don't care about what I look like to the community.

FYI, the community rules in here also your red trusted account will now be much more attractive . Sad truth huh but if you stick to the so called 'guidance' then everything should be fine



Here is the guidance, red tag = scammers, no matter what it is ( happened to me once  )

All casinos are EV- in the long run and thus all strategies. In the short run, many strategies can be profitable.

Not really, if something is profitable in the short run it should be profitable in the long run too. The only ''strategies'' that exist only give you a slightly better chance of winning although still in EV-. Basically there is a ''strategy'' that gives you slightly better odds than, for example, betting on a single number or using martingale but as I said it is not giving you a EV+. Never, not in the short run not in the long run.

[alia]

Holy shit... for fuck's sake. MY SCRIPT WAS NOT A SCAM, IT PAYS ME AND PAID INVESTORS OUT MONEY.

Enough said, promising return for a EV- games is a scam to begin with. You may win now but in the end it remains as EV- games

Also this is out of topic already

I don't care about what I look like to the community.

FYI, the community rules in here also your red trusted account will now be much more attractive . Sad truth huh but if you stick to the so called 'guidance' then everything should be fine



Here is the guidance, red tag = scammers, no matter what it is ( happened to me once  )

All casinos are EV- in the long run and thus all strategies. In the short run, many strategies can be profitable.

Not really, if something is profitable in the short run it should be profitable in the long run too. The only ''strategies'' that exist only give you a slightly better chance of winning although still in EV-. Basically there is a ''strategy'' that gives you slightly better odds than, for example, betting on a single number or using martingale but as I said it is not giving you a EV+. Never, not in the short run not in the long run.

Sigh... I said many times. It worked for me, time and time again. I'm sure it is EV-, but in my personal experience, it makes me profit. Whatever, I'm not selling it any more, so discussion over on that front

[endlasuresh]

"The scammer"
"promote again scams"

Scammer, scammer, scammer, yet no scam occurred. I'm lovin' it

Ok, you are a good person, and p.s do good business, anyway we meet different people with different attitudes daily.

Life is to make a good reputation and best name in the world, but here at this forum I learnt a lot of things from  Legendary members.

[alia]

"The scammer"
"promote again scams"

Scammer, scammer, scammer, yet no scam occurred. I'm lovin' it

Ok, you are a good person, and p.s do good business, anyway we meet different people with different attitudes daily.

Life is to make a good reputation and best name in the world, but here at this forum I learnt a lot of things from  Legendary members.

Thank you for seeing the light. I appreciate it.

I would like to formally apologize to everyone I insulted in this thread, because I was just pissed. The truth is, I am not a scammer, I repaid aTriz, and it was never my intention to scam anyone. To anyone I hurt - I'm sorry. Future advice for DT members, there is a lot of responsibility placed on your shoulders, please do not frivolously give out red to innocents because it is a shitty thing to do. Thank you all

[tmfp]

Just yesterday, the Legendary member ObscureBean Skyped me and verified me once again.

Would that be the ObscureBean account that has been inactive for six months?
How much did it cost you?

Me talkin to ObscureBean via Skype

How is that "verified" in any way?

Although, that is news to me. I did not know that. Guess the dude was fake since he keeps promising to pay me but has paid me zero so far.

But the account sent you positive trust

[alia]

Just yesterday, the Legendary member ObscureBean Skyped me and verified me once again.

Would that be the ObscureBean account that has been inactive for six months?
How much did it cost you?

Me talkin to ObscureBean via Skype

How is that "verified" in any way?

Although, that is news to me. I did not know that. Guess the dude was fake since he keeps promising to pay me but has paid me zero so far.

But the account sent you positive trust

Because I asked him to. Because I cammed him, and he verified me. lol

[digaran]

You little cunt, who paid you to discredit theymos? are you seeing this as a fight for 1.1BTC and discrediting aTriz? somebody paid her to do this, they are after theymos.

[alia]

You little cunt, who paid you to discredit theymos? are you seeing this as a fight for 1.1BTC and discrediting aTriz? somebody paid her to do this, they are after theymos.

Yes... it is my master plan to go after the admin of this forum. Me, someone with -128 red trust, will bring down theymos himself!



/s

[tmfp]

ObscureBean Skyped me and verified me once again. 

he verified me.

How is that "verified" in any way?

This what "verify" means on this planet.

[alia]

ObscureBean Skyped me and verified me once again. 

he verified me.

How is that "verified" in any way?

This what "verify" means on this planet.

He verified that I am who I say I am on Skype. Now please don't say I am him, because I wouldn't waste 0.1 BTC on a fake review (a bad one, at that) and 0.18 BTC refunding just to repair the rep of this shitty -128 red account.

[Quickseller]

Even ignoring the fact that you were selling a scam script and also an illegal tax evasion service, the contract is null and void for a variety of reasons.

International Law and Treaties are bound by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is implied in every contract that parties are expected to deal with each other honestly, openly, fairly and in good faith. Breaching the covenant of good faith terminates the contract. This obviously not a black and white issue, but I would argue (and I'm sure the majority would agree) that the following are breaches of being "honest, open, fair and acting in good faith":

- aTriz believing he was dealing with an account solely operated by a 19 year old female, when in fact, as far as we know, it may be operated by a 15 year old male, both, or neither of these parties.
- Now proven links to a number of other scam accounts.
- Using an alt account to leave yourself positive feedback, twice.
- Attempting to blackmail and/or extort the other party.

Frustration of purpose is a doctrine that states when an unforeseen event undermines a party's principal purpose for entering into a contract such that the performance of the contract is radically different from performance of the contract that was originally contemplated by both parties, then the contract is terminated. You achieving a red trust of -256 unequivocally renders the value of your signature space "radically different".

Contra proferentem is a doctrine that states where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. As you provided the wording of "30 - 100 posts", the preferred meaning is in aTriz's favour, and you breached the contract.

In addition to this, you are guilty of tort - that is, a wrongdoing that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm. aTriz's is now being questioned on his intentions and his trust is at risk because of your actions. In a court, not only would the contract be invalidated, but you would have to pay aTriz for damages.

It would probably not be a good idea for anyone to trade with you when you are making those kinds of arguments.

[alia]

Even ignoring the fact that you were selling a scam script and also an illegal tax evasion service, the contract is null and void for a variety of reasons.

International Law and Treaties are bound by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is implied in every contract that parties are expected to deal with each other honestly, openly, fairly and in good faith. Breaching the covenant of good faith terminates the contract. This obviously not a black and white issue, but I would argue (and I'm sure the majority would agree) that the following are breaches of being "honest, open, fair and acting in good faith":

- aTriz believing he was dealing with an account solely operated by a 19 year old female, when in fact, as far as we know, it may be operated by a 15 year old male, both, or neither of these parties.
- Now proven links to a number of other scam accounts.
- Using an alt account to leave yourself positive feedback, twice.
- Attempting to blackmail and/or extort the other party.

Frustration of purpose is a doctrine that states when an unforeseen event undermines a party's principal purpose for entering into a contract such that the performance of the contract is radically different from performance of the contract that was originally contemplated by both parties, then the contract is terminated. You achieving a red trust of -256 unequivocally renders the value of your signature space "radically different".

Contra proferentem is a doctrine that states where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. As you provided the wording of "30 - 100 posts", the preferred meaning is in aTriz's favour, and you breached the contract.

In addition to this, you are guilty of tort - that is, a wrongdoing that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm. aTriz's is now being questioned on his intentions and his trust is at risk because of your actions. In a court, not only would the contract be invalidated, but you would have to pay aTriz for damages.

It would probably not be a good idea for anyone to trade with you when you are making those kinds of arguments.

I know right. Good faith my ass, a contract is a contract. Well, at least I honoured it... and aTriz didn't. Decide who the real scammer is now

[o_e_l_e_o]

Even ignoring the fact that you were selling a scam script and also an illegal tax evasion service, the contract is null and void for a variety of reasons.

International Law and Treaties are bound by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is implied in every contract that parties are expected to deal with each other honestly, openly, fairly and in good faith. Breaching the covenant of good faith terminates the contract. This obviously not a black and white issue, but I would argue (and I'm sure the majority would agree) that the following are breaches of being "honest, open, fair and acting in good faith":

- aTriz believing he was dealing with an account solely operated by a 19 year old female, when in fact, as far as we know, it may be operated by a 15 year old male, both, or neither of these parties.
- Now proven links to a number of other scam accounts.
- Using an alt account to leave yourself positive feedback, twice.
- Attempting to blackmail and/or extort the other party.

Frustration of purpose is a doctrine that states when an unforeseen event undermines a party's principal purpose for entering into a contract such that the performance of the contract is radically different from performance of the contract that was originally contemplated by both parties, then the contract is terminated. You achieving a red trust of -256 unequivocally renders the value of your signature space "radically different".

Contra proferentem is a doctrine that states where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. As you provided the wording of "30 - 100 posts", the preferred meaning is in aTriz's favour, and you breached the contract.

In addition to this, you are guilty of tort - that is, a wrongdoing that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm. aTriz's is now being questioned on his intentions and his trust is at risk because of your actions. In a court, not only would the contract be invalidated, but you would have to pay aTriz for damages.

It would probably not be a good idea for anyone to trade with you when you are making those kinds of arguments.

I know right. Good faith my ass, a contract is a contract. Well, at least I honoured it... and aTriz didn't. Decide who the real scammer is now

You mean the same arguments that govern international law?

[alia]

Even ignoring the fact that you were selling a scam script and also an illegal tax evasion service, the contract is null and void for a variety of reasons.

International Law and Treaties are bound by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is implied in every contract that parties are expected to deal with each other honestly, openly, fairly and in good faith. Breaching the covenant of good faith terminates the contract. This obviously not a black and white issue, but I would argue (and I'm sure the majority would agree) that the following are breaches of being "honest, open, fair and acting in good faith":

- aTriz believing he was dealing with an account solely operated by a 19 year old female, when in fact, as far as we know, it may be operated by a 15 year old male, both, or neither of these parties.
- Now proven links to a number of other scam accounts.
- Using an alt account to leave yourself positive feedback, twice.
- Attempting to blackmail and/or extort the other party.

Frustration of purpose is a doctrine that states when an unforeseen event undermines a party's principal purpose for entering into a contract such that the performance of the contract is radically different from performance of the contract that was originally contemplated by both parties, then the contract is terminated. You achieving a red trust of -256 unequivocally renders the value of your signature space "radically different".

Contra proferentem is a doctrine that states where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. As you provided the wording of "30 - 100 posts", the preferred meaning is in aTriz's favour, and you breached the contract.

In addition to this, you are guilty of tort - that is, a wrongdoing that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm. aTriz's is now being questioned on his intentions and his trust is at risk because of your actions. In a court, not only would the contract be invalidated, but you would have to pay aTriz for damages.

It would probably not be a good idea for anyone to trade with you when you are making those kinds of arguments.

I know right. Good faith my ass, a contract is a contract. Well, at least I honoured it... and aTriz didn't. Decide who the real scammer is now

You mean the same arguments that govern international law?

In PayPal, whatever story the buyer makes up is law. In bitcoin, whoever receives the payment has the final word, since the blockchain is law.

Trying to apply international law to an unambigous contract on bitcointalk is like saying BTC payments should be made reversable, and decisions on BTC transactions should be governed by the PayPal team

[o_e_l_e_o]

Even ignoring the fact that you were selling a scam script and also an illegal tax evasion service, the contract is null and void for a variety of reasons.

International Law and Treaties are bound by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is implied in every contract that parties are expected to deal with each other honestly, openly, fairly and in good faith. Breaching the covenant of good faith terminates the contract. This obviously not a black and white issue, but I would argue (and I'm sure the majority would agree) that the following are breaches of being "honest, open, fair and acting in good faith":

- aTriz believing he was dealing with an account solely operated by a 19 year old female, when in fact, as far as we know, it may be operated by a 15 year old male, both, or neither of these parties.
- Now proven links to a number of other scam accounts.
- Using an alt account to leave yourself positive feedback, twice.
- Attempting to blackmail and/or extort the other party.

Frustration of purpose is a doctrine that states when an unforeseen event undermines a party's principal purpose for entering into a contract such that the performance of the contract is radically different from performance of the contract that was originally contemplated by both parties, then the contract is terminated. You achieving a red trust of -256 unequivocally renders the value of your signature space "radically different".

Contra proferentem is a doctrine that states where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. As you provided the wording of "30 - 100 posts", the preferred meaning is in aTriz's favour, and you breached the contract.

In addition to this, you are guilty of tort - that is, a wrongdoing that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm. aTriz's is now being questioned on his intentions and his trust is at risk because of your actions. In a court, not only would the contract be invalidated, but you would have to pay aTriz for damages.

It would probably not be a good idea for anyone to trade with you when you are making those kinds of arguments.

I know right. Good faith my ass, a contract is a contract. Well, at least I honoured it... and aTriz didn't. Decide who the real scammer is now

You mean the same arguments that govern international law?

In PayPal, whatever story the buyer makes up is law. In bitcoin, whoever receives the payment has the final word, since the blockchain is law.

Trying to apply international law to an unambigous contract on bitcointalk is like saying BTC payments should be made reversable, and decisions on BTC transactions should be governed by the PayPal team

In PayPal, you sign up to their terms and agreements when you open an account or agree to accept them as payment. That has nothing to do with contract law.


I would draw your attention to Brassil v. Maryland Casualty Co., 104 N.E. 622; 210 N.Y. 235; 1914 NY:

But there is a contractual obligation of universal force which underlies all written agreements. It is the obligation of good faith.

And also to Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company et al., 263 N.Y. 79; 188 N.E. 163; 1933 NY

In every contract there exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

And to The International Chamber of Commerce Constitution (June 2017)

The International Chamber of Commerce is also convinced of the paramount need of enhancing the respect of high standards, equity and good faith in international professional and business relationships.

[suchmoon]

All casinos are EV- in the long run and thus all strategies. In the short run, many strategies can be profitable.

No.

That train has sailed.

Trains don't sail. They leave the station.

Can you be more of a fucking moron, please?

[Toughit]

If aTriz had not backed out, I would not have any trust as I would have suspected a hidden link, so good.

Alia, you have a great mind, learn from this, mature a little, finish college, and put it to better use.

[alia]

If aTriz had not backed out, I would not have any trust as I would have suspected a hidden link, so good.

Alia, you have a great mind, learn from this, finish college, and put it to better use.

Thank you. No, I'm not hiding any links... I have paid aTriz back and would like to make it clear. My intention was never, ever to scam anyone. Everyone here has got it wrong.