I could not understand why o much proof for the editing. ninjastic as well as image and so on. Proof could be required if it was denied and there was no mentioned edit. As we can see edit we do not need to do so much research.
This is why
Besides, the scammer could also delete the post and I wanted to make sure it's still visible (here) for everybody.
Just found this thread. What a fun read.
Yup, very fun! And, apparently I was right before, when I said
he's getting close to get a negative one. Each post he makes he's one step closer
Oh well, he did not get a negative feedback (yet), but he has a flag created against him.
Nose on that image you posted is getting bigger and bigger, and I am patiently waiting to see ''dev'' reaction
Looooool!
Sounds a lot like a certain Andrew Tate guy, if you ask me
sorry, I couldn't resist the joke.It was funny the way you said but the truth is that while Tate has collection of Lambos inside his garage this pauper is eating the mess from under his fingernails while trying to scam innocent people from the forum.
Being serious now, I kept thinking about this case for the last days. I was first tempted myself to create a flag against the
possible scammer. I believed that a type 1 flag (or even type 2) are correct. Then I thought again and I abandoned the idea. However, after more "analyse" (/s) I truly believe now that saxydev deserves that flag.
I saw LoyceV and NeuroticFish asking dkbit98 same question: "
Be honest: you never expected to be paid 0.1 Bitcoin for this, right?.
The fact that dkbit98, I, others (most likely saxydev himself too) did not
really expect to end up with a payment made by the scammer to dkbit98
does not change the fact that saxydev broke the deal unilateral.
Furthermore, the fact that "Deal. Let's see" was posted out of impulse and changed after 20 minutes
is not a reason for a unilateral breaking of a written deal. And this is what saxydev did. Out of impulse or not, everybody is responsible for his actions. And has to respond for his actions. If I am
brave idiot at a moment and decide to go in the middle of the street saying I won't be hit by any car and in the next 20 seconds I say "I changed my mind and I understand that cars may hit me" -- but just before finishing saying this a car hits me -- then what? I am allowed to travel back in time because I stepped in the middle of the street
out of an impulse? No. I will go to a hospital instead (hoping that I am still alive)
and I am paying for my actions, be it taken or not out of impulse.
Furthermore, the case here is not a hypothetical one as the one I wrote above. The case here
has two parties, both responsible for their actions, which settled a deal together, on their own will, nobody forcing a party or the other to accept the deal. And the deal was the following:
Let me make you an offer, if I post a proof for a free service like I said you will pay me 0.1 BTC, I think this is fair offer for a guy who is so active businessman like you.
This deal did
not involve any clauses such as "deal can be cancelled unilateral if a party changes his mind within 20 minutes" / "the deal can be cancelled if a party acts out of the impulse" etc. The only specified clause is the highlighted part.
Having the deal terms set, the deal was sealed here:
Deal. Let's see
At this point the deal is real, it's settled; it's
written down.
Next, the party which respected his party of the deal proves the fact that he made his part and is waiting for the second part to honor his part as well:
Like I promised, I am keeping my word and I am posting one free website that is called
antinalysis.org, so I will now post my BTC address and I expect to receive 0.1 BTC you promised to send me.
The counter-party initiates the scam, by not willing to respect his part:
I have changed my mind about betting, I am sad now about it...
Again, being sad,
gay etc. was not written as clause, therefore it can not be mentioned as a reason for not honoring the deal. At this point, the second party exited the deal, trying to unilateral cancel it. Furthermore, remember that the scammer already changed his mind once, at post #22. So at post 20 he accepted the deal; then tried once to cancel it, by editing his post. At post #22 he still wants the deal, only for trying to cancel it once more, after dkbit98 actually
delivered his part of the deal. So he accepted, wanted out, accepted again and wanted out once more. This behavior can simply not be tolerated when it comes about written deals!
And this is the moment when (normal) consequences appear and each one has to be responsible for his own actions:
I will repeat again, you have 24 hours to send me 0.1 BTC because I sent what I promised [...]
If I don't receive Bitcoin by tomorrow I will create flag against you and give you negative feedback like I promised.
So we have (1) dkbit98, which honored his part of the deal and (2) saxydev, which did
not honor his part. As a consequence, dkbit98 created the flag.
The definition of the flag says precisely what happened:
In this case, the damage consists in 0.1 BTC which dkbit98 did not receive from the other party, although he was entitled to receive this amount. dkbit98
was scammed by saxydev. Therefore I, for one, have to agree with dkbit98 when saying the following:
I did expect it and it was fair price I asked for something I delivered, and he broke agreement we made. [...]
Since I didn't receive promised Bitcoin, flag stays [...]
The following part is emphasizing even more the possible outcomes in the theoretic situation when he would actually have to sweat in order to deliver his part and, again, I fully agree:
Imagine if we made deal about anything else and I spent hours doing some work for him, than I found out he changed his mind later.
if I wanted to make a joke I would ask for much more Bitcoin from him.
Of course, it was no joke, but
a written agreement. If saxydev considered it a joke then, again, it's his fault and, once more, he has to be responsible for the consequences of his actions.
