CoinURL disallowing withdrawals (split from Beware of scammers!)

[rjk]

bullshit noise

Couldn't you at least have had the common decency to take it away from this thread as Loup asked you to ever so politely?
Also, your arguments are invalid. Your extremely questionable judgement has me worried as well.

[LoupGaroux]

Just thinking out loud here...

Nobody's forcing you to read this. You're "acting of your own free will."

Of course not, however it was the gracious expression of that free will that I suggested the conversation be moved to a more appropriate venue for further exploration of your issues. It seems pedantic here, and risks clogging up a high level general thread with repetitive ad hominem specifics.

You chose to send the funds you did...

I'm sorry, I act in good faith when accepting terms of service, and I'm not the only one.

Acting in good faith is not a compelling argument to reverse clearly stated policy. Coincidentally, none of the soul sellers you cite actually mentioned anything to do with your issue, which further diminishes your argument by veering off into irrelevance, yet again.

Whether his stated reason...

Sure, it might be completely legal, and by the book, but that doesn't prevent it from being dishonest and unethical. Also, YANAL. I didn't accept the terms by depositing, but by checking the checkbox during registration.

I did not offer any judgement on the legality of dragon's stance, just a comment on how your claim has no grounding. You accepted the terms, at whichever point in the action you choose to consider the point of no return, and you should live by the terms that you accepted. Terms which you state yourself repeatedly, are legal, proper and in your full awareness. Just that you don't like them and want them changed to suit your desire. And while your claim that IANAL is catchy, it is equally off-topic- you don't know what my actual circumstances are, have no knowledge of my education or standing with the Bar, or an appreciation for where I drew my inspriation for my clear and direct, factual, statement of opinion about your actions in this matter.

Continuing to ask the same irrelevant question...

I'd say I do. Everything is structured to make it look like you can deposit and withdraw at will, from both a semantic- as well as user experience standpoint.
See this screenshot:


As I said, it might be perfectly legal, and I'm sure it is, but it's dishonest. My claim is that it is dishonest.

How is it dishonest to offer the tools to use the site in the manner in which you agreed to use it? How can it be "perfectly legal" and "by the book" yet dishonest at the same time? You contradict yourself. It is not dishonest to offer a service, it is not dishonest to create rules for the service, nor is it dishonest to expect paying customers to abide those rules after they agree to them. My broker's website has a big "Withdraw" button on it too, but that does not create any type of valid argument for me to demand that they refund me for the poor decisions I've chosen to make.

If dragon had chosen...

Sure, I'm not going to go to his home and point a gun to his head, but it's worth posting here in order to prevent others from entangling in this mess.

I'm sure that is a relief to dragon, and a good choice to keep you out of jail. Posting on this board is a completely appropriate venue for airing your concerns, beating the dead horse to its nineteenth death with the same oblique argument is unnecessary, and inappropriate.

Throwing a pity party in public...

If you don't find coindragon's behavior dishonest, that's cool.

If you ever choose to use his service, you'll know. I didn't.

I did not comment on dragon's behavior, I commented on yours. Actually I think he has been more than polite with you and incredibly tolerant of your abusive and public approach. And, quite frankly, I don't think he is being dishonest is honoring the letter of the terms that you and he entered into.

Drop it...

Thanks, but I don't trust your judgement.

Angry children throwing tantrums rarely appreciate anything said to them that contrasts with their rigid self-centered dogma. I never expected anything less from you given the tone of your approach to this matter.

[mcorlett]

Acting in good faith is not a compelling argument to reverse clearly stated policy.

It'd be a good reason to add more prominent warnings; on the "Deposit" page, for example.

Coincidentally, none of the soul sellers you cite actually mentioned anything to do with your issue, which further diminishes your argument by veering off into irrelevance, yet again.

It further strengthens my point about people not actually reading the terms. Irrelevant? Nice catch!

You accepted the terms, at whichever point in the action you choose to consider the point of no return, and you should live by the terms that you accepted.

I'm forced to spend the rest of my balance on the service, I can accept that. Why don't you think I should warn others of this clause?

Terms which you state yourself repeatedly, are legal, proper and in your full awareness.

I never said any of those things. I said that they "might" be.

And while your claim that IANAL is catchy, it is equally off-topic- you don't know what my actual circumstances are, have no knowledge of my education or standing with the Bar, or an appreciation for where I drew my inspriation for my clear and direct, factual, statement of opinion about your actions in this matter.

There is no such thing as "perfect" information, so that's an educated guess. If I was wrong, I apologize.

I take it you stand by this ("factual"?) claim, then: "therms [sic] that you prima facie accepted by sending in your deposit."

How is it dishonest to offer the tools to use the site in the manner in which you agreed to use it? How can it be "perfectly legal" and "by the book" yet dishonest at the same time? You contradict yourself. It is not dishonest to offer a service, it is not dishonest to create rules for the service, nor is it dishonest to expect paying customers to abide those rules after they agree to them.

Do you really think that illegal and dishonest, or legal and honest, are synonymous? This is shady. If your favorite bitcoin exchange changed their terms to reflect them now owning your entire portfolio, that'd be dishonest, but may very well have been perfectly legal.

I did not comment on dragon's behavior, I commented on yours. Actually I think he has been more than polite with you and incredibly tolerant of your abusive and public approach. And, quite frankly, I don't think he is being dishonest is honoring the letter of the terms that you and he entered into.

I agree, other than posting private information about my ad campaigns, and his shady terms of service, he's been great. He even asked me why I was requesting the withdrawal, that's how much he looks after my best interests!

Even theymos agrees that coindragon's behavior may not have been perfectly legitimate, so I'd say a public warning is most definitely warranted.

Maybe not perfectly legitimate, but not terrible enough to warrant a scammer tag.

[giantdragon]

posting private information about my ad campaigns

This info is not confidential, you just set the flag to hide it from other users (not the operator). I have not signed any NDA agreements with you or any other ways promised to keep this data in secret. Read ToS again!

[LoupGaroux]

Okay, score one for the the Mighty MC... you caught me in a typo. Your [sic] of my "therms" should have read "terms".

Its nice that you want to coach the service owner on how he should design the TOS of his service, however it remains a hollow argument for why you should prevail in this circumstance. How adding more information that you won't read to the Deposit page is going to change your actions before you get to the page (in checking the checkbox, remember?) doesn't follow logically from your statement.

When you accepted the TOS you agreed to spend whatever funds you deposited on the service. Pretty cut and dried right there.

Yes you did state that they "might" be, your allegation that those provide a condition of dishonesty is the contradictory issue. I expect you knew that, but think that the very fine grammatical scalpel your are using is going to make your dreams come true. Sorry Mr. Clinton, language is not the tool you fancy it to be.

No apology needed, its a conversation. And yes, Dorothy, I did leave myself a massive sine qua non in stating the clear and factual statement was opinion. Gotcha.

Are legal and honest synonyms? No. But they are absolutes and can be defined. Something is either within the law or not, an action is honest or dishonest. Shady? Not so absolute. Shady is a big nasty grey scale of shades of interpretation, your shady might be my perfectly fair; my shady might be your massively wrong. Shady doesn't give anyone a place to stand. Was dragon's response to your request honest? Yes, under the terms you accepted. Was it legal? We can only guess what Court would have jurisdiction in this matter, but as a straightforward contract matter, he does seem to be enforcing the agreement in a consistent, reasoned manner, with similar application to all parties to the agreements. So probably legal. Is it ethical? Personal decision. To you, no, to others who live with the same agreement, yes; to dragon who crafted it, absolutely yes.

And finally, you have taken theymos grossly out of context to support your argument. Theymos is not passing judgement on dragon's actions, he is citing that as a measure of whether or not a Scammer tag is justified. And as the ultimate arbiter of Scammer tags here, I think that argument should put paid to the whole discussion. It didn't go your way, and while many agree with you, and many disagree with you, and dragon's behavior is not what many would consider "ideal" it is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for a scammer tag. Asked and answered.

[mcorlett]

How adding more information that you won't read to the Deposit page is going to change your actions before you get to the page (in checking the checkbox, remember?) doesn't follow logically from your statement.

It isn't, but it would've prevented myself and probably others from depositing if we would've known that we couldn't get the funds back. Then again, the entire clause is probably there to make the owner as much money as possible, so I can't see why anyone in their right mind would actually make this information more public. The goal is to keep it inconspicuous, so as to attract as many suckers as possible (read: myself).

Are legal and honest synonyms? No. But they are absolutes and can be defined. Something is either within the law or not, an action is honest or dishonest. Shady? Not so absolute. Shady is a big nasty grey scale of shades of interpretation, your shady might be my perfectly fair; my shady might be your massively wrong. Shady doesn't give anyone a place to stand. Was dragon's response to your request honest? Yes, under the terms you accepted. Was it legal? We can only guess what Court would have jurisdiction in this matter, but as a straightforward contract matter, he does seem to be enforcing the agreement in a consistent, reasoned manner, with similar application to all parties to the agreements. So probably legal. Is it ethical? Personal decision. To you, no, to others who live with the same agreement, yes; to dragon who crafted it, absolutely yes.

I agree. I'm just trying to expose what I find to be unethical and dishonest behavior, officer.

And finally, you have taken theymos grossly out of context to support your argument. Theymos is not passing judgement on dragon's actions, he is citing that as a measure of whether or not a Scammer tag is justified. And as the ultimate arbiter of Scammer tags here, I think that argument should put paid to the whole discussion. It didn't go your way, and while many agree with you, and many disagree with you, and dragon's behavior is not what many would consider "ideal" it is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for a scammer tag. Asked and answered.

Don't you have to judge someone's actions in order to decide whether or not you should tag 'em? Anyway, I don't think I took that out of context, but I'm sure theymos himself can shine some light on the situation.

[mcorlett]

This info is not confidential, you just set the flag to hide it from other users (not the operator). I have not signed any NDA agreements with you or any other ways promised to keep this data in secret. Read ToS again!

You don't have to justify your actions to me; I'm sure your terms give you every right in the world to share this information with anyone you'd like, and even if they didn't, you could just modify them to do so:
"CoinURL may revise these terms of service from time-to-time. [...] Please check this page regularly to ensure you are familiar with the current version."

To put it in another way, it doesn't exactly make me want to use your service in the future.

[giantdragon]

To put it in another way, it doesn't exactly make me want to use your service in the future.

It is definitely your right to use or not my service. I don't force anybody to do this!

[theymos]

My opinion is that giantdragon's no-refund policy is perfectly reasonable, and he doesn't deserve a scammer tag. This is different than bulanula's case because:
- mcorlett can't prove that he sent the BTC by accident.
- This trade wasn't done on the forum, so it feels "out of my jurisdiction".
- giantdragon had a stated no-refund policy.
- giantdragon is not saying ridiculous scammy things like bulanula is.

Still, I think it'd be most appropriate for giantdragon to refund the BTC just this once because mcorlett was confused about the no-refund policy. I'd feel better about trading with giantdragon if I knew he occasionally bent his rules to help out his customers in cases like this.

[giantdragon]

Still, I think it'd be most appropriate for giantdragon to refund the BTC just this once because mcorlett was confused about the no-refund policy. I'd feel better about trading with giantdragon if I knew he occasionally bent his rules to help out his customers in cases like this.

I would like to refund mcorlett, but I am afraid about possible bunch of other users' refund claims if I make an exception for the one.

[LoupGaroux]

Still, I think it'd be most appropriate for giantdragon to refund the BTC just this once because mcorlett was confused about the no-refund policy. I'd feel better about trading with giantdragon if I knew he occasionally bent his rules to help out his customers in cases like this.

I would like to refund mcorlett, but I am afraid about possible bunch of other users' refund claims if I make an exception for the one.

I think it was said days ago... this could have been handled a lot easier, and probably with mc's desired result if he had used the sense to keep it private between himself and dragon. But, piss into the wind, you have no excuse for why your shirt got wet.

[bulanula]

My opinion is that giantdragon's no-refund policy is perfectly reasonable, and he doesn't deserve a scammer tag. This is different than bulanula's case because:
- mcorlett can't prove that he sent the BTC by accident.
- This trade wasn't done on the forum, so it feels "out of my jurisdiction".
- giantdragon had a stated no-refund policy.
- giantdragon is not saying ridiculous scammy things like bulanula is.

Still, I think it'd be most appropriate for giantdragon to refund the BTC just this once because mcorlett was confused about the no-refund policy. I'd feel better about trading with giantdragon if I knew he occasionally bent his rules to help out his customers in cases like this.

Smart1985 can't prove he sent anything by mistake either. Trade was done on BTC-E exchange NOT FORUM.

I also told him no refunds for a service. A faulty product ? Yes but not a service. Can't rollback time or a service that costs man hours. Time machine to refund time has not been invented yet.

What scammy things did I say ?

If giantdragon does not get scammer tagged then my scammer tag needs to be removed ASAP because it is the same crap of "no refunds" ( typical scammer behaviour ).

I don't give refunds = I get scammer tag.

Giantdragon doesn't give refunds = he gets NOTHING

[giantdragon]

To offer better conditions for CoinURL advertisers and prevent misunderstanding like happened with mcorlett in the future, our non-refund policy was mitigated. Now we act exactly as AML legistration requires.

In exceptional cases we can allow advertisers to make a refund. To be eligible for this exception you need to complete verification procedure by contacting the operator and providing an identification document (must contain your photo, e.g. passport or driver's license) bundled with proof of your address (e.g. utility bill, bank statement etc, not older than 6 months). CoinURL operator may also ask additional documents to prove legality of deposited funds.
http://coinurl.com/faq.php

[mcorlett]

AML does not apply to Bitcoin.

This is insane.

[bulanula]

AML does not apply to Bitcoin.

This is insane.

What I already thought you had your refund !

[mcorlett]

What I already thought you had your refund !

No attempt has been made to contact me for a refund.

[JusticeForYou]

AML does not apply to Bitcoin.

This is insane.

Well it sort of does but on an individual basis and not from an regulating agency which is good.

i.e. If someone wants me to rent a truck and buy some fertilizer in exchange for BTC, I would have to decline that transaction.

Or I've had people tell me, hey I need BTC to buy <insert illegal substance here> (illegal as in my locality), I will decline the transaction.

[giantdragon]

What I already thought you had your refund !

No attempt has been made to contact me for a refund.

You are free now to ask a refund according to the new policy!

[mcorlett]

You are free now to ask a refund according to the new policy!

I'm not going to give some stranger enough documentation to ruin my life to comply with laws that don't exist.

Can you direct me to the appropriate "legistration" (I assume you mean legislation)?

[bulanula]

You are free now to ask a refund according to the new policy!

I'm not going to give some stranger enough documentation to ruin my life to comply with laws that don't exist.

Can you direct me to the appropriate "legistration" (I assume you mean legislation)?

How much BTC are we talking about here ?