"online" scammer

[sloopyaltt]

I want to clarify why I believe the current action is insufficient under the rules.


The user “Online” was instructed by staff to repay an acknowledged debt of $175+. Since that instruction:


• He attempted to renegotiate repayment terms unilaterally

• I did not agree to those terms

• He provided no repayment timeline

• He has ceased all communication for over a month

• No payments have been made


While the user did not explicitly say “I refuse to pay,” indefinite non-payment combined with silence functionally defeats the purpose of a DNT.


A DNT is corrective only if repayment occurs. In this case, the instruction has not been complied with in any meaningful way.


I am requesting clarification on the following:

1. Is there a maximum reasonable timeframe for repayment once staff instruction is issued?
2. At what point does continued silence and non-payment constitute non-compliance?
3. If no escalation is possible, does this mean a user may indefinitely withhold funds so long as they do not explicitly refuse?

I am not asking for special treatment — only consistent enforcement and clarity on how victims are protected when repayment does not occur.

 

[sloopyaltt]

I would like to correct myself, he's ceased communication entirely for nearly a month. i have zero context behind anything regarding my payment. he hasn't made a single effort once.

 

There isn't anything further we can do. He was already given a DNT and instructed to refund.