COLTS7841 - A technical Core - PROLIFIC SCAMMER - BAN IMMEDIATELY

No mootrucks not busy at all, I go to the kitchen there are no cameras
Also this matter is a lot to me so I will spend my time replying

 

Okay @Sythe
Once I post from home address voting can commence or has it already?

 

lolololOLOLILILILIL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

lol stealing from work so scumbags on this site don't steal that stolen money.
Make sense?

 

Speak in some hours time
Please don't bump this thread until is time for voting
Thanks all

 

I would have to disagree, vouching for an account you haven't been paid for is stupider than purchasing an account you've seen vouched for being as Esky is clearly a newer member (given he's not Racks).

I can somewhat agree with this point, however at the same time Racks was even advertising the account sale in his signature which makes it even more questionable, I honestly do think Colts was aware that Racks was trying to re-sell he just didn't care as he thought he was going to get paid. However this is just an assumption.

Sounds good, just giving my 2 cents, Esky shouldn't be held liable.

 

Fuck just realised why it came as uni post to @Sythe

I live on campus mate...

 

@Shin I live on campus at uni

I was puzzled as to why you said uni..

 

I can send my ID/Uni ID too if you guys need

 

Well I think this is pretty cut and dry... I dont see why people are arguing about it..... So let me inject some actual brains into this conversation.

If I sell account ABC to @Sythe in 4 payments of 80m, Sythe then gives me one payment. Sythe now owns 1/4 of the account, the 3/4 of the account still needs to be paid off. Lets say Sythe not sells the account ABC to @Shin for 320m. Sythe has successfully sold the account to Shin, but only owned 1/4 of the account and scammed 3/4 of it from ME.

@Colts7841 was paid some some % of the account from Racks, it is COMPLETELY ridiculous that Colts would get 100% of the account back, because he doesnt own 100% of the account (Racks did pay him for some % of it). @EskyBoy owns the % of the account that Racks paid to Colts, and got scammed the 1-(%x100) of whatever was paid. If Colts wants the account (and he is entitled to recovering it since he was not paid the full amount), he ows EksyBoy whatever Racks paid him for the account. He cannot keep the account in addition to what Racks paid him.

Let me hopefully break this down to help people that dont get it.

1. Colts sold the accounts to Racks for 200m (4 payments of 50m).
2. Racks paid Colts 50m for the first payment (25%).
3. Racks sells the account to Esky for 300m.
Note: Esky forfeits the extra 100m ontop, he got merched, it happens.
4. Racks does not pay Colts the rest, so Colts recovers the account.
5. Colts owes Eksy 25% of the original sale price to Racks, whatever Racks paid him. Colts is now whole, he has his account and nothing more. Eksy is the real victim here, and isnt repaid in full, but at least is paid something.

Racks is banned for scamming the price he sold the account to Esky (minus whatever he paid to Colts, which Colts will give to Eksy).

Tada! Case closed. Thanks everyone for reading. Now on to the next person Gun scams.

 

read posts 1-50 and 140 onwards. fuck you guys for posting so much in so little time.

as i see it:

• racks scammed colts by not paying for the account in full
• as a result, colts was right to recover the account
• racks scammed esky by convincing him to buy someone he, racks, didn't really own
• colts isn't liable for racks' actions but forwarding the payment of 80m that racks paid him to esky offsets some of esky's losses

i vote colts sends esky 80m and keeps his account. if not that then colts keeps his account and esky gets nothing. this is essentially what would happen if racks had recovered the account he sold to esky; in either case, esky was dealing with an untrustworthy seller, and that's no fault of colts'

 

Hmm. A true case where nobody can agree with one another.

How interesting.

 

Please read my above post. Agree with it. Close thread. Lets get to the next party before we all join Jon up there in heaven.

 

If this is true, than in all respects the account has been the equivalent of banned by Jagex (resold) and then Colts should not be able to recover it. He went into this contract with increased risk, and he took the risk and it didnt pull off. Colts should then not be able to screw Eksy out of the acc. He took the gamble and lost, he doesnt get a win now for it.

 

No I simply added reselling to your own list as quoted above