@RS Crown - CLEANED OUT MY ACCOUNT

[Circle]

Because someone was presented with enough to scam. Tell me this do you think the system that dicing fcs had back in the day worked?

I will answer that for you, yes they worked because you paid 1b for a rank and you could take a max bet of 250m.

I actually want you to answer this, as you have no answered any of my other questions:

1) Do you think if he had put 10m on the account this would of happened?
I
2) Do you think the system that dicing fcs had back in the day worked?

3) should a company be responsible for more than they have warned a customer to trust their employees with? If so, then why?

You realize that if we do as you say then all services should be halted right? You can repeat that my company was responsible all day but why do you think we should be? Are you saying that we need to protect the stupid?

1. It very well could have.
2. They worked to a certain extent, people still did scam.
3. Yes they should be held responsible because you were the one providing the service. You advised the person to only put 10m on the account, it was not requirement.

 

1. It very well could have.

Ok 100m deposit 70-80m on accounts total between 8 or so people, tell me how this would of happened instead of them retracting their deposit, please. If it did happen it wouldnt matter as well. "it very well could have" you need to think about what you are saying before leaving a message. It makes no financial sense to lose 20m.

2. They worked to a certain extent, people still did scam.

Yes they scammed and victims got scammed by less than the rank payment, leaders paid back, nothing was lost.

3. Yes they should be held responsible because you were the one providing the service. You advised the person to only put 10m on the account, it was not requirement.

It was a warning, he saw it as a warning.

 

[Circle]

1. It very well could have.

Ok 100m deposit 70-80m on accounts total between 8 or so people, tell me how this would of happened instead of them retracting their deposit, please. If it did happen it wouldnt matter as well. "it very well could have" you need to think about what you are saying before leaving a message. It makes no financial sense to lose 20m.

2. They worked to a certain extent, people still did scam.

Yes they scammed and victims got scammed by less than the rank payment, leaders paid back, nothing was lost.

3. Yes they should be held responsible because you were the one providing the service. You advised the person to only put 10m on the account, it was not requirement.

It was a warning, he saw it as a warning.

2. Exactly, nothing was lost by the leader. You are being required to pay AGC Tom's 100m deposit you said he paid. whats the issue?

3. Advisement, warning, etc - it was still not a requirement.

 

Thanks for the clarification @Time To Buy (Happy birthday man), @Yankiee & Sythe. I have a few questions just to make sure everything is covered:

3) Would stating all these things in a thread TOS be sufficient, or will we need to link people / copy it and come to an agreement after doing so?

4) Can all this info be made public in a sticky somewhere (Market discussion maybe) for everyone to be able to find and read before they put themselves at risk by hiring workers? If it's a case of someone putting the time into writing it up then I can do it, just lmk.

Thanks

A TOS in the thread would not be sufficient as I had one in mine, which went into a lot of detail.

I agree there should be a sticky how should I know that everthing requires a contract, this is as much the fault of staff as it is mine

 

[Sumpin]

1. It very well could have.

Ok 100m deposit 70-80m on accounts total between 8 or so people, tell me how this would of happened instead of them retracting their deposit, please. If it did happen it wouldnt matter as well. "it very well could have" you need to think about what you are saying before leaving a message. It makes no financial sense to lose 20m.

2. They worked to a certain extent, people still did scam.

Yes they scammed and victims got scammed by less than the rank payment, leaders paid back, nothing was lost.

3. Yes they should be held responsible because you were the one providing the service. You advised the person to only put 10m on the account, it was not requirement.

It was a warning, he saw it as a warning.

You keep emphasizing that a "warning" was issued. It would have took one simple message to back your argument stating that OP should remove said wealth instead of issuing a warning that items may be gone during the time of service, which really has no backbone or obligations for the OP. I do think it's unfair that the ruling is for you to pay back the entirety of what was lost, but I think a lot can be learned from this report in regards to how important a solid TOS is...

 

2. Exactly, nothing was lost by the leader. You are being required to pay AGC Tom's 100m deposit you said he paid. whats the issue?

3. Advisement, warning, etc - it was still not a requirement.

Great work skipping over the first part where I showed you were completely wrong.

The problem is I'm losing more than the 100m deposit here, it isnt just this guys 80m, or 110m as he says now its 50m+ in other accounts I have to pay back. I would actually agree to paying back the deposit minus what I'v paid back so far, so around 50m, I do not agree to what is ruled currently though.

 

You keep emphasizing that a "warning" was issued. It would have took one simple message to back your argument stating that OP should remove said wealth instead of issuing a warning that items may be gone during the time of service, which really has no backbone or obligations for the OP. I do think it's unfair that the ruling is for you to pay back the entirety of what was lost, but I think a lot can be learned from this report in regards to how important a solid TOS is...

"make sure the acc has less than 10m "

I was unaware that the words "make sure" could be interpreted as a warning? Very interesting, I really do need to review the way I'v been using English a little more I guess.

 

[Circle]

Great work skipping over the first part where I showed you were completely wrong.

The problem is I'm losing more than the 100m deposit here, it isnt just this guys 80m, or 110m as he says now its 50m+ in other accounts I have to pay back. I would actually agree to paying back the deposit minus what I'v paid back so far, so around 50m, I do not agree to what is ruled currently though.

I didn't reply to #1 because you didn't say anything worth replying to? You told me to think about what I'm saying before I post it but to be honest, you are the one making yourself look like an idiot.

And okay so lets break this down... "The problem is I'm losing more than the 100m deposit here, it isnt just this guys 80m, or 110m as he says now its 50m+ in other accounts I have to pay back." - Previously, I believe you said that you advise your customer to leave 10m on the account plus however much its going to cost for the training.. If that is true and this Tom guy has access to 8 accounts if he were to scam on all 8 accounts which all had 10m plus the amount it cost for the training wouldn't that be over 100m? If so, that is your problem for allowing this guy to do more than one account at once. Actually, its your problem for allowing this guy on any account if you can't trust him with $70 l0l

 

[Sumpin]

"make sure the acc has less than 10m "

I was unaware that the words "make sure" could be interpreted as a warning? Very interesting, I really do need to review the way I'v been using English a little more I guess.

I actually just reviewed that GIF on page 1 of this thread and it was clearly expressed to the OP that he should remove wealth, but I'm not sure how staff has applied the concept of stare decisis in this report. If your worker scammed now, I feel that it was inevitable down the line but then the argument boils down to whether you want to be responsible for the actions of your worker or not in its entirety....

It's now a sticky situation as you have clearly said in writing a request for OP to remove excess wealth, which he agreed to... I think staff should consider the GIF you posted on page 1.

 

I didn't reply to #1 because you didn't say anything worth replying to? You told me to think about what I'm saying before I post it but to be honest, you are the one making yourself look like an idiot.

And okay so lets break this down... "The problem is I'm losing more than the 100m deposit here, it isnt just this guys 80m, or 110m as he says now its 50m+ in other accounts I have to pay back." - Previously, I believe you said that you advise your customer to leave 10m on the account plus however much its going to cost for the training.. If that is true and this Tom guy has access to 8 accounts if he were to scam on all 8 accounts which all had 10m plus the amount it cost for the training wouldn't that be over 100m? If so, that is your problem for allowing this guy to do more than one account at once. Actually, its your problem for allowing this guy on any account if you can't trust him with $70 l0l

I do not instruct people to pay workers directly, I did instruct AGC but that was a one off. Although I still took the money in this case.

Gyazo - 0732b753c57852803389adcae2f5f7f8.png

as I do so in every case. Tom had less than 10m on each account until AGC came about.

"feel free to pay tom directly for this and make sure the acc has less than 10m on it and we can start asap as long if you wish to purchase" me

As I'v stated 100 times, it doesnt matter who I hire so long as people follow my instructions. I could hire someone that just got out of prison.

I'v managed to convince most people but still you think you stupid should be protected. The funny part is you are not even arguing a signed contract being needed, no one but you agrees with what you are saying.

 

[Circle]

I do not instruct people to pay workers directly, I did instruct AGC but that was a one off. Although I still took the money in this case.

Gyazo - 0732b753c57852803389adcae2f5f7f8.png

as I do so in every case. Tom had less than 10m on each account until AGC came about.

"feel free to pay tom directly for this and make sure the acc has less than 10m on it and we can start asap as long if you wish to purchase" me

As I'v stated 100 times, it doesnt matter who I hire so long as people follow my instructions. I could hire someone that just got out of prison.

I'v managed to convince most people but still you think you stupid should be protected. The funny part is you are not even arguing a signed contract being needed, no one but you agrees with what you are saying.

"The funny part is you are not even arguing a signed contract being needed, no one but you agrees with what you are saying." - this clearly isn't true as you owe him the $$$$$

 

"The funny part is you are not even arguing a signed contract being needed, no one but you agrees with what you are saying." - this clearly isn't true as you owe him the $$$$$

People that agree with you are wrong then, I guess thats more so true than what I had previously stated. But with enough logic and reason minds will be changed, I'm not sure if that applies to you though.

 

[Circle]

People that agree with you are wrong then, I guess thats more so true than what I had previously stated. But with enough logic and reason minds will be changed, I'm not sure if that applies to you though.

I do understand that a user should listen to recommendations and I do understand that you aren't the person who scammed him. But with that being said, you need to realize that by hiring Tom you assume responsibility for anything that he does. I don't understand why you are bashing everybody calling them stupid because they disagree with you. What, are you 12?

 

I do understand that a user should listen to recommendations and I do understand that you aren't the person who scammed him. But with that being said, you need to realize that by hiring Tom you assume responsibility for anything that he does. I don't understand why you are bashing everybody calling them stupid because they disagree with you. What, are you 12?

Its the only word that describes both your and AGC's thoughts, although an insult that is used by younger people, it is fitting and no other word need be used.

"you need to realize that by hiring Tom you assume responsibility for anything that he does." No I do not, as stated by mods if a contract is put in place stating I am only responsible for 10m then I am only responsible for 10m. I argue that the words "make sure" are enough to have this contract created and sealed by having AGC comply, this means he was aware of the consequences. Even if "make sure" and refusing to do the service if over 10m value is left on the account is not seen as a contract, it should still be seen as enough to have the dispute be in my favor. I apologize if the words "stupid" "idiot" "moronic" are seen as harsh but your logic is baffling to the point where they are the only descriptive words that would apply.

 

[I Buy AGC]

all this chit chat and I'm still not payed.

this is really fun for y'all man. can someone close until I'm payed?

verdict was final and all everyone is doing is having a huge debate.


@Yankiee @Time To Buy @Sythe

 

[gucci2525]

@RS Crown pay the man and get it over with u better then that.. wrong or right the dude was ur worker and u are the owner thats like someone working at wendy's and spitting on someones burger and the customer see's it he cant sue the person that did it but he can the owner because that is what he hired take the depo he gave u and pay the man! obv thats what a deposit is for to ensure any scam victims that they will be repaid..

 

[SPM322]

@I Buy AGC if u want i can compesnate u with mark for a while.

he is comforting

@RS Crown pay the man and get it over with u better then that.. wrong or right the dude was ur worker and u are the owner thats like someone working at wendy's and spitting on someones burger and the customer see's it he cant sue the person that did it but he can the owner because that is what he hired

@RS Crown

 

[tMoon]

all this chit chat and I'm still not payed.

this is really fun for y'all man. can someone close until I'm payed?

verdict was final and all everyone is doing is having a huge debate.

Closed.

PS. Discussions on scam reports are not allowed unless you are directly related to the case.