Quote:
How can everyone here be intelligent enough to read 2plus2 and stupid enough to not understand this situation. Two people had a miscommunication. One player sees it as a scam. I have never met a scammer who with all the money in hand sends 75% back when he could keep it all. I have been scammed a few times and i wish that was how it worked for me. So it seems the term scammer was used wrongly. How much is that worth? It seems at this point the label scammer has damaged one player. I'm not sure how much that damage is worth but it doesn't seem practical to sue for more than the 4k already in hand (for the same reasons it wasn't practical for OP to sue).
It isn't miscommunication just because one party claims it was when the time comes to transfer owed money.
The label you are talking about would disappear if the money was paid back if it isn't paid back it's going to stick. Exactly as it should be.
You can't possibly make judgements of how much labeling someone a scamer is worth and take those money from a person. It's like saying I don't like your behavior and stealing 2k from you for that and call it justified.
You can't possibly be dumb enough to actually believe it's in any way justified so I am going to assume you are trolling this thread to make it appear as there is real discussion about the issue from OP. There isn't.
Quote:
Posting this is so much more wrong than Zach holding some of the money longer than you expected, it's not remotely comparable.
Posting it is of positive value actually and shorting someone isn't. If Zach owns up to his debt the thread will be remembered as someone having temporary clouded judgement in high stress situation but then coming back to his senses. If not it will be remembered as documentation of scamming OP for 4k USD.