OP just bump the thread back to the frontpage IMO. this way the mods will notice and can decide what to do with it.

if i make a deal with the guy yes i should have a right to take down the thread. no reason for it to be up anymore when the issue has been handled

No, you don't. Once you call out someone in public on a message board you don't own, you have zero right to remove that from the public forum.

You can ASK, but it's not a RIGHT you are entitled to. And if there was any confusion on your part about this you should probably ask before calling out someone in public.

Just curious. Is your repayment deal a contingent upon deleting the thread or did he already complete payback?

I bet he can only settle with this guy if this thread comes down or at least most of the stuff gets edited out.

oh and OP you have handled this as bad as you possibly could in every way. good luck in life.

this

can you please share more of this new found wisdom?

What assurance is there that he will follow through if the thread is deleted? Experience has shown that if you don't become whole first, he might tell you to pound sand once the thread is deleted.

Example:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...it-no-1099711/

When someone proves themselves to be untrustworthy, why do you suddenly trust them? They need to ship first if they are concerned about their rep.

I asked the question rhetorically earlier on, but now I'll ask more seriously: I understand that it's up to the mods of the specific forum whether to delete a thread like the one in question, but are there any guidelines about when they should and should not do so?

And again, the undercurrent is that a thread about a scam should, in my (and I think many other people's) opinion never come down unless there is substantial reason to believe that it contains false information or gives a grossly incorrect impression. Threads about scams and scammers, even threads that are years old, are useful. Heck, in his original thread OP even cited a past scam report about the person with whom he had the problem, so he knows this sort of thing is useful.

Given this utility, why would forum mods ever be, in effect, parties to an agreement to remove information about an alleged scam from public view — again, unless there is substantial reason to believe that that information is false?

IMO this information should be posted in the original thread.

Yeah, that's pretty lolriffic.

"Hey I'll pay you that money I owe you if you remove any trace of me not paying you in the first place."

Uh....riiiiiight.

pretty stupid of you guys to continue commenting on something without knowing all the facts. some new information has come to light that basically vindicates the guy and it was a misunderstanding. this issue was kind of on the backburner for awhile and I've just gotten into contact with him as of the last week. not going to explain anything else... hes not a scammer and I wouldn't ask for it to get taken down if I was getting $$ for it. I don't even think he knows about this specific thread

Perhaps that was relevant information when you started an AFT thread asking for that thread to be deleted, no?

But then he couldn't triumphantly shove it in your face later

possibly but then again I didn't think it would be this complicated nor would I get so many enlightening comments on the issue.

How is he not a scammer/thief when multiple folks report this guy?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=2098

Bit of a pattern present. Your issue has been ongoing for about a year and now it is a misunderstanding? Did he threaten you?

All those "enlightening comments", as you so sarcastically describe them, are a direct result of you not explaining what made your particular situation unique, as opposed to the dozens of other times someone puts up a scammer thread then asks the mods to take down the thread.

But hey, sorry we weren't mind readers and realized that your case was different. We humbly beg your forgiveness.

He is still being very unspecific about it all

You actually sound pretty sketchy to me and I personally would never take that thread down based on your above posts. How's that for new found wisdom?

This whole thing is pretty stupid of you. You call the guy out on a public forum and weeks later post this. Seriously what are we supposed to believe here? Your credibility is completely shot.

Again, you handled this thing as badly as you possibly could.

This is what you should post in the other thread.

so you say, "this" when someone mentions you might not get repayed if you dont delete the thread and then say "I don't even think he knows about this specific thread"

inconsistency FTW

personally if I was on good terms again with someone I would like something like this deleted too. But the forum operates for the greater good and this guy might just not be trustworthy even if he's cool with you.

Friday, 7:29 pm: This one is actually the most specific: "we have agreed..." Nothing about new information. Plus, we all know it's plausible that a deal could be contingent on removal of a scammer thread.

Saturday, 2:40 pm, after various people have opined that such threads should not be deleted:
Again, the "deal". The issue has been "handled". Again, no mention of nor even allusion to new information, even though that possibility has been mentioned as one reason such a thread might come down. Just the deal, the agreement.


Friday, 7:58 pm:
Probably a moment of candor: No thread removal, no deal. Again, all consistent.


Saturday, 10:41 pm
"some new information" — non-specific, as others have pointed out, but more importantly, this is the sort of thing that a reasonable person would have mentioned earlier, instead of saying "we agreed to take it down", if it were true.

"I wouldn't ask for it to get taken down if I was getting $$ for it" — directly contradicted by the Saturday 7:58 pm post.

This is not the progression of someone who had discovered that a person he had accused of scamming him was not in fact a scammer — if that were the case, he would say something (perhaps something vague) about it early, not after various people had made clear that that was probably a condition of thread removal. Think about it: You call someone a thief; you find out he's not a thief and want your earlier accusation removed because it's wrong... but in the request, you say other things ("we agreed...") but don't mention that your accusation was wrong?

No, this is the progression of someone who agreed to remove "his" thread and thought he had that right, and only added the necessary conditions, sort of, when he found out they were necessary.

invid

Slightly o/t, but over the years that I have been involved with the p2p transfers thread, scammed players have fairly often asked me to delete accusatory posts for virtually only one selfish reason: the scammers have tried to do a deal with the scammees where if the posts are deleted, the scammees will receive at least some of the stolen money back.

And, yes, the scammers have actually sometimes told the scammees that they will scam someone else to do it.

I think that's completely on topic. Your experience corroborates what seems to be true here, what OP actually told us to be true: That he wants the thread removed to facilitate his getting his money back. The "facts have changed" stuff was obviously made up after the fact.

Re the second paragraph: Ugh.

I remain concerned, not that OP will get what he wants, but that if he'd gone privately to the moderators of the proper forum in the first place, he might have. We know that forum moderators have broad discretion about what happens on their forums, and if there is no policy expressly forbidding removal of scammer threads without clear evidence that the threads' bases are false, some moderators might remove some threads that need to stay up. There's probably no more problematic issue affecting 2p2 posters as a whole than scams, at least among issues that the forum can do anything about directly, and I think 2p2 should have a clear, unequivocal, site-wide policy about this.