• You've discovered EC Tunnel 💵🫱🏻‍🫲🏾 a marketplace for EverQuest players, not farmers or dealers. This site is ad-free and there are no selling fees, because we're 100% funded by our awesome community 😇 If you're looking to buy someone's beloved main character 🧙‍♂️ you'll find it here. Join up and say hello! 👋

  • Thaw the grind. A new TLP without Truebox restrictions:
    Frostreaver

Bans Hearsay Spk1985 possible active scammer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diamond Krono

Diamond Krono

🏆Rank #1 Trader🏆
BANNED
Premium
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
898
Rating - 99.9%
1747   1   0
The trader in question insists I send first despite him being a 8-2-1, with traders stating he is a 'rip off' all the while the account requesting to be sent to first is a 1747-0-0.

Keeps asking me to send 130 bucks first, fishy.

I chose not to leave negative feedback, even though the user in question broke policy. Since technically I cant prove that he will scam me as he has others, I’m offering this as a fair warning to fellow traders. In my opinion, the circumstances outweigh the benefit of the doubt.

I've helped other traders avoid scammers in the past by sharing similar warnings, and under these conditions, this feels like the right thing to do.


D
 
No, because my 'voucher' ( reputation ) states that I am the least risk out of anyone on this entire forum. It also states that I have never scammed anyone, which cannot be said for your account.
That is how the real world works.
 
We had a similar situation between EcAnon and Dealt this week. Show the conversation as it happened in DMs without editing anything out.
Agreeing to a deal and then not agreeing on who sends first is not breaking an agreement. The terms of the deal changed and somebody wasn't comfortable with it.

Blanco and Pory did a good job of explaining it on this thread.

We can't strongarm people into doing things they're not comfortable with. The terms of the deal changed and it's best to move on if you can't reach an accord.
 
Xuande said:
We had a similar situation between EcAnon and Dealt this week. Show the conversation as it happened in DMs without editing anything out.
Agreeing to a deal and then not agreeing on who sends first is not breaking an agreement. The terms of the deal changed and somebody wasn't comfortable with it.

Blanco and Pory did a good job of explaining it on this thread.

We can't strongarm people into doing things they're not comfortable with. The terms of the deal changed and it's best to move on if you can't reach an accord.
Click to expand...

This is moving on, I am not pushing feedback.
 
Xuande said:
We had a similar situation between EcAnon and Dealt this week. Show the conversation as it happened in DMs without editing anything out.
Agreeing to a deal and then not agreeing on who sends first is not breaking an agreement. The terms of the deal changed and somebody wasn't comfortable with it.

Blanco and Pory did a good job of explaining it on this thread.

We can't strongarm people into doing things they're not comfortable with. The terms of the deal changed and it's best to move on if you can't reach an accord.
Click to expand...
i dont know who blanco but blanco and seig also bought from me. just this #1 is so special.
 
This is not moving on, this is a public argument and calling them a possible scammer for not wanting to send first.

Pretty much the exact opposite of moving on.
 
Is it of your opinion that we should not warn fellow traders of a potential roaming scammer? I agree there is a gray line, but where is the line exactly?

The trader has:

2x negative feedbacks claiming fraud
Is actively asking a 1747-0-0 to trade first on a transaction over $100, this coming from a 8-2-1

I didn't leave feedback for this trader, I openned a discussion, which is what the discussion tab is for.

If you have some insight about how this could be done better, I'm open ears.
 
I undeleted this as it is contextually important to the rest of the stuff happening.

These points i'm raising are only for this particular situation for spk and not intended to be an all encompassing summary of the various things across the last 2 days.

in our Rules
the_rules said:
Content
- Create unnecessary drama.
- Irrationally accuse someone of scamming.
Click to expand...
this scenario seems pretty unnecessary and unfounded


the_rules said:
You must keep your promise to trade, unless one party has changed the terms after your agreement.
Click to expand...

Probably reasonable and fair to consider that what each part was thinking they were agreeing upon (who was paying/sending first) was not the same, and once clarified it changed "the terms of the agreement". in good faith it would make sense that someone say say "ah, nah that's not what i thought I was agreeing to when I agreed" in this laid out scenario and as such, was perfectly within their right to decline moving foward.

the_rules said:
You may not take any action that may undermine the feedback or ratings systems (such as leaving frequent dishonest feedback, displaying, importing or exporting feedback information off of ECTunnel.com or for using it for purposes unrelated to ECTunnel.com)
Click to expand...
It could be argued (and i think it should be) that threatening someone to do what they told them to do otherwise they're going to get bad feedback is against the rule above

the_rules said:
Respect your fellow tunnelers, treat them as equals and not as servants.
Click to expand...
Pretty self explanatory.

the_rules said:
Don't be a jerk. This is a requisite catch-all rule.
Click to expand...
Pretty self explanatory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top