Looking at the terms of the contract, I don’t see any reason why aTriz should be able to back out of paying alia.
Other than the amount that was paid upfront, I think the same. Although the input from others is welcome.
I have to assume aTriz is referring to
something with his post... but I agree,
it seems like the contract, as posted, should not hold aTriz accountable to continue payments. Still not sure why one would agree to a 5 month upfront payment in this situation. Seems like quite a risk for a user with no real prior history who has only been on the forum 1 month.
I am curious to know what in the written contact makes you come to this conclusion. The only way I see aTriz getting out of the contract is if alia doesn’t make at least 30 posts per month.
I don't think he's obligated to pay. He entered into the contract thinking someone was who they said they were and that person is clearly a liar who is misrepresenting themselves, so IMO the contract could be void just based on the fact it was created under false pretenses.
Have you seen the communications between alia and aTriz regarding this deal? If not, then I don't think it is fair to say alia was misrepresenting anything to aTriz because you don't know what was represented.
Broadly speaking, alia has represented she is a 19 year old girl, and based on the fact she appears to have a fair amount of generally happy camgirl customers, I would say there is a decent chance alia is in fact a young women/girl. Also, as per
this reddit thread, I think there is a decent chance there is a 15 year old boy in alia's family (although this could be alia her(him)self.
Alia did
misrepresent the gambling script he was selling, however aTriz
facilicatd this fraud, so I don't think it would be fair to argue this to be a false pretense that duped aTriz. aTriz very
clearly knew what he was talking about when he gave the vouch, as pointed out
multiple times.
I want to point out that I very much think alia is a scammer, largely because of the gambling script. I think it is somewhat plausible that flavors is the brother of alia (despite the issue of bumping using the incorrect account -- one could argue they sometimes use a shared computer), however luckily this is a moot point because I can confirm both accounts are scammers because of separate actions.
I'd also add that standard public policies amongst the community has generally been that red trust == removal from signature campaigns which I believe adds further reasoning.
This is often a term that some signature campaigns impose, however not all signature campaigns impose this rule. I would point out that the issue of "red trust" is not mentioned in the contract, so I would argue that the question of if the terms have been broken should be blind to the trust rating (or color).
I think it would be difficult to argue that aTriz did not know alia was a "gambling exploit" seller considering he was actively assisting this fraud.
I believe aTriz entered the contract before she tried selling her gambling method for $10k USD.
Hmm, this is true, alia entered into the contract the day before trying to sell the script. I would still argue that since aTriz actively facilitated this fraud, that had he known this ahead of time would not have deterred him from entering into the contract.
His vouch was in regards to her sexual-favor backed gambling services, which while suspect, at least had some loose form of collateral.
I don't think this is right. The
thread aTriz posted his vouch in makes no mention of any kind of sexual favors. (a '
control+f search of the thread for both
sex and [/i]favor[/i] yields no results).
Massive negative trust(which I will be adding to shortly), signature not worth a dime anymore.
The signature space of a newbie is not worth 'a dime' to start with. According to the
overview of signature campaigns thread, there are exactly zero signature campaigns available for newbies and junior members.
When you accrued this negative trust, you broke the contract
You forgot to quote the term of the contract that alia broke. Also, the below quote contradicts this statement
Which brings me to the question, Atriz, what the hell were you thinking here?
That train has sailed.
Trains don't sail. They leave the station.
Since I'm trapped in this deal, and I have a feeling that certain members will neg me if I back out of this contract, I've told alia to take of the alu signature and she can do whatever with it.
Like I said before,being a scammer with -256 negative feedback wasn't surely a part of the contract.Paying a scammer on monthly basis for providing a worthless service is not the productive outcome for your money. I don't think you should be tagged because the other party doesn't hold the credibility to stand on the contract anymore.
The service was more or less worthless before alia received negative trust, and the negative trust does not change this.
Using this logic will set a very bad precedent, and will only make it easier for scammers to continue scamming once they receive negative trust and have scam accusations opened against them. If this logic is upheld, then scammers would start to say that they can't accept escrow and they must receive money up front for trades with the explanation that the community will not attempt to enforce contracts with those with negative trust, therefore anyone's existing reputation cannot be relied upon.
I am curious to know how you would feel if this was a loan instead of a deal to wear a signature. Would you feel the same way? If so, what is different?
The 100 post limit has clearly been broken. Yes, it's a loophole to get out of the contract,
I don't buy this. Making excess posts benefit the party trying to terminate the contract because of this alleged "breach", and is in no way harmed because of this. If aTriz were to try to enforce this as a 'limit' then alia could simply delete excessive posts, which would go against public policy as it would give an incentive for a scammer to delete posts, potentially removing evidence of scamming.
