Topic: [Ethical Dilemma] What would you do? - page 3. (Read 920 times)

I think one can keep money for the work OR the work but not both. It might be a moot point anyway. The OP makes it sound like the work is already in the hands of scammers and they can re-post the thread themselves.


Still not an excuse to steal from them.

If they had already scammed it would get murky - should the contractor enact some sort of vigilante justice to distribute the funds to victims? Given that there is no real law enforcement in ICO scams this might seem like the right thing to do but a bit of a slippery slope. Anyway, that's not the case here as far as I can see.

You think it is okay to steal from an alleged scammer? That doesn’t sound right.

Unless a third party can lay a claim to the money, any excess funds belongs to the person who procured the work. Even in this case, without a court order, giving money to a third party is legally dubious.

A refund should be given for work not completed, however there is an argument that a full refund should be given, depending on the terms agreeed to.

Unfortunately not. It seems that whenever a disclaimer is expanded, it ends up being insufficient due to unforseen events. For the future I advise everyone to use something like 'if any information is found to be misleading, I reserve the right to abandon the agreement and keep all paid funds' as part of their disclaimer.

It's not the same, no.

The absolute amount of money isn't the problem. The problem is any kind of division (if one of those options is chosen - which is likely given the input so far).

This is done nowadays. It is done via copper memberships usually by fake bounty managers and those that are afraid to make any risks due to recent scrutiny on said bounty managers for externalities that are out of their control (which I have predicted). Between posting with a copper membership and a legendary member, almost all projects will go with the later.

It was clarified at the start: Edit content -> format into thread/make thread -> publish/keep open.

Everyone will be credited in a 'timeline-styled contributions' part of the thread.

---

Whilst the input is very welcome and constructive, there is no consensus just as I expected:

Working for a project that turns out to be a scam, but this was caught in the very early stages and was immediately stopped.

So it should be a small amount of coin for a small amount of effort and only between the would-be scammer and the thread-maker-guy.

I can see doing BBcode work for someone but why would you post their thread for them and put your name on it? This was done before copper memberships were available to post pics and links but now that is solved.
I guess if you don't mind your name being front and center on some random "project" for no good reason ("No maintaining of any kind, nor any other service of any kind") have at it, but not me..

It was unclear to me what all the funds were supposed to be for and if their was a large amount of overage.

So we don't know who came with the information to stop it? The scam buster... Source of new information..
The guy I would probably give a big tip..


In this case I think you could do any of the above poll options without it being entirely unethical. I don't think doing any of them would make this person a bad guy..

Myself I would probably send it all to the guy(s) that found it out as a scam and keep none of it because I would feel like shit that I almost just contributed to a bunch of people getting scammed..

I would keep what was owed to me for the work done, and refund the rest.  But, I would go further; I would keep "the work" so it could not be used to scam anyone in the future. 

Don't refund to the scammers. They have used fake team this means their intention was not good by the way. Also they never contacting to the user so it's bit clear that their intention was to scam peoples although they failed to do it. My opinion is keep appropriate fund for user who took the work, and rest fund distribute on charity. Or distribute rest fund to user's who have exposed this kind of fake ICO's and save lot of fund    

But their intention was not fair.

I voted for "Refund partially, keep the rest" assuming that the project hasn't actually scammed anyone yet. Two wrongs don't make it right so the person should take the appropriate compensation for the work that's been done and return the rest.

Also assuming that there was no "early termination penalty" or anything like that in the agreement.

Officially I voted to keep some for the work that was done and refund the rest.  That seems like the ethical thing to do.  The evil little monster in my head would say that keeping some and doing something good with the rest (anything but returning it to scammers) wouldn't be too bad of an option.  I don't think either of those choices would draw anyone's ire, except perhaps for the scammers.

I don't like the burn address idea, as that's just wasting money that could be put to use.

I have already clarified why I don't agree with this assesment. This would be the case if it were bounty management where work has to be completed at the end of a week. Keeping something open involves no work.

No, absolutely not. That was a bounty management thing where aTriz knewingly continued with the thread despite knowing that information was fraudulent (+ that was a ICO this is an airdrop).

Creating, posting and keeping it open for a while (which essentially requires no work to do). No maintaining of any kind, nor any other service of any kind.

Nobody got scammed because of it as it was never published (other than temporarily in archival). Whether someone got scammed before, that I do not know and can not know.

What does this even mean? If you are asking how much of the work was done in terms of percentage, you can argue any arbitrary number IMO. For example: If you see 'not locking a thread for a certain amount of time time' as zero work (since it requires zero effort), then you could argue that 100% of the work has been done.

This was not publicly revealed yet, but it isn't an issue as there is no project thread/no way to buy any tokens etc. Should be today/tomorrow once things are wrapped up.

That seems like a creative exit (as the title was to be chosen by the user). However, it still may lead to victims and the thread author would get the blame IMO (despite title && possible disclaimers).

There was no fundraising AFAIK (yet).

Sounds like a solid opportunity to start something like this if you are so inclined.

Given my understanding of the situation I would keep whatever amount is appropriate as payment for the work already done (or full payment for the work agreed to be done) and then the remainder is a tricky situation. Giving money back to scammers (as punishment for being caught) sounds like a terrible outcome. Charity or refunding those that were scammed in the past (especially by the initial fundraising for project1) would seem an appropriate response.

So basically the aTriz situation but not carrying on with the project right?

I think it depends on some more things.
Was the payment solely for creating and maintaining this thread or were other funds included earmarked for any other service this person was supposed to provide or any escrow for any other possible payments?
Did anyone else get scammed or lose money or their effort over it?
How much for the service already rendered and how much is the remainder/overage? Is it substantial?

Who busted the scam?
Maybe instead of giving all of the money to charity you could give it to the scam buster, or a good chunk of it, as a reward.. Maybe put some of it up as a public bounty to bust more scam ICOs?
Reward and incentivize the good samaritans stopping these scammers..  

20% kept for work done and 80% to free Ross. Fuck the scammers, they wanted to steal users money - why else use stolen images?

Scam projects can touch my balls IMO they deserve to lose the money

I would consider the received money to be only in users possession (i.e. not owned), until the work is completed. As the work is not going to be completed, and it's not a force majeure situation or anything like that, then full payment shouldn't be accepted. Regardless of whether the received funds would be kept or donated, it's still accepted money and it shouldn't be accepted in the first place. On the other hand user would then need to send money to the scammers. I would keep these two things separate and treat the received money as something you shouldn't have been sent at all.

So.. I would separate these two things: that they're scammers and that the user has a work contract/deal with them. I would seek to communicate and do a partial refund for the work not yet done, and keep or donate the rest to charity. It's a moral choice between sending money back to scammers and scamming the scammers (=not completing the work but still taking all the money). There's no correct answer. Also I would be very careful to be extremely sure that they are absolutely scammers. To make this easier, I would highlight the idea that the money is not user's until the work is done, and it could be in anyone's possession currently.

No; but that has already been remedied for the future.

This was not considered, the idea was something more known (e.g. FreeRoss).

Were there any terms set upfront? That can influence the ethics (and if not, there should be next time. Something like: "If I find out you're dishonest, our business ends instantly without refunds").

Could the charity be some forum-users who you believe have been scammed in the past?

Added. Thanks for the input.

There should be a "Keep partially, donate the rest (to charity)." option. I wouldn't be against someone taking a share for the work they did do, and donating the rest.

Hello!

Let me tell you a story..


Once upon a time there was a user offering a variety of services. A "project1" had found this user through mutual contacts, and requested some services. These services included editing the content, making a thread and publishing it as well as keeping it open for multiple weeks. The price of the service is on a $/week basis (a full week is counted as 7 full days of the thread remaining open), where all of the work (as mentioned prior) is already factored into this quote.
The user proceeded to check out the project's team before accepting any payment (and had also contacted third parties for input). The user did not find anything suspicious and after seeing a statement about a partnership from the alleged project's partner (more on this later [1]), they have decided to accept it.
Without requesting all the weeks to be paid in advance (the usual is one), the project's contact had sent everything in advance and notified the user. After confirmation, the user had started working on the thread and had completed it (published an archived version - now removed; but archived via external tools).
A few hours had passed, and after exchanging several messages with the 3rd parties new information came to light which undeniably makes "project1" a scam: The whole team was fake. This put the user in a difficult position, who now holds all of the money and will not finish the remaining part of the job ('keeping the thread open') for obvious reasons.


How would you handle this situation (see poll for options and/or elaborate in post)?

---

[1] This ended up likely being a statement about another project/company that has the same name, but the "project1" used it in a fraudulent way.
[2] Note: To clarify, there has been no communication between the user and project1 since the user became aware of this information, other then pointing out the team was fake - which was not yet read due to timezones.
[3] I'm not going to share what I'm more inclined to do as that would cause bias and probably mess up the voting.
[4] There's no solution that will satisfy everyone; user is gonna get grilled regardless of what they decide.

---

Local rules (albeit not needed because self-mod):
No Quickseller, cryptohunter && similar trolls.