Failed to submit review and also did not refund the payment. - page 3.

holydarkness

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1462

Yes, I'm an asshole

Quote from: hugeblack on August 28, 2023, 07:50:07 AM

Quote from: jamyr on August 27, 2023, 04:18:36 PM

the trust reference feedback was inaccurate. Tongue

It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

I searched in the comments of the trust and found that I was the only one who used the wording of 0.003+. the + sign after the number indicates that there is an additional task that was supposed to be done for that amount.

In general, I reviewed the response before editing, and this line was not present, so I think that you are trying to find a moral justification for your scam. I just hope you remember that money doesn't grow on trees and give back money, trust can be earned and it will generate more money instead of quick 0.003 BTC.

Umm... a bit correction, if I may? No, you're not alone. Royse also leave a feedback with 0.003+

hugeblack

legendary

Activity: 2688

Merit: 3983

Quote from: jamyr on August 27, 2023, 04:18:36 PM

the trust reference feedback was inaccurate. Tongue

It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

I searched in the comments of the trust and found that I was the only one who used the wording of 0.003+. the + sign after the number indicates that there is an additional task that was supposed to be done for that amount.

In general, I reviewed the response before editing, and this line was not present, so I think that you are trying to find a moral justification for your scam. I just hope you remember that money doesn't grow on trees and give back money, trust can be earned and it will generate more money instead of quick 0.003 BTC.

examplens

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 3507

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: jamyr on August 27, 2023, 04:18:36 PM

I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate. Tongue

It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

Do you really come here to complain about inaccurate feedback because of "+"?
At the same time, I didn't see that you gave any plan for paying off the debt.

Quote

Thanks for the Judgement I wish you guys were this engaged or enthusiastic back when I was ... well that.

Are you being sarcastic here or what?

holydarkness

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1462

Yes, I'm an asshole

Quote from: jamyr on August 27, 2023, 04:18:36 PM

I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate. Tongue

It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

Thanks for the Judgement I wish you guys were this engaged or enthusiastic back when I was ... well that.

Bye for now.

Technically, the "+" is kinda justified. Other than the extra fees he mentioned above [time, tx fee, workload, etc.] there's the obvious conversion rate. If we suppose you "loaned" from Royse, with the term to return it on the exact USD value, where at that time, the rate is around 30,000ish USD, you earned 90 USD, and as per the current rate is 26,000ish, you kinda "owed" 0.0034... btc, thus, 0.003+

Even if we lock the rate at when Royse asked for refund, 6th of August, BTC rate at that time was roughly 29,000, so it'll still be 0.0031..., still a 0.003+

acroman08

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1104

Quote from: CryptoHeadlineNews on August 28, 2023, 03:24:14 AM

Quote from: acroman08 on August 27, 2023, 11:38:37 PM

Quote from: LoyceMobile on August 27, 2023, 04:33:05 PM

I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

True, and I agree, wasting the opportunity is stupid. In my first post in this thread, I mentioned that jamyr could have been affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month, the typhoon left a lot of damages so I could understand if he couldn't finish the task because of the typhoon, but taking the money is just wrong. just to clear things up, this is just an assumption, I don't know wich part of the country he is from and I am not 100% certain whether the thypoon is the reason why he couldn't finish the review but it is the plausible reason I could think of.

Please, let's stop trying to play the safe game here @ "acroman08", because did the accused person say anything about him being affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month just as you said? Please let's just stop making assumptions while the person in question hasn't altered a single word. He is guilty and should accept the fact that he is, and just send the money back without trying to play safe because what will take of him if really he was either sick or affected by a natural disaster to come onto the forum, complain to the manager about his/her latest challenge, because I'm sure Sir Royse777 would have definitely understood and extended his deadline, but yet he never did any of that.

Huh? play safe? who said he isn't guilty? because I never said he wasn't, I even said he should have informed Royse if he was affected by the typhoon or not and he should have just refunded the money instead of scamming. you should read my previous posts to understand why I replied like that to LoyceV's post.

AB de Royse777

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 3878

Hire Bitcointalk Camp. Manager @ r7promotions.com

Quote from: jamyr on August 27, 2023, 04:18:36 PM

I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate. Tongue

It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

How can you forget the value that was damaged?

Don't tell me it's a free money I gave you to hold for me. Even a personal loan in the forum will add a daily interest.
Where is the price of the time I have wasted waiting for your review, wrote you several times, then extended the campaign again to find a replacement for you.
Where is the price of the time I spent to adjust the fund in the escrow wallet, several extra transactions between my own wallet and escrow wallet just because you failed.

The wasted amount of time + the hassle + the extra load of work + other many factors.
Add all then the damage may worth more 0.003 BTC.

Would you settle it for 0.006 BTC? I will gladly remove the "+".

CryptoHeadlineNews

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 747

Quote from: acroman08 on August 27, 2023, 11:38:37 PM

Quote from: LoyceMobile on August 27, 2023, 04:33:05 PM

I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

True, and I agree, wasting the opportunity is stupid. In my first post in this thread, I mentioned that jamyr could have been affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month, the typhoon left a lot of damages so I could understand if he couldn't finish the task because of the typhoon, but taking the money is just wrong. just to clear things up, this is just an assumption, I don't know wich part of the country he is from and I am not 100% certain whether the thypoon is the reason why he couldn't finish the review but it is the plausible reason I could think of.

Please, let's stop trying to play the safe game here @ "acroman08", because did the accused person say anything about him being affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month just as you said? Please let's just stop making assumptions while the person in question hasn't altered a single word. He is guilty and should accept the fact that he is, and just send the money back without trying to play safe because what will take of him if really he was either sick or affected by a natural disaster to come onto the forum, complain to the manager about his/her latest challenge, because I'm sure Sir Royse777 would have definitely understood and extended his deadline, but yet he never did any of that.

acroman08

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1104

Quote from: LoyceMobile on August 27, 2023, 04:33:05 PM

Quote from: acroman08 on August 26, 2023, 12:46:27 PM

What makes it a lot more difficult than it already is, is that $78 is almost 1/4(sometimes even more than 1/4) of the total average monthly salary here in the Philippines.

If I'd be given the opportunity to earn a week's worth of salary in a short amount of time, I'd take it!
I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

Yeah, I completely agree with you, I'd take it too and would be wasting that opportunity.

Quote from: LoyceMobile on August 27, 2023, 04:33:05 PM

I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

True, and I agree, wasting the opportunity is stupid. In my first post in this thread, I mentioned that jamyr could have been affected by the typhoon that hit the country last month, the thypoon left a lot of damages so I could understand if he couldn't finish the task because of the typhoon, but taking the money is just wrong. just to clear things up, this is just an assumption, I don't know wich part of the country he is from and I am not 100% certain whether the thypoon is the reason why he couldn't finish the review but it is the plausible reason I could think of.

Bitcoin_Arena

copper member

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1814

฿itcoin for all, All for ฿itcoin.

Quote from: jamyr on August 27, 2023, 04:18:36 PM

I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate. Tongue

It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

Yep, if you look at it critically, it's actually 0.003+ BTC. You took the money and spent it, wasted the time of the manager and caused damages to the client even after several deadlines. Yes. You owe them 0.003+ BTC
If you weren't up to the task, then what was the point of even joining the review campaign in the first place?

_BlackStar

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1228

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: CryptoHeadlineNews on August 27, 2023, 04:53:49 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on August 27, 2023, 03:42:43 PM

-snip-

So in general, what I mean is that people on campaign, not minding whether it's been manage by Royse777, Hhampuz, Icopress e.t.c, as long as they are on campaign and they are always active on this forum, they should be given priority first, than people who just come to visit the forum once in a while.

Priority is up to the manager because he is the one who has the policy about who will be accepted and who will not - but it's a advice that might be considered.

Users who post regularly are expected to make more sense to participate in any campaign - but that doesn't mean users who post occasionally should be turned down all without exception. Regular users are likely to be expected because they are more likely to stay abreast of any developments than those who don't - but this also comes at the discretion of the manager. Nobody expected this to happen - but it is a reality.

CryptoHeadlineNews

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 747

Quote from: holydarkness on August 27, 2023, 03:42:43 PM

Quote from: CryptoHeadlineNews on August 27, 2023, 03:07:11 PM

[...]
Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

As in people on the signature campaign of the platform that's about to be reviewed to be given top priority, e.g. suppose platform "A" have a signature campaign and happen to held a review campaign too, participants of "A" should be given priority against other users who doesn't wear their signature and/or people who wear signature "B"?

Quote from: SamReomo on August 27, 2023, 04:33:48 PM

Quote from: CryptoHeadlineNews on August 27, 2023, 03:07:11 PM

Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

Are you referring to people who are participating in campaigns managed by Royse777 or you're referring to those members who are participating in signature campaigns managed by other campaign managers?

It seems both of you are getting me wrong when I said people on campaign should be given a top priority first, because what I meant is people on campaign generally (i.e active forum users) and not users who just come to drop post on this forum once in a while, just in the case of this user accused of not submitting his/her review (i.e you can check his/her post history and you will notice he/she rarely post, which also means he/she is not always active on this forum).

So in general, what I mean is that people on campaign, not minding whether it's been manage by Royse777, Hhampuz, Icopress e.t.c, as long as they are on campaign and they are always active on this forum, they should be given priority first, than people who just come to visit the forum once in a while.

SamReomo

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 672

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: CryptoHeadlineNews on August 27, 2023, 03:07:11 PM

Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

Are you referring to people who are participating in campaigns managed by Royse777 or you're referring to those members who are participating in signature campaigns managed by other campaign managers?

If you're referring to the members who are currently accepted in Royse's managed campaigns than that would limit all those members of the forum who can contribute in a good way to a review campaign. And, that type of approach will be biased as well because many deserving members won't get the chance to participate in those review campaigns.

If you're referring to all those members who are currently accepted in a signature campaign managed by someone else than Royse then in that case the scenario will be similar. In that type of case, all top members of the forum who aren't accepted in a signature campaign would be deprived of taking part in those review campaigns. I don't think that a manager like Royse777 would ever do something like that because if a manager does that than many deserving members of the forum will be out of luck and they won't be able to avail such opportunities.

LoyceMobile

hero member

Activity: 1659

Merit: 687

LoyceV on the road. Or couch.

Quote from: acroman08 on August 26, 2023, 12:46:27 PM

What makes it a lot more difficult than it already is, is that $78 is almost 1/4(sometimes even more than 1/4) of the total average monthly salary here in the Philippines.

If I'd be given the opportunity to earn a week's worth of salary in a short amount of time, I'd take it!
I don't get it: if 0.003 Bitcoin is worth so much you can't even pay it back, wasting the opportunity to earn it is just stupid.

jamyr

sr. member

Activity: 1764

Merit: 373

<------

I dont even oppose the flag except
the trust reference feedback was inaccurate. Tongue

It says 0.003+

(a single character ... this reminded me of that time when I first engaged in a convo with Royse)

Thanks for the Judgement I wish you guys were this engaged or enthusiastic back when I was ... well that.

Bye for now.

holydarkness

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1462

Yes, I'm an asshole

Quote from: CryptoHeadlineNews on August 27, 2023, 03:07:11 PM

[...]
Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

As in people on the signature campaign of the platform that's about to be reviewed to be given top priority, e.g. suppose platform "A" have a signature campaign and happen to held a review campaign too, participants of "A" should be given priority against other users who doesn't wear their signature and/or people who wear signature "B"?

Though it has its own merit in form of that the participants will have [if they didn't already] a good grasp of the platform, I actually against this idea for numerous reasons. A sense of exclusivity for one. Two, a bias. Three, it hindered a chance of reviews from broader spectrum of people.

notblox1

legendary

Activity: 2086

Merit: 1282

Logo Designer ⛨ BSFL Division1

If you fail to do what you sign up for and you repeat this action several times than you should not be trusted ever again.
Saying sorry without giving any estimate date when you could refund coins you received is bullshit.
jamyr deserve to be nominated in next competition as cheater or biggest fail of the year.

CryptoHeadlineNews

hero member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 747

Quote from: jamyr on August 25, 2023, 03:24:20 PM

Hello.

First, Id like to apologize to Royse and mixinsafe ,
I have my excuses but Royse was generous enough to have given me extension(s) so no excuse will make any difference.

As I have told Royse over tg, I have all the intention to refund the 300k sats. I just cant right now.
Thanks to those who contacted me btw about this, sorry to disappoint.You know who you are.

Apologies again Royse.

Judging from this statement and the post history of this user "jamyr", I just keep wondering how on earth was he even given an opportunity to run a review in the first place? Because though I can understand that the Mixin Safe review was as a result of "first come, first serve", but for me, I felt more other majors needed to have been put in place to offer choosing the wrong people for that job, just like what "jamyr" is saying right now. Because any reasonable human being, knowing the fact that you can't refund the money that have been paid for a review job, would have made an attempt to submit a review, even after the deadline, and left for the manager to accept it or not, but however, this user felt reluctant till this day, and still even has to mind to come up hear to say, "I can't refund the money"... WHAT A BOLDNESS!!

Who knows if it's not a Sr.Member account been manage by a Newbie...

Please, @ Sir Royse777... I will suggest people on campaign should be given top priority when selecting people for a review job in case of next time. Thanks

holydarkness

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1462

Yes, I'm an asshole

Quote from: Ultegra134 on August 26, 2023, 06:01:01 PM

Quote from: Stalker22 on August 26, 2023, 04:56:15 PM

Quote from: Ultegra134 on August 26, 2023, 04:10:43 PM

Unfortunately, the OP shouldn't have paid in advance, but I'm guessing that he wasn't expecting an Sr. Member to scam him for such a minor amount.
~

What do you mean by OP should not have paid in advance? Those were the campaign's terms, and they were in place to attract higher quality participants. There were a 100 participants in this campaign! And, just because of one bad apple...? No, I do not agree with that. The OP went above and beyond to accommodate everyone, even allowing extensions for late reviews. And even after all that, jamyr had plenty of chances to return the money. Yet here we are, and he still has not. Even if he spent the money, he could have simply asked for a loan, which shouldn't have been a problem given the amount.

I'm not saying that the OP is at fault. Certainly, there's a reason that the other 99 applicants went along and stuck with the original plan, to deliver a constructive review, in which the accused failed even after receiving an extension; these are the terms he agreed to. Royse is a well-known campaign manager; I understand the reason he did it, but it's how each individual has a different point of view. Personally, in the only review in which I participated a while ago, I completed the review and then got paid for it.

The worst of all is that he hasn't returned the money as he should have already. I understand that something unexpected might have happened, but in that case, if he's unable to deliver, it's mandatory to refund the manager immediately and have someone else fill the vacancy in the review campaign.

The reason why payment paid in advance was because the review will require reviewers to deposit some funds into the platform. I am strongly assuming Royse arranged the advance payment so that the participants didn't have to use their own reserved capital to complete the task.

Ultegra134

hero member

Activity: 1680

Merit: 845

Quote from: Stalker22 on August 26, 2023, 04:56:15 PM

Quote from: Ultegra134 on August 26, 2023, 04:10:43 PM

Unfortunately, the OP shouldn't have paid in advance, but I'm guessing that he wasn't expecting an Sr. Member to scam him for such a minor amount.
~

What do you mean by OP should not have paid in advance? Those were the campaign's terms, and they were in place to attract higher quality participants. There were a 100 participants in this campaign! And, just because of one bad apple...? No, I do not agree with that. The OP went above and beyond to accommodate everyone, even allowing extensions for late reviews. And even after all that, jamyr had plenty of chances to return the money. Yet here we are, and he still has not. Even if he spent the money, he could have simply asked for a loan, which shouldn't have been a problem given the amount.

I'm not saying that the OP is at fault. Certainly, there's a reason that the other 99 applicants went along and stuck with the original plan, to deliver a constructive review, in which the accused failed even after receiving an extension; these are the terms he agreed to. Royse is a well-known campaign manager; I understand the reason he did it, but it's how each individual has a different point of view. Personally, in the only review in which I participated a while ago, I completed the review and then got paid for it.

The worst of all is that he hasn't returned the money as he should have already. I understand that something unexpected might have happened, but in that case, if he's unable to deliver, it's mandatory to refund the manager immediately and have someone else fill the vacancy in the review campaign.

Stalker22

legendary

Activity: 1526

Merit: 1359

Quote from: Ultegra134 on August 26, 2023, 04:10:43 PM

Unfortunately, the OP shouldn't have paid in advance, but I'm guessing that he wasn't expecting an Sr. Member to scam him for such a minor amount.
~

What do you mean by OP should not have paid in advance? Those were the campaign's terms, and they were in place to attract higher quality participants. There were a 100 participants in this campaign! And, just because of one bad apple...? No, I do not agree with that. The OP went above and beyond to accommodate everyone, even allowing extensions for late reviews. And even after all that, jamyr had plenty of chances to return the money. Yet here we are, and he still has not. Even if he spent the money, he could have simply asked for a loan, which shouldn't have been a problem given the amount.

Topic: Failed to submit review and also did not refund the payment. - page 3. (Read 1859 times)