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

CryptSafe

sr. member

Activity: 728

Merit: 421

Quote from: Nwada001 on August 18, 2023, 11:34:45 AM

He will return it as soon as he can.

which means the money was not just sent to a different address for safekeeping, privacy, or security, whatever the case may be, as I was assuming, but rather the money has already been spent.

No matter the time that it's going to cost him to return the fund, it might buy him some mercy from members, which they can either change their tag to neutral or leave it that way, which ever way, one thing is for sure that no manager will ever wan't to entrust this user with any kind of fund as an offront payment for a work not done yet..

I think what he has done was wrong though. I was also of the view if he had informed the campaign manager, he would have had a fair hearing and possibly an extension of time. From the looks, he might just have had a little issue but has not been able to say it out. I think he might likely return the money but the deed has been done. What is left for him to do now is to make refund. This would definitely make other managers come up with stringent rules while applying for review campaign of this nature in the future.

Nwada001

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 627

He will return it as soon as he can.

which means the money was not just sent to a different address for safekeeping, privacy, or security, whatever the case may be, as I was assuming, but rather the money has already been spent.

No matter the time that it's going to cost him to return the fund, it might buy him some mercy from members, which they can either change their tag to neutral or leave it that way, which ever way, one thing is for sure that no manager will ever wan't to entrust this user with any kind of fund as an offront payment for a work not done yet..

CryptSafe

sr. member

Activity: 728

Merit: 421

I am still wondering what must have prompted his actions making him not to do the review for which he has been paid for. Looking at the fact that he is a senior member here with such rank considering the efforts he has put in to achieve that height, it is not what he should have kept mute over to not communicating with the manager to explaining things to him what he was going through or appeal for some time to be given to him. $90 is not worth risking such account at that rank.

In most cases some people choose to keep their private life and whatever they are going through privately to themselves. Irrespective of the circumstances surrounding them and looking at the way he withdrew the money it is either something was wrong or something else but from the screenshot of the conversation, it seems he has already made up his mind to face the consequences of what ever comes his way.

notblox1

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1264

Logo Designer ⛨ BSFL Division1

Flag supported.
I dont know how long someone can live in Philippines with 0.003 BTC, but this was so stupid from him to do Roll Eyes

I think I saw jamyr writing in Gambling board before, but like I said yesterday - sadly this forum is full of scammers and cheaters who are waiting to stab someone in back Tongue

Quote from: AB de Royse777 on August 17, 2023, 01:13:36 PM

He contacted me on Telegram. Let's see what happen.

This was 3 days ago, he was online but didnt reply anything.
He can still fix things if he returns money.

khaled0111

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 2853

Top Crypto Casino

The real question is why did he spend the money before testing the platform!
Royse sent the payment upfront to each one of the reviewers so they can test the platform without having to spend from their own pocket.
Spending the money elsewhere, being late to submit the review then coming back after receiving multiple red tags to simply say you are sorry and expect others to remove the red tags.. I don't think this is how things work here.

For the record, I didn't tag jamyr with a négatif feedback and I didn't support the flag against him.

coupable

hero member

Activity: 2338

Merit: 757

Quote from: JeromeTash on August 17, 2023, 01:20:40 PM

Quote from: AB de Royse777 on August 17, 2023, 01:13:36 PM

He contacted me on Telegram. Let's see what happen.

https://i.ibb.co/hY9mYnK/ss.png

Let's wait and see, but that was totally unacceptable and irresponsible of him. He had the time and internet to apply and even spend the Bitcoins that were sent to him, but he then suddenly didn't have time to make a simple review even after several reminders?

Personally, I do not think that he would risk losing his account for the sake of this small amount, especially since this would not have cost him more than trying the site and publishing the review. Maybe he did not imagine that the situation would become so complicated, and most likely he was confused about what position he should take to remedy the issue, and this is explained by his direct contact with Royse without him coming here and providing any explanation to all who left him negative feedbacks.
By verifying a little in his trust history, it appears that he has precedents for delay in payment, and he actually has an active loan in the amount of $ 40 Bitcoin since years ago from DS, which he has not repaid until today. I think that explains his bad habit.

JeromeTash

legendary

Activity: 2100

Merit: 1208

Heisenberg

Quote from: AB de Royse777 on August 17, 2023, 01:13:36 PM

He contacted me on Telegram. Let's see what happen.

https://i.ibb.co/hY9mYnK/ss.png

Let's wait and see, but that was totally unacceptable and irresponsible of him. He had the time and internet to apply and even spend the Bitcoins that were sent to him, but he then suddenly didn't have time to make a simple review even after several reminders?

What a way to mess up a valuable account.

AB de Royse777

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 3878

Visit: r7promotions.com

Quote from: virasog on August 17, 2023, 01:00:18 PM

Quote from: UmerIdrees on August 10, 2023, 08:26:44 PM

I thought he might not be active on the forum recently but then I saw he was last active on August 05. He should have returned this amount if he could not review it or maybe he did not understand the Mixin safe project but whatever was the reason he should have been in communication with the manager.

To be honest, I had the slightest of hope, very little indeed, that he is offline on the forum and when he comes back he may either apologize, ask for an extension to submit the review or maybe submit the review as soon as he is online.

However, to my disappointment, nothing of this happened. I checked and he was online on August 16.

He did not even care to reply whatsoever on the situation. Perhaps he already knew the outcome and he had made up his mind that he will ruin his account for 90$.

He contacted me on Telegram. Let's see what happen.

virasog

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1159

Quote from: UmerIdrees on August 10, 2023, 08:26:44 PM

I thought he might not be active on the forum recently but then I saw he was last active on August 05. He should have returned this amount if he could not review it or maybe he did not understand the Mixin safe project but whatever was the reason he should have been in communication with the manager.

To be honest, I had the slightest of hope, very little indeed, that he is offline on the forum and when he comes back he may either apologize, ask for an extension to submit the review or maybe submit the review as soon as he is online.

However, to my disappointment, nothing of this happened. I checked and he was online on August 16.

He did not even care to reply whatsoever on the situation. Perhaps he already knew the outcome and he had made up his mind that he will ruin his account for 90$.

Woodie

hero member

Activity: 1792

Merit: 871

Rollbit.com ⚔️Crypto Futures

This is what happens when we don't read rules and jump to applying for a campaign all because of the rewards, but either way for a high ranking member unacceptable course of action!

And the worst part about all this is the extra options given to complete the task or refund the bitcoins to avoid all this, and non have been met, flag supported 😐

Sim_card

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 360

Quote from: Poker Player on August 12, 2023, 04:19:32 AM

I have also supported the flag. What I see is that payment was made upfront. I don't know if this is usual or what because I have never participated in review but I suppose that if the payment was made after submitting a satisfactory review instead of upfront, this wouldn't have happened. However, I understand that maybe the payment was made this way for simplicity and convenience.

@Rose777 did the upfront payment for the review so that every member that is to partake in it will be motivated and have the some funds to test the wallet and to also subscribe for the plan,so that there will be no excuse of lack of funds for testing because some users exhaust their weekly pay that same day that they receive it, but Jamyr has taken advantage of this by not giving OP a proper reason why he can't meet up with the review or he should have better still send back the funds to play safe.

Nwada001

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 627

Quote from: Fiatless on August 13, 2023, 08:14:25 AM

Except the member in question has another reason for running away with $90, I never thought a senior member's account will compromise his account because of that sum. The time, input, and cost of data used to build this account are far more than the sum. And I believe this will be the assumption of the manager. He never thought a member with such rank will not honor the contract. I don't blame the campaign manager at all because what he did was to motivate participants to put in their best in the review. His action can discourage managers from paying upfront for a project. But I am glad that it is just one member that had this bad record, which means we have more trustworthy members in the forum.

This is just the thing about people and greed; the manager and the project team have done their part by trying to use a few criteria in judging who is qualified to be in the campaign and who is not, but it is obvious, just like you and other members have said, that the user will definitely have other accounts or the account might not be operated by the real owner, if not with such rank and the little reputation the account might have. $90 is very, very small to stockpile the account like that.

But I just hope the member is in some kind of contract that makes him very busy to the extent of forgetting this one, or their country, or whatever area that he might appear to be in is having some internet down time. I just hope the user can come out some day and refund the $90. Maybe the Manager will consider forgiving and all the negative tags will be changed to neutral or removed.

coin-investor

hero member

Activity: 2828

Merit: 575

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: virasog on August 12, 2023, 07:14:28 PM

Exit scam

A Senior Member account is not worth of mere 90$. This is suicide and not an exit scam.

It's an exit scam for me, even if it's $50 or lower if the account is useless and he cannot get into a campaign that pays Bitcoin because he cannot keep up the competition among members who are vying to get into the campaign, he's just waiting for something like this to scam, he has a bad reputation of defaulting a loan and paying it several months later I don't think he can get all these feedback even if he comes back to pay the loan unless he has a strong reason or alibi.

Fiatless

hero member

Activity: 462

Merit: 472

Quote from: Nwada001 on August 12, 2023, 03:31:34 PM

I believe one of the reasons why the campaign manager and the project team paid upfront for the review was because the review itself will require participants to spend a few dollars in order to successfully try out all the features of the project.

The project had good intentions so that participants wouldn't complain about not having funds to pay for the review service. It's just so sad that someone out there decided to use that to their own advantage by scamming the $90.

Except the member in question has another reason for running away with $90, I never thought a senior member's account will compromise his account because of that sum. The time, input, and cost of data used to build this account are far more than the sum. And I believe this will be the assumption of the manager. He never thought a member with such rank will not honor the contract. I don't blame the campaign manager at all because what he did was to motivate participants to put in their best in the review. His action can discourage managers from paying upfront for a project. But I am glad that it is just one member that had this bad record, which means we have more trustworthy members in the forum.

Smartvirus

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1108

Quote from: NotATether on August 12, 2023, 10:55:35 AM

Quote from: Little Mouse on August 12, 2023, 09:55:24 AM

Quote from: NotATether on August 12, 2023, 08:29:22 AM

I don't remember whether you had a minimum merit/120 days requirement for this review, but perhaps you might need an active account requirement as well, after this.

There was no 120 days merit requirement but a lifetime 50 earned merits + Full Member minimum rank.

See, that's the mistake. Assuming malicious applicants, what is there from stopping old, dormant accounts from before the merit system coming in and making applications?

Or people who've earned their 50 merit a year ago and hardly get a merit in 6 months?

These are exactly the kind of things that 120 day merit requirements stop, because it can identify the active, constructive user from the inactive user and also the spammers/bounty hunters/etc.

I think that wasn’t a consideration here and shouldn’t really be with the review being just a one time thing and merit requirement is not always an absolute judge.
Still, it was a duty Jamyr old his contractor to deliver or refund. At least the user had been active within the period of assigning the contract and had been on/off before that, perhaps few days or a week interval in between posts. It would have been much easer to read the detail contained in the OP carefully and take notes to when you could deliver on contract as the manager would have been open to accepting or giving directives on request.

It’s just becoming clear now that something has been going on with the account, following the series of password changes via email and secrete questions also, the not so activeness of the account but hey, his getting the other side of the bargain and it’s fine to say it’s okay.

knowngunman

sr. member

Activity: 574

Merit: 308

Quote from: Nwada001 on August 12, 2023, 03:31:34 PM

I believe one of the reasons why the campaign manager and the project team paid upfront for the review was because the review itself will require participants to spend a few dollars in order to successfully try out all the features of the project.

The project had good intentions so that participants wouldn't complain about not having funds to pay for the review service. It's just so sad that someone out there decided to use that to their own advantage by scamming the $90.

Actually my first time seeing a company (project in this case) paying participants before the service. I applaud Royse777 for having the courage to undertake this innovation despite knowing that things like this are bound to happen. I presumed it immediately I saw the thread but I wasn't expecting participants to abscond with the payment but was expecting shitty review that will not get approval. It's greediness that made some of them to apply even knowing that they can not perform the tax efficiently. There was a report of copy and paraphrasing in that same review thread too.

The project want to make impression in the forum in my opinion. If it's the complaint of not having fund to carry out the review, I think a part payment would have been better and besides they are people who are ready to use their funds for the review pending payment and those who don't have fund should stay off. It's unfortunate losing senior member because of $90.

Learn Bitcoin

hero member

Activity: 462

Merit: 767

#SWGT CERTIK Audited

Quote from: UmerIdrees on August 10, 2023, 08:26:44 PM

I was just wondering why would a Sr. Member will scam a 90-100$ amount Huh

Some people has nothing to do with their ranks, as their main target is to get some money. No matter how. His 250 merits were air-dropped, and the other 100+ merits he earned in the last couple of years. When you see people not in a signature campaign and unable to earn ten merits in the last 120 days, they are unlikely to get hired by any campaign managers.

So if they didn't get any chance in any campaign, there is no money, and the account has no value. It's not safe to sell accounts as well. So, assume he destroyed his account for that $90. At least he was able to get some money. Sorry for your loss Royse777

virasog

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 1159

Quote from: acroman08 on August 12, 2023, 03:43:10 AM

not sure which part of the Philippines he is from but it's possible that jamyr was affected by the recent typhoon here in the Philippines, that being said, refunding the money after failing to submit the review even after asking to extend the deadline would have been the right move. sorry you had to deal with this Royse777, Flag supported.

Some mishaps do happen in life but he could have let Royse777 know the situation and I am sure he would have come up with another extension or anything. 90$ is not that big amount and one should not ruin his reputation because of it.

Quote from: Poker Player on August 12, 2023, 04:19:32 AM

I have also supported the flag. What I see is that payment was made upfront. I don't know if this is usual or what because I have never participated in review but I suppose that if the payment was made after submitting a satisfactory review instead of upfront, this wouldn't have happened. However, I understand that maybe the payment was made this way for simplicity and convenience.

This is only one off incident among so many other applicants. All of them were paid upfront and they did the job. If you are honest with your work, it does not matter if you get the payment upfront or after the work.

Quote from: NotATether on August 12, 2023, 08:29:22 AM

I guess he tried (successfully) to pull off an exit scam.

Exit scam

A Senior Member account is not worth of mere 90$. This is suicide and not an exit scam.

PX-Z

hero member

Activity: 1428

Merit: 836

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: Nwada001 on August 12, 2023, 03:31:34 PM

Quote from: Poker Player on August 12, 2023, 04:19:32 AM

What I see is that payment was made upfront. I don't know if this is usual or what because I have never participated in review but I suppose that if the payment was made after submitting a satisfactory review instead of upfront, this wouldn't have happened. However, I understand that maybe the payment was made this way for simplicity and convenience.

....

The project had good intentions so that participants wouldn't complain about not having funds to pay for the review service. It's just so sad that someone out there decided to use that to their own advantage by scamming the $90.

Paying upfront a way to encourage the quality poster users to participate with a risk since getting tagged and refunding the payment is mentioned on the rules if failed to review and/or if the review is not accepted by the manager. Reading such rules will filter already those who are capable of doing it, plus the experience if the manager to picked its participants. But unfortunately, things happens and was never come back online to explain his side if he really got problems irl including internet connections. But until then, these negative tags and flag will serve its purpose.

Nwada001

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 627

Quote from: Poker Player on August 12, 2023, 04:19:32 AM

I have also supported the flag. What I see is that payment was made upfront. I don't know if this is usual or what because I have never participated in review but I suppose that if the payment was made after submitting a satisfactory review instead of upfront, this wouldn't have happened. However, I understand that maybe the payment was made this way for simplicity and convenience.

I believe one of the reasons why the campaign manager and the project team paid upfront for the review was because the review itself will require participants to spend a few dollars in order to successfully try out all the features of the project.

The project had good intentions so that participants wouldn't complain about not having funds to pay for the review service. It's just so sad that someone out there decided to use that to their own advantage by scamming the $90.

Topic: Failed to submit review and also did not refund the payment. - page 3. (Read 1201 times)