I think it's best not to be too harsh on him now that he's shown up here and says he's committed to repaying what he owes.
Yes you are right that what he has done is not logical, but sometimes we humans get carried away by emotions knowing that what we are doing is not right, like the problem gambler who knows what he is doing is wrong but continues to gamble and lose.
I supported the flag btw, that doesn't change.
I don't know how you guys follow cases logically, I do very well, and I frown at people playing smart. You who didn't have an internet connection received money that can't be withdrawn without internet but could not send it back to the sender when you have the internet connection.
Common!!! He would have still earned the BTC if he did the job. His intention in collecting the money was not good from the onset though he might have a change of mind now. Maybe people who know him physically are now attacking him for his bad attitude or a conscience playing guilty. That's how I see it.
I understand the accused was perhaps in a dire situation to not be able to afford $80, but he should have been more considerate and gone ahead with the review, supposing that his side of the story is true. Now, for less than $80, he has permanently ruined his reputation and his chances of ever rejoining a signature campaign. An Sr. Member account could generate up to $150–$200 if he was willing to put in the necessary effort and create constructive content; such an account is worth much more than $80 in the long run.
Flag supported.