Topic: Scammer: Dank - page 6. (Read 14368 times)
So have you submitted a custom beat to 420 yet or is that yet another thing you couldn't be assed doing despite saying that you would?
The problem is I never agreed to play by her tab. And the song clearly goes mar-y-had-a-lit-tle-lamb.
Matthew is not the least bit like me.
Matthew is not the least bit like me.
Except, I didn't break any agreement, I didn't lie, I made the song.
You made a song, but anyone with ears could tell you that isn't the song agreed on. You were even provided with tablature which you didn't follow.
Rarity is butthurt because she made expectations and set herself up for failure.
Rarity expected you to honor your agreement. I don't think that is someone setting themselves up for failure. Rarity believed that you would do as you promised. The fact that you didn't is your fault, not Rarity's.
And the truth is Rarity is a troll, so it's totally irrelevant.
No. You lied. You broke a promise. End of story. The irrelevant part is whether or not Rarity is a troll.
I'm quite sure I've made it clear before that I play music from the soul, not ego.
I assume this is your way of saying that you don't play recognizable pieces of music.
You should have made it clear to Rarity that you can't or won't play the song in a recognizable way from the tablature provided.
Instead, you decided to lie.
You never had any intention of honoring this agreement, and you shouldn't have made it.
Now that you have, you have been dishonest and you should get the scammer tag.
You are exactly like Matthew N. Wright. If he has the tag, then so should you.
I'm quite sure I've made it clear before that I play music from the soul, not ego.
If the quality of your music reflects the quality of your soul, then you have more problems than you realise. I can't wait to hear what you produce for 420 - you've said he'll "get" your stuff because he smokes weed.
Dank, have you ever played the Bubble Bowl?
Watching now. 
Dank, have you ever played the Bubble Bowl?
Dank just sent me a PM stating that he's rejoining his old band and together they will play MHALL. Here's the link on YT of Dank & The Knot Quite Ready por el Primetime Players: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LllzOx_iPqs
I'm quite sure I've made it clear before that I play music from the soul, not ego.
If the quality of your music reflects the quality of your soul, then you have more problems than you realise. I can't wait to hear what you produce for 420 - you've said he'll "get" your stuff because he smokes weed.
If Matthew Wright deserves a scammer tag, then Dank does too.
They both made a promise and then failed to keep it. No money changed hands in either situation, but lies were told and agreements were broken.
While this thread may appear frivolous to some, it brings up an important point: What exactly is the criteria for the scammer tag?
As an individual, I feel that the scammer tag is useful because it is a signal that the person tagged is dishonest and therefore I shouldn't do business with them. Therefore my personal feeling is that any instance of dishonesty should be punished with the tag, even if the person involved didn't gain any money or stand to gain any money in that particular instance.
However, of course instances of dishonesty vary in seriousness, and people make mistakes. No one should be branded with the scammer tag for life in a situation like this. In my opinion, Dank should definitely get the tag, but it should be removed as soon as he comes up with "Mary Had a Little Lamb" played to the tablature that Rarity provided for him. As anyone who has read any of his threads can see, he claims to be well on his way to becoming one of the world's finest musicians, so Mary Had a Little Lamb should be very easy for him. A refusal to provide it is just obstinacy and should be punished with the scammer tag.
Except, I didn't break any agreement, I didn't lie, I made the song. Rarity is butthurt because she made expectations and set herself up for failure. And the truth is Rarity is a troll, so it's totally irrelevant.They both made a promise and then failed to keep it. No money changed hands in either situation, but lies were told and agreements were broken.
While this thread may appear frivolous to some, it brings up an important point: What exactly is the criteria for the scammer tag?
As an individual, I feel that the scammer tag is useful because it is a signal that the person tagged is dishonest and therefore I shouldn't do business with them. Therefore my personal feeling is that any instance of dishonesty should be punished with the tag, even if the person involved didn't gain any money or stand to gain any money in that particular instance.
However, of course instances of dishonesty vary in seriousness, and people make mistakes. No one should be branded with the scammer tag for life in a situation like this. In my opinion, Dank should definitely get the tag, but it should be removed as soon as he comes up with "Mary Had a Little Lamb" played to the tablature that Rarity provided for him. As anyone who has read any of his threads can see, he claims to be well on his way to becoming one of the world's finest musicians, so Mary Had a Little Lamb should be very easy for him. A refusal to provide it is just obstinacy and should be punished with the scammer tag.
I'm quite sure I've made it clear before that I play music from the soul, not ego.
A little fun fact here. Did you know that Baa Baa Black Sheep, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, and the Alphabet song are all the same tune?
If Matthew Wright deserves a scammer tag, then Dank does too.
They both made a promise and then failed to keep it. No money changed hands in either situation, but lies were told and agreements were broken.
While this thread may appear frivolous to some, it brings up an important point: What exactly is the criteria for the scammer tag?
As an individual, I feel that the scammer tag is useful because it is a signal that the person tagged is dishonest and therefore I shouldn't do business with them. Therefore my personal feeling is that any instance of dishonesty should be punished with the tag, even if the person involved didn't gain any money or stand to gain any money in that particular instance.
However, of course instances of dishonesty vary in seriousness, and people make mistakes. No one should be branded with the scammer tag for life in a situation like this. In my opinion, Dank should definitely get the tag, but it should be removed as soon as he comes up with "Mary Had a Little Lamb" played to the tablature that Rarity provided for him. As anyone who has read any of his threads can see, he claims to be well on his way to becoming one of the world's finest musicians, so Mary Had a Little Lamb should be very easy for him. A refusal to provide it is just obstinacy and should be punished with the scammer tag.
They both made a promise and then failed to keep it. No money changed hands in either situation, but lies were told and agreements were broken.
While this thread may appear frivolous to some, it brings up an important point: What exactly is the criteria for the scammer tag?
As an individual, I feel that the scammer tag is useful because it is a signal that the person tagged is dishonest and therefore I shouldn't do business with them. Therefore my personal feeling is that any instance of dishonesty should be punished with the tag, even if the person involved didn't gain any money or stand to gain any money in that particular instance.
However, of course instances of dishonesty vary in seriousness, and people make mistakes. No one should be branded with the scammer tag for life in a situation like this. In my opinion, Dank should definitely get the tag, but it should be removed as soon as he comes up with "Mary Had a Little Lamb" played to the tablature that Rarity provided for him. As anyone who has read any of his threads can see, he claims to be well on his way to becoming one of the world's finest musicians, so Mary Had a Little Lamb should be very easy for him. A refusal to provide it is just obstinacy and should be punished with the scammer tag.
In response to our agreement, Dank has uploaded a song that is not "Mary Had A Little Lamb" and misrepresented it as such.
I disagree.Hearing Danks repetoir i think there is no way you could have expected his version to be different than it is.
You fully knew Danks style and by not specifying how you wanted it to sound you are bound to his musical interpretation.
Did you provide him, for instance, with sheet music of MHaLL or other guidelines of what you expected the work to be?
Rarity provided dank with tabs.
In response to our agreement, Dank has uploaded a song that is not "Mary Had A Little Lamb" and misrepresented it as such.
I disagree.Hearing Danks repetoir i think there is no way you could have expected his version to be different than it is.
You fully knew Danks style and by not specifying how you wanted it to sound you are bound to his musical interpretation.
Did you provide him, for instance, with sheet music of MHaLL or other guidelines of what you expected the work to be?
Rarity provided dank with tabs.
dank has also said that he'll supply 420 with a custom beat by today. It will be interesting to see the quality of what he supplies and whether it meets the specifications set down by 420.
I think this was "it's" sinister plan to show dank that changing on a whim is easy. But the plan backfired... Now "it's" pissed and started this crap.
In response to our agreement, Dank has uploaded a song that is not "Mary Had A Little Lamb" and misrepresented it as such.
I disagree.Hearing Danks repetoir i think there is no way you could have expected his version to be different than it is.
You fully knew Danks style and by not specifying how you wanted it to sound you are bound to his musical interpretation.
Did you provide him, for instance, with sheet music of MHaLL or other guidelines of what you expected the work to be?
So services were requested, found lacking in expected quality, and thus not paid for. The only useful tag in this case would be 'incompetent'.
I would pay good money for Dank to get an 'incompetent' tag.
I'd pay good money for half the service operators around here to get that tag.
I don't expect anything, but who have I scammed?
That's why if you don't set expectations, you can't be let down.
Great, I hope you don't expect to excape the scammer tag.
(really, I do live my life according to this advice, but using it like this is just lame)
That's why if you don't set expectations, you can't be let down.
So services were requested, found lacking in expected quality, and thus not paid for. The only useful tag in this case would be 'incompetent'.
I think this sums up the situation. Except there is a fine line between "lacking in expected quality" and "intended deception":
If I would hire Elton John to play "Mary Had A Little Lamb" on my nieces birthday party and Elton would have a bad day and would not live up to my expectations because he hit a few bad notes on the piano and wore a soulless outfit not featuring his extravagant sunglasses, I would call it "lacking in expected quality". This would entitle me to negotiate reduction or waiver of fees on the grounds of quality issues. This would in no way make Elton a scammer. He made reasonable attempts to deliver the services agreed but we are all humans, sometimes even Elton can't charm all his fans.
However if instead of Elton a poor imitator would show up with false hair, a cheap nylon suit and a Greek accent.. Well I would not call that "lacking in expected quality". I would call that intended deception. And even if the payment would not be made I would still call it an attempted fraud.
I can't decide which side of the line Dank's delivery of services was. However I believe that Rarity's claims can't be simply dismissed as "you didn't pay for it, so it's not even a scam".
You bought up some very fine points in your post above but, by doing so, I now recognize another issue. There is no proof that Dank is the one playing the guitar in that audio.
Is there a tag for fleecing a couple thousand dollars from your parents to pay for your internet funbux schemes?
Jump to: