Probably a case of buyer remorse - happens all the time in auctions.
I'm not sure what you can do to discourage it.
Topic: Should this person be considered as scammer? (Read 1089 times)
The first date of repayment is over and the buyer has failed to pay back as expected and now trying to 'discuss' things on Skype. Turning out to be a scam. I have a member from DefaultTrust overseering this deal.
Please learn what scammer actually means. I'd consider these people time wasters. Just forget about him and re-open the auction, no need for negative trust. He probably had money, lost it, and is now too lazy to reply.
I'd assume this is a scam. Who knows, he could have been bidding on OP's auction to drive people toward one of his or whatever. I'd never take an act like this--not paying for a won auction--as anything other than dishonest and I think negative trust feedback is warranted. January 14, 2016 Update: I have received a communication from this said person. Now, he is saying that he has used his money on his shop and can not pay anything now. He now wants to borrow this account and would pay higher amount in two parts on January 20 & 30.
he wants to borrow your account? kind of an odd thing to ask...
btw I don't think it's a good idea to let him have your account. just open a new auction or sell whatever you're selling to the second highest bidder.
I wonder if this has anything to do with this PM I received..
on January 12, 2016
I declined the loan..
Quote
I would buy an Hero Account. I've a seller thet could sell it @ 0.26 BTC. You coud take it as collateral and i repay you in no more than 20 days. Let me know
on January 12, 2016
I declined the loan..
bidding in an auction seems like a binding contract to me. if someone bids and goes missing when he has to pay i think he is a scammer.
but no money is lost; so its hard to tell.
what about this scenario:
someone makes an auction
a few people bid
highest bidder goes mia for a week
seller sells to the second highest bid
highest bidder come back and wants his item... in this case the seller is the "scammer"
so please just write your auctions carefully and handle that case (eg highest bidder needs to react in 48h otherwise next one gets it)
in none of this cases i'd leave a negative rating though. but i'd place a neutral and i wouldnt trade with him.
but no money is lost; so its hard to tell.
what about this scenario:
someone makes an auction
a few people bid
highest bidder goes mia for a week
seller sells to the second highest bid
highest bidder come back and wants his item... in this case the seller is the "scammer"
so please just write your auctions carefully and handle that case (eg highest bidder needs to react in 48h otherwise next one gets it)
in none of this cases i'd leave a negative rating though. but i'd place a neutral and i wouldnt trade with him.
I have updated OP with the recent proceedings and will keep u guys updated. If he pays as per schedule, it is fine. But, if he scam, I'll disclose his identity, so that he can be turned red.
That case is surely an act of dishonesty towards it's respective auction and a feedback should be given base on how the situation is. I've notice some with signatures keep on bidding on different auctions and their only purpose is to increase their post count in order to earn more from signature campaigns and this is one way for them to get away (in this case a feedback would be necessary if after giving warning, they tend to continue further) then there's also a similar case in which they really don't even have the fund that they made the bid in the first place (also same as last punishment) and the last one is they bid and bid, win the auction and have a sudden change of mind so either will make excuses or completely ignore you (these people certainly deserve a feedback corresponding to the case as it's very annoyingly a dishonest way of pledging to the auction they participated). To answer your question, first two cases are not scammer and rather spammers and the last one I believe a type of scammer.
Please learn what scammer actually means. I'd consider these people time wasters. Just forget about him and re-open the auction, no need for negative trust. He probably had money, lost it, and is now too lazy to reply.
At least the winner should have given some explanations to you, like not willing to pay for it or asking for extention of the payment. Other We could consider the bidders not trustworthy or not honest to keep the promises making the bid to be willing to pay that amount of money for that items. Neutral or negative can be given to that person. 
to the two posters above.. negative trust isn't always about scams. it simply means that the user is untrustworthy.
I'd give them neutral unless this is not his first time doing it or if he is wearing a signature ad and looked like he's bidding on every action he finds.
I'd give them neutral unless this is not his first time doing it or if he is wearing a signature ad and looked like he's bidding on every action he finds.
If a person bids in an auction, wins it, communicates and then suddenly become incommunicado just before payment, though the person is active in the forum...
Since there is no money involed yet then no, I think it is not considered as scamming so technically the guy was no a scammer but more likel to be a fraud who didn't fix his words.
Please learn what scammer actually means. I'd consider these people time wasters. Just forget about him and re-open the auction, no need for negative trust. He probably had money, lost it, and is now too lazy to reply.
If a person bids in an auction, wins it, communicates and then suddenly become incommunicado just before payment, though the person is active in the forum...
You could send him couple of PM's.Ask him to reply even though if he wants to back out ,he owes you a valid explanation.You decide if the reasons are convincing enough or just plain bullshit.At all,there were situations where he could not buy it or couldn't afford it at the moment specifically ,you could give him more time.At any instance you find out he's lying or sig spamming , as mexxer said, a neutral would do the job (that's would warn the auctioneers to not consider his bids from next time). 
IMO a neutral should do it, but different people may have different opinions on it
very true. its also a bit more complicated than the bidder just going missing. if they havent logged in, its possible they may be unable to access the forum for whatever reasons, and may not have intended to run away from the auction. however, in the case the bidder was active after winning the auction, and is intentionally not communicating with the seller, i wouldnt consider that a scam necessarily, but i (may not be the same as others) would leave a negative for that as i would consider the bidder untrustworthy for not sticking to the tacit agreement of paying for an auction item (ie, you are agreeing to pay in full for the item in the case you should bid and win it). 
IMO a neutral should do it, but different people may have different opinions on it
If a person bids in an auction, wins it, communicates and then suddenly become incommunicado just before payment, though the person is active in the forum...
January 14, 2016 Update: I have received a communication from this said person. Now, he is saying that he has used his money on his shop and can not pay anything now. He now wants to borrow this account and would pay higher amount in two parts on January 24 & 31.
January 25, 2016 Update: First payment date is gone. Buyer has neither paid a dime nor giving the password of the account he borrowed.
January 14, 2016 Update: I have received a communication from this said person. Now, he is saying that he has used his money on his shop and can not pay anything now. He now wants to borrow this account and would pay higher amount in two parts on January 24 & 31.
January 25, 2016 Update: First payment date is gone. Buyer has neither paid a dime nor giving the password of the account he borrowed.
Jump to: