Am I the only one who after reading the transcript, does not understand what is wrong other than the allegation that a deposit has not been paid back in a timely manner. Could the OP please summarize what is actually the issue so we can weigh the evidence. Just posting some logs out of context and having someone passionately arguing with the OP using Pirate references is not enough.
I want your argument so I can weigh it.
Appreciated,
Dalkore
Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.
That doesn't mean that a "scammer" tag is what is needed. It sounds like we have another label and needs to be invented for things of these nature ("In Default" tag, etc...). There was risk involved when you put deposited your money. He is making a solid effort to pay people back and keep is creditors apprised of the current situation. Scamming in my book is a very specific thing that has facts surrounding it that show the person's true intent.
Intent is the most important aspect of giving this tag out. We need to make the distinction on someone one intends to do something and someone who doesn't. If you think otherwise, I would like to see reasoning what else is more important. Don't mentioned, be broke his word, that isn't scamming per say, externalities do happen and when it did happen in this case, he didn't disappear like a scammer, he is putting real effort forward to make good.