Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 07, 2012, 10:17:23 AM

Quote from: Dalkore on November 06, 2012, 09:42:32 PM

Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 06, 2012, 02:53:35 PM

Quote from: Dalkore on November 05, 2012, 05:55:54 PM

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.

The important point here is that intent can only be established by examining deeds. Nobody is in a position to posit what intent "is" or "really is" other or outside of what is supported by facts.

You claim (with no basis) that "he is making a solid effort". I show, clearly and so far indisputably that he is not: ~20 BTC coming out in three months on a 500 principal + 100-200 interest deal is neither solid nor effort.

You claim (with dubious basis) that he is keeping the creditors appraised. This is false: he has not been in contact to ~~negotiate~~ beg for a new agreement, as his position behooves him to do. In fact, he has not been in contact at all.

Finally, let me quote myself, maybe on 2nd read it sinks in:

Quote from: MPOE-PR on November 06, 2012, 02:58:23 PM

Here's his scam in simple terms:

I. Do the Peter Lambert thing: pretend like you know what you're doing, give out ratings, all that jazz.
II. Take deposits, recallable on demand, at a reasonable rate (1% was, back in August, pretty much tiny).
III. Refuse to repay deposits.
IV. Make a "best effort" repayment of about .9% a week.

This is an out and out scam. Better designed than pirate's, sure, but just as much a scam.

The only other way you could look at it would be "How to sell miner bonds without any miner gear, and without the risk of difficulty dropping". Also a scam.

There's no grounds for you to posit innocence or anything else about some vague "intent" when the construction the facts bear is scammer. Sorry.

Quote from: clouds on November 06, 2012, 11:30:46 PM

Approximately 75% of the assets in Kraken are bad Pirate debt via Payb.tc, PPT.A, PPT.B, and PPT.E (as later disclosed in his Kraken newsletter on October 14, 2012).

This is something we have no knowledge of whatsoever, not being involved in that. However, if indeed the quote is correct I would like to include this by reference to further illuminate why Darlkore's claims above hold no water. If it quacks like a scammer, it can have a scammer tag at the very least until he stops. It's not like these scammer tags come with a beheading, he can earn his way back out of it just fine.

At any rate, the notion of a "default" tag, while maybe appropriate in general, is not appropriate here. It would seem to imply no blame and no wrongdoing, whereas blame and wrongdoing is exactly what we're showing. The man made false representations, which is a polite way of saying he lied, in order to steal money. That's all there is, we're not arguing against the general unfairness of the world and why oh why did our cherry tree not make any cherries this year. We're arguing against the very specific fraudulent behavior of one person who lied and misrepresented themselves for profit.

When was the last time you contacted Patrick?