Quote from: Vycid on September 29, 2013, 04:17:31 AM

Quote from: Noitev on September 29, 2013, 04:03:30 AM

Quote from: nebiz on September 29, 2013, 12:49:52 AM

Quote from: John (John K.) on September 28, 2013, 04:17:20 PM

As per the 32 sample chip issue, I think it's quite fair that the amount of chips were taken from OP and split amongst buyers here, but note that in other GB's the sample chips weren't in the equation when the refunds were made. I'm open for discussion on this though.

My vote is that we proceed as normal, the sample chips were not accounted for in the group buy agreement. Hurt him in his trust, not his pocket.

Of course, if my premise is wrong, and there is a record that we agreed elsewise regarding the sample chips prior to closing the group buy, I suggest levying appropriate penalties. This is the most legally accountable solution.

The chips weren't decided on in the beginning. We definitley voted 8 go to bkk. the rest he said he'd keep because "the 1% wasn't that much for being the organizer and he wanted to keep the rest to test personally." This sort of implies that he was keeping the remainder as part of his 1% for being organizer which, at the time, seemed fair. Seeing how he recently said he didn't deserve the 1%, it only makes sense he pay for the chips.

I'd still rather have a good reason to give him a negative trust rating than seize 32 chips worth of BTC. Raging the group buy participant should be kept separate from Raging the group buy organizer as much as possible.

If he is halfway decent - or cares at all about his trust rating - he will offer to pay for the chips.

Why is this an "or" situation? we can have the chips he gave away and give him bad trust. There's no way he's doing any more group buys or stuff likewise with the nonsense he's gone through, who offer him an ultimatum?