Once again I agree with Noitev's logical assessment of the situation. We can easily infer Ragin took the sample chips as an additional payment for being group buy organizer. He then failed in those duties and agreed to not receive those funds. I don't understand the disconnect people are having in recognizing that the sample chips were at worst stolen from this group buy and at best a part of his payment as organizer. We are not "seizing [...] BTC". Ragin was paid for services that were not rendered and thus owes us that amount, it would only make sense to subtract it from the funds he is due back rather than trust that a person who has proven unreliable will offer it back to us.
My issue merely stems from the fact that we'd be tapping Raging's chip funds, not Raging's fee, to cover that debt.
The more I've thought about it, though, the more I can accept it from the perspective that Raging simply received some of his chips early, and is therefore not entitled to a refund on those chips.
So, with that in mind, I do support withholding the appropriate sum for those sample chips (30?).