A LOAN IS FINAL ONCE THE MONEY IS SENT!!

[avsterbone]

Recently I loaned Paradise $6 for a payback of $8 a week later. However, after I sent him the money 5 min later he no longer needed it and refunded it and claimed he didn't owe the ROI. For whatever reason M6 agreed with him and he didn't have to pay the ROI. Read this scam report for more info http://www.mc-market.org/threads/92896/

I think it's bs that a user can cancel the loan 5 min cause of an issue they had. The rule should be once the money is sent the loan is active. None of this "5 min grace period" bs. What do you guys think?

 

[thebaum64]

omg you're MISSING THE POINT. It's my choice whether I let him, not his. If I want to be nice that's my option. I do not have to.

I am not missing the point at all lol you are in a way, so if you borrowed money from someone, could not even use it, and you returned it almost immediately, would you pay an ROI? I don't think you would. Not to mention we already had this discussion and settled this, and you have brought it up again.

 

[deleteduser_345]

I am not part of this argument whatsoever and I don't plan to be very involved in it, however this is not fair for avsterbone in many different aspects.

He was providing a service. I understand that many people would be a nice guy and refund it back with no ROI, however business is business and deals are deals. Five minutes after I sign a contract, I can't decide that I revoke my signature. In fact, he actually lost money in this deal.

Staff members, please don't lock this thread. I believe that this needs to get resolved. The fact that you guys believe that being a "nice guy" is mandatory is definitely not okay. Really, it's almost quite immature that these staff members care whether it's a valuable amount of money to him or not. $2 might be a lot for many people, so this statement is opinionated and invalid.

Overall, staff members are letting this guy slip past the rules, which should not be allowed on MC-Market. I hope that the staff members figure their job and place on MC-Market, so they can start making reasonable opinions instead of these b.s claims that it "isn't a significant amount of money in my current situation, so it probably isn't in his"

 

[Ivain]

It was 5 minutes... and he did not even use it... your just being rude to the guy for no reason. If I lent someone 1k and in 5 minutes they said "Oh I can't use it now, here is it back" I would not make him pay an ROI.. its just being nice to him. I mean your make a giant deal over literally nothing.

Agreed. This would have been relevant if more than a day had gone over it, or a certain number of hours. but we're talking minutes here... Still, this is a valid enough suggestion (from both sides), where after a certain amount of hours it's set and the RoI applies.

 

[thebaum64]

I am not part of this argument whatsoever and I don't plan to be very involved in it, however this is not fair for avsterbone in many different aspects.

He was providing a service. I understand that many people would be a nice guy and refund it back with no ROI, however business is business and deals are deals. Five minutes after I sign a contract, I can't decide that I revoke my signature. In fact, he actually lost money in this deal.

Staff members, please don't lock this thread. I believe that this needs to get resolved. The fact that you guys believe that being a "nice guy" is mandatory is definitely not okay. Really, it's almost quite immature that these staff members care whether it's a valuable amount of money to him or not. $2 might be a lot for many people, so this statement is opinionated and invalid.

Overall, staff members are letting this guy slip past the rules, which should not be allowed on MC-Market. I hope that the staff members figure their job and place on MC-Market, so they can start making reasonable opinions instead of these b.s claims that it "isn't a significant amount of money in my current situation, so it probably isn't in his"

You see, it was resolved already, we discussed it and the staff team agreed the ROI did not have to be paid as it was returned "unused" in 5 minutes. Not to mention it is over 2$, the issue was adressed and ended and now it is being brought back up for no reason.

 

[avsterbone]

it is over 2$

STOP FOCUSSING ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, ITS IRRELEVANT!!

 

[thebaum64]

STOP FOCUSSING ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, ITS IRRELEVANT!!

It's really not, if it was for over 100$ it would be handled differently. The dollar amount shows how ignorant this whole argument is and how pointless it is as well.

 

[Catz]

I think the bigger picture, that needs to be looked at is the fact that it was a loan and almost every loan comes with interest. Once the deal is done, its done. There is no taking back a loan, I personally think that its unfair that avsterbone would not get paid but if this commotion makes the rules about loans better in the long run. I think he'd be a happy chap.

 

[deleteduser_345]

You see, it was resolved already, we discussed it and the staff team agreed the ROI did not have to be paid as it was returned "unused" in 5 minutes. Not to mention it is over 2$, the issue was adressed and ended and now it is being brought back up for no reason.

Yes, it is understood that this topic was resolved already, however the whole point of this thread being in the suggestions thread was to suggest this (Possibly at least for future deals?)

Anyways, my argument is that "unused" is not able to be classified for a loan/investment type deal. avsterbone stated directly to return back with the FULL AMOUNT, which did not occur in this deal. Therefore, he scammed him. Being unused doesn't really make a difference, since avsterbone had no control how it was used. All avsterbone knew was that he would receive the FULL AMOUNT.

It's really not, if it was for over 100$ it would be handled differently. The dollar amount shows how ignorant this whole argument is and how pointless it is as well.

I stated this before. The dollar amount is irrelevant because it is opinionated. Many people in third world countries would find $2 a lot more than an american millionaire.

That's the same reason why someone poor finds $1,000 a lot of money and someone who's rich finds $1,000 a little bit of money. It's all based off perspective, which is almost always biased and situation-based.

 

[Sloth]

I really do think the dollar amount does matter. If somebody scams $2 off somebody it's still considered a scam. We're willing to ban users for scamming $2 in a normal scenario, but here we don't. I think what needs to happen is a a sort of lock on a loan. Let's just say I ask for a loan and get the said loan. I have to pay the loan back in approximately 24 hours. If the user wants his loan back within like 30 minutes to an hour and the money is untouched you have to give it back. Now if the time reaches 12 hours left on your loan and they ask for it back you wouldn't have to send the money back because chances are the money has been spent.

 

[avsterbone]

avsterbone

You gave a loan at your own risk. Additionally, Paradise got you at the 'using the loan' part in your contract. So your statement is weak.

Dude, that only applies to investments. Ask any staff member :rofl:[DOUBLEPOST=1460317995][/DOUBLEPOST]

If it would have been a day or two I'd understand, but 5 minutes? You really that butthurt?

I am

 

[deleteduser_345]

avsterbone

You gave a loan at your own risk. Additionally, Paradise got you at the 'using the loan' part in your contract. So your statement is weak.

Yes, however this is a suggestion for the scam report section guidelines, not the investment section.

 

[avsterbone]

Guys that banner only applies to investments. Ask tjrgg I'm the one who convinced him to change it!!

 

[deleteduser_345]

Got me there, but a loan is the same thing. If a person wants to loan to a person it is at their own risk. If the other person doesn't pay back the ROI then its clearly a scam. BUT, based on avsterbone contract/TOS that he made, it is clear he lost the argument.

The only TOS he made was that "I will invest $5, and you bring $7 back to me." That TOS was violated.

 

[Cooltime2]

avsterbone

You gave a loan at your own risk. Additionally, Paradise got you at the 'using the loan' part in your contract. So your statement is weak.

This was a loan not an investment. Loans and investments work differently for mcm rules.