My Selling Debacle on ASSEMbler

If Raylyd got banned after he make excuses, I see no reason why HCK would not be banned too considering what he have done here to many users.

When you sell stuff you have the obligation to make it right the first time. People work hard to get their money. It's not funny to battle for month to get it's money back.

I would like to sell many useless stuff I have but I don'T have the time to ship the stuff and to bother with consumer support. So I don't sell.

Sellers really need to realize they have obligation toward their consumer.

 

The difference is that Raylyd was making bootleg copies, passing them off as real and trying to sell them here for major profit, then lying about it and despite admitting to it didn't refund the money he fobbed off people.

HCK, on the other hand, lied about shipping items due to circumstances but is (supposedly) paying people back. Whilst he is by no means a saint in these proceedings, I think you can't really compare the two. Sorry.

 

Still worth banning, whatever happen to you in real life, their is no valid reason to lie to your customer. Say the true and people will understand.

When you play with hard earned money of people you must have a good ethic whatever happen.

 

It's sad to see this, as I really liked HCK when he started posting here.

I sure as fuck never expected it to end like this.

 

Same here, came across as a real stand up guy, informed, intelligent, articulate and witty Trouble is, that all counts for nowt if you don't honour your sales and try to 'loan' money under false pretences. If he'd been as short of cash as he says then he shouldn't have been buying red Mario edition Wii's. Granted, he go refunded but had it not been damaged I don't think he'd have returned it and been even more broke.

The moral is don't shit on your own doorstep.

 

your grudge is irrelevent? very much its a factor and it wont help any topic

sorry but the law wasnt followed at all unless your talking the narrow interpenetration we have been presented with. your not entitled to privacy on the internet when you are committing a crime. this is how it works in real life and should work here also. i respect the site for trying its due diligents on this but very misguided. it might give other laws a look at also. Privacy is but one issue in this.

such a technocrat. you turn out to be on such a limited run while ignoring other laws to suite you narrow ideas.

yet it took ignoring the sites staff to get the real justice done. becuase the sugestion of banning or what neozeed did didn't get back the bulk of the money. it was removing privacy that solved it which many including me would have liked the site to do in the first place. we had to do the real justice.

i can garrentee you will leave before i shall

now ill not talk more on this topic unless im provoked.

i understand the position the site got in. i just hope it learned what position it was in.

 

What "grudge". There is no grudge, I just point out when what you say is ridiculous, as do others.

How wasn't the law followed? it dictated his info couldn't be posted and therefore it was removed. That is following the law surely?

Technocracy is a form of government where technical experts are in control - what the fuck?

Yes and to do it you broke the law. Neozeed himself said Assembler advised him. You can bet this is in terms of legal advice. Something you probably shoulda have looked at before you acted on your opinion.

"Looking forward to it. Give my regards to Zakhaev if you get there first."

 

The site did not aid and abet in any shape or form whatsoever. If you were actually familair with legislation aiding and abetting takes a fuckload more than respecting the rights of all parties concerned such as willful criminal intent, of which there was none.

You quoted HCK then completely missed the point. He never said he contacted anyone on Skype. He said he responded to people including via Skype. If you contact him via Skype then he replies, then he is true to his word (on this instance)

A site does not need to be shutdown to have legal issues. The number of legal notices sent to this very site and it stills remains is testament to that. The cease and decist letters or even action do not always request a site is shut down, but that changes are made such as removal of content and a procedure is set in place so the infringement is unlikely to happen again.

I'm with mooseblaster on this one - the situation with Raylyd is not comparable. kiff is an excellent guy but if he were banned because he was ill, slow to ship and unresponsive I'd have never got the chance to meet him nor have successful trades with him nor would we get to benefit from his presence. I've also had selling woes such as I sold a Mac Mini and bundled in some cheap extras - the Mac Mini arrived fine but the cheap extras got lost in the mail before returning to me. Due to work commitments, money and motivation it then took some time before I could repost it at my expense. I've also had problems in the past with being slow to ship and one buyer couldn't get the Saturn Sophia to boot (I suspected due to stepdown transformer) and another the Set 4 HDD came loose and knocked some caps off the motherboard. If I was banned then I would never have been here to dump Deuce and other stuff, sell off my entire collection due to money woes (which other people are now enjoying) or lose $700 on Geist Force.

If we ban everyone with a selling problem there will be no one left to buy, sell or contribute. Shit happens and people need to move on. In the case of raylyd though forgeries are unforgiveable, but he did still have mitigating circumstances due to his disability.

Misguided? I've been there and dealt with such issues before, not merely speculated on them which I suspect you and others are doing. I've had more dealings with the Information Comissioner's Office than I dare count. Also Human Rights 101 - subject to exceptions, the violation of rights of one party cannot be used to violate the rights of another.

I would advise you to check your sources werejag to establish validity before commenting if you wish your arguments to hold any weight, as at present they are completely devoid of merit.

 

I think you missed the point on that one.

HCK was saying it didn't take people posting on other sites because he was already resolving the matter with people by replying to them (skype, email, what ever). If you read what neozeed is saying, you will see that is not the case and it DID take people posting elsewhere to get a response.

If you read the other thread, you will also see neozeed said HCK was ignoring his skype calls.

That is NOT resolving the matter in the background, as HCK was claiming.

The Data Protection Act has an exemptions section, one of which is when its helping to prevent/detect crime.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/29

 

I did not miss HCK's or Neozeed's points, I deliberately did not quote it in full as I was not commenting on that point of the issue.

I should not be surprised by the fact there is yet more misrepesentation of the law. You do not prevent or detect crime by comitting yet more crime. It should go without saying that if the information is to be revealed, it is to be revealed to the authorities NOT vigilantes, thus yet again this argument does not wash.

 

Actually, I was just stating a fact. I do not pretend to be a lawyer and neither should you.

 

Bad_Ad84 I never did pretend to be a lawyer and the small piece of fact you stated utterly fails to take into consideration the whole. I am aware that I am a paralegal, but one with experience of going to High Court on my own cases on more than one occasion and winning. In case you are wondering, a law degree teaches you everything you need to know, except for everything you need to know. My history and that of others has proven you can be just as successful, if not more so than qualified staff. That is not to say I've not had knockbacks too, but I've been sufficiently capable enough to receive job offers in this field which I have rejected.

You are also missing my exception of a) If and then he replies and b) on that one issue. It should have gone without saying, but it does not excuse HCK's behaviour on other counts. FYI I'd have ignored harassment too.