But by itself it doesn't mean much, does it, and delivered in such an untimely manner. After the game is up and the money is gone.
Only after the fact of orders not arriving and refunds not made - the money is gone - is the scammers game up. That something he does or doesn't do is similar to a previous scammer is hardly a case on its own to shut a vendor down, though would be useful to know earlier on.
Which is why
@Admin , I suggest new
unverified or unverifiable vendors deposit a security sum against losses members might incur verifying them by making actual orders, if the vendor fucks up. That way we could bypass the samples stage and go straight to actual orders, if members money was guaranteed by the vendor, held in escrow until ... why not? With a guarantee we (members) wouldn't have the brake on movement the potential loss of money is, we'd get stuck into business quicker,
real vendors would make more money quicker, win win win.
The way it is now seems unnecessarily biased in favour of the vendor with the members taking all the risk of financial loss. I wonder what others think about this idea of a vendor's security deposit?
...
It seems
@purelychem has done a runner. Is it time to shut this guys thread down? He still hasn't been back since last Tuesday, and no comms, after he said he'd refund me.
What say you?