Is it ever allowable to request a service and not pay for that service?

There are a couple posts in a recent thread that seem to imply there are situations in which it is OK to not pay for a requested service. I'm curious what the community thinks about these situations.

Were providers robbed? Or did Providers not handle their business in a proper manner? They saw a guy that warnings were already out about without screening and they did not get a donation up front.....

Sounds like lack of professionalism meets an opportunist

Suppose I ask a landscaping company to come to my house and trim my trees. There are reports online that I have failed to pay for services I've received in the past. They do not require payment up front. Does that justify refusing to pay?

Not, "Would the company be wise to protect themselves from opportunists?". That's a different discussion. This post seems imply that the opportunist is justified. Do you agree?

And if the young man had suggested that he was a young stud and felt they just wanted to fuck him could anything be said?

Suppose I ask a landscaping service to come to my house and trim my trees. If, after they trim my trees, I say that I have beautiful trees and thought they just wanted to trim them, does that justify refusing to pay?

This post seems to imply that flat out lying is OK and justifies refusing to pay for a service. Do you agree?



I agree with Whispers that discussions are much more productive when focused on general principles rather than the details of any specific situation, so my interest is in people's thoughts on these issues in general.

Why/When is it OK to contract for a service and not pay for that service?

Why/When is it OK to contract for a service and not pay for that service? Originally Posted by googol^googol

Only when said service is not provided!

There are a couple posts in a recent thread that seem to imply there are situations in which it is OK to not pay for a requested service. I'm curious what the community thinks about these situations.

I never suggested that it was OK to not pay for a service. Just that we never heard the other side and there was no proof of any kind.... Also that it never should have been presented to the community for involvement.

I suggested that it is an issue between the "business and the "customer" to be handled in another manner.

What we saw recently was something that occurred between 2 people, hearing the story from only one side. The "sentence" being doled out without a trial or any evidence other than "she said" was vastly disproportionate to the "crime"

Suppose I ask a landscaping company to come to my house and trim my trees. There are reports online that I have failed to pay for services I've received in the past. They do not require payment up front. Does that justify refusing to pay?

Not, "Would the company be wise to protect themselves from opportunists?". That's a different discussion. This post seems imply that the opportunist is justified. Do you agree?

No. There is no justification as presented. The reports have nothing to do with justifying it? I would suggest that the reports SHOULD motivate the landscaping company to collect up front where they may be more trusting of a customer without the negative reports.

Suppose I ask a landscaping service to come to my house and trim my trees. If, after they trim my trees, I say that I have beautiful trees and thought they just wanted to trim them, does that justify refusing to pay? It is not a valid comparison...

We have seen numerous situations over the years where a guy and a lady meet and end up in bed with no discussion of money and afterwards there is a complaint where the lady felt she should have been paid and the guy felt they were just mutually attracted to each other.

We simply do not know what went on BCD and have no reason to be involved in the process of resolving it.

This post seems to imply that flat out lying is OK and justifies refusing to pay for a service. Do you agree?

The post "implies" that there is another side to the story that we have not heard. Without both sides no one should make a judgement...

I agree with Whispers that discussions are much more productive when focused on general principles rather than the details of any specific situation, so my interest is in people's thoughts on these issues in general.

Why/When is it OK to contract for a service and not pay for that service? Originally Posted by googol^googol

I do not believe that not paying for a service requested is "robbery" unless there is force or a threat of force. I think that is the legal definition in most cases.

I believe requesting and receiving services and not paying for them is "theft"

There is a very big difference legally, especially when it comes to punishments faced.

A business that provides a service and a person that does not pay for that service are often left to a civil proceeding to resolve.

A rather controversial opinion would be that it might be OK to not pay for a service that was not as described.... or perhaps to pay less than expected when the service was less than advertised...

i.e. A provider advertises $250 for a 60 minute MSOG session and upon popping once the provider begins to clean up and get ready for the guy to leave.... I believe it would be fair and reasonable compensation for him to leave $125

or

A provider advertises BBBJTC and CIM and upon beginning covers it or pulls back and does not allow CIM..... I believe it would be fair and reasonable to leave less than agreed because services were not as described.


To properly equate your scenario to what happened.....

Let's assume that the landscaping company performed the service and afterwards was not paid. Their options would be to call the police while at the scene.. or to file a civil suit of some sort.......

But for a moment let's consider the Landscaper chooses neither and instead gets up on the hood of his truck with a megaphone and begins announcing to the neighborhood that the guy in the house did not pay him for his work...... The neighbors come out of their houses and gather in his yard and pretty soon there is an angry group outside with a few other landscapers yelling as well..... Someone suggests the guy should be lynched and a rope is strung from a tree...... Finally someone has the sense to call LE and they show up and break it all up and get arrested and a few others tickets for minor offenses relating to the incident.....

What really went wrong?

IMO The Landscaper approached the situation in a manner involving people he should not have.

Whether it be theft of services or shoplifting theft is a crime.

Crime of any sort is never OK. BTW the selling of sex and the hiring of sex workers is also a crime.

In that regard all active hobbyists are criminals.

Since we're talking about a crime perpetrated by one criminal upon another during the commission of a crime we're specifically addressing a breach of the "code of honor" amongst criminals.

None of it is OK in the eyes of the RW and Theft of services is certainly never OK within the hobby.

There is also Another Code amongst criminals and that is discretion is NEVER to be compromised because it endangers the Entire community no matter who it is intended to inflict damage upon.

Eccie is nothing more than an info sharing station for those who sell sex and those who buy it. It was never intended to be used as a weapon against any one of it's members.

Complete discretion regardless of what takes place between it's members is essential to it's very survival so therefore is a condition of membership.

The matter should have been reported on the board and then dealt with off the board keeping those not involved out of harms way.

Recklessly using the board in this way shows complete disregard for the safety of all members for the sake of personal justice.

Why is this basic understanding so hard to grasp to so many?

There are only a few reasons why people join Eccie and are willing to go through screening.

Hobbyist safety and assured discretion are at the top of that list.

Once these are compromised Eccie becomes even more dangerous than BP because of the personal RW info screening.

Getting robbed $250 by a pimp is nothing compared to the threat of having your career, family and life destroyed.

How do you propose it be taken care of off the board? What incentive for worm boy to drag his thieving ass out somewhere where people could actually lay hands on him? How many stupid fucking criminals have you seen walk into a police station to say here I am I'm a thief? Please dole out justice to me? Fucking ridiculous peacenik bullshit! Next you going to tell us how to run a utopian society with no hunger or pain? Hahahahaha

How do you propose it be taken care of off the board? What incentive for worm boy to drag his thieving ass out somewhere where people could actually lay hands on him? How many stupid fucking criminals have you seen walk into a police station to say here I am I'm a thief? Please dole out justice to me? Fucking ridiculous peacenik bullshit! Next you going to tell us how to run a utopian society with no hunger or pain? Hahahahaha Originally Posted by rockerrick

His info became readily available to the parties involved. This had nothing to do with involving Eccie and endangering it's members.

Real warriors just take care of business. They don't shout to the world looking for attention "Hey guess what I'm about to do to this guy".

I'm sure you of all people can come up with an answer.

Again I ask you and Whispers both, how do you think you could get him to show up for any kind of meeting? Why would he? He has already stolen the services and is in the clear.
He merely needs to change his handle and repeat.
Real identity he cannot so easily.

Do you believe blacklisted people on verifyhim.com don't have their real identity and pics posted. I assure you they do!

Again I ask you and Whispers both, how do you think you could get him to show up for any kind of meeting? Why would he? He has already stolen the services and is in the clear. Originally Posted by rockerrick

And again I repeat that has nothing to do with Eccie after the incident has been reported.

What I'm pointing out is pretty clear. If it's not registering then that's OK.

I'm not about to self incriminate by saying what I would do.

What I wouldn't do is risk tossing grenades on a ship that I'm on along with thousands of others just to inflict revenge upon one passenger.

Do you believe blacklisted people on verifyhim.com don't have their real identity and pics posted. I assure you they do! Originally Posted by rockerrick

This has nothing to do with Eccie or why it exist.

How about you just throw the one thieving passenger overboard?

And Eccie's purpose is not to be a place for thieves to steal. It's for paying clients to hook up with verified providers.

I have no clue how you're not getting this. If I've learned nothing else about you, I've learned Don't EVER piss RR off because he won't let the shit go.

This is why I have complete faith that you could easily come up with a solution away from the board if you really intended to do something.


OP

Is it ever allowable to request a service and not pay for that service?

"Allowable" is the wrong term as Eccie is neither designed to nor in the position to allow or not allow that which takes place away from the board.

People seem to be confused in regard to Eccie's role in the hobby. It is an advertising and info forum. It is not a court room nor any branch of justice.

A more applicable term might be is it ever Excusable? The answer in my opinion is No.

Again I ask you and Whispers both, how do you think you could get him to show up for any kind of meeting? Originally Posted by rockerrick

It is a reasonable question sir, however the OP has asked for a discussion of generalities and is not looking for a solution to a specific issue.

I believe you also know what the answer is but the board is not the place for a discussion of that nature....

Whispers and I have both stated clearly that we wished to discuss general principals, not rehash the details of any specific situation. I regret that referrences to specific cases occured so early In the discussion.

Whispers and I have both stated clearly that we wished to discuss general principals, not rehash the details of any specific situation. I regret that referrences to specific cases occured so early In the discussion. Originally Posted by googol^googol

The whole first half of Whisper's initial response to you was very clearly responding to that specific situation. Did you kinda miss that entire part?

He responded as such likely because your post came across as a thinly veiled stance regarding that specific situation and to a degree was calling him out on it IMHO.

Also using his quotes both pulled directly out of the "Specific situation" would naturally tend to lead the following responses in that direction in spite of the quick disclaimer at the end.

As far as a more generalized response to your thread topic? I believe I tried to provide that at the end of my last post.

Hmmm.....


As entertaining, and semi- informative, some of this shit is...


fuck..

You guys do not get out much...

Rikki, before you chime in, your mom says your curfew is, 1 am, you dont want to piss her off...


Party on Guys!

The whole first half of Whisper's initial response to you was very clearly responding to that specific situation. Did you kinda miss that entire part? Originally Posted by Windinhishair

Are you saying that a person who asked three separate times that other posters stick to the general issue and not wander off into specifics would be the first one to bring up specifics in a thread that clearly requested a discussion of general principals? That seems like it would be pretty hypocritical.