Chris

I don't do trials

talking

Note: Last of the compensation has been paid out. This concludes all of B3NJI's service deposit compensations for disputes.

Talking to you both

@mr_big_t It is confirmed in these sources that he indeed refunded you your payment to the same address he received it from. This is where you can find all of the generated address for each wallet from you to him 14/8/18 https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/f3220a6398484e924861b6278659f51a6cfed8570dd040384a71b65dd3d910e2/ from him back to you 14/8/18 https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/4a6a13ec253e82a27fcce158a7a003a6669ee26447dfb62f9b5987fbc6d00ef2/ From the evidence gathered it is clear you have received a refund. Yes after a transaction a new wallet address is generated, and you can reuse the old ones. Coinbase implemented this security so you couldn't not keep track of 1 address to see whos holding what amount (privacy). This can be proven in Coinbase's FAQ page. He sent the amount back to you. This could be an error on coinbase's side if you cannot see this transaction. I recommend you speak with support with the given blockcypher links.

@mr_big_t This is where you can find all of the generated address for each wallet

Ok thank you for the fast response. Please show proof here when you get back. Also did he agree to the gold refund? Is it possible for you to compensate him in his original currency? In his evidence he already shows the transaction here:

Only $106AUD is supposed to be refunded to you.

I've notified Dbuffed and asked him to respond. In the meantime show all of your evidence. @mr_big_t @Dbuffed What what the timeframe of the order? If they decided not to do it im sure they sent the refund the same day.

Haga una disputa adecuada utilizando la plantilla de disputa con toda la evidencia. Por supuesto en inglés Gracias ~Chris

BoatOptions.NOVICE.getPointsBonus(); or private BoatOptions opt; onStart(){ gui sets option opt = BoatOptions.NOVICE; //can now access getters/setters that are public opt.getBonusPoints(); opt.getLevelReq(); }

Look at these examples public boolean walkToDestination(final Position dest, final BooleanSupplier bc, final boolean walkExact){ WalkingEvent walkingEvent = new WalkingEvent(dest); walkingEvent.setEnergyThreshold(10); walkingEvent.setBreakCondition(new Condition() { @Override public boolean evaluate() { return bc.getAsBoolean(); } }); if (walkExact) walkingEvent.setMinDistanceThreshold(0); return getScript().execute(walkingEvent).hasFinished(); } public boolean walkToDestination(final Position[] positions, final BooleanSupplier bc, final boolean walkExact){ WalkingEvent walkingEvent = new WalkingEvent(); walkingEvent.setPath(new LinkedList<>(Arrays.asList(positions))); walkingEvent.setBreakCondition(new Condition() { @Override public boolean evaluate() { return bc.getAsBoolean(); } }); if (walkExact) walkingEvent.setMinDistanceThreshold(0); walkingEvent.setMiniMapDistanceThreshold(0); walkingEvent.setEnergyThreshold(random(5, 15)); return getScript().execute(walkingEvent).hasFinished(); } public boolean walkToDestination(LinkedList<Position> path, BooleanSupplier bc, boolean walkExact) { WalkingEvent walkingEvent = new WalkingEvent(); walkingEvent.setPath(path); walkingEvent.setBreakCondition(new Condition() { @Override public boolean evaluate() { return bc.getAsBoolean(); } }); if (walkExact) walkingEvent.setMinDistanceThreshold(0); walkingEvent.setMiniMapDistanceThreshold(0); return getScript().execute(walkingEvent).hasFinished(); }

Make your own login handler

Please use the template as well as provide evidence (screenshots of conversations etc..) and re-post.

are you using the supported safespots

Mirror mode may need to be updated or you are not using the original runescape client.

Incorrect, all services must be HAND DONE unless stated otherwise when two parties agree. You had no problems with him botting the account. That was your choice and this was the outcome. You should have stated a clear agreement before starting. Now you are just regretting him botting it. There is no injustice, this is just your poor judgment on how you wanted your account to be trained. We follow the evidence and it was clear in what was provided that you were okay with it. The agreement was still in place because you did not state otherwise. This is your fault. Collection of PUBLIC evidence: Final decision: Dispute will now be closed. Next time set a proper agreement & state how you want the account to be trained.

Updated

https://osbot.org/api/org/osbot/rs07/api/filter/AreaFilter.html

I pushed a fix but please allow up to 48 hours for the developers to get time to add the fix to the SDN. I will quote your post again when it is live

Thanks for the explanation . I'll push a fix asap!

b

User has been banned for scamming. He chose to view the thread and not respond. Sorry for your loss.

I've notified the user of the dispute and will allow him 48 hours to respond since he has not been on since saturday.