Dispute against House

[Void]

Private script double sale:

Basically - house has sold a private script which promised to be unique to me - twice. To Me and @CMDrake.

I've TeamViewed with CMDrake and checked his URL for the download. We found House sold us both the exact same script; despite @House promising it to be unique.

I've got evidence of the scripts being the same as each other - both scripts are even the exact same file size. See here. 

Even if a few lines are different in the script; or some parts are the changed; both scripts function the exact same. CMDrake has even sent me his version of the script; which I've compared against mine and their the exact same.

I've got video evidence of this; and can upload as necessary. (if you need it). 

I've tried speaking w/ house on skype about this; however he's not co-operated very well and clearly felt he's been pushed into a corner. Since; he's taken a hostile approach.

 

[Mio]

@Montana of 300 and @CMDrake could you both send me your copies of the private script unobfuscated?

[House]

----------

 

Quote

I've tried speaking w/ house on skype about this; however he's not co-operated very well

@Montana of 300 You did speak with me, i am cooperating as i explained the situation to you.

You have been responded to by me saying what happened which i will also state below.

I also stated what will happen as a result.

 

----------

Initially you both received the same URL on accident.
@CMDrake realized it was not working which made sense as @Montana of 300 's forum name was checked at script start.

@CMDrake requested me to fix it obviously so when i went to compile the file i saw @CMDrake's name in the name check portion of the script, compiled it and sent it to him, correct URL and all.

 

Little did i know that the project was the one i was working on for @Montana of 300 's script and the last time i saved it which was after i sent him the latest compiled version, and has @CMDrake's name in the auth check.

How did that happen? An error on my part which happened while copying the name checking code and leaving it in that state when saving it last.

I have explained the error to @CMDrake on skype if you need to ask him too.

 

----------

 

You then got the member @CMDrake to send you a script which i sent them which is not ok to redistribute.  (Because of this situation has occurred this can be argued as valid and not a problem).

You then brought it to my attention and i replied and after what you told me pieced together what happened.

 

----------

 

You then demanded that you wanted to see another persons script which is not for you to have a copy of or own.

I have apologies for the mistake and i will again here.

My apologies @Montana of 300.

 

----------

 

@Montana of 300, i have told you that making a dispute would not help the situation at all.

[Alek]

Quote

Initially you both received the same URL on accident.

Then explain this:
 

if ((!getClient().getUsername().equals("House")) && (!getClient().getUsername().equals("CMDrake")))
    {
      log("This is not your script! >:(");
      stop();
    }

 

If you tell the truth and don't lie, I usually try and defend the script writer. 

[House]

39 minutes ago, Alek said:

Then explain this:
 

if ((!getClient().getUsername().equals("House")) && (!getClient().getUsername().equals("CMDrake")))
    {
      log("This is not your script! >:(");
      stop();
    }

 

If you tell the truth and don't lie, I usually try and defend the script writer. 

 

I can try explain what happened again although it is shown above.

 

---

 

Initially the same URL was sent to both of them by mistake.

CMDrake told me it was not working and would not start so i checked the code, recompiled, reobfuscated it then sent it to him with a different URL for sure as Montana Of 300 has confirmed.

The problem was that when i checked the code i had the project open which was intended for Montana of 300 however the source java files had the auth check checking for the username of CMDrake.

The way i can see myself making the mistake is i know i copied over the auth check , a few simple lines:

if ((!getClient().getUsername().equals("House")) && (!getClient().getUsername().equals("CMDrake")))
    {
      log("This is not your script! >:(");
      stop();
    }

 

However it remained saved incorrectly, i saw CMDrake in the auth check as it is visible on the main class onStart.

I then compiled that script, obfuscated it and uploaded it under a new URL and sent it to CMDrake.

Essential this meant that the files were identical except the auth check part which had different names.

 

Quote

If you tell the truth and don't lie, I usually try and defend the script writer. 

I do not with to be sided based on my rank or position but rather i hope people understand the mistake i made and how it was not malicious.

edit: What bothers me the most is i always try and mostly succeed in providing a good customer experience and to my knowledge i have been doing so all along, it rather how can i put it.. sucks that Montana Of 300 jumped on the bandwagon and made a dispute rather than being able to properly discuss it or knowledge what i had to say.

 

---

 

I was in contact with Montana Of 300 however he chose to keep going on and on after i tried to puzzle the situation together, i told him i was not sure how posting a dispute would benefit his situation as the URL / link can not be unseen by CMDrake.

 

To my knowledge CMDrake is aware of what happened and i explained to him what i have written above as well.

I state this after speaking CMDrake on skype.

It would be great if he could post on here with something to say regarding his involvement with this situation.

 

Montana Of 300 has not requested a refund and nor will i be negotiating one with him.

Edited March 14, 2017 by House

[Alek]

Did you tell both Montana and CMDrake that their scripts would be completely unique? Did you try selling the script to anyone else?

(Please nobody besides House respond)

Edit: Please a simple yes or no for each question. 

[House]

Montana Of 300 asked me if it would be a private script and i responded with what the says photo that posted in his initial post.

It would mean that i told him it is unique to him, yes.

CMDrake never asked me nor minds that it is not unique, no.

[House]

I must add Montana Of 300 asked me that AFTER he bought the script and things were settled!

[Alek]

You did not answer both questions and you did not answer my question with a yes/no answer. Please read my questions carefully before I flip a coin. 

"The exact script you bought is unique to you", then you go on to explain that if someone else ran it, it would "not affect the outcome" and "not affect the situation". It looks like the only part which is "unique to you" is the username check, and the core of the script is the same.

Final chance to answer each of my questions correctly.

1. Did you try selling the script to anyone else? (Only "Yes", "No", or "I do not understand the question")
2. Was the script more unique than just the username check? (Only "Yes", "No", or "I do not understand the question")
3. If the script was only unique because of the username check, did Montana understand that is what made the script unique? (1-2 sentence explanation)

[House]

1. No. i did not try sell the same script i gave to Montana Of 300 to anyone else.

2. Yes their scripts are more unique than that, the logic of determining situations and such is the same, such as reading configs and manipulating files in the data folder are the same / similar because it serves no purpose to change them. Interaction and and logic such as the dropping of a list of items is done in a different way to provide an example.

3. The script Montana Of 300 saw was identical because of the mistakes i made as stated above.

Montana Of 300 did in no shape or form ask me or require it to be "unique" when discussing it or ask before purchase.

Quote

"The exact script you bought is unique to you", then you go on to explain that if someone else ran it, it would "not affect the outcome" and "not affect the situation". It looks like the only part which is "unique to you" is the username check, and the core of the script is the same.

He asked me if it was "unique" after he had accounts banned, i responded to him with those words in answer to that. i told him it is unique because i had no intent or knowledge that CMDrake mistakenly posses files that he should not have received.

 

 

[House]

The files match because they are the same for reasons stated above, that is why it does not only seem they are identical but they are in this case.

[Alek]

3 minutes ago, House said:

 

1. No. i did not try sell the same script i gave to Montana Of 300 to anyone else.

 

Please tell me who you were talking to in this conversation:

[House]

6 minutes ago, Alek said:

Please tell me who you were talking to in this conversation:

 

May i know how this has to do anything in relation?

edit: i do not claim or attempt to sell the script i sold to Montana Of 300 to John Devola. 
I do not claim i have not sold another script which does not preform the same / similar tasks to a script i have written prior.

Edited March 14, 2017 by House

[Alek]

I want you to clearly define how the script you attempted to sell to John, the script you sold to Montana, and the script you sold to CMDrake are unique. I want you to do it in bullet-point form such as:

1. Reason 1
2. Reason 2
3. Reason 3

If you give me long paragraphs I'm going to throw this dispute out. 

In the meantime, @Montana of 300 and @CMDrake, please provide proof that you asked for a unique private script prior to purchase. I believe @House said that CMDrake didn't care, in which case I'm only asking Montana. 
 

[Void]

I didn't ask prior to purchase because House sent me this on the 27th February, where I bought the script on the 6th march (my birthday!). The script was first discussed on the 27th February; where I agreed I'd buy it and we would do the deal when he had done the script + back from holiday etc; ensuring every "every script I sell to a customer is unique by code so that's not a worry". This lead me to believe it wasn't necessary to ask it was private. 

 

Proof of it being 'unique by code' on 27th February:

 

 

Proof of payment on 6th march: