Sid01
Member
- Apr 8, 2018
- 356
- 1,054
No one attacked Zip immediately after the subscription change.. it was only me who noticed that he limited the number of subscriptions for one dollar and it happened relatively recently. For me it is one of the proofs that he is only cutting coupons and maximizing the source of income but no one here on the forum has brought it up in the general criticism. This is just another incriminating evidence against Zip but nothing groundbreaking.Are you suggesting these individuals didn't immediately attack him after the subscription changes? You've written about this yourself. I find that hard to believe. I've witnessed how futile it is here to present a simple argument: you lack evidence. Everything Zip did falls within his personal prerogative and breaches no agreements. Breaking promises? That constitutes no proof whatsoever.
Yes.. breaking promises is not evidence.. it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to discuss with you.
Yes.. an incredible coincidence. And twice in a row in the same period of time. I will not mention the progress of the update counted in percentages. I refer you to subscribe star Zip. All posts have been preserved and will save me writing.Let me reiterate—this is not a definitive claim. Must I repeat the same thing ten or twenty times? I’m merely speculating about potential life circumstances. Basic logic and causality exist—there could have been force majeure events. Anything might have happened in Zip’s life. I don’t know him personally and can only rely on online information, which, by the way, might be unreliable. What exactly are you trying to convince me of? That there won’t be an update? And what then? As I’ve said before: maybe there won’t be one, or maybe he’ll surprise everyone and release it.
So? Can you cheat someone without breaking the law? You can. That's called immoral behavior.But you never actually wrote that! I don't understand—I'm being precise in my wording. I stated that if he had violated the platform's terms of service—specifically regarding financial manipulation through subscriptions or abuse of his position—the administration would have immediately become aware. Consequently, his account would have been suspended. They'd learn of this through defrauded users who lost money on these subscriptions. Those victims would file complaints detailing their grievances against the developer. All this gets investigated. The administration monitors such matters.
Yet! We see Zip continuing his operations, including financial activities.