Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: About 2 months ago a a friend of mine was working for Doordash and I was working for Postmates. He convinced me to switch to Doordash because of a promotion. After I completed 150 deliveries within the 60 day limit, he would receive a $1500 bonus and I would receive a $100 bonus. We agreed that I would be getting kinda fucked over, especially because Postmates is a much better platform. (better pay, more flexible, much less technical and logistical issues). We agreed to split both bonuses so each of us would receive $800. The other day we were texting and the bonus came up, conversation went like this.

&amp;#x200B;

Friend: You think you'll get it by next week?

Me: Yup.

Friend: Only one prob, I blocked the account.

Me: What does that mean?

Friend: I don't know if I'm gonna receive the promo.

Me: It bothers me that you're just telling me this now, like I still feel you should give me the $800 if you don't get the money.

Friend: Yeah... no, you're on crack.

&amp;#x200B;

To be clear "I blocked the account" meant he blocked the number that sent him notifications and deleted the app. I don't think this is at all gonna be a problem, I'm mainly posting this cause I'm interested in the hypothetical. I fell he would owe me as I have been working for both of us the last month and a half. Without the bonus I would be losing money considering I would be making more with postmates, also I have dealt with a considerable amount of bullshit with Doordash's faulty platform. 

&amp;#x200B;

&amp;#x200B;

asking a friend to compensate me for the bonus he caused me to lose