Topic: 270 trust.7 trust.3 trust compared to minus 128 trust (Read 1035 times)

they abuses trust feedback without any probleme nothign you can do about it

Were you looking in the mirror when you asked?


Would you like a cookie?

Have a look it happened


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49588830



 

You are more than welcome.

Yep I guess anyone whom gets unfairly tagged with red trust is going to be accused of being my alt soon. 

I have admitted tagging you for your past actions and that i have no proof that you are a scammer.The tagg is based on my opinion which these DT members do daily.
Also your doubt is irrelevant.It would take an admin 1 minute to see if my claim is legit or not.
And to answer your questions proof has been provided that many people make these mistakes on bitcointalk forum which are mainly from germany but also some neighbour countries make the same mistakes.

You should watch threads of people demanding to tagg DT members for the same kind of evidence you declare yourself as enough where ALL DT members deny to tagg another DT member calling it not as any hard evidence.
Its called a double standard.Something what bitcointalk always tried to avoid has now been implementent as standard which suchmoon even openly admitted.


@cryptohunter i just copy and past your signature and hope its ok since i'm lazy to create currently an own one.
Hope its ok for you since i guess soon somebody is going to claim you or me are being alts

In your opinion meets that threshold.

I have PROOF. In black and white. There is no need for opinion.

I am referring to DT being used as a weapon to silence persons presenting facts regarding wrong doing and untrustworthy deeds. This other case that in your opinion meets that threshold.. is a grey area for red trust in the first place.

An opinion of a threshold of a probability of a grey area ..........sounds all a bit weak sauce.

In commonwealth civil litigation the test is "on the balance of probabilities" meaning "more likely than not." In my opinion it easily meets that test.

The doubt or no doubt in your mind over this matter is totally irrelevant and of no importance compared to hard proof that some members get red trust presenting facts regarding the wrong doing and untrustworthy deeds of DT members or encouraging others to examine these facts. Please understand that.

You do not have absolute proof in this case.

I have never defended false feeďback. On the contrary. I have often approached DTs that have left incorrect feedback via PM and discussed their feedback which has often resulted in removal of their feedback.

You have just publicly admitted that the feedback you left is false to use my reaction to "prove your point". I'll let it sink in for a while. http://archive.fo/rrYWw

Also stop bullshitting about your alt. You have made all the exact spelling and grammatical mistakes with your alt that your thule account makes.

There is a difference between making a mistake with a feedback and deliberately placing  false ratings.  

Also there is not doubt in my mind that the feedback Suchmoon left is true and that you are lying that it is not your alt. The alt makes every spelling and grammatical mistake you usually make  At least half a dozen of them.. There is no other active account that I am aware of on the entire bitcointalk that makes the exact same combination of errors.

You just proofed you used the negative feedback without factual evidence and just based on your own opinion.

THANK YOU.Case Closed

Well, I would say that DT's abusing the trust system or even using it to silence whilst blowers regarding their prior untrustworthy deeds is far worse and devalues the system far more.

I have proof. You do not.

You're suprisingly concerned about somebody who's supposedly not you. The evidence is good enough for me. If it's not good enough for you - you know what to do.

You're also confused as to the purpose of trust ratings. You seem to be posting them to make yourself feel good and that's part of the reason why they're bullshit and useless for anyone else.

LOL same for DT's red trusting me.

Red trust is not supposed to be used to silence persons highlighting prior wrongdoing and untrustworthy deeds of DT members.

I  mean they are reversing the intentional purpose for which DT was initiated.

Thats your own personal opinion.You said yourself multiple times the trust system is no trading or scammer feedback and that its allowed to add own opinions into the trust system.

What was the factual evidence icomarketing being me ?Oh i forgat you first negative tagged him and after that tried to find any sort of evidence which didn't worked out.And you still keep on your own opinion about that negative trust since you didn't provided any real evidence just a poor assumption.

But i'll tell you something since i'm a good member of that board i will instantly remove that negative feedback once you show real proof of your claim that icomarketing is an alt of quicksilver or me for which you tagged him.
Will love to see these so called hard factual evidences

The ratings you received from DT members are factual and have references, even if you disagree that the facts presented require red trust.

The ratings you're sending out are bullshit with no references and no factual basis.

Why you claim i complain ?Didin't i just proofed that you complain when the same thing just happened to you directly ?
You got a negativ feedback for your past actions.I never said you are a scammer.Based on these DT members its enough to be untrustworthy in their opinion.
I just did to you which actions you defended of other DT members.So why do you complain and post now about false feedback when you defend at the same time the false feedbacks of DT members telling its their right to have their own opinion?
Seems hypocritical to me.

Thule - this is proof you have absolutely no standards or credibility at all when you leave feedback like this.



...and you complain about feedback left by the DTs when you leave false feedback yourself.

Proof it is factually untrue.

Exactly, go after mods, the most corrupt bunch of miscreants here that have nothing better to do than delete your serial posts. Next - merit sources because they don't give you merits, and usernames that don't start with "th" because why not.

What a fucking lunatic.

No your ignorace that at that time nearly noone new about the update that buying accounts will lead to a negative trust is the issue.
It was common practice on bitcointalk to buy and sell accounts without receiving any tagg.Legandaries did it any many other.
There was no announcement of change.
You just started tagging people without warning.
I wasn't even aware that there was a discussion about it as i never checked Meta.
I checked forum rules for that matter.

And you're still not banned. So yes, allowed. Not considered trustworthy though. Your refusal to separate forum rules from the trust system is a big part of your problem.

Thats not true.At that time there were many valid reasons to buy higher ranked accounts.
One of them was being able to post images on a thread.
You instantly suggest that it was planned to use to scam people by acting as the bought account.Thats your generalisation turning everyone instantly into a scammer.
You are pathetic with these DT members who massivly tagged people for buying accounts.
You wanna know why ?
At that time the forum rule clearly said buying accounts is allowed and when doing my duty by confirming it by a mod if its allowed to buy accounts and he confirms it
than i'm asking myself with what claim you guys gave me a negative rating ?
I haven't seen at that time a single well seen thread indicating that buying accounts will lead to a negative trust which is getting marked as a scammer.

Maybe you can explain to me which normal human who reads the inoffical forum rules which said its allowed to buy forum accounts (in my case even a mod confirmed) will keep searching if there is a group which isn't allowing it.

Normal people read the forum rules and act based on these rules.And thats the biggest hyprocacy trying to not break the forum rules you go to the inoffical list read the information act by it and still get tagged as scammer because a group declared the inoffical forum list as incorrect.

Please show me where have you at that time communicated that this forum list isn't protecting against negative taggs when following it ?

It started with blazed and his choosen people like Lauda who instantly started tagging everything even for past actions where people had no knowledge that DT members are against accounts sales.

You turned valid members who always complied with forum rules into scammers
and it was DT's fault since you never informed majority of the community of these changes.

Giving examples makes you giving red trust ?Seems you are still trying hard to justify your past actions/abuse.


In the real world you wanna know how this would be defined ?As nepotism


@DT members any one of you can give me a exect date from when it was announced by DT members in public that selling and buying accounts will lead to negative tagging ?
Any offical thread about it informing the community ?Or do you again claim that its the community duty to be informed about your endless new rules you try to implement?

The biggest hyprocat himself on this board is theymos.
Allowing to buy sell accounts on this forum but supporting DT members who give negative tag for something he allows.
If he wants to negative tag account sales he should clearly write in the inoffical forum rules.The word discourage doesn't mean you will get tagged as scammer if you obey the forum rules.
At my time it was only written account sales are allowed.
And suchmoon manipulation that technically scams are also allowed is wrong.
It is clearly written they are not to judge what is a scam and what not.Its not saying a word about being allowed to scam where it said on account sales clearly that you are allowed to sell accounts.

I agree with you, and there's nothing I'd like to see more than Theymos finally banning account sales, with some consequences if a member is caught trying to sell an account. 

Assume he's not going to do anything, though (because that's likely going to be the outcome).  The red-tagging of account buyers & sellers will have to continue so as to discourage the practice, and this leaves it up to DT members who use their own judgement and bring their own human failings and whatever else to the table when doing the tagging.  You might have read in this thread the recent incident with grtthegreat and how I gave him a pass based on his overall trust, and the case with iluvbitcoins where initially I did the exact opposite.  Generally I trust my ability to make good calls as far as feedback is concerned, but those two examples were ones where I had a hard time deciding what was the right thing to do.

I think buyers & sellers of accounts should both be tagged in general, but I'm of the opinion that there can be mitigating factors unique to individual cases.  I'd also like to point out that anyone who feels strongly enough about the issue and agrees with my opinion is welcome to step up and hand out negs as well.  This isn't a one man show here--nor should it be.  But instead of the inherent subjectivity (and some other factors), it sure would be nice if Theymos made a ruling on the issue of account selling and settled it once and for all.

I read that thread anyways I will reply here.
Since this is not a forum rule and trust is also very subjective so you are all free (with your reasonable thinking) what to tag or what not to tag.

Actually, main responsibility lies with theymos to declare the "Account sales" prohibitive.  I do not find this logic sound "if we cannot prevent it, so we will not make rule for it".

There are so many sites and games accounts that openly sell in market while there TOS forbid it. They just ban the user who are proved guilty. They are not going with logic "Since we are not able to catch all buyers, so we will not ban anybody".

Persons who buy accounts with a neutral or positive trust are pretending to be honest and more knowledgeable members than they actually are. It is often the case that previous profiles of account's buyers were banned or have been tagged for cheating at the past. If anyone needs to remove Newbie's limitations s/he can just buy Copper member.
After all, high forum ranks must show that their owners are competent people which can share experiences with other members. Therefore, in my opinion, accounts sale should be banned.

That doesn't make any sense. It's allowed by the rules so what exactly are the moderators going to do about it?

Firstly, it not a bizarre statement but rather it can be stated as a genuine view of any forum member as most of them would think the same.

This is the exact point, account buy and sell is allowed in forum rules and anyway its the job of a moderator to look upon it not a DT. Still, we can argue here very long about the buy and sell but just my point is sometimes neutral trust too suites situation and it should be used at that time. Giving second chances is sometimes beneficial to everyone according to me and Tia Mowry .

Yes, if a DT has a decision to work with this for "free" and tag account trades and other spams, I personally appreciate there work and motivation in making the forum a spam free place but they should also take into account that judging a person online is not that easy and you could anytime hamper a constructive and helpful member of the forum. On the other hand, this situation could just be solved with a neutral trust as @Yahoo62278 suggested in my quoted post.

It's a bizarre statement coming from such an old member. The forum doesn't moderate scams, therefore the trust system takes care of that. Conversely, the trust system does not enforce forum rules, moderators take care of that.

So the fact that account sales are allowed doesn't mean DT can't treat these actions negatively. Scams are also technically allowed, but that doesn't mean DT can't treat scams negatively.

BTW buying an account to post an ANN is shady AF. The perp is pretending to be something/somebody they're not. They could "contribute to the betterment of the forum" with a new account just the same. There is no reason to use a bought account other than for deception.

I think you have some valid points here and we can use it to make the cases of account buy/sell to handle effectively as we can't say all the buyers are here to scam with the new account, some of them want to start a business or post an ANN and give an impact of higher level account in management but this does not look scammy always as they can later contribute to the betterment of the forum and become a very active part of the community. As its already stated in the official rules that account buy and sell is allowed as DT member firstly has nothing to do with it as its officially accepted by forum itself but still if someone thinks a bad person has got hands on a good account with proves of the sale, you could  just better leave a natural trust that states the change in hand of the account and the job is nearly done ( its not a job of DT by the way).

Same goes with the case of OP, as he explained he was buying the account for his friend to start an ANN and post images with and at that time in 2017 the copper membership upgrade was not available too by taking into content his post to buy account HERE. He also has the benefits of the doubt due to the recent untagged cases of the account sale.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes your trust rating well deserved, bitch.

Any news on my upcoming lawsuit?

If i would start bitching all your project owners would be already contacted .....You think posting is bitching ?

Where you not the one defending my massiv negativ trust because i tried buying an account ?
And here no actions from you ?
Funny how quickly you change your opinion.
What about my negativ feedback ?I still got them for the same reason you are now denying giving the negativ trust feedback.
Seems legit to me making me looking like the biggest scammer here and letting buddies stay at is.

DT members who abused their power in the past got their own pages all over the internet where people are discussing.
You want a solution ?First fix the abuse to inocent people.Else you will never have a working soltution.Why ?Because you treated all members not the same way as it should.

And anyone beliving you can stop the decrease of lower quality when a forum goes mainstream has no clue.
There is no chance you can get the quality back.You need to realise it.All you can do is trying to inclose.
However the massiv abuse in the past will always lead to heavy discussion and fury because crypto is about decentralising and protecting each individual.
Here a small group took the power and abused inocent people and gives a shit about it.

Thats totaly against the crypto philosohy.
A scumback like Lauda acting like he is in control of that board where in reality this is a peanuts digger.

How many bigger accounts have you guys tagged for voicing their opinions against you ?
Should be set in forum rules voicing an opinion against some DT members leads to negative trust

But you know what people are give shit about the trust system.
More and more people doesn't care about it.As thats the result of the massiv abuse.
They know the trust points are worth horse shit when given by these DT members

Why do you go straight to name calling and asshole behavior? Noone will listen to you if you're gonna act like a damn 2 year old. You need your diaper changed?

On a serious note, I don't know if tagging accounts for buying/selling is the way to go hence why I have not tagged many. I think it would be perfectly fine for users to give the account a neutral stating the account is bought/sold. The problem I see is when someone is given a neutral tag, it does not show up unless someone specifically goes into a users profile and views their trust. Let's face it, most idiots don't even do that when trading. They just look at the trust score and rank and think oh he's an old member I can trust him. How does that work out for most?

If you have a better suggestion feel free to voice your opinion(without being a little bitch about it) and maybe it will be implemented. Maybe theymos needs to create sold account tags or something and if the community proves the account was sold, it can have the sold tag placed on it and trust removed

sorry, i don't quite understand what "such accounts" you are referring to.

You do understand that one of the reasons why we have merit are such accounts?

Not to mention other things...

I was referring to trades of farming/hacked/whatever accounts. grtthegreat seems scammed by 2 such accounts and liquidated collateral. It is not equal to people who are buying accounts for specific purpose or people whose only business here is to sell accounts. So benefit of doubt because of that, because they are somehow established member and probably won't do it again. Tricky situation, actually.

i think He is referring to the merit/DT "gang" bullshit as a whole.

---

it's off topic ,tho he has a valid point in this, having the benefit of  doubt should not be a privilege to certain group of members, just because someone is somehow an established member, that alone should not make him any different from the newbie who joined last night when comes to applying laws or rather standards in the case he refers to,  in fact the contrary makes more sense, the punishment to those members who have been here long enough and have no excuse of " i didn't know this was wrong to do" should be stronger than to the rest.

i am not against giving seconds chances but this has to apply to everyone else to be fair , just my 2 cents.

Merit cycle is an important sacrament in the cult of Lauda.

Those(bold part) are my words but I don't remember tagging you and I don't remember saying anything you posted unless you used my words to say something to someone else, but that doesn't make any sense because you used word "you" and it is referring to me unless I missunderstand you.

Again, who or what is Merit Cycle?

Benefit of doubt because of some reasons. Feel free to post your opinion in that thread.

Funny you lost your benefit of doubt when tagging me.

You stated there clearly any account buying selling is seen as scamming.
And now you start talking when somebody else is doing the same ?Seems like you don't have a clear line.

Benefit of doubt because of some reasons. Feel free to post your opinion in that thread.

What's this? Some users think they should be tagged, some users think they should not be tagged and I don't see you posting your valuable opinion in that thread.
Do you think they should be tagged?

Since you haven't removed it and a year passed where did i scammed someone ?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2029011.0;topicseen



For what did i had negative trust ?



So you admit you have double standards depending on reputation ?

That link isn't to one of my posts there, it's just a link to the thread which I posted multiple times in.  This is what I mean by time-wasting.  Show me the exact quote you're referring to and we'll see how well it matches up to your situation.

Again, this is a link to someone I tagged for selling an account.  What escrow service are you talking about?

Who are you talking about?  Why do I have to guess who or what it is you're talking about when you write things?  Both you and laracrofth (the user you linked to above) had negative trust before I left any for either of you. 

You're trolling and intentionally trying to get me to waste time jumping through your hoops, and I'm not going to do it anymore.  There's a big difference between everything you've written in this thread and a reasonable concern like the one r1s2g3 raised.  I'm done with you.

I never have bought one or sold one.
The one i tried to buy turned out to be a scam which can be seen on the reference thread where DT members didn't tagged legendary accounts offering their escrow for buying accounts.
Why ?



Where are now all DT members ?A lender sells knowingly an account and don't even get a single negative feedback ?

HOW PATHETHIC YOU GUYS ARE.
You just proofed yourself that noone needs you.

Please list all accounts that you sold or bought or otherwise had under your control and I'll check if they've been used for scamming.

Am just proofing how pathetic you are.
Always changing your claims based on your needs.

Haven't you said on that thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/legendary-account-seller-5102198
That you are deleting your buyer/seller negative feedback if it turns out they haven't used the accounts for scamming ?

Maybe you can show me where i have used them for scamming since over a year passed that you didn't removed yours from my account ?


And am talking about the escrow service for account selling which the legandary offered on the thread you tagged me.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=299676



You just proofed you have double standards.
You had no issue tagging a longterm member with zero negative feedback and clearly normaly participating in this forum even without signature campaigns but you clearly have an issue tagging an account seller who knowingly tried to sell something just because he .................


Yeah you just proofed to everyone how legit your decissions are and how accurate you work.

No, and in fact the first and only time I've done that was with grtthegreat, because I was trying to learn from the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins, where I knew I shouldn't have tagged him but did anyway in spite of his otherwise very trusted reputation. 

As for the other stuff you wrote above, I don't know what escrow you're talking about and if you don't give a clear picture of what you're trying to argue with details and links, don't waste my time making me search for what you're referencing.  In fact, just stop wasting my time in general.  I'm not going to bite the hook anymore.  You earned your red tags--all of them.

Funny you had no issues tagging the account seller from my thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=299676


There you also didn't tagged the legendary offering his escrow when buying alt accounts.


Seems like a clear double standard



Did you tried to PM me before giving negativ feedback ?

You can call it a double standard, but I'd call it reviewing each case individually and not using a cookie-cutter approach to negging account sellers.  I've also written that it was a tough call on that one and I'm not even 100% certain I made the right decision in not tagging grtthegreat.  See this post for my views on it.  In addition, any other DT member (or non-DT for that matter) is free to tag grtthegreat if they want to.  The account buyers I have no problem tagging, since they're using someone else's reputation and rank to do whatever they want with.

No the issue is that you abused the trust system giving me massiv negativ feedback for buying an account for a friend so he can post images on his service thread.I have never been accused of any scamming or anything.
It was you DT members attacking me and making me look like a scammer where i did nothing wrong.
As a forum member i had the obligation to check forum rules if i'm allowed to buy an account which i did.I checked the inofficial forum rules posted by mrep and there it was clearly stated its allowed to buy accounts.There was no mention about it being discouraged.I never read meta before like majority at that time.I even sent a PM to a forum moderator asking for approval if i'm allowed to buy an account.The reply was positiv.And later i receive a negative feedback for trying to buy an account which i checked previously and was allowed to do so.
Not agreeing with the negative feedback you guys bombarded me with negative feedback for the same past action.
It clearly shows the abuse you used.
Only one of you gave me a negative feedback for trying to buy an account but once i didn't agree with the negative feedback all your small group bombarded me with it even it was months later.Wouldn't i argue about the negative feedback you would have never added these feedbacks.The massiv negativ feedback are clearly because of the public arguing and not because of one time try to buy an account.
This clearly shows that you guys gave negative feedback because i started arguaging about it without accepting the reason of getting it.
This means you abused the trust system since you gave me in reality a negative feedback for arguaging and not accepting but commented instead it was because of account selling.
Would it be about account selling why didn't you gave me the negative feedback instantly you saw it?

Its your pathetic actions which made this forum a disaster.


Also what is most pathetic is all the DT members giving me negative feedback but not a single one to the legandary members trying on the same thread to encourage using their escrow when buying accounts.
Of course that Lauda had a good relationship with the escrow guy is just a coincidence as Lauda would surely give him negative feedback for it even he gave a few days before positiv ones.

If you claim trying to buy an account for a friend so he can post an image on his service thread is more harmful than posting these stupid comments than i guess we have a reality issue.

I am seeing double standard s here, Zoel is negatively trusted ( because account is sold) and the seller is positively trusted.  Ironically lender is fully aware here that "account sales are frowned" still lender sold the account. I guess earlier I used to see account sellers also having negative feedback.

Valid question, except I missed this right at the end of your post:
My bad.  So my answer to this would be that everything you mentioned has been brought up so many times and has been met with indifference not only by Theymos but a good part of the community as well.  Your feedback speaks for itself--you earned it.  One of two negs would have been sufficient, but sometimes multiple DT members chime in and reinforce others' feedbacks.

As to why the other members have positive trust, the answer to that is that the community decided they were worthy of it. 

And as far as this:
I don't know what the bolded part even means.  Are you implying (or outright stating) that I'm a merit abuser?  If that's your claim, it would appear that no one agrees with you since I haven't been tagged by anyone who provided credible evidence of this.  And feel free to take a look at my merit-sending history.  I freely give merits to a wide range of members.  Sure, I've sent merits to members like suchmoon, o_e_l_e_o, marlboroza, and others multiple times--but that's because they make genuinely good posts.  It's not some evil plot or even misusing the merit system.

My connection with the HBW account has been known for a long time now, and what has the community's response been to that?  Nothing.  It was off-color humor done in jest, and I don't even use that account anymore.  It's a non-issue which you trolls keep bringing up constantly, hoping someone will eventually care.  Or maybe you're just power hungry yourself and are resorting to the age-old political tactic of smearing your opponent in an attempt to gain support. 

You might want to take a minute to reflect on exactly how much good you've done for the forum, and compare that result to how much good the members you're attacking have done.  I don't expect you'll do that, so I'll just hope that you really do take a break from the forum (like you said you were going to).

Are you familiar with the Personal Message feature?

Don't post your BS publicly if you don't want other users to reply.

So if i asked just theymos why do you reply on this thread if its not about giving your opinion on my question ?
Just shows me you just try again to discredit or change topic which both shows what a poor character you got.

First of all, who's "we"?

Second, what question are you talking about?  If you're referring to what you addressed in the OP, you were specifically requesting input from Theymos.  Please educate me as to what question I'm supposedly ducking.

I know its hard to confirm which one is the least harmful action out of the four when you where involved in that massiv abuse.

We really understand why you avoid answering that question and try to change the topic

Showing -128 to me, I was assumed this question will come out about account sell.  @theymos could you now ban account sell on the forum ? Account sell now become more easy by collateral for loan.

I thought you were going to take a break from the forum:


Or have you decided to keep rehashing the same arguments all of the recent trolls have been repeating over and over, and which consistently fall upon deaf ears?  I'm hoping you stick with your original plan and just leave--even if it's only temporary. 

I'm happy to see that you finally came to your senses and ditched the sockpuppet account.

You're showing as -32 for me, which seems quite appropriate.

Ok since you claim your trust system is so great and is showing real input please THEYMOS explain to me this


270 positiv trust for TMAN
Proofen of extorition https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/laudatmanminifrijironmarvel2owlcatz-extortion-attempt-1764757
Merit Cycle and many other staff

7 Trust for the pharmacist
Proofen of posting racist comments for signature campaign profit
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17808231
Merit cycle and many more staff

3 Trust for Lauda
Proofen of extorition https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/laudatmanminifrijironmarvel2owlcatz-extortion-attempt-1764757
Merit Cycle and MANY MANY other staff

-128 (yesterday -158) for thule
Proofen of trying to buy an account for service thread which rules on this forum clearly allowed (without informing about discourage) and a mod confirming to be allowed to buy an account
Dare to raise his voice against this negative tagg which resulted into a massiv negativ feedback



Please someone explain to me which one of these actions of these four people did the least harm to the forum