Don't you think the better move might have been to just drop it and move on? You have 2 neutral tags, neither of which should harm your ability to do anything on this forum. Most of us probably have a neutral tag or 2 by this point with the way the trust system works. All you have done with this thread is likely put more eyes on your account, which if you are legit you have no worries, but if not those neutrals will be red at some point.
Topic: Abusing behaviours by nutildah and JollyGood - page 3. (Read 794 times)
I only see 2 neutral trust ratings on your profile. One note from jolly which explains what happened pretty briefly and the other is suchmoon's diary notes which nobody cares about nowadays I guess. What's the purpose of this thread?
Do you accuse someone with something? Since they dropped their charges against you, you should move on and be a happy fella.
If you are accusing someone with something, then you should give us more details . Otherwise this thread serves no purpose or whatsoever.
Someone was mean to you and you proved them wrong, the story ended there.
Do you accuse someone with something? Since they dropped their charges against you, you should move on and be a happy fella.
If you are accusing someone with something, then you should give us more details . Otherwise this thread serves no purpose or whatsoever.
Someone was mean to you and you proved them wrong, the story ended there.
Additional Notes
Great strategy, claim that you're unfairly accused by launching unfounded accusations at others.
This belongs to the reputation board, as none of the members being mentioned on your post currently made any scam attempt, allegedly or proven. The one that you created for JG, would be better fit for such discussion than this one.
Oh, a small but helpful hint, when you create a thread, wanting people to address the challenge, perhaps it'll work better and better serve the purpose if you didn't lock them immediately after creation, as it will effectively prevent any means of discussion or any attempt at all, thus, rather counterproductive.
Oh, a small but helpful hint, when you create a thread, wanting people to address the challenge, perhaps it'll work better and better serve the purpose if you didn't lock them immediately after creation, as it will effectively prevent any means of discussion or any attempt at all, thus, rather counterproductive.
What happened::
nutildah is re-opening a closed case with the help of JollyGood. The reason for re-opening is not letting down their investigation work because they feel like letting down will de-faming of their investigation skills in front of this community.
Profile Links of people involved:
nutildah: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/nutildah-317618
JollyGood: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jollygood-1016855
lovesmayfamilis: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/lovesmayfamilis-1982152
Reference Link:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/old-accounts-that-have-likely-been-hackedtraded-5506921
Detailed explanation:
1. nutildah suspected about the ownership of my account with a post from 2021 against my recent local board posting. Even I proved my ownership by signing with a post from 2016, they were not ready to accept and kept refusing without proper explanation or proof for their claim.
2. After 3 weeks of struggle, finally nutildah decided (literally pretended) to remove my trust page tag but asked JollyGood to take over.
3. nutildah had never been ready to give up their one of investigation effort by removing their tag which must be be the primary reason why JollyGood entered into the picture.
4. JollyGood has been active on the same topic but decided to tag all the users whose cases posted on that topic on the same exact day where nutildah removing my tag after unable to explain their claims.
5. Asking for additional tagging is not a problem or asking to take over is not a problem. But, tricking to re-open a closed case by asking another person is a definite sign of abusement.
6. From the beginning, nutildah were too conscious about not removing their tag even after a cryptographic proof was submitted. Due to this exact same reason, the help from JollyGood might have been asked.
7. JollyGood tagged me just after nutildah removing the tag, with contents which is similar to what nutildah did.
8. After I requested JollyGood about removing the tag by citing the proof I had submitted, they revised the comment which is still proving nutildah's investigation is accurate and my proof was manipulated one. This is another clear sign why JollyGood decided to tag on SAME DAY where nutildah removed theirs.
9. Taking over by JollyGood was not a co-incident which can be confirmed by lovesmayfamilis's post here. lovesmayfamilis was primary contributor on that topic but they remained biased even after I submit a cryptographic proof and never stated any opinion but he was excited to talk about my case after JollyGood taking over my case. Being biased even after a proof where they continuously contributing is definitely not a good sign.
Additional Notes:
nutildah :
1. nutildah registered here by 2014 but no traces of any BTC addy prior to 2018. The first BTC addy could be found on the post history is available from 2018 post. Probably all previous posts with BTC addys might have been deleted.
2. By 2014, all 100% posts were from altcoin boards but the posting interest changed to other boards by 2018/2019.
3. The password of nutildah account has been reset for exact 10 times within the time frame of 3 months in 2018.
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=317618
lovesmayfamilis:
A confirmed plagiariser who had been banned at least once.
Looking for your opinion....
nutildah is re-opening a closed case with the help of JollyGood. The reason for re-opening is not letting down their investigation work because they feel like letting down will de-faming of their investigation skills in front of this community.
Profile Links of people involved:
nutildah: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/nutildah-317618
JollyGood: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jollygood-1016855
lovesmayfamilis: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/lovesmayfamilis-1982152
Reference Link:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/old-accounts-that-have-likely-been-hackedtraded-5506921
Detailed explanation:
1. nutildah suspected about the ownership of my account with a post from 2021 against my recent local board posting. Even I proved my ownership by signing with a post from 2016, they were not ready to accept and kept refusing without proper explanation or proof for their claim.
2. After 3 weeks of struggle, finally nutildah decided (literally pretended) to remove my trust page tag but asked JollyGood to take over.
3. nutildah had never been ready to give up their one of investigation effort by removing their tag which must be be the primary reason why JollyGood entered into the picture.
4. JollyGood has been active on the same topic but decided to tag all the users whose cases posted on that topic on the same exact day where nutildah removing my tag after unable to explain their claims.
5. Asking for additional tagging is not a problem or asking to take over is not a problem. But, tricking to re-open a closed case by asking another person is a definite sign of abusement.
6. From the beginning, nutildah were too conscious about not removing their tag even after a cryptographic proof was submitted. Due to this exact same reason, the help from JollyGood might have been asked.
7. JollyGood tagged me just after nutildah removing the tag, with contents which is similar to what nutildah did.
8. After I requested JollyGood about removing the tag by citing the proof I had submitted, they revised the comment which is still proving nutildah's investigation is accurate and my proof was manipulated one. This is another clear sign why JollyGood decided to tag on SAME DAY where nutildah removed theirs.
9. Taking over by JollyGood was not a co-incident which can be confirmed by lovesmayfamilis's post here. lovesmayfamilis was primary contributor on that topic but they remained biased even after I submit a cryptographic proof and never stated any opinion but he was excited to talk about my case after JollyGood taking over my case. Being biased even after a proof where they continuously contributing is definitely not a good sign.
Additional Notes:
nutildah :
1. nutildah registered here by 2014 but no traces of any BTC addy prior to 2018. The first BTC addy could be found on the post history is available from 2018 post. Probably all previous posts with BTC addys might have been deleted.
2. By 2014, all 100% posts were from altcoin boards but the posting interest changed to other boards by 2018/2019.
3. The password of nutildah account has been reset for exact 10 times within the time frame of 3 months in 2018.
https://bpip.org/Profile?id=317618
lovesmayfamilis:
A confirmed plagiariser who had been banned at least once.
Looking for your opinion....
Jump to: