Topic: Appeal to review why I was given a negative trust (Read 530 times)

Well said, I concur.


Here's the thing, are we as Legendaries sending out mixed messages, or even the wrong message entirely by advertising our "mobile" Alts signature space while we are tut-tutting others who's Alts are making a buck off of the system?

As we just discussed Alts in general can't join the exact same Signature Campaign, but there is *nothing* that I can see anywhere that says Alts can't join different SigCamps.

I think that having two alts in the same campaign, when rules of the campaign clearly state that this is not allowed, should be red tagged.

If someone does that, he is clearly trying to cheat the campaign, this is not an honest person. So this would be a justified red tag, because trading with a dishonest person is high-risk of losing money situation.

However, as I said, this doesn't look to be the case here.

Very  well said direwolf.

The resolution reached in this case looks okay perhaps. Although sending personal documents out to anyone here seems like something to be discouraged. You never know when they could be used to extort you or a plethora of other problems could result.

Agreed.  Please don't misunderstand me, I have no intention of putting CryptopreneurBrainboss on the spot, not my intention.  I have no objection to the manager making decisions about his campaign and who he wants to represent his client.  I am however, suggesting that all those stipulations be clearly spelled out to avoid these types of confusing situations.

This is the second time in recent months where someone was given a negative rating for campaign violations that turned out not to be violations (I realize in this particular situation the tag has been revised to neutral.)

I also feel like people are too quick to jump on a suspected alt, and then use any excuse to red-tag the accounts.  Even if the OP did indeed have two accounts registered in this specific campaign, no rule violations occurred.  Merely having an alt is no reason to get red-tagged.

This issue has been covered in a few threads about Campaign Managers recently. At the end of the day it is at the CM's discression who is accepted. Issues such as causing uncertainty can be construed as being cause to be removed.

Disclaimer I am in a SigCamp that CryptopreneurBrainboss is CM of.

Do you mind if I ask why they were kicked out of the campaign in the first place?  I am assuming it's because you suspected them of being alts of one individual, but I don't see any restrictions on enrolling multiple accounts in that campaign.  Is it the policy of the campaign to not allow alts, but lightlord forgot to mention it?  Is this policy yours alone as the manager?  Is it mentioned in another post that I failed to find?  If such a policy exists I would like to see it listed in the campaign's OP, and if doesn't, well then this whole thread is a huge nothing-burger.

Thank you for confirming that you are mentally ill. Now go away, you are deranged and wasting everyone's time.

Thank you for confirming that you are lying as you did not discuss the matter with me.

OP take no notice of Lauda - he likes to hijack other people's threads - especially those that aren't self moderated.

I do not discuss things with the mentally ill like you (failure of comprehension and making things about you is a strong sign of this - well you are a confirmed case anyway), sorry. Go away, troll.

No, I never said that - you are mistaken Lauda.


This is also misleading at best or at worst you are lying as you did not discuss the issue with me and I have not said anything to the effect in this thread or anywhere else.

I have asked them to double check, which they did but apparently did not notice at first. This was my thought first too, you would destroy your own account for no good reason to be lying about it. Thank you for assisting.

There's no need for returning slots, you took appropriate measures at the time! Thanks for being considerate.

---

This also happened, I was informed about the details after it occurred (and evidence of it not being the same user either).

Contacted fiulpro via TG and I am the one who informed that she contacted someone with the username @PedroBrainbossbot and to whom she gave ID's and stuff I guess. So, I informed her to contact @PedroBrainboss with the infos. Hope she contacted him by now. I sure if CryptopreneurBrainboss had a chat with her, he would understand.
Anyways, In my conversation with her, I see that she is a novice and doesn't know much about Bitcoin Wallets and she is definitely not cheating. Both are separate accounts handled by her(fiulpro) and her brother(Pixyoxx).

I rechecked it and manager is right , it was some other person who actually was talking with me therefore it is my fault that I wasn't able to figure it out .

I am sorry for blaming the manager when he did not know what was going on .

That's obviously an impersonator, trying to scam users interested in my exchange services. I never asked him to contact me on telegram or send me any screenshot. I provided a direct link in all my thread that my telegram ID is updated to avoid issues like this.

I'm currently reading through all the contributions made on this issue and probably will come up with my conclusion before they day runs out but be rest assured neither of the account can regain their previous slots since that's already occupied although my feedback might be reversed for both accounts.

Conclusion: Changing negative feedback to neutral thereby linking both accounts together although they both lose their slot on the previous campaign and will be willing to work with just one in my other campaigns.

1. I have told him to try and see how I post and reply not just reply by 2 sentences .
2. I do know how to set up an independent wallet but , the one I am holding money in is Zebpay which sends directly to my linked bank account so there is no problem regarding that that way I can send it to anywhere.
3. The addresses I used was of wallets what manager would approve of , but I never found them useful , they always charged a fee.
4. I know Preety much the basic stuff about Bitcoins and I do know how to set up the basic one's
5. I don't think why it might hurt to use a 2 year old address 😅  I gave him that address, to use since I wasn't using it anymore.
6. Just someone good told me that I contacted a scammer not my manager :'))

Okay, this is apparently more complicated than I thought it would be. I hope nobody has a problem with me - I just found a link between the two alts and posted the connection on Bitvest's thread. I just don't know now whether I should buy the "my brother" excuse or not because it's so complicated and such an often excuse used by cheaters/scammers to defend themselves..

---

So going back on track, I'm following now your story and have some things I wonder.. like why did your brother use a wallet address that was used in 2018 by your account? If he would have wanted to use your wallet for signing up and earning on here, he wouldn't have gone for an old address, right? Or am I wrong? I may be, I don't know, this seems quite shady. Why use a two-year-old address when you can use a newer one? Because it looks like your brother has had many addresses you've never used..:


There are two more posts I can't quote cause the topics were locked, but I also found this:

This is an unused wallet address and does not have the same structure as the exchange's addresses. So your brother definitely does know how to set up a separate wallet.

---

Now let's go back to your claim:



Alright, I see differences (e.g. one of you uses colors while the other doesn't) but why do you both reply to the same threads on similar timestamps and sometimes have the same points to say? Here are some examples (From now on until the end of my reply, I intentionally put the colors on them to highlight similarities):



I can't find something very similar in the following two but you've posted on the same thread and the timestamp..:


Then I went back to the 31st of July 2019 and found these two (check the timestamps):

---

It's either me going insane or something really doesn't add up here.. Your brother posts very rarely and even when he does, he posts in the same threads you've posted.. and sometimes even writes down the same ideas under a different structure.

I will educate them to set up independent wallets.

Definitely not campaign managers.

I am not  defending fiulpro.

The whole thing is very complicated, too many details in his story. I would remove him from the campaign as well if I were the manager.

But this user might be a complete newbie and not a scammer. Maybe he is really holding his btc in that custodial wallet Zebpay and he doesn't understand anything about how bitcoin works.


I agree. In my opinion you shouldn't even send any documents to anyone, even the campaign manager.

My suggestion to fiulpro: Study about bitcoin, understand how it works, and come back to the forum. Try to be useful here and you will get some earning from signatures campaigns.


I think CryptopreneurBrainboss should really remove him from the campaign, as a newbie like that should not represent any brand. Additionally, I would also remove the red trust, and he looks harmless imo. Just move it to neutral. My 2 cents.

Please do not upload any documents to the forum and do not send them to anybody random asking you to do so anywhere. This is a classic privacy mistake people do trying to defend themselves here.

A lot to take in ..

But okay I will provide the documents if you guys need . And my URL too.