Topic: Conflict of Interest on DT1 - page 6. (Read 2732 times)

Begging is not allowed.

Your account was created in 2017, how exactly do you claim to know what was going on in 2015?

Based on your statement, you will be Red Tagging Blazed, yahoo62278 and lauda, yes? The timing does not matter.

What did you mean by it, exactly? For anyone who wants to see the context, they can easily look at the post and thread themselves. I think the post mirrors the Red Tagging behavior described in this very thread.


No proof except the clear evidence of you asking to buy forum accounts 10 at a time, and your deletion of thousands of posts to cover this up.



No other DT1 member has this conflict of interest. There is no other major trust circles in DT. No other DT1 members have a trust list of people who are this inconsistent in their ratings.

You have conveniently chosen to ignore the different circumstances that the forum has gone through in the years 2015-2018. You are trying to make their actions look questionable by differentiating between the actions they take in 2018 and compare it to actions they didn't take in 2015. This was the time when some of the Sig campaigns were just starting. Nobody would have guessed that this will become such a huge problem. Least of all people who were still just members back then, like Yahoo.

I tried looking at how the threads you quote ended as examples of yahoo's wrongoings really ended. Here it is.
Yahoo clearly mentions that he is a relatively new account and made his intention pretty clear. On being suggested by Vod that it's not a good idea, he promptly closed the thread. This is what he said at the end:
"maybe this is a bad idea. sorry guys, not looking to be thought of as new scammer on the block. ill close the thread. im not in need of 4-8$ to be thought of as a scammer"

Again this was back in 2015. His actions just look to be someone trying various ways to set up a business/ income. When he sees that the offers aren't worth it, he simply took it back.  What I would be worried about is if someone continues to do this through these years making account trading their chief business and resulting in scams.

What exactly is wrong with that? I see just some member account being over-enthusiastic and doing the reddit inspired "Help me out" guys. This isn't begging. He just tried his luck. Not sure he got much out of it apart from the curry and ice cream at the day's end.


Again. selling an account back in 2015 and asking for an escrow. Trying to make a business out of it till it became kindda unacceptable.

In my opinion, he was just more enterprising than others. That shows even now. He has taken some positive steps like paying more for members with merit scores. He has also called for improvements in campaign management.
He even offers this signature campaign with his name on it. I'd say he isn't shying away from sharing his earnings to those in the forum. He is just being the old-blooded capitalist while also providing an opportunity for other members to earn through his own signature campaigns as well as those he manages. What is the problem here?

Next you have tried to drag in actmyname and Lauda as usual. You just have to go through their post histories to see the kind of work they put in. People like you on the other hand are only creating distractions. You seem well-intentioned enough so I'd really prod you to read what Lauda said about the thread. The examples you gave above were all without basis and anybody who takes the time to go through them will understand that you are trying too hard to make a false case here.

I think there needs to be a deterrent.  You seem to overlook the utility of leaving negs for account sellers--true, there's no scientific study showing that such an effect exists, but in my eyes it beats doing absolutely nothing on a forum where people are allowed to scam (and do), people are allowed to shitpost at will (and do), and where we're told to give the benefit of the doubt where users buy, sell and trade merits, even when it's obvious what they're doing.

I just gave a neg to a guy who is obviously an account farmer for selling accounts of all shapes and sizes:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/sell-member-full-member-senior-and-hero-accounts-3089343

I feel very warm and fuzzy doing this, though he probably won't care and apparently thinks that any negs left for him are from his competitors.  This guy is facilitating scams, shitposting, and account farming, and is letting others gain access to rank (and perhaps trust, though this isn't a selling point here) that the buyer did not earn.  Fuck 'em.

You needn't search. OP found it for you.... with evidence.
Anyway, the argument of some posters here, that "account selling was the norm" is weak, as it didn't change today, also forum rules are the same.
It only shows, that not each account seller/buyer seems to be a scammer. So give all the same attention and chances, before tagging down or tag them all, what would be also ok. And as I remember right, spam was also posted in mass at that time, even by DT-members.

I don't necessarily think it was OK "back then" in 2016 when I started tagging account sellers, but this was kind of a problem that was emerging.  It became clear to me at least that people here were starting to deal in accounts, and that led to shitposting account farmers, and that people were buying green-trusted accounts in order to scam or to shitpost with.  This crap was not immediately apparent to me when I joined in 2015 as far as I can recall.

So I tag account dealers.  There's a limit on how many deals I see going on, and how far back I'm going to go.  At this point I'm not about to start searching years-old threads to tag account dealers.  And I may miss some.  That 'inconsistency' may grind on some people, but think about how many crimes occur that don't ever get prosecuted.  We all learn to suck it up and move forward.

Yeah, maybe not right now but he clearly did in the past https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/delete-me-please-1013494 so, how come it was ok in the past but you get red tagged in the present?

Don't quote massive posts like that just to make a one-liner.

---

Account dealers aren't to be trusted: that's true. Which is why you don't see Blazed doing account trading right now. In comparison, a lot of DT members have tagged a plethora of users doing account trading in 2017 and 2018.

No. Whistle-blowers are great when they actually do their job, i.e. provide constructive analysis and statements, and not when they go for a SJW-style attack on an individual, subset of a group or whatever. Had this been a proper exposure, you would have analyzed every DT1 member and their *young-lings* for the activity that you are complaining about.

Most things are wrong, which is why this thread is tiring to me and probably to others. The GDPR thing has nothing to do with the account connection, the merit statement is wrong again.

"Without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past" - There is no proof of this, thus the statement is malicious nonsense.

Things that people get trust ratings for are exactly things that are either socially accepted or not. You are looking at this from a backwards perspective. It's the intrinsic forum Etiquette. E.g., it doesn't say anywhere tag someone for running a ponzi, but we do it because that is socially frowned upon (here).

---

This could have been a nice thread, like the one that the other guy did. However, you let a disgusting amount of bias, exaggeration and misrepresentation get in the way. This thread is mostly based on emotion[1], not reason.
It really seems like the classic charade, and not a constructive assessment of the issues that we have here. You do not try to understand the other side, but see DT as some kind of status and power (notably with the word 'punish'). Have you ever thought about how many countless hours these people have spent trying to protect others in this place? Trying to reduce theft (which most alt abuse essentially is), or just helping in general? Have you thought about how it is to do such a thankless "job" for years? You have not, and obviously you do not care.

---

[1]  The same goes for my use of the wording 'disgusting' in the prior sentence.
P.S. Agendas can also be fun.

Sure but I have seen many cases where the buyer cannot do anything to hurt the seller and they still usually get a feedback. For me it doesn't matter since I always look at each trust rating myself but newbies can be deceived quite easily.


What an useless post, it's obvious why he didn't use his main account plus why does it even matter if his concerns are legitimate? Did you even read anything?
 

My policy as a seller is the customer is always correct ie  I give a full refund zero questions asked.

Thus anyone that buys from me  can say gear is broken  I want a refund.

I also don't bother  with returns on any gear under 100 bucks.

So  this means buyers can easily lie and steal from me.

In all my sales done here over 100 of them   I had to give only 3 refunds.

 I refunded a mobo shipped to canada a  cost of 170 usd   and told the guy  don't bother to return it.  So  all my buyers benefitted

from my policy. Since they were honest people treated respectfully by me.



 And zero returns  that is correct  no returns  not one. Not a single S-9, S-7 , S-5 , Avalon , S-3, S-1

 1 hi end Gpu was never accepted in europe  thus it was technically not returned by the buyer.



 So because I encourage honesty from my buyers  I actually get honesty from them.

That is why I do it my way.



But  I no longer give trust to people just feedbacks if the deal was good and I am not putting anyone on my trust list for the next few months .

People on DT have control not just over their trust rating, they have control over everybody's trust rating.
If you want to enforce a particular point of view, just add 3-4 others with the same point of view to DT2.
Removing people from DT2 is not easy.


Obviously, you wouldn't want to rub powerful people the wrong way. Posting controversial topics like this is one of the main reasons why alt accounts are allowed.

OP Himself is also  controversial haha, the OP is inspire by, and created by a newbie wannabe, people like OP is coward, why don't you just make a post with your original account? And let's see who wants dignity?

Newbie whom I think that he knows a lot about legit and trusted members haha, nice move whistleblower newbie. Nice disguise haha old school.

We are not discussing a social norm, we are talking about Red Tagging people as scammers. Doing something that makes the person a scammer still makes that person a scammer regardless of when they did this.

Staff section

Weird, you had a very different view on whistleblower accounts only a few days ago:
Maybe it is true that when you can't attack the message, and can't attack the messenger, you make a baseless claim, that is impossible to have any evidence of, and smear the messenger based on the baseless claim.







Oops, that should say "merit". I will correct it shortly. Feel free to address my (corrected) concern.


What is the lie? 



We are not discussing something that is socially accepted/not accepted. We are talking about Red Tagging people who are scammers.

This basically shows how flawed the trust system can be not to mention leaving trust ratings for people that bought stuff from you, they didn't have to risk anything and yet they still get a positive rating?



Not really, account selling was never seen as something positive but it has always been allowed and is still is. There is no reason not to tag those OP mentioned as they clearly sold and bought accounts, however I know they are not going to get red tagged. That's how it works here, just like everywhere else, groups of people take control, in this case DT1 and trusted members and you can't do much about it.

People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating.

Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust.  :/

The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way.

Well  I don't  buy or sell accounts never did don't plan on selling them.


 I was offered coin for this account  did not sell it. But I think I was in Hero status at that time.

Don't remember if it was via email or pm.

So a few years back. 2015 maybe

Seems like a good time to point out that I have never bought or sold an account on this forum and personally consider such an action as fraud, regardless of what was "the norm" or at what point in time it occurred.

This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me. As I've recently said in another thread:

This is in no way limited to Blazed's trust list, and you would know that if you were actually analyzing DT1 for the right reasons. The group that was linked back then was much bigger; someone could find it if they wanted to. We are talking about different times here. The general consensus a few years ago and now is much different.

That is absolutely not what the post says. The linked post says nothing even remotely related to this statement "leaving trust for any reason I want".


Another lie backed up by the classic 'ol book. Have you been inspired by Quickseller?

---

Furthermore, keeping up the attacks while painting everyone as bad as you can without going overboard doesn't work anymore. You're just wasting time. Do I need to remind you that I was banned twice for spamming? Oh, the conflict of interest!

There were a lot of things that were commonly accepted in the past, but no longer are (e.g. slavery). If you want something non-illegal, then racism would also be an example of this (before socially accepted, now it is not).

Where is staff section? now that you have mentioned it, you should move this topic to reputation section. and provide your evidence for each case. if Yahoo is enrolling his alts in signature campaigns. if Blazed, Lauda, little angry pinoy a.k.a The pharmacist, actmyname are selling accounts and tagging their competitions. if nullius is still jumping alia. show us the evidence with your main account, if they tag you after that, you'd have them where you wanted.