Welcome to bitcointalk, where you get the punishment first and then you find out you're not actually breaking the rules. Cryptodevil is a f-ing pompous, self-worshipping dickhole which you already know. Having said that, buying accounts definitely ranks up there on the list of shady things on this forum.
The OP(or at least the account I guess) is one of the shill accounts of the now failing ponzi scheme Cloudmining.website. The recent threads might be the reason why CD chose to tag them now
Topic: cryptodevil has left negative trust on a bought account - page 2. (Read 2711 times)
Welcome to bitcointalk, where you get the punishment first and then you find out you're not actually breaking the rules. Cryptodevil is a f-ing pompous, self-worshipping dickhole which you already know. Having said that, buying accounts definitely ranks up there on the list of shady things on this forum.
The OP(or at least the account I guess) is one of the shill accounts of the now failing ponzi scheme Cloudmining.website. The recent threads might be the reason why CD chose to tag them nowDon't try to refute any of my points or anything about the substance of what I have said, or anything like that.
A hint like "/sarcasm" might be good, you never know when someone is being sarcastic in bcttalk. Anyway, thats enough words from me this night. Will possibly "argue"(pretty much every argument is one-sided as it seems I get easily swayed) tomorrow That is impossible to do and you should know this.
Yep I do and I think I made that clearHowever if the OP can prove that the account is indeed bought(quite a difficult feat as evidence can be faked)
, but its not exactly impossibleIf enough evidence point to the fact that the account was bought on a certain date/time, with tx links, if possible the sale thread and better yet a forum escrow confirmation, CD might opt to remove the tag. Can't say why one would remove a tag from a known CM shill account though
The OP should contact theymos to express his concerns about the people in Dooglus's trust list. There have been multiple threads opened about CD and all that CD has done to address anyone's concerns is troll them and act childish. Dooglus has responded to some of these threads only to give very vague responses and broad assumptions and has done nothing to ensure that improper trust ratings are not left by those who are in his trust list.
Come on now QS, rephrasing what you said earlier and what most users(last I heard) thought was over-exaggeration hardly makes your point stronger.
Welcome to bitcointalk, where you get the punishment first and then you find out you're not actually breaking the rules. Cryptodevil is a f-ing pompous, self-worshipping dickhole which you already know. Having said that, buying accounts definitely ranks up there on the list of shady things on this forum.
That is impossible to do and you should know this.
Yep I do and I think I made that clearHowever if the OP can prove that the account is indeed bought(quite a difficult feat as evidence can be faked)
, but its not exactly impossibleIf enough evidence point to the fact that the account was bought on a certain date/time, with tx links, if possible the sale thread and better yet a forum escrow confirmation, CD might opt to remove the tag. Can't say why one would remove a tag from a known CM shill account though
This is probably going to be another drama dialog all over again, I get your point but that does not change my opinion. Thats.... it.
Oh and nearly forgot, I suppose OP could also defend himself(as in proving that he bought the account and whatnot) by posting all the proofs in the OP instead of PMing back and forth
That is impossible to do and you should know this. You should know very well that it would be trivial for someone to use an alt account to create a facade that an account was purchased, even if an escrow is used as many escrows provide their services for free (a small number will even cover tx fees). It is up to the person leaving the trust to "prove" (or some derivative of "prove") that an account was not sold when relating to some kind of alleged action/scam that took place a long time ago.
It is up to the aggressor to make their case, and only when such aggressor has made a strong enough case does the person being called a scammer need to present some evidence in his defense. I don't think you would like it very much if the OP were to say that you stole 100BTC from him and tried to force to you prove your own innocence.
Of course cryptodevil defied a forum rule. Account trading is allowed here
You're confusing(misleading others into thinking) tolerated(allowed but discouraged) with supporting. The forum neither promotes/supports the account sales neither does the administration care about/moderate them.while he is claiming the end result is still about deception and using his framed logic to leave -ve feedback on an account.
Where did you get that idea from? He is claiming that the account has/had several ponzi alt shills, and has linked the proof in the reference, with no reference to the account being bought or not. However if the OP can prove that the account is indeed bought(quite a difficult feat as evidence can be faked) CD might opt to remove his tag.But, if he does not remove his feedback, then he must be removed from DT. Well, only if the "authority" care.
You sure know that one is only removed from DT after commiting a pretty serious scam or shady behavior right(this applies to most of the examples you gave I believe)? Although it does happen sometimes with users like escrow.ms(who was in DT 1 some time ago) , that they had add a user to their trust list without thinking in their early days and may later remove them for no reason at all, I don't see doog having the similar approach to CDWell, only if the "authority" care.
Oh yeah, BB came back I guess you're talking about him as I'm pretty sure theymos doesn't respond to any such requests. Still slim chance of your message actually getting through to himOh and nearly forgot, I suppose OP could also defend himself(as in proving that he bought the account and whatnot) by posting all the proofs in the OP instead of PMing back and forth
The OP should contact theymos to express his concerns about the people in Dooglus's trust list. There have been multiple threads opened about CD and all that CD has done to address anyone's concerns is troll them and act childish. Dooglus has responded to some of these threads only to give very vague responses and broad assumptions and has done nothing to ensure that improper trust ratings are not left by those who are in his trust list.
Come on now QS, rephrasing what you said earlier and what most users(last I heard) thought was over-exaggeration hardly makes your point stronger.Also just FYI Gates, as you seem to consider anyone with a paid signature a sig spammer(pretty good habit most of the times), I get paid regardless of whether I post or not(something similar to Blazed and Philipma)
Edits are fun, I could go all day with this....
The OP should contact theymos to express his concerns about the people in Dooglus's trust list. There have been multiple threads opened about CD and all that CD has done to address anyone's concerns is troll them and act childish. Dooglus has responded to some of these threads only to give very vague responses and broad assumptions and has done nothing to ensure that improper trust ratings are not left by those who are in his trust list.
The ideal solution for the Op would be presenting the proof of the account being sold/bought ? Maybe PGP message of the escrow if used.I remember similar thing happened with Laosai's alt's including Phibay,Patatas etc and Sho had negative repped them for defaulting on a loan as all the accounts were connected via old addresses .
Matter fact,all the feedbacks were removed once proof of account sales were sent to Sho.Cryptodevil might as well do the same.There is really no point in bragging ,work it out with crypto devil.
Matter fact,all the feedbacks were removed once proof of account sales were sent to Sho.Cryptodevil might as well do the same.There is really no point in bragging ,work it out with crypto devil.
Why on earth will I PM cryptodevil?
Because you're the one making wild assumptions from a third-party quote?
I could not understand your Chapter 3 reference. What does it mean?
Can't help you there. I don't understand it either.
Having said that, you claimed that cryptodevil defied a forum rule but you failed to substantiate this claim. Can we now get back on topic and conclude that no forum rule was defied, violated, broken, or otherwise abused here?
Of course cryptodevil defied a forum rule. Account trading is allowed here, while he is claiming the end result is still about deception and using his framed logic to leave -ve feedback on an account. He could at most leave a neutral feedback, saying it is bought. But, if he does not remove his feedback, then he must be removed from DT. Well, only if the "authority" care.Being allowed to do something and being trusted is not the same thing. Otherwise we wouldn't need any trust system at all. Moderators can ban offenders, i.e. "not banned" would be equal to "trusted" (same as ~DefaultTrust).
I wouldn't worry about dooglus, he's already being dealt with. Just wait for Chapter 3, I hear it's going to be good.
I could not understand your Chapter 3 reference. What does it mean?Having said that, you claimed that cryptodevil defied a forum rule but you failed to substantiate this claim. Can we now get back on topic and conclude that no forum rule was defied, violated, broken, or otherwise abused here?
Of course cryptodevil defied a forum rule. Account trading is allowed here, while he is claiming the end result is still about deception and using his framed logic to leave -ve feedback on an account. He could at most leave a neutral feedback, saying it is bought. But, if he does not remove his feedback, then he must be removed from DT. Well, only if the "authority" care. The default trust does seem to imply trust of people that could potentially not be on the up and up. But it should also be in every new accounts mind to read how the forum works and understand as many aspects as they can before running into a signature like so many do.
Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.
Thanks a lot for your insightful comment. How much you earned for this "constructive" statement? 0.00007 BTC?Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.
You concerned for my financial outlook,you can always donate to me if it worries you so much.
Why should I address the obvious,when threads like this are a dime a dozen. People buy cheap accounts and contact people that left negative comments and get no where,so they cry in meta for change. Nothing ever comes of it and nothing should,or the whole point of leaving trust goes up in smoke.
Besides I thought it was leaning more in line with you than not,interesting you took offense to it.
Sorry I did not pick up a banner like you and QS and scream about dooglus,or is there only one person doing that?
Anyways thanks for the feedback Bill Gates its nice to know some one really cares here.
The OP didn't get the neg for an account sale so your "all or nothing" fallacy doesn't even apply.
It is not a fallacy. It is logic. Selective marking only endorse partiality. Moreover, as per OP, cryptodevil stated the following, where it is clear, he is against the forum rule of account trading and wont remove the negative because of this reason, not the one for which he left it initially...I don't care what your reasons are for buying an account, the end result is still about deception.
That's a whole lot of assumptions from a short quote like that. Why don't you PM cryptodevil and ask for an explanation before jumping to conclusions.
But the OP as asking to remove the rating because of the alleged sale. There is no rule about that, in fact the only trust-related rule I can find is the one that states trust is not moderated. So again, which rule is being defied and how exactly?
Trust is definitely not moderated and no one is asking mods to moderate cryptodevil's feedback. What is being asked is to deal with dooglus, who is sitting in DT level 1 and recruiting one after another nonsense. FYI, DefaultTrust has been moderated before. Read about CITM, escrow.ms, Tradefortress, lophie, master-p, friedcat and many others who have glorified the DefaultTrust before.I wouldn't worry about dooglus, he's already being dealt with. Just wait for Chapter 3, I hear it's going to be good.
Having said that, you claimed that cryptodevil defied a forum rule but you failed to substantiate this claim. Can we now get back on topic and conclude that no forum rule was defied, violated, broken, or otherwise abused here?
The OP didn't get the neg for an account sale so your "all or nothing" fallacy doesn't even apply.
It is not a fallacy. It is logic. Selective marking only endorse partiality. Moreover, as per OP, cryptodevil stated the following, where it is clear, he is against the forum rule of account trading and wont remove the negative because of this reason, not the one for which he left it initially...I don't care what your reasons are for buying an account, the end result is still about deception.
That's a whole lot of assumptions from a short quote like that. Why don't you PM cryptodevil and ask for an explanation before jumping to conclusions.
The default trust does seem to imply trust of people that could potentially not be on the up and up. But it should also be in every new accounts mind to read how the forum works and understand as many aspects as they can before running into a signature like so many do.
Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.
Thanks a lot for your insightful comment. How much you earned for this "constructive" statement? 0.00007 BTC? Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.
But the OP as asking to remove the rating because of the alleged sale. There is no rule about that, in fact the only trust-related rule I can find is the one that states trust is not moderated. So again, which rule is being defied and how exactly?
Trust is definitely not moderated and no one is asking mods to moderate cryptodevil's feedback. What is being asked is to deal with dooglus, who is sitting in DT level 1 and recruiting one after another nonsense. FYI, DefaultTrust has been moderated before. Read about CITM, escrow.ms, Tradefortress, lophie, master-p, friedcat and many others who have glorified the DefaultTrust before.
The default trust does seem to imply trust of people that could potentially not be on the up and up. But it should also be in every new accounts mind to read how the forum works and understand as many aspects as they can before running into a signature like so many do.
Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.
Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.
The OP didn't get the neg for an account sale so your "all or nothing" fallacy doesn't even apply.
It is not a fallacy. It is logic. Selective marking only endorse partiality. Moreover, as per OP, cryptodevil stated the following, where it is clear, he is against the forum rule of account trading and wont remove the negative because of this reason, not the one for which he left it initially...I seriously doubt that you have the authority to speak for "the rest" but there is absolutely nothing preventing you from doing ~cryptodevil, or ~dooglus, or ~DefaultTrust.
Yah. I dont have any authority here. But all I can tell you, once upon a time, I used my resources to bring people to Bitcointalk. Now, I use the same resource to take people to forum.bitcoin.com. Even sirius said there that he regrets his decision to hand over Bitcointalk to current "authorities".Regarding the issue with Bitcointalk, doing ~cryptodevil, or ~dooglus, or ~DefaultTrust, would have solved the problem, if newbies were not forced feed to wear DT. But, as long as the newbies are forced feed to wear DT, "authorities" can not disown their responsibility rectify the mafia like activity by certain DT members.
Nopes. This is not between SpanishSoldier & cryptodevil. It could be, if cryptodevil was not on DT level 2. But, DT level 1 members are hand picked by "administrators" as loyalty reward. There is no algorithm behind it. And DT level 2 members are hand picked by DT level 1 members. Hence, if a DT level 2 member is defying a forum rule, "administrators" can take step to remove the DT level 1 guy, who has chosen the problematic DT level 2 member.
What is the forum rule that cryptodevil is "defying"?
Can you quote the applicable rule from here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657
18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.
How exactly is cryptodevil "defying" this rule? It doesn't say anything about an obligation to remove trust ratings after an account sale or anything else that would apply here. Except maybe the "discouraged" part, which is the lesson to learn here.
But the OP as asking to remove the rating because of the alleged sale. There is no rule about that, in fact the only trust-related rule I can find is the one that states trust is not moderated. So again, which rule is being defied and how exactly?
Jump to: