Topic: Do not trust actmyname. - page 5. (Read 23011 times)

I think digaran is talking about this harebrained idea:

Was that in the reference? If so, find it for me:

---

Hint: it's not there.

I'm not the one that tagged Slow death. IIRC, it was either cryptodevil or Vod. I later added a neutral feedback, yes, but that was more of a "soft" positive feedback. You're also making a false equivalence here but clearly, that's gone over your head.

Okay, sure. But your methods aren't good for the forum if they let scammers come back with a simple payment: that's my problem.

I have never asked users for money to remove tags and I never will.

Don't bring in false equivalences.

Shame on you. have some decency man/woman. you are getting paid some shitcoin for your posts, at least try to earn it by staying fair. don't post garbage and don't say garbage just to get paid some garbage coins. everything about you smells like a garbage.

Note: this member's PM says that he signs all important messages, don't get scammed. one has to wonder, what would be so important about a member rank with 33 merits? 

Bullshit lol... you tried charging .02 btc for your useless "service" and when people called you out on it you decided to make it free to save face. You are already known as a massive troll and are almost reaching Game Protect levels of trolling. Every single red tag on you was your own doing and making threads like these won't remove it. At this point nothing will so you should just move on.

IMHO you are still over charging for your services!!!      

Do something concrete like reporting garbage posts and helping the moderators? 
Funny how you are trying to do exactly as I have done, I have asked either for money or garbage reporting, you are also expecting people to attack scams and Ponzis. we both want the same thing: helping this forum and it's community to the best of our abilities. you have your own methods while I have mine.

You are a DT member and I am a nobody, now which one worth more in your own opinion? my actions that has caused me to get tagged red or your actions which has caused you to get on DT?

I believe this is the double standard people were talking about even before all of this starts.

Note that even if you remove your tag on me, people couldn't say that we were colluding and were playing roles just so that I could get 0.02 from people in hopes of them getting their tags removed by me helping their cases because my service is free and will remain for free forever, so I have also removed any doubts for people by making my service a free service. I'm not going to charge a fee ever. how is that for transparency?

You were trying to get them to pay money rather than actually do something concrete.

---

Also, a case that you might want to check out is that of Slow death, who was negged but has since then proved to be someone that is vigilant and on the lookout for scams.

They were initially involved in ponzis, and now they attack ponzis. Funny how that works out, huh?

So, here are my questions:

Am I on DT?
Am I an admin?
Did I actually ask for money to be paid to myself?
Does anybody care about my tag on other people while I'm not a DT member?
Do people submit to the wills of non-DT members just because of the red tags?
Did anyone pay any money to me or even to the forum for that matter?



In the picture above, tell me what is "discussing on the forum to help the community to the best of their ability"?
According to your own logic, why would you consider my action as untrustworthy while all I was trying to achieve was to try and help this forum to the best of my ability, I have said it multiple times that what I was doing is for helping the community and the forum.

I have already stated many times and explained my rationale for the trust feedback.

Do you think that my reason for the negative trust is false? If you believe that the comment, "Wanted to charge people to remove red tags," is false then you can argue that. However, if you're simply going to disregard the most important part of your feedback refutation and lead everyone to conspiracies about the "DT cartel" then clearly the tag should stay.

You can't win a fight alone against a cartel band, the bitcoin talk forum cartel. They are not forum police forces but the cartel of bitcoin talk defending their "business" with all they've got.

Which side is that? I'd invite any forum member to look at my posts on this thread and decide. if they think that I am wrong, they should say it, but why they would think that I am wrong?

I never asked for money for myself, was it wrong to ask for money for this forum? OK I stopped saying that, but actmyname tagged me based on the Timelord2067 red trust after marlboroza already changed his tag on me for the same reason as actmyname's tag on me.

If you guys stop garbage posting here, people could read my posts from start of this topic. stop harassing me @forum police forces.

Anyone (is there actually anyone?) who agrees with him is smart, reputable and should be on DT. Anyone (so pretty much the entire forum) who disagrees with him is a member of the cartel/mafia, an alt of everyone else, and should be removed from DT. In the medical community, we call this type of behaviour paranoia querulans.

As soon as someone is not on your side, they become untrustworthy. Similar to the vein of "no true scotsman" you are trying to surround yourself with people who reinforce your beliefs and trying to reject anyone who does not.

---

Is it possible that HCP had not seen this thread until the cjmoles reply? Yes, but you'll reject that possibility because then it would mean that they are absolved of the responsibility of responding to your thread. The lack thereof, rather, in reality.

I like it how you are quite about my case and would jump in to defend DT2 members when somebody else is accusing them. I might reconsider thinking you as a trusted forum member. you are not neutral and would stay silent when DT2 members are harassing me here.

I still don't see the evidence of this. How exactly did you watch your 5 BTC go to the manager? Do you have transaction details or something?


But your post is claiming that it was yahoo62278 that took your money and gave it to "Chain of Points" and then they exit scammed??!?
But now you're unhappy because actmyname (who doesn't appear to have had anything to do with the "Chain of Points" campaign or ICO) is a trust abuser? I'm confused...


Also, one minor point...
It isn't the campaign that stole the money... it is the scam ICO/project that stole your money... and you seem to be confusing campaign managers with the devs/people behind the scam ICOs. In most of the cases that I'm aware of, the campaign managers are just hired by the ICO/project to post a thread, manage enrollments and then count posts etc... I'm not really aware of many campaigns where the manager is actually one of the project team. They're essentially just a sub-contractor hired to do a job.

Should campaign managers be more picky about the ICOs/Projects that they manager? Probably... should they be held accountable for ICOs/Projects that turn scam? I don't think so (unless they are part of the project team and directly involved in the scam)

What pissed me off is that I watched my 5 bitcoin go directly to the manager and his shills DURING the exit. My BTC went from me to them WHILE the project was exiting---> just like that! Yet they mark me red just for wearing a signature of a brand I believed in, as evidenced by the amount of money I personally spent on the site (https://www.sharkscope.com/#Player-Statistics//networks/WPN/players/cjmToo). So, the problem is that this group actively red marks those who merely wear signatures from other campaigns (operating sites) while they themselves MANAGE campaigns that consistently steal people's money. But instead of marking one another red, they mark one another with green which boosts their credibility and allows them to promote their scams more efficiently.  That's trust abuse....  It isn't a single incident either, it's fraudulent collusion.  They mark others red for things like WEARING signatures of competitive projects while they mark each other green for MANAGING exit scams....they mark others RED for sending too much merit, for not posting professional looking posts for the products their friends are shilling, for having suspected alt accounts....etc.  Yet they mark each other GREEN for managing successful exit SCAM campaigns?   Is that how it's supposed to work?

And my problem isn't with yahoo62278 (I invest a lot and I know the risks involved) ---> My problem is with actmyname because he is a trust abuser.

I didn't mean it like that, to be overly confident. What I was mean to say is that you don't just sit down infront of your computer and do ini miny miney mo and select the 4th person you see and tag them.

No, that's where you're wrong, "fam". I very much think of myself as stupid. If you don't at least think of yourself as unintelligent and lacking in knowledge, then your overconfidence and hubris will surely lead to an unfulfilling time.

But compared to xSplit, I don't think I'm very stupid.

This coming from the guy that didn't bother to read the rules, broke the rules, and now complains constantly because he got tagged for breaking the rules. Lol.

I think he is to be honest fam