Topic: Douglus should remove cryptodevil from DT due to conflict of interest - page 5. (Read 9065 times)

Thread was not about you,maybe why no one is addressing you till you injected yourself into the discussion on the first page.
Lets keep it on point and keep the push on Cryptodevil to stop threatening people with negative trust for posting in the forum.
Just because its in a sub section he disapproves of does not give him the right to harass people in this way. He is on a branch of his own
when it comes to this trust issue and I hope you do not follow him off the cliff.

The alt talk is fun,I like to try to connect you,mexxer-2 and Luptin together sometimes as well. But that is just discrediting you and what you stand for. If I am alt and you are a alt,lets agree that the other has to post evidence of such before we slag each other in the future.
Think you where addressing some one else though,so no offense taken.

You are just to lazy to look at the reference of the feedbacks i left, otherwise you would see i tag people that advertise. A few members contacted me to speak about it and some feedbacks got removed. So far the only one of the "whining fraction" who did at least some research is Your Point Is Invalid, he contacted me about some feedbacks. all others are only posting and crying but they dont do anything at all.

If you still think ponzi = gambling, any discussion with you doesnt make any sense.

I dont care about my name, i suggested several times before to ignore me and to exclude me from your (or others) trustlist. So far only two users did: Quickseller and Joel_jentsen (if i remember correct).

PS: The style of writing fits some other users here and its obvious you use that account because you dont have the balls to post from your main. So the questions is: who are you?

PPS: How about researching stuff first and than posting?

You sent me two pm's, one concerning a referenced thread which the user had since deleted but hadn't asked me to remove their rating, and another which you wrongly marked as referencing a deleted post, when it wasn't.

So still swinging and missing on the evidence front when it comes to accusing me of being wrong.

Did i not send you a number of PM's which saw you remove at least one trust rating?

Urgh!
Again with the, "I've seen . . ." and "when I look at . . ." - Evidence or shut the fuck up you tedious infant.

So you defend it on the basis of being 'pretty sure'? How about those pm's I get from people who genuinely didn't understand what they were sending money to? I've also mentioned that there are many users of this forum who struggle to understand English and are prone to misunderstanding what the 'investment' they are getting involved with actually is. So that disproves your weak claim that 'everybody' knows what they are sending money to.

So you're saying you are familiar with a reasoned rebuttal but demand that you be allowed to persist with knowingly posting fallacious argument instead because . . .reasons?

Sure, sounds legit.

This'll be 'literally' as in, 'Completely fabricated assertion', more commonly known as a lie or, colloquially speaking, utter fucking bollocks.

Hahahaaaa! That is a genuinely funny example of taking mangled reasoning to the extreme, QS. It has to be QS, right? I've only encountered one person on this forum who routinely tries floating those kind of stinkers when lashing out about being held to account for his scammy behaviour and QS is the master of it.

Naw I'm pretty sure I know what it means
Also, I'm 99.99% sure that any request, from a message made by QS will go to doog's bin

mexxer-2

You should look up what ad-hominem means before posting

---

dogie

You think I should risk the retribution that will result of my speaking out against cryptodevil? This guy is literally giving negative trust for asking questions in threads that compete with Just-Dice. There is a reason why 1^st world countries have whistle-blower laws that allow people to report ethics violations without revealing their identity, publicly or not.

The question of if alts should be allow is off topic here. If you wish to discuss this topic then I propose you discuss it here

---

cryptodevil

It is not necessary for dooglus to collaborate with you regarding this issue for it to be unethical to allow you to remain on his trust list. For as long as dooglus will benefit from your actions it will be unethical for him to allow you to remain on his trust list. If your trust ratings are really a benefit to the community then surely someone else will add you to their trust list

Douglus knows how to hide evidence of collaboration anyway, this is very clear from his history, so I do not anticipate any admin being able to find evidence of collaboration.

So you do admit that your behavior does benefit Just-Dice then?

---

Coinonomous

I believe that double posting is against the forum rules. Please refrain from posting twice in a row

---

Mist

I agree. In addition to the clear conflict of interest here, Cryptodevil acts very immaturely, lacks communication skills and is unable to respond to any kind of criticism without launching personal attacks against the person criticizing him. None of these attributes are descriptive of someone whose trust ratings should show up by default. How is someone who wishes to dispute a negative rating issued by Cryptodevil suppose to have a conversation with him when Cryptodevil acts the way he does?

---

whywefight

You are naive to think that asking questions equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that including a statement that says that a ponzi will eventually scam equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that posting about a gambling experience equates to scamming people.

I think it is fairly clear that you are attempting to make a name for yourself.

P.S. are you an alt of TrillMyWatch? The naming convention of your username and his username matches, and TrillMyWatch has exchanged what is clearly fake trust with alts of ManyProofs.

---

xetsr

Not long ago master-P stole over $10,000 from various people. Several people threatened to have him doxed if he did not repay what he stole from them. master-P ended up returning all of the money he stole from a few people (while keeping all of the money he stole from other people). Do you think when people posted that they received a refund from master-P that they were supporting him, or maybe do you think they were merely posting their experience with him, and the status of their debt?

You are also correct in saying that Cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who ask questions in a ponzi thread. This is clearly not showing support for said ponzi, however it does discourage them, or anyone else from participating in said ponzi, while encouraging them to gamble their money in other crypto gambling sites, such as Just-Dice.

---

leowonderful

Cryptodevil is not giving negative trust to the scammers who run ponzi schemes. Cryptodevil is not giving negative trust to those who run ponzi schemes disguised as a legitimate investment. Cryptodevil leaves negative trust to anyone who knowingly sends money to a ponzi hoping to receive some kind of return before the ponzi ends up scamming. Cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who choose to gamble at sites that are not Just-Dice

---

everyone else

If you agree that Cryptodevil should be removed from dooglus's trust list, and from the Default Trust Network, then I would suggest that you send a PM to dooglus

And you sound like you've spent a lot of time on the jref forum, but you can save it because those tedious rebuttals I've heard so many times before.  It's your attitude that makes you an asshole and someone on DT ought not try to bully others the way you're doing.  And of course I don't expect you to ever agree with me or to see this behavior in yourself and so I'm not going to cite references for you.  Your present behavior is proof enough that you're "out of control" for someone on DT.

Its a bad look to have cowboys giving out justice without knowing if some one is guilty of operating a ponzi, he goes farther by threatening any one that posts in the thread. Then comes in here and lips off any one that thinks he is a asshole.
If you think trust is overused just wait till he starts having a bad day and extends to other forms of gambling. Every forum cop spawns 2-3 copycats that go one step farther and it snowballs.
If you think cryptodouchebag is a good guy you are a dumb fuck! Sorry about my tone, just want to be friends.

Which ones? I did a quick check and noticed he was tagging those posting proof of payment or claims to have been paid, both which can be seen as showing support depending on how you wanna look at it. No idea why he would just leave feedback for others simply asking questions or etc in a ponzi thead.

What the OP is saying is pretty indirect. I never even looked at it that way before. It's unlikely, but it could be that way. I have nothing against cryptodevil and I think he's a good person. I don't see why he should be removed from DT, although red trust is something I think people should give less of.
Ponzis are all scams and i'm pretty sure everybody in the gambling section knows that if they know anything about doubling anything. The + to - trust given ratio is pretty out of balance though.. But most of it is correct or partially correct, so cryptodevil's given trust is correct.. for the most part.

The problem is, I've seen some of the feedback that you have left, and when i look at the references for some, i dont see how the users are directly posting support

Talk a lot about people not seeing things for what they are ,how about your perspective of private messages from people you have threatened!
Negative trust on a new account is a threat,especially if it is unfounded and you are using people under duress as a example of how much good you are doing. It would be like holding some one hostage and having them praise Allah. So much for that agrument.

Out of Control to me would be pure trolling of any one that thinks differently and carrying forward with the agenda of bully tactics in a sub forum.
What you think is right does not give your permission to threaten people for using a part of the forum that is established by the forum. You have a issue you should take it up with them not every one in it.

PM's I have received prove that you cannot know that everybody who participates understands what a ponzi is so, therefore, your assertion is false.

Posting support in a ponzi thread implies legitimacy, especially from established forum members. This is what the ponzi scammers need you to do and, by doing so, you encourage other people to deposit which is pretty much the reason why you do it. Don't pretend you're too stupid to understand even that basic principal. This means you are intentionally helping scumbags run a scheme which *will* result in people having their money stolen.


I keep hearing you lot use that phrase. I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

Please, go ahead, define 'out of control' for me. Surely, for me to be 'out of control' you would be able to offer up evidence of how I am on a rampage of abusive and outrageously unfair issuing of negative rating to users?

Surely, on the basis of just how frequently you muppets and puppets employ that phrase, you'd actually have some fucking evidence to support it?

No?

I see you crying for days but not offering a solution, except for Your Point Is Invalid who took a few minutes to review some of the ratings. If you think ponzis are okay you are free to do so but as stated before, and maybe you just need to read it: i belive operators and supporters are scamming people. If i think so i am free to do so.



Come up with something better, and i will join you.

EDIT: Also, personally, i dont tag people that are posting in those threads i tag users who advertise them. But yeah, why read when its easier to moan.

THIS. EXACTLY THIS.

I agree with this and I don't agree with YPII much.  He's out of control.

Posting in a ponzi thread is not scamming

The thing about Ponzi's is you know what you get when you use them. It's VERY clear.

scamming people is not equal free speech.