Topic: DT trust ABUSE by people here. Needs attention at once before goes out of hand - page 5. (Read 1904 times)

Yes, I'm on DT. The lemons example was an extreme example of it not being trust abuse as long as its truthful. You can flag someone for being an account farmer, an account seller, or owning multiple accounts for example, all of those things are commonly done. They don't mean that they are scammers, but it is a factor that some people consider worthy of note when determining trustworthiness. Behavior traits that people may find undesirable can also be worth mentioning on someone's feedback if it is a factor that someone might want to know about that person before dealing with them.

People will disregard the negative feedback if they don't care, or they'll avoid trading with you if they feel that any perceived negative trait is valid and a risk.

So people can get red trust for saying lemon without it being an abuse of the trust system?

I want to address his specific reason I am not interested in lemons right now.

I want to hear the specific reason and I want to hear it in detail.

I don't want to address lemon hate right now.

Are you a DT member too?

Sorry but this is getting stranger and stranger by the moment.

Yes.

I wouldn't have thought it should if you weren't so eager to dig your hole deeper with ever-crazier conspiracy theories. Now I'm less sure of it.

That's my best guess.

There's this thing called time zones. Get a good night's sleep and come back tomorrow to do the shredding.

I'd say that if marlboroza was seeking revenge for stats then LoyceV and DdmrDdmr would be red up the wazoo so your theory sounds quite implausible.

For the record, I don't know if marlboroza weighs 300 pounds or 239. It was a joke in response to your request to "bring him".

The only thing that really is trust abuse is lying, with a few exceptions. Neither of your negative feedbacks say anything about doing a trade with you, it just says that you are annoying. Its not really abuse.

If I left you a negative because you said the word lemon, and I have a deep seeded hatred for lemons, its not really "abuse" as long as I don't say, this guy scammed my cat! The feedback that you got is subjectively accurate. My judgement might be called into question over giving out negatives to those who say lemon, but as long as the feedback is transparent and not dishonest, its not really abuse.

Not all negative feedback is weighed equally. Some people have negative feedback for being racist, account farming, owning multiple accounts,being annoying, scamming etc.

Yeah he comes in from searching his own name he mispelled on some obscure search engine  exactly as i mispelled it only few hours earlier and said the thread descended into " my first statement " then " something close  to my second statement " and nothing like anything you said and he was either quoting  you or nobody?  and I was totally off chart to consider he was quoting me??

this gets red trust

thats you account of what happend???

You are protecting this action??

Do you understand how MAD that sounds in the full context of that thread. Please control yourself on these ludicrous statements.

This is diabolical and worse that 300lbs of DT abuse is hiding constructing some junk excuse. Get him here at once. I will tear his argument to shreds within 5 seconds his entire premise is a lie. He is hating on me for stats I did not specifically request and be did not want to go through the 10 highest meriters filter. You are not meant to use DT trust for silencing people or revenge for simply pulling stats both subsets of which i did not even request.

If he has not removed it in short order I will not stop from requesting  EVER his removal from DT regardless of what he does. He has a few hours to do the right thing or bring his case here.

Wow. Ok. I said "IF he's quoting anybody that WOULD be me". That's very different from "he's quoting me" (see the usage of double quotation marks here; it doesn't mean anybody said that). The following sentence matters too. It clearly states that I don't think this was intended as a literal quote.

It hadn't occurred to me yet that you misinterpreted the double quotation marks.

Are you saying he is insane too i mean why would he say the thread has descended into red tag lauda in quotes something i said and then put in quotes something nobody said??? is he nuts?  Or perhaps he confused or mutated asskisser which i did say into something more offensive???

You said iif it anyone it was at you. So stop changing it. You are either crazy or you are lying to cover for this abuse.
Either way I will insist such a person needs to be out of DT too if you continue to fabricate such obvious nonsense and lies.
This is the most unbelievable nonsense I have ever seen postulated ever.

You said if anyone he was quoting you (suchmoon) but you never said anything like that.... now he is quoting nobody .... ??

it is obvious he quoted my first statment and deliberately misquoted me on the second statement as I said.

Well when I said he was misquoting me why did you not say..... that is not you he is quoting.... you said you can prove i said it.

Now run along and send the the 300lb of DT abuse here to answer for himself.

You too are part of this abuse because you are protecting it and enabling it.

The point of being in positions of trust here is to be OBJECTIVE and look reasonably and sensibly at the evidence. The account of events you are trying to introduce from mad fantasy to reality are a gross gross misjudgement or deliberate mutation of observable events.

I have heard enough to see you are either crazy or have no concern for presenting a sensible and credible case. You will be next for review on suitability for DT this is not a joke at all. This is a serious case of abuse and you are protecting it with fantastical nonsense almost like blantant lies if I knew you are fully sane I would be already calling for your removal based on this.

Review it again in full.... that entire thread you started... I think you are drunk or having an episode. Either way if you do not revise this absolutely crazy nonsense explanation you are just as bad.

Hmmm... seems you have a very persistent comprehension issue. I think I clearly said numerous times, including in the post that you just quoted, that the text in double quotation marks is not attributed to anyone.

I'm trying to help you out here because I don't think you deserve red trust just for being an annoying troll but since you insist on being a lying cunt I should probably stop caring. Have fun.

He said

."..so thank you for inviting me to this valuable and sensible discussion which moved from "cryptohunter's problem with the top 200 merit receivers" to "tag Lauda!" and "Lauda stuck it in TP's ass ""


the first thing is what I clearly said ..... so you expect me to believe that I also said TP is ass kissing Lauda  and that second quote was for you? lol now you realise you said nothing like it and change your story that is was to nobody.

You are absolutely mad to say this kind of thing and think anyone would even dream that could be true. You must be insane to believe this is even slighly believable

Come to the real world.

Bring the 300lbs of abusing the trust system here at once. Hiding up with no evidence and scared to come and be put under some sensible investigation and analysis for his actions.

I want him removed because I will never let it drop ever. He will have this abuse brought up as FACTUAL EVIDENCE  forever.

Your account of this is honestly so crazy and so dishonest I think you should get neg trust for even thinking people could believe this nonsense. I will request you are removed for enabling such dishonest abuse next so make sure not to be so obvious in making up blantant lies as a cover story.

I don't see it attributed to anybody, that's the point. It's a clearly sarcastic exaggeration. Quotes are in quote tags. Double quotation marks can be used among other things...


He's like 300 pounds, there's no way I can lift him.

I could be wrong but i think the Trust status has to do with only  "Trust related subjects". I am not talking about DT only, i am talking about leaving a feedback in general should be related to someone being trustworthy or not based on at least a "Trade" of any sort of goods or services be it physical or digital.

A few months ago I had a lot trading with many members on the forum, i was buying Bitmain coupons, bought couple hundreds of coupons and I had a nightmare checking the integrity of the trust feedback for many users.

some had a bunch of RED flags simply because they like to be  assholes to others and they were tagged for simply that reason, but when i check their feedback that is related to buying/selling on the forum they had positive tags, and the same goes the other way around.

I think we should have a sub trust system like a "cool meter"  for tagging people you like / people you do not like /   trolling people / names you dislike or simply for whatever reason you see fit  . and leave the current trust for mostly business related so that we can easily filter the worthy of doing business with. because really I could care less if the person I am dealing with is an asshole as long as he keeps their promise and keeps their end of the deal.

It is clear that it is meant to be what i said on that thread.

1. you never said anything related to TP or lauda anywhere near that context so why would it refer to you at all??

2. I said tp was an ass kisser of laudas and provided evidence. which he accepted took place but denied it constituted ass kissing.

That is logically aimed at me. Wtf why would  it be a quote of something you didnt say at all or even like anything you said ...when what I said is not that same thing at all but could be exagerated to that at a gross stretch....but you never mentioned in that thread anything like that at all.

Are you seriously telling me he was aiming quoting something you didnt go near mentioning? ... get real. Nobody could accept that explanation because you never said anything like that.

Then when I said he was misquoting me about that you said you had proof and i said present it.

Which you did not because it did not exist.

I want him to come and explain it in detail now. If not I want to see him removed on the basis of abusing the system to silence presentation of raw data. I would expect any fair analysis would have him getting red trust for this. Flagrant abuse with clear motive.

Where is he hiding anyway letting you come here for him. Bring him here I want to speak with him directly. Hiding up is not helping his case.


The story I am hearing so far.


1. he was browsing for himself on a obscure search engine and happend to mispell his name in the exact way i did and came to that other thread.

2. He notices he is being put under the top 10 meriters removal spot light by chance of course ... cos most ppl search for their own names on obscure search engines and spell it wrong like someone else did that day

3. He uses some strange """""" to misquote suchmoon  who has said nothing similar at all to what he is quoting

4. He thinks I should get red trust because I assumed he was quoting me because I am the only person who said anything related to that quote.

5. I say he misquoted me LIKE HE DID

He says red trust now because false accusation.

I mean even if that unlikely joke is true that is not a reason to red trust when anyone reasonable can see why i would think that.

Cool story bro.

OR

He is pissed at me for being number 1 in the entire forum on that reduction list of the smallest circle

He sees I said he should be put through the 10 top meriters reduction filter that others were being put through on this new thread I did not even start

He turns up and gives me red trust on some trumped up nonsense that is incorrect as revenge for it.





Hmmm i wonder.

He put the thread title in double quotation marks too so if he's quoting anybody that would be me. But the fact is that actual attributed quotes are in quote tags, whereas double quotation marks can have other meanings.

I did, for the actual quotes.

It's not clear at all since the text in double quotation marks is not attributed to you in any way.

Of course it is attributed to me ....he is saying i said this

who else is he saying said it in the context of this thread.... why is he putting it in ""

When i said i never said that you said you could prove that i did say it .... bring the proof now.

It is clear he is misquoting me or provide reasonable explanation who else could be saying said this on this thread???

This is trumped up nonsense to try and silence me when I already said I wanted to stop discussing it several threads ago.

HE needs to provide evidence I deserve this and that this is not a clear attempt to damage my account for his own personal vendetta because he believes being Number 1 on that list. Disgraceful.  The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favour.

Yeah I'm sure that he is very happy to see he is number 1 for receiving the most merits from the smallest amount of people on this board. Im sure that is a great thing for him. Get real please. This is not my fault I actually never requested only top 50 removal

Click on the reference link. It seems quite obvious what the red trust is for.

You seem to be confused about the double quotes. If that's the case, retract your statement and let marlboroza know. The text in double quotes is not attributed to you in any plausible way that I can see.


You seem to be projecting. I doubt anyone on that list is upset about your manipulations thereof.

Look I don't want a counter measure I want to have the exact reason explained in detail of my red trust. He must bring this detailed reason or else I want it removed. I don;t wish for a counter I want it removed.

If he does not provide adequate and logical reason for this he needs to be removed from DT.

This put the entire trust system in question.

I know he is upset about being number 1 on that reduction of the smallest subset list but this is not reason to abuse the trust system.

I'm just telling you what the reference link on your trust rating points to.


LOL, ok that solves my dilemma of whether I should add a counter rating for you. I don't know what else I can do for you when you're so belligerent.

what  are you talking about I can not get red trust for saying you guys need to have your merits passed through the removal of the top 10 merit givers next... the others had theirs done you two should not escape

that is disgusting red trusting me for that. Flagrant abuse of this system.

remove it at once. Or i insist he is remove from DT on the basis of trying to silence me on things he does not like which are factual observable stats.

He miss quoted me in "" also on purpose and you said you could present where I said it ... bring your evidence of accusation or delete your lie  also.

Where is the doctoring also there is none.............bring this evidence at once or you are lying. I can see you are lying clearly from the thread it is there in black and white and you clearly say you can prove i said it. Produce now.

Look at the bottom of his post

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48750243

it is clearly about the merit he is upset about he starts saying i have to contact theymos to remove his 50 points so he is clearly on about the number 1  ranking in loyces top 50 removal chart. How can you claim otherwise looking at his post???

The quotes are actual quotes of your posts. I even posted a video of it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48751102

That seems to be what you got your neg trust for - a baseless accusation of doctoring quotes. Not some made-up merit nonsense that you're so agitated about.

I mean the subject of DT being able to add a red tag next to someone because you don't like them revealing stats on your account.

One example of such Abuse but this is not directly related to only him. I think if he is doing it to silence people many could then adopt this kind of actoin.

This relatively new user marlboroza is trying to silence me presenting or asking for stats not even specifically about him originally it just happened he was number 1 on the entire board.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48689242

The list without Merit sent by the Top 50 Merit Receivers
     1. -49.10% marlboroza earned 558 284 Merit from outside the Top 50 Merit Receivers

Who makes NUMBER 1 SPOTn on the ENTIRE board ...he blames me probably but I actually had no idea it would reveal this about him specifically

For having his merits reduced the most on the entire board. From the smallest subset analysed yet.

Suddenly when another member is demonstrating many have their merits apparently reduce by near 50% by just having 10 peoples merits taken away .... we are talking 100s and 100s of merits.

He come to this thread apparently not because he is stalking me and using my posts as an excuse to spam his high paying sig (which i challenged him to remove for a year if I would do the same) not going to do that is he

He says he was googling his own name on an obscure search engine THAT HE CANT REMEMBER WHICH ONE..but spelled in incorrectly like i had and arrive at my thread. I mean what are the chances?? What kind of mad junk excuses can these people come up with from time travel to this kind of nonsense.

Then  he see's i said I wonder what his own merit score will be when just his top 10 are removed because most of the others stalking me have had theirs done already. Not that I even wanted that thread started (i did not want that one or the one prior started which can be verified) nor to mention it further after I said it was the end of it all on past threads several time.

I mean of course he hates this being already in NUMBER 1 spot for getting so much merit small the smallest subset analysed yet.


such moon now is claiming lower down this thread it is nothing to do with merits.... oh really look at the bottom of his post he is still banging on about all of this
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48750243

over 2 threads after I said I want to stop going on about it since it had all been discussed and we are going around in circles. Then they made 2 new threads about it all mentioning me in the op or thread title and making it about me. Not that I care but then saying I am going on about it is another crazy load of crap they push out and expect me not to notice what is happening.

the post below that is apparently the red trust worthy one

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48750243


Then decides to leave me negative red trust without disproving anything that I have said and trys to then misquote me saying I said things I did not also.

This is flagrant abuse of DT trust and makes the entire system invalid for highlighting scammers.

I would like this new user who seems to abuse this system removed from DT trust unless he can provide a reason why I should have negative trust by defining trolling in the context of all the every single meta thread and this new one and demonstrate anything I have said is wrong.

You can not allow these people to give red DT trust to silence people because they have no answers.

The fact is i had said at least 5 x that I wanted to drop the conversation and they kept making new threads about it and kept asking question about it then said I was spamming for replying to direct accusations and incorrect quotes and misrepresentations of what I had previously said.

This is flagrant abuse of his position which he is clearly not suitable for.

I want him to produce a full and detailed rebuttal of my points of accept it is not trolling and remove the DT trust at once. If he fails that is abuse and he needs to be removed from that position.

No need to comment on this unless you can prove anything that I have claimed is incorrect in detail.

Again bring a full detailed rebuttal of my statements on merit and a full explanation of how after I have said I don't want to discuss it but they are creating more threads and more questions that justifies trolling.

I am not really interested in any other discussions other that specifically on the crucial points here. Comments that do not bring a full and comprehensive argument for the opinions will be ignored since that makes them groundless.

He was not happy about being Number 1 on that reduction list and he is not happy someone started examining scores with just the top 10 removed. He can not give neg trust on some other bullshit when that is clearly the reason.

This is an important thread for the entire DT trust system which also seems like quite a dangerous system leading to central control by a few people.

All action must be explained by him in detail here. I expect to see an iron clad argument for him the motive here is clear and a disgrace.

This is a thread for META - systemic abuse of this DT system and the merit system needs to be attended to directly in his case and in others. I mean if you can prove you do not deserve neg trust it should be removed.

I am not a trader so it does not really damage my account but this is on principle.

Make sure to read all of the previous related threads on this debacle before commenting and I mean all post made in detail. These people are making a mockery of this board all spamming their high paid sigs and acting holier than thou.  I challenged any of them to remove sigs for one year if i did the same  so they can condemn trying to monetise the board with impunity and they all refused.