Topic: How legit Negative trusted user is on DT! - page 2. (Read 1219 times)

Exactly - thank you mikeywith.

Well even if he was fast enough to do all that in 26 mins, it does not change anything, his feedback is inappropriate and I hope he resolves this issue as soon as possible and stick to tagging scammers because that is what the trust system was made for.

There is no fucking way that he saw this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/abuse-of-trust-power-did-you-make-it-for-this-theymos-5139388 which was created on May 04, 2019, 04:41:30 PM, have read it, went to this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1064824, have read it, checked ALL evidence inside it and wrote this thread on May 04, 2019, 05:07:52 PM, all that in 26 minutes. No way.

Tman should be excluded. Also the risked 99 BTC claim is that correct, because if not...?  Tman thinks you can give out red for presenting observable instances, so he should taste some of that himself.

There is a lot of information here,  but the most important is that your feedback and dogie's on IconFirm is inappropriate  , you can't tag someone just because they said something about you, even if they told lies or wrong information, this is a terrible way of using the trust system, you guys turning the trust system into a complete bullshit, pretty soon it will be 100% inaccurate and real scammers will be lost in between all the mess you creating.

Reposting from another thread:

So if dogie was excluded from DT, you wouldn't see this feedback (or, you would think of it as a "masturbation") and wouldn't start this thread?

Do you think this account should be in DT https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/silverfuture-44611 If yes, why yes if not why not?

You have 2 choices:

1) TMAN's feedback is correct
2) silverfuture's feedback is correct

Who should be excluded? Who should be tagged based on your opinion as DT member?

My bad, sorry about unknowingly altering your username. Eyes can easily be deceived sometimes. ICOFirm doesn't even exist in the forum  

I just checked my PM's & I have indeed got one from @2double0 - it's a "Hello to all whom I'm sending this message" type PM so I presume the user has copy/pasted the same PM to everyone else who tagged the account. Hardly a personal message. It states that the account was never used for spamming so shouldn't be tagged - but I didn't tag it for spamming, I tagged it for promoting a scam exchange. I believe promoting scams is a taggable, as do the majority of forum users. If @2double0 wants to send me a real personal message then maybe we can change the feedback as the account is now not promoting a scam, albeit not by @2double0's choice (thanks to theymos). Other forum members who contacted me politely after they removed the Yobit sig have had their feedback changed accordingly, as can be seen on my profile also.

I wasn't aware that I was on DT & I don't care about it TBH. It makes no difference because I will continue to tag scams & scam promotors as I have always done because I believe it is the right thing to do.

This mess is what happens when tagged scam promotors create stupid threads to moan about their profile being tagged, how upset they are about it, how unfair they think it is & what an asshat the tagger is for doing so - they forget that they are selling their profile for cash to promote a scam that will cause many people a lot of harm & distress.

It's IconFirm, not ICOFirm btw - never done an ICO & never will....lol

From what observed:
- 2double0 made a complaint of how his account has been unfairly negatively tagged perhaps for carrying a yobit signature in the past of which he was no longer carrying given that the campaign had been banned from the forum

- Some people noticed that ICOfirm's IconFirm's tag was cause but then the weird thing was that he was on DT, so Shasan opens up a thread questioning how legit is it that Negative trusted user is on DT
(Not gonna talk about the negative tag from doggie because i wasn't in the forum)

- This caused events that led to ICOFirm's IconFirm's removal from DT
- ICOFirms IconFirm sends Sashan a negative feedback probably because he got pissed due of the outcomes
- Sashan Obviously sends back feedback to ICOFirm IconFirm about how he acted.

Honestly, I never expected such a thing to happen at all. In fact i had even told 2double0 to send a PM to ICOFirm IconFirm to reconsider the feedback, and he says he had already PMed ICOFirm IconFirm

These clashes really do no good to the forum. We are all humans, we do get pissed sometimes off, and we are all prone to errors. Forgiving each other and starting over would be great since no one involved in the drama has scammed anyone(I think).

Hi marlboroza, nice to see you here.

Didn't you know that everyone who hates Yobit scammers is actually me? All those 100's of accounts who got scammed - they're all me!!....LULZ

Yobit was the very first time I left negative feedback for anyone on this forum, nearly 3 years ago now when they scammed me, as can be seen in my profile. I've been warning people about them ever since. Only 6 days after I left that feedback for Yobit I got that stupid tag from that dogie person & have been dealing with it ever since - it's really getting quite boring now.

It's crazy that forum users who try to stop the scams get hounded & tagged by supposedly "trusted" members here. How does that work? LOL

I think the real growth industry is tagging users with similar IPs. 4 billion possibilities there.

Completely unrelated: if there are any scammers reading this - please don't use PIA Vancouver exit node. TYVM.

Interesting underlined sentiment in that picture, that exchange has the same name as this one https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/yobit-scam-accusation-megathread-normal-modus-operandi-or-shady-practices-5134358 


Is DT moving towards tagging users who are tagging scam promoters instead tagging scam promoters?

1. Yes. You changed it from negative to neutral.
2. No. I'm not interested.

The fact that you based your feedback on such a stupid allegation that has absolutely nothing to do with me is reason enough to be tagged. However, as you have changed your stupid feedback to neutral, I shall do the same.

Homework indeed.....lol

IconFirm does not read and/or do not want to read s/he just wants to leave negative if you write anything which may go against IconFirm. 100% trust abuser thanks God s/he has been removed from DT for creating this thread.

I left them neutral feedback which will serve as my view about them. It's not gonna reflect in their trust rating so they are safe.

@IconFirm



1. Are you sure about it (The bold part)?
2. Have you double checked all the feedback I left for the users?

Also, you need to learn when to leave red trust, when to leave neutral and when to leave positive trust. You have not done your homework yet.

Did you give me negative trust without checking that link? I have posted that link on the topic starter. You have no power to read and write you can just give a fake review.

Exactly, him & QS - the trusty dynamic duo:



I really don't care though TBH, there will always be people who believe everything they read.

I'd forgotten all about that thread, it's hilarious! Thanks for reminding me. Did you also forget that you first left me negative feedback before changing it?

I guess I had a sex change since that thread was started 4 years then? My daughter will be very upset when she finds out......

I'd be extra careful with dogie's "investigations". I mean neutral is probably fine but the whole dogie/patman thing reeks of massive ego clash and both sides are using the trust system to settle personal scores. I have excluded dogie years ago for that nonsense but unfortunately he somehow made it back to DT.

Why is this random lovesmayfamilis in DT? DT is starting to look more like a joke with every new rotation.