Anyone? Or maybe they're not using a bounty manager?
This is the best example, how some members use misrepresented facts to their advantage.
Like Izormood used the 51% attack on Mona coin to drop scam accusation and flag on Livecoin exchange.
Iconfirm (
Blurryeyed) is now taking advantage that I am wearing Livecoin signature to attack me on the forum, threaten me and tries to break my threads or at least discourage others from commenting with his posts, which were removed by moderators as an off-topic.
I never knew
Iconfirm (
Blurryeyed) and had no interaction with these accounts on the forum but suddenly he shows up in my new thread
Will 2019 be a record year for crypto scams? and started to attack me about the Livecoin signature I am wearing. When I saw these comments I have sent a PM to
Iconfirm and explained myself, why I participate in this campaign. Additionally, I asked him to refrain from accusations in my (not related) threads because there are already special once about Livecoin campaign, like this one for example. I thought it would be the best way to communicate and explain everything.
I don't have these PM's anymore but I have written that first, he should do something with his own reputation before he starts to point fingers on me and to do some research because I participated in the first edition of Livecoin campaign and was in opposition to the first flag created by Izormood. Commented a few times in the accusation thread to defend Livecoin exchange and show my point of few to these accusations but not only. I keep using Livecoin exchange from the beginning and never had a single problem. The flag created by Izormood was removed and a new edition of Livecoin campaign started. Member Izormood got his account back and Livecoin team told us that they will think about the TOS rules change. So all the reasons for the flag dropped in my opinion. Additionally, this scam accusation should be taken as a support issue because only one very complicated case is not enough to call such a big exchange with thousands of happy customers a scam (in my opinion of course).
I am the only one who was wearing the Livecoin signature without incentive for almost 3 weeks (check spreadsheet), despite red paint threats and blacklists from known campaign managers.
I was enrolled from the first week but removed myself to not get paid because I have heard accusations that everybody is doing this only for the money and wanted to show that this is not the case and there always will be members (like me), which will do it only to show support or a different point of view. That was all I have written in my first PM to
Iconfirm more or less.
To my surprise, just after this PM, I got red paint from
Blurryeyed. That was a little suspicious to me and just after the first look on the reputation page of
Blurryeyed, I found that they are alts and there are multiple scam accusations against them. At some point, there were 30 alt accounts created by this member and used on the forum. Today nothing changed and he keeps doing this (to his advantage), giving red paint to other members or lying in trust annotations or different threads from his alt accounts, like in my case actually.
When I found this, I wrote a second PM, this time to
Blurryeyed. Told him what I have found and asked to stop because if not then I will start digging in his accounts too and paint them red for using alts to red paint others and lie in the trust annotations. Just after I have sent this second PM, another red paint hit my account, this time from
Iconfirm account. Additionally, he lied in the annotation that I have alt accounts and am meriting myself (which is total bullshit). As a reference in trust annotations, he used a link to an old accusation thread against me, where I was accused but never proved beyond any doubt and got a neutral rating from Marlboroza back then.
I have edited my post and added this screen to show these red paints but I see that the annotation from
Iconfirm was changed from "alt account farmer and merit abuser" to only "merit abuser" which of course is not true. This is also done for a purpose to not be accused of lying in trust annotations, like in the first original one. Both annotations were published on the same day (one after another) and now is four days difference between them.
Now he accuses me here in this thread to be threatening him in my PM's.
This is just too much and shows exactly how one can show facts in a different light to use them against somebody additionally using alt accounts and pure lies.
