Topic: marlboroza : trust abuser (Read 844 times)

i think marlboroza and a few others ruined the trust system as theymos had to change it.

before theymos changed it it looked like so bad so many with red text neg trust in most avatars.

i agree most of the time the feedbacks were fair and people deserve them.




just a question. why did theymos change how the trust system looked?


i wouldn't call it trust abuse. but was funny marlboroza giving all the neg. trust back in the day while wearing a fortunejack sig.

i wonder if you ever gave fortunejack any neg. feedback?

as we all know fortune jack isn't on the up n up some of the time.

thanks

There is absolutely no way marlboroza is a trust abuser.

Which part of his feedback exactly do you disagree with? His feedback for you reads:

2019-03-15
Not repaying loan on time. Don't give this user no collateral loan
(https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/solved-and-repaid-marcotheminer-didnt-repay-me-yet-5120044)

2019-10-08
Helping "newbie account" to farm trust and knowingly acts as an escrow in "trust for dust" farming business. Don't trust any feedback sent by this account, trust scores are very likely farmed and fake (http://archive.is/xR5uD#selection-2887.3-2887.86)
(https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/loan-request-00015-btc-5190446)

Not an excuse lol, just showing out different scenarios. MakerDAO is well worth it - 12% a year I think?

MakerDAO might make sense for someone who wants a (very expensive and risky) leveraged long on ETH. DadyD didn't gain any leverage with the BTC-to-BTC loan and the fact that you're still coming up with cockamamie excuses for this is just baffling.

What offend could someone commit to have such negative trust, I'm scared

DadyD admitted to trust farming yes. Risk is mitigate .. trusts will still remain. It is the listing of both accounts as such that I don't feel right. But yeah discussion will keep going on forever, the forum's become a game/life to some people it's a shame. 

I suppose so, but this discussion shouldn't take a week. You disagree with the feedback somebody left, but you have no say over their feedback; end of discussion.


If somebody admits to farming-trust you want no feedback left, or a neutral feedback - you're free to think this way, but almost nobody agrees with you. The risk you are avoiding is being pushed onto the next person that thinks "eh, this legendary helped him out, so why can't I?"

I can reply in a week, that's still keeping my 'promise'.

If a newbie says he's farming trust but wants a loan with collateral - just don't leave him trust. Or better yet make a mark with neutral saying the loan happened and there was 0 risk involved - so "do not take this transaction as evidence of honesty".

@marl I read yahoo's post I'm pretty sure.


How do you not see that I agree with you there? It wasn't a shady request imo (loan with collateral - yes BTC for BTC made people shocked - but have you heard of MakerDAO? Same principle.. You can collateralise ETH to buy more ETH) until DadyD wrote of trust gaining.

Hes an idiot,this pussy once tried to fool us by making a drama leaving the DT circle but look at him now,he has no balls to do what he’s been planning to do (leaving his DT role) abusive like what other cult members,you are wrong TS hes an abuser & a liar

So you quoted bill's post but you didn't actually read it?

---

It didn't change your trust score, you had -9 and now you have -9. What exactly has changed, except that you are not able to read yahoo's post.

Actually, it is funny to see DadyD discussed with yahoo about your reputation while you jumped in thread later and acted like yahoo didn't say anything. Actually, you still act like yahoo never posted anything here.

May I remind you that you are the one who started thread in reputation and pointed to everyone that you tried to (and) help(ed) "newbie" to get trust loan?

Yeah... no, that's not it. Again, you're just trying to save your hide without allowing the possibility that other people repeatedly advising you to not get into shady shit might be right.

That is not your call to make.


You suggested ways for them to obtain the loan, after they explained their intentions of farming trust through unnecessary loans.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52685338

My original post is the 4th reply to this thread, post #5. Above is a link to it, but this is why you should do your best to respond to posts when they are in front of you rather than promising to circle back and never doing so.

Yes, I evaluated my actions. I realise my wrongs, not asking enough questions to the member, and not being clear enough for the whole forum-watchers situation to know my intentions. End of the day, I got caught up in a silly transaction and this was the consequence; so be it. Oh and if by "so many" you mean the DT members on my trust page then sure..

It is a waste of time indeed. Mostly because you're always right and everyone else is wrong. If you learn to step back and evaluate your actions as seen by other users you might have a better chance to figure out why so many users think you're dishonest and "high risk" to deal with.

My aim is to have these 2 recent trusts removed, since they are not necessary..


First, I wasn't helping a newbie farm trust - I suggested how they could obtain a loan (this was their intentions - up until they spoke of gaining trust by completing deals). "Knowingly acts as escrow" > I didn't, when it came to light the trust for deals thing, I pretty soon pulled out - offering to send the BTC to malboroza.

@Malboroza is placing such trust knowing full well the impact it has on my reputation (present and when future members see my profile) and at the time signature campaign payouts (CryptoTalk - removed because of this..).

A neutral feedback outlining how I was caught up in an escrow deal for a newbie looking to gain trust by completing deals can be said, sure. But "helping [...] farm trust", speaking of fake trusts and farming business, is much more than needed.. A genuine slip up brings out the brigade, I get that - but at the same time we notice the 'attack' side of placing these trusts. I'm asking for a neutral standpoint when judging this - malboroza has not done that..

@Bill can you please PM/post your original post I said I'd reply to - I cannot find it.

I know that arguing back and forth is a waste of time. I've explained what's happened and I don't see the need for negative trust at best.

I am not sure, I am "unable to think for myself".

Been busy - replying is in order, but anyway dead end here. One "side" sees things one way and the other sees things differently - neither will compromise (well actually DireWolf did somewhat understand my point of view). @Marlboroza will probably remain firm (stubborn?).

Originally, your concern towards marlboroza was as follows :


Now you're disagreeing with the wording in other ways. You consistently move the goal-post, avoid actual concerns and try to play semantic games like a bad-linguist. "Trust for Dust" is in reference to the minuscule amount of BTC you were in-line to receive for helping a newbie farm trust illegitimately. There's nothing paranoid about that. As I said earlier, you may disagree, think it's exaggerated or uncalled for, but it is not abuse and they have every right to leave you whatever feedback they see appropriate. The reason we have our trust system is that people can either support a DT user's thought-process, exclude them or have no weight in that decision if they choose. You screeching that everyone rate, think and perceive things the way you'd like them to is only digging yourself further down this rabbit-hole.

We already have a few members around here that rant and rave about how everyone and their mother is against them. You're not going to talk your way out of this, they see you and this situation a certain way and it's unlikely that kicking and screaming will change that.

Additionally, you said you would respond to my other comments earlier in the thread and never did.

Now it's just invalid.. "Trust for dust business" well that's a new one at least I'll give you that. Anyway, a bit paranoid in the choice of words to describe this.

No problem.

May I kindly ask you to lock thread now, because feedback is no longer copied and pasted? (It seems this c/p was the only problem you had here, at least I am under that impression after reading topic)

Thanks.