Topic: mexxer-2, Lutpin, and EcuaMobi are destroying this forum. - page 2. (Read 4474 times)

. . .from the money stolen from other users.

So you're claiming yourself to be trustworthy in the face of admitting you sought to profit from theft?

Interesting reasoning.

Your personal text states different but i think you are at least 50% awsome as i am.

You're right, it is. But, why am I spartacus and youwon is the roman army?
Wasn't he the one wanting to start a "revolution"?

I think that's Spartacus but the picture doesn't really make it clear

You tried to lure people to the site, with your reviews aswell as your personal text, that also was shown besides your posts outside of the investor-based games section.
The only reason that site was abled to pay very good "even [if you] didn't put money in" is, because of the coins they got/wanted to get from those who "invested".

And that wasn't already predictable? Tell me, did you really have no clue that was going to happen?

Nope.

---

Tell me more about this revolution.
I'm no student of history, but that's the Roman Army, right?
The Roman Empire always stroke me as conquerors and imperialists, not as revolutionists.

As someone who has been negative trusted by Lupin and Mexxer and others for:



I feel the punishment far exceeds the crime. My promotion of the scheme involved having in my personal text - 'Best Faucet - referral link' and posting positively of my experiences in the Coin Generator thread when they were positive - the site was paying out and I was on course to break even or make a profit (the point of gambling surely). The site was a very good faucet even for people who didn't put money in (approx. 0.0006 BTC per day for logging in and completing a captcha every so often) and the personal text achieved me a grand total of 0 referrals.

As soon as the site turned to scam - the admin disappeared and the site was unreachable I posted that it was as such and posted the amount I had lost (13 mBTC) and removed the personal text because it was incorrect.

Now I have 4 negative feedbacks for the same thing which has a triple punishment

1) it will exclude me from a sig campaigns if I was inclined to go for them,
2) I have lost BTC from the scam
3) forever my account will be deemed untrustworthy

All for stating my honest experiences of the site at the time of posting - nothing I said was a lie or an exaggeration.

The site owner who actually scammed and stole from people only has the one punishment with the account being forever trustworthy but they'll just buy another one.

Now I am not crying wahh wahh just showing what the affects of the Self-Appointed Ponzi Police - far better than the HateLeague imho - can have on a member, and I'm not going to debase myself by going to them and begging for the negative to be removed as some (Cryptodick) want people to do.
I have changed my default trust level to 0 and now the forum looks a lot nicer without the nasty red tags showing everywhere. If I need to check someone's trust I have to click on their profile and look that way - worth the hassle I feel.

A negative should be given if a member has actually lost BTC or goods from another, otherwise a neutral would be better served.

On this forum will soon revolution.  

It has nothing to do with his trust list, it has to do with his showing of public support for u guys and your decisions

Spread FUD? Haha you clearly know nothing of what you are talking about! Shutup peasant! Something terrible must of happened in your life for you to come out this way, completely against humanity and what is right. Damn you, evil soul! Why shall anyone even consider sharing power with your pathetic brain.

Leave the forum!

But how should OgN do anything about it?
Even if he was to exclude mexxer or me from his trust list, it would need a second DT1 member doing the same to kick us off DT2.

---

Quoting it for future reference.

lol you misread the post, he is disappointed because of OgNasty's stance against the hateleague's constant abuse

I am also disappointed

Psst, little info: We're on the trust list of Blazed and OgNasty has nothing to do with us being on DT.
If you want to spread FUD, at least address the right person.

@OgNasty

Yet another person fucked over by your scamming behaviours. Wasting people's time and money and trust on this forum that they've worked hard to earn.

Shame on you. How are Lutpin and mexxer-2 still on DT? OgNasty I think everybody is disappointed with you.

Of course... if you point them out, you are a troll 
You can't seem to win with these people, they seem to live in their own default DT world... congrats admin, mods and dt default trust members... you are all on the way to destroy this forum

Well I'm following the opinion of you trolls, can't speak for others

Two scam accusations against this Hero member now, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/be-warned-hero-member-scammer-esotericizm-1379681

Still no neg rep from ANY DT1 or 2... this proves CLEARLY that the system doesn't work with the trust abusers currently in DT1 and 2.

Enough said.

I think you are approaching the question wrong. There are three potential status of a person/account when engaging in a trade:

1) the person can be trusted with the amount in question and it is safe to send first to this person. This most likely means that this person has some level of positive trust and trading history.
2) the person is not safe to send first to because there is a limited amount of information about their character, most likely because they have not engage in many/any trades in the past. If you use someone in category 1 (preferably strongly so) to act as an escrow/middleman then you most likely will be safe trading with this person because funds will not be sent to them prior to goods/services being received.
3) the person is a scammer. There is a good chance that a scam attempt will be made against you even if you agree to use a middleman/escrow. It is probably a good idea not to even try to do business with this person and if you do you will likely waste your time.

Person 3 is the only person who should receive negative trust. Person 1 is who you are asking for examples of that received negative trust. However person 2 should not receive negative trust even if he does not have a strong trading history.  


That person previously had negative trust from everyone mentioned in the OP but has since been removed. I would not personally trust him though.
 

Read my request again.  You failed on your first attempt.

You might need to google the meaning of the word "corrupt". What a joke. OgNasty is among the most trusted users here. Just because he dont write what you like to read he is now a bad guy. Please dont stop posting, it keeps a smile on my face.