Topic: nutildah got red trust recent hours. Is the red trust fairly for him? (Read 1520 times)

It is still a valid point no one knows if your account has been sold or not. People can choose what they want to believe but by all other standards applied to the user base here, your account should be red tagged because the fact is there is no way to prove you didn't. Most of the trust police consider the attempt alone worthy of negative rating, but you put in the work washing the right balls, so you get special exceptions.

Just because you made a thread does not mean it would not be used to scam other people, and there is no guarantee any potential victims would see it. The trust toadie brigade are willing to condemn people wholesale for doing exactly the same thing while they laugh in their faces about any excuses, but your excuses... your excuses mean something!

You can dismiss my point-by-point refutation to be "rambling" if you like but again it just goes to show how your judgment is clouded by the vengeful nature of your personality.

OK, now that the entire debate is narrowed down to this one item:

I obviously shouldn't have done it. Being hard up for cash or taking into consideration the possibility that it might not have been "abused by con artists" aren't good excuses. If you think vengeance should be exacted upon me now for making a mistake 3 years ago, an issue for which there is no set precedent, I can't stop you.

The way which I offered my account was extremely forthright, leaving little chance for somebody to successfully use it to conduct a scam. When I applied for a loan several months back, this issue was brought up by the loaner, who asked me to sign a message from the address that I signed earlier in this thread. That was good enough proof for him, so frankly it doesn't matter whether its good enough for you, as we've never conducted business.

I have nothing more to say about this. I'm sure you do though, have at it if you must.

So what part of your rambling makes the fact that you were welling to sell your account to be abused by con artists for profit acceptable?

You should really consider writing in ALL CAPS.


I'm glad you put the word "unknown" in quotes because the real reason is known: the affair happened 3 years ago, and the evidence points to this account not being sold. It doesn't matter to you if I signed 10 different messages from 10 different addresses associated with my account, you will continue to believe it is sold because you have a personal vendetta against me, which is overwhelmingly obvious. You are letting your vindictiveness overcome your ability to be rational, as you are famous for -- not much I can do about that.


Again, what "reputation"? It was a Hero member account back then and I never had a single DT, still don't. I know you won't believe this but it is also possible for peoples' standards to evolve over time, given things like the fact that the crypto space and demand for accounts has grown exponentially since 2016.


  That's a riot! You care far more than what is healthy. You were so distraught over me calling you insane and putting you on ignore that you doubled-down on your insanity, resorting to grade school tactics in an attempt to cast a negative light on me. Its since backfired on you and that's why I suspect you will probably triple-down in the near future.


Oh, I'm following you around, that's also a laugh.


Again, there is no previous instance of this type of situation happening: bringing an attempted account sale to light 3 years after the fact, especially when it has been publicly accessible knowledge the entire time. Thus there is no "standard" for how to deal with it. If I was on the outside looking at this happening to another account, I would consider it extremely petty to tag somebody for this 3 years after it happened. So how did I "put the community at risk"? Oh thats right, there's no way of proving I didn't sell the account, therefore it be sold  

Furthermore, lets say the account was sold: what behavior have I been engaging in that would put the community at risk? You're really reaching for the sake of continuing your battered argument, which has since been shut down repeatedly.

The problem with your logic is that any time anyone attempts to sell an account it is assumed it has been sold, because in spite of what anyone chooses to believe the FACT is there is no way to prove that the account was not transferred. This is the standard the trust police take on this forum, but for some "unknown" reason you get a pass. I wonder if it has anything to do with all the brown on your nose.

What is also a fact is regardless of the time passed, even assuming the account was not transferred, you still publicly admitted you were willing to put the community at risk here by selling your reputation for money. This tells me quite a bit about your standards.

I am sorry to break it to you, but I don't care enough about you to be vindictive. The fact that you follow me around to be extra douchey just makes me not feel bad about exposing you. You do however serve as a convenient tool to demonstrate to this entire forum that there are not only double standards for the "special" people who kiss the right asses, but that those same people passing judgement themselves don't care if you put the community at risk, just as long as it is their brown on your nose.

I have no reputation to remove. As far as my rep shows to you, it should be a nice red color since iCEBREAKER is in your trust list. All for reasons you deem "fair." Also, there is no "standard" for how to deal with a 3 year old attempt at a sale of one's own account, as the issue had never arisen before you made it an issue.

There's also no way to prove to you that the account is still in my hands. There are ways to prove it to other people who are willing to entertain rational thought, but since the whole reason for you being here is because of a personal vindictiveness, you do not fall into this category.


As tecshare has never lost an argument (or even a debate), he will continue posting in this thread for all of eternity. I would say please do and let tecshare open his own thread about me.

Who said they need to? The fact is they do this on a regular basis, especially when it comes to people that speak out about being abused by them and no one ever has an issue with it. Now that it is one of the in crowd suddenly everyone is making excuses for them and defending them, but if it was anyone else they would be red tagged with zero controversy. The fact is Nutilduuh intended to allow this forums users to be robbed because they wanted money. It is also a fact no one knows for sure if it was sold or not, and this would be more than enough justification to totally remove any reputation for that account. Unfortunately there are a set of standards for the trust mob and their toadies, and a standards for everyone else.

Is it time for me to lock the topic, today?
I started the topic, but have not had anything to discuss.
Additionally, the case of @nutildah solved long days ago (two weeks ago).  

     Exactly when did the Pharmacist become a DT member? I'm not certain why us newer Dt members need to sift through old garbage looking for people to tag. I already went through the archived secolgs and did not find that Nutilda changed their password between October 2016 when he opened the thread and August 2017, after he announced the account was no longer for sale. I don't see why any new account holder would not change their password after obtaining the account and attempting to throw us off the scent by announcing the account was no longer for sale. I suppose that original Nutilda could have posted it and then sold it on the down low. However, it already took me an inordinate amount of time to sift through the old seclogs looking for changed password. If anyone cares to take over, so be it. I for one am not going to red tag an account that was offered for sale 3 years ago and then the sale retracted, when it appear to be a case of no harm, no foul.  Perhaps if this was a fresh incident, I would have tagged it.
     

[waves magic wand] aaand debate open again

I never asked for any of your commentary. I did however pose a direct question to Nutilduuh. None of your childish demands that I answer to this weird interrogation designed to distract from the fact that Nutilduuh tried to sell their account change anything.

The fact is Nutilduuh was ready to sell out this user base and expose them to scams for money, and this behavior would be grounds for total loss of reputation if Nutilduuuh wasn't protected by people like you who refuse to act on it and would be ready to act in retaliation if anyone bothered to hold them to the same standards they hold others to.

Eh, okay.  Then don't expect anyone to reply to any of your accusations, as nobody has any obligation to do so.  Debate over.

Well gee, I guess it is a good thing I have no obligation to respond to your contrived interrogation over other people's ratings. I don't know what I would do if I didn't have your approval to move on marlboroza.

I want to hear it from you.


OK, let me try it this way.

You are the one who brought 3 trust ratings into this thread.

Explain to our community, as one of the oldest members here, this:


You have presented 3 examples of trust ratings for people who:

1) spread malware
2) scam
3) run very very fast erc 20 tokens chain whatever

You must have reason why you have mentioned these trust ratings.

So say your reasons why they should or should not be -ve tagged.

That is how normal conversation works.

You say "I agree or don't agree that you have tagged scammer and person who spread malware because..."

After you are done, we will discuss account trading part. It is very important that you answer this before we discuss other part.

Interesting concept. Tell me, why is it I should justify Nutilduuhs own ratings? That was kind of the whole point for bringing them up, to ask Nutilduuh to justify them and tell me why they were not the same as iCEBREAKER's rating. I love the turning everything on its head polar opposite game though where some how I am expected to justify the ratings of other people.

All of your answers are in the last few pages of the thread, but of course you don't really have any questions you are just looking for an excuse to keep the topic sliding away from the fact that your buttbuddy sold their account, and the trust police mob consider this grounds for destroying the reputation of the account if it was anyone else. Of course there are standards for the regular plebeians of Bitcoin Talk, and then standards for those with the golden ass kissing lips. You all here dog piling have no problem digging into the lives of others, but when the roles are reversed suddenly you all become victims.

How about stop changing subject and address this one https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50244857 thank you very much.

Part of post is left out because you didn't say anything at all.

What does it mean?

I am not even saying
your ratings shouldn't have been left
maybe they should
but that is irrelevant.

Should they have been left or not? This is very simple question.

We have:

1)malware
2)scam
3)super speed erc 20  

Do you think rating should have been left for people who

1)spread malware
2)scam
3)run extremely super speed erc20  

Or not?

Why did you post trust thingies?

How are these 3 examples the same as iCEBREAKER's trust rating?

Any chance you will answer my question and explain why account selling should be negative rated for others but not for you? Is not the fact that you tried to sell your account evidence that you have no regard for the user base here and were willing to allow them to be scammed because you wanted money?

Wrong... its for other reasons, but let's save that for your own reputation thread shall we?


Yes. This is a pretty clear case of obsession if I've ever seen one, as far as this forum is concerned. And the dynamic is abusive, to be sure. I hope you're happy that I took you off ignore to respond to you. But its late and I'm knackered. As always, you can have the last word.

How far do his lists go back? Regardless the point is you engaged in high levels of scrutiny upon me for simply pointing out the abusive dynamic here, but I am "obsessed" for questioning your own behavior and double standards?

Lets stick to this one for a moment:

What is wrong with 3 selectively picked trust ratings?

You picked them for a reason.

So what is wrong with them?

Are they financial or not?

I just saw this as someone brought it to my attention.

This is incorrect.

I never had you on my trust list, not for one minute. Never. Not even as an accident. You can use LoyceV's lists in an attempt to demonstrate otherwise, but you'll just be wasting your time.

Really man. Your obsession with me is... well... flattering.