Topic: Please remove Chaang Noi (Goat) or BadBear from default trust list - page 2. (Read 10265 times)

It's spreading 

Goat you did not address the laws which I have specifically laid out for you.  If you wish to continue to state that I'm wrong then you must refute these references.

The Goat is actually a snake.

I believe the Goat may be the most dangerous SCAMMER of bitcointalk. He is using multiple accounts to cover his work. It wont be long until we find who he really is.

Applicable law:

http://www.kodmhai.com/m4/m4-2/h82/m1-9.html

Translation:  You can't change money "เงินตรา" without permission from the minister (BoT).  However this could be argued that bitcoin is not "เงินตรา" (money issued by a government).  If this is your contention then move to next law below:

http://www.baanjomyut.com/library/law/82.html

This means that you cannot sell, use or issue anything (object, mark, symbol etc..) that could be a replacement of "เงินตรา" (money) without permission from the minister (BoT)

The warning says "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!", if for example i put an item up for auction ("trade") this could cause me to receive less bids, for people who are not interested in reading all the history and just steer clear because of this warning.

Note that EVERY user sees this warning by default, unless they have manually removed the default trust list from their settings.

Goat i have already provide clear evidence of why it is illegal to trade bitcoins in Thailand, yet instead of refuting this with your own evidence you just state that I'm silly/slow and of course that is wrong:

Why do you think it could cause you difficulty trading with other people?  You are making something out of nothing.  There will be two types of people seeing your trust.  One set that agrees with Goat and thereby by extension disagrees with you and vice versa.  For those who agree with Goat you wouldn't want to trade with them anyways since by default they disagree with you.  So think of this as an effective filter of those people you wouldn't want to do business with anyways.  The multi page thread whining about it only increases that camp not decreases it.  Personally I think Bitcoin is so different that it is incompatible with the modern financial system so "BTC is illegal in Thailand" and "My BTC company was operating illegally in Thailand" is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  The whining however is unproductive and annoying.

Stopped reading here, I don't want to know about how you are same proublum and how goat made -6 you morning today.

Wtf is this thread...

John did not leave me any negative trust, Goat did, this is why I want to spend the time to debate, because currently i have a "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!" next to my name, which could cause me difficulty in trading with people.

Will you please consider the core issue (did I lie) or recuse yourself; as opposed to keeping the debate at Ad Hominem level.

Yes, I do trust John infinitely more than I trust you, especially after the..."speculation" I've seen you post so far. It's also slightly amusing that you berate for using what someone else said, but at the same time want me to debate what someone else said.

It seems that Goat read only the title of my topic, and none of the article itself.

Title was "Bitcoin illegal in Thailand", and then the article provided details as to exactly what bitcoin activities were considered illegal in the opinion of Thai authorities.

Read details here:
https://bitcoin.co.th/trading-suspended-due-to-bank-of-thailand-advisement/

Your argument that I posted lies is that other people said so?  A lot of people said that world was flat, doesn't make it so.

If there is a specific thing that I said which you believe to be untrue, please let me know so what I can provide information backing up my claims.

goat is a bitch why don't people just leave him negative feedback also? I fucking did that ugly chai tea fucker

Even John, an admin here, thought it was such FUD  that he moved it out of the press board where you posted it. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--264339

Won't say I agree or disagree with leaving you feedback for it, but it isn't unjustified.

ADMIN HELP OUR SITUATION

I AM SAME PROUBLUM

WHY GOAT MAKE -6 ME MORNING TODAY



HEY ADMIN NICK [Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย] ATACKS ME FOR NOTHING REASON

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--334290



WHY THIS GUY MAKE ME -1
FOR NOTHING REASON

NICK
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/el-cabron-44233

 Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย   Picture/Text
Name:   Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย
Posts:   10400
Activity:   672
Position:   VIP
Date Registered:   October 19, 2011, 09:52:00 AM
Last Active:   Today


HE MAKE ME -1 REPUTATION NOT REASON
 Huh

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=131452


Untrusted feedback

These ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate.


No feedback.  Cry

Sent feedback






Trusted feedback

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย 10: -0 / +18(18)   2013-11-14   0.00000000   Reference   Gambler begging for money for "sick mother"

 Huh

HEY WHY YOU MAKE ME - 6 point Double lol

 Cry

i not know him
i not here for war
i not understand and not wont be for sick guy atack me for 0$

This guy vampire my reputation

i cry


Administration please clear my profile
i not know this guy is crazy ateack me -6
i slep morning i wake up and read this in my profile today

I've re-examined the trust system and it appears that you can add people by typing their username into the Trust list box.

So I am assuming that means you have typed "Chaang Noi (Goat) ช้างน้อย " into this box on your account, is this what you mean?

You may have done this because you feel that you value Goats opinion and you'd like to see his trust feedback prominently featured next to each user; in which case my speculation about doing this because of wheedling or paying would be false and apologize to Goat and yourself for this speculation.

However I would like to point out that you are on the default trust list for the forum, which comes with added responsibility because the trust rating you see are shown to every single user in the community.  As such you should feel obligate to make sure those trust ratings/warnings are accurate*.

If you feel you didn't ask for/ didn't want this responsibility then you should recuse yourself and ask thermos to remove this responsibility by removing you from level 1 default trust list.

You may just be thinking "I'd like to see Goats ratings", you are actually saying "Every single bitcoin users should see Goats ratings"

*In this case of this thread I have called into question Goats rating, I think, considering that you are on the default trustlist and have deemed Goat worthy also, that you should take the time to properly review the case and give both parties ample chance to explain themselves with any doubles you may have.  If you feel that it's not worth your time to do this then as previously mentioned you should recuse yourself from the position.

 You have no idea how the trust system works, neither 1 and 2 are true. Being on someone's trust list isn't determined by feedback. I haven't left feedback for most people on my trust list. And yes he was on it before that date.

Somehow = speculation != asserting facts

Yes I was speculating how Goat got onto the trust list.

It appears there are 2 ways to get into someone's downstream trust:

1) They leave you public trust feed (ie I bought 10BTC of Goat and the deal went smoothly)...Goat is now "trusted" by you, and so therefore trusted by others that trust you

2) There also appears be some kind of private trust system, as you have not left any public trust feedback for Goat, but he appears in your downstream trust

I was speculating as to how Goat has gotten into the 2nd level default trust list without any public trust feedback from any 1st level default trust list members?  (ie it must be option #2).  And what was the reason for privately adding some to the trust downstream?

Is this not a topic worth questioning?  Is there a reasonable answer to why this has occurred?  And was Goat in your downstream trust prior to 2013-11-10?

You've pretty much proved goats case here, because you're lying. You post speculation as fact, which is exactly what the oroginal issue was about, or don't know the difference between the two, or you're trolling.

Ok, I've adjusted the topic to include Badbear.

I contacted Badbear as per SaltySpitoon suggestion to remove Goat from his 2nd level trust, as this was resulting in Goat being on the default trust list.

I explained to Badbear that Goat's feedback was untruthful and the information showing why it was wrong.

Badbear showed no interest about knowing more or reading the information, instead said that because another person (Lohoris) had also left similar feedback then it must be true (despite the fact that Lohoris had been heavily lobbied/persuaded by Goat on the topic https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264203.100)

I also pleaded with Badbear that if Goat wanted me labeled a scammer, he should start a thread supporting it; to which Badbear said this thread should server that purpose? (So I have to create my own trial with a guilty verdict and work backwards)

Badbear said that I had to talk to Goat directly and then he was basically washing his hands of the situation; although I knew that it would be impossible to reason with Goat, I contacted him anyway as per Badbear direction....which was obviously fruitless...Badbear wants nothing more to do with it.

Badbear says about me: "OP has already spread misinformation and lies about me as well", where did I do this?

After it became apparent that this was a lost cause I posted: "Somehow Goat has managed to wheedle or pay his way into that group[the default trust list]"
And this translates into me "Spreading misinformation and lies about Badbear"?

As you can see from Goat's replies he provides no argument, information or fact.

Just that his feedback is unimpeachably correct and beyond question, does not require any information to back it up.

And once again includes an insult for good measure.