Topic: Re: BitcoinGirl.Club: How a condescending attitude equates to trust exclusion - page 3. (Read 1215 times)

You don't need any more explanation to justify your standard. We are good as long as you are convinced that it was taken from an honest and not biased point of view.

To other members? I don't there there is any. Your case fell on my desk since I disagree with theymos decision to the ban mixers and was also on the jambler campaign, so it was hard for me to miss. Usually I don't read more than the first page of any drama, so it's unusual for me to take active positions.

I am good with that. I also like to think that you were honest.

I would like to see more examples you set by the standard you just described. 

I figured out I distrust your judgement, that's what it says in the screenshot.

From a quick look at your feedback history I would say you have many good negative feedbacks against scammers, but I don't agree with the idea of giving you a blank check to leave bad feedbacks (in my opinion) to other users I might trust. IMO, "tarnishing" a "famous" and very active user holds more weight than many negative feedback to randoms who are mostly inactive and with threads burred on the depths of the forum.

Interesting to read "every turn"
When? After you lied on my face? After this [question]
If it was a liar then your campaign would not stop. Do you think many of us are blind? Theymos was blind? He perhaps was not informed. In fact, you were misdirecting your campaigners to believe that it was not a mixer. Now following the same, you are misdirecting them, making them believe I am a liar that I was working hard over the past few days to present Jambler a mixer where I was replying your misdirection and having a conversation [two posts, all it was]. You and me may not agree with something but that does not mean I am not right and I lied.

Regarding about the PMs and what was in there, can't you prove it yourself? You can copy the entire PMs and make it public. We all will know the truth. I am sure others who received the PM can see what was sent to them. All will see your public post was enough for everything that happened very quickly.
That's very interesting. For a neutral feedback you made your conclusion without considering other feedbacks that are left and years of my stay on the forum? When was the last time it happened with a user who was excluded for a neutral feedback or somehow your quick decision was biased? No, I am not asking you to reconsider but ask yourself if you were biased or it happened naturally/neutrally.

I very disagree with your most recent neutral trust feedbacks, so I added you to my ~DT list. That's all.



As you can see, I have not done the same to hugeblack.

Those are two separate issues--getting banned from the forum and the trust system.  The former absolutely could happen in icopress's case.  I don't believe for a minute that he's got such influence in Theymos's eyes that he'd get special treatment.  I've seen some long-time members get banned before (though of the two that I remember, one was later reversed after the community stood up for him, and the other was a temp ban).  The trust system isn't moderated; that's a community thing.

I excluded JollyGood from my trust list a while back because of all the questionable or straight-up bad feedbacks he'd handed out.  But yeah, other members might have trouble with conflict.  


He didn't PM me about revising my trust list either, though I can't be certain he didn't PM anyone else.


And he did do that, so you're probably correct.


I would add that everyone should be using inclusions/exclusions to reflect their trust of other members' feedbacks and not for any other reason.  That's the way Theymos wants it last I heard, though obviously he doesn't enforce anything to do with trust, so the whole system is a chaotic mess that winds up being a drama-generating machine going full tilt sometimes.  In this particular case, I don't think OP should have been excluded from anyone's trust list based on his/her opinions about Jambler, mixers, icopress, or anything of the sort.

I don't think you or I can clarify anything, so there's no need to speculate. However, icopress did not deny the accusation. Let's see how this problem goes

From what I understand, it seems you are trying to insinuate that icopress PMed members telling them to distrust you following the incident. That's a huge accusation, do you have proof of this?
According to what I understood from his post, he was trying to inform them that they will receive a PM from him informing them that they had been moved to different campaigns, after which they would change signatures.

I saw different members get enrolled in other campaigns without applying. It makes sense the PM was more of an alert to the concerned members that they had been accepted in other campaigns rather than asking them to distrust you. I stand to be corrected.

You'd better worry about why you've turned into a vengeful troll who lies at every turn.

Well, I also don't care because after all Icopress is one of the trusted members and manages campaigns successfully and reliably because all the weekly payments are paid well by him.

Theymos only recently changed his mind about jambler, and stated it would be treated as a mixer from the 22nd of this month, and the campaign stopped a week or so before then. So what should the ban be for?

Well, I am not surprised that the parallel thread, since JollyGood did not want to open his for discussion, was created by the person concerned.


If I understand you correctly, I don't think that the quote you put justifies that icopress publicly asked people to distrust you. And privately I work for him in another forum and I have not received any PM, although if what you say is true, he could have sent it only to people in this forum, which I doubt.

Besides, people in DT should know that including or excluding people from their trust lists should be done based on the feedback they leave and their trust lists, not on the opinions they express about mixers.


He promoted them when they were allowed, as did he did with Jambler. When they were no longer allowed here he stopped promoting them.

So, should icopress be banned for promoting mixers? I don't think that will happen because famous members won't get banned easily. The rules here only apply to ordinary and low-ranking members.

This also happened to Jolly where he abused the trust system but was still considered a trusted member. I wonder, are many members afraid of jolly?

Such malicious behavior of JollyGood did not bother me at all. He can live for years to have the type of opportunities. In fact, I should feel lucky that he did not give a negative feedback yet [all for nothing]. I have no doubt that he is busy with his study to find a way to fulfill the ultimate mission. Nothing from him bothers me lately. I am absolutely cool with him.

What really bothers me is how some users thoughtlessly, seemingly without even thinking updated their default trustlist. First openly^[1] and then in PM, icopress told everyone [that are in his campaigns, targeting those who are effected by Jambler's ban] to distrust [as dislike/blame] BitcoinGirl.Club and it worked. Why icopress did that? Because he did not like my detailed documentation for his lie on my face and the neutral feedback I left for him & Jambler team
icopress achieved a temporary success just like he was temporarily successful for several months making everyone to believe^[blv1] that Jambler wasn't a mixer but a software provider. Until I^{[bgc1, bgc2]} and hugeblack^{[hb1, hb2]} had a conversation built up and finally theymos figured out the truth.

For the record, when theymos banned the mixers, I considered it as a punishment but decided to respect his decision.

I don't think I and hugeblack had any idea about the ban for Jambler was coming because of our discussion and some users to notify it to theymos. We were having a discussion just like a regular one [I made two posts showing why Jambler considers as a mixer, hugeblack noticed first post and replied then I made the second post. Fun fact: After a few days when I replied icopress, I was not aware that Jambler already is banned].

^[1]https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63943388

^[bgc1] Described connections with their partners https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5491818
^[bgc2] Described even with the code written in the php language https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5491818

^[hb1] hugeblack picked it https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5491818
^[hb2] hugeblack described the diagram https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63934652

^[note] [...]working hard over the past few days [...]
Two posts ^{[bgc1, bgc2]} on April 10th was described as "working hard over the past few days". It sounds like, BGC sent PM and convinced theymos to apply ban for Jambler.

/*edited*/ View reference.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63971307