Pages:
Author

Topic: Recommendations for additions to Default Trust (Read 2064 times)

legendary
Activity: 2786
Merit: 3029
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
November 15, 2017, 01:11:17 PM
#47
this is on topic because there is a question is a "~lauda" should be added to the OP's trust list.
The title is additions. That would be a exclusion, and is therefore off-topic. QED.

Exactly, but yet again Quickseller immediately takes a thread off topic and makes it all about him so locked until further notice. I will re-open a new one for discussion in due time.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
this is on topic because there is a question is a "~lauda" should be added to the OP's trust list.
The title is additions. That would be a exclusion, and is therefore off-topic. QED.

It was rated negatively in 2013 by those accounts. Doesn't mean that people had the same opinions back in those days. In fact, when I sold the accounts I do remember there being quite a few escrows willing to do the job.
There were a few members that Quickseller used an alt to complain about (in one of those "Lauda something something" threads), i.e. was whining that they didn't receive negative ratings for account sales from the past as I was tagging people left and right. Now I can't, nor want to look for this post but there were names such as Yahoo and KWH (IIRC; if I am mistaken, I apologize) and others. Anyone objectively assessing the situation can easily conclude why nobody has tagged them, you or other similar examples.
Don't get me started on this obvious lame "fear" of getting tagged for no reason. Such silly psychological games might work on kids though.

You should be getting a bonus for busting down trolls. Didn't you use to wear a signature from Bitsler or something?

We all believe a true Vod should be in DT1.

So say we all...
I think that everyone agrees with you. Tongue
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2504
Spear the bees
Robbing banks were illegal.
Robbing banks were illegal.
Robbing banks is still illegal.
People who were caught several years after crime has been committed were put in jail.
Account sales were negative rated even back in 2013, nothing has changed - read REASON 4!
Sure. You had one incident of someone being rated negatively due to account sales. I'm not sure how strongly the first two users felt about account sales but the latest feedback talked about hacked accounts. Maybe that played a role in the trust, I don't know.


Lauda and Xanis were in 2 signature campaigns at the same time back in 2014. So why giving negative trust for accounts which are enrolled in his signature campaign without breaking forum rules or cheating his campaigns:
Proof: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18902983  how is that justified? Negative without any proof.
Here is the list just from last week (OP is slightly better than this list): kikeda, Format.C^, loges, yueno. I don't know why, but I have noticed a pattern which I'm not going to publicly elaborate as I may lose my advantage in combating it. There seems to be an influx of one-liner/short-posting & post-bursting in an attempt to get 1 maximum payout from Bitmixer before the account is permanently blacklisted and/or neg. rated.
Giving negative for "pattern" is not justified and it is not solid proof - lauda said it many times in "known alts of everyone" thread.
I send out negative trust towards those that are spammers. One-liners and burst-posting is usually indicative of spam.
I send? I don't remember quoting your post in reason 2.
Speaking about patterns - yours is the same as lauda's.
Do you see how ridiculous is to give someone negative just because pattern?
You fucked up the quoting, so your first sentence is irrelevant.
This type of quoting ≠ Spamming. If a user consistently posts one-liners within minutes of one another, can you really justify it? Are they seriously being constructive? Especially when they post in the 30+ page spam megathreads with their garbage general/vague replies?

[Not talking about extortion.]

Quote
http://prntscr.com/haq80u
Lauda ≠ Welsh ≠ tysat. Trust is at a user's discretion.
Not if you are doing the same fucking thing, it is not justified. What happened to those 10 accounts lauda was about to buy? Has he bought them, farm signatures with them or sold them?

Once again, pull your head out of lauda's ass and stop talking to me and explaining things to me like I am 5 year old child.
It was rated negatively in 2013 by those accounts. Doesn't mean that people had the same opinions back in those days. In fact, when I sold the accounts I do remember there being quite a few escrows willing to do the job.
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2504
Spear the bees
Reason 1:
If someone committed a crime in 2013 it is crime in 2017.
actmyname should be negative rated from lauda - why he is not negative rated? Why did Lauda ignored this:
Quote
Even when I had a lending service, I sold accounts. Then I stopped. Because it leads to shit.
He admitted selling accounts before, it is like saying "hey, i robbed few banks back in 2013. but i figured that it is wrong and i am not doing it now and it is OK because it is 2017"
Timeline of Alcohol Prohibition:
Alcohol was legal.
Prohibition began.
Alcohol became illegal.
Sale of alcohol led to incarceration.
People who had sold alcohol before prohibition were not punished.

Track the analogy.



Lauda and Xanis were in 2 signature campaigns at the same time back in 2014. So why giving negative trust for accounts which are enrolled in his signature campaign without breaking forum rules or cheating his campaigns:
Proof: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18902983  how is that justified? Negative without any proof.
Here is the list just from last week (OP is slightly better than this list): kikeda, Format.C^, loges, yueno. I don't know why, but I have noticed a pattern which I'm not going to publicly elaborate as I may lose my advantage in combating it. There seems to be an influx of one-liner/short-posting & post-bursting in an attempt to get 1 maximum payout from Bitmixer before the account is permanently blacklisted and/or neg. rated.
Giving negative for "pattern" is not justified and it is not solid proof - lauda said it many times in "known alts of everyone" thread.
I send out negative trust towards those that are spammers. One-liners and burst-posting is usually indicative of spam.

Lauda and Xanis were at the same time in signature campaigns - primedice and cloudbet, lauda hates account farming, we all know that
Read above.

Speaking of 2013. this account has been negative rated for selling accounts(IN 2013 but actmyname said it was OK back then  Huh ^^^)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/subud-149628

http://prntscr.com/haq80u
Lauda ≠ Welsh ≠ tysat. Trust is at a user's discretion.

Lauda is giving negative ratings to all sold accounts but it is OK when he did it back in 2013:
Read above.

New negative trust has been given to Wendigo because of Lauda's rage, in my opinion wendigo made valid point:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/wendigo-163375
Read Lauda's reference. Especially the highlighted part.

Common theme.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
We all believe a true Vod should be in DT1.

So say we all...
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
So you admit to both placing the bids to buy that account and that xanis is your alt?
Xanis was banned on my request, but I obviously don't remember every post.
So to clarify, xanis is your alt, correct?

this is on topic because there is a question is a "~lauda" should be added to the OP's trust list.
newbie
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
Nope.

Xanis made multiple bids on a forum account. Several screenshots and links provided. Xanis is tied to your wallet through blockchain analysis.

What do you mean by "Nope?"

So that's who you are. Roll Eyes

Who?? Why so vague?? We're all friends here. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
You tried to buy a dozen accounts on two occasions (that's what was dug up at a glance)
Nope.

..and a year later you are talking about how you "can easily live from" posting with 4-5 accounts in sig campaigns.
If I talk how easy it would be to rob someone in a certain way, does that mean that I've also done it? Non Sequitur.

It's nice to see that you squirm just like everyone else. Kiss
I do not.

You tag people with negative trust for both actions. So, it's okay for you, but untrustworthy for others?? Is that how things work??
So that's who you are. Roll Eyes

So you admit to both placing the bids to buy that account and that xanis is your alt?
Xanis was banned on my request, but I obviously don't remember every post.

It's nice to see how you like breaking the rules, yet attempt to call out others on certain actions. Can we get back to the actual topic, @OP? Conclusions recap:
The Pharmacist - Yes.
zazarb - Definitely no.

Anyone else? Smiley
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
From the looks of it, you took the time to delete at least 3,000 posts, which in itself is an indication you were trying to hide something.
Or, unlike the account farmer and account trader such as yourself, I wanted to clean up shitposting which I did.

here is an example of xanis placing multiple bids on an account.
Placing bids != actually buying something. Furthermore, even placing bids != intent to buy something. Non Sequitur

Why exactly are you saying this is nothing? Are you saying that xanis is not you? Or are you saying that xanis was not buying accounts? Or both?
The equivalent of that is finding a very early shitpost of mine, and accusing me of spamming now because of said shitpost. To my knowledge, Xanis was not buying accounts but was rather just shitposting.

Not that said case is on-topic. Zazarb is barely tagging anyone who deserves it, and he left way too many positive ratings before for minuscule deals.
So you admit to both placing the bids to buy that account and that xanis is your alt?
newbie
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.
I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.
Very strong evidence has been posted that suggests otherwise.
If your evidence is a shitpost from the past, then you are very much bamboozled. You don't even realize how pathetic and butthurt gobsmacker must have been to dig up graves, and then read 2-3k posts in order to find nothing.

Case in point: zazarb is not a fit candidate.

LOL. You tried to buy a dozen accounts on two occasions (that's what was dug up at a glance)........and a year later you are talking about how you "can easily live from" posting with 4-5 accounts in sig campaigns.

I havent gone through Xanis's posts at all, I just checked your most obvious wallet. Bitcointa.lk, Bitcointalk.to and Hollila are a fucking bitch to parse and I don't have the time or energy right now to deal with it atm. Theyre archived anyway.

I just saw the way youve been negging lots of peoples accounts for the exact same behavior you engage in. I just wanted to start a conversation. Don't worry, snowflake, my account is intact. I also noticed you were online all day, post count dropped instead of rising though. It's nice to see that you squirm just like everyone else. Kiss

Placing bids != actually buying something. Furthermore, even placing bids != intent to buy something.

You tag people with negative trust for both actions. So, it's okay for you, but untrustworthy for others?? Is that how things work??
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
From the looks of it, you took the time to delete at least 3,000 posts, which in itself is an indication you were trying to hide something.
Or, unlike the account farmer and account trader such as yourself, I wanted to clean up shitposting which I did.

here is an example of xanis placing multiple bids on an account.
Placing bids != actually buying something. Furthermore, even placing bids != intent to buy something. Non Sequitur

Why exactly are you saying this is nothing? Are you saying that xanis is not you? Or are you saying that xanis was not buying accounts? Or both?
The equivalent of that is finding a very early shitpost of mine, and accusing me of spamming now because of said shitpost. To my knowledge, Xanis was not buying accounts but was rather just shitposting.

Not that said case is on-topic. Zazarb is barely tagging anyone who deserves it, and he left way too many positive ratings before for minuscule deals.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.
I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.
Very strong evidence has been posted that suggests otherwise.
If your evidence is a shitpost from the past, then you are very much bamboozled. You don't even realize how pathetic and butthurt gobsmacker must have been to dig up graves, and then read 2-3k posts in order to find nothing.

Case in point: zazarb is not a fit candidate.
From the looks of it, you took the time to delete at least 3,000 posts, which in itself is an indication you were trying to hide something.

here is an example of xanis placing multiple bids on an account.

Why exactly are you saying this is nothing? Are you saying that xanis is not you? Or are you saying that xanis was not buying accounts? Or both?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.
I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.
Very strong evidence has been posted that suggests otherwise.
If your evidence is a shitpost from the past, then you are very much bamboozled. You don't even realize how pathetic and butthurt gobsmacker must have been to dig up graves, and then read 2-3k posts in order to find nothing.

Case in point: zazarb is not a fit candidate.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.
I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.
Very strong evidence has been posted that suggests otherwise.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Some of the other collectible traders on the forum I would trust with my BTC are already on DT, but how about Zepher, Minerjones, Hhampuz? Or are you guys mainly looking for scam/spam/etc busters?
Zepher and minerjones are already on DT.

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.
I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.
copper member
Activity: 2870
Merit: 2298
Nah, probably not zazarb. [...]

He's also previously sold accounts
I am curious why you have had such a change of heart about this. It was not long ago that you would strongly be in favor of trading accounts.

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1029
give me your cryptos
Some of the other collectible traders on the forum I would trust with my BTC are already on DT, but how about Zepher, Minerjones, Hhampuz? Or are you guys mainly looking for scam/spam/etc busters?

Now slightly off-topic -

Who has access to/manages default trust? Is it just admins and global mods, just admins, or all staff?
newbie
Activity: 36
Merit: 0
I would recommend adding the following to your trust list:
Code:
~lauda

Agreed!!

See Lauda's outed alt connection and various scammy behavior here, which Lauda refuses to add to the OP.

Lauda immediately revenge negged me for even mentioning it. Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Given the current situations in the forum,I'd gladly recommend myself [Why wouldn't I ?  Tongue]
That usually doesn't work and is frowned upon even though rationally it can make sense to suggest oneself. I think I did this one.

Being on a DT is a long time responsibility.
It's quite the burden if you're active.

Last time I recommended Lutpin and Mexxer who were  an idea choice for the DT [fortunately they did get selected].
One of which scammer the other. Ain't it weird how these things work?

Can't really think of anyone who deserves to be there..
I could think of a name or two (other than the Pharmacist), but they are more people that I'd *personally* place there if I could.
legendary
Activity: 1876
Merit: 1308
Get your game girl
Does anyone have any recommendations for users who they feel deserve to be on Default Trust? I'm mainly looking for people who are very active in leaving accurate feedback, mostly against scammers and potential scammers etc. I can add people directly to level one via my main account or level 2 with this one, but I'll probably just be using this account to add users for now so I don't have to worry about who they trust as well, but I will likely promote people with good lists over time.
Given the current situations in the forum,I'd gladly recommend myself [Why wouldn't I ?  Tongue]

Being on a DT is a long time responsibility.I would like someone to be on the DT who has ample of time to deal with the critics and negative tag all the open cases by taking an  appropriate decision.Last time I recommended Lutpin and Mexxer who were  an idea choice for the DT [fortunately they did get selected].Can't really think of anyone who deserves to be there..
Pages:
Jump to: