Topic: Red trust ON/OFF !!! - page 2. (Read 21538 times)

be sure I'm not one; I'm not expecting anything from you; one swallow doesn't make the spring you may be a DT at the moment but you don't represent all the other TDs members of this forum, I'm sure there are others who are highly mature and responsible that you are, and end up realizing that you only satisfy your own ego.

proof here.

you started this campaign simply because you got scammed by someone you're not even sure it was a bought account.
Admins and mod of this forum have given you a chance but unfortunately   you used it for personal matters.

I have already read all of the posts here and something ignited my interest as it seems to me that this is an ongoing debate of 2 long lost lovers or maybe 1 sided lover(ghost15) that turned into something different. I'm still expecting that some other DT forum members to get involve but as of now there's still none. The comparison of 'other forum members' that I'm pertaining to when I said 'Please try to back read again' was zazarb and ghost15, as ghost15 pointed in his post this

And if you want an another comparison of forum members aside from this then try to take a look about the issue of mprep and BayAreaCoins. I know that they are not into account sales and they're both DT forum members but we can relate the reason behind their red trust retaliatory to each other because this thread and their issue has nothing to do with the Forum rules but something to their Self moderated rules

This forum has its own rules that must be followed, We all have our own discretion and everyone must respect that but to what certain extent? does this a decentralized forum or a capitalized one?

The comparison to other forum members has been discussed previously - I suggest you read the thread again. Also, Socrates never said that.

ghost15 is without a doubt frustrated and I'm sure of that because why was he/she keeps on fighting to remove his/her red trust that was almost 2 years now(I think  because of ranking w/ merit system is hard ) instead of accepting the fact that there are people who have static perspective. If you read this whole thread you can see that I am neutral about this matter but I think that the OP got a point in his/her justification based on his/her comparison to one of the forum member that may be not equal to his/her case. Please try to back read again.

can this be considered plagiarism? because you didn't put 'Socrates' as your source  .

If there was any sliver of hope remaining that would you get the outcome you wanted here, you just destroyed it with that post. Resorting to argumentum ad hominem generally means you have no logical arguments left to make, and you have lost the dispute. Time to accept you were busted and move on.

you don't look like someone who can enjoy a day at the beach under the sun, you are not even someone who was able to keep his job as a pharmacist in real life, you don't digest this fact, at the point you created a profile on this forum to live the life you wanted but that was deprived by those who knew your real competence, you can be king here.

other people's PM's quotes do not justify your actions, if you accepte to be a DT member, you should accept the following facts.
and about Lauda feedback it's a thousand times better than yours in these acts, I do not have to contact him several times for realize the gravity of the facts and he was not the only one to revise feedback because they were all responsible people.

you; you are not looking for potential danger but rather for the suspect edeal.

There's this:

And then there's this:
So, you're happy with the neg I left you way back when but now you're pissed that I blocked your PMs.  OK.  I don't spend time going back and forth with people I've tagged via PM.  There's too many of you, and there's not really much to discuss, so I've learned that blocking PMs is the best option to prevent my inbox from filling up with nonsense, like the following:

OK then.

User 'The Pharmacist' has blocked your personal message.

I have only  to hope that this person will be removed from DT list so that I can have the opportunity to see my account returned in its neutral state.

I see this as a good example of wanting to be good and helpful to this community and that's what happens when a person is puted where he or she should not be; without any disrespect to any of the moderator and Dt member of this forum but it is irresponsible to block a person without giving a justification or at least a suitable answer

The Devil's Advocate

My answer: I am only a drop of water in an ocean, if I evaporated; nobody realize but I would always be present somewhere and maybe the rain will throw me from where I come.

I salute you for staying on the same decision for two years even if your status has changed.

I am so happy that you participated in this thread, unfortunately I don't have much time right now but I promise you to continue this discussion later and answer to you; but now, I just want to know if you are convinced that I am an account seller/farmer and that the red trust on my profile is merited by me?

edit: just as a clue; I wished you to be in DT member well before you were one, at that time you was full member or senior, in one of my PM talks with you ; I had a futuristic vision  .

What you're NOT mentioning (because your argument is entirely self-serving), is that I used so much cleverness that two DT1 members actually excluded me from their trust lists, and that I started leaving negs for account sellers roughly 1.5 years before I got on DT the first time, and that I incurred a hell of a lot of retaliatory negative trust from non-DT members by doing so.  

I'd like to know more about this cleverness of which you speak.  Not for my own ego, but I'm curious as to how exactly you think I charmed either Blazed or Hilariousandco, the two DT1 members who have me in their trust lists.

FYI:  I don't know if anyone else was giving negatives for account sales prior to me starting my own personal campaign against account dealers in 2016.  I started doing this after I got scammed by TimSweat in March 2016, and I suspect that this was a purchased account.  No proof on that one, just suspicion.

Life is one big absurdity.  Better stay indoors.

Getting negative trust after 2 years because of the trust giver become default trust is absurd and you all know it.

maybe  participating in an account sale auction is considered as encoraging scams, spam, and account farming but also tagged accounts with red trust after being preserved clean for over a year is encouraging membres to buy high ranked and trusted account (maybe cheap hero member).

now tell me why there is always threads for the BCT account sale? not in proxies, TOR sales and other forums but right here and who benefits from the sale of these accounts? I say that more account red trusted, more account will be sold.

I knew the pharmacist since my first days here because he was always present where moderator and DT members participated and used some cleverness to impress them; his goal was to become DT ,his method was to give a red trust for all the participants in the account sales (since all other ways are taken by old legendary members who gave a plus for this forum; but not him),  his vocation is the sale of Paypal and BTC.

Obviously spammers and scammers are one of the reason but it's mainly for account farming that abuses most of the Signature Campaigns because when you have a high ranking account you can enjoy also the high pay outs.

If we look the Forum Rules that posted by mprep(Global Moderator)
it is clearly stated in #18 rules that 'Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.'
I have never seen a forum member that got negative trust from mprep in selling their accounts though, only DT forum members.
And in his FAQ he said that:
                                     Q: I saw a guy selling Bitcointalk accounts. Why is that allowed?[/b]
                                     A: Since we can't effectively prevent these sales (proxies, TOR, sales in other forums), we don't because otherwise we would be giving the users a false sense of security.
        If only he said that 'A: Since we can't effectively prevent these sales (proxies, TOR, sales in other forums), we don't because otherwise we would be giving the users a false sense of security instead you can put
        negative trust on those people who are involve. '

It seems you are overacting in the comparison with this statement though. It's just simply this, if they are against with that kind of act then why they would do it, do they have any sort of immunity from others?(the tagged forum member is not a DT member but a trusted one)

I'm not sure. Probably when spammers and scammers started taking it to such an enormous level which made the situation of account sellings uncontrollable?


It is, but that isn't against the rules? DT members are free to choose who they tag, and who they don't. ( it doesn't even have to be against the rules, ( exempli gratia is scamming, which isn't against forum rules)).

I don't see anything wrong with a lender selling defaulted accounts. What else should he do with them? Give them away for free?

Also you're acting as if he is responsible to what happens with the account after he sold it, which is the equivalent of holding an arms dealer responsible to what happens  with the gun he sold to someone who commited a crime with it. It seems a bit far-fetched to me.


I'm not saying i condone what he did at the time ( as i probably wouldn't have done the same), but i could see why he did it, and i don't think there was any malicious intent. ( abusing campaigns/farming these accounts..).

OP got a point here in my own perspective because when was the time of giving a red trust to those forum members that are selling their spare, extra, alt accounts started?


It's still considered buying and selling of an account even if he got it from collateral, you are reliable with it once you own it.

I am neutral on this topic and want to get concrete answers from DT members or Mods., this top is so interesting though.

I am in no way suggesting that purchasing accounts is appropriate nor do I condone it.

When looking at the example OP is providing though it's hard to disagree with it based on logical thinking.

An account sale is an account sale.

Regardless of how you came to have the account; through essentially buying it (collateral for a default loan) or building it up and selling it.

As for it being a different time it appears the actions were taken within 9 months of each other.

I wasn't a part of the community that far back and can easily see that account sales are a fraudulent way to pass yourself off here, and to receive extra coin in SIG campaigns.

I'm not going to go through your entire history of posts and what not, but as long as you have been a contributing member of the community and other than that one infraction haven't participated in any other account sales or similarly shady dealings; I would plead my case to The Pharmacist.


I would also suggest that this rule from the forum rules be changed to Account sales are prohibited. As discouraged is far to ambiguous; considering if the only reason you don't trust someone is that they have in fact bought an account or tried to. You may think well I don't know who that is... well we really don't know who 98% of the people who post stuff here are except for a few of the people who put themselves and to some extent their identity out there. I would say that until this rule has been changed the feedback should be neutral so that it is still visible.

EDIT: Just want to be sure it's known this was copied from the forum rules posted in meta.

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

@zazarb is not a DT member. He is a trusted exchange of crypto to fiat here, as well as a loan provider, which is why he has such high positive feedback.

It's not the same thing. Not only was this a different time (2015), but i believe this member was selling accounts from people that defaulted on their loans. These account were basically the collateral for the loan.

 He didn't buy those accounts himself  or farmed them, ( which is what usually happens and causes a lot of spam, which is what is really frowned upon.)

Your argument seems invalid, and it really has nothing to do with him being a DT member. ( Which i don't think he is, since he left negative feedback here, but it doesn't affect my rating, and i have Depth currently at (2?).)

is this Member encouraging scams, spam, and account farming? no, I'm pretty sure that NO, because it's a DT member even though he participated in the account sale Here