Topic: Should we not get negative feedback for expressing our views? How about me? - page 2. (Read 715 times)

Don't change the meaning of what I said bastard of bad faith, because you're also lying when you say that my assumptions are not true and I'm certain they are. My assumption is that examplens has lied about his participation in my giveaway and about how he got 1.4 mBTC from me. You know nothing about when he participated in my giveaway.

Can an administrator verify please when did @examplens oppose my flag. This is a serious issue since this person is lying about a participation in a scam accusation flag and about how he ended up getting money for opposing my flag.

No, your assumptions are not true, no member is at risk of doing business (trading) with examplens whether he did support or oppose your flag, or whenever he did so.

I am 98% certain that this person is lying.

Is there an admin who could verify when @examplens opposed my flag? The time at which people reacted to my flag is not on the flag. I still remember this person posting in my giveaway thread 3 days after it started saying "oh I remember this flag from back then, and if I remember correctly..." and he was a brand new reaction to my flag AFTER the giveaway was started. This would be lying about something related to transactions and he would deserve a red flag for it if my assumptions are true.

Don't give bogus links, you're misleading people who read your posts. If you look at the address, it's very clear it belongs to a big crypto business. Actually it belongs to this business: https://coinspaid.com

If you opposed my flag in good conscience, you have nothing to worry about since God will not listen to my curse. But this is unlikely the case with any person who checked my case thoroughly and has some integrity

Yes, I did oppose that flag even when there was a current discussion about the case. At the time, I didn't even think there could be a financial reward for it.
When OP ^@PaperWallet announces a reward for all who support/oppose that flag, I didn't want to withdraw my vote because that would be the direct impact of the payment (in this case avoiding participation in its contest) on my decision.
I hope I don't have to withdraw my vote from this flag because of the potential red trust.

As for the prize itself here, I received an unexpected +0.001429 BTC at some point to address from my profile. I believe it is a transaction by PaperWallet. I didn't want to deepen the story and feed his trolling and any further pointless discussion about "cursed" coins.

Though if I look at everything a little better, when we talk about "cursed" coins, maybe he is right after all. the coins he sent, however, have some negative history.
OP (PaperWallet) sent all rewards from address bc1q53dxta9y3kzlnwxsxp2h7j5tehjrqk4hrg3ak9 through this transaction but all funds are moved from 3JodN7GmkHdPgKj9G7HCkn9NDLhrcWCjVN address.

Sounds like everything is legit, except that 3JodN7GmkHdPgKj9G7HCkn9NDLhrcWCjVN address, is already recognised as used in Crypto Clipboard Malware scam https://hashxp.org/address/3JodN7GmkHdPgKj9G7HCkn9NDLhrcWCjVN

---

I did not ask for this money, nor did I expect anything from there, I decided what to do with him. no, I will not return it to PaperWallet, I just don't want to play his stupid games.
An amount of 0.001429 BTC I will transfer to FortuneJack casino, to trying my luck with "cursed" coins.

That's probably for the best. I can think of (far fetched) ways to abuse this too: punishing someone for "voting" on a Flag can stop people from doing so. Then again, offering money can do that too: some people will vote, but others will be more reluctant because of the payment being offered.

Thoroughly reviewing a scam accusation takes a lot of time, and I considered this more or less a compensation for the time spent. But there's no checking if someone even read the scam accusation, and usually companies who pay for a review want to know for sure users actually tested it.

I know, and I may not do even that after all, since it's not easy to determine when exactly someone supported or opposed the flag and what their state of mind was at that time.

Not that it matters much. My exclusions don't affect DT at default settings. Users with custom trust lists surely would know how to deal with any changes they don't like.

Note that some members supported/opposed the flag before he created that topic or, in my case, after deadline expired for his "giveaway". For example, I think examplens opposed the flag before but was paid nonetheless. Of course, with "cursed" coins.

---

You can call me a "nonsense talker" if you want, I don't care, but I'll express my opinion anyway. As LoyceV said, it's hard to decide which side to be on. The terms are not in your favor, but these were the terms, and you agreed to them when you signed up. There is no point in accusing the casino of enforcing their own terms that are clearly stated on the site.
On the other hand, such unfavorable terms and the fact that they should not have accepted your bets are not in the casino's favor. However, gamblers are free to choose the casino they wish to gamble on. If you do not like their terms, just move on to another casino.

That's because this is my conclusion, after talking about my case for a few months here. And this is payment issue not nonsense talk issue, so what matters is payment (that is going to happen, but you're just not helping).


Not so sure about this, we will see.
But what's for sure is that yes I didn't know how your scam betting websites work. In their terms and conditions there is a 100k euros limit per bet. They accept a total of 2 bets among 4 tickets, wait for the result of the game, then steal 100k win for the reason of "we have the right to cancel bets. And also sorry, we intended to defraud our users with our terms and conditions but we are also bad at writing those, just give us a pass on this as well, too bad for those who read them. Oh just a second, we've also tried to hide evidence by deleting bet history but the player took the evidence for this, Hhampuz of course you're also giving us a pass on this you're our dirty scumbag right?"


You're simply an evil person. No, I don't make deals with thieves for half of my money. The only reason this is being imposed on me is because, you know, it's internet era, and scamming someone at an overseas distance has no consequences.
I've made enough good decisions in life to be able make a living other than being a scam promoter. On the other hand just perhaps sooner or later you're going to hell with your dirty money, and there might be no other way out...

I'll be honest, I feel like you're somebody who is trying to communicate, and I respect that, because that's what we're supposed to do here, not to promote scams and throw in messages with nonsense talk and merit each other on nonsense talk like a lot of people do here. I also respect your decision and won't be giving you back a red trust for this.

Most of the people who participated in the giveaway opposed the flag and they all got paid. Just check my giveaway thread in the reputation section and you can verify it.

There is nothing bogus, it's just not true that you followed the topic because you're missing the point by a big difference. If you're interested simply check my scam accusation I don't have to explain what I already explained earlier.

Dear PaperWallet,

You have created enough awareness about your alleged FortuneJack scam. I have always kept blind eyes at your posts or allegations because majority of the users here, especially DT1 members do not agree with you.
But I am obliged to ask the following questions;

1. You created a flag and offered an incentive for whoever opposes or supports the flag. I don't think this is wrong. I have seen companies pay for review. This is because many people might read your flag and feel uninterested or unconcerned because they are not directly affected. The incentive will be to encourage participation on a neutral ground.
I am responding accordingly to your statement
PaperWallet, if this is true, your allegation should now be for $20k and not for $120k. Or is there something bogus I'm missing?

Finally, I saw FJ response to you on the grounds of T&C. Your case should be if such terms were made before or after you won your alleged $120k.

This is the kind of reputation damage that comes from joining such an "offer".

PaperWallet, I believe you acted in bad faith in your dispute with FJ but I also believe that everyone has a right to bring up such disputes and should not be penalized for doing so, although "penalizing" a throwaway account is moot anyway. But I wouldn't red-trust you for bringing up a dispute.

I would - and did - red-trust you for paying to subvert/abuse the trust system. While there might be some grey areas in how some people "promote" their disputes to get support for flags, offering money is not grey IMO. You can talk all you want about the payment not being dependent on outcome etc but your demeanor in that thread and even here shows that you wanted to gain support, or at best to stir more shit up.

Others may disagree that bringing money into the trust system is a big deal, and that's fine (the disagreement; not the money). While I appreciate opinions about my trust feedback I'm extremely unlikely to change it unless underlying facts turn out to be incorrect. The facts as stated in the feedback I posted for you are correct. It is not about your "views" as you disingenuously claim in the title of your thread.

I was considering red-trusting anyone who supported/opposed the flag with knowledge that you're paying for that but I'll probably just tilde them instead.

Says a bellyacher who moaned about how people ignored the useless false flag he created and even went on to an extent of abusing the trust system by paying a 10mBTC just to get reactions to his flag  

Get your shit together.

You instantly dismiss anyone who does not support your "cause" right away as "nonsense talkers" or "paid promoters". How can you ever expect to be taken seriously when you are so incredibly set in your ways while refusing to listen to anyone else?

Fact 1) You "claim" to have been scammed for $120k.
Fact 2) You got a public response from FJ regarding the matter showing that you in fact had won $100k which was the limit for identical bets.
Fact 3) You twist the story and start calling FJ scammers wherever you go.
Fact 4) You create a bogus flag which the community obviously does not agree with since the only support you have been able to garner for it is of disgruntled gamblers who have been talking shit about FJ for years at this point.

YOU are unable to understand/respect how flags, ToS, contracts etc. work and you have the gall to come here and ask if this is how the trust feedback system is supposed to work?

Talk shit - get hit. How about you just take your $100k and fuck off as you seemingly bring nothing of value to this forum.

OP, I remember your giveaway thing and thought it was a bit weird at the time--and I also suspected it might get you into hot water, since it involves both the trust system and exchanging of crypto.  Those two things generally never go together in a good way.

But the feedback you got because of your statements about Fortunejack don't warrant negative trust IMO.  Granted, I haven't checked into the validity of what you wrote, but I kind of expect more from a member like Hhampuz and wouldn't have expected a feedback like the one he gave you.  His and suchmoon's were the two that showed up as being trusted when I looked at your feedback page.  Anyway, just like every other case of contested feedback that I've commented on in the past seven years, there's nothing I or the community can do to help you out (and I'm pretty sure you know that).

Don't know how much you care about all those negs you got, but maybe with time you can at least convince some of the DT members to remove them.  I've got a custom trust list and don't follow all the DT updates, so I have no idea who those members are.  Good luck to you.

Just ignore the second half of my post, because it's easier to remain a petulant brat than it is to behave like an adult.

Lol you're valuing yourself too much, who the hell cares.


Of course, of course, not scammed, at all. If you think you're helping fortunejack, you're mistaken. We will see.

That's disingenuous and you know it.  A more accurate description would be that you violated their TOS and weren't allowed to keep your ill-gotten winnings.  You're failing to mention that you were given a refund for your deposits.  That's not the same thing as getting scammed.

Nonetheless, as for the two red tags you have; I wouldn't have left either of them myself, but I don't believe either are particularly inaccurate.  If you feel they're unjustified, I suggest you make an appeal to the better nature of both individuals (it's been my experience that both are good natured people) and they may decide to remove them.

So we are now nonsense talkers because we didn't agree with what you did?

You made a post looking for opinions on whether your actions were ok or not, and I insist what you did is not different from buying trust.
In any way, I opposed the flag earlier on, I hope that makes you feel better.

Next time, if you feel like you don't want people's opinions, then just don't post at all instead of being a cry baby around here.


And here is what I said.

Here we go, as I predicted in my OP, 4 professional nonsense talkers and scam promoters immediately pop up to throw in their messages.

Here's what I said about the giveaway that I've done and already paid out:

And here's the first one to pop up:

Second genius:

Third popup:

4th medal:

How funny is that?


Don't worry about me reading, if you read their terms and conditions like you misread my 2 sentences in the OP, you're in here for an excellent argument lol


In any case, thank you @Loyce for coming in here and straightening things a little bit, and you've given me the answer to my original question.

Haha, this guy is really hilarious. Pay to people just to react to his flag, opposers got paid in cursed coin, lol. At least, you have to give him the credit for trying to make a scene. But I think trying to influence people just for them to go to cast their vote or react to a flag in this case, can this still be counted as shifting votes to his side? Since it makes people feel in debt to him, more likely to side with him on the matter? Or maybe just a vicious way for him to get back by making the negative feedback/flag system looks like a joke.

He does make me want to know the matter between him and Fortunejack. How it could escalate to the point he did things like this.