Pages:
Author

Topic: StonerStanley Retarded Attempt At Extortion (Read 1084 times)

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
[NO U]


You are being consistent at abusing trust.    You keep offering to stop pretending to be a doctor if I removed my trust against you.    That is also a retarded attempt at extortion, as the feedback I have left for you is consistent with yours.  Smiley

Feel free to quote some abusive trust ratings I have left Vod, it seems every time I ask you to back up your assertions you find something else to focus on.
legendary
Activity: 2982
Merit: 7986
Removing the rating in exchange for clearing their own and because the enemy of my enemy is my friend type of logic is also abusive. If Nutilduuh thought the rating was valid and was needed to prevent the user from harming others, removing it in exchange to get their own removed is not right either. The contradiction is his, not mine. You all have fun doing your clown dance.

Since my words clearly don't mean anything to you, let's try responding to your post using some of your words.

There you go again pretending to Ms. Cleo claiming you can read my mind and intent.

Yes, string together some more assumptions Ms. Cleo. Keep trying until something sticks.

WAAAAA people I don't like get to have a say in the system! ONLY ME AND MY FRIENDS SHOULD HAVE A SAY!

You asserting your assumptions to be factual when it is not, does not make my denial of it a lie.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
I am being perfectly consistent. Leaving a red rating for them wasn't right to begin with, but Nutilduuh doesn't agree. Removing the rating in exchange for clearing their own and because the enemy of my enemy is my friend type of logic is also abusive. If Nutilduuh thought the rating was valid and was needed to prevent the user from harming others, removing it in exchange to get their own removed is not right either. The contradiction is his, not mine. You all have fun doing your clown dance.

You are being consistent at abusing trust.    You keep offering to stop pretending to be a doctor if I removed my trust against you.    That is also a retarded attempt at extortion, as the feedback I have left for you is consistent with yours.  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2270
Leaving a red rating for them wasn't right to begin with
But you didn't complain back then and we all know how much you love nutildah, and now you are complaining because nutildah removed something you think it was wrong.

Seems you liked that feedback, that's why you kept very silent about it and now you are upset just because you don't see it any more. Here, take a look:
I tagged this guy
Troll didn't say a word, that's it.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Maybe Techy could supply a list of his standards and which apply to people he likes vs dislikes.

I suspect it's much simpler than that. If TECSHARE doesn't like you - you're not gonna be compliant with his standards no matter what you do. It doesn't even matter if any standards exist, he'll just scream "abuse" if you post red trust, don't post red trust, remove red trust, include/exclude/uninclude/unexclude people, report or don't report posts to moderators, etc.

I am being perfectly consistent. Leaving a red rating for them wasn't right to begin with, but Nutilduuh doesn't agree. Removing the rating in exchange for clearing their own and because the enemy of my enemy is my friend type of logic is also abusive. If Nutilduuh thought the rating was valid and was needed to prevent the user from harming others, removing it in exchange to get their own removed is not right either. The contradiction is his, not mine. You all have fun doing your clown dance.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Maybe Techy could supply a list of his standards and which apply to people he likes vs dislikes.

I suspect it's much simpler than that. If TECSHARE doesn't like you - you're not gonna be compliant with his standards no matter what you do. It doesn't even matter if any standards exist, he'll just scream "abuse" if you post red trust, don't post red trust, remove red trust, include/exclude/uninclude/unexclude people, report or don't report posts to moderators, etc.
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
Maybe Techy could supply a list of his standards and which apply to people he likes vs dislikes.

All these standards are confusing - we need an oversight committee to create a new classification for these standards.  :/
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Does that mean red trust for those "abuses" would be abuse of the trust system? But somehow nutildah removing red trust is also abuse of the trust system?

It's almost as if you have a grudge against nutildah and try to twist anything he does into some sort of misconduct.

That really depends on who's standards you are judging by. I chose not to use red trust, Nutilduuuuuh did. This is independent of other trust system abuses perpetrated by all of the loudest parrots in this thread. Yes, I AM the one twisting everything into some kind of misconduct, such behavior you, Nutilduuuh, and Bozoza are all above doing amirite?

So which standards are we using here? Certainly not your guild's - I don't see anything there about removal of red trust being considered as abuse. Did you just invent a new standard for nutildah?
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2270
That really depends on who's standards you are judging by. I chose not to use red trust, Nutilduuuuuh did. This is independent of other trust system abuses perpetrated by all of the loudest parrots in this thread. Yes, I AM the one twisting everything into some kind of misconduct, such behavior you, Nutilduuuh, and Bozoza are all above doing amirite?
Lets try different approach here. Do you think nutildah abused trust when he tagged StonerStanley?

If you do, why didn't you call it abuse back then?
If you don't think it was abuse, why don't you tag account yourself?


You mean like when you included account BitcoinSupremo because you don't like some users and those users ended up DT negative because of your actions?

Or your abusive DT manipulation with reciprocal inclusions for your own personal goals? You are not really the one who should lecture others about trust system and scream "abuse".
Speaking of trust system abuse...
Fixed that link for ya, shill.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Does that mean red trust for those "abuses" would be abuse of the trust system? But somehow nutildah removing red trust is also abuse of the trust system?

It's almost as if you have a grudge against nutildah and try to twist anything he does into some sort of misconduct.

That really depends on who's standards you are judging by. I chose not to use red trust, Nutilduuuuuh did. This is independent of other trust system abuses perpetrated by all of the loudest parrots in this thread. Yes, I AM the one twisting everything into some kind of misconduct, such behavior you, Nutilduuuh, and Bozoza are all above doing amirite?


Nutilduuuh uses the trust system as a toy to suit their own personal goals at the cost of the overall community
You mean like when you included account BitcoinSupremo because you don't like some users and those users ended up DT negative because of your actions?

Or your abusive DT manipulation with reciprocal inclusions for your own personal goals? You are not really the one who should lecture others about trust system and scream "abuse".


Speaking of trust system abuse...
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2270
Nutilduuuh uses the trust system as a toy to suit their own personal goals at the cost of the overall community
You mean like when you included account BitcoinSupremo because you don't like some users and those users ended up DT negative because of your actions?

Or your abusive DT manipulation with reciprocal inclusions for your own personal goals? You are not really the one who should lecture others about trust system and scream "abuse".
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
Who said I didn't give a fuck? So because I don't abuse the trust system like you all that means I don't give a fuck?

Does that mean red trust for those "abuses" would be abuse of the trust system? But somehow nutildah removing red trust is also abuse of the trust system?

It's almost as if you have a grudge against nutildah and try to twist anything he does into some sort of misconduct.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
Those were your own words sparky. It's not really my fault that you're trying so hard to make shit up that you inevitably go overboard. Fortunately you have no capacity to step back and admit that you've been wrong so it's always fun to watch you make more shit up to cover up the shit made up previously.

So to recap: nutildah is excusing grave crimes (or at least two of three grave crimes if we buy your latest excuse) that no one else really gives a fuck about, including yourself. Since when is nutildah obligated to be your personal enforcer?

Yes, my words, which you accused me of cherry picking by making a statement. Weird, I didn't know one could cherry pick one's own statement as they make it, but ok. Grave crimes? No. very clearly documented abuses in public? Absolutely. Who said I didn't give a fuck? So because I don't abuse the trust system like you all that means I don't give a fuck?

Nutilduuuh is not obligated to do anything, however the fact that StonerStanley has a very clear vendetta against me was more than enough reason for Nutilduuh to cut them some slack. If they had a vendetta against you for example, that never would have happened, hence my raising the issue that Nutilduuuh uses the trust system as a toy to suit their own personal goals at the cost of the overall community, much like the rest of the parrots squawking up this thread.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
I see! It has to be ALL THREE otherwise it doesn't count! Careful you don't sprain your ankle doing all those backflips.

Those were your own words sparky. It's not really my fault that you're trying so hard to make shit up that you inevitably go overboard. Fortunately you have no capacity to step back and admit that you've been wrong so it's always fun to watch you make more shit up to cover up the shit made up previously.

So to recap: nutildah is excusing grave crimes (or at least two of three grave crimes if we buy your latest excuse) that no one else really gives a fuck about, including yourself. Since when is nutildah obligated to be your personal enforcer?
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2270
Nutty no likey Tec. Soney no likey Tec. Nutty help Stoney, cause Nutty like Stoney no likey Tec.
Techy no likey Stoney. Techy like nutildah red trust. Techy say no word. Nutildah remove red trust. Techy no like nutilda remove red trust. Techy upset now.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
No one placed a red trust rating for him?

LOL

Nice sweet cherries you picked there. Here is what I said:

no one has posted a red trust rating (or any kind of rating) for StonerStanley about him being a "sock puppeting, extortionist, trust system abuser", including yourself.

The highlighted part is what nutildah is allegedly "excusing". So why would you cut out only part of that sentence... rhetorical question. Please carry on making up bullshit accusations out of thin air.

I see! It has to be ALL THREE otherwise it doesn't count! Careful you don't sprain your ankle doing all those backflips.



I am not trying to do anything but hold you accountable for your actions.

Okay, have fun.

So this isn't what you were saying here?

My negative trust for Stanley was based on him harassing DT members. This is one of the more flimsy things to base a red trust on (in my book), and I decided to be forgiving about it...

flimsy ≠ frivolous

"Flimsy" means something that is a tag-able offense but easily forgivable. Stanley didn't scam anyone so the danger presented by removing my red trust on him is low to non-existent. "Frivolous" would mean leaving a red trust for somebody because they called you an incel.

I don't need to red tag you or Stoner for it, because unlike you I don't abuse red trust ratings. This does effect me, trust system abuse effects everyone.

1. That's your opinion. I would say the red trust you left on Vod is abuse.
2. Explain how it affects you. Or don't. I don't actually care.

Ah, yes, it is all very technical and nuanced. So nuanced it can mean opposing ideas at the same time. I already explained how it effects me. Weird that you have given negative ratings simply for having alt accounts in the past, but those were people who disagreed with you, so that was ok. This person disagrees with me, so best to overlook it since it serves your personal goals and soothes your emotional voids at the expense of the trust system and overall community.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
No one placed a red trust rating for him?

LOL

Nice sweet cherries you picked there. Here is what I said:

no one has posted a red trust rating (or any kind of rating) for StonerStanley about him being a "sock puppeting, extortionist, trust system abuser", including yourself.

The highlighted part is what nutildah is allegedly "excusing". So why would you cut out only part of that sentence... rhetorical question. Please carry on making up bullshit accusations out of thin air.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
What vendetta? You're the one making the contrived circular accusation of excusing "sock puppeting, extortionist, trust system abusers" merely because nutildah removed red trust. By that logic every single person on this forum is excusing "sock puppeting, extortionist, trust system abusers" because no one has posted a red trust rating (or any kind of rating) for StonerStanley about him being a "sock puppeting, extortionist, trust system abuser", including yourself.

The Clowndetta™, the one you, Nutilduhh, and the same group of white faced red nosed floppy shoe wearing tards have very obviously been perpetrating for years. Everyone else didn't place the rating then remove it.

No one placed a red trust rating for him?

ABitNut   2014-07-08   Reference   "This is an alt account, so whoever you're dealing with is hiding."



Seems like you are trying awfully hard to stir up drama here. I did not say my rating was invalid to begin with -- stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say you conceded anything -- I asked and answered a question I knew you were implying, and you still are implying.

Guess you should red tag me for it, perhaps Stanley as well.

None of this affects you whatsoever. Now man up and stop crying.

Quote
Here you are once again trying to make this into some kind of crime I perpetrated to distract from your own irrational and emotion based actions

I am not trying to do anything but hold you accountable for your actions. So this isn't what you were saying here?

My negative trust for Stanley was based on him harassing DT members. This is one of the more flimsy things to base a red trust on (in my book), and I decided to be forgiving about it...

I don't need to red tag you or Stoner for it, because unlike you I don't abuse red trust ratings. This does effect me, trust system abuse effects everyone.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
No, I left him a neutral documenting his alt. I am following the objective standards I promote. Just be careful you don't puke all over yourself spinning so hard.

Nutilduuh did however leave a negative that they felt was justified, then removed it in a mutual trade. Weird how your inquiries only go in the direction that serves your vendetta just like Nutilduhh and the rest of the clown car riders.

What vendetta? You're the one making the contrived circular accusation of excusing "sock puppeting, extortionist, trust system abusers" merely because nutildah removed red trust. By that logic every single person on this forum is excusing "sock puppeting, extortionist, trust system abusers" because no one has posted a red trust rating (or any kind of rating) for StonerStanley about him being a "sock puppeting, extortionist, trust system abuser", including yourself.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
You haven't red-trusted StonerStanley yourself. Why is it an issue that nutildah removed the feedback? Or are you excusing the abuser too?

No, I left him a neutral documenting his alt. I am following the objective standards I promote. Just be careful you don't puke all over yourself spinning so hard.

Nutilduuh did however leave a negative that they felt was justified, then removed it in a mutual trade. Weird how your inquiries only go in the direction that serves your vendetta just like Nutilduhh and the rest of the clown car riders.
Pages:
Jump to: