Congrats, (...?) on everything except the actual term OP Ggddtt violated
So you agree on the other points?Not with points different from the one ibminer failed to validate, and irrelevant in your attempt to conflate, as ibminer's context carried a risked BTC advance warning & consequence, and your 2 points did not have the context of a risked BTC advance warning nor consequences thereof.
This:
violated this:
Proof of funds can be given to trusted escrow.
violated this:
Auction Terms (should go without saying, but: if violated, negative feedback with risked BTC will be left)
...
...
- No terms or conditions (including by any other name) may be proposed or demanded (including by any other name) by any bidder.
Asking to get a trusted escrow involved is actually trustworthy. What could deserve negative trust is refusing.
In any case, what we're discussing here is whether there was a scam attempt and, therefore, negative trust was deserved.
"Trusted" - like the misplaced trust that you will ever actually read my posts & acknowledge what I wrote instead of poorly pretending to reply to them in good faith?
Once again, Sgt. Schultz:
As Self-EscrowGate proved anyone can get away with a criminally-indictable offense more severe than simply being a ham sandwich & not even at a bare minimum get permabanned from BCT...
I've noticed "self-escrowing" & escrows not keeping up/being able to keep up with their deals. I've noticed an escrow telling the victim terms for release, then when met, going back on them & not releasing, leaving it up to the perpetrator to authorize release.
If "I" ever accept or offer escrow services, assume my account is compromised.
I didn't say force. But me & countless others who bought into that advocacy in various posts did commit that economic suicide, and lost untold millions if not billions in USD-equivalent BTC as a result. So fuck all of us AGAIN, and ONLY, for falling victim to shills? No, fuck the shills by every legal means necessary.
Again, if they're not forcing you to anything (which you agree they're not doing) then they're not scamming.Scams do not require an element of force. Why are you so insistent on shoehorning that term in?
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
Quote
I negatively rated them because I strongly believe that each of those terms violators were running a "scam"
That doesn't make sense. They're not scamming and you know it. Don't try using SaltySpitoon's quote to try and justify your actions.Stop justifying the actions of those who induce
Your wrongful interpretation of everything as a scam attempt is even more strange because most of your overpriced auctions and offers really look like jokes/trolling so joking replies would seem welcome. I posted once in one of your threads truly convinced it was a joke, but now I think you actually may have been trying to be serious!
Not everything, nor overpriced compared to contemporaneous market prices.And several threads of yours are definitely overpriced compared to rational market prices. Several of your threads do seem like jokes/trolling.
I spend hours researching multiple, contemporaneous markets' prices & then rationally sync my prices with them, yet you still claim they are "definitely overpriced"?
I'm physically sick of you & the anti-terms lynch mob's abject bullshit; you're ignored & my notifications for this topic are disabled.
