I'm sure if you want to support the core principles of providing warnings based on objective standards you would be given an opportunity to redeem any previous trust abuse that you "have" engaged in.
I am inviting account truth or dare to this thread. Please, one case of trust abuse per time. Once one case is resolved, we shall move to next case. 
Topic: Trust abuse by marlboroza (Read 794 times)
Bump
luckygames
Hello shill. That negative will stay, I don't care how many bets they have - they cheated player, got caught, end of story. Now go and shill somewhere else.
i wouldn't call it trust abuse. but was funny you giving all the neg. trust back in the day while wearing a fortunejack sig.
i wonder if you ever gave fortunejack any neg. feedback?
as we all know fortune jack isn't on the up n up some of the time.
ps. luckygames is going strong. 122 billion bets and in last 2 years no threads about luckygames in the scam section.
of course now your going to delete this post. but i said my peace.
screenshot for further refernce in future threads
i wonder if you ever gave fortunejack any neg. feedback?
as we all know fortune jack isn't on the up n up some of the time.
ps. luckygames is going strong. 122 billion bets and in last 2 years no threads about luckygames in the scam section.
of course now your going to delete this post. but i said my peace.
screenshot for further refernce in future threads
Small update.
Account wwzsocki is kicked out of this thread. All wwzsocki's posts and all replies to their posts are and will be removed.
Hm, is something not clear in local rules?
Account wwzsocki is kicked out of this thread. All wwzsocki's posts and all replies to their posts are and will be removed.
Hm, is something not clear in local rules?
What will average user think about that?
It's a neutral so you're kinda breaking local rules
And it says "Possibly". If an average user can't read or think then it's not really marlboroza's problem, is it?
It is kind off topic because it is for neutral feedback but ok, as you took some time to speak for someone...
Thank you for your opinion, but why should I delete opinion if I don't agree with it?
That's just my opinion. You can delete it if you disagree.
Just for the record, I think you are alt accounts. There is possibility that you are not(based on your words) but very likely you are(based on proofs). I choose to listen community and members who expressed their opinions(directly or indirectly) about this case and will neutralize -ve.
I removed -ve but I am not going to remove neutral comment, it is factual. Thank you for your opinion, but why should I delete opinion if I don't agree with it?
I will not call this "trust abuse" but I think that wwzsocki case is worth to reconsider (accusation thread).
He is top 102 most merited (760 merits earned) - just recently get legendary rank - and first thing you see after looking into his account is "Possibly alt accounts: crypto mania, wwzsocki. Exchanged merit." - that's the one and only feedback about his account from DT.
What will average user think about that?
He is a cheater, he boost his rank by alt accounts (maybe there are more and only one was caught), he is not worth cooperating with.
What is the truth? (according to his story which might be true)
He helped his close friend to start his journey with bitcointalk. Seeing how he is struggling with getting merits he decided to help him and send 72 merits in a matter of 1 year (to posts that in his opinion were worth the reward). He wasn't hiding anything. He wrote multiple times that they know each other.
Why I've decided to speak for him?
1- I know this case from the beginning because wwzoscki wrote on Polish local board about his connection with cryptomania long before this case started.
2- I see his posts everyday on Polish local board. After i saw red trust on his account i jumped into accusation thread to see what happened. After reading OP I could't believe that someone who is getting that many merits with ease (currently 760) is boosting himself with alt account. I've read whole thread and that was my conclusion:
* Wwzsocki is not that stupid to create alt account using the same ETH address, Mail, reflink etc.
* Wwzsocki is earning merits with ease. He would not risk his account (with hundreds merits earned) exchanging merits with alt account especially with the same ETH address, mail (to get 40 merits back)
* I strongly believe that his motivation was not to cheat merit system.
3- hopefully all DT took of red paint but still his account looks like he is a cheater who boosted his account using alt account.
Conclusion:
I think that those 40 merits that wwzsocki get from his friend (I honestly doubt the story regarding alt accounts) are drop in a sea of merits he earned. Trust is made to warn others about people not worth to work with. Is this case really worth to leave a mark on top 100 most merited account?
I'm not DT and mostly not active in Reputation section (my opinion means nothing) but I think that he is too valuable member to carry this mark for 40 merits from friend that he received in a matter of 1 year.
I would delete this mark or change it from "Possibly alt accounts: crypto mania, wwzsocki. Exchanged merit." to "Accounts connected: crypto mania, wwzsocki."
That's just my opinion. You can delete it if you disagree.
He is top 102 most merited (760 merits earned) - just recently get legendary rank - and first thing you see after looking into his account is "Possibly alt accounts: crypto mania, wwzsocki. Exchanged merit." - that's the one and only feedback about his account from DT.
What will average user think about that?
He is a cheater, he boost his rank by alt accounts (maybe there are more and only one was caught), he is not worth cooperating with.
What is the truth? (according to his story which might be true)
He helped his close friend to start his journey with bitcointalk. Seeing how he is struggling with getting merits he decided to help him and send 72 merits in a matter of 1 year (to posts that in his opinion were worth the reward). He wasn't hiding anything. He wrote multiple times that they know each other.
Why I've decided to speak for him?
1- I know this case from the beginning because wwzoscki wrote on Polish local board about his connection with cryptomania long before this case started.
2- I see his posts everyday on Polish local board. After i saw red trust on his account i jumped into accusation thread to see what happened. After reading OP I could't believe that someone who is getting that many merits with ease (currently 760) is boosting himself with alt account. I've read whole thread and that was my conclusion:
* Wwzsocki is not that stupid to create alt account using the same ETH address, Mail, reflink etc.
* Wwzsocki is earning merits with ease. He would not risk his account (with hundreds merits earned) exchanging merits with alt account especially with the same ETH address, mail (to get 40 merits back)
* I strongly believe that his motivation was not to cheat merit system.
3- hopefully all DT took of red paint but still his account looks like he is a cheater who boosted his account using alt account.
Conclusion:
I think that those 40 merits that wwzsocki get from his friend (I honestly doubt the story regarding alt accounts) are drop in a sea of merits he earned. Trust is made to warn others about people not worth to work with. Is this case really worth to leave a mark on top 100 most merited account?
I'm not DT and mostly not active in Reputation section (my opinion means nothing) but I think that he is too valuable member to carry this mark for 40 merits from friend that he received in a matter of 1 year.
I would delete this mark or change it from "Possibly alt accounts: crypto mania, wwzsocki. Exchanged merit." to "Accounts connected: crypto mania, wwzsocki."
That's just my opinion. You can delete it if you disagree.
Small update.
Marcotheminer is kicked from this thread. Not only that he broke local rules and also used this thread to spam his new signature, he already has his own thread to discuss about abuse therefore all his posts and replies to his post are and will be removed without further notice.
Marcotheminer is kicked from this thread. Not only that he broke local rules and also used this thread to spam his new signature, he already has his own thread to discuss about abuse therefore all his posts and replies to his post are and will be removed without further notice.
It's difficult to reason with someone who blocks private conversations..
They have responded to you quite extensively within the thread you've created. I feel like the issue has been "reasoned" just about as much as it possibly can, but you're not satisfied with the outcome so you think it must continue. If I had to guess, they probably blocked private messages because they got sick of playing ring-around-the-rosie with the same 3-arguments.
Besides, the purpose of this thread is
-ve tagged accounts can't speak for themselves. Only others can speak for -ve tagged accounts.
Presumably it is this way to avoid bias and unproductive back-and-forth. Do you have examples of marlboroza's trust abuse that fit the scope of this thread?
~
I am talking about my trust feedback. I updated topic, if it is now more understandable. 
More or less 1000-2000 tagged accounts. Bring it all here.
It seems you know some. Why don't you begin to give an example? Then, others can easily follow what you expect.
That's a suggestion
Bring it all here.
Local rule: -ve tagged accounts can't speak for themselves. Only others can speak for -ve tagged accounts.
Thread will be self moderated for only reason to remove cryptocunt's text walls and deflection (i.e. tecshare's, QS's and similar). Bring only "-ve" users here and your reasons why something should be removed.
I am open for suggestions and improvement.
edited.
Local rule: -ve tagged accounts can't speak for themselves. Only others can speak for -ve tagged accounts.
Thread will be self moderated for only reason to remove cryptocunt's text walls and deflection (i.e. tecshare's, QS's and similar). Bring only "-ve" users here and your reasons why something should be removed.
I am open for suggestions and improvement.
edited.
Jump to: