Bitcoin Forum

🤔🤔🤔

Right on time.

Did you read the reference?

Did you read the reference?

In case anybody that is interested has somehow missed the rest of the related discussion the thread can be found here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3853171.msg37414857#msg37414857 . Essentially it reads as your typical Meta thread complaining about DT ratings that they disagree with.

Just because a negative rating is left, and you disagree with it, that does not constitute abuse. You continually are attempting to skew Marketplace Trust ratings in exchange for money. You have spoken of extorting scammers for financial gain, in order to release them back on the community to wreak havoc. You have talked about removing negative trust for money, which you clearly have no capability to do. These users have deemed you untrustworthy because of your actions, words and trolling; which part of that is abusive? There is no criteria to leave trust ratings, so I'm very confused which part of this is abuse.

Why didn't you tag me then? why did you wait until now? you were aware of the situation but you didn't tag me, why?

No worries, I've heard there is this guy who can take care of your red trust for a 0.02 BTC fee.

I fail to understand:
a) the relevance of the quote in relation to this situation
b) why time plays any factor in feedback - I should be allowed to send feedback at any time, right? There's no time limit.

Bullying me. quoting for reference.


Of course, you are free to do as you wish. I don't have any problem with you, I have a problem with your actions, time to change the trust system, you are tagging me right now for something that was resolved in the past. you are using your DT power to harass me.

If you think it is bullying you summarize your service back to you, then I'm not sure where we go from here. You're offended by your own words, we cannot protect you from your own foolishness.


They tagged you for attempting to charge people in order to remove red trust. This is exactly what you are attempting to do, again. This was not resolved in the past, since you clearly do not understand what you are doing wrong, although there is a good example of it lying within the past.


You're the one that made a thread about them, claiming abuse, because you disagree and don't understand the negative ratings you are receiving.

wait what are you saying?

http://bookbuilder.cast.org/view_print.php?book=36737

Hey actmyname, you forgot to tag this idiot digorion's alt account. come on now, show us what abuse really looks like. you guys are either stupid or again just stupid, you don't realize that you are helping me this way. now if any of you remove your red tags on me could mean that I can actually help people with their red tags. if you keep them on me forever, I'd be having evidence against you for abusing your DT positions. this is a warning for others, think before tagging people please.

@Bill gates, go spam with your signature else where man.

@Flying Hellfish, actmyname was aware of the situation before, the quote is merely to point out his awareness of situation about the matter, he didn't tag me then but now after I have spoken against his bosses, he has tagged me. I'm sorry to drag you into this man.

You keep talking about this "evidence"... where is it?

What situation? The post that I referenced was taken from Timelord's feedback.

?

After you have spoken against my "bosses"? Who's the boss of me?

Also, don't forget... correlation is not causation. ;)

You posted where I was talking about marlboroza tagging me. are you sleeping on the class? did you even know what we were talking about back then?

So if Timelord is not on DT anymore, you are making his tags on me to appear by default? aren't you spitting to the faces of people who removed him from DT?

http://www.auplod.com/u/laupoda8ea3.png (http://www.auplod.com/i-laupoda8ea3.html)

http://www.auplod.com/u/pulodaa8ea5.png (http://www.auplod.com/i-pulodaa8ea5.html)

You just woke up right?

IIRC he was never on DT. And even if he was on DT, during the past couple months I know that Timelord certainly was not on DT.

---

Also, just because I did not respond to a series of exchanges back then doesn't mean I don't have the right to do so now. I'm sorry I can't go back in time and tag you a month earlier.

It looks like I will forever see digaran having a red trust now that actmyname painted on his wall.
digaran remove his avatar now I think this is getting serious not just trolling anymore.

I at times feel bad for Digaran... I sincerely believe that he's just an overt troll, but not a Scamster; but then I can't judge him for others...

I dunno how others feel on this, but obviously this constitutes as online harassment and if someone responds by saying that look at what @Digaran did, that's no excuse...

Negative trust does NOT mean a person IS a scammer...  Why is it hard to understand that some people SUBJECTIVELY don't fucking trust a mentally ill troll.


You're so right NO ONE EVER should be judged by their actions...  ????   ???? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Do I need a /s here or can people understand my sarcasm...???

I don't mind some trolling and who among us hasn't done that... God knows how much stupid shit I've posted over the years myself.

I think offering an impossible-to-deliver service and charging a non-refundable fee for it goes beyond merely trolling. If digaran is not serious about this "business" then the red trust won't matter, and if he is serious then the red trust is useful as a warning.

Ofcourse as I said; I can't judge him for others, but till date I wasn't aware that trust ratings reflected someone's IQ.



I never said that; please stop selectively quoting and misinterpreting. I am pointing out that a lot of members feel, that he is served for his trolling.






You've got a valid point; also when the last time a neg was changed; he started this thing of claiming to defend people.

I want to get paid for spending my time on defending people, who are you to dictate your own terms for my business?

What if I were to propose an escrow service?

Terms: You must pay a fee of 95% or 2 BTC, whichever is higher. There is no refund if I send it to a wrong address, which I may do so 50% of the time. Also, if you do not PM me every single day after you request my services, I will back out of any deal and the fees will be kept.

---

Unfair terms can be attacked.

Where can i hire you? Seems like a reasonable escrow terms. But seriously, digaran is doing this for the lulz. There is funny trolling and then there is digaran. I hope that you don't remove your tag, as he is pretty shady and no one can know whether he is being for real or not.

However asking for 0.02BTC to "defend" people with red tags is impossible, as i doubt that people here who are pretty much anonymous to a certain point, can be made to remove their tags. That to me personally is scamming.

Perhaps a more apt analogy is if I were to offer a service to unban others: to try and make a case for them, for a fee.

It's essentially the same thing: if I don't offer refunds and I can't be expected to consistently resolve the problem (especially considering the customer demographic is more than often in the wrong) then that's pretty much a scam attempt.

Red trust is not going to prevent you from defending people and even getting paid for it, if people agree with your terms. I'm a big fan of informed decisions. You're being suspiciously erratic with your incessant post edits and other shady shit so I'm helpfully highlighting all that.

Now, seriously, don't you need to start actually working on your business?

Look, digaran is our new campaign manager: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3957080.0

Archive: https://archive.fo/1flaa

This is actually starting to get fun :D

I would like to request for a review on actmyname actions. who is in charge for him to be on DT? honestly tell me if you can't see that he is harassing me?

EDIT: are people plagiarizing me now? take a look at reputation and the titles. lol.

I have already resolved the issue here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3502223.0

How many times do I need to defend myself? this is harassment and I will never forgive you for it actmyname. you don't deserve to be on DT, this is harassment, I shouldn't have to explain myself to every DT member every time they have a boner for me and decide to tag me.

@theymos, right now actmyname's excuse for tagging me is that he took Timelord2067's feedback as the reference, why isn't he tagging all other people who got tagged by timelord2067?

How? Take the exact quote that changed marlboroza's mind.

As many times as necessary.

But you should explain your actions.

That refutation lacks substance. It's the same used argument that account sellers make: "If you tagged me then why didn't you tag everyone else?"

Stop thinking you're special. The day before you were tagged, I also negged 7 users. It's not a 'targeted attack'.

Blazed has actmyname on his trust list, and theymos has ~actmyname on his trust list.

Digaran is for sure one strange guy....
I've always tried to stay away from those topics as whenever he is involved shit hits the fan, Tim Hortons style.

Sometimes I feel like he's just child trying to get attention by breaking another vase or shaving the cat no, not that cat, and sometimes he seems pure evil, oozing envy or malice, dunno really what's with him.
Reading his threads and his posts in the morning I feel bad for him and get the impression he's really sorry but after two replies he manages to screw things up again.

Not that I'm defending him but I doubt that even he didn't believe for a second he might have customers with his so called "services".


If he had offered "mediation services" for a fee, still no guarantee, would that have triggered the red trust?
Just curios...

I'm going to regret posting here in less than an hour, I'm pretty sure of it.

In the context of his... hmm... character I would see anything where he asks for money as a huge red flag, possibly needing negative feedback. I'm not sure what mediation would entail so I can't say specifically.

Why would you tag me based on Timelord2067 feedback? because you are trying to bully me with DT power you have, if Blazed is going to stay quite here, he is on to this abuse of power and is not taking any action. you are inflicting damage on my reputation. if he has nothing to say after seeing your actions, it means that he doesn't care if your actions are hurting my reputation. if he doesn't care for other people's reputation, why should we allow him to keep the power over other people? being on DT comes with a responsibility, if he is not willing to spend his time, he shouldn't be on DT because the people on his trust list are abusing and harassing forum members.

Do you seriously think that I believe every single thing Timelord writes? No. However, I based my feedback off of his. Of course, I would investigate independently first. You also still haven't shown me your defense.

You still think you're so special. This is what happens when kids get in trouble, eh? I've already told you that you're not being specifically targeted. You're just very vocal and annoying, which means I will respond to you more often than someone that doesn't post about me at all.

Yes, I am. Thus you should defend your case yourself, just as you've offered that service to others ;)

Blazed is not that active on BCT, AFAIK.

---

Thanks for deleting my post, by the way. I'll just repost it here:

The difference between a qualified lawyer and you is that they:
a) have knowledge of how the system works (you don't really)
b) will usually have past experience, either in the field or some mocks in law school (you don't really)
c) have a pre-existing reputation (you don't really)[/quote]

You're the one damaging your reputation. Your own words and actions are referenced in the trust ratings you got.

And you keep digging:


So you went from "red tag removal service" to "I don't care [I just want to get paid]".

Who are you to dictate your own terms for my business, you are trying to abuse me with your DT power, you are also trying to undermine marlboroza. I have said that people should pay to the forum and not me. but you are trying to waste my time. you are not reading the whole thread where I have convinced marlboroza to remove his tag on me. you are trying to bully me with your DT power, now that you have this power, you want me to waste my time and explain myself to you. this is harassment. you should be removed from DT, you turned this trust system to your tool for harassing people. you are saying that after I have convinced marlboroza now I should convince you, this is bullying. you are trying to hold your power over me saying that I need to explain myself over and over. you are not helping this community, you are holding people down with your DT power.

You might as well tag everybody else who got tagged by other DT members and ask them to suck for you too. this is abuse and harassment. you don't deserve to hold this power. what you are doing is causing me to engage in unnecessary refute over a resolved issue.

Every other DT member should now tag me and ask me for explanation? that is abuse and harassment, you should be removed from DT. you are distracting everybody here.

You are not in a position to dictate the terms of my business affairs. you are just using your power to fuck with me. therefore you should be removed from DT to avoid this kind of unwanted discussions over and over and over and over. you are not helping anybody, you are tagging me and then asking me to kiss your ass to convince you removing your tag. you have also a lot of positive feedbacks without reference, you are abusing your power, why should we trust your words if you don't know how to be objective in your judgement? @people of Bitcointalk, tell me that you don't really see what is happening here. why should we trust actmyname's words? he has left positive trust for the people who have left positive trust for him. they are all taking advantage over us. and they think that we should trust them after repeatedly abusing other forum members.

Can confirm this goy "actmyname" is part of the bullies team, just another asshole having fun dictating his rules on the forum

Who said DT members have to agree with one another? If that were the case then it would truly be a horrible centralized cartel, like you've been spouting. Pick one or the other and stick with it.

If you paid any attention to the past, you would realize that this "DT cartel" has had its own brand of problems on multiple occasions. There's been tons of drama with exclusions and inclusions.

Regardless of who is getting paid, you're basically offering a free pass to scammers. What, they can get off easily with just a fine? That's not the way to go with it. I don't see how that would be beneficial at all. You can scam for way more than $50 here. Easily.

If my feedback has been unjust then I would have been removed months ago.

How long does it take to quote a post and reply here with the contents?

Rather than doing so, you continue to repeat the same old crap.

Redundancy in feedback is not a bad thing. And just because I sent it to one individual doesn't mean I have to send it to all tagged members. Keep in mind (again) that you're not special. I've sent out negative feedback to many users other than you. I've responded to threads about me many times before.

From what?

So then I can offer unfair terms that don't guarantee a service and get away scot-free with it? That's not how it works in the real world and that's not how it works here.

You're being a bit repetitive now.

When have I ever said this? This is just false.

Because there isn't one specific thing they can refer to. Apart from Hhampuz's.

I have been objective. In fact, many a time I have disagreed with TP, marlboroza, OgNasty and Lauda. All of which are on DefaultTrust.

More like: I've been left positive trust by the people that I trust. I sent TP positive feedback before he sent it to me, by the way. All other feedback from me was sent prior to their positive feedback.

How does tagging you benefit me in any way? I'm not taking advantage of you.

Not working so well anymore, is it now? Here is a new thread where you're whining about marlboroza again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4006863.0

Why are you tagging me now? you were aware of the situation or you were blind and were trying to increase your post count when you posted on this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3502223.0

You are telling me again that I need to convince you. read the topic to see my explanation. who told you that you could act as a judge here? if you could act as a judge then I shouldn't have to discuss anything with you, because you are the one holding the power over me, it's your words against mine, of course you wouldn't listen to whatever I tell you.

Show me a post where I have asked people that they should pay me money in order for me to remove my tags on them.

Because he has tagged me for trolling. that is not the use of trust system. if I am lying about staff and trolling people I should get banned, who is marlboroza to tag me as a scammer? in the trust page it says that you should tag people if they are scammers, nothing about trolling and lying.

Show me one example of me trolling and lying.

You lied multiple times about me tagging you for your merit application. Also about my "bosses". There is probably a lot more that I'm forgetting now. You're a liar, nothing new here.

Am I (or anyone else) not allowed to deem trolls untrustworthy, and therefore leave a negative trust feedback?

Where is trolling show me?

You didn't tag me for trolling and lying, did you?

There were multiple red flags. Lying - misrepresentation of your abilities specifically - was among them.


Are you now claiming that my feedback doesn't fully reflect your untrustworthiness? Let me know what you would like to get added to it.

Can you please...

Answer question above. You used that as an example of "your latest work" for your shady law practice.

---

---

Is this trolling, joking, sarcasm or you seriously believe in this?

Is this trolling, joking, sarcasm or you seriously believe in this?

Is this trolling, joking, sarcasm or you seriously believe in this?

Is this trolling, joking, sarcasm or you seriously believe in this?

Is this trolling, joking, sarcasm or you seriously believe in this?

Is this trolling, joking, sarcasm or you seriously believe in this?

Is this trolling, joking, sarcasm or you seriously believe in this?

ETC.

---

SIR, is this trolling, joking, sarcasm or are you on antidepressants?

Were you sleep when I opened a thread about you or are you trolling me here?

This is about actmyname not you, why didn't you ask these questions before? they are about your previous tag on me.

@digiron, nigga listen. if it looks like a vagina and smells like a vagina then it is a vagina. these DT members are fucking with you and you still haven't realized it.

Where is Blazed? somebody PM him to see this thread. these people have turned the trust system in to a joke. do you think I care if you all tag me? have at it I dare you.

---

I would advise you to stop breaking the rules.

---

You obviously know about the edit button since you use it all the time to change thread titles. Why not use it?

Clearly with all the threads, the feedback hath struck many a nerve.

PM him yourself. Make sure to mention vagina at least three times and call him "nigga" too for good measure.

This is not about trolling. you didn't tag me for trolling. you tagged me for something else. I have one question: where did I ask for money for myself? reason of your tag is that I have asked for money to remove red tag. where is that I have asked this? answer this and I will shut up.

I have said nothing of trolling. The posts that I have quoted were consecutive posts and are in violation of the forum rules. I don't think I've tagged anyone for trolling and I don't think I will.

Did you look at the reference?

Report me then for violating forum rules.

Now take a look at the bold part and ask yourself, did digaran ask for money for himself?

Is that part relevant to my feedback?

It's not the destination that matters but the principle that you're letting scammers get away scot-free with just a fee. I have already mentioned this before and in no way am I saying that the negative feedback is in response to you asking for money, for yourself.

Check this quote:


We've already gone through this before. You're grasping at nothing here.

---

Forcing scammers to pay the forum is basically rerouting the money from victims into a mandatory donation.

But I have no power on this forum, I'm just a random member, why are you tagging me? you should prosecute governments for giving a free pass to people after fining them with money. you are using your DT power to bully me. you were aware of this fact but you didn't tag me then, you can't just tag me now, other DT members should now tag me and say the same thing, right? that is abuse of power. if you are not listening to reason and keep your tag on me, you are abusing your power. if you think that I was going to give a free pass to scammers, you should report me to authorities, why are you tagging me as a scammer?

Whoever has listed you on DT agrees with you and you both don't deserve to have this power, you are not reasonable, you are trying to suppress my political opinion with your DT power.  I believe in the rule of law, even if somebody is a scammer we should charge them a fine based on the money they have scammed and take the scammed money back this way. if you are against my methods, why would you tag me and ruin my reputation?

First and foremost you are just an immature individual who likes to troll rather than having any merit on what you talk in the first place, you very well know that trust is not moderated and you very well preached about that to me, so why are you crying about it now and calling people out. Your method is crap as you wanted to scam with your so called service that aides in negotiation with members of DT which you have no control over and you will keep the money collected even if it is not in favor, it is an outright dubious service in the first place and so is the reason you got what you deserved, so stop chirping around and do not call it an ultimate troll. :P  

Go enter your name with slight changes and get extra stakes, you cheater. don't be a butthurt. go tag me in retaliation after I have tagged you. go.

This is the problem with you, you just do not use your brains to think before vomiting something, do you think i have to be butt hurt because you are an immature forum user that make decisions without looking at facts because the facts remains that some nut reentered my profile name in an open spreadsheet even without knowing how they are distributing the stakes as you need to verify your KYC in their website. Here i am talking in context with the cringe thread you created and your inability to think has shown once again by the rambling now, i just have to tell you one thing,just grow up .

Why would you care? trust is not moderated, I'm not on DT, whenever you see me on DT come here to talk, not on this thread though. where is your ETH address you got your tokens on? if you have received more than once, you have cheated.

I would care if someone like you is running a campaign who does not even understand how things work or you somehow magically appear as a DT member which is highly unlikely with a volatile mind like you that is never going to happen because it is hard for you to grab even simple things, you can still be an internet troll in a basement and no one gives a shit what you do, i can literally post anywhere in this forum and i do not need your permission where i post as there is no censorship here until i am posting gibberish and coming to the tokens you are talking about, i entered my mail ID in the spreadsheet and the stakes will be only allocated to mail ID i submitted in the spreadsheet where i verify my identity and no matter how fake nuts enter my profile details in an open spreadsheet they are not getting anything, it is as simple as that and a genius like you is finding it hard to understand the facts because you are either stupid enough to understand how the campaign i joined is working  or you do not bother to know it, i believe in the former though.  :P

The user's "power" doesn't matter. It's their intentions. Hypothetically, if you were to say, "I will escrow scam when given the opportunity" then I would also tag you. It doesn't matter if you're offering escrow or not. It doesn't matter if you're trusted or not. It's the intention that matters.

Trust Feedback != Government Law

What the fuck? There's a time limit on trust feedback? That makes no sense.

You have yet to show me some proper arguments instead of nonsensical rhetoric.

Go read what you wrote and figure out why what you posted was asinine.

WTF? You're blatantly lying now.

Great. So you're going to enforce this mandatory donation. The victim gets fucked over either way.

@People, here is your green light by actmyname, now start tagging people without considering time limit.

Users already do that. I don't know what you're trying to do but your incessant attempts at bone-rattling are very ill-conceived. You need to slow down with the egregious conceit and take a break.

Why don't you tag marlboroza for giving me a free pass? he changed his feedback to neutral, that should mean that he has given me a free pass.  why didn't you tag me when I was discussing my tag with marlboroza? because you wanted to have a personal use of DT power. you tagged me after I talked about a few things why?

Because I don't think they are untrustworthy.

You were already tagged by marlboroza. I didn't feel a need to tag you for the same thing twice back then. However, they changed it.

You're trying to make it personal. You're trying to come up with some explanation as to why I tagged you. About anything but the reference. Causation is not correlation: we've already gone over this.

---

I have already answered the same questions from you over and over, yet you continue with these contemptuous strawman and ad-hominem attacks.

So it is your words against mine? you have the power and I don't. I should prove myself to you by agreeing with you and by being your bitch. never. he has given me free pass by your standards and you should tag him too. if not then you shouldn't show your distrust to me by default, because it's all comes back to you trusting somebody or not, if you don't trust me, you are tagging me red for everybody to see, if marlboroza has removed his tag on me and you wont tag him per your own standards, you don't deserve to hold DT power, you are favoring others and discarding me because "you don't trust me". your distrust is also showing me as a scammer by default, I care about my reputation.

If you are not going to tag him, you don't deserve to be on DT because you can't judge everybody objectively and you are giving him a free pass. this is personal use of DT power. you should be removed from your position if you can't be reasoned with and insist that you are right no matter what the circumstances are.

Should I tag every DT member that doesn't agree with my views? That's ridiculous. Should I tag every DT member that doesn't tag the same people as me? That's ridiculous.

You're simply trying to rope in more people - trying to get others in trouble - because your hubris won't allow you to be the only one. This is why you keep going back to the same tried arguments. You think they have substance. You think they aren't just conflated bits of rhetoric.

---

Considering how three DT members have tagged you, don't you think that you might be part of the reason why?

No, certainly not.

Cognitive dissonance.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wrong.png

You should realize one thing, whatever I tell you, it shouldn't affect your judgement when it comes to tagging people. if you are offended by my words and then tag me to show your dislike, you don't deserve to hold any power.

I'm intentionally trolling you(refer to ~blah~) to see if you can remain objective and not lash out to tag me for revenge. your feedback is not accurate. DT members are acting like a judge here, we can see that by the amount of threads on reputation. if the person who has added you to DT2 doesn't care about your actions, he/she is also unfit to hold DT1 power.

Whoever has added you on DT2 should care what you are doing. not caring could mean 2 things:

1: you are controlling that account.
2: he/she is indifferent and we don't want indifferent people to hold any power, they are already wealthy, they feel already immune to authorities. if they don't care about our reputation, let us know. staying silent means that you agree with DT2 actions. people are not stupid and they could see the truth.

After theymos excluding you from his trust list, keeping you on DT2 means that DT1 member(s) don't care what the admin thinks or wants, while all the DT is based on his trust network. you guys saying that DT is decentralized, consider theymos as the Bitcoin core, if you are not respecting his rules and protocols then you are trying to fork the trust system. a.k.a Bcash and stuff like that.

I would like to suggest that DT feedbacks to be visible only on altcoin sections, if they are not following theymos's trust list and rules.

You're refusing to PM the DT1 members yet you're expecting them to respond. How is that supposed to work?

So in this case you were intentionally trolling, in my case I mistook your jokes for trolling.  You claimed to be a merit source then resigned, then asked to have it back.  You "left" and then came back.  You make completely wild, baseless and frankly completely nonsensical bullshit.

You literally speak out of both sides of your asshole.  Now if you and I were to enter into a contract/agreement for goods or services (it will never happen so don't get any funny ideas LOL) how can I be sure you won't start to intentionally troll me or jokingly troll me or change your mind because a fart scared you.

For any sane person this is a quite logical reason NOT TO TRUST someone.  Please note that I have not called you a scammer nor have I even implied you're a scammer (I don't believe you've "scammed" anyone thus far) but I wouldn't trust you with a bottle of water dude!  Negative trust does not mean a person is a scammer just you don't trust them and should not give them a chance to scam you!!!!!  It can also mean someone has already scammed but one does not preclude the other as much as you think it does.

Lastly like it or not, believe it or not but I and EVERY other user on this site is allowed to have their own opinion of other users even if shockingly enough they are not the same opinions as Digaran's.

You think DT is centralized, then. If theymos's exclusions are king, then I should be off the network. It should be a -999 exclusion. But that's not how he designed the system and that's not how he wanted to design the system.

Now, why do you think that is? Give it some more thought and then maybe you'll find that DT1 members having the choice of disagreeing with theymos is the point.

---

Oh, and I do respect the rules, which is why I don't double-post. ;)

Your insufferable indignancy really doesn't do any favors.

Actmyname was aware of my situation with marlboroza, so he didn't tag me because marlboroza had already tagged me. marlboroza changed his feedback to neutral and then actmyname tagged me for the same reason. that implies that actmyname wants to have it his own way, after seeing marlboroza removed his red tag on me, actmyname said(assumption):  let me tag digaran now, because marlboroza made a mistake and now it's time for me to show my power.

Now any other DT member could tag me and say: hey I don't trust you because you said this. that is abuse of power. telling me to suck for actmyname in order to get rid of my tag would give actmyname an unfair advantage. unfair to me. you could tag me all you want if you are not DT member, but if you are a DT member you should only tag me for scamming. otherwise I should always act like DT members little bitch to avoid getting tagged by them. anybody seeing this abuse of power and stays silent, is also their little bitch, they are afraid to lose their signature shitposting opportunity, nobody is man enough to speak against these tyrants. nobody has the balls to speak against these tyrants and the ones who do have the balls are all red tagged. they are trying to train us into being little bitches. hey come now good boy, come my little bitch. come to merit me when I'm talking shit to digaran. come suchmoon and merit whomever is talking shit to digaran. they all are abusing the merit and trust system and everybody here is their little bitch, speak against them to see for yourself.

He also tagged me after I posted this. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3853171.msg37596979#msg37596979) we'll hear the sob story about causation and correlation, I bet on it. these are all just wild theories right? I do not believe that. check the time stamps of my tag and that post.

Could you please remind us what happened when not-a-DT-member-at-the-time marlboroza tagged you for the first time? Didn't you come up with some bullshit conspiracy theory?

Besides nobody is really asking you to suck anyone, you're the only one bringing it up. And you're still refusing to talk to DT1, which kinda defeats all your rants about the trust system. You just love wallowing in your own shit.

Read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3502223.0

This is hilarious. Point out that he just might be wrong, and he responds with "Blah" and his fingers in his ears. This is how children behave.

He has a flat Earther approach to discussion - he's the only one who is right, everyone else is wrong, and no amount of evidence will change his mind. Honestly guys, you are all wasting your time here.

I guess you guys have found my weakness, many people here are weak when it comes to pussy, I'm weak when it comes to my reputation. if none of you are going to remove your illegit red tags on me, there is nothing I can do about it. all I can do is to wish for you to struggle like me to clear your name and nobody comes to your help. you could only feel what I feel then.

I wont lock these threads though. I will keep coming back. if I'm not PMing your masters is because I really don't want you to lose your DT2 status, you guys are good slaves for theymos. just wait for people to cheat and scam thousands of dollars and then tag them to show what a good slave you are.

You could even join bounties with your alt accounts and earn enough money just to tag your alt accounts after the fact, you'd still remain a good slave.

I don't see any reason for keeping actmyname on DT2, he/she has tagged a few members in total, I believe that he/she is an alt account of somebody. because there are far more better people deserving to be on DT2 like Timelord2067. even though he has tagged me 3 times. I still respect him enough to say nothing even if he is on DT2. let this be here for the records, I will never complain if Timelord is on DT2. but we all know that nobody is going to include him on DT2 because he has tagged some of the alt accounts of DT1 and DT2 members. now one has to wonder, why isn't he on DT2 and actmyname is? yes because he doesn't suck for people. he is not a good little bitch to listen to the masters of this forum.

What part of my feedback is false?

??? You don't want me to lose my DT status but you don't want me on DT. What?

You need to look up the definition of "few".

Believe whatever you want to believe but it's already been confirmed many times over that I'm Lauda./s

So you would be happy with Timelord applying negative trust for the same feedback but not me. I don't quite understand your logic.

For the record, the real reason is because of a 'war on spam' of sorts, which ended with the implementation of the merit system. At the time, I must have had over 200 negative feedbacks sent out to spammers.

Yeah, you see that type of behavior on sites that are dedicated to discussing conspiracy theories.  Anytime you give good physical evidence why there wasn't thermite (or nanothermite) in WTC7, the Truthers will just say you're in on the disinformation campaign.  No offense to anyone here who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, as we're free to disagree.  This was just an example of the "la la la la, I can't heeear youuu!!" attitude.  These people just like the attention they get from holding a stance that's contrary to pretty much everyone else, and I think that might fit digaran like OJ Simpson's glove.  </dating myself>

Diggums:  Give it up already, this is an argument that you are destined to lose.  Repeatedly, and to your detriment if you continue to kick and scream.  That's not a threat, because thus far I've withheld any sort of negative trust and have no intention of giving you one.  I have already given my opinion that you are a harmless boob, and I'm sticking to that.  But other members obviously don't feel that way, and you are bringing very negative attention to yourself and this may prompt others to jump on the negging bandwagon.  Don't push it.

You're not really trying to clear your name, you're just trying to drag everyone into your shit, like for example with this post - DT1, DT2, theymos, Timelord...

I know right, I want to show you that you guys don't deserve your status on DT. if I speak against you and then get a tag, that would be abuse of power.
If for example: you have shown me your dislike of me over the past several months, I had my thread opened for days and I was even discussing it with some of the DT members, all of a sudden you found my thread as a sign of untrustworthiness and tagged me after I posted on a merit source application.

We know that you were against me being a merit source from the start. you just wanted to show your power to me and say that I'm not trustworthy. as I have said it before, nothing I can do to force you physically to remove your tag on me. I just wish and hope for you to face even a worse situation than I have and know the feeling. I'm saying this in public, you could later come back here and see that I was the one who wished this for you.

I have absolutely zero power here. you have decided to bully and sabotage me regardless. I'm telling you now that I will not forgive you for this.
I'm just a pawn in this game of power. you should realize that by now, you are however lost and drunk in your game and can't see it.

If I don't deserve my DT status you should talk to DT1 members. You have repeatedly refused to even try that. I'm guessing it's because that would resolve the situation one way or another but you prefer the never-ending drama.

You keep lying that I tagged you because of the merit source application. Trust feedback has nothing to do with merit. Theymos doesn't care what I think about you.

The way you continue to ascribe "power" to some virtual positions on an internet forum is quite hilarious, I'll give you that. Have a merit for the comedy value.

merit abuse! suchmoon == digaran #confirmed!  :-X

Can't believe this entire thread was simply a long con by suchmoon to be able to merit his alt! :P




Note: the above post has no basis in truth. It is purely for comedy purposes only

Or you could merit people who'd talk against me. for example we could see it here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4006995.msg37914144#msg37914144). note the time of that post and the time of 5 merits received by OP of that thread for reporting a newbie with 7 posts for spamming. something that could be done by reporting to the moderators however suchmoon wanted to have a personal use of merit as well, unless he has merited that OP and everybody else who has talked against me thus far from his own sMerits, I'd say that he is also misusing the merit system like trust. note that he is a merit source.

@suchmoon, I can't be bought. bribe or intimidation doesn't work on me.

Not only is the punk a trust abuser but he actively endorses people who have been involved in multiple exit scams ---> he is aligned with a group of other DT2 members who actively manipulate the trust system to direct traffic to their scams ---> he's not alone.  There's a whole network of these punks on site actively working with one another to rip off other members. Just ignore them or they'll red mark you, and avoid the sites in their signatures at all cost ---> they've already ripped me off twice!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3404553.msg35899233#msg35899233

Ironic, considering you've heavily shilled Betcoin.

I have yet to PM or receive a PM from some of the users that I have given a positive trust to. The worst thing that I have done is make a snide comment about butthurt users like yourself in a private message. Apart from that, I don't really talk to a lot of other DT users.

---

Always applying post hoc to every single event, aren't you? Certainly then, because I received a negative feedback from xSplit and Bazinga442 after tagging you, they are your alternate accounts!

It wasn't a bribe?

digaran, buddy, just head here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full and have a look at who has the people you do not believe should be on DT within their trust list. Contact these people either through one PM and have a conversation with them about why you believe they should remove these people from their list.

I can even make it easy for you

actmyname - Blazed
suchmoon - Blazed , dooglus
marlboroza - hilariousandco

Blazed - Tomatocage, Cyrus
dooglus - theymos, HostFat, dserrano5, tomatocage, Cyrus
hilariousandco - theymos

You can just go right up the chain or "hierarchy" and try to get everyone removed that disagrees with you. Let us know how successful you are, although your trust rating should be a solid indication.

So you're going to have to successfully convince three separate users to remove someone from their trust list. To my knowledge, that has never been accomplished before so you would have quite the marketing campaign for your lawyer service. You'll have to convince Blazed to remove two users from their trust list, and that might be harder than getting Blazed removed from DT. Maybe instead you could try getting Blazed, dooglus and hilariousandco removed from DT. I'm very curious which angle you plan to approach this from, but generally once you've made a big stink like this, even if you get your current ratings removed somebody will most likely replace them.  


I've always said that he's got his moments. Gotten a few good laughs out of digaran, but I'm unsure how self-aware any of the comedy is, we might be giving him too much credit at this point.

You don't collude with other members, really? ---> You're a liar ---> https://keybase.io/actmyname who also poses as an 11 year old to, obviously, attract the attention of underage children --->

http://i67.tinypic.com/2ljhtmv.png
 
For what?  Is the crew you're associated with grooming them for some odd reason?  One of your next projects?

I still play at Betcoin ---> unlike the projects you've given positive trust to that have exited with everybody's money, they're still around and have been around since 2014.

Wow. Because I follow users on Keybase, I am obviously colluding with them. Well shit, time to follow Warren Buffet!

Whooosh.

You lot always assume that there are always these conspiracies and underground dealings with DT members but the worst thing I've seen (subjective) is getting killyou to buy a flamingo and sandwiches.

What exit-scam projects have I given positive trust to? Show me and I will replace the feedback with a negative.

This guy ---> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355846 Who took our money and gave it to these guys ---> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1801121.0 Before they exited and scrubbed their sites from the internet ---> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1773304.220

And....same guy managed this exit scam ----> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1173398.msg12353698#msg12353698 ---> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1323280.msg13516198#msg13516198 ---> who robbed us again ---> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759702.1940


Everybody seen it!  Yet, you give him positive trust while you give negative trust to users who merely post subpar posts shilling for the very same campaign managers that have been ripping us off for years with their exits!  You've been exposed dude!  And ---> when I pointed those exit scams out to you ---> you negged me again! Why? ---> Trust abuse and collusion to promote scammers!

Going to address this first. There is absolutely no reason for me (at that time) to get involved in any drama and collusion. It does not benefit me at all and would not benefit people who are trying to collude together. After all, I was included into DT in 2018. Not the beginning of 2017.

What does sharing PGP keys having to do with collusion? Additionally, that information is already public on the profile and we don't have to follow one another to chat. I also don't have parity with followers:following. I would also like to note that of the 8 users that I am following on that Keybase account, only one of them has "traded trust" with me. Furthermore, DarkStar_ was actually not part of DT when they sent that feedback to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

As for your whole yahoo spiel... when you manage a campaign for a product that looks legitimate but then it turns out to be a scam/shady, is that your fault? e.g. Betcoin

Adding fodder for butthurt users to latch on is always fun since they think they will have some topics more to talk about. ;)

/\ /\ /\
Save that for "Dateline's: To Catch a Predator"

So, people get marked for not professionally shilling for managers who have histories of sponsoring exit scams ---> and exit scam promoters get positive trust for running successful exit scam campaigns?  You're just a dirt bag!  LOL

Did you actually send any money to yahoo62278 to invest on your behalf? ??? If not, then this is a false allegation. Or are you claiming that you invested in that ICO purely because the signature campaign was being managed by yahoo62278? ??? If so, then that is pretty poor "due diligence" on your part.

All these people blaming campaign managers for the actions of the ICO devs are effectively shooting the messenger. I suspect because they're an easy, visible target... I doubt that the campaign managers are privy to all the intentions of these ICOs (NOTE: the case with atriz having some insider knowledge regarding the ICO using dodgy "marketing tactics" and failing to disclose this is an obvious exception). These managers are for the most part completely unrelated to the ICO itself... and are just hired to prepare a spreadsheet, pick some participants and count some posts.

Holding someone accountable for the actions of a third-party, that they have been contracted to do a job for, is a bit unfair in my opinion. Perhaps it is time that the campaign managers started putting explicit disclaimers on their campaign threads explaining that they do not personally endorse any of these ICOs?

Don't you know? ever since I have applied to be a moderator these people have ganged up on me. I have already explained the motivation behind my tags. none of them are legit. however your dislike of me is stopping you from seeing the truth.

Could you explain why you tagged Bazinga and why it took long time to tag him?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1246188
archived thread https://archive.li/xg1fJ

Saw the thread. What relevance does this have?

Every since I have become a DT member, these people have ganged up on me. I have already explained the motivation behind my tags. However, your dislike of me is preventing you from seeing the truth.

Fixed that one for you.



Your opinion on the motivation of the tags is just that, an opinion. Everyone else seems to think differently and that the tags were given legitimately because of your actions. That's all been explained countless times to you, so I won't waste time repeating it.

Here we go you kept negative for him on 2018-05-19 and the reference thread dated April 02, 2018, 10:12:28 AM

Why it took time to put this point on his wall?? please explain this thing?

@actmyname, suchmoon and marlboroza. let me tell you one thing, I will tag the 3 of you for abusing your DT power if you remove your tags on me. until then I'd avoid tagging you because that would be a retaliatory feedback. for now I have excluded you from my trust list.

Good, because my feedback is going to stay there unless some outside force removes it. I wouldn't send out trust feedback unless I was willing to stick by it. There have only been about 3 instances in which the situation had changed after the fact. To which I went ahead and rectified the tag.

Quoted.

quoting for reference, please answer this one.

Lol, I have quoted something to hold against this abuser in the future, why would you quote a question by this abuser for future reference? we know that actmyname is an alt account and is colluding with other DT members, otherwise there is no need to keep him on DT. there are people with more tags than him and yet they are not on DT2. he has DT1 members in his pocket or has something against them and they are afraid of him. otherwise why the hell would they keep this power abuser on DT2?

I bet that actmyname would expose some of the DT members if he is excluded. if he is excluded then he wouldn't be able to use this account to settle personal issues with people.

When you quote something for reference, it's usually something incriminating that could maybe be used against that person in the future. I fail to understand why you have a quoted a perfectly reasonable statement that essentially says "I stand by my words unless I am presented with new evidence". I suspect it is because even you (along with everyone else) have no idea what you are talking about.


I didn't think it was possible, but you are making even less sense than digaran. You quoted your own question for reference? I don't even. The question also makes no sense. A thread was started on May 19th drawing attention to Bazinga442's shady practices - actmyname clearly read it and then tagged them. What is not to understand?

It is called TRUST ABUSE,
He got one negative point for that thread and it is enough why he revoke on Hhampuz thread?  Suchmoon already made negative thing in april, does your actmyname is sleeping or didnt seen in Atriz scam thread?

Digaran You are right, there are some other people, although last time I contacted to Namecheap to offer the adress, but they said will look into the matter.
This time Ill send to the FBI and other local police.

So your issue with this situation isn't Bazinga442 trying to scam people, or with Bazinga442 leaving nonsense retaliatory feedback, but with actmyname not reading every thread in the forum the day it was written? Lol. Just lol.

Damn, your superior deduction skills have finally caught me now. No wonder you offered mediation services for people with negative trust! There's no way that you're completely wrong.

Show me these users and the valuable tags that they have (directed toward neutral/positive-trust users). If they have tagged shady individuals that are still roaming around then you should highlight them. However, some people approach trust very differently (e.g. TBZ) and that can cause hesitation with including others into DT.

I'm glad you think that I have so much power but extortion is not my thing.

::)

I have no personal issues with people before I tag them. It's only really afterward that they get all butthurt and riled up about it, creating threads about me and my abuse.

You are not tagging marlboroza for giving me free pass. because you trust him, right? yet his action should be taken into account as untrustworthy by your standards but you don't want to tag him. because you are part of a same cartel, you trust each other and distrust outsiders. therefore you are not fit to hold any power. those who would give you this power are also unfit and untrustworthy and should not be trusted by anybody. you are willing to close your eyes for those who you trust, the same people you trust are the ones keeping you in power. a.k.a cartel. you have been called out several times for abusing your power and yet you are still on DT. keeping you on DT could mean that you are in bed with other DT members.

Even after forum admin excluded you, still you are on DT, DT1 member who has kept you on DT2 is a rogue individual and doesn't care about other people, you all only care for the people in your cartel.

If you think that what I have said is against the rules you should report me to authorities, I haven't actually asked anybody to pay me money in order to remove my red trust from them. there has been no actions taken by me to make me look guilty. show me one instance where I have asked for money for myself, if you don't like my policies regarding how to deal with people you have no right to tag me red for everybody to see me as scammer.

I said something and then I saw the reactions from community and stopped to continue down that road, why are you holding that against me and are trying to keep me down with your DT power? I didn't keep at saying that we should take money from people I even removed my tags where I have asked for money from people to be paid to the forum in exchange of removing their tags. how is this for change of circumstances?

After marlboroza removed his tag on me, I didn't say that anymore, why would you bring that issue up again and tag me for it?

Now I'm telling you even if you remove the tag from my account I will tag you for abusing your power, if you keep the tag on me, I will try to kick you out from your position, you have had your chances of making this right yet you have refused to listen to reason. if I don't listen to reason as others have pointed out, I have no power over others, so my actions are not damaging anybody's reputation. your actions are however damaging our reputations.

Even if I have said something, I haven't done anything wrong, I have just said it, you on the other hand are not only saying but you are doing. damaging my reputation. if you don't have the balls to tag marlboroza, you don't deserve to hold your DT power, you are weak and are afraid of people in power. you can just tag me because you know that I have no power to make you pay for your mistakes. but you know if you tag marlboroza you could lose your position.

Forgive my intrusion.... but can you explain to those of us trying to follow this, how exactly marlboroza is "giving you a free pass"? ???
https://i.imgur.com/Kgq2X4l.png


I have the "default" trust settings... and as far as I can see, marlboroza has tagged you with negative trust. I wouldn't call that a "free pass"

He changed red tag to neutral. according to actmyname's standards, that is giving me a free pass. actmyname were also aware of the situation, he didn't tag me back then because marlboroza had me tagged already. marlboroza already gave me a neutral trust as a troll but he tagged me again. I'm practically a target practice for these cartel members we call DT members. they know that I have no power here.


EDIT:

http://www.auplod.com/u/aldupoa955a.png (http://www.auplod.com/i-aldupoa955a.html)

They are untrustworthy by my standards? Show me how.

This cartel shit has got to stop. This is just a redundant blanket statement you keep throwing around as rhetoric.

I have never sent a PM to marlboroza. Or, if I have, then it was for something so insignificant I have forgotten about it.

Exclude Blazed on your trust list then.

What happened to aTriz? What happened to Ryland? I would actually like to point out that I was the one that caught the account (which used to be a treasurer, IIRC).

There have been a few times that I have thought marlboroza was too extreme. This was pre-DT, mind you. I don't necessarily trust all of their opinions but a significant portion of them seem to coincide with mine.

By you and other butthurt users, with the same zero-substance arguments out of spite.

::)

I have already addressed this. If theymos wanted me off DT, theymos could implement a rule that allowed all of his exclusions to count as 999 exclusions. The reason I am still on DT is because he wants a fair system. theymos is not a king.

Read above.

Great. I'll just phone up all the police in every country, warning them about a "digaran" online.

I have already addressed this same argument. It doesn't matter where the money goes. How many times are you going to repeat the same old shit?

Projecting.

This is where we disagree. If you carry intent to do something, then you should be punished, even if you did not carry through with it. If you were conspiring to commit terrorist acts and were ready to carry through with the plan but were caught beforehand, you can't plead innocence by stating that you haven't actually done it yet. Who waits until after something has been done to prevent people from doing it?

Ah, yes. I should punish marlboroza for changing feedback!

Well which is it? Am I weak or am I abusive?

False.

False.

Oh man, I really wrote "stuff"  ::)

No sir, I beg you, please! Don't punish me!  :'(
My master Don Hilly has already punished me because I wasn't good slave :-[

Here we can see that they are taking trust system as a joke, they wont tag those in their trust network for doing something that is untrustworthy according to them, however they would issue red tag on other people who are not in any position of power. these people only fear their own masters and have no regards for other human beings. they should be discarded and tagged for their misbehavior which is actually damaging the reputation of long standing forum members. they are unfit to represent the trust network of this forum. and we all know this forum is also partially representing Bitcoin. this really looks bad for a decentralized revolution of cryptocurrency. I'd like to urge the community members to exclude these power abusers from their trust network by adding ~actmyname ~suchmoon ~marlboroza under default trust on their trust setting page.

http://www.auplod.com/u/ulaodpa962f.png (http://www.auplod.com/i-ulaodpa962f.html)

Please note that the names I have excluded are based on my own personal interactions with these people. don't trust them.

Would you care to show evidence of this?

Tags are given to everyone. It's just that 99.9% of the forum is not in any position of 'power'. You probably mean DT/staff.

Who are our masters? ???

Sure. So do online scams. So does the investor-based games section which is just essentially a place for scams to manifest.

::)

I still don't understand what I'm getting out of tagging you ???


If you think we are untrustworthy, shouldn't you send out negative feedback to us?

Instead of shitposting blindly, read marlboroza's post.


A.K.A cartel. only 0.01% are controlling everything. that is bad for this forum with people claiming to support decentralization.

What do you get from tagging me? indeed tell us what do you get? I have no power, if I have said something it was just words. however you are not objective in your judgement and have a poor understanding of people. anybody reading this whole topic would realize your motivations.

I would tag your asses after you remove your tags on me, otherwise tagging you would be a retaliatory feedback which I'm strongly against. you keep holding me down with your power on DT2. you are refusing to listen to reason and you have refused to right your own wrong doings. you should get booted off the DT2 to save this community from more unwanted discussions. if we take a look back, we'll see that after I got tagged by marlboroza I was kicked out from the signature campaign. however after he changed his tag on me to neutral I didn't join any signature campaign, I decided to focus on something more than myself. the situation of the forum made me to be cruel and forced me to ask for money in exchange of my time. I decided to charge money to represent wrongfully red tagged people. but suchmoon decided to tag me in order to stop me from exposing DT abusers.

You tagged me right after this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3853171.msg37596979#msg37596979

Check the timing of your tag and that post to see if I'm right or not. obvious alt account.

Marlboroza tagged me for trolling.

All three tags are illegit and should be removed. but you guys are very high on your power drug that you can't accept the truth. therefore I'd like to ask DT1 members to exclude you from their trust network. everybody should do that. just take a look at my red tags and decide for yourselves. ignore our names and our posts. tell me if I really deserve them and if I should be red tagged and to be called scammer by default?

Say it and have the same situation at your door one day. tell the truth or lie. both of them will find you one way or another.

You're trying to create a false equivalence between your attempted actions and marlboroza's actions. Think it through again to see why they are not equivalent.

Propose a better system then... but then you also want theymos to control the reins of the trust system, which create centralization rather than decentralization. :/

Okay... so what are my motivations?

I can't because feedback won't show the exact time. You're again trying to instill some post hoc argument.

Not sure why tagging you on multiple accounts would do anything, in the case where I am an alt of suchmoon.

Are you saying that my feedback was wrong? Because you can feel free to show me how you weren't trying to charge people for removing red tags.

You would like to but it seems every time you're asked to, you don't want to.

Yes.

This right here shows why your "service" was bogus. You can't represent yourself, let alone someone else. You just make random shit up. You were claiming that I negged you because of your merit application, now you're claiming it was to stop you from exposing DT abusers. Lying does not inspire trust and you seem to be a compulsive liar.

I've lost count of the number of times this has been explained to him by multiple other people, but he won't listen. It seems that he doesn't consider taking money and providing nothing in return to be scammy behaviour.

Here again suchmoon trying to troll me. he continues to troll me with his DT power and actmyname is also trying to troll me with his/her alt accounts. you are not obvious at all.

Hey idiot. what you are doing is a scammy behavior, you are shitposting and getting paid for it. practically you are doing nothing and getting paid money for doing nothing in return other than garbage posting.

Now go tag me with your DT account, you have got to be crazy if you think that people can't see through you.

Maybe you could be so kind as to remind me - am I an alt of suchmoon or of actmyname? I forget.

Now you see that you were wrong? you accused me of being a scammer and I accused you of being a scammer. all I care is that you realized your mistake.
You had nothing else to say, just asking who is your alt.

why do neg tagged butthurts always assume senior members all have alt accounts? I really do not understand the logic in this

I never said any of that. You are still a scammer as far as I (and most others) are concerned.

Your only defence appears to be claiming everyone who calls you out is an alt of someone.

Because it has been proven this forum is controlled by very few people deciding everything acting like mafia/cartel, so it's safe to assume they may have many alts on this forum to bully others or boost their threads

I think you need to lookup 'proven' in a dictionary. It's a common conspiracy theory that is easily disproven by the many public feuds and disagreements among DT members.

Here, we have an example of an individual's descent to lunacy. They continuously make irrational claims to try and create some sort of logic to justify their punishment lest they acquiesce their hubris. They will continue to disregard any conflict with deflection, identifying them as a collective entity: their enemy. Engaging in constant theories as to why he would be punished is the only action that prevents himself from being self-disillusioned.

It wasn't in a day or days, but weeks, please check his feedback, Did he scammed or created multiple times?
It looks like a revenge on him not an appropriate feedback. Once a person did a scam then it could be tagged once but not multiple times. SHIT GANG.

Nonsense.

So one thread is for multiple ratings? how many forums does run such type in this world? It make sense if you show some forums that run on similar to your method.

What does this have to do with other forums? This is Bitcointalk and negative (or positive) trust can be posted as many times as needed, regardless if the target is Quicksy's alt or some other "special" user. I'd say stop spreading bullshit but I know you won't so carry on.

So your answer is how many times as can and this one more thing does dates also no varies?
I mean as Actmyname posted after a month.

I'm expected to read every thread as soon as they come out? ::)

@actmyname, I apologize if I have offended you, tell me what can I do in order to rectify this situation and have you reconsider?

I see that you have a similar message on the other two threads as well. See, the problem is, you can't simply do this 180 after all you've stated.

This kind of action is more insulting than anything: as if you can sweep away all the conspiracies, all the accusations, all the hubris-fueled behavior you've contributed with a single post! I'm not sure why you decided to go to this path now but I'll save you some effort: there's no sense in continuing.

Once I did trading can get so many times positive points? I mean for one thread one time money exchange can get 20 to 30 points from different people?

I would think that every tag has a reason. Actmyname probably isn't stupid, so he *probably* knows what he is saying. But I guess I can't say anything  :-[

Positive trust can be posted multiple times. Does this mean that they're using the same thread? No. In fact, all of our negative trusts point to different references.

In the case of positive trust, would it be right to credit multiple positive feedbacks to an individual (from multiple users) with a single trade? No. However, in some cases, a user may have some a major thread where they're doing good for the forum (i.e. rizzlarolla, TwitchySeal) that could warrant positive trust.

Also, if you've had multiple positive interactions with a user, then you yourself could potentially give multiple positive trust ratings.

---

Remember that there's actually very little written down about what you can and can't do: there's only really guidelines.

I think he is to be honest fam

This coming from the guy that didn't bother to read the rules, broke the rules, and now complains constantly because he got tagged for breaking the rules. Lol.

No, that's where you're wrong, "fam". I very much think of myself as stupid. If you don't at least think of yourself as unintelligent and lacking in knowledge, then your overconfidence and hubris will surely lead to an unfulfilling time.

But compared to xSplit, I don't think I'm very stupid. ;)

I didn't mean it like that, to be overly confident. What I was mean to say is that you don't just sit down infront of your computer and do ini miny miney mo and select the 4th person you see and tag them.

What pissed me off is that I watched my 5 bitcoin go directly to the manager and his shills DURING the exit. My BTC went from me to them WHILE the project was exiting---> just like that! Yet they mark me red just for wearing a signature of a brand I believed in, as evidenced by the amount of money I personally spent on the site (https://www.sharkscope.com/#Player-Statistics//networks/WPN/players/cjmToo). So, the problem is that this group actively red marks those who merely wear signatures from other campaigns (operating sites) while they themselves MANAGE campaigns that consistently steal people's money. But instead of marking one another red, they mark one another with green which boosts their credibility and allows them to promote their scams more efficiently.  That's trust abuse....  It isn't a single incident either, it's fraudulent collusion.  They mark others red for things like WEARING signatures of competitive projects while they mark each other green for MANAGING exit scams....they mark others RED for sending too much merit, for not posting professional looking posts for the products their friends are shilling, for having suspected alt accounts....etc.  Yet they mark each other GREEN for managing successful exit SCAM campaigns?   Is that how it's supposed to work?

And my problem isn't with yahoo62278 (I invest a lot and I know the risks involved) ---> My problem is with actmyname because he is a trust abuser.

I still don't see the evidence of this. How exactly did you watch your 5 BTC go to the manager? Do you have transaction details or something? ???


But your post is claiming that it was yahoo62278 that took your money and gave it to "Chain of Points" and then they exit scammed??!? ???
But now you're unhappy because actmyname (who doesn't appear to have had anything to do with the "Chain of Points" campaign or ICO) is a trust abuser? ??? I'm confused...


Also, one minor point...
It isn't the campaign that stole the money... it is the scam ICO/project that stole your money... and you seem to be confusing campaign managers with the devs/people behind the scam ICOs. In most of the cases that I'm aware of, the campaign managers are just hired by the ICO/project to post a thread, manage enrollments and then count posts etc... I'm not really aware of many campaigns where the manager is actually one of the project team. They're essentially just a sub-contractor hired to do a job.

Should campaign managers be more picky about the ICOs/Projects that they manager? Probably... should they be held accountable for ICOs/Projects that turn scam? I don't think so (unless they are part of the project team and directly involved in the scam)

I like it how you are quite about my case and would jump in to defend DT2 members when somebody else is accusing them. I might reconsider thinking you as a trusted forum member. you are not neutral and would stay silent when DT2 members are harassing me here.

As soon as someone is not on your side, they become untrustworthy. Similar to the vein of "no true scotsman" you are trying to surround yourself with people who reinforce your beliefs and trying to reject anyone who does not.

---

Is it possible that HCP had not seen this thread until the cjmoles reply? Yes, but you'll reject that possibility because then it would mean that they are absolved of the responsibility of responding to your thread. The lack thereof, rather, in reality.

Anyone (is there actually anyone?) who agrees with him is smart, reputable and should be on DT. Anyone (so pretty much the entire forum) who disagrees with him is a member of the cartel/mafia, an alt of everyone else, and should be removed from DT. In the medical community, we call this type of behaviour paranoia querulans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querulant).

Which side is that? I'd invite any forum member to look at my posts on this thread and decide. if they think that I am wrong, they should say it, but why they would think that I am wrong?

I never asked for money for myself, was it wrong to ask for money for this forum? OK I stopped saying that, but actmyname tagged me based on the Timelord2067 red trust after marlboroza already changed his tag on me for the same reason as actmyname's tag on me.

If you guys stop garbage posting here, people could read my posts from start of this topic. stop harassing me @forum police forces.

You can't win a fight alone against a cartel band, the bitcoin talk forum cartel. They are not forum police forces but the cartel of bitcoin talk defending their "business" with all they've got.

I have already stated many times and explained my rationale for the trust feedback.

Do you think that my reason for the negative trust is false? If you believe that the comment, "Wanted to charge people to remove red tags," is false then you can argue that. However, if you're simply going to disregard the most important part of your feedback refutation and lead everyone to conspiracies about the "DT cartel" then clearly the tag should stay.

So, here are my questions:

Am I on DT?
Am I an admin?
Did I actually ask for money to be paid to myself?
Does anybody care about my tag on other people while I'm not a DT member?
Do people submit to the wills of non-DT members just because of the red tags?
Did anyone pay any money to me or even to the forum for that matter?

http://www.auplod.com/u/pulodaa8ea5.png (http://www.auplod.com/i-pulodaa8ea5.html)

In the picture above, tell me what is "discussing on the forum to help the community to the best of their ability"?
According to your own logic, why would you consider my action as untrustworthy while all I was trying to achieve was to try and help this forum to the best of my ability, I have said it multiple times that what I was doing is for helping the community and the forum.

You were trying to get them to pay money rather than actually do something concrete.

---

Also, a case that you might want to check out is that of Slow death, who was negged but has since then proved to be someone that is vigilant and on the lookout for scams.

They were initially involved in ponzis, and now they attack ponzis. Funny how that works out, huh?

Do something concrete like reporting garbage posts and helping the moderators?  ;)
Funny how you are trying to do exactly as I have done, I have asked either for money or garbage reporting, you are also expecting people to attack scams and Ponzis. we both want the same thing: helping this forum and it's community to the best of our abilities. you have your own methods while I have mine.

You are a DT member and I am a nobody, now which one worth more in your own opinion? my actions that has caused me to get tagged red or your actions which has caused you to get on DT?

I believe this is the double standard people were talking about even before all of this starts.

Note that even if you remove your tag on me, people couldn't say that we were colluding and were playing roles just so that I could get 0.02 from people in hopes of them getting their tags removed by me helping their cases because my service is free and will remain for free forever, so I have also removed any doubts for people by making my service a free service. I'm not going to charge a fee ever. how is that for transparency?

IMHO you are still over charging for your services!!!   ;D  ;)  :)

Bullshit lol... you tried charging .02 btc for your useless "service" and when people called you out on it you decided to make it free to save face. You are already known as a massive troll and are almost reaching Game Protect levels of trolling. Every single red tag on you was your own doing and making threads like these won't remove it. At this point nothing will so you should just move on.

Shame on you. have some decency man/woman. you are getting paid some shitcoin for your posts, at least try to earn it by staying fair. don't post garbage and don't say garbage just to get paid some garbage coins. everything about you smells like a garbage.

Note: this member's PM says that he signs all important messages, don't get scammed. one has to wonder, what would be so important about a member rank with 33 merits?  ;)

Was that in the reference? If so, find it for me:

---

Hint: it's not there.

I'm not the one that tagged Slow death. IIRC, it was either cryptodevil or Vod. I later added a neutral feedback, yes, but that was more of a "soft" positive feedback. You're also making a false equivalence here but clearly, that's gone over your head.

Okay, sure. But your methods aren't good for the forum if they let scammers come back with a simple payment: that's my problem.

I have never asked users for money to remove tags and I never will.

Don't bring in false equivalences.

I think digaran is talking about this harebrained idea:

Now look, who are you and who am I?

Who are you to have a problem with my political stance on how we should deal with people? that's my problem here, who are you to say anything? you are not in any position of authority, that's clearly now over your head.

Quiet about your case? I believe I've posted in several of your other "Trust abuse by xxxx" threads...

For the record, I wasn't defending anyone... An accusation was made (a fairly serious one at that) and I simply asked for some, preferably verifiable, proof.

I prefer to reserve judgement until I have all the pertinent facts.

At this time, cjmoles still hasn't provided any evidence that yahoo62278 received any funds from anyone or "gave other people's money to scammers".

Is it possible that cjmoles accusation is true? Yes... Can I make a statement that it is true? No... I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is.

Also, you keep claiming that DT members are harrassing you. But it is you calling them out to explain their actions. If they don't respond, you claim they're irresponsible and not worthy of being on DT. However, if they respond in a manner that you do not like or that you do not agree with you claim they're harrassing you. That seems a little disingenuous.

I'm sure your intentions with regards to charging for red tag removal were not "bad" per se (Possibly just a little misguided?)... and that you believe that you were trying to help the forum. It just didn't come across like that.

You are making my point for me.  If the managers in charge of running these signature campaigns get marked green after they manage exit scams, then why do those who merely wear the signatures get marked red?  In otherwords, if you manage a successful exit scam or engage in extortion schemes , then actmyname will give you green trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=355846) and (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872). But if you merely wear a competitor's signature, post a low quality shill post, or give away too much merit, then actmyname will give you red trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=526154).  Make sense?  It's backwards ---> It's trust abuse!  And, it's an organised effort if you dig a little deeper.

Managing a campaign for something that doesn't have a thread and tons of discussion about its shadiness is not equivalent to participating in a campaign for something that does.

You were aware of all the Betsoft madness, the poker bullshit and kept trying to dismiss these issues.

As far as I'm aware, yahoo hasn't yet managed an ongoing scam.

---

Would your argument have changed if I didn't send yahoo positive trust? It's really easy to construct these conspiracy theories by overanalyzing every little action, like digaran does.

Hey, if you want to think that there's some organized bullshit happening then feel free. But I haven't messaged yahoo personally about anything apart from the Ryland case.

Bringing discussions about Yahoo (campaign manager) in this topic is not fair, I haven't seen him to abuse his DT status so far, however actmyname has.
He tagged me red for the same reason marlboroza tagged me before.

Marlboroza changed his red tag on me to neutral but deleted that neutral after I asked actmyname to tag marlboroza for giving me a free pass according to actmyname's standard in dealing with people. right there marlboroza was trying to hide his actions from actmyname and even after I posted screen shot of the neutral feedback from marlboroza on my profile, actmyname refuses to tag marlboroza. double standard. therefore actmyname shouldn't hold any power (DT) over other people.

Since 99.99% of forum members are not on DT, if this continues I'd suggest to people to avoid dealing/trusting actmyname for anything, furthermore I'd like to ask from people to avoid dealing/trusting forum administration for being indifferent on such cases. they would favor their few selected chosen DT members over thousands of people, completely centralized system-cartel-like system and we need to watch out for them.

They have given actmyname default trust power and they continue letting him to do as he pleases. however theymos has already excluded actmyname from his trust list, it means that he is not that much of an indifferent person, but Blazed (DT1) member has kept actmyname on DT2 and is letting him to do as he pleases, therefore we need to watch out for Blazed and never trust him for anything he says unless he does something about it.

I have provided my reasons as to why I think actmyname is harassing me, so if Blazed is not going to be active on this forum to see what his DT2 members are doing with the trust he has given them, he is an irresponsible individual and shouldn't hold DT1 power in this forum.

How many times do I need to repeat this? I'll repeat it until people see the truth.

Thanks, for the information, this looks similar to other forums, but I see on Bazinga's feedback one reference thread with two negative feedback.

This entire argument is based on a false equivalence. I have said this time and time again.

If you do not trust me then you should send my account a negative feedback with your arguments as to why I'm untrustworthy.

I was talking about digaran's feedback, not anyone else's. If you're going to look through all DT members' redundant negative tags then you can feel free to do so because there are definitely those cases.

I'm not sure why this topic is relevant, though.

Each day, you do something that makes your opinions/conclusions about the trust network and particular DT members increasingly irrelevant. Taking a look at your recently sent feedback, you are now giving people temporary feedback for various reasons. This makes me wonder why after 90-days these people would warrant a removal of that feedback; can you help me understand how exclusively 90-days of waiting makes them more trustworthy? You don't seem to understand the long-term effects of your actions; how they mould the perception of your trustworthiness in the eyes of others.


I thought once was enough, personally. We happen to disagree, but I (and presumably everyone involved) am not confused about your position so it need not be repeated. Making multiple threads about the same issue, and refusing to use your avenues of recourse simply drag the situation out longer is not helpful or efficient; you are not coming out looking good in this one, digaran. It doesn't make sense to prolong this idiotic drama.

Have you contacted Blazed yet? Thread titles and telepathy don't count.

If you don't trust this forum's administration, you are more than welcome to leave and start your own forum. In fact, I would thoroughly recommend you do that.

Why do you care what I do with negative trust ratings? I'm not on DT. you should question those who are on DT and are doing whatever they want. giving actmyname DT2 status and leaving him to do whatever he wants is the definition of irresponsibility. me giving them negative trust means jack for them. you seem to be dismissing this case and base your judgement only on my actions. you seem to forget that actmyname or any other DT2 members are harassing me with their default trust power. you'd dismiss their actions and would say that they have the right to tag me red as scammer, this is what it says on my profile, it says trade with extreme caution, why? I have never scammed anybody. what kind of a fucked up system is this? it allows a few selected rogue individuals to decide whether I'm trustworthy or not and their trust is visible by default, that means whatever they want should be, whatever they say is the decision of the whole community while that is not the case. I disagree and I am trying to defend myself. marlboroza changed his feedback but actmyname tagged me for the same reason.

That is correct. Everyone knows that.
Another conspiracy theory and blatant lie.

This user continues to spread lies....

You are a lier, why did you delete your neutral tag on me?

I am still waiting for your answer on this:

On side note, have you contacted Blazed?

I am still waiting on your answer, why did you delete the neutral tag on me?


I am optimistic about this case, actmyname never said that he wouldn't change the tag under any circumstances, so I am trying to reason with him.

Funny how you are avoiding to answer my question.

To replace it with a negative.

Quid pro quo.

You're criticizing the trust system and the actions of those within it; this makes your actions and opinions about the trust system up for scrutiny. I don't particularly care, but I am curious for an explanation if you're willing to give one.


I don't need to, they give a perfectly acceptable explanation with reference links attached to their ratings. I don't need them to repeat information they've already provided. I'm just asking for an explanation from you, because I'd like to hear it, don't know why you're taking it so negatively.


"irresponsibility - lack of a proper sense of responsibility." Funny, I don't see "actmyname" anywhere in there.  ??? If "whatever he wants" makes his DT1 includers feel he no longer belongs on the DT network then they will remove him. actmyname does not have immunity and cannot act with impunity; there would be a similar reaction if they were to do as you have done to put yourself into the situation you're in.


I never said otherwise.


I am dismissing this case, it is based on my judgement of your actions and my understanding of the marketplace trust system. There has been DT members that have tagged reputable members for holding religious beliefs, yet they were not removed and quite honestly nobody cared. The trust system is not exclusive to scamming; if a user deems you untrustworthy for any or no reason then they have ever right to make that public through feedback. That's exactly what it is designed for.


Negative feedback based on your actions, false promises and extortion attempts is not harassment. They wouldn't say a word about you or to you if you hadn't dragged them into these slanderous and sad threads.


They didn't tag you as a scammer. They do have the "right" to tag you. Their actions are valid.


I certainly would like to hear your suggestion for a better system. You don't seem to understand the purpose of the marketplace trust system; please go back into some old threads and read previous discussions on the topic.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3502223.0

Did you just admit that you were looking for an excuse for a retaliatory rating or is that another one of your "jokes"?


Geez, that acthername person sounds like a proper scoundrel, attempting to resolve a conflict, such audacity. Have you contacted Blazed yet?

Betcoin has been around since 2014....IT'S STILL OPERATING....And, the bullshit twitchy threw out there wasn't honest, he photoshopped images, he recruited thieves to troll for him (you, for one, along with your buddy "game-protect"), he trolled the thread with multiple sock puppets ---> he started his trolling campaign after he got banned for cheating ---> they found him with over 100 accounts after it was reported that he was multi accounting.   And, the Betsoft debacle was settled for 50 btc... almost immediately.  And that situation could have been interpreted both ways because a free spin is a not spin in which a MAXIMUM WAGER has been placed as was stipulated by the rules....But, all that is beside the point because you're deflecting blame away from your own culpability.

You are just a punk, you are an accused pedophile, and you're complicit in multiple crimes....And, I don't really give a phuck who you messaged because you are all linked to the same scams.  Betcoin is still around stupid....and doing well....ore-mine was an exit scam ---> they took our money and ran....chain of points was a scam too ---> they took our money and ran also....And there's more.  So, if you think that all I've been doing is complaining on the forum after you guys robbed me for so much money ---> you better look a little deeper at the precedent set by the Bitconnect case (https://cryptovest.com/news/bitconnect-facing-lawsuit-youtube-promoters-listed-as-defendants/) and understand that your identities aren't as safe as you may think they are....You people don't believe that you can keep ripping people off for so much money and think that you can avoid accountability forever by remaining anonymous and accusing others, right?  

I think cjmoles is actually onto something here. It's obvious there is an organized syndicate running smear campaigns against particular casinos in the gambling section. They are trying to run down the reputation of competitive businesses. And another interesting fact is that some DT2 members have been representing competitive casinos for quite a while. Game protect and his throwaway newbie accounts are nothing to bat an eye at. I am talking about people like Lutpin and a slew of Indian accounts that conveniently pop up one after another in short amounts of time to bash businesses. So yeah there has been something suspicious going on for years. 

game-protect is just an idiot

They wanted to shut him up and he took the deal because that was better than getting nothing at all.

OK? Anyone can be accused of being a pedophile and plenty of people are. Doesn't mean there's substance behind those accusations.

For example...

How so?

Plus....you're just an out-right trust abuser on the forum....period. 

I'm here to let you know that actmyname as it appears has a habit of giving a free pass to allegedly scammers according to some other DT2 members. for example actmyname countered Vod's feedback to give a free pass to somebody Vod considers to be a scammer. so as I can see the post of cjmoles, it is clear as day that actmyname has been on this business for a long time and I'd like to blame this on Blazed. note that Blazed is only active and posts on such topics when his own ass is on the line, well I have a bad news for Blazed: this is on you and I will PM him to let him know about this.

If I PM him and he keeps actmyname on DT2 after seeing all the shit actmyname has done so far, I will tag Blazed this time.
Please note that actmyname is also tagging other campaign managers for something from the past, red tagging the competition by a DT2 member while we're supposed to trust DT2 members with their judgements. tell me if you can't see the conflict of interest here?

Are we going to allow a DT2 campaign manager tagging other campaign managers and say nothing here? get your house in order @Blazed, exclude this trust abuser and be free of whatever he/she is doing in your name, yes whatever actmyname does is on you, because you have given him/her the trust.

EDIT: just sent the PM, let us wait and hope this one is reasonable enough to see the evidence and act on them.

---

So which one is it? I'm tagging someone who is trading accounts. But then you say that I'm giving a pass to people. What you want from me has always been extremely contradictory.

---

Do you have evidence backing this up or is this another blanket statement?

Does it even matter?  As soon as you clear up that question, he'll find another way to attack you and the rest of the DT members in Blazed's trust list.  His trolling has gotten to the point where I've put him back on ignore--I had the impression that he's a harmless troll with no filter between his brain and keyboard, but I'm starting to get annoyed with the volume and tone of his trolling. 

He's clearly fixated on the idea that there's some grave injustice being done by DT, but from everything I've seen it appears he's deserved the trust he's gotten.  In addition he's trying to pit DT members against each other, much like that person recently who claimed I tried to extort him by asking for cash for feedback removal.  I would suggest that if we all ignore him, he'll wither and die.  I think that's the last I'm going to write on this.

Over a month of conversation, trolling, discussion and attempts at recourse and we've ended up at Page 10 of one of your many threads. Now that we're here, there is not a single person that has agreed with your side of things and you have only accumulated more negative trust; Surely you cannot honestly believe that every single one of these is fraudulent, abusive, misleading or invalid. I know that has been your argument, but it's been played out and it is extremely stale. I got a few laughs out of you in the beginning, digaran, but now it's just sad to see where you've fallen.

Lock up the threads, do some self-reflection and we'll be here when you're ready to be an adult with the rest of us.

Note that 2 posters above are blatant supporters of a known trust abuser we know by the name "actmyname" I have also seen bill gator to be a bootlicker of Blazed. shame on you guys, not only you are siding with real scammers but you are trying to attack me in order to hide the truth, the fact still remains, actmyname has a habit of providing a way out for scammers by using positive/negative trust feedbacks. now go do more bootlicking @The Pharmacist and bill gator.

Another two names to add to the list! At this point it might be easier if you just tell us who isn't part of your imaginary mafia/cartel/underground-abuser-network/scammers-extordinaire/bootlickers-anonymous?

Here's the deal. As long as you people are promoting your scams and quashing legitimate complaints to add credibility to those scams, then your whole chain of support can be held liable and there's precedent being set as we speak.  You guys have been notified of the fraudulent marketing activities several times.  Pay attention  ---> Youtube is not exempt and neither are the youtubers who provided their support (https://www.scribd.com/document/383308307/2018-7-3-De-48-Third-Amended-Class-Action-Complaint)  The very nature of Youtube's content support algorithm is providing the case for liability there.

Does it surprise anybody that a member of the SMAS group, Lutpin, is endorsed by the BitConnect ponzi's advertising campaign manager with green trust?

http://i64.tinypic.com/2nvf95j.png

Who's next?

theymos ---> Are you paying attention?

You posted a screenshot of someone sending positive trust TO Lutpin. Perhaps you should pay attention yourself.

My bad....edited the post to more accurately clarify the connection.  My point is that the content grading system is not exempt from liability so while users like actmyname and the SMAS group are endorsing scam managers with trusted feedback and devaluing the credibility of their competitors in collusion with one another, then those interactions could be impeached for the record, especially in complaints already before the court.  Ripping people off is wrong whether the scams are supported by default trust moderators or not ---> period.

And, theymos needs to pay attention to the precedent being set in some of these cases, especially those cases with deep bitcointalk connections.

What connection? You're just making shit up now.

The connection?  Making stuff up?  You don't see that a manager of one of the biggest cryptocurrency ponzi scams on the globe isn't red trusted by DT2 members who regularly red trust run of the mill signature campaign participants of competitive campaigns and red mark other campaign participants for not shilling their scams aggressively enough? You really don't see it? ---> quid pro quo?

My main point is that if Youtube could be found liable for it's content moderation algorithm, then the trust moderators of bitcointalk might also be considered culpable for knowingly allowing it's algorithm to be exploited by these organized groups of trust abusers. ---> If you read the recent addendum to the BitConnect case, linked above implicating Youtube (as well as the Youtube BitConnect shills), then it will shed some light on the jeopardy involved. If you notice, there will be more defendants added to that case....AND THAT'S JUST ONE CASE!  Look at the number of scams perpetuated here on this forum by this group who's being permitted to exploit the reputation and content algorithms to market their products.

What's the quid and what's the quo here? You made a false statement (Lutpin endorsed Bitconnect campaign manager) and you're continuing to make claims as if that was still the case. There is no connection.


There is a vast difference between blatant shilling and someone not having posted negative feedback for someone tangentially related to the scam. Not to mention that the Bitconnect case is not yet an established precedent so perhaps you need to take a deep breath, fold your tinfoil hat neatly, and try again when you have something of some substance.

B-b-but the gambling sites a-a-and the competitors? It's obvious that this entire thing is to just wipe poor ol Betcoin and poor ol cjmoles off the map. What a bunch of evil scam artists.

---

Then pursue legal action against the forum, you fucking melt. Trying to use 'but this legal case' here won't help in any way; we're not in a court of law and I hope to god Bitcointalk never turns into such.

Scamming people out of their money is wrong and aiding and abetting those scams is also wrong!  You may believe that theft is an honorable characteristic, but it's not ---> it's wrong.


Maybe you missed my point?  My point is that the reputation system is being abused to mark scammers as more trusted than those who point out the scams.  It keeps getting worse and it puts the forum in jeopardy.  Scammers should be marked with red trust ---> not green trust.  Right?  And the BitConnect case is extremely relevant to those who are advertising their scams on this forum.  If the reputation and content algorithms on this forum continue to reward those who run exit scams, ponzi scams, and purposefully deceptive security scams, then somebody may take notice and start an action.  Why not just try to be honest for the sake of the forum?

Why would I believe that? Quit making shit up.


Create a scam accusation thread, present proof, and if said proof is credible the scammer will likely get red-tagged. Have you done this for the alleged Bitconnect scammer?

Dude, don't sink to Quickseller's level - you are better than that.  :/

I don't believe it, so Lutpin who is also a DT2 and a merit source has handed out positive trust for people who were involved in the promotion of a scam project such as Bitconnect? what else you expect from DT members, after all they are in a position with leverage to do whatever they want, such as countering negative feedbacks on suspected extortionists or those trying to sell some items by auctioning them and suddenly bidding on their own auction to increase the price.
I don't expect anything less from Blazed trust list. of course theymos is not paying any attention to these cases because they are small, he would only take action if he thinks that he is in danger of being held liable by the court of law, until then don't wait for him to do anything. really sad.

How can you be a "DT investigator" and not comprehend the difference between sent and received feedback?

Rhetorical question, don't bother answering.

That just made it worse, now you are telling me that Lutpin was the manager of a scam project such as Bitconnect? well this shit is getting interesting day after day. however you put it, another trusted member of this forum was involved with shady activities. no wonder.
Thanks for correcting my mistake btw.

You don't know how happy I am because we are in different time zone.

No. You're not properly reading and thus you are making a fool of yourself with these false presumptions.

Here's who you're looking for: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=710241

No, I'm not telling you anything of the sort. You've gone full retard completely on your own, don't try to blame me for this  ;D

So why nobody has tagged Edwardard yet for managing a scam project like Bitconnect?(is there actually anything related to Bitconnect scam here? did somebody managed their promotion campaign and still walking with no red tags?) I'm taking the information from cjmoles post and I should've had read the trust ratings myself, nothing has changed yet though, actmyname has tagged Wapinter for being an alt of an account seller, he also countered Vod's negative trust on Anduck
I apologize to Lutpin for any inconveniences. (even if somebody is misinformed and misjudges a situation doesn't mean they're wrong all the time, I have misjudged this situation and accused somebody while I should have done more research before doing so, I'm not perfect and I could make mistakes like everybody else, the important part is that I was made aware of my mistake and I apologize for it, unlike many DT members here, they would do and say whatever they want and when somebody points out their mistakes instead of fixing it they'd insist on it.)


You seem to be happy when I make a mistake, I don't blame you for it. ;D

---

Don't forget that actmyname is also involved with a company with fake twitter followers. just ignore me for being wrong about Bitconnect and Lutpin. take what is actually real, tagging their competition left and right.

EDIT: here is the fucking evidence: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1692930 why nobody has tagged this campaign manager for managing a scam project?

Again...

There is a BIG difference between:

A. Being hired to run a signature campaign by a scam ICO/business.
and
B. Being directly involved with the management and running of said scam ICO/business.

If you can prove that the manager had knowledge that the ICO/business was a scam and was still actively promoting them (ala aTriz and the bitblisscoin fiasco), then that is indeed something they should be held liable for.

However, if they were just as unaware as everyone else, how can you blame them for the scam? ???

Tell me this is another of your jokes please? Bitfuckingconnect was an obvious scam from the beginning and they accepted to manage their scam regardless. it doesn't matter now though does it? they have already collected the money and that manager has received his share of the scammed money for managing that scam promotion, this is not news for us, this forum is directly and indirectly endorsing total scams, we even have several sections just for scammers to promote and launch their scams. after all scam is not moderated to avoid abusing the power of moderation facking lol. DT members a.k.a trust moderators however are selectively moderating the scams and the trust system though.

If they say somebody is a scammer people would believe them and when they don't say anything, people would think there is no scam so they would put their money on scams because nobody said anything to warn them.
Said manager is now free to manage other campaigns like nothing has ever happened, even if he is tagged he could easily jump to another account and start managing with other accounts.

From their "what is" page (here (https://bitconnect.co/bitconnect-learning/1/what-is-bitconnect)) I don't see anything that can constitute as an 'obvious scam'.

You mean people would still blindly gamble on shady sites because there's no red tag? I don't think so.

Then that other account would have to either start from zero and manage only scams or be tagged when it's linked back to the original.

Really? Why did you want to mine it if it was so obvious?

Personally, I believe the same could be said of about 99% of all the ICOs being announced in the Altcoin section. ::)

Do I think that these managers should be more careful about which campaigns they sign up for... of course I do. It reflects badly on you if you're managing a campaign for something that turns out to be a scam.

Do I think they should be held liable if it does turn into a scam? Not unless they are actively involved in the project and/or executing the scam itself. Most of these managers just create a google form, google spreadsheet and check a few twitter/facebook/telegram/bitcointalk posts. The chances of them having ANY inside knowledge that a project is a scam is generally pretty low. If they suspect that the project is a scam, then they shouldn't be managing it.

It's like trying to blame a TV/Radio station or a billboard company for a scam because they accepted an advertising contract for the scam. The people to blame, are the scammers. The managers are often just an easy target because they're still here... unlike the scammers, who are sipping mojitos on a tropical island somewhere. :-\

I noted with interest that at least one campaign manager has started explicitly stating what I think is obvious, but I guess this is the world we live in ::):

I started to mine because I believe in coins where you can mine them without paying to coin holders on exchanges to buy them. this is off topic.
Actmyname tagged me after marlboroza removed his tag on me, why?

Wait, what? How did your mining of "an obvious scam from the beginning" suddenly become off topic in a thread about the reasons for your negative trust? Sounds like one more solid reason because it turns out you "believe" in scams.


Actmyname also tagged you after an asteroid passed really close to the Earth. Must be them nasty aliens causing all this.

Bitconnect or at least the mining part of it became obvious scam for me after I couldn't mine it. but it seems that you are more interested on my actions than actmyname, this is a normal behavior for those who are in a group such as being on Blazed trust list, no matter what your friends are doing, they are always trusted and what they do is always right, studies show this behavior is common among cartel members. the fact is that actmyname is using default trust as a personal tool, we could see it where he is tagging people for something they did in the past and he is doing it selectively. he is giving free pass to a few and red trusting others as he sees fit.

Either Blazed has got a payment for including this trust abuser on his trust list or actmyname has something on Blazed, I don't see any other reason as to why would Blazed is keeping him on his trust list.

Which is it?

---

Have you contacted Blazed yet?

Self incredulity is a hell of a drug.  Just because you're too stupid to understand more than your two options exist, doesn't make it any less true.  You are one of the least informed users I have come across on these forums and your bias is as big as the fucking planet,

You remind of the fucking eminem ft dido song "stan".  You have an unhealthy obsession with power figures (you've made some downright creepy remarks about theymos) and when rebutted by no one paying attention to you, you went off the fucking deep end.

What are you on about? there is no mention of theymos here, I am concerned about Blazed to be in bed with some trust abusers, obviously he is supporting the actions of people on his trust list and their actions are not something that we should condone, forum members such as actmyname and suchmoon are misusing the trust system, you don't usually see them tagging real scammers rather they are tagging whomever they want. I don't think trust system is a personal tool to use for personal gains such as eliminating the competition and settling personal quarrels.

You don't care about any of that because you are only here to earn money by any means necessary, I don't expect anything less from somebody like you.
It wont be so shocking if later we find out that actmyname actually paid Blazed to get on his trust list. actmyname just recently started to tag more and more people for whatever they have done in the past to make it look like he is actively tagging scammers but that was just a stupid move to do.

---

The latter is true. I do tag who I want. If I didn't want to tag account traders then I wouldn't. The former is false. I do tag scammers. If you didn't cherry-pick data then you would see those cases.

The reason I got onto DT is something that I did for myself. I didn't even expect anyone to care about it. :)

If you take the sample space for the age of the scam, then you'll see that it's quite evident that you would find older scams as opposed to newer scams. This is, however, assuming that your comment is correct. A lot of the feedback that I've been sending is in response to new threads that out shady activity whereas the bulk of my feedback was in February, which is a bit after my inclusion to DT.

Kinky, but I'm concerned if you have actually contacted Blazed yet, or do you just spread rumors behind his back?

Are you horney now? shame on you, there are underaged individuals lurking around. ;)


Further more: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=134378 I am the man of my words, now please if anybody wishes to kiss Blazed's ass and tag me more, do it one at a time, I'm not a whore like Alia. lol.

Excellent, good job. Now all you need to do is wait for a response. Can you do that?

You give serial scammers green trust AND you mark their detractors with red trust ---> that's trust abuse and that makes you complicit and it makes anybody up the line who vouches for you complicit too.  It's just a matter of time until a very clear picture is presented with the right blockchain analytic software suite before you guys realize your mistakes.  And just because you guys think that you're "pseudonyms" make you anonymous  ---> it doesn't mean you're protected from liability, and it goes all the way up the line.

Bump, actmyname is unbanned now, you could continue discussing how untrustworthy he/she is.

There's a whole ring of them working together....they help each other pull of their scams by manipulating the reputation system....they've been building their networks for a few years....pulling off scams together as a team like this --->  building up trust then exiting  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306301.0) and this  endorsing a fake cloud mine scam  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759702.1940) and this  creating fake ICO's  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1773304.220). All involving the same group of scammers who've been receiving green trust from actmyname (and his co-conspirators) while they give red trust to whoever tries to expose their scams ---> there's a team of these thieves working together, manipulating the trust system to pull of their thefts with efficiency. 

You may think it's a joke, but all the pump and dump scams, exit scams, identity theft rings and deceptive manipulations occurring in plain sight on this forum with the encouragement of the default trust members could actually lead to some serious RICO/International Wirefraud/Conspiracy indictments for those who are involved. It's just a matter of time before it catches up with them ---> I'm just saying: I'm not the only who's been ripped off by these guys.  And I wouldn't doubt that whoever owns this site has been cooperating with Interpol/the CIA/the FBI/the SEC/and FinCEN because it's pretty serious stuff yet it's very obviously being ignored, in fact encouraged, for some odd reason.

How come trusted member gets banned, and then unbanned, and still remains trusted member lol

Josh, stop deleting, this is pretty much on-topic.

Btw is it cold in that hellhole called Moose Factory?

If you've been posting off-topic replies then it is not me who is deleting them. Rather, you would probably want to look toward the moderators.

And this thread also isn't self-moderated, never mind started by my account.

You nailed it.
There seem to be a complete miss understanding of the activities of the various regulatory units of this forum. The DT know that any action he takes is subject to review, so he cannot just sanction without a reason. It is not just possible. that would amount to hatred, and I am sure no DT will do that.

at the moment, many users are interested in :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=965234

https://i.imgur.com/8xlUMLE.png

reference link : https://i.imgur.com/nvYeFbV.png    what does it mean, actmyname? wrong link?

This account was blackmailed, extorted merit, and was promised a negative trust in case of failure.
few hours later You tagged account without proof. or maybe wrong link?
when I came to you, I didn't get any reply or attention.
https://i.imgur.com/5DYFTZA.png

Look at this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4862145.0

P.S. I know that plagiarism has been found on the account, but it does not apply to this case. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg45972526#msg45972526

I don't see any relation to dumbtool45 in that topic you linked. As for your PM, it must have been buried.
It's not uncommon for legions of messages to swarm my inbox.

---

I do see now that he's sent outgoing negative trust to people for backing out of merit purchases. (I mean, really?)

If you want me to edit the trust comment then I can with an updated reference but I don't see the need.

Perhaps this is correct link http://archive.is/iiqKX#selection-1727.0-1727.25      
LEGENDARY ! HERO MEMBER ! SR. MEMBER ! FULL MEMBER ! - DISCOUNT 30% (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2046562.0)

Instead doing research on why actmyname linked that reference, please read positive rating given to mentioned account, check posts in that timestamp and compare results  ;)

Edited

Yes, i want to know.Why? This account will soon be banned for plagiarism. But this is not important in this case.
He sold 1 merit, and he was started to blackmail, extort 20 merits, threatening with a negative trust in case of refusal. He refused and 2 hours later received a negative trust from you. "Account trading " without any proof?

Now you can give a negative feedback regarding the merits of this account and the account of the extortionist, having as evidence his own recognition in the abuse of merit
But you dont do it now when it's visible. But apparently by the appeal / complaint of a person, you quickly react by lowering the trust, even without applying proof.

Didn't I post proof above your post?

Thanks for the link, marlboroza. Yes, now I see that this account has declared the purchase/sale of forum accounts.
But I understand that you just helped to find the proof, he had no proof at the time of the feedback, and therefore inserted an empty picture.
Reread, and you will understand what I'm talking about.
Everything happened as promised by the blackmailer to the seller of the merits of..

that's actually the blackmailer himself, is recognized in the purchase, the silent blackmail, of course :



I'm not defending a merit seller, it's weird to see a blackmailer become a winner.

There is no proof they didn't have proof. I linked wrong reference many times, however, I changed them to correct one, I suggest actmyname to do the same :)

My Russian is not so good, but from this I understand they bought merit for 8$. I didn't check pictures, but if you want to discuss about them open new topic in reputation, this isn't correct thread.

Who's blackmailing whom? It looks like the merit seller / account trader got tagged red. What are you trying to say?

From what I understood is that account Mr.Rbx bought merit from account dumbtool45 and they tried to blackmail them. I won't break my head too much over it, as both accounts are tagged.

So, correction to my last post, you don't really have to open new topic. I still don't see what this has to do with actmyname.

I believe that I should chime for a bit.

1) There appears to be some false presumption that I have tagged the user without proof. The image shows their trust page. The image shows their outgoing trust feedback. There are comments in that feedback which talk of account trading with a known account trader.

2) From what I gather, WerSalit may be under the assumption that I had tagged dumbtool45 because of Mr.Rbx's "blackmail". This is not the case. Someone was giving a report about dumbtool45 selling merit however I couldn't make sense of the evidence presented. Hence the alternative feedback. Though at this point they've ousted themselves as a merit seller as well.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to understand.