Bitcoin Forum

As many of you know,  cryptodevil (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=224980) has been leaving negative trust for people that post in the ponzi section under the guise that these people are promoting a ponzi when they post in a thread about a ponzi.

What you may not have noticed is that the only reason why cryptodevil is in Default Trust is because he was added by dooglus. Douglus is the operator and sole owner of Just-Dice which competes directly with ponzis. The reason why Just-Dice competes with ponzies is because players of ponzis are gambling that the ponzi will continue to receive enough additional money to continue to pay and that the OP of the ponzi will not run away before paying out the player's stake. Players of Just-Dice are gambling that a roll will be under or over a certain number based on a complex mathematical formula.

There is a clear and concise conflict of interest here because dooglus is directly benefiting from cryptodevil leaving negative trust for anyone who plays in a ponzi. This drives people away from this form of gambling and some of these players will migrate to gambling at Just-Dice.

Furthermore cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who are attempting to start new types of gambling games not frequently seen in the bitcoin scene. To make matters worse, he is leaving negative trust to anyone who says that such new gambling game would be fun.

The refrence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1385170.0) for the person attempting to start new types of gambling games not frequently seen in the bitcoin scene is a lottery game, and the refrence (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382185.msg14081559#msg14081559) for the person "encouraging" people to play at this "scam" is a post of someone saying this kind of game would be fun, and even said that the game will be risky and implied it might not be "legit". This is something that has further benefited dooglus because anyone considering to play this game would be labeled a scammer, funneling potential gamblers to play at Just-Dice.

https://i.imgur.com/Mj2fDRK.png
https://i.imgur.com/HIXxpYM.png
https://i.imgur.com/7wvPlUP.png

Douglus should remove cryptodevil from his trust list to prevent himself receiving undue benefit from cryptodevil's actions. If someone else believes that cryptodevil is deserving to be in Default Trust then they are free to add cryptodevil provided there is not another conflict of interest.

The strangest piece of this puzzle is that dooglus has actually given positive trust to a ponzi operator in the past for "being honest about being a ponzi" and refused to remove such positive trust even after being made aware that he left positive trust for someone who stole money from others. Maybe it was because the date of the trust was a time when Just-Dice was closed and such form of gambling would not compete with Just-Dice.
https://i.imgur.com/2vhJD4F.png
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1208053.0

local rule: No discussing the merits behind leaving negative trust for people who post about playing in a ponzi -- this is already something that cryptodevil is engaging in, and cryptodevil has made it clear that he has no intention of stopping this practice.

local rule: No ad-hominem attacks

Wecome to bitcointalk, where you get punished for not breaking the rules.  And where many rules don't make sense or don't exist.  And where your trust feedback page is a great place to get trolled.

I am not saying that the people cryptodevil have left negative trust for are not scammers, nor have I said that they are scammers.

My point is that dooglus is receiving undue benefit from the negative trust that cryptodevil is leaving people in the gambling section.

Would jump on the train but I much rather read this from your main account. Quick skim through the post history shows there is more to you as well.

Cryptodevil comes off as a troll, kind of shocked guys like that run rampant within the trust. Reflects poorly on whoever has him in their tree.

I do agree that cryptodevil's ratings are stupid and that he is acting like a dick but i dont see how his actions are benefiting dooglus, dooglus's site doesnt use bitcoin and has it's thread in the altcoin section the last time I checked

I also dont know why in the world cryptodevil is on dooglus's trust list

also: cryptodevil is someone's alt

Zeke2345

Who is making an argument should not influence if you agree with various points or not. You should agree and/or disagree with me based on the merits of my argument, not based on who I am.

You also don't think that cryptodevil will leave negative trust to those who call for his removal from DT?
Cryptodevil is in dooglus's "tree" aka trust list. You can remove dooglus from your trust list by going to profile --> trust --> trust settings --> adding "~dooglus" to your trust list and clicking save

---

Your Point Is Invalid


It does not matter which currency Just-Dice uses, it is still gambling in the crypto-currency world. Just-Dice uses CLAM which has been on a negative trajectory recently. If more people use Just-Dice then more people will have to buy CLAM.

There are a number of exchanges that people can easily buy and sell CLAM on, so it would not be difficult to exchange BTC for CLAM and vice versa.

Noticed he is just used to reinforce views in a dick/trollish way. Have no doubt he is up to something and would most likely come at his enemies in a diferent way. Was debating blocking him but I like watching how little he actually cares for anyone. Seems to go against his whole rent a cop vibe.

Isn't this whole thread an ad hominem attack against doog and CD?

I believe OP is trying to discredit dooglus here, and CD is just being a thorn in the way and an opportunity at the same time

Also nice way of implementing the Local thread rule

Edit: You'll need more than these two(bring on MisterMiyagi too  ::)) who seem to have a personal agenda against any ponzi tagging/suspicious tagging to gather dooglus' attention in the first place

Come on guys, enough with the alts already. If you don't have anything worth saying on your main account then don't bother.

Then instead of creating another pointless thread, maybe you should have messaged Dooglus  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420)about it?

Meh. It's probably just Quickscammer doing his usual fail job at reasoning.

No, the strangest piece of this puzzle is why you suck so badly at critical thinking you provide evidence showing how Dooglus and I feel differently about Ponzi schemes, be they open about what they are, or otherwise, yet you also imply I am collaborating with Dooglus for his benefit.



Really? You base this remarkable claim on what, exactly? No, it's ok, it is a rhetorical question, I already know what you base it on, namely, the practice of slinging shit and hoping some of it sticks. People who do that end up with stinky hands.


Or ANY other fucking gambling, gaming or investment service.  ::)

Jesus, you suck at this QS.

There you go again, insulting everyone, this is one of the reasons why we question your intelligence and your reasoning abilities

I actually have some evidence that you are someone's alt, other from that, people have pm'd me saying you're someone's alt

Lol, imagine people coming to you for "The Knowledge"

You can shove your tone-complaint fallacy right up your arse. Try actually fucking providing a reasoned rebuttal instead of dishonestly dodging it by complaining about how you don't like how somebody asserted their objectively-reasoned argument.

No, you do not have evidence that I am someone's alt, you fucking imbecile. Do you know how I know this?

Because I'm not a fucking alt and just because you and the infantile circle-jerk you vaguely refer to as 'people' have pm'd each other with the same ridiculous and baseless claim, doesn't make it true.

Are you lot even capable of understanding the basic principals of intellectually-honest argument?

Nothing wrong with being nothing but hot air, just stop thinking people should take you any other way than a joke account.
A account like this should not have trust, when its just used for trolling.

^^^ Yawn.

Now why would I do that? I know you're a twat but you're entitled to be as twattish as you care to show yourself to be. It would be absurd to use the trust system to tag people just because you don't like somebody.

Tagging people because they have demonstrated behaviour which is indicative of untrustworthiness, now, that's something else entirely. Something you goits appear to be struggling to understand.

The butthurt is so strong with quickscammer, & this garbage just keeps proving it.  ::)

Have also received once negative trust from cryptodevil because I said this in Minerfarm topic.

I understand he do also good work to warn people about ponzi/scam. But who is he to tell all people what is aloud to say and what not. Don't think red trust is meant to use this way so people get pushed to remove there post. This looks like an censored forum this way. The red trust will only be removed if you remove the post unbelievable.

I agree Cryptodevil does not belong within the default trust, not for the reasons stated, but because he is another out of control trust system dictator.

Quickseller- your sock puppeting is not helping drive this point home. Can you please just get a job at a PR agency doing consensus management and astroturfing? They will pay you for being a loser there at least.

I have done some research and have discovered some non-conclusive evidence that points to cryptodevil being Antreas Kililis from Cyprus who was the owner of buddyhost.com, a hosting company that disappeared one day and ran away with customers funds without helping any customers migrate their websites. You can read about this web hosting company here: https://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1245319

cryptodevil, what do you have to say to this accusation?

If anyone can find more evidence that links cryptodevil to Antreas Kililis please post it.

cryptodevil is trolling and spamming every thread in investor based games. he is making it so people can't even go there or speak there with out getting a neg trust.

he is a joke and now I read this and see his real interest.

so hope he does lose his default trust.

LOL. Genuinely. LOL.

That's what I have to say to your accusation. By all means, please do continue to accuse me of being someone I'm not and then, if you get to actually dox me for who I am, I can tell you that I give not one flying fuck about it because my post history is clean! How do I know that my post history is clean? Because I'm not a scamming scumbag like most of you.

Well OK then. Just to let you know there is publicly available conclusive evidence that proves you live in Cyprus. Antreas was the closest match I could find out of all suspects I identified. I think you are definitely doxxable but I've no real interest in doxing you, I just wanted to see if you were lying about having no alts.

I don't recall ever denying that I live in Cyprus. Hahaha. Twat.

Because Cypriots all look the same and, more importantly, you assume me to be Cypriot?

QS, seriously, you so suck at this!

Not at all I made no assumptions whatsoever during the course of my short investigation. I've no interest in doxxing you, unless you are Antreas then clearly you should be removed from DT at the least. If you are, then maybe someone with more time on their hands will do the research now that I've posted a very possible suspect.


Yeah... ugh... you got that wrong! :P

"I am not an alt of Quickseller"

No QS alt will post that statement. QS is crazy like that.

I'm with TECSHARE and the alts here. Cryptodevil is way out of control and can't formulate a proper response to his abuse without attacking everyone here.

Someone that abuse the trust system so badly should clearly not be on the DT. I don't really read those forums myself, and I have never posted in any of them, but his abuse of the system is pretty obvious. Bow down to the mighty God cryptodevil and make posts he likes or get red trust. Giving newbies that looks for a free giveaway red trust doesn't help anyone.

So, let me get this right.

A band of socks, alts and general idiots can't actually provide any evidence of trust abuse, but they believe simply whining about tagging posts indicative of untrustworthy behaviour will somehow magically make their fallacious reasoning and dishonest argument transmogrify into reasoned rebuttal?

Sure, sounds legit.

God almighty cryptodevil is always right.

Is the bubble getting tighter or you like people poking at you from all ends?
Know you are unable to back off because this is all this account is about,so keep posting.


edit***
Report his posts with the big red copy and paste as spam.

So please tell me, Oh Lord, how to make a politically correct post that please your highness in the marked section without getting red trust.
Assholes like you that want to limit peoples free speech needs to be called out. You are making the reputation system worthless.
I'm guessing you are searching for any post I made there to give it red trust. I have never posted there and this is the only account I have so good luck

scamming people is not equal free speech.

The thing about Ponzi's is you know what you get when you use them. It's VERY clear.

Posting in a ponzi thread is not scamming

I agree with this and I don't agree with YPII much.  He's out of control.

THIS. EXACTLY THIS.

I see you crying for days but not offering a solution, except for Your Point Is Invalid who took a few minutes to review some of the ratings. If you think ponzis are okay you are free to do so but as stated before, and maybe you just need to read it: i belive operators and supporters are scamming people. If i think so i am free to do so.

https://i.imgur.com/6n67XrX.png

Come up with something better, and i will join you.

EDIT: Also, personally, i dont tag people that are posting in those threads i tag users who advertise them. But yeah, why read when its easier to moan.

PM's I have received prove that you cannot know that everybody who participates understands what a ponzi is so, therefore, your assertion is false.

Posting support in a ponzi thread implies legitimacy, especially from established forum members. This is what the ponzi scammers need you to do and, by doing so, you encourage other people to deposit which is pretty much the reason why you do it. Don't pretend you're too stupid to understand even that basic principal. This means you are intentionally helping scumbags run a scheme which *will* result in people having their money stolen.


I keep hearing you lot use that phrase. I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

Please, go ahead, define 'out of control' for me. Surely, for me to be 'out of control' you would be able to offer up evidence of how I am on a rampage of abusive and outrageously unfair issuing of negative rating to users?

Surely, on the basis of just how frequently you muppets and puppets employ that phrase, you'd actually have some fucking evidence to support it?

No?

Talk a lot about people not seeing things for what they are ,how about your perspective of private messages from people you have threatened!
Negative trust on a new account is a threat,especially if it is unfounded and you are using people under duress as a example of how much good you are doing. It would be like holding some one hostage and having them praise Allah. So much for that agrument.

Out of Control to me would be pure trolling of any one that thinks differently and carrying forward with the agenda of bully tactics in a sub forum.
What you think is right does not give your permission to threaten people for using a part of the forum that is established by the forum. You have a issue you should take it up with them not every one in it.

The problem is, I've seen some of the feedback that you have left, and when i look at the references for some, i dont see how the users are directly posting support

What the OP is saying is pretty indirect. I never even looked at it that way before. It's unlikely, but it could be that way. I have nothing against cryptodevil and I think he's a good person. I don't see why he should be removed from DT, although red trust is something I think people should give less of.
Ponzis are all scams and i'm pretty sure everybody in the gambling section knows that if they know anything about doubling anything. The + to - trust given ratio is pretty out of balance though.. But most of it is correct or partially correct, so cryptodevil's given trust is correct.. for the most part.

Which ones? I did a quick check and noticed he was tagging those posting proof of payment or claims to have been paid, both which can be seen as showing support depending on how you wanna look at it. No idea why he would just leave feedback for others simply asking questions or etc in a ponzi thead.

Its a bad look to have cowboys giving out justice without knowing if some one is guilty of operating a ponzi, he goes farther by threatening any one that posts in the thread. Then comes in here and lips off any one that thinks he is a asshole.
If you think trust is overused just wait till he starts having a bad day and extends to other forms of gambling. Every forum cop spawns 2-3 copycats that go one step farther and it snowballs.
If you think cryptodouchebag is a good guy you are a dumb fuck! Sorry about my tone, just want to be friends. ;)

And you sound like you've spent a lot of time on the jref forum, but you can save it because those tedious rebuttals I've heard so many times before.  It's your attitude that makes you an asshole and someone on DT ought not try to bully others the way you're doing.  And of course I don't expect you to ever agree with me or to see this behavior in yourself and so I'm not going to cite references for you.  Your present behavior is proof enough that you're "out of control" for someone on DT.

mexxer-2

You should look up what ad-hominem means before posting

---

dogie

You think I should risk the retribution that will result of my speaking out against cryptodevil? This guy is literally giving negative trust for asking questions in threads that compete with Just-Dice. There is a reason why 1^st world countries have whistle-blower laws that allow people to report ethics violations without revealing their identity, publicly or not.

The question of if alts should be allow is off topic here. If you wish to discuss this topic then I propose you discuss it here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=post;board=24.0;message=woof%20woof%0AMy%20name%20is%20dogie%20and%20I%20think%20the%20use%20of%20alts%20should%20not%20be%20allowed%20because%20of%20the%20following:%0A%0A{Enter%20reasons%20here%20using%20more%20then%20one%20line%20if%20necessary}%0A%0Awoof%20woof%0AP.S.%20I%20hope%20you%20think%20the%20puppy%20in%20my%20avatar%20is%20cute;subject=woof%20woof%20no%20more%20alts%20woof)

---

cryptodevil

It is not necessary for dooglus to collaborate with you regarding this issue for it to be unethical to allow you to remain on his trust list. For as long as dooglus will benefit from your actions it will be unethical for him to allow you to remain on his trust list. If your trust ratings are really a benefit to the community then surely someone else will add you to their trust list ::)

Douglus knows how to hide evidence of collaboration anyway, this is very clear from his history, so I do not anticipate any admin being able to find evidence of collaboration.

So you do admit that your behavior does benefit Just-Dice then?

---

Coinonomous

I believe that double posting is against the forum rules. Please refrain from posting twice in a row ::)

---

Mist

I agree. In addition to the clear conflict of interest here, Cryptodevil acts very immaturely, lacks communication skills and is unable to respond to any kind of criticism without launching personal attacks against the person criticizing him. None of these attributes are descriptive of someone whose trust ratings should show up by default. How is someone who wishes to dispute a negative rating issued by Cryptodevil suppose to have a conversation with him when Cryptodevil acts the way he does?

---

whywefight

You are naive to think that asking questions equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that including a statement that says that a ponzi will eventually scam equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that posting about a gambling experience equates to scamming people.

I think it is fairly clear that you are attempting to make a name for yourself.

P.S. are you an alt of TrillMyWatch (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=443961)? The naming convention of your username and his username matches, and TrillMyWatch has exchanged what is clearly fake trust with alts of ManyProofs.

---

xetsr

Not long ago master-P stole over $10,000 from various people. Several people threatened to have him doxed if he did not repay what he stole from them. master-P ended up returning all of the money he stole from a few people (while keeping all of the money he stole from other people). Do you think when people posted that they received a refund from master-P that they were supporting him, or maybe do you think they were merely posting their experience with him, and the status of their debt?

You are also correct in saying that Cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who ask questions in a ponzi thread. This is clearly not showing support for said ponzi, however it does discourage them, or anyone else from participating in said ponzi, while encouraging them to gamble their money in other crypto gambling sites, such as Just-Dice.

---

leowonderful

Cryptodevil is not giving negative trust to the scammers who run ponzi schemes. Cryptodevil is not giving negative trust to those who run ponzi schemes disguised as a legitimate investment. Cryptodevil leaves negative trust to anyone who knowingly sends money to a ponzi hoping to receive some kind of return before the ponzi ends up scamming. Cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who choose to gamble at sites that are not Just-Dice

---

everyone else

If you agree that Cryptodevil should be removed from dooglus's trust list, and from the Default Trust Network, then I would suggest that you send a PM (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=send2;to=dooglus;message=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1389916.0%0A%0AHi%20dooglus,%0A%0AI%20believe%20you%20should%20remove%20Cryptodevil%20from%20your%20trust%20list%20for%20the%20reasons%20stated%20in%20the%20above%20thread.%20Others%20in%20this%20thread%20have%20expressed%20concerns%20about%20his%20behavior%20and%20have%20described%20him,%20among%20other%20ways%20as%20'out%20of%20control'.%0A%0AIf%20you%20refuse%20to%20take%20action%20then%20I%20will%20not%20hesitate%20to%20escalate%20this%20issue%20and%20move%20to%20have%20you%20removed%20from%20the%20Default%20Trust%20network.%0A%0AAll%20the%20best,;subject=Cryptodevil) to dooglus

Naw I'm pretty sure I know what it means
Also, I'm 99.99% sure that any request, from a message made by QS will go to doog's bin

Urgh!
Again with the, "I've seen . . ." and "when I look at . . ." - Evidence or shut the fuck up you tedious infant.

So you defend it on the basis of being 'pretty sure'? How about those pm's I get from people who genuinely didn't understand what they were sending money to? I've also mentioned that there are many users of this forum who struggle to understand English and are prone to misunderstanding what the 'investment' they are getting involved with actually is. So that disproves your weak claim that 'everybody' knows what they are sending money to.

So you're saying you are familiar with a reasoned rebuttal but demand that you be allowed to persist with knowingly posting fallacious argument instead because . . .reasons?

Sure, sounds legit.

This'll be 'literally' as in, 'Completely fabricated assertion', more commonly known as a lie or, colloquially speaking, utter fucking bollocks.

Hahahaaaa! That is a genuinely funny example of taking mangled reasoning to the extreme, QS. It has to be QS, right? I've only encountered one person on this forum who routinely tries floating those kind of stinkers when lashing out about being held to account for his scammy behaviour and QS is the master of it.

Did i not send you a number of PM's which saw you remove at least one trust rating?

You sent me two pm's, one concerning a referenced thread which the user had since deleted but hadn't asked me to remove their rating, and another which you wrongly marked as referencing a deleted post, when it wasn't.

So still swinging and missing on the evidence front when it comes to accusing me of being wrong.

You are just to lazy to look at the reference of the feedbacks i left, otherwise you would see i tag people that advertise. A few members contacted me to speak about it and some feedbacks got removed. So far the only one of the "whining fraction" who did at least some research is Your Point Is Invalid, he contacted me about some feedbacks. all others are only posting and crying but they dont do anything at all.

If you still think ponzi = gambling, any discussion with you doesnt make any sense.

I dont care about my name, i suggested several times before to ignore me and to exclude me from your (or others) trustlist. So far only two users did: Quickseller and Joel_jentsen (if i remember correct).

PS: The style of writing fits some other users here and its obvious you use that account because you dont have the balls to post from your main. So the questions is: who are you?

PPS: How about researching stuff first and than posting?

Thread was not about you,maybe why no one is addressing you till you injected yourself into the discussion on the first page.
Lets keep it on point and keep the push on Cryptodevil to stop threatening people with negative trust for posting in the forum.
Just because its in a sub section he disapproves of does not give him the right to harass people in this way. He is on a branch of his own
when it comes to this trust issue and I hope you do not follow him off the cliff.

The alt talk is fun,I like to try to connect you,mexxer-2 and Luptin together sometimes as well. But that is just discrediting you and what you stand for. If I am alt and you are a alt,lets agree that the other has to post evidence of such before we slag each other in the future.
Think you where addressing some one else though,so no offense taken. 8)

Yeah, whywefight, get your own thread of whining shitbags who can't string together a coherent rebuttal and hate being held to account for their actions.

This one is mine, all mine!!!11!!11elebenty!!1!

Soon I will triumph over Vod as the antagonist with the biggest hateclub! Mwahaaahaaahaaaaa. Etc. (disclaimer: number of real people may not equal that of the multiple forum accounts dedicated to showering you with constant attention, your dreams may not equal that of the Globex Corporation, its subsidiaries or shareholders. Batteries not included)

Big thanks to everyone creating all these cryptodevil/mexxer/lutpin/ecuamobi appreciation threads. This is now my favorite lunchtime entertainment. So much butthurt - these guys/gals must be doing something right.

Lets see: using the same arguments against dooglus, constant near to neutral arguments about tagging of ponzis , all of which matches with a user who usually likes to talk from alts even though there is no reason to. Was that even a question?

But I'd rather not discredit the OP, as he can be quite an awesome guy at times

That reminded me, a user I'd like not to disclose was talking about connecting me with kingaltcoins, Lutpin and Joel. I'd love to post the hilarious arguments presented by them but nah, lets keep it for another day

Same can go for you. He was addressing <Insert the guy who I was talking about earlier here> newtons1 here.

He was talking to him till he used "all others",insinuating that every one that had a issue was of this nature.
I take it easy on the sock and alt references but if we are going to paint a wagon make sure you are attacking the right people.

Sorry for hijack,just did not like letting this slip when I was accused of this last week by the hateful whatever you want to call it now.
Fair play or should I have turned the other cheek.


 

Dude, really... HOW ABOUT READING??

https://i.imgur.com/v3yc11d.png

He wrote a text for me... lol

@cryptodevil: nanananananana :p


EDIT: i just decided i will leave you alone with the whining threads.

I just received the following threat in a private message:

https://i.imgur.com/P2SODmC.png

I hadn't seen this thread before, and have only read the first 3 posts.

The premise that there is a conflict of interest because if people don't give their money to scammers then they might be more inclined to give it to me is just crazy, and applies just as well to *any other business*.

Does a purveyor of alpaca socks benefit by attempting to warn people about scams, because any money not lost to scams could instead by spent on socks?


My stance on Ponzis is that they're fine if they're honest. Very few are honest and promise unrealistic guaranteed payouts. If they're upfront about the risk "players" are taking then I don't see a problem with them, but very few do that. As I understand it, cryptodevil sees things the same way. If you don't want him leaving you negative feedback, stop making posts supporting obvious scams. Seems pretty simple to me.

Edit: having now read this thread it seems quite a few people (or quite a few sockpuppets) think cryptodevil is "out of control".

If anyone has any concrete examples of him leaving unreasonable trust feedback please PM me to let me know and I'll look into it. I don't think it's unreasonable to negative-rate people who are supporting obvious scams by making positive posts about them.

Erm, isn't "Cam" guitarplinker's "signature"
In summary, the only users who are complaining not because they themselves got tagged for promoting the ponzis are
1)Mist: Random somebody who recently started meta/reputation discussion
2)Your Point Is Invalid: The guy who has been after removing any DT member who tags based on suspicion and near conclusive proof aka "The guy who complains about me being in DT while having me manually added to his trust list"
3) newtons1: Pretty clear who he is
4) Zeke: Same as the first guy with some traits of the second
Edit:

5) Gimpeline: Someone who clearly doesn't have an idea of whats going on, and has suddenly appeared back from the dead
6) Dorrittulx: Is clearly trolling
7) The Pharmacist: No arguments, only opinions
Everybody, did I miss anyone?

It's also the first name of a Panthers (huh? :D) Quaterback named Newton, carrying the number 1 -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_Newton

lol If your guess is right then cryptodevil is in big troubles  

Height:    6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
Weight:    245 lb (111 kg)

 ;D




BTW, for what it counts I find excessive the red trust for anyone joining or posting in favour of a Ponzi.
A red trust for the promoter and that big size red text cryptodevil is already copy/pasting in any ponzi thread are enough for me; also considering there is already this forum disclaimer

"Warning: You are in the Gambling section. You are likely to eventually lose any money that you gamble/"invest". Additionally, moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Do not gamble more than you can afford to lose."

and that this forum allows that kind of threads.

QFR
================================

@dooglus

The discussion is based around what Cryptodevil says he is doing and what he plans to. Lets ignore I told QS to use his main account, but I guess I could be some one elses sock, just dislike being written off in that way.
Back to the issue...Cryptodevil enters this subforum in question and leaves a copy and paste big red threat post, stating anyone posting in it(Anyone!) will get neg rep. Have reported these as spam/threats and suggest others do the same.
Back in this thread he trolls people which reflects what he is doing with the ne rep.
If you consider QS private message a threat, than there is no doubt you agree Crypto is crossing the line. (Is it ok to post private messages?).

This to me is not about you, but a attempt to get cryptodevil to reflect on what he is potentially doing to the trust.

@Mexxer-2
Come on dude...this is getting old. You come at me and say what you got to say, no need to skirt around issues. If this stems from my last post about you, luptin an wwf, it was a joke example. Lets drop this sock talk or prove it once and for all.

Forum allows outright scams too, i.e. there is no moderation on scams as clearly stated in the text you quoted. That's what the trust system is for. Negative trust is not a ban or any other kind of disciplinary action depriving the target of some God-given or constitutional right. It's a warning. Everyone is free to set their trust settings up in such a way that they only see "red" for the warnings that they want to see. Default Trust is just a recommendation for noobs.

All these whiners in this and dozens of other "cryptodevil is evil" threads should consider spending that time educating noobs on how to make use of trust settings. Win-win for everyone. But we know this isn't about cryptodevil or ponzis, is it?

Wtf else could it be about!
You gloss over the fact new accounts will wander through the forum and post. They now will see whats going on in that subforum and wonder where else they are not allowed to post. Think some of you have not been a noob in awhile, reason yoy gloss over negative trust killing any chance of being in a signature campaign. It also restricts trade with others. It takes time for negative trust accounts to establish. End of the day you label everyone and it means less.
Whining and crying just shows how you and others of the same thinking still do not see the problem.
Have given this enough attention, if people want to talk contact me through pm. Its pointless breathing life into this issue now.

Removing your posts in the ponzi threads mostly solves those "issues".

Yeah that fact seems to be ignored in this, hmm, can't really call it a discussion because only one side is presenting reasoned argument, so let's just stick with butt-hurt-circle-jerk,  yes, that's probably the most fitting description for what this band of socks is actually doing here.

I've easily deleted as many negative ratings as remain currently, with numerous PMs from people who genuinely didn't understand what the fact of the 'scheme' they were getting involved in was. So, in that a simple removal of the 'supporting' post will generally result in a user's trust being restored to its former state, I fail to see what the muppets and puppets are actually bitching about other than their own desire to behave dishonestly without being held to account.

I look forward to receiving evidence of my 'out of control' abuse of the trust system, though, replete with multiple references to slippery-slopes and Nazis. Lol. Still chuckling at the pathetic use of, "When they came for..."

My post was about ponzis' threads posters given neg trust: no other hidden purposes here.


That's why I feel the big size red text cryptodevil is copypasting in each ponzi thread, in addition to being an excellent job, could be enough.



Well , than I'm a noob because I never bothered checking how trust system works here (maybe because I don't sell/trade etc etc) and my trust settings are the same one I had the day I created my account.
So it happens that I now see more red trust around than the ones I used to see when I was a lower rank member and consequently, unconsciously, I pay less attention to those red numbers than I did before.
tl'dr : I'm afraid it can generate the effect of diminishing the importance of the trust rating
But it's probably just my problem.

Read the post again, I wasn't talking about you being an alt of anyone

Except that your whole sad story is exaggerated. Not "everyone" gets labeled and there is an easy way to "unlabel".


Exactly my point. The issue is not that someone labels scam supporters. The issue is that some people (a) don't consider that important and (b) would rather impose their own rules up to and including pressure on DT1 members instead of learning how to use the system that's already in place. Granted the system is not perfect but we can't even begin to discuss that if the expectation is to have it all work magically to everyone's satisfaction.

I haven't seen the post. Can you link me to it and any neg rep left as a result?


If I had known it was QS I would have simply ignored the message. The guy seems to enjoy trolling me and so I try to ignore him. The PM says that if I don't do what he wants he will try to get me removed from default trust. Isn't that a threat? If you threaten me via PM then I will post your threat in public so show others how you behave in private.


If it's QS then it is about me. He has been using whatever he can find to dig at me for months if not years now.

This got me curious enough to go looking for it :)

Sure enough Zeke is bending the truth a bit:


So not quite "anyone posting in it(Anyone!)".

Here is an example of a red tag although I can't be 100% sure if that's what Zeke had in mind:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1353715.msg14151706#msg14151706

The problem with this discussion is I am going off what Cryptodevil has stated in other threads that he would do to help clean that section up. Now that I have bitten into the issue he has deleted or retracted some of the comments,which leaves me looking like I was just pissing in the wind for the fun of it. Was also his thinking that by posting in the thread you where guilty of supporting a ponzi and that was initially his intent. Sure he will come in here and claim different and it becomes a he said/she said,so I am bowing out of this discussion.
I make a lot of my posts from my cell and to link,copy and paste is just a bitch on this stupid phone. Its just not worth the energy,you either get labeled a sock or a idiot and if thats how we proceed...so be it.

End of the day its hard to take Cryptodevil seriously and thats why I question why he trolls and the other half of him wades into the scammer busting. Seems to be a odd mix but has the blessings of the forum and thats that.

Once you get rid of a issue I hope you rid yourself of all the scammers you see but leave a subsection for people that want to be left alone,would yeah!

Your phone seems to work fine to post walls of text just not on the topic being discussed. You can go to http://bitcointa.lk and find us some of those deleted posts that you're talking about but I have a feeling you won't be doing that.

I'm not trolling or "railroading" you, whatever the fuck that means.

I'm just stating a fairly obvious fact that you are failing to support your statements. I even did most of the work for you and dug up cryptodevil's PSA and an example of a red tag. You then backpedaled from your statements with vague unsubstantiated (again) accusations of posts being deleted etc. I'm certainly interested in a real proof on cryptodevil's alleged wrongdoings as I have him/her in my own trust list but just throwing shit around isn't helping anyone. If anyone's trolling it's you.

And in case it's not obvious yet - don't PM me, not interested in your excuses. Posted something in public - be ready to discuss it in public.

Posting private messages just shows you need attention and do not know what private means.
You posting this is exactly where I was going when I said troll/railroad,but you could not help yourself.
Rest of what you say just confirms things for me,thank you. I reported this and will delete once they delete my private message.
From this point on any discussion will be one sided,go to town. :)

Am i blind? Where was your PM posted?

As I suspected. Zeke's misrepresenting the facts to try to make cryptodevil look bad.

It's usually a waste of time following up on reports from people who are butthurt that they got negative trust for promoting a scam. Because in almost all cases they are just butthurt that they got negative trust for promoting a scam.


Yes, there's no reason to post "receeved third paymunt" on a Ponzi thread other than to try to trick new people into thinking that it's not a scam. Otherwise why not just play the game quietly and not try to rope others into playing?

If anyone does have any valid concerns about cryptodevil's behaviour please PM me about them and I'll re-evaluate having him in my network. But I'm not going to remove him for highlighting people who promote scams.

Watch that door on your way out.


The bolded post above is a PM. Zeke's expectation of privacy is misplaced though. I never asked or expected for this discussion to be taken into PMs, nor did Zeke say or imply it's a secret of some sort.

Ah okay thanks for the hint. I expected some screenshot like we had before in this thread.

I dont see a problem with it either. You always have to think of someone might "leak" your pms.

If you look at the references of the negative ratings that CD has left, and the post history of those he has left negative ratings to, you will see that, in practice, CD is leaving negative trust for anyone who posts in these threads.

A better example:
CD left a negative rating for  gustav911 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=800327) with this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1369657.msg14151886#msg14151886) post as a reference.
This person is report a problem with this site, you could even say that he is warning others that this site has scammed. Sure this person is posting about his participation, however it is a long stretch to say this person is helping in any way a scammer, yet alone is a scammer.

If you want a good example of CD leaving negative trust for someone who only posts in a thread in the ponzi section, then look to an example in the OP,  Nohah83 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=794084) has negative trust from CD with this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382185.msg14081559#msg14081559) post as a refrence
It would be an understatement to say that it is a stretch to say that this post makes this person a scammer.

A good number of the references used for negative ratings are "broken links" in that they do not link back to any post that they made nor any post that has anything to do with the person that CD left negative trust against.

---

I think the OP makes an interesting point, and I can't say that I disagree with him. First and foremost participating in a ponzi does not make a person a scammer, posting about an action that you have taken, provided such action does not make you a scammer, does not make you a scammer (this may make your eyes cross), therefore posting that you participated in a ponzi does not make you a scammer. Secondly, I don't think that the above point matters because dooglus is financially benefiting from there being less competition in the gambling world, therefore it is unethical for dooglus have CD in his trust list, not that dooglus cares about ethics.

I believe this thread is more likely then not a waste of time, and I think writing the examples above are a waste of time because there is little to no chance that anything will be done about abuse by anyone in dooglus's trust list. Hell dooglus isn't even willing to read more then 3 posts in a thread about concerns, actually look at the ratings that CD has left, or even look at the first page of CD's post history to see the "warning" that he is posting in the ponzi threads.

Dooglus himself has posted that he participated in (played at and invested in) multiple scam sites, made posts supporting such scam sites, and made posts that a reasonable person could interpret as encouraging others to play/invest at/in such scam sites. It isn't any secret that the "investments" offered in the ponzi section are scams, however the sites that dooglus promoted were less clear to be a scam. 

Oh QS, you are so predictable.

This is the rep I left for that user obvious-scammer-sock-is-obvious:

[Edit] OMGLMAO! Too fucking funny: 'Innocent' (according to QS) scamming-lottery-supporting scammer opens moderated ponzi thread to promote his own ponzi: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1394528
http://i65.tinypic.com/14tt3ck.png


Yeah YourPointIsInvalid tried that one already. Firstly, if a user has deleted the post concerned then the rating will be removed if they contact me to let me know. If they don't contact me then they clearly don't care enough about it and neither should you. Secondly, 'A good number'? ORLY? How many would that actually be and, as I already said, why should you care if they haven't asked for the rating to be removed?

Uhuh, of course you don't disagree QS, we all know that. Both you and the sock-OP have a very very very similar approach to how you fail at this.

Nope, it makes them someone who wants to knowingly help scammers steal money from other users.

Fail.
Pay attention when you're busy switching between your puppets, QS, you might miss something.

Having this guy in DT is like having ISIS as a moderator. they say. " believe in the god I will or live in fear from terror". He uses the same tactics. "Invest your bitcoins where I want or have your reputation ruined".

Wrong again. First, please don't use real life examples while taking about unique situations in a private forum, just makes you sound stupid and may piss off other people. Also, you had to bring religion into this didn't you?

Second, he's not telling you where to invest your BTC. Heck, go and invest it in the scrypt scam for all you like. He's just tagging users who post about their positive experience in a ponzi thread, or are directly promoting it. Thereby causing promotion of something that will lead to the other users(who might invest after seeing the huge amount of positive reviews) being ripped off.

If you want to make an intellectual argument , I'm fine with that. If you want to continue preaching or other unrelated bullcrap, ignore this post and I'll willingly ignore you

Huh? Nobody cares where you invest your coins. Send them to Karpeles or Garza if you insist.

All these ISIS and Gestapo analogies are beyond idiotic. When was the last time you lived under a truly authoritarian regime? Was it really as bad as this forum?

The thread in question was posted a week after you left the negative trust rating. You left the negative rating because he was saying that a gambling site that would potentially compete with Just-Dice might be fun to play at.

When I checked the last time I posted here, more of your recent ponzi related negative ratings had invalid references then those that linked to an actual post.

You are not exactly an approachable person, so someone who should not be labeled a scammed, yet is labeled one anyway is going to think they are wasting their breath asking for the negative rating to be removed. Additionally many of the accounts that you left negative trust for are very new, and therefore have little reason to put in significant amounts of efforts to "fix" their reputation.

Most importantly is it up to the accuser to prove their claim (no I am not saying that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and no I am not saying that everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, however there does need to be some basis for a claim that someone is a scammer).



It is no secret that the operators of pretty much all of the ponzis are going to scam eventually, and it is no secret that ponzis are not sustainable. Many of the posts that you included a reference to for you negative ratings even included comments pointing out that the ponzi is not going to last forever (eg that some people will eventually lose money).

One thing that the OP forgot to mention is that one aspect of gambling online is the social aspect. This is why reputable sites like Primedice and betking.io, and even sites run by people with questionable ethics like Just-Dice have chat features on their sites, and have threads in the gambling section so people can chat about how much they have recently won/lost, about their experiences, about their strategies, ect.. By calling anyone who comments about a ponzi game, or any other site that could potentially compete with Just-Dice a scammer, you are essentially taking away one part of what gamblers consider to be fun about this kind of gambling.

What you are describing is not someone that is a scammer, especially when there are comments in the review that acknowledge that the ponzi will eventually collapse, and especially when the person making the comments has little reputation and when few/no people will take their word as written.

There, fixed it for ya.

When QS was trolling me as ACCTSeller, Panthers52, Quickseller, FunFunnyFan (etc ?), dooglus noticed a little quirk which he does that sorta ends up being like a signature.  I don't think he realizes that not many people do this.  dooglus suggested we not reveal it in case it comes in handy in the future to identify his alts. 

FWIW, that newton1 OP has the same quirk.

My account is now ruined as the result of CryptoDevil, all I have done is post in the investor based games section to tell people a certain site does not look good and will most likely fall apart soon and to stay away from said site.  In a few instances I have said that the site looks like it may last a bit but will eventually collapse.  The investor based games section is part of the gambling section, any user that enters this section is gambling whether it be a ponzi, lottery or dice game.  They all allow you to win or lose. 

When playing the lottery, millions may buy a ticket and no one wins, should that be deemed a scam? Because the state did not declare a winner so effectively the state took the money.  Eventually a winner may arise after some time.  This is equivalent to a user investing in a ponzi early on and making a profit, winning money as the result of another person losing money; it is the principal of ALL GAMBLING. 

When playing a dice game a user may win or lose.  If the user loses the admin gets the money and the user loses, should this be deemed a scam?  Oh but these dice games are provably fair right?  So it is the computers fault that a user lost his money and suddenly it is alright.  A dice game always has a house edge, should this unfair advantage be deemed a scam because the owner of the dice site will be effectively taking money from its users?

When a user enters the gambling section, it is obvious that the user can win or lose.  If an investor puts money in a obvious scam run by a newbie with no website, they lose.  If a investor puts money in a well put together website that lasts 2 months, they win.  If an investor puts money in early in the game they may win, if an investor puts money in late in the game they may lose.  Just as a investor may put money in the stock market too late and lose their money. 

How do you say one type of gambling is okay and the other is not ?  Who makes these rules ?  This politically correct thinking that you are driving is so sick, that a person may lose his money for not doing the research and not being aware of the risk and suddenly all posters who made a post on any thread in the investor based games section have their accounts destroyed !   

My posts were for the most part warning others not to invest in clear scams.  Take a look at my post history if you don't believe me.  I even wrote a story a while back of how I lost hundreds of dollars through investor based games.  But I did not threaten negative trust for users who enjoyed the game, I simply did my research and took caution in the future and warned of sites that I feel are outright give me your money and take off type deals.  I never once promoted one of those sites EVER!  My red trust has a reference to a page that has no content at all on it !!!! 

This is my red trust:

User   Date   Risked BTC amount   Reference   Comments
cryptodevil 0: -0 / +0   2016-03-17   0.00000000   Reference   Wants to help ponzi scammers steal from other people


This is the reference link:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1396008.msg14221470#msg14221470

The content of this page now reads
quickprofit.trade
Newbie
*


Activity: 4

Ignore trust - We haven't scam anyone


View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)
Trust: -2: -1 / +0
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
Ignore
   
defunct
March 12, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
 #1
defunct


There is no evidence of what I even said on this page.  And if anything I was warning people not to invest in the site because the site was posted by a newbie and the site looked horrible and was not able to be viewed on a browser after a few days.


I have private messaged CryptoDevil asking why he has done this to me, why he has destroyed my account with no evidence; telling him that I was warning newbies not to invest in obvious scam from the start programs which are still considered gambling I suppose, I have never promoted a ponzi scheme ever, all I have done is simply state you can either win or lose like any form of gambling out there. I have humbly asked Cryptodevil what I can do to get him to remove my red trust as Crypto is a hobby of mine I have been involved in for over a year now on this forum and off.  Now with this negative trust, I will never be taken seriously on this forum and my opinion is worthless.  Cryptodevil, I ask of you again, will you please remove my red trust? if the answer is no, what must I do for you to remove my red trust? 


Very truly yours.

You probably shouldn't have posted a wall of text justifying ponzis to begin with, but that's between you and cryptodevil.

But on the subject of gambling can you explain this: what's the house edge for ponzis, and what are the odds for the "victim" to win or lose in one? And why does a ponzi tend to collapse whereas a dice game or a lottery does not?

Ponzis are unsustainable. As soon as there are no investors, the whole system gets shaky. The "victims" usually don't know what's coming and acknowledge the chance of losing. Gambling is the opposite, the house edge is public. People know their chance of losing.

The odds of gambling are not always known before hand for the public to view.  An example, I bet you .01 BTC that Cryptodevil removes the red trust, there is no public algorithm for what will happen, it is a game of chance just as poker is just as a physical game of dice, just as roulette.  Investing in a ponzi does require increased risk for this lack of knowledge and so if you win the reward is much greater especially with things like compounding interest.   However, I will say there are ways to lessen your risk, by looking at the hot wallets of said ponzi's and by seeing what monitoring sites are saying and the people are saying on forums like moneymakergroup(if they are paying or not). 

Anyway, I am not defending Ponzi schemes or scam from the start sites I just am saying that they are another form of gambling and they follow the risk/reward formula just as any other investment would. 

I love how you're trying to drag another type of gambling into the comparison without answering the question.

Are you trying to say that (1) the odds of a dice roll or a roulette spin are unknown, or (2) ponzi outcomes are determined by chance/luck comparable to dice/roulette?

The house edge for ponzis is very high, much higher then other games with comparable potential returns available in the crypto world. The odds for a "victim/investor" to win/lose in a ponzi are generally unknown and again are probably worse then other potential alternatives available in the crypto world. Ponzis tend to collapse because they are not able to attract sufficient additional money to continue to pay "victims/investors", and because the people running/operating ponzis tend to have little/no reputation (and/or have build up their reputation over a very short period of time), so the operators are entrusted with more money then they should be.

It should also be noted that in the US, the state lotteries (eg powerball, megamillions), have a house edge of between 40 and 50 percent (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gamble/odds/house.html), and that Las Vegas casino games sometimes have house edges in the double digits, sometimes exceeding 20%, and are often not prominently disclosed. It is also difficult to tell if a casino was cheating their players in a specific round of a specific game, especially long after the fact.

Most importantly, if you are responsibly gambling, you should not be "banking" on winning any particular bet, but are rather betting for entertainment purposes.

Oops....

https://archive.is/jSDGq#selection-10285.0-10285.190

Well done suchmoon. Thats the reason all references should be done via archive.is

Such tears. Many beg.

Jeez, you take Sunday off and people have a breakdown about their, rather dishonest, claims to not have supported a ponzi. Evidence is a bitch, ain't it?

In any event, the ponzi scammer has torched that thread so the reference post is gone from this forum, which is the important thing. I understand that it is possible to create trust references which won't disappear in these circumstances but as long as the cheerleading here is gone that's all I am concerned with.

I will delete your rating, albeit your post history does still contain some suggestion that you still consider a 'good' ponzi to be a worthwhile 'investment', which could encourage newbs to think likewise. So I'd ask that you reconsider your position in this regards as it is still going to to risk attracting further negative ratings.

I have many requests from people to delete ratings, which I normally will do, but I'd be hard pressed to justify deleting one issued to the same member after he'd already had one removed. So if you choose to continue posting support for what you consider to be 'good' ponzis in future, expect a permanent rating.

You are missing the point. When you bet on dice, roulette, or Cryptodevil's future actions, the terms are clear in advance:

  "if you roll less than 49.5 you win"
  "if the ball lands on red you win"
  "if cryptodevil inexplicably removes red trust you win"

With a Ponzi scam the terms are dishonest:

  "double your money in 48 hours"

The terms don't mention any possibility of a loss and in fact explain why such a loss is impossible:

  "we make sure we have backup funds in order to cover any losses (if ever)."

The loss isn't the result of the terms, it's explicitly outside of the terms, and that is what makes it dishonest.


By claiming they are just another kind of gambling you are defending them. Gamblers know they are gambling. Some Ponzi victims don't. They believe the "double your money" lies.

You made 4 positive statements about a scheme that was clearly designed from the outset to scam:


Did you really think it "may be sustainable"? They were paying 10% profit every 12 hours. That's 21% per day, 747% per week, and 3590% per month.

If you thought that "may be sustainable" you're as naive as the innocent victims. And if you didn't, you were lying.

Thank you for this.  I will not promote or encourage ponzi schemes in the future, I am in no way for the deception of newbies to the cryptoworld, I will be much more careful as to what I say in the future because you are right we don't know if all of these people are familiar with what a ponzi scheme is, if they are desperate for money, etc, etc and I don't want to say anything to make someone think twice about investing in a scam and not being able to eat because of it.  That is something I don't want on my conscious. 

False. Look at the feedbacks that cryptodevil is leaving. They coincide with investing in ponzi schemes and posting about investing and posting a message that it is unknown how long the ponzi scheme will last.

Now that it is revealed that Douglus is involved in ponzi schemes, maybe he is keeping cryptodevil in his trust list to week out all the ponzi competition and then open a massive ponzi scheme of his own  :o

What's false is all the shit you tacked on to my simple statement. I didn't say anything about any of that other stuff, it's all in your head.

And your obsession with dooglus is getting worse, you should have that checked out.

Quickseller,

Why do you keep on posting in this thread using multiple accounts?   Such blatant sockpuppetry isn't going to.fix your trust rating and it isn't going to make your fallacious thinking any more sound---ie, you aren't going to convince anyone just because you keep on repeating yourself under multiple usernames.

I am not involved in Ponzi schemes. Nothing was revealed because nothing was hidden.

Maybe you're just another idiot QuickSeller alt. See how this "maybe" game works?

Not maybe, he most certainly is, 100%

I'll just leave this here,it seems to be relevant. ::)
I saw this and thought of Bitcointalk.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915006327
 Abstract
We developed and tested a novel scale to measure Need for Drama (NFD), a compound maladaptive personality trait in which people impulsively manipulate others from a position of perceived victimhood. We confirmed a three factor model of NFD consisting of interpersonal manipulation, impulsive outspokenness, and persistent perceived victimhood factors using Mechanical Turk and college student samples. The pattern of correlations between the NFD factors, dark-triad, attitudes toward gossip, and locus of control, suggest that NFD individuals can be characterized as manipulative, gossipy, and reactive. Correlations to Big-5 personality traits indicate NFD individuals are neurotic, lack conscientiousness, and are slightly more disagreeable. Tests of measurement invariance established that the factor structure and factor loadings of NFD are equivalent between men and women. Organizational, social, and personality researchers may find the NFD measure useful as a predictor of counterproductive workplace behaviors and other maladaptive interpersonal interactions. Future directions and limitations are discussed.

 

CryptoDevil is the #1 hardest critic I have faced.  You have to appreciate and overcome his questions.  We had to switch to a Moderated because we were not ready for his questions.  My advice is to take his criticism to heart and answer them as best you can.  Sadly, he is not wrong with his observations and sees everything from a different perspective.  You are not going to get much past him.

I have added him to my trust.

This guy is probably cryptodevil based on the messages he sent me

Do you have any proof of that or are you full of shit? THanks.

Oh this should be good. My money's on 'full of shit'.

Go on, gorgon, let's see these 'messages'? Cos the *real* odd thing is that I can't seem to find any record of ever having pm'd you or, for that matter, received such from you.

Also 'strange' how the dumb speculation of an obvious sock-puppet account is resurrected three months later by another sock-puppet account.

gorgon666 added to the list of likely Quickseller alts

A respected newbie?  ::)

Trust ratings aren't moderated unless there are extreme cases of abuse, ergo they won't be banned.

No, I highly doubt anybody is going to remove something that doesn't break the rules unless requested by a court order.

You aren't being trolled, and such users usually deserve what they get (i.e. it is a consequence of their actions). Thousands of newbies are doing just fine here.

Looks like your trust rating is spot on:


Brand new account created to defend MLM scams on behalf of the MLM scamcoin Leocoin. Gtfo sockie.

What exactly are you so unhappy about?

I quoted one line because I didn't want to bring that whole wall of text over here. Anybody can click the quote link, or cryptodevil's trust reference and decide for themselves. All I'm saying is that your trust rating is factual as far as I can see. If cryptodevil made something up, like "User is selling arms to terrorists", that would be a shitty feedback. This is not the case here. You are defending MLM and despite your disclaimer at the top of the post you seem to be making an argument for LEOcoin. If you wanted to make a generic "praise MLM" post perhaps the LEOcoin scam thread was not the best place to do it.

Edit: and nice try with the Ethereum straw man... nothing to do with your trust.

Xtraelv, you can't delete accounts here, but I can't imagine you're attached to yours yet.  Just create a new one and don't give support to scammy stuff like MLMs.  Which are scams, btw.  And if you've been reading anything on this forum you'd know this sort of thing is taken quite seriously.

If you were serious about cleaning this up you should stop posting, remove all your posts or at least the MLM ones, remove the neg you left for cryptodevil, and PM him asking to reconsider.

Or what Backside said.

However if you insist on the "benefits" of MLM the way you've done so far I think your trust will stay red.

There is no other way to remove the feedback unless the "self appointed cyberbully" as in your words,wants to.You know,forum's trust insn't moderated.

Nothing would happen really.You shouldn't be bothered about the feedback if people know you well.

No one suggested that you did; asking isn't begging. Get rid of the problem (the posts which led to your negative trust) and there will be nothing to distrust you over. Cryptodevil seems like a reasonable guy so long as you're mature about it, I expect that he will reconsider should you talk to him nicely.

I don't think that the problem is the coin its self, more how it works. When looking at the feedback, this is what strikes me the most:
Which you clearly did throughout your post:

Ignoring the specifics of LEOcoin, you are defending something that cryptodevil sees as untrustworthy. This therefore makes you untrustworthy.
Much like tagging Ponzi promoters it is not the specific Ponzi website that is the problem - it is Ponzis all together. I think that this idea is the basis of the trust rating.

Nothing will. Read up on the DT system and you will see that moderation is near to non-existent with the exception of extreme abuse (https://i.imgur.com/pUGyx6g.png). This is not said abuse. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1618844.msg16270879#msg16270879)

And unless those users are on the DT system their feedback will not affect your trust rating (when being viewed via the default trust settings). Unless those users are on DT4 or above, your trust rating will still be negative when viewed by (I expect) the majority of the forum.

Whah?  No one would know you created a new account.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people on this forum who do that constantly.  You haven't used your current account much, so who cares?

Trust isn't moderated here, as everyone has said, and I've come to believe that it's a good thing.  Can you imagine the power trips and all the other BS that would go on if it were moderated?  If you think people bitch and moan now, it'd be worse by a factor of at least 5 if mods had that sort of power.  As people say, if there's no reference link, forget it. 

Your retaliatory feedback for cryptodevil and your reciprocal ratings with those other users (copy-pasta without reference links) don't make you look more trustworthy, quite the opposite actually. Astonishing ignorance, especially considering the plentiful reasonable advice you've been given here.

I think it's pretty understandable for someone to be upset and leave retaliatory feedback for getting negative repped for defending MLM as a concept. (Although personally, I think MLM schemes are cancerous).  But if he's the same xtraelv from other sites like ebay, it's would also kind of invalidate the whole sockpuppet accusation too.

I know cryptodevil to be a reasonable enough person to consider all that so if xtraelv really wanted some resolution and not just drama - I'm sure that was possible.

Your speech is not being censored. Freedom of speech is a two way street though. As a defender of civil liberties you must be surely aware of that.


Have you asked cryptodevil to provide any comments? And again with the free speech. You should really look that up.


You have not provided any proof of cryptodevil using a sockpuppet. You provided a reference link to someone's post saying so. That doesn't make it true. That just reinforces your image as a typical noob ignoramus who rides in here on a high horse to teach everyone a lesson in "free speech". You're failing miserably so far, must try harder.

Not in so many words, no.


More of a rage-quit tantrum, tbh.

Nothing will happen.  Trust system is unmoderated.  That's been said many many times.  People receive all kinds of nonsense feedback on here all the time.  Theymos (admin) has said many times that if someone is continuously giving out low quality feedback, the result will be that people will remove that person from their trust lists.  It's not supposed to be centrally managed, it's supposed to be an organic network of feedback and trusted-feedback.


This is probably your best bet.  If you actually have positive feedback from other people, then people will have to take cryptodevil's assessment with a grain of salt.  In any case, just don't worry about it.  Go forward and stand on your principles and let time shake it out.  I know absolutely nothing about this MLM thing you guys are arguing about, but from what I can tell, you wish to defend the concept.  Well, just defend it and go forward.  The negative feedback from cryptodevil doesn't affect your stance, I take it, so you guys have said what you wanted to about each other and that's that.  Right?

What a ridiculous statement. I could LOL at your delusions and not engage in any discussion and that would not mean I'm censoring. I can also distrust you for anything in your behavior that I consider untrustworthy and that still wouldn't mean censoring. None of it prevents you from exercising your freedom of speech. You should really look up the meaning of the word you're throwing around with such ease. Or go live in DPRK for a couple of months or something.


Since you don't seem to own a time machine that solution is not going to work. Do you still want an amicable resolution? You're not doing too well in that direction.


"Senior member" means fuck all here. You said you have proof. Do you or do you not?

For cryptodevil it would be impossible to prove a negative of this kind. Such an esteemed noob scholar should know that. So you might as well shift your focus from deepening your hole onto something more productive.

Ok, God knows I tried. Whatever language this is I can't speak it, sorry.

My god. I avoid meta for a few days and this is what's going on? FFS, elv, heed the advice given, otherwise you will be painted red here forever. LOL @ how this thread turned into something completely different than the OP topic. Shouldn't this get split to a new thread?   ???

This removes the problem for you. However trust is meant for other people to see, and you ignoring a guy won't make them see anything different.

Are you off your meds or just another social incompetent on the autism spectrum?

If you actually bothered reading a few posts below the arbitrary claim you link to in your untrusted feedback rating you would see I have already denied being an alt or employing sock-puppetry.


That you now wish to join the herd of idiots and actual sock-puppets who routinely accuse me of same, does not warrant that I jump to attention and respond to every post you make about me.

Now, seeing as we are, yet a-fucking-gain on the subject of sock-puppets and alts, I am drawn to this observation about you. Considering you claim to not have any alts or sock-puppets on this forum I find it extremely suspect that you clearly have a great deal of knowledge and experience in cryptocurrency and post about such things as your mining hardware.
I find it very very hard to believe that somebody who appears to have the experience you evidently do with cryptocurrency only thought to create an account here a couple of weeks ago.

So while you might well be the same xtraelv who uses other forums, you could have been using a different account name here prior to two weeks ago. Which means, no, you haven't proved anything about your use of alt accounts or sock-puppets.

Yes!


This is how trust is meant to work.  xtraelv clearly doesn't trust cryptodevil, so cryptodevil clearly doesn't belong on his trust list. If others feel the same, they'll exclude him as well.

Yeah but it's suspicion based on reason and evaluation of the facts as presented, namely, a brand new account posting lengthy apologia for a scamcoin supporting an MLM. Coupled with your obvious experience of this industry and you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who wouldn't reach the same conclusion as I regarding the likelihood of you already having one or more accounts on this forum.

I've removed the trust rating as I don't believe you are here to scam or support scams, but I still strongly assert that your posts about LEOcoin are not helpful to the conversation concerning the LEO organisation's dishonest manipulation of the credulous and ill-informed. Particularly given that most of them have limited grasp of the English language and would likely latch on to anything in your post which even suggested the possibility that LEO, as an MLM and as a cryptocurrency, *might* be legit. It clearly is not and the men running it have a long history of charges for running fraudulent schemes in various countries.

People who are so heavily invested emotionally and psychologically in the dream of 'passive income', a bullshit promotional term if ever there was one, take a LOT of convincing to see the truth of the situation. Couple that in with active sock-puppets and shills working on behalf of these scammers and it quickly becomes clear that any discussion which even suggests that *maybe* under certain circumstances, an MLM operation *might* work for *some* people and suddenly it is the invested reader who now believes their MLM is the one which will and that they will be the participant who gets to benefit from it.

I think most of the people that have been here a while have made their own trust list long ago. Over time you learn who you can trust or not. Default is pretty much just there so the newcomers have something to start with