Don't act like a special snowflake, I've left over 15 ratings in the past 3 days. More will come.

The retaliatory feedback on Vod's profile was left on March this year. Again, my feedback does not focus on the bogus escrow incident, but the unjustified retaliatory feedback with which I most definitely disagree with.
Is there a time-limit that I'm not aware of for feedback?

---

Update:
If you were to remove the unjustified retaliatory feedback, I would remove mine as well, as there is no reason for it once you did.

I've contacted him in an attempt to make peace, he continues by writing a long wall of text and posts a screenshot here before I could even read it (not to mention reply to it).

Is it time to rename the thread to "People from defcon's trust list praising defcon"? I don't see how this is relevant to me, the thread sidetracked anyways. That text is suited for a reputation thread. In the meantime (since the thread was created by neotox) he has left 3 retaliatory feedback (called Vod a scammer, called cryptodevil an alt of neotox and called neotox a "total scammer"), all of which are unjustified.

I've had a trade with him as well, however that doesn't justify his past actions.

Old enough to treat everyone equally, and old enough not to let people extort me into removing ratings (I was told to remove my rating in order to bid on the auction).

Even if I had left it 1 month from now, it would have been "due to not selling genesis on his terms" so I figured I might as well do it right now (which is 10 days after any discussions of a potential sale). The reasoning "You can't leave a negative rating if we had a strong argument" is nonsense. Keep in mind that my feedback is focused on the retaliatory unjustified feedback by him (one is 4 months old, and the latest one is 1 day old), not the fact that he used to run a bogus escrow scam. Quote:"and is thus untrustworthy regardless of the initial accusation."

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1550067.0

This topic has been moved to Electrum.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1549997.0

Just to clarify the false information so that it does not get used against me again, defcon23 contacted me first via Slack (not the other way around):

Please read the full sentence one more time. I have even sent you a suggestion asking you not to leave false retaliatory feedback to other people (on IRC), but that was ignored. I don't even want to go into the part where I was told to remove the negative rating or my bids would be invalidated.

Last message (IRC - laptop logs):


Definitely false.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.

I have left you appropriate negative feedback for falsely accusing me of wrongdoing(s).

False. Don't make assumptions when you have no knowledge on this matter. I offered $25 which is more than the average of the last three sales ($20, $25 & $25). He said he's going to keep, so I left it at that and had a little fun with him in that chatroom (easily indentified by saying I'd leave miffman negative rating).

It clearly says:"let me know who gets it so I can leave negative rating", not 'who sells it'. I don't see any invalid negative ratings on anyone from my profile.

Just another example that I'm not serious in that chatroom, I tend to say that I'm in the matrix very often (very serious indeed). There was even talk of a potential meetup between Mitchell, defcon and myself afterwards (day or two after). So much for "extortion".

The discussion with him happened over 10 days ago and I have not contacted him afterwards in an attempt to buy the coin again.

False. I'm saying that I don't agree with it, i.e. I agree with miffman. I don't mind this being public, it's just a chatroom.

You think that it is not appropriate to have people who breath as moderators, as long as they are called Lauda.

That is correct. There are several trades that happened more than 6 months ago that have yet to be attended.

That rating was left some time ago, I'll catch up on that as well. I haven't left any questionable feedback (unless you disagree with the negative ones, which is a different story). Besides, this is still not relevant to meta but reputation.

You can be entertaining at times.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Obsolete.

They are (they're easily faked, although I didn't go through each individual message), but I consider them random gibberish. I tend to have 'fun' with people in that chat-room (compare that to the direct messages). The representation of the story is inaccurate, and I disagree with posting screenshot of private conversations without permission. All of this is off-topic to this thread.

Correct, I refused to get involved into that dispute. From what I understand the accusation is somewhere in the lines of: I'm abusing my position (I assume moderator?) by leaving false feedback or something which is ridiculous as those aren't interconnected (regardless of the feedback being correct or not).

Why would it be? Although "my conditions" was just a suggestion based on the amount of money required by others. The first screenshot shows that, although cuts off at "let me know who gets it, so I can leave negative rating" to make it seem like I was serious. If that were true, why am I not seeing the negative rating from myself on the "person who got it"?

This has nothing to do with the personal dispute which happened some time ago. This person (currently ignored) is acting like a special snowflake. I've left several ratings recently as I've caught up on that (still a long list to go). The reasoning: "We had a dispute X time ago, and you aren't allowed to leave a negative rating ever" is bullshit. Don't get me started on unjustified retaliatory feedback, which should make one less trustworthy by default.

That's what my rating reflects. Untrustworthy regardless of initial accusations due to retaliatory unjustified negative feedback.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Cracked accounts.

The random chatlogs of no importance aren't properly stamped, as there is no dd/mm. Those interactions happened quite some time ago. Anyhow, I've yet to see a single argument that has any relevance to moderation. Just Bitcointalk drama; the next account is lurking behind the corner.



I knew it all along!

The evidence was inconclusive (that's why I left neutral trust, but still decided to leave them). "Waits for her payment"; what are you talking about?

No, neither one of those is correct. ACE is asking 2 BTC for the whole group (not myself). The secondary implies that in the case that a client goes rogue (e.g. scams) during an AD period (not prior) that we can't be held accountable for this in any way.

Shady? No, I haven't done anything wrong, don't let yourself fooled by the 'anti-Lauda' movement.

That is correct.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial.

I have no idea. I'll ping a global moderator now just in case that they haven't noticed it.

They most certainly are, but they still aren't what I'd call decently constructive posts. On top of that, considering the sheer number of the posts (980 in 5 days) a time-out is necessary.