IriTeam


question: how is it that coins are nominated but receive no votes? 

suggestion: re-arrange the list so that they are in a recognized order, like by popularity

We are organizing a crowdfunding campaign in conjunction with Gamercoin to provide Armis board game at public libraries around the world
see project here: http://game4commit.gamers-coin.org/projects/37

So far we have two donation worth a total of 60K GMC, please tell others about our campaign.

the best thing to do is to read the last 10 pages of this thread, that will give you a good idea of where this coin is

sent you pm, I think you will be happy to see the message, respond quickly

Thanks for your support on this Nick, indeed EMC2 has reached out to Opal for cooperation, they have acknowledge the offer and are considering participation, we (EMC2) await their response.

on a completely separate note please support EMC2 here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827426.msg9459470;topicseen#msg9459470  with your vote.
Utility is the fastest way to increased equity value.   The more places that accept and use EMC2 the stronger the CC will be.

To whatever misguided extent that you believe some kind of virtual property rights extend to threads started by members, it is to that extent that you are asked to leave this thread and not return.    My guess is you won't respect your own arbitrary guidelines for thread content contributions.  In other words, you feel it is ok to tell me that I can't go to your threads but presumably you see no problem in coming to a thread I start to make that demand.    That is the narrow-minded mentality that makes it extremely difficult for you to see things with a reasonable perspective, for you if it isn't black or white you just don't see it, worse yet is your sense of entitlement beyond the privilege; you clearly feel that you have the right to do as you please with "your" thread, and "your" feedback; even if it means breaking someone else's rules, and trust.

You were TRUSTED to make reasonable decisions all of the time, this time you failed; you were TRUSTED to act responsibly all of the time, this time you failed; and you were TRUSTED to be honest all of the time, this time you failed.   You failed because you are human, when others saw your fail they quickly ran to your aid, but you shoved most of them away claiming to be ok -- it is not ok, you are not ok, there is nothing ok about the matter.

There's a trust line that doesn't extend to perhaps 90+% of the membership but it flows to you, it starts with the admin, and connects down to the few who should be proud to respect and honor the privilege of that trust.  You knowingly broke that trust, and inasmuch as those above you on that trust-line may be encouraging you to mend the trust you breached, you refuse like a stubborn child who won't eat his spinach -- it's for your own good.  

Whatever infraction you believe I did to provoke your wrath is gone, was gone before you issued the feedback and gone before you visited my thread.  However, most of the results of your behavior is still shining bright.  You want forgiveness for breaking the rules while the damage is still visible, but don't want to give forgiveness for a matter that no longer is visible.   That's the narrow-minded mentality at work again.  You see the splinter that was in my eye and complain while a log is in your eye.

I didn't lie in an Trust system, you did;  I didn't fraudulently claim, in a Trust report, to do business with anyone, you did; you have PROVEN yourself to be untrustworthy, I'm calling attention to that breach and asking for a resolution consistent with that breach.

As for you demanding that I not use my signature to point to my thread -- just more of that narrow-minded mentality at work yet again.  Think, could I tell you what to do with your sig? ... so why would you think you can tell me what to do with my sig?


Again, to whatever misguided extent that you believe some kind of virtual property rights extend to threads started by members, it is to that extent that you are asked to leave the thread and not return.

You are basically saying that Armis is calling you out because you were charging an unfair price for something and you gave him negative feedback until he deletes any trace of him pointing out you being unfair. Another way of putting it is that he is claiming that you are scamming and you give him negative trust until he retracts such claim (some people would consider charging an above market price for something to be a scam - which is something you are doing). I personally do not consider either you charging such a high price nor you giving someone negative feedback for someone calling you out to be trustworthy.
You are in CanaryInTheMine and SaltySpitoon trust list. You would need to be removed from both of their trust lists in order to be removed from default trust. Until that happens you will remain on default trust. I am curious to know both of their opinions on this matter.

Again, if he is preventing you from selling your products then negative feedback is not appropriate. He is calling you dishonest, and as a retaliation you have given him negative trust. Again this is the same as him opening a scam accusation against you and you giving him negative trust until he retracts his claims. How is this the right thing to do, regardless of if his claims are accurate or not?

Here is an example of a recent negative feedback that you left for someone on 5/11/14
Is this not what you are doing?

Here is another one you left for the same user on 9/10/13
Why did you not leave a similar disclaimer on Armis feedback? Or why did you not leave the disclaimer that he did not scam anyone? The feedback that vod leaves is left when he sees an apparent scam. It would be generally believed to an experienced user on the forum that someone is attempting to scam before he leaves his feedback. Can you show why you think Armis was trying to scam?
[/quote]



Notice was sent to SaltySpitoon yesterday, and notice was sent to CanaryInTheMine today.

acknowledged

Make it simple, you remove content that you shared (truth lie or otherwise) regarding me, I remove all content I shared about you, such that no reference is made about either party from the other party.  

When it is finally agreed that all other items have been deleted, this thread will also be deleted.   If you agree I will erase the posts that you have highlighted.

I'm specifically inviting you to tell the truth, the full truth as you see it.

I want to pinpoint when it was that you first felt "harassed".
I want to know when it was that you first filed a report with the mods, provide a copy of the complaint if you wish?
I think when we see the particulars it will show that your "harassment" claims are not only inflated, but within the rules of the site.

The minions that support your position are doing so in a way that is far more inflammatory than anything that occurred in our actual exchanges.
I think when you give the specifics of what you cried to the mods about, and we match them against what your supporters here are saying,
the startling contrast that will make your claims look woosy.  

I didn't come here seeking a fan club, don't need one.   I came here to point out a critical flaw in a TRUST system that you exploited.

Your actions highlighted how someone can uses the Trust system as a weapon,
your actions highlighted how someone with a history of excellence could fall of his rocker, and in a fit of rage act irresponsibly,
and
your actions highlighted how someone's tenure can provide a false sense of entitlement.


What you did was wrong for a 'newbie member', wrong for a 'jr member', wrong for a 'full member', wrong for a 'Sr. member'  ...
and wrong for a 'Legionary member' too.

I'm guessing this is not the first time you have done this, how many time have you lied in the TRUST report?
How many times have you issued negative feedback in the absence of a connecting deal?
How many times have you used the TRUST system as a weapon?







 

I think it would be extremely informative if you delineated the events as you saw them.

Detail the events and show the board when it was that you first cried to me or anyone in the thread that you were being "harassed"?
Did you delete any of your posts in the subjected thread?  If not, then it becomes clear that whatever actions I took were not of a "permanent" nature?
Did you you bear false witness when you claimed to do a transaction with me for 1BTC?
Given your history, you knew or should have known that your false feedback coupled with the false 1BTC would aggravate the offensive action.

Funny that you claim OCD and 'follow me' me behavior, because you are clearly forgetting that it was you that initiated the 'follow me' behavior,
When you posted the following message to my listing: "UPDATE - this works both ways   $0.03 raised, you'll have your digital chess game in every library in the nation before you know it!"    https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=842689.msg9408371#msg9408371

Now lets examine those 'OTHER', 'OCD', 'follow me', comments that I issued, if you look at the chronology you will find that they didn't start immediately after
you expanded to my thread.  In fact they started only after I was told that 'feedback is not moderated'.  

Plain and simple, you lied in a Trust system, I didn't.   According to the rules of the site, I have a right to travel to threads and share my 'on topic' opinion.  You afforded yourself the same opportunities but for whatever reason you wanted to do harm over and above that which is site permitted and reasonable.

Tell your story from the very beginning and be thorough so that everyone could see the degree of "harassment" you endured that resulted in
your blatant violation of the TRUST system of this site.  Show us your mind set as events occurred, let us see when it what that you first
contacted mods so that we could cooperatively determine if your claim(s) were true, justified, or responsible.  



As of this message this issues has graduated to a formal complaint to Bitcointalk

The evidence suggest that if your Trust rating took the exact same hit it would render the exact same results as what you see at my rating, and my guess is you would not like it either.

According to you guys if someone started a thread and he didn't like what was said by any poster to the thread he would be justified in using the trust system to fraudulently report an action that never occurred in order to chastise the poster.

With that said let's move over to this thread, a thread that I created, a thread that you posted displeasing statements  to, would I, therefore be justified in falsifying a report indicating that I did business with you to the extent of 1btc simply because I wanted to damage your trust rating?    Wouldn't that seem harsh, overboard, and wrong?

Only a real DICK would do that.

Your take away is amazing, if I didn't know better I'd bet you did business with the sly devil, because your framing is just too suspicious but I'll ask the question most directly do you believe my actions were warrant?

This is not his site nor was his page moderated my actions were all legitimate, his were not.

As for "If you do no deals, what was the point of posting in his thread" it wasn't for a lack of trying to do deals.  As you see in my trust rating one other guy gave me bad feedback just for refusing to do business with him.  Clearly he too abused the system but didn't lie about doing a deal knowing none was done -- he told the truth.

A TRUST system isn't a vehicle for LYING, TECSHARE violated the spirit of the reason why it was placed there in the first place.

TECSHARE maliciously abused the BitcoinTalk trust system, here are the details.

Tecshare listed a $100 T-mobile card for $100 worth of BTC he claimed he purchased from Target: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=811922.msg9089092#msg9089092
most of the deleted info can be seen in quoted text provided.    He wanted 1:1 for the item, I told him that it would not likely sell at that level, he then essentially told me to 'get off his lawn'.   Not so coincidentally Target was selling the $100 Tmobile card for $95, so I posted that to the page which apparently caused a conniption because he closed the listing, relisted it with w/self-mod then 'suited up' for revenge.

Tecshare apparently reviewed my history and sought to plot his 'revenge'.  He wrote some off topic spam at one of my threads (which needed the bump [wink]), https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=842689.msg9409960#msg9409960 then, when that wrong wasn't enough, the old devil turned up the heat and played a trump card --  he issued a false, and blatantly malicious, report in order to harm my trust rating.  He specifically indicated that we did business together to the tune of 1btc worth, which is a boldface lie.  In said same reporting he issued negative feedback and provided no reference material.  Here is the proof https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=225066
Please note, he knew that any like-kind  retribution on my part would essentially be meaningless since he does many deals and has a healthy feedback history, and I do no deals.  

Beyond any reasonable doubt TECSHARE abused the bitcointalk trust system in an effort to seek vengeance for me saying his Tmobile listing wasn't going to sell at 1:1, and that he was an old fart.  Well his diabolical plan to wreak evil worked -- my trust rating is meaningfully damaged.

Please note, Tecshare knew he could have issued negative feedback without, lying about the 1 btc transaction, but he knew that would not have made a meaningful difference in the outward appearance of the trust rating, as such he consciously decided to lie about the transaction in order to malign my username's character.

Tecshare's response went well beyond juvenile, or simply irresponsible behavior, it went against the very spirit of a TRUST system, his actions has shown him to be reckless and untrustworthy.  As such I am requesting that his trust rating be revoked, that his username be banned for a period commensurate with the offense, and that his referenced 'off topic spam' and 'fraudulent trust report' be removed.

 

see pm

see PM

with all of the scams out there why would you buy any product or service without some form of reference, recommendation, or valued history that you can trust?

see PM

We are organizing a crowdfunding campaign in conjunction with Gamercoin to provide Armis board game at public libraries around the world
see project here: http://game4commit.gamers-coin.org/projects/37

So far we have two donation worth a total of 60K GMC, please tell others about our campaign.