If the last place or last 3 placed teams got relegated are they good enough that they would
qualify for the national tournament the following year though? Hard to say - I think (from time to time) about how that might be arranged - without a doubt the last placed overall gets relegated and is replaced by the Grand Champion of the State based competition. The team that was relegated would then have to win the Grand Final the following year to replace the relegated team for their State from the National competition. In that way NRL relegation would be different from e.g. English Football where there are various divisions tiered across the entire country. In differing scenarios I'd either have 16, 20 or about 24 teams at the moment with 16 teams I'd retain the convoluted finals system but if it were to expand to 24 teams, I'd just have every team play every other team the once then either first and second play for the grand final, or the top four play each other again - the top two out of the top four then play in a grand final. The Wests Tigers win with a long range field goal 20-21
I managed to see nearly half of the game - The Wests Tigers played a very ordinary game, with fumbles, but they did play an impressive scrum at one point. At half time, the Tigers led 20 - 10 then did nothing to build on that score in the second half. Both teams tried for field goals in the dying minutes of the game but it was the Tiger's field goal that went over to score the winning one point. Six from eight for round six of the 2022 NRL Series.I've put a parlay on early yesterday - I won't say what it is, but fingers crossed for next week ... |
|
|
|
5 from 5 or 5 from 6 with the Eels looking to win tomorrow to potentially go 2nd on the table.
If I'm looking at the NRL Ladder stats page correctly, the Eels would climb to 3rd spot on stats behind the Storm who also have ten points leaving the Tigers languishing in 16th spot. To my way of thinking there should be a relegation system similar to the UK Football model where if you are at the bottom of the table at the end of the season, then you go down a division. In the case of the Wests' Tigers, they would return to the State Based (New South Wales) competition with the winning team advancing to the National Game. As it stands, the Wests' Tigers don't care about languishing for a few seasons at the bottom of the table as they are guaranteed to play next season at the national level. |
|
|
|
Six from seven so far this round with one more game to go - Will the West's Tigers manage to loose yet again? Canberra Raiders - North Queensland Cowboys Money Line North Queensland Cowboys @ 2.41 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.24 mBTC
South Sydney Rabbitohs - Canterbury Bulldogs Money Line South Sydney Rabbitohs @ 1.25 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.13 mBTC
Penrith Panthers - Brisbane Broncos Money Line Penrith Panthers @ 1.09 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.11 mBTC
Manly Sea Eagles - Gold Coast Titans Money Line Manly Sea Eagles @ 1.52 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.15 mBTC
Melbourne Storm - Cronulla Sharks Money Line Melbourne Storm @ 1.36 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.14 mBTC
Sydney Roosters - New Zealand Warriors Money Line Sydney Roosters @ 1.16 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.12 mBTC
St George/Illawarra Dragons - Newcastle Knights Money Line Newcastle Knights @ 2.41 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.24 mBTC
Parramatta Eels - Wests Tigers Money Line Parramatta Eels @ 1.07 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.11 mBTC |
|
|
|
@Timelord2067, the first two images don't work.
The archive image I can see if I open the link; the one from postimg doesn't work at all (site unreachable, DNS error).
You may want to post the images somewhere else. If it helps, for me imgur worked best.
Yeh, it's a known fault - they work from time to time then don't. I'll look into it over the week-end. |
|
|
|
^
Nice! I dont understand how that works, for a team to be able to score points in
the first half of a game and fail to do so in the second half. Anyway that was a hard
lesson for the raiders.
This has been happening quite a lot of the time over the last couple of years - My wager was based more on the Raiders previous game plays and the Cowboys sure after an awkward start to the year. |
|
|
|
The Canberra Raiders led the NQ Cowboys 12 - 0 at half time then sat back and conceded three unanswered, converted tries in the second half which gave me my first win of the week: Canberra Raiders - North Queensland Cowboys Money Line North Queensland Cowboys @ 2.41 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.24 mBTC    |
|
|
|
Reserved #2Show your support: Add the following to your banner or signature: [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5394559.0;dt][b][color=#0a80b1]Known Alts of any-one[/color] - [color=#f8ae23][i]A User Generated List[/i][/color] [color=#c81c8f][sup]Mk IV[/sup][/url] which will look like this: ^^
-<(@)>-||_|| ||+|| ||=|| //||_||\\ We're watching you...
|
|
|
|
in my idea you should put a negative feedback for now and after proof ownership by sign message you can remove feedback
Three posts in and you're already ordering the DT1's around? Muchly WOW1!!11!! |
|
|
|
Known Alts of any-one - A user Generated List Mk IV
Moderated read the fine print! - still hunting scammers and their alts. Submission Form for posting:Anyone who would like to post their finds in this thread are to use this form: [b][color=brown]n Accounts Connected:[/color] (Note: Banned shown in [color=red]red[/color] / Inactive in [color=blue]Blue[/color] / Active [url=https://bitcointalk.org/]profile (in ordinary link colour)[/url])[/b]
(Where possible put UID's in numerical order keeping these UID's on the one line) [url=https://bpip.org/Profile?id=#]Username[/url], [url=https://bpip.org/Profile?id=#]Username[/url], [url=https://bpip.org/Profile?id=#]Username[/url], (and so on).
[b][color=#0a80b1]Proof:[/color][/b]
(your proof - Please provide substantial proof that the accounts you listed are owned by one and the same person. Either explain the connection here or link to the explanation.) Ensure you use an archive service such as https://archive.today/ or https://web.archive.org/ to capture a permanent record of the proof.
[b][color=#0a80b1]Reporting:[/color][/b]
These alts have been reported by me in the [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5094661.0]"[Report] Ban Evasion [Requesting Admin/mod to check those and ban]"[/url] thread for ban evasion - Yes / No / Not applicable.
I have marked these user's trust feedback pages with [b][color=red]distrust[/color] / neutral[/b] / no feedback.
[b][color=teal]Related Addresses:[/color][/b]
(any BitCoin (or other alt coins) that connect the UID's - can include such things as Twitter accounts or other Social Media Accounts - List any addresses you have seen the person use. Best: One address per line. Also, use [code ] and [/code ] please.
[i]Miscellaneous:[/i]
Any other comments you may have belong here.  | Last Updated 1st August 2020
The Fine Print - i.e. READ THIS!
I do however, feel there should be some ground rules so that there are no misunderstandings about which posts are going to be deleted through moderation. (Hopefully these ground rules will address @holydarkness ' concerns) - No "Newbie" or, "Junior Member" can post an investigation in this thread. They can however post a link (once) to a thread in the reputation section where their investigations can be investigated and analised.
- The only way in which a newbie, or Jr Member can post is if they are appealing NEGATIVE trust being left on their trust feedback page. (If the post is neutral, then their appeal *may* be deleted)
- Any user of any rank who quotes an entire post then makes a one line comment in response (usually "it wasn't me!" or similar) will have their post deleted.
Trim a quote e.g.
... - Two UID's being uncovered as alts does not justify either, or both receiving negative trust feedback. Unless, of course they have done something such as claiming from the same campaign which is frowned upon by most users here.
- There needs to be a minimum standard of "proof" connecting two or more UID's - e.g.
- multiple alts claiming from the same campaign. In saying this, there have been instances of brand new/newbies using the details of another user to join a campaign. This may be a case of the newbie copying another users work. In this case, that does not warrant a negative.
- multiple users waking up on the same date
- If you merit an investigation, you are asserting that you have verified the contents of the other person's investigation to be correct.
- You cannot post an investigation via an alt, known, suspected, or not known now, but uncovered at a later date. i.e. choose just one UID you are going to post investigation from. I'm not sure what action I'll take, but it may involve one, or all alts posts being deleted.
- If you leave negative trust feedback with a link to a post in this thread, you agree to remove (or change to neutral) any trust feedback found to be incorrect and agree to either remove, or modify with updated information to correct your mistake of a post in this thread in a timely manor. Should you leave negative trust feedback, or incorrect information in this thread after multiple requests to have that information removed, the post may be deleted, and you may be temp-banned.
- Teletalk.org is banned from posting for twelve months from the date of the first post in the Mk IV thread.
can proof of blockchain transactions or merit exchanges strengthen the evidence we provide? Absolutely!
Merit exchanging (or even one way merits), Default Trust (again, either mutual or one way) as well as DT trust, or trust feedbacks occurring in the same 24 hour period (or week in the case of default trust) are all hall marks of alts being used to build up one or more profiles. An example of this can be seen in my thread: [Investigation] Four users who distrust pooya87, ndnh, aliashraf,gembitz etc
Other examples include registration, or last active dates, posting one after the other in threads (usually attempting to join campaigns) - even spelling and turns of phrases can be markers of alts/connections.
Above all actual use of the same wallets, or wallet addresses not just once but on multiple occasions are solid indicators of two or more UID's being alts.
BUT...
Just because alts use the same wallets/wallet addresses/social media accounts doesn't in itself prove anything unto-wards - like most others, I will mark alts trust feedback page with neutral trust feed back to advise others.
OTOH, two UID's applying for the same bounty / signature campaigns using the same wallet address (or in some instances sending funds from two seemingly separate wallet addresses to the same wallet address) are proof of ulterior intentions and most investigators will mark these UID's with negative trust feedback.How do people feel about these guidelines?
I have no objections at all. All of these guidelines are already incorporated into my investigative practices by default. I also do not see any drawback in the guidelines. The only thing I would add is a suggestion that prior to publishing a new report, one should first search existing reports to avoid duplicates.
Secondly, I keep saying that in investigator should mark an alt with neutral or negative trust feedback that way later investigators can see at a glance that a previous investigation has occurred instead of relying on others to do the marking, or appealing to DT to place a neutral/negative on UID's. Do it yourself!
|
|
|
|
Are you referring to the Google Spread Sheet? This was discussed (yet again) half a dozen pages ago. |
|
|
|
|
I'll give it about another two days for anyone to ask questions or air their concerns and will then create a moderated version of the Known Alts thread.
Watch this space.
|
|
|
|
How do people feel about these guidelines?
I have no objections at all. All of these guidelines are already incorporated into my investigative practices by default. I also do not see any drawback in the guidelines. The only thing I would add is a suggestion that prior to publishing a new report, one should first search existing reports to avoid duplicates. I couldn't agree more and this comes back to two points I make time and again. Firstly investigators should thoroughly investigate a UID for things such as social media profiles and wallet addresses - anything that can give away clues of other alts *including* checking trust feedback both trusted and untrusted. Which leads me straight into: Secondly, I keep saying that in investigator should mark an alt with neutral or negative trust feedback that way later investigators can see at a glance that a previous investigation has occurred instead of relying on others to do the marking, or appealing to DT to place a neutral/negative on UID's. Do it yourself! |
|
|
|
can proof of blockchain transactions or merit exchanges strengthen the evidence we provide? Absolutely! Merit exchanging (or even one way merits), Default Trust (again, either mutual or one way) as well as DT trust, or trust feedbacks occurring in the same 24 hour period (or week in the case of default trust) are all hall marks of alts being used to build up one or more profiles. An example of this can be seen in my thread: [Investigation] Four users who distrust pooya87, ndnh, aliashraf,gembitz etcOther examples include registration, or last active dates, posting one after the other in threads (usually attempting to join campaigns) - even spelling and turns of phrases can be markers of alts/connections. Above all actual use of the same wallets, or wallet addresses not just once but on multiple occasions are solid indicators of two or more UID's being alts. BUT... Just because alts use the same wallets/wallet addresses/social media accounts doesn't in itself prove anything unto-wards - like most others, I will mark alts trust feedback page with neutral trust feed back to advise others. OTOH, two UID's applying for the same bounty / signature campaigns using the same wallet address (or in some instances sending funds from two seemingly separate wallet addresses to the same wallet address) are proof of ulterior intentions and most investigators will mark these UID's with negative trust feedback. |
|
|
|
Rugby League Australia.I had a few wins in round five. (Six wins from eight games) Brisbane Broncos - Sydney Roosters Money Line Brisbane Broncos @ 2.66 Taken Amount: 0.06 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.16 mBTC
Newcastle Knights - Manly Sea Eagles Money Line Newcastle Knights @ 2.37 Taken Amount: 0.06 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.14 mBTC
New Zealand Warriors - North Queensland Cowboys Money Line New Zealand Warriors @ 1.88 Taken Amount: 0.06 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.11 mBTC
Canberra Raiders - Melbourne Storm Money Line Melbourne Storm @ 1.28 Taken Amount: 0.06 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.08 mBTC
South Sydney Rabbitohs - St George/Illawarra Dragons Money Line South Sydney Rabbitohs @ 1.36 Taken Amount: 0.06 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.08 mBTC
Gold Coast Titans - Parramatta Eels Money Line Parramatta Eels @ 1.46 Taken Amount: 0.06 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.09 mBTC
Cronulla Sharks - Wests Tigers Money Line Cronulla Sharks @ 1.14 Taken Amount: 0.06 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.07 mBTC
Canterbury Bulldogs - Penrith Panthers Money Line Penrith Panthers @ 1.12 Taken Amount: 0.06 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.07 mBTC For round six, I'm going with the following: Canberra Raiders - North Queensland Cowboys Money Line North Queensland Cowboys @ 2.41 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.24 mBTC
South Sydney Rabbitohs - Canterbury Bulldogs Money Line South Sydney Rabbitohs @ 1.25 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.13 mBTC
Penrith Panthers - Brisbane Broncos Money Line Penrith Panthers @ 1.09 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.11 mBTC
Manly Sea Eagles - Gold Coast Titans Money Line Manly Sea Eagles @ 1.52 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.15 mBTC
Melbourne Storm - Cronulla Sharks Money Line Melbourne Storm @ 1.36 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.14 mBTC
Sydney Roosters - New Zealand Warriors Money Line Sydney Roosters @ 1.16 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.12 mBTC
St George/Illawarra Dragons - Newcastle Knights Money Line Newcastle Knights @ 2.41 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.24 mBTC
Parramatta Eels - Wests Tigers Money Line Parramatta Eels @ 1.07 Taken Amount: 0.10 mBTC Possible Payout: 0.11 mBTCAlthough the Raiders are building from week to week, I feel the Cowboys may just pull something out of the bag to keep them in contention. The Bulldogs will chase the Rabbitohs around, but they won't be able to catch them. The Broncos did their dough last round and I'd be surprised if they were to beat the top placed Panthers. Similarly, the Sea Eagles are starting to soar all the while the Titans are proving they are anything but. The Sharks won't be able to ride out the Storm while the Roosters will have something to crow about (should be a close game). The Knights will slay the Dragons (never gets old saying that) while the Paramatta Ells will fax their game play to the Wests' Tigers who will then languish on seven losses this season in the first six rounds.
|
|
|
|
I am always disqualified from any bounty by brain boss reason being that i cheated with two bsc address. Please i am appealing not to be disqualified again please and i have new wallet address
It really doesn't work that way... The fact you have received ZERO merits should disqualify you from any and all signature campaigns. Bounty posts, and simultaneously claiming from the same campaign are frowned upon and you're never, ever going to get people to change their opinions on that one within this forum.
There seems to be universal approval to migrate this thread into a moderated thread (something I never thought I'd find myself typing out, but there you have it) . I do however, feel there should be some ground rules so that there are no misunderstandings about which posts are going to be deleted through moderation. (Hopefully these ground rules will address @holydarkness ' concerns) - No "Newbie" or, "Junior Member" can post an investigation in this thread. They can however post a link (once) to a thread in the reputation section where their investigations can be investigated and analised.
- The only way in which a newbie, or Jr Member can post is if they are appealing NEGATIVE trust being left on their trust feedback page. (If the post is neutral, then their appeal *may* be deleted)
- Any user of any rank who quotes an entire post then makes a one line comment in response (usually "it wasn't me!" or similar) will have their post deleted.
Trim a quote e.g.
... - Two UID's being uncovered as alts does not justify either, or both receiving negative trust feedback. Unless, of course they have done something such as claiming from the same campaign which is frowned upon by most users here.
- There needs to be a minimum standard of "proof" connecting two or more UID's - e.g.
- multiple alts claiming from the same campaign. In saying this, there have been instances of brand new/newbies using the details of another user to join a campaign. This may be a case of the newbie copying another users work. In this case, that does not warrant a negative.
- multiple users waking up on the same date
- If you merit an investigation, you are asserting that you have verified the contents of the other person's investigation to be correct.
- You cannot post an investigation via an alt, known, suspected, or not known now, but uncovered at a later date. i.e. choose just one UID you are going to post investigation from. I'm not sure what action I'll take, but it may involve one, or all alts posts being deleted.
- If you leave negative trust feedback with a link to a post in this thread, you agree to remove (or change to neutral) any trust feedback found to be incorrect and agree to either remove, or modify with updated information to correct your mistake of a post in this thread in a timely manor. Should you leave negative trust feedback, or incorrect information in this thread after multiple requests to have that information removed, the post may be deleted, and you may be temp-banned.
- Teletalk.org is banned from posting for twelve months from the date of the first post in the Mk IV thread.
How do people feel about these guidelines? I'll leave this open for discussion for a few more days. |
|
|
|
|
@JeromeTash - even now, zazarb does not distrust james.lent
Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
