Here's the screenshot: https://postimg.cc/7C3MRtpyAs for the threats against my life, they were posted in my reputation thread and deleted by a moderator. Should still be ]in the deletion log. That screenshot does not have a post/communication by the OP in it. The only post by V-Power deleted recently was in this thread that is entirely unrelated to you... I'm pretty sure Rambotnic is an alt of OP. Why do you think this? |
|
|
|
[IMG ]http://i66.tinypic.com/2vanrjk.png[/img]
I read the Trust and feedback for the above poster and decided to not respond to him for obvious reasons related to the serious allegations against him by senior members of this community and because of the poor disgraceful attitude he showed in the past which led to others leaving appropriately negative feedback, comments and Trust.
As of today it stands "-8176 Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"
Add to that his motives for getting involved here in which is a blatant scam by scammer Dean Nolan, it means adding him to my IGNORE list was the best option because maybe he is after the freebie useless tokens scammer Dean Nolan is offering.
The serious allegations made against him in his Trust by senior members of the community mean I would not respond to anybody with that sort of track record or with those sort of allegations against them but I have been advised by some very kind senior members of the community to list at least some of the allegations because not all people browsing this forum will be aware of exactly what the betking ICO scam was and how scammer Dean Nolan stole from players/users on his betking scam website even though plenty of information is out there.
I will post here with an update soon.
I am going to take your ad-hominem attack, non-answer to mean that you are unable to articulate why this person is a scammer. I would let you know your statements potentially open you up to liability under libel laws if you are unable to prove what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Here's the screenshot: https://postimg.cc/7C3MRtpyAs for the threats against my life, they were posted in my reputation thread and deleted by a moderator. Should still be ]in the deletion log. That screenshot does not have a post/communication by the OP in it. The only post by V-Power deleted recently was in this thread that is entirely unrelated to you... |
|
|
|
Can you explain why you believe this person is a scammer? I read the OP of your thread, and it doesn't appear to articulate what you believe he did. IIRC, he has had some problems and controversy in the past, I believe over affiliate payments, but if memory serves me correctly this was resolved. |
|
|
|
|
So, just so everyone is 💯% on the same page, you have sent no PMs to that person?
|
|
|
|
He sent me threatening messages against my physical safety. I'll post after work. He also threatened my life in my reputation thread but staff deleted it.
OP, is this true? What PMs did you send him? |
|
|
|
I just have one question: what was the remote control for? Hopefully something cool, like a drone.
They were for the panties... |
|
|
|
Where's Miss Lauda? B'cause in that board, I just saw pinned thread is created by Lauda and theymos. But I will choose LoyceV as the moderator of the board. He always gives new good things for contribution to the forum. Lauda actually was a Moderator/Global Moderator (I can't remember) back in the old days. AFAIK, she left/was removed by theymos. Lauda was actually fired from being a mod for extortion. |
|
|
|
Owner does not require KYC anywhere on site, upon signing up, there's no terms of service, nothing.
This should have been a fairly large red flag. Is it safe to assume you are unwilling to complete KYC? |
|
|
|
He was trying to buy bitcoin while using an on-forum escrow, so I just can't see where the scam attempt is. Anyone see anything that I'm missing?
Yes. He disputes the wire transfer after the escrow releases the coin. Wire transfers cannot be reversed in most cases, and doing so is not trivial as it is to dispute a PP or a credit card payment. Obviously a sender of a wire transfer can take the recipient to court if he wants to claim he was defrauded, but that is also true for all other payment methods. |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, are you also this guy? Both of you are claiming to be banned for “merit abuse” even though this is not against the rules, however you don’t have any merit to abuse. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe so, but everyone else has the right to know what is expected of them in regards to merit.
|
|
|
|
|
Can a moderator who would know, confirm if the message quoted in the OP is real?
Theymos explicitly said that merit would not be moderated, but the above seems to contradict that.
|
|
|
|
You don't know that members are seeing all these negatives and becoming immune to them any more than I do.
~
People can judge for themselves whether they want to trade with that person based on what the negative was given for--and if they disregard someone's trust, that's on them. On eBay, it's virtually impossible for a seller to receive only positive feedback. As a buyer, my experience thought me that sellers with 99.5% positive are better than sellers with "only" 98% positive. On Bitcointalk, negative ratings are much stronger than positive ratings. On eBay, 90 positive and 10 negative ratings puts you at 90%. On Bitcointalk, it puts you around -1000. This is because on bitcointalk, the assumption is that a negative rating *is* a sign that someone is a scammer. This unfortunately is not the case, as negatives are routinely given out for criticizing certain people, for engaging in unpopular businesses that don’t hurt anyone and other non-trust related reasons. In January, someone sent 600 ratings in under a day for no reason other than they wanted to have the most number of ratings sent. It should go without saying that this person clearly didn’t do their research prior to leaving those ratings. |
|
|
|
My suggestion is to not accept someone without at least a handful of recent posts so you can review their current post quality.
In the end, your goal is ideas that are expressed in the form of replies rather than the account holder. Let's say, for example, a person who has had extensive experience in the technical "Posts since 2012" and has moved through a time portal to the present, if he is not following the changes that have taken place, his posts may seem "low quality." Give the account holder a period to do more posts and check the writing style. You should be able to see how much effort they put into posts, even if they no longer have the most up to date knowledge of Bitcoin. At the end of the day, it is no longer reasonable to be able to know when you are dealing with the original owner of an account. If you look at the digital goods and auction subs you will see many threads offering to sell the associated private keys and email. I think some of these threads are a scam but some are legitimate, again the behavior of those on DT are making it difficult if not impossible to tell which ones are scams, which is ultimately helping the scammers. I would not be surprised if at least one person who regularly tags account sellers also operates scam account selling threads. |
|
|
|
|
The inactivity can be a sign an account was recently sold, although this may not be the case.
The recent hardline stance in tagging sold accounts has resulted in account sellers selling the private keys and associated email addresses along with the accounts, making it nearly impossible to tell when an account has been sold. It would previously be fairly easy to spot when an account was sold by reviewing the security log.
My suggestion is to not accept someone without at least a handful of recent posts so you can review their current post quality.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like the sig spammers are out in force with their “agree” posts. Perhaps they are trying to win favor with the DT powerful.
It also looks like a certain group of people think they can do whatever they want without consequences. The unbanning only reenforces that.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the Russian mods can weigh in. Google translate is saying the highlighted portions of the posts mean something different: The best and most reliable option is to keep funds in a cryptocurrency wallet. On the exchange you need to keep only a small part of your savings.
The best and most reliable option will be the storage of funds directly in the cryptocurrency wallet. On the exchange you need to keep only a small part of your savings. Even if you set a goal to trade on the stock exchange, it is better to do it on two or three exchanges. In this case, the risk of losing all of their savings is reduced.
The above is when the posts are translated via google (I presume -- it was done directly in my chrome browser) on each of the respective threads. Below is what is translated when done via this thread: The best, and the most trustworthy one, will be a safeguard for the succession of a strong earpieces. Ha bore it is necessary to hide only a small part of your deposits. Even if you are building a front goal to trade on batches, it is better to do it on two or three batches. Due to this, the damage caused by the loss of all its accumulations is diminished. The best and most reliable option is to keep funds in a cryptocurrency wallet. On the exchange you need to keep only a small part of your savings. |
|
|
|
I don’t see any reason why you need to wait for this persons work to be completed in order to get paid.
IMO, this is shady on the part of whoever is in charge of paying the translators.
I didnt knew about this. This is handled by my boss, my task is to organize a group of translators, and that was all. Anyway, it has some sense.. if i am the owner of a company, and make a deal with another company, i wont pay until all work is finished. Nothing shaddy at all... These people have completed a job, but have not been compensated as agreed? I can’t imagine how anyone could argue this is okay (assuming there are no outstanding concerns with the work, which doesn’t appear to be the case here). If this person is taking a long time to complete their work, you can consider not hiring him in the future |
|
|
|
The Pharmacist has sent more ratings then me  Okay, time for kitty to wake up from winter sleep. Game on! Did you just tag like 600+ accounts, just to be #1 again?  You must have missed DT I had nightmares about this and couldn't sleep, so I did some catching up.  Or maybe I just casted a spell that automatically tagged all those people, who knows. You sent 600 negative ratings in under 24 hours (closer to 22 hours)....just to have the most number of ratings sent? That works out to one every ~2.2 minutes assuming you were working the entire 22 hours with no breaks. I can’t imagine you possibly did enough research to confirm each of those people are in fact scammers in that time. It seems to me that you just effectively excluded 600 people from participating in the marketplace for no reason other than to have an “award” for having sent the most number of ratings. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
