Your shilling is too weak. Elon Musk is preventing at least 4-5 world wars every day.

We're all thankful you're not... last thing we need is a bunch of little badeckers copy-pasting conspiratardery all over this forum.

I just noticed that you have tons of positive ratings after the JG red one, and if that is all organic and unsolicited then you're doing well in rebuilding your reputation. Doesn't seem like you should be too worried about the JG rating. OTOH stirring this pile of poo again and again can only make it worse.

Think about it this way: if someone is really deciding to not hire you entirely because of one red trust rating despite the number of more recent positive ratings, do you really want that business? Another way to look at it is this: do you want to be transparent to your potential customers, or do you expect them to not notice the Bitlucy fiasco if there are no DT red trust ratings about it?

I think all you need to do when someone asks about that JG rating is to give them a 1-2 sentence summary of your side of the story and direct them to one of the threads on that subject for more info. If you feel confident that your behavior in that debacle and afterwards is not worthy of red trust then your potential customers should be able to see that as well.

Just curious, have you ever asked other users to post positive feedback for you? Like your campaign participants perhaps?

We're talking about someone who's been fired by Fox News

I don't think there is any credibility to be hurt. He has a faithful audience that will accept anything he says regardless of actual facts.

His latest headline: "Larry Sinclair says he had a night of crack cocaine-fueled sex with Barack Obama, and that Obama came back for more the next day."

I doubt that "Deep state poisoned Trump's KFC order" would sound any more insane or less believable to his audience.

W-L 50%, so you're saying they'll have 8.5 wins or more? Ok, I'll bet on less than 8.5.

How many bitcoins?

Specify your definition of sucking not horribly and the amount you're willing to lose on this

It's been discussed many times. Anyone can use trust feedback any way they see fit, including red-tagging for lying, but sane users would likely exclude you if you tag someone for lying in a non-trade-related discussion. Someone saying that Santa exists or that Earth is 6000 years old is not necessarily a potential scammer.

I went the other way, instead of getting a new tablet on wheels every 3 years I figured that an older used car with no turbo, no ADAS, port injection, stick shift, is about as good as it will ever get in automotive technology. The only modern amenity I like is Android thingamabob with maps and Spotify, and that's like a $500 retrofit, people pay more than that MONTHLY for their cars.

Anyway, speaking of Tesla, I did have a reservation on Model 3 back when they promised to deliver it for $35k in 2016 I think it was, the date came and went, I think they were 2 or 3 years late, by that time I obviously had purchased another vehicle and got my deposit back. You gotta be a hardcore fanboy to put up with that and CT is surely testing the strength of Elon's reality distortion field much more than any of their previous models.

Absolutely false. The correct answer has been given above by DdmrDdmr. Once again you're posting bullshit for the sake of posting bullshit. Cue tearful excuses of how I'm being unfair to you.

Considering how he threatens other people and puts them in danger of being attacked by his nutjob followers, I'd say there is sadly a much higher chance of him killing someone than getting killed.

On the other hand, he's old enough so that he can croak any day, maybe choke on a burger or fall off a golf cart, but Tucker would surely call it a deep state conspiracy. So if you look at those kinds of sources then yes, the possibility is 100% that Trump's life is in danger for made-up "political reasons".

Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic... Lions will suck horribly, that's a safe bet any year.


Great start to the season, congrats Hueristic on an easy win

When this extension was being developed Apple had their own proprietary web extension system what was not compatible with what Firefox and Chrome (and now Edge) use. I know things have changed since then and porting the extension to Safari now may be easier but I don't have the time to look into that. I don't own any Apple products and AFAIK Safari is no longer available on Windows so I have no way of testing it anyway even if I tried to port it.

Montgomery of course.

You should have drafted more Detroit players, the team will be brilliant this year I keep hearing. Going up against some obscure Missouri team in week 1, easy.

Drafting Josh Jacobs is bad karma. Just saying.

So it sounds as if we would be flagging the service in this hypothetical scenario even though it didn't scam (in theory; assuming there is no collusion, lying, etc), and some argue that in the WWM scenario the service should not be flagged even though they (presumably) scammed or at least got hit by a bus and had no communication contingency.

There needs to be consistency in how we interpret these implied contracts. I think in both cases the service that took the money and didn't pay back needs to be flagged with one of the contract flags, regardless of what any escrow may or may not do. If you steal something it's a crime regardless if the victim gets an insurance payout. I don't think a new type of flag or even a change in wording is needed, but I'm not a lawyer, just occasionally pretend to be one.

I vote for this.

I never said that it should be disabled. Some merit sources could be more careful with the privilege bestowed upon them by the almighty forum dictator, but that's just my opinion.


Source smerit sending discretion has limits and those limits have been successfully tested in the past (i.e. merit sources have been stripped of their privileges for misuse). Generally speaking, if there is a scenario where shitposters get merited by a source so consistently that they can successfully farm merits, that to me sounds like a problem for the forum even if it's perfectly fine for WO.


There is no way to report posts for incorrect meriting (I mean one could report them but that would do fuck all other than a bunch of bad reports).


It's a problem. Not even in the top 10 BIG problems on this forum IMO.


I'll give you a solid maybe on that one.

What is the actual contract? Is it a 3-way between the service, the customer, and the escrow? Does the escrow have enough funds to make everyone whole? What are the exact obligations of each party? I don't see how the service could be off the hook here but perhaps this whole deal was structured in some bizarre way that I just don't understand. I think I saw someone mention that some escrow funds are multisig and no longer possible to access, which sounds like a major issue and contrary to contingency planning, but again - I didn't dive deep enough into this.

Here is a different scenario - how would you deal with this:

Service loses money (hack, lost keys, whatever). No worries (for the customers), there is escrow. Service says "we fucked up, escrow please refund our customers". Escrow runs away with the funds and doesn't refund. Whom do you flag and why? Service? Escrow? Both?

I was going to draft Justin Tucker in round 1 but you have convinced me, Kelce it is.