|
The results from the games played yesterday:
West Ham United 0-2 Brentford
Liverpool 2-1 Leicester City
These are the games taking place today:
Wolverhampton Wanderers vs Manchester United
Bournemouth vs Crystal Palace
Fulham vs Southampton
Manchester City vs Everton
Newcastle United vs Leeds United
Brighton and Hove Albion vs Arsenal
Manchester City and Newcastle United should have relatively easy wins but I think Brighton have the potential to cause an upset by beating Arsenal.
|
|
|
|
From what I can see, both services offer anonymous debit cards. However, AlexPCS offers physical cards that can be used on ATMs worldwide, while the CoinPayCard.net is only a virtual card that is supposed to be used mostly for online purchases.
There is significant differences in the price of the services and the monthly spending limits:
- CoinPayCard offers monthly spending limits of $2000 and $5000.
- AlexPCS' cards have a 25000 monthly spending limit.
- CoinPayCard's annual fee is $99 or $249, depending on the card's spending limit.
- AlexPCS' cards cost from 800 - 1150 annually.
CoinPayCard doesn't offer a lot of information in this announcement thread of theirs which I believe should be improved.
Is there any support? What happens if the card stops working, gets blocked, etc? An excellent analysis, thank you for the comparisons because it makes it easier to understand that way. I had hoped the OP would try to explain advantages (maybe disadvantages) his service might have over any other competitor, hopefully the OP will update here. Judging by previous forum posts made by member CoinPayCard it's better to think twice before you send any coins to this website. There is something called black hole that is sucking everything in and something is telling me there is fishy stuff behind this website. Loycev asked him a normal question, he answered him to check google for answers.  I was unaware the OP had more than one thread. Do you have a link to any questions the OP was asked? |
|
|
|
You are only partly correct. In this case I've understand is reasons, since I've been there too. I've also had moments I thought that Jerry may be a spammer (I was not that certain, still...). Later on it has become clearer to me that he was just a guy that felt insecure about his every step, not an actual forum spammer.
So imho it's one of the few accounts who might deserve a second chance. I guess that we don't share this opinion, still, as I said, I understand his.
It may not matter much, Jerry hasn't posted since October (or at least he didn't in the subs not ignored by me). I understand a little better now after you explained. If the member (Jerry) is a little insecure (possibly even socially shy) then maybe he will appreciate replies from you since you already have a rapport built with him. If he has not posted since for a couple of months, maybe he will be back in the new year. All in all, it seems a good idea to go through the ignore list. When I have time I will try to go through my list too. Ultimately, who you ignore is your business, and you don't need to make it public. Making it public that you've ignored x will only cause conflict. It's probably just to keep it unknown to them that you've ignored them. If you wish to review your ignore list periodically then that's also your decision. However, I do think it's a good idea. There's many examples of users that start off on the wrong foot, i.e poor posting quality, but actually become a prominent poster a little later on.
There's been many examples of this over the years. I haven't ignored anyone for obvious reasons, but also because I've never really felt the need too.
You are in a unique position, your position within the forum does not allow you to ignore users as you need to have eyes all over the place to see what is going on but in some cases, lists are made public and they do not necessarily cause conflict. |
|
|
|
Your post reminded me of something. Though this is a little off topic, I remember receiving a PM from a member who told me something similar about being given an ultimatum. He said figmentofmyass (yes the one with several accounts rolled on to various campaigns including at least three known farmed accounts rolled on to the Chipmixer at the same time) had told him to add me to his distrust/exclusion list otherwise figmentofmyass would exclude him. The member never gave in to threats or blackmail, he did not exclude me but a short while later when the known farmed accounts of figmentofmyass were exposed in this thread, I realised I must have tagged one or more of his farmed accounts (that he was trying to build up) with negative trust therefore he took the step to try to mitigate his losses and resorting to threats in order to achieve his objective. To this day I do not know how many people he contacted to try to get them to exclude me but at least one member did let me know. Basically, regardless of which members might be involved in any case (and not being specific about your case with dkbit98), I think it is petty conduct for one member to say to another they will be added to an ignore list if they do not do such and such as instructed especially if it means controlling who you can or cannot even post to. That in itself is tantamount to blackmail. I do not know who Jerry is but you excluding or ignoring him and others has to be your own decision and not that of someone that does not like Jerry or others you post to. @NeuroticFish, such a nice way to wish Merry Christmas while throwing away grudges and hard feelings out of your heart and mind for the users on your ignore list (especially for dkbit98). I think that something was misunderstood. dkbit98 was never on my ignore list. But he warned me some months ago that if don't ignore / I keep answering to Jerry he will add me to his ignore list. So Jerry was on my ignore list for a while (although I am still not perfectly and 100% sure it was the right decision), but he's out of that list again. This is why I've notified him specifically. That's all. |
|
|
|
Its taken me a while but Ive finally done it ! 5000 good posts reported  An excellent milestone. Congratulations I stopped reporting posts regularly a long time ago but really do need to start stepping up and doing my part for the community too. I, myself, don't report on a daily basis. But when I start reporting I make a campaign which may last a few months, and all this time all I'm doing is mostly reporting spam. I even barely make a few posts per week. My last reporting campaign took course between last winter and this spring and I even had days when I reported more than 1000 posts in a single day. I just stayed in front of the monitor, for 8 hours per day or so, and report each spam I encountered. It was difficult to stop and take a break However, together we keep this forum clean! We do this for us, we do this also for the forum, to keep it up compared with other forums! Sincere congratulations to all contributing to this activity and also to those which did it in the past! Some of your reporting statistics are just amazing. I cannot find the link right now to the post you made and how many reports you made but I simply remember being surprised at the numbers involved. Congratulations to you too for the efforts and dedication involved |
|
|
|
The timing of this has coincided with a particular signature campaign being managed by a particular campaign manager who was vouching for a neutral trust to be removed from a participant but I will not claim that is the only reason I am receiving PMs,
Yes, well, a manager who himself has 6 neutral tags changed from negative and who seems to care so much about neutral tags that he disregards them when accepting people into his campaign: Both joker_josue and NdaMk had a neutral tag on their profiles before signing up for your campaign. If you doubt the quality of their "product", then why did you accept them in the campaign in the first place?
For me it is more a question of ego, of someone who is overflowing with ego and runs $100 a week signature campaigns now, so his ego is even more boosted. I'm curious to see if he wins the antihero award, as you have to think that people who get paid from his campaigns or think they might do so in the future are unlikely to nominate him for that "award". At the moment he has quite a few votes. Ego has always been one of her weaknesses as well as anger management issues but I think there are some underhanded tactics going on when she is asking members to send PMs to try to have neutral tags removed, I think it is very strange to employ members first then ask them to try to have feedback removed later. Those neutral tags you referred to that she received that were revised from red (because of the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam) should never have been changed in my opinion but each to their own, we are all entitled to our views. I'm guessing it's related to the conditions to be accepted in the signature campaign that is handled by @Royse777, he decided not to continue work with members who received neutral feedback especially if the neutral feedback was related to shitposting. Surely in that case a campaign manager would only take on a campaign participant if they met the desired criteria beforehand rather than employ them and then ask them to contact the ones that left neutral or negative tags. I know I've read on Service sub-board where a manager was asking selected members to get their neutral tag issues resolved or get removed from a campaign they already were on. I don't know why a manager would do that or consider a neutral tag to be anything sinister because that's not the way the community saw it a few years ago. I don't know if things have changed now. Nothing has changed. At this moment, neutral tags are seen as they were years ago and can be left for a whole variety of reasons. So, would such a campaign manager then base their conclusion on all neutral tags being for a wrongdoing? But of course, no. Screening hunters out based on neutral tag is a wrong call. If the same neutral tag says that the user makes a low-quality post just to meet objectives, it can influence the campaign managers' choices. Now the campaign manager must evaluate this in advance. As well as the user will be able to question this tag in a sincere and honest way. I think we can all make snap judgments, and things should be handled openly and logically. And I think that despite this moment, of greater requests, JollyGood is able to manage and evaluate who should or should not get a response. In general, I just think that each of us should avoid involving others in their disagreements among other users. This is an open forum, with thousands of people from different cultures, interests and backgrounds, who are entitled to different opinions. You are right on multiple fronts. We are all from differing backgrounds and have different takes on matters within the forum. About your neutral tag it was rightfully removed after reviewing but campaign managers taking on participants first and then asking participants to try to have their feedback removed/revised as a condition of staying within the campaign is (to my knowledge) unheard of. If the same neutral tag says that the user makes a low-quality post just to meet objectives, it can influence the campaign managers' choices. Fine and good. However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now. Thank you. The point you made sums up the basis of the thread. It does beggar belief that a situation like this could arise and the one causing the commotion is a campaign manager who has already taken on participants based on what their feedback states yet afterwards has issue. However, what beggars explanation is why would a campaign manager accept a user who already had a neutral tag into their campaign but thereafter ask the user to find a way to get it removed? Why not reject the user in the first place? That's the supposed case with OP or that which I alluded to. If from the outset a user is rejected based on a tag, I don't think it will be much of an issue like what is being discussed now.
That has to be a campaign manager to answer. I don't even want to be here to individualize the situation, because even the OP didn't do that. What I just meant is that a neutral tag, even if it's neutral, can contain information that compromises a user. Then comes the question of whether or not this comment is fair, but that is already another question, which was not even called into question here. Without a doubt you are right. Any feedback that is left regardless of it being positive, neutral or negative should be detailed as well as have a reference link. It's a case of I made a mistake it should have been this rule and the participant is the victim here, the managers should just let the campaign finish, and implement it on the manager's next campaign unless the campaign will last for years like the campaigns Hhampuz is managing but is it on the campaign rules that those with tagged need not apply because they will not get accepted in the campaign.
There are campaigns that specify that there should be this number of merits before you apply, some still apply and leave at the discretion of the manager because they believe they are qualified on the other requirements and let the manager decide if they are qualified or not, and most of the time they get accepted. This makes complete sense if applied by campaign managers during the campaign itself but if members already have neutral or negative feedback before they have been selected to join then campaign managers should not be telling participants they can be removed from the campaign unless they try to have the feedback removed. I don't think it's worth getting into personal wars. It's totally unnecessary. I think we should all act with common sense, even when things don't go the way we'd like. Even when you think a user hasn't been fair to us. I believe the best way to overcome this is to deal with it and try to work things out as best we can. If there is openness to dialogue, sincerity, honesty, things can be clarified. These kind of personal wars are not good for the community. And it may affect third parties who have done nothing for this type of situation. We don't have to like everyone or agree with everyone. But this forum grows based on the differences and freedoms of each one of us. And so, if it continues like this, Bitcointalk will continue to thrive. So guys, exchange ideas and opinions, but never take these things personally and into a sawn-off war. Remember there is one point we all have in common: Bitcoin! If we do not agree on other points, remember that we agree on this one.  What a brilliant post to end the thread with, thank you for such an enlightening positive post. I will lock this thread now and will probably only unlock it if a particular situation arises. Thank you to all that post their views. |
|
|
|
|
RESULT from 28th December 2022:
Leeds United 1-3 Manchester City
This result was mistakenly not updated. Manchester City move back up to second place in the Premier League table. Haaland has reached 20 Premier League goals after just 14 games and in the process becoming the player to reach that milestone the fastest. The previous record was held by Kevin Phillips who scored 20 goals in 21 games.
|
|
|
|
Well, as long as the list does not get too long it will be something to consider revising but after a certain point (as the OP mentioned) there is a possibility of getting those unresponsive ignore user pages. It is coming to the end of 2022 therefore maybe we all should make a resolution in some capacity OP, you're being very generous, which I respect. There have been a handful of members I've taken off my ignore list over the years, but from what I've seen very few deserve a second chance because most shitposters don't ever improve their post quality. That's not true of all of them, but it's a general rule that's so infrequently violated that I wouldn't even consider clearing my ignore list.
Same goes for my list of users blocked from sending me PMs. But hey, to each his own. I'm an old grinch who's got little sympathy for crappy posters, and you've got the Christmas spirit. Keep spreadin' the cheer!
|
|
|
|
We will not see eye to eye on this therefore better to move forward  Fury vs Usyk - if the fight goes ahead, in your opinion who will win and in which round? But Fury was running from Klitschko. It seems to me that he is afraid of Usyk and is not opposed to "drag out" the deadline for holding the decisive battle as long as possible. The fact that he offered Joshua seemed to me initially something frivolous - how could Joshua, after the second defeat from Usyk, agree to a fight in such a short time? It was unreal and everyone knew about it.
|
|
|
|
There are some excellent posts made here which deserve a reply, unfortunately when I found an utterly pointless post from Royse777 asking I do not type her name therefore had to address that inconvenience first. I will reply to the excellent posts in the next reply. JollyGood, I noticed that you mentioned a particular signature campaign. Could you share publicly which campaign it is about and which members specifically contacted you? It is possible that the signature campaign manager made this a requirement, though I have never seen such requirements before. Royse777 is managing the sinbad.io campaign. Though something went wrong with the post which received the neutral tag for the OP in the other thread (the neutral tag deservedly has been removed), the second signature campaign applicant also was allowed on to the signature campaign with the neutral tag and it became a problem later. If it was a requirement from the campaign manager it should have not have been an issue after applicants were selected for campaigns. I also have never seen such a requirement before. I agree it's a definite improvement, but it's perplexing why people would be asking JG to remove neutrals (I haven't finished reading this thread, but I get the sense that it somehow matters to one or more bounty managers). Perplexing is the apt word. Royse777 employed campaign participants knowing they had neutral feedback then encouraged them to try to have them removed. @JollyGood, stop typing my name. Consider it a very polite request to you in public. What a pointless comment from you. Your name will be mentioned when asked by other to name or if needed in context. Just because yahoo62278 asked for his name to stop being used when you threw tantrums in the Bitlucy/Royse777 scam threads and mostly his request was adhere to, it does not mean you can simply ask members to stop typing your name. In the OP and beyond I clearly avoided using your name but at some point members wanted to know which campaign manager would employ members with neutral feedback then encourage to try to have them removed on the basis it was affecting their chances of staying on the campaign. Poker Player seems to have summed up part of the issue with you and I am adding you back to my ignore list: The timing of this has coincided with a particular signature campaign being managed by a particular campaign manager who was vouching for a neutral trust to be removed from a participant but I will not claim that is the only reason I am receiving PMs,
Yes, well, a manager who himself has 6 neutral tags changed from negative and who seems to care so much about neutral tags that he disregards them when accepting people into his campaign: Both joker_josue and NdaMk had a neutral tag on their profiles before signing up for your campaign. If you doubt the quality of their "product", then why did you accept them in the campaign in the first place?
For me it is more a question of ego, of someone who is overflowing with ego and runs $100 a week signature campaigns now, so his ego is even more boosted. I'm curious to see if he wins the antihero award, as you have to think that people who get paid from his campaigns or think they might do so in the future are unlikely to nominate him for that "award". At the moment he has quite a few votes. |
|
|
|
self-moderated to keep this thread clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammersThe UEFA Euro 2024 tournament will take place in Germany between 14th June 2024 and 14th July 2024. Germany has already qualified for the tournament by virtue of being the host nation. Italy are the current Euro Champions after they beat England at Wembley Stadium in the delayed Euro 2020 tournament (which took place in 2021) because of the issues related to the COVID pandemic. This thread can be used to discuss anything related to the Euro 2024 tournament but keep in mind that low-quality posts will be deleted alongside posts from attention-seekers, signature spammers and trolls.
|
|
|
|
self-moderated to keep this thread clean from trolls, attention-seekers and signature spammersThis thread can be used to discuss anything related to the FIFA World Cup 2026 tournament but keep in mind that low-quality posts will be deleted alongside posts from attention-seekers, signature spammers and trolls. Mexico, USA and Canada have already qualified for the tournament by virtue of being host nations. This is going to be the biggest tournament ever arranged by FIFA.  Here is what we know: The United Bid consisted of Mexico, USA and Canada (all considered North America) to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup The tournament will take place between: 8th June 2026 and 3rd July 2026 The 2026 World Cup will be the first tournament that has 48 teams competing instead of 32 teams. There will be 16 groups of 3 teams and the top two teams will qualify for the next round of 32. After that the teams will be playing knockout games until the final. There will be a total 80 games played throughout the tournament Mexico will host 10 games Canada will host 10 games USA will host 60 games In total, the games will be played across 16 cities and 16 stadiums. The final seven games of the tournament will all take place in the USA. (That means all four quarter-finals, both semi-finals and the final): USAAtlanta Mercedes-Benz Stadium Boston Gillette Stadium Dallas AT&T Stadium Houston NRG Stadium Kansas City Arrowhead Stadium Los Angeles SoFi Stadium Miami Hard Rock Stadium New York/New Jersey MetLife Stadium Philadelphia Lincoln Financial Field San Francisco Levis Stadium Seattle Lumen Field CanadaToronto BMO Field Vancouver BC Place MexicoGuadalajara Estadio Akron Mexico City Estadio Azteca Monterrey Estadio BBVA
|
|
|
|
I leave a couple of feedbacks, few and far between, but have only been contacted to remove a negative feedback I left. A request which I declined by the way. I understand members being contacted about asking to have negative feedback removed but being driven to such a state that they are having issues dealing with a neutral tag, that is highly unusual. It's best to give feedbacks within the limit you can manage and review periodically. Not necessarily because I would counter that point of view with another view that is when an appropriate feedback is left, the giver does not have any obligation to periodically review them. It might be considered good practice if the one leaving feedback reviewed them periodically without compulsion but they could prefer to not and there is nothing wrong with it. I agree it's a definite improvement, but it's perplexing why people would be asking JG to remove neutrals (I haven't finished reading this thread, but I get the sense that it somehow matters to one or more bounty managers). Perplexing is the apt word. Royse777 employed campaign participants knowing they had neutral feedback then encouraged them to try to have them removed. JollyGood, I damn well know you aren't asking for advice as to what to do, but I'm just going to say that any PM I got like that would be deleted in seconds with no reply, and I'd also add the member to my PM ignore list (a massive, massive compilation of morons at this point). Though I understand your angle on this type of situation, I think it would be inappropriate to dismiss a PM entirely because unless the request is reviewed it would be impossible to know whether it should be revised or removed. For example, if a PM was received asking for neutral/negative trust to be removed but the member had multiple tags (and/or a dubious history) I would probably follow your advice by adding to my PM ignore list otherwise there is a chance the feedback should be revised after reviewing. I get the impression bounty managers barely give a shit if their participants have genuine negative trust much less a neutral for any reason.
Let 'em eat shit for the holidays. Maybe there is a distinction made by managers between bounties and campaigns. I have known campaign managers to ignore negative and neutral tags and take on participants based on their posting or even other reasons. I hardly ever frequent bounty threads but from what I recall they were full of newbies (probably with many alt-accounts) trying to maximise anything they could earn. It is not right for a campaign manager to solicit on behalf of a user who was left a neutral tag. This is true, I think unless there are exceptional circumstances even the member that received the feedback should not be asking for the feedback to be revised. In this case, the campaign manager (Royse777) did not approach me directly but rather asked the members to do so instead. I think neutral tag doesn't prevent anyone from joining a campaign, rather it will help the hiring manager to make the right selection of users to be accepted. That is part of what campaign managers do when assessing which members to hire and which to reject. I might look like a pessimistic person, but in most cases, they're just trying to cover their tracks [especially if their so-called campaign manager is somewhat new] and with regard to your question, I haven't received such PMs in recent months [usually, they either stop using their accounts (e.g. rinse and repeat) or leave retaliatory feedback, but there are also a few that continue their operations as if nothing happened]. I do not see pessimism in your post. You are definitely not a pessimistic person, all you did was to simply stated the obvious but you are probably right because in most (not all) cases covering tracks is what their motives are about. The problem with accounts is that they take time to build up in order to be able to receive a $60+ weekly income via signature campaigns therefore there is a desire to try to get any sort of criticism (either neutral or negative) removed. If they cannot do that then sure they will probably go down the retaliatory route by giving revenge feedback and troll around for a while before getting bored and concentrating no their other farmed accounts. ------ I wanted to reply to the remaining members in this post but the comments have been very constructive and I appreciate them, therefore I will reply further in the next post. |
|
|
|
I doubt Fury will run from any fight. Let us not forget he chased Wilder for the fight to happen even though Fury himself was not in the best shape of fitness and then he chased and compromised on every level to try to fight Joshua but Joshua did not sign the contract citing all sorts of excuses. After that, in order to keep fit he ended up fighting Chisora. The Usyk camp have to make a decision of they want to fight Fury. If Usyk does not agree to a fight with Fury he will have to face a mandatory challenger or will have to surrender his titles. 11 months have passed between Usyk's fights with AJ, so if we take an analogy, we can assume that the Usyk-Fury fight can take place even in July and it will be "normal". In any case, I hope Fury will not run from Usyk and we see this fight in a reasonable amount of time. But even May or March 2023 seems so far away now  |
|
|
|
|
Results from the games yesterday:
Chelsea 2-0 Bournemouth
Manchester United 3-0 Nottingham Forest
Both Chelsea and Manchester United managed to win their home games yesterday and will keep up the chase for Champions League places.
The game taking place this evening:
Leeds United vs Manchester City
If Manchester City they will have played the same number of games as first placed Arsenal but they will be 5 points behind. Even with that margin I would expect Manchester City to win the Premier League at the end of the season because I am still expecting Arsenal to fade away as their squad does not have enough depth.
|
|
|
|
Joshua could have taken on Fury instead of watching Chisora do it but it seems he did not want to risk losing three consecutive fights. Fury pushed hard to make the fight happen and willing to make compromises but in the end it did not take place and now will probably never take place now. I put the blame at the Joshua camp for that. A 70/30 or 60/40 split of the purse should be accepted by boxers in regular fights but both will probably end up with a 50/50 share here. The larger the purse the larger the share for each boxer therefore neither should be complaining. One holds the main WBC belt and the other holds the remaining belts. Well the first stumbling block is that Usyk wanted to take a rest after his Joshua fight and so the original schedule of December that Fury is pitching went to Chisora. But once this year is over, first quarter of 2023 will be a good schedule and again, this fight should be in British soil.
So yeah, probably between March-May and hopefully there will be no more delays as we have been waiting for this unification fight.
Fury the A-side getting the lion share of the purse, and Usyk and his team should agree to that. |
|
|
|
|
The final two results from the games played yesterday:
Brentford 1-3 Liverpool
Arsenal 3-1 West Ham United
Liverpool had a potentially difficult game at Brentford but managed to get a win. Arsenal keep up momentum at the top of the Premier League with another win against West Ham United.
Here are the games taking place today:
Chelsea vs Bournemouth
Manchester United vs Nottingham Forest
|
|
|
|
Before I did not know about the existence of such a tournament (Carabao Cup). I always thought that it was all one Premier League, which has the English Cup.
It turns out there is another quite interesting tournament in England. As well as the Premier League, there are the FA Cup and EFL Cup (also known as Carabao Cup) that are played for every season by the top teams. The FA Cup is open to all teams including non-professional and semi-professional teams from outside the four leagues but the Carabao Cup are open to all teams across the top four leagues. |
|
|
|
This fight is not happening in early March. Tyson Fury I believe is a Christian devout and he will celebrate Christmas and the New Year with a bang. This means we need at least 3 months excluding the days of negotiations. I believe serious talks will only resume after the New Year as well. If an agreement, especially the major details are sealed in early January then we will expect this unification to happen in April. This fight is going to be huge no matter the location. I prefer a neutral venue though to be fair with Usyk. Middle East countries are most likely the ones with better offers unless Bob Arum will try to bring this fight to the US. There is nothing to suggest Fury will avoid having the fight in and around March 2023. How devout exactly is he? It was mentioned earlier that Usyk was a religious person but seriously we are talking about multi-million pay days for both boxers therefore how much longer will they be able to delay the fight that all boxing fans want to see? If a promoter insists on it taking place in March or April and offers the money, the boxers and their teams will oblige whether they are religious or not. Tyson Fury I believe is a Christian devout and he will celebrate Christmas and the New Year with a bang. I would rather believe that Fury will arrange an alcohol/cocaine marathon than that the Christian holidays will interfere with his preparation In general, I will be happy even if this fight takes place in April or May - it is in any case better than seeing another garbage fight. I didnt watch the fight with Chisora even in highlights. I think it will take place between March 2023 and May 2023. Maybe at the very latest it will be June 2023 but that is it. Can they really delay the fight beyond June 2023? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
