|
This really doesn’t work prove anything.
|
|
|
|
This is a good example of people being added to DT1 who do not have a proven track record of acting in a trustworthy way, and in many cases, do not have any meaningful (if any at all) trading experience. I am not sure this is a good thing.
Honestly I have to agree with you, knowing full well the majority of the forum doesn't. (Even if they might say otherwise, their votes say something else.) I'd LOVE to see a trust system based on nothing but trades, risked amounts, and anything with money involved, but apparently its too hard to implement. But it's really hard to go against the current when so many people wont believe this. In the end we all just have to use our personal judgement in trades. (And I sincerely hope another Master-P scandal doesn't happen again, because by the looks of it that's exactly where we're headed, I just hope I'm not part of it this time around.) I don’t think it is best to have a trust system in which all ratings are based on trades. There are plenty of reasonably legitimate reasons to leave both positive and negative ratings for non-trade related reasons, an attempt to scam is a good example of this. If you are going to have any influence in the trust system, at a bare minimum, you should have trade experience. Similarly, someone with a lot of positive trust, should have trade experience, maybe not necessarily from the specific ratings they have, but in general, positive ratings should be observations of someone being able to trade and be trusted. |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what would the basis be for giving negative trust to someone receiving merit? Someone could be selling merit privately, get caught and have given merit to an innocent person. Or, someone could make a person look bad by giving merit when they are a known merit salesman.
I don't know, I personally don't care one way or another. I'd hope the people that do link accounts together have enough brains to look for obvious patterns of merit selling, and leave the coincidences alone. To this point I haven't seen much meta/reputation bellyaching about being falsely neg rated for merit selling, so I'd assume its not all that common. I am not aware of any cases in which someone has (attempted) to sell merit, at least not publicly. If someone did want to sell merit, they would probably tell potential customers to contact them via PM or via some other off site mode of communication. |
|
|
|
The Default Trust Changes give opportunities for some self-made users to become DT1 members. They are: #1: iasenko, Date registered: November 07, 2017, 08:39:50 PM # 2: coinlocket$, Date registered: November 22, 2017, 08:49:45 PM #3: asche, Date registered: January 04, 2018, 08:00:55 AM # 4: ICOEthics, Date registered: June 12, 2018, 07:14:43 PM # 5: Coolcryptovator, Date registered: March 28, 2018, 06:41:03 AM I only counted cases that were Member and below at the start of merit system. For the first two cases (iasenko, and coinlocket$), I am not sure that which ranks they have at the start of merit system (due to their registered day in November 2017). Need their help to confirm. This is a good example of people being added to DT1 who do not have a proven track record of acting in a trustworthy way, and in many cases, do not have any meaningful (if any at all) trading experience. I am not sure this is a good thing. Those case of new DT1 members are very good example that users can rank up with merit system.
The people who have ranked up after the merit system was implemented are few and far between. |
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken, merit sources aren't allowed to sell merit. Individuals can sell merit, but again you run the same risk of having all accounts involved marked with negative feedback.
Out of curiosity, what would the basis be for giving negative trust to someone receiving merit? Someone could be selling merit privately, get caught and have given merit to an innocent person. Or, someone could make a person look bad by giving merit when they are a known merit salesman. |
|
|
|
As long as zero people in participating in the dig campaign this should be fine. If there is anyone participating he needs to hold sufficient funds to pay each person.
But if someone keep wearing their signature even after the warning signal given by DT members then they are going to get tagged as per this comment. Participants should be given a window of time to remove their signatures before we tag anyone there. Warnings have been sent from a couple of you, So I think 48-72 hours is a fair amount of time for users to log in and read what's going on in the campaigns thread and here.
I don’t know what that has to do with anything... |
|
|
|
You are going to send the money back? What about the people that joined with the understanding that payment would be guaranteed by you? I don't think anybody had been accepted yet. Almost all of the applicants have removed their signature, and there is no attempt of new application now. What will happen to notaek's red trust then,,, As long as zero people in participating in the dig campaign this should be fine. If there is anyone participating he needs to hold sufficient funds to pay each person. |
|
|
|
Hello all, Regarding the situation, first of all, Stan from DuckDice approached me about escrowing the campaign to my email. After discussing back and forth we came to a decision that they would be managing the campaign and I would just be distributing the funds weekly. Unfortunately the whole conversation went on via email, and I wasn't aware of their previous open scam accusation (which happened ~2 years ago). It was naive for me to accept them without researching further, which I'm extremely sorry for at this point. I will be sending back the funds from escrow to DuckDice and make a statement [1] on their thread regarding my withdrawal of escrow from the campaign. I know I made a wrong decision here. But it would be nice if the feedback to my profile are restated neutrally with the facts about my nativity, as I'm neither working with DuckDice nor have I "actively" helped them to promote their site (as the current feedback states). I just wanted to guarantee the safety of payments being distributed at the end of the day.
I think it is likely he is doing more than just escrowing the funds. For instance, the thread has the exact same awful font and formatting as notaek's Magnumwallet campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if he at least has access to the Duckdice Pr account. They have asked me to create a campaign thread on their behalf and send them the template. I accepted their request, provided they credited me for it. That's why it's the same.
Anyway, there's a lot to learn everyday and this surely opened my eyes. Feel free to ask me any questions regarding this situation or something I might have missed that needs an explanation. ~notaek
[1] - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102953.msg49475807#msg49475807You are going to send the money back? What about the people that joined with the understanding that payment would be guaranteed by you? |
|
|
|
|
Do we get merit if we answer correctly?
|
|
|
|
-snip-
Bye bye.
Go away already. Thermos is my master. Shorena's ratings are fully covered. Mexxer-2 halfway. Will be done soon. I don’t think you can give negative trust to yourself. Further if you are going to be mirroring his ratings, while excluding him, then the exclusion is solely to protect your own reputation. |
|
|
|
|
I haven’t reviewed the scam accusation closely, however if it can be substantiated and is unresolved, no one should be advertising for them and anyone in their campaign should be made aware of the situation.
|
|
|
|
TMAN and Lauda have thousands of unique feedbacks. The question of trust is a personal one. I am not sure if you mean feedbacks they received or they sent. If you are referring to feedbacks they sent, they have sent many controversial feedbacks, including in relation to their extortion attempt, and Lauda sent many feedbacks to those who were critical of her in the thread in which she likely stole funds she was supposed to be protecting. If I didn't know any better, I would say it looks a lot like you are trying to avoid alienating a group who currently is in power in order for you yourself to obtain power. |
|
|
|
Yaahub exchange confirms listing of your tokens. Within 5 - 6 working days your token will be listed. For confirmation, please contact our support team at support@yaahub.com with your Voucher Number YAAHUB23233If this is a serious post, I would have little doubt that your exchange is a scam. |
|
|
|
I don't think it is anything to do with democracy. The Chinese have lent large sums of money to the Venezuelan government, and they are secured on assets. This is a known ploy of the Chines, and when the government can't repay, the Chinese claim the assets. There is no way that the US wants China to own land to set up a military base in Venezuela.
Another problem is the quality of oil in Venezuela, It is very heavy, and most of it is processed in the US.
Trump may have slipped up by supporting the interim president.
Sovereign immunity will largely prevent creditors from collecting on any defaulted debt by the Venezuelan government, even debt secured by most assets. Sovereign immunity is the fact that governments cannot be sued without their consent in their own courts, and some governments will extend this to foreign governments as well, depending on the specific circumstances. It is effectively impossible to force Venezuela to give up any land located within the country without military intervention. The same is true for any assets (such as oil) located within Venezuela. The only assets that can potentially be seized are those outside of the country, so long as they are still owed by the government at the time of seizure. This is a problem creditors of Argentina has had in the past. The Argentina government defaulted after granting US courts jurisdiction over disputes over specific debt, and creditors have had difficulty collecting via asset seizures after obtaining judgment because assets owned by the Argentina government are rarely located in jurisdictions that recognize the judgment. |
|
|
|
|
Why do you not just add this functionality directly on the forum instead of making users use a script?
|
|
|
|
We're based in Argentina, and the amount of Venezuelans coming to our country is huge. Its a massive exodus from Venezuela to other places.
We all feel very sad about what's going on and refugees from Venezuela just leave so they can send money to the elder that are staying in their country with almost no basic needs at all (food, water, etc.)
It has been predicted that there may be 8 million refugees may leave Venezuela if the government falls. Some of these people will go throughout Central America and some will try to reach the United States. To put this in perspective, the Syria civil war has produced appropriately 5 million refugees throughout Europe, which has resulted in massive problems there. The situation in Venezuela is one more reason why we need to build a wall along the US southern border in places it can easily be crossed. |
|
|
|
Guaidó is the most obvious CIA-backed politician I've ever seen, but Maduro is totally evil. I'd recommend that the people of Venezuela find a third option, but between the two I suppose Guaidó is probably better...?
I am sure he is than socialism. Maduro and the situation in Venezuela is a reason why Americans should be terrified of the proposals of AOC, Bernie Sanders, and other left wing extremists that have taken over the mainstream of the Democratic party. |
|
|
|
|
Do you have any other accounts here? I looked through the last 12 pages of your posts and only found 3 posts in which you were not claiming bounties of you posting on other social media sites, all of which I find unlikely to have broken any rules.
|
|
|
|
You are best off leaving lauda a little while, he doesn't react well to retaliatory negs.
can we start sorting you guys trust lists and work a way to take a further step forwards, maybe with some goodwill Lauda will come round/
Ok! Let's move on to the discussion of our trust lists. I made a preliminary list. If you have questions about the composition of this list-let's discuss! My trust list: theymos dooglus gmaxwell qwk Vod mprep Cyrus Welsh ibminer TMAN Lauda DefaultTrust suchmoon xandry LoyceV actmyname WhiteManWhite The Pharmacist DarkStar_ kzv TheFuzzStone marlboroza Lafu xtraelv Goran_ o_e_l_e_o chimk coinlocket$ asche DdmrDdmr taikuri13 Coolcryptovator 1miau ICOEthics I would encourage you to review the below two threads and potentially reconsider your trust list, including potentially excluding people: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0 - extortion attempt https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0 - likely theft of funds |
|
|
|
From the looks of it, both you and TMAN have collectively derailed this thread and likely have removed any realistic possibility the OP will receive additional compensation due to community pressure.
They lost at mediation (from a mediator they chose), so I highly doubt the community would be supporting them without game-protect and TMAN. Yes the OP lost mediation. The mediator gave their logic as to why they came to the conclusion they came to, and this was largely based on FJs TOS. To my knowledge, the mediation was not binding. If you agree with the mediators logic, you will support FJ, and if you don’t you will support the OP. The bickering between GP and TMAN will cause others to ignore the thread and controversy.
My primary concern with this situation is that FJ was effectively able to freeroll their customers. The OP had lost a decent amount playing this game he won the jackpot before won the jackpot. The amount was greater than his initial deposit. I would question if a FJ would have invalidated the bets of the second game if he lost more than his deposit when he stopped gambling. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
