|
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. |
|
|
|
Anyone fallen into the brainwash trap from TMAN?  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. |
|
|
|
There was noone hurt, noone harrassed, nothing
I think you forgot about all the calls for violence against the kids, and harassment by the hate group at the event against the kids. I don't see how anyone could sue anyone here. The kids likely have a case for defamation against many in the MSM along with the Phillips fellow. |
|
|
|
|
How did you determine who is in which column?
|
|
|
|
The kids and school have a long history of being extremely racist.
I don't think there is any basis for this statement. |
|
|
|
There should be a "Keep partially, donate the rest (to charity)." option. I wouldn't be against someone taking a share for the work they did do, and donating the rest.
You think it is okay to steal from an alleged scammer? That doesn’t sound right. Unless a third party can lay a claim to the money, any excess funds belongs to the person who procured the work. Even in this case, without a court order, giving money to a third party is legally dubious. A refund should be given for work not completed, however there is an argument that a full refund should be given, depending on the terms agreeed to. "I wouldn't be against" doesn't mean that I fully support doing it. I think it should be a poll option though, as it was the most commonly suggested option when Lutpin was escrowing the Ebitz campaign and Ebitz turned out to be a scam. I would be strongly against doing that. As others have mentioned, stealing from a scammer is still stealing, and donating to charity doesn't change the fact that money was stolen. I am shocked to see how little detail some of these escrow contracts for signature campaigns (and others) have. I remember seeing this escrow contract, and believing it has an appropriate amount of detail as to what all parties should expect so everyone will be on the same page depending on various outcomes and/or a dispute ( this thread has a portion of the escrow contract regarding a potential dispute). Ideally, any (escrow) contract should detail what happens if work cannot be performed for any reason. A problem with "giving the money to charity" is there is always the possibility the "scammer" will be able to later provide proof of innocence (or something to give doubt to their guilt) after the money is given away. A bigger problem is that you said you will do one thing, and end up doing something else. You think it is okay to steal from an alleged scammer?
That's a big part of the ethical dilemma. When an illegal drug-distributor is caught all of the funds on-hand are seized; this is a terrible analogy for the situation, but if the community (as the authority) were largely in agreement that these funds were being used explicitly for illegitimate acts then it would seem appropriate that the funds be seized. Is that flawed reasoning? Forfeiture laws and practices are horribly unethical, and IMO are likely to get stricken down in the fairly near future. Also, you are incorrect as funds that can be directly tied to the crime are seized, which does not apply to the case described in the OP. Also, from what I can tell based on the description in the OP, the team in question has not actually scammed anyone yet, as it sounds like they are likely planning on scamming -- it would be appropriate to not work for this person, and to warn others of the likely scam attempt, however it does not sound like they obtained any money illicitly. I don't think it matters who money is stolen from. Stealing is stealing no matter what. |
|
|
|
|
The reaction of those in the MSM and on the left was disgusting. There were people calling for these kids to get punched in the face, doxed, harassed, and worse. The school these kids go to was closed on Tuesday because of threats of violence against the school.
What these kids were originally accused of is wrong, however none of this is an appropriate response to what they were accused of doing.
It turns out that the Indian was actually the one who instigated the incident, along with another racist, anti-white, anti-jew hate group, and the kids were actually the victims of the underlying incident. There were multiple racial epitaphs yelled at the kids.
After it came out the kids were the actual victims, many on the left doubled down and refused to admit they were wrong.
|
|
|
|
There should be a "Keep partially, donate the rest (to charity)." option. I wouldn't be against someone taking a share for the work they did do, and donating the rest.
You think it is okay to steal from an alleged scammer? That doesn’t sound right. Unless a third party can lay a claim to the money, any excess funds belongs to the person who procured the work. Even in this case, without a court order, giving money to a third party is legally dubious. A refund should be given for work not completed, however there is an argument that a full refund should be given, depending on the terms agreeed to. |
|
|
|
- the 24hour-no-delete rule in the Altcoin section
What is this specifically? Can you point to additional information about this? |
|
|
|
Why was Dzhus banned? The posts appear to be written in Russian
Dzhus has been banned because of copy and pasting. [...] Well I've already found two: I like your "4NEW's WTE PLANT PROCESS" GoodLuck sir!! and keep be STRONG!
I like your "4NEW's WTE PLANT PROCESS" GoodLuck sir!! and keep be STRONG!
This is an important project, of great importance in what is about the cryptomonedas, in this case, the tokens. There should be other projects like this and even, there are other initiatives in this regard that allow the best use of the tokens that are presented daily to the public. A great initiative that must be greatly supported
Connecty is a Great project with a good idea and a team of professionals.This is a very new project, I wish the project to be successful, of great importance in what is about the cryptomonedas, in this case, the tokens. Very promising project
[...] The OP can go away |
|
|
|
|
Why was Dzhus banned? The posts appear to be written in Russian
|
|
|
|
Hi, Lauda
You are best off leaving lauda a little while, he doesn't react well to retaliatory negs. He likes to give them though. He doesn't like criticism either. |
|
|
|
I’m allowed to sell excess solar energy back to the grid, but I am not allowed to sell grid energy back to the grid at higher prices that I’ve stored in the battery. What is happening now is that instead of selling excess energy back to the grid at off-peak prices, it stores it and then uses it on-peak.
Ahh, gotcha. So if you wanted to, you could sell excess power at off-peak prices, but you are storing excess electricity in the battery, and using it during times at which peak prices are charged in order to avoid paying peak prices. |
|
|
|
Direct to seller for small deals of 2000 -3000 bitcoin 4% gross /1% net , buyer pays for escrow fee 1.5% seller side closed for fees 0.75%, buyer side open 0.75% for fees We will consider selling small purchases of 10-50 BTC ,however there will be no discount selling price based on current blockchain price however we will add +3% to current market price to cover seller side 0.75 and buyer side 0.75 fees and also the escrow attorney fee 1.5% Bitcoin Seller Procedures for customers buying Bitcoins 1. The buyer must open a new wallet with SELLER'S sources and provide the login information to the seller (such as email address and password) 2.Seller will transfer bitcoins to the new wallet and private key will be issued by blockchain to complete the transaction. 3.Buyer will confirm the bitcoins and send the payment to the seller's nominated escrow attorney bank account and change the login password for security purposes 4.Upon confirmation of the payment, seller will release the private key to the buyer to complete the transaction 5.Buyer will move the Bitcoins to another wallet for safe keeping. Regards, John Greg email : telegram: @john_greg553 alcyone553@gmail.comThere is no reason to be exchanging private keys for any transaction of any size. There is no reason to be providing credentials to exchange accounts. Also the "blockchain" does not have prices, and the "blockchain" does not "provide" private keys. It sounds like the OP is a scammer who does not even understand how "blockchain" works : |
|
|
|
I am on the fence if he even agrees with the positions he takes. It is possible he (and a few others) are going to extreme lengths to criticize certain people, so that legit criticism of these people are assumed to be trolling and are ignored.
Even if there's legitimate criticism somewhere in all of his rambling, he's made his point many times over and at this point everything he's writing is just trolling. If the community thought he had valid points, he'd have garnered some support but that doesn't seem to be happening--and he just doesn't grasp that. He goes to extremes to voice his points, and that turns people off from wanting to support him. It is my opinion that the negative ratings others have given him are inappropriate for a number of reasons. First of all, he does not appear to trade with anyone, so leaving the negative ratings will not actually warn anyone against doing business with him. Secondly, the negative ratings only give him more to complain about. Lastly, I don't think him trolling is an indication that he is a scammer.
Negative trust isn't just given to scammers, and you know that. If Theymos thinks members ought to leave negs ONLY for people scamming or suspected of scamming, then he would make a rule requiring that. As far as CH is concerned, he's spreading lies and breaking rules and other DT members are fed up with it. I don't blame them for giving him a neg. Theymos has said what a negative rating is for: Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. I know you believe this should be updated, but it has not been updated. Perhaps I will create a new thread for this elsewhere, as I do feel strongly about this. However if I were to concede that negative ratings can be given for reasons other than "someone is a scammer, or strongly believe someone is a scammer", then I would ask what purpose the negative rating to CH gives? From what I can tell, the negatives do not affect him in any way. I see little purpose in giving the ratings against CH beyond stroking the ego of those who gave the negatives. Again the harm in the negative ratings is that CH can now complain (and troll) about one more issue. My prediction is he will eventually get banned for trolling<snip>
That would be nice. He's one of the worst trolls I've seen since I've been a member here, and not because of his attacks against me. It's because of his constant derailing of threads, repetition of the same nonsense over and over, and his obvious use of alt accounts to give the illusion that someone agrees with him (Chosen Username is the first one that comes to mind, but there may be others). It's time for him to go. It will take some time because the forum does not take excluding people from the community lightly. One of my favorite trolls was WoodCollector (I believe this was from before your time here, unless you browsed before creating an account). Unlike CH, he actually tried trading around here, but when he was caught being a scammer, he turned into a troll. Here are some WC threads for your reading pleasure: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=930649.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=933888.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=864472.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=931472.0;allhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=935115.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=932131.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=931109.0I think the above links are in a good order. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a decent amount of time, but eventually the facts came out that cemented him as a scammer. |
|
|
|
It seems to be reducing the on-peak usage and leveling out power usage spikes, but it appears to only arbitrage energy generated with solar power. I don’t think they’re yet allowing the discharge of energy to the grid that was charged using off-peak grid energy.
Does this mean you are not being allowed to sell excess electricity back to the electric company? It was my impression (based on newspaper reports) that power companies were required to buy back excess electric production via solar (and other "green" methods) in your part of the country. |
|
|
|
I am not familiar with him, but once you are certain someone is a troll, it is probably best to simply ignore him.
<snip>
You can make your point and show your logic, however at a point this becomes futile.
I'm surprised you've missed all the commotion cryptohunter has created, but take a look at his post history and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. I have seen more of his posts, and believe he is most probably a troll. I am on the fence if he even agrees with the positions he takes. It is possible he (and a few others) are going to extreme lengths to criticize certain people, so that legit criticism of these people are assumed to be trolling and are ignored. It is my opinion that the negative ratings others have given him are inappropriate for a number of reasons. First of all, he does not appear to trade with anyone, so leaving the negative ratings will not actually warn anyone against doing business with him. Secondly, the negative ratings only give him more to complain about. Lastly, I don't think him trolling is an indication that he is a scammer. My prediction is he will eventually get banned for trolling, and he will try to appeal that ban, and eventually his appeal account will get banned for trolling. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
