~snip~
What are you trying to prove by going on this witch hunt anyways ? There is no evidence of me scamming anyone explicitly in anything you drag out here. Yes, I didn't control that account from the date of its creation but it was given to me in an personal deal I could not disclose. Yet, though I have not attempted to do anything financially risky or engage in any scamming beheviour from it. It's clear that you are just intrested in bragging me up with anything you could bring down but it reflects your anger and greed to crush someone speaking against your selective trust abuse. |
|
|
|
Posting someone's photograph would make it easy for anyone who gets hands on it to reach the person's physical location which makes it qualify under the doxing rule for sure.
I know that nearly all forum members are in that picture. I am not sure if we have any astronaut forum members, so I don’t if if all of them are in that picture.
How high of a resolution would that picture have to be? There is no one in that picture you posted. Maybe one on a Chinese supercomputer, but not here. They are in the picture. Just because your computer lacks the processing power to see individual forum members doesn’t mean they aren’t there.  Btw, the image lacks the rendering power to show the user's as clear as they could be doxxed, so I don't think posting that image is equal to doxing the whole forum. |
|
|
|
|
Going against onces opinions is not trolling, so NO.
|
|
|
|
Dropping my reply from an one way openion Censorship thread to this objectively standard one. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Even assuming that User A did something wrong - which is debatable since it's based mostly on a hypothetical quid pro quo - a reasonable response would be to exclude them (or keep the exclusion as the case may be) and/or block them. Publishing PMs is uncalled for.
They are even comfortable with publishing doxx to slash the user's opposing them or reducing there DT power, I wouldn't be surprised with there "dumping the whole conversation" thing. What an waste of good internet space. They save us from shit with building of this wrong standards of justice of there own. |
|
|
|
|
I will lock the thread in 24 hours.
|
|
|
|
WEEK 6 PAYMENTS SENT: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/2602c93d2573e8f98b0c7657879e3cfee190a7274ca773a23dd9deb4d00d5d08
I am extremely sorry for the delays in the last payment I was busy from the last couple of days in RIL. There was even some delay in the fulfillment of the wallet funds as the Earnbet team was going through the overall success of the campaign as per I see.- I am very glad to work with each and every participant of the campaign and even thanks to those who applied for making an effort. Hoping to work again with you all in the future. Thank You again.
|
|
|
|
Again a turn of deceptive beheviour from your part.
You had the info some hours back and now you don't have it. Obviously it would be an origination from your part if my information is published on internet anywhere as you were the only person claiming and intended to do so publicly here.
Just even check the deception level, yours one is way higher to the degree that some people could take it as truth.
Nope, I have nothing. If we want to be 100% technically, cryptographically correct: I never had anything to begin with at the time of flag creation (most of the users and participants in this thread will not understand how this is possible either). Do not blame me because you are too stupid to be able to indulge in the art of opsec. Maybe you should spend some of that time you did on ICO bumping on reading books and getting educated. Just a thought. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I already read books and am already getting educated. But you are decepting users with your made up theory of claming to be using your art of OPSEC on me. You tried to threaten me and you have even done so in the past with many. You have an history of exorting users and it was always your intention to witch hunt me which lead your hands on this info. You can make up any technical shit after you already know that the accusation is real, as I have already admitted it. I am not an harm to the community, I could be an harm to your abusive bheviour here though. You were purely motivated to crush my opinions here, which made you not wanting to forgive and threatening me with whatever you can. |
|
|
|
I don't think anyone else other than you would go that low to threaten to publish the Doxx over it, and still just got be in the fear of getting some exclusions nothing else. You use your power for deceptive purposes and that is well documented all over THIS forum and in this thread itself.
You can try spinning it as a threat - murder even for all I care (QFR). If I wanted to publish your DOXX it would be irrevocably published all over the internet within about 30 - 60 seconds give or take based on latency. I am not interested in your DOXX and no longer hold any information about you. I would not be surprised if somebody "anonymously" published it now though (investigation section, pastebins and more). These people would think they are smarter than the forum participants and try to blame it on me.  You are drived by your hunger of power and use it to silence peoples here under it. A genuine person judging me would see me being changed from my past mistakes.
How dare I not forgive you, I must be evil. Sigh. Again a turn of deceptive beheviour from your part. You had the info some hours back and now you don't have it. Obviously it would be an origination from your part if my information is published on internet anywhere as you were the only person claiming and intended to do so publicly here. Just even check the deception level, yours one is way higher to the degree that some people could take it as truth. |
|
|
|
So, sorry to disagree with you Luada, but that's not justification for the red trust or a flag. Realistically, it's a non-issue.
Flag no, red trust, yes - I have said this.This was not used as a justification for either - I have said this. If you do not plan on fully reading nor comprehending this thread, then how about you do not comment at all  So far, I don't see where he's broken any rules, or tried to scam anyone. His behavior maybe tactless, and crude, but that's not a crime. Please stop all the pointless tags and flags based on opinions and disagreements. They have no place in the trust system.
Look up definition of deceptive behavior, then look up the definition of trustworthiness. Then reconsider what you are claiming as it is wrong per the very definitions of these words. Rating is on point, and flag is more than warranted.
It is instructive and revealing to consider in the hypothetical how I would be treated, and who my defenders would (or wouldn't) be, if hacker and I had our positions reversed here. If I had been the one who was exposed with all these infractions from ICO bumping to multi-accounting (with which I tried to evade my rejection), defamation (do not label this as difference of opinion or one is dishonest themselves for doing so) and so forth, I would be burned alive on a stake - probably a couple of times. Forget that, if I was found just found to be ICO bumping 55 years ago I would be burned on the stake here. Therefore, please none of that " rules for thee and no rules for me" progressive liberal nonsense that labels same actions differently depending on the author or target. You know this is true and is happening on this forum, and so do I. Stating otherwise would be lying and dishonesty towards the self and everyone else. Otherwise, prove it and change my mind. Thanks.
Updates and fixes! I don't think anyone else other than you would go that low to threaten to publish the Doxx over it, and still just got be in the fear of getting some exclusions nothing else. You use your power for deceptive purposes and that is well documented all over THIS forum and in this thread itself. You claming others of same is a big misjudgement on your part. In years I had none of an intention to scam anyone, I even apologized for my mistakes in this thread respectfully, its just yet me speaking out about your wrong ways of operating and harrsing users here which made you research about me as far as getting your hands on my personal information and trying to publish it for no solid reasons of harm. Hell, there are lot of highly risky scams around on the forum still operating with not much awareness and research done. You are drived by your hunger of power and use it to silence peoples here under it. A genuine person judging me would see me being changed from my past mistakes. |
|
|
|
Even if the reactions are not "uniform", it still doesn't make it right. For example despite Quickseller's (speaking of puppet masters) repeated attempts to dox me I wouldn't dox him unless there is an actual reason.
That is correct, I agree with said statement. Re: Quickseller, I initially wrote "the puppet master" and quickly changed to "a puppet master" because I realized it might instantly be associated with him (which was not my intention)!
Answers needed if honesty is really part of your character (I already thanked you for it): 1) @hacker is this bought account?
2) In this case it does, because I am guaranteeing the validity of the evidence. Do you want me to get witnesses and to quote statements for the record? Sigh. If you want, then ask him to post the same confirmation from poochpocket. At that point, after he posts, I would demand you support both flags because of said actions though. Sigh #2.
I think that would be the better thing to do so we can all move on from it, surely he would have no problem admitting it again but from his alt-account this time. Fair is fair. I will cross re-request in the other thread. If he is any bit of honest, he will not delay this. Answer when you can. I am not going to get caught up in your evil minded attempts, I have already admitted it honestly. But your words are nowhere to be taken into consideration to me as you are known as and are the biggest decepter of this forum which you blame me of. You claming you were not trying to threaten me with DOXXING is totally bullshit. The evidence is in this thread itself. What is my crime you are claiming to be as highly risky here as to be worth of a red tag, and a flag and now even attempting and threatening to doxx my info to prove my alt ? This only shows how low you can go to protect your abusive practices here when someone tries to speak out about it. All of this is totally an attack due to me speaking about your wrong doings and brings nothing good to the community overall as you claim. |
|
|
|
Anyways, you still licking the pussy after such an shameful act by Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her, make you an totally unethical and an untrustworthy person overall.
It's advisable to try this approach instead: "The Queen of Cats guides us. The Queen of Cats teaches us. The Queen of Cats protects us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours.". Yes, one can't lick it better than your adviced approach. |
|
|
|
How terribly rude. To improve your manners, please try this instead: “Thank you, Lauda, for being sincerely reluctant to ruin my privacy, instead of seizing a legitimate opportunity to gloat, shut the critics up, and triumphally march my dox through Investigations. I am humbled by the grace with which you act to protect the community, without petty self-aggrandization at my expense—even when such an action would be rationally justified. May I learn wisdom from your example.”
HTH, HAND.
You are full of shit ! I have already shared my personal information with many other users here and have even traded goods multiple times, so I don't care. I thought this forum was safer than this back then but it's not in the real. Anyways, you still licking the pussy after such an shameful act by Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her, make you an totally unethical and an untrustworthy person overall. |
|
|
|
Let's make it simple. Here is a question directed at "hacker1001101001". It is a simple yes and no question. "hacker1001101001", is your alt account / have you ever used the account (in any way or form) under the name: "poochpocket"?
If you avoid it or ignore it, then you will leave me no other choice but to post in the investigations section. OP can then cross reference by linking in the first post.
Yes, the account is in control of me. I would also like to mention I have never used it for any scamming purpose hence none, me or the other account deserves a tag or an flag. Quoted for reference. I thank you for your honesty and sparing me having to post personal information about you (I despise this practice nowadays and try to avoid at all costs). OP please add to the initial post. You have an line of bad deeds here, you would never be sorry about doxxing someone. So yet I was just more inclined to be honest not afraid of you posting personal info. |
|
|
|
Let's make it simple. Here is a question directed at "hacker1001101001". It is a simple yes and no question. "hacker1001101001", is your alt account / have you ever used the account (in any way or form) under the name: "poochpocket"?
If you avoid it or ignore it, then you will leave me no other choice but to post in the investigations section. OP can then cross reference by linking in the first post.
Yes, the account is in control of me. I would also like to mention I have never used it for any scamming purpose hence none, me or the other account deserves a tag or an flag. |
|
|
|
I will be raising a flag type-1 against this user[1] in the near future on similar reasoning that was used for the flag type-1 against Quickseller. If somebody has any objections, please state so.
[1] And on any and all of his alt accounts.
Keep using this tools to satisfy your agendas and flexing them. You are nowhere right and you know that. |
|
|
|
|
DTs tagging users for speaking out about there signature gold mine company. Clearly an financially motivated wrongdoing and use of power.
Welcome to the club though.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for paying week - five. I look forward to receiving week six soon. It would be sent soon. I admire your way of noting it through a feedback though. |
|
|
|
Any news on standard compliance within your trust list? Have you come up with serious guild-approved excuses yet?
If number of negative feedback is lower than number of negative feedback which suggested exclusion sent then welcome to guild else suggested exclusion. It's more like. If ( user follows Core tenets) { "Welcome to the Object Standards Guild"; } else if ( user regularly and repeatedly ignores the Core tenets) { Suggested exclusion; } Simple to understand, your code seems totally based on your own double standards perspective. |
|
|
|
before you give yourself a stroke like Vod
That's low. It is more low at many reputed members around giving strokes to users here openly and turning them into long time trolls later. Just obeserve around, this strokes are everywhere but not announced publicly often. No one cares really. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
