Well geez, who could have seen it coming. Out of a list of either: - Permanently inactive users
- Users with a provable, vested interest in successful, competing gambling sites
- Users with a hatred of Betcoin
- A user who didn't think to remove or amend his positive feedback when Quickseller was found to be abusing his escrow positions and lying about it
the last one was the one being a shady character. In all seriousness, if this turns out to be true (which could go either way), it shouldn't be a surprise. |
|
|
|
|
Put me down for d. Will pay later on, if that's fine.
TX: 68f4ad714043279537ed92c74cce2c03385ff10b7e81f79995956e1ade5bac1e
|
|
|
|
Give me d and 0 please!  TX: da8e3909ea7a487f049125bb9807d663d2d20dbbf4f5d4943e73d964de0bdda3 |
|
|
|
NastyMining’s miners are running on NiceHash due to p2pool inconsistently finding blocks. This has been the case for a long time now.
Good to know, thanks. |
|
|
|
Just received my card through the post, I'm certainly not disappointed! The cards have amazing attention to detail and a gorgeous mirror finish. The CoA also looks fantastic, so huge props to polymerbit for that! Without further ado, a picture:  (Apologies for the sub-par image, the finish/lighting in the room made it really difficult to get a good shot without being in the picture) (Click to go l a r g e r)Can only imagine what the kings/queens/jacks will look like in person. I'm a fan! |
|
|
|
sorry withdrawal the charges but I need to resolve
Your accusations were stupid anyway, considering you never deposited anything to be scammed of. Contact the support team via email. Spamming our thread won't get you anywhere fast. |
|
|
|
|
Looks great! I'll take 75 if possible (or 67 if that opens up further down the line).
|
|
|
|
|
I'd certainly be interested, but it's likely outside of my price range.
Do you have any idea what sort of price you'd like to get for it?
|
|
|
|
'Hello, I want money for creating a thread somewhat similar to one created 4 years prior that received donations. There was no written agreement that I would get those donations, but because the previous two threads were locked I de facto should receive them. Unfortunately, the person who held the funds for the first thread won't hand them over. Even though it was clearly stated on the thread that he has control over the donations and can distribute them at his will, and everyone donating agreed to those terms intrinsically, I believe he is a scammer for not distributing them how I want him to.'
Opposed. Get real.
I think somebody must have bought his account or it got hacked or something.
Neither of these things have happened. |
|
|
|
But to answer your question, if someone received the PM from theymos, they could have wiped their trust list as a protest against being pressured to exclude lauda from their trust list. It would be a way of showing they would rather not participate in the DT system than exclude lauda. <-- this would be how someone could support lauda.
I didn't receive the PM, but Lauda's quarrels with the flags system aren't really of interest to me. Lauda seems to have worked out the immediate issues they had with theymos anyway. My reasons are the following: - Having a custom trust list did very little for me. The difference between DT and the trust system with my list was a matter of 1 or 2 ratings most of the time. It wasn't worth the effort of having to maintain, or even think about the list.
- Having a custom trust list did very little for anyone else. The majority of people that have me on their list either trust the people on my list too or trust other people that trust the people on my list, so my trust list did very little to change the ratings people saw.
- I'm not DT1, nor do I want to be, and so my trust list has very little to do with any sort of voting.
- I think that the flags system is just further complicating an already complicated system with a questionable amount of benefit. I can't say I fully support it, so wiping my trust list is kind of my way of showing that.
- The reason stated in my PM to you.
tl;dr I don't think the trust system in it's current form is the best (but I think that anyone would struggle to make it any better). That, and my impact in the system being low, made it not worth the time or effort to think about and maintain my list. |
|
|
|
Your attempt to twist the situation is duly noted.
This is a smear campaign, and you are both well aware of this and are an active participant.
Whatever. I don't much understand why you're being like this, but I'll just leave you to it. |
|
|
|
1. This could be addressed first of all by making a thread in the "reputation" subforum to discuss the issue and alert others to it. This thread could then be referenced with a neutral rating. This has the additional benefit of training new users to read trust ratings instead of just looking for little red and green flashy bits and moving on. We are already operating under "a kind of natural selection deal." People who are not doing due diligence can not be protected from themselves, and their behavior currently under the existing model already gets them into a "shit spot". Even if by happenstance they get protected once or twice, the cause of the issue is still not being resolved, resulting in the inevitability of their being robbed.
Alright, but the issue with neutral ratings is in the name. They have no effect, and are practically invisible unless you specifically go looking for them. I understand (and agree, to an extent) with your point about users doing due diligence before trading, but you're assuming every user that would see the problematic post will: 1. Be logged in, so able to see the trust system. My example included that the potential scammer was not trading on the forum, but instead linking off the forum for their sales. Potential victims have no reason to even have an account here, as they could just as easily stumble upon the thread through other means. 2. Know what the trust system is, and know what to look for. As much as you may dislike the 'red and green flashy bits', it's one of the only sure-fire ways to get people to actually notice something. If the potential victim doesn't know what the trust system is, let alone what a neutral rating is, your plan to deal with these scenarios is useless for them. You could argue that someone shouldn't be trading if they don't understand the trust system, but given the massive variety in users here (in age, proficiency of language etc) that is somewhat unfair. Whether you agree with the way the current trust system is used or not, an invisible-until-looked-for rating on a potential scammer is going to do diddly squat to help a good portion of potential victims. 2. This seems to be the constant refrain, that more staff will be needed to do this when in actuality no additional staff intervention would be needed, in fact probably even LESS would be needed than the current system. This theoretical gang would with every retaliatory or baseless rating be subjecting themselves to public scrutiny as there is a standard of evidence and a simple form of due process (requirement of the objective standard). As it is currently, no one has any accountability for their ratings or exclusions, it is just a matter of "I believe XYZ" and I am not even going to bother explaining myself. This objective metric makes this giant loophole for abuse MUCH smaller, and again redirects accountability back to those making the accusation if it is seen to be lacking. They may very well gang up to continue abuse, but now everyone will see exactly what they are doing and it will be MUCH more difficult for them to justify their actions as opposed to the current system we have now where no one is obligated to explain any of these choices or "beliefs".
The only staff intervention (as in use of staff powers) that happens within the trust system currently is deletion of spam. I can't imagine that would change. I understand that you want accountability, but what exactly would that change? You say yourself that they may just continue to 'gang up', but now everyone can see what they're doing. Without intervention or forced removal of ratings by staff, which wouldn't work anyway, how exactly would this system be any different to the one we have currently? If there is always a big spooky mafia that neg rates everyone that disagrees with them, what difference would accountability make? |
|
|
|
The fact he has had a referral link in his signature for 1.5 years instead of “two” (or more) does not change the fact using a referral link is not unusual for him.
The use of a referral link isn't the issue, as I said previously. A referral link in the signature is much different to ref spam on the forum. Ref spam on the forum is reminiscent of a newbie who hasn't been here very long and doesn't know the rules, not a long standing community veteran.
|
|
|
|
TC has had a binance referral link in his signature for years. I don’t find it suspicious or unusual.
A referral link in the signature is much different to ref spam on the forum. Ref spam on the forum is reminiscent of a newbie who hasn't been here very long and doesn't know the rules, not a long standing community veteran. Suchmoon is not a good person in my view....she is power hungry, is willing to look past any transgressions if it supports her cause and is willing to condemn behavior of others that she has personally done if the person is against her.
And that doesn't change the fact that this whole thing is a bit bizarre. Suchmoon didn't accuse TC of anything. There were no accusations, no insults, nothing. All it did was highlight something potentially suspicious that has happened to someone who was - at one point - one of the most trusted members of the forum. For you to come barreling out the gates with insults just because you dislike the OP puts you on the same level as the sockpuppet trolls. As much as I dislike you personally, I know you're better than that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
