None of what you said has anything to do with the specific fact set that results in the OP being in breach of contract with the seller he was dealing with.
It depends on what was discussed. Unless I missed something - they way I read it was that the OP just showed interest in buying an account in a "sting operation". In order for a "breach of contract to occur there has to be offer and acceptance". If the OP stated that he would buy a specific account once he verified that the seller owned it then there would be acceptance. Whether anyone on DT would tag someone for breaking a contract for something that is discouraged on this forum is another matter. A contract requires three essential components. Offer Acceptance of identical terms of the offer. Consideration But from what I read:
1)
After requesting proof of ownership of cicizhang and TanClan98 from SeW900, he told me that 'the account' already is banned.
Therefore he proposed me 2 other accounts, which i can buy (zackie and Zedster).
He told me to contact @TrustedAccSeller (via telegram), which i did.
After a long conversation with him and multiple excuses i brought up to not buy an account which he had proven the ownership of (because i wanted to tag as much accounts as possible), i finally got the proof of ownership of multiple accounts and names of a few accounts without proof of ownership.
The fact that they were initially discussing an account that was not even available indicates that there was an "invitation to treat" rather than an offer. "...an expression of willingness to negotiate. A person making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed.2)
Rueduciel offered me J Gambler.But he did not send me a proof for ownership because he noticed that this account already is reserved for some other buyer.
Therefore he proposed me the account fitty, which he proved that he indeed has control over this account via a PM.
But now i really wanted to also have his first account (J Gambler) to be flagged too. I asked him whether i can have this account if i additionally pay 50$ on top (not like 400$ aren't enough already).
He agreed.
Unfortunately i made a big mistake by leaving him a negative trust rating BEFORE contacting, paired with my sense of humor regarding the chosen username, which interfered my plan. He came to the conclusion that my alt (alice321) is related to me (bob123).
This is possibly a bit closer to a potential contract. In my view the "buyer" made a "request for information" (invitation to treat) where consideration was discussed rather than an offer.I asked him whether i can have this account if i additionally pay 50$ on top (not like 400$ aren't enough already). I consider this a “invitations to treat”, “requests for information” or “statements of intention” rather than an offer. He agreed. (That the account was for sale for such an amount = Offer However there is no information that indicates the "buyer" accepted the sellers offer. For that to occur there would have to have been a statement like "if you accept $ for the account I will buy it" rather than "would you accept $ ?" I do not agree that there was a contract. Also even if there was a contract I doubt that anyone would tag him for it.To the OP I would have to ask whether the end result justifies the means.. It is treading into a grey area of ethics. The outcome is tiny for something that is an epidemic on this forum. I'm not a fan of private sting operations. There are many other initiatives in place that in my view are much better suited at addressing the problem like permabans for plagiarized content by account farmers. Please note that I find account buyers and sellers untrustworthy. But it is permitted (but discouraged) under the forum rules. |
|
|
|
If you look at the alts listed that user impersonated another well known user on bitcointalk. The comments on one of the alts listed there states: "Account farmer using name similar to theyoungmillionaire in a probable attempt to try and extract merit. " If you re-read my previous comments you will see my justification. All the extensive answers to your questions have been provided in this thread. To borrow a famous quote from Satoshi: If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.I have provided the information. I cannot help you understand it. |
|
|
|
|
I've added some quotes by Theymos regarding his views on trust to the original post. They appear to be in line with the majority of what was discussed here.
|
|
|
|
xtraelv If you answered point by point, as I do, there would be no confusion. Let's continue. 1.) I do not see your answer to this point, so I repeat my question: But when a huge number of abusers send merit to one user it is obvious merit abuse. And what can you say about tema? He sent merit only to abusers (as I showed in detail). Is this behavior trustworthy? 2.) Smart man has a lot of alts and with the help of them he deceives customers by making false reviews in his thread. Yes/No? I showed his alts and their behavior here and hereAny objections or do you agree? 3.) I do not see your answer to this point, so I repeat my question: In the link you posted he explained himself. He withdrew from the project and even publicly stated that he thought it was a scam.
To me it indicates that he got involved with something he disagreed with, left and was transparent about it. It does not make me think that he is an intentional scammer. Why you want to believe in words but not in facts? He collaborated with the project and received money from it. He knew that this project was scam. He was silent about it. He confessed that he had collaborated with the project and knew that it was a scam only after he received accusations of fraud - only 1 year later from the project started. Fraudsters had a lot of time to deceive people. Smart man is a scamer. It is facts not just words. Any objections or do you agree? 4.) Smart man was hiring in and offering Spam-service. Yes/No? Same: When I talk about spam you say there is no evidence. When I talk about bumping, you say that spam is not prohibited (according to Teymos). Do you seriously think that I will not see this juggling?  Can you answer without juggling? Did Smart man hire people in the bumping service and did he offer such services? The value of posts that are written for one purpose - the thread bump will be discussed later. Have you read the thread?
So 4 questions for you:
Quote
1.) Smart man is involved in a huge circuit of merit abuse. Yes/No?
2.) Smart man has a lot of alts and with the help of them he deceives customers by making false reviews in his thread. Yes/No?
3.) Smart man is involved in the scam project Adab Solutions. Yes/No?
4.) Smart man was hiring in and offering Spam-service. Yes/No?
I can't answer any of these questions "yes" as I only make decisions about any user if I'm 100% sure I'm right. There is simply no hard evidence and if there isn't, you can easily make a mistake. Wow!  What a great post! How many arguments! So... After you defended the scamer, you can’t say anything smarter than “I don't know”? Even after I showed specific facts and you just have to think about them? 1) I fail to see the direct correlation between tema and Total corruption in Russian local involving DTs. If you have a problem with Tema then open a thread in reputation about it. 2) Already answered in detail. Read my previous responses. 3) Already answered in detail. Read my previous responses. 4) Already answered in detail. Read my previous responses. Nobody is defending a scammer. Considering the guidance from Theymos (forum admin) and Mprep (Global moderator) I have pointed out the rules and guidance regarding trust and the rules. Nothing that you have said has convinced me that there is Total corruption in Russian local involving DTs. Based on the lack of evidence that you have provided makes me conclude that you do not have such evidence. If you want to discuss individual transgressions then there is the reputation board for that. What I have found over time is that there are a number of relatively new users that come to the forum and decide that they are self appointed judge, jury and executioner and like a zealot have a strict and uncompromising view of the world. Everyone else is wrong and they are right. People come to this forum to talk about bitcoin, blockchain, altcoins and shitcoins. People have different opinions and some of them conflict with my ethical views. People don't come to the bitcointalk forum to be harassed or punished for every potential transgression or perceived slight. There is an unfortunate culture of toxicity that puts off people from visiting this forum. Nobody is saying Smart man is faultless. It is just that they are not comfortable that the threshold is met where they feel comfortable placing negative trust. Something that you have not done yourself. There are a number of DTs that in the past have taken uncompromising views on some of these issues. Several of them have been removed or publicly reprimanded for taking such uncompromising views. Theymos has made it quite clear that he is unhappy about how DT was run in the past and wants more moderate actions. You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.
Since the "Lauda PM" is now public knowledge let me just state that this sort of thing - forum owner/admin sending a PM demanding "recommending" to exclude a certain user from my trust network - is deeply unwelcome. Theymos can blacklist anyone he wants, there is no need for him to coerce others into doing this. At the very least this call for action should have been done publicly. I want to put this out in case anyone wants to exclude (or blacklist  ) me for this opinion. If you're not quite familiar with the events, please read cryptodevil's excellent write-up. Not sure if this is more a Meta topic or a Reputation topic, feel free to move as appropriate.We have so many threads like this nowadays, people twerking for merits.
There are a lot of pointless "summarize something obvious" posts, but IMO btcsmlcmnr's summary added something.
Forgiveness and de-escalation are key to getting Trust working smoothly: - Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame. - De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.
A few years ago I had to communicate with people who had mental disorders (Schizophrenia). One of them was always walking with the Bible and waving a cross in front of everybody, he once told me he was in constant contact with God and the devil. But as long as there is no proof of that, it can't be true. I don't compare you to one of these people, you're smart enough, but you just don't have enough evidence. I have another account, but it has one message and no merit. And I am 100% sure of that. So linking me to esmanthra is not a good idea. Read my early translations, esmanthra there constantly scolded me for the quality of translations for which I am still ashamed.
Many, many years ago a colleague sent me to a call where the person complained that his neighbors were putting stink bombs down his walls at night. They would scurry up the downpipe and make a hell of a noise on the roof. When I suggested that it could be rats making the noise and the smell. He looked very angry and yelled "look ! I went to the pub and told my friends. They said "your neighbors really must have it in for you !" "They clearly believe me !" "Do your fucking job and catch them". He explained that he had confronted his neighbors about it but they had been "evasive". At that stage he also became convinced I was part of the conspiracy. A report with concern for the welfare of the neighbors was filed. |
|
|
|
3.) Why did you miss this item? I showed many alt accounts of Smart man and gave you examples of their fraudulent behavior.
Do you want to continue the dispute on this point or agree that here he is a scamer?
I did not miss 3 You are confused by your own numbering system. Number 2 was discussing alts. It was such a mess that it was unclear what you wanted.18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.
Approximately 60$?
I can say so, plus or minus 65 at the price of ETH. He discusses the price of accounts with the famous ru account seller. While I seriously dislike the sale of accounts Theymos has been quite clear about using trust to censor discussions. If he had actually offered to sell someone an account it would be different.
It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them.
Generally I only tag seller or buyer accounts if they have been stolen, hacked or used for deliberate proven scamming with concrete evidence. Discussing something that I disapprove of is not generally something that I will tag someone for. It is effectively censoring speech. This forum is build very much on libertarian ideals which values freedom of speech. Disagreeing with the content of the speech but protecting the right to say it. 18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.
|
|
|
|
I've given the TEST neutral LoyceBot sent positive trust to AdolfinWolf. I don't think it'll show up as trusted to you  Offtopic: I now went through my feedback and trust, and see that a lot of my feedback previously given to users has been removed? Did i miss something when they updated the trust system? Click "Next". No it didn't show up as trusted. I have sent you images of the users where it does show of the scenario that I described. Also the test is a bit different because I gave the neutral in the test rather than someone that I trust. It appears that it is because the users are on the DT2 list |
|
|
|
You may be underestimating the recursive implications of inclusions. I haven't updated in it a while, but see my Personal Full Trust Depth viewer for this. Can you give the names of the users from your example to check their Trust inclusions? EDIT: I think i see what you mean. Jollygood received a positive trust from examplens, and now his trust shows up as a trusted rating for me on my profile page, despite him not being in DT2 or me adding him to my trust list. Both are on DT2 (see the full list of users on DT1 and DT2.
A is in my trust network and gives NEUTRAL trust to B
B now gives POSITIVE trust to C
C trusted feedback shows as POSITIVE to me. Let's test this: if you give a neutral tag to LoyceBot, LoyceBot will give positive trust (to be deleted again later) to AdolfinWolf (sorry, you're now a test subject, just because you posted in this thread  ). LoyceBot is not on any custom Trust lists ( full list here). I've given the TEST neutral |
|
|
|
Because B is also in your trust network? That's the only reason i can think of?
Why would a negative or a neutral trust matter at all when the only factor of a trust rating showing is whether or not B is DT2/1 (or included on your trust list) or not?
Or am i missing something
if that's not the case, it seems like that would be a bug?
No - B was not in my trust network. I tested it by excluding A from my network and the trusted feedback on C disappeared. The trusted feedback on C also disappeared when I distrusted B by using ~B I noticed because C was already on my distrust list ! B was tagged neutral by A (DT2) for having numerous alt accounts. |
|
|
|
|
Why is it that if someone receives neutral trust from a DT1 or DT2 in my trust network and the user that got NEUTRAL trust only then gives POSITIVE trust to another user that user shows as having POSITIVE trust to me ?
i.e.
A is in my trust network and gives NEUTRAL trust to B
B now gives POSITIVE trust to C
C trusted feedback shows as POSITIVE to me.
This could be a real issue for those that give neutrals as a downgrade from a negative.
|
|
|
|
Do we have to do anything to be put on a list to be paid back? I hope people are monitoring this. How come they haven't emailed us about the proceedings? I haven't gotten one email from them at all I believe since the hack happened.
The liquidator got a High Court order that allows all mandatory notification to customers to be posted on Cryptopia.co.nz and their twitter account. Currently there is no deadline for registering your interests. There is also no clarification as to whether customers need to register. This is because the liquidator is still getting legal advise and High Court guidance on how to treat the customer funds. I personally believe that it is likely that they will try to return it as crypto through a standard withdrawal process and that they want to classify it as "customer funds held in trust" rather than debt. This may however not be applicable to all the crypto wallets. (i.e. basemarkets) Classifying it as "debt" will open up a whole new can of worms for them. |
|
|
|
When hero member tema send merits only to abusers and Smart man its ok? When I described in detail who sent merit, where, it is not specific data that are proof? I showed a lot of abusers who act on one pattern. This is specific data that is evidence of abuse. Users have no control over where they RECEIVE merit from. The biggest scammer can send you a ton of merit and there is nothing that YOU can do to stop it. Unless there is proof that it was elicited you cannot use it as evidence against someone. There has been massive discussions about this when merit was introduced. EDUCATE YOURSELF
You do not need to do any research. Smart man himself writes that he worked with this project and that he learned that this project was scam. But he did not warn anyone about this.
Is this not complicity in crime?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105163.msg51411806#msg51411806In the link you posted he explained himself. He withdrew from the project and even publicly stated that he thought it was a scam. To me it indicates that he got involved with something he disagreed with, left and was transparent about it. It does not make me think that he is an intentional scammer. What is the name of hiring workers with multiple accounts for bumping a thread and providing this kind of service?
Evidence of these actions is in the first message.
Theymos said: Some people were talking about neg-trusting spammers for spamming. This is not appropriate; report the posts, and if that doesn't seem to be working well, come to Meta with specific examples and suggestions.
What part of that is unclear to you ? I am stating a fact: xtraelv was unable to continue the conversation about specific facts and just ignores my last message in our discussion. He is also trying to divert the conversation towards discussing the case with Yobit (and members of its signature campaign accused of spam) - which is irrelevant to our topic. When you post a reply I do not have an obligation to immediately reply. Your responses are weak, petty, obtuse, self-entitled and personal. You fail to provide sufficient proof of even some of your most basic accusations - I see absolutely no pattern of large scale corruption. I believe you are a victim of the Dunning–Kruger effect. The fact that you have provided very weak evidence and now are resorting to personal attacks makes me view you as untrustworthy. Sorry that you didn't find the echo chamber that you were looking for. Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT |
|
|
|
Some people just really hate rap. I mean, really hate rap. Some surely deserve a death penalty. Not a usual murderers, but rappers and others
Nevermind the usual murderers do usual murder. Just kill the rappers. Hip Hop just a life sentence ? |
|
|
|
If I interrupt my interaction with users on the basis of suspicion or demand crystal clear purity, I can lose most of the useful content. In life it happens, it seems that I am 100% sure, and then it turns out that I was mistaken. Need proof. How many spam reports did this service receive? No answer. Deadlock ...
Theymos specifically stated that is is not appropriate to neg-trust spammers: 129 users who were wearing a yobit signature and had at least 1 good report against them in the last 14 days are banned for 14 days. All yobit signatures are wiped. Signatures containing "yobit.net" are banned for 60 days.
Some people were talking about neg-trusting spammers for spamming. This is not appropriate; report the posts, and if that doesn't seem to be working well, come to Meta with specific examples and suggestions.
As much as I hate spam and disapprove of account farmers there have been massive changes made to the DT system, trust system and how scammers are flagged. Theymos made it very clear that he was unhappy about the way the trust system was being used. I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect. In particular, in my view: - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it. - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid. - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again. - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views. I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists. |
|
|
|
Your explaination about your personal bheviours looks decent to me, I don't think you did something wrong in giving merits to the banned users as it is not displayed clearly on the forum. But there is no explanation about smartman being trustworthy in any sense, if you see he has clearly tried to spam the forum by offering this services. REQUIRED POSTING IN ENGLISH THREADS
1. Contact me if in your accounts at least half of the posts in English.
2. Posts up from 100 signs.
3. Express an opinion about the project, ask questions. Don't write nonsense.
4. English is not Google translate.
5. You have from 5 accounts. Is this something thats allowed here ? The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.
And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation.
Some people were talking about neg-trusting spammers for spamming. This is not appropriate; report the posts, and if that doesn't seem to be working well, come to Meta with specific examples and suggestions.
Logged-out users will now see a warning in trust-enabled sections if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.
This increases the responsibility of DT members not to give negative trust for stupid reasons, but only for things that cause you to believe that the person is a scammer.
Perhaps the guidance from Theymos (The forum administrator) answers your question. |
|
|
|
xtraelv
You have edited your post. I continue:
My post was edited well before you made your post. 1.) In the first post, I showed “big” donors of merit for Smart man. Why are they all banned for plagiarism/another abuse and sent merits to users banned for plagiarism/another abuse? Can there be so many coincidences?
Here is another scheme of merit flow. Please note that most users are also banned for plagiarism. You can check it through BPIP.
Most of the users who wrote in the Smart man topic either is on this scheme or are directly connected with it. Again coincidences?
In the absence of concrete proof it is a co-incidence. It doesn't make it untrue. It makes it unproven. There are serious issues with jumping to conclusions based on merit data. See for yourself:  In the absence of other proof it can lead to all sorts of false allegations. 2.) Just check his topic. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2058283.0 Many examples 1 2 3 etc. Note in the thread a lot of dialogs like: - Wrote to you in PM. -Thank you, answered, we will work. -Good! I agree it. - Fine, I'm waiting. -I sent you new documentation. -Got it, work. Very funny, do real customers behave like this? This is common shitposter behavior. It is dealt with by reporting the post to the moderator and getting it deleted and if the user does it enough times they get banned. Where is the proven link to Smart man ? Without concrete proof it is a mere allegation. While some people may place feedback based on allegations. Most won't. 3.) Please do it. It is very important.
Unfortunately I have decided not to look into that actual allegation of whether that project is a scam because the thread is largely run by circle jerkers that have hijacked a number of threads and made a number of unsupported scam accusations against various projects. Any rational discussion in the thread automatically assumes that you promote what is probably a scam. So rational discussion of fact is near impossible. I am neither interested in being seen as a "promoter" of what is probably a scam nor getting brain cancer from arguing with idiots.. I have seen no proof that Smart man is the instigator of the scam rather than a misguided investor or bounty manager. 4.) Ha ha. There is no evidence that the spam service produces spam? OK.
Calling something a spam service is not evidence of spam. It is circular logic. |
|
|
|
We asked because we were curious. You have demonstrated clearly you are a gang supporter with a fragile mind.
Who is "we" ? Is this crips v bloods ? |
|
|
|
xtraelv Let's look at the question by points: 1.) Smart man is involved in a huge circuit of merit abuse. Yes/No? 2.) Smart man has a lot of alts and with the help of them he deceives customers by making false reviews in his thread. Yes/No? 3.) Smart man is involved in the scam project Adab Solutions. Yes/No? 4.) Smart man was hiring in and offering Spam-service. Yes/No? If it is not a systematic problem but just about user Smart man then it should simply be dealt with on the scam accusations board or reputation board rather than meta.
If you really carefully read the first post, then you should have noticed that I found a lot of abusers. Smart man was only the beginning of my research. I came here because I found huge problems in Ru local that no one sees or tries to solve. Smart man does not equal total corruption in Russian local [DT involved!] If I write "Government conspiracy involving police and ministers" and then offer an alleged shoplifter as proof would you conclude there is a government conspiracy ? Historically - most of the users that post about large scale conspiracies often turn out to be dubious themselves. So "evidence" is not just accepted as "trust me it is true". Why didn't you answer simple questions? I have evidence on all counts. If you prove a lot of thefts and show how the police protect the thieves, then obviously this will be proof of corruption. I do not propose to "believe" my words - I show the facts. If you have doubts about these facts, I am ready to discuss them.  ? I answered each question. |
|
|
|
xtraelv Let's look at the question by points: 1.) Smart man is involved in a huge circuit of merit abuse. Yes/No? 2.) Smart man has a lot of alts and with the help of them he deceives customers by making false reviews in his thread. Yes/No? 3.) Smart man is involved in the scam project Adab Solutions. Yes/No? 4.) Smart man was hiring in and offering Spam-service. Yes/No? If it is not a systematic problem but just about user Smart man then it should simply be dealt with on the scam accusations board or reputation board rather than meta.
If you really carefully read the first post, then you should have noticed that I found a lot of abusers. Smart man was only the beginning of my research. I came here because I found huge problems in Ru local that no one sees or tries to solve. Smart man does not equal total corruption in Russian local [DT involved!] If I write "Government conspiracy involving police and ministers" and then offer an alleged shoplifter as proof would you conclude there is a government conspiracy ?
Historically - most of the users that post about large scale conspiracies often turn out to be dubious themselves. So "evidence" is not just accepted as "trust me it is true". 1.) Smart man is involved in a huge circuit of merit abuse. Yes/No? Not proven. 2.) Smart man has a lot of alts and with the help of them he deceives customers by making false reviews in his thread. Yes/No? No proof provided that false reviews were made. 3.) Smart man is involved in the scam project Adab Solutions. Yes/No? I have not looked at this yet. 4.) Smart man was hiring in and offering Spam-service. Yes/No? Probably. Not proven it is a spam service. |
|
|
|
xtraelv I like your approach - if you also carefully examine the first post, then you just will not have any questions. And you will help the forum to get rid of fraudsters I have read your first post and even struggled through some of the Russian posts with my very poor Russian reading skills. I see a lot of pointless data and other than having some questions about Smart man (not enough to make a judgement) I disagree with most of the inferences that you are making. There are a number of people that often have good intentions that draw all sorts of ominous conclusions from assortments of data that do not prove anything. Sometimes even the village idiot knows how to use Bing or google. I have no doubt that you have poured over lots of information looking for evidence of systematic corruption. But giving merit for posts, receiving merit for posts, ranking up, refusing to give a trust rating, having a different opinion, having an alt account or changing your password are all normal actions that are permitted under the current rules. Instead I see lots of pointless data that does not prove any systematic corruption involving the Russian community or DTs. The way that I view this is that the DTs feel there is not enough troubling information about Smart man to permanently ruin his trading reputation on bitcointalk. This may change if more information becomes available. If it is not a systematic problem but just about user Smart man then it should simply be dealt with on the scam accusations board or reputation board rather than meta. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
