Edit: My trust list has nothing to do with this post. I'm just trying to be neutral.
One would have to be really gullible to believe this. Removed that for you. Thanks. As far as the feedback goes, yeah he helped me with some details when I got scammed by cyramji so I trust him hence the feedback. Sorry, but with a stance like that you will likely get yourself in trouble trusting the wrong people. Do not trust easily!
I wouldn't agree with a person having alt accounts and acting like different persons. But I guess you are allowed to earn with both the signature space of your Main account and Alt account from different sources. Example: LoyceV and his alt, LoyceMobileSo, if the above example is Ok for everyone here, then it's fine for others too as long as they don't scam/cheat anyone. You are complaining comparing some random people who are just milking the forum to Loyce. This is a very bad example. I understand what you tried to say, but the example is badly chosen.  |
|
|
|
Edit: My trust list has nothing to do with this post. I'm just trying to be neutral.
One would have to be really gullible to believe this. akhjob 2020-01-30 Reference Good campaign manager, payments were quick. He has also helped me with some details when I got scammed. Nice guy.
Do not do stuff like this, people have many years of experience tackling biases and other "motivators" here. Sigh. |
|
|
|
This is nonsense. Are my claims equivalent to those made by CH? Would I make this up now? The user who hates me is also going to confirm my made up story? Seriously? poochpocket is the alt, end of story. Uniform stance or do not comment at all.
Well, you are the guy who in another thread made a threat against me recently to create a flag against me wholly on the belief that my opposing your two false flags constitutes some indiscretion in your mind. But you know what? You wouldn't be the first guy to create a false flag against me. Not even the second or third guy... I already have five false flags created against my u=131361 main and one false flag created against my mobile-alt u=2640757 account. So you Lauda would be the guy in lowly seventh place.
That would be your legacy Lauda - seventh place creating a false flag against me. (and you're not very good at finding alts - leave it to the professionals in the Known Alts of any-one - A User Generated List Mk III thead - "it's what we''re good at" TM.).
Next.What in the name of sanity are you talking about? Have you been drinking or something? |
|
|
|
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! |
|
|
|
Most likely, yes. This is very deceptive behavior. The person behind the account is being rejected, not his imaginary identities nor tens nor hundreds of identities. If one, despite the rejection, tries to infiltrate the service provider again with another mask then they are actively trying to get around the rejection - thus deception, thus untrustworthy. Does this make sense?
Yes. I mean I can follow your reasoning. I wouldn't tag for it if they were never in the campaign at the same time and even then I'd still defer to the campaign manager to determine if they were deceived. For all I know managers can make any exceptions to the rules. That makes perfect sense yes, this is why I added in my update (which must have been between the time you were responding and actually responded): This is from my perspective as an (ex) campaign manager not as a DT member.
I was always very strongly against this kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Tried PMing Veleor the same but he has the account blocked from communication. Got my account "Badjacks99" back.
How did you exactly get it back? |
|
|
|
Negative trust? Absolutely. [2]
[2] Negative trust was not weakened so that I would need stronger reasons to tag people after all.
Not sure what that [2] means? The requirements for negative ratings are much weaker since the last changes theymos made. If somebody was tagged for some deceptive behavior before, then they can be tagged now for the same deceptive behavior on a smaller scale / lesser deception. So if someone attempts to enroll one account, gets rejected, then attempts to enroll another account - that calls for negative trust? Assuming the campaign doesn't allow alt accounts.
Most likely, yes. This is very deceptive behavior. The person behind the account is being rejected, not his imaginary identities nor tens nor hundreds of identities. If one, despite the rejection, tries to infiltrate the service provider again with another mask then they are actively trying to get around the rejection - thus deception, thus untrustworthy. Does this make sense? This is from my perspective as an (ex) campaign manager not as a DT member. |
|
|
|
Got it back! wow big thanks to Veleor for suggesting to email them again. Love it. How do I go about getting my rep back in order? will post on "realbadjacks99" if need be. Thanks so much to the bitcointalk admin who helped me out.
For transparency, this is the PM that I have received: Hey there, I wanted to update you that I was able to recover my account. How do I go about cleaning up my rep with you? this account was stolen from me, not sold. Here is the topic where Ive been posting. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5197476.new#new let me know what you would like me to do. I will follow this thread for evidence/confirmation and then act accordingly. Whatever the community decides what you need to do to prove it. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Without OgNasty's opinion we can't really know if what hacker1001101001/poochpocket did was against the rules of the campaign or not. It's not that I'm "keen on exact wording", it's just that poor wording in this case doesn't really make the intent as clear as you claimed.
Then you or somebody else should ask him IMHO. For me (emphasis) the intent is clear and I have acted accordingly. Replace hacker1001101001/poochpocket with another set of alts in this scenario - would you still make the same claim?
I would hope so. Remove all the other transgressions hacker1001101001/poochpocket is accused of from consideration - would you still red-trust/flag him for this signature application? If the answer is "no" then it probably doesn't matter much if at all.
Flag type 1? I am not sure there is consensus for this (given the non-clarity of the rule to others, and it being an attempted - yet failed(?) infiltration). So answer is no. [1] Negative trust? Absolutely. [2]
[1] However, it would be simple in cases where the rule was clear and a full violation occurred (then I believe the campaign manager could use flag type 2 or maybe even type 3?). [2] Negative trust was not weakened so that I would need stronger reasons to tag people after all. |
|
|
|
Suchmoon know but is scared one.
Suchmoony what are you scared of kittens?   |
|
|
|
Let us see if this will get him removed by the "Objective Bullshit Guild" by TECSHARE or I guess mr. TECSHARE endorses liars and frauds.  Fraud that only exists in your mind as a result of obsessive need to punish anyone who criticizes your abuse of the trust system, with more abuse of the trust system? Yes I support those people. You feel free to keep digging through his turds looking for punitive peanuts though if it makes you happy.[1] I happily condone liars and frauds. [1] FTFY. If you need more assistance in making you a bit honest, please do ask and I will help. |
|
|
|
Suchmoon I believes knows what truth and dare is referring to. It involves mosprognoz and lauda. Both of who she knows are dirty, but is scared of the scammer lauda like many here. Jollygod sure lauda and mozprognoz trying to facilitate a scam and even told the scam to hide with an alt account. Jollygood does not say or do anything to his friends lauda and mosprognoz.
QFR. Alt account is fine an speaking the truth with high risk is the intended purpose for alt accounts
Can you make alt accounts as fast as I can tag them? If there was some more consensus to stop labeling defamation as trolling, then the question would be: Can you make alt accounts as fast as we can flag them? |
|
|
|
Red herring.
[...]
More red herrings.
I am not quite sure why you attacked suchmoon, but "if you don't confess I will publish your dox" is? He did not really attack suchmoon and suchmooon did not really attack me either (including suchmoon's misunderstanding of my words, and nulliuses misunderstanding of her words), I think you are all losing proper interpretations due to whatever (read it all again objectively, within context). Ignore the word DOX, replace it with "If you do not confess yourself, I will be forced to publish the evidence" - nothing is wrong with this and gives the culprit a chance to admit should he want to (while avoiding any unnecessary damage by releasing the evidence). The only reason it was said was precisely because the DOX is the evidence (otherwise the evidence - whatever it may have been - would have been released instantly) - something which I do not want to post and can not almost find any scenarios under which I would. I have no other evidence (that is publicly known). Clear now? I don't control any other account than this on the forum now
..and today you said... Yes, the account is in control of me.
..did you buy this account? Since when is this account under your control? Let us see if this will get him removed by the "Objective Bullshit Guild" by TECSHARE or I guess mr. TECSHARE endorses liars and frauds. |
|
|
|
I don’t think he had/has only two forum accounts but I don’t have solid proof (see my previous post). If he caused an especially large amount of damage by the use of using a large number of sock puppets, that would reflect poorly on him and maybe the flags are warranted. If he used a small handful of accounts to bump spam for only a short time that stopped many years ago, it might be best to forgive and move on.
Continuous dishonest behavior has not stopped and by the looks of it is not stopping. A single account being sold without any victims warrants the account being flagged, ICO bumping on any scale warrants more. That is what matters. Do we now have to ask OgNasty to clarify this? Sigh.
If it really matters (I don't think it does in the grand scheme of things) then yes, it should be up to the campaign manager when the rule is worded as stupidly as it is. Why are you so keen on exact wording to the very detail? This is unnecessary in general around here unless we are analyzing actual legal contracts or similar. Somebody else can ask OgNasty to comment on it if they want, I will not bother him with this though. |
|
|
|
I interpret the above as no alts allowed also but i might be wrong here. Wouldn't "posting from" imply that both accounts have to be accepted together?
Hacker didn't have at any point one account accepted and trying to get in with another...but still, what he did is highly unethical imo.
It's an impressively stupid rule. Having said that... I'm not sure how the campaign manager know that they were posting from the same IP, but assuming such a thing was possible it still doesn't say the same person can't apply or even be accepted with multiple accounts - just that they can't post from the same IP. I believe the rule is badly written, but the intent is clear.
That is what matters. Do we now have to ask OgNasty to clarify this? Sigh. |
|
|
|
Would you consider it abuse/unethical if both accounts controlled by hacker1001101001 applied in the same signature campaign ( SIGMA POOL)? What do the campaign rules say? I don't see anything about alts so I'm guessing it's fine? Those found to be spamming or posting from multiple accounts with the same IP will be removed immediately.
Should be clear enough? I interpret the above as no alts allowed also but i might be wrong here. Wouldn't "posting from" imply that both accounts have to be accepted together? I believe the rule is badly written, but the intent is clear. E.g. If you really wanted to interpret it literally, then posting from multiple accounts (your alts) using different IPs would be allowed - this is a ridiculous interpretation. Hacker didn't have at any point one account accepted and trying to get in with another...but still, what he did is highly unethical imo.
Especially given that the rule was there, thus he did it knowingly, yes. |
|
|
|
Would you consider it abuse/unethical if both accounts controlled by hacker1001101001 applied in the same signature campaign ( SIGMA POOL)? What do the campaign rules say? I don't see anything about alts so I'm guessing it's fine? Those found to be spamming or posting from multiple accounts with the same IP will be removed immediately.
Should be clear enough?
I gave you another chance here: Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her
It does not work like that. You can apologize a million times to me, it does not matter. I do not need nor want your apologies. You can not expect forgiveness when you are involved in absolute bullshit like TECSHARE's Guild of Stupidity, send me apologies - yet seize every single opportunity to disagree with me (even when the disagreeing side has an opinion that is worse than the anti-vax club), seize every opportunity to to sneak in something bad about me or about people who share my views or support my flags. This is not remorse, this is not being sorry, this is worse - active deception under pretenses of being remorseful. 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.
However, you have decided to show your true colors. You can forget about restoring reputation to this or your other alt accounts now. Sorry it had to be this way, but you have made this choice. You reap what you sow. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
This is nonsense. Are my claims equivalent to those made by CH? Would I make this up now? The user who hates me is also going to confirm my made up story? Seriously? poochpocket is the alt, end of story. Uniform stance or do not comment at all.
This wasn't directed at you or any of your claims, I pointed out that "He admitted it himself" doesn't work. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
