So anything you believe to be true can go on the feedback form. We have that sorted. If they like lemons they can have red trust on the feedback form and you are okay with that. That is fine because the feedback form is now rightly viewed as a lemons form and the score is meaningless. It just needs to be read and the person makes up their own mind. Fair enough.

With regard point 3.

You are incorrect. In this instance. We are discussing an instamine (that turned out to be a captive instamine with only the dev team having opportunity to mine, it is all explained in the links we supplied) Please investigate more thoroughly. Keep in mind not all new investors reading that thread would know they can check the block explorer. Even then they would not know only the dev team were able to mine.

You are saying you can lie to people for direct financial gain as long as there was the "Possible" means to investigate for yourself and verify what they told you (in this case it was not) it is okay to deliberately lie to people for your own financial gain?

That's like me watching you writhe around on the floor dying after eating a delicious slice of my cake that  I sold you earlier, I told  you the packet mix said NO LEMONS because I have read it and checked it out. The packet was laying there on the table you could have checked it for yourself?   I told you that because I was aware I was in a room of other people allergic to lemons, who may not have purchased my slices of cake had I told the truth that it said lots of lemons inside. I wanted to unload my cake slices on you all, sorry about that.. I just did not expect you to be so greedy and start tucking into it before you went home. Thank god I had sold my cake slices before the effects kicked in and most people had left the building.


No scam because although I deliberately lied for financial gain you should have looked at the packet and read the ingredients yourself. No harm no foul. No danger to others future cake slice purchasers?

That is not even a perfect analogy it would require much more effort and knowledge of investors to see not only was there an instamine it was also a captive instamine. So that is kind of being generous.

There is no way to deny it was not a deliberate lie for direct financial gain. aka scamming people.

I think you must come to terms with if lauda does not deserve a flag for that and the other dirty deeds that surround him combined then you will find if that is the benchmark then NOBODY will get any flags.

Can you present a stronger case for a flag? with more concrete verifiable evidence on this board?

Those may one day be highly prized collectors items.

Let us not forget this is not even considering points 1 and 2 that seem to have enough compelling weight to merit a "mild warning to noobs" on their own. Seems strange you are willing to cast off out of hand with NO concern for noobs at all. Fair enough. Remember this is all being written down historically for future generations to read over.  So we need to be sure of what it is we are saying and doing here and how it appears to other readers.

You are casting all of these points in as the "SAME" level of danger in terms of scamming as someone liking lemons? seems strange that is all.

So admin are conferring with your directly over the delicacy of the ice on which we are standing? really since when? or are you referring to more of your weaponizing of broken metrics like deleted posts. Well go report all the one word posts from 6 years back you dumb shit to make it even more obvious you are trying to weaponize anything you can to push your agenda. Oh wait we don't have any and all other other deleted posts are being documented to demonstrate the deletes are invalid.

No, you were not simply disagreeing. If you disagree then you could have just not did as he requested or pm'd him back to say don't agree (although we would love to hear your case for not agreeing your proven scamming lying should not be in a position of trust). You were making FALSE and unreasonable accusations and suggestions.  You were claiming he was DEMANDING you did and that he was trying to make it "secret" even when he send it to over 100 persons.  Saying he should have done it in public - lol yeah I am sure lauda would have loved the entire board seeing theymos say " come on dt members time to cast out this scamming piece of shit who thinks he makes the rules here but is just another broke down euro trash fool"  Theymos tried to usher him out the back door. Should have blacklisted him and you dirt bag. I would say it is you guys on thin ice.

There is no person here who can ridicule us without it getting bitch slapped back in their faces immediately. You can not ridicule observable instances nor discredit them. Start comprehending this and you will perhaps save yourself the humiliation you have previously suffered at the hands of real legends.

To bring this back on topic the above explanation is vital for the reader since suchmoon is again caught trying to mislead via sneaky means. Her double standards and requirement of 100% proof only apply to her friends.  Same with her crying that posting a persons PM is untrustworthy and caught previously doing it herself.

With regard her "opinions" on hhampuz, thoroughly investigate and compare it in the context of her other pals lauda and hhmpuz, tman, owlcatz, these people are all caught in dirty looking financially motivated behaviors. You start to see a pattern of the types of people she tries to defend. If suchmoon is rushing to the defense of anyone you better really be careful. Do your own DD.

Hhampuz is looking more dirty by the day. Suchmoon turning up here is not a positive thing for him.

Anyone refusing to be transparent when dealing with sig campaign selection is a huge red flag. This 0.5BTC being "Liberated" from a project to save it sounds suspect and should not be forgotten about.

@ SS

Nobody is making fun of your lemon dislike  based on choking on lemons. To associate that though with another person being untrustworthy just because they may enjoy eating lemons seems a very strange way of viewing the world. If that is what you are saying. I mean surely if somone was offering bitcoins for half market rate and they would send first you not refuse to deal with them because they had previously mentioned they enjoy eating lemons or like the smell of lemons? it seems to be something that is hard to believe. Although we do not say you are lying it seems impossible to imagine that would be the case really. Perhaps you just do reason differently on lemons due to the extreme experience you had with them. However to another person that does not seem at all reasonable behavior.
I am not saying this because it is the kind of mental gymnastics employed by trust abusers. They would say if you are this unreasonable (by normal standards) regarding lemons then you might be open to scamming someone just because they said they like lemons or they find it funny people are so allergic to lemons. This is why this kind of trust abusing multiple jumps of weak sauce links must be nipped in the bud.

Let's focus MORE though on this detail where there is PROOF of scamming. Item 3.

The other cases present a STRONG case (in our opinion of financially motivated wrongdoing) however ITEM 3 with even minimal research

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5131477.msg50628003#msg50628003

Demonstrates this to be clearly scamming IE lying for direct financial gain.

Lauda was holding bags of this at the time he was running around the forum LYING he was ON THE LAUNCH and that could verify there was NO premine. This is a possibly the strongest form of evidence you will ever here that some was lying to scam people into investing on the basis of UNTRUE and deliberately incorrect information. You will find no clearer evidence on this forum of a person lying for financial gain.

You could find it hard to deny that every member that invested under the premise was scammed or that every person that did not receive the compensation offer were the intended victims of that lying and scamming.

It would seem impossible to arrive at any other opinion that it was a deliberate lie directly motivated by financial gain.

If this person does NOT deserve the lemons flag at the least then it would seem that nobody can have a flag.

I am not saying he should have a higher level flag by anyone that did not personally get scammed or lose out due to his scamming. Although surely a initial launch miner (who was scammed) lied to being told it would be a fair launch like the other coins launched at that time via pow with NO premine.  Were scammed, if they hired rigs etc to mine and were then held out whilst the devs mined it a 10x size blocks at super speeds whilst nobody else could do so (later slashing the full minting by 75% to magnify their instamine) or those that believed lauda there was no instamine and invested based on the fake information there was no instamine only to have the market crash by 90% one day when ED offered the 2 000 000 000 usd value air drop because there was an instamine.

It seems impossible that anyone can have a lemons flag if he does not, that's not even taking into consideration the other financially motivated dirt that seems to keep attaching itself to him time and time again.

So you say he should NOT have a flag? but should just have red trust now that red trust is relegated to just being pure subjective nonsense that nobody will likely consider as evidence of scamming because they will presume the person should have some form of flag?

Or are we misrepresenting what you are saying?

Your pals are those you have obviously been including on to DT all this time knowing they are PROVEN scammers and liars , as well as having a ton of other financially motivated dirt attached to them. People you try to stab theymos in the back over to avoid excluding them as proven scammers and liars - like lauda.

Don't bullshit people - you are smart enough (just) not to blatantly abuse the old trust system but then want to get those people banned for fighting for a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer  LOL the compensation offer that your scamming pal lauda was trying to prevent the board having. Yeah support those who try to scam the board out of a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer (whilst talking up his scam coins) but those fighting for compensation and the truth to be known,  and fair distribution on MANY other projects are untrustworthy LOL

You selectively try to bring your STRICT 100% PROOF or not guilty rules against you and your pals but here you openly make accusations where there can be NO PROOF.

High risk financially for whistle blowing on your friends and ensuring they don't benefit from the double standards you push. LOL

Bring the trolling examples or else I will have to make you number 2 on the trolling trolling trolls thread.

You were treated with gracious respect by the true legend before you started attacking him so fuck off pretending you got turned on for being "nice " to him. You are the back stabber as we just noticed when you tried to spin theymos's gracious back door ejection of lauda the scammer and trust abuser as a sneaky devious and heavy handed tactic. He should have just black listed the vile scamming shit stain and not given you the opportunity to try and cast him in a poor light over it for being nice.

HHampuz looks dirty EVEN IF IT IS NOT PROVEN based on the items I have previously detailed. There is no point disputing it. Or if you wish to then go ahead, just gives up more chance to harp on about all of those points that look NEGATIVE.

Any non gang member would certainly have a lemons flag at minimum for that ton of shit if they had their way.

Your gang have been spouting for months that a person that may possibly dox should have a tag. HHampuz supported the doxing of a forum treasurer thus endangering him and the entire boards funds.
 

Start applying THE SAME STANDARDS to all members or keep on facing us calling you out as a double standards manipulative fat piece of shit proxy puppet of lauda/possible alt.  You were previously found kissing theymos's ass on everything (that suited your agenda ie crap gamed merit system, or anything else your or your pals coudl weaponize for your own ends) until LAUDA suddenly got called into question. You did not hesitate to back stab theymos directly and publicly. That revealed you for who you really are. It was the best thing that could have happened actually. You are more dangerous than Lauda, he is blatant and open about his abuse and not that careful about lying and scamming. You are far more devious and sneaky. Perhaps 2 different sides to the same coin.

Bring the trolling specific examples. So we can debunk your claims.

Start being fair or just keep getting derided and crushed in public by OBSERVABLE INSTANCES!!!!  your call.

hahaha what does that even mean? ooooooglyboooooglywoooooglydoooooogly hahah


Yes, just pick one and tell me which you were unable to verify for yourself OH EVIL ONE. haha

Make sure you try hard because I would hate to have to blast you again for trying to mislead people and bring up your evil scam facilitating past over and over and over and over again.

Make sure they are on topic for this thread or make another thread and we will join you there when we have a care to.

This is about QS being accused of lesser deeds of wrongdoing than suchmoons friends like you and lauda. So therefore demonstrating QS claims of selective weaponizing the systems of control are supported.

Impossible to PROVE 100% either way. Are we the true legend or just a friend, or spokesman for the true legend?  are you lauda or just laudas feltching puppet willing to back stab even theymos for your continued schemes and shared corrupt goals?

After the observable instances have been reviewed previously in this post have been thoroughly analyzed then NOBODY with any credibility here gives one fuck what a fat pig like you can or can not take seriously?

Get it now?

The credibility of your CLAIMS has been crushed by observable instances that are independently verifiable and do not require trust in ourselves. We encourage the reader to verify those instances for themselves. One should never accept anything here at face value.

Get it now?

Your diversion means nothing and is a weak tactic that we will crush at every attempt to use it. Actually it just serves as ANOTHER strength to our own argument that you have NOTHING to prevent observable instances being presented and NOTHING to discredit them. It just looks sneaky and pathetic to even try to mislead people in this way.

Hold on suchmoon. How about you tell your pals to stick to the SAME super strict standards for making allegations? they just tell outright lies. QS's case seems plausible and undeniable in certain respects.

Please stop pushing double standards and moving the goal posts to suit you and your friends.

This latest action by hhampuz along with his support for doxing a forum treasurer would be grounds enough for red trust by your pals.

That's without him refusing to provide a transparent set of rules and guidelines to apply equally to all members for his campaigns so we can see he is not gaming his position and acting in a corrupt manner.

Now he is trust abusing other members on super weak sauce grounds likely trying to discourage others for speaking up.

This all looks like behavior projects will seek to distance themselves from. We will be raising these observable instances with them to get their own comments.

Okay lauda you are welcome.

This thread is an endorsement of QS because his actions are being put in the context of you and your pal lauda et al.

You don't have the credibility to raise a flag against anyone else without it coming under close scrutiny and being placed in the context of you and your friends. No double standards here any longer.

It appears to us that the same mental gymnastics can be applied for flag level one as for the old trust system. Still since the damage is limited it is not such a power tool to abuse.

There seems NO REQUIREMENT AT ALL FOR FLAG LEVEL 1 - to demonstrate any CLEAR link between being scammed out of money and getting a type 1 flag. NO requirement for it to relate to scamming people out of money AT ALL.  No requirement even for it to relate to a member placing another member in a position where they could be financial at risk of losing money. CONCRETE RED FLAGS ??This seems a little bit weak considering the upper threshold which is observable and verifiable scamming, probable extortion, plausible shady escrowing, even when all 3 are combined. All 3 linked to direct financial risk and loss.


Our own flag is type 1. There can be no such LINK ANY KIND OF FINANCIAL WRONGDOING AT ALL as that would be impossible. So it appears it is simply the lemons flag. Sadly if what you say it true it seems to span from lemons love to lying for direct financial gain which nearly also PREVENTED the board being offered a $ 2 000 000 000 USD compensation offer for the instamine he claimed never happened because he was on the launch and said never happened.'

Still, never mind the new flag system is still a lot more transparent and lot more fair than the old system. So once we fully understand the limits of each flag will just work in with it THE SAME as EVERYONE else.

We will not appear ungrateful for the work theymos has put in here to push for a transparent fair environment. Although some enforcement will still be required for those that keep pushing the limits of the new flag system to a point where it is obvious they are still using it for their own political means.

Anyway since the consensus seems flag1 is the limit for ALL of those proven or highly plausible direct financially motivated wrongdoing then we will just have to accept we have been grouped in with the same category as a filthy piece of proven scamming shit like lauda (who does not yet AMAZINGLY have even a type 1 flag) LOL  - - oh well.


ALSO as a direct question to SS - would you support type 1 flags in those instances in the initial post? or not and if not why not?

This reply demonstrates you are clearly too low functioning to be a merit source.

You have abused red trust on our account. Show us where we scammed or tried to scam any person out of money? next you claim we "attacked" your with no provocation. That is observable foolish and demonstrates you are clearly too stupid to be entrusted with giving out merit.

If you use a persons own account (that has not scammed anyone or tried to scam anyone out of money ever or been in a scenario where they could of scammed a person out of money) and say you believe their account (and others) should be glowing red as a danger warning to other members as high risk of scamming. You are a fucking imbecile as we correctly pointed out.  Just because you do not like that valid criticism being related to you in those terms, does not mean we are untrustworthy. It actually means we are being direct and to the point (very trustworthy). We are helping you realize you are clearly incorrect, whilst defending ourselves against your attack.

You have demonstrated that you are emotional and will use board metrics for your own political ends.

Instead of trying to debate your side of the argument you just ran crying to red trust with some mental gymnastics that said: I can't argue or debate and prove my point is optimal. So will with no accountability (because others have abused this account before) I will reach for red trust as a political tool. You did not refute or debunk our point. You can not.

No sorry , no imbeciles or those that leave frivolous red trust and then even boast about the abuse ON thread.

If you have no talent or skill to win a debate through reason and logic then you have use as a merit source that should be using reason and logic to discern which posts provide REAL VALUE with regard reaching the optimal opinion or solution.

Playing dumb or in your case being dumb are not the credentials best suited to the merit source position.



NEXT PLEASE !!! No more idiots throwing merit tantrums and merit parties to their pals. Let's reign in merit to the posts that add value in terms of reaching the optimal outcome. Reaching for the systems of control in an attempt to validate or invalidate your own or other persons arguments is the biggest flaw the board still has.

Well that demonstrates you are unable to comprehend what this thread undeniably demonstrates

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

Why should ANYONE that is not CLEARLY demonstrated to have scammed someone out of money or attempted to scam someone out of money be given a RED DANGER and message saying they are a CLEAR DANGER TO MEMBERS FINANCIALLY. Makes zero sense for someone that tried to warn the board about a DT members past scamming be given a tag that says they are a financial danger? how would that be fair? or useful? it would be confusing and would facilitate scamming.

The clear point is you can not allow SUBJECTIVE and GAMED metrics to be a base for anything. They are not reliable metrics and merit is pretty much MEANINGLESS as suchmoon correctly recognized after cryptohunter helped her gain some clarity on the entire subject.

This seems like a concern of people that want UNFAIR advantage for sig campaigns themselves.

If the campaign manager can NOT demonstrate the person does NOT meet the transparent threshold for post quality and can NOT demonstrate he is a scammer then they should be allowed on to the sig campaign on a first come first served basis. This is the only fair way UNLESS he wants to go to a LOT more trouble himself IE to garner a lot of interest and then demonstrate clearly he is selecting the best posters that are NOT scammers.  This will NOT be within the capacity of the low functioning campaign managers we currently have here. You will then need the smartest people on the board (not ex bin men)  that are capable of clearly demonstrating WHY certain members posts are more VALUABLE than others. That is not a task for 99.9% of meta posters.

I mean really perhaps you should stipulate that only the MOST technically proficient members that are ABLE to digest complex designs on white papers to see if the design is plausible and valuable should be campaign managers for NEW alt projects.  Therefore ensuring we don't get a ton of HUGE ICOS sucking peoples bitcoins away for vaporware and projects that would require multiple nobel prizes to reach early milestones.

The real problem here is that most people are quite low functioning and would have no chance of really isolating the most valuable posters, this is clear from the merit system where most merit is allocated on political grounds on a tiny sub board and given out by tiny tiny tiny fraction of members that are the primary receivers . So if you get average joe's as campaign managers then they need to set a threshold they can comprehend and say if the members posts meet this and have no scammed people for money or tried to then they get accepted first come first served.

It will be our latest goal here to ensure the insider gangs gaming of the top sig spots comes to an end.


@ xtraelv

I guess you mean lose funds? even then intent would surely be the key factor here to a scam tag. Bankrupt is going to be hard to prove it was a scam in most cases I would guess. Gross negligence is it scamming? some may say it could get a higher flag than a lemons flag.
Some people you are just going to have to warn people on thread also. For instance cryptopia ? what would most say about this? scam? negligence? I guess until the entire debacle is done we won't know. Looks like an exit scam but impossible to say for sure.

Yes but ANYONE CAN CLICK this link

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153864.msg51452598#msg51452598

then research the ONLY people supporting you are also supporters and pals of this friend/alt of yours lauda?

Why are you NOT pushing for this far more seriously untrustworthy person to have a flag??

This is what ANYONE can verify?

You tried to cast negativity on the board warden theymos for requesting a PROVEN scammer, probable extortionist and shady escrow and blatant trust abuser  was excluded FROM A POSITION OF TRUST.

ANYONE can verify all of these things.

That looks far worse for Lauda and YOU than any of this does for QS. 

This adds lots of credibility to QS suggestion that you DO INDEED USE THESE WEAPONS  SELECTIVELY like you quite probably do your copy and past snitch bot, you fat slob.

ANYONE can see a regular pattern here with you suchmoon/lauda/scumbuster et al

The best part is you are demonstrating how corrupt you are, and now you tried to stab theymos in the back ... a few red pills were force-fed that day to plenty of people. You will do ANYTHING to keep this gang in power. However cracks a starting to open up and this will be eroded from the edges. The core will be left vulnerable very vulnerable and isolated soon.

" I hate asskissers, they are the first to stab you in the back "  -  a smart person told a friend of ours that once. Theymos just found that was the case with you. Snake.

The only acceptable way forward is a fair set of transparent rules that are applied to ALL members equally. No more selective punishment for lesser crimes than those you support your friends for suchmoon. Stop thinking people are so blind they can not see exactly what you are doing here now.

Any other feedback before I start preparing the flags for proven scammers?

Only a lemons flag for this proven liar for direct financial gain (scammer) lauda?

This person is not fit for being a merit source. We hope theymos will never allow persons that are low functioning and abuse the trust system like this fool bitmover an opportunity to abuse the merit system like he abuses the trust system.

Strike his application like any other person that knowingly abuses any system of control.

The guy is a complete imbecile. How can such a moronic fool be expected to discern a posts of value from one of complete garbage like his own.

Above we can view a known supporter of the scammer lauda.
This member hhampuz also has rather a lot of observable dirt to his name.

1. Hhampuz  refuses to provide TRANSPARENT fair rules for entrance/exclusion from this " sig campaign management" spots? hence leaving him and his projects wide open to legitimate criticism and speculation over receiving back handers and kick backs to get a sig spot. It leaves his projects open to concerns over unfair and gamed initial distributions of tokens. This could create terribly narrow initial distributions leaving the project open to collusion and market making.

2. Hhumpuz supported the doxing of a forum treasurer which endangered the safety of that treasurer and bitcointalks funds.

3. Hhumpuz has been accused of stealing 0.5BTC from a project that he was a campaign manager for.

4. Hhumpuz can be seen abusing the trust system. He does not create flags for his friend lauda who is a proven scammer and liar but will support flags by his scamming friend lauda that claim the person who caught lauda scamming and lying even though that member has never scammed any member here and has never even been in a scenario where could have scammed another member out of money. This person should not be a campaign manager and we will be alerting ALL projects to the observable instances that strongly suggest he should not associated with their projects.

Anyone refused a sig spot by hhampuz or ANY campaign manager who can demonstrate they are a "good" poster or who's posts are as good or better than members hhampuz accepts, and have not got a type 2 flag or higher can join this union.

We will request hhmapuz or any campaign manager provide a full detailed explanation for refusal which we will as a community analyse. No more hiding behind gamed metrics like merit and "red trust" that hhampuz and his friends control.

Projects must become made FULLY aware of this situation and given the opportunity to demonstrate they are not part of this gamed and corrupt skimming of the boards revenue streams.

EVERY MEMBER WILL BE ACCEPTED BASED ON TRANSPARENT AND FAIR RULES THAT ARE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL MEMBERS. If the campaign manager can not demonstrate in detail EXACTLY how you are a SCAMMER or present STRONG case you are intending to SCAM or that your are a poor quality poster then they will need to accept you into their campaigns. Else the board needs campaign managers that will provide TRANSPARENT FAIR RULES THAT ARE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL MEMBERS.

No more greedy corrupt and gangs skimming off all the top revenue streams.

your post is not removed it is there for all to read. If they do not agree with the removal they need not join the union. They are free to take action to assist you . You have benefitted from our generous page space we have allowed you to retain.
yes sorry SM is needed, or we will have scammers, supporters of scammers and trust abusers trying to derail and spoil our efforts and waste our time. The union is not a one way street.

Start with our own feeback since there are not as yet other member of the union?

Reverse or counter all feedback that you can not demonstrate direct clear connection to scamming. Then start a trust flag for the proven scamming of lauda relating to the lying and scamming over the xcoin instamine. 

Then we can talk further on THIS THREAD about your possible serious application to become a union member. If that is what you really want to become. YOU have to understand that previous trust abusers and scammer supports must be grilled thoroughly because we can not allow those with any relation to scams or scammers or trust abuse - to join.

Thanks for understanding.

You are claiming you were being ironic about saying it was evil and facilitated scamming?  is this the lauda secret agents really play?

Stop derailing. QS has legitimate concerns and has voiced them. They are very strong cases that are independently verifiable. People can make their own minds up. They don't need someone who can be demonstrated willing to allow others to be scammed for 0.3btc making up nonsense to leave them MORE open to being scammed.

STFU and stay out of debates on scamming. You are woefully open criticism based on observable instances that are independently verifiable. You wonder why you keep getting blasted by us... stop wondering!! just shut up and stop trying to protect other scammers and those that can be demonstrated to be financially REALLY HIGH RISK. You are misleading the reader and could very well be facilitating and increasing the probability of them being scammed here.

Those look to be incorrect feedbacks from the initial review.

Although you fall under the direct support of scammers (with direct regard to their scamming) category (we have added)  for your direct support of laudas proven scamming actions. Unless you want to prove us wrong right now.

We will quote your post before we delete it to demonstrate this is the action we will take against any persons seeking to use the union for their own ends but are not prepared AT ALL to support its true goals. When we take note that you have countered LAUDAS tags and flags where observable instances of financial wrongdoing  are not present you may apply via pm to be part of the union. Until then do not post again. Others that have supported lauda and trust abuse previously will be deleted without being given the SAME explanation.

Anyone here that seeks to disrupt the union by any means will be deleted. Any not considering that FAIR may choose not to join this union. If you have used the trust system previously to create an initial attack that is not directly related to financial wrong doing you are a trust abuser.

This is not a one way street. You want the union to ensure YOUR OWN fair treatment then you must ENSURE the fair treatment of others.

We believe focusing on flags should be the primary initial concern. The old system is now correctly viewed as meaningless subjective junk. Later as support grows we shall focus on ensuring fair treatment in all possible situations on this forum.

Are you blind and EVIL

the strongest observable instances we have on you are BY YOUR OWN WORDS  knowingly and willingly open to facilitating scams and acting in an EVIL manner for 0.3 btc

Now stop going off topic  

Quicksellers observable instances that demonstrate credible and verifiable evidence of financially motivated wrong doing by your pals should not be cast in doubt by a PROVEN WILLING SCAM FACILITATOR like nutildah.

That is NOT A NON EVENT.   Let people make up their own minds
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

more space thanks