--and leaving somebody a neg based on that isn't what Theymos wants the trust system used for.
Have most of you guys forgot the lessening of the guidelines post the introduction of the flag system? Yes, you can now leave negatives for many more things (and no, it isn't abuse/misuse like it was before - to a lesser extent now). It is the flag system that's for scams nowadays, and the trust system for more "opinionated-things". but it looks like just another anti-DT rant on your part
Completely agreed.
These walls of text aren't helping. |
|
|
|
was expressing views we don't agree with.
Incorrect. I have am not interested in his views or personal opinions not related to the trust system or trust in general. Use the Neutral and you can honestly put whatever you feel about the user.
So naive, and hopefully young.  [2] The promotion of a ponzi in their signature is also just a: Not what you led with for wanting to create a flag. I believe that was already removed from the signatures yesterday. [/quote] I'm only liable for what I say, not for what you understand. The user has demonstrated clear red-flags, whether your first thought is that I was solely relating to a single post I quoted or not is not my issue. It's a you issue. I don't see how requesting and walking away from that role helps in molding the system in a way you see fit.
The system is inherently broken and politicized, way beyond it's previous political issue which was concentrated only around a few single individuals. You don't see, because you think inside a limited box that I've previously mentioned. It comes down what you intentions and goals are. If it is money that you seek and pretending to do good, then stick around here with the current system. Seems to be very efficient at doing "good" these days.  Not that I'm saying that that's the only motivation to stick around, seems people have been misinterpreting my posts a lot lately. |
|
|
|
Removed from role or whatever maybe, excluded from lists, probably.
Contact me when someone else gets treated equally as I'd be treated assuming I acted comparatively-equal as the entity that I'm being compared with. Sorry if I and others aren't living up to what you expect of us, but we are using the system as we think it should be, and you are free to do the same.
You (plural) are failing, following the master's footsteps because you (plural) limit your (plural) thinking within a pre-designed box. I wonder why this place is not improving that much (if at all [1]), and why most of the time spent is wasted in drama that shouldn't exist in the first place? Maybe you (plural) are using the system as you (plural) "think you should use it". Maybe you (plural) need to stop thinking for yourself and test out methods that may actually work? Seems that the system has taken the undesired turn and become primarily political, with members acting like entrenched royalty ("my way is the right way"). I have never tagged you, and you can rant and rave all you want
Neither have I said nor implied you did, and if you believe this is a "rant" or a "rave" you have no idea how the world works. This was me being as decent as possible, whilst conveying the message that the stance of looking in the other direction in spite of huge red flags is objectively flawed and will lead to casualties. Nothing more, nothing less.
[1] End of 2019, reflect back on the previous couple. Merit system, flag system, new trust system. Reduction in spam? Sure (overall reduction in activity). Reduction in abuse? Opposite is true (more DT members, more abusers). Reduction in scams? Maybe if you close your eyes to the general reduction in activity, you can politically parade the reduction. That's about all you can do. [2] The promotion of a ponzi in their signature is also just a: A high risk of being told off or hearing an opinion I disagree with sure.
but we are using the system as we think it should be, and you are free to do the same.
I did, I requested my blacklisting quite some time ago because you fools are causing more damage and drama than good at this time (and it has been like this for quite a while). |
|
|
|
Here, let me help you, bitch. need for list of supporters
I seem to almost recall someone warning against abuse in the Turkish section quite some time ago. What was the username of the user that did this  |
|
|
|
I think it's not necessary anymore as everyone can be a contributor in the forum, regardless of the rank.
Non sequitur. Loyce you're asking for trouble with this one. Good summary hosseinimr93. 775-1030 aktivity
1550-2060 aktivity
2325-3090 aktivity
What is this "aktivity" and where can I get some? |
|
|
|
I believe that this clearly warrants a type-1 flag. Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)
Consensus? No, not from me. A high risk of being told off or hearing an opinion I disagree with sure. That warrants at most a neutral feedback, being excluded from your trust list, and maybe even ignored if you are so inclined. Just because we don't like the message doesn't mean they are going to scam someone. Doing things your way just lends validity to the ranting and ravings of that user, it hten looks like people want to punish them or use feedback/trust to silence them. Give them the rope they'll hang themselves... sure they already have. Lovely double-standards. I wonder if I responded like that to trust-related matters (see theymoses posts) in my prime days whether I would be labelled as a high-risk user/sold account/whatever. Undoubtedly I would. If someone does get scammed by that account or his alts/shills, then that will be on you & co. Archive: https://archive.md/lPcHv.
One step forward, three and a half steps back for you guys it seems. No consensus, no flag then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
You'il never shut me up.
You can either close my account or go fuck you
I believe that this clearly warrants a type-1 flag. Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)
Consensus? Unfortunately, drama is now the main topic of discussion around here. :/
This happens when you fail to remove users whose sole purpose here is to troll, cause damage and problems. He'd probably only need to remove a couple dozen of users and it would return to where it should be. |
|
|
|
Freeze or Seize (Court ordered)
In the rare event that a security token must not be used, an individual address’ security token can be frozen and marked (via memos) as lost or seized such that the issuer will not redeem or honor those tokens.
Yes, maybe if the moon is the Earth's core then for sure Raven is going places. |
|
|
|
I've already tagged and reported him.
cryptohoppeŗ.com (Phishing) was supported by freemanfree44, coinvip93, initandrew, odemir37, parafmax, Adewumisanni, vtechpro.vn, too.
Thanks. Added user's profile link to OP. |
|
|
|
I am not yet sure what conclusion to make out of this.
Well, either they are working through aTriz and are forced to use an address designated by him or they are alts. |
|
|
|
which BTW I think is inappropriate
Care to elaborate? It has clean text, a proper reference and is based on actual events rather than opinions. Additionally, it seems to be even more in line of how the system should be used ever since the trust guidelines were lessened after the introduction of the flag-system. but don't let that stop you from attacking me
Can always PM me if you want to elaborate to avoid OP's shenanigans, but I leave that up to you. |
|
|
|
Nice place here
Rules for thee, but not for me. Glad that forum rules are equally applied by the leftist moderators. Oh wait. Rules aside, it's like that for many things here apparently. |
|
|
|
|
90 -
91 -
93 -
94 -
Whatever is free at time of posting from there, Lauda.
|
|
|
|
Thanks. He could have at least not used this one: Lauda violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here.
|
|
|
|
I couldn't reference this thread as it might be misinterpreted as you being involved in the original ponzi-case, which you are not.
This thread gave me the opportunity to do this without having to waste my own or anyone's time. I thank OP to that. The rating links my post (in this thread, not the original one) and also links to the previous reference link. |
|
|
|
You have no proof where the funds went after OG received them, this is a fact. For all you know it could have been a refund, and you have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise, only speculation of where it went. This is not proof, this is speculation. Lauda's rating, according to what was left, has nothing to do with this, but of course based on the timing of the rating, it is obviously retribution for posting here and dismantling their efforts trying to target OGnasty with accusation after accusation based on speculation. This is just more proof these systems are merely tools you and your mob buddies use to punish people with ideas you don't like, and protecting people from fraud is merely an afterthought if it is considered at all. I don't think I will go anywhere. I think I will keep doing what I am doing and continually draw attention to the malignant behavior of you and your pals.
I have no idea who is right or wrong here, neither do I care. Reading up made it evident that you are dishonest, a hypocrite and are intentionally trying to distract away from the users that are actually willing to objectively look into this (and apparently attack those as well). I couldn't reference this thread as it might be misinterpreted as you being involved in the original ponzi-case, which you are not. This was one of the clearest ratings[1] that I have ever handed out to anyone here. With that, I also will not address whatever you reply/distract to this, or to your attacks against the "accusers" or whatever it is that you're doing. I don't always agree with Lauda's ratings but in this case I absolutely do.
Thanks. Sometimes I wonder whether some people are doing stuff like this purely to test where the limits are of different individuals here.
[1] Even the write-up is concise, and clean. Totally unlike me! 
I'm not even involved in the thread that you're distracting away, nor involved with anyone that is objectively trying to figure out the history of it all, thus any points that you have against me in relation to that case are instantly invalidated. You should actually be thanking me for not flagging you, because there is more than enough grounds for it (given a reasonable thread summarizing it). You're not worth my time to do this, but maybe you are to someone else or they just feel generous. Probably because he has started liking you as your agends suite him somehow.
I appreciate this, will be quoted in the near-future. |
|
|
|
You have no proof where the funds went after OG received them, this is a fact. For all you know it could have been a refund, and you have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise, only speculation of where it went. This is not proof, this is speculation. Lauda's rating, according to what was left, has nothing to do with this, but of course based on the timing of the rating, it is obviously retribution for posting here and dismantling their efforts trying to target OGnasty with accusation after accusation based on speculation. This is just more proof these systems are merely tools you and your mob buddies use to punish people with ideas you don't like, and protecting people from fraud is merely an afterthought if it is considered at all. I don't think I will go anywhere. I think I will keep doing what I am doing and continually draw attention to the malignant behavior of you and your pals.
I have no idea who is right or wrong here, neither do I care. Reading up made it evident that you are dishonest, a hypocrite and are intentionally trying to distract away from the users that are actually willing to objectively look into this (and apparently attack those as well). I couldn't reference this thread as it might be misinterpreted as you being involved in the original ponzi-case, which you are not. This was one of the clearest ratings[1] that I have ever handed out to anyone here. With that, I also will not address whatever you reply/distract to this, or to your attacks against the "accusers" or whatever it is that you're doing. I don't always agree with Lauda's ratings but in this case I absolutely do.
Thanks. Sometimes I wonder whether some people are doing stuff like this purely to test where the limits are of different individuals here.
[1] Even the write-up is concise, and clean. Totally unlike me! |
|
|
|
Tim from TitanBTC has offered to restore peeled coins. I find this to be against everything collectible. 2) Restored coins. Tim the president of Titan Mint is willing to restore these coins and reload them with a new hologram and load a bitcoin onto them. Price for the restored coins will be $100 over spot gold + the BTC price currently $8173 per coin plus shipping. These restored coins will be loaded only with bitcoin and will not have any of the multiple fork coins BSV, BCH, ect that have branched off over the years.
I don't think coin makers should do this. Please do not do this or it will have negative consequences for everyone already owning Titans. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
