You've broken enough rules, enough times, so:  |
|
|
|
Now see that's a good quality post. It's not about rank or breaking the rules on my part.
You didn't meet the minimum required number of qualifying posts. It's about him not paying me for 2 of 3 weeks. It about him breaking the rules of not paying me.
That is not a rule of any kind, and he does not have to pay you if you weren't doing your "job" properly. Just look at his trust ratings by clicking on the trust under his name. You will see so many people got scammed by him. Thank You.  Wrong. I do not see a single valid negative rating from anyone who doesn't have at least 1 negative rating themselves. All I see is just a bunch of whining users. As far as I'm concerned, I'll take that negative trust rating off as soon as he takes it off me.
Extortion? |
|
|
|
-snip-
That's not evidence. They're most likely the same person but you'll need to find an actual link between the two accounts. Either way it looks like they both have red trust so they most likely won't be scamming anyone. Why not? Both accounts state that they own website X. It looks like like pretty decent evidence to m (it's kind-of indirect self-admitting). So this group of users has abused at least 1 giveaway in their past? Will review and handle when possible.
If I've missed some reports with conclusive proof that are older than 5 days, please PM me. |
|
|
|
You dont accidentally scam someone, you need intent in my opinion. Anyway, this bullshit has been going on too long. Im outty.
No, you most certainly do not need any malicious intent. It's quite simple and there is no need to factor in any kind of intent: User A advertises product X with 5 Bitcoin and sells said product to user B under this pretense. User B later discovers that said item was never funded by user A and does not contain 5 Bitcoin. How exactly is this not a scam until rectified? An example of this would be Apple selling you an iPhone (under the pretense that it usually does), but actually you just received an empty shell without internal hardware.  |
|
|
|
As i have stated above i want it to be moderated like during the tagging there should be a moderator who hereby witnessed. That does sound better IMO tho.
Some flaws: 1) Unfeasible without another whole group of staff members (problems on it's own: Who to pick? How to finance them? et al.). 2) Prone to corruption. 3) Prone to abuse. 2-3 is what the current group is susceptible to (however, with rating negation, exclusions and simple removals it is less so). A moderator 'witnessing' a trust rating makes said trust rating no more valid, then DT1/DT2 members witnessing it. It's actually better to have a plethora of people be able to review and act upon it. Yup, that is why i said that i would disagree with you on that terms.
This actually indirectly supports account sales, farming and all kinds of other nonsense. However, we should not be discussing this separately within this thread as we would move away from the topic. Do you not agree on this negative rating to the user in question or? |
|
|
|
Holy hell man, quit reading what shitty posts you come across then...simple as that.
No. Stop neglecting the problem and indirectly support the spread of this infestation. That is tha lazziest way to make a few cents, an' the stupidest one too. Y'all get banned right quick as Lauda say'ed.
Copy-paste isn't even such a big problem (since it's 'ban-on-sight'). The standard spammers are. I risk my life every day working on heights, climbing on ladders and scaffolding in catastrophic weather conditions and I do not touch those $ 200 a month.
so will you blame me to have farmed two or three account To be able to have an extra income?
I do not care where you come from, nor what you're doing/have done. Background information will not make you suddenly 'not a bad poster', nor should it except you from anything. Everyone should be treated equally in this regard: If you can't contribute in a useful way, then you shouldn't be contributing in said topic, section et al. This makes me wonder what age these sig participants are. Maybe they're too young for a fast food job or their still in school.
I've been getting PMs of people claiming to be kids, in various situations and with various diseases. Even if these 'stories' were true, that should not and does not affect my view of said users. |
|
|
|
I double quoted myself for a reason. Sorry. And I'm not a newbie. Thank you.
Then I do not understand why you are constantly breaking the rules with consecutive posts, if you're not a newbie. This is really the main reason why i also do wanted to end the trust system.
Until you are able to propose a better system, it will and should stay. According to lauda admins should only select who ever gets promoted i would have to disagree with that one instead i would like that DT should be moderated(my idea is that there should be a moderator that will testify about tagging a certain user)
My suggestion has nothing to do with DT. It's about user ranks. |
|
|
|
Please use this format when reporting scams: [b][color=black]What happened:: [/color][/b]
[b][color=black]Scammers Profile Link: [/color][/b]
[b][color=black]Reference Link: [/color][/b]
[b][color=black]Amount Scammed: [/color][/b]
[b][color=black]Payment Method: [/color][/b]
[b][color=black]Proof of Payment: [/color][/b]
[b][color=black]PM/Chat Logs: [/color][/b]
[b][color=black]Additional Notes: [/color][/b]
It makes it much easier to review and appropriately handle the situation. |
|
|
|
@yahoo62278
Need I get an international lawyer ? To solve this false accusations?
Looks like it. I took the no trust off...He will be contacting you. Why are you talking to yourself? 5) result is: you are a newbie here and have zer information about bitcointalk forum.
6) Moral: Surf the forum properly first. Before joining any campaign (actually before buying account)
It doesn't surprise me quite frankly. It is probably just one of the reasons for which account sales should be banned and tagged on sight. Newbies need to work their way up, just like any reasonable user did (as one acquires certain knowledge along the way).
Posting those private messages, or that list of trust ratings (?) from somewhere was pointless. |
|
|
|
In the other hand in my opinion the necro newbie is just an alt of a sig guy who try to increase his posts so he may answer just after the necro or wait few posts after few members to avoid being busted
I'm certain that in most of the necro-posting cases that this is the case (as opposed to a genuine user). Based on my own observations of necro posting, I have seen the following cases: 1) Potentially *genuine* users that bump it up with a single post (doesn't attract any posters / gets deleted quickly). 2) Standard spammers that slowly start posting in the thread since it has been bumped up without checking the date. 3) Rings of spammers that jump in very quickly after it has been necro'd (like a herd of sheep). 4) Bots that post a link or nonsense.
That said, there aren't *many* good reasons to do this. Even when there is one, it is usually very rare and due to this I'm going to talk to theymos regarding the auto-locking suggestion. |
|
|
|
He is a good guy and reads the rules properly. yahoo is a scammer falsifying his records. Here is proof.
1) Your imagine insertion is broken. 2) This is not proof of anything. 3) Your rating is useless, and not visible by default since you are not in default trust depth 1 or 2. 4) You don't seem to understand the trust system here. |
|
|
|
These spam posts are very annoying, and not even bitcoin-related... And the newbie jail (of 360s wait between each post) is annoying but effective. Or adding a procedure that require user to sign a message with a bitcoin address that had transaction(s) in it so it is harder to create an account for those non-bitcoin spammers?
I was not talking about time between posts, which still exists and is good for other reasons (but has no effect on this problem). I was talking about this Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?)]. People were limited to B&H until certain conditions were met. Implementing a variant of something like this would at least confine this type of spam into a singular section, which would make it easier to locate and handle. |
|
|
|
Demoting feature would be great especially for accounts that goes inactive for more than a year.
I'll talk to the admin to see what they think about this. However, this discussion should not be continued in this thread. EDIT: after posting this amazingly yahoo acted just in time so that I could slap a real abuser in the face.
It's not abuse FYI. If he doesn't trust you, based on your actions then the rating is valid (it may only be improperly written). The system is a (centralized) web-of-trust. Let's not discuss your case in a thread regarding a completely different user. And a bought/sold high ranked account should suddenly turn into newbie. Because it actually become newbie. I'm pretty much sure that is a bought account.
It wouldn't surprise me if they were part of a ring of farmers or something. |
|
|
|
remember how they wrote "bulltards" nearly every minute in this thread as we went from 200 to 220?  You mean the failed bot attempts that ranged from $200 -> 20$ to everything up to late $700 -> $70? They must be probably drinking somewhere in despair. Never forget:  |
|
|
|
|
I'll open it up at 0.02BTC.
|
|
|
|
If you want to call a mistake a scam no worries.
The intent doesn't have to be malicious for an action to be a scam, which is what this is (until resolved). I want to know when will Lauda take back her bad trust on Gravitate becuause its unjust for just making a mistake.
That is your opinion, and frankly it doesn't carry much weight since you don't seem to understand web-of-trust. Holy shill accounts, I'm stunned. I've already mentioned a similar 'issues': (we've had enough fanboys drop in their useless comment).
The majority of collectors aren't exactly the brightest people, nor does pitching in with more of these accounts change anything. |
|
|
|
I know it is hard for moderators deleting them one by one. Implementing this could help decreasing the workload of them.
No, it is most certainly not hard. You only have to keep reporting them as soon as you see one of them, and it will get handled quickly. The problem is that we are fighting a consistent symptoms, and not trying to prevent the disease (thus making the 'fight' infinitely long). I guess they'll rather create new accounts to spam rather than use their old reputable accounts and get banned.
No. This has nothing to do with existing users (most likely). They are just accounts created by bots.
OP the best solution is to bring back something like the newbie jail, but this was already discussed a few times. I'm not sure what the general consensus forit is. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
