I have contacted MJ in relation to this I am still awaiting his response.
No one want's conflict here and I have taken the steps advised by the community.
I will post the update when I have word back from MJ escrow. I don't want to see you ruin your reputation here in spite of what you might think. All I am trying to do is make sure you learn from your mistakes so this kind of thing is not repeated in the future. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Bump. Will close if not filled in 24 hours.
This is depressing. This is why I almost never participate in raffles. I miss the days when people just sold stuff here for a flat price, now everything has to be a production. Any chance you could extend this a while longer to give it a chance to fill? |
|
|
|
My favorite part of these types of threads, is it is guaranteed to get all of the most abusive clowns and sad children's party magicians to pop out of the woodwork and expose themselves. Just like when they abuse the trust system to serve their own selfish goals, they can't help themselves. |
|
|
|
Your now just talking rubbish..
I have not waited for anyone to pay.
Your making claims here that are nothing more than your own speculation.
Jimjam could you confirm to techshare please that there was NO attempt to gain payment from you at any point.
Also I took the time to explain to him how the bidding was working like I did with you and the other party's.
Your also making threats to me over pm and trying to use your reputation to bully my and my service your saying you have no confidence then retract your bid and be done with it..
Your attitude has been very off putting for wanting to deal on this forum ever again no wonder new users feel off-put if this is the way you act over something that I have explained. Just because you can't understand something dose not mean I am wrong..
You also clearly bid twice on them then said that you didn't understand the bids.. you waited until after the sale to not only push me to use some paid escrow of miner joan's at my expense but made threats about reputation and some comments that really show your true colors.
I'm not being held over the coals by anyone on this forum. Especially not you..
I have been more than accommodating but when I come on and read you post's they are without grounds.
I am no happy paying more out to use some escrow I know nothing about and who has posted already it's got nothing to do with them in the topic if you look back.
If your not happy with my efforts then I am sorry you have the option to retract you bid if you like or come to an agreement we both see eye to eye on and not demanded by you with threats.
Regards.
Magic
You screwed up and refuse to take accountability for it instead choosing to make excuses and argue about it, which is exactly why I am insisting on escrow via Minerjones. The only one you have to blame for all this is yourself. You could have easily moved on from this by simply serving your customers, instead you have opted to argue and make accusations, pretty much ensuring you have no future selling anything here on the forum. Threats eh? You have my permission to post any PM's I have sent you up to this date. Please do quote my "threats". Frankly I don't care if you are happy, it is not my job to make you happy, it is your job to make me happy. I am perfectly willing to honor my bid, but I insist you escrow through Minerjones based on your behavior conducting the auction and your unwillingness to simply resolve the issues. Instead of taking the minuscule cost in stride, you now want to turn this into a conflict, which in the end, is only going to result in showing the entire forum how little your word is worth. |
|
|
|
Do you prefer the Russian democracy, where people vote, but the members of the voting committees vote as well (more than once)?  Democracy has always been a joke because how can you ask some drunkard or someone who can barely read to decide on the future of a country? Assuming that most people are lazy and unintelligent, you just have to persuade thosse bums and morons to vote for you and you'll win. Sounds a lot like the forum trust system. |
|
|
|
Point of order on alternative accounts:
If an account is flagged legitimately as a scammer and they simply set up a new account and start with a "clean record" as it were, does this not constitute a distinct weakness in the proposal? Under the criteria set forth in the OP, the suspicion of being an alt is not sufficient to tag the account. Is there a chance this would enable easy whitewashing of past crimes and create an environment in which is it likely easier to defraud people in future scams?
Great question. Let me ask you a question. What is stopping them from just returning again with another alt seconds after you tag them? |
|
|
|
The only places with preemptive policing are totalitarian governments where individuals have little to no freedoms. What if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck? I've tagged many accounts like this one. They spam their scam because people keep falling for it. Do you agree on tagging those before a victim complains about this particular user and website? One could argue it's an innocent new account that truely "provides a unique opportunity", but I've been around long enough to go with the duck approach. Unfortunately not everyone is reasonable and observant as you. Also you don't need to use your tagging activities as a form of ego masturbation because you are not emotionally a sad child that needs to get their self value from lording over others. The question is not if the tags are some times correct or not, the question is, is the benefit worth the the cost of opening up an ambiguous method of trust system abuse that itself can help protect and conceal scams. Most people don't have the ability, time, or expertise to tell the difference, and that leaves people just taking the word of the accuser at face value regardless of the validity of the accusation. On one hand I agree that there are far too many frivolous ratings being sent. Ratings based on opinions or because of arguments, because of a clash of personalities, because of differing idea or views, trolling, and so forth, are both inappropriate and counter productive. They cheapen the entire point of the trust system, and serve more as a punishment against the person rather than a useful indicator of trustworthiness.
However, as Loyce has pointed out above, there are plenty of examples of accounts being correctly red tagged without yet having stolen anything or violated any contracts. If your entire ICO is plagiarized, then you are not a legitimate project. If you are advertising impossible ROIs, then you are not a legitimate project. If you are asking for users to enter their seed, enter their private keys, deposit before they are allowed to withdraw, and so on, then you are a scammer. I disagree that we should be letting these users freely peddle their scams when we have the ability to pre-emptively tag them.
I am sure Mao killed lots of bad people that were criminals. No one says, "there are examples of him correctly killing people that deserved it", because the problem is all the collateral damage and innocents caught up in it. Again, the question is not if people are correct some times or even most of the time. The question is, is the damage created by allowing such an arbitrary standard worth the minimal amount of impact the "correct" ratings have? I don't think so. People who aren't doing this basic level of due diligence are just on borrowed time until they are robbed and no amount of shitting out tags is going to stop them from getting stolen from. Also doing so creates a false sense of security that the forum is moderated protected against such things. Then there are the people who use it to punish people bringing their own crimes to light and to discredit those accusations. Also the negative rating spam effectively dilutes the value of leaving a negative, because it is so common people learn to disregard it. All this ends up being is signal noise. Signal noise actual con artists can manipulate to cover their tracks and punish their detractors. ... It's helpful, especially to newbies, or at least it was more so before the flags, but people should be responsible for their own money I guess. I honestly don't know whether it would be worth just getting rid of negative feedback for all the drama that's involved with it, but it would lead to a lot more people getting scammed but that's the compromise. Anyway, I partially agree about the objective standards, but there's no getting around the fact that some subjectivity is going to have to creep in somewhere. It always does and there's no getting around it.
Unless you can somehow make all mods part of a hive mind then there's always going to be difference of opinion in enforcing the rules, all you can do is enforce them to the best of your ability, but one person may think someone is trolling whereas the other doesn't. Some people think their posts are on topic when they're clearly not and when there's humans involved in either scenario you're going to get differences of opinion. This is exactly why I am advocating for an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating. IMO this is the last possible way to salvage the tagging system beyond just scrapping negatives entirely. I warned Theymos leaving so much room for ambiguity would mean the failure of the system, but he was intent in his belief that it would work. The objective standards I am referring to are meant to apply to negative ratings. The forum rules are usually less ambiguous, but that is another issue. Perhaps all the mods could get Borg implants? I would also like to know who gets to decide what counts as an "objective standard".
You know facts. Transaction IDs. Receipts. Tracking numbers. Documentation. I know it is a hard concept. Clown music.
I left it up there because I knew if I just erased it you Bozonians would try to claim I was hiding something. Serves me right for making appropriate adjustments. I should know better. Like I have said before, there is no road to redemption with you people, it doesn't matter what I do you will invent some story around it to spin it to attack your targets. And you pretend to wonder why I am so obstinate and resistant to pretty much anything you say. I am just so unreasonable! |
|
|
|
Have conversed with OP and have sorted the situation for 2 of the bars. I will be acting as escrow for last of the v8s and will be paying for my bar upfront based on our valid bids.
OP has taken advice on board and I am confident that he isnt untrustworthy. Mistakes were made on this auction which we all saw but he is making it right as best as he can.
Thank you for the advice and I am happy to use Corrosive as the escrow agent for the sale. I have spoken with Corrosive on the phone and am happy to proceed with the agreed transaction for 2 bar's. As it stands now Corrosive will make payment for his bar to the OP address above and will take delivery of both his bar and Last of the V8's bar. Once delivery has taken place my payment for bar 2 will be released. @Techshare would you be willing to use Corrosive as the escrow agent on the transaction? The reason I ask is he has been kind enough to offer escrow for free rather than the 1% escrow you suggested and 2 he is handling escrow for Last of the V8's. Please let me know if this is suitable and we can progress towards a resolution for this matter. And again I am sorry for the confusion over how this was supposed to operate if it was outside the normal process on the board notes have been taken and I will make sure the next auction I conduct will have clearer rules on bidding. Thanks Magic No. Sorry you and your choices give me zero confidence at this point (nothing personal Corrosive). I want to use Minerjones as escrow. After that we likely won't be doing any future exchanges. The fact that you didn't just fix this immediately and set up escrow and instead waited to try to see if you could get Jimjam123 to pay in spite of everyone's advice tells me you have learned nothing from your mistakes here. Please arrange escrow with Minerjones as I originally requested. |
|
|
|
at this point, a "scam buster" need only make an unproven or arbitrary accusation, point to the accusation in a trust page reference, and get a few of his buddies to agree---that's the standard for red trust now. proof of wrongdoing is never a requirement.
This has always been the case. You quoted and re-quoted the word "proactive" -- this means taking action before people have actually been scammed. As such, you can't have "proof" of an event that hasn't yet happened. Tags and Level 1 flags are good for this sort of thing. You and TS don't have to approve of it, but you are in the vast minority here. I think people like you depend on convincing people like us we are in the minority, because the fact is YOU are in the vast minority. The only difference is your minority props each other up to enable this abuse while the majority is intimidated into staying silent. If it wasn't true all of you Bozonians wouldn't be trying so desperately hard to convince us otherwise and trying to silence us with retaliation for speaking about it. The only places with preemptive policing are totalitarian governments where individuals have little to no freedoms. This isn't something we should be emulating no matter how much you jerk yourself off about how great you are and convince yourself you are stopping so many scams. You aren't stopping shit and this behavior is self serving. |
|
|
|
I'd like to see George Soros investigated. I get the impression that is already happening. |
|
|
|
>Complains about harassment >Aggressive and insulting in every post >Complains about drama >Opens a new topic every time he has a post deleted >Wants an objective standard for inclusion on trust lists >Includes anyone on DT1 if they include him back
Imma just leave this here For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! Ah yes, more projection and another lame attempt at managing the narrative by an obvious alt. Not "harassment", trust system abuse. I want an objective standard for leaving negative ratings. I by far don't include anyone who includes me back, and of course this is the same refrain used when accusing me of "manipulating the trust system". Any mutual inclusions I have are proof of malfeasance, and any mutual inclusions the ones accusing me of this have are justified, and they need not explain because it is their right to include who they like. If I include some one and they later include me I was "fishing for mutual inclusions". If some one adds me and I later add them I am "just adding anyone who includes me". This same nebulous standard can be applied to LITERALLY anyone on the default trust list, but of course when I make choices the clown car doesn't like, it is a crime that must be punished. Like I said, manipulate deez. |
|
|
|
Most of the DT’s who ~ each other don’t do it because they actually distrust them, it’s done because of disagreements or falling outs. exclusions aren't just about whether you trust someone (eg in a trade). they indicate whether you trust someone else's judgment (eg about their inclusions) and their use of feedback. anarchist societies practice ostracization as a non-violent means to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior. that's all TECSHARE is encouraging---the use of non-violent consensus to ostracize bad actors. this is the only say that individuals have in a group that operates by general consensus. And then, do you know the trust system is meant to be a subjective system?
humans are subjective, no escaping that. does that mean we can't strive towards objective standards? None of this is anything all the ones complaining here don't do already anyway. They just want to cry about it when they are on the other side of it. They can exclude and include people freely, but when I do it I am "manipulating the trust system". Manipulate deez. |
|
|
|
As expected the usual red nose, red assed clan shows up in force to try to manage any independent thought into a narrative in their favor. Let the butt hurt flow through you Bozonians. If those are his standards then I'd love to hear why I need to be on his distrust list. I have never left negative feedback based someone's opinions or unproven accusations. If TECSHARE thinks I have I would love to see him point out which negative feedback/flag support is wrong and I'd happily correct it. The list in the OP is just his personal witch hunt, nothing more.
AHHH I seee! I AM the one on a witch hunt now! That is a blatant lie. You are another two bit power tripping antagonistic forum cop. One quick scan over just the first page of your left ratings explains why you are on the suggested exclusion list. You are firmly within the clown car. I do think those tenets a bit too stringent, however. There are shady things that go on here that won't be represented by documented theft or any violation of a contract, so there are going to be negs left which won't (and can't) necessarily be kept to a minimum. Only if you refuse to let go of the delusion that mass tagging is going to change anything. The compulsion to tag absolutely everyone for any infraction is not only self serving and creating unnecessary conflict, it is counter productive. Con artists return in seconds with a bought account, legitimate users caught up in the dragnet leave and never come back. It takes a lot of time and effort to build a reputation here just to have obsessive compulsive control freaks shit all over it for nothing more than to make themselves feel useful. It accomplishes NOTHING for the community, and in fact is destructive and not constructive. Past observable evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, the returns on negative rating users is quite diminished, and worse serves as cover for abuse. Additionally all the drama over petty bullshit allows ACTUAL con artists that fall under those objective standards to hide in the drama and signal noise created by tagging users for petty bullshit. The question is not if every scammer is going to be caught and tagged, because it is absolutely a fact that is not going to happen regardless. The question is, is it worth constantly creating drama, conflict, covering up abuse, and driving away good users in exchange for getting those that fall out side of these standards? I think it is clear, it is not worth it. Of course for obsessive compulsive control freaks mass tagging people, it was never about serving the community, it was always about serving their own ulterior motives, egos and compulsions. and an additional method of gatekeeping. I think that's intentional: you can't have a public forum with equal voting power for all 2.7 million accounts, without KYC. And even with KYC, it makes sense that new members don't instantly get voting power (after all, if you move to another country, you can't just go and vote in the next election). From what I've seen, I expect theymos to be all in for a better system, but unfortunately I haven't seen a better system yet. Absolutely, just as negative ratings were intended to mark scammers and not as a tool to serve ulterior motives and petty vendettas. Unfortunately, like negative ratings, merit has become not just a filter to keep out spammers and shit posters, but a method for those in control of the current system to use it to reinforce their own control, just for the sake of being in charge of it to serve their own ulterior motives. Core tenets:
1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.
I guess it's a step up from calls to remove the tagging system altogether, but I still don't see how this attempt at a "one-size-fits-all" system can encompass all the things people can currently be tagged for. As an example, tags for trolls and disinformation agents would not be able to co-exist with your criteria. If someone is deliberately spreading disinformation, such actions are dishonest, unacceptable behaviour. Accounts responsible should be tagged as such. It doesn't. The point is there are diminishing returns on tagging people past a certain point. The real question is it worth it to subject everyone to this potential abuse in order to get those grey area cases? I don't think so. I think it is counterproductive. "I don't care to make this about me..." [immediately begins making it about himself and projects this upon me] Do you even know what the word "objective" means? And then, do you know the trust system is meant to be a subjective system? Just because a subjective collection of viewpoints exists by multiple people, and conflicts with your viewpoint, doesn't make them a "mob" out to get you. It's bound to happen in a forum this large, which accommodates people from around the world, they're going to have multiple subjective viewpoints among many groups of members, and it doesn't instantly make them a "mob". Subjectively, you're a tool. That's just my opinion though. Objectively, you're a hypocrite, because you routinely preach about objectivity, but then you consistently act from subjectivity... which is fine, but if multiple people don't agree with your subjective opinion and hypocritical nature, you can't claim "mob". Suck it up and move on, you've lost no freedoms. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Am I a hypocrite? How many negative ratings have I left for people out side of these standards? You seem to be confusing speech with action, but what is new? The clown car riders are big fans of projecting their flaws on to others. Last I checked I have several ratings on my page based in nothing more than butt hurt story time, and those that left them refuse to substantiate them. The trust system is designed to be a penalty for fraudulent behavior, claiming that having this penalty used against me is "losing no freedoms" is asinine, not that I expect a logical argument from you. |
|
|
|
|
I would suggest you take the advice of the users here, and stop trying to push your strained reasoning to try to force some one who doesn't want to, to pay an extra .002 to you. Let me explain how this is going to work if you don't.
1. You will demand payment.
2. The bidder will tell you to fuck off.
3. No one will support you because everyone can see you are attempting to manipulate the situation for an extra 0.002 BTC.
4. You piss off the people who want to be your legitimate customers, your reputation suffers, and you are forever known as that greedy weaselly guy who ruined his reputation over 0.002BTC.
How you should handle this:
1. Offer the items to the 3 legitimate bidders.
2. Set up escrow for all of them with MinerJones at your expense.
3. Be thankful with what you got.
4. Try to work past this failure and continue to build your reputation.
This is how auctions work. You say this is your first auction, but you are intent on telling all of us how auctions work. If you wanted more than the opening bid, you should have just listed it for a flat price. An auction is an open offer to contract with anyone who wishes to bid. You do not have an enforceable contract here. Take my advice, if not you will end up regretting it I assure you.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you wan't global totalitarianism? Because that's how you get global totalitarianism.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
