EVIDENCE MOTHERFUCKER, USE IT OR FUCK OFF.  No one gives a fuck about completely unsubstantiated fantasy projections from a troll with sand in his vagina.

You noted wrong what LFC said, you can debate about DT members or about any other members and that's fine as long as your point is legitimate.

I checked the thread where you are trying to defame Hhampuz without any evidence.
Your debate will be considered valid when you will provide evidence, otherwise it's just a case where you are trying to harm someone's reputation.

FortuneJack knows exactly who they have employed. You are not the first member to try and attack them due to these member advertising for them and you most likely won't be the last. They have told me that they've received messages where people have demanded they remove said members but from what I can tell they are happy with these users and will most likely not change anything.

Go ahead with your smear campaign, this is nothing new to me, to FJ or to the users you are referring to.

You can leave positive, neutral or negative trust on whoever’s profile you’d like to. It won’t count towards their trust rating unless you are DT yourself though.

If you have legitimate concerns about a current DT Members actions/credentials then feel free to post details here. You won’t receive negative trust yourself for debating a DT Members level of trustworthiness.

Do you have anything worthwhile to add?

Yes, yes, I understand this but do you have proof that it was me who deleted posts?

Post video proof of me pressing delete button and removing posts from account zorroback.

Oh no, account seller and escrow scammer is trying to get me on "playing stupid again" card.

Like to quote theymos when it suits you? Well read this:
It doesn't say "have scamming history".

This.

Over and out

Sure, no problem: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2580400;sa=showPosts.

I still maintain that the one that starts with v was better.

In that case, I will not ask you again how you knew cryptohunter was banned when nobody other than himself could know that.

The only 'question' I saw you ask was a bullshit one about Hhampuz, and there was no credible evidence in that thread of any wrongdoing.  If you're going to go way beyond trolling and impugn a trusted member's reputation, don't come bitching about the red trust you receive.  No one should trust someone who makes up lies about people--especially ones who are clearly very trusted.

Just take a hike.  There have already been too many threads like this, and they all end the same.  Theymos doesn't respond to them, but I'm pretty sure he reads them.  That should give you an idea of the creedence he gives to all of this nonsense.  You're wasting your time, and you're annoying everyone else.

Come now, if you're going to pretend not to be an alt of someone, the least you could do is invent new insults:

A self-moderated thread shows that you are ill-fit to deal with criticism.

Spam can be handled through the report feature. Anything above that depicts an insecure position.

Definitely CH, uses too many words/terms that nobody (rarely anybody) else does.



(dozens of usages of whilst, if not hundreds)



(both posts are about sig campaigns using the term cream off)



(shadiest of escrows)

This was also a giveaway:


It was funny to see CH try their hardest to keep their words to a minimum but ultimately fail in their last post.

In addition, the new name is entirely fitting for how they see themselves.

Please don't waste your time, because it's obvious you're an alt account of someone who's already lost credibility--probably Thule or one of those moronic monkeys. 

Hhampuz is one of the best campaign managers I've seen, and I'm not saying that because I've been in one managed by him or ever intend to be.  But I'd gladly join one of his if it ever came to that.  He's selective about who he accepts, he's fair, he's competent, and from what I've seen he's generally a very nice guy.  That's a rare combination of positive traits, and you're a fucking idiot for slandering his good name.

You're also giving his employer(s) a backhanded slap by implying that they didn't know who they were hiring and selected someone who would smear their reputation.  I'm pretty sure they knew he was good and would not have picked a campaign manager with a damaged reputation--which Hhampuz does not have. 

TL;DR:  Fuck you.

Why it now looks to me they all are the alt of a single person whose rants are lengthy post are missing now from Meta.
Surprisingly that poster did not posted in past couple of days.

JetCash explained what happened a few posts below how it came to the post being rewarded with 10 merits.
Ask yourself what is his motive in abusing the merit system in that way? He is a Legendary rank here, doesn't wear a signature and is not participating in any campaigns. He has several alt accounts, which is not against the rules and anyone is allowed to have them. All of them Member rank (I think) and none of them are in any campaigns either.

If he is not using his main account for profit, which could earn him the biggest payouts and probably five times more than a Member account, why would he be meriting his unknown alts, friends or selling his merits - I am not sure what exactly you are accusing him to do.

So without foul language, what exactly is the problem with JetCash?
 

Do you have proof it was me who deleted posts?

Yes, yes, I understand this but do you have proof that it was me who deleted posts?

Post video proof of me pressing delete button and removing posts from account zorroback.

I don't remember the full details, but I do have trouble in finding good posts, and I decided to award 5 merits to the guy for starting the discussion. I thought it could become useful for those members who were considering starting a mining project to learn about Bitcoin. I still intend to do this myself, but I've got too much to sort out at the moment.

If somebody looks into the merit award, they will see that it is in fact 2 awards of 5 merits, and they were made within a one minute period. This was caused by problems with using McDonalds WiFi , and it has happened on several occasions. McDonalds has two channels on their WiFi. One has the ID of "O2" ( their service provider ), and the other is " McDonalds free WiFi". Periodically the current channel will disconnect, and then the computer will auto-connect to the alternative. If this happens at the time I award some merits, then the computer may resend the submission through the new connection. I'm guessing that the confirmation packet gets lost when the old channel disconnects, and this is why it retries. Maybe somebody with more knowledge can confirm this.

I don't think it is worth worrying about this glitch, it is fairly rare, and it just means that one member will be lucky and get a few extra merits.

Consider this scenario.

A few users, powerful users use their influence to change the forum dynamics.
We see now where we have a merit system where it is set up that these powerful members decide who decides to rank up, particularly considering that these powerful users are awarded merit points out of thin air for nothing. I think you call them merit sources. Besides from merit sources, these powerful members constantly virtue signal by meriting each other for every half-arsed thread posted in  meta (or anywhere where they see each other post really). We now have a forum where only these powerful people and people who they like rank up.

When we take a look at high-ranked accounts that earn money from signature campaigns, there is a downward trend. The fact is that owners of these accounts sometimes leave the forum, or even die. Accounts may get banned or given negative trust for some reason. What happens here is that you have less high ranking members every day because people are leaving and because of how the powerful members I mentioned before operate, very few members rank up to take the positions of those gone.

The trouble starts when we realize that those high-ranked accounts are used to enter signature campaigns to make money.

To look everything over, these powerful members control the ranking system. A system where they themselves and people who they like rank up. Other high ranking members are eliminated from the scenario for reasons mentioned above.At the end of the day, we have only these high powerful members and their friends in the higher ranks of the forum. What happens is that only this select group are able to make any sort of money from their accounts.
It gets worse, these powerful members also run the campaigns. They are paid to pay their friends and people who they like. Because of the ever declining number of high ranking accounts, these campaigns in time will pay more as demand stays the same but supply decreases. This leads to campaign managers and campaign participants (Powerful members and people they like fall into both categories) being paid more.

Now all we see are people virtue signalling these powerful members (basically sucking their dicks digitally) to get on their good side and maybe have some merit sent their way.

Signatures should be banned on the forum, if companies are serious then they can bid for banner spots on the forum. This, unlike signature campaigns, will directly contribute to the development of the forum.