I've got accused of scamming - Thanks Vod - Suggestion for the future

[SellMaster3000]

Hi there,

Everyone knows this by now, Vod went on a negative trust killing spree. I agree with the fact that selling keys obtained by MSDN is a moral question and in violation with the TOS of Microsoft, but it's not a crime at all.

I openly admit that I sell these keys, everyone knows that by now, but does that make me a scammer? I don't think so. Right now, I've got 2 complaints. This is caused by Human mistakes because I accidentally mixed up some keys. What's the action that follows? Me helping the people by either assisting them or giving them replacement keys. I'm not trying to make myself look better, because I know that what I'm doing is wrong, but I'm doing it in a nice way.

I have two suggestions though. I think people with default trust should be reviewed more often. For example, Vod gave everyone who sells Microsoft keys negative trust because he works for Microsoft. Long story short, he lets his Scambusting job on here being influenced by his personal life. When this happens, you should be suspended from your duty.

The second suggestion is banning everything that is illegal on this forum (or giving everyone negative trust that sells illegal things). Selling hacked Netflix accounts for example might even be a bigger crime than what we are doing. Discrimination is what is happening right now. The Microsoft key sellers are the jews and Vod is the Nazi (Just make clear that this is an example and not meant to offend anyone in any way, unless it's Vod ).

As of right now, there is only one guy that gets it. His name is Tecshare.

Have a nice day,

Jake

[1714051936]

1714051936

[1714051936]

1714051936

[FuckIdolPlus]

Let me tell you one thing. He's a dick

I hope this summarises everything.

[Tomatocage]

Let me tell you one thing. He's a dick

I hope this summarises everything.

Don't blame Vod. You're the one that snitched on SellMaster3000.

[Vod]

Hi there,

Everyone knows this by now, Vod went on a negative trust killing spree. I agree with the fact that selling keys obtained by MSDN is a moral question and in violation with the TOS of Microsoft, but it's not a crime at all.

I openly admit that I sell these keys, everyone knows that by now, but does that make me a scammer? I don't think so. Right now, I've got 2 complaints. This is caused by Human mistakes because I accidentally mixed up some keys. What's the action that follows? Me helping the people by either assisting them or giving them replacement keys. I'm not trying to make myself look better, because I know that what I'm doing is wrong, but I'm doing it in a nice way.

I have two suggestions though. I think people with default trust should be reviewed more often. For example, Vod gave everyone who sells Microsoft keys negative trust because he works for Microsoft. Long story short, he lets his Scambusting job on here being influenced by his personal life. When this happens, you should be suspended from your duty.

The second suggestion is banning everything that is illegal on this forum (or giving everyone negative trust that sells illegal things). Selling hacked Netflix accounts for example might even be a bigger crime than what we are doing. Discrimination is what is happening right now. The Microsoft key sellers are the jews and Vod is the Nazi (Just make clear that this is an example and not meant to offend anyone in any way, unless it's Vod ).

As of right now, there is only one guy that gets it. His name is Tecshare.

Have a nice day,

Jake

Jake - read my signature.  I do remove negative feedback if you are willing to stop selling the MSDN keys.  I offer second chances.

[Quickseller]

I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.

With the exception of fuckidolplus (I think he has pretty much dug his own grave) that Vod should remove the negative trust on all the sellers and then open a scam accusation against them with the reasons why he thinks they deserve negative trust and why he thinks they are scamming. Then anyone else who believes his argument (and not the argument of the people who say negative trust is not appropriate) and is in the default trust network will be free to leave them negative trust.   

[symantec]

Don't blame Vod. You're the one that snitched on SellMaster3000.

Him is working a lack of fairness and transparency in an effort to for the purpose of removing me when I sell the key MS here.

Or Him was the one who sold the key MS here (goal is to compete in the business)

[Vod]

I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.

Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft.  You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?

In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified.  I don't work for Microsoft - I work with their products.  If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.

[Quickseller]

I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.

Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft.  You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?

In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified.  I don't work for Microsoft - I work with their products.  If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.

I am actually an Apple person personally.  

IMO Microsoft should take better steps to protect their IP if they don't want people selling MSDN keys like this. I also think their products are generally horribly overpriced and this high price probably factors in a certain level of activity.

Plus it isn't like people can't get around needing to have keys to Microsoft products at all - for example using Google sheets to open an excel spreadsheet

[abyrnes81]

I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.

Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft.  You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?

In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified.  I don't work for Microsoft - I work with their products.  If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.

I am actually an Apple person personally.   

IMO Microsoft should take better steps to protect their IP if they don't want people selling MSDN keys like this. I also think their products are generally horribly overpriced and this high price probably factors in a certain level of activity.

Plus it isn't like people can get around needing to have keys to Microsoft products at all - for example using Google sheets to open an excel spreadsheet

Hi,

Are you really serious? Apple is more overpriced than microsoft and the second company is more used than the first. So will you give him a negative trust ?

[Quickseller]

I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.

Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft.  You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?

In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified.  I don't work for Microsoft - I work with their products.  If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.

I am actually an Apple person personally.   

IMO Microsoft should take better steps to protect their IP if they don't want people selling MSDN keys like this. I also think their products are generally horribly overpriced and this high price probably factors in a certain level of activity.

Plus it isn't like people can get around needing to have keys to Microsoft products at all - for example using Google sheets to open an excel spreadsheet

Hi,

Are you really serious? Apple is more overpriced than microsoft and the second company is more used than the first. So will you give him a negative trust ?

Microsoft doesn't sell hardware (they sell phones but that is not what I am talking about). If you buy an apple computer then you will get the operating system and their equivalent to ms office suite for free (it might cost something but it is a lot less then office). You also generally can upgrade your OS when a new one is released without having to pay verses having to buy a license to upgrade to the newest version of windows/office when a new one comes out.

I don't think there is a victim here. You could say that Microsoft is the victim but they need to do a better job of protecting themselves. If/when the keys they sell are invalidated, the products will generally still work provided they are not checking for automatic updates (this should be an easy fix). Plus chances are their customers can afford to get "scammed" multiple times throughout the product life cycle before they would have spent more money on keys verses what they would have paid Microsoft.

I am not advocating that people either buy or sell these keys (I think it would probably actually be best not to trade these keys- but I am not anyone's father on here and cannot make this decision for other people) however I don't think they are scamming.

[tspacepilot]

I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.

Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft.  You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?

In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified.  I don't work for Microsoft - I work with their products.  If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.

It does seem a bridge to far to me that you've decided that since you value the IP of a particular company that you're going to neg-rep anyone who does anything in violation of that IP.  I'm not saying you don't have a right in general to put negative trust on people, but given your status in default trust, I think you should reconsider what actually deserves to be neg-repped.

Imagine if Microsoft comes out with something like google-wallet or apple-pay and then becomes a direct competitor of bitcoin.  Perhaps at some point Microsoft lobbies congress of USA to pass laws to prohibit usage of bitcoin in order to promote their own objectives.  Would you then decide that Microsoft's opinion is what should dictate who and who isn't neg-repped on this forum?

Another example, ASCAP, the trade group for music and arts publishers, would have us believe that any media file which doesn't contain DRM is prirated.  This is not actually the case but if ASCAP gets its way, eventually laws will be passed to regulate all DRM-free media.  If someone appeared on this forum and began selling DRM-free music (and doing so successfully, not scamming but actually going through with sales as advertized), would you decide that because ASCAP doesn't like this behavior and has lobbied to create laws to restrict it that the person selling DRM-free music should be neg-repped "trade with extreme caution".

Or, consider the OP's suggestion, perhaps if you go this route you need to be consistent and make sure to neg-rep anyone selling anything which might have questionable IP status.  I think the more sane route is for you to stay out of the copyright enforcement business and focus on actual scams in which someone doesn't provide the service they purport to.

In my opinion, as someone on default trust who does a lot of work "scambusting" you need to consider carefully what counts as a scam.  It's seems quite clear to me that selling microsoft accounts, if they are actually selling them, is not scamming.  It may be dishonest in your opinion, but if they are providing the service they advertize to provide then how are they "scamming"?

Perhaps another option would be to represent yourself more openly.  Change your username to "microsoft intellectual property patrol" and see if Theymos leaves you default trust.  

I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.

Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft.  You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?

In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified.  I don't work for Microsoft - I work with their products.  If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.

This is the sad state of affairs that RMS predicted a long time ago.  You've given away your own freedom in exchange for the hope that someone else can manage that for you.  Too bad you're not interested in learning about free/libre open-source software that doesn't die just because a company does.  Real software is owned by the community of users and lives as long as that community exists (eg: bitcoin!), not according to the vagaries of a capitalist market.

[tidus1097]

I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.

Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft.  You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?

In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified.  I don't work for Microsoft - I work with their products.  If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.

In my opinion this right here is a conflict of the trust system. He quoted that he invested time and money to become certified to work with their products and that if they collapse then all his effort would have been in vain. Now he having said that, that is stating that he did post the -trust because it could at some point help hinder his previous efforts of making money with Microsoft products. I believe now with seeing this statements that he did this with intentions of harming the people getting rid of the MSDN Keys. While it is not against forum rules to sell them, he's put in a position that he can either help or hurt the people getting rid of them. He can not know that if the people getting rid of the keys are stolen or anything to that effect. He also does not know if the people getting rid of the keys will refund the people that purchased them if the key becomes invalid. Since he is doing this to somewhat protect his investment, he is still under a certain obligation by forum rules NOT to abuse the trust system, which by his own statement I feel does. This is just a personal opinion I am intitled to, and have never met, talked, had buisness with on this account or any other for that matter. So I have no bias judgement to pass along other than what I see here. As stated this is just one persons opinion.

[funtotry]

His personal life and bias over microsoft should not get in the way. I agree with vod on most things but this is just bias. People should be allowed to sell things, and if they aren't stealing money or scamming they should not be left neg trust.

[erikalui]

Bitcoins also are illegal to use and are considered to be used for money laundering purposes. So in that sense, all the users here should get negative trust  

I don't know how many similar threads are going to come up as I have seen numerous threads in the Scam Accusation section as well.

[abyrnes81]

Bitcoins also are illegal to use and are considered to be used for money laundering purposes. So in that sense, all the users here should get negative trust  

I don't know how many similar threads are going to come up as I have seen numerous threads in the Scam Accusation section as well.

Not necessary, in some country bitcoin "laundering" is not illegal instead they are trying to regulate it (but it's not so simply).

[SellMaster3000]

I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.

Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft.  You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?

In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified.  I don't work for Microsoft - I work with their products.  If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.

Alright, I agree with you on this one. Although we are not stealing a product (like downloading a movie), we are taking away their profit. I agree with the fact that Microsoft gives us 10 years of support per OS and a lot of years for Office.

I'm asking you one thing though. What do you think about selling Xbox Live Gold?

I'll think of you're offer of stopping the Microsoft key selling business and start something else. Just give me some time.

[Vod]

I'm asking you one thing though. What do you think about selling Xbox Live Gold?

If you can prove you obtained it via non-fraudulent means, then I have no problem with you selling anything. 

But the fact is most of the Xbox codes are purchased using stolen credit cards, and eventually become deactivated.

[SellMaster3000]

I'm asking you one thing though. What do you think about selling Xbox Live Gold?

If you can prove you obtained it via non-fraudulent means, then I have no problem with you selling anything. 

But the fact is most of the Xbox codes are purchased using stolen credit cards, and eventually become deactivated.

I didn't know that, about the stolen credit cards.

I was mad at you first man, but in one way, you opened my eyes.

[Vod]

I'm asking you one thing though. What do you think about selling Xbox Live Gold?

If you can prove you obtained it via non-fraudulent means, then I have no problem with you selling anything. 

But the fact is most of the Xbox codes are purchased using stolen credit cards, and eventually become deactivated.

I didn't know that, about the stolen credit cards.

I was mad at you first man, but in one way, you opened my eyes.

Glad to hear it.  Just please stop selling MSDN keys immediately, so I can remove the negative trust in the future. 

[SellMaster3000]

I'm asking you one thing though. What do you think about selling Xbox Live Gold?

If you can prove you obtained it via non-fraudulent means, then I have no problem with you selling anything. 

But the fact is most of the Xbox codes are purchased using stolen credit cards, and eventually become deactivated.

I didn't know that, about the stolen credit cards.

I was mad at you first man, but in one way, you opened my eyes.

Glad to hear it.  Just please stop selling MSDN keys immediately, so I can remove the negative trust in the future. 

Going to bed now, I'll update my thread tomorrow.

[tspacepilot]

I'm asking you one thing though. What do you think about selling Xbox Live Gold?

If you can prove you obtained it via non-fraudulent means, then I have no problem with you selling anything. 

But the fact is most of the Xbox codes are purchased using stolen credit cards, and eventually become deactivated.

I didn't know that, about the stolen credit cards.

I was mad at you first man, but in one way, you opened my eyes.

Glad to hear it.  Just please stop selling MSDN keys immediately, so I can remove the negative trust in the future. 

What about the larger issues raised in this thread?  You're pretty committed to remaining the Microsoft Intellectual Property Division of this forum, it would seem.  Who is going to represent other, non-bitcoin affiliated companies and interests?  Why does MSCorp get a seat on Default Trust but Apple, ASCAP, Netflix, etc do not?

[funtotry]

I'm asking you one thing though. What do you think about selling Xbox Live Gold?

If you can prove you obtained it via non-fraudulent means, then I have no problem with you selling anything. 

But the fact is most of the Xbox codes are purchased using stolen credit cards, and eventually become deactivated.

I didn't know that, about the stolen credit cards.

I was mad at you first man, but in one way, you opened my eyes.

Glad to hear it.  Just please stop selling MSDN keys immediately, so I can remove the negative trust in the future. 

What about the larger issues raised in this thread?  You're pretty committed to remaining the Microsoft Intellectual Property Division of this forum, it would seem.  Who is going to represent other, non-bitcoin affiliated companies and interests?  Why does MSCorp get a seat on Default Trust but Apple, ASCAP, Netflix, etc do not?

^ +1
Exactly, personal bias should not be affecting the forum's trust system. If you make people stop selling MSDN keys immediately, every single other key has to be stopped as well, its only fair. Just because of personal bias you can't call a person a scammer and someone else not a scammer even though they are doing the same thing

[Vod]

I'm asking you one thing though. What do you think about selling Xbox Live Gold?

If you can prove you obtained it via non-fraudulent means, then I have no problem with you selling anything. 

But the fact is most of the Xbox codes are purchased using stolen credit cards, and eventually become deactivated.

I didn't know that, about the stolen credit cards.

I was mad at you first man, but in one way, you opened my eyes.

Glad to hear it.  Just please stop selling MSDN keys immediately, so I can remove the negative trust in the future. 

What about the larger issues raised in this thread?  You're pretty committed to remaining the Microsoft Intellectual Property Division of this forum, it would seem.  Who is going to represent other, non-bitcoin affiliated companies and interests?  Why does MSCorp get a seat on Default Trust but Apple, ASCAP, Netflix, etc do not?

Maybe some other trusted members who have vested interests in one of those technologies can step forward?  I can't do all the work...  

[funtotry]

I'm asking you one thing though. What do you think about selling Xbox Live Gold?

If you can prove you obtained it via non-fraudulent means, then I have no problem with you selling anything. 

But the fact is most of the Xbox codes are purchased using stolen credit cards, and eventually become deactivated.

I didn't know that, about the stolen credit cards.

I was mad at you first man, but in one way, you opened my eyes.

Glad to hear it.  Just please stop selling MSDN keys immediately, so I can remove the negative trust in the future. 

What about the larger issues raised in this thread?  You're pretty committed to remaining the Microsoft Intellectual Property Division of this forum, it would seem.  Who is going to represent other, non-bitcoin affiliated companies and interests?  Why does MSCorp get a seat on Default Trust but Apple, ASCAP, Netflix, etc do not?

Maybe some other trusted members who have vested interests in one of those technologies can step forward?  I can't do all the work...  

Vod on all other issuesr I side with you but just drop it, hes not doing anything wrong, and you shouldn't be selectively calling out some people doing something you don't agree with, but is not against the rules of the forum so I don't think you should be able to call them a scammer.

[Vod]

Vod on all other issuesr I side with you but just drop it, hes not doing anything wrong, and you shouldn't be selectively calling out some people doing something you don't agree with, but is not against the rules of the forum so I don't think you should be able to call them a scammer.

He is selling stolen product keys, taking them away from the rightful owner.

Despite what you guys think, you don't get an unlimited amount of keys.  There is a limit on each account.  It's not fair for the owner to go online and find out he has no more Windows keys left because a thief stole them all.

If you don't agree with this, we'll just have to live with that.   

[worhiper_-_]

Vod on all other issuesr I side with you but just drop it, hes not doing anything wrong, and you shouldn't be selectively calling out some people doing something you don't agree with, but is not against the rules of the forum so I don't think you should be able to call them a scammer.

He is selling stolen product keys, taking them away from the rightful owner.

Despite what you guys think, you don't get an unlimited amount of keys.  There is a limit on each account.  It's not fair for the owner to go online and find out he has no more Windows keys left because a thief stole them all.

If you don't agree with this, we'll just have to live with that.   

Weren't you saying it's illegal to sell those keys because it's against microsoft's ToS a day or so ago? Now you're talking about stolen CCs and hackers... 

[funtotry]

Vod on all other issuesr I side with you but just drop it, hes not doing anything wrong, and you shouldn't be selectively calling out some people doing something you don't agree with, but is not against the rules of the forum so I don't think you should be able to call them a scammer.

He is selling stolen product keys, taking them away from the rightful owner.

Despite what you guys think, you don't get an unlimited amount of keys.  There is a limit on each account.  It's not fair for the owner to go online and find out he has no more Windows keys left because a thief stole them all.

If you don't agree with this, we'll just have to live with that.   

Are you sure they are stolen? Many starbucks cards, netflix coder, all that is priced much less than retail, but are those all stolen too? If you can PROVE that they are stolen then yes he is in the wrong but even then he is still allowed to sell thim.

[Vod]

Weren't you saying it's illegal to sell those keys because it's against microsoft's ToS a day or so ago? Now you're talking about stolen CCs and hackers... 

I think you are confusing my posts with someone else.

But, it IS against Microsoft's TOS to sell keys.  These scammers don't care - the accounts are stolen.

[tspacepilot]

Vod on all other issuesr I side with you but just drop it, hes not doing anything wrong, and you shouldn't be selectively calling out some people doing something you don't agree with, but is not against the rules of the forum so I don't think you should be able to call them a scammer.

He is selling stolen product keys, taking them away from the rightful owner.

Despite what you guys think, you don't get an unlimited amount of keys.  There is a limit on each account.  It's not fair for the owner to go online and find out he has no more Windows keys left because a thief stole them all.

If you don't agree with this, we'll just have to live with that.   

What's hard to accept is that your own love for the future of MSCORP is interacting with how you rate the reliability of someone on this forum.   And because you're sitting in a unique (or almost unique) position where your opinions are included by default for all users who don't remove them this means that MSCORP is deciding who and who isn't reliable to trade with on bitcointalk.org.

Don't you think you ought to focus on the actual scammers who aren't representing themselves honestly?  If this guy is honestly providing the service he says he provides, how is this a scam?

I'm surprised that you don't see how problematic this is.

[worhiper_-_]

Negative trust rating Vod left:

This user is selling Microsoft product keys they get from MSDN subscriptions. This is not allowed. Microsoft does not sell product keys without Certificate of Authenticity.

All it will take is a single person to report his illegal purchase of a Microsoft key (even someone who intentionally buys just to report), then Microsoft can trace it back to the original MSDN subscription that generated that key.

ALL keys generated from that MSDN account will then become invalidated (i.e. stop working) and Skyenet will NOT give you your money back.

This is a scam. Do not purchase keys from this account!

Why are you suddenly bringing hacking and stolen CCs into this? You know that this is something you can't prove right? Your initial claim sounded more reasonable, are you trying to make this sound worse now?

[funtotry]

Vod on all other issuesr I side with you but just drop it, hes not doing anything wrong, and you shouldn't be selectively calling out some people doing something you don't agree with, but is not against the rules of the forum so I don't think you should be able to call them a scammer.

He is selling stolen product keys, taking them away from the rightful owner.

Despite what you guys think, you don't get an unlimited amount of keys.  There is a limit on each account.  It's not fair for the owner to go online and find out he has no more Windows keys left because a thief stole them all.

If you don't agree with this, we'll just have to live with that.   

What's hard to accept is that your own love for the future of MSCORP is interacting with how you rate the reliability of someone on this forum.   And because you're sitting in a unique (or almost unique) position where your opinions are included by default for all users who don't remove them this means that MSCORP is deciding who and who isn't reliable to trade with on bitcointalk.org.

Don't you think you ought to focus on the actual scammers who aren't representing themselves honestly?  If this guy is honestly providing the service he says he provides, how is this a scam?

I'm surprised that you don't see how problematic this is.

Yes. This forum is not meant for people representing companies picking out select deals that are against their own company. Also this forum is extremely small and some guy selling a couple keys is not going to hurt the multi billion dollar company that is microsoft.
The key seller is not actually scamming everyone, why don't you not waste time with this kind of thing and look more at the ACTUAL scammers.

[Vod]

If this guy is honestly providing the service he says he provides, how is this a scam?

You mean if the thief is honestly providing the service he says, right?  Theft is a scam.

[tspacepilot]

If this guy is honestly providing the service he says he provides, how is this a scam?

You mean if the thief is honestly providing the service he says, right?  Theft is a scam.

I understand that you consider protection of MSCORP intellectual property to be a top priority in righting the wrongs of the world.  However, believe it or not, there are those who believe that installing MSCORP software on your computer is a scam.  That MSCORP is stealing your personal information and freedom.  If I were to apply this criterion in deciding who to trade bitcoins with, I'd have to mark you as a scammer.  However, hopefully we can both see that just because you decide to support MSCORP in stealing from others doesn't mean that you won't pay back a loan or come through on a trade.

I think it's pretty darn clear that this guy's opinions about MSCORP are pretty irrelevant to trust on bitcointalk.org.  Again, it's not clear why you aren't willing to set aside your personal love for a particular multi-billion dollar corporation in this context.  I'm surprised you can't see how unhelpful it is to concentrate on one controversial side-issue rather than on actual tangible scams in which someone is misrepresenting themself or the services they provide.

[Lauda]

Looks like we need to suggest theymos to add a sub-forum labeled Vod. These threads keep pilling up. People are starting to become nuisances. You aren't doing anything wrong. You're even offering second chances (which is something that is rare these days).

I understand that you consider protection of MSCORP intellectual property to be a top priority in righting the wrongs of the world.  However, believe it or not, there are those who believe that installing MSCORP software on your computer is a scam. 

They can believe that Unicorns live on the Alps. That won't make it true.

[tspacepilot]

Looks like we need to suggest theymos to add a sub-forum labeled Vod. These threads keep pilling up. People are starting to become nuisances. You aren't doing anything wrong. You're even offering second chances (which is something that is rare these days).

I understand that you consider protection of MSCORP intellectual property to be a top priority in righting the wrongs of the world.  However, believe it or not, there are those who believe that installing MSCORP software on your computer is a scam. 

They can believe that Unicorns live on the Alps. That won't make it true.

Great, that's a helpful analogy.  We could sit around arguing about whether MSCORP is evil and whether or not attacking them is in the name of Justice.  Or, what I suggest, and the reason I brought up the above, is that this argument is tangential to whether or not someone is trustworthy to make a bitcoin deal with.  And that if Vod can see that, then, perhaps he will work on something more productive (and less devisive and distracting) than enforcing MSCORP trade policy on default trust.

[tidus1097]

If this guy is honestly providing the service he says he provides, how is this a scam?

You mean if the thief is honestly providing the service he says, right?  Theft is a scam.

I understand that you consider protection of MSCORP intellectual property to be a top priority in righting the wrongs of the world.  However, believe it or not, there are those who believe that installing MSCORP software on your computer is a scam.  That MSCORP is stealing your personal information and freedom.  If I were to apply this criterion in deciding who to trade bitcoins with, I'd have to mark you as a scammer.  However, hopefully we can both see that just because you decide to support MSCORP in stealing from others doesn't mean that you won't pay back a loan or come through on a trade.

I think it's pretty darn clear that this guy's opinions about MSCORP are pretty irrelevant to trust on bitcointalk.org.  Again, it's not clear why you aren't willing to set aside your personal love for a particular multi-billion dollar corporation in this context.  I'm surprised you can't see how unhelpful it is to concentrate on one controversial side-issue rather than on actual tangible scams in which someone is misrepresenting themself or the services they provide.

This is where he abused the trust system in place. If he had not been in default trust, then nothing he did would have been wrong. He could have -trust anybody he felt like and probably never received any remarks other than the ones he left them on. But since he decided to add -trust while on the default trust list for personal gain is unacceptable. If you are held in higher regard in matters, then you have to hold yourself to these standards whether you like them or not.

[tspacepilot]

If this guy is honestly providing the service he says he provides, how is this a scam?

You mean if the thief is honestly providing the service he says, right?  Theft is a scam.

I understand that you consider protection of MSCORP intellectual property to be a top priority in righting the wrongs of the world.  However, believe it or not, there are those who believe that installing MSCORP software on your computer is a scam.  That MSCORP is stealing your personal information and freedom.  If I were to apply this criterion in deciding who to trade bitcoins with, I'd have to mark you as a scammer.  However, hopefully we can both see that just because you decide to support MSCORP in stealing from others doesn't mean that you won't pay back a loan or come through on a trade.

I think it's pretty darn clear that this guy's opinions about MSCORP are pretty irrelevant to trust on bitcointalk.org.  Again, it's not clear why you aren't willing to set aside your personal love for a particular multi-billion dollar corporation in this context.  I'm surprised you can't see how unhelpful it is to concentrate on one controversial side-issue rather than on actual tangible scams in which someone is misrepresenting themself or the services they provide.

This is where he abused the trust system in place. If he had not been in default trust, then nothing he did would have been wrong. He could have -trust anybody he felt like and probably never received any remarks other than the ones he left them on. But since he decided to add -trust while on the default trust list for personal gain is unacceptable. If you are held in higher regard in matters, then you have to hold yourself to these standards whether you like them or not.

I guess I agree with you here more or less.  It seems like I'm not going to be convincing Vod that MSCORP motivations are irrelevant to trading bitcoins so I've added "~Vod" to my trust settings and I guess I'm just going to go on with my life.  I agree that it does seem like a shame that he can't seem to differentiate between goals MSCORP and the goals of the bitcoin community.

[Vod]

But since he decided to add -trust while on the default trust list for personal gain is unacceptable.

I gained nothing personal with what I did....

Sorry guys, I've already explained how this is a scam many times, but I guess we don't see eye to eye.

I'm going to do what tspacepilot is doing, and just move on.

[tidus1097]

But since he decided to add -trust while on the default trust list for personal gain is unacceptable.

I gained nothing personal with what I did....

Sorry guys, I've already explained how this is a scam many times, but I guess we don't see eye to eye.

I'm going to do what tspacepilot is doing, and just move on.

I am in agreement with this. All of us have opinions. We each have day to day lives. I wish everyone the best. GL with each of our endeavours and Happy Bitcoining

[Armis]

I created PICISI, Vod accused me of scamming, then proceeded to create multiple accounts to appear to be PICISI to misrepresent both me and PICISI:

Oh and the nonsense didn't stop there,
 - creating a fake "official PICISI" accounts  - no longer is use.  Determined it was too close to your PICISI username to be ethical to use
 - creating a fake "offical PICISI" account  - no longer is use.  Determined it was too close to your PICISI username to be ethical to use
 - creating a PICSIS account (see spelling) - can't find this username, but it wasn't created by me.
 - creating a pickissy account - the official account used by the official PICISI site.  The only account legally authorized to speak on behalf of the website.

You forgot this one:

- creating a fake "Armis_" account- not created my me.  Probably created by Armis to make me look bad.  I have left the "Armis_" account negative trust.  Feel free to let me know if you find any others.

I'm too honest and ethical to create fake accounts to try and steal donations - and the Administrators of the site can see this.

The only account that is used is Pickissy - the one that actually represents the official PICISI project.  The official PICISI site does not ask for donations.  Ignore any other user names presented to you by a known scammer.

You created fake accounts then later 'determine' that it was unethical then closed them.   But some how you could not see how unethical it was while you were thinking about it?

It was unethical when you thought about, that was the time to remove it, but you failed to,
it was unethical when you started the process, that was the 2nd time your conscious told you to reconsider, but you dismissed it,
it was unethical when you agreed to the terms of the site that essentially said operate by the golden rule, but you refused,
it was unethical when you used it to access the site, with that username but by this time there was no more good in you to stand for righteousness,
it was unethical when you used it to create an entry, and by this time your heart had to be beating faster because you knew or should have known that your wrong would be found out.
it was unethical when you allowed it to remain as long as you did. this is when other probably told you: "what are you doing?"  "Stop that", "take it down", "you're going to regret that", "I don't think you should do that", "that's going to be a problem for you",  "be careful with that I'm not sure if anyone is going to have your back on that" ... and only then was it "determined" that it was unethical.

and it wasn't for only one fake account, or two phony accounts, it was for at least THREE FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS that you identified as unethical.  But it doesn't end there, you still created other accounts for the sole purpose of misrepresenting yourself as someone authorized to represent PICISI.  And have the audacity to claim that because the start-up hasn't started that you have the right to freely abuse and mistreat it. What are you some corporate abortionist?  

Then, after all of that you actually call yourself "honest and ethical" even after admitting to mass unethical behavior-- how pathological is that?


[/quote]


He still maintains accounts and is still using them to misrepresent me.   How is that not unethical, how is that not scammy, how is that not wrong on so many levels especially for a purported scam buster.

[Lauda]

-snip-
He still maintains accounts and is still using them to misrepresent me.   How is that not unethical, how is that not scammy, how is that not wrong on so many levels especially for a purported scam buster.

If you have the proof provide it, otherwise stop causing unnecessary drama. With the absence of evidence, there is nothing that you can do. I can claim to be the rightful king of England. 
Vod has every right to give you negative trust as soon as he 'thinks' that you might be a scammer. Every member can give you negative trust for that very same reason.

Someone needs to lock this already.

[Vod]

If you have the proof provide it, otherwise stop causing unnecessary drama. With the absence of evidence, there is nothing that you can do. I can claim to be the rightful king of England.  

Hello your highness!

Now you know why he's anonymous - no consequences.  

(awww looks like the little guy puttered himself out and went to bed)

[Armis]

-snip-
He still maintains accounts and is still using them to misrepresent me.   How is that not unethical, how is that not scammy, how is that not wrong on so many levels especially for a purported scam buster.

If you have the proof provide it, otherwise stop causing unnecessary drama. With the absence of evidence, there is nothing that you can do. I can claim to be the rightful king of England.  
Vod has every right to give you negative trust as soon as he 'thinks' that you might be a scammer. Every member can give you negative trust for that very same reason.

Someone needs to lock this already.

Vod is using a scammy account to give the false impression that he speaks for PICISI, but worse than that he is also actually lying when he claims that any sponsor requested a refund, not sponsor requested any refund.  In fact 1 has indicated that his next new business will also be a PICISI sponsor.

This is outrageous, not only because Vod is purporting to be associated with PICISI, but he's claiming that I said things that I didn't say in that post.  Note that the thread is locked and apparently only unlocked when Vod want to make a new entry.   That is not free speech that's libelous misrepresentation:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1060460.0

So LaudaM  is what you see there necessary drama?

Is the foolishness that Vod is doing necessary drama?

Is it necessary for him to create accounts in order to mislead people into thinking that he is representing PICISI when he doesn't?

Why would you even demand proof of anything when you had sufficient proof of gross malfeasance right in front of your face. 
It goes directly to Vod's credibility, I didn't make it up, those are his words, that's his admission of malfeasance. 

You pointing out Vods right to give neg feedback is "unnecessary" because that wasn't the subject, what was addressed was
vod's false witness, was his scammy behavior, was his fraudulent and misleading use of accounts to damage the character of
my username and the name of PICISI.  Do you believe he has a right to do that?

[Lauda]

Vod is using a scammy account to give the false impression that he speaks for PICISI, but worse than that he is also actually lying when he claims that any sponsor requested a refund, not sponsor requested any refund.  In fact 1 has indicated that his next new business will also be a PICISI sponsor.

This is outrageous, not only because Vod is purporting to be associated with PICISI, but he's claiming that I said things that I didn't say in that post.  Note that the thread is locked and apparently only unlocked when Vod want to make a new entry.   That is not free speech that's libelous misrepresentation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1060460.0

So LaudaM  is what you see there necessary drama?
Is the foolishness that Vod is doing necessary drama?

Is it necessary for him to create accounts in order to mislead people into thinking that he is representing PICISI when he doesn't?
Why would you even demand proof of anything when you had sufficient proof of gross malfeasance right in front of your face.  
It goes directly to Vod's credibility, I didn't make it up, those are his words, that's his admission of malfeasance.  

You pointing out Vods right to give neg feedback is "unnecessary" because that wasn't the subject, what was addressed was
vod's false witness, was his scammy behavior, was his fraudulent and misleading use of accounts to damage the character of
my username and the name of PICISI.  Do you believe he has a right to do that?

Let me rephrase this again: Please provide real evidence.
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-real-evidence-is-it-the-same-thing-as-physical-evidence/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_evidence

Exactly how are you going to prove to me that that account was created by Vod. How do you know that it was not someone else; maybe it was me? Hopefully you get what I'm aiming at.
Without hard proof these is no story here. You call upon some 'sufficient proof' that is in my face. Try using this "proof" in a real trial and see what happens.

Unless you can really prove that Vod did create this account (which you can't), you're making false accusations. This is also something that usually gets 'rewarded' with negative trust.

[Armis]

Vod is using a scammy account to give the false impression that he speaks for PICISI, but worse than that he is also actually lying when he claims that any sponsor requested a refund, not sponsor requested any refund.  In fact 1 has indicated that his next new business will also be a PICISI sponsor.

This is outrageous, not only because Vod is purporting to be associated with PICISI, but he's claiming that I said things that I didn't say in that post.  Note that the thread is locked and apparently only unlocked when Vod want to make a new entry.   That is not free speech that's libelous misrepresentation:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1060460.0

So LaudaM  is what you see there necessary drama?
Is the foolishness that Vod is doing necessary drama?

Is it necessary for him to create accounts in order to mislead people into thinking that he is representing PICISI when he doesn't?
Why would you even demand proof of anything when you had sufficient proof of gross malfeasance right in front of your face.  
It goes directly to Vod's credibility, I didn't make it up, those are his words, that's his admission of malfeasance.  

You pointing out Vods right to give neg feedback is "unnecessary" because that wasn't the subject, what was addressed was
vod's false witness, was his scammy behavior, was his fraudulent and misleading use of accounts to damage the character of
my username and the name of PICISI.  Do you believe he has a right to do that?

Let me rephrase this again: Please provide real evidence.
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-real-evidence-is-it-the-same-thing-as-physical-evidence/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_evidence

Exactly how are you going to prove to me that that account was created by Vod. How do you know that it was not someone else; maybe it was me? Hopefully you get what I'm aiming at.
Without hard proof these is no story here. You call upon some 'sufficient proof' that is in my face. Try using this "proof" in a real trial and see what happens.

Unless you can really prove that Vod did create this account (which you can't), you're making false accusations. This is also something that usually gets 'rewarded' with negative trust.

So you are saying that what I already gave you is insufficient proof to proved that Vod  created scammy/fraudulent account?  
And you feel perhaps someone else did it.

Oh, and you said "making false accusations is deserving of negative trust right"?

Ok, so let's say I search the site, and I find an iron clad proof that Vod has a trolling/misleading/fraudulent/scammy account and that he is using it to troll?  
Then what?  What do you believe is the reasonable solution for him or anyone doing such a thing?

Do you think they are trustworthy?  

[Lauda]

So you are saying that what I already gave you is insufficient proof to proved that Vod  created scammy/fraudulent account?  
And you feel perhaps someone else did it.

Oh, and you said "making false accusations is deserving of negative trust right"?

Ok, so let's say I search the site, and I find an iron clad proof that Vod has a trolling/misleading/fraudulent/scammy account and that he is using it to troll?  
Then what?  What do you believe is the reasonable solution for him or anyone doing such a thing?

Do you think they are trustworthy?  

What you gave me is an account(s) allegedly created by Vod. Unless you can prove that Vod actually did create the account(s) this is quite pointless.
You'd need IP logs which probably wouldn't even be accurate because someone could be using a VPS/Proxy.
Yes. If you do find it either make a case against him or contact the staff. However I doubt that you will find anything because so many people trust Vod. He has no reason to ruin this.

[redsn0w]

So you are saying that what I already gave you is insufficient proof to proved that Vod  created scammy/fraudulent account?  
And you feel perhaps someone else did it.

Oh, and you said "making false accusations is deserving of negative trust right"?

Ok, so let's say I search the site, and I find an iron clad proof that Vod has a trolling/misleading/fraudulent/scammy account and that he is using it to troll?  
Then what?  What do you believe is the reasonable solution for him or anyone doing such a thing?

Do you think they are trustworthy?  

What you gave me is an account(s) allegedly created by Vod. Unless you can prove that Vod actually did create the account(s) this is quite pointless.
You'd need IP logs which probably wouldn't even be accurate because someone could be using a VPS/Proxy.
Yes. If you do find it either make a case against him or contact the staff. However I doubt that you will find anything because so many people trust Vod. He has no reason to ruin this.

I think Vod admitted that he created those accounts , in this post :

....

Oh boy...     I hope this helps you understand.

Pickissy is obviously my alt - I've made no efforts to hide the fact it was my alt. I made it to create a PICISI website exposing Armis' scams.  Armis also made the alt account "PICISI".  Having good morals, I can't continue to let himself pass his fake company as a charity, so I have decided to take action.  I have generously given Armis a week to claim ownership of the phrase.  He's been pretending it's his company for months, but of course it doesn't exist.  So I'm going to form the legal company, trademark the name and make the website.  Then Pickissy will be the only account authorized to speak for the official PICISI website.  The website I make will be nothing like the website Armis continues to claim is coming - mine will be educational and won't be asking for donations.  There will be no way a reasonable person will confuse my legit website with Armis' scam.  He may launch a website later, but it will not be the official PICISI website.

I originally made the account "Offical PICISI" and then the corrected spelling "Official PICISI" but I have decided not to use them because it can be argued I'm trying to impersonate the account "PICISI" and scam donations like Armis is doing.  I may log onto them one more time to replace the important comments word for word with the new Pickissy account, just to avoid future confusion.

I hope everyone understands I can't keep coming back here to defend against Armis' lies about me - "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain   Remember, he does not stand behind his words, so consider whatever he posts with a grain of salt.  He has free reign to lie about me all he wants for the next week.

We're giving you a week Armis - take a shit or get off the toilet!  And no complaining later on when people (and Google) associate the phrase PICISI with an educational website - you have your chance to legitimize yourself now! 

Peace people, I am outta here - we'll continue this in about a week.

https://archive.is/4kPbD

[Vod]

Armis is an idiot and a scammer, but he is also funny!  

He made around a dozen identical posts as well as sending to who knows how many media outlets, the following:

Vod is using a scammy account to give the false impression that he speaks for PICISI, but worse than that he is also actually lying when he claims that any sponsor requested a refund, not sponsor requested any refund.  In fact 1 has indicated that his next new business will also be a PICISI sponsor.

This is outrageous, not only because Vod is purporting to be associated with PICISI, but he's claiming that I said things that I didn't say in that post.  Note that the thread is locked and apparently only unlocked when Vod want to make a new entry.   That is not free speech that's libelous misrepresentation:

The fact is - he did claim a sponsor wanted a refund.  His claim is still up, in his original unedited post (until he edits it, that is).     He just forgot about it and it just got lost in this campaign of OVERWHELM and CONFUSE.  His inability to keep his lies straight somehow got twisted into my being untrustworthy.  

Can't wait until the "media" spread this, as Armis' credibility has probably gotten as low as it can here.  Think about this the next time Armis makes a claim about anything,

Here's the simple, condensed proof that only needs a few words....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1060460.msg11407582#msg11407582

[Vod]

Armis made 47 posts about me yesterday, stating only 2 or 3 BS points, but copying and pasting everywhere he could find a reference to me.  He has yet to come online today - I wonder is he was shit ass drunk and now has a hangover...

He made 10 posts (and an unknown number of PMs to the "media") saying no client had every asked for a refund and I was committing "libelous misrepresentation" by stating that one had.  I pointed out where Armis stated one client had asked for a refund.

Now that he has been proven a liar, since he DID state a client wanted a refund, who believes he will do the ethical thing and go back and right wrongs in all those messages and PMs?

Anyone?  Anyone?  Anyone....?

He's a pathetic lying scammer who knows he is accountable to nobody.  Doesn't damage his imaginary reputation to try and damage mine.   

You have 4 more days to stop playing "pretend business man" Armis.

[Armis]

Armis made 47 posts about me yesterday, stating only 2 or 3 BS points, but copying and pasting everywhere he could find a reference to me.  He has yet to come online today - I wonder is he was shit ass drunk and now has a hangover...

He made 10 posts (and an unknown number of PMs to the "media") saying no client had every asked for a refund and I was committing "libelous misrepresentation" by stating that one had.  I pointed out where Armis stated one client had asked for a refund.

Now that he has been proven a liar, since he DID state a client wanted a refund, who believes he will do the ethical thing and go back and right wrongs in all those messages and PMs?

Anyone?  Anyone?  Anyone....?

He's a pathetic lying scammer who knows he is accountable to nobody.  Doesn't damage his imaginary reputation to try and damage mine.  

You have 4 more days to stop playing "pretend business man" Armis.

Vod I don't know what your motivation is for your foolishness but you are wrong on so many things about PICISI its a shame.

You desire to start trouble where there is none, and fan flames where there are little is additionally shameful.





_______________________

So you are saying that what I already gave you is insufficient proof to proved that Vod  created scammy/fraudulent account?  
And you feel perhaps someone else did it.

Oh, and you said "making false accusations is deserving of negative trust right"?

Ok, so let's say I search the site, and I find an iron clad proof that Vod has a trolling/misleading/fraudulent/scammy account and that he is using it to troll?  
Then what?  What do you believe is the reasonable solution for him or anyone doing such a thing?

Do you think they are trustworthy?  

What you gave me is an account(s) allegedly created by Vod. Unless you can prove that Vod actually did create the account(s) this is quite pointless.
You'd need IP logs which probably wouldn't even be accurate because someone could be using a VPS/Proxy.
Yes. If you do find it either make a case against him or contact the staff. However I doubt that you will find anything because so many people trust Vod. He has no reason to ruin this.

I think Vod admitted that he created those accounts , in this post :

....

Oh boy...    I hope this helps you understand.

Pickissy is obviously my alt - I've made no efforts to hide the fact it was my alt. I made it to create a PICISI website exposing Armis' scams.  Armis also made the alt account "PICISI".  Having good morals, I can't continue to let himself pass his fake company as a charity, so I have decided to take action.  I have generously given Armis a week to claim ownership of the phrase.  He's been pretending it's his company for months, but of course it doesn't exist.  So I'm going to form the legal company, trademark the name and make the website.  Then Pickissy will be the only account authorized to speak for the official PICISI website.  The website I make will be nothing like the website Armis continues to claim is coming - mine will be educational and won't be asking for donations.  There will be no way a reasonable person will confuse my legit website with Armis' scam.  He may launch a website later, but it will not be the official PICISI website.

I originally made the account "Offical PICISI" and then the corrected spelling "Official PICISI" but I have decided not to use them because it can be argued I'm trying to impersonate the account "PICISI" and scam donations like Armis is doing.  I may log onto them one more time to replace the important comments word for word with the new Pickissy account, just to avoid future confusion.

I hope everyone understands I can't keep coming back here to defend against Armis' lies about me - "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain  Remember, he does not stand behind his words, so consider whatever he posts with a grain of salt.  He has free reign to lie about me all he wants for the next week.

We're giving you a week Armis - take a shit or get off the toilet!  And no complaining later on when people (and Google) associate the phrase PICISI with an educational website - you have your chance to legitimize yourself now!  

Peace people, I am outta here - we'll continue this in about a week.

https://archive.is/4kPbD

All of the information was there, all of it was essentially spoon feed, but because the person didn't want to see the facts for what they actually s/he could not see them.