Default Trust List is a Joke.Theymos Save This Forum.

[Zeke2345]

if he feels the ratings are fine although everyone says otherwise then we'll just have to accept it.

Everyone says otherwise? Or a bunch of butthurt socks and scammers?

It is incredibly dishonest of you to refer to a handful of people who resent the process of exposing bad practice on this forum as being in the moral majority.

Maybe I am a random,sockpuppet,idiot that keeps getting his neck back in the discussion but the language that is used when refering to people like me is a bit alarming and makes me a bit queasy.
If you want to clean up the forum,please start by cleaning up the way you refer to people you view as less than. Might help break through the issue in play.

Wow. You literally have absolutely nothing of substance to counter with other than repeated tone complaints.

The OP is hiding behind a sock while making bold claims about how important he believes himself to be and you are utterly void of reasonable argument other than to repeatedly whine about how you don't like being labelled as the person you evidently are.

If you don't have anything objective to counter with then you don't get to complain.

This thread is exactly like all the other, "I don't like being held to account for my actions so I'll try and get people removed from DT instead" complaint threads.

Shit, all we need is someone to accuse Vod of being the real identity behind Lutpin and Mexxer and we'll have a full house of Bitcointalk Bollocks.

Tone is a issue because it shows ones true intent,if you are building a community you do not chastise those in it.
Its a stepping stone and was hoping to use that to build a bridge towards the issue of heavy handed tactics.
Also addressed the main issue on page one and glossed over the OP using another account to make his point as not that big of a deal.
If the thread is any indication I do not blame him/her from using a account that could be trolled on. To me the issue still stands.

Repeat myself because I can see a lack in countering voices and a little to much thought policing.

[1714130936]

1714130936

[1714130936]

1714130936

[Zeke2345]

if he feels the ratings are fine although everyone says otherwise then we'll just have to accept it.

Everyone says otherwise? Or a bunch of butthurt socks and scammers?

It is incredibly dishonest of you to refer to a handful of people who resent the process of exposing bad practice on this forum as being in the moral majority.

Maybe I am a random,sockpuppet,idiot that keeps getting his neck back in the discussion but the language that is used when refering to people like me is a bit alarming and makes me a bit queasy.
If you want to clean up the forum,please start by cleaning up the way you refer to people you view as less than. Might help break through the issue in play.

Wow. You literally have absolutely nothing of substance to counter with other than repeated tone complaints.

.......

Shit, all we need is someone to accuse Vod of being the real identity behind Lutpin and Mexxer and we'll have a full house of Bitcointalk Bollocks.

sssshhhhhhh.... dont tell 'em!

But yeah I am the one.

[whywefight]

if he feels the ratings are fine although everyone says otherwise then we'll just have to accept it.

Everyone says otherwise? Or a bunch of butthurt socks and scammers?

It is incredibly dishonest of you to refer to a handful of people who resent the process of exposing bad practice on this forum as being in the moral majority.

Maybe I am a random,sockpuppet,idiot that keeps getting his neck back in the discussion but the language that is used when refering to people like me is a bit alarming and makes me a bit queasy.
If you want to clean up the forum,please start by cleaning up the way you refer to people you view as less than. Might help break through the issue in play.

Wow. You literally have absolutely nothing of substance to counter with other than repeated tone complaints.

The OP is hiding behind a sock while making bold claims about how important he believes himself to be and you are utterly void of reasonable argument other than to repeatedly whine about how you don't like being labelled as the person you evidently are.

If you don't have anything objective to counter with then you don't get to complain.

This thread is exactly like all the other, "I don't like being held to account for my actions so I'll try and get people removed from DT instead" complaint threads.

Shit, all we need is someone to accuse Vod of being the real identity behind Lutpin and Mexxer and we'll have a full house of Bitcointalk Bollocks.

Tone is a issue because it shows ones true intent,if you are building a community you do not chastise those in it.
Its a stepping stone and was hoping to use that to build a bridge towards the issue of heavy handed tactics.
Also addressed the main issue on page one and glossed over the OP using another account to make his point as not that big of a deal.
If the thread is any indication I do not blame him/her from using a account that could be trolled on. To me the issue still stands.

Repeat myself because I can see a lack in countering voices and a little to much thought policing.

scammers dont care about the people they scam, i dont care about the scammers i burn...

Oculum pro oculo et dentem pro dente

[Shield]

People on DT should be more careful when they give negative trust to anyone, they must be 100% sure and have solid proof for this,Recently I have seen many negative trust ratings given by some users that was invalid and after many users disagreed with then they had to remove or change them.

With being on DT you get power and power gets you responsibility.Don't use it on innocent users but use it to find and bust scammers.

[xetsr]

People on DT should be more careful when they give negative trust to anyone, they must be 100% sure and have solid proof for this,Recently I have seen many negative trust ratings given by some users that was invalid and after many users disagreed with then they had to remove or change them.

With being on DT you get power and power gets you responsibility.Don't use it on innocent users but use it to find and bust scammers.

Blockchain evidence linking accounts is not proof? Not sure how many times I have to say this but: This is the risk of buying accounts. If addresses were used before, accounts will be linked back to the original owner(s) and this will cause problems the way accounts are being sold around here. SEC log proves nothing nothing other then the password being changed.

Simply put: You should expect negative feedback, even if it's temporarily when you buy accounts or are stupid enough to reuse the same BTC address linked to previous scams.

This is in response to your latest posts at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0

[Shield]

People on DT should be more careful when they give negative trust to anyone, they must be 100% sure and have solid proof for this,Recently I have seen many negative trust ratings given by some users that was invalid and after many users disagreed with then they had to remove or change them.

With being on DT you get power and power gets you responsibility.Don't use it on innocent users but use it to find and bust scammers.

Blockchain evidence linking accounts is not proof? Not sure how many times I have to say this but: This is the risk of buying accounts. If addresses were used before, accounts will be linked back to the original owner(s) and this will cause problems the way accounts are being sold around here. SEC log proves nothing nothing other then the password being changed.

Simply put: You should expect negative feedback when you buy accounts or are stupid enough to reuse the same BTC address linked to previous scams.

This is in response to your latest posts at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0

its not about sold accounts but many negative trust given by them.You may like to read the red text again & check recent negative trust complains on forum


yes its risk of buying account but forum allowed this so you don't need to tell me this again if you don't have anything new.

[xetsr]

People on DT should be more careful when they give negative trust to anyone, they must be 100% sure and have solid proof for this,Recently I have seen many negative trust ratings given by some users that was invalid and after many users disagreed with then they had to remove or change them.

With being on DT you get power and power gets you responsibility.Don't use it on innocent users but use it to find and bust scammers.

Blockchain evidence linking accounts is not proof? Not sure how many times I have to say this but: This is the risk of buying accounts. If addresses were used before, accounts will be linked back to the original owner(s) and this will cause problems the way accounts are being sold around here. SEC log proves nothing nothing other then the password being changed.

Simply put: You should expect negative feedback when you buy accounts or are stupid enough to reuse the same BTC address linked to previous scams.

This is in response to your latest posts at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0

yes its risk of buying account but forum allowed this so you don't need to tell me this again if you don't have anything new

its not about sold accounts but many negative trust given by them.You may like to read the red text again & check recent negative trust complains on forum

Sorry, I don't think you're understanding me. I know forum accounts are allowed to be bought, frowned upon but allowed. Forum accounts that are bought have been linked back to their previous owners who scammed. This is what caused the issue over at:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0

No?

Are you saying scammers can go along doing whatever they please as long as they create another account, fake the sale of the account used to scam and then say "you can't leave negative feedback because I bought this account" because the SEC log shows the password has been changed? I'm not saying that's what happened but if allowing that, well it would just open a whole new door.

Maybe I'm missing something here. I don't follow up on all these threads, just throwing my two cents in based on what I've actually seen so far.

[Shield]

People on DT should be more careful when they give negative trust to anyone, they must be 100% sure and have solid proof for this,Recently I have seen many negative trust ratings given by some users that was invalid and after many users disagreed with then they had to remove or change them.

With being on DT you get power and power gets you responsibility.Don't use it on innocent users but use it to find and bust scammers.

Blockchain evidence linking accounts is not proof? Not sure how many times I have to say this but: This is the risk of buying accounts. If addresses were used before, accounts will be linked back to the original owner(s) and this will cause problems the way accounts are being sold around here. SEC log proves nothing nothing other then the password being changed.

Simply put: You should expect negative feedback when you buy accounts or are stupid enough to reuse the same BTC address linked to previous scams.

This is in response to your latest posts at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0

yes its risk of buying account but forum allowed this so you don't need to tell me this again if you don't have anything new

its not about sold accounts but many negative trust given by them.You may like to read the red text again & check recent negative trust complains on forum

Sorry, I don't think you're understanding me. I know forum accounts are allowed to be bought, frowned upon but allowed. Forum accounts that are bought have been linked back to their previous owners who scammed. This is what caused the issue over at:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0

No?

Are you saying scammers can go along doing whatever they please as long as they create another account, fake the sale of the account used to scam and then say "you can't leave negative feedback because I bought this account" because the SEC log shows the password has been changed?

Maybe I'm missing something here. I don't follow up on all these threads, just throwing my two cents in based on what I've actually seen so far.

I am not supporting accounts sale and I am against it.I give negative trust to any high ranked sold account.but its not about the one negative trust given to linked thread but there are many others like this.

[cryptodevil]

Just to throw my 2 Euro cents into the ring I'd like to point out that buying an account and not publicly and clearly stating that it is a bought account is blatant deception.

I don't care what excuses people want to dream up for why they want to use a bought account, it is to deceive other forum users, which is dishonest.

[xetsr]

People on DT should be more careful when they give negative trust to anyone, they must be 100% sure and have solid proof for this,Recently I have seen many negative trust ratings given by some users that was invalid and after many users disagreed with then they had to remove or change them.

With being on DT you get power and power gets you responsibility.Don't use it on innocent users but use it to find and bust scammers.

Blockchain evidence linking accounts is not proof? Not sure how many times I have to say this but: This is the risk of buying accounts. If addresses were used before, accounts will be linked back to the original owner(s) and this will cause problems the way accounts are being sold around here. SEC log proves nothing nothing other then the password being changed.

Simply put: You should expect negative feedback when you buy accounts or are stupid enough to reuse the same BTC address linked to previous scams.

This is in response to your latest posts at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0

yes its risk of buying account but forum allowed this so you don't need to tell me this again if you don't have anything new

its not about sold accounts but many negative trust given by them.You may like to read the red text again & check recent negative trust complains on forum

Sorry, I don't think you're understanding me. I know forum accounts are allowed to be bought, frowned upon but allowed. Forum accounts that are bought have been linked back to their previous owners who scammed. This is what caused the issue over at:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1382778.0

No?

Are you saying scammers can go along doing whatever they please as long as they create another account, fake the sale of the account used to scam and then say "you can't leave negative feedback because I bought this account" because the SEC log shows the password has been changed?

Maybe I'm missing something here. I don't follow up on all these threads, just throwing my two cents in based on what I've actually seen so far.

I am not supporting accounts sale and I am against it.I give negative trust to any high ranked sold account.but its not about the one negative trust given to linked thread but there are many others like this.

Have any examples? I've looked but only have found these:

Sold accounts getting negged because of past addresses linked to scammers.

Ponzi owners and shills getting negged - I'll leave it at that. To much for me lol Might as well let them keep their invest based games section and only neg them when they start sig spamming or conveniently post in the wrong section  

Extremely shady gift card sellers getting negged - "Get your 50% discount on amazon gift cards here folks. You can't leave me negative feedback because I buy these accounts for someone else and im only reselling" - Now I'm well aware of the fact that some people do sell cards they get as gifts but come on... some sellers make it obvious.

0.1 netflix and $1 porn accounts getting negged - Again with the "I resell, i have no clue where these accounts come from but they have to be legit and not cracked / hacked because thats what I been told"

Just to throw my 2 Euro cents into the ring I'd like to point out that buying an account and not publicly and clearly stating that it is a bought account is blatant deception.

I don't care what excuses people want to dream up for why they want to use a bought account, it is to deceive other forum users, which is dishonest.

What some people here like to ignore is that these accounts may appear to be doing nothing more then sig spamming but eventually it comes out they have scammed someone, usually by skype or private message. I've also been seeing MANY aged accounts that appear to have been bought start scamming lately.. must be the new thing.

A neutral rating pointing out previous feedback or forum rank should be IGNORED doesn't hurt. I don't see why people are against this? If they start trying to buy and selling, they should receive a negative but some still want to ignore the fact FORUM STATUS (Member, Hero, Legendary, whatever) DOES MATTER HERE.

It also gets really annoying to see things like: "It's a free forum people can do whatever they want" etc etc... then when that same person receives negative feedback for doing something stupid they start whining about how you can't do whatever you want.

I'm sure others can and will counter everything I said above but let's not act like it doesn't happen more often then not.

[Zeke2345]

Like to run two situations and see if this thinking holds up,sure it will not but lets try...

We currently negatively rank people that use ponzi schemes or endore it in a thread,no matter how deep they participate in the ponzi. The logic being that it will stop ponzi owners from using alt accounts to make it look like its on the up and up.
So this logic I do not agree with but,lets move on.
A account with positive ratings is sold and used in a scam,this has been mentioned above me.
If some one leaves a positive rating are they now facilitating in helping the scammer?
Or we going to put the blame squarely on the seller and negatively rate them for this?
Sure its obvious to people to just blame the seller but a part of me wonders if the trust should just automatically reset when
the account is traded. Like a option "Are you selling account or just changing password"!

The farther the issue spreads out the more easier it will be to poke holes into the issue. Hopefully you guys do not over extend and bite off to much.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

Like to run two situations and see if this thinking holds up,sure it will not but lets try...

We currently negatively rank people that use ponzi schemes or endore it in a thread,no matter how deep they participate in the ponzi. The logic being that it will stop ponzi owners from using alt accounts to make it look like its on the up and up.
So this logic I do not agree with but,lets move on.
A account with positive ratings is sold and used in a scam,this has been mentioned above me.
If some one leaves a positive rating are they now facilitating in helping the scammer?
Or we going to put the blame squarely on the seller and negatively rate them for this?
Sure its obvious to people to just blame the seller but a part of me wonders if the trust should just automatically reset when
the account is traded. Like a option "Are you selling account or just changing password"!

The farther the issue spreads out the more easier it will be to poke holes into the issue. Hopefully you guys do not over extend and bite off to much.

This is utterly ridiculous
are you saying we shouldnt leave positive trust under any circumstance?
Also, people wont make it public that an account is being traded and if what you want gets implemented, people will fake account trades to get negative trust removed,

try again

[Zeke2345]

Like to run two situations and see if this thinking holds up,sure it will not but lets try...

We currently negatively rank people that use ponzi schemes or endorse it in a thread,no matter how deep they participate in the ponzi. The logic being that it will stop ponzi owners from using alt accounts to make it look like its on the up and up.
So this logic I do not agree with but,lets move on.
A account with positive ratings is sold and used in a scam,this has been mentioned above me.
If some one leaves a positive rating are they now facilitating in helping the scammer?
Or we going to put the blame squarely on the seller and negatively rate them for this?
Sure its obvious to people to just blame the seller but a part of me wonders if the trust should just automatically reset when
the account is traded. Like a option "Are you selling account or just changing password"!

The farther the issue spreads out the more easier it will be to poke holes into the issue. Hopefully you guys do not over extend and bite off to much.

This is utterly ridiculous
are you saying we shouldnt leave positive trust under any circumstance?
Also, people wont make it public that an account is being traded and if what you want gets implemented, people will fake account trades to get negative trust removed,

try again

Its a question for a reason. Was hoping to point out how ridiculous it is to go after people that write a comment in the ponzi thread because it could potentially be the ponzi owner. Did not buy the idea that some one saying they did well or not should also be labeled. The stretch I made in logic was on purpose.

[BSM]

On this forum corruption! 

The mafia attacked me because I selling developed by me scripts!  They probably wants % of selling! 

FUCK CORRUPTION!

[MisterMiyagi]

On this forum corruption! 

The mafia attacked me because I selling developed by me scripts!  They probably wants % of selling! 

FUCK CORRUPTION!

Tell you what,just ignore the default feedback on your profile and continue doing what you are good at.People will still buy your scripts,ponzi's will still run,keep selling the cracked/hacked giftcards if you believe that's what you are good at.The companies don't give a rat's ass about few bucks scammed here or there.They have all the rights to stop it but they aren't because it barely matters for them.It's just a few micro drops from their entire pool of sea as big a Arabian.A simple advise

Open your trust settings and in place of DefaultTrust https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
just add ~DefaultTrust

Follow the Steps To Stay away from the trust Drama and support the "Sensible League Moment"
1 Open Your Trust Settings  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

2. Remove DefaultTrust by inserting ~DefaultTrust

3. Remove Blazed specifically because he clearly has gone full retards ~Blazed

4 Hit the Update Button

5 Enjoy

 

[Your Point Is Invalid]

On this forum corruption! 

The mafia attacked me because I selling developed by me scripts!  They probably wants % of selling! 

FUCK CORRUPTION!

Tell you what,just ignore the default feedback on your profile and continue doing what you are good at.People will still buy your scripts,ponzi's will still run,keep selling the cracked/hacked giftcards if you believe that's what you are good at.The companies don't give a rat's ass about few bucks scammed here or there.They have all the rights to stop it but they aren't because it barely matters for them.It's just a few micro drops from their entire pool of sea as big a Arabian.A simple advise

Open your trust settings and in place of DefaultTrust https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
just add ~DefaultTrust

Follow the Steps To Stay away from the trust Drama and support the "Sensible League Moment"
1 Open Your Trust Settings  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

2. Remove DefaultTrust by inserting ~DefaultTrust

3. Remove Blazed specifically because he clearly has gone full retards ~Blazed

4 Hit the Update Button

5 Enjoy

 

Lol, OP dont do this, this is stupid, just add ~blazed to the list and update and you should be fine, dont remove default trust
also you dont have to remove blazed

just exchange your trust list with the following and you should be good

Code:

defaulttrust
~lutpin
~mexxer-2

[The Sceptical Chymist]

On this forum corruption! 

The mafia attacked me because I selling developed by me scripts!  They probably wants % of selling! 

FUCK CORRUPTION!

Tell you what,just ignore the default feedback on your profile and continue doing what you are good at.People will still buy your scripts,ponzi's will still run,keep selling the cracked/hacked giftcards if you believe that's what you are good at.The companies don't give a rat's ass about few bucks scammed here or there.They have all the rights to stop it but they aren't because it barely matters for them.It's just a few micro drops from their entire pool of sea as big a Arabian.A simple advise

Open your trust settings and in place of DefaultTrust https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
just add ~DefaultTrust

Follow the Steps To Stay away from the trust Drama and support the "Sensible League Moment"
1 Open Your Trust Settings  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

2. Remove DefaultTrust by inserting ~DefaultTrust

3. Remove Blazed specifically because he clearly has gone full retards ~Blazed

4 Hit the Update Button

5 Enjoy

 

Lol, OP dont do this, this is stupid, just add ~blazed to the list and update and you should be fine, dont remove default trust
also you dont have to remove blazed

just exchange your trust list with the following and you should be good

Code:

defaulttrust
~lutpin
~mexxer-2

OP is Mr. Miyagi and he's the one giving the advice.  You're not too bright are you?  And I think it's solid advice for a number of reasons.

[JavaLove]

I feel ya mistermiyagi, or whoever the fuck you are  , the trust system has gone to shit.

The problem with trust is human nature. What do I mean by that? Well, take a look at our politicians. Before President Obama was elected into any form of office (including senator) he probably acted like a human. Same with Bush. But then they got into power and it took over. Their human emotions flew away as greed and deceit came into power and they felt better than everyone else.

It's the same thing here. A president is not better than you or me, just a representative. A worker. Someone on the default trust is not better than you or me either, just a representative. Someone who has been around here for enough to prove they are not just a troll. They should be dedicated to the forum, with every user taken into account.

Sadly, and it's the same with our politicians, we have immense retards on the default trust list where they act like little feminist robots. Getting offended by everything and acting as if they're in charge.

When you try explaining something to them, they just say "oh, and you're a ponzi scammer." Hell, I'd love to see someone like Cryptodevil actually explain what a ponzi is. Go to the investor based games section, on EVERY post, no matter the proof, he posts his BULLSHIT PSA claiming everything is a ponzi. Even if the admin can prove its no ponzi, he won't take any evidence cause he's incompetent and stupid yet nothing is done.

CONCLUSION: there's probably some special interest, sexual favours going on here and that's why the losers are taking over this forum. All these guys are doing is desensitizing the trust system, making no one give a shit about it and trying to limit free speech. Let's show these assholes that Bitcoin is about freedom, and we will put our bitcoins where we damn please - without their stupid centralization tactics.

[SlidingHorn]

ICONCLUSION: there's probably some special interest, sexual favours going on here and that's why the losers are taking over this forum. All these guys are doing is desensitizing the trust system, making no one give a shit about it and trying to limit free speech. Let's show these assholes that Bitcoin is about freedom, and we will put our bitcoins where we damn please - without their stupid centralization tactics.

You guys go ahead and do that. Just don't bother opening a thread when one of the assholes they never rips you off because you chose to ignore the warning signs.

[JavaLove]

ICONCLUSION: there's probably some special interest, sexual favours going on here and that's why the losers are taking over this forum. All these guys are doing is desensitizing the trust system, making no one give a shit about it and trying to limit free speech. Let's show these assholes that Bitcoin is about freedom, and we will put our bitcoins where we damn please - without their stupid centralization tactics.

You guys go ahead and do that. Just don't bother opening a thread when one of the assholes they never rips you off because you chose to ignore the warning signs.

You're kidding right? Before this whole trust thing was an issue, I had been scammed so many times "your head will spin". Not once has the trust system ever protected me.

You know what taught me? Trial and error. Learning.

We don't need you fascist nannies to help us grow, I have studied business and economics for long enough to know where to put my money - and I've worked long enough to know where I want to put my money.

It is not my responsibility if someone else sees that I deposited and then wants to deposit. It's their right to deposit but not their right to get mad.

I never once complained that I lost my money. I was pissed but I used that to grow. Honestly you guys piss me off more than losing money because we can't use it to grow. It's just that you're incompetent and I wish you weren't - our world would be so much better off.