Douglus should remove cryptodevil from DT due to conflict of interest

[leowonderful]

What the OP is saying is pretty indirect. I never even looked at it that way before. It's unlikely, but it could be that way. I have nothing against cryptodevil and I think he's a good person. I don't see why he should be removed from DT, although red trust is something I think people should give less of.
Ponzis are all scams and i'm pretty sure everybody in the gambling section knows that if they know anything about doubling anything. The + to - trust given ratio is pretty out of balance though.. But most of it is correct or partially correct, so cryptodevil's given trust is correct.. for the most part.

[xetsr]

The thing about Ponzi's is you know what you get when you use them. It's VERY clear.

PM's I have received prove that you cannot know that everybody who participates understands what a ponzi is so, therefore, your assertion is false.

Posting in a ponzi thread is not scamming

Posting support in a ponzi thread implies legitimacy, especially from established forum members. This is what the ponzi scammers need you to do and, by doing so, you encourage other people to deposit which is pretty much the reason why you do it. Don't pretend you're too stupid to understand even that basic principal. This means you are intentionally helping scumbags run a scheme which *will* result in people having their money stolen.

~snip~

The problem is, I've seen some of the feedback that you have left, and when i look at the references for some, i dont see how the users are directly posting support

Which ones? I did a quick check and noticed he was tagging those posting proof of payment or claims to have been paid, both which can be seen as showing support depending on how you wanna look at it. No idea why he would just leave feedback for others simply asking questions or etc in a ponzi thead.

[Zeke2345]

What the OP is saying is pretty indirect. I never even looked at it that way before. It's unlikely, but it could be that way. I have nothing against cryptodevil and I think he's a good person. I don't see why he should be removed from DT, although red trust is something I think people should give less of.
Ponzis are all scams and i'm pretty sure everybody in the gambling section knows that if they know anything about doubling anything. The + to - trust given ratio is pretty out of balance though.. But most of it is correct or partially correct, so cryptodevil's given trust is correct.. for the most part.

Its a bad look to have cowboys giving out justice without knowing if some one is guilty of operating a ponzi, he goes farther by threatening any one that posts in the thread. Then comes in here and lips off any one that thinks he is a asshole.
If you think trust is overused just wait till he starts having a bad day and extends to other forms of gambling. Every forum cop spawns 2-3 copycats that go one step farther and it snowballs.
If you think cryptodouchebag is a good guy you are a dumb fuck! Sorry about my tone, just want to be friends.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The thing about Ponzi's is you know what you get when you use them. It's VERY clear.

PM's I have received prove that you cannot know that everybody who participates understands what a ponzi is so, therefore, your assertion is false.

Posting in a ponzi thread is not scamming

Posting support in a ponzi thread implies legitimacy, especially from established forum members. This is what the ponzi scammers need you to do and, by doing so, you encourage other people to deposit which is pretty much the reason why you do it. Don't pretend you're too stupid to understand even that basic principal. This means you are intentionally helping scumbags run a scheme which *will* result in people having their money stolen.

He's out of control.

I keep hearing you lot use that phrase. I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

Please, go ahead, define 'out of control' for me. Surely, for me to be 'out of control' you would be able to offer up evidence of how I am on a rampage of abusive and outrageously unfair issuing of negative rating to users?

Surely, on the basis of just how frequently you muppets and puppets employ that phrase, you'd actually have some fucking evidence to support it?

No?

And you sound like you've spent a lot of time on the jref forum, but you can save it because those tedious rebuttals I've heard so many times before.  It's your attitude that makes you an asshole and someone on DT ought not try to bully others the way you're doing.  And of course I don't expect you to ever agree with me or to see this behavior in yourself and so I'm not going to cite references for you.  Your present behavior is proof enough that you're "out of control" for someone on DT.

[newtons1]

mexxer-2

local rule: No ad-hominem attacks

Isn't this whole thread an ad hominem attack against doog and CD?

You should look up what ad-hominem means before posting

dogie

Come on guys, enough with the alts already. If you don't have anything worth saying on your main account then don't bother.

You think I should risk the retribution that will result of my speaking out against cryptodevil? This guy is literally giving negative trust for asking questions in threads that compete with Just-Dice. There is a reason why 1^st world countries have whistle-blower laws that allow people to report ethics violations without revealing their identity, publicly or not.

The question of if alts should be allow is off topic here. If you wish to discuss this topic then I propose you discuss it here

cryptodevil

yet you also imply I am collaborating with Dooglus for his benefit.

It is not necessary for dooglus to collaborate with you regarding this issue for it to be unethical to allow you to remain on his trust list. For as long as dooglus will benefit from your actions it will be unethical for him to allow you to remain on his trust list. If your trust ratings are really a benefit to the community then surely someone else will add you to their trust list

Douglus knows how to hide evidence of collaboration anyway, this is very clear from his history, so I do not anticipate any admin being able to find evidence of collaboration.

Or ANY other fucking gambling, gaming or investment service.  

So you do admit that your behavior does benefit Just-Dice then?


Coinonomous

---

I believe that double posting is against the forum rules. Please refrain from posting twice in a row

Mist

I'm with TECSHARE and the alts here. Cryptodevil is way out of control and can't formulate a proper response to his abuse without attacking everyone here.

I agree. In addition to the clear conflict of interest here, Cryptodevil acts very immaturely, lacks communication skills and is unable to respond to any kind of criticism without launching personal attacks against the person criticizing him. None of these attributes are descriptive of someone whose trust ratings should show up by default. How is someone who wishes to dispute a negative rating issued by Cryptodevil suppose to have a conversation with him when Cryptodevil acts the way he does?

whywefight

So please tell me, Oh Lord, how to make a politically correct post that please your highness in the marked section without getting red trust.
Assholes like you that want to limit peoples free speech needs to be called out. You are making the reputation system worthless.
I'm guessing you are searching for any post I made there to give it red trust. I have never posted there and this is the only account I have so good luck

scamming people is not equal free speech.

You are naive to think that asking questions equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that including a statement that says that a ponzi will eventually scam equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that posting about a gambling experience equates to scamming people.

I think it is fairly clear that you are attempting to make a name for yourself.

P.S. are you an alt of TrillMyWatch? The naming convention of your username and his username matches, and TrillMyWatch has exchanged what is clearly fake trust with alts of ManyProofs.


xetsr

Which ones? I did a quick check and noticed he was tagging those posting proof of payment or claims to have been paid, both which can be seen as showing support depending on how you wanna look at it. No idea why he would just leave feedback for others simply asking questions or etc in a ponzi thead.

Not long ago master-P stole over $10,000 from various people. Several people threatened to have him doxed if he did not repay what he stole from them. master-P ended up returning all of the money he stole from a few people (while keeping all of the money he stole from other people). Do you think when people posted that they received a refund from master-P that they were supporting him, or maybe do you think they were merely posting their experience with him, and the status of their debt?

You are also correct in saying that Cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who ask questions in a ponzi thread. This is clearly not showing support for said ponzi, however it does discourage them, or anyone else from participating in said ponzi, while encouraging them to gamble their money in other crypto gambling sites, such as Just-Dice.


leowonderful

What the OP is saying is pretty indirect. I never even looked at it that way before. It's unlikely, but it could be that way. I have nothing against cryptodevil and I think he's a good person. I don't see why he should be removed from DT, although red trust is something I think people should give less of.
Ponzis are all scams and i'm pretty sure everybody in the gambling section knows that if they know anything about doubling anything. The + to - trust given ratio is pretty out of balance though.. But most of it is correct or partially correct, so cryptodevil's given trust is correct.. for the most part.

Cryptodevil is not giving negative trust to the scammers who run ponzi schemes. Cryptodevil is not giving negative trust to those who run ponzi schemes disguised as a legitimate investment. Cryptodevil leaves negative trust to anyone who knowingly sends money to a ponzi hoping to receive some kind of return before the ponzi ends up scamming. Cryptodevil is leaving negative trust for people who choose to gamble at sites that are not Just-Dice

everyone else

If you agree that Cryptodevil should be removed from dooglus's trust list, and from the Default Trust Network, then I would suggest that you send a PM to dooglus

[mexxer-2]

mexxer-2

local rule: No ad-hominem attacks

Isn't this whole thread an ad hominem attack against doog and CD?

You should look up what ad-hominem means before posting

Naw I'm pretty sure I know what it means

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself.

local rule: No discussing the merits behind leaving negative trust for people who post about playing in a ponzi

everyone else

If you agree that Cryptodevil should be removed from dooglus's trust list, and from the Default Trust Network, then I would suggest that you send a PM to dooglus

Also, I'm 99.99% sure that any request, from a message made by QS will go to doog's bin

[cryptodevil]

The problem is, I've seen some of the feedback that you have left, and when i look at the references for some, i dont see how the users are directly posting support

Urgh!
Again with the, "I've seen . . ." and "when I look at . . ." - Evidence or shut the fuck up you tedious infant.

Ponzis are all scams and i'm pretty sure everybody in the gambling section knows that if they know anything about doubling anything.

So you defend it on the basis of being 'pretty sure'? How about those pm's I get from people who genuinely didn't understand what they were sending money to? I've also mentioned that there are many users of this forum who struggle to understand English and are prone to misunderstanding what the 'investment' they are getting involved with actually is. So that disproves your weak claim that 'everybody' knows what they are sending money to.

but you can save it because those tedious rebuttals I've heard so many times before.

So you're saying you are familiar with a reasoned rebuttal but demand that you be allowed to persist with knowingly posting fallacious argument instead because . . .reasons?

Sure, sounds legit.

This guy is literally giving negative trust for asking questions in threads that compete with Just-Dice.

This'll be 'literally' as in, 'Completely fabricated assertion', more commonly known as a lie or, colloquially speaking, utter fucking bollocks.

cryptodevil

It is not necessary for dooglus to collaborate with you regarding this issue for it to be unethical to allow you to remain on his trust list. For as long as dooglus will benefit from your actions it will be unethical for him to allow you to remain on his trust list.

Hahahaaaa! That is a genuinely funny example of taking mangled reasoning to the extreme, QS. It has to be QS, right? I've only encountered one person on this forum who routinely tries floating those kind of stinkers when lashing out about being held to account for his scammy behaviour and QS is the master of it.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

The problem is, I've seen some of the feedback that you have left, and when i look at the references for some, i dont see how the users are directly posting support

Urgh!
Again with the, "I've seen . . ." and "when I look at . . ." - Evidence or shut the fuck up you tedious infant.

Did i not send you a number of PM's which saw you remove at least one trust rating?

[cryptodevil]

The problem is, I've seen some of the feedback that you have left, and when i look at the references for some, i dont see how the users are directly posting support

Urgh!
Again with the, "I've seen . . ." and "when I look at . . ." - Evidence or shut the fuck up you tedious infant.

Did i not send you a number of PM's which saw you remove at least one trust rating?

You sent me two pm's, one concerning a referenced thread which the user had since deleted but hadn't asked me to remove their rating, and another which you wrongly marked as referencing a deleted post, when it wasn't.

So still swinging and missing on the evidence front when it comes to accusing me of being wrong.

[whywefight]

whywefight

So please tell me, Oh Lord, how to make a politically correct post that please your highness in the marked section without getting red trust.
Assholes like you that want to limit peoples free speech needs to be called out. You are making the reputation system worthless.
I'm guessing you are searching for any post I made there to give it red trust. I have never posted there and this is the only account I have so good luck

scamming people is not equal free speech.

You are naive to think that asking questions equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that including a statement that says that a ponzi will eventually scam equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that posting about a gambling experience equates to scamming people.

I think it is fairly clear that you are attempting to make a name for yourself.

P.S. are you an alt of TrillMyWatch? The naming convention of your username and his username matches, and TrillMyWatch has exchanged what is clearly fake trust with alts of ManyProofs.

You are just to lazy to look at the reference of the feedbacks i left, otherwise you would see i tag people that advertise. A few members contacted me to speak about it and some feedbacks got removed. So far the only one of the "whining fraction" who did at least some research is Your Point Is Invalid, he contacted me about some feedbacks. all others are only posting and crying but they dont do anything at all.

If you still think ponzi = gambling, any discussion with you doesnt make any sense.

I dont care about my name, i suggested several times before to ignore me and to exclude me from your (or others) trustlist. So far only two users did: Quickseller and Joel_jentsen (if i remember correct).

PS: The style of writing fits some other users here and its obvious you use that account because you dont have the balls to post from your main. So the questions is: who are you?

PPS: How about researching stuff first and than posting?

[Zeke2345]

whywefight

So please tell me, Oh Lord, how to make a politically correct post that please your highness in the marked section without getting red trust.
Assholes like you that want to limit peoples free speech needs to be called out. You are making the reputation system worthless.
I'm guessing you are searching for any post I made there to give it red trust. I have never posted there and this is the only account I have so good luck

scamming people is not equal free speech.

You are naive to think that asking questions equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that including a statement that says that a ponzi will eventually scam equates to scamming people. You are naive to think that posting about a gambling experience equates to scamming people.

I think it is fairly clear that you are attempting to make a name for yourself.

P.S. are you an alt of TrillMyWatch? The naming convention of your username and his username matches, and TrillMyWatch has exchanged what is clearly fake trust with alts of ManyProofs.

You are just to lazy to look at the reference of the feedbacks i left, otherwise you would see i tag people that advertise. A few members contacted me to speak about it and some feedbacks got removed. So far the only one of the "whining fraction" who did at least some research is Your Point Is Invalid, he contacted me about some feedbacks. all others are only posting and crying but they dont do anything at all.

If you still think ponzi = gambling, any discussion with you doesnt make any sense.

I dont care about my name, i suggested several times before to ignore me and to exclude me from your (or others) trustlist. So far only two users did: Quickseller and Joel_jentsen (if i remember correct).

PS: The style of writing fits some other users here and its obvious you use that account because you dont have the balls to post from your main. So the questions is: who are you?

PPS: How about researching stuff first and than posting?

Thread was not about you,maybe why no one is addressing you till you injected yourself into the discussion on the first page.
Lets keep it on point and keep the push on Cryptodevil to stop threatening people with negative trust for posting in the forum.
Just because its in a sub section he disapproves of does not give him the right to harass people in this way. He is on a branch of his own
when it comes to this trust issue and I hope you do not follow him off the cliff.

The alt talk is fun,I like to try to connect you,mexxer-2 and Luptin together sometimes as well. But that is just discrediting you and what you stand for. If I am alt and you are a alt,lets agree that the other has to post evidence of such before we slag each other in the future.
Think you where addressing some one else though,so no offense taken.

[cryptodevil]

Yeah, whywefight, get your own thread of whining shitbags who can't string together a coherent rebuttal and hate being held to account for their actions.

This one is mine, all mine!!!11!!11elebenty!!1!

Soon I will triumph over Vod as the antagonist with the biggest hateclub! Mwahaaahaaahaaaaa. Etc. (disclaimer: number of real people may not equal that of the multiple forum accounts dedicated to showering you with constant attention, your dreams may not equal that of the Globex Corporation, its subsidiaries or shareholders. Batteries not included)

[suchmoon]

Big thanks to everyone creating all these cryptodevil/mexxer/lutpin/ecuamobi appreciation threads. This is now my favorite lunchtime entertainment. So much butthurt - these guys/gals must be doing something right.

[mexxer-2]

PS: The style of writing fits some other users here and its obvious you use that account because you dont have the balls to post from your main. So the questions is: who are you?

Lets see: using the same arguments against dooglus, constant near to neutral arguments about tagging of ponzis , all of which matches with a user who usually likes to talk from alts even though there is no reason to. Was that even a question?

But I'd rather not discredit the OP, as he can be quite an awesome guy at times

The alt talk is fun,I like to try to connect you,mexxer-2 and Luptin together sometimes as well.

That reminded me, a user I'd like not to disclose was talking about connecting me with kingaltcoins, Lutpin and Joel. I'd love to post the hilarious arguments presented by them but nah, lets keep it for another day

Thread was not about you,maybe why no one is addressing you till you injected yourself into the discussion on the first page.

Same can go for you. He was addressing <Insert the guy who I was talking about earlier here> newtons1 here.

[Zeke2345]

Thread was not about you,maybe why no one is addressing you till you injected yourself into the discussion on the first page.

Same can go for you. He was addressing <Insert the guy who I was talking about earlier here> newtons1 here.

He was talking to him till he used "all others",insinuating that every one that had a issue was of this nature.
I take it easy on the sock and alt references but if we are going to paint a wagon make sure you are attacking the right people.

Sorry for hijack,just did not like letting this slip when I was accused of this last week by the hateful whatever you want to call it now.
Fair play or should I have turned the other cheek.


 

You are just to lazy to look at the reference of the feedbacks i left, otherwise you would see i tag people that advertise. A few members contacted me to speak about it and some feedbacks got removed. So far the only one of the "whining fraction" who did at least some research is Your Point Is Invalid, he contacted me about some feedbacks. all others are only posting and crying but they dont do anything at all.

[whywefight]

Thread was not about you,maybe why no one is addressing you till you injected yourself into the discussion on the first page.
Lets keep it on point and keep the push on Cryptodevil to stop threatening people with negative trust for posting in the forum.
Just because its in a sub section he disapproves of does not give him the right to harass people in this way. He is on a branch of his own
when it comes to this trust issue and I hope you do not follow him off the cliff.

The alt talk is fun,I like to try to connect you,mexxer-2 and Luptin together sometimes as well. But that is just discrediting you and what you stand for. If I am alt and you are a alt,lets agree that the other has to post evidence of such before we slag each other in the future.
Think you where addressing some one else though,so no offense taken.

Dude, really... HOW ABOUT READING??



He wrote a text for me... lol

@cryptodevil: nanananananana :p


EDIT: i just decided i will leave you alone with the whining threads.

[dooglus]

I just received the following threat in a private message:



I hadn't seen this thread before, and have only read the first 3 posts.

The premise that there is a conflict of interest because if people don't give their money to scammers then they might be more inclined to give it to me is just crazy, and applies just as well to *any other business*.

Does a purveyor of alpaca socks benefit by attempting to warn people about scams, because any money not lost to scams could instead by spent on socks?


My stance on Ponzis is that they're fine if they're honest. Very few are honest and promise unrealistic guaranteed payouts. If they're upfront about the risk "players" are taking then I don't see a problem with them, but very few do that. As I understand it, cryptodevil sees things the same way. If you don't want him leaving you negative feedback, stop making posts supporting obvious scams. Seems pretty simple to me.

Edit: having now read this thread it seems quite a few people (or quite a few sockpuppets) think cryptodevil is "out of control".

If anyone has any concrete examples of him leaving unreasonable trust feedback please PM me to let me know and I'll look into it. I don't think it's unreasonable to negative-rate people who are supporting obvious scams by making positive posts about them.

[mexxer-2]

[img ]https://i.imgur.com/P2SODmC.png[/img]

Erm, isn't "Cam" guitarplinker's "signature"

I hadn't seen this thread before, and have only read the first 3 posts.

In summary, the only users who are complaining not because they themselves got tagged for promoting the ponzis are
1)Mist: Random somebody who recently started meta/reputation discussion
2)Your Point Is Invalid: The guy who has been after removing any DT member who tags based on suspicion and near conclusive proof aka "The guy who complains about me being in DT while having me manually added to his trust list"
3) newtons1: Pretty clear who he is
4) Zeke: Same as the first guy with some traits of the second
Edit:

5) Gimpeline: Someone who clearly doesn't have an idea of whats going on, and has suddenly appeared back from the dead
6) Dorrittulx: Is clearly trolling
7) The Pharmacist: No arguments, only opinions
Everybody, did I miss anyone?

[Lutpin]

Erm, isn't "Cam" guitarplinker's "signature"

It's also the first name of a Panthers (huh? ) Quaterback named Newton, carrying the number 1 -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_Newton

[hopenotlate]

It's also the first name of a Panthers (huh? ) Quaterback named Newton, carrying the number 1 -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_Newton

lol If your guess is right then cryptodevil is in big troubles  

Height:    6 ft 5 in (1.96 m)
Weight:    245 lb (111 kg)

 




BTW, for what it counts I find excessive the red trust for anyone joining or posting in favour of a Ponzi.
A red trust for the promoter and that big size red text cryptodevil is already copy/pasting in any ponzi thread are enough for me; also considering there is already this forum disclaimer

"Warning: You are in the Gambling section. You are likely to eventually lose any money that you gamble/"invest". Additionally, moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Do not gamble more than you can afford to lose."

and that this forum allows that kind of threads.