Dooglus is supporting ponzis

[everaja]

Previously Vod , Now dooglus , WTF ! , Get a Life QS.
dooglus is being Targeted because Vod is in his Trust hierarchy no wonder why shouldn't he target him.
Apart From the whole Drama done by QS , let me tell all reading this that there is no much untrustworthy than QS , because he sells Scammers account and when he is jealous of your popularity he will get you involved in that , though you are innocent.

RIP QS , You will find a way in life , either Karma or real accident in life will take care of you.
My wishes from my heart.

[whywefight]

A prerequisites of someone receiving negative trust, or the community being warned about nefarious behavior/activity is not a PSA being posted in some thread.

I agree, i didnt say it is. Its the way people currently getting tagged. First the PSA, second -ve.

Someone cannot say that they never saw the PSA that says stealing is not allowed and as a result they shouldn't get negative trust for not repaying a loan they took out.

I agree, but i would like to stay with the discussion on ponzis.

If you stole money, or in this case, helped people steal money, then you should be labeled a scammer, period. You either stole money (or helped people steal money), or you didn't, there is no "I didn't know this isn't allowed".

I agree. What i am trying to say or what i am trying to find out is: What do you expect to happen now? Just doog being removed or being tagged by "people like me"?

[dooglus]

@dooglus
Was another thread similar to this where you said everyone was a sock puppet that did not fall in with your thinking.

That doesn't sound like something I would say.

Just found that interesting to dismiss everyone in the thread that way. Same names pretty much in this thread supporting you as in that one as well. My opinion you are shady just by watching. Nothing personal.

You're entitled to your opinion. It might carry more weight if you could back it up though.

[Quickseller]

The scripts sole purpose was to run a ponzi. There are no other potential uses for the script in question. It was forked multiple times and apparently had previously been fairly widely used by ponzis in the past. By editing the code in the script, you were fixing a problem that various ponzis were (potentially) having, allowing them to potentially build a stronger sense of legitimacy and eventually end up stealing a greater amount of other people's money.

I fixed bugs in Ponzi code. It's true. Whether the code is used to steal money or not is up to the person running the script and how they market it.

I have not seen any examples of when a bitcoin related ponzi has ever operated honestly in perpetually, nor that has shut down in accordance of terms posted prior to anyone sending money to said ponzi. To say that you didn't know how your script was going to be used is a big stretch IMO. 

The only reason I was even looking at the script was because Klye was having problems with it. As I understood it, he was marketing his Ponzi truthfully and not attempting to steal anything from anyone. From what I've heard nobody other than Klye himself ended up out of pocket from using that script.

This is interesting. So the name of the operator of the ponzi that you helped code is Kyle? This doesn't happen to be MRKYLE does it? If so, did you know that this person previously scammed 25BTC worth of others money? Of course you did considering that you left him negative trust.

I think I'm missing something essential here. Where did dooglus support the ponzi? Got a link to that? The thread you linked to says quite the contrary:

https://archive.is/GJAt4#selection-5773.0-5773.105

Please refrain from associating my name with this project in an attempt to give it feelings of legitimacy.

Thanks for taking the time to find that.

This is what QS always does. It's the same with the dice sites I played on and talked about that ended up disappearing with people's money. He says I "supported" them, but in fact went to great lengths to repeatedly state that I didn't know who ran them or whether they were trustworthy.

Wait, you didn't know who ran the ponzi in question? I am confused, I thought you said his name was Kyle in this very same post.

Dooglus doesn't support ponzis...

As long as he is publicly offering ponzi scripts for download he is. Not sure why people just keep overlooking this.

I am not offering Ponzi scripts for download. I forked a crappy Ponzi project on github to fix a bug in it that was costing Klye some money. Github make the script available for download, as they were making it available for download before I forked it. That's how github works.

So you do not own the github account /dooglus? Again in this very same post you said that you did in fact fork the ponzi script. If the script in question is available for download by accessing your github account, that sounds an awful lot like you are offering it for download.

And I am not supporting Ponzis simply by correcting an error in a Ponzi script. If I correct a spelling mistake in one of your sentences, am I supporting the point you are trying to make? I don't think so. I am simply correcting an error.

If an ISIS terrorist was trying to get a bomb to explode, but couldn't and you fixed their mistake by telling them to "switch the green and the red wires" which would get the bomb to work properly then you would most likely be arrested for supporting a terrorist organization (or something similar thereof), and I don't think very many people would be against your arrest if you did that. I am not saying that what you did is comparable to supporting ISIS, however the principle remains the same.

suchmoon -

Of course you don't need a PSA or any kind of other formal process to post a neg. The PSA is just a choice of some members to warn about their intent and is not a forum rule. Which is why I still don't understand why some posters even in this thread are not negging dooglus but for some reason are expecting others to do that. If anyone distrusts dooglus for the reasons presented in the OP or any other reasons - just go ahead and do it, how hard can it possibly be.

dooglus has excluded anyone who has seriously questioned him and anyone who has left him negative trust who were previously anywhere near the Default Trust network (both myself and BAC). Maybe they are afraid of receiving an exclusion from dooglus if they leave him a negative rating, which could potentially undue a lot of their prior work.

I also think it's disingenuous to be opposed to the way cryptodevil and whywefight and others are negging ponzis, but at the same time expect a significantly more wide-ranging criteria to be applied to someone you dislike personally. Now that would be the wrong use for the trust system but thank God theymos for the tilde.

I am opposed to those who are leaving negative trust for anyone who talks about participating in a ponzi as I disagree with the conclusion that anyone posting about such participation is supporting a ponzi, and in turn is a scammer. In fact, I have noticed that many people who have received negative trust have posted something along the lines that the ponzi is not sustainable in the very post they write of their participation, so if anything they are warning others of the risks involved in participating in a ponzi. If you look at my sent trust, you will see many negative ratings for operators of ponzis.

I don't think that it is a bigger stretch to say that dooglus was/is supporting a ponzi, then those who post of their participation in ponzis. Dooglus created software (a script) that would allow a potential ponzi operator to run a ponzi, when they would not otherwise be able to run said ponzi. If participants did not post about their participation in a ponzi, then the operator could still post information about funds being received on the blockchain and other various stats, and the lack of said posts would not prevent a ponzi operator from being able from running.

My having negative personal feelings towards someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam. Similarly, just because I am close to someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam or saying that I think they are wrong publicly. I am sure that many people in this thread will not believe me, however all of my trust ratings are based on fact, and my personal opinions do not influence any of them, and this thread was not made because of any personal opinions or feelings (although I may have spent a little extra time looking into this issue after receiving this tip due to personal feelings).

whywefight -

I agree. What i am trying to say or what i am trying to find out is: What do you expect to happen now? Just doog being removed or being tagged by "people like me"?

The purpose of this thread is to warn others about a small portion of dooglus's prior transgressions. I do believe that dooglus should be removed from DT, although not for reasons listed in the OP (this will come later in my series). If you believe that someone who engaged in this kind of activity should be given negative trust and/or excluded from your trust list then I would suggest doing so. I would note that you did leave a negative rating for BSM for selling a ponzi script, and dooglus has one listed for free on his github account, so I think it would probably only be logical for you to leave him a negative trust rating.

[TECSHARE]

That depends on the jurisdiction of a court in which litigation is potentially taken against dooglus, as well as the tort laws in such jurisdiction, however I would err on the side of "yes".

The allegation in the OP is that dooglus (helped) create a product that was designed to ultimately steal from others. This means that anytime any ponzi operator had previously used his script to steal money from others, that he would likely be considered to be an accomplice to such theft. According to this, there is no distinction between an accomplice and the person who actually commits the tort, although it is likely that the accomplice would not be liable for 100% of the damages.

A Gun Manufacturer can potentially (Page 2, last paragraph), be held liable if they knowingly sell a gun to someone they know will subsequently use said gun to commit a crime of violence (or a drug trafficking crime).

A bartender can be potentially held liable if s/he knowingly (or should have known) servers a drink to a drunk person, and said drunk person subsequently kills someone while driving while still drunk.

Both of the above examples are very similar to dooglus creating a product whose only potential use is to eventually scam people.

No not really. All of those examples include potential for serious injury or loss of life. I am not sure petty theft (even if it were true) qualifies as being the same. Way to be a drama queen. Since you mentioned it though, you know what would also fall under this category of aiding and abetting crimes? You selling accounts you know damned well will be used in scamming. If this is the case, you should also by your own logic be tagged as a scammer. Of course you already have been, so not that it matters. You just want to take an opponent or two down with you.

If an ISIS terrorist was trying to get a bomb to explode, but couldn't and you fixed their mistake by telling them to "switch the green and the red wires" which would get the bomb to work properly then you would most likely be arrested for supporting a terrorist organization (or something similar thereof), and I don't think very many people would be against your arrest if you did that. I am not saying that what you did is comparable to supporting ISIS, however the principle remains the same.

ISIS? REALLY? Could you possibly make yourself look any more like a clown? One thing is certain, you sure as fuck will try.

[Slowturtleinc]

@dooglus
Was another thread similar to this where you said everyone was a sock puppet that did not fall in with your thinking.

That doesn't sound like something I would say.

Just found that interesting to dismiss everyone in the thread that way. Same names pretty much in this thread supporting you as in that one as well. My opinion you are shady just by watching. Nothing personal.

You're entitled to your opinion. It might carry more weight if you could back it up though.

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

Look familiar? I would reference it if you where honestly going to read the whole thread this time.

I do not want to go down the road exchanging barbs so will just back up my statement and let you read what QS has to say to you.

[dooglus]

you said everyone was a sock puppet that did not fall in with your thinking.

That doesn't sound like something I would say.

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

Look familiar?

Yes, I wrote that. I'm not saying that anyone not agreeing with me is a sockpuppet at all. I am saying that either quite a few people, or at least quite a few sockpuppets think CD is "out of control". Maybe you don't have good reading comprehension, but what I wrote is quite different than what you claim I wrote.

I do not want to go down the road exchanging barbs so will just back up my statement and let you read what QS has to say to you.

QS keeps saying that same things over and over while adding further misunderstandings and lies. It's tiring to keep replying to his bullshit.

I skimmed one of his recent posts where he appears unable to grasp the basics of what I am saying then makes some kind of weird point about fixing bombs for ISIS. Maybe tomorrow I'll have the energy to try to make sense of it.

[Heutenamos]

I don't think of ponzis any differently than dice sites. That said, assuming that the ponzis that used Dooglus' source were in fact scams I'm still not really convinced that he would be liable by association. Not only was his association to fix bugs, but he's not really directly liable. If godaddy makes someone a website and they do something illicit with it, godaddy isn't at fault. To modify your gun manufacturer comparison, in this example Dooglus isn't the guy who manufactured the gun, hes the guy who fixed the crooked barrel that the manufacturer produced.

Completely Seconded.

But why is doo going insane levels to tag people who make a post in the ponzi section ? to increase the flow in those ponzi which he is working for ? or making the code right so that people lose money ?

Why he and his list members harass & force users to not to take part into it ? or else tag people (destroy their accounts, who are making a couple dollars while posting) & name it consequences ?

whatever be the reason but both the actions contradict each other.

It might be a little off topic but only a retarded motherfucker or a dishonest businessman can say that people who wear a signature or post in a ponzi thread are the scammers or are liable in any sense.

[vodaljepa]

QS trying way too hard now

[suchmoon]

This is what QS always does. It's the same with the dice sites I played on and talked about that ended up disappearing with people's money. He says I "supported" them, but in fact went to great lengths to repeatedly state that I didn't know who ran them or whether they were trustworthy.

Wait, you didn't know who ran the ponzi in question? I am confused, I thought you said his name was Kyle in this very same post.

By now I'm pretty sure you're trolling us but I highlighted the relevant bits for you anyway.

Of course you don't need a PSA or any kind of other formal process to post a neg. The PSA is just a choice of some members to warn about their intent and is not a forum rule. Which is why I still don't understand why some posters even in this thread are not negging dooglus but for some reason are expecting others to do that. If anyone distrusts dooglus for the reasons presented in the OP or any other reasons - just go ahead and do it, how hard can it possibly be.

dooglus has excluded anyone who has seriously questioned him and anyone who has left him negative trust who were previously anywhere near the Default Trust network (both myself and BAC). Maybe they are afraid of receiving an exclusion from dooglus if they leave him a negative rating, which could potentially undue a lot of their prior work.

As far as I can see dooglus posted a neutral for BAC and nothing for you. Exclusions don't matter, BAC is still in DT2 and you're not in DT2 at all, not because of exclusions. What are you talking about?

Is that how you really think? A risk to a position in DT would be more important than exposing a potential scammer of this caliber? Seriously flawed logic. Luckily most members didn't think that way when e.g. Master-P or escrow.ms needed to be tagged.

I also think it's disingenuous to be opposed to the way cryptodevil and whywefight and others are negging ponzis, but at the same time expect a significantly more wide-ranging criteria to be applied to someone you dislike personally. Now that would be the wrong use for the trust system but thank God theymos for the tilde.

I am opposed to those who are leaving negative trust for anyone who talks about participating in a ponzi as I disagree with the conclusion that anyone posting about such participation is supporting a ponzi, and in turn is a scammer. In fact, I have noticed that many people who have received negative trust have posted something along the lines that the ponzi is not sustainable in the very post they write of their participation, so if anything they are warning others of the risks involved in participating in a ponzi. If you look at my sent trust, you will see many negative ratings for operators of ponzis.

I don't think that it is a bigger stretch to say that dooglus was/is supporting a ponzi, then those who post of their participation in ponzis. Dooglus created software (a script) that would allow a potential ponzi operator to run a ponzi, when they would not otherwise be able to run said ponzi. If participants did not post about their participation in a ponzi, then the operator could still post information about funds being received on the blockchain and other various stats, and the lack of said posts would not prevent a ponzi operator from being able from running.

My having negative personal feelings towards someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam. Similarly, just because I am close to someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam or saying that I think they are wrong publicly. I am sure that many people in this thread will not believe me, however all of my trust ratings are based on fact, and my personal opinions do not influence any of them, and this thread was not made because of any personal opinions or feelings (although I may have spent a little extra time looking into this issue after receiving this tip due to personal feelings).

Well, I've seen you quite a few times dragging dooglus into topics that have nothing to do with him so I'd say there is more to it than that. Between Vod and this there is a good reason to believe that you can't be impartial in this debate. That's just my opinion.

[cryptodevil]

Oh QS, you *really* need to have your meds reviewed. Either that or start actually taking them as you're supposed to.

I did help out. The scripts being used were really pretty bad. I fixed a few of the most obvious bugs but not all of them. I personally wouldn't be using these scripts on a live site. They feel like an accident waiting to happen.

Apart from the fact Dooglus wasn't shilling for either the ponzi or the script, it hardly sounds anything like the sort of promotional sales pitch that ponzi-script sellers post

"Hey everyone, I gotta ponzi script for sale. It is full of bugs and I would not recommend using it on a live site as it is an accident waiting to happen!"

Tagging people with negative ratings is about communicating to members whether somebody has behaved in a way which proves them to be dishonest. The evidence you have presented so far suggests quite the opposite about Dooglus. But don't let that stop you obsessing about it some more, which you will.

[Quickseller]

This is what QS always does. It's the same with the dice sites I played on and talked about that ended up disappearing with people's money. He says I "supported" them, but in fact went to great lengths to repeatedly state that I didn't know who ran them or whether they were trustworthy.

Wait, you didn't know who ran the ponzi in question? I am confused, I thought you said his name was Kyle in this very same post.

By now I'm pretty sure you're trolling us but I highlighted the relevant bits for you anyway.

No, not trolling. The above snip that you quoted was my pointing out the discrepancy of Dooglus claiming that he didn't know who the operator of the ponzi is, however he says that his name is Kyke which would imply that one of these statements is not true.

The only reason I was even looking at the script was because Klye was having problems with it. As I understood it, he was marketing his Ponzi truthfully and not attempting to steal anything from anyone. From what I've heard nobody other than Klye himself ended up out of pocket from using that script.

Of course you don't need a PSA or any kind of other formal process to post a neg. The PSA is just a choice of some members to warn about their intent and is not a forum rule. Which is why I still don't understand why some posters even in this thread are not negging dooglus but for some reason are expecting others to do that. If anyone distrusts dooglus for the reasons presented in the OP or any other reasons - just go ahead and do it, how hard can it possibly be.

dooglus has excluded anyone who has seriously questioned him and anyone who has left him negative trust who were previously anywhere near the Default Trust network (both myself and BAC). Maybe they are afraid of receiving an exclusion from dooglus if they leave him a negative rating, which could potentially undue a lot of their prior work.

As far as I can see dooglus posted a neutral for BAC and nothing for you. Exclusions don't matter, BAC is still in DT2 and you're not in DT2 at all, not because of exclusions. What are you talking about?

BAC left Dooglus a negative rating and Dooglus excluded BAC from his trust list, which puts him close to being out of the DT network. Dooglus excluded me around the time I was questioning him about his reputation loan to tspacepilot, and while I was still on BadBear's and Tomatocage's trust list.

Is that how you really think? A risk to a position in DT would be more important than exposing a potential scammer of this caliber? Seriously flawed logic. Luckily most members didn't think that way when e.g. Master-P or escrow.ms needed to be tagged.

I am only speculating, and I cannot speak for those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis and those that have sold ponzi scripts but have not left negative trust for Dooglus yet. I do know that Vod once offered to give up his account when BadBear was threatening to exclude Vod from his trust list in order to avoid being removed from DT. I would also point out that those that are leaving most of the negative trust for those accosiated and participating in ponzis appear to be trying to make a name for themselves, or at least that is how they come across to me -- this is getting a little off topic though.

I also think it's disingenuous to be opposed to the way cryptodevil and whywefight and others are negging ponzis, but at the same time expect a significantly more wide-ranging criteria to be applied to someone you dislike personally. Now that would be the wrong use for the trust system but thank God theymos for the tilde.

I am opposed to those who are leaving negative trust for anyone who talks about participating in a ponzi as I disagree with the conclusion that anyone posting about such participation is supporting a ponzi, and in turn is a scammer. In fact, I have noticed that many people who have received negative trust have posted something along the lines that the ponzi is not sustainable in the very post they write of their participation, so if anything they are warning others of the risks involved in participating in a ponzi. If you look at my sent trust, you will see many negative ratings for operators of ponzis.

I don't think that it is a bigger stretch to say that dooglus was/is supporting a ponzi, then those who post of their participation in ponzis. Dooglus created software (a script) that would allow a potential ponzi operator to run a ponzi, when they would not otherwise be able to run said ponzi. If participants did not post about their participation in a ponzi, then the operator could still post information about funds being received on the blockchain and other various stats, and the lack of said posts would not prevent a ponzi operator from being able from running.

My having negative personal feelings towards someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam. Similarly, just because I am close to someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam or saying that I think they are wrong publicly. I am sure that many people in this thread will not believe me, however all of my trust ratings are based on fact, and my personal opinions do not influence any of them, and this thread was not made because of any personal opinions or feelings (although I may have spent a little extra time looking into this issue after receiving this tip due to personal feelings).

Well, I've seen you quite a few times dragging dooglus into topics that have nothing to do with him so I'd say there is more to it than that. Between Vod and this there is a good reason to believe that you can't be impartial in this debate. That's just my opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Quickseller]

Oh QS, you *really* need to have your meds reviewed. Either that or start actually taking them as you're supposed to.

I did help out. The scripts being used were really pretty bad. I fixed a few of the most obvious bugs but not all of them. I personally wouldn't be using these scripts on a live site. They feel like an accident waiting to happen.

Apart from the fact Dooglus wasn't shilling for either the ponzi or the script, it hardly sounds anything like the sort of promotional sales pitch that ponzi-script sellers post

"Hey everyone, I gotta ponzi script for sale. It is full of bugs and I would not recommend using it on a live site as it is an accident waiting to happen!"

Tagging people with negative ratings is about communicating to members whether somebody has behaved in a way which proves them to be dishonest. The evidence you have presented so far suggests quite the opposite about Dooglus. But don't let that stop you obsessing about it some more, which you will.

Dooglus has made his (fixed) ponzi script available for download for anyone who wishes on his GitHub account. Didn't you leave negative trust for someone for selling a ponzi script? What is the difference here?

[redsn0w]

Oh QS, you *really* need to have your meds reviewed. Either that or start actually taking them as you're supposed to.

I did help out. The scripts being used were really pretty bad. I fixed a few of the most obvious bugs but not all of them. I personally wouldn't be using these scripts on a live site. They feel like an accident waiting to happen.

Apart from the fact Dooglus wasn't shilling for either the ponzi or the script, it hardly sounds anything like the sort of promotional sales pitch that ponzi-script sellers post

"Hey everyone, I gotta ponzi script for sale. It is full of bugs and I would not recommend using it on a live site as it is an accident waiting to happen!"

Tagging people with negative ratings is about communicating to members whether somebody has behaved in a way which proves them to be dishonest. The evidence you have presented so far suggests quite the opposite about Dooglus. But don't let that stop you obsessing about it some more, which you will.

Dooglus has made his (fixed) ponzi script available for download for anyone who wishes on his GitHub account. Didn't you leave negative trust for someone for selling a ponzi script? What is the difference here?

This is how github works... however as someone said, he doesn't owe money to nobody.

[Quickseller]

Oh QS, you *really* need to have your meds reviewed. Either that or start actually taking them as you're supposed to.

I did help out. The scripts being used were really pretty bad. I fixed a few of the most obvious bugs but not all of them. I personally wouldn't be using these scripts on a live site. They feel like an accident waiting to happen.

Apart from the fact Dooglus wasn't shilling for either the ponzi or the script, it hardly sounds anything like the sort of promotional sales pitch that ponzi-script sellers post

"Hey everyone, I gotta ponzi script for sale. It is full of bugs and I would not recommend using it on a live site as it is an accident waiting to happen!"

Tagging people with negative ratings is about communicating to members whether somebody has behaved in a way which proves them to be dishonest. The evidence you have presented so far suggests quite the opposite about Dooglus. But don't let that stop you obsessing about it some more, which you will.

Dooglus has made his (fixed) ponzi script available for download for anyone who wishes on his GitHub account. Didn't you leave negative trust for someone for selling a ponzi script? What is the difference here?

This is how github works... however as someone said, he doesn't owe money to nobody.

It is not how GitHub works. If I were to create a github account then the script in question would not show up on my account. The script is on dooglus's GitHub account because he worked on it to make it better. Do you seriously think that someone who is improving ponzi scripts as someone who is trustworthy?

[redsn0w]

Oh QS, you *really* need to have your meds reviewed. Either that or start actually taking them as you're supposed to.

I did help out. The scripts being used were really pretty bad. I fixed a few of the most obvious bugs but not all of them. I personally wouldn't be using these scripts on a live site. They feel like an accident waiting to happen.

Apart from the fact Dooglus wasn't shilling for either the ponzi or the script, it hardly sounds anything like the sort of promotional sales pitch that ponzi-script sellers post

"Hey everyone, I gotta ponzi script for sale. It is full of bugs and I would not recommend using it on a live site as it is an accident waiting to happen!"

Tagging people with negative ratings is about communicating to members whether somebody has behaved in a way which proves them to be dishonest. The evidence you have presented so far suggests quite the opposite about Dooglus. But don't let that stop you obsessing about it some more, which you will.

Dooglus has made his (fixed) ponzi script available for download for anyone who wishes on his GitHub account. Didn't you leave negative trust for someone for selling a ponzi script? What is the difference here?

This is how github works... however as someone said, he doesn't owe money to nobody.

It is not how GitHub works. If I were to create a github account then the script in question would not show up on my account. The script is on dooglus's GitHub account because he worked on it to make it better. Do you seriously think that someone who is improving ponzi scripts as someone who is trustworthy?

I don't think you missed that post but let's quote it another time :

....
I am not offering Ponzi scripts for download. I forked a crappy Ponzi project on github to fix a bug in it that was costing Klye some money. Github make the script available for download, as they were making it available for download before I forked it. That's how github works.
...

Now you will start to think, I'm supporting dooglus = I support ponzis, bla bla bla... c'mon Quickseller



I don't support dooglus.

[Quickseller]

Oh QS, you *really* need to have your meds reviewed. Either that or start actually taking them as you're supposed to.

I did help out. The scripts being used were really pretty bad. I fixed a few of the most obvious bugs but not all of them. I personally wouldn't be using these scripts on a live site. They feel like an accident waiting to happen.

Apart from the fact Dooglus wasn't shilling for either the ponzi or the script, it hardly sounds anything like the sort of promotional sales pitch that ponzi-script sellers post

"Hey everyone, I gotta ponzi script for sale. It is full of bugs and I would not recommend using it on a live site as it is an accident waiting to happen!"

Tagging people with negative ratings is about communicating to members whether somebody has behaved in a way which proves them to be dishonest. The evidence you have presented so far suggests quite the opposite about Dooglus. But don't let that stop you obsessing about it some more, which you will.

Dooglus has made his (fixed) ponzi script available for download for anyone who wishes on his GitHub account. Didn't you leave negative trust for someone for selling a ponzi script? What is the difference here?

This is how github works... however as someone said, he doesn't owe money to nobody.

It is not how GitHub works. If I were to create a github account then the script in question would not show up on my account. The script is on dooglus's GitHub account because he worked on it to make it better. Do you seriously think that someone who is improving ponzi scripts as someone who is trustworthy?

I don't think you missed that post but let's quote it another time :

....
I am not offering Ponzi scripts for download. I forked a crappy Ponzi project on github to fix a bug in it that was costing Klye some money. Github make the script available for download, as they were making it available for download before I forked it. That's how github works.
...

Now you will start to think, I'm supporting dooglus = I support ponzis ... c'mon Quickseller

I did not miss that quote. The improved version of the script was not available prior to Dooglus making said improvements. Furthermore Dooglus helping code the ponzi enabled more ponzi scammers to be able to steal from others because they now have a better working script.

Most importantly, I believe that Dooglus knew the person behind the ponzi that he was helping is a known scammer, and in effect was providing a way for said known scammer to be able to be in possession of other people's money.

[suchmoon]

This is what QS always does. It's the same with the dice sites I played on and talked about that ended up disappearing with people's money. He says I "supported" them, but in fact went to great lengths to repeatedly state that I didn't know who ran them or whether they were trustworthy.

Wait, you didn't know who ran the ponzi in question? I am confused, I thought you said his name was Kyle in this very same post.

By now I'm pretty sure you're trolling us but I highlighted the relevant bits for you anyway.

No, not trolling. The above snip that you quoted was my pointing out the discrepancy of Dooglus claiming that he didn't know who the operator of the ponzi is, however he says that his name is Kyke which would imply that one of these statements is not true.

The highlighted bits clearly show that dooglus was talking about dice sites (as an example of another issue he's been blamed for), not Kyle's ponzi. How could you possibly read that differently?

BAC left Dooglus a negative rating and Dooglus excluded BAC from his trust list, which puts him close to being out of the DT network. Dooglus excluded me around the time I was questioning him about his reputation loan to tspacepilot, and while I was still on BadBear's and Tomatocage's trust list.

I'm still not seeing a problem. If someone values their position in DT more than exposing a scammer that's really not the right example to bring up here. Not to mention that neither one of you was harmed in any way by the exclusion, the trust system worked as it was supposed to.

I am only speculating, and I cannot speak for those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis and those that have sold ponzi scripts but have not left negative trust for Dooglus yet. I do know that Vod once offered to give up his account when BadBear was threatening to exclude Vod from his trust list in order to avoid being removed from DT. I would also point out that those that are leaving most of the negative trust for those accosiated and participating in ponzis appear to be trying to make a name for themselves, or at least that is how they come across to me -- this is getting a little off topic though.

At least some of "those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis" seem to not think that dooglus did anything wrong (I think we had cryptodevil and whywefight in this thread already). Not sure what Vod has to do with anything but let me remind you what I stated originally:

Which is why I still don't understand why some posters even in this thread are not negging dooglus but for some reason are expecting others to do that. If anyone distrusts dooglus for the reasons presented in the OP or any other reasons - just go ahead and do it, how hard can it possibly be.

Especially now that the thread is back in Scam Accusations it would feel really bizarre if negs wouldn't start pouring in. Could it have something to do with the lack of an actual scam, attempt to scam, intent to scam, support for a scam, etc?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'm happy to have something to agree on.

[cloverme]

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis  

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment.  I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it.  I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all.  I think you've made your point, nuff said.

[alani123]

This completes the first part of my series of the transgressions of Dooglus
Part 1: Dooglus supporting ponzis  

This looks more like some kind of personal attack to smear Dooglus's reputation, especially with the last part of your comment.  I understand your overall point, but I don't believe that Dooglus's intent was to A) be part of a ponzi or B) make a profit from it.  I think you're mistaken and you need to consider the weight of the argument you're making with respect to the justification of it all.  I think you've made your point, nuff said.

Of course it is a smear campaign against dooglus, Quickseller wants to be on DT again while Doog who's currently in DT has crossed out QS... If Quickseller is known for one thing it's his smear campaigns.