cryptodevil has left negative trust on a bought account

[suchmoon]

you quote the applicable rule from here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

The forum doesn't prevent account sales, however, as everyone can leave feedback as they see just, it also does not prevent users leaving negative feedback over account trades/to bought accounts.
Hence, Cryptodevil does not 'break' that rule.

If your version is to be believed, then why not he negative trusting everyone involved into account trading in Digital Goods & Auction, including the forum escrows? Why not apply the same rule to all and see how dooglus+cryptodevil turn red within days? Why rules are selective applied to those, who does not have any loyal connection to DT?

To understand my last statement, each and everyone arguing with me in this thread is somehow blessed by DT. I have no problem if SpanishSoldier remains marked with DT. But, the point is, if this continues, only DT will trust DT and the rest will find something else.

The OP didn't get the neg for an account sale so your "all or nothing" fallacy doesn't even apply.

I seriously doubt that you have the authority to speak for "the rest" but there is absolutely nothing preventing you from doing ~cryptodevil, or ~dooglus, or ~DefaultTrust.

[1713434985]

1713434985

[1713434985]

1713434985

[suchmoon]

Nopes. This is not between SpanishSoldier & cryptodevil. It could be, if cryptodevil was not on DT level 2. But, DT level 1 members are hand picked by "administrators" as loyalty reward. There is no algorithm behind it. And DT level 2 members are hand picked by DT level 1 members. Hence, if a DT level 2 member is defying a forum rule, "administrators" can take step to remove the DT level 1 guy, who has chosen the problematic DT level 2 member.

What is the forum rule that cryptodevil is "defying"?

Leaving (actually not removing in this case) negative trust on someone, because he believes buying an account is an act of deception. If that is what he believes, why not he negative trusting everyone involved into account trading in Digital Goods & Auction, including the forum escrows?

Can you quote the applicable rule from here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0
 

18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

How exactly is cryptodevil "defying" this rule? It doesn't say anything about an obligation to remove trust ratings after an account sale or anything else that would apply here. Except maybe the "discouraged" part, which is the lesson to learn here.

Please read the OP. The account was sold before the rating was placed. Though, this claim of OP is not provable, it is clear that the account not active for at least a week when the trust was placed by cryptodevil.

But the OP as asking to remove the rating because of the alleged sale. There is no rule about that, in fact the only trust-related rule I can find is the one that states trust is not moderated. So again, which rule is being defied and how exactly?

[Bill Gates]

The OP didn't get the neg for an account sale so your "all or nothing" fallacy doesn't even apply.

It is not a fallacy. It is logic. Selective marking only endorse partiality. Moreover, as per OP, cryptodevil stated the following, where it is clear, he is against the forum rule of account trading and wont remove the negative because of this reason, not the one for which he left it initially...

I don't care what your reasons are for buying an account, the end result is still about deception.

I seriously doubt that you have the authority to speak for "the rest" but there is absolutely nothing preventing you from doing ~cryptodevil, or ~dooglus, or ~DefaultTrust.

Yah. I dont have any authority here. But all I can tell you, once upon a time, I used my resources to bring people to Bitcointalk. Now, I use the same resource to take people to forum.bitcoin.com. Even sirius said there that he regrets his decision to hand over Bitcointalk to current "authorities".

Regarding the issue with Bitcointalk, doing ~cryptodevil, or ~dooglus, or ~DefaultTrust, would have solved the problem, if newbies were not forced feed to wear DT. But, as long as the newbies are forced feed to wear DT, "authorities" can not disown their responsibility rectify the mafia like activity by certain DT members.

[Evildrum]

The default trust does seem to imply trust of people that could potentially not be on the up and up. But it should also be in every new accounts mind to read how the forum works and understand as many aspects as they can before running into a signature like so many do.
Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.

[Bill Gates]

But the OP as asking to remove the rating because of the alleged sale. There is no rule about that, in fact the only trust-related rule I can find is the one that states trust is not moderated. So again, which rule is being defied and how exactly?

Trust is definitely not moderated and no one is asking mods to moderate cryptodevil's feedback. What is being asked is to deal with dooglus, who is sitting in DT level 1 and recruiting one after another nonsense. FYI, DefaultTrust has been moderated before. Read about CITM, escrow.ms, Tradefortress, lophie, master-p, friedcat and many others who have glorified the DefaultTrust before.

[Bill Gates]

The default trust does seem to imply trust of people that could potentially not be on the up and up. But it should also be in every new accounts mind to read how the forum works and understand as many aspects as they can before running into a signature like so many do.
Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.

Thanks a lot for your insightful comment. How much you earned for this "constructive" statement? 0.00007 BTC?

[suchmoon]

The OP didn't get the neg for an account sale so your "all or nothing" fallacy doesn't even apply.

It is not a fallacy. It is logic. Selective marking only endorse partiality. Moreover, as per OP, cryptodevil stated the following, where it is clear, he is against the forum rule of account trading and wont remove the negative because of this reason, not the one for which he left it initially...

I don't care what your reasons are for buying an account, the end result is still about deception.

That's a whole lot of assumptions from a short quote like that. Why don't you PM cryptodevil and ask for an explanation before jumping to conclusions.

[suchmoon]

But the OP as asking to remove the rating because of the alleged sale. There is no rule about that, in fact the only trust-related rule I can find is the one that states trust is not moderated. So again, which rule is being defied and how exactly?

Trust is definitely not moderated and no one is asking mods to moderate cryptodevil's feedback. What is being asked is to deal with dooglus, who is sitting in DT level 1 and recruiting one after another nonsense. FYI, DefaultTrust has been moderated before. Read about CITM, escrow.ms, Tradefortress, lophie, master-p, friedcat and many others who have glorified the DefaultTrust before.

I wouldn't worry about dooglus, he's already being dealt with. Just wait for Chapter 3, I hear it's going to be good.

Having said that, you claimed that cryptodevil defied a forum rule but you failed to substantiate this claim. Can we now get back on topic and conclude that no forum rule was defied, violated, broken, or otherwise abused here?

[Bill Gates]

The OP didn't get the neg for an account sale so your "all or nothing" fallacy doesn't even apply.

It is not a fallacy. It is logic. Selective marking only endorse partiality. Moreover, as per OP, cryptodevil stated the following, where it is clear, he is against the forum rule of account trading and wont remove the negative because of this reason, not the one for which he left it initially...

I don't care what your reasons are for buying an account, the end result is still about deception.

That's a whole lot of assumptions from a short quote like that. Why don't you PM cryptodevil and ask for an explanation before jumping to conclusions.

Why on earth will I PM cryptodevil? If u trust him, u r free to do that. I prefer public discussion as I do not need any loyalty reward from anyone here. If u ask me about the current members on DefaultTrust, I think, dooglus should be moved to level 2, shorena should be taken to level 1 and Johny Depp should be added to level 2. But, well, I know I am not the "authority".

[Evildrum]

The default trust does seem to imply trust of people that could potentially not be on the up and up. But it should also be in every new accounts mind to read how the forum works and understand as many aspects as they can before running into a signature like so many do.
Seeking out accounts to flag seems abit off to me but again this is why people need to read up on trust when joining to realize not everything is what it seems.

Thanks a lot for your insightful comment. How much you earned for this "constructive" statement? 0.00007 BTC?

You concerned for my financial outlook,you can always donate to me if it worries you so much.

Why should I address the obvious,when threads like this are a dime a dozen. People buy cheap accounts and contact people that left negative comments and get no where,so they cry in meta for change. Nothing ever comes of it and nothing should,or the whole point of leaving trust goes up in smoke.
Besides I thought it was leaning more in line with you than not,interesting you took offense to it.
Sorry I did not pick up a banner like you and QS and scream about dooglus,or is there only one person doing that?

Anyways thanks for the feedback Bill Gates its nice to know some one really cares here.

[Bill Gates]

I wouldn't worry about dooglus, he's already being dealt with. Just wait for Chapter 3, I hear it's going to be good.

I could not understand your Chapter 3 reference. What does it mean?

Having said that, you claimed that cryptodevil defied a forum rule but you failed to substantiate this claim. Can we now get back on topic and conclude that no forum rule was defied, violated, broken, or otherwise abused here?

Of course cryptodevil defied a forum rule. Account trading is allowed here, while he is claiming the end result is still about deception and using his framed logic to leave -ve feedback on an account. He could at most leave a neutral feedback, saying it is bought. But, if he does not remove his feedback, then he must be removed from DT. Well, only if the "authority" care.

[suchmoon]

Why on earth will I PM cryptodevil?

Because you're the one making wild assumptions from a third-party quote?

I could not understand your Chapter 3 reference. What does it mean?

Can't help you there. I don't understand it either.

Having said that, you claimed that cryptodevil defied a forum rule but you failed to substantiate this claim. Can we now get back on topic and conclude that no forum rule was defied, violated, broken, or otherwise abused here?

Of course cryptodevil defied a forum rule. Account trading is allowed here, while he is claiming the end result is still about deception and using his framed logic to leave -ve feedback on an account. He could at most leave a neutral feedback, saying it is bought. But, if he does not remove his feedback, then he must be removed from DT. Well, only if the "authority" care.

Being allowed to do something and being trusted is not the same thing. Otherwise we wouldn't need any trust system at all. Moderators can ban offenders, i.e. "not banned" would be equal to "trusted" (same as ~DefaultTrust).

[Joel_Jantsen]

The ideal solution for the Op would be presenting the proof of the account being sold/bought ? Maybe PGP message of the escrow if used.I remember similar thing happened with Laosai's alt's including Phibay,Patatas etc  and Sho had negative repped them for defaulting on a loan as all the accounts were connected via old addresses .

Matter fact,all the feedbacks were removed once proof of account sales were sent to Sho.Cryptodevil might as well do the same.There is really no point in bragging ,work it out with crypto devil.

[Quickseller]

The OP should contact theymos to express his concerns about the people in Dooglus's trust list. There have been multiple threads opened about CD and all that CD has done to address anyone's concerns is troll them and act childish. Dooglus has responded to some of these threads only to give very vague responses and broad assumptions and has done nothing to ensure that improper trust ratings are not left by those who are in his trust list.

[mexxer-2]

Of course cryptodevil defied a forum rule. Account trading is allowed here

You're confusing(misleading others into thinking) tolerated(allowed but discouraged) with supporting. The forum neither promotes/supports the account sales neither does the administration care about/moderate them.

while he is claiming the end result is still about deception and using his framed logic to leave -ve feedback on an account.

Where did you get that idea from? He is claiming that the account has/had several ponzi alt shills, and has linked the proof in the reference, with no reference to the account being bought or not. However if the OP can prove that the account is indeed bought(quite a difficult feat as evidence can be faked) CD might opt to remove his tag.

But, if he does not remove his feedback, then he must be removed from DT. Well, only if the "authority" care.

You sure know that one is only removed from DT after commiting a pretty serious scam or shady behavior right(this applies to most of the examples you gave I believe)? Although it does happen sometimes with users like escrow.ms(who was in DT 1 some time ago) , that they had add a user to their trust list without thinking in their early days and may later remove them for no reason at all, I don't see doog having the similar approach to CD

Well, only if the "authority" care.

Oh yeah, BB came back I guess you're talking about him as I'm pretty sure theymos doesn't respond to any such requests. Still slim chance of your message actually getting through to him


Oh and nearly forgot, I suppose OP could also defend himself(as in proving that he bought the account and whatnot) by posting all the proofs in the OP instead of PMing back and forth

The OP should contact theymos to express his concerns about the people in Dooglus's trust list. There have been multiple threads opened about CD and all that CD has done to address anyone's concerns is troll them and act childish. Dooglus has responded to some of these threads only to give very vague responses and broad assumptions and has done nothing to ensure that improper trust ratings are not left by those who are in his trust list.

Come on now QS, rephrasing what you said earlier and what most users(last I heard) thought was over-exaggeration hardly makes your point stronger.


Also just FYI Gates, as you seem to consider anyone with a paid signature a sig spammer(pretty good habit most of the times), I get paid regardless of whether I post or not(something similar to Blazed and Philipma)

Edits are fun, I could go all day with this....

[Quickseller]

Oh and nearly forgot, I suppose OP could also defend himself(as in proving that he bought the account and whatnot) by posting all the proofs in the OP instead of PMing back and forth

That is impossible to do and you should know this. You should know very well that it would be trivial for someone to use an alt account to create a facade that an account was purchased, even if an escrow is used as many escrows provide their services for free (a small number will even cover tx fees).

It is up to the person leaving the trust to "prove" (or some derivative of "prove") that an account was not sold when relating to some kind of alleged action/scam that took place a long time ago.

It is up to the aggressor to make their case, and only when such aggressor has made a strong enough case does the person being called a scammer need to present some evidence in his defense. I don't think you would like it very much if the OP were to say that you stole 100BTC from him and tried to force to you prove your own innocence.

[mexxer-2]

That is impossible to do and you should know this.

Yep I do and I think I made that clear

However if the OP can prove that the account is indeed bought(quite a difficult feat as evidence can be faked)

, but its not exactly impossible
If enough evidence point to the fact that the account was bought on a certain date/time, with tx links, if possible the sale thread and better yet a forum escrow confirmation, CD might opt to remove the tag. Can't say why one would remove a tag from a known CM shill account though
This is probably going to be another drama dialog all over again, I get your point but that does not change my opinion. Thats.... it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Welcome to bitcointalk, where you get the punishment first and then you find out you're not actually breaking the rules.   Cryptodevil is a f-ing pompous, self-worshipping dickhole  which you already know.  Having said that, buying accounts definitely ranks up there on the list of shady things on this forum.

[Quickseller]

That is impossible to do and you should know this.

Yep I do and I think I made that clear

However if the OP can prove that the account is indeed bought(quite a difficult feat as evidence can be faked)

, but its not exactly impossible
If enough evidence point to the fact that the account was bought on a certain date/time, with tx links, if possible the sale thread and better yet a forum escrow confirmation, CD might opt to remove the tag. Can't say why one would remove a tag from a known CM shill account though

All of that can be faked. Trust farmers sometimes go as far to use an escrow to trade with themselves with the hopes to receiving positive trust from said escrows.

CD might opt to remove the tag.

I don't care what your reasons are for buying an account, the end result is still about deception.

I doubt it either way.

Edit:

The OP should contact theymos to express his concerns about the people in Dooglus's trust list. There have been multiple threads opened about CD and all that CD has done to address anyone's concerns is troll them and act childish. Dooglus has responded to some of these threads only to give very vague responses and broad assumptions and has done nothing to ensure that improper trust ratings are not left by those who are in his trust list.

Come on now QS, rephrasing what you said earlier and what most users(last I heard) thought was over-exaggeration hardly makes your point stronger.

Don't try to refute any of my points or anything about the substance of what I have said, or anything like that.

[mexxer-2]

Welcome to bitcointalk, where you get the punishment first and then you find out you're not actually breaking the rules.   Cryptodevil is a f-ing pompous, self-worshipping dickhole  which you already know.  Having said that, buying accounts definitely ranks up there on the list of shady things on this forum.

The OP(or at least the account I guess) is one of the shill accounts of the now failing ponzi scheme Cloudmining.website. The recent threads might be the reason why CD chose to tag them now

Don't try to refute any of my points or anything about the substance of what I have said, or anything like that.

A hint like "/sarcasm" might be good, you never know when someone is being sarcastic in bcttalk. Anyway, thats enough words from me this night. Will possibly "argue"(pretty much every argument is one-sided as it seems I get easily swayed) tomorrow