Is trolling or personal attacks allowed? Seems like it

[yahoo62278]

Not that i cant handle the heat from this loser but enough is enough already. This user LegalDiscussions is making thread after thread trying to toss shit up in the air hoping it sticks. This is the worst case of trolling ive seen in a long time. Need a moderator to step in.

Hes obviously pissed off because I wont allow his alts in campaigns, I have blacklisted him, or whatever other reason he might have. There have been 6 threads created with bullshit topics and baseless accusations.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790913.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1789698.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1754522.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1753847.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1751707.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1753779.0

I have my thoughts on who it is(QuickSeller) im not gonna hide my thoughts on it. If you need an excuse to ban the acct how about spamming the forum? Ignorance? Mental deficiency?

The forum doesnt get involved but i think in the case of multiple personal attacks we need a rule

[1713948846]

1713948846

[1713948846]

1713948846

[Fortify]

There is not enough staff in the world to handle every case of "trolling" and you should just ignore this person. Hell, there is an "ignore" button right under their username. You should definitely give them a negative reputation point and include a reference link to this thread - so others are aware of their behaviour in future.

[Joel_Jantsen]

As long as he as something "arguable" on the table,I wouldn't call it a troll obviously.Having said that,I'm completely against personal attacks but that's least of the forums concerns.Engg.chakks had left me  a threat about raping my sister  and giving me a hell of a time in life but nothing was done about it.
#Bitcointalk

[Quickseller]

You should definitely give them a negative reputation point and include a reference link to this thread - so others are aware of their behaviour in future.

Oh, I am glad that you believe negative trust should be used to silence critics.

I will remember this about you in the future.

Buddy, I am not legaldiscussions. I don't need to make multiple threads to discredit you, your inability to take criticism is going to do that yourself. Although being part of a deal that you are an escrow to in which money is lost/stolen will likely get you labeled as a scammer if you don't make the damaged party(IRS) while.

[rizzlarolla]

I have not posted in any of Lergaldiscussions threads, but i agree with his assessment of yahoo having conflict of interest.

Account seller, sig manager, DT. That seems the way of things here.
Selling accounts as sig earners, supporting/paying farmed accounts.

Shame that Leagaldiscussions wasn't a bit more thorough, articulate and specific.
No way his point will be entertained by the scammer network here. theymos - mods - DT.

[Lauda]

Although being part of a deal that you are an escrow to in which money is lost/stolen will likely get you labeled as a scammer if you don't make the damaged party(IRS) while.

Nonsense. The investors were well informed of the risk. Anyhow, they're getting paid back not that this has relevance to OP.

I have not posted in any of Lergaldiscussions threads, but i agree with his assessment of yahoo having conflict of interest.

Account seller, sig manager, DT. That seems the way of things here.

You may have missed one vital piece of information here: This was a long time ago, and Yahoo never tried to hide this. He hasn't been selling any accounts for a long time AFAIK.

[rizzlarolla]

I have not posted in any of Lergaldiscussions threads, but i agree with his assessment of yahoo having conflict of interest.

Account seller, sig manager, DT. That seems the way of things here.

You may have missed one vital piece of information here: This was a long time ago, and Yahoo never tried to hide this. He hasn't been selling any accounts for a long time AFAIK.

Accepted. I have no evidence either way. I have not researched this.

But, yahoo did and still does [last i checked a week or two ago. Edit - still does, just checked.] pay farmed accounts on his campaign's, and has left [some of] my questions [about this] unanswered on other threads.
(particually about Fatanut, "respected farmed account")
From my prespective, he seems to think i'm trolling also.

There is a conflict there, imo.
(as there is in nearly every aspect of this site, imo, from theymos - mods - DT - campaign managers - farmed accounts - hacked accounts, [nearly] all working together to scam, or at least take bitcoin from the gullible, or more specifically in this case, potentially paying ones self to shill the next scam ico)

[Lauda]

Accepted. I have no evidence either way. I have not researched this.

Anyhow, the user in question has been trying to dig up dirt vs. yahoo for a while now via this alt. It can't generally be taken serious.

But, yahoo did and still does [last i checked a week or two ago] pay farmed accounts on his campaign's, and has left [some of] my questions [about this] unanswered on other threads.
(particually about Fatanut, "respected farmed account")

That's a debatable question. If an account is farmed, but it stands out by contributions, post quality, et. al, do we treat it as any other random farmed account (e.g. those spamming or shilling ICOs)?

There is a conflict there, imo.

Yes, there is often a conflict when one is involved in several things.

[rizzlarolla]

Accepted. I have no evidence either way. I have not researched this.

Anyhow, the user in question has been trying to dig up dirt vs. yahoo for a while now via this alt. It can't generally be taken serious.

That account is hard to take seriously, which is also why i have not got involved in those threads.
Doesn't mean that the content of his posts are by default incorrect.

But, yahoo did and still does [last i checked a week or two ago] pay farmed accounts on his campaign's, and has left [some of] my questions [about this] unanswered on other threads.
(particually about Fatanut, "respected farmed account")

That's a debatable question. If an account is farmed, but it stands out by contributions, post quality, et. al, do we treat it as any other random farmed account (e.g. those spamming or shilling ICOs)?

I stand by my claim of 100% accuracy identifying 700 farmed accounts listed in my 500+ thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1670807.0
To me, and we may differ here, they are all scum for real people.
They are, to the account, only here to profit. The more reputable they become, the bigger the final scam potential, imo.
(we have both watched the recent happenings of these accounts? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1597201.msg16817072#msg16817072 )

There is a conflict there, imo.

Yes, there is often a conflict when one is involved in several things.

Yes. But you don't then usually promote, praise and give profit to those setting such an example, provably as recently as last year?
(in a normal profit/business situation where the boss is against such practice, which is clearly not the case here, quite the opposite, imo)

[Quickseller]

Although being part of a deal that you are an escrow to in which money is lost/stolen will likely get you labeled as a scammer if you don't make the damaged party(ies) whole.

Nonsense. The investors were well informed of the risk. Anyhow, they're getting paid back not that this has relevance to OP.

Investors were not informed of the risk. I know this because it was non-obvious when looking at the archive of the original ICO thread that this was the case.

This is relevant to this thread because Yahoo is accusing me of being LegalDiscussions to try to harm his reputation, and I was pointing out that I do not need to take any actions myself for his reputation to be negatively affected.

[Lauda]

Doesn't mean that the content of his posts are by default incorrect.

Correct, but the likelihood is that they are.

I stand by my claim of 100% accuracy identifying 700 farmed accounts listed in my 500+ thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1670807.0

I'm not going to dispute that nor fully back it. From what I've seen, and this is based off of a few randomly chosen accounts, you're right.

To me, and we may differ here, they are all scum for real people.

Yes, we probably differ at this point. Generally I'd agree with you.

Yes. But you don't then usually promote, praise and give profit to those setting such an example, provably as recently as last year?
(in a normal profit/business situation where the boss is against such practice, which is clearly not the case here, quite the opposite, imo)

Indeed.

Investors were not informed of the risk. I know this because it was non-obvious when looking at the archive of the original ICO thread that this was the case.

The escrow agreement was linked in the original post and visible on the website. In addition to that, it was mentioned in the thread several times as the 'team' was responding to the question. If you invest without reading the terms, then you're the only one whose isn't responsible.
Here's thread number 7: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1792102.0

[Quickseller]

Investors were not informed of the risk. I know this because it was non-obvious when looking at the archive of the original ICO thread that this was the case.

The escrow agreement was linked in the original post and visible on the website. In addition to that, it was mentioned in the thread several times as the 'team' was responding to the question. If you invest without reading the terms, then you're the only one whose isn't responsible.

I think we may have a different opinion as to what constitutes being "well informed".

When one party is taking risks as part of a transaction that I cannot, as escrow, protect against, I will force the party taking said risk to acknowledge the risks to me before I agree to participate in the transaction. This will take up a lot of my time, and will frequently result in me not receiving my fee because the deal falls through once all the risks are very clear (and that it is clear that I am not guaranteeing against certain risks).

Some escrow agents will outright refuse to participate in certain high-risk transactions such as account sales and PayPal deals. They also lose out on their fee when they decline to act as escrow for these deals.

In your case, a disclosure was placed in what I would consider to be a non-obvious location (assuming there was actually a disclosure -- I am unable to independently verify this one way or another), participants to the transaction in question did not affirmatively acknowledge that they were not being protected. The potential for losses was not clearly defined by any measure. What I believe to be most importantly, both you and several of your friends were hired (and one can only reasonably assume to be paid for) to provide services by the party who was not taking the excessive risks -- this not only includes acting as escrow, but also those hired to manage the various advertising campaigns.

[Lauda]

I think we may have a different opinion as to what constitutes being "well informed".

When one party is taking risks as part of a transaction that I cannot, as escrow, protect against, I will force the party taking said risk to acknowledge the risks to me before I agree to participate in the transaction. This will take up a lot of my time, and will frequently result in me not receiving my fee because the deal falls through once all the risks are very clear (and that it is clear that I am not guaranteeing against certain risks).

You aren't being objective again QS, otherwise we'd have somewhat clear opinions on a parenthood of things. The problem is, again, that you're stirring up problems in cases which do not involve you in any way (e.g. zepher case).

In your case, a disclosure was placed in what I would consider to be a non-obvious location (assuming there was actually a disclosure -- I am unable to independently verify this one way or another), participants to the transaction in question did not affirmatively acknowledge that they were not being protected.

If you invest without reading the escrow agreement, that is your lack of responsibility, not mine.

The potential for losses was not clearly defined by any measure.

This is true though. This is why I warned the escrows of another project which had a similar setup (I think it was once every 24 hours). I will not engage in such setups again.

What I believe to be most importantly, both you and several of your friends were hired (and one can only reasonably assume to be paid for) to provide services by the party who was not taking the excessive risks -- this not only includes acting as escrow, but also those hired to manage the various advertising campaigns.

Nobody was paid, and the most people got invited through other parties and not one of the "developers" themselves AFAIK. Anyhow, I think the other two escrows (minerjones and yahoo) acted in a very well manner in this unfortunate situation.

[Quickseller]

In your case, a disclosure was placed in what I would consider to be a non-obvious location (assuming there was actually a disclosure -- I am unable to independently verify this one way or another), participants to the transaction in question did not affirmatively acknowledge that they were not being protected.

If you invest without reading the escrow agreement, that is your lack of responsibility, not mine.

As I mentioned, I force the party taking the risk to actively acknowledge the risks they are taking. I would also opine that the escrow agreement was not in a prominent location, it being displayed was clearly controlled solely by one party (resulting in it potentially being tampered with).

I also dispute that the "team" was disclosing the risks of using you as escrow when they responded to questions. One of the pictures describing the escrow process makes no mention that you were not going to be holding the funds immidiately. If anything the fact that funds were at risk was hidden.

Probably most importantly, the escrows were being heavily criticized in the original unmoderated thread, however such criticism was quickly halted once that thread was locked and a new, self-moderated thread was created.

The potential for losses was not clearly defined by any measure.

This is true though. This is why I warned the escrows of another project which had a similar setup (I think it was once every 24 hours). I will not engage in such setups again.

If you think you were not in the wrong in acting as escrow in the way that the deal you botched was setup, then I don't see why would you way you will not engage in such setups again.

What I believe to be most importantly, both you and several of your friends were hired (and one can only reasonably assume to be paid for) to provide services by the party who was not taking the excessive risks -- this not only includes acting as escrow, but also those hired to manage the various advertising campaigns.

Nobody was paid, and the most people got invited through other parties and not one of the "developers" themselves AFAIK.

It is good that so many of your friends were so trusting that they were going to get paid by the devs with zero reputation. Or maybe it is good that your friends were so willing to work for free on this project

[Lauda]

As I mentioned, I force the party taking the risk to actively acknowledge the risks they are taking. I would also opine that the escrow agreement was not in a prominent location, it being displayed was clearly controlled solely by one party (resulting in it potentially being tampered with).

I guess they could have made up some T&C on the website which requires you to accept, but we all know that most people just skip it. You can't really force people to acknowledge the risk in these cases.

I also dispute that the "team" was disclosing the risks of using you as escrow when they responded to questions. One of the pictures describing the escrow process makes no mention that you were not going to be holding the funds immidiately. If anything the fact that funds were at risk was hidden.

Nonsense, that is just a diagram and not the agreement. All the user had to do was click in the original post and it would lead them to the escrow agreement which was a document of several pages.

Probably most importantly, the escrows were being heavily criticized in the original unmoderated thread, however such criticism was quickly halted once that thread was locked and a new, self-moderated thread was created.

I don't need spammers and farmed accounts boosting their posts counts. I'd rather get this sorted, which I did.

If you think you were not in the wrong in acting as escrow in the way that the deal you botched was setup, then I don't see why would you way you will not engage in such setups again.

It is not our fault. The reason why I would not engage in such a setup again is because I do not want to accept such a risk anymore. Dabs and Sebastian (I think) were also about to engage in such a deal, but I warned Dabs in time after this happened. You don't seem to annoy them about it, because you are not on a *cough* personal vendetta.

It is good that so many of your friends were so trusting that they were going to get paid by the devs with zero reputation. Or maybe it is good that your friends were so willing to work for free on this project

Trolling again, are we?

[Quickseller]

As I mentioned, I force the party taking the risk to actively acknowledge the risks they are taking. I would also opine that the escrow agreement was not in a prominent location, it being displayed was clearly controlled solely by one party (resulting in it potentially being tampered with).

I guess they could have made up some T&C on the website which requires you to accept, but we all know that most people just skip it. You can't really force people to acknowledge the risk in these cases.

Sure you can. You make them tell you that they understand the specific risks, and ask them to repeat the risks that you just informed them about. Or you could require that the deal be structured in a way so that one party does not have excessive risks.

I also dispute that the "team" was disclosing the risks of using you as escrow when they responded to questions. One of the pictures describing the escrow process makes no mention that you were not going to be holding the funds immidiately. If anything the fact that funds were at risk was hidden.

Nonsense, that is just a diagram and not the agreement. All the user had to do was click in the original post and it would lead them to the escrow agreement which was a document of several pages.

That picture was misleading, you cannot dispute that. There were a total of zero posts to clarify that the picture did not tell the whole story of the escrow setup. After it was determined that the dev of the ICO was a scammer, very few people appeared to understand the risks, and many people appeared to believe that the escrow was going to hold all of the funds.

 

Probably most importantly, the escrows were being heavily criticized in the original unmoderated thread, however such criticism was quickly halted once that thread was locked and a new, self-moderated thread was created.

I don't need spammers and farmed accounts boosting their posts counts. I'd rather get this sorted, which I did.

You don't need people criticizing you either, which you stopped. There are plenty of threads in the altcoin section that people can use to spam and farm accounts.

If you think you were not in the wrong in acting as escrow in the way that the deal you botched was setup, then I don't see why would you way you will not engage in such setups again.

It is not our fault. The reason why I would not engage in such a setup again is because I do not want to accept such a risk anymore.

You are saying "it is not our fault" and "I do not want to accept such a risk anymore"....these two statements are contradictory.

Dabs and Sebastian (I think) were also about to engage in such a deal, but I warned Dabs in time after this happened. You don't seem to annoy them about it, because you are not on a *cough* personal vendetta.

I have not seen evidence of this. I do know that Sebastian did botch an escrow deal in the past -- he very quickly made his customer whole, I don't think they even needed to ask (IIRC), so I have no reason to believe he would not do this again. The statements that the escrows were making in this case were that the funds that were held were all of the funds that were going to be used to repay investors, even though the escrows failed to secure additional funds.

It is good that so many of your friends were so trusting that they were going to get paid by the devs with zero reputation. Or maybe it is good that your friends were so willing to work for free on this project

Trolling again, are we?

No. I am pointing out an obvious lie.

[Lauda]

Sure you can. You make them tell you that they understand the specific risks, and ask them to repeat the risks that you just informed them about. Or you could require that the deal be structured in a way so that one party does not have excessive risks.

That can be done when the number of people is going to be very low, which can't be really be predicted in IPOs.

That picture was misleading, you cannot dispute that.

Then go complain to the person who was responsible for the picture, i.e. the designer.

There were a total of zero posts to clarify that the picture did not tell the whole story of the escrow setup.

This claim just proves that you are either: 1) Spewing nonsense without looking into the situation at all. 2) You are a blatant liar.
I randomly stumbled upon 1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1749935.msg17645266#msg17645266

-snip-
The funds are automatically transferred to the Escrow Address every 8 hours.

You can read our Escrow Agreement here and the Escrow Address is 3627Ns72j7DpGg6tcLdrrc8AvLJ2WKStY4

You are saying "it is not our fault" and "I do not want to accept such a risk anymore"....these two statements are contradictory.

Nope.

I have not seen evidence of this.

Of course not, you only have "evidence" in personal vendettas. Maybe it is time to log in Gorgonzolla.

No. I am pointing out an obvious lie.

Bullshit claims without proof, as always.
I can't say whether the user in question is your alt or not (not that you'd admit it), but it fits the profile of attacks. I wonder how many threats he/she has to create before it gets labeled as spamming and they get banned. 10, 20, 50?

[rizzlarolla]

Doesn't mean that the content of his posts are by default incorrect.

Correct, but the likelihood is that they are.

I agree that the likelihood is that that type of account, creating that type of thread, is dubious.

However, i believe, there is truth to the claims relating to an account seller/sig manager/DT being highly dubious.
I had already alluded to such behavior - here for example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1597201.msg17676332#msg17676332

Yahoo is just another link in theymos's chain of control/scam/profit. imo.
There is no way that the hundreds (700) of mass farmed accounts that i have listed, often shown to spam, sig or scam, would mostly all still be here up to 6 months after being identified by myself, still spamming, scamming and siging - Unless theymos was profiting.

As i have stated several times before, theymos, sig managers, mods and DT all avoid my farmer thread like the plague.
I conclude they are working this forum together for their profit above decency.
(of course, most real members (bitcoiners) would not join the scam's that sig ad here, so farmed accounts are very useful for the purpose)

I conclude this whole forum is a scam ring, operating from the top down.
Bitcointalk - the mtgox of bitcoin forums.

[Vod]

You're wrong - I don't make a penny off this forum.   

[rizzlarolla]

You're wrong - I don't make a penny off this forum.  

Wow. Seriously?
I thought you did. Cause you seem like a mod here.
And they make a good amount of change from the amount of work they do.

arcanaaerobics. You are a farmed account. Who is your campaign manager?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1597201.msg16658179#msg16658179

-------------

The manager is a newbie called mlex. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=919739
Russian, first post Komodo. I suspect i will find he is also farmed.
Employing farmed accounts. (see above)
certainly the next scam. BTC_CHANGE_BOT

--------------

bitconnectcoin - -2: -1 / +0 Warning: Trade with extreme caution! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=919758
Is this a brother farmed account i said i might find? (just asking)
Very similar scam business. registered 20 members after mlex.

---------------

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1589966.msg17878230#msg17878230

Contrats Klf > I hope next week will be my time. I want to experience winning the lottery. lol

Sorry Finestream, farmed account, you didn't win the next week. The yahoo's favourite  farmed account won - Fatanut.   
(Re: Bitsler Signature & Avatar Campaign (Earn up to .05/week)Sr member-Staff(FULL))

Congrats to Fatanut for this weeks lotto, Sheet has bent sent to Baryom

-----------------

Guys all the credit goes to Fatunut here. He did all this work and received a bounty for it as well.

Oh, bounties for that farmed account again, for finding copy/paste.
So i went and found a copy paste by one of yahoo's paid sig campaigners. Surely some bounties for me, a real member?

yahoo,
please see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1648941.msg16737630#msg16737630
any bounty on wibuindon copy paste?

No response from yahoo.
So over 2 weeks later,

PS, fatanut got his rewards, but i guess my bounty is not gonna happen?

Is this ever going to be answered!? I've been waiting and waiting to hear what the answer is. Jeez Louis! Anywho. Let's see if this awakes anything  

Nope. No response from yahoo.

---------------

Just becoming clearer now.

chop? copy paste by wibuindon

snip

note to smas

thanks yahoo for accepting me in this signature campaign 

Next post,

Banned them both, thanks!

Bullshit. wibuindon posting 10 weeks later.

Why wibuindon not banned?
Why kakir not banned?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163169.msg17649402#msg17649402

One is all you need. One copied post = one permaban.