I am being given neg feedback for political reasons

[Qartada]

Goodbye Lauda, Enjoy destroying everything Theymos worked for.

Quite recently, you were claiming that Lauda and Theymos are the same person.  What changed?

Kiklo has Left the Building!

You said that ages ago.  Have you really?

So I will probably just say to hell with btctalk and use other forums, since this design is abusive and stupid and mistreats others with no probably cause.

How interesting that you said "other forums", instead of naming one.  That's because there aren't any really good Bitcoin forums or places for discussion.  Bitcoin.com is weak and Reddit is much worse than here.

[Lauda]

Quite recently, you were claiming that Lauda and Theymos are the same person.  What changed?

Apparently, according to him, my rating even got him banned!

You said that ages ago.  Have you really?

We also know a certain someone that once said he'd leave Bitcointalk but never did. I'll give you a small hint, he is really quick at selling.

How interesting that you said "other forums", instead of naming one.  That's because there aren't any really good Bitcoin forums or places for discussion.  Bitcoin.com is weak and Reddit is much worse than here.

Reddit is very useless due to simple manipulation (e.g. vote brigading). Don't you dare mention Bitcoin Core in a positive tone on Bitcoin.com.

[jonald_fyookball]

feel free to find an old address, i'll likely be able to sign a message, not that I need to prove anything.

We could do that; not that it's necessary. Try this one: 1Fr2qUpHkyyuxmz5APz7ViCp2rM8zRU5ho or 1KcofPMDKQyR87MYxkHFcqf6vJzXPJyxV2.
 

Yes it is not necessary and there is no reason for anyone to think I've sold my account.   In fact, i'm a little tired of these silly argument by assertions.

But since I offered, the first address is signed with a message "jf-6-11-2017"

HGcmK97jOH6XtCOT0wIYKYxtXu7C7RdXZKu6WtnpjZWNNRHl1ic+VlmengWVAn3S9QRd8UYRKRXsaHISWMlLorY=

[Spoetnik]

A few users here have been getting carried away trying to be Bitcointalk cops.
Going over-board posting negative ratings.
Stretching the reasons for them to extreme levels.
And why are a handful of users taking it upon themselves to be the vigilante ?

@OP
I don't think what they did to you was fair.
It's getting a bit stupid these days with the excuses for a neg rating.

It's now more a chicks i don't like you or i "feel" you are suspicious rating system for DT members.
If it's questionable like my ratings i got then they should be added as feedback instead.
Instead what was see is pricks running around ruining a ton of peoples trust rating based on suspicion etc.

Myself i had a bunch of stunts pulled on me in a similar way.
I did fuck all but i had a guys out to get me and they were going to make damn sure to come up with some reason to neg me.. simply to attack me and ruin my rating.

It had nothing to do with me being caught doing something dishonest.
All it's about is cocky arrogant pricks using the Trust System as an attack tool here.
I can thoroughly debunk any claim of me if needed to.. and have.. of course it make no difference though.

Come to terms with the fact that this place is full of cowardly little assholes.

[MargonCreatives]

Sometimes I wonder if Blazed is himself a scammer or he is indeed a hidden criminal because there is no reason why blazed would keep an extortionist and abusive guy who gives red trust because of some stupid reasons which are but not limited to : late repayment of loan, not agreeing ot lauda, etc

well, I would personally not participate in anything started/managed by blazed and urge everyone to do the same, maybe then he realize.

[Lauda]

Yes it is not necessary and there is no reason for anyone to think I've sold my account.  

It does not look like it is likely that your account is sold as the message verifies. Regardless, my rating stands until you stop smearing my name ('false information' is often arguable anyways).

In fact, i'm a little tired of these silly argument by assertions.

There isn't a single argument by assertion. Why are you making up things now?

If it's questionable like my ratings i got then they should be added as feedback instead.

Enlighten me about the difference between 'ratings' and 'feedback'.

-snip-
well, I would personally not participate in anything started/managed by blazed and urge everyone to do the same, maybe then he realize.

In combination with the attempted slander and this, you may only dig a deeper hole for yourself.

[Nagadota]

feel free to find an old address, i'll likely be able to sign a message, not that I need to prove anything.

We could do that; not that it's necessary. Try this one: 1Fr2qUpHkyyuxmz5APz7ViCp2rM8zRU5ho or 1KcofPMDKQyR87MYxkHFcqf6vJzXPJyxV2.
 

Yes it is not necessary and there is no reason for anyone to think I've sold my account.   In fact, i'm a little tired of these silly argument by assertions.

But since I offered, the first address is signed with a message "jf-6-11-2017"

HGcmK97jOH6XtCOT0wIYKYxtXu7C7RdXZKu6WtnpjZWNNRHl1ic+VlmengWVAn3S9QRd8UYRKRXsaHISWMlLorY=

Yep, verified that.
It makes far more sense to me that negative trust from DT members would be limited to suspicious trade deals specifically, because anything else is subject to bias.

That's not to say that DT members shouldn't be able to do this, but that it would be misleading for them to have a red tag next to their name for something that wasn't trade-related.

But since this is the forum we're on, you need to think yourself about how you could have avoided the rating.

Some of your threads are quite misleading about what you're talking about - for example, there was a thread claiming that Adam Back wanted $100 fees, when in fact he just suggesting that people would be willing to pay that much but directly said he would prefer the fees to be much lower.  You also started a thread claiming that Luke Jr wanted people to use fiat, when in fact he was pointing out how ridiculous the alternatives to Bitcoin are (the exact opposite).

It's clear that Lauda would have done this a very long time ago if it was solely about your opinion rather than you acting in this misleading way.

[jonald_fyookball]

feel free to find an old address, i'll likely be able to sign a message, not that I need to prove anything.

We could do that; not that it's necessary. Try this one: 1Fr2qUpHkyyuxmz5APz7ViCp2rM8zRU5ho or 1KcofPMDKQyR87MYxkHFcqf6vJzXPJyxV2.
 

Yes it is not necessary and there is no reason for anyone to think I've sold my account.   In fact, i'm a little tired of these silly argument by assertions.

But since I offered, the first address is signed with a message "jf-6-11-2017"

HGcmK97jOH6XtCOT0wIYKYxtXu7C7RdXZKu6WtnpjZWNNRHl1ic+VlmengWVAn3S9QRd8UYRKRXsaHISWMlLorY=

Yep, verified that.
It makes far more sense to me that negative trust from DT members would be limited to suspicious trade deals specifically, because anything else is subject to bias.

That's not to say that DT members shouldn't be able to do this, but that it would be misleading for them to have a red tag next to their name for something that wasn't trade-related.

But since this is the forum we're on, you need to think yourself about how you could have avoided the rating.

Some of your threads are quite misleading about what you're talking about - for example, there was a thread claiming that Adam Back wanted $100 fees, when in fact he just suggesting that people would be willing to pay that much but directly said he would prefer the fees to be much lower.  You also started a thread claiming that Luke Jr wanted people to use fiat, when in fact he was pointing out how ridiculous the alternatives to Bitcoin are (the exact opposite).

It's clear that Lauda would have done this a very long time ago if it was solely about your opinion rather than you acting in this misleading way.

There's nothing misleading at all about those threads, and they link directly to the source so you can see what Adam or Luke said.  This is nothing compared to all the BS and lies coming from people like Greg (see the link earlier in this thread for proof). 
 

[Lauda]

But it is doubtful anything will be changed as it would disrupt Theymos elite trust members as they have an unfair advantage over all non-trust members.
Power corrupts as history has proven.

Absolute garbage. One does not gain anything for the majority of the ratings left. All you get is butthurt, whining and an occasional thank you for tagging a scammer or preventing a scam.
Adam Back:"I bet they would pay $100/tx for digital gold..... still be really good if fees were much lower"
Jonald: "Adam Back of Blockstream thinks you should pay $100 fees"

There's nothing misleading at all about those threads..

This is nothing compared to all the BS and lies coming from people like Greg (see the link earlier in this thread for proof). 

Classic fallacy of relative privation.

Some of your threads are quite misleading about what you're talking about - ...
It's clear that Lauda would have done this a very long time ago if it was solely about your opinion rather than you acting in this misleading way.

I refuse to believe that a free and sane mind could spread such misinformation and claim that there is nothing misleading about what they're preaching.

[Lauda]

1.  They are no longer eligible for most signature campaigns.
     This leaves the higher paying signature campaigns for the DT members which are usually hero or legendary.

2.  It removes competition from the escrow services.

Yet again, absolute garbage. Who are you referring to, me or in general? Plenty of DT members:
1) Don't care about signature campaigns.
2) Don't offer escrow services.

So I stand by my earlier comment:  Power Corrupts.

Definitely. However, you're completely mistaken with DT. 99% of the ratings, including this one, does not benefit the person who left it.

[Lauda]

Did I mention you by name, yet you felt the need to reply as if I did,

You are replying to me.

You are receiving income from a signature campaign and you are acting as an escrow service with some other DT members, including the one that made you a member.

ACE is not a classic signature campaign. You are confused. None of this benefits me at all.

I suggest you look deep within yourself for the real answer.

I suggest you stop writing nonsense.

Hurling insults is a weak attempt to diffuse a logical point , which shows you have no logical or moral reply.

1) No insults were thrown.
2) You have no logical point.
Now mind telling us the following: 1) Who is your main account. 2) How many of your accounts are of the following: a) Banned via SMAS. b) Neg. rated for whatever reason. c) Farmed accounts. This may shed some light.
Update: Nevermind. Now, I see it. You're a shill from the ZEIT shitcoin.

[Lauda]

The point is that you get off on the pretense that you imagine the DT Membership gives you , just like the prison guards in the Standford experiment.  

Correction: "You think that..." whatever you've just written. The comparison itself is fallacious and backed up by vapor.

Plus you pretend your DT make you an authority, when the fact is , even Theymos ignores you when you post for him to respond to a question.

Absolutely false.

Just because you write it does not make it true, and you have no authority in the real world , which is why you are going off like a wild cannon in the virtual world.
IE:  Power Corrupts.

I thought kiklo said he left Bitcointalk?

[Lauda]

Together you profit by red tagging other members to block competition.
All a gang of Default Trust Prison Guards.

Are you trying to smear our name without actually having or providing proof of anything? The escrow team did not exist 20 days ago.

Trying to assign the words , I spoke directly to you , is a very weak form of deflection.
I said the above to you no one else.

Words for the wise, if you don't want me to tell you about your personal flaws, Don't instigate direct conversation.

Go back to your ZEIT shitcoin cesspit, troll.

I am done with this conversation for 1 reason,  you are incapable of intelligent conversation and rely on insults to cover up your considerable shortcomings.

Most definitely, mr. ZEIT shill.

[Zepher]

Update: the members of your Escrow Service.
    Blazed
    minerjones
    Lauda
    Zepher

Together you profit by red tagging other members to block competition.
All a gang of Default Trust Prison Guards.

╥AztekPhoenix

Right, lets clear something up here. CET was only just recently started, and has absolutely nothing to do with DT users leaving ratings.

Please provide me with some proof that I have personally left a rating to profit off of, and in your own words - blocking competition. This really is not the case.

I have just started escrowing, before this I have been an active Collectibles trader for quite some time. I still trade. I always will.

My DT status has nothing to do with any of this though. I leave ratings on scammers and untrustworthy people to protect members of this forum. If I find I made a mistake with a rating, I remove it happily. I am always up for discussion about ratings I leave. Just need to shoot me a PM. I am not here to ruin others' accounts, trash their reputation, or anything of the sort. I actually feel that I am doing a service to the forum, unpaid, for making other people aware with the ratings I leave.

Once again though, this has nothing to do with the escrow team.

Now, kindly provide some proof, or get off your high horse.

[Nagadota]

feel free to find an old address, i'll likely be able to sign a message, not that I need to prove anything.

We could do that; not that it's necessary. Try this one: 1Fr2qUpHkyyuxmz5APz7ViCp2rM8zRU5ho or 1KcofPMDKQyR87MYxkHFcqf6vJzXPJyxV2.
 

Yes it is not necessary and there is no reason for anyone to think I've sold my account.   In fact, i'm a little tired of these silly argument by assertions.

But since I offered, the first address is signed with a message "jf-6-11-2017"

HGcmK97jOH6XtCOT0wIYKYxtXu7C7RdXZKu6WtnpjZWNNRHl1ic+VlmengWVAn3S9QRd8UYRKRXsaHISWMlLorY=

Yep, verified that.
It makes far more sense to me that negative trust from DT members would be limited to suspicious trade deals specifically, because anything else is subject to bias.

That's not to say that DT members shouldn't be able to do this, but that it would be misleading for them to have a red tag next to their name for something that wasn't trade-related.

But since this is the forum we're on, you need to think yourself about how you could have avoided the rating.

Some of your threads are quite misleading about what you're talking about - for example, there was a thread claiming that Adam Back wanted $100 fees, when in fact he just suggesting that people would be willing to pay that much but directly said he would prefer the fees to be much lower.  You also started a thread claiming that Luke Jr wanted people to use fiat, when in fact he was pointing out how ridiculous the alternatives to Bitcoin are (the exact opposite).

It's clear that Lauda would have done this a very long time ago if it was solely about your opinion rather than you acting in this misleading way.

There's nothing misleading at all about those threads

Please explain.  I'm genuinely interested.

and they link directly to the source so you can see what Adam or Luke said.

You know perfectly well that the majority of people you're trying to convince here are:

-Stuck in an echo chamber (many users favouring Core are as well, but this does not contradict my point);
-Spammers;
-Users with a poor grasp of interpretation and/or the English language.

[jonald_fyookball]

@Nagadota

Yes,the level of idiocy here is epic. 

To answer your question:  When Adam Back tweets something ridiculous, how he worded it is not the point.
Who cares whether he should users SHOULD pay $100 fees vs or he thinks they WOULD pay it...it's all the
same nonsense.

Then you have clowns trying to nitpick it and saying when I post a thread about that, its deceptive because I didn't phrase
it exactly like the tweet... so I'm the deceptive one?  Adam Back and Blockstream are the kings of deception. 

It's so far gone into the zone of ridiculousness, I don't know what to say.

 

[Nagadota]

Yes,the level of idiocy here is epic.  

I guess I phrased that poorly.  I was talking about the people that you're trying to bring on to your side in your threads - people that would not read into it enough to consider the distinction between your argument and what the quote/other argument actually is.  However I do think that it's applicable to both sides.

To answer your question:  When Adam Back tweets something ridiculous, how he worded it is not the point.
Who cares whether he should users SHOULD pay $100 fees vs or he thinks they WOULD pay it...it's all the
same nonsense.

He said he would prefer for the fees to be "much lower".  I consider it to be an attack on doomsday/"flippening" predictions for BTC rather than support for those fees, rather than suggesting that users should pay that much.

The distinction between "could" and "should" might sound minor but in reality it's far more significant.

Then you have clowns trying to nitpick it and saying when I post a thread about that, its deceptive because I didn't phrase
it exactly like the tweet... so I'm the deceptive one?  Adam Back and Blockstream are the kings of deception.  

Projection is not helping.

[jonald_fyookball]

He said he would prefer for the fees to be "much lower".  I consider it to be an attack on doomsday/"flippening" predictions for BTC rather than support for those fees, rather than suggesting that users should pay that much.

Blockstream's plan is to make fees very high and then save us with their sidechain, LN, etc "solutions". 

This is obvious.

[Quickseller]

Some of your threads are quite misleading about what you're talking about - for example, there was a thread claiming that Adam Back wanted $100 fees, when in fact he just suggesting that people would be willing to pay that much but directly said he would prefer the fees to be much lower.  You also started a thread claiming that Luke Jr wanted people to use fiat, when in fact he was pointing out how ridiculous the alternatives to Bitcoin are (the exact opposite).

It's clear that Lauda would have done this a very long time ago if it was solely about your opinion rather than you acting in this misleading way.

This is not the first time that Lauda has left negative ratings for people for political reasons.

Several months ago, Lauda gave a negative rating to franky1 that was clearly a political rating (source), however it was removed after being called out about it (archive for both). The difference in this case is that Lauda is not the only one to have given this person a negative rating for political purposes.

I think your concern is that jonald_fyookball's threads/posts are less neutral than you would like, however this is the nature of political discourse. I think you would be hard pressed to find a neutral article regarding President Trump on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, and it is fairly common for all of those major news outlets to editorialize stories they pass off as news.

As I mentioned previously, I think that jonald_fyookball should make it more public that it is Blazed who is effectively causing negative ratings to be given for political purposes via Lauda. 

[Lauda]

Several months ago, Lauda gave a negative rating to franky1 that was clearly a political rating (source), however it was removed after being called out about it (archive for both).

No.

As I mentioned previously, I think that jonald_fyookball should make it more public that it is Blazed who is effectively causing negative ratings to be given for political purposes via Lauda. 

No.

The sole reason for which mister Quickseller wants me out of DT is because that would void a unknown number of my ratings on scammers and various types of account trafficking. Of which the latter are his business. This includes, but is not limited to, selling DT accounts to scammers.

Time to move out of the basement snowflake?