Marketplace trust

[mikeywith]

Why would be bother to confirm a rule that is not ambiguous?  

I can confirm it's not ambiguous but  then the explanation i presented is the valid one, so for the sake of not totally refusing to consider the other possibility, i will just call it ambiguous and needs to be "confirmed"

Here are some of Theymos sent feedback






So unless theymos did trade 100,000 BTC with sirius or 10,000  BTC with gmaxwell then my theory is valid, and I highly do believe these numbers were never actually traded, thus the word "you" there is simply a poor choice of words , or Theymos does not follow his own guideline.

[1714192119]

1714192119

[1714192119]

1714192119

[TECSHARE]

Why would be bother to confirm a rule that is not ambiguous? 

I can confirm it's not ambiguous but  then the explanation i presented is the valid one, so for the sake of not totally refusing to consider the other possibility, i will just call it ambiguous and needs to be "confirmed"

Here are some of Theymos sent feedback






So unless theymos did trade 100,000.00000000 BTC with sirius or 10,000.00000000 BTC with gmaxwell then my theory is valid, and I highly do believe these numbers were never actually traded, thus the word "you" there is simply a poor choice of words , or Theymos does not follow his own guideline.

You are making a mistake in assuming there are a set of rules that apply to everyone that govern this forum. The rules are whatever those in control say they are at any given time. We don't have rule of law here, we have might makes right.

[Vod]

So unless theymos did trade 100,000 BTC with sirius or 10,000  BTC with gmaxwell then my theory is valid, and I highly do believe these numbers were never actually traded, thus the word "you" there is simply a poor choice of words , or Theymos does not follow his own guideline.

You can come to whatever conclusion you want...  and no one else has expressed any concern.   :/

[OgNasty]

Can I ask why it deserves so much trust?   When I took a test drive last year, they didn't put me in their commercials for returning the car.  I had no choice as they knew who I was.   Sure, if OG would have been able to convert the coin to $$ without red flags, he would be a fugitive for the rest of his life.  That's hard with children.

He did what he had to - let's not make it so dramatic.  

Let's also remember he was paid very generously (6 BTC a year) to brag everywhere he had all this coin...

First off, read the contract.  Everything you say is idiotic and ignorant.

Secondly, I didn't realize that acknowledging I was a treasurer was considered bragging everywhere.  It's called being transparent and the information was already posted publicly by theymos.  A shame you've turned into such a jealous lying insignificant little weasel.  When's the IRS update?

[mikeywith]

I am not a big fan of discussing very general matters when there is a very specific subject to be discussed , theymos clearly stated this

"Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you

But then he does leave a risked BTC amount which he could not have lost ( assuming my previous theory is correct ) , so this does not seem to me like Theymos put that point for us to follow and for him to ignore, it just doesn't make sense, therefore the only explanation I can think of is that he did not mean that it has to really be "YOU" trading with that member for you to be able to use the risked amount.

You can come to whatever conclusion you want... 

Indeed, we all can.

[EcuaMobi]

You don't need anyone's cooperation.  I can adjust/remove the feedback as needed.  Just do what you feel is right.  :)

Like I said, it's the same for me setting the risked amount to BTC50 or BTC0. I don't think that's important at all. And I doubt it would be an issue for Pamoldar or dbshck either.
When there's a small disagreement in trust, something that can be fixed with a couple of messages, then I think it's worth asking for cooperation. I don't need anyone's cooperation but I think that can help in this case. I did what I feel is right but I feel updating the risked amount to BTC0 would be exactly as much right.

His account may be ? ? ? to you, but to default trust he has positive trust right now.

I don't see him as ???. However if I'm not mistaken he would be shown like that if yours would be his first negative trust. I think you misread my previous post.

I wish you just explicitly answered the questions I posted.

Can I ask why it deserves so much trust?   When I took a test drive last year, they didn't put me in their commercials for returning the car.  I had no choice as they knew who I was.   Sure, if OG would have been able to convert the coin to $$ without red flags, he would be a fugitive for the rest of his life.  That's hard with children.

He did what he had to - let's not make it so dramatic.

I absolutely agree. He did what he had to do. A lot of us would have done the same thing, but not everyone.
However I don't think I'm getting dramatic about this. I'm just leaving positive trust on a forum. I'm not giving a medal or an award. I'm not even removing him from my distrust list as I still don't trust his judgment.
That particular action deserves positive trust. Feel free to leave negative trust to him if you think other actions of him deserve negative trust but TBH I find it absurd you think that specific action deserves negative trust just because the risked amount is not 0. Please just ask us to update the risked amount if that's the only issue you find about this.

Let's also remember he was paid very generously (6 BTC a year) to brag everywhere he had all this coin...

I partially agree. I think he was very lucky getting that treasurer position. He got the money and the opportunity to prove he'd return $4 million. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve positive trust. Again, it's just positive trust on a forum.

[H8bussesNbicycles]

vod acting foolishly with a bad excuse to neg og
way to destroy yourself voddie

[Vod]

vod acting foolishly with a bad excuse to neg og
way to destroy yourself voddie

As promised, I changed my negative to neutral.  He has still red tagged me though, apparently through cherry picked encouragement from Theymos.

THREE LIES CORRUPT.  ^TM

[OgNasty]

As promised, I changed my negative to neutral.  He has still red tagged me though, apparently through cherry picked encouragement from Theymos.

THREE LIES CORRUPT.  ^TM

LOL.  Vod you are such a clown.

[H8bussesNbicycles]

vod
apologise to og and the community for your recent tantrum episodes and we may forgive you if you end your retarded escapade now admitting your mistakes
but we will not forget


4 some thing it is to late but not loo late to end causing yourself further damages




even if u cant c yourself    the last grip u have left on the slippery slope you are slipping down is near expended

[malevolent]

Every time Vod accuses OgNasty on the forum of harassing him on social media, OgNasty denies having done so. Either one of them is lying, or someone's having fun of impersonating OgNasty.

[H8bussesNbicycles]

Every time Vod accuses OgNasty on the forum of harassing him on social media, OgNasty denies having done so. Either one of them is lying, or someone's having fun of impersonating OgNasty.

show some proof vod or apologise
screenshots and hand your account over to a trusted member to confirm



or vod lies confirmed
proof or lies



accuser bears burden of proofs

[Vod]

Every time Vod accuses OgNasty on the forum of harassing him on social media, OgNasty denies having done so. Either one of them is lying, or someone's having fun of impersonating OgNasty.

No, he is not lying.  I never said he contacted me personally, like he is claiming.   We all know he loves to twist words.  He knows exactly what he did. 

[TECSHARE]

I am not a big fan of discussing very general matters when there is a very specific subject to be discussed

I am sorry I didn't realize you were in charge of what I am allowed to discuss in a general thread about marketplace trust.

Every time Vod accuses OgNasty on the forum of harassing him on social media, OgNasty denies having done so. Either one of them is lying, or someone's having fun of impersonating OgNasty.

It seems pretty overtly clear Vod has a years long pattern of lying to justify his abusive behavior so, I am not sure why this is not part of your calculation here.

[mikeywith]

I am sorry I didn't realize you were in charge of what I am allowed to discuss in a general thread about marketplace trust.

I did not say you are not allowed to discuss whatever you want, you are simply twisting my words here, you directed something to me, I could have simply ignored you but I was nice enough to tell you that I don't like this general rambling you are trying to bring into the middle of a very specific discussion.

[TECSHARE]

I am sorry I didn't realize you were in charge of what I am allowed to discuss in a general thread about marketplace trust.

I did not say you are not allowed to discuss whatever you want, you are simply twisting my words here, you directed something to me, I could have simply ignored you but I was nice enough to tell you that I don't like this general rambling you are trying to bring into the middle of a very specific discussion.

And? Do you want a cookie? What is the point of even mentioning it? Do you really think I am going to let you dictate the topics I choose to discuss because you don't like it? This is a general thread about the trust system. Deal with it.

[Vod]

I am sorry I didn't realize you were in charge of what I am allowed to discuss in a general thread about marketplace trust.

I did not say you are not allowed to discuss whatever you want, you are simply twisting my words here

His other trick is to edit your quotes. 

[TECSHARE]

I am sorry I didn't realize you were in charge of what I am allowed to discuss in a general thread about marketplace trust.

I did not say you are not allowed to discuss whatever you want, you are simply twisting my words here

His other trick is to edit your quotes.  

I would ask you to provide a single example, but we all know you are totally full of shit as usual and you will simply spend the whole time doing your little mentally ill clown dance to distract from that fact that you can't substantiate your claims. That scenario sounds familiar...

[mikeywith]

This is a general thread about the trust system. Deal with it.

So you are free to discuss whatever you want , and I am obligated to join every discussion you want to start ? how convenient  

Do you really think I am going to let you dictate the topics I choose to discuss because you don't like it

Without a doubt, your post was directed to me, and I am in charge of whether or not have it discussed, i chose not to, and there it is , FINISHED. (Deal with it)  

Good luck finding someone else who is willing to discuss the conspiracy theory with you specially with this attitude you got on you.

[malevolent]

It seems pretty overtly clear Vod has a years long pattern of lying to justify his abusive behavior so, I am not sure why this is not part of your calculation here.

I don't really fully trust either of them.

So unless theymos did trade 100,000.00000000 BTC with sirius or 10,000.00000000 BTC with gmaxwell then my theory is valid, and I highly do believe these numbers were never actually traded, thus the word "you" there is simply a poor choice of words , or Theymos does not follow his own guideline.

You are making a mistake in assuming there are a set of rules that apply to everyone that govern this forum. The rules are whatever those in control say they are at any given time. We don't have rule of law here, we have might makes right.

Theymos has been involved with Bitcoin long enough that those figures are likely to be true.

Trust ratings also are not moderated.

And yes, for better or worse (the former, all in all, IMHO), theymos has the final say over how this place is being run.