How do you guys feel about trust farming?

[Aventhe]

So there will be no action against the offenders? Their 'Apology' is enough? How many Account Sellers will get their red paint removed if they publicly apologized? I believe the answer is none.

Account selling, as said before, is a whole other thing.

They have literally admitted that they bought the emails to gain trust.

    When was this 'admission' ever made? I am currently using the email forwarding service every day for many, many emails.

It's just annoying at this stage. Ahg!

Why would it be bothering you to the slightest degree?

The way i see it is that these users will do anything to get their trust up, so that they can earn from Signature campaigns. This behavior is shady as hell and deserve negative trust right away.

Say what? "Signature campaigns"? I am pretty sure a user does not earn more if they have trust or not....

[TheButterZone]

So in this case why are Atriz and Aventhe not getting their red paint? (...) They have literally admitted that they bought the emails to gain trust.

No, they haven't LITERALLY admitted that, in their posts I quote below. Fucking English, how does it work?

They were libeled/bullied into proxy bullying ME/micromanaging MY trust page - removing honest ratings in accordance with the feedback page's instruction that Positive="or had a successful trade". Well guess what? I'll change my freely-given ratings when the feedback page no longer instructs me to do so as-is status quo, and makes Neutral ratings for "had a successful trade", rather than Positive.

1. I needed funds for a short amount of time for my own reason, this is just miscommunication between lender and me.

2. I'm using my business email for this account, one email per btt account.

3. Ok? Is not wanting to spend that much money on coins a problem?

I really can't prove that you're telling the truth. You can keep making excuses, I want to see what other people have to say.

2. You know how shitty SMF is. It even says that the email has to be active. Ive tried making accounts with the same email, and with invalid domains and they still work.

Sure okay.

I guess the trust for email is a bit too much. I'll shoot a pm and get that removed. The rest are all valid though.

I too would like to apologize for this, as aTriz said for himself, it is not how I would like to be portrayed.

I have asked both TBZ and Taras to change the trust rating to a neutral one or remove it if they wish to. The loan from Taras was also for a private reason, though it got repaid as soon as I got paid by my employers.

I would have to agree that it sounds shady in this case, yet it was never my intention to do so. As for the scamming as you said, a user already knows my address.

Once more I apologize for this, and I hope to be on this forum for years to come, with or without trust.

Regards, - Aventhe

[Randoldude]

No, they haven't LITERALLY admitted that, in their posts I quote below. Fucking English, how does it work?

They were libeled/bullied into proxy bullying ME/micromanaging MY trust page - removing honest ratings in accordance with the feedback page's instruction that Positive="or had a successful trade". Well guess what? I'll change my freely-given ratings when the feedback page no longer instructs me to do so, and makes Neutral ratings for "had a successful trade", rather than Positive.

The problem is not you but them! They knew they will get positive feedback if they trade with you, You are not the problem right now, Their intentions are.

[TheButterZone]

No, they haven't LITERALLY admitted that, in their posts I quote below. Fucking English, how does it work?

They were libeled/bullied into proxy bullying ME/micromanaging MY trust page - removing honest ratings in accordance with the feedback page's instruction that Positive="or had a successful trade". Well guess what? I'll change my freely-given ratings when the feedback page no longer instructs me to do so as-is status quo, and makes Neutral ratings for "had a successful trade", rather than Positive.

The problem is not you but them! They knew they will get positive feedback if they trade with you, You are not the problem right now, Their intentions are.

Fix my quote, stalker.

No, they know they should get positive feedback if they have a successful trade with whom, on this forum (who actually obey the feedback page's instruction)? That's right...



Fucking HATE having to be redundant, but:

If you want to prove that you're actively using my email forwarding service, sign this message inside the quotes with the BTC address in your contract & PM it only to TheButterZone: "I waive the right to privacy specifically limited to TheButterZone publicly posting only the dates from my email forwarding traffic log."

[Randoldude]

No, they haven't LITERALLY admitted that, in their posts I quote below. Fucking English, how does it work?

They were libeled/bullied into proxy bullying ME/micromanaging MY trust page - removing honest ratings in accordance with the feedback page's instruction that Positive="or had a successful trade". Well guess what? I'll change my freely-given ratings when the feedback page no longer instructs me to do so as-is status quo, and makes Neutral ratings for "had a successful trade", rather than Positive.

The problem is not you but them! They knew they will get positive feedback if they trade with you, You are not the problem right now, Their intentions are.

Fix my quote, stalker.

No, they know they should get positive feedback if they have a successful trade with whom, on this forum (who actually obey the feedback page's instruction)? That's right...

https://i1.wp.com/gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Gary-Oldman-Yelling-Everyone-Leon-The-Professional.gif?ssl=1

Well i guess, you too are the part of the problem! You are not seeing the bigger picture here. A Scammer buys an email from you, gets a +1, Does a few trades, gets more green. Then finally Tries to get a loan or starts an escrow and runs away with a good amount of BTC. If people start giving out the positive feedback for cents or few dollars, the community will suffer a lot.

[Randoldude]

I would have to agree that it sounds shady in this case, yet it was never my intention to do so.

Good ol Scammer Excuse 'Was Never My Intention'. That sentence is even more shadier then apologizing for what you did.

Account selling, as said before, is a whole other thing.

So is gaining trust through shady means

[TheButterZone]

No, they haven't LITERALLY admitted that, in their posts I quote below. Fucking English, how does it work?

They were libeled/bullied into proxy bullying ME/micromanaging MY trust page - removing honest ratings in accordance with the feedback page's instruction that Positive="or had a successful trade". Well guess what? I'll change my freely-given ratings when the feedback page no longer instructs me to do so as-is status quo, and makes Neutral ratings for "had a successful trade", rather than Positive.

The problem is not you but them! They knew they will get positive feedback if they trade with you, You are not the problem right now, Their intentions are.

Fix my quote, stalker.

No, they know they should get positive feedback if they have a successful trade with whom, on this forum (who actually obey the feedback page's instruction)? That's right...

Well i guess, you too are the part of the problem! You are not seeing the bigger picture here. A Scammer buys an email from you, gets a +1, Does a few trades, gets more green. Then finally Tries to get a loan or starts an escrow and runs away with a good amount of BTC. If people start giving out the positive feedback for cents or few dollars, the community will suffer a lot.

Well I guess, fuck you and your libelous SHIT.

I didn't make the forum rule I've cited over and over and over again. But I'm damn sure going to abide by it as long as our complaints don't result in change.

How about instead of trying to micromanage ratings, you try to macromanage them & get the forum's rule changed? Nobody's stopping you. How much BTC do you have to "bribe" with?

[Randoldude]

Well I guess, fuck you and your libelous SHIT.

I didn't make the forum rule I've cited over and over and over again. But I'm damn sure going to abide by it as long as our complaints don't result in change.

How about instead of trying to micromanage ratings, you try to macromanage them & get the forum's rule changed? Nobody's stopping you. How much BTC do you have to "bribe" with?

Well i can't go alone to bring this revolution

The world is a dangerous place to live;
not because of the poeple who are evil,
but because of people who don't do anything
about it.

- Albert Einstein

[Aventhe]

Then finally Tries to get a loan or starts an escrow and runs away with a good amount of BTC. If people start giving out the positive feedback for cents or few dollars, the community will suffer a lot.

A user on the forum already knows my name and shipping address. I think the same can be said for aTriz. What makes you think that in light of that I would scam anyone with a loan or escrow services?

[TheButterZone]

Well i can't go alone to bring this revolution

The world is a dangerous place to live;
not because of the poeple who are evil,
but because of people who don't do anything
about it.

- Albert Einstein

Again, quote properly.

Legendary members, the forum's global moderators, all complaining, wasting our time/money (because time IS money). You're not alone. Be the one who finally gives us enough leverage to tear down this wall!

[Lauda]

TheButterZone, here's a word of advice: Ignore that shill account and save yourself the time. It is likely someone that got denied entry to a campaign or got booted out of one since both aTriz and Aventhe are campaign managers. Therefore, their concern is not legitimate but rather just a vendetta out of spite.

[Randoldude]

Then finally Tries to get a loan or starts an escrow and runs away with a good amount of BTC. If people start giving out the positive feedback for cents or few dollars, the community will suffer a lot.

A user on the forum already knows my name and shipping address. I think the same can be said for aTriz. What makes you think that in light of that I would scam anyone with a loan or escrow services?

Well that means nothing here, People can move out etc. I have seen many people tumble from 100+ trust to -999, They too had their public details, but how many got justice for what they did? I believe that answer is well below zero. You guys did something which is clearly shady and i think you guys should get what you people deserve. Also once a person has done something shady. They can't be trusted in my opinion. I believe they will do anything to get some extra bucks. I have personally nothing against you, but i hate when rules are bent for 'few' users.

Be honest if this had been any other member, They would have got red painted all over! But in this case, they are being not, Which raise tons of eyebrows. Why someone gets a negative trust if after a deal they ask for positive feedback? Especially from users like Monbux etc? They understand the underlying problem behind giving trust on low value of trades. Which TheButterZone in this case doesn't seems to understand.  


Also for AtRiz, He got a loan request the same day he started his loan service, with a good amount of collateral.. Well That along with this, Raises Alarms for me atleast.

[TheButterZone]

TheButterZone, here's a word of advice: Ignore that shill account and save yourself the time. It is likely someone that got denied entry to a campaign or got booted out of one since both aTriz and Aventhe are campaign managers. Therefore, their concern is not legitimate but rather just a vendetta out of spite.

[Randoldude]

TheButterZone, here's a word of advice: Ignore that shill account and save yourself the time. It is likely someone that got denied entry to a campaign or got booted out of one since both aTriz and Aventhe are campaign managers. Therefore, their concern is not legitimate but rather just a vendetta out of spite.

LMAO, I have Huge Respect for you lauda, Please stay out of this. Just a hint I am in one of the top paying Signature campaigns here I just don't want to get my original account in trouble that's all. When you have demons roaming around, people have to take precautions. 

[Lauda]

LMAO, I have Huge Respect for you lauda,

Why do I doubt this?

Please stay out of this. Just a hint I am in one of the top paying Signature campaigns here I just don't want to get my original account in trouble that's all. When you have demons roaming around, people have to take precautions.  

Neither aTriz nor Aventhe can't literally do anything to you other than kick you out of their campaigns or put you on their personal blacklists. Therefore, you have no reason to hide behind an alt(?).

[Randoldude]

Why do I doubt this?

You won't, when i will reveal my original account. I really Respect you.

Neither aTriz nor Aventhe can't literally do anything to you other than kick you out of their campaigns or put you on their personal blacklists. Therefore, you have no reason to hide behind an alt(?).

Well that's what i don't want. I may in future move into a campaign which is managed by them. So i don't want to shut my doors.

Anyway, lets not make this about me.

Also before I ask you a question i need to mention one thing. i don't think what you did with quickseller was shady. [/b] its what he deserved.

Now Reply Honestly Lauda, If a person is caught in a shady behavior, where its clear that they were after gaining trust, Should they be red painted or not? it's that simple. I will leave this issue alone if you respond to this.

Also i am not blaming you for not red painting them. its just that these users have did something which they should have not. I would like to hear your opinion on why they aren't getting red painted?

[Lauda]

Why do I doubt this?

You won't, when i will reveal my original account. I really Respect you.

Is that a real "when I will" or did you make a mistake and intended an "if i"? If not, when will you reveal this?

Well that's what i don't want. I may in future move into a campaign which is managed by them. So i don't want to shut my doors.

If you're a good poster, there's always room for you somewhere else. However, I wouldn't expect a good campaign manager to deny entry to a good poster just because said poster criticized them (given that the criticism is objectively valid(!) and not some butthurt nonsense).

Now Reply Honestly Lauda, If a person is caught in a shady behavior, where its clear that they were after gaining trust, Should they be red painted or not? it's that simple. I will leave this issue alone if you respond to this.

These things aren't bipolar, i.e. they aren't just either shady or not shady. They get increasingly complex and have multiple categories as soon as you add more variables, e.g. malicious or not. Therefore, that needs a bit more context, but the general answer is "yes".

Also i am not blaming you for not red painting them. its just that these users have did something which they should have not. I would like to hear your opinion on why they aren't getting red painted?

You aren't properly categorizing behavior. You claim that they were trust farming, right? However, you can categorize such behavior as:
1) Blatantly trying to buy trust. An example of this would be users that made posts stating they'd pay others for trust.
2) Admitted to buying or attempting to buy trust after suspicions were raised (or similar) without a post as described above.
3) People that might or might have not done that (but have not admitted to such nor is there any post which would confirm said behavior), but some people think/feel they they have done that/are trying to do that.
4) Other.
IMO we are dealing with the 3rd case here. While you may be inclined to believe that, I am inclined to believe others. Generally I'm really doubtful of people, especially those that I've had next to no interactions with. My interactions with aTriz and Aventhe so far were brief and all of them very recent. I do not believe that: a) They are alts (as some have previous claimed). b) Their intention was to farm up trust. In case of doubt, the best that you can do here is just keep a closer eye on them.

[Randoldude]

IMO we are dealing with the 3rd case here. While you may be inclined to believe that, I am inclined to believe others. Generally I'm really doubtful of people, especially those that I've had next to no interactions with. My interactions with aTriz and Aventhe so far were brief and all of them very recent. I do not believe that: a) They are alts (as some have previous claimed). b) Their intention was to farm up trust. In case of doubt, the best that you can do here is just keep a closer eye on them.

I will for sure.

3) People that might or might have not done that (but have not admitted to such nor is there any post which would confirm said behavior), but some people think/feel they they have done that/are trying to do that.

Why Apologize then? Only people with guilt apologize that easily on the sign of first trouble. Well that's just me in this case. I think they should have stood their stance and said nope that was never our intention, But By apologizing they indirectly accepted what they were doing.

If you're a good poster, there's always room for you somewhere else. However, I wouldn't expect a good campaign manager to deny entry to a good poster just because said poster criticized them (given that the criticism is objectively valid(!) and not some butthurt nonsense).

So do i, but i have seen abuse of power too many times to risk it all.


You have not disappointed me Lauda, That's what i expect from you every time. Keep doing the good work.

[Lauda]

IMO we are dealing with the 3rd case here. While you may be inclined to believe that, I am inclined to believe others. Generally I'm really doubtful of people, especially those that I've had next to no interactions with. My interactions with aTriz and Aventhe so far were brief and all of them very recent. I do not believe that: a) They are alts (as some have previous claimed). b) Their intention was to farm up trust. In case of doubt, the best that you can do here is just keep a closer eye on them.

I will for sure.

There's nothing wrong with being careful, so go for it.

3) People that might or might have not done that (but have not admitted to such nor is there any post which would confirm said behavior), but some people think/feel they they have done that/are trying to do that.

Why Apologize then? Only people with guilt apologize that easily on the sign of first trouble. Well that's just me in this case. I think they should have stood their stance and said nope that was never our intention, But By apologizing they indirectly accepted what they were doing.

I don't agree, especially as you're making a fallacious generalization that people without guilt don't apologize. That can't obviously be universally true. It also comes down to the personality of the user(s) in question. A decent[1] example to compare their reaction would be myself, where I stand strong ground on false accusations. I've also seen others apologize for mistakenly claiming something that was not true I believe (their intent was not to intentionally claim something untrue).

If you're a good poster, there's always room for you somewhere else. However, I wouldn't expect a good campaign manager to deny entry to a good poster just because said poster criticized them (given that the criticism is objectively valid(!) and not some butthurt nonsense).

So do i, but i have seen abuse of power too many times to risk it all.

Fair point. I agree. However, their reputation as managers would tank.

You have not disappointed me Lauda, That's what i expect from you every time. Keep doing the good work.

Trying my best despite repeated attacks and setbacks.
[1] That might not be a very well example as I usually get attacked by butthurt shills and bullshit.

[hideonbush]

So there will be no action against the offenders? Their 'Apology' is enough? How many Account Sellers will get their red paint removed if they publicly apologized? I believe the answer is none.

Account selling, as said before, is a whole other thing.

They have literally admitted that they bought the emails to gain trust.

    When was this 'admission' ever made? I am currently using the email forwarding service every day for many, many emails.

It's just annoying at this stage. Ahg!

Why would it be bothering you to the slightest degree?

The way i see it is that these users will do anything to get their trust up, so that they can earn from Signature campaigns. This behavior is shady as hell and deserve negative trust right away.

Say what? "Signature campaigns"? I am pretty sure a user does not earn more if they have trust or not....

Can you send it to me by pm.