Recommendations for additions to Default Trust

[gobsmacker]

Nope.

Xanis made multiple bids on a forum account. Several screenshots and links provided. Xanis is tied to your wallet through blockchain analysis.

What do you mean by "Nope?"

So that's who you are.

Who?? Why so vague?? We're all friends here.

[Quickseller]

So you admit to both placing the bids to buy that account and that xanis is your alt?

Xanis was banned on my request, but I obviously don't remember every post.

So to clarify, xanis is your alt, correct?

this is on topic because there is a question is a "~lauda" should be added to the OP's trust list.

[Vod]

We all believe a true Vod should be in DT1.

So say we all...

[actmyname]

Reason 1:
If someone committed a crime in 2013 it is crime in 2017.
actmyname should be negative rated from lauda - why he is not negative rated? Why did Lauda ignored this:

Even when I had a lending service, I sold accounts. Then I stopped. Because it leads to shit.

He admitted selling accounts before, it is like saying "hey, i robbed few banks back in 2013. but i figured that it is wrong and i am not doing it now and it is OK because it is 2017"

Timeline of Alcohol Prohibition:
Alcohol was legal.
Prohibition began.
Alcohol became illegal.
Sale of alcohol led to incarceration.
People who had sold alcohol before prohibition were not punished.

Track the analogy.

Lauda and Xanis were in 2 signature campaigns at the same time back in 2014. So why giving negative trust for accounts which are enrolled in his signature campaign without breaking forum rules or cheating his campaigns:
Proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904885.msg18902983#msg18902983  how is that justified? Negative without any proof.

Here is the list just from last week (OP is slightly better than this list): kikeda, Format.C^, loges, yueno. I don't know why, but I have noticed a pattern which I'm not going to publicly elaborate as I may lose my advantage in combating it. There seems to be an influx of one-liner/short-posting & post-bursting in an attempt to get 1 maximum payout from Bitmixer before the account is permanently blacklisted and/or neg. rated.

Giving negative for "pattern" is not justified and it is not solid proof - lauda said it many times in "known alts of everyone" thread.

I send out negative trust towards those that are spammers. One-liners and burst-posting is usually indicative of spam.

Lauda and Xanis were at the same time in signature campaigns - primedice and cloudbet, lauda hates account farming, we all know that

Read above.

Speaking of 2013. this account has been negative rated for selling accounts(IN 2013 but actmyname said it was OK back then   ^^^)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=149628

http://prntscr.com/haq80u

Lauda ≠ Welsh ≠ tysat. Trust is at a user's discretion.

Lauda is giving negative ratings to all sold accounts but it is OK when he did it back in 2013:

Read above.

New negative trust has been given to Wendigo because of Lauda's rage, in my opinion wendigo made valid point:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=163375

Read Lauda's reference. Especially the highlighted part.

with all these reasons above i will add extortion attempt https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

Common theme.

[actmyname]

Robbing banks were illegal.
Robbing banks were illegal.
Robbing banks is still illegal.
People who were caught several years after crime has been committed were put in jail.
Account sales were negative rated even back in 2013, nothing has changed - read REASON 4!

Sure. You had one incident of someone being rated negatively due to account sales. I'm not sure how strongly the first two users felt about account sales but the latest feedback talked about hacked accounts. Maybe that played a role in the trust, I don't know.

Lauda and Xanis were in 2 signature campaigns at the same time back in 2014. So why giving negative trust for accounts which are enrolled in his signature campaign without breaking forum rules or cheating his campaigns:
Proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904885.msg18902983#msg18902983  how is that justified? Negative without any proof.

Here is the list just from last week (OP is slightly better than this list): kikeda, Format.C^, loges, yueno. I don't know why, but I have noticed a pattern which I'm not going to publicly elaborate as I may lose my advantage in combating it. There seems to be an influx of one-liner/short-posting & post-bursting in an attempt to get 1 maximum payout from Bitmixer before the account is permanently blacklisted and/or neg. rated.

Giving negative for "pattern" is not justified and it is not solid proof - lauda said it many times in "known alts of everyone" thread.

I send out negative trust towards those that are spammers. One-liners and burst-posting is usually indicative of spam.

I send? I don't remember quoting your post in reason 2.
Speaking about patterns - yours is the same as lauda's.
Do you see how ridiculous is to give someone negative just because pattern?

You fucked up the quoting, so your first sentence is irrelevant.
This type of quoting ≠ Spamming. If a user consistently posts one-liners within minutes of one another, can you really justify it? Are they seriously being constructive? Especially when they post in the 30+ page spam megathreads with their garbage general/vague replies?

[Not talking about extortion.]

http://prntscr.com/haq80u
Lauda ≠ Welsh ≠ tysat. Trust is at a user's discretion.

Not if you are doing the same fucking thing, it is not justified. What happened to those 10 accounts lauda was about to buy? Has he bought them, farm signatures with them or sold them?

Once again, pull your head out of lauda's ass and stop talking to me and explaining things to me like I am 5 year old child.

It was rated negatively in 2013 by those accounts. Doesn't mean that people had the same opinions back in those days. In fact, when I sold the accounts I do remember there being quite a few escrows willing to do the job.

[Lauda]

this is on topic because there is a question is a "~lauda" should be added to the OP's trust list.

The title is additions. That would be a exclusion, and is therefore off-topic. QED.

It was rated negatively in 2013 by those accounts. Doesn't mean that people had the same opinions back in those days. In fact, when I sold the accounts I do remember there being quite a few escrows willing to do the job.

There were a few members that Quickseller used an alt to complain about (in one of those "Lauda something something" threads), i.e. was whining that they didn't receive negative ratings for account sales from the past as I was tagging people left and right. Now I can't, nor want to look for this post but there were names such as Yahoo and KWH (IIRC; if I am mistaken, I apologize) and others. Anyone objectively assessing the situation can easily conclude why nobody has tagged them, you or other similar examples.
Don't get me started on this obvious lame "fear" of getting tagged for no reason. Such silly psychological games might work on kids though.
You should be getting a bonus for busting down trolls. Didn't you use to wear a signature from Bitsler or something?

We all believe a true Vod should be in DT1.

So say we all...

I think that everyone agrees with you.

[hilariousetc]

this is on topic because there is a question is a "~lauda" should be added to the OP's trust list.

The title is additions. That would be a exclusion, and is therefore off-topic. QED.

Exactly, but yet again Quickseller immediately takes a thread off topic and makes it all about him so locked until further notice. I will re-open a new one for discussion in due time.