TheButterZone trust abuse and hostile auction conditions

[Ggddtt]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2661682.0

He lists the starting amount as $60,000 USD.  I bid it.  He negs me. 

This guy just gets to ruin my account because he's on some power trip?

[Ggddtt]

This guy needs to be removed from default trust.

[Quickseller]

The terms of his auctions are not equitable.

I stopped taking his market place threads seriously when he tried to sell his ~1.89BTC debt owed to him by a defunct exchange for face value...

[hilariousetc]

He is a little odd and does seems to leave feedback for silly reasons sometimes. The fact that he's blocked PMs and makes you go to his own site to contact him is a bit weird too. Seems like some silly hoops you gotta jump through now to try get that feedback removed. He's also either incredibly naive or in denial that he can't see people are exploiting some of his sales just to essentially buy a cheap default trust feedback as basically that's the only reason why people are buying his 'email forwarding service' and it's blatantly obvious why they're doing it but he can't seem to accept it (either because he's naive/in denial or doesn't want his little cashcow compromised).

[otrkid70]

He is Abusing his trust rating no doubt But then again the guy always seemed like a lunatic. He red Flagged me one time too i forgot the reason why though it wasn't a "Trust" issue though that's for sure.

[MadZ]

He is a little odd and does seems to leave feedback for silly reasons sometimes. The fact that he's blocked PMs and makes you go to his own site to contact him is a bit weird too. Seems like some silly hoops you gotta jump through now to try get that feedback removed. He's also either incredibly naive or in denial that he can't see people are exploiting some of his sales just to essentially buy a cheap default trust feedback as basically that's the only reason why people are buying his 'email forwarding service' and it's blatantly obvious why they're doing it but he can't seem to accept it (either because he's naive/in denial or doesn't want his little cashcow compromised).

Hey, 6 bucks for some DT +1 ain't a bad deal, maybe we should get into the business   

Seriously though, this isn't how the trust system should be used. I'm not sure what recourse you have OP, I'd try sending philipma1957 a PM about it, since he's the one who has TBZ on his trust list.

[hilariousetc]

Hey, 6 bucks for some DT +1 ain't a bad deal, maybe we should get into the business  

Seriously though, this isn't how the trust system should be used. I'm not sure what recourse you have OP, I'd try sending philipma1957 a PM about it, since he's the one who has TBZ on his trust list.

I've thought about excluding him before but he technically isn't doing anything wrong by merely leaving a feedback for a trade as that's how the system is meant to be used, but when he does stuff like this it just seems abusive. I honestly don't know whether he knows people are buying his stuff just for the feedback or not but I know that's the only reason people are buying certain things from him, but the problem here lies within the trust system. I think theymos should change it so small deals say under $25 or so carry little to no weight and don't count towards 'green' trust. People are smart enough here to do the right deals with the right people and if you do it's easy to get yourself pretty 'trusted' for about $30-$50.

[MadZ]

Hey, 6 bucks for some DT +1 ain't a bad deal, maybe we should get into the business  

Seriously though, this isn't how the trust system should be used. I'm not sure what recourse you have OP, I'd try sending philipma1957 a PM about it, since he's the one who has TBZ on his trust list.

I've thought about excluding him before but he technically isn't doing anything wrong by merely leaving a feedback for a trade as that's how the system is meant to be used, but when he does stuff like this it just seems abusive. I honestly don't know whether he knows people are buying his stuff just for the feedback or not but I know that's the only reason people are buying certain things from him, but the problem here lies within the trust system. I think theymos should change it so small deals say under $25 or so carry little to no weight and don't count towards 'green' trust. People are smart enough here to do the right deals with the right people and if you do it's easy to get yourself pretty 'trusted' for about $30-$50.

An exclusion wouldn't really accomplish much either, you would need someone else at level 1 to do the same for it to have an effect.

The way I see it, DT members have an obligation to be more careful with their trust ratings. For instance, positive trust should be given out sparingly, since people tend to assume members with green trust are much more trustworthy. The same is true of negative ratings. Obviously not everyone has the same standards, and people have managed to game the system, like you said.

Speaking of philipma, it looks like his entire trust list is made up of people who have given him positive feedback. Didn't CanaryInTheMine get removed from level 1 for doing the exact same thing?

[TheButterZone]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2661682.0

He lists the starting amount as $60,000 USD.  I bid it.  He negs me. 

This guy just gets to ruin my account because he's on some power trip?

The proper way to deal with a DT member is the same as every member; don't violate their binding terms & hope the mob will get you out of the terms you agreed to in advance.

The term you violated in my OP is also quoted & specified in my rating. Kindly drop the false pretense that you're illiterate/dyslexic & should be allowed to sabotage my auctions with impunity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9muK2M36c

This:

Proof of funds can be given to trusted escrow. 

violated this:

Auction Terms (should go without saying, but: if violated, negative feedback with risked BTC will be left)
...

• No terms or conditions (including by any other name) may be proposed or demanded (including by any other name) by any bidder.

As Self-EscrowGate proved anyone can get away with a criminally-indictable offense more severe than simply being a ham sandwich & not even at a bare minimum get permabanned from BCT...

I've noticed "self-escrowing" & escrows not keeping up/being able to keep up with their deals. I've noticed an escrow telling the victim terms for release, then when met, going back on them & not releasing, leaving it up to the perpetrator to authorize release.

If "I" ever accept or offer escrow services, assume my account is compromised.

philipma1957, I approve of ~TheButterZone being added to your https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

That is not necessary.

The trust system is more of a liability or neutrality than an asset to me.

Liabilities:
Takes up too much of my time dealing with complaints about my level, contracts enforcement
Place for people to libel me in retaliation for citing their own words
People "buying ratings" and wanting me to give them a positive rather than a neutral, based on them having no others or what seem to be weighty negatives (and people wanting my positives to be removed based on subsequent allegations)

Neutrality:
Those who act like they want to trade significant amounts P2P/OTC ignore my ratings and/or won't cryptographically verify it's actually me who earned them

Asset:
?

If it will stop all this BS, again I say: I have no attachment to being on DT.

The fact that he's blocked PMs and makes you go to his own site to contact him is a bit weird too.

That was because of this forum bug I'd reported earlier, which later seemed to have been silently patched. As soon as I noticed it had, I reverted to specific blocks of time-wasters, from block all.

[ibminer]

If it will stop all this BS, again I say: I have no attachment to being on DT.

You can always ask philipma1957 to remove you.

You are probably just trying to make a point with the statement, but, asking for any financial incentive to have feedback removed is too close to extortion for me.

[TheButterZone]

If it will stop all this BS, again I say: I have no attachment to being on DT.

You can always ask philipma1957 to remove you.

Already did, as I quoted in my previous post.

You are probably just trying to make a point with the statement, but, asking for any financial incentive to have feedback removed is too close to extortion for me.

Extortion does not come with fair warning. I gave fair warning - terms not to violate, and varying penalties depending on the term violated.

Would you say this government sign in front of a school: "Don't murder here, if you do you will be put in prison for life, unless you pay a fine of 1 billion dollars to each of your murder victims' families." is "too close to extortion"?

The proper way to deal with a DT member is the same as every member; don't violate their binding terms & hope the mob will get you out of the terms you agreed to in advance.

In other words, don't post if you're going to pretend you're dyslexic/illiterate.

[philipma1957]

off dt as requeste


edit:

I took you off dt as requested

[TheButterZone]

I took you off dt as requested

Thanks, now we'll test that "buying ratings" hypothesis, more than just looking at email forwarding server traffic logs to see who is actually using their forwarding vs who bought it not to use.

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."

[ibminer]

You are probably just trying to make a point with the statement, but, asking for any financial incentive to have feedback removed is too close to extortion for me.

Extortion does not come with fair warning. I gave fair warning - terms not to break, penalty only for breaking that one specific term.

Would you say this government sign in front of a school: "Don't murder here, if you do you will be put in prison for life, unless you pay a fine of 1 billion dollars to each of your murder victims' families." is "too close to extortion"?
--snip--

May be irrelevant now, as I just saw philipma1957's post, but I saw this more like: a government sign in front of a school: "Don't walk in the grass or you will be expelled and a reference added to your student record which will blacklist you from other schools/colleges/etc. You can come back to school but in order to remove the reference on your student record, you will need to pay 20,000 dollars."  This would be backed with a zero tolerance policy and no 2nd chances are offered, the only way to ever get your record corrected after walking on the grass is to pay the fee. To make this example a little more accurate to how I saw this, the fee & sign is created & enforced by 1 person at the school.

[TheButterZone]

You are probably just trying to make a point with the statement, but, asking for any financial incentive to have feedback removed is too close to extortion for me.

Extortion does not come with fair warning. I gave fair warning - terms not to violate, and varying penalties depending on the term violated.

Would you say this government sign in front of a school: "Don't murder here, if you do you will be put in prison for life, unless you pay a fine of 1 billion dollars to each of your murder victims' families." is "too close to extortion"?
--snip--

May be irrelevant now, as I just saw philipma1957's post, but I saw this more like: a government sign in front of a school: "Don't walk in the grass or you will be expelled and a reference added to your student record which will blacklist you from other schools/colleges/etc. You can come back to school but in order to remove the reference on your student record, you will need to pay 20,000 dollars."  This would be backed with a zero tolerance policy and no 2nd chances are offered, the only way to ever get your record corrected after walking on the grass is to pay the fee. To make this example a little more accurate to how I saw this, the fee & sign is created & enforced by 1 person at the school.

Inapt comparison. A person doesn't suffer significant economic loss from someone walking normally, wearing normal footwear, on unsecured, normal, grass that they do not personally own or have to maintain at their own significant expense.

Advocating exchanges = advocating economic suicide. Late payment=dissuading others from paying on time, if at all. Those are significant losses.

Ggddtt didn't violate either of those terms, though, so they can only complain about a negative trust rating that will never be removed, as the term broken is part of what I strongly believe is Ggddtt's "scam" of pretending to be dyslexic/illiterate in order to sabotage my auction & gain sympathy from the anti-terms lynch mob.

P.S. Fixed misquote of my post edited ~7 minutes before your reply.

[EcuaMobi]

Inapt comparison. A person doesn't suffer significant economic loss from someone walking normally, wearing normal footwear, on unsecured, normal, grass that they do not personally own or have to maintain at their own significant expense.

Actually ibminer has a point.

A person doesn't suffer significant loss either from someone posting a bid at market price instead of the requested minimum bid, you're free to just reject the offer; or from wrongly interpreting a rule (either accidentally or intentionally), you can just correct him so it's not "misinterpreted by others".

Advocating exchanges = advocating economic suicide

Even if you think so, someone "advocating economic suicide" doesn't force you to commit that suicide. You can just ignore them. No money is lost because of that post.


Your wrongful interpretation of everything as a scam attempt is even more strange because most of your overpriced auctions and offers really look like jokes/trolling so joking replies would seem welcome. I posted once in one of your threads truly convinced it was a joke, but now I think you actually may have been trying to be serious!

[TheButterZone]

Inapt comparison. A person doesn't suffer significant economic loss from someone walking normally, wearing normal footwear, on unsecured, normal, grass that they do not personally own or have to maintain at their own significant expense.

Actually ibminer has a point.

A person doesn't suffer significant loss either from someone posting a bid at market price instead of the requested minimum bid, you're free to just reject the offer; or from wrongly interpreting a rule (either accidentally or intentionally), you can just correct him so it's not "misinterpreted by others".

Congrats, your service in the anti-terms lynch mob remains impeccable, by playing Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes on everything except the actual term OP Ggddtt violated, that I quoted in my rating, quoted in this topic, & will once again quote here for you to once again pretend you couldn't see, hear, or know.

This:

Proof of funds can be given to trusted escrow.  

violated this:

Auction Terms (should go without saying, but: if violated, negative feedback with risked BTC will be left)
...

• No terms or conditions (including by any other name) may be proposed or demanded (including by any other name) by any bidder.

Advocating exchanges = advocating economic suicide

Even if you think so, someone "advocating economic suicide" doesn't force you to commit that suicide. You can just ignore them. No money is lost because of that post.

I didn't say force. But me & countless others who bought into that advocacy in various posts did commit that economic suicide, and lost untold millions if not billions in USD-equivalent BTC as a result. So fuck all of us AGAIN, and ONLY, for falling victim to shills? No, fuck shills by every legal means necessary, especially when they go & fuck themselves WHEN MORE EASILY AVOIDABLE THAN STEPPING INTO THE GRAND CANYON (from the Grand Mesa?).

Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.

Your wrongful interpretation of everything as a scam attempt is even more strange because most of your overpriced auctions and offers really look like jokes/trolling so joking replies would seem welcome. I posted once in one of your threads truly convinced it was a joke, but now I think you actually may have been trying to be serious!

Unhelpful hyperbole in bold.

Not everything, nor overpriced compared to contemporaneous market prices.

[EcuaMobi]

Congrats, (...?) on everything except the actual term OP Ggddtt violated

So you agree on the other points?

This:

Proof of funds can be given to trusted escrow.  

violated this:

Auction Terms (should go without saying, but: if violated, negative feedback with risked BTC will be left)
...

• No terms or conditions (including by any other name) may be proposed or demanded (including by any other name) by any bidder.

So? Maybe it violated a local rule of yours, but it wasn't a scam attempt or produced any loss of money.
Asking to get a trusted escrow involved is actually trustworthy. What could deserve negative trust is refusing.
In any case, what we're discussing here is whether there was a scam attempt and, therefore, negative trust was deserved.

I didn't say force. But me & countless others who bought into that advocacy in various posts did commit that economic suicide, and lost untold millions if not billions in USD-equivalent BTC as a result. So fuck all of us AGAIN, and ONLY, for falling victim to shills? No, fuck the shills by every legal means necessary.

Again, if they're not forcing you to anything (which you agree they're not doing) then they're not scamming.

Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.

You explicitly spam-posted this on my profile:

I negatively rated them because I strongly believe that each of those terms violators were running a "scam"

That doesn't make sense. They're not scamming and you know it. Don't try using SaltySpitoon's quote to try and justify your actions.

Your wrongful interpretation of everything as a scam attempt is even more strange because most of your overpriced auctions and offers really look like jokes/trolling so joking replies would seem welcome. I posted once in one of your threads truly convinced it was a joke, but now I think you actually may have been trying to be serious!

Not everything, nor overpriced compared to contemporaneous market prices.

Not everything, agreed and sorry for the generalization. But a lot of things which are actually not scam attempts.
And several threads of yours are definitely overpriced compared to rational market prices. Several of your threads do seem like jokes/trolling.


Edit:
I'll stop feeding the troll now. Fortunately your trust is now ignored by everyone, it's been proven your actions are wrong, and you keep trolling instead of posting objectively, so it's not worth wasting my time anymore.

[TheButterZone]

Congrats, (...?) on everything except the actual term OP Ggddtt violated

So you agree on the other points?

Not with points different from the one ibminer failed to validate, and irrelevant in your attempt to conflate, as ibminer's context carried a risked BTC advance warning & consequence, and your 2 points did not have the context of a risked BTC advance warning nor consequences thereof.

This:

Proof of funds can be given to trusted escrow.  

violated this:

Auction Terms (should go without saying, but: if violated, negative feedback with risked BTC will be left)
...

• No terms or conditions (including by any other name) may be proposed or demanded (including by any other name) by any bidder.

So? Maybe it violated a local rule of yours, but it wasn't a scam attempt or produced any loss of money.
Asking to get a trusted escrow involved is actually trustworthy. What could deserve negative trust is refusing.
In any case, what we're discussing here is whether there was a scam attempt and, therefore, negative trust was deserved.

"Trusted" - like the misplaced trust that you will ever actually read my posts & acknowledge what I wrote instead of poorly pretending to reply to them in good faith?

Once again, Sgt. Schultz:

As Self-EscrowGate proved anyone can get away with a criminally-indictable offense more severe than simply being a ham sandwich & not even at a bare minimum get permabanned from BCT...

I've noticed "self-escrowing" & escrows not keeping up/being able to keep up with their deals. I've noticed an escrow telling the victim terms for release, then when met, going back on them & not releasing, leaving it up to the perpetrator to authorize release.

If "I" ever accept or offer escrow services, assume my account is compromised.

I didn't say force. But me & countless others who bought into that advocacy in various posts did commit that economic suicide, and lost untold millions if not billions in USD-equivalent BTC as a result. So fuck all of us AGAIN, and ONLY, for falling victim to shills? No, fuck the shills by every legal means necessary.

Again, if they're not forcing you to anything (which you agree they're not doing) then they're not scamming.

Scams do not require an element of force. Why are you so insistent on shoehorning that term in?

Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.

You explicitly spam-posted this on my profile:

I negatively rated them because I strongly believe that each of those terms violators were running a "scam"

That doesn't make sense. They're not scamming and you know it. Don't try using SaltySpitoon's quote to try and justify your actions.

Stop justifying the actions of those who induce

to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind

or otherwise contribute by any other name to financial loss. Inducing is an element of various crimes, and/or indefensibly unethical behavior.

Your wrongful interpretation of everything as a scam attempt is even more strange because most of your overpriced auctions and offers really look like jokes/trolling so joking replies would seem welcome. I posted once in one of your threads truly convinced it was a joke, but now I think you actually may have been trying to be serious!

Not everything, nor overpriced compared to contemporaneous market prices.

Not everything, agreed and sorry for the generalization. But a lot of things which are actually not scam attempts.
And several threads of yours are definitely overpriced compared to rational market prices. Several of your threads do seem like jokes/trolling.

I spend hours researching multiple, contemporaneous markets' prices & then rationally sync my prices with them, yet you still claim they are "definitely overpriced"?

I'm physically sick of you & the anti-terms lynch mob's abject bullshit; you're ignored & my notifications for this topic are disabled.