Someone lowered my trust, I don't know why. What recourse?

[r3wt]

You don't have to sign a ToS for it to be active. Using the service means that you agree with the ToS. Damn, how can someone be so ignorant as you?
You spammed with a bot to get BTC and now TF wants it back. Sounds legit and logical to me.

My 2 cents.

So your world works like this: a faucet gives you money for watching an ad.  You take the money.  A few months later the faucet owner finds you on bitcointalk and says: "hey I just found out that you weren't even watching the ad, you were making sandwhiches in the kitchen when the ad was playing.  This is fraud and you owe me three times the amount of money that you got from my faucet."  The faucet owner lowers your bitcointalk trust and calls you a spammer.  This is fair and right?

A better example would be using a python script to watch the ad 10000 times with a proxy list.

You owe me half a Bitcoin, 1.5 BTC was an estimated amount (which is not that far off when looking at how much the average user owns). I have updated the risked amount to the correct sum.

This is unhelpful and outlandish. Provide some evidence as to where you get these numbers and how they are in any way relevant to a currency trade on bitcointalk.  If you assert that you 'risked .5 btc on me', what were you expecting in return?  Where did I agree to this?

For pairity, Ill go ahead and arbitrarily assert that I risked 1.5 btc on you when I joined bitcointalk. If you complain, I'll lower it to the 'correct sum' of .5btc.

give it up. you botted his site, got caught and now you're mad he found you. 

[1714814708]

1714814708

[1714814708]

1714814708

[1714814708]

1714814708

[1714814708]

1714814708

[1714814708]

1714814708

[1714814708]

1714814708

[tspacepilot]

You don't have to sign a ToS for it to be active. Using the service means that you agree with the ToS. Damn, how can someone be so ignorant as you?
You spammed with a bot to get BTC and now TF wants it back. Sounds legit and logical to me.

My 2 cents.

So your world works like this: a faucet gives you money for watching an ad.  You take the money.  A few months later the faucet owner finds you on bitcointalk and says: "hey I just found out that you weren't even watching the ad, you were making sandwhiches in the kitchen when the ad was playing.  This is fraud and you owe me three times the amount of money that you got from my faucet."  The faucet owner lowers your bitcointalk trust and calls you a spammer.  This is fair and right?

A better example would be using a python script to watch the ad 10000 times with a proxy list.

You owe me half a Bitcoin, 1.5 BTC was an estimated amount (which is not that far off when looking at how much the average user owns). I have updated the risked amount to the correct sum.

This is unhelpful and outlandish. Provide some evidence as to where you get these numbers and how they are in any way relevant to a currency trade on bitcointalk.  If you assert that you 'risked .5 btc on me', what were you expecting in return?  Where did I agree to this?

For pairity, Ill go ahead and arbitrarily assert that I risked 1.5 btc on you when I joined bitcointalk. If you complain, I'll lower it to the 'correct sum' of .5btc.

give it up. you botted his site, got caught and now you're mad he found you. 

Ok, thanks for the feedback r3wt.  I don't know if you're a moderator here.  But now I understand that tradefortress and powerful people on this site can use the marketplace trust system to abuse people who they hold a grudge against for actions unrelated to bitcointalk.  That is, marketplace trust and 'risked' BTC don't actually have to relate to any trade agreement on this marketplace.  In fact, if what Tradefortress is doing to me is acceptable then it's clear that  'risked' BTC doesn't actually have to mean that you sent anyone that amount of BTC, just that you feel it's an amount you are owed according to reasons which you only have to justify to yourself.

According to this logic, I have now registered feedback against tradefortress that I 'risked' 0.5BTC on him.  I feel justified in doing this because if I were ever to wish to trade on this site, surely my potential profits could have reached 0.5BTC were it not for the "illegal" slander which tradefortress has dragged my name into.  I justify this according to my own rationale, not that I actually sent him that money or had an agreement with him for services for that money.  Guess fair is fair, even if it hurts everyone in this case.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

So do you dispute my allegations or not? We need to settle that before continuing onto the trust rating.

[whiskers75]

Welcome to the story of whiskers75. We share the same story (well kinda, I didn't spam, just ban evaded)
Note that TF has a thing for ban evading - he REALLY REALLY HATES IT.
I hope you settle in at whiskchat.com better than you did coinchat. :S

[tspacepilot]

So do you dispute my allegations or not? We need to settle that before continuing onto the trust rating.

Tradefortress: it is you who are attempting to switch the topic.  Do you allege that I entered into a currency trade agreement with you as in below:

Risked BTC amount is money that the person could have stolen or did steal. For example, if you do a currency trade where the other person sends first, your feedback for them would have 0 risked BTC and their feedback for you would have risked BTC equal to the BTC value of the trade.

If you assert that we entered into such an agreement please provide documentation.  If you do not assert that we entered into such an agreement please remove your trust feedback against me and I will remove mine against you (which I admit was purely placed there for parity against your false accusation).

[r3wt]

Welcome to the story of whiskers75. We share the same story (well kinda, I didn't spam, just ban evaded)
Note that TF has a thing for ban evading - he REALLY REALLY HATES IT.
I hope you settle in at whiskchat.com better than you did coinchat. :S

hey man, am i invited to??

[grue]

Ok, thanks for the feedback r3wt.  I don't know if you're a moderator here.  But now I understand that tradefortress and powerful people on this site can use the marketplace trust system to abuse people who they hold a grudge against for actions unrelated to bitcointalk. 

welcome to the internet

[tysat]

Anyone can leave feedback for everyone on the trust system... that's my understand of the rules for it.

[n00ber]

Yes anyone can leave a feedback. But those on the default trust clearly has the advantage.  

[r3wt]

Yes anyone can leave a feedback. But those on the default trust clearly has the advantage.  

its all fun and games til you bring facts and logic into the equation.

[whiskers75]

Welcome to the story of whiskers75. We share the same story (well kinda, I didn't spam, just ban evaded)
Note that TF has a thing for ban evading - he REALLY REALLY HATES IT.
I hope you settle in at whiskchat.com better than you did coinchat. :S

hey man, am i invited to??

I see you invited yourself. xD

[tspacepilot]

Thanks for the input, everyone.

I just want to reiterate this request so that everyone can see that we're waiting for a reply on this one:

Risked BTC amount is money that the person could have stolen or did steal. For example, if you do a currency trade where the other person sends first, your feedback for them would have 0 risked BTC and their feedback for you would have risked BTC equal to the BTC value of the trade.

@tradefortress:

If you assert that we entered into such an agreement please provide documentation.  If you do not assert that we entered into such an agreement please remove your trust feedback against me and I will remove mine against you (which I admit was purely placed there for parity against your false accusation).

[Mitchell]

Well. I am going to stick with TF on this one. He abused the system and broke the rules. Why should anyone trust him if he cannot even follow simple rules? I think its good that TF tells people about it.

[dwdoc]

 If Tspacepilot cares more about his trust rating here than his ego I'll bet if he admits prior guilt and apologizes to TradeFortress he might see his trust rating restored.  I think TradeFortress did the right thing initially warning the forum with limited information.

Many of us on the forum have been scammed by new members.

[tspacepilot]

If Tspacepilot cares more about his trust rating here than his ego I'll bet if he admits prior guilt and apologizes to TradeFortress he might see his trust rating restored.  I think TradeFortress did the right thing initially warning the forum with limited information.

Many of us on the forum have been scammed by new members.

Ok, but it's really not about trust it's about false accusations.  By saying that 'risked' BTC on me he is suggesting that he and I entered into some agreement and that he sent me that amount of BTC and that I never followed through.  In fact, no such chain of events occurred and it wasn't until I said "what the hell?" that I even found out that TF is the sore admin from coinchat who seems to want to undo the past.

I don't get it, you make a site that gives out bitcoins for chatting then get mad when someone gets bitcoins for chatting then go and suggest that person stole from you on an unrelated site under a different name?

Again, it's not about ego, I've said "I'm sorry" to "admin" of coinchat via e-mail when he banned me.  He finally sent a link to the rules and I reviewed them and said I was sorry for breaking them.  He told me at that time that he wanted me to pay back such and such an amount (without any discussion as to where he chose this amount from and why) if I wanted to rejoin coinchat.  For me that was too onerous a burden so we parted ways (until very recently when he launched his attack on my trust rating here).

[tspacepilot]

Well. I am going to stick with TF on this one. He abused the system and broke the rules. Why should anyone trust him if he cannot even follow simple rules? I think its good that TF tells people about it.

Well of course you're welcome to your opinion but I repeat that:

0) I never saw the rules of coinchat until after I was banned (despite explicitly asking for them several times)
1) TF and I never entered into any currency trade agreement
2) TF is falsely accusing me of having enterered into an agreement with him

For me, it's important make sure that people know and agree to the rules if you want to be relevant.  Also, I just can't see how coinchatting too often or too much such that I was banned by the admin equates to I owe admin whatever arbitrary amount he says I owe him and that if I don't comply I'm a spammer.

[tspacepilot]

Here's the relevant question.  Obviously TF and I entered into no such currency trade agreement so it will be impossible for him to provide any genuine evidence that we have.  I'm just trying to leave this at the bottom of the thread because it's important to me for people to see that despite my feedback saying that TF 'risked .5BTC' (or whatever it currently says) in fact he and I have no such agreement and this accusation is false.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

I just want to reiterate this request so that everyone can see that we're waiting for a reply on this one:

Risked BTC amount is money that the person could have stolen or did steal. For example, if you do a currency trade where the other person sends first, your feedback for them would have 0 risked BTC and their feedback for you would have risked BTC equal to the BTC value of the trade.

@tradefortress:

If you assert that we entered into such an agreement please provide documentation.  If you do not assert that we entered into such an agreement please remove your trust feedback against me and I will remove mine against you (which I admit was purely placed there for parity against your false accusation).

[Mitchell]

Well. I am going to stick with TF on this one. He abused the system and broke the rules. Why should anyone trust him if he cannot even follow simple rules? I think its good that TF tells people about it.

Well of course you're welcome to your opinion but I repeat that:

0) I never saw the rules of coinchat until after I was banned (despite explicitly asking for them several times)
1) TF and I never entered into any currency trade agreement
2) TF is falsely accusing me of having enterered into an agreement with him

For me, it's important make sure that people know and agree to the rules if you want to be relevant.  Also, I just can't see how coinchatting too often or too much such that I was banned by the admin equates to I owe admin whatever arbitrary amount he says I owe him and that if I don't comply I'm a spammer.

0) Your bad. Mods have better things to do then constantly repeating the rules.
1+2) As soon as you use the site, you make an agreement with the site owner (TF in this case). So you have agreed to follow the rules.

You used a bot, which is only allowed if it has "bot" in his name. So "b0t" isn't allowed. You were abusing the system and that is illegal, no matter what. So stop whining, be a man and give the BTC back which you earned by breaking the rules.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Trust ratings are not limited to currency trades.

[tspacepilot]

Well. I am going to stick with TF on this one. He abused the system and broke the rules. Why should anyone trust him if he cannot even follow simple rules? I think its good that TF tells people about it.

Well of course you're welcome to your opinion but I repeat that:

0) I never saw the rules of coinchat until after I was banned (despite explicitly asking for them several times)
1) TF and I never entered into any currency trade agreement
2) TF is falsely accusing me of having enterered into an agreement with him

For me, it's important make sure that people know and agree to the rules if you want to be relevant.  Also, I just can't see how coinchatting too often or too much such that I was banned by the admin equates to I owe admin whatever arbitrary amount he says I owe him and that if I don't comply I'm a spammer.

0) Your bad. Mods have better things to do then constantly repeating the rules.
1+2) As soon as you use the site, you make an agreement with the site owner (TF in this case). So you have agreed to follow the rules.

You used a bot, which is only allowed if it has "bot" in his name. So "b0t" isn't allowed. You were abusing the system and that is illegal, no matter what. So stop whining, be a man and give the BTC back which you earned by breaking the rules.

Again, it's nice of you to chime in but you dont have your facts straight and you are missing the point.

The account he's talking about 'wikib0t' was created by me but I never used it beyond logging in and out a few times.  If tf is being honest, he'll admit that. 

2nd, as I've stated before (despite it's irrelevance), my use of a 'bot' has been entirely overstated.  Admin on coinchat was helping me to make a script for answering questions from the wikipedia.  I enjoyed chatting on coinchat quite often before I was banned and told to pay an arbitrary amount to be reinstated.

3rd, why are you so interested in the rules of coinchat?  Are you a tf sockpuppet?  I dont really get it.

4th, the main point, whatever gripes tradefortress (and bitcoininterest) have about my use of coinchat, it doesn't justify false accusations and extortion attempts for arbitrary amounts of money on another site under another name.