Trust Spammer and Abuser " The Pharmist" Back on business

[2girls]

So Now Trust Spammer and abuser " The Pharmist" Back on business and he will again start his mission to give Red trust to each and every one on this forum. He was previously been removed as default trust because of his abusive behavior.

Since Once this shity person, give negative Trust, he never removes it even if that person is doing no more shit posts or account selling and no second chance is given.

Why does he given a second chance to prove himself a responsible Default trust member ?

[1715294656]

1715294656

[1715294656]

1715294656

[1715294656]

1715294656

[KeithBeeCham]

Don't worry. Although "The Pharmacist" is a DT member or not, your account still tagged by Lauda. LOL. If you're a shitposter, maybe you'll have a second chance to come back but selling and buying Bitcointalk account I think you'll never have second chance . Beside why don't "The Pharmacist" tag me or other normal member but you? Of course you'll never being tagged if you do nothing wrong . Stop complaining

[Lauda]

Why does he given a second chance to prove himself a responsible Default trust member ?

Given how quickly he was sabotaged, this is actually his first chance at proving himself.

[2girls]

Don't worry. Although "The Pharmacist" is a DT member or not, your account still tagged by Lauda. LOL. If you're a shitposter, maybe you'll have a second chance to come back but selling and buying Bitcointalk account I think you'll never have second chance . Beside why don't "The Pharmacist" tag me or other normal member but you? Of course you'll never being tagged if you do nothing wrong . Stop complaining

Grow Up Man !!  I am already tag by Lauda and i never complain.

Thats what i am saying, why Pharmisist still did not tag you   He is tagging everyone ..  
I only complain why  "The Pharmacist" tag me ?  

[yahoo62278]

You are a Sr member on this forum. You are complaining you deserve a 2nd chance. My question to you is do you read the forum ever? If you had you would have seen many users complain about their red trust. You would also have read why some accounts were tagged. And guess what, you would have seen some of those users tagged for buying/selling accounts. That was you chance right there. You should have known if ppl find out you were a bought account that you'd be tagged.

Why cry about it? If you were an honest and trustworthy person. you'd have started as a newbie and ranked up your account yourself. Instead you bought an already established identity and became that person. Making you untrustworthy IMO

[actmyname]

he never removes it even if that person is doing no more shit posts or account selling and no second chance is given.

To the former remark, The Pharmacist should be replacing spam tags with neutral feedback. Regarding the latter, account selling is a shady act and deserves negative feedback. Just because you've stopped doesn't mean that you still weren't shady.

If I have committed crimes in the past and decided to stop after I was caught, does that absolve me of all of them? No, of course not. Why would you think that the same thing happens here?Deterrents exist for a reason—there's no point of adding the negative trust in the first place if you can just get away scot-free after saying "sorry sir".

[Vod]

Trust is like everything else.

If you see it too often, you begin to ignore it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

To the former remark, The Pharmacist should be replacing spam tags with neutral feedback.

Yes, I'm going to get my ass moving on that.  I did change a lot of them already, but I've been taking more time doing it than I meant to.  I'd apologize, except I'd gladly keep all those negs in place if Theymos didn't explicitly say that he doesn't want that.

I recently got a real computer and internet at home, so I'll start converting the negs I left for shitposting to neutrals tonight after work or tomorrow morning.  Don't know how many I have left to do, but it shouldn't take all that long.

Having said that, I won't be removing my feedback on 2girls, as I left it for account dealing. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

If anyone was in any doubt about whether The Pharmacist should be part of DT, the number of butthurt scammers and account sellers who have made threads to complain about him in the last 24 hours should be all the proof you need.

[KeithBeeCham]

Don't worry. Although "The Pharmacist" is a DT member or not, your account still tagged by Lauda. LOL. If you're a shitposter, maybe you'll have a second chance to come back but selling and buying Bitcointalk account I think you'll never have second chance . Beside why don't "The Pharmacist" tag me or other normal member but you? Of course you'll never being tagged if you do nothing wrong . Stop complaining

Grow Up Man !!  I am already tag by Lauda and i never complain.

Thats what i am saying, why Pharmisist still did not tag you   He is tagging everyone ..  
I only complain why  "The Pharmacist" tag me ?  

Grow up is really hard to me atm cause I'm having to become a friend of my son. Lol. Stop complaining and don't break the forum rules your account will never gonna be tagged

[MadZ]

Stop being melodramatic, if you care so much you should just buy a fresh account. One thing I will say is I wish TP was consistent in his approach to account dealing. If you're going to tag people for it, I don't think it is really fair to be selective about it.

[sarmrakib]

The forum is not the place of a box of spam. Phermacist is a great guy and good to see he is back on. Now spammer will be catch out. I am always with him to support and want to make forum is a great source of knowledge and spread it to the world.  Just remind forum is not the place of spam. Just go with the rules.

[Welsh]

Trust is like everything else.

If you see it too often, you begin to ignore it.

I'm afraid this is becoming the case. Trust in general is just being thrown around these days. I'm not saying the OP doesn't deserve the negative rating but, it seems on other notes people have been way to quick to pass judgment and give a negative. I can't think of any specific examples currently but, it's definitely happening.

Since Once this shity person, give negative Trust, he never removes it even if that person is doing no more shit posts or account selling and no second chance is given.

He's removed a lot of his feedback in the past, or at least changed it from negative to neutral. For example, the whole giving spammers red trust thing. That was a forum issue which he took into his own hands and probably thinking about it now wasn't worthy of a red, but reporting those members for the staff to deal with them would of been a better approach.

Negative trust for account sale isn't normally removed though.

[Lauda]

Stop being melodramatic, if you care so much you should just buy a fresh account. One thing I will say is I wish TP was consistent in his approach to account dealing. If you're going to tag people for it, I don't think it is really fair to be selective about it.

An example of this can be found where? Is this another case of "You're doing something wrong. Even though I haven't pointed out exactly what it is, I'll still complain about it."?

[BTCforJoe]

Stop being melodramatic, if you care so much you should just buy a fresh account. One thing I will say is I wish TP was consistent in his approach to account dealing. If you're going to tag people for it, I don't think it is really fair to be selective about it.

An example of this can be found where? Is this another case of "You're doing something wrong. Even though I haven't pointed out exactly what it is, I'll still complain about it."?

I don't think it's just that TP is being selective; I think it's because they can't get to all of the account dealers/buyers due to a lack of visibility. I know it sounds rare, but not everyone spends all day and night on the forums

MadZ, if you ever come across a dealer or buyer that hasn't been tagged, try sending the link of the thread to The Pharmacist.

Unless you're referencing an incident that happened that I'm not aware about... Then yes, please show an example.

[endlasuresh]

So Now Trust Spammer and abuser " The Pharmist" Back on business and he will again start his mission to give Red trust to each and every one on this forum. He was previously been removed as default trust because of his abusive behavior.

Since Once this shity person, give negative Trust, he never removes it even if that person is doing no more shit posts or account selling and no second chance is given.

Why does he given a second chance to prove himself a responsible Default trust member ?

You don't know that thing most of them got more chances,but I suggest to you look another business. This is not the forums where we learn or make money. I thought you already left the forums, but sad to see you again.

[MadZ]

Stop being melodramatic, if you care so much you should just buy a fresh account. One thing I will say is I wish TP was consistent in his approach to account dealing. If you're going to tag people for it, I don't think it is really fair to be selective about it.

An example of this can be found where? Is this another case of "You're doing something wrong. Even though I haven't pointed out exactly what it is, I'll still complain about it."?

Do I really seem like the type of person to make accusations like this without any proof? Here is an excellent example of it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1492296.0

TP gave negative trust to everyone who bid in that thread (as per their rating's reference link)... except for the staff member and the guy who had positive trust at the time. They all did exactly the same thing, shouldn't they all be equally untrustworthy?
 

Stop being melodramatic, if you care so much you should just buy a fresh account. One thing I will say is I wish TP was consistent in his approach to account dealing. If you're going to tag people for it, I don't think it is really fair to be selective about it.

An example of this can be found where? Is this another case of "You're doing something wrong. Even though I haven't pointed out exactly what it is, I'll still complain about it."?

I don't think it's just that TP is being selective; I think it's because they can't get to all of the account dealers/buyers due to a lack of visibility. I know it sounds rare, but not everyone spends all day and night on the forums

MadZ, if you ever come across a dealer or buyer that hasn't been tagged, try sending the link of the thread to The Pharmacist.

Unless you're referencing an incident that happened that I'm not aware about... Then yes, please show an example.

See the thread I linked above, I'm talking about cases where multiple people bid on the same account, yet negative trust was given selectively. One of the users who was tagged from that thread actually asked why this happened to him and not the other two (which is why I first noticed this), but he was given no response.

I completely agree that account dealing is untrustworthy, however, I don't tag for it because I don't want to be arbitrary about it. I don't think it's fair to turn a blind eye to some people while having zero tolerance towards others. I'd have no problem if he had tagged everyone in that thread, I'd actually admire him for taking a stand against someone with a bit of reputation, but I think it's wrong that we tell members like the cabsav and the OP to go fuck themselves for something they did almost 2 years ago, while giving other members of the community a pass for doing exactly the same thing.

[Lauda]

Stop being melodramatic, if you care so much you should just buy a fresh account. One thing I will say is I wish TP was consistent in his approach to account dealing. If you're going to tag people for it, I don't think it is really fair to be selective about it.

An example of this can be found where? Is this another case of "You're doing something wrong. Even though I haven't pointed out exactly what it is, I'll still complain about it."?

Do I really seem like the type of person to make accusations like this without any proof? Here is an excellent example of it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1492296.0

I didn't imply that; re-read my statement again. I was wondering whether you've pointed this out to him before you've complained here and what his response was.

TP gave negative trust to everyone who bid in that thread (as per their rating's reference link)... except for the staff member and the guy who had positive trust at the time. They all did exactly the same thing, shouldn't they all be equally untrustworthy?

Yes and no. Depends on the exact details of the case. If it were him giving negative ratings now for that thread, then I'd argue that letting them *slide* was understandable. However, these ratings were left a few days after the thread was created. I don't know why he would avoid tagging those two randoms (OmegaStarScream was not a staff member at the time so that is irrelevant).
I could argue two things: a) They were non DT ratings, thus consistency and reliability isn't as necessary as with DT ratings. b) These were one of his earlier ratings (within the first 100 sent I believe). I'd expect him to know better now.
Anyhow, the best time to fix it is now.

[MadZ]

Stop being melodramatic, if you care so much you should just buy a fresh account. One thing I will say is I wish TP was consistent in his approach to account dealing. If you're going to tag people for it, I don't think it is really fair to be selective about it.

An example of this can be found where? Is this another case of "You're doing something wrong. Even though I haven't pointed out exactly what it is, I'll still complain about it."?

Do I really seem like the type of person to make accusations like this without any proof? Here is an excellent example of it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1492296.0

I didn't imply that; re-read my statement again. I was wondering whether you've pointed this out to him before you've complained here and what his response was.

My bad, you're right. I did bring it up after I saw cabsav was ignored. I assumed TP would read it, since that whole thread was about him, but perhaps he didn't. TP was removed from DT shortly after, so I forgot about it until now.

TP gave negative trust to everyone who bid in that thread (as per their rating's reference link)... except for the staff member and the guy who had positive trust at the time. They all did exactly the same thing, shouldn't they all be equally untrustworthy?

Yes and no. Depends on the exact details of the case. If it were him giving negative ratings now for that thread, then I'd argue that letting them *slide* was understandable. However, these ratings were left a few days after the thread was created. I don't know why he would avoid tagging those two randoms (OmegaStarScream was not a staff member at the time so that is irrelevant).
I could argue two things: a) They were non DT ratings, thus consistency and reliability isn't as necessary as with DT ratings. b) These were one of his earlier ratings (within the first 100 sent I believe). I'd expect him to know better now.
Anyhow, the best time to fix it is now.

A lack of consistency in old ratings is completely understandable, but I think we both agree that these inconsistencies should be fixed. The thing is, when most people bring this up, they are dismissed as salty shitposting account farmers. While this is generally the correct reaction, I think there are a number of instances similar to the one I referenced where the issue is not so black and white. Cabsav both PMed TP about it and made that post, yet was ignored on both fronts. If I was in cabsav's shoes and saw that there were (future) staff members doing the same thing in the same thread who got away with it, I'd be pretty upset too. All I'm saying is TP needs to address the selectivity of some of his ratings, when someone has a legitimate complaint he shouldn't completely ignore them.

[Lauda]

My bad, you're right. I did bring it up after I saw cabsav was ignored. I assumed TP would read it, since that whole thread was about him, but perhaps he didn't. TP was removed from DT shortly after, so I forgot about it until now.

Well, I took part in that thread and I don't remember reading your post either. Usually I find it better to directly (via PM) inform them before doing so publicly.

Cabsav both PMed TP about it and made that post, yet was ignored on both fronts.

It was most likely a whiny PM, which I don't answer anymore either. People bother me with useless nonsense quite often. I've learned that the simplest form of replying is to put them on the ignore list.

A lack of consistency in old ratings is completely understandable, but I think we both agree that these inconsistencies should be fixed. The thing is, when most people bring this up, they are dismissed as salty shitposting account farmers. While this is generally the correct reaction, I think there are a number of instances similar to the one I referenced where the issue is not so black and white.
If I was in cabsav's shoes and saw that there were (future) staff members doing the same thing in the same thread who got away with it, I'd be pretty upset too. All I'm saying is TP needs to address the selectivity of some of his ratings, when someone has a legitimate complaint he shouldn't completely ignore them.

Well, solving this is easier said than done. The thing is, some notable members that used to deal or attempt to deal in accounts in the past have not been tagged and won't be tagged (neither Cabsav nor OP are examples of notable members). The potential solutions are:
1) Tag the remaining users.
2) Remove the tags from the other users.

Both cause more questions (if you consider people with positive trust and/or people who are staff members notable members) and difficult edge-cases. Before you ask me what those might be, spend a minute or two thinking about the implications of going via either route. I'm sure you will figure out a few.