Conflict of Interest on DT1

[Wendigo]

To the OP: Good luck trying to piss against the wind here mate 

[1715485371]

1715485371

[1715485371]

1715485371

[1715485371]

1715485371

[1715485371]

1715485371

[1715485371]

1715485371

[1715485371]

1715485371

[whistleblower2]

To the OP: Good luck trying to piss against the wind here mate 

Thank you.

I created this account out of fear of retribution, as many within Blazed's trust list receive a Red Tag when they speak out against anyone within his list

[actmyname]

[...]
The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past.
[...]

Good, we don't have to discuss this. Now explain why you have not Red Tagged those those listed in my OP who have very clearly sold accounts in the past, including Blazed.

When I entered the forum, account selling was the norm. Plenty of users, DT included, were trading accounts freely. Although I can't say that the post quality was amazing back then, I can say that the quality now vs. then is much worse. With the explosion of ICO's and bounties, the forum began to quickly degrade in quality.

I can say that the situation back then was different than the current one. Just as it's not justified to try people (at a later date) after a law has been put in place, the same theory should apply here.

I don't have a specific time in which the forum shifted toward an anti-account sale community ideology, so I'll say any account sales in 2017 and later should be tagged.If I have any negative feedback that tags someone who sold pre-2017, then let me know and I'll change it.


I'm not making any cases toward the "contribution" that any particular member has made to the forum. That is character evidence and should only be used in extreme cases.

[whistleblower2]

[...]
The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past.
[...]

Good, we don't have to discuss this. Now explain why you have not Red Tagged those those listed in my OP who have very clearly sold accounts in the past, including Blazed.

When I entered the forum, account selling was the norm. Plenty of users, DT included, were trading accounts freely. Although I can't say that the post quality was amazing back then, I can say that the quality now vs. then is much worse. With the explosion of ICO's and bounties, the forum began to quickly degrade in quality.

I can say that the situation back then was different than the current one. Just as it's not justified to try people (at a later date) after a law has been put in place, the same theory should apply here.

I don't have a specific time in which the forum shifted toward an anti-account sale community ideology, so I'll say any account sales in 2017 and later should be tagged.

Oh, sorry. You must be confused. I am talking about Red Tags, not moderation actions. Please keep discussions about moderator actions in the staff section. If you are not staff, then your post is outright dishonest.

If a certain action or business practice makes you a scammer, then the time a certain action happened does not matter. If y action makes you a scammer, then this remains true going back to 2009, and extending to infinity.

[actmyname]

If a certain action or business practice makes you a scammer, then the time a certain action happened does not matter.

Suppose it is an allowed practice, then. It was plenty tolerated back in 2016 and earlier (AFAICT): loans could be made and liquidated more easily with account sales.

I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times.

[digaran]

Please keep discussions about moderator actions in the staff section.

Where is staff section? now that you have mentioned it, you should move this topic to reputation section. and provide your evidence for each case. if Yahoo is enrolling his alts in signature campaigns. if Blazed, Lauda, little angry pinoy a.k.a The pharmacist, actmyname are selling accounts and tagging their competitions. if nullius is still jumping alia. show us the evidence with your main account, if they tag you after that, you'd have them where you wanted.

[Lauda]

This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me. As I've recently said in another thread:

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.

This is in no way limited to Blazed's trust list, and you would know that if you were actually analyzing DT1 for the right reasons. The group that was linked back then was much bigger; someone could find it if they wanted to. We are talking about different times here. The general consensus a few years ago and now is much different.

User Lauda is by far the most controversial user in DT.... He says he will send trust for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with.

That is absolutely not what the post says. The linked post says nothing even remotely related to this statement "leaving trust for any reason I want".

There is no point. I can leave merit to whomever I want[1], wherever I want and in whatever amount I want. If you don't like it, then ask theymos to change the rules.
...
[1] This works when you don't have an army of alts (see Quickseller et. al.).

He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity.

Another lie backed up by the classic 'ol book. Have you been inspired by Quickseller?
Furthermore, keeping up the attacks while painting everyone as bad as you can without going overboard doesn't work anymore. You're just wasting time. Do I need to remind you that I was banned twice for spamming? Oh, the conflict of interest!

I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times.

There were a lot of things that were commonly accepted in the past, but no longer are (e.g. slavery). If you want something non-illegal, then racism would also be an example of this (before socially accepted, now it is not).

[OgNasty]

When I entered the forum, account selling was the norm. Plenty of users, DT included, were trading accounts freely.

Seems like a good time to point out that I have never bought or sold an account on this forum and personally consider such an action as fraud, regardless of what was "the norm" or at what point in time it occurred.

[philipma1957]

When I entered the forum, account selling was the norm. Plenty of users, DT included, were trading accounts freely.

Seems like a good time to point out that I have never bought or sold an account on this forum and personally consider such an action as fraud, regardless of what was "the norm" or at what point in time it occurred.

Well  I don't  buy or sell accounts never did don't plan on selling them.


 I was offered coin for this account  did not sell it. But I think I was in Hero status at that time.

Don't remember if it was via email or pm.

So a few years back. 2015 maybe

[Vod]

People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating.

Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust.  :/

The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way.

[Bardman]

People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating.

Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust.  :/

The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way.

This basically shows how flawed the trust system can be not to mention leaving trust ratings for people that bought stuff from you, they didn't have to risk anything and yet they still get a positive rating?

[...]
The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past.
[...]

Good, we don't have to discuss this. Now explain why you have not Red Tagged those those listed in my OP who have very clearly sold accounts in the past, including Blazed.

When I entered the forum, account selling was the norm. Plenty of users, DT included, were trading accounts freely. Although I can't say that the post quality was amazing back then, I can say that the quality now vs. then is much worse. With the explosion of ICO's and bounties, the forum began to quickly degrade in quality.

I can say that the situation back then was different than the current one. Just as it's not justified to try people (at a later date) after a law has been put in place, the same theory should apply here.

I don't have a specific time in which the forum shifted toward an anti-account sale community ideology, so I'll say any account sales in 2017 and later should be tagged.If I have any negative feedback that tags someone who sold pre-2017, then let me know and I'll change it.


I'm not making any cases toward the "contribution" that any particular member has made to the forum. That is character evidence and should only be used in extreme cases.

Not really, account selling was never seen as something positive but it has always been allowed and is still is. There is no reason not to tag those OP mentioned as they clearly sold and bought accounts, however I know they are not going to get red tagged. That's how it works here, just like everywhere else, groups of people take control, in this case DT1 and trusted members and you can't do much about it.

[whistleblower2]

If a certain action or business practice makes you a scammer, then the time a certain action happened does not matter.

Suppose it is an allowed practice, then. It was plenty tolerated back in 2016 and earlier (AFAICT): loans could be made and liquidated more easily with account sales.

I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times.

We are not discussing a social norm, we are talking about Red Tagging people as scammers. Doing something that makes the person a scammer still makes that person a scammer regardless of when they did this.

Please keep discussions about moderator actions in the staff section.

Where is staff section?

Staff section

This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me.

Weird, you had a very different view on whistleblower accounts only a few days ago:

and @ lauda  how do I know  the op is not you? or anyone else

You don't, and you can't. That's the point of OP using an alt account, so nobody from that list can get revenge on them for pointing this out (assuming they wanted to).

Maybe it is true that when you can't attack the message, and can't attack the messenger, you make a baseless claim, that is impossible to have any evidence of, and smear the messenger based on the baseless claim.

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.

This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here.

Your response about being selective about who you Red Tag for dealing in forum accounts makes it sound like you don't want to debate your trust ratings on their merits, and avoid doing so by avoiding Red Tagging anyone who has a decent chance of having supporters, or anyone who has a decent chance of making a coherent argument against your Red Tag. Lets be honest, most of those that you Red Tag, especially those that you Red Tag for this reason have no one supporting them, and can probably not speak english well enough to make a coherent argument to support the Red Tag is inappropriate.

You should be willing to defend every one of the ratings you leave, because every rating you leave has the backing of your reputation. If the exact same concerns come up multiple times, you can point to a previous discussion if you wish. Ignoring concerns is not okay.

User Lauda is by far the most controversial user in DT.... He says he will send trust for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with.

That is absolutely not what the post says. The linked post says nothing even remotely related to this statement "leaving trust for any reason I want".

Oops, that should say "merit". I will correct it shortly. Feel free to address my (corrected) concern.

He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity.

Another lie backed up by the classic 'ol book.

What is the lie? 

I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times.

There were a lot of things that were commonly accepted in the past, but no longer are (e.g. slavery). If you want something non-illegal, then racism would also be an example of this (before socially accepted, now it is not).

We are not discussing something that is socially accepted/not accepted. We are talking about Red Tagging people who are scammers.

[yojodojo21]

OP Himself is also  controversial haha, the OP is inspire by, and created by a newbie wannabe, people like OP is coward, why don't you just make a post with your original account? And let's see who wants dignity?

Newbie whom I think that he knows a lot about legit and trusted members haha, nice move whistleblower newbie. Nice disguise haha old school.

[botany]

People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating.
Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust.  :/
The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way.

People on DT have control not just over their trust rating, they have control over everybody's trust rating.
If you want to enforce a particular point of view, just add 3-4 others with the same point of view to DT2.
Removing people from DT2 is not easy.

OP Himself is also  controversial haha, the OP is inspire by, and created by a newbie wannabe, people like OP is coward, why don't you just make a post with your original account? And let's see who wants dignity?

Obviously, you wouldn't want to rub powerful people the wrong way. Posting controversial topics like this is one of the main reasons why alt accounts are allowed.

[philipma1957]

People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating.

Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust.  :/

The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way.

This basically shows how flawed the trust system can be not to mention leaving trust ratings for people that bought stuff from you, they didn't have to risk anything and yet they still get a positive rating?


....

My policy as a seller is the customer is always correct ie  I give a full refund zero questions asked.

Thus anyone that buys from me  can say gear is broken  I want a refund.

I also don't bother  with returns on any gear under 100 bucks.

So  this means buyers can easily lie and steal from me.

In all my sales done here over 100 of them   I had to give only 3 refunds.

 I refunded a mobo shipped to canada a  cost of 170 usd   and told the guy  don't bother to return it.  So  all my buyers benefitted

from my policy. Since they were honest people treated respectfully by me.



 And zero returns  that is correct  no returns  not one. Not a single S-9, S-7 , S-5 , Avalon , S-3, S-1

 1 hi end Gpu was never accepted in europe  thus it was technically not returned by the buyer.



 So because I encourage honesty from my buyers  I actually get honesty from them.

That is why I do it my way.



But  I no longer give trust to people just feedbacks if the deal was good and I am not putting anyone on my trust list for the next few months .

[Bardman]

People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating.

Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust.  :/

The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way.

This basically shows how flawed the trust system can be not to mention leaving trust ratings for people that bought stuff from you, they didn't have to risk anything and yet they still get a positive rating?


....

My policy as a seller is the customer is always correct ie  I give a full refund zero questions asked.

Thus anyone that buys from me  can say gear is broken  I want a refund.

I also don't bother  with returns on any gear under 100 bucks.

So  this means buyers can easily lie and steal from me.

In all my sales done here over 100 of them   I had to give only 3 refunds.

 I refunded a mobo shipped to canada a  cost of 170 usd   and told the guy  don't bother to return it.  So  all my buyers benefitted

from my policy. Since they were honest people treated respectfully by me.



 And zero returns  that is correct  no returns  not one. Not a single S-9, S-7 , S-5 , Avalon , S-3, S-1

 1 hi end Gpu was never accepted in europe  thus it was technically not returned by the buyer.



 So because I encourage honesty from my buyers  I actually get honesty from them.

That is why I do it my way.



But  I no longer give trust to people just feedbacks if the deal was good and I am not putting anyone on my trust list for the next few months .

Sure but I have seen many cases where the buyer cannot do anything to hurt the seller and they still usually get a feedback. For me it doesn't matter since I always look at each trust rating myself but newbies can be deceived quite easily.

OP Himself is also  controversial haha, the OP is inspire by, and created by a newbie wannabe, people like OP is coward, why don't you just make a post with your original account? And let's see who wants dignity?

Newbie whom I think that he knows a lot about legit and trusted members haha, nice move whistleblower newbie. Nice disguise haha old school.

What an useless post, it's obvious why he didn't use his main account plus why does it even matter if his concerns are legitimate? Did you even read anything?
 

[Lauda]

This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me.

Weird, you had a very different view on whistleblower accounts only a few days ago:

and @ lauda  how do I know  the op is not you? or anyone else

You don't, and you can't. That's the point of OP using an alt account, so nobody from that list can get revenge on them for pointing this out (assuming they wanted to).

Maybe it is true that when you can't attack the message, and can't attack the messenger, you make a baseless claim, that is impossible to have any evidence of, and smear the messenger based on the baseless claim.

No. Whistle-blowers are great when they actually do their job, i.e. provide constructive analysis and statements, and not when they go for a SJW-style attack on an individual, subset of a group or whatever. Had this been a proper exposure, you would have analyzed every DT1 member and their *young-lings* for the activity that you are complaining about.

Oops, that should say "merit". I will correct it shortly. Feel free to address my (corrected) concern.

Most things are wrong, which is why this thread is tiring to me and probably to others. The GDPR thing has nothing to do with the account connection, the merit statement is wrong again.

He says he will send merit for any reason he wants

A statement like that, taken out of context sounds wrong, no? Anyone in their right mind knows what I meant with it. You know as well, yet you still chose to go this road.

while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish

You see red trust as punishment?

..he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with..

At this point it is just a lost cause.

What is the lie?  

"Without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past" - There is no proof of this, thus the statement is malicious nonsense.

We are not discussing something that is socially accepted/not accepted. We are talking about Red Tagging people who are scammers.

Things that people get trust ratings for are exactly things that are either socially accepted or not. You are looking at this from a backwards perspective. It's the intrinsic forum Etiquette. E.g., it doesn't say anywhere tag someone for running a ponzi, but we do it because that is socially frowned upon (here).
This could have been a nice thread, like the one that the other guy did. However, you let a disgusting amount of bias, exaggeration and misrepresentation get in the way. This thread is mostly based on emotion[1], not reason.
It really seems like the classic charade, and not a constructive assessment of the issues that we have here. You do not try to understand the other side, but see DT as some kind of status and power (notably with the word 'punish'). Have you ever thought about how many countless hours these people have spent trying to protect others in this place? Trying to reduce theft (which most alt abuse essentially is), or just helping in general? Have you thought about how it is to do such a thankless "job" for years? You have not, and obviously you do not care.
[1]  The same goes for my use of the wording 'disgusting' in the prior sentence.
P.S. Agendas can also be fun.

[Chinese909]

**this post inspired by Annon001**

Conflict of interest must be avoided

Hi Sirs,

While looking through the forum Archives, I found a thread entitled [WTS] Senior Account Delete Me Please by DT1 member Blazed. The thread can be viewed by clicking on this link. The last post in the thread indicated the forum account was sold.

Much of the DT controversy is concentrated in those on Blazed's trust list.

Take yahoo62278 for instance. He has created threads such as:

• trying to gain trust via loans -  was asking for small loans to build up trust
• Selling this account - tried to sell his account unsuccessfully
• ITS MY BIRTHDAY!!! - begging for tips, claiming it was his birthday
• i need a reliable escrow - looking for an escrow agent to help with a forum account sale
• Hero Auction - auctioned a "Hero" forum account, clearly a distinct transaction from above
• Yahoos micro loans thread (collateral is a must) - made loans using forum accounts as collateral; ultimately used thread to purchase at least three forum accounts

So this guy is a trust farming, begging, account seller. He has a decent amount of trust, his score is 50: -0 / +5, with 4 of the 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He also runs many signature campaigns, can we be sure he is not enrolling his own accounts to milk the owners of these campaigns?

Here is the kicker, he is now giving negative trust for "sold accounts". This looks a lot like a conflict of interest to me. It looks a lot like he is "red tagging" some of his competition.


Another good example is Lutpin. He created a thread entitled:

• btcmasterZ is extorting me - claimed to be getting extorted by another user

This guy doesn't appear to sell accounts or farm trust, but he is another signature campaign manager. His history indicates he was a little immature in the past, but hey, everyone needs to learn at one point. He seems to have handled a decent amount of other's money, so maybe he is a little trustworthy, his score is 110: -0 / +11 , with 7 of his 11 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list.

A third point of controversy is The Pharmacist. He is not the smartest person, claiming to not know how to take a screenshot. I don't see much evidence he is especially trustworthy, he seems to have done a handful of PayPal deals, each worth $25 or so. From what I can tell, he has done a total of about $1,000 worth of trades over about three years. His trust score is 32: -0 / +5 , with 4 of his 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He likes to leave negative trust for those that trade accounts, sometimes years after the fact, yet is inconsistant in what he will Red Tag users for, and will ignore requests to discuss concerns with ratings.


User actmyname is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list:

I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same.

actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list.

Member mexxer-2, apparently used to sell forum accounts himself, however some people say mexxer-2 is actually a purchased account that was purchased after these types of threads was created. He allegedly failed to repay a loan from Lutpin, although no evidence to support this has been posted, he has negative ratings for this, however has no ratings for his prior activity selling accounts (or buying his account, depending on who you believe).

User Lauda is by far the most controversial user in DT. He enquired about deleting all personal information hosted on the forum, not long before it was exposed that Lauda had attempted to buy forum accounts 10 at a time. He has been involved in at least one extortion attempt. He says he will send merit for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity.

Lauda's trust score has taken a little bit of a hit since his extortion scheme was exposed, falling to 2: -2 / +13 with two scam reports, with Lauda retaliating with a baseless Red Tag of his own, and smearing both those who left negative trust in relation to this. However if you exclude everyone on Blazed's trust list, his trust score falls to : -2 / +4.


TL;DR: multiple people on Blazed's trust list have sold forum accounts in the past, including Blazed, yet none of them have Red Tagged anyone on Blazed's trust list for this reason, despite many leaving thousands of Red Tags for this reason, sometimes looking back many years to find this activity. Multiple people are on Blazed's trust list that manage signature/bounty campaigns, and many others use their DT status to "help" signature/bounty campaign managers by giving Red Trust to "cheaters".


Lastly, and most importantly, many people on Blazed's trust list seem to all have positive trust from each other, none have negative trust from each other (with the exception of mexxer-2, for a loan default, which should be easy to prove, but hasn't been), despite many engaging in the very behavior that they leave Red Trust for.



I guess I would ask Blazed, What is going on here?

Thank you for reading.

P.S. I am new here    

If Blazed sold accounts in the past to Scammers its not a surprise for me that his trust list is full with dumbass account sellers . Account dealers are not to be trusted ,in certain juridiction account dealers are considered as criminals cause you trade personal identity information for money.

[actmyname]

If Blazed sold accounts in the past to Scammers its not a surprise for me that his trust list is full with dumbass account sellers . Account dealers are not to be trusted ,in certain juridiction account dealers are considered as criminals cause you trade personal identity information for money.

Don't quote massive posts like that just to make a one-liner.Account dealers aren't to be trusted: that's true. Which is why you don't see Blazed doing account trading right now. In comparison, a lot of DT members have tagged a plethora of users doing account trading in 2017 and 2018.

[Bardman]

If Blazed sold accounts in the past to Scammers its not a surprise for me that his trust list is full with dumbass account sellers . Account dealers are not to be trusted ,in certain juridiction account dealers are considered as criminals cause you trade personal identity information for money.

Don't quote massive posts like that just to make a one-liner.Account dealers aren't to be trusted: that's true. Which is why you don't see Blazed doing account trading right now. In comparison, a lot of DT members have tagged a plethora of users doing account trading in 2017 and 2018.

Yeah, maybe not right now but he clearly did in the past https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013494.0 so, how come it was ok in the past but you get red tagged in the present?