Conflict of Interest on DT1

[sirazimuth]

No, you lying dipshit. You only need a couple of clicks to verify the timestamps but why do that when you can make shit up, right?

Bazinga's feedback reference:

https://archive.fo/gyQDG#selection-47.0-47.27

April 05, 2018, 05:39:01 PM

Bazinga's whiny-ass post six minutes later:

Chill out man. I already took your word for it and clearly didn't push the issue. Jesus.

And I didn't lie. Like I said, trust pages don't timestamp. How the hell was I supposed to know that archive existed??

The fucking reference is there for a fucking reason, you fucktard. Except when you only care about crawling up Quicksy's ass, then yes, you're not supposed to know anything, because you're new here, right?

I always find the best scammy-ass busting threads following your brilliant last posts

cheers and keep up the great work!!

[1715100580]

1715100580

[1715100580]

1715100580

[1715100580]

1715100580

[suchmoon]

I always find the best scammy-ass busting threads following your brilliant last posts

cheers and keep up the great work!!

I'm sorry, but the credit for this thread must be attributed to Quicksy's Account Farm - the most freshest organically grown grass-fed oxygen-deprived sockpuppets in all of Bitcointalk.

[suchmoon]

I can't possibly see how either of those could be not intentional, especially seeing how you built your whole argument of "DT abuse" based on that.

But yeah let's call it an observation and whine about distractions  

How could you possibly prove intent there? Explain. Are you the thought police now too?

And no I didn't base my whole argument on that. You were an afterthought. I spent far more time (and words) showing how Lauda recently retaliated with negative trust. I quickly conceded that I was incorrect regarding the claim about you. Yet for whatever reason you're still repeating yourself ad nauseam.

It must be distracting, because I repeatedly referred to Lauda's behavior. Yet I "built my whole argument of DT abuse" based on you? Weird.

Fair enough, half of the argument. Let's see the other half - VirosaGITS. I considered countering Lauda's feedback after ziku was busted but didn't do it because Virosa sounded quite dishonest in those chat logs. He said he can't use Og's escrow because Og has scammed someone. Didn't provide any proof as far as I know. Was trying to coerce the noob to ship items before paying. Two wrongs don't make it right. Ziku turning out to be a scammer doesn't excuse such behavior. The warning on Virosa's trust page sounds appropriate.

You also seem to be wrong about timing, again. Lauda negged Virosa before the thread was started, otherwise the thread wouldn't have made sense. Feedback may have been reposted later but I'm quite confident that Virosa was not +4 on 2/4 and this wasn't retaliation the way you're making it sound.

[Bardman]

Ognasty is a clear example of it, he tagged plenty of people just because they attacked him, some others do it too, I don't know about suchmoon specifically but yeah, it happens a lot.

I don’t tag people for attacking me. If I did, many of the people I’ve tagged recently would have been tagged years ago. I tag people that lie and act maliciously to hurt others. Period. My actions here are ALWAYS about what I honestly believe is best for the forum. If theymos or anyone in a position of respect had issue with any of my ratings, I would be more than happy to discuss them and make changes where appropriate. I’ve even solicited opinions about my ratings with no request for edits. I do what I believe is right for the forum knowing it will bring me harassment and cause my projects to be slandered, yet I do it anyway. If you can’t respect that your whole perspective is wack.

Look, I don't want to start an attack against you or anything and certainly I don't want a negative rating from you but : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2337754.60 Literally everyone agrees that your rating should be removed and it's not.

As I said, there is clearly some abuse and some hypocrisy around DT members, not that I care since I personally always review any trust rating myself.

[whistleblower2]

It looks like this thread has pushed the buttons of a few people 

I will post responses to posts later today/tomorrow, time permitting.

What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts.

Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion.

Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts.  I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest.

This looks like a good solution to say the least. I wonder why Blazed has not done this.

[donmiguello]

As I said, there is clearly some abuse and some hypocrisy around DT members, not that I care since I personally always review any trust rating myself.

Dont say everyone , This is group of haters that  keep atack OG even when Og is sleepy .

[Blazed]

It looks like this thread has pushed the buttons of a few people  

I will post responses to posts later today/tomorrow, time permitting.

What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts.

Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion.

Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts.  I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest.

This looks like a good solution to say the least. I wonder why Blazed has not done this.

I have already replied about the 1 account trade I had (it was done in the open as are all of my trades). If anyone would like to drop me a negative by all means go for it. I have never dropped a negative for retaliation or due to trash talking me. I only negative if someone really earns it. Back in 2013/2014 account sales were not deemed bad/shady since the spam issue was non existent compared to today. For the record I was only DT2 back then not DT1.

[whistleblower2]

I have already replied about the 1 account trade I had (it was done in the open as are all of my trades). If anyone would like to drop me a negative by all means go for it. I have never dropped a negative for retaliation or due to trash talking me. I only negative if someone really earns it. Back in 2013/2014 account sales were not deemed bad/shady since the spam issue was non existent compared to today. For the record I was only DT2 back then not DT1.

You could remove those in your trust list who have participated in the Red Tagging of sold accounts I mentioned in the OP, who as of now, have failed to Red Tag you:

Code:

yahoo62278 
The Pharmacist
actmyname
lauda

Removing the above users would remove any real or perceived conflict of interest within your trust list.

This would not preclude others on DT1 from adding any of the above onto their own trust list, if they believe they should be in DT2.

You can publicly state anyone is free to drop you a negative all you want, however as long as these people remain on your trust list, it will appear you are being protected.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Code:

yahoo62278 
The Pharmacist
actmyname
lauda

This is pathetic, and it's so obvious that this user is a Quickseller alt that it's laughable.  

There are so many users that I haven't tagged, and I've given my reasons for not doing so; Blazed is just one of many.  Tagging him was never even a consideration when I started tagging account sellers in 2016, and even if I were so inclined, I wouldn't tag him now for something he did in 2014 and notably hasn't done since.

You'd love it if Blazed took us all off his trust list, because then it'd be a field day for scammers.  All the scammy account sellers, the straight-up scammers, campaign cheaters, and everyone else wouldn't be tagged anymore.  But do you honestly think Blazed is going to remove the users you've mentioned because they haven't tagged Blazed?  Give me a break.  The only conflict of interest is in Quickseller's highly-disturbed frontal cortex.

Quickseller creates issues, problems, drama, when there is none to be found.  That's his M.O., and it doesn't matter which account he uses to act out his little fantasy issues.  They all sound alike.

This would not preclude others on DT1 from adding any of the above onto their own trust list, if they believe they should be in DT2.

But you know damn well, at least in my case, that Blazed taking me off his trust list would effectively remove me from DT2.  And by him doing that, all those people I've tagged would have clean accounts once more.  

[whistleblower2]

Code:

yahoo62278 
The Pharmacist
actmyname
lauda

This is pathetic, and it's so obvious that this user is a Quickseller alt that it's laughable. 

There are so many users that I haven't tagged, and I've given my reasons for not doing so; Blazed is just one of many.  Tagging him was never even a consideration when I started tagging account sellers in 2016, and even if I were so inclined, I wouldn't tag him now for something he did in 2014 and notably hasn't done since.

You'd love it if Blazed took us all off his trust list, because then it'd be a field day for scammers.  All the scammy account sellers, the straight-up scammers, campaign cheaters, and everyone else wouldn't be tagged anymore.  But do you honestly think Blazed is going to remove the users you've mentioned because they haven't tagged Blazed?  Give me a break.  The only conflict of interest is in Quickseller's highly-disturbed frontal cortex.

Quickseller creates issues, problems, drama, when there is none to be found.  That's his M.O., and it doesn't matter which account he uses to act out his little fantasy issues.  They all sound alike.

This would not preclude others on DT1 from adding any of the above onto their own trust list, if they believe they should be in DT2.

[drogbaaa]

It looks like this thread has pushed the buttons of a few people  

I will post responses to posts later today/tomorrow, time permitting.

What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts.

Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion.

Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts.  I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest.

This looks like a good solution to say the least. I wonder why Blazed has not done this.

I have already replied about the 1 account trade I had (it was done in the open as are all of my trades). If anyone would like to drop me a negative by all means go for it. I have never dropped a negative for retaliation or due to trash talking me. I only negative if someone really earns it. Back in 2013/2014 account sales were not deemed bad/shady since the spam issue was non existent compared to today. For the record I was only DT2 back then not DT1.

If you ask theymos to remove you from DT1 then you will realy help this little community.Your list is not decentralized and it dominated by scammers and beggars. Noone in your trust list tagged scammers , they tagged only competitors .It look like you never take your time to see their actions.

[Lauda]

Your list is not decentralized and it dominated by scammers and beggars.

Who exactly are you calling a scammer? Please post their name(s).

Noone in your trust list tagged scammers , they tagged only competitors .

1k+ competitors later..

[Blazed]

It looks like this thread has pushed the buttons of a few people  

I will post responses to posts later today/tomorrow, time permitting.

What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts.

Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion.

Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts.  I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest.

This looks like a good solution to say the least. I wonder why Blazed has not done this.

I have already replied about the 1 account trade I had (it was done in the open as are all of my trades). If anyone would like to drop me a negative by all means go for it. I have never dropped a negative for retaliation or due to trash talking me. I only negative if someone really earns it. Back in 2013/2014 account sales were not deemed bad/shady since the spam issue was non existent compared to today. For the record I was only DT2 back then not DT1.

If you ask theymos to remove you from DT1 then you will realy help this little community.Your list is not decentralized and it dominated by scammers and beggars. Noone in your trust list tagged scammers , they tagged only competitors .It look like you never take your time to see their actions.

Feel free to msg him and see what his opinion on the matter is. Being DT1 gives me no benefits whatsoever and only causes me endless drama. The people I have added were put their to help clean up the forum and they do not benefit me personally since I have always followed the rules etc.. Obviously the DT network is not decentralized and neither is this forum. Decentralized things are not always the best solution, but if you have a better setup please tell us.

[mrcash02]

The people I have added were put their to help clean up the forum and they do not benefit me personally since I have always followed the rules etc.. Obviously the DT network is not decentralized and neither is this forum. Decentralized things are not always the best solution, but if you have a better setup please tell us.

Sorry, with all due respect, this forum's cleaning talk is a fallacy. On the internet, people are like chameleons, taking different personalities, names, addresses at any time, when desired or necessary. People are negatived/banned here, but they aren't neutralized, they will just come back with a new clean profile attacking again.

In this forum's cleaning war, the only impaired are those who want to stand loyal to their accounts, that eventually becomes worthless from many perspectives, and the only benefited ones are those who are building their reputations hunting people exclusively in inferior positions (those who doesn't have anyone behind them), putting scammers, non-scammers, abusers, non-abusers in the same basket, just because they can. It doesn't even need to make sense. It's all about personal power, influence in a forum where money plays a big role.

What people say here doesn't have much importance, unless their trust score is high. Opinions worth depending on who express it.

If you really want to clean the forum, another measures, tought and fair ones, would be necessary to be taken. Any other palliative is just a "jerry-built". Between a severe general policy and the ridiculous currently methods employed at this moment to clean the forum, the first option doesn't sound a bad idea. At least the terms would be the same for everyone, instead of the currently one where, for example, if a policeman in particular likes or dislikes according to your face or your clothes, you will be fine or in trouble. At least we would have a police instead of the currently militias.

[Timelord2067]

I've only just had this thread pointed out to me, so I'll just point out a couple things that seem to have been overlooked so far.

• Blazed was actually called Blazedout419 up to and including the sale date the 6th of April 2015 after which time s/he was refereed to as Blazed.  From their trust wall:
  
  
  
  there are also the run-of-the-mill impposters:
  
  

  Offline    Blazedout420                      Brand new    2013-09-30    0    
  Offline    Blazedowt419                      Brand new    2014-05-11    0    
  Offline    Blazedout4I9                      Brand new    2014-05-29    0    
  Offline    Blazedout418                      Brand new    2014-06-13    0    
  Offline    Blazed0ut419                      Brand new    2014-12-20    0    
  Offline    Blazedovt419                      Brand new    2014-12-21    0    
  Offline    Blazedout491                      Brand new    2015-03-27    0    
  Offline    Blazed0ut4I9                      Brand new    2015-07-08    0    
  Offline    Blazed-                      Brand new    2016-01-08    0    
  Offline    Blazed `                      Brand new    2015-10-21    0    
  Offline    Blazed -                      Brand new    2016-01-08    0    
  Offline    Blazed ,                      Brand new    2017-01-23    0    
  Offline    blazed91                      Brand new    2017-12-13    0    
  Offline    Blazedout                      Brand new    2014-04-15    0    
  Offline    blazed420                      Newbie    2016-10-01    6    
  Offline    Blazedout419`                      Brand new    2014-05-26    0    
  Offline    Blazedoutt419                      Brand new    2014-10-08    0    
  Offline    Blazedout4119                      Brand new    2015-07-03    0    
  Offline    Blazedout419 `                      Brand new    2015-04-27    0    
  Offline    Blazedout419 .    Email                   Brand new    2015-05-10    0    
  Offline    Blazedout419 _                      Brand new    2015-06-13    0    
  Offline    blazedaccounts                      Brand new    2017-10-20    0    
  

• shorena also dabbled in account sales (archived) and even went so far as to offer an account cleaning service (archived) before resale (Sad in more ways than one).

I sent a note a week ago to The Pharmacist about shorena and as expected I received no reply.  When I mentioned this to someone, they pointed me towards this thread.

[digaran]

I'm asking you DT1-2 members, please right whatever wrongs you have done, before you are kicked out of DT positions. your pride is your enemy.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I sent a note a week ago to The Pharmacist about shorena and as expected I received no reply.  When I mentioned this to someone, they pointed me towards this thread.

You sent me a PM saying since I tag account sellers, I might want to look at a couple of threads, which you gave me the links for:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=953262.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958097.0

All of this stuff is from 2015, and I found it somewhat confusing that you would all of a sudden dig this up and ask me to tag the people involved.  I started tagging account buyers & sellers in 2016 and at present I'm tagging any new ones that I find.  I'm certainly not going back 3 years to tag people, regardless of what it's for.  Your PM made me feel like you were baiting me to get involved in something, for whatever reason--and now because I ignored your PM it's proof of...something.

[Timelord2067]

I sent a note a week ago to The Pharmacist about shorena and as expected I received no reply.  When I mentioned this to someone, they pointed me towards this thread.

You sent me a PM saying since I tag account sellers, I might want to look at a couple of threads, which you gave me the links for:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=953262.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958097.0

All of this stuff is from 2015, and I found it somewhat confusing that you would all of a sudden dig this up and ask me to tag the people involved.  I started tagging account buyers & sellers in 2016 and at present I'm tagging any new ones that I find.  I'm certainly not going back 3 years to tag people, regardless of what it's for.  Your PM made me feel like you were baiting me to get involved in something, for whatever reason--and now because I ignored your PM it's proof of...something.

Thanks for answering my message of a week ago - you'll go grey reading too much into what I said quoted above.

[suchmoon]

Blazed was actually called Blazedout419 up to and including the sale date the 6th of April 2015 after which time s/he was refereed to as Blazed.

You're making it sound as if Blazed was selling his own account but I don't think that's the case.

[Timelord2067]

Blazed was actually called Blazedout419 up to and including the sale date the 6th of April 2015 after which time s/he was refereed to as Blazed.

You're making it sound as if Blazed was selling his own account but I don't think that's the case.

No.  What I showed was that after buying the UID the name was changed.  If you're confused by the "s/he" replace "s/he" with "the UID"

Buying accounts is a short cut to Legendary status and higher fees paid for shit posting in Signature Campaigns.

OK?