🤔🤔🤔

[bill gator]

I offered to help people, suchmoon tagged me for it. read reference, read title of my thread.

It is extremely interesting to me that you believe everyone on this forum to have amnesia, or short-term memory loss. This is why we use the archive.is as an alternative reference, even though you refuse (for some unknown reason) to acknowledge them as a proper reference. Specifically, so that you cannot edit your posts, change your titles and claim that there is a grand-conspiracy against you, as you are doing. "Read title of my thread" after deliberately changing the thread title to make yourself look better is another deceitful tactic that should further solidify any distrust that these members already had towards you.

[1713856806]

1713856806

[1713856806]

1713856806

[1713856806]

1713856806

[1713856806]

1713856806

[1713856806]

1713856806

[digaran]

I offered to help people, suchmoon tagged me for it. read reference, read title of my thread.

It is extremely interesting to me that you believe everyone on this forum to have amnesia, or short-term memory loss. This is why we use the archive.is as an alternative reference, even though you refuse (for some unknown reason) to acknowledge them as a proper reference. Specifically, so that you cannot edit your posts, change your titles and claim that there is a grand-conspiracy against you, as you are doing. "Read title of my thread" after deliberately changing the thread title to make yourself look better is another deceitful tactic that should further solidify any distrust that these members already had towards you.

Read the title of my thread which is accessible via reference link from first tag of suchmoon on my profile. it says : hire me to defend your case!

[suchmoon]

Read the title of my thread which is accessible via reference link from first tag of suchmoon on my profile. it says : hire me to defend your case!

... which you're incapable of doing with any degree of competence and you wanted to get paid upfront without escrow.

You're like those translation bounty scammers using Google Translate - trying to find someone dumber than you to swindle.

[HCP]

Read the title of my thread which is accessible via reference link from first tag of suchmoon on my profile. it says : hire me to defend your case!

Yes... and the giant signature and smaller personal text say what?




Honestly, you should have just left your avatar as it was...

[digaran]

Read the title of my thread which is accessible via reference link from first tag of suchmoon on my profile. it says : hire me to defend your case!

Yes... and the giant signature and smaller personal text say what?




Honestly, you should have just left your avatar as it was...

So the whole reason for my tag is based on wrong wording? red tag removal: click for more information=hire me to defend your case. end of story.

Let me explain it in another way:

One would say:

Rapist for hire. click for more information.
After clicking you'd see this:

Hello, I'd like to offer my raping service, I'd come to your house and would rape you if you are of legal age and with your consent, my fee is xx.xx.
Then you'd see that what he is doing is legal in his state/country.

Could you then throw such a person to jail as a real rapist? no because there has been misunderstanding and wrong wording. that is all I have tried to say all along, suchmoon and marlboroza tagged me for my wrong wording. note that I am not native English speaker.

[actmyname]

Rapist for hire. click for more information.

Off to a great start with your analogy, eh?

Hello, I'd like to offer my raping service, I'd come to your house and would rape you

if you are of legal age and with your consent

So then it's not rape.

my fee is xx.xx.

Now it's prostitution.

Then you'd see that what he is doing is legal in his state/country.

Prostitution is not legal. Use a better analogy.

Could you then throw such a person to jail as a real rapist? no because there has been misunderstanding and wrong wording.

Misunderstanding? This shit is false advertising, then!

[suchmoon]

So the whole reason for my tag is based on wrong wording? red tag removal: click for more information=hire me to defend your case. end of story.

Let me explain it in another way:

One would say:

Rapist for hire. click for more information.
After clicking you'd see this:

Hello, I'd like to offer my raping service, I'd come to your house and would rape you if you are of legal age and with your consent, my fee is xx.xx.
Then you'd see that what he is doing is legal in his state/country.

Could you then throw such a person to jail as a real rapist? no because there has been misunderstanding and wrong wording. that is all I have tried to say all along, suchmoon and marlboroza tagged me for my wrong wording. note that I am not native English speaker.

Threatening with violence could be a crime depending on the context but you're not in jail, you feckless moron.

Your fascination with rape has been noted. Knock this shit off, it's not funny.

[suchmoon]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

So the 6 "cases" - why do you have them here? Particularly the ones that don't involve you.

My goal is to eradicate the habit of leaving inaccurate feedbacks on people. whether it to be positive or negative. what kind of a person would I be if I were only trying to get involved where my own profile was at stake? note that you tagged me even before I start. 2 new cases of Vod and actmyname could be considered as my new work in progress.

So your "work" consists of trolling some threads and pretending they're your cases? Again, what have you actually accomplished towards your stated goal?

Note again: even if you remove your tags on me, there will be no fee for my service, one could conclude that I have eliminated all the possible ways of colluding with DT members. if you remove your tags on me I wont be getting any money for my service since it will remain free for ever.

Yeah but I think you're a liar, so there's that.

[Quickseller]

-snip-

A hypocrite scammer and his concern trolling at its finest:

There is a difference between being unable to articulate why you believe someone is a small in a small number of instances and using the fact that you "do not trust" someone as a basis for a negative rating in almost every instance.

When someone is deciding if they want to trade with him, they will know that a negative rating means “~this person scammed you or you strongly believe he is a scammer”

Eh, yeah that's probably true and I realize digaran hasn't scammed anyone that I know of, but I'm not sure if he's a person I'd want to trade with--imagine trying to do a deal with someone as mentally unstable as he is.  I didn't tag him because, as I've said before, I think he's basically a harmless nincompoop who barks a lot but hasn't yet bit anyone hard enough to make the skin bleed.  I don't think he's been tagged inappropriately, because his taggers don't trust him.  Period. 

In 2014, I called out a purchased account on DT that was being used to further a scam. In response to my opening that thread, I received a negative rating from that person. Logically speaking, he did not trust me, as you generally will not trust someone calling out your scams, or otherwise accusing you of something that, if proven true would have negative consequences for you. Would you consider chalidore's negative rating against me to be "valid" on that same basis?


If you ask my opinion, suchmoon gave a negative rating to the OP because she does not like the services the OP is providing. The OP is offering to contest negative ratings the recipient feels is unjust, which has the potential to expose negative ratings given out for less than kosher reasons.

That quote from the trust page "this person scammed you or you strongly believe he is a scammer" has become just a guideline and we all know it.  Bitcointalk doesn't have a tool to alert people that a member is a shitposter, or a merit beggar, or an insane person who hasn't scammed anyone but probably shouldn't be trusted.  It's a one-size-fits-all trust system, and people should look into any comments on anyone's trust page and make their own decision based on what is said and what's in the reference link (if one is given).

I don't know about you, but I don't send money to what is "probably" the correct address, and I don't see why you (or anyone who cares about their reputation) would act any differently when it comes to handing out negative ratings.

The fact that someone is a shit poster is handled by the merit system, and handled by the fact that they will get banned if they post too much nonsense.


Just because someone has not scammed someone, does not mean a negative rating is not appropriate. A negative rating would still be appropriate if there was a failed scam attempt, or if someone is showing signs they plan on attempting on scamming someone in the future.

I might agree with looking at comments on trust pages for comments that are not in your trust list as these comments to not play a factor in trust scores, and you generally should not ignore scam reports unless you can verify they are invalid. However the reason someone is in your trust network is because they give accurate ratings, and if you are finding that someone is giving out ratings that you are ignoring, then this person should not be in your trust network. 

[suchmoon]

There is a difference between being unable to articulate why you believe someone is a small in a small number of instances and using the fact that you "do not trust" someone as a basis for a negative rating in almost every instance.

Please come back when you sober up and try again.

If you ask my opinion, suchmoon gave a negative rating to the OP because she does not like the services the OP is providing. The OP is offering to contest negative ratings the recipient feels is unjust, which has the potential to expose negative ratings given out for less than kosher reasons.

Well, it's a good thing that nobody asked for your opinion.

The reasons for my negative rating have been thoroughly explained and you're just making shit up as usual. Digaran has shown that he's incapable of even grasping how DT works, let alone contesting anything.

[bill gator]

The OP is offering to contest negative ratings the recipient feels is unjust, which has the potential to expose negative ratings given out for less than kosher reasons.

I would say any recipient of unjust negative trust has a better capability to contest the negative rating themselves. Including digaran would be counter-productive in this regard.
Exposing unjust ratings is not something to be regulated by a commissioned 3rd party; that is a community effort.


If we're being honest, the idea of the service is not invalid once it is polished; the problem is the methods digaran claims they would pursue, the misleading nature and the combination of their previous desire to extort scammers over feedback. With the proper contingencies, terms, disclosures and methods this service may have had a prayer. Similarly to how escrow services are acceptable, unless you attempt to do so with no trade history or build reputation through escrowing for your alts.

The fact that someone is a shit poster is handled by the merit system, and handled by the fact that they will get banned if they post too much nonsense.

Not entirely handled, though, is it? I would say that some sort of assistance or augmentation is appropriate, such as tagging people you believe to be untrustworthy for maliciously spamming.

A negative rating would still be appropriate if there was a failed scam attempt, or if someone is showing signs they plan on attempting on scamming someone in the future.

Believing someone is untrustworthy and believing someone is going to scam are not necessarily one in the same. You can believe someone will betray your trust simply because they are unable to understand what would constitute "your trust"; there are endless subjective reasons to distrust someone. All of these are valid, in our system, as it is currently "enforced".

[Quickseller]

The OP is offering to contest negative ratings the recipient feels is unjust, which has the potential to expose negative ratings given out for less than kosher reasons.

I would say any recipient of unjust negative trust has a better capability to contest the negative rating themselves. Including digaran would be counter-productive in this regard.

I agree, in most cases, it will be best to contest a negative rating yourself. However there are cases when this is not true, for example if you do not speak english very well, or if you are having trouble articulating an argument.

Exposing unjust ratings is not something to be regulated by a commissioned 3rd party; that is a community effort.

I would not say the type of service the OP is offering is regulating the contesting of unjust ratings in any way, the recipient is free to contest the rating himself.

Also on your point this being a community effort, I would agree, however I would also say the community has failed in this regard. The instances of cases in which contested ratings are really even discussed are few and far between. Most of the time, conversations about contested ratings both start and finish with "xx doesn't trust you, therefore the negative rating is valid" which in no way is looking into the legitimacy of the underlying rating.

The fact that someone is a shit poster is handled by the merit system, and handled by the fact that they will get banned if they post too much nonsense.

Not entirely handled, though, is it? I would say that some sort of assistance or augmentation is appropriate, such as tagging people you believe to be untrustworthy for maliciously spamming.

I would disagree. Someone breaking forum rules needs to be dealt with via the administration either themselves or via delegated authority of the moderators. Most instances of rule breaking are dealt with by giving the person some kind of warning -- be it a PM, a post being deleted or a temp ban -- and the person doesn't break the underlying rule again (or they don't after multiple warnings). A negative rating on the other hand is pretty much always going to be longer lasting than any warning, and in most instances will be permanent -- this will result in many people effectively being excluded from the community that probably should not be.

A negative rating would still be appropriate if there was a failed scam attempt, or if someone is showing signs they plan on attempting on scamming someone in the future.

Believing someone is untrustworthy and believing someone is going to scam are not necessarily one in the same. You can believe someone will betray your trust simply because they are unable to understand what would constitute "your trust"; there are endless subjective reasons to distrust someone. All of these are valid, in our system, as it is currently "enforced".

You have a small number of people who leave negative ratings for subjective reasons (that are often questionable), it just appears this is more widespread because of the vast number of ratings they hand out. In my prior post, I provided an example of when I received a negative rating for no reason other than I was calling out a scam attempt someone was engaged in. By the criteria that you can leave a negative rating because you "distrust" someone would mean you can leave a negative rating for someone calling out your scam attempt, and if this is acceptable, then those in the DT network get a free pass in scamming.

[digaran]

Bumping for more visibility.

[suchmoon]

Bumping for more visibility.

What was the response from Blazed?

[4x4et]

Joining the club - although i really dont take it to the heart


Left me red trust, conviniently, after my post on Scam Accusations topic

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg45146865#msg45146865

Im here for almost 2 years, and I have 30 positive feedbacks on Bitify - name me one person I have scammed so far? Also provided written response from Paypal employee on subject - it was ignored - called me a scamer for wanting to pay first, to do business with trusted members only and to use well known escrow (not his/hers)?



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4994803.msg45094694#msg45094694


And here is some material for thinking

why is BitcoinTalk (their staff) started to give negative trust to ICO's which dont want to pay racketeering?

Also one of my friends tried to register - and they got a message that their IP is dangerous, and they should send BitcoinTalk some BTC to let them post?



Why is BitcoinTalk supporting Cloudbet - which has 20+ unresolved scam accusations here?

Why are Hhampuz and suchmoon trying to silence users by giving them red trust?

[suchmoon]

Joining the club - although i really dont take it to the heart

Left me red trust, conviniently, after my post on Scam Accusations topic

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.msg45146865#msg45146865

Huh?

Im here for almost 2 years, and I have 30 positive feedbacks on Bitify - name me one person I have scammed so far? Also provided written response from Paypal employee on subject - it was ignored - called me a scamer for wanting to pay first, to do business with trusted members only and to use well known escrow (not his/hers)?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4994803.msg45094694#msg45094694

No sane escrow would touch PayPal. The fact that you keep repeating this makes you a scammer.

And here is some material for thinking

why is BitcoinTalk (their staff) started to give negative trust to ICO's which dont want to pay racketeering?

Not sure what this has to do with me. I'm not "staff".

Also one of my friends tried to register - and they got a message that their IP is dangerous, and they should send BitcoinTalk some BTC to let them post?

https://i.imgur.com/D8RG6Lr.jpg

Your "friend" has a banned account or is using a VPN/Tor exit node that a banned user has used.

Why is BitcoinTalk supporting Cloudbet - which has 20+ unresolved scam accusations here?

Why are Hhampuz and suchmoon trying to silence users by giving them red trust?

I would only attempt to silence you if you step on my property and force me to stand my ground. My trust rating doesn't prevent you from speaking.

[4x4et]

No sane escrow would touch PayPal. The fact that you keep repeating this makes you a scammer.

So Bitify is no sane escrow?



https://bitify.com/bitify-escrow-service/

LOL

u r funny, i give u that

The fact that you keep repeating this makes you a scammer.

Really, how old r u?

Just read what u wrote...again and again.

Your "friend" has a banned account or is using a VPN/Tor exit node that a banned user has used.

So if he pays (racketeering), his IP will be magically unbanned?  

Your account contains 668.76 units of evil. To atone, you must pay a total of 0.00188544 bitcoins (1.88544 mBTC; 188544 satoshi). Pay to the address 3PV9nLSKstE9ZYYPDHzT4RypyswbWNiJZu. Once you have paid the full amount, wait a few seconds and then reload this page. If the fee is so small that your wallet is unable to send it, you can send any larger amount, though you will not be refunded the difference.

you can send any larger amount, though you will not be refunded the difference

OMG, cant stop laughing

so, Im the scammer, right?

[suchmoon]

So Bitify is no sane escrow?

Of course it's bullshit. PayPal transactions can be reversed within 180 days. Credit card chargebacks can happen within a similar timeframe.

So if he pays (racketeering), his IP will be magically unbanned?  

No, but your new account will be allowed to proceed. It's a measure against serial offenders.

This has nothing to with me though, so stay focused on your primary objective here.

[4x4et]

So Bitify is no sane escrow?

Of course it's bullshit. PayPal transactions can be reversed within 180 days. Credit card chargebacks can happen within a similar timeframe.

So if he pays (racketeering), his IP will be magically unbanned?  

No, but his account will be allowed to proceed. It's a measure against serial offenders.

This has nothing to with me though, so stay focused on your primary objective here.

Well you don't have a clue obviously about Paypal.

Transaction will be (would be) sent from Paypal balance (which i can screenshot - but hey wtf, its like im convicted for murder or something, i have to prooof everything, even to  people not at all interested in doing the transaction with me - for what reason - thought police?), not from cc or bank account - so if you had a clue, you would know that this is not reversible.

No, but his account will be allowed to proceed.

OMG i cant choose which is it - a total lie or a total bullshit


It is said once a member pay a fee, he will be whitelisted.

So, no matter how serious offender you are, you will be welcomed again on Bitcointalk, once u payed




BTW, never heard of anybody being banned here.

[suchmoon]

Well you don't have a clue obviously about Paypal.

Transaction will be (would be) sent from Paypal balance (which i can screenshot - but hey wtf, its like im convicted for murder or something, i have to prooof everything, even to  people not at all interested in doing the transaction with me - for what reason - thought police?), not from cc or bank account - so if you had a clue, you would know that this is not reversible.

I know PayPal quite well, done a lot of business with it. Your screenshot is meaningless, as is your escrow. Again, the fact that you're still blatantly lying about this extremely risky transaction makes you a scammer.

BTW, never heard of anybody being banned here.

https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php