🤔🤔🤔

[HCP]

I like it how you are quite about my case and would jump in to defend DT2 members when somebody else is accusing them. I might reconsider thinking you as a trusted forum member. you are not neutral and would stay silent when DT2 members are harassing me here.

Quiet about your case? I believe I've posted in several of your other "Trust abuse by xxxx" threads...

For the record, I wasn't defending anyone... An accusation was made (a fairly serious one at that) and I simply asked for some, preferably verifiable, proof.

I prefer to reserve judgement until I have all the pertinent facts.

At this time, cjmoles still hasn't provided any evidence that yahoo62278 received any funds from anyone or "gave other people's money to scammers".

Is it possible that cjmoles accusation is true? Yes... Can I make a statement that it is true? No... I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is.

Also, you keep claiming that DT members are harrassing you. But it is you calling them out to explain their actions. If they don't respond, you claim they're irresponsible and not worthy of being on DT. However, if they respond in a manner that you do not like or that you do not agree with you claim they're harrassing you. That seems a little disingenuous.

I'm sure your intentions with regards to charging for red tag removal were not "bad" per se (Possibly just a little misguided?)... and that you believe that you were trying to help the forum. It just didn't come across like that.

[cjmoles]

What pissed me off is that I watched my 5 bitcoin go directly to the manager and his shills DURING the exit. My BTC went from me to them WHILE the project was exiting---> just like that!

I still don't see the evidence of this. How exactly did you watch your 5 BTC go to the manager? Do you have transaction details or something?

And my problem isn't with yahoo62278 (I invest a lot and I know the risks involved) ---> My problem is with actmyname because he is a trust abuser.

But your post is claiming that it was yahoo62278 that took your money and gave it to "Chain of Points" and then they exit scammed??!?

This guy ---> (yahoo62278) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355846 Who took our money and gave it to these guys ---> (Chain of Points SigCampaign) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1801121.0 Before they exited and scrubbed their sites from the internet ---> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1773304.220

But now you're unhappy because actmyname (who doesn't appear to have had anything to do with the "Chain of Points" campaign or ICO) is a trust abuser? I'm confused...


Also, one minor point...

while they themselves MANAGE campaigns that consistently steal people's money.

It isn't the campaign that stole the money... it is the scam ICO/project that stole your money... and you seem to be confusing campaign managers with the devs/people behind the scam ICOs. In most of the cases that I'm aware of, the campaign managers are just hired by the ICO/project to post a thread, manage enrollments and then count posts etc... I'm not really aware of many campaigns where the manager is actually one of the project team. They're essentially just a sub-contractor hired to do a job.

Should campaign managers be more picky about the ICOs/Projects that they manager? Probably... should they be held accountable for ICOs/Projects that turn scam? I don't think so (unless they are part of the project team and directly involved in the scam)

You are making my point for me.  If the managers in charge of running these signature campaigns get marked green after they manage exit scams, then why do those who merely wear the signatures get marked red?  In otherwords, if you manage a successful exit scam or engage in extortion schemes , then actmyname will give you green trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=355846) and (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872). But if you merely wear a competitor's signature, post a low quality shill post, or give away too much merit, then actmyname will give you red trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=526154).  Make sense?  It's backwards ---> It's trust abuse!  And, it's an organised effort if you dig a little deeper.

[actmyname]

You are making my point for me.  If the managers in charge of running these signature campaigns get marked green after they manage exit scams, then why do those who merely wear the signatures get marked red?  In otherwords, if you manage a successful exit scam or engage in extortion schemes , then actmyname will give you green trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=355846) and (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872). But if you merely wear a competitor's signature, post a low quality shill post, or give away too much merit, then actmyname will give you red trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=526154).  Make sense?  It's backwards ---> It's trust abuse!  And, it's an organised effort if you dig a little deeper.

Managing a campaign for something that doesn't have a thread and tons of discussion about its shadiness is not equivalent to participating in a campaign for something that does.

You were aware of all the Betsoft madness, the poker bullshit and kept trying to dismiss these issues.

As far as I'm aware, yahoo hasn't yet managed an ongoing scam.Would your argument have changed if I didn't send yahoo positive trust? It's really easy to construct these conspiracy theories by overanalyzing every little action, like digaran does.

Hey, if you want to think that there's some organized bullshit happening then feel free. But I haven't messaged yahoo personally about anything apart from the Ryland case.

[digaran]

Bringing discussions about Yahoo (campaign manager) in this topic is not fair, I haven't seen him to abuse his DT status so far, however actmyname has.
He tagged me red for the same reason marlboroza tagged me before.

Marlboroza changed his red tag on me to neutral but deleted that neutral after I asked actmyname to tag marlboroza for giving me a free pass according to actmyname's standard in dealing with people. right there marlboroza was trying to hide his actions from actmyname and even after I posted screen shot of the neutral feedback from marlboroza on my profile, actmyname refuses to tag marlboroza. double standard. therefore actmyname shouldn't hold any power (DT) over other people.

Since 99.99% of forum members are not on DT, if this continues I'd suggest to people to avoid dealing/trusting actmyname for anything, furthermore I'd like to ask from people to avoid dealing/trusting forum administration for being indifferent on such cases. they would favor their few selected chosen DT members over thousands of people, completely centralized system-cartel-like system and we need to watch out for them.

They have given actmyname default trust power and they continue letting him to do as he pleases. however theymos has already excluded actmyname from his trust list, it means that he is not that much of an indifferent person, but Blazed (DT1) member has kept actmyname on DT2 and is letting him to do as he pleases, therefore we need to watch out for Blazed and never trust him for anything he says unless he does something about it.

I have provided my reasons as to why I think actmyname is harassing me, so if Blazed is not going to be active on this forum to see what his DT2 members are doing with the trust he has given them, he is an irresponsible individual and shouldn't hold DT1 power in this forum.

How many times do I need to repeat this? I'll repeat it until people see the truth.

[endlasuresh]

Once I did trading can get so many times positive points? I mean for one thread one time money exchange can get 20 to 30 points from different people?

Positive trust can be posted multiple times. Does this mean that they're using the same thread? No. In fact, all of our negative trusts point to different references.

In the case of positive trust, would it be right to credit multiple positive feedbacks to an individual (from multiple users) with a single trade? No. However, in some cases, a user may have some a major thread where they're doing good for the forum (i.e. rizzlarolla, TwitchySeal) that could warrant positive trust.

Also, if you've had multiple positive interactions with a user, then you yourself could potentially give multiple positive trust ratings.Remember that there's actually very little written down about what you can and can't do: there's only really guidelines.

Thanks, for the information, this looks similar to other forums, but I see on Bazinga's feedback one reference thread with two negative feedback.

[actmyname]

Marlboroza changed his red tag on me to neutral but deleted that neutral after I asked actmyname to tag marlboroza for giving me a free pass according to actmyname's standard in dealing with people. right there marlboroza was trying to hide his actions from actmyname and even after I posted screen shot of the neutral feedback from marlboroza on my profile, actmyname refuses to tag marlboroza. double standard. therefore actmyname shouldn't hold any power (DT) over other people.

This entire argument is based on a false equivalence. I have said this time and time again.

Since 99.99% of forum members are not on DT, if this continues I'd suggest to people to avoid dealing/trusting actmyname for anything

If you do not trust me then you should send my account a negative feedback with your arguments as to why I'm untrustworthy.

Thanks, for the information, this looks similar to other forums, but I see on Bazinga's feedback one reference thread with two negative feedback.

I was talking about digaran's feedback, not anyone else's. If you're going to look through all DT members' redundant negative tags then you can feel free to do so because there are definitely those cases.

I'm not sure why this topic is relevant, though.

[bill gator]

Each day, you do something that makes your opinions/conclusions about the trust network and particular DT members increasingly irrelevant. Taking a look at your recently sent feedback, you are now giving people temporary feedback for various reasons. This makes me wonder why after 90-days these people would warrant a removal of that feedback; can you help me understand how exclusively 90-days of waiting makes them more trustworthy? You don't seem to understand the long-term effects of your actions; how they mould the perception of your trustworthiness in the eyes of others.

How many times do I need to repeat this?

I thought once was enough, personally. We happen to disagree, but I (and presumably everyone involved) am not confused about your position so it need not be repeated. Making multiple threads about the same issue, and refusing to use your avenues of recourse simply drag the situation out longer is not helpful or efficient; you are not coming out looking good in this one, digaran. It doesn't make sense to prolong this idiotic drama.

[suchmoon]

I have provided my reasons as to why I think actmyname is harassing me, so if Blazed is not going to be active on this forum to see what his DT2 members are doing with the trust he has given them, he is an irresponsible individual and shouldn't hold DT1 power in this forum.

Have you contacted Blazed yet? Thread titles and telepathy don't count.

[o_e_l_e_o]

furthermore I'd like to ask from people to avoid dealing/trusting forum administration

If you don't trust this forum's administration, you are more than welcome to leave and start your own forum. In fact, I would thoroughly recommend you do that.

[digaran]

Each day, you do something that makes your opinions/conclusions about the trust network and particular DT members increasingly irrelevant. Taking a look at your recently sent feedback, you are now giving people temporary feedback for various reasons. This makes me wonder why after 90-days these people would warrant a removal of that feedback; can you help me understand how exclusively 90-days of waiting makes them more trustworthy? You don't seem to understand the long-term effects of your actions; how they mould the perception of your trustworthiness in the eyes of others.

How many times do I need to repeat this?

I thought once was enough, personally. We happen to disagree, but I (and presumably everyone involved) am not confused about your position so it need not be repeated. Making multiple threads about the same issue, and refusing to use your avenues of recourse simply drag the situation out longer is not helpful or efficient; you are not coming out looking good in this one, digaran. It doesn't make sense to prolong this idiotic drama.

Why do you care what I do with negative trust ratings? I'm not on DT. you should question those who are on DT and are doing whatever they want. giving actmyname DT2 status and leaving him to do whatever he wants is the definition of irresponsibility. me giving them negative trust means jack for them. you seem to be dismissing this case and base your judgement only on my actions. you seem to forget that actmyname or any other DT2 members are harassing me with their default trust power. you'd dismiss their actions and would say that they have the right to tag me red as scammer, this is what it says on my profile, it says trade with extreme caution, why? I have never scammed anybody. what kind of a fucked up system is this? it allows a few selected rogue individuals to decide whether I'm trustworthy or not and their trust is visible by default, that means whatever they want should be, whatever they say is the decision of the whole community while that is not the case. I disagree and I am trying to defend myself. marlboroza changed his feedback but actmyname tagged me for the same reason.

[marlboroza]

Marlboroza changed his red tag on me to neutral

That is correct. Everyone knows that.

but deleted that neutral after I asked actmyname to tag marlboroza for giving me a free pass according to actmyname's standard in dealing with people. right there marlboroza was trying to hide his actions from actmyname

Another conspiracy theory and blatant lie.

This user continues to spread lies....

[digaran]

Marlboroza changed his red tag on me to neutral

That is correct. Everyone knows that.

but deleted that neutral after I asked actmyname to tag marlboroza for giving me a free pass according to actmyname's standard in dealing with people. right there marlboroza was trying to hide his actions from actmyname

Another conspiracy theory and blatant lie.

This user continues to spread lies....

You are a lier, why did you delete your neutral tag on me?

[marlboroza]

Marlboroza changed his red tag on me to neutral

That is correct. Everyone knows that.

but deleted that neutral after I asked actmyname to tag marlboroza for giving me a free pass according to actmyname's standard in dealing with people. right there marlboroza was trying to hide his actions from actmyname

Another conspiracy theory and blatant lie.

This user continues to spread lies....

You are a lier, why did you delete your neutral tag on me?

I am still waiting for your answer on this:

I have already resolved the issue here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3502223.0

How? Take the exact quote that changed marlboroza's mind.

On side note, have you contacted Blazed?

[digaran]

I am still waiting for your answer on this:

I am still waiting on your answer, why did you delete the neutral tag on me?

On side note, have you contacted Blazed?

I am optimistic about this case, actmyname never said that he wouldn't change the tag under any circumstances, so I am trying to reason with him.

Funny how you are avoiding to answer my question.

[actmyname]

I am still waiting for your answer on this:

I am still waiting on your answer, why did you delete the neutral tag on me?

To replace it with a negative.

Funny how you are avoiding to answer my question.

Quid pro quo.

[bill gator]

Why do you care what I do with negative trust ratings?

You're criticizing the trust system and the actions of those within it; this makes your actions and opinions about the trust system up for scrutiny. I don't particularly care, but I am curious for an explanation if you're willing to give one.

you should question those who are on DT and are doing whatever they want.

I don't need to, they give a perfectly acceptable explanation with reference links attached to their ratings. I don't need them to repeat information they've already provided. I'm just asking for an explanation from you, because I'd like to hear it, don't know why you're taking it so negatively.

giving actmyname DT2 status and leaving him to do whatever he wants is the definition of irresponsibility.

"irresponsibility - lack of a proper sense of responsibility." Funny, I don't see "actmyname" anywhere in there.   If "whatever he wants" makes his DT1 includers feel he no longer belongs on the DT network then they will remove him. actmyname does not have immunity and cannot act with impunity; there would be a similar reaction if they were to do as you have done to put yourself into the situation you're in.

me giving them negative trust means jack for them.

I never said otherwise.

you seem to be dismissing this case and base your judgement only on my actions.

I am dismissing this case, it is based on my judgement of your actions and my understanding of the marketplace trust system. There has been DT members that have tagged reputable members for holding religious beliefs, yet they were not removed and quite honestly nobody cared. The trust system is not exclusive to scamming; if a user deems you untrustworthy for any or no reason then they have ever right to make that public through feedback. That's exactly what it is designed for.

you seem to forget that actmyname or any other DT2 members are harassing me with their default trust power.

Negative feedback based on your actions, false promises and extortion attempts is not harassment. They wouldn't say a word about you or to you if you hadn't dragged them into these slanderous and sad threads.

you'd dismiss their actions and would say that they have the right to tag me red as scammer,

They didn't tag you as a scammer. They do have the "right" to tag you. Their actions are valid.

this is what it says on my profile, it says trade with extreme caution, why? I have never scammed anybody. what kind of a fucked up system is this? it allows a few selected rogue individuals to decide whether I'm trustworthy or not and their trust is visible by default, that means whatever they want should be, whatever they say is the decision of the whole community while that is not the case. I disagree and I am trying to defend myself. marlboroza changed his feedback but actmyname tagged me for the same reason.

I certainly would like to hear your suggestion for a better system. You don't seem to understand the purpose of the marketplace trust system; please go back into some old threads and read previous discussions on the topic.

[digaran]

Snip.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3502223.0

[suchmoon]

I'm countering the rating. If you have any problems with this you can make your case but the way I see it, both users are acting a bit like children with this retaliatory feedback bullshit.

Lol. it seems that my trap worked. why did you counter Vod's feedback? now OP only has the look of a trustworthy person on his profile, nothing has changed in reality. Vod has abused his DT status by tagging the OP for something from the past. you are countering Vod's feedback just to hide the truth.

This is the evidence I needed to tag you actmyname, thank you for giving me a valid excuse, you have had no past interactions with OP, why would you do this favor for him? because you don't know how to use DT power you are holding. this is enough for you to get kicked out from DT2. I will now tag you red for this. I could tag Vod but the reason as to why he has tagged OP is valid therefore I'd refrain from tagging Vod.

Did you just admit that you were looking for an excuse for a retaliatory rating or is that another one of your "jokes"?

actmyname deserve some respect... if I was DT member I should have done this too.

Nothing about respect here, he has made a huge mistake by countering Vod's feedback without having any past deals with OP. if you were a DT member you should get booted off from DT for doing this.

Geez, that acthername person sounds like a proper scoundrel, attempting to resolve a conflict, such audacity. Have you contacted Blazed yet?

[cjmoles]

You are making my point for me.  If the managers in charge of running these signature campaigns get marked green after they manage exit scams, then why do those who merely wear the signatures get marked red?  In otherwords, if you manage a successful exit scam or engage in extortion schemes , then actmyname will give you green trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=355846) and (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872). But if you merely wear a competitor's signature, post a low quality shill post, or give away too much merit, then actmyname will give you red trust (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=526154).  Make sense?  It's backwards ---> It's trust abuse!  And, it's an organised effort if you dig a little deeper.

Managing a campaign for something that doesn't have a thread and tons of discussion about its shadiness is not equivalent to participating in a campaign for something that does.

You were aware of all the Betsoft madness, the poker bullshit and kept trying to dismiss these issues.

As far as I'm aware, yahoo hasn't yet managed an ongoing scam.Would your argument have changed if I didn't send yahoo positive trust? It's really easy to construct these conspiracy theories by overanalyzing every little action, like digaran does.

Hey, if you want to think that there's some organized bullshit happening then feel free. But I haven't messaged yahoo personally about anything apart from the Ryland case.

Betcoin has been around since 2014....IT'S STILL OPERATING....And, the bullshit twitchy threw out there wasn't honest, he photoshopped images, he recruited thieves to troll for him (you, for one, along with your buddy "game-protect"), he trolled the thread with multiple sock puppets ---> he started his trolling campaign after he got banned for cheating ---> they found him with over 100 accounts after it was reported that he was multi accounting.   And, the Betsoft debacle was settled for 50 btc... almost immediately.  And that situation could have been interpreted both ways because a free spin is a not spin in which a MAXIMUM WAGER has been placed as was stipulated by the rules....But, all that is beside the point because you're deflecting blame away from your own culpability.

You are just a punk, you are an accused pedophile, and you're complicit in multiple crimes....And, I don't really give a phuck who you messaged because you are all linked to the same scams.  Betcoin is still around stupid....and doing well....ore-mine was an exit scam ---> they took our money and ran....chain of points was a scam too ---> they took our money and ran also....And there's more.  So, if you think that all I've been doing is complaining on the forum after you guys robbed me for so much money ---> you better look a little deeper at the precedent set by the Bitconnect case (https://cryptovest.com/news/bitconnect-facing-lawsuit-youtube-promoters-listed-as-defendants/) and understand that your identities aren't as safe as you may think they are....You people don't believe that you can keep ripping people off for so much money and think that you can avoid accountability forever by remaining anonymous and accusing others, right?  

[Wendigo]

I think cjmoles is actually onto something here. It's obvious there is an organized syndicate running smear campaigns against particular casinos in the gambling section. They are trying to run down the reputation of competitive businesses. And another interesting fact is that some DT2 members have been representing competitive casinos for quite a while. Game protect and his throwaway newbie accounts are nothing to bat an eye at. I am talking about people like Lutpin and a slew of Indian accounts that conveniently pop up one after another in short amounts of time to bash businesses. So yeah there has been something suspicious going on for years.