🤔🤔🤔

[actmyname]

(you, for one, along with your buddy "game-protect")

game-protect is just an idiot

the Betsoft debacle was settled for 50 btc... almost immediately.

They wanted to shut him up and he took the deal because that was better than getting nothing at all.

you are an accused pedophile

OK? Anyone can be accused of being a pedophile and plenty of people are. Doesn't mean there's substance behind those accusations.

and you're complicit in multiple crimes

For example...

And, I don't really give a phuck who you messaged because you are all linked to the same scams.

How so?

[cjmoles]

(you, for one, along with your buddy "game-protect")

game-protect is just an idiot

the Betsoft debacle was settled for 50 btc... almost immediately.

They wanted to shut him up and he took the deal because that was better than getting nothing at all.

They didn't have to give him anything because he was WRONG and he would have lost in court....without a doubt. In no jurisdiction in the world does "free spin" mean "maximum wagered" spin. I don't care how you dumbphucks twist it. I looked up every precedent on misinterpreted gaming instructions and all of them were against him.

you are an accused pedophile

OK? Anyone can be accused of being a pedophile and plenty of people are. Doesn't mean there's substance behind those accusations.

and you're complicit in multiple crimes

For example...

For One: Aiding and abetting known exit scammers with the intent to legitimize their credibility to encourage the furtherance of their criminal enterprise. Not to mention bringing game-protect into your fold....

And, I don't really give a phuck who you messaged because you are all linked to the same scams.

How so?

You give green trust to known scammers so that they can look credible enough to keep up their scams....And they pass the green trust back through alts so that you can discredit their competitors.  It's obvious who's helping who scam who on the forum because it's been going on for years....  

Plus....you're just an out-right trust abuser on the forum....period. 

[digaran]

I'm here to let you know that actmyname as it appears has a habit of giving a free pass to allegedly scammers according to some other DT2 members. for example actmyname countered Vod's feedback to give a free pass to somebody Vod considers to be a scammer. so as I can see the post of cjmoles, it is clear as day that actmyname has been on this business for a long time and I'd like to blame this on Blazed. note that Blazed is only active and posts on such topics when his own ass is on the line, well I have a bad news for Blazed: this is on you and I will PM him to let him know about this.

If I PM him and he keeps actmyname on DT2 after seeing all the shit actmyname has done so far, I will tag Blazed this time.
Please note that actmyname is also tagging other campaign managers for something from the past, red tagging the competition by a DT2 member while we're supposed to trust DT2 members with their judgements. tell me if you can't see the conflict of interest here?

Are we going to allow a DT2 campaign manager tagging other campaign managers and say nothing here? get your house in order @Blazed, exclude this trust abuser and be free of whatever he/she is doing in your name, yes whatever actmyname does is on you, because you have given him/her the trust.

EDIT: just sent the PM, let us wait and hope this one is reasonable enough to see the evidence and act on them.

[actmyname]

I'm here to let you know that actmyname as it appears has a habit of giving a free pass to allegedly scammers

Please note that actmyname is also tagging other campaign managers for something from the past, red tagging the competition by a DT2 member

So which one is it? I'm tagging someone who is trading accounts. But then you say that I'm giving a pass to people. What you want from me has always been extremely contradictory.

according to some other DT2 members.

Do you have evidence backing this up or is this another blanket statement?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So which one is it?

Does it even matter?  As soon as you clear up that question, he'll find another way to attack you and the rest of the DT members in Blazed's trust list.  His trolling has gotten to the point where I've put him back on ignore--I had the impression that he's a harmless troll with no filter between his brain and keyboard, but I'm starting to get annoyed with the volume and tone of his trolling. 

He's clearly fixated on the idea that there's some grave injustice being done by DT, but from everything I've seen it appears he's deserved the trust he's gotten.  In addition he's trying to pit DT members against each other, much like that person recently who claimed I tried to extort him by asking for cash for feedback removal.  I would suggest that if we all ignore him, he'll wither and die.  I think that's the last I'm going to write on this.

[bill gator]

Over a month of conversation, trolling, discussion and attempts at recourse and we've ended up at Page 10 of one of your many threads. Now that we're here, there is not a single person that has agreed with your side of things and you have only accumulated more negative trust; Surely you cannot honestly believe that every single one of these is fraudulent, abusive, misleading or invalid. I know that has been your argument, but it's been played out and it is extremely stale. I got a few laughs out of you in the beginning, digaran, but now it's just sad to see where you've fallen.

Lock up the threads, do some self-reflection and we'll be here when you're ready to be an adult with the rest of us.

[digaran]

Note that 2 posters above are blatant supporters of a known trust abuser we know by the name "actmyname" I have also seen bill gator to be a bootlicker of Blazed. shame on you guys, not only you are siding with real scammers but you are trying to attack me in order to hide the truth, the fact still remains, actmyname has a habit of providing a way out for scammers by using positive/negative trust feedbacks. now go do more bootlicking @The Pharmacist and bill gator.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Note that 2 posters above are blatant supporters of a known trust abuser we know by the name "actmyname" I have also seen bill gator to be a bootlicker of Blazed. shame on you guys, not only you are siding with real scammers but you are trying to attack me in order to hide the truth, the fact still remains, actmyname has a habit of providing a way out for scammers by using positive/negative trust feedbacks. now go do more bootlicking @The Pharmacist and bill gator.

Another two names to add to the list! At this point it might be easier if you just tell us who isn't part of your imaginary mafia/cartel/underground-abuser-network/scammers-extordinaire/bootlickers-anonymous?

[cjmoles]

I'm here to let you know that actmyname as it appears has a habit of giving a free pass to allegedly scammers

Please note that actmyname is also tagging other campaign managers for something from the past, red tagging the competition by a DT2 member

So which one is it? I'm tagging someone who is trading accounts. But then you say that I'm giving a pass to people. What you want from me has always been extremely contradictory.

according to some other DT2 members.

Do you have evidence backing this up or is this another blanket statement?

Here's the deal. As long as you people are promoting your scams and quashing legitimate complaints to add credibility to those scams, then your whole chain of support can be held liable and there's precedent being set as we speak.  You guys have been notified of the fraudulent marketing activities several times.  Pay attention  ---> Youtube is not exempt and neither are the youtubers who provided their support  The very nature of Youtube's content support algorithm is providing the case for liability there.

Does it surprise anybody that a member of the SMAS group, Lutpin, is endorsed by the BitConnect ponzi's advertising campaign manager with green trust?



Who's next?

theymos ---> Are you paying attention?

[suchmoon]

Does it surprise anybody that a member of the SMAS group, Lutpin, endorses the BitConnect ponzi's advertising campaign manager with green trust?

http://i64.tinypic.com/2nvf95j.png

Who's next?

theymos ---> Are you paying attention?

You posted a screenshot of someone sending positive trust TO Lutpin. Perhaps you should pay attention yourself.

[cjmoles]

Does it surprise anybody that a member of the SMAS group, Lutpin, endorses the BitConnect ponzi's advertising campaign manager with green trust?

http://i64.tinypic.com/2nvf95j.png

Who's next?

theymos ---> Are you paying attention?

You posted a screenshot of someone sending positive trust TO Lutpin. Perhaps you should pay attention yourself.

My bad....edited the post to more accurately clarify the connection.  My point is that the content grading system is not exempt from liability so while users like actmyname and the SMAS group are endorsing scam managers with trusted feedback and devaluing the credibility of their competitors in collusion with one another, then those interactions could be impeached for the record, especially in complaints already before the court.  Ripping people off is wrong whether the scams are supported by default trust moderators or not ---> period.

And, theymos needs to pay attention to the precedent being set in some of these cases, especially those cases with deep bitcointalk connections.

[suchmoon]

My bad....edited the post to more accurately clarify the connection.

What connection? You're just making shit up now.

[cjmoles]

My bad....edited the post to more accurately clarify the connection.

What connection? You're just making shit up now.

The connection?  Making stuff up?  You don't see that a manager of one of the biggest cryptocurrency ponzi scams on the globe isn't red trusted by DT2 members who regularly red trust run of the mill signature campaign participants of competitive campaigns and red mark other campaign participants for not shilling their scams aggressively enough? You really don't see it? ---> quid pro quo?

My main point is that if Youtube could be found liable for it's content moderation algorithm, then the trust moderators of bitcointalk might also be considered culpable for knowingly allowing it's algorithm to be exploited by these organized groups of trust abusers. ---> If you read the recent addendum to the BitConnect case, linked above implicating Youtube (as well as the Youtube BitConnect shills), then it will shed some light on the jeopardy involved. If you notice, there will be more defendants added to that case....AND THAT'S JUST ONE CASE!  Look at the number of scams perpetuated here on this forum by this group who's being permitted to exploit the reputation and content algorithms to market their products.

[suchmoon]

The connection?  Making stuff up?  You don't see that a manager of one of the biggest cryptocurrency ponzi scams on the globe isn't red trusted by DT2 members who regularly red trust run of the mill signature campaign participants of competitive campaigns and red mark other campaign participants for not shilling their scams aggressively enough? You really don't see it? ---> quid pro quo?

What's the quid and what's the quo here? You made a false statement (Lutpin endorsed Bitconnect campaign manager) and you're continuing to make claims as if that was still the case. There is no connection.

My main point is that if Youtube could be found liable for it's content moderation algorithm, then the trust moderators of bitcointalk might also be considered culpable for knowingly allowing it's algorithm to be exploited by these organized groups of trust abusers. ---> If you read the recent addendum to the BitConnect case, linked above implicating Youtube (as well as the Youtube BitConnect shills), then it will shed some light on the jeopardy involved. If you notice, there will be more defendants added to that case....AND THAT'S JUST ONE CASE!  Look at the number of scams perpetuated here on this forum by this group who's being permitted to exploit the reputation and content algorithms to market their products.

There is a vast difference between blatant shilling and someone not having posted negative feedback for someone tangentially related to the scam. Not to mention that the Bitconnect case is not yet an established precedent so perhaps you need to take a deep breath, fold your tinfoil hat neatly, and try again when you have something of some substance.

[minifrij]

..so perhaps you need to take a deep breath, fold your tinfoil hat neatly, and try again when you have something of some substance.

B-b-but the gambling sites a-a-and the competitors? It's obvious that this entire thing is to just wipe poor ol Betcoin and poor ol cjmoles off the map. What a bunch of evil scam artists.

My main point is that if Youtube could be found liable for it's content moderation algorithm, then the trust moderators of bitcointalk might also be considered culpable for knowingly allowing it's algorithm to be exploited by these organized groups of trust abusers

Then pursue legal action against the forum, you fucking melt. Trying to use 'but this legal case' here won't help in any way; we're not in a court of law and I hope to god Bitcointalk never turns into such.

[cjmoles]

The connection?  Making stuff up?  You don't see that a manager of one of the biggest cryptocurrency ponzi scams on the globe isn't red trusted by DT2 members who regularly red trust run of the mill signature campaign participants of competitive campaigns and red mark other campaign participants for not shilling their scams aggressively enough? You really don't see it? ---> quid pro quo?

What's the quid and what's the quo here? You made a false statement (Lutpin endorsed Bitconnect campaign manager) and you're continuing to make claims as if that was still the case. There is no connection.

My main point is that if Youtube could be found liable for it's content moderation algorithm, then the trust moderators of bitcointalk might also be considered culpable for knowingly allowing it's algorithm to be exploited by these organized groups of trust abusers. ---> If you read the recent addendum to the BitConnect case, linked above implicating Youtube (as well as the Youtube BitConnect shills), then it will shed some light on the jeopardy involved. If you notice, there will be more defendants added to that case....AND THAT'S JUST ONE CASE!  Look at the number of scams perpetuated here on this forum by this group who's being permitted to exploit the reputation and content algorithms to market their products.

There is a vast difference between blatant shilling and someone not having posted negative feedback for someone tangentially related to the scam. Not to mention that the Bitconnect case is not yet an established precedent so perhaps you need to take a deep breath, fold your tinfoil hat neatly, and try again when you have something of some substance.

Scamming people out of their money is wrong and aiding and abetting those scams is also wrong!  You may believe that theft is an honorable characteristic, but it's not ---> it's wrong.


Maybe you missed my point?  My point is that the reputation system is being abused to mark scammers as more trusted than those who point out the scams.  It keeps getting worse and it puts the forum in jeopardy.  Scammers should be marked with red trust ---> not green trust.  Right?  And the BitConnect case is extremely relevant to those who are advertising their scams on this forum.  If the reputation and content algorithms on this forum continue to reward those who run exit scams, ponzi scams, and purposefully deceptive security scams, then somebody may take notice and start an action.  Why not just try to be honest for the sake of the forum?

[suchmoon]

You may believe that theft is an honorable characteristic

Why would I believe that? Quit making shit up.

Maybe you missed my point?  My point is that the reputation system is being abused to mark scammers as more trusted than those who point out the scams.  It keeps getting worse and it puts the forum in jeopardy.  Scammers should be marked with red trust ---> not green trust.  Right?  And the BitConnect case is extremely relevant to those who are advertising their scams on this forum.  If the reputation and content algorithms on this forum continue to reward those who run exit scams, ponzi scams, and purposefully deceptive security scams, then somebody may take notice and start an action.  Why not just try to be honest for the sake of the forum?

Create a scam accusation thread, present proof, and if said proof is credible the scammer will likely get red-tagged. Have you done this for the alleged Bitconnect scammer?

[Vod]

you are an accused pedophile

Dude, don't sink to Quickseller's level - you are better than that.  :/

[digaran]

I don't believe it, so Lutpin who is also a DT2 and a merit source has handed out positive trust for people who were involved in the promotion of a scam project such as Bitconnect? what else you expect from DT members, after all they are in a position with leverage to do whatever they want, such as countering negative feedbacks on suspected extortionists or those trying to sell some items by auctioning them and suddenly bidding on their own auction to increase the price.
I don't expect anything less from Blazed trust list. of course theymos is not paying any attention to these cases because they are small, he would only take action if he thinks that he is in danger of being held liable by the court of law, until then don't wait for him to do anything. really sad.

[suchmoon]

I don't believe it, so Lutpin who is also a DT2 and a merit source has handed out positive trust for people who were involved in the promotion of a scam project such as Bitconnect? what else you expect from DT members, after all they are in a position with leverage to do whatever they want, such as countering negative feedbacks on suspected extortionists or those trying to sell some items by auctioning them and suddenly bidding on their own auction to increase the price.
I don't expect anything less from Blazed trust list. of course theymos is not paying any attention to these cases because they are small, he would only take action if he thinks that he is in danger of being held liable by the court of law, until then don't wait for him to do anything. really sad.

How can you be a "DT investigator" and not comprehend the difference between sent and received feedback?

Rhetorical question, don't bother answering.