Blazed remove this scammer from DT2

[Georgiee]

I'd be a shame to remove mexxer-2 from DT2 though, as that would basically invalid of all his current ratings that he left and possibly untag hundreds of (real) scammers.

this definitely should be taken into consideration
by removing him from DT2, it would affect (free) many red tagged scammers

~

btw your very first post is creating this thread, I assume you have an alt with interest on the matter
otherwise why would a newbie cares about DT2 and trust feedback
any chance you would tell us your alt account?

What if you those feedback are malicious. Most of those innocent users would just leave the forum instead of arguing to those gangs. The fact that two default trust member rated him more than a year ago as scammer would merit an investigation. Default Trust Members should be model of the forum.

My identity is not the issue. I'm just a concern forum user. I'm also afraid the friends of the scammer would gang up finding fault on my real account.

[1714936685]

1714936685

[1714936685]

1714936685

[1714936685]

1714936685

[suchmoon]

My identity is not the issue. I'm just a concern forum user. I'm also afraid the friends of the scammer would gang up finding fault on my real account.

Cut the bullshit. Did mexxer's "friends" gang up on Lutpin or Lauda?

It's safe to assume that you have an alt red-tagged by mexxer. Possibly this one, tagged recently?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=503852

[Quickseller]

ARe there actually any reference links to this because I can't find any.

Lutpin was asked about this a long time ago and said he is not going to provide any kind of proof/evidence.

The above fact should end this conversation. At least in reference to removing mexxer because he is a "scammer". One could argue mexxer should be removed because his is inactive.....I would not though.

There is another scammer Blazed should remove though.

[whothefuckareyou]

How this is possible? How come your alt scam you. Unless you want to rid of him. The reason there is no proof. This is just a drama.

[darklus123]

If  mexxer-2 will be removed from DT then all the negative ratings he made will also forfeit? Therefore you might be one of those who this person tagged? and by that you can easily do whatever you want like nothing happens? I think other DT's should have to tagged first those who were tagged by mexxer with a solid evidence before removing him?

A bit off-topic, but has Lutpin paid the 777Coin campaigners yet?  That's another whole issue that shouldn't concern me but does.

He did pay 777 campaigners tho I guess the payment is still lacking, While on the other campaign which is the Bitvest they weren't been paid yet to latest as of now.

[jackg]

Any ideas why lauda and lutpin tagged you?

I do not see where they tagged me unless you are trying to say I am also mexxer?

Yes... Just like how you're theymos, darkstar, suchmoon and quickseller .

No, why would you neg yourself that's just implausible. You'd make a link wherethere doesn't need to be one and something like this would arise.

Nonetheless I don't think we can go more in depth on the issue of your trust rating without lauda and lutpin saying why they negged you...

If  mexxer-2 will be removed from DT then all the negative ratings he made will also forfeit? Therefore you might be one of those who this person tagged? and by that you can easily do whatever you want like nothing happens? I think other DT's should have to tagged first those who were tagged by mexxer with a solid evidence before removing him?

A bit off-topic, but has Lutpin paid the 777Coin campaigners yet?  That's another whole issue that shouldn't concern me but does.

He did pay 777 campaigners tho I guess the payment is still lacking, While on the other campaign which is the Bitvest they weren't been paid yet to latest as of now.

I'm not entirely sure that's how the trust system works, and it's very confusing so I can't relaly be bothered to learn how it actually works...
I do know that Jet Cash got a positive trust rating from Vod when vod had a higher trust rating so he got a 5 next to his trust score, I, however, got a 2 which I'm guessing means vod lost some trust ratings along the way? Hence why I can't be bothered learning how the system works because it's too confusing too... I mgiht ahve calculated wrong somewhere also...

[darklus123]

I'm not entirely sure that's how the trust system works, and it's very confusing so I can't relaly be bothered to learn how it actually works...
I do know that Jet Cash got a positive trust rating from Vod when vod had a higher trust rating so he got a 5 next to his trust score, I, however, got a 2 which I'm guessing means vod lost some trust ratings along the way? Hence why I can't be bothered learning how the system works because it's too confusing too... I mgiht ahve calculated wrong somewhere also...

I also never have seen someone actually creates a informative information about how the Trust System really works. Aside from the brief explanation from theymos himself.

I somehow quite get the idea tho. If ever that Blazed will remove mexxer-2 from his DT list then mexxer will just have to be a normal user not on the DT.  By that said, mexxer-2's tagged will just go to untrusted list feedback to that certain user.

I will give you some example that I hope you will get.

TECSHARE This user used to be a part of the DT list of theymos you can view that here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

TECSHARE tagged this user https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=34020 for some reason. Yet you can't see that this user got a negative trust rating since tecshare is not a part of theymo's DT list anymore. Therefore if his tagged was legit then the account that TECSHARE Tagged is working around without having a trust issue.



While in your cased why you only have 2 in your rating while jet cash has 7 on it this is "my logical" explanation for that.

Based on the explanation given by theymos which is

The first number is the user's trust score calculated based on how consistently they've received positive feedback. Probably no one will get a score above 0 until the system has been around for at least a month. The second number is the number of reported scams.

Since Jetcash received all positive feedback not just by VOD. Even if only Vod's rating was trusted the positive feedback i guess from the other users somehow affect the calculation.

While in your rating you received an equal 3 positive Untrusted rating and 3 negative untrusted rating which is in my opinion equates to 0 value. That is the main reason why you can only see Vod's positive feedback in your rating.

Tho mind that other users view in your rating might be different. For example someone added you to their trust list so their view for your rating will be higher.

[eddie13]

I do know that Jet Cash got a positive trust rating from Vod when vod had a higher trust rating so he got a 5 next to his trust score, I, however, got a 2

Jet Cash - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=698159
He got his + from DT in March. Since then 7 months have passed..
He has 1 + trust for 7 months = 7 light green trust..

jackg - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=543626
You got 1 + from DT on 07-23 and since then 2 full months have passed..
1 + for 2 months = 2 black

Each + trust from DT raises your trust score + 1 for every month it has been there, up to 10 months for a max of 10 per + trust..

If you jackg and Jet Cash keep your + tag and don't get any more + tags, after the 10 months have passed you will both have a green 10 trust score, maxed out for 1 + rating..

For example, mine...
I have 3 + tags from DT.. 2 of them are greater than 10 months old and my newest is 8 months old so 10+10+8=28... Next month it will be 29 and the next month it will reach 30 and stop increasing from there because all of the ratings have maxed out at 10, if my ratings stay the same..

I don't remember about when it turns from black - to light green - to dark green, but it does with a higher # and/or time..
All DT tags are equal, it doesn't matter how high the tagger's score is or was, just that they are DT, left a tag, and the amount of months since then have passed..
Tags YOU leave appear as DT to YOU (because you trust your own ratings by default)..
Untrusted (not-DT) ratings have no effect on the calculation..

Ratings grow in weight from 1 to 10, then stay at 10 forever. (If the rated person has no negatives.)

Code:

if there are no negative ratings
	score = 0
	for each rating, oldest to newest
		if this rater has already been counted
			continue
		score += min(10, round_up(months since rating))
else
	score = unique_positive - 2^(unique_negative)
	if score >= 0
		start_time = time of first negative
		score = unique_positive since start_time - unique_negative since start_time
		if(score < 0)
			return ??? (orange)
			
move score to range [-9999,9999]
return score

If they were to remove mexxer from DT all of his tags would turn into untrusted feedback and no longer effect their trust score calculations..
So if an account was scammer tagged by mexxer, only mexxer, and they remove mexxer from DT, the negative trust on their accounts will be wiped clear from the calculation and they will be back to 0 black trust (in the absence of any other DT tags on them)..
It will wipe out all of his feedback from everyones score calculations, positive or negative..

[BTCforJoe]

His rating should be invalid since he is a scammer. Would you trust a confirmed scammer more than a suspected one? He used his status to gain money.

I just want to chime in and say that this logic is stupid, ESPECIALLY since that @Blazed is not a "confirmed" scammer, as there is no evidence or references left in those negs.

But based on your logic, are you stating that anyone with an unreferenced negative feedback in their trust history shouldn't be trusted? I don't give a rat's ass who left the feedback. If there's no reference or evidence of a scam, then I'm sorry, but "Scammed XXXX" means shit to me.

Based on this situation, and your post history, it's obvious that you're just salty because your main account has a neg on it that was left by either (1) @Blazed or (2) someone in Blazed's DT list.

[jackg]

Lutpin was asked about this a long time ago and said he is not going to provide any kind of proof/evidence.

Then why are they still on DT2. If they say soomeone is a scammer but don't want to provide any evidence then... Post it with an alt account of something if they're embarrased by it but...

The above fact should end this conversation. At least in reference to removing mexxer because he is a "scammer". One could argue mexxer should be removed because his is inactive.....I would not though.

There is another scammer Blazed should remove though.

Ok so to summarise this.
1. You think mexxer should be removed from dt2 (how did mexxer com into this???)
2. You then think of a superposition that mexxer should and shouldn't be removed from DT also because of the time peiod that he hasn't been actibve (I'd suggest putting a security lock on his account if there isn't one already - which there probably is).
3. Where's the evidence of blazed being a scammer, or did he leave little you a negative trust recently ?

I just want to chime in and say that this logic is stupid, ESPECIALLY since that @Blazed is not a "confirmed" scammer, as there is no evidence or references left in those negs.

I mean he's bbarely an alleged scammer at the start of this point as there's no reference link.
I would argue that since they don't want to give a reference link they could at least include the amount that they lost. If they don't, it makes you think (1) they were paid off (2) they really don't care if the alleged scammer goes on to scam again...

[AdolfinWolf]

Ok so to summarise this.
1. You think mexxer should be removed from dt2 (how did mexxer com into this???)
2. You then think of a superposition that mexxer should and shouldn't be removed from DT also because of the time peiod that he hasn't been actibve (I'd suggest putting a security lock on his account if there isn't one already - which there probably is).
3. Where's the evidence of blazed being a scammer, or did he leave little you a negative trust recently ?

1.
With "above fact" i assume that he is referring to either

A.

Lutpin was asked about this a long time ago and said he is not going to provide any kind of proof/evidence.

B. the post made by suchmoon. (Which i doubt).

Both of which are arguments/"facts" that are in favour of keeping mexxer on DT2. So i highly doubt he thinks mexxer should be removed.

2.

3. I think he is actually referring to someone Blazed has on his DT list. Not Blazed himself. One could probably make an educated guess as to who that might be.

What if you those feedback are malicious. Most of those innocent users would just leave the forum instead of arguing to those gangs. The fact that two default trust member rated him more than a year ago as scammer would merit an investigation. Default Trust Members should be model of the forum.

The burden of proof is on who again? (Not that it is really that relevant here.)
Also; when you say mexxer left "malicious" feedback, can you give some examples of that? What feedback did he gave to users which are "unjustified/malicious/lies"?

[Thule]

I tagged @blazed some time ago as i feel he is responsible for all the negativ tagging and abuse which accurd in the past.I clearly stated that he should be punished for allowing this kind of mess which Lauda and his gang did.

I'm also mad because i got tagged multiple times for exposing DT2 members and Lauda creating a merit circle and abusing that system.Haven't seen that blazed or any other DT2 member tagged them for that even its more than clear that this kind of abuse happened.

I received my first tag a year after  buying an account for a friend who is running a service here.He needed an older account since his account was a newbie and he wanted to publish images/examples of his work on his service thread and adding new works.

I got tagged claiming i'm a confirmed scammer .So i asked these fuckin morons where did i scammed somebody to show me a single person i scammed.
I also sent proof that i read the board rules before buying that account which clearly says its allowed to buy accounts and more important i even asked a global moderator for permission.


So basicly these fuckers ruined my trust called me a scammer and everything where i never scammed anybody and even exposed them abusing the merit system for which i got even more bad feedback from laudas gang.


Blazed was laughing about that situation and i'm making blazed responsible for it since it was him who gave Lauda and his gang the permission and order to clean that board in such an abusiv way to not look at any  unjustifiably abuse of this gang and not caring if somebody got wrongfuly tagged or not.
He even admited himself knowing that some people got wrongly tagged but didn't care to change that fact !!!!!!

Thats why i tagged each of these fuckers myself as they could not provide proof that i scammed someone and were unwilling to take the negativ feedback away since i exposed their merit circle which made them really mad.

I got contacted by some mods supporting me which clearly shows to me this messageboard is very unhealthy where everyone fears for his trust for saying the truth because a small group of punks abuse it like they are pleased because they got permission by blazed who voted them in


Wasn't it Lauda and a current DT2 member who got caught for a big scam ?

And now this fucker and his gang is tagging me as scammer without providing any proof ?Because blazed have good relationship with them and even promoted one of the confirmed scammer to a DT2 ?


Here the negativ feedback i got

Engaging in account sale conduct.

true but its not against rules and i asked global mod for permission

Account sales encourage scams, spam, and account farming.

 where do i encourage scams ,spam and account farming ?

Harassing me in various threads that have nothing to do with him.

 Funny if you inform people that Lauda got kicked as Mod for scamming and abusing the merit system providing links with proof you get tagged as harrasment.....Isnt it the exectly same thing they did ?

Dealing in accounts contributes to the continued shittiness of bitcointalk.

5 months later i get from the same gang a negativ feedback for the same account i bought which i got tagged already 5 months earlier

Probably an alt of Quickseller

http://archive.is/cDNFN#selection-3945.0-3945.14

Next false accusation that i'm an alt of Quickseller. No proof no nothing just destroying somebodies REP intentianally to discredit him after he exposed their merit ring

Account sales, Retaliatory feedback and so on.

6 months later again red trust for with explantion that i bought an account.The real reason was exposing him

retard shitty poster ... give me red trust without reason
he want to buy account for spam and scam
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2029011.msg20233141#msg20233141 >> http://archive.is/1U1gX

and again .....no proof that i used any account for spam or scam......


So these fuckers basicly destroyed my reputation because i questioned 1.their negativ feedback asking for proof
2.exposed their own shit
3.discredit me as thats exectly what they do with everyone who is defending himself against their abuse or who is showing their abuse to the public.....


So based on my Trust feedback i must be a total scammer trying to spam,scam and harm people here on this board.I'm on this board since 2014 now show me a single guy which i scammed ?
I even cowork with big successfull projects which makes me even more mad receiving this kind of BS from fuckers like you who abuse the merit system and trust feedback to gain orders from ICO projects .

You are the real cancer of this board


And to any of the DT1 and DT2 members why are there no legenadary lenders being tagged who took and some are still taking accounts as collateral ?You wanna tell me they won't use them if the loan won't get paid ?
Double standard ?


So you can basicly say a confirmed scammer and his gang who even lost his position as Mod because of his scam who are even clearly abusing the merit system are tagging me as scammer with the permission of blazed accusing of spamming,scamming and other staff without providing any proof and something like that should be accepted ?

I provided way way more proof that Lauda and his gang scammed in the past for which he was kicked as Mod ,abused the merit system abused his gang power given by blazed to even discredit targeted people but still i'm the guy who got harmed without even having any proof that i scammed someone ?

They got even their own subreddit of people talking about the abuse on bitcointalk done by this gang and you keep posting BS like all people who are tagged by these fuckers are scammers even there is no proof.

 
@blazed

Well since you have pretty much made the accusation please tell me my alt.

Funny you demand proof of somebody but don't care that you or your gang provide any proof of your own false claims ?
You are concerned about scammers........funny you are not concerned about giving false negativ trust without proof.
Once somebody makes a negativ claim against you how quickly you react demanding ......
but when your gang makes a false claim and you are even aware of it you give a fuck even its you who is responsible for it

And your avatar is the biggest joke based on your actions


@jackg

I have suspicions about blazed being someone else's alt too but I have no reason to go into that...

Just tagg him for that.Its not important if its true or not.You don't need any evidence.
He has clearly also no issues his people tagging other members with false claims without having even the smallest proof

Maybe once he feels himself the unjustice he is causing to the community his brain may start working again and realise what justice means

[actmyname]

I'm also mad because i got tagged multiple times for exposing DT2 members and Lauda creating a merit circle and abusing that system.Haven't seen that blazed or any other DT2 member tagged them for that even its more than clear that this kind of abuse happened.

There is no merit circle. I don't know why you assume these Legendary members need merit. Any number above 1000 is arbitrary and if anything it just creates more work for the users that receive it: they'll have to find posts to send their sMerit to.

I received my first tag a year after  buying an account for a friend who is running a service here.He needed an older account since his account was a newbie and he wanted to publish images/examples of his work on his service thread and adding new works.

Read the date on my negative feedback, thanks. It's not a year, it's more like 2 weeks.

I got tagged claiming i'm a confirmed scammer

Where? You got tagged for account trading.

I also sent proof that i read the board rules before buying that account which clearly says its allowed to buy accounts and more important i even asked a global moderator for permission.

Even now, you still don't understand that forum rules don't dictate what people use the trust system for. Did you know that scamming is allowed by forum rules?

I got contacted by some mods supporting me

I doubt it.

And to any of the DT1 and DT2 members why are there no legenadary lenders being tagged who took and some are still taking accounts as collateral ?You wanna tell me they won't use them if the loan won't get paid ?
Double standard ?

Point these instances out to me. There was a lender that in fact didn't use the accounts after they were defaulted. (Might be Gunthar)

Funny you demand proof of somebody but don't care that you or your gang provide any proof of your own false claims ?

You posted that you'd take the account? That's proof.

Just tagg him for that.Its not important if its true or not.You don't need any evidence.
He has clearly also no issues his people tagging other members with false claims without having even the smallest proof

Here's your claim, then.
"Because P did X, now I can do X because they set a precedent."
Let's use a real-life case.

"Because Ted Bundy raped, now I can rape because they set a precedent."
Even if you were right about the absence of evidence, that doesn't mean you can have the same absence of evidence with your trust.

[jackg]

And to any of the DT1 and DT2 members why are there no legenadary lenders being tagged who took and some are still taking accounts as collateral ?You wanna tell me they won't use them if the loan won't get paid ?
Double standard ?

Point these instances out to me. There was a lender that in fact didn't use the accounts after they were defaulted. (Might be Gunthar)

It was gunthar I remember his thread.

I also picked up accounts as collateral in 2016 and they're still left as they were.
I'm still hoping someone who paid me back does come and collect his account back from me, he gave it to me and I have stored it for him since (he was quite a good contributer here).

[Thule]

Point these instances out to me. There was a lender that in fact didn't use the accounts after they were defaulted. (Might be Gunthar)

So you claim just because according to gunther he isnt using these accounts he doesnt get tagged ?
How do you know i used them ?
What about all the other lenders ?

Are you afraid starting a trust war against other legendary accounts who are in diffrent groups ?

[jackg]

Point these instances out to me. There was a lender that in fact didn't use the accounts after they were defaulted. (Might be Gunthar)

So you claim just because according to gunther he isnt using these accounts he doesnt get tagged ?
How do you know i used them ?
What about all the other lenders ?

Are you afraid starting a trust war against other legendary accounts who are in diffrent groups ?

Back in the time when I started out here it seemed that people had only just started to start tagging those who were merchants with user accounts, then the only acceptable thing to do after that was give loand against bitcointakl accounts but it was a stupid principle because we just ended up with loads of account farmers and loads of genuine users earning moeny because they bought those farmed accounts and couldn't really do much with them either...

Thus tagging people nowadays who take accounts as collateral is not such a bad idea, unless there is a member fo the community that is well known I guess (hence why suchmoon hasn't been tagged).

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I also sent proof that i read the board rules before buying that account which clearly says its allowed to buy accounts and more important i even asked a global moderator for permission.

You asked a mod for permission to buy an account?  Why would that even be necessary?

You obviously missed the fact that account buyers & sellers have been getting red-tagged since about 2016, and there have been a lot of them.  No, it's not against the written rules of bitcointalk but it's very much frowned upon by many members of the community.  People buy accounts, especially higher-ranked ones, and use the rank and possibly the good reputation of the account to do all sorts of shady things--and that's in addition to using them to join campaigns, and they often are shitposters.  Buying and selling of accounts is considered to be an unsavory and untrustworthy behavior, and thus you were tagged.

Having red trust because of dealing in bitcointalk accounts won't affect your ability to do deals here, since most people who would check your trust page wouldn't deem that to mean you're a scammer. 

You did receive some positive trust since I left my feedback, but there are no reference links to prove you did those transactions successfully.  I would be inclined to review my trust rating on you if you get verifiable positive trust AND if you don't continue to engage in account buying/sales.  I do remove negs I've left after some time has passed, but only if the member has demonstrated some evidence that they can be trusted and that they're not still dealing in accounts.

[Thule]

This thread says everything

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1938190


So now you know why blazed is covering Lauda and his abuse and never giving a reply on the abuse which happened because of him.
When you read their trust feedback you will see its a known issue which has been also added as trust feedback from other legandary members

actmyname nick is being mentioned there very often

[actmyname]

This thread says everything

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1938190


So now you know why blazed is covering Lauda and his abuse and never giving a reply on the abuse which happened because of him.
When you read their trust feedback you will see its a known issue which has been also added as trust feedback from other legandary members

actmyname nick is being mentioned there very often

Mentioned? Where? What the fuck are you talking about?Moreover, I don't believe that Blazed needs to "cover" Lauda to stay in an escrow team. Their reputation supercedes themselves.

[jackg]

This thread says everything

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1938190


So now you know why blazed is covering Lauda and his abuse and never giving a reply on the abuse which happened because of him.
When you read their trust feedback you will see its a known issue which has been also added as trust feedback from other legandary members

actmyname nick is being mentioned there very often

Mentioned? Where? What the fuck are you talking about?Moreover, I don't believe that Blazed needs to "cover" Lauda to stay in an escrow team. Their reputation supercedes themselves.

Thule has a point here.
Surely if lauds actually got scammed bad enough they would remove blazed from the list of trusted escrows.

Thank you Thule for disproving yourself .