DT trust ABUSE by people here. Needs attention at once before goes out of hand

[cryptohunter]

I was totally off chart to consider he was quoting me

Yes.

Nobody sane will draw this conclusion

this gets red trust

I wouldn't have thought it should if you weren't so eager to dig your hole deeper with ever-crazier conspiracy theories. Now I'm less sure of it.

deeper how? I am sure you are just joking compared to the story you are concocting read you explanation of events it is ludicrous

thats you account of what happend???

That's my best guess.

stop guessing bring the culprit

This is diabolical and worse that 300lbs of DT abuse is hiding constructing some junk excuse. Get him here at once. I will tear his argument to shreds within 5 seconds his entire premise is a lie. He is hating on me for stats I did not specifically request and did not want to go through the 10 highest meriters filter. You are not meant to use DT trust for silencing people or revenge for simply pulling stats both subsets of which i did not even request.

If he has not removed it in short order I will not stop from requesting  EVER his removal from DT regardless of what he does. He has a few hours to do the right thing or bring his case here.

There's this thing called time zones. Get a good night's sleep and come back tomorrow to do the shredding.

Lol shhh that is my advice to you most nights.

I'd say that if marlboroza was seeking revenge for stats then LoyceV and DdmrDdmr would be red up the wazoo so your theory sounds quite implausible.

For the record, I don't know if marlboroza weighs 300 pounds or 239. It was a joke in response to your request to "bring him".

Perhaps they don't wish to be removed from DT trust as much as he does. That is some strange reach for most people but to you it may suffice as some kind of proof

[1715195087]

1715195087

[cryptohunter]

So people can get red trust for saying lemon without it being an abuse of the trust system?

I want to address his specific reason I am not interested in lemons right now.

I want to hear the specific reason and I want to hear it in detail.

I don't want to address lemon hate right now.

Are you a DT member too?

Sorry but this is getting stranger and stranger by the moment.

Yes, I'm on DT. The lemons example was an extreme example of it not being trust abuse as long as its truthful. You can flag someone for being an account farmer, an account seller, or owning multiple accounts for example, all of those things are commonly done. They don't mean that they are scammers, but it is a factor that some people consider worthy of note when determining trustworthiness. Behavior traits that people may find undesirable can also be worth mentioning on someone's feedback if it is a factor that someone might want to know about that person before dealing with them.

People will disregard the negative feedback if they don't care, or they'll avoid trading with you if they feel that any perceived negative trait is valid and a risk.

I dont trade ever. This is principle.
Let's not focus on extremes that to me bend the trust system out of any use. I mean if i saw lots of ppl with red trust for lemons then I would disregard the rating altogether Im sure most would too.

I will have him explain in full the reason so I can demonstrate there is altenative motive here. If he come with something valid that I can not fully rebut then let's see.

If he fails to produce a valid reason then he must be removed as a start to making the trust system a sensible rating indicative of how much you can trust someone or how truly undesirable someone should be view for presenting facts and stats.

You can not try to use it as a bully tactic to silence people who analyse stats and cause others to analyse futher.

You can not try to concoct a fantastically improbable story to give red trust to someone when there is clear other motive for doing it. That is dishonest and not part of a trust system.

[SaltySpitoon]

I dont trade ever. This is principle.
Let's not focus on extremes that to me bend the trust system out of any use. I mean if i saw lots of ppl with red trust for lemons then I would disregard the rating altogether Im sure most would too.

I will have him explain in full the reason so I can demonstrate there is altenative motive here. If he come with something valid that I can not fully rebut then let's see.

If he fails to produce a valid reason then he must be removed as a start to making the trust system a sensible rating indicative of how much you can trust someone or how truly undesirable someone should be view for presenting facts and stats.

You can not try to use it as a bully tactic to silence people who analyse stats and cause others to analyse futher.

You can not try to concoct a fantastically improbable story to give red trust to someone when their is clear other motive for doing it. That is dishonest and not part of a trust system.

All I did was read the claim and the reference link, and came to the conclusion that you were left negative feedback for something related to your behavior, which isn't trust abuse as long as its subjectively accurate. The subjective part is decided by anyone who reads the claim and either agrees or disagrees.

[cryptohunter]

I dont trade ever. This is principle.
Let's not focus on extremes that to me bend the trust system out of any use. I mean if i saw lots of ppl with red trust for lemons then I would disregard the rating altogether Im sure most would too.

I will have him explain in full the reason so I can demonstrate there is altenative motive here. If he come with something valid that I can not fully rebut then let's see.

If he fails to produce a valid reason then he must be removed as a start to making the trust system a sensible rating indicative of how much you can trust someone or how truly undesirable someone should be view for presenting facts and stats.

You can not try to use it as a bully tactic to silence people who analyse stats and cause others to analyse futher.

You can not try to concoct a fantastically improbable story to give red trust to someone when their is clear other motive for doing it. That is dishonest and not part of a trust system.

All I did was read the claim and the reference link, and came to the conclusion that you were left negative feedback for something related to your behavior, which isn't trust abuse as long as its subjectively accurate. The subjective part is decided by anyone who reads the claim and either agrees or disagrees.

This story being produced is obviously nonsense based on observable events that can not be altered now which is clearly unfair. I will demonstrate this and bring into question for review of all persons to determine if this type of behaviour is fitting of someone having DT trust.

Another thing I just realised suchmoon claims this has nothing to do with any merit nonsense right

Look at the bottom of marlborozas post right before he left red trust

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086297.msg48750243#msg48750243

obviously furious about loyce stats showing him getting most from the least amount of people. This is nothing to do with me I never asked loyce to present a top 50 removed I said 300 so he would not have stood out on that so much. CLEAR MOTIVE CLEARLY WHAT IS UPSETTING HIM AND ANOTHER OBSERVABLE BULLSHIT FROM SUCHMOON SAYING nothing to do with any merit nonsense??

If I am told by the highest authority this kind of thing is acceptable and encouraged in the trust system especially by those chose as DT members then I will accept it. Until then no chance people can be allowed to observably create obvious lies to gain excuse for negative trust. If that is abuse or not I will leave to the highest authority to say clearly.

But I am hoping to bring in as many people as possible to see what kind of people we are dealing with here. However anything they say must stand up to close scrutiny and be based on evidence they can produce.

The story so far is so completely ridiculous and improbable that if this results in red trust being called a fair call I will be very surprised.

First I wish to hear his detailed reason for leaving this red trust. So I can analyse it for truth and factual basis based on what observably took place. Then I will like to hear honest opinions based on sensible presentable and observable fact regarding this specific case.

Also additionally I see doctoring posts listed as my crime???

look at what is removed - this is just me editing as I go and the important part about this red herring presented by suchmoon is

How does that even fit in to anything I am refuting I said that malboroza is misquoting marlboroza never mentions anything about that part in his post so how is this related.

Suchmoon clearly quotes

Describing disturbing fantasies of his own and pretending to quote me when I never said that at all.  

Malboroza never quoted anything about the part I edited ? this is nonsense like the rest of the abuse of the trust system. Another fake claim of deliberately doctoring that is completely untrue and not even related. I can edit as I want I never even noticed he was claiming some sneaky doctoring of my post as if  it was going to weigh on this too.

Anyone else commenting needs to bring full evidence for any claims at the time not say they will provide them later on and vanish or say no I wont bother now .

I wonder what twist of this suchmoon account malboroza is going to spin here.

Full account of events are here. On a new post created about the same stuff they say only i want to keep going on about and spamming when they keep creating new threads 2 now address at me specifically after I already said on this thread I am happy to stop talking about it and left it there. Even let marboroza have his last word on it since he needs that nearly as much as such moon.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5081670.msg48652842#msg48652842  even prior to that on several occasions i have said was happy with the presentation lets end the conversation about it......

Then what happens 2 new threads about it spring up naming me in the op or even title .... then when I defend these accusations and misreprentations of what i have said they say I am going on about it and trolling them over and over? Not that ever presenting raw data is trolling.

I ask them ever to present just 1 incidence of me stating something provably false ..... where is it?? bring it here now.

All the time they are free to say things like

"most pre merit legends are spammers"  obviously why we must deleted them for copy and past 4 years ago perm ban

and

it is stupid of me to suggest some 99.93% of the board are capable of making posts as good or better than some of the 0.13%.

How can you allow such people to even get into any position of power? with such mad views.. This place is going mad ..where people like lauda get to have a trust sheet like satans master and get to stay a member and go on as if there is nothing wrong let come lecture others on their lies and honesty then never produce any examples ....and then get people like The Pharmacist saying (who must have read lauda trust sheet) that he does not understand enough to know if lauda is really bad or not but is still sad lauda is not DT trust and sad he is not a mod. Yeah sounds like a good position to put lauda in. Perhaps that is why he is removed already.

These are your top merited persons who start gain positions of power here?? Is this really happening. Get these people out of these DT lists and get some people who are objective in. If they the next ones fail to be provably objective get them out and get someone else until you find people that want to find the truth and make optimally fair decisions on all information available. Anyone making a bad call that is certainly based on false charges must be removed if they refuse to put their case in detail forward or remove the neg trust.

Same for people getting good trust if that is proven to be bought or some scheme and not really deserving needs removed and even ban them this is worse for scamming than copy and paste 4 years ago.

Surely I can not be the only person here noticing this is not looking great . I have had people even tell me they wish they could stick their necks out more to speak up for what they believe too but are scared of DT red trust these are legends who are worried to speak out . I understand and do not even blame them. Some of them are needing a clean sheet. I will never bring their names forward but I thank them for their support.


So anyway where is malboroza to polish up suchmoons account of what happened and why I deserve my red trust for correctly telling him he misquoted me. I will repeat i never said what he is claiming at all. Review the entire thread yourselves. He is mistaken he made false assumptions and I think such moon did too. Now i get red trust for their mistakes. I want those red marks off my account or credible and provable reason they should be there based on this nonsense story and silly video such moon made containing weird accusation of some shady rewrite and something obviously I said because it still there but is not even offensive at all.

Both of these need to be removed from DT trust if they do not stop with these crack pot stories when it is there in black and white what was said by whom and when on the other thread.

Malboroza quoted nothing  that could be a disturbing fantasy other than the ass thing and such moon quotes me objecting to this distrubing fantasy of malboroza which I correctly claim I never said . How can he try to pass off I was referring to anything else or how when he quoted that he was referring to anything else. Then his proof I did say it was a line about cant wait until suchmoon and malborazo gets theirs done (some other guy was taking away other top cyclers top 10 donators only and observing 100;s and 100;s merits vanashing from lauda and others just from 10 ppl)   then as soon as I said that as if by chance malboroza rolls out red trust for apparently an obvious quoting error on his part.

There is no other plausible explanation. Or if there is then I want to hear the details step by step with no possible logical rebuttal from me that others can check out on that thread.

[actmyname]

It's a trite offence and hence I disagree with the rating. That being said, there are fallacies and inconsequential statements being spit left and right by cryptohunter many of which I haven't the time to look over.I will read over more of his posts at a later date (soon) and reconsider the rating but for now I see marlboroza's as a spur of the moment—a rash move transpired from the events thereof.

[Lauda]

I will read over more of his posts at a later date (soon) and reconsider the rating but for now I see marlboroza's as a spur of the moment—a rash move transpired from the events thereof.

If you look through some links in recent threads, this has been apparently going on for some time and in multiple threads (some of which I have yet to read completely). Therefore, I highly doubt it was a 'spur of the moment'.

[actmyname]

If you look through some links in recent threads, this has been apparently going on for some time and in multiple threads (some of which I have yet to read completely). Therefore, I highly doubt it was a 'spur of the moment'.

Regardless, my personal sensibility relies on a lack of adherence pertaining to the substantiality of character-based feedback. Any advocacy for feedback that conflates itself with a personal bias would result in a grim form of the trust system indeed.

[cryptohunter]

It's a trite offence and hence I disagree with the rating. That being said, there are fallacies and inconsequential statements being spit left and right by cryptohunter many of which I haven't the time to look over.I will read over more of his posts at a later date (soon) and reconsider the rating but for now I see marlboroza's as a spur of the moment—a rash move transpired from the events thereof.

Thanks please explore all of the threads in meta and that last one on reputation in chronological order in deep detail. If you get some spare time. I feel a deep review by any senior members will be essential and will help others make their minds up about this red trust for apparently objecting to being misquoted. But it has build up to that really so that is the last thread to read to put in proper context.

If you really do find any statements at all where I have not produced any evidence or any corroborating events that could not reasonably cause such a statement to be made bring them up here so we can get to the bottom  of them in public.

Also please so the same for all statements that are not backed up or explained by any of the others.

I am fully hoping many will scan in depth all of those threads because everything I mention on this post is how it went down.

@ lauda I would certainly like all of the 4 threads viewed in detail about the merits one I will list them here in order in one minute...



1st ...https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5081670.0  more coming
2nd  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084723.0
3rd https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086297.0 more coming..

I think there is one more somewhere where r1s2g3 provided the stats when I asked him for them initially. But there was no kind of arguments on that thread really.

I was sure there was 4 main threads but I can not see the 4th one about this merit top x removal.

[Harlot]

I really don't think this is a very good way of removing your negative trust from marlboroza. I don't know marlboroza personally but I know him to be a fair person when it comes to changing the negative trust he is giving to other members. With what you did you just worsened your position towards him and maybe he will leave the neg feedback a little bit longer in your account. Remember just talking to him via private message and asking for forgiveness can work, posting this nonsense is the complete opposite of it.

[cryptohunter]

I really don't think this is a very good way of removing your negative trust from marlboroza. I don't know marlboroza personally but I know him to be a fair person when it comes to changing the negative trust he is giving to other members. With what you did you just worsened your position towards him and maybe he will leave the neg feedback a little bit longer in your account. Remember just talking to him via private message and asking for forgiveness can work, posting this nonsense is the complete opposite of it.

please provide evidence he has been fair in my case then I can discuss this with you further.

asking for forgiveness ??

"this complete nonsense"?? do you mean observable events ?

Please substantiate just one thing you say please with some semblance of evidence or corroborating events.

If you can not I expect you to delete your comment or explain why you will not.

Please do not vanish and not reply like most others here when I ask for any evidence, any examples of what they even refer too, or when I get their replies that are not even clearly a response to what I asked for. They just jump from point to point.

They say I lie , the things i say are stupid and  jealous and every other thing they like first especially suchmoon but if i dare to even dream of making fun of them back when they say ludicrous things they get all upset. Well such moon and foxy take it back as good as they give to be honest in that respect the others break down ... if they snipe and attack me if I say anything unkind back to them in the form of reminding them of actual events and things they have really said in the past.

I mean i did realise posting in meta to those whom are obviously not going to like seeing 80% reductions in their own merits are cut away from each other I will not be popular but this is simply an observable instance.

I have said it does not matter and I am even giving them the top 200 merit and compounding the issue because simply the number of collisions with other people more often who do things to help or reply even here in meta. So it is not essentially bad it just makes it impossible to make merit some objective score right now.

However the real issue they will not accept is that it is not essentially correct to say that higher merit score poster is have more value to his posts that someone with less merit score.  So as I have said as an example it is quite possible that someone gaining 500 merits in meta 90% from the 0.13 is actually a  less valuable poster than someone with 30 earned merits from alt coin discussion board. This is the main reason.

Then I have to take anger from such moon when he says things like

"most pre merit legends are spammers"
and that basically words to the effect ...I am stupid and deliberately misleading to state that some of the 99.93% of the active users are capable of making posts as good or better than some of the 0.13%

Look all of this is difference of opinion, yeah some heat, some banter then someone really gets upset and pulls DT red trust for trumped up fake reason that I will not accept that I said something I did not .... then when I will not accept it they come up with an even stranger tale.

On top of 6 or 7 upset merit cyclers so upset that even when I say I want to finish talking about it all data has been presented and all statments have been made. They make 2 more threads with me in the OP and thread title - in one quoting my words that were based on different criteria and even then i defend all accusations and answer all questions they say I am still spamming and going on about merit after they made another thread. Then when I say okay lets drop it then .... another thread pops up by the same group me in the title and then of course I am still going on about it and spamming even trolling them....errr with facts okay.

Then lauda appears - with all  claims of my pseudo logic, my jealousy and says Im lying about lots of things. Then will provide not one example of this when I ask for it??

 Then after I start bring up the truth about his past because I know him from xcoin darkcoin days and actually relate real events about laudaM actual facts i know are real. PT turns up and startss sniping.. he has good technique for adding support to his friend in every post either merit for things they say or says something seemingly not to aggressive at first then just says he is way off the mark or tells lies .... but when pushed to substantiate he refuses or tries for 1 second with something usually easy to find gaping holes in and then just says you are on ignore or runs off. He also confesses he does not understand enough to know if lauda did do wrong concerning the 3000 bch or whatever but either way he is sad he is not DT or mod now? and he is just like that cos he is loyal? okay well then I best not criticise or look into lauda to find out the facts after he keeps popping up with so many kind remarks about me.??

I mean I never came to meta before I saw PT trying to get someone banned on false information. This is the other example of clear misjudgement and oversight by the DT and the DT negative remaining even after they have been proven to have left negative trust based on their own oversight and incorrect information.

Now TP and Malboroza all these people are dominant in meta. Honestly legends have told me they want to give me support but are scared of voicing their view even if based on observable event because they fear neg trust from these people.

This is sorry state to have reached. Trust score to some ppl is important I guess but to me not being a trader then I want him malboroza to remove his neg trust or detail and improve suchmoons story with is obviously not plausible and does not fit with the stream of events as can be clearly observed by anyone examining the details of that convesation closely.

[Quickseller]

He has no business being in the DT network. Whoever has him on their trust list should be held accountable and promptly removed from their position if they will not adjust their trust list.

For some reason theymos seems to think it is a bad idea to hold DT1 users accountable and this is what we have come to.

Handing out negatives for being a “troll” is ridiculous and is absolutely inappropriate in any circumstance. I don’t think there should be second chances for someone who hands out negative ratings for this reason.

[Quickseller]

The only thing that really is trust abuse is lying, with a few exceptions.

That is a ridiculous assertion. Both positive and negative ratings have a clear description and if the situation doesn’t match the description (reasonably), it is abuse.

Being a troll has nothing to do with the chances of someone not honoring their obligations in a trade, which is what the trust system is supposed to help people measure.

The same can be said in many other reasons for giving out ratings.

[cryptohunter]

He has no business being in the DT network. Whoever has him on their trust list should be held accountable and promptly removed from their position if they will not adjust their trust list.

For some reason theymos seems to think it is a bad idea to hold DT1 users accountable and this is what we have come to.

Handing out negatives for being a “troll” is ridiculous and is absolutely inappropriate in any circumstance. I don’t think there should be second chances for someone who hands out negative ratings for this reason.

This is completely true.

But worse they need to define trolling and demonstrate it clearly meets some sensible criteria.

I ask that they produce trolling examples and if they do they better make sure I have not suffered similar banter at their hands or they can get neg trust. I mean actually the charge is not trolling here it is lying apparently . If you read the last thread malboroza clearly quotes me as saying about lauda and TP doing more than I suggested together and I object to this and it all kicks off. They come up with some mad story that is totally nonsense. I break it down stage by stage as it happens and it is apparent they jumped to the wrong conclusion if viewed sensibly but even if you want to see it their way they can not leave me DT trust for saying I did not say what he is quoting as the second part of his statment after he quoted me in the first part.... all they had to do is clarify a slighly ambiguous situation to them and actually establish what I meant. I made the statement that I did NOT say what he had quoted first. They need to clarify what I am saying not just jump to conclusions and then say I am lying>>> How can they know?? then give me NEG DT because they don't clarify and they can read my mind?? I mean if i am telling the lie they need to be sure of what I am even saying right??  I said he is false posting me but i did not try to neg him did I?  I made it clear too by saying about his disturbing fantasy and considering he only said 2 things one of which I already said clearly that points to the obvious disturbing fantasy he made up himself.

If all of those threads are viewed in chronological order you will see that far more often than not they are far more caustic and agressive with me than I am with them and far far far more times will they make statements of a ludicrous nature and refuse point blank to provide any shred of evidence or corroborating events. If that is trolling they are far far more often trolling me.

The latest cock and bull stories are laughable and a disgrace to think anyone could believe their nonsense.

The details are all there. I mean also the logic that some of these people employ is well quite a mess to the point where honestly and I am not being funny here I do feel guilty to point it out some bluntly because I would normally just ease them into seeing it more how reality dictates that it is.

[suchmoon]

Handing out negatives for being a “troll” is ridiculous and is absolutely inappropriate in any circumstance.

That explains why you did it about a dozen times.


Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

How about a slightly revised rule: Quickseller talking about trust is ridiculous and is absolutely inappropriate in any circumstance.

[LoyceMobile]

For what it's worth: I disagree with the red trust. OP has many posts that are annoyingly similar and very close to trolling, but there's an ignore option for that.

I'm not sure how to post here though: if I use my main account OP accuses me of posting for money, and if I use my Mobile, OP accuses me of building it up for another high posting signature.

[Quickseller]

Handing out negatives for being a “troll” is ridiculous and is absolutely inappropriate in any circumstance.

That explains why you did it about a dozen times.



How about a slightly revised rule: Quickseller talking about trust is ridiculous and is absolutely inappropriate in any circumstance.

Too bad I was saying he was doing something that indicates he is a scammer and said he might be a harmless troll.

Nice strawman.

[cryptohunter]

Look it is simple red trust is for scammers or else nobody cares about these petty arguments. Its meant to stop ppl getting scammed right? but even if people do not realise petty nonsense in there damages the real scores and usefulness...

Malboroza and any DT trust needs to make optimal decisions or give fair opportunity for optimal decision to take place.

You want to accuse someone of lying or false accusations you need dialogue to see what exactly they mean and why they are saying it and hear their case.

You can't make unreasonable assumptions incorrect assumptions as to what they are referring to and then simply neg trust them on this incorrect premise.

This is nonsense. It is obvious he is giving me neg because he is pissed about all the merits he loses on every analysis of removing smaller and smaller numbers until it appears a lot of people (not saying him because he appeared just as I mentioned running him on that analysis) lose 50% or more of their merits I mean some people lose 100's and 100's perhaps 500 from just their top 10 fans??
I don't care you want to appreciate certain people and bookmark their post histories go ahead it is not against the rules ..... but don't get all angry when it is revealed and hold grudges and continue to beat on about it after the person revealing has said he is bored of it 2 threads ago and is happy to talk about something new.

what are the chances...

I mean what are the chances I mention because I do not think suchmoon will be that affected by a top 10 removal and marlboroza is already number 1. So I just say cant wait for suchmoon and malborza to get theirs done too. Since some people were removing the just the top 10 merit givers to each one and like lauda lost 50% of his entire earned merit by 10 users and others were enjoying other revelations of similar %

So i mention suchmoon and malboroza because they are the only 2 not yet analysed.

Next thing malboroza is there now because he had been hounding me or if he was just appearing to comment on my posts all the time by chance..... and I told him stop stalking me and spamming his sig on me all the time. He now says he was searching his name spelled incorrectly (by chance the same way i misspelled it just before) on some search engine he could not remember and found this thread. He was not stalking me apparently and had not just heard he was coming up for a large haircut by his top 10 getting removed.


Next thing he said something like (check I can't keep back and forth but very like)started off about talking about merits now talking about red trust for lauda and now the pharmacist getting ass banged by lauda


I think because he posted "one thing i said (red trust for lauda)" then " something similar but bit more serious than i said i said tp was asskissing him like sucking up to him not ass banging him"

he is saying I said both of those things. this is what seems reasonable one thing i did say and something similar. I presume he got confused and went a bit far.

I tell me he is misquoting me and to keep his disturbing fantasies to himself.

Next I get red trust for apparently lying and false accusation of him misquoting me.

I mean just giving red trust on a wrong assumption he made is abuse anyway. You need to make the optimal decision and give a fair opportunity to understand what someone means. So what your merits under some criteria appear less they are not taken away and you are legendary anyway stop being so angry about it.

Get my red trust off there malboroza or you need to be removed from this position though.


Just as bad those making up crazy stories like I would deny writing something I just wrote on the same page someone had already quoted in public infront me .... rather than be referring  to  another quote beside it that i DID NOT SAY?? and was actually fitting to the description I gave for indicating I was referring to exactly this other quote???....that person is playing games on serious matters.

He needs to stop this or else he also needs removal. The DT trust list and the trust system is FAR FAR more important than merit and not one to be made a mockery of.

People in power need to demonstrate in public they give fair reasonable opportunity to reach optimal decisions based on all available information. Not make an assumption of what someone is refering to and run with that to give red trust.

[suchmoon]

You want to accuse someone of lying or false accusations

This one's gonna be tough. I might need to scroll as many as two lines...

It is obvious he is giving me neg because he is pissed about all the merits he loses

For this appeal to have any chance of success perhaps you should focus on facts at hand, starting with the reference link. Adding more lies and insinuations isn't helping your case.

[cryptohunter]

You want to accuse someone of lying or false accusations

This one's gonna be tough. I might need to scroll as many as two lines...

It is obvious he is giving me neg because he is pissed about all the merits he loses

For this appeal to have any chance of success perhaps you should focus on facts at hand, starting with the reference link. Adding more lies and insinuations isn't helping your case.

I have produced corroborating events already look it up.... just before he gave the red trust...

You KNOW when you said this is nothing to do with merit nonsense...

His final words are all about reporting him and having his merits taken off and still angry about this merit nonsense you say is no part of it.

Or are you saying he usually does not wait to find out what people mean or are referring to and just gives negative trust on some assumption he made ? if that is how he usually operates?? then we may not need to look at the other obvious explanation that attaches itself to his last message.

Perhaps I just his latest victim.

Either way get it removed soon or he needs removal. Where is he hiding anyway? I will forget about it and not bring it up if he removes it asap and put it down to over excitement at being a top 10 number 1 hit.

I was not even focusing on him at all until he pulled this shit. I never even mentioned he was number1 on the entire board even though i noticed it and he kept bugging and sniping at me with comments.

If he does not look me up all the time in every thread I will not be looking for him and never have. He tries to pick holes in my posts and then falls flat like you suchmoon and ends up stating crazy nonsense like this story or some even worse out of anger.

[SaltySpitoon]

The only thing that really is trust abuse is lying, with a few exceptions.

That is a ridiculous assertion. Both positive and negative ratings have a clear description and if the situation doesn’t match the description (reasonably), it is abuse.

Being a troll has nothing to do with the chances of someone not honoring their obligations in a trade, which is what the trust system is supposed to help people measure.

The same can be said in many other reasons for giving out ratings.

Thats not true. Behavior does have an influence on whether you'd trade with someone or not. I personally would not trade with someone who exhibits concerning behavior. The trust system is supposed to be about accurate feedback for members, the content is more or less decided by whats acceptable by the community, and to this point, giving someone a negative for trolling, being an account farmer, owning multiple accounts, being racist, etc isn't something thats unheard of. It would be abuse to claim that the guy is a serial scammer because of their behavior. It isn't abuse to point out that behavior however.

I personally wouldn't give out negatives for trolling, but I also wouldn't give out negatives for owning multiple accounts or account farming, and thats the generally accepted practice by the community. I however certainly would give out a negative if it was for harassment or something of that nature.

Again, I didn't read through Cryptohunter's posts to prove to myself whether there is anything worth being concerned about from their posts. My position is that if the behavior issue is subjectively accurate, then its worth noting. I'm not claiming the claim itself is accurate or not, I'm claiming that the basis of the claim, if accurate isn't abuse.