Mikeywith abused his trust system.

[Soha 1]

After throughly explaining him the situation I had encountered with my hacked account , with the mail I had sent to get it unlocked, he still claimed I did it deliberately to pursue evil against other people stating hacker would indeed scam with my account. When I told him he got it locked. And that I had never recieved any complaints.

I'd appreciate some help here as to solve this.


He then pmd me stating he had left me negative trust cause I had failed to post with my locked account that I was moving thread? Like seriously, what the hell?

My discussion and his can be found here

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098397.msg49302158#msg49302158

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093954.msg49302040#msg49302040


Exact pm I recieved from him after offering him a vouch copy to proove him wrong ;

I am not interested in your method, find someone who has the time to test it, and give it to them, they have to verify that they tested the method and it worked, this is what a vouch means, it's not my rule, this is common sense.

as far as the red trust i gave you goes, there are 4 reasons why any member would give you a negative trust.

1-you being an asshole and troll when you were being asked simple questions.
2-you faking vouches that are not real vouches, they are only trusted vouches according to you.
3-your proof that you are the real Soha was only confirmed by red trust account which is not solid enough.
4- you claim your account was hacked, yet you didn't bother to warn others, probably some people got scammed and u never bothered warning them until i asked you, which only makes me think you planned to use that account scam others and then re-claim it CLEAN saying you "told us" /b].

 i am still not tagging you for the vouch thing yet[2], i do not have a proof that you are not the real soha[3], and i do not care if you are rude and an asshole[1], my negative feedback to you was only based on No [4].


Pic of PM ; https://imgur.com/a/AkavmrU

[1714029487]

1714029487

[suchmoon]

Did malevolent really vouch for your "method"?

[Soha 1]

Did malevolent really vouch for your "method"?

You can ask him, he has my copy on telegram. He was away for 2 weeks and he contacted me today saying he was busy irl but he'd be reviewing it soon.

[mikeywith]

After throughly explaining him the situation I had encountered with my hacked account

i asked you a simple question, if your account got hacked, why haven't you stated so in the original thread to warn others ? and this was your answer

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093954.msg49301960#msg49301960

He then pmd me stating he had left me negative trust cause I had failed to post with my locked account that I was moving thread? Like seriously, what the hell?

wrong , I did not send you a pm, you did , i was just nice enough to respond to you.

You do not own this fórum, so rules are not stated by you, so if I don't want to do something I simply don't unless, you are a dictator.
About vouches, it doesnt require you to try something to verify it Works, hence 3 of the vouches are trusted, I can agree one might not be anymore due to it being a negative one after theymos changes to default trust systems. But it used to be Green trust user.
And I can also agree Malevolents is missing, but hopefuly he'll add soon.
But you don't seem to be a very much active person in this fórum, he had't been on for 2 weeks almost, he messeged me today coincidentaly saying he'd review it soon.

Thanks. And if you happen to be interested , let me know.

Edit; Willing to give you a vouch copy to proove you wrong

^^this was your message after the tag.

Exact pm I recieved from him after offering him a vouch copy to proove him wrong ;

I am not interested in your method, find someone who has the time to test it, and give it to them, they have to verify that they tested the method and it worked, this is what a vouch means, it's not my rule, this is common sense.

as far as the red trust i gave you goes, there are 4 reasons why any member would give you a negative trust.

1-you being an asshole and troll when you were being asked simple questions.
2-you faking vouches that are not real vouches, they are only trusted vouches according to you.
3-your proof that you are the real Soha was only confirmed by red trust account which is not solid enough.
4- you claim your account was hacked, yet you didn't bother to warn others, probably some people got scammed and u never bothered warning them until i asked you, which only makes me think you planned to use that account scam others and then re-claim it CLEAN saying you "told us" /b].

 i am still not tagging you for the vouch thing yet[2], i do not have a proof that you are not the real soha[3], and i do not care if you are rude and an asshole[1], my negative feedback to you was only based on No [4].

i confirm the above message .

 it's funny how you edited your posts now, when i was asking you a simple question, you were accusing me for spamming and wanting to get more post count, and that you will do as you please, indirectly stating that you do not care about your previous account being used to scam other which was my initial concern, i wasted a good amount of my time giving you the chance to explain a simple matter but you chose to be rude and ignore my question, that was certainly not the reason for the tag as i stated previously, i don't care how much of an asshole you are, it's just the likely-hood of attempting to scam that what got me to tag you.

it's also strange that a member who was been here since 2014 > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=400742 does not know how to use the trust system, and give me a  positive retaliatory feedback for giving him a negative one.

[Soha 1]

Ok let me answer all again.

I did state it on my new thread on the prologue you can read, a summary of what had happened. You just werent bothered to look for yourself and started pointing fingers at me.

Yes, ofc I sent you a pm suggesting to give you a vouch copy to proove you wrong and that was the answer I got, the one I posted.

I didnt care to explain you anything because you simply kept asking questions that were already answered, you just were not interested in looking in the thread I was telling you.

About Positive trust I had given you, was just mocking. I had nothing against you, just was not really happy with your course of action with no real reason, and your sudden attacks against me , when all I did was prooving you I was not lieing.

And I was rude? Care to explain how you told me it was a must for me to post on my older thread? Why is it? If i had explained everything on new one. If i don't have Access to Soha  anyomore?

[suchmoon]

Did malevolent really vouch for your "method"?

You can ask him, he has my copy on telegram. He was away for 2 weeks and he contacted me today saying he was busy irl but he'd be reviewing it soon.

I take it as a "no". Did he give permission to use his name to promote your crap?

[Soha 1]

Did malevolent really vouch for your "method"?

You can ask him, he has my copy on telegram. He was away for 2 weeks and he contacted me today saying he was busy irl but he'd be reviewing it soon.

I take it as a "no". Did he give permission to use his name to promote your crap?

Bro I just told you I had pmd him 2 weeks ago if he was interested in reviewing a vouch copy for me, he said yes. So I gave him one via telegram and told me he would. I never said he vouched for it, he never posted on my thread as other members who got vouch copies have, I said I handed it to him. Though today he told me he was busy irl and was gona review very soon

[mikeywith]

Ok let me answer all again.

I did state it on my new thread on the prologue you can read, a summary of what had happened. You just werent bothered to look for yourself and started pointing fingers at me.

ok , so my account gets hacked, i go tell my grandmother about it, then someone uses it to scam people on the forum , when someone get's scammed and blame me , i saw no " i told my grandmother how didn't you know about it" . really ?

the proper thing to do was to post on the original thread,  there is no guarantee anyone was going to see the new thread before the old one , you made a new account, bought a Copper Member, started a new thread, bumped it a few times, even quoted some posts from the original topic , but never bothered to post a warning about the account being hacked ??



  

[Soha 1]

Ok let me answer all again.

I did state it on my new thread on the prologue you can read, a summary of what had happened. You just werent bothered to look for yourself and started pointing fingers at me.

ok , so my account gets hacked, i go tell my grandmother about it, then someone uses it to scam people on the forum , when someone get's scammed and blame me , i saw no " i told my grandmother how didn't you know about it" . really ?

the proper thing to do was to post on the original thread,  there is no guarantee anyone was going to see the new thread before the old one , you made a new account, bought a Copper Member, started a new thread, bumped it a few times, even quoted some posts from the original topic , but never bothered to post a warning about the account being hacked ??



  

Ima quote my opening summary from my new thread on Soha 1  for you,  ;"Had to create a new account since person that hacked my account managed to lock me out of it. He had changed email without me noticing since password was the same all this time  
I am STILL using the same email; skype; telegram as before! Do not fall for people trying to impersonate me.
Old thread before my account got locked; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5093954.0
You Will NOT see me online in that account anymore unfortunately nor any bumps there."

This was the first thing I posted on my alt account. Nothing else, so as to warn people as that my account was locked that not to expect any bumps from it or anything until solved hopefuly in future.

There was indeed a guarantee since I had digged old thread. And only one bumepd was new since account was initialy locked.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Did malevolent really vouch for your "method"?

You can ask him, he has my copy on telegram. He was away for 2 weeks and he contacted me today saying he was busy irl but he'd be reviewing it soon.

I don't think you really understand what the word 'vouch' means.  By your words above, there's no way malevolent could have vouched for it since he didn't even review it.  You did claim "trusted vouch" in your thread title:

Soha Money Making Guide (UP TO $185/DAY) - EARN OR REFUND - TRUSTED VOUCHED

I'm assuming you meant TMAN's words about it, because he's the only trusted member who stated that the method could work, but he didn't actually try it out.

[Soha 1]

Did malevolent really vouch for your "method"?

You can ask him, he has my copy on telegram. He was away for 2 weeks and he contacted me today saying he was busy irl but he'd be reviewing it soon.

I don't think you really understand what the word 'vouch' means.  By your words above, there's no way malevolent could have vouched for it since he didn't even review it.  You did claim "trusted vouch" in your thread title:

Soha Money Making Guide (UP TO $185/DAY) - EARN OR REFUND - TRUSTED VOUCHED

I'm assuming you meant TMAN's words about it, because he's the only trusted member who stated that the method could work, but he didn't actually try it out.

Ok so , I gave out 4 copies and 3 were vouched, Tman, g45, and bestweb (was greentrust before dt changes), other is malevolent(pending post of him as i stated on my threads since he hasnt reviewed yet).

here is my pic of my main acc locked so Mickey can see i dont lie

https://imgur.com/a/Bfpkg51

[suchmoon]

Bro I just told you I had pmd him 2 weeks ago if he was interested in reviewing a vouch copy for me, he said yes. So I gave him one via telegram and told me he would. I never said he vouched for it, he never posted on my thread as other members who got vouch copies have, I said I handed it to him. Though today he told me he was busy irl and was gona review very soon

A simple "no" would suffice. I don't believe your story unless malevolent can confirm it.

[mikeywith]

I take it as a "no". Did he give permission to use his name to promote your crap?

this is one part of the b.s vouch story he has, which i did not tag him for YET. he falsely claims that people vouched for his thing when they have not tried it and confirmed it actually works, then he keeps insisting on mentioning malevolent name and making it look like a vouch from him , might as well send a copy to satoshi and say

a vouch copy has been handed out to
satoshi

[Soha 1]

Bro I just told you I had pmd him 2 weeks ago if he was interested in reviewing a vouch copy for me, he said yes. So I gave him one via telegram and told me he would. I never said he vouched for it, he never posted on my thread as other members who got vouch copies have, I said I handed it to him. Though today he told me he was busy irl and was gona review very soon

A simple "no" would suffice. I don't believe your story unless malevolent can confirm it.

Why would I lie about me giving a staff user a vouch copy? I can literaly show you screenshot of my telegram privately if you wish.

[Soha 1]

I take it as a "no". Did he give permission to use his name to promote your crap?

this is one part of the b.s vouch story he has, which i did not tag him for YET. he falsely claims that people vouched for his thing when they have not tried it and confirmed it actually works, then he keeps insisting on mentioning malevolent name and making it look like a vouch from him , might as well send a copy to satoshi and say

a vouch copy has been handed out to
satoshi

Excuse me? Dare to quote me where I said malevolent had vouched for me? Never ever said that, I did though said a vouch copy has been handed to him. Other 3 copies have been also handed and were indeed vouched, like it or not. You don't have to test something to measure its efectiveness. We can argue about bestwebcreator vouch, he was Green trust user at 20 +2/0 when I gave it to him, now he is at negative , so I take your point in that one.

[mikeywith]

The 2 vouch copies have already been handed out.
@malevolent - Staff.

there is nothing to argue about , your method needs to be tested to confirm it's integrity,  did either TMAN or malevolent say yes this method makes you "UP TO $185/DAYa" ?

if not, then that's not  a vouch and you don't have the right to use their names and relate it to the TRUSTED VOUCHED verse of yours.
i am not sure how you define the word vouch.

anyway this was not the reason for the tag, so there is no point discussing it YET.

i personally find you suspicious and scammy to say the least, and the explanation is giving in my feedback to you, but again i am open to other's inputs, maybe someone will "correct" me if i am wrong.

edited : typos

[Soha 1]

The 2 vouch copies have already been handed out.
@malevolent - Staff.

there is nothing to argue about , your method needs to be tested to confirm it's integrity,  did either TMAN say yes this method makes you "UP TO $185/DAYa" ?
i am not sure how you define the word vouch.

anyway this was not the reason for the tag, so there is no point disusing it YET.

i personally find you suspicious and scammy to say the least, and the explanation is giving in my feedback to you, but again i am open to other's inputs, maybe someone will "correct" me if i am wrong.

My method clearly states UP TO 185 usd a day, depending on the person. Of course im not gona go into details with you or anyone who does not have the guide, because that's part of my sale.

Well, lets discuss your negative trust to me, that's my issue here at first. That's why I made this thread as a claim against reputation given to you as DT.

Edit: Come test it yourself , I already offered you..

[Lauda]

This would be the first case of someone getting tagged because they did not report their original account being hacked AFAIK. I'm not sure whether I agree with this.
Also why is the discussion going into the direction of the validity of the method that the user is selling? That's not what the rating is about.

[mikeywith]

This would be the first case of someone getting tagged because they did not report their original account being hacked AFAIK. I'm not sure whether I agree with this.

simply because the account might have not been hacked in the first place , the user wanted to keep it clean to perform whatever scam plans he has in mind,without having to take responsibility for it by saying " i mentioned it on my other thread that was started by me using my new account".

while this may not be the case, i gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked him why, he did not defend himself, he just got into attack-mode and started accusing me of wanting to spam and get post count, if he gave a reasonable answer, things would have been solved by then

Also why is the discussion going into the direction of the validity of the method that the user is selling? That's not what the rating is about.

while it's not the reason for the rating,  it's also not about the validity of his method, it's the term " VOUCH" he uses when not a single trusted member actually vouched for his method. it's misleading to say the least, and some people might find a good reason for a tag.

[Soha 1]

This would be the first case of someone getting tagged because they did not report their original account being hacked AFAIK. I'm not sure whether I agree with this.

simply because the account might have not been hacked in the first place , the user wanted to keep it clean to perform whatever scam plans he has in mind,without having to take responsibility for it by saying " i mentioned it on my other thread that was started by me using my new account".

while this may not be the case, i gave him the benefit of the doubt and asked him why, he did not defend himself, he just got into attack-mode and started accusing me of wanting to spam and get post count, if he gave a reasonable answer, things would have been solved by then

Also why is the discussion going into the direction of the validity of the method that the user is selling? That's not what the rating is about.

while it's not the reason for the rating,  it's also not about the validity of his method, it's the term " VOUCH" he uses when not a single trusted member actually vouched for his method. it's misleading to say the least, and some people might find a good reason for a tag.

About vouches, so we end that subject. Those 3 people did indeed vouch for it. Trying the method or not its up to you, testing the effectiveness can be done without trying it out. I do agree with you about 1 person that is red trust now, but you got to agree with me that he was Green trust use before when i gave him copy.

About account I literaly just sent you screenshot of it being locked? I dont know what else to proove you , I sent my second mail to unlock it just now with help of hhampuz, Will update if i get a reply when mods are able to.

I didnt have anything of the sort in mind, as soon as i got locked out of it, in order to not loose business i made alt and made new thread with summary stating what had happened, and how that account was unaccesable.

I didnt got into attack- mode I just was a bit pissed that you came to my thread stating my vouches were all not trusted , that I was a lier, and that I must do as you said. Yea , you got me pissed. I guess :/