@suchmoon could you provide info on this

[bones261]

Bones although we have had a few arguments  I do not think you are as unfair as the others so i ask you to be sensible about this issue.

The FACT thule has request theymos look at the original PM is enough to suggest that HE BELIEVES they exist.

I think red trust in light of this is completely wrong. Please explain how you see it other wise.

AFAIK, libel is usually handled as a civil matter. I strongly believe that this allegation has far less than a 50 % chance of being truthful.

I see no way for thule to have found this information if suchmoon claims there is no dox anywhere else.

Simply researching with Google or looking through SMs post history will reveal the info contained in the screenshot. Thule seemed to have no difficulty providing a link to one of the threads.

Please be sensible he would not have asked Theymos to investigate this just to fall flat on his face if it were immediately found to be a spoof.

All we have is Thule's word that he asked Theymos. I give this as much cred as "the dog ate my homework" excuse. By the way, Themos isn't going to reveal an "anonymous source" IP without that person's consent. Thule will have to convince his "source" to cooperate in some way.

If this blows up and it turns out suchmoon has stolen some persons money or miner then it will look very bad if the person bringing this to light was red trusted along the way considering he is calling on you dts and theymos to help him get to the bottom of it.

The negative comment will be removed if this allegation becomes much more substantiated. Hell, if the allegation becomes rock solid against suchmoon, I might even make it a positive. as I said before, I'll eat my hat avatar if that happens.

It is completely illogical and would be stupid for him to call for theymos to confirm at all let alone of his own accord so early on in this debacle.

It simply does not make any sense for a person to believe thule sent himself this message. His actions are compelling evidence this was sent to him by someone else.

Compelling? I don't think so at all. Let's revisit what some of our other peers have already posted.

If this is fake, and so far, all signs point in that direction, this will be harmful to the community and will only make it easier for someone in a similar situation to scam in the future as these frivolous claims cause future claims to be taken less seriously.  

False allegations hurt everyone. Massive amounts of time are wasted and the community learns to ignore these kinds of complaints as a result of the boy who cried wolf syndrome (is that a thing?).

There are only two logical steps forward here.

1) Have the original PM authenticated.
or
2) Lock this thread.

As most people know, these two peers aren't exactly BFF with suchmoon. Claiming you got your information from an anonymous source is no defense for libel. My red tag will remain in place until I'm convinced this allegation is more likely than not to be true. So far, it isn't.

[cryptohunter]

@bones

I think my long post could of clouded my main point.

If thule asked theymos to investigate the persons PM early into this then we need to realise thule did not make it up. It would make no logical sense for him to create something to have it debunked straight away. Theymos may not get involved if it were true (other than remove suchmoon i hope) but he could certainly say this is PM is a fake.

Okay sorry I thought someone said the dox was deleted and she had denied it was accurate anyway.

[Thule]

Thule seemed to have no difficulty providing a link to one of the threads.

I found it after you posted it had been used in the past.I never checked it myself before.
However on that thread suchmoon is denying its the right adress

All we have is Thule's word that he asked Theymos

It would take 2 seconds for you to confirm it

[bones261]

@bones

I think my long post clouded my main point.

If thule asked theymos to investigate the persons PM early into this then we need to realise thule did not make it up. It would make no logical sense for him to create something to have it debunked straight away.

Surely you agree. It is only reasonable. Whether theymos will acknowledge he was asked who can say.

I will take any input from Theymos or another administrator into consideration. However, I don't think Theymos is going to confirm an IP unless the source cooperates. If the "source" is cooperating on that extent, they might as well cooperate and have an administrator confirm the original PM.  

All we have is Thule's word that he asked Theymos

It would take 2 seconds for you to confirm it

It's your juicy scoop. You do the work necessary to convince me that your source exists and is credible. Otherwise fake news.

[Thule]

Will remove tag if pm from the anonymous "source" can be verified by staff.

I'm offering it and you still keep ignorant.I'm offering it and its getting denied which is not my fault.
Shows me the description you posted on my feedback is a lie from you since you are keeping changing your mind.

You do the work necessary to convince me that your source exists and is credible

I don't feel the desire to convince you since you are one of the persons who will always find an excuse.You already proofed your actions so many times by not tagging people who bought or sold accounts.

I just have the desire to warn other people of that possible issue so everyone who makes a check on suchmoon sees that thread and takes its own conclution out of it.

I would have loved to check these PM's as this would be possibly the ultimate proof against suchmoon but since the person who would be able to do so is not willing so there is nothing i can do.

Everyone will be able to make his own opinion based on that thread.
I'm going to post tomorrow the rest of the PM's with the sender should he not reply anymore.

[cryptohunter]

@bones

I think my long post clouded my main point.

If thule asked theymos to investigate the persons PM early into this then we need to realise thule did not make it up. It would make no logical sense for him to create something to have it debunked straight away.

Surely you agree. It is only reasonable. Whether theymos will acknowledge he was asked who can say.

I will take any input from Theymos or another administrator into consideration. However, I don't think Theymos is going to confirm an IP unless the source cooperates. If the "source" is cooperating on that extent, they might as well cooperate and have an administrator confirm the original PM.  

All we have is Thule's word that he asked Theymos

It would take 2 seconds for you to confirm it

It's your juicy scoop. You do the work necessary to convince me that your source exists and is credible. Otherwise fake news.

Surely theymos will just say if thule asked him to check the validity of the PMs (with thules permission) that should be enough to say this is 3rd party provided not from thule to himself. Then we can just get rid of that red trust.

Let's keep red trust for scammers only.

[bones261]

Surely theymos will just say if thule asked him to check the validity of the PMs (with thules permission) that should be enough to say this is 3rd party provided not from thule to himself. Then we can just get rid of that red trust.

Let's keep red trust for scammers only.

Thule can ask his witness, theymos, to come forward and confirm since theymos needs his permission anyway. I'm not going to waste theymos' time by asking him via PM to confirm that thule sent him a PM. If thule asks him directly, it saves him a step.
Also, why on Earth would someone deem a person who is willing to put forward a dubious screenshot alleging theft, suitable to trade with? I certainly wouldn't want to divulge my shipping information to Thule, at this point. Neither should anyone else.

[Quickseller]

As most people know, these two peers aren't exactly BFF with suchmoon. Claiming you got your information from an anonymous source is no defense for libel. My red tag will remain in place until I'm convinced this allegation is more likely than not to be true. So far, it isn't.

In order for something to be libel, it needs to be proven false, and cause damages, often via harm to their reputation, but can also be to decreased business income and similar.

The fact a statement can not be proven to be true is not libel, the statement must be proven to be false. Suchmoon admits above she cannot prove the OP to be false:

I could ask admin to access my PMs but that would prove nothing (I could have deleted the alleged messages).

I am also not aware of any business that suchmoon conducts around here on any regular basis, so I cannot say she would win damages, even if she proved the OP to be false.

You have acknowledged your dox, and have posted your dox within your posting history, and as such (to the extent information is found within your posting history), posting your dox is allowed, even with the new rules. If you are reporting posts with this information, you either do not understand the rules, do not care about the rules, or are trying to cause problems for people that do not like you.

[...]
 Better yet, report it yourself and stop looking for excuses to dox me. I do not consent to any of my personal information to be posted publicly regardless of what you're saying. You do not decide that. IS THAT CLEAR?
[...]

People are allowed to post their own public information in their posts, and as such, reporting those posts would not be appropriate.

I don't need your consent to repeat information contained in your posts, we aren't having sex (gross, I got the shivers even thinking about that), I am repeating information I see in your post history.

Perhaps you should stop making people so mad at you they decide to post things that "triggers" you, such as your name. I have not seen you stop anyone from scamming someone, so there isn't anyone mad at you because you stopped them from having money they weren't due anyway.

[bones261]

As most people know, these two peers aren't exactly BFF with suchmoon. Claiming you got your information from an anonymous source is no defense for libel. My red tag will remain in place until I'm convinced this allegation is more likely than not to be true. So far, it isn't.

In order for something to be libel, it needs to be proven false, and cause damages, often via harm to their reputation, but can also be to decreased business income and similar.

The fact a statement can not be proven to be true is not libel, the statement must be proven to be false. Suchmoon admits above she cannot prove the OP to be false:

I could ask admin to access my PMs but that would prove nothing (I could have deleted the alleged messages).

I am also not aware of any business that suchmoon conducts around here on any regular basis, so I cannot say she would win damages, even if she proved the OP to be false.

The statement doesn't need to be "proven" false, it needs to be proven true. The truth is an affirmative defense against defamation. And one only needs to show that the statement is more likely than not. You should know that logically, its much harder to prove something is false. The only way is to prove something is false is to show that the assumption that it is false leads to a contradiction. Also, in most jurisdictions in the US, accusing someone of a crime that turns out to be untrue is "defamatory per se" and doesn't require someone to prove the have had real monetary damages.
Furthermore, with the new dt system, there are well over 200+ DT1 & DT2 members. Any one of them are welcome to leave Thule a positive counter trust if they feel my neg is unfair. Also, any of the DT1 members who feel that I am off my rocker on this are welcome to distrust me. At this point, if 4 do this, my neg is placed in "untrusted" feedback.

[cryptohunter]

Surely theymos will just say if thule asked him to check the validity of the PMs (with thules permission) that should be enough to say this is 3rd party provided not from thule to himself. Then we can just get rid of that red trust.

Let's keep red trust for scammers only.

Thule can ask his witness, theymos, to come forward and confirm since theymos needs his permission anyway. I'm not going to waste theymos' time by asking him via PM to confirm that thule sent him a PM. If thule asks him directly, it saves him a step.
Also, why on Earth would someone deem a person who is willing to put forward a dubious screenshot alleging theft, suitable to trade with? I certainly wouldn't want to divulge my shipping information to Thule, at this point. Neither should anyone else.

Well I would not expect it would matter so long as a person did not try to rip him off. To me thule took the correct course asking theymos to validate.

Well, we need to be careful not to make too many jumps from direct scamming to other things that some could connect to perhaps the privacy of a trade.

We also have to consider here that if someone did rip you off then you are possibly within your rights i believe to dox them if they do not send the money after they have promised. Their privacy does not deserved to be honoured if they try to scam you out of money.

I think if thule contacted theymos soon after he was contacted it demonstrates he was believed it was true. No other explanation makes sense and red trust for this to me is a bit out of place.

If you had evidence of him contacting theymos soon after would you remove?

[morvillz7z]

@Quickseller
How do you expect suchmoon to prove OP to be false when these messages are faked/manipulated, never existed in the first place?
Let's pretend it was your name there, how exactly would you prove them to be false?

Suchmoon admits above she cannot prove the OP to be false:

If this is legit, suchmoon would know exactly who this is by looking at her PMs.

Come on, I've been here for years and had many chances to scam

Is it me or these three quotes above sound exactly the same?

[Thule]

@Quickseller
How do you expect suchmoon to prove OP to be false when these messages are faked/manipulated, never existed in the first place?
Let's pretend it was your name there, how exactly would you prove them to be false?

Asking theymos if senders IP match with another account which was back in may 2018 selling mining hardware on this forum.
If not ban thule

[The Sceptical Chymist]

@Quickseller
How do you expect suchmoon to prove OP to be false when these messages are faked/manipulated, never existed in the first place?
Let's pretend it was your name there, how exactly would you prove them to be false?

Well, Quickseller is the type of guy who thinks that if you don't vigorously mount a defense against an allegation, it's evidence that you're guilty, e.g., Lauda and the accusation that he/she has some sort of addiction to unspecified pills.  The funny thing is that QS isn't an idiot, and I'd expect him to know better than to go for that kind of anti-logic, but I'm guessing that when it suits his agenda he'll go for whatever he thinks might work.

[DireWolfM14]

@Quickseller
How do you expect suchmoon to prove OP to be false when these messages are faked/manipulated, never existed in the first place?
Let's pretend it was your name there, how exactly would you prove them to be false?

Asking theymos if senders IP match with another account which was back in may 2018 selling mining hardware on this forum.
If not ban thule

IP addresses don't mean squat.  I don't log into the forum without VPN, and most times my IP is different than the last time.  If it is different, and Thule gets banned, how many sockpuppet accounts do you get to choose from?

[bones261]

Well I would not expect it would matter so long as a person did not try to rip him off. To me thule took the correct course asking theymos to validate.

Well, we need to be careful not to make too many jumps from direct scamming to other things that some could connect to perhaps the privacy of a trade.

We also have to consider here that if someone did rip you off then you are possibly within your rights i believe to dox them if they do not send the money after they have promised. Their privacy does not deserved to be honoured if they try to scam you out of money.

I think if thule contacted theymos soon after he was contacted it demonstrates he was believed it was true. No other explanation makes sense and red trust for this to me is a bit out of place.

If you had evidence of him contacting theymos soon after would you remove?

Actually, even an opinion from Theymos in a favorable light to Thule on this matter is sufficient to get me to strongly consider my rating. However, I am not going to actively solicit his opinion. I trust my judgement on this matter.

[Thule]

@Quickseller
How do you expect suchmoon to prove OP to be false when these messages are faked/manipulated, never existed in the first place?
Let's pretend it was your name there, how exactly would you prove them to be false?

Asking theymos if senders IP match with another account which was back in may 2018 selling mining hardware on this forum.
If not ban thule

IP addresses don't mean squat.  I don't log into the forum without VPN, and most times my IP is different than the last time.  If it is different, and Thule gets banned, how many sockpuppet accounts do you get to choose from?

You got the opportunity to get me banned.I'm beliving that the guy told the truth and didn't hide his IP and am willing to risk my account for it.

[Quickseller]

As most people know, these two peers aren't exactly BFF with suchmoon. Claiming you got your information from an anonymous source is no defense for libel. My red tag will remain in place until I'm convinced this allegation is more likely than not to be true. So far, it isn't.

In order for something to be libel, it needs to be proven false, and cause damages, often via harm to their reputation, but can also be to decreased business income and similar.

The fact a statement can not be proven to be true is not libel, the statement must be proven to be false. Suchmoon admits above she cannot prove the OP to be false:

I could ask admin to access my PMs but that would prove nothing (I could have deleted the alleged messages).

I am also not aware of any business that suchmoon conducts around here on any regular basis, so I cannot say she would win damages, even if she proved the OP to be false.

The statement doesn't need to be "proven" false, it needs to be proven true. The truth is an affirmative defense against defamation. And one only needs to show that the statement is more likely than not. You should know that logically, its much harder to prove something is false. The only way is to prove something is false is to show that the assumption that it is false leads to a contradiction. Also, in most jurisdictions in the US, accusing someone of a crime that turns out to be untrue is "defamatory per se" and doesn't require someone to prove the have had real monetary damages.

Suchmoon could be considered a "public figure" or a "limited purpose public figure" and under CA statutory law, she would have to affirmatively prove the statement to be false.

@Quickseller
How do you expect suchmoon to prove OP to be false when these messages are faked/manipulated, never existed in the first place?
Let's pretend it was your name there, how exactly would you prove them to be false?

If it were my name there, I don't think I would have a case for libel. If it were me, I would deny the message is real (as suchmoon has done) and move on.

[bones261]

The statement doesn't need to be "proven" false, it needs to be proven true. The truth is an affirmative defense against defamation. And one only needs to show that the statement is more likely than not. You should know that logically, its much harder to prove something is false. The only way is to prove something is false is to show that the assumption that it is false leads to a contradiction. Also, in most jurisdictions in the US, accusing someone of a crime that turns out to be untrue is "defamatory per se" and doesn't require someone to prove the have had real monetary damages.

Suchmoon could be considered a "public figure" or a "limited purpose public figure" and under CA statutory law, she would have to affirmatively prove the statement to be false.

You really think that if suchmoon pursued this in the meatspace that a CA judge would rule suchmoon a "public figure" or a "limited purpose public figure?"   Naturally, I don't suspect suchmoon will pursue this since the indications are that Thule is across the pond and it would probably require more resources than the case is worth. In any event, if suchmoon were to bring up a case, it definitely would be stronger than thule's case against Vod.  

[Thule]

If she would open a case it would automaticly mean that the court would also demand from theymos the IP of the sender to check if the screenshot have been sent to me by someone else or not.

Since i know the screenshot hasn't been doctored by me and was sent from a real person i have nothing to fear.

She would also have an opportunity to show the judge who i scammed for calling me so many times a scammer in public.

[Quickseller]

The statement doesn't need to be "proven" false, it needs to be proven true. The truth is an affirmative defense against defamation. And one only needs to show that the statement is more likely than not. You should know that logically, its much harder to prove something is false. The only way is to prove something is false is to show that the assumption that it is false leads to a contradiction. Also, in most jurisdictions in the US, accusing someone of a crime that turns out to be untrue is "defamatory per se" and doesn't require someone to prove the have had real monetary damages.

Suchmoon could be considered a "public figure" or a "limited purpose public figure" and under CA statutory law, she would have to affirmatively prove the statement to be false.

You really think that if suchmoon pursued this in the meatspace that a CA judge would rule suchmoon a "public figure" or a "limited purpose public figure?"  Naturally, I don't suspect suchmoon will pursue this since the indications are that Thule is across the pond and it would probably require more resources than the case is worth. In any event, if suchmoon were to bring up a case, it definitely would be stronger than thule's case against Vod. 

A limited purpose public figure perhaps.

In the terms of the community, of which the trust ratings are in relation to, she is most certainly a public figure.