Why does suchmoon often add false claims on negative feedback ?

[Thule]

Since suchmoon deletes all my posts asking her why she puts so often false claims in peoples negative feedback i'm going to create that thread asking the community why she is adding so often false claims into her negative feedback ?

Just two quick fresh example

First one Marco where she holds the negative feedback "Failing to repay a loan, again."
If somebody reads that negative comment which is being used according to the info against scammers people will instantly belive Marco scammed more than once on a loan and didn't repaid them at all.

Second one just my example

"Avoid any deals with this clown."
Suggesting i'm going to scam anyone who is going to make any deal with me even she was unable over a year to represent even a single person who claims i cheated on him.


I watched suchmoons feedbacks very carefully and she very often tends to destroy accounts with making false claims on their feedback suggesting that the member is a scammer or scammed someone where in reality its just her private opinion without any proof.


Suchmoon spread a lot of these false feedbacks which creates a lot of hate and drama on this forum (myself included) and since i see a positiv change on that forum i would like to bring that point to peoples attention in hope she will be forced to stop giving these kind of false feedbacks which are destroying accounts where nobody knows if there are legit or not.

In my opinion she writes these kind of comments on purpose to make sure noone is going to make any deals with these accounts anymore when reading her comments with the false presented fact.

[1714004383]

1714004383

[1714004383]

1714004383

[1714004383]

1714004383

[1714004383]

1714004383

[1714004383]

1714004383

[suchmoon]

Your posts were deleted because you kept posting repeatedly after being asked to leave a self-moderated thread.

marco's feedback has been revised. You can take credit for it if that helps to soothe your narcissism but asche pointed out earlier in the thread the difference between "failing" and "late".

I have no idea where you got this: "Condacted an account buy in june 2018", however you are indeed a deranged clown nobody should deal with. Your pathetic attempts to sue Vod and dox me show how you behave.

[DireWolfM14]

Although I value Suchmoon's judgment, and in no way feel that her reviews are erroneous, I actually agree with you.  It would be helpful if we all were more accurate in our reviews and gave significant details.

[Thule]

Your posts were deleted because you kept posting repeatedly after being asked to leave a self-moderated thread.

If you call me names on that thread i take the right to participate in it

marco's feedback has been revised. You can take credit for it if that helps to soothe your narcissism but asche pointed out earlier in the thread the difference between "failing" and "late".

I don't need credit i just want a fair DT system and members

I have no idea where you got this: "Condacted an account buy in june 2018", however you are indeed a deranged clown nobody should deal with. Your pathetic attempts to sue Vod and dox me show how you behave.

Nice to see you deleted your first false claim.
But its not just about marco and me .You gave tons of these kind of feedbacks to people where no evidence existed of your claims or where you comments suggested something else than the member was accused for.

[bones261]

Since suchmoon deletes all my posts asking her why she puts so often false claims in peoples negative feedback i'm going to create that thread asking the community why she is adding so often false claims into her negative feedback ?

Just two quick fresh example

First one Marco where she holds the negative feedback "Failing to repay a loan, again."
If somebody reads that negative comment which is being used according to the info against scammers people will instantly belive Marco scammed more than once on a loan and didn't repaid them at all.

The comment is dated 03/15/2019. The loan was not paid at that time and was past due.

Second one just my example

"Condacted an account buy in june 2018"
In my understanding it means i bought an account and suggest i own at least one alt which is false since i never bought any account as it was only an attempt (could let it pass)

It appears that this comment has been deleted/ never existed. What's the issue?

"Avoid any deals with this clown."
Suggesting i'm going to scam anyone who is going to make any deal with me even she was unable over a year to represent even a single person who claims i cheated on him.

Reference link provided. People can go to the material referenced and make their own assessment.

Although I value Suchmoon's judgment, and in no way feel that her reviews are erroneous, I actually agree with you.  It would be helpful if we all were more accurate in our reviews and gave significant details.

It's a nice goal to strive for, but us DT members are getting paid zippiddy do dah. We are doing the best that we can. If the members here want the trust comments to be handled on a strictly professional basis, written only by people with legal training, then they got to pay, or find a team willing to do it pro bono. That isn't going to happen.

[suchmoon]

Your posts were deleted because you kept posting repeatedly after being asked to leave a self-moderated thread.

If you call me names on that thread i take the right to participate in it

You have no such right. Your discontent with being called a hypertroll can be expressed elsewhere.

Nice to see you deleted your first false claim.

I review my trust ratings on a regular basis but feel free to make a problem out of it.

[Thule]

The comment is dated 03/15/2019. The loan was not paid at that time and was past due.

And suchmoon refused to update that comment.Anyways it has been updated

t appears that this comment has been deleted/ never existed. What's the issue?

That comment has been deleted in the last 60 minutes.Also a good move

Reference link provided. People can go to the material referenced and make their own assessment.

People read mostly only comments and this suggest they are going to get scammed.

It's a nice goal to strive for, but us DT members are getting paid zippiddy do dah. We are doing the best that we can. If the members here want the trust comments to be handled on a strictly professional basis, written only by people with legal training, then they got to pay, or find a team willing to do it pro bono. That isn't going to happen.

Noone asks to do any legal high expressed comment.However comments which are intentially wrong are the ones i'm questioning.
As example timelord who gave me a negative as being an alt of Quickseller where he openly admitted that he knows that i'm not an alt of quickseller but still keeps that false comment to harm my account.

You have no such right. Your discontent with being called a hypertroll can be expressed elsewhere.

If you call me names in that thread i take myself that right.

I review my trust ratings on a regular basis but feel free to make a problem out of it.

Its nice you checked them today.It would be more nice to change the wording of your other comment to not suggest people they will get scammed or to at least provide one victim when claiming so.


Like i said the forum expecially the DT members are making a nice progress.
I see more and more decent DT members moving forward which is good.

[suchmoon]

The comment is dated 03/15/2019. The loan was not paid at that time and was past due.

And suchmoon refused to update that comment.Anyways it has been updated

So who updated it if I "refused"?

t appears that this comment has been deleted/ never existed. What's the issue?

That comment has been deleted in the last 60 minutes.Also a good move

The fuck are you on about? Are you saying I had posted this feedback: "Condacted an account buy in june 2018"?

Sounds like something you would write:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=355462


Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

IT'S YOUR OWN SENT FEEDBACK YOU IDIOT.

As if there was any doubt that you're just making everything up.

[Thule]

The comment is dated 03/15/2019. The loan was not paid at that time and was past due.

And suchmoon refused to update that comment.Anyways it has been updated

So who updated it if I "refused"?

t appears that this comment has been deleted/ never existed. What's the issue?

That comment has been deleted in the last 60 minutes.Also a good move

The fuck are you on about? Are you saying I had posted this feedback: "Condacted an account buy in june 2018"?

Sounds like something you would write:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=355462



IT'S YOUR OWN SENT FEEDBACK YOU IDIOT.

As if there was any doubt that you're just making everything up.

At least i'm able to admit that i looked wrong and reverse my false claim of that feedback.

However it doesn't change your other feedbacks.

[suchmoon]

At least i'm able to admit that i looked wrong and reverse my false claim of that feedback.

You didn't reverse a single word, you're still claiming in the OP that I posted the feedback that was actually posted by you and you built your whole argument on

1) something that is no longer true (my rating for marco);
2) something that was never true (your rating that you tried to pass as mine);
3) something that you'd like to be true (your imaginary trustworthiness that you keep disproving with your every lie).

[Thule]

At least i'm able to admit that i looked wrong and reverse my false claim of that feedback.

You didn't reverse a single word, you're still claiming in the OP that I posted the feedback that was actually posted by you and you built your whole argument on

1) something that is no longer true (my rating for marco);
2) something that was never true (your rating that you tried to pass as mine);
3) something that you'd like to be true (your imaginary trustworthiness that you keep disproving with your every lie).

1.You first denied to change it but changed it after some members said didn't agreed on it
2.I deleted it
3.Its true.I'm asking you for a long time since you called me already many times a scammer to show me a single person who i scammed or who claims that i scammed him.

Also there are way more examples.You are very well aware of it.

[cryptohunter]

At least i'm able to admit that i looked wrong and reverse my false claim of that feedback.

You didn't reverse a single word, you're still claiming in the OP that I posted the feedback that was actually posted by you and you built your whole argument on


3) something that you'd like to be true (your imaginary trustworthiness that you keep disproving with your every lie).

But you say liars are trustworthy and should be on DT ?

 I mean you know full well lauda is a proven liar, implicated in extortion schemes and basically a scammer and yet you include him and his known gang on your inclusions list and collude with them to exclude a very similar list of people.

Double standards.

That's not to mention you find trustworthy a proven sneaky greedy racist trolling sig spamming sock puppet user.

I say observable double standards to this degree makes you untrustworthy.

I mean by your own standards one can argue that you are a scammer or liar. Since just like how you red trust persons for "supporting" a "possible" scam since you say they are tantamount to scammers themselves then you supporting liars, scammers and sneaky greedy racist sig spamming puppet users..... well.

[marcotheminer]

Your posts were deleted because you kept posting repeatedly after being asked to leave a self-moderated thread.

marco's feedback has been revised. You can take credit for it if that helps to soothe your narcissism but asche pointed out earlier in the thread the difference between "failing" and "late".

I have no idea where you got this: "Condacted an account buy in june 2018", however you are indeed a deranged clown nobody should deal with. Your pathetic attempts to sue Vod and dox me show how you behave.

Revised to: "Repeatedly late on loans. Not safe to lend to this user without a solid collateral." as a SCAMMER TAG....

It has been safe, I've always paid. So if you're talking about possible future events where I could scam (yes, of course I could, this is why all trusts I have can have some aspects of validity), then a neutral warning is sufficient.