DT members can now to be hold liable for their negative feedback

[TMAN]

I hope he lives in the UK.Let's see somebody already initiating the escrow.

Right continent - wrong country, 1500 miles away cunty.

I tell ya what. Ill give you part of the dox and you pay me that money then ill give you my full dox, ok princess?

Sofia - Bulgaria.

[suchmoon]

Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything.

How's your lawsuit against Vod coming?

[Thule]

Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything.

How's your lawsuit against Vod coming?

You will be able to talk with him about your own case soon.
Will be a nice warning to the other.

[TMAN]

Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything.

How's your lawsuit against Vod coming?

You will be able to talk with him about your own case soon.
Will be a nice warning to the other.

So I live in Bulgaria and have done for a few years, pretty sure 20 odd collectors who I have traded with will confirm this.

Best of luck with understanding the language and laws here princess.

[DireWolfM14]

leaving a negative rating in itself is calling the person a scammer. Read the description of a negative rating on a trust page.

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

The negative trust setting leaves it open for users to express their belief.  

Thule's behavior has been libelous, which is a form of scam.  His attempt to defame suchmoon is clear as day.  He presented no evidence suchmoon scammed the mystery newbie, yet continued to treat the accusation as if it was a slam dunk, open and shut case.  I believe he did it out of retribution.

None of the reviews suggest that Thule attempted an out-right scam, but are expressing the opinion that Thule is untrustworthy, with which I totally agree.  

[Thule]

Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything.

How's your lawsuit against Vod coming?

You will be able to talk with him about your own case soon.
Will be a nice warning to the other.

So I live in Bulgaria and have done for a few years, pretty sure 20 odd collectors who I have traded with will confirm this.

Best of luck with understanding the language and laws here princess.

I'm once a month in bulgaria meeting some business partners in sofia........i was even several years ago checking bulgaria as my new company location because of the 0% tax promotion at that time.
So no big deal for me and i know the corruption very well.

But lets see when i receive the docs

[TMAN]

So no big deal for me and i know the corruption very well.

Exactly.. I got more money and I live here.. ha ha ha

you do realise fighting against me here is like arguing with your mother - no means no my little flower..

anyway let me know when you are over and if you want ill meet you for a coffee to discuss your situation with me and the other members of DT.

[Thule]

Let's see.......likei said less wasting time on writing more actions.

[suchmoon]

expressing the opinion that Thule is untrustworthy

IMHO trying to dox someone out of spite also deserves a bright red warning. This is not the type of person you'd want to deal with, particularly if e.g. you need to share personal info (shipping address etc) in the deal.

[Quickseller]

expressing the opinion that Thule is untrustworthy

IMHO trying to dox someone out of spite also deserves a bright red warning. This is not the type of person you'd want to deal with, particularly if e.g. you need to share personal info (shipping address etc) in the deal.

I am glad to know that you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be slandered.

[The-One-Above-All]

You're wrong.  In a defamation suit the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the statements made are provably false and resulted in damages by the defendant.  Forum members giving their opinion about another member are protected under the First Amendment, because they are just expressing their opinion.

Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything.
Also proofing that you didn't scammed anyone or even tried to scam anyone wouldn't be difficult where even these DT members confirmed they made the negative feedbacks not for scamming.


Giving an opinon is protected by law and free speach correct.But marking a member as scammer is no free speach anymore expecially not when its being displayed on every of his thread.
Marking has nothing to do with free speach

None of your reviews claim that you scammed, or tried to scam.  They express the opinion of the reviewer, that you are an unhinged internet troll, which (in their opinion) makes you untrustworthy.  None of that is defamatory because it cannot be proven false.

But claiming suchmoon scammed another member is defamatory; because it was an obvious lie intended to damage the reputation of suchmoon.  Do you see the difference?

Well here you said it yourself. No claim of scammed or tried to scam. Does not pass the threshold test for red trust. I do not feel that people who post things like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5138619.0  and all the other "experts" there who cry if you are not polite to them and use their correct username you are a troll, and yet celebrate and raise money for a rap of TMANS sexual deviance "trolling" likely caused by abuse by his parents.

I'm not sure where those experts, burger flippers and double standards fools get to decide on who sounds more insane out of thule or tman.

Can you present some insane posts from thule here because they will likely turn out to be some kind of pissed off expression at getting as he perceives it trust abused and ridiculed.

"an obvious lie" you say? I do not agree. Someone that openly includes observable liars, scammers, probable extortionists and shady escrows on to DT are likely capable of not paying for some mining equipment.  So it looks to me as if it was the actions of an honest member asking if he should alert the entire community.

NOW suchmoon seems rather concerned and pushing for more red.

What I think DT need to be MORE worried about is knowingly DEFENDING observable liars and scammers and probable extortionists and shady escrows and ensuring through their inclusions they get into positions of trust and leaving the board vulnerable and possibly even facilitating scams here.

If it can be argued (which it likely can because the evidence has been presented many times to them personally in multiple threads) these DT members and even ADMIN were made aware of these prior super worrying instances of lying and scamming, extortion etc and they assisted in the red trust removal of those kinds of untrustworthy members, and deliberately included them into positions of trust. If those positions of trust were leveraged and found to be prime contributors to pulling the scam off and lots of people losing money..... then you see how that could look. Refusing to red trust, them, including them in DT,  even insisting their scam tags are REMOVED... looks like you are all complicit in anything they pull in future.

You have all had plenty of observable instances pushed under your noses about several DT members and their untrustworthy bordering on criminal behaviors and it looks to us like you are all colluding with them to give them a clean slate and let them appear super trustworthy 300 green trust no less.

That's how they may all be liable in the end for this corrupt behavior.  The negative feedback we have was left because we tried to warn members about these observable instances as to protect them from future scamming... they are using the red to silence whilstle blowers. Doubly damning for them if the shit hits the fan.

I think they will be held liable. Can't say it will be a shame either. Time to put the garbage out.




 

[suchmoon]

expressing the opinion that Thule is untrustworthy

IMHO trying to dox someone out of spite also deserves a bright red warning. This is not the type of person you'd want to deal with, particularly if e.g. you need to share personal info (shipping address etc) in the deal.

I am glad to know that you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be slandered.

I didn't mention or imply slandering at all but you're a well-known liar so making such ludicrously false statements is par for the course I guess. And you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be doxed so there is a great deal of projection in your statement as well, as usual.

[Thule]

expressing the opinion that Thule is untrustworthy

IMHO trying to dox someone out of spite also deserves a bright red warning. This is not the type of person you'd want to deal with, particularly if e.g. you need to share personal info (shipping address etc) in the deal.

I am glad to know that you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be slandered.

I didn't mention or imply slandering at all but you're a well-known liar so making such ludicrously false statements is par for the course I guess. And you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be doxed so there is a great deal of projection in your statement as well, as usual.

The only manipulator and liar here is you.
Who did i doxed ?

Just for you the meaning of doxed

search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual)

Which information have i published ?
Asking for somebodies identity to make him accountable is not doxing if i don't publish his details publicly.

You always were and will be a manipulator.
Let's see how you will explain in court all your bs claims.

[Quickseller]

expressing the opinion that Thule is untrustworthy

IMHO trying to dox someone out of spite also deserves a bright red warning. This is not the type of person you'd want to deal with, particularly if e.g. you need to share personal info (shipping address etc) in the deal.

I am glad to know that you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be slandered.

I didn't mention or imply slandering at all but you're a well-known liar so making such ludicrously false statements is par for the course I guess. And you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be doxed so there is a great deal of projection in your statement as well, as usual.

You are implying someone should have a “bright red warning” if they do something you don’t like, which is implying they should have negative trust as you have a “bright red warning” when you receive negative trust. Receiving negative trust means that the person is calling you a scammer. Doing something you don’t like doesn’t make you a scammer and as such you are advocating for anyone who does something you don’t like to be slandered.

[TMAN]

@QS do you not feel CH, Thule and the latest raft of loonies are skaming everyone of there time with the multiple shitty threads and posts?

[ChiBitCTy]

Defamation calling someone a scammer with no full proof can soon break some DT members their neck even they gave the negative feedback based on their opinion for some other bs.DT members won't be treated as regular members by law.

You're wrong.  In a defamation suit the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the statements made are provably false and resulted in damages by the defendant.  Forum members giving their opinion about another member are protected under the First Amendment, because they are just expressing their opinion.

Now if you want to talk about defamation; here's a prime example.

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

This can be seen playing out live with the Craig Wright lawsuits. Dr Craig will never see one satoshi from those.

[suchmoon]

You are implying someone should have a “bright red warning” if they do something you don’t like

I'm not. I'm quite clearly stating a specific instance of a dangerous action that I consider untrustworthy, and that's why I think they deserve red, not just because I "don't like" it. Everything else is just voices in your head.

For example I don't like escrow scammers but my dislike is not the reason they deserve red trust. The scamming part is the reason. I know that's some next level shit for you but try to keep up.