Bill gator - Account Buyer

[Lauda]

Since theymos introduced a flawed flag system, this has to be done. Original thread is locked and can't be directly quoted from.

Original thread/proof is found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145840.
Flag link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=47.


Local rule; the following users are not allowed to post: Quickseller, TECSHARE, OgNasty, bill gator, cryptohunter and anyone else with more negative ratings than other ratings (people without ratings excl. newly created shill accounts are welcome). This does NOT include the accused user.
Updated local rule (7PM forum time), the "accused user" is no affected obviously even when this isn't an accusation thread.

[1714777035]

1714777035

[1714777035]

1714777035

[Steamtyme]

I opposed this. I believe that the negatives left are more than enough for this case, based on how people feel about the account. He did buy his account but I don't remember reading anything about him being an account seller. I'm also not entirely sure what happened in regards to timelines and when account selling became a community no-no, it seemed to have been blurred when this happened.  When I say blurred, what I previously thought were community timelines for this, appeared to be wrong.

[Lauda]

He did buy his account but I don't remember reading anything about him being an account seller.

Wrong title then and I oppose your opposition obviously.

[Timelord2067]

Agree:

I was PMed by Bill who admitted owning other UID's but strenuously denied ownership of UID's that had been on linked to him in previous threads.

And he got vocal shall we say...

[Lauda]

Agree:

I was PMed by Bill who admitted owning other UID's but strenuously denied ownership of UID's that had been on linked to him in previous threads.

And he got vocal shall we say...

Marlboroza and some other dude before that exposed his lies too. He had the option to come much clean earlier, but he decided not to and continue lying. You are just adding more fuel to the fire.

[TECSHARE]

Since theymos introduced a flawed flag system, this has to be done. Original thread is locked and can't be directly quoted from.

Original thread/proof is found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5145840.
Flag link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=47.


Local rule; the following users are not allowed to post: Quickseller, TECHSHARE, OgNasty, bill gator, cryptohunter and anyone else with more negative ratings than other ratings (people without ratings excl. newly created shill accounts are welcome).

I have already been over this before. Theymos is not going to enforce local rules where you prohibit people from defending the accused in these threads. Good luck trying though. BTW, who is TECHSHARE?

[Quickseller]

I don’t think he is a scammer. I do think you are calling him a scammer because he disagreed with you in a dispute.

He purchased his account years ago and conducted himself professionally for that entire time. To my knowledge he has been entrusted with others money and there haven’t been any complaints about him scamming by his trading partners nor anyone else.

[redsn0w]

Local rule; the following users are not allowed to post: Quickseller, TECSHARE, OgNasty, bill gator, cryptohunter and anyone else with more negative ratings than other ratings (people without ratings excl. newly created shill accounts are welcome).

Maybe it's a stupid question but... why didn't you create a self-moderated thread?

[Lauda]

Maybe it's a stupid question but... why didn't you create a self-moderated thread?

Can't link a flag to a locked, nor self-moderated thread. As previously stated, the system is severely broken.

[ChemicalSpillage]

Maybe it's a stupid question but... why didn't you create a self-moderated thread?

Self-moderated threads also mean that observers cannot tell whether the deleted posts come from any particular source.

This increases transparency, whether you agree with it or not.

Can't link a flag to a locked, nor self-moderated thread. As previously stated, the system is severely broken.

I suppose the idea is to incur more free discussion of the flag. In the instance where a flag is questionable, users will have the ability to point out the flaws in the argument. However, this is assuming that proper discourse follows from it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

He did buy his account but I don't remember reading anything about him being an account seller.

Wrong title then and I oppose your opposition obviously.

Lauda, you know I respect you but you'll have to oppose my opposition to bill gator's flag as well.  I've done business with him and never felt I was at risk of losing money.  He's not a scammer, even if he bought his account.  He's even a nice guy, for chrissakes.  He doesn't deserve that flag.  Many, many other members do, but not bill gator. 

Kisses, sweet cat.

[Lauda]

Lauda, you know I respect you but you'll have to oppose my opposition to bill gator's flag as well.  I've done business with him and never felt I was at risk of losing money.  He's not a scammer, even if he bought his account.  He's even a nice guy, for chrissakes.  He doesn't deserve that flag.  Many, many other members do, but not bill gator.  

Kisses, sweet cat.

Answered already and handled.

I oppose your opposition obviously.

I suppose the idea is to incur more free discussion of the flag.

It's not an accusation thread, so the flag needs no discussing. You either support it or you don't. Dodgy individuals like gator can lock original threads (which they started) in order to prevent getting flagged on it directly (hence the need for such threads).

[TECSHARE]

It's not an accusation thread, so the flag needs no discussing. You either support it or you don't. Dodgy individuals like gator can lock original threads (which they started) in order to prevent getting flagged on it directly (hence the need for such threads).

The entire purpose of requiring a flag thread is to allow open discussion of the circumstances and whether they justify a flag.

[otrkid1970]

Opposed. Looking through his transactions on the forum shows he is trustworthy. Just because you buy an account it doesn't make you a thief or untrustworthy, In this case at least.

[Lauda]

Opposed. Looking through his transactions on the forum shows he is trustworthy. Just because you buy an account it doesn't make you a thief or untrustworthy, In this case at least.

Excluded. I don't trust flawed judgement.

[otrkid1970]

Opposed. Looking through his transactions on the forum shows he is trustworthy. Just because you buy an account it doesn't make you a thief or untrustworthy, In this case at least.

Excluded. I don't trust flawed judgement.

I have flawed judgement?  What about you? the only thing he did was buy an account.

[El duderino_]

Obvious flag or untrusted persons I have supported, then for Bill I have to read the system very good cause I don't feel like tagging him, I have bought spots from him, he suggested to help me with something and I have not seen dumb sh*t from him in collectibles, also his bought account is from before I even entered the forum, so I only know him since....

Then again I really discourage people to buy account cause every person has to write his own story/being on the forum to been taken seriously and real trustworthy...

But in my opinion is Bill not the worst on the forum, I didn't like him to expose the PM of LFC cause that was a sh*tty move, but is also been worked out.

Also as Theymos did said 'A person should be granted forgiveness for previous actions' and in this case I do think/believe Bill is
a perfect example to bring in line with that rule.

He did many trades and raffles and stuff at collectibles and his image probably have been under pressure cause of those red NEG's...... I don't think that should be so.

[Lauda]

He did many trades and raffles and stuff at collectibles and his image probably have been under pressure cause of those red NEG's...... I don't think that should be so.

One of the easiest ways[1] to farm trust is to infiltrate the collectibles section with consists of mostly very gullible members (some of which are hoarders, not collectors). He saw the chance, he took it. Not the first, won't be the last. All that trading activity is worthless as it is dishonest.
[1] Next to PayPal-Trades (worthless), loans (worthless). What's next?

I have flawed judgement?  

Yes, now go back to the hole where you crawled out of.

[El duderino_]

He did many trades and raffles and stuff at collectibles and his image probably have been under pressure cause of those red NEG's...... I don't think that should be so.

One of the easiest ways to farm trust is to infiltrate the collectibles section with consists of mostly very gullible members (some of which are hoarders, not collectors). He saw the chance, he took it. Not the first, won't be the last. All that trading activity is worthless as it is dishonest.

When I buy stuff for more as Penny stuff and for more as whole BTC then I think its worth more for many as just some green trust on a rating here... Not?

Again I only have smaller portion of amounts between me and Bill but probably he did some larger trades at collectibles maybe, have to look for that cause not surely knowing.

I do understand where you coming from, so thats why I leave it open at the moment and will look into more, but for the moment i'm leaning more to opposite for my feeling at the moment...

I know for my self I didn't bought so many gold, silver, platinum coins, Kialara's and all that sh*t just for some green letters on my account

Edit: Also what kind of trades are considered not worthless?, I think the persons I have handled with they can say I honour my word and its not really worthless imo

[Thule]

Opposed ...

Account buy happened way before it was being officially discouraged