Wrongful accusation by Timelord. Did Yahoo put him in DT?

[LoyceV]

Timelord2067 is not in yahoo's trust list either and shouldn't be showing up even on his 2nd level. So there must be some misunderstanding. Let's wait for him to respond.

I haven't updated my Trust Depth list in half a year, but back in April yahoo62278 had Timelord2067 on his Depth 1.
I'll see if I can still update it, chances are the changes to the Trust scores broke it.
Update: it's updated with last week's data.

[hacker1001101001]

No fault of Yahoo62278, of course.

Just starch your eyes TP, this is a total opposite statement of the reality.

It is of course Yahoo62278's fault here for trusting on an untrusted and baseless rating and removing OP based on it. We cannot imagine how many other accounts would have been kicked previously based on such baseless ratings with no solid proves. I have to agree, Timelord came as a pretty hard dick to the OP, but his findings could be right most of the times, not this one of course.

[TECSHARE]

The point is not that. The point is why would I get kicked out of a campaign where I was following every rule? I did come out of the wood but I did not spam. I even earn merit from suchmoon when I come back. So why should everyone else get a chance to earn from that campaign and I kicked out because of one bully?

I dont expect the community to stick out their neck for me. Not many people know me here. But I hope at least the man that is managing a large campaign like this, would be fair. Am I wrong to assume that?

My first post in this thread is expressing my opinion that he's wrong in this case, and I don't feel like expressing my honest opinion is "sticking my neck out."  It's just my opinion, like Timelord's review is his own.

But I think you're missing the point of the forum.  By your own admission you only came here to earn a few sats, rather than to be a participant in the community and discussion of bitcoin.  It's my opinion that alone makes you a spammer, regardless how many merit you earn and from whom.

I thought the philosophies of a libertarian forum like this would be more in line with famous jurist William Blackstone's ratio:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

I like that, and although I don't describe myself as a libertarian I tend to agree with the sentiment.  But the trust system isn't a court of law.  No one is going to jail because Timelord leaves a negative review on his trust wall.  We are all adults, and we are all entitled to take every review any way we choose.  

I have my reasons for valuing Timelords efforts.  I run a business here that leaves me very vulnerable to those who abuse alt accounts.  So, yeah I find "his efforts are a tremendous contribution."  I may have my selfish reasons, but I also expressed that "I may not always agree with his findings."  If you're going to quote me, please be thorough, not selective.

So exactly why is it you running a business here and making your trust system choices on your own "selfish reasons" is A-OK, but because a regular contributing member wants to earn a few Satoshis on a signature campaign, that is just despicable? Fuck everyone else, you got yours right? Legitimate users put a lot of time, monetary risk, and effort into building a reputation here. If that is not treated seriously then all you are going to get is a deluge of bought accounts because anyone who dares to do it right is perpetually incentivized not to. Or they simply just leave because their investment can be burned at the drop of a hat by control freaks like Timelord that more than anything just love to have people begging them to have their property restored, most often as users without the knowledge or community connections to resist in any way.

[hilariousetc]

I do not have Timelord in my trust list. Just went through it to make sure, but that doesn't mean I don't trust some of his ratings. He's right more often then wrong when linking accounts. Does he have a piss poor attitude? Of course, he does. That still doesn't make him wrong in most cases.

He might have some good investigations under his belt but his ratings are kinda invalidated when he'll throw out negatives based on little more than some ludicrous coincidences he thinks he sees.

I have Timelord on ignore and distrust for a long time now, and even so I can recall at least 10 cases when he has shown the judgement skills of a toddler.

Only ten? I haven't paid much attention to his ratings for a long time but he used to tag numerous people as alts because they were registered in the same year as some other accounts or he's found some other random pattern in their accounts that only he can see. If he left those alone and only left negative after thorough investigations with evidence more than someone was registered in same huge time frame he sets himself then I wouldn't have a problem with him other than his petty attitude.

And astoundingly enough, you have experienced and "well trusted" members of this community who still come up with gems such as "his efforts are a tremendous contribution to the health of the community", at the expense of inflicting completely unfair injuries against valuable and totally innocent members of the forum

They are probably just looking at the decent investigations he has done and overlooking all the bad ones.

It is 100% irrational stuff like this that makes a lot of people suspect there is foul play going on in how the trust system is handled in this forum.

I wouldn't go that far. I think this is a case of where exclusions work. I excluded him a long time ago because half his feedback's were wildly inaccurate as have several others.

Perfect example of why timelord shouldn't be on DT and nobody should pay attention to his ratings.

Shit, I didn't even realize he was on DT.  Sometimes Timelord2067 finds solid, obscure connections but sometimes there's a definite air of paranoia and/or straw-grasping going on in his head.  I tend to respect him but it would probably be best if he wasn't on DT given some of his questionable feedback.  

I'm not sure he was on DT but maybe someone yahoo trusted put him on their trustlist. I wouldn't have an issue with timelord being on DT if he didn't leave all the other grossly inaccurate ratings that unfortunately they spoil the lot.

[DireWolfM14]

So exactly why is it you running a business here and making your trust system choices on your own "selfish reasons" is A-OK,

There is no connection between my "trust system choices" and running my business.  Provide evidence to the contrary if you want to make that claim.

but because a regular contributing member wants to earn a few Satoshis on a signature campaign, that is just despicable?

By his own admission he isn't a "regular contributing member" is he?

Legitimate users put a lot of time, monetary risk, and effort into building a reputation here.

Are we still talking about the OP, or are we talking about your insatiable desire to be on DT1?

If that is not treated seriously then all you are going to get is a deluge of bought accounts because anyone who dares to do it right is perpetually incentivized not to. Or they simply just leave because their investment can be burned at the drop of a hat by control freaks like Timelord that more than anything just love to have people begging them to have their property restored, most often as users without the knowledge or community connections to resist in any way.

Grasping at straws to make a connection, and sounding like a "broken record" (your words, not mine) while you're at it, but I'll entertain a response none the less.

Timelord2067 isn't burning any accounts.  He's 9 votes down in the hole from reaching DT2.  His reviews aren't ruining anyone's account any more than the reviews left by game-protect.  If a campaign manager chose to not allow members into his campaign due to the reviews left by game-protect, who are we to argue?  It's his campaign to run anyway he chooses.  There's no obligation for any campaign manger to allow anyone into their campaign, no matter how much you may dislike the decision.

But, that's not what this is really about, we both know it.  So please, next time you want to attack me for my vote to cast you off DT1 just start a fresh topic about that subject.  Trying to constantly tie it into other topics is a thinly veiled strategy of yours and we're both likely to have our replies removed.

[Timelord2067]

...

hilariousandco is just Butt Hurt ^TM that I posted on his Trust feedback wall his two alts in the Known alts thread (ironically it was the user ColderThanIce that made the connection, ). I'm disappointed @theymos never took action when hilariousandcowas caught out making alterations to my signature not long after that.

Only ten? I haven't paid much attention to his ratings for a long time but he used to tag numerous people as alts because they were registered in the same year as some other accounts or he's found some other random pattern in their accounts that only he can see. If he left those alone and only left negative after thorough investigations with evidence more than someone was registered in same huge time frame he sets himself then I wouldn't have a problem with him other than his petty attitude.

I've never said "same year" - I've said same day, or in a eg seventy-two hour window, but not because of the same "year" - It shows you haven't read my posts, just clicked reply and flame.


I think it was @iasenko who started a thread investigating alts using the same misspelled words, or, turn of phrase - some of you good people using mock indignation now are active participants in that thread, so does that make you hypocrites?

...

The last time I checked quoting PM's without permission was a no-no in this forum.


I PM'ed yahoo62278 and the reply (which I won't quote as it's a PM) was along the line of he is flooded with PM's from people and therefore does not have the time to address one person's issues.

IsTimelord2067onDTyet.tk

Your last weekly update has ten UID's on my list, so unless the last one is banned, then it should say "yes" (unless I'm missing something?)


Thanks to those who've spoken positively for me, it's appreciated.

Other than that TL;DR

[legendster]

Other than Direwolf, no one has spoken positively about you @TimeLord.

Right now I can see your rating on minime's profile so you must be on the list of someone I trust. Seeing how solid and clear your judgment is in this case, you don't deserve to be on my default list.

See, I don't matter in this forum, cuz not many people have me on their trust list. But even if there is one guy that is trusting me, I can't let them be influenced by your flawed logic.

Sure, you are good for the forum, in a limited way, but you do more harm than damage. After going through this thread and reading everything thoroughly, I am now considering including you in my Lepers thread.

I hope you fix this issue with OP. And I hope to see you work for the betterment of this forum and not turn it into a cesspool of egomaniacs.

[LoyceV]

Your last weekly update has ten UID's on my list, so unless the last one is banned, then it should say "yes" (unless I'm missing something?)

See here.

Right now I can see your rating on minime's profile so you must be on the list of someone I trust.

My update is still not finished yet, but I can already see you have Timelord2067 on your Depth 1 (the same as yahoo62278 has).
I've said it before: a custom Trust list has large recursive implications, and I'm sure most users have no idea who's on their Depth 1, let alone their Depth 2!

[legendster]

Your last weekly update has ten UID's on my list, so unless the last one is banned, then it should say "yes" (unless I'm missing something?)

See here.

Right now I can see your rating on minime's profile so you must be on the list of someone I trust.

My update is still not finished yet, but I can already see you have Timelord2067 on your Depth 1 (the same as yahoo62278 has).
I've said it before: a custom Trust list has large recursive implications, and I'm sure most users have no idea who's on their Depth 1, let alone their Depth 2!

I see him on depth 1 but I don't know which of my trusted user is actually trusting this guy. If dmrdmr could come up with a visual representation of user specific trust list (web of trust?) then it would be so much easier to see. Or maybe you can do it @LoyceV

In any case, I was wondering if you could make one of these for me : IsTimelord2067onDTyet.tk - lol I know not many people have taken the pain to include me in their TL so it would be useless and makes no sense to create one.

[hilariousetc]

...

hilariousandco is just Butt Hurt ^TM that I posted on his Trust feedback wall his two alts in the Known alts thread (ironically it was the user ColderThanIce that made the connection, ).

One: Why have you trademarked Butt Hurt? Two: Why would I be butthurt© over you posting on my trust wall that? It was pretty moronic and redundant though when I've already publicly posted about them in the feedback section and everyone knows they're my accounts. Three: There was no "connection" to be made.

I'm disappointed @theymos never took action when hilariousandcowas caught out making alterations to my signature not long after that.

lolwut?

Only ten? I haven't paid much attention to his ratings for a long time but he used to tag numerous people as alts because they were registered in the same year as some other accounts or he's found some other random pattern in their accounts that only he can see. If he left those alone and only left negative after thorough investigations with evidence more than someone was registered in same huge time frame he sets himself then I wouldn't have a problem with him other than his petty attitude.

I've never said "same year" - I've said same day, or in a eg seventy-two hour window, but not because of the same "year" - It shows you haven't read my posts, just clicked reply and flame.

I used to read them all the time. You've made plenty of wild unbacked accusations in the past and used ludicrously large time frames as some sort of evidence, far larger than 24-72 hours as you claim.

[The-One-Above-All]

...

hilariousandco is just Butt Hurt ^TM that I posted on his Trust feedback wall his two alts in the Known alts thread (ironically it was the user ColderThanIce that made the connection, ). I'm disappointed @theymos never took action when hilariousandcowas caught out making alterations to my signature not long after that.

Only ten? I haven't paid much attention to his ratings for a long time but he used to tag numerous people as alts because they were registered in the same year as some other accounts or he's found some other random pattern in their accounts that only he can see. If he left those alone and only left negative after thorough investigations with evidence more than someone was registered in same huge time frame he sets himself then I wouldn't have a problem with him other than his petty attitude.

I've never said "same year" - I've said same day, or in a eg seventy-two hour window, but not because of the same "year" - It shows you haven't read my posts, just clicked reply and flame.


I think it was @iasenko who started a thread investigating alts using the same misspelled words, or, turn of phrase - some of you good people using mock indignation now are active participants in that thread, so does that make you hypocrites?

...

The last time I checked quoting PM's without permission was a no-no in this forum.


I PM'ed yahoo62278 and the reply (which I won't quote as it's a PM) was along the line of he is flooded with PM's from people and therefore does not have the time to address one person's issues.

IsTimelord2067onDTyet.tk

Your last weekly update has ten UID's on my list, so unless the last one is banned, then it should say "yes" (unless I'm missing something?)


Thanks to those who've spoken positively for me, it's appreciated.

Other than that TL;DR

Interesting post. What do you mean caught making changes to your signature? How could he make changes to YOUR signature?

This is why timelord is better than most DT members. The guy is simply a wrecking machine regardless of who you are. Totally an asshole but an asshole to everyone equally. This is a step up from the colluding scum on dt currently. I say get him on there although one of our friends will likely not be so keen. Still got to stir things up somehow.

Seems some others are starting to wake up now. YES MORONS this is an issue with yahoo he and ALL campaign managers NEED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE for their own actions. If they kick you off for being financially high risk (not trustworthy) then they better be able to back that up, and better have NO OTHER people on there that are AS HIGH OR HIGHER RISK or else they are corrupt and need removing.

[TECSHARE]

So exactly why is it you running a business here and making your trust system choices on your own "selfish reasons" is A-OK,

There is no connection between my "trust system choices" and running my business.  Provide evidence to the contrary if you want to make that claim.

but because a regular contributing member wants to earn a few Satoshis on a signature campaign, that is just despicable?

By his own admission he isn't a "regular contributing member" is he?

Legitimate users put a lot of time, monetary risk, and effort into building a reputation here.

Are we still talking about the OP, or are we talking about your insatiable desire to be on DT1?

If that is not treated seriously then all you are going to get is a deluge of bought accounts because anyone who dares to do it right is perpetually incentivized not to. Or they simply just leave because their investment can be burned at the drop of a hat by control freaks like Timelord that more than anything just love to have people begging them to have their property restored, most often as users without the knowledge or community connections to resist in any way.

Grasping at straws to make a connection, and sounding like a "broken record" (your words, not mine) while you're at it, but I'll entertain a response none the less.

Timelord2067 isn't burning any accounts.  He's 9 votes down in the hole from reaching DT2.  His reviews aren't ruining anyone's account any more than the reviews left by game-protect.  If a campaign manager chose to not allow members into his campaign due to the reviews left by game-protect, who are we to argue?  It's his campaign to run anyway he chooses.  There's no obligation for any campaign manger to allow anyone into their campaign, no matter how much you may dislike the decision.

But, that's not what this is really about, we both know it.  So please, next time you want to attack me for my vote to cast you off DT1 just start a fresh topic about that subject.  Trying to constantly tie it into other topics is a thinly veiled strategy of yours and we're both likely to have our replies removed.

I am only making connections you yourself made with your own words.

I have my reasons for valuing Timelords efforts.  I run a business here that leaves me very vulnerable to those who abuse alt accounts.  So, yeah I find "his efforts are a tremendous contribution."  I may have my selfish reasons, but I also expressed that "I may not always agree with his findings."  If you're going to quote me, please be thorough, not selective.

Did I selectively edit anything out? It looks to me like you are saying that you value Timelord's ratings because it personally serves you economically regardless of the negative impact his irresponsible shotgun approach has on others.

No, not by his admission, by your opinion. He returned to earn in a signature campaign by his own words. Just because you unilaterally declare that as making him worthless doesn't make it so. Not everyone can feed off of the trust system parasitically like you can loan sharking. If he was not contributing to the forum HE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE HERE. He would be removed from the campaign for shitposting and or banned. Just because you deem his presence as worthless from your pedestal of righteousness and judgement doesn't make it so. You are both here to earn. You are not better than him.

I am talking about the OP, and the long standing culture of having no regard for the time, effort, and cost people expend building their reputations and defending them from people such as yourself preaching from a self proclaimed position of superiority justifying the destruction of this community for self serving purposes. There is a whole protection racket evolved around this forum's trust system. It would be a shame if something were to happen to your hard earned reputation for not doing what we tell you... This is a pattern that repeats over and over and over again. You think you are better than these people and you have a right to discard their grievances, because it serves you more to do so than to hear them, not because it serves the cohesiveness of the overall community.

Timelord is burning people's reputations, he is directly removing the ability to earn from people based on little to no evidence with frivolous accusations. This thread is direct evidence of the damage he is causing. I am not even criticizing Yahoos choice, I am criticizing Timelords actions, so your argument about him running the campaign anyway he likes is a non-sequitur. It is clear you are well on your way to seeing yourself as a special boy with special privileges and special rules. Just make sure you toe the line, because you know what happens to people who have their own opinions around here don't you? Yeah you do special boy.

[suchmoon]

Timelord is burning people's reputations, he is directly removing the ability to earn from people based on little to no evidence with frivolous accusations.

Timelord2067 is not in DT. He's not directly removing anything, yahoo62278 did that, and you should be appealing to him, if you insist on telling people on this forum how to run their business.

[suchmoon]

~

Excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that you were simply lying when you said this: "he is directly removing the ability to earn from people". Timelord2067 has no such powers.

[TECSHARE]

~

Excuse me for giving you the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that you were simply lying when you said this: "he is directly removing the ability to earn from people". Timelord2067 has no such powers.

I am a liar for making a point you disagree with am I? It would be a shame if I didn't agree with you and you had to damage my reputation now wouldn't it?

[marlboroza]

Only ten? I haven't paid much attention to his ratings for a long time but he used to tag numerous people as alts because they were registered in the same year as some other accounts or he's found some other random pattern in their accounts that only he can see.

Yeah, lol, strange patterns and automatically everyone is alt account. You probably haven't read this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181603.0 it seems that he tried to say that I am lauda because we speak the same language and I am connected with some other accounts because I removed him from my trust list the same week someone else has removed him, probably because his actions caused that some users removed him the same week - but he doesn't see it like that, he automatically see some patterns.

No one should blindly trust his feedback without double and/or triple checking them, I don't mind if he starts thread with some random garbage and patterns but placing negative trust on peoples trust pages because someone posted the same word as someone else is another thing.

[DireWolfM14]

Did I selectively edit anything out?

Only form your reasoning.

It looks to me like you are saying that you value Timelord's ratings because it personally serves you economically regardless of the negative impact his irresponsible shotgun approach has on others.

Valuing his efforts and condoning his behavior aren't the same thing, which I clearly (and politely) expressed.  I don't suspect you have any issues with reading comprehension, so I think you know that.  But that doesn't serve your argument, does it?

The rest of your argument is just more postulating, playing on semantics, and throwing insults, so yeah, whatever.  You've been trying to get my goat for several weeks now, I'm not gonna let you have it.

No one should blindly trust his feedback without double and/or triple checking them

I couldn't agree more with this statement, but realistically the same could (or should) be said for most of the members of this forum.  We're all human, and we're all subject to emotional outbursts.  Some, more than others seem to have taken up the habit of turning their emotional outbursts into negative reviews.

I also agree that the accusation about you and Lauda was just silly and petty.

[The-One-Above-All]

Only ten? I haven't paid much attention to his ratings for a long time but he used to tag numerous people as alts because they were registered in the same year as some other accounts or he's found some other random pattern in their accounts that only he can see.

Yeah, lol, strange patterns and automatically everyone is alt account. You probably haven't read this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181603.0 it seems that he tried to say that I am lauda because we speak the same language and I am connected with some other accounts because I removed him from my trust list the same week someone else has removed him, probably because his actions caused that some users removed him the same week - but he doesn't see it like that, he automatically see some patterns.

No one should blindly trust his feedback without double and/or triple checking them, I don't mind if he starts thread with some random garbage and patterns but placing negative trust on peoples trust pages because someone posted the same word as someone else is another thing.

But at the same time you have no problem at all with your friends giving negative trust for whistle blowing, or we didn't notice you objecting to SS when he said you can correctly give negative trust for liking lemons, OR INDEED you YOURSELF gave out or tried to give out red trust because you mixed 2 things a person did say in with a 3rd thing in scare quotes and they said you were lying because they never said the 3rd thing. Even many DT said you should remove it and you did in the end. Those you believe are all okay??

I think there is a good chance that you are lauda also, it is not Just because you are euro trash croatians or whatever you are, look at your history together... prior dt includes both ways, always defending each other, merits between you??, were you not previously a fortune jack spammer now gone to chipmixer? I wonder what else could be dug up. Are you not Zorrobeck also? because qs says you are.
Plenty of reason to believe you COULD be lauda really.

Anyway far more reason to have a neg than mentioning lemons, getting tricked with scare quotes or whistle blowing.


Timelord though has provided a service here if anything. He has highlighted the NEED for campaign managers to do some fucking work and investigate for themselves who is financially high risk or NOT and also be able accountable and responsible in FULL for an incorrect decision.  What is even the point of them?? get some bot if you just need x merits in the last x period of time and x trust. That would be fairer.

It matters not if the accusation is right or wrong really - people only care about their shitty sig btc dust. If you had 200 negatives from DT and you still got to chipmixer 99% of people would not care less.

Actually this entire matter is just what we needed for our next meta debate. Yahoo is fully responsible and is being PAID TO BE fully responsible for his decisions.

Anyway the question is answered is it not? he is not currently on DT but he should be. He may have some strange views but he takes those views equally and fairly with ALL MEMBERS.

Campaign managers currently throw accountability over to DT, DT throw accountability to each other ( never find fault with each other) and theymos throws accountability to merit sources when you boil it right down and they are mostly DT. There is NO POINT of accountability AT ALL. LOL  Hence why since there is money on the table the entire thing is a shit show.

Before becoming a critic of timelord I suggest you start look at the proven scammers who abuse the trust system far more who happen to be your PALS or perhaps are even you yourself. Get a mirror.


The reader should certainly ignore direposter he will say or do anything to stay in the merit circle spamming his chipmixer or dodgy loan shark rates business to punish the very poorest here with super high interest charges makes the banking system look like santa.

[yahoo62278]

Timelord though has provided a service here if anything. He has highlighted the NEED for campaign managers to do some fucking work and investigate for themselves who is financially high risk or NOT and also be able accountable and responsible in FULL for an incorrect decision.  What is even the point of them?? get some bot if you just need x merits in the last x period of time and x trust. That would be fairer.

Let's start with this, Noone asked Timelord or anyone else to investigate anything to my knowledge. These guys do it to feel important, do something useful with their time, gain trust in the community, or whatever other reason they may have. Regardless of their reasons, they do the investigating for themselves. The only users that actually gain reputation are the ones who are right more often then not. They all have made a mistake, i'm sure, and have left a bad or wrong feedback.

Your argument could also work against forum staff and users that report posts. Noone is asked to report posts, and it could be construed as the moderators JOB to do the work that others are doing for them. Yet users still make thousands of reports per week essentially making it where moderators only have to handle reports.

Basically quite a few users of the forum that include regular users, staff, and DT work together and try to make the forum a better place. Lot's of them do it for no money at all. Lot's of them do it for themselves, not for recognition. Users such as yourself come along and start posting crap due to you feel you were slighted in some way and that's not normally the case. Users choose who they want to be on this forum. If you act shady, you normally end up caught.

It matters not if the accusation is right or wrong really - people only care about their shitty sig btc dust. If you had 200 negatives from DT and you still got to chipmixer 99% of people would not care less.

Actually this entire matter is just what we needed for our next meta debate. Yahoo is fully responsible and is being PAID TO BE fully responsible for his decisions.

Anyway the question is answered is it not? he is not currently on DT but he should be. He may have some strange views but he takes those views equally and fairly with ALL MEMBERS.

I have already answered my stance on why the user in question was tagged. I was removing nearly anyone who had a neg feedback at the time and gave timelord the benefit of doubt on his tag. Even though the user in question was likely removed for what you would deem, not a good reason, your opinion doesn't really matter.

I can remove a user for liking dogecoin more then bitcoin, or for posting the word no too often, or any other reason I want honestly. If  I was doing it for financial gain, then you would have a reason to attack me, but I actually lose money with each person I remove from the campaign. I actually look out for the forum vs looking out for my wallet.

Campaign managers have the final say as to whom is or isn't allowed in a campaign. The forum, staff, DT users, or noone else minus the company have any say in anything. The only time staff or the forum is going to step in is if they're killing the campaign, otherwise they do their thing and go on with life.

I am paid to be responsible for the campaign, that is correct, and I will likely make a mistake here and there. Shit happens, but you try to use any little error against everyone and act like its a huge conspiracy against you or other users who were removed from campaigns. The fact is your opinion DOES NOT MATTER, managers and companies opinions when a campaign is started are the only opinions that matter. It's not a Democracy where everyone gets a vote, it's a dictatorship period. I think for the most part, most of us try to do a good job, but noone is entitled to be allowed in a campaign. Not you, not theymos, not me, not anyone. That decision is made by the manager and the company alone. When a manger is hired they are basically given total rights to everything to do with the campaign.

You sure do make reading the forum fun from time to time. It's amazing how silly you are at times. You should take a break from trying to prove false conspiracies and go have a drink or 10. Relax a bit and enjoy life.

I will not respond in this thread again guys. What's done is done and cannot be changed.

[The-One-Above-All]

@yahoo

You as per usual are completely WRONG.  Let me detail why. But it seems you already RAN AWAY. Let's hope you man up and return.


1. We were never on any campaign to get booted from.  So that was false.

2. Every member matters, any single member (if they can prove that you are employing double standards) can ruin your rep as campaign manager and so they should there is no place for double standards, that is corruption and dangerous for all members when dealing with new projects. Your position is VERY precarious. The project is NOT going to want lots of negative threads made about them in the title all over google. If there is clear evidence you are corrupt then that (especially when dealing with the initial distribution of tokens) means the project is wide open to manipulation and scamming. If they fail to pull you inline then the project can and should be branded a probable scam.

There is NO way to deny this. If like you say you wanted to turn some people away on the basis you have issue with the fact they like doge more than btc then that is a clear and flagrant example of a random excuse that could easily be used as a tool to selectively bring on insiders only  for that token to ensure they get ALL of the initial distribution and therefore can now manipulate that project on the exchanges and defraud innocent investors.

This is why especially regarding the initial distribution of tokens via bounties or whatever then you MUST have a CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT SET OF RULES AND CRITERIA that is applied to each member equally or it is certainly a dubious and dangerous project. Warnings about such project should certainly be raised until there is drastic effect.

3. The point you make about mods is OUR OWN POINT. The mods see the report, they are SUPPOSED to investigate it and the ACCOUNTABILITY is with THEM.  The MODS have to be accountable for the delete NOT THE REPORTER. The mod does not say oh I don't know why I deleted it you have to ask suchmoon why he reported it, I just delete whatever fatty sends us.  If you get him to say it was okay now I will put the post back. It just does not work like that.

Can you not even see the distinction??

You are paid to ensure the project is advertised by people that meet the thresholds for post quality and also weed out those that are financially high risk (or scammers). It is YOUR JOB not DT scumbags job to ensure this. The buck stops with YOU.  You can not say ... oh I refused them because timelord told me he was bad I didn't bother to investigate so I just refused him anyway then said he will need to get timelord to revise it before i will take you back.  If this job is too much for you then don't do it.

4. This is a point I have long since been pushing and it is undeniable. If you are not going to set a transparent threshold for post quality and you are NOT going to be able to justify in a way that holds up to objective scrutiny and not accept on a first come first served basis for those that pass those two requirements. Then you are left with a position that is vastly above your capability.  The argument NOT to do it that way is that they want the VERY BEST posters only and first come first served (passing the tests I mentioned) will not result in the VERY BEST POSTERS.... LOL well to discern the very best posters you would need the VERY SMARTEST PEOPLE here to discern the value and lack of value in those posts. That is not you.

5. You are very wrong that the average member can not make a stand and cause a corrupt campaign manager A LOT of trouble and any project that uses them or has used them in the past, you are also wrong that an average member can not take a stand and bring a project a lot of issue for allowing their campaign manager to act in an undeniably corrupt way. Their motivation for allowing this opens up lots of worry things for them and their investors.

If you want a demonstration of how this would work then perhaps someone will apply for one of your campaigns. The onus will be on you if they are refused, to present a case that stands up to scrutiny that

a/ the value of their posts is below the value of all those others you have accepted.
b/ that they are more of a financially high risk individual than others you have accepted.

If you fail and you either

a/ offer no explanation
b/ offer no explanation that stands up to scrutiny

Then a thread along the lines of..

IS X PROJECT KNOWINGLY EMPLOYING A CORRUPT CAMPAIGN MANAGER?? IS THE PROJECT X CORRUPT??- within the thread could be placed the evidence IE the people in your campaign that have observable instances of wrong doing, and among other things you failure to explain you refusal of entry or the total and utter crushing of your specious and bogus explanation. This can be kept updated with many new details of the types of people you regularly seem to select, their observable instances of wrong doing, your boasting that you are a dictator and that you get to do what you want, can discriminate against applicants on any basis you dream up... etc etc etc. I mean there will be no lack of updates that will clearly demonstrate all applicants are NOT BEING TREATED EQUALLY and there is corruption within the selection process and the questions that opens. ETC ETC ETC - SOON X PROJECT is on google for a big possible corruption thread

Then if the you nor the project comes to answer for that thread. You can contact the project, visit their threads and ask, why they are not acting in light of the FACT the campaign manager seems to be discriminating against certain members with no valid explanation that holds water.  Then some friends could join in and say they are very interested in why this is and WHY THERE IS NO TRANSPARENT SET OF RULES THAT IS APPLIED EVENLY TO ALL MEMBERS. They can also find other projects where perhaps the same thing is happening and save them too. Look up in the past a few people who have been annoyed in the past to get the boot on bogus grounds and bring them on with it too.

If the project does not take action then a thread with more of a statement about their knowingly employing corrupt campaign managers and therefore they are undeniably corrupt themselves with all the information and updates over and over again. More friends and disgruntled people that have been turned away.

Perhaps once this starts to happen to a lot of your projects you will find you soon have a lot less projects to manage?  I mean projects employ project managers to advertise not doom them before they start right?


Feel free yahoo to pull this thread apart anywhere you can. You will find people with zero to lose ( already being discriminated against by corrupt campaign managers) when matched against the squeaky clean rep projects want keep to get people involved is a ..................as I said very precarious position to be in. To say the ordinary member DOES NOT MATTER could not be further from the truth. It is just nobody with vast experience of hounding corrupt projects has been bothered to take action as yet.

Of course ALL OF THE ABOVE is only valid IF you are corrupt and are not applying your standards equally to all members. If you are then you will be able to explain ANY refusals you make with a cast iron case won't you??

We have vast experience with tackling corrupt projects as you may not know.  If  projects are knowingly employing corrupt campaign managers they are by default corrupt themselves.

Then again, why NOT just do your best to select people that meet a certain post quality and those you can not demonstrate are financially high risk YOURSELF.  Then, relying on the gamed and abused metrics of your pals will not get you in hot water and see and end to your campaign managing career in the near future??

Is it really too much to ask for you to employ a fair set of standards that you understand yourself and can clearly demonstrate you always adhere to?

We don't really care too much about joining your campaigns but anyone who feels they are 100% being unfairly discriminated against can follow the guide above and contact us for help at any time.

Transparent rules that ensure all members are treated equally..... and nothing fucking less will do.

It seems you and hhampuz have something to hide since both seem to be saying if we want to discriminate on bogus grounds we can and will. Is that what you are saying yahoo?  think carefully because if you can not explain your grounds of refusal in a way that stands up to scrutiny  THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.  If you can not explain your reason then your reasons are bogus. = corruption.