LFC_bitcoin sending PMs to his friends to oppose flag and bribing DT inclusion

[Side chain]

I'm not talking about "methods". Asking to oppose or support a flag is not a problem, be it a thread or a PM, as long as it doesn't break other rules - like spamming. Refusing to do so is also fine, as we can see in BitcoinGirl's response. You're trying to create new rules that don't make any sense. We do need more DT members and other users to weigh in on disputes like that, not less.

Why make it private while we already have an open thread for asking support or oppose a flag? Why to some selective friends but not to general to everyone?

Can we ask LFC_bitcoin, BitcoinGirl to share the message, BitcoinGirl already talked about receiving PM and LFC_bitcoin admitted of sending PMs to some users.
We are interested to know what was in there that bought oppose to the flag from people who had no contribution in the topic but opposed the flag? We want to be sure that LFC_bitcoin did not tell them anything that create an alert but "take a look at the flag".

Or we just believe LFC_bitcoin and BitcoinGirl that LFC_bitcoin said, "take a look at the flag" like we believe that SP is a highly reputed sportsbet and they will not scam anyone. This will be ironic.

[1714544521]

1714544521

[1714544521]

1714544521

[1714544521]

1714544521

[1714544521]

1714544521

[1714544521]

1714544521

[Pffrt]

Asking to oppose or support a flag is not a problem, be it a thread or a PM, as long as it doesn't break other rules - like spamming.

As you pointed above, there is a single thread of asking for supporting or opposing flags. That something good as a community. Community should be stand together to save the community member. I don't know what exactly LFC sent to some users but if he had sent PM to influence the flag, not as he said to look over, that's something not good. Anyway, I don't think a respected user like LFC could be spamming other inbox and try to influence them to oppose the flag.
Why not we make a request to share the PM by Bitcoingirl.club, @sidechain? I think you should PM him to share the PM if you think LFC was trying to censor anything here.

[Side chain]

Asking to oppose or support a flag is not a problem, be it a thread or a PM, as long as it doesn't break other rules - like spamming.

As you pointed above, there is a single thread of asking for supporting or opposing flags. That something good as a community. Community should be stand together to save the community member. I don't know what exactly LFC sent to some users but if he had sent PM to influence the flag, not as he said to look over, that's something not good. Anyway, I don't think a respected user like LFC could be spamming other inbox and try to influence them to oppose the flag.
Why not we make a request to share the PM by Bitcoingirl.club, @sidechain? I think you should PM him to share the PM if you think LFC was trying to censor anything here.

I do not know if LFC is trying to censor anything in here but moves coming from LFC and the other facts are not very good to believe that he said to take a look. He defiantly said to Oppose the flag and said it to some selective friends and dealt in private.

If LFC and some other reputed members are not giving me any value of my words then why Bitcoingirl.club will? May be some of your reputed members can request both LFC and Bitcoingirl.club to share the exact messages.

[suchmoon]

Can we ask LFC_bitcoin, BitcoinGirl to share the message

You can ask and you can be told to fuck right off... how is it any of your business? If BitcoinGirl considers the message to be offensive or otherwise inappropriate they can complain to admins, or complain publicly or reply to LFC's PM accordingly or whatever they choose to do. Some random troll demanding to see someone's PM to spin it into something incriminating is quite pathetic.

~

Same here. Why? What are you after?

[PrimeNumber7]

The trust and flag system is meant to be political and is political in nature. I would expect PMs to be sent to lobby support or opposition to flags. I think anyone complaining about a person sending PMs trying to lobby support is trying to gin up trouble.

I still have concerns about various conflicts of interest, but that someone send a personal message does nothing to change my stance.

[Side chain]

You can ask and you can be told to fuck right off...

They will easily say it to me but not you and other reputed users.

Some random troll demanding

This is the problem with this community. Ego!
When accounts are established they think community owe them and is correct whatever they say. They become so fat with Ego that when a low rank account wants to justify anything they simply hammer them with their big ass.

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

to see someone's PM to spin it into something incriminating is quite pathetic.

Why would you think so? Because this is a low value account?

[suchmoon]

You can ask and you can be told to fuck right off...

They will easily say it to me but not you and other reputed users.

Some random troll demanding

This is the problem with this community. Ego!
When accounts are established they think community owe them and is correct whatever they say. They become so fat with Ego that when a low rank account wants to justify anything they simply hammer them with their big ass.

So which is it? Reputed or fat with ego? See that's the peril of using a sockpuppet account. You can't have it both ways. Stop pretending like you're being discriminated against if you're unable to stand behind your words and actions.

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

to see someone's PM to spin it into something incriminating is quite pathetic.

Why would you think so? Because this is a low value account?

No, actually that would apply even if LoyceV demanded to publish that PM.

I see no reason for that since there is no aggrieved party in that PM exchange and you have clearly shown that you have a grudge against LFC_Bitcoin.

[Side chain]

So which is it? Reputed or fat with ego?

Nothing here to make conversation. It is when they become reputed they think the community owe them. Don't you see how you, LFC are treating me with your offensive words? I apologize for using big ass words.

I see no reason for that since there is no aggrieved party in that PM exchange and you have clearly shown that you have a grudge against LFC_Bitcoin.

You easily made this justification but don't find anything wrong with LFC_bitcoin even with the evidences. post 1 post 2

Everything is looking fine in your judgement because LFC_bitcoin is a reputed member and this is an account with no history even when references are attached against LFC_bitcoins recent activities. You can simply ask him and BitcoinGirl to be transparent without making this conversation any longer. Buy you won't because you feel an alt account is demanding you. This proves the Ego you built up over the years and perhaps you consider the community owe you.

Fine, I will ask LFC_bitcoin and BitcoinGirl.

I wanted to PM LFC_bitcoin but I get this message
https://prnt.sc/tphhl5

User 'LFC_Bitcoin' has not chosen to allow messages from newbies. You should post in their relevant thread to remind them to enable this setting.

So this was the message

Please look at this post and this post. I hope you will not mind sharing the PM or PMs you sent to BitcoinGirl. A screen-cast will be very appropriate to make it real.

Thank you. God bless you.

I hope LFC_bitcoin address this.

Now my try for BitcoinGirl.

[suchmoon]

I see no reason for that since there is no aggrieved party in that PM exchange and you have clearly shown that you have a grudge against LFC_Bitcoin.

You easily made this justification

It's a statement of fact.

Let me offer you a deal. PM me from your real account. If you're not a shit-stirring troll that I think you are, I'll ask LFC_Bitcoin to publish his PM. He'll probably tell me to fuck off but I'll make an honest good faith effort on your behalf. Let's put your fat ego bullshit to test.

[Side chain]

Let me offer you a deal. PM me from your real account. If you're not a shit-stirring troll that I think you are, I'll ask LFC_Bitcoin to publish his PM. He'll probably tell me to fuck off but I'll make an honest good faith effort on your behalf. Let's put your fat ego bullshit to test.

I do not see how this is connected with asking LFC_bitcoin to publish his PM. Give me a solid reason please.

I already gave my explanation of taking this path of staying anonymous.

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

You are into testing me, how about I give you some clue?
1. I am one of the user who is common in your and LFC_bitcoin's trust list. Test starts now.
2. I am not CH that you are thinking

[suchmoon]

Let me offer you a deal. PM me from your real account. If you're not a shit-stirring troll that I think you are, I'll ask LFC_Bitcoin to publish his PM. He'll probably tell me to fuck off but I'll make an honest good faith effort on your behalf. Let's put your fat ego bullshit to test.

I do not see how this is connected with asking LFC_bitcoin to publish his PM. Give me a solid reason please.

Just offering to show you that "[t]hey will easily say it to me but not you and other reputed users" is likely false - on the off chance that you are indeed a normal person for some inexplicable reason pretending to be a disgruntled troll. But I guess not. Carry on with your quest.

[DireWolfM14]

I can't believe this thread has gotten so much attention.  It's nothing but an obvious attempt at trolling DT members who disagree with you.  If you were at all confident in your position then you would have posted all this drudge from your main account.  Which brings up the question; who's the real "sell-out?"  The member who calls balls and strikes like he sees them, from his main account, or the cowardly member who refuses to address controversial issues with his main account to prevent being "black-listed" by other campaign managers?

In all honesty, until you called me out and I went to check the spreadsheet, I wasn't even sure that I was still on Sportsbet.io's payroll.  I sent a PM to the campaign manager on May 9th informing him that I would likely be too busy to comply with the minimum post requirement for that week, and possibly subsequent weeks.  I also told him that if he felt I was no longer supporting the campaign as needed, to feel free removing me.

Now back to the subject at hand; how many shit-stirring newbies do get on this forum compared to honest, long-standing, legitimate businesses?  How much support has the forum and the bitcoin community received from these newbies compared to this specific legitimate business?  Sportsbet.io has exposed the bitcoin logo to millions of Soccer fans, they didn't have to do that, they could just as easily had their own logo on Watford's sleeves.  All anyone has to do is spend just a few days following their official thread to know what kind of people they are.  They care about this community, they care about bitcoin, and they obviously care about their customers.  I say this as someone who doesn't gamble, and generally speaking I have no love for casinos as a whole.  

As for the accuser, I'm convinced he's a liar.  The way he constructs his sentences and the use of certain phrases that are only common to native English speakers make it very hard for me to believe he's using a translator (like he claims.)  So yeah, I think he's full of shit.

I'm astonished at the reasoning of a few members in this particular case.  On one hand we have the word of a well established business with a long history and reputation of supporting our community, while on the other hand we have the word of a shady newbie, insisting he be compensated more than he deposited.  Is it really that hard to understand why I would choose to side with sportsbet.io in this situation?

I do acknowledge that the question remains; why isn't sportsbet.io divulging more information about the detection and suspicion of the accuser's cheating?  I don't know, but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and surmise they have a good reason.  Not because I'm wearing their signature, because they've earned it.  As others have noted Bitcasino.io recently had a similar accusation and provided information to the community, so it only stands to reason that their sister company has similar methods of detecting cheaters.  But that's not to say it's the only method of detection, or that the cheaters were using the same methods to defraud the system.  Maybe there is more to the story, maybe one of their methods is insufficient and only partially effective, and this user found a way to navigate around it.  Divulging their detection method for this situation may inadvertently expose a vulnerability that they want to fix before they provide more information.  That seems like enough speculation, I'm sure you get the point.

[mindrust]

You are into testing me, how about I give you some clue?
1. I am one of the user who is common in your and LFC_bitcoin's trust list. Test starts now.
2. I am not CH that you are thinking

How about a game?

yogg
hilariousandco
owlcatz
minerjones
SyGambler
bones261
LoyceV
DarkStar_
eddie13
o_e_l_e_o
TheBeardedBaby
DireWolfM14

Who is this backstabbing coward?   Since I can't really pick a guess someone from that list, I'll go with CH too. Or is this I dunno, DarkStar?

LoyceV is pretty sneaky and suspicious too. With all that Switzerland Imma neutral thick skin shiet.

[suchmoon]

Who is this backstabbing coward? 

The backstabbing coward didn't say that both I and LFC_Bitcoin trust him/her/it. More likely it's one of the ~ entries, or just a lie to begin with.

[mindrust]

1. I am one of the user who is common in your and LFC_bitcoin's trust list.

The backstabbing coward didn't say that both I and LFC_Bitcoin trust him/her/it. More likely it's one of the ~ entries, or just a lie to begin with.

Interesting. Somehow I thought it as a + entry immediately. You do have a point. Then what's the point of saying this line, fu side_chain. Distrusting you now. I thought It was going to be fun.

You violated a written! contract. You promised us a fun game.

[suchmoon]

You violated a written! contract. You promised us a fun game.

Maybe it was "sarcasm". Like lying about reasons for sockpuppeting:

Easy guess of me posting from an alt. I don't want to be blacklisted by yahoo of course. Call me coward, I have nothing to lose from this alt.

It wud hv been better had u commented from your main account. Obviously you are scared or have some sinister motive

If I have the access of my main account then I would of course (the coward things was a sarcasm by the way, there are no blacklisting or such thing.). I can assure you that there are no sinister motive. I am talking because I feel like it's need to be talked and anyone can take my move from any dimension.

I have no financial interest here but anything to care about the forum affairs which looks wrong.

I already gave my explanation of taking this path of staying anonymous.

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

How dare we not trust lying noobtrolls.

[mindrust]

I didn't check this account's registration date before. (side chain) It has quite a history it seems. Looks like It was a shitty one too.

I am not interested in what LFC did with PM's in this thread. So far I didn't see anything enough to distrust him but I surely didn't like him to side with the casino immediately neither. (without listening to the both sides of the story) That is not how a DT member should act. That's all I have to say about him.

[AjdinS]

I know people won't care because I don't have hero member badge but changing your trust settings just after someone supports a company that directly pays you, reflects wrong behavior and one should not be in DT1 if they are so biased towards a particular sportsbook.

[LoyceV]

No, actually that would apply even if LoyceV demanded to publish that PM.

LoyceV is pretty sneaky and suspicious too. With all that Switzerland Imma neutral thick skin shiet.

What did I do

[suchmoon]

What did I do

We just thought you look too clean so decided to sling some mud your way.