Neg tag for opinion about laws. JohhnyUA's trust

[suchmoon]

No, your memory is playing bad jokes with you. Let me clarify it to you: He used very controversial situation (the argument that i was tagged only by him, noone else tagged me. I will tell you a little more, at first bob123 tagged me about "cheating" but after strong proofs the removed his tag) to sort out with his opponent. Just like personal vendetta.

My feedback is about that this person is a liar, who accused people (not me, important moment) in strong sins without any proofs (just his "view"). So i think, that with such people, who can accuse you in stealing, "corruption" and so on, red trust feedback fit pretty well.  
The only difference between me and Lauda is that Lauda tagged by himself people which accused him in "stealing/corruption/so on" while i tagged someone who accused third party.

Same shit, different shovel. Even now you can't keep it in your pants and need to bring up Lauda. Pathetic. Didn't you also tag marlboroza at one point for some idiotic reasons?

The point is, KTChampions presented a well-substantiated case against you. You didn't. Red trust for "lying" (unless it's lying in a trade or some other business-related context) or "insulting" is red trust for opinion. Like red trust for disrespecting the law. If you can't reflect on your own actions... well, I still think you deserve bob123's leniency but your blow-up high horse is leaking badly.

[Smartprofit]

No, your memory is playing bad jokes with you. Let me clarify it to you: He used very controversial situation (the argument that i was tagged only by him, noone else tagged me. I will tell you a little more, at first bob123 tagged me about "cheating" but after strong proofs the removed his tag) to sort out with his opponent. Just like personal vendetta.

My feedback is about that this person is a liar, who accused people (not me, important moment) in strong sins without any proofs (just his "view"). So i think, that with such people, who can accuse you in stealing, "corruption" and so on, red trust feedback fit pretty well.  
The only difference between me and Lauda is that Lauda tagged by himself people which accused him in "stealing/corruption/so on" while i tagged someone who accused third party.

Same shit, different shovel. Even now you can't keep it in your pants and need to bring up Lauda. Pathetic. Didn't you also tag marlboroza at one point for some idiotic reasons?

The point is, KTChampions presented a well-substantiated case against you. You didn't. Red trust for "lying" (unless it's lying in a trade or some other business-related context) or "insulting" is red trust for opinion. Like red trust for disrespecting the law. If you can't reflect on your own actions... well, I still think you deserve bob123's leniency but your blow-up high horse is leaking badly.

We're talking about bob123's misconduct now, not KTChampions' misconduct.  The principle of freedom of speech has been violated.  An attempt to censor the forum.  Why didn't bob123 apologize to all of us?

DT is a very big responsibility.

[suchmoon]

We're talking about bob123's misconduct now, not KTChampions' misconduct.  The principle of freedom of speech has been violated.  An attempt to censor the forum.  Why didn't bob123 apologize to all of us?

I have already expressed my opinion about bob123's trust rating. This has nothing to with freedom of speech nor does a complaint about freedom of speech make sense while johhnyUA is handing out retaliatory red trust and red trust for opinions to others.

If johhnyUA wants to dispute that trust rating (doesn't really sound like it but whatever) then it should be done without all this rhetorical bullshit. Does johhnyUA's disrespect for the law mean he's a high risk in a trade or not? Does his sockpuppeting mean he's a high risk in a trade or not?

[Smartprofit]

We're talking about bob123's misconduct now, not KTChampions' misconduct.  The principle of freedom of speech has been violated.  An attempt to censor the forum.  Why didn't bob123 apologize to all of us?

I have already expressed my opinion about bob123's trust rating. This has nothing to with freedom of speech nor does a complaint about freedom of speech make sense while johhnyUA is handing out retaliatory red trust and red trust for opinions to others.

If johhnyUA wants to dispute that trust rating (doesn't really sound like it but whatever) then it should be done without all this rhetorical bullshit. Does johhnyUA's disrespect for the law mean he's a high risk in a trade or not? Does his sockpuppeting mean he's a high risk in a trade or not?

Are you versed in Ukrainian legislation?  Bob123 - an expert on Ukrainian legislation?  He is German.  I am sure that he does not know the laws (legal acts) of Ukraine and cannot give them a legal assessment.  Why did he put him a negative review in the trust?  Satoshi Nakamoto may also not respect the laws (we don't know for sure).  But could you please give him negative feedback for that?  Is he trustworthy?  If Satoshi Nakamoto told me: “Smartprofit, to be honest, I do not respect Ukrainian laws.  Isn't that an obstacle to the deal for us? "  I would say, “Dear Satoshi Nakamoto, I am honored to make a deal with you.  The fact that you do not comply with Ukrainian law does not bother me!  You created Bitcoin and that's enough for me! "

[suchmoon]

Are you versed in Ukrainian legislation?  Bob123 - an expert on Ukrainian legislation?  He is German.

This not a Ukrainian or a German forum and bob123's nationality has fuck all to do with anything. If it were e.g. ok to scam in Ukraine you'd still get a flag for scamming on this forum. So again, does johhnyUA's conduct make him a high risk in a trade - that's the question that needs to be answered in order to justify (or not) red trust. Not some hypothetical BS about Satoshi.

I'm getting a feeling that you're trying to help johhnyUA to dig his hole a little deeper.

[Smartprofit]

Are you versed in Ukrainian legislation?  Bob123 - an expert on Ukrainian legislation?  He is German.

This not a Ukrainian or a German forum and bob123's nationality has fuck all to do with anything. If it were e.g. ok to scam in Ukraine you'd still get a flag for scamming on this forum. So again, does johhnyUA's conduct make him a high risk in a trade - that's the question that needs to be answered in order to justify (or not) red trust. Not some hypothetical BS about Satoshi.

I'm getting a feeling that you're trying to help johhnyUA to dig his hole a little deeper.

Why did bob123 leave a negative review for the fact that someone considers the laws of Ukraine to be imperfect?

Where is bob123?  Why doesn't he give an explanation?

Perhaps he lives in a totalitarian country?  I dont know.
I live in a free country.  My constitution says that censorship is prohibited in my country.  For me, freedom of speech is not an empty phrase.

[suchmoon]

Why did bob123 leave a negative review for the fact that someone considers the laws of Ukraine to be imperfect?

There was nothing about Ukraine in the original context and johhnyUA didn't say anything about laws being imperfect. It was a blanket statement that he doesn't care about something being against the law and it was made in a discussion about a scammy exchange, which johhnyUA was defending. I personally would still consider that as an opinion and not subject to the trust system but I can also see why bob123 could consider it as untrustworthy regardless of his nationality or johhnyUA's jurisdiction.

I don't think there is any legal or national argument that needs to be made here. Even this very forum has rules against trading illegal goods so it's not like we exist in some lawless space because bitcoins. It's a matter of whether silly statements like that make someone high risk in a trade. I think johhnyUA is just full of shit up to his ears but probably not a high risk.

I live in a free country.  My constitution says that censorship is prohibited in my country.  For me, freedom of speech is not an empty phrase.

You might wanna red-trust johhnyUA then, because he doesn't care about your constitution and will violate your freedom of speech in unspeakable ways. /s

[Bitcoin SV]

You might wanna red-trust johhnyUA then, because he doesn't care about your constitution and will violate your freedom of speech in unspeakable ways. /s

Suchmoon violates my freedom of speech in unspeakable ways. Suchmoon must be red-trusted

[Smartprofit]

Why did bob123 leave a negative review for the fact that someone considers the laws of Ukraine to be imperfect?

There was nothing about Ukraine in the original context and johhnyUA didn't say anything about laws being imperfect. It was a blanket statemenent that he doesn't care about something being against the law and it was made in a discussion about a scammy exchange, which johhnyUA was defending. I personally would still consider that as an opinion and not subject to the trust system but I can also see why bob123 could consider it as untrustworthy regardless of his nationality or johhnyUA's jurisdiction.

I don't think there is any legal or national argument that needs to be made here. Even this very forum has rules against trading illegal goods so it's not like we exist in some lawless space because bitcoins. It's a matter of whether silly statements like that make someone high risk in a trade. I think johhnyUA is just full of shit up to his ears but probably not a high risk.

I live in a free country.  My constitution says that censorship is prohibited in my country.  For me, freedom of speech is not an empty phrase.

You might wanna red-trust johhnyUA then, because he doesn't care about your constitution and will violate your freedom of speech in unspeakable ways. /s

I also do not respect some laws.  Let bob123 leave negative feedback for me too.  And let Satoshi Nakamoto also leave negative feedback.  Satoshi was also an anarchist.  How can you trust us three?

[suchmoon]

I also do not respect some laws.  Let bob123 leave negative feedback for me too.  And let Satoshi Nakamoto also leave negative feedback.  Satoshi was also an anarchist.  How can you trust us three?

Yes, sure, more fallacies will fix this LOL.

Carry on. I've had my daily dose of talking to a wall.

[hacker1001101001]

I think bob123 over reacted by giving JohhnyUA a red tag for merely stating he doesn't care about a law. Even I don't like some laws and think it's acceptable to voice an vaild opinion against it.

Bob123 seems to be an friendly guy overall and he could reconsider the feedback as it is reflected in DT feedback to many. It can also harm JohhnyUA's business one way or another.

[fxpc]

I think johhnyUA is just full of shit up to his ears but probably not a high risk.

johhnyUA himself leaves high risk warning feedback to others without proof.

I live in a free country.  My constitution says that censorship is prohibited in my country.  For me, freedom of speech is not an empty phrase.

In the Imaginationland? If you refer to constitution, you must write which one.

[johhnyUA]

Even now you can't keep it in your pants and need to bring up Lauda.

You are free to show another examples of me, "brining up Lauda". I think you 're confusing me with someone else. I just showed another example of correct use of trust rating (yes, i consider liars as a high risk for trade, especially if they're lying about someone else reputation).
 

Didn't you also tag marlboroza at one point for some idiotic reasons?

no, that was Vadi2323. His feedback is still active, tho. But i'm not not surprised that you still confusing people.

Like red trust for disrespecting the law. If you can't reflect on your own actions... well, I still think you deserve bob123's leniency but your blow-up high horse is leaking badly.

Can you please bring correct quote where i'm telling that neg for lying and neg for "disrespecting the law" is different things?
Let's try again:

I can understand why Bob left me this feedback, but i can't accept it (in meaning of acceptance, not like i'm still butthurting about that)

And in my response for you, i clarified the reason why i left feedback for lying. How do you find out that i think that both feedbacks are different? In fact, they're pretty the same in meaning that someone left red trust for behaviors which he can't accept and consider as shady.

Besides, It's not the first time when you juggling your opponent quotes and senses behind it in some weird manner (at least in my view)


And this what i talked about, topic full of russian trolls (one is right above me) and without any constructive moves. So, i think that Veleor should close this topic (i think bob will see everything here and make his own decision).

[fxpc]

And this what i talked about, topic full of russian trolls (one is right above me) and without any constructive moves. So, i think that Veleor should close this topic (i think bob will see everything here and make his own decision).

It isn't for you to talk about constructive. Trolls? Clown, you forgot to write that this is a provocation. I still have some popcorn and wait "constructive" moves from you.

[suchmoon]

You are free to show another examples of me, "brining up Lauda". I think you 're confusing me with someone else. I just showed another example of correct use of trust rating (yes, i consider liars as a high risk for trade, especially if they're lying about someone else reputation).

Lauda's use of the trust system in such cases is sometimes incorrect and not a good example to rely on. I didn't say you've brought up Lauda before... just that you're unable to justify your trust rating on its own and have to resort to fallacies and rationalizations. Probably a good sign that the rating is questionable.

Didn't you also tag marlboroza at one point for some idiotic reasons?

no, that was Vadi2323. His feedback is still active, tho. But i'm not not surprised that you still confusing people.

My apologies. It was not a trust rating, you sent a PM to marlboroza insulting his ancestors. Not cool but not trust system abuse.

Like red trust for disrespecting the law. If you can't reflect on your own actions... well, I still think you deserve bob123's leniency but your blow-up high horse is leaking badly.

Can you please bring correct quote where i'm telling that neg for lying and neg for "disrespecting the law" is different things?

Not sure why we'd need such a quote. I consider your sent trust ratings invalid and retaliatory for the reasons I already explained. I consider bob123's rating on you unnecessary for the reasons I already explained. Why do I need to find your quote to show my opinion? Doesn't make sense.
 

And in my response for you, i clarified the reason why i left feedback for lying. How do you find out that i think that both feedbacks are different? In fact, they're pretty the same in meaning that someone left red trust for behaviors which he can't accept and consider as shady.

Besides, It's not the first time when you juggling your opponent quotes and senses behind it in some weird manner (at least in my view)

So bob123 should leave his rating in place? It's really hard to figure out what you're saying when you keep talking in riddles and demanding that others prove your points. Plus Smartprofit made a huge mess of your "defence". Do you think bob123 should remove his red trust on you and why?

[fxpc]

Didn't you also tag marlboroza at one point for some idiotic reasons?

no, that was Vadi2323. His feedback is still active, tho. But i'm not not surprised that you still confusing people.

My apologies. It was not a trust rating, you sent a PM to marlboroza insulting his ancestors. Not cool but not trust system abuse.

What does third-party feedback have to do with this case?  Are we discussing about johhnyUA here or who? He doesn't want to discuss himself and calls the facts trolling.

[johhnyUA]

It was not a trust rating, you sent a PM to marlboroza insulting his ancestors.

yes, and i was tagged for this reason at first. But after my apologize he removed his tag (as you can see in my trust rating).
 

It's really hard to figure out what you're saying when you keep talking in riddles and demanding that others prove your points. Plus Smartprofit made a huge mess of your "defence".

I don't see where i "demanding others to prove my point". This is open topic and every clown like korner and fxpc, (and this is not all trolls who have personal vendetta against me, so here will be more fun soon) can write here anything, so your second statement it's also very strange.

I don't see how Smartprofit could "made a huge mess about my defence" because i'm not defending here. I'm just clarify what i mean under "don't care against the laws". Defending means that i've done something bad and/or terrible, but here is topic about trust rating, not about some deeds. And , at second, this is words of Smartprofit, not mine. You should understand it.

So bob123 should leave his rating in place?  Do you think bob123 should remove his red trust on you and why?

Bob should use his own brain. I'm sure he will see all views. My arguments and view on situation still in his PM and in first my message here. I'm will be fine with this feedback or without it, doesn't matter too much for me now.

[mod note: removed non english content]

[suchmoon]

I don't see how Smartprofit could "made a huge mess about my defence" because i'm not defending here. I'm just clarify what i mean under "don't care against the laws". Defending means that i've done something bad and/or terrible, but here is topic about trust rating, not about some deeds. And , at second, this is words of Smartprofit, not mine. You should understand it.

I understand it and I pointed out to Smartprofit earlier in the thread that his argument doesn't help here. Perhaps that was the intent.

As for "defending" - no, it doesn't have to mean you've done something bad. Maybe you've been accused incorrectly. But if you're saying that (1) your trust ratings on KTChampions are not different from bob123's rating on you; and (2) those ratings are valid - I don't get why you'd expect that bob123 or anyone should waste time reviewing it.

More than that, I'm trying to make an argument from the trust system usage point of view and you're making it really hard by showing your inability or unwillingness to understand the basic principles of the trust system laid out right there on the page where you send those trust ratings:



FWIW I still think bob123 should revise the rating but I'm worried that it would just embolden you to abuse the trust system even more.

[Veleor]

The topic is closed. Hope Bob123 will check the opinions here of other members and he will change his mind.