Thank you for giving me a retaliatory feedback.
"Wants to suppress information that might help others combat theft and fraud. I did not post data of users, they were email addresses and fingerprints of a bot designed to steal from free giveaways."
How would I or anyone know that they are not real emails? Now that you answered I am removing my feedback but you should have more partience
The term "retaliatory feedback" has always baffled me. If someone leaves feedback then their trust wall is the only place most people will see a repudiation. You could have also had more patience and waited for my answer before tagging me.
As an aside, I do believe that anyone abusing the service forfeits the right to privacy. We plan to update our ToS soon and the draft our lawyers have written includes that provision. When it is introduced everyone using the service will have to explicitly accept that if they are caught cheating they can be publically identified by us.
And if wrongly accuse someone, will you be able to scrub their dox from the internet?
I don't see what this could possibly achieve against actual cheaters who like you said use VPN and fake e-mails.
I think you are missing the context here. Someone first contacted me by PM about not being able to access their account. When I replied to them and showed them proof that it was one of 409 abusive accounts they had used over a number of years to steal from us they responded by posting a scam accusation against me.
Even under that pressure I deliberately did not dox them and have not revealed their real email and IP address which I know. What I actually published was the proof I needed to rebut their false allegation. The account they claimed was theirs was one of 36 accounts with the same fingerprint and the same referrer that have all played 24 free rolls everyday since they were signed up. Nobody can stay awake 24/7 for 5 months. The IP addresses listed all belong to Amazon Web Services. (You can buy IP databases that categorise and identify owns the addresses).
I am not making any threat to dox people. I am trying to ensure that I have the right of reply to show that I have evidence of theft that makes it fact beyond all reasonable doubt.
Freebitco has years of reputation and it's hard to imagine that they will scam. I am confident that this is something TheQuin did not realize before. Let him/her give time to reconsider the matter.
Doxing people poses a risk to their safety and security. Maybe he won't scam anyone but he has admitted that if he suspects you of cheating his site he'll dox you. That makes using his service "High Risk" which is exactly what a red-tag is designed for.
Not to mention, almost all of TheQuin's reviews since October 2019 are for the abuse of of his service (real or perceived, I won't judge.) There seems to be a conflict of interest for someone on DT2. And, as suchmoon already mentioned, what's the point? They're all throwaway newbie accounts, so it's not like those reviews are preventing the abuse of his service.
Again that is unfair. I didn't say if I suspect someone I will dox them. If I am 100% certain that cheating has occurred and I am publically challenged to prove it I might need to reveal some information as evidence.
The reason I started tagging abusers when they post allegations is for my personal use. A surprising number of them come back and post something else in our thread and the feedback is there to remind me who I am talking to. I started doing that a long time before I somehow got included in DT.
For the record I do feel that TheQuin's red on savetheforum and suchmoon's red on TheQuin should be neutrals. The chance of somebody having a fingerprint the same as a bunch of Chrome scripts is near zero (these aren't browser fingerprints we're talking about: these presumably also take registration date and IP addresses into account as well).
Also for the record, I left feedback on savetheforum before I found this thread because it seemed like my only right of reply. The misunderstanding has now been cleared up and as they are no longer falsely stating that I revealed personal information. Both feedbacks are now gone.
I'm not going to say exactly what we fingerprint but the chances of 2 accounts generating the same one are roughly 400000:1 so the chances of 36 accounts with the same referrer are next to zero. In that referral list you'll also see a number of other repeating fingerprints of old bots that are no longer active.
eg There are 159 instances of 44d5c6bcd5946838f0519b64ead39187 and 111 instances of 24928d04ea98d617286d922a5422afa3
The feedbacks you received are perfect examples of the misconception of the trust system
TheQuin's feedback is invalid to me. it doesn't mean I'm at risk of getting scammed if I deal with you. By the way, email address are also considered as personal data, no matter if it was used to use a bot on a site
The 2 others are also incorrect. There is nothing wrong with creating an alt account (whatever it's true or not I don't care much), and spreading hate is a subjective term but still not suitable for negative feedback. Otherwise, we could also red tag the trolls
There is something wrong with creating alt accounts for the purpose of cheating free giveaways in Games and Rounds which is what I have shown they have done in the reference link. I think that anyone running a free giveaway is in danger of being scammed by these accounts.
I disagree about the email addresses. If someone signs up a load of email accounts for the purpose of pretending to be multiple people that don't exist that can't be personal information.
I believe everyone has the right to say what he thinks, if I agree or disagree doesn't matter. If we all agree in this world, life will become boring
That I can agree with.
