Negative feedback for supporting a newbie on their scam accusation against Stake

[edgycorner]

Hello everyone,

A user left negative feedback on my profile, which reads as follow:

[Be wary. He is adamantly and irrationally defending someone that is using the forum to manipulate a casino with fake scam accusations. I don't know what his motives are, but his arguments are definitely not in good faith.

What stands out are the words "adamantly" and "irrationally". This is very ironic, given how Twitchyseal's own arguments have been out of context and proven wrong by me again & again.

It all started when a newbie "PalamarNadia" started a scam accusation against Stake for holding their 40,000 USD, suspending their account, and how they are unable to withdraw any even though the account is in "withdrawable" mode.
They were suspended for breaking a T&C and were accused of having multiple accounts. I found this to be very absurd since any customer can be accused of the same breach, and many users on Stake do hold multiple accounts. It only became a problem for Stake because they were in profit and not losing their money? There are many unanswered questions, which are best left to be discussed on that thread itself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5400984.0

Then twitchyseal decided to participate in the conversation and instead of adding anything of value to the discussion, were just repeating whatever was already discussed
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5400984.msg60285215#msg60285215 (Even went on to make a comment on a video that they didn't watch or couldn't comprehend   )

I requested them to read the post and the thread before making any further replies.

But instead, they decided to ridicule and judge OP for being a "newbie", forgetting how every user is just a human and their status on a forum doesn't devoid them of justice or answers.

Even went on to muddy up my character by alleging "Were you offered any sort of compensation for successfully helping OP get paid? "  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5400984.msg60290032#msg60290032
It did upset me greatly, I recorded all of my conversation that I had outside of this forum and provided it in a Video & picture format. Not sure if Twitchseal can do the same  

Up to this point, twitchyseal failed to add anything of value to the discussion, but continued to pass on judgment in their kangaroo court. So I decided to include them in my ignore list.

Now today, they left negative feedback on my profile  

Not sure if this is personal vengeance or a means to censor any criticism against Stake?

I will leave it up to the members of this forum to decide

[1714757479]

1714757479

[1714757479]

1714757479

[1714757479]

1714757479

[edgycorner]

I have archived the thread in question (if anyone's bored with their summer read)

https://archive.is/ugUTT
https://archive.is/H8e7g
https://archive.is/xoTVY

I wish I could be more open with my opinion and on the tyrannical nature of this entire fiasco. But I got 9 cats to feed and a job to do  need to keep my mind clear

[Poker Player]

Sounds to me like the typical drama of the Reputation section, where someone ends up red tagged not so much because of the trade risk, but as a result of a heated discussion that gets personal.

[edgycorner]

Sounds to me like the typical drama of the Reputation section, where someone ends up red tagged not so much because of the trade risk, but as a result of a heated discussion that gets personal.

At least I will leave this forum with dignity and not as a shill for a predatory casino that pushes gambling to kids, destroying countless lives just to fulfill their materialistic needs(like buying a $40m Mansion).

Goodbye btctalk (will still continue to help Nadia tho, won't abandon them due to some shill)

[dkbit98]

Goodbye btctalk

Why saying goodbye to bitcointalk forum when you did nothing that deserves getting negative feedback?

I am calling all other DT members to review this case, but Twitchyseal should not be giving red trust like candies, and he should at least change this feedback to neutral.
I appreciate all the good work and contribution in past, but this is just overzealous in my opinion. 

[examplens]

destroying countless lives just to fulfill their materialistic needs(like buying a $40m Manson).

the fact that someone has made a lot of money does not oblige him to waste it. he can spend it however he wants, this is not your or our problem. I'm not sure why you're emphasizing that here.
they certainly wouldn't have that much money if they allowed everyone to break the rules and pay out all the dubious winnings.

Goodbye btctalk (will still continue to help Nadia tho, won't abandon them due to some shill)

what really hurt you here? Red feedback from TwitchySeal or not paid $40k to PalamarNadia?
I would say that negative feedback does not end life, and only if you are behind this Nadia profile, then I understand why you are so unhappy about these $40k.


About your negative feedback from TwitchySeal. (I did not read the whole discussion in this accusations, I'll take a look later)
I think that is inappropriate negative feedback. here everyone should have the right to freely express their opinion, as long as it is guided by a moderate way of expression, this cannot be a reason for a negative tag. It can't be "I don't like what you say, then I will give you red on profile"
Plus reference link does not lead to proof of "your mistake", but to the comment of someone completely different (forum moderator from Stake casino).

[edgycorner]

destroying countless lives just to fulfill their materialistic needs(like buying a $40m Manson).

the fact that someone has made a lot of money does not oblige him to waste it. he can spend it however he wants, this is not your or our problem. I'm not sure why you're emphasizing that here.
they certainly wouldn't have that much money if they allowed everyone to break the rules and pay out all the dubious winnings.

I would love some of your opinion on how Stake heavily advertises itself on Twitch via paid streams as well.

what really hurt you here? Red feedback from TwitchySeal or not paid $40k to PalamarNadia?
I would say that negative feedback does not end life, and only if you are behind this Nadia profile, then I understand why you are so unhappy about these $40k.

This is what twitchyseals alleged, and I proved them wrong. Please don't be presumptuous.
If I had anywhere near 40k, I wouldn't be asking for a loan on this forum to pay my bills and feed the cats  

And about leaving the forum, I had my run here. I don't want to waste my youth fighting with people on the internet.

Goodbye btctalk

Why saying goodbye to bitcointalk forum when you did nothing that deserves getting negative feedback?

I am calling all other DT members to review this case, but Twitchyseal should not be giving red trust like candies, and he should at least change this feedback to neutral.
I appreciate all the good work and contribution in past, but this is just overzealous in my opinion.  

Thank you.
I have always thought of bitcointalk's DT system as the three estate hierarchy followed in Europe before the french revolution. I don't think we(the third estate) have any say about the position of users above us (or even our own position) but we can always try like the peasants' revolt of 1381 lol(it will be futile but we will get to take a shit on the queen's bed)

[LoyceV]

Goodbye btctalk

Why saying goodbye to bitcointalk forum when you did nothing that deserves getting negative feedback?

I am calling all other DT members to review this case, but Twitchyseal should not be giving red trust like candies, and he should at least change this feedback to neutral.

Agreed:

Neutral (shown as =1)

• Use Neutral feedback for anything that doesn't mean someone can or can't be trusted. This can be good feedback, for instance when someone helped you out.
• I think Neutral Feedback is currently undervalued on Bitcointalk. It's a great tool to de-escalate without drastic consequences. Please use it when appropriate.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

the fact that someone has made a lot of money does not oblige him to waste it. he can spend it however he wants, this is not your or our problem. I'm not sure why you're emphasizing that here.

Agreed. This doesn't help edgycorner's case.

I would love some of your opinion on how Stake heavily advertises itself on Twitch via paid streams as well.

Great, but in a dedicated thread. Here it's off-topic.

I don't want to waste my youth fighting with people on the internet.

Smart decision.

[suchmoon]

Plus reference link does not lead to proof of "your mistake", but to the comment of someone completely different (forum moderator from Stake casino).

Stunna explains Stake's position in this dispute and it seems to be a rational and plausible explanation. He says multiaccounting is allowed except when abused in sports betting to bypass limits that are there for a reason. Both PalamarNadia and edgycorner continue to argue in bad faith ("Doesn't a player have the right to bet on sports on a gambling site?" or "many users on Stake do hold multiple accounts", et cetera). So the trust rating is factual, the reference is good, but I think it should be neutral since it is essentially about an "opinion".

[examplens]

Stunna explains Stake's position in this dispute and it seems to be a rational and plausible explanation. He says multiaccounting is allowed except when abused in sports betting to bypass limits that are there for a reason. Both PalamarNadia and edgycorner continue to argue in bad faith ("Doesn't a player have the right to bet on sports on a gambling site?" or "many users on Stake do hold multiple accounts", et cetera). So the trust rating is factual, the reference is good, but I think it should be neutral since it is essentially about an "opinion".

I just went through a discussion from the "disputed" thread, not to go into who is right, certainly, this negative tag is not appropriate and there is no real reason for it. I would say it is almost equal to "argue in bad faith" on all three sides PalamarNadia, edgycorner and TwitchySeal (I neglect other anti-Stake trolls from this topic).
I emphasize it is only on the basis of the course of the discussion, and not on the basis of who is right here and who is not.

[TwitchySeal]

OP is actively helping a scammer (attempt to) scam in a thread that's clearly a fake scam accusation.  Before Stunna posted, I gave him the benefit of doubt, assuming he was just misguided.  But afterwards, rather than changing course he doubled down.

I see these fake scam accusations in the gambling community as a serious problem.  Too often players take advantage of this forum to extort casinos by rounding up a mob.  This makes it easier for scam casinos to scam, and harder for players who were actually scammed find justice.

I've changed it to neutral because I don't see OP as "in on it", as well as some of the points made above/not wanting to create drama.  I hope this doesn't cause OP to change his mind about leaving.

[edgycorner]

Plus reference link does not lead to proof of "your mistake", but to the comment of someone completely different (forum moderator from Stake casino).

Stunna explains Stake's position in this dispute and it seems to be a rational and plausible explanation. He says multiaccounting is allowed except when abused in sports betting to bypass limits that are there for a reason. Both PalamarNadia and edgycorner continue to argue in bad faith ("Doesn't a player have the right to bet on sports on a gambling site?" or "many users on Stake do hold multiple accounts", et cetera). So the trust rating is factual, the reference is good, but I think it should be neutral since it is essentially about an "opinion".

If a sportsbook starts banning people for betting on "sports", it does raise a few questions. Stunna's explanation still doesn't answer "how those bets aren't legit" and "how can a player profit from multiaccounting on sportsbetting".

Again, this should be left to be discussed on the thread itself. I am bringing this here, to elucidate that my stance is anything but irrarional. It arises from my immense distrust on casinos, which is only fair. To each his own.

OP is actively helping a scammer (attempt to) scam in a thread that's clearly a fake scam accusation.  Before Stunna posted, I gave him the benefit of doubt, assuming he was just misguided.  But afterwards, rather than changing course he doubled down.

I see these fake scam accusations in the gambling community as a serious problem.  Too often players take advantage of this forum to extort casinos by rounding up a mob.  This makes it easier for scam casinos to scam, and harder for players who were actually scammed find justice.

I've changed it to neutral because I don't see OP as "in on it", as well as some of the points made above/not wanting to create drama.  I hope this doesn't cause OP to change his mind about leaving.

They are yet to be proven a "scammer". All I see is a profitable punter suspended by a book.
But once Stunna proves that they were indeed abusing the book with "evidence", I will renounce all of my support. This will be my last task on this forum.

My decision to leave this forum is a healthy one.I should be thanking you(but I won't lol).
My purpose lies elsewhere.

[examplens]

..

TwitchySeal removed negative trust from your account, which was the main purpose of opening this topic. as you can see, the forum members got active and helped to correct the mistake.
as this topic is no longer needed, you can lock it, and keep the discussion of the case between Stake and PalamarNadia in the thread that already exists for it. it is pointless to have the same discussion in several places.

[edgycorner]

..

TwitchySeal removed negative trust from your account, which was the main purpose of opening this topic. as you can see, the forum members got active and helped to correct the mistake.
as this topic is no longer needed, you can lock it, and keep the discussion of the case between Stake and PalamarNadia in the thread that already exists for it. it is pointless to have the same discussion in several places.

Locked.