Should we not get negative feedback for expressing our views? How about me?

[PaperWallet]

Hello,
I came across this thread by @edgycorner https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5401642.0 where he was complaining he got negative feedback for supporting a flag. The story ended him being removing his support for the flag and the negative feedback was removed.

As an example, I myself fell a victim to a scam of one of gambling websites promoted by this forum (fortunejack.com), and got negative feedback for speaking up. I then created a flag and saw there were few people supporting it, so I created a giveaway of 10 mBTC to either support/oppose the flag (right here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5399713.0), and got yet another negative feedback for that too! Is this how this feedback is supposed to work? Just asking.

Easy guys, I know some angry casino promoters (some scams, some not scams, more or less) will come here throw in their messages right and left and start meriting each other on their messages, but I'm just asking a question right.

[1714941823]

1714941823

[1714941823]

1714941823

[1714941823]

1714941823

[1714941823]

1714941823

[Apocollapse]

Your case and his case are completely different, do you demanding DT members to remove their negative trust in your account? No, they're correct. Negative feedback are used to user who high likely want to scam anyone or can't be trusted. The thing is Fortunejack already explained the case and why they seized your money, because you're breaking their rules [1] but you didn't accept that and start act like a victim, while you're not the victim. Any users before using any services should read their TOS and if you failed to do that, you're wrong and Fortunejack is the victim since you're attacking due to your anger.

Another more, you're offering money to support your flag, that's abusing the forum system [2]

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5368279.msg58318691#msg58318691
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5399713.0

[Charles-Tim]

As an example, I myself fell a victim to a scam of one of gambling websites promoted by this forum (fortunejack.com), and got negative feedback for speaking up. I then created a flag and saw there were few people supporting it, so I created a giveaway of 10 mBTC to either support/oppose the flag (right here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5399713.0), and got yet another negative feedback for that too! Is this how this feedback is supposed to work? Just asking.

You want people to support your flag with you paying them? That alone deserves red tag.

Easy guys, I know some angry casino promoters (some scams, some not scams, more or less) will come here throw in their messages right and left and start meriting each other on their messages, but I'm just asking a question right.

There are some sites that are not reputable, like the 1xbit, but Fortunejack has been one of the reputed casino on this forum, there can be misunderstanding while using a betting site, the fault can either be from the casino or the customer. You do not have to offer money for support, just be transparent about what you are saying, if worthy enough to attend too, people will support you if there is a clear evidence.

[NeuroticFish]

and got negative feedback for speaking up. I then created a flag and saw there were few people supporting it, so I created a giveaway of 10 mBTC to either support/oppose the flag

One problem is that you're lying. I am sure that you know that the flag was because of the money offered in that so-called giveaway, not because of speaking up.

Then is the problem with that giveaway of yours: I've seen it, I've interpreted it like you see everything like gambling, even the trust somebody deserves (and this is pretty much wrong).
From the feedback you've got, I see it was interpreted also that with your prizes you may have tried to get people support your flag (to get good money, not cursed one, lol). And this is (much) worse.

There is a saying (maybe not in English, but I'll translate) "If two different people tell you that you're drunk, you better go to sleep".
I understand that you may be frustrated, but it's not the entire forum bought up by casinos, no. You should start looking again to the presented facts and the conclusions and see that something is wrong with what you're doing or how you do that.

[crwth]

On the part where you're going to give money away just to be supported, isn't that bribing already? Do you think that kind of behavior would be okay? I don't think so. That's just a show of effort that you are desperate to have support or something.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

so I created a giveaway of 10 mBTC to either support/oppose the flag (right here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5399713.0), and got yet another negative feedback for that too! Is this how this feedback is supposed to work? Just asking.

Is that how feedback or trust system is supposed to work?

Pay people money to react to a flag?
From what I can see, you are the one trying to abuse the trust system by providing incentives in exchange for reactions. Why would anyone trust a person like you?

[LoyceV]

Is this how this feedback is supposed to work? Just asking.

I don't agree with either of the 2 negative feedbacks you've received, but it's also not one of those cases where I would suggest/ask/recommend to remove them.

You want people to support your flag with you paying them?

To be fair: OP asked for people to Support or Oppose his Flag, and he did pay the 10 mBTC (although I didn't check all involved addresses). He added a curse though

Is that how feedback or trust system is supposed to work?

Pay people money to react to a flag?

It's certainly a first!
For what it's worth: I saw reasons for (and against) Support and Oppose, and didn't vote at all.

[popeye95]

You want people to support your flag with you paying them?

To be fair: OP asked for people to Support or Oppose his Flag, and he did pay the 10 mBTC (although I didn't check all involved addresses). He added a curse though

Is that how feedback or trust system is supposed to work?

Pay people money to react to a flag?

It's certainly a first!
For what it's worth: I saw reasons for (and against) Support and Oppose, and didn't vote at all.

Haha, this guy is really hilarious. Pay to people just to react to his flag, opposers got paid in cursed coin, lol. At least, you have to give him the credit for trying to make a scene. But I think trying to influence people just for them to go to cast their vote or react to a flag in this case, can this still be counted as shifting votes to his side? Since it makes people feel in debt to him, more likely to side with him on the matter? Or maybe just a vicious way for him to get back by making the negative feedback/flag system looks like a joke.

He does make me want to know the matter between him and Fortunejack. How it could escalate to the point he did things like this.

[PaperWallet]

Here we go, as I predicted in my OP, 4 professional nonsense talkers and scam promoters immediately pop up to throw in their messages.

Here's what I said about the giveaway that I've done and already paid out:

so I created a giveaway of 10 mBTC to either support/oppose the flag

And here's the first one to pop up:

Another more, you're offering money to support your flag, that's abusing the forum system [2]
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5399713.0

Second genius:

You want people to support your flag with you paying them? That alone deserves red tag.

Third popup:

On the part where you're going to give money away just to be supported, isn't that bribing already?

4th medal:

you are the one trying to abuse the trust system by providing incentives in exchange for reactions. Why would anyone trust a person like you?

How funny is that?

Any users before using any services should read their TOS and if you failed to do that, you're wrong

Don't worry about me reading, if you read their terms and conditions like you misread my 2 sentences in the OP, you're in here for an excellent argument lol


In any case, thank you @Loyce for coming in here and straightening things a little bit, and you've given me the answer to my original question.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Here we go, as I predicted in my OP, 4 professional nonsense talkers and scam promoters immediately pop up to throw in their messages.

So we are now nonsense talkers because we didn't agree with what you did?

You made a post looking for opinions on whether your actions were ok or not, and I insist what you did is not different from buying trust.
In any way, I opposed the flag earlier on, I hope that makes you feel better.

Next time, if you feel like you don't want people's opinions, then just don't post at all instead of being a cry baby around here.

so I created a giveaway of 10 mBTC to either support/oppose the flag

And here is what I said.

From what I can see, you are the one trying to abuse the trust system by providing incentives in exchange for reactions. Why would anyone trust a person like you?

[DireWolfM14]

As an example, I myself fell a victim to a scam of one of gambling websites promoted by this forum (fortunejack.com)

That's disingenuous and you know it.  A more accurate description would be that you violated their TOS and weren't allowed to keep your ill-gotten winnings.  You're failing to mention that you were given a refund for your deposits.  That's not the same thing as getting scammed.

Nonetheless, as for the two red tags you have; I wouldn't have left either of them myself, but I don't believe either are particularly inaccurate.  If you feel they're unjustified, I suggest you make an appeal to the better nature of both individuals (it's been my experience that both are good natured people) and they may decide to remove them.

[PaperWallet]

In any way, I opposed the flag earlier on, I hope that makes you feel better.

Lol you're valuing yourself too much, who the hell cares.

That's disingenuous and you know it.  A more accurate description would be that you violated their TOS and weren't allowed to keep your ill-gotten winnings.  You're failing to mention that you were given a refund for your deposits.  That's not the same thing as getting scammed.

Of course, of course, not scammed, at all. If you think you're helping fortunejack, you're mistaken. We will see.

[DireWolfM14]

Of course, of course, not scammed, at all. If you think you're helping fortunejack, you're mistaken. We will see.

Just ignore the second half of my post, because it's easier to remain a petulant brat than it is to behave like an adult.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

OP, I remember your giveaway thing and thought it was a bit weird at the time--and I also suspected it might get you into hot water, since it involves both the trust system and exchanging of crypto.  Those two things generally never go together in a good way.

But the feedback you got because of your statements about Fortunejack don't warrant negative trust IMO.  Granted, I haven't checked into the validity of what you wrote, but I kind of expect more from a member like Hhampuz and wouldn't have expected a feedback like the one he gave you.  His and suchmoon's were the two that showed up as being trusted when I looked at your feedback page.  Anyway, just like every other case of contested feedback that I've commented on in the past seven years, there's nothing I or the community can do to help you out (and I'm pretty sure you know that).

Don't know how much you care about all those negs you got, but maybe with time you can at least convince some of the DT members to remove them.  I've got a custom trust list and don't follow all the DT updates, so I have no idea who those members are.  Good luck to you.

[Hhampuz]

You instantly dismiss anyone who does not support your "cause" right away as "nonsense talkers" or "paid promoters". How can you ever expect to be taken seriously when you are so incredibly set in your ways while refusing to listen to anyone else?

Fact 1) You "claim" to have been scammed for $120k.
Fact 2) You got a public response from FJ regarding the matter showing that you in fact had won $100k which was the limit for identical bets.
Fact 3) You twist the story and start calling FJ scammers wherever you go.
Fact 4) You create a bogus flag which the community obviously does not agree with since the only support you have been able to garner for it is of disgruntled gamblers who have been talking shit about FJ for years at this point.

YOU are unable to understand/respect how flags, ToS, contracts etc. work and you have the gall to come here and ask if this is how the trust feedback system is supposed to work?

Talk shit - get hit. How about you just take your $100k and fuck off as you seemingly bring nothing of value to this forum.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Lol you're valuing yourself too much, who the hell cares.

Says a bellyacher who moaned about how people ignored the useless false flag he created and even went on to an extent of abusing the trust system by paying a 10mBTC just to get reactions to his flag  

Get your shit together.

[suchmoon]

PaperWallet, I believe you acted in bad faith in your dispute with FJ but I also believe that everyone has a right to bring up such disputes and should not be penalized for doing so, although "penalizing" a throwaway account is moot anyway. But I wouldn't red-trust you for bringing up a dispute.

I would - and did - red-trust you for paying to subvert/abuse the trust system. While there might be some grey areas in how some people "promote" their disputes to get support for flags, offering money is not grey IMO. You can talk all you want about the payment not being dependent on outcome etc but your demeanor in that thread and even here shows that you wanted to gain support, or at best to stir more shit up.

Others may disagree that bringing money into the trust system is a big deal, and that's fine (the disagreement; not the money). While I appreciate opinions about my trust feedback I'm extremely unlikely to change it unless underlying facts turn out to be incorrect. The facts as stated in the feedback I posted for you are correct. It is not about your "views" as you disingenuously claim in the title of your thread.

I was considering red-trusting anyone who supported/opposed the flag with knowledge that you're paying for that but I'll probably just tilde them instead.

[LoyceV]

I was considering red-trusting anyone who supported/opposed the flag with knowledge that you're paying for that but I'll probably just tilde them instead.

This is the kind of reputation damage that comes from joining such an "offer".

[KingsDen]

Dear PaperWallet,

You have created enough awareness about your alleged FortuneJack scam. I have always kept blind eyes at your posts or allegations because majority of the users here, especially DT1 members do not agree with you.
But I am obliged to ask the following questions;

1. You created a flag and offered an incentive for whoever opposes or supports the flag. I don't think this is wrong. I have seen companies pay for review. This is because many people might read your flag and feel uninterested or unconcerned because they are not directly affected. The incentive will be to encourage participation on a neutral ground.
I am responding accordingly to your statement

Don't be sensitive, in some way, if I might say it like this, I don't care even if 100% oppose it. So go ahead and make a ruling, I just want closure with this forum.

As a gesture of good will and to demonstrate that I really care, and not trolling, for all participants who either oppose or support the flag, I will be giving away 10mBTC (~300$ as of today) on the 1st of June to 10 members who either supported or opposed the flag. You have the same probability of winning whether you opposed or supported.

You should only be tagged if you refuse to pay anyone that opposed your flag. Then it will be a clear indication if trust buying. Someone should correct me if I am wrong.

Fact 2) You got a public response from FJ regarding the matter showing that you in fact had won $100k which was the limit for identical bets.

PaperWallet, if this is true, your allegation should now be for $20k and not for $120k. Or is there something bogus I'm missing?

Finally, I saw FJ response to you on the grounds of T&C. Your case should be if such terms were made before or after you won your alleged $120k.

[PaperWallet]

You instantly dismiss anyone who does not support your "cause" right away as "nonsense talkers" or "paid promoters". How can you ever expect to be taken seriously when you are so incredibly set in your ways while refusing to listen to anyone else?

That's because this is my conclusion, after talking about my case for a few months here. And this is payment issue not nonsense talk issue, so what matters is payment (that is going to happen, but you're just not helping).

YOU are unable to understand/respect how flags, ToS, contracts etc. work

Not so sure about this, we will see.
But what's for sure is that yes I didn't know how your scam betting websites work. In their terms and conditions there is a 100k euros limit per bet. They accept a total of 2 bets among 4 tickets, wait for the result of the game, then steal 100k win for the reason of "we have the right to cancel bets. And also sorry, we intended to defraud our users with our terms and conditions but we are also bad at writing those, just give us a pass on this as well, too bad for those who read them. Oh just a second, we've also tried to hide evidence by deleting bet history but the player took the evidence for this, Hhampuz of course you're also giving us a pass on this you're our dirty scumbag right?"

Talk shit - get hit. How about you just take your $100k and fuck off as you seemingly bring nothing of value to this forum.

You're simply an evil person. No, I don't make deals with thieves for half of my money. The only reason this is being imposed on me is because, you know, it's internet era, and scamming someone at an overseas distance has no consequences.
I've made enough good decisions in life to be able make a living other than being a scam promoter. On the other hand just perhaps sooner or later you're going to hell with your dirty money, and there might be no other way out...

I would - and did - red-trust you for paying to subvert/abuse the trust system. While there might be some grey areas in how some people "promote" their disputes to get support for flags, offering money is not grey IMO.

I'll be honest, I feel like you're somebody who is trying to communicate, and I respect that, because that's what we're supposed to do here, not to promote scams and throw in messages with nonsense talk and merit each other on nonsense talk like a lot of people do here. I also respect your decision and won't be giving you back a red trust for this.

You should only be tagged if you refuse to pay anyone that opposed your flag. Then it will be a clear indication if trust buying. Someone should correct me if I am wrong.

Most of the people who participated in the giveaway opposed the flag and they all got paid. Just check my giveaway thread in the reputation section and you can verify it.

Fact 2) You got a public response from FJ regarding the matter showing that you in fact had won $100k which was the limit for identical bets.

PaperWallet, if this is true, your allegation should now be for $20k and not for $120k. Or is there something bogus I'm missing?
Finally, I saw FJ response to you on the grounds of T&C. Your case should be if such terms were made before or after you won your alleged $120k.

There is nothing bogus, it's just not true that you followed the topic because you're missing the point by a big difference. If you're interested simply check my scam accusation I don't have to explain what I already explained earlier.