Dear Timelord2067, was it really necessary?

[AB de Royse777]

Timelord2067

2023-11-12

Reference

2022-10-17 - I previously distrusted this person, then gave them the benefit of the doubt only to have (ref link) occur. I no longer trust them and wouldn't do a trade with them.

Is it really necessary to prove yourself again and again that others are absolutely correct about you?

Do you really think I will be interested to offer you a trade with me by giving you the money or item upfront?
You will never have an opportunity to trade with me, not from my side. If you offer it from your side then you will need to send the money or item first. You don't even have a decent trade history and you are questioning my trade history is funny. Just look at the weekly amount of BTC I handle (receive from my clients and pay the campaigners). I don't think you will be trusted with a 100th portion of that amount.

I pray you will find the better of yourself. You don't need to be religious for it.

Cheers,

[1714584478]

1714584478

[1714584478]

1714584478

[1714584478]

1714584478

[1714584478]

1714584478

[PytagoraZ]

I don't know what the reason is for Timelord2067 to write a red tag with an old thread reference. Moreover, that's just an assumption, unless Timelord2067 was cheated in his trade with royse777. I don't think the tag is relevant, especially since Royse has borrowed up to 8k and everything seems fine https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5470967.msg63022663#msg63022663

Honestly, I want to hear Timelord2067's explanation of why he had to write the red tag. Or was this tag given because he don't like royse777? Ah... if that's what Timelord2067 mean, then I can't comment anymore

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Well, but Timerlord2067 is not in DT, precisely because of his controversial performances in this regard. And the truth is that I don't understand anything about this feedback. On the reference link Royse777 simply asked people who appreciated him to remove him from their trust list. What does that have to do with not trusting Royse777 to make trades?

I think it was no only unnecessary, but also incorrect.

[Shishir99]

Royse,
There is a reason why he is not in the DT network anymore. He has been proving himself a trust abuser for a while now. The hedgefx drama backfired and if I am not wrong, he wasn't in the DT network before that drama already. Do you see his feedback by default? If not, just ignore it and move on. Sometimes he asks some valid questions and gets to the point. But that does not mean all of his feedback is legit/valid. When I say you are a scammer but you are proving every day that you are not a scammer, it does not only mean you are right, it made me wrong too.

[SmartGold01]

Does his positive and negative trust makes any positive value to your life if I may asked @Royse777 If No then develop a thicker skin over his actions and move on without having a weakness as I believe you are above that. Like you said, he would never have any trade from you and that doesn't mean you won't trade with other people or you won't continue your business over here so I give you courage and support to move on without any weakness maybe one day he would realized his mistake and make an amendment with you.

I have learned to meet different kinds of people over here, those who are always supportive and even those who works against you yet they tends to be your loyalist but are harming you deep inside and, I have also come across those who don't want anyone to be a competitor to them because they noticed that you are fast rising and gaining clients all over so they would decide to hold case against you due to either one issues or problems you had with them before to frighten you due to your little error before possibly would have connection to your client to spoil your good images.

[nutildah]

Its hard to tell if he means "distrusted" as in excluded or as in negative trusted you... I don't know about the feedback history but the thing is he excluded you in July 2022 and your request for people to remove you from their trust lists (as referenced in the feedback) wasn't until Oct 2022... So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Generally, negative feedback shouldn't be left for how someone makes use of the trust system... especially if they don't want to be part of DT. It has very little to do with actual trustworthiness.

[holydarkness]

[...] Do you see his feedback by default? [...]

This, I don't think it is. As established, he's no longer in DT, his feedback won't show by default, unless royse put him in his trust list, which... I am very much confident does not and will not happen.

Its hard to tell if he means "distrusted" as in excluded or as in negative trusted you... I don't know about the feedback history but the thing is he excluded you in July 2022 and your request for people to remove you from their trust lists (as referenced in the feedback) wasn't until Oct 2022... So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Generally, negative feedback shouldn't be left for how someone makes use of the trust system... especially if they don't want to be part of DT. It has very little to do with actual trustworthiness.

Looking at LV's weekly trust list summary, TL has been loyally placing Royse on his distrust list for probably since he placed it there back in July [I didn't trace back that far, only few weeks back], I think it's the the latter, that he gave royse negative feedback. It seems he's... revamping his feedback? A lot of feedback was made on same day, and several bear same format as comment: an older date which assumably the date he made his previous feedback, followed by an explanation.

[MainIbem]

I don't know what the reason is for Timelord2067 to write a red tag with an old thread reference. Moreover, that's just an assumption, unless Timelord2067 was cheated in his trade with royse777. I don't think the tag is relevant, especially since Royse has borrowed up to 8k and everything seems fine https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5470967.msg63022663#msg63022663

Honestly, I want to hear Timelord2067's explanation of why he had to write the red tag. Or was this tag given because he don't like royse777? Ah... if that's what Timelord2067 mean, then I can't comment anymore

To every action there is always a reaction that stir up that action so I won't just conclude without Timelord giving his reason but from what Royse posted here it's assume that they had a deal which I think didn't go well as said but I am not sure maybe it's a hidden beef between them so I believe after now they will settle.
There is a popular saying that says " whenever two elephant fights the grass bears consequences" so I won't intrude much in this matter as they knows themselves more than you.

[yahoo62278]

Timelord2067

2023-11-12

Reference

2022-10-17 - I previously distrusted this person, then gave them the benefit of the doubt only to have (ref link) occur. I no longer trust them and wouldn't do a trade with them.

Is it really necessary to prove yourself again and again that others are absolutely correct about you?

Do you really think I will be interested to offer you a trade with me by giving you the money or item upfront?
You will never have an opportunity to trade with me, not from my side. If you offer it from your side then you will need to send the money or item first. You don't even have a decent trade history and you are questioning my trade history is funny. Just look at the weekly amount of BTC I handle (receive from my clients and pay the campaigners). I don't think you will be trusted with a 100th portion of that amount.

I pray you will find the better of yourself. You don't need to be religious for it.

Cheers,

You're making an argument with a user that isn't even on DT currently so most will not even see the feedback. Sometimes I think you like the drama? Thick skin man, thick skin. Sometimes it's better to let it go.

[PytagoraZ]

You're making an argument with a user that isn't even on DT currently so most will not even see the feedback. Sometimes I think you like the drama? Thick skin man, thick skin. Sometimes it's better to let it go.

I just realized that Timelord2067 is no longer DT. Maybe the best way is to ignore this problem and be thick-skinned, as long as Timelord2067 is not part of DT then everything will be fine. But I'm curious how Timelord2067 will explain this

I don't think @royse777 has to worry about his reputation because all the members know how he runs campaigns and manages money. If the trust system is used to avoid fraud, the campaign managers here distribute large amounts of money every week and everything is distributed well. So in my opinion it is real proof of royse777's reputation that he is one of the trusted members on this forum

I don't know what the reason is for Timelord2067 to write a red tag with an old thread reference. Moreover, that's just an assumption, unless Timelord2067 was cheated in his trade with royse777. I don't think the tag is relevant, especially since Royse has borrowed up to 8k and everything seems fine https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5470967.msg63022663#msg63022663

Honestly, I want to hear Timelord2067's explanation of why he had to write the red tag. Or was this tag given because he don't like royse777? Ah... if that's what Timelord2067 mean, then I can't comment anymore

To every action there is always a reaction that stir up that action so I won't just conclude without Timelord giving his reason but from what Royse posted here it's assume that they had a deal which I think didn't go well as said but I am not sure maybe it's a hidden beef between them so I believe after now they will settle.
There is a popular saying that says " whenever two elephant fights the grass bears consequences" so I won't intrude much in this matter as they knows themselves more than you.

Yes, let's just wait for an explanation from Timelord2067

[Timelord2067]

It seems he's... revamping his feedback?

Correct. (As yahoo already knows): Archive [a.t] [w.a.o]

I can respect you wanting your feedbacks to be accurate though.

And I'm not finished - had you continued scrolling, you might have noticed all of the negatives have been *rewritten* verbatim leaving just a mixture of neutral and positives pre-this week - next up are the neutrals to be rewritten verbatim.  The positives can stay as is to give context as to when they were first issued.  (that doesn't mean I'm finished with them, rather they have been grouped (or will be grouped) together - subject to further review)

The OP is again playing the victim knowing full well the original trust feedback was posted on the quoted date (yet he's just waited until now to burst into tears) - IIRC he even made mention of it in one of his previous grandstanding threads.

But thanks OP for going on the record as saying of the 137 negative (and overall 443 trust feedbacks) that is the ONLY trust feedback that you consider to be incorrect.  (that's less than a quarter of one percent)


OTOH Feedback is correct:

I don't trust the OP and wouldn't do a trade with the OP.

[digaran]

So you wouldn't mind every single forum member DT or not, tag you with red just because "they" don't trust you?

[Poker Player]

Hey Royse777, I am with yahoo62278 on this.

I understand that you should not mind feedback from non-DT members. I guess in this case you might care a little bit because he has a history in the forum but I myself have him on ignore and I don't even stop to read the crap explanation he may have given to justify his feedback. In fact, reviewing my untrusted feedback I see that he left a garbage comment on a flag I created and that was massively supported by DTs. Don't pay any attention to him.

[LoyceV]

So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

That sounds like Timelord2067 His Trust abuse is well documented, and it's the reason I excluded him.

@Royse777: you can't just empty your Trust list and then complain about incorrect negative feedback. The proper way to handle this, is by excluding him from your own Trust list. That's how the Trust system works.

you might have noticed all of the negatives have been *rewritten* verbatim leaving just a mixture of neutral and positives pre-this week - next up are the neutrals to be rewritten verbatim.

You seem desperate to regain your DT-position.

[BabyBandit]

[AB de Royse777]

@Royse777: you can't just empty your Trust list and then complain about incorrect negative feedback. The proper way to handle this, is by excluding him from your own Trust list. That's how the Trust system works.

Having anyone in my trust list either trusted or distrusted does not effect in the DT voting because I volunteered to blacklist myself from DT1 voting.

You're making an argument with a user that isn't even on DT currently so most will not even see the feedback.

But thanks OP for going on the record as saying of the 137 negative (and overall 443 trust feedbacks) that is the ONLY trust feedback that you consider to be incorrect.  (that's less than a quarter of one percent)

I was expecting a better understanding about the default trust system from a user who is on the forum since 2013 ^{answer to yahoo62278} but you^Timelord2067 proved again, it was justified that you are not in area and others are absolutely correct about you.

[LoyceV]

@Royse777: you can't just empty your Trust list and then complain about incorrect negative feedback. The proper way to handle this, is by excluding him from your own Trust list. That's how the Trust system works.

Having anyone in my trust list either trusted or distrusted does not effect in the DT voting because I volunteered to blacklist myself from DT1 voting.

What I said still applies. DT1 is (trying to be) a democracy. You can't step out of the democracy and still expect it to work.

@Timelord2067 (below): try to stay on-topic.

[Timelord2067]

FIFY

@Royse777: you can't just empty your Trust list and then complain about incorrect negative feedback. The improper way to handle this, is by excluding him from your own Trust list. That's how the Trust system doesn't work.

Having anyone in my trust list either trusted or distrusted does not effect in the DT voting because I volunteered to blacklist myself from DT1 voting.

What I said still applies. DT1 is (trying to be) a democracy. You can't step out of the democracy and still expect it to work.

Yeh about that - you should have vetted The Sceptical Chymist' 3000+ trust feedback (as I did) before encouraging him to rejoin the DT lottery his trust feedbacks are primarily a mixture of note book anecdotes or similar to my ONE trust feedback you are all agonizing over.   Check them out, they don't conform to your own instructions.

By rights on your yard arm he should be "~" by you.

You seem desperate to regain your DT-position.

Even you seem to fail to grasp the nuances of DT1


You can't chant "do as I say, not do as I do" then have the gall to complain if I review my trust feedbacks according to your demands.

(I thought you pinky promised to stop Trolling me?)

[digaran]

What I said still applies. DT1 is (trying to be) a democracy. You can't step out of the democracy and still expect it to work.

Is that the definition of democracy nowadays? Where congress members get elected by the votes of other congress members, which means each DT member is like a state.  I wonder who are non DT, ordinary members?  I never understood western "democracy" or any democracy if it's even a thing, that's why I have joined the "revolution".

DT or not, if your words worth nothing for others, your 1 DT vote is worthless as well, whenever you guys found someone to say the final words on a matter with 98% of community agreement on the verdict, do let me know.

OTOH Feedback is correct:

I don't trust the OP and wouldn't do a trade with the OP.

This is his reason of giving negative feedback, but of course no DT  member would do the same to him, why? Because it's wrong, but if they treated him with his own style which he treats others, he'd learn from his mistakes and realize what a warped understanding of trust system he has had all this time.

Edit, @holydarkness, the election you mentioned is rigged,  12 people with total earned merits of 600 is not considered "citizens". Why not multiply that requirements by 20 for devoting? Then lets see what happens.

[holydarkness]

What I said still applies. DT1 is (trying to be) a democracy. You can't step out of the democracy and still expect it to work.

Is that the definition of democracy nowadays? Where congress members get elected by the votes of other congress members, which means each DT member is like a state.  I wonder who are non DT, ordinary members?  I never understood western "democracy" or any democracy if it's even a thing, that's why I have joined the "revolution".

[...]

If I may get slightly out of topic...

Democracy can simply means a system which determined by the "citizen" of the said system, they elect their representatives, from their own, where they determine the outcome of the said "poll" instead of those representatives being automatically elected by birthright like monarch or dictatorship.

And this is held true, if we look at how the process of DT election, especially the one I marked in bold.

[...]
I will periodically (maybe every month) be reconstructing the default trust list to include everyone who matches these criteria:
 - If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.
 - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
 - Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries.
 - You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection.
 - You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.
 - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.
 - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.

[...]

As you can see, the only way to be eligible to be a DT [well, DT1] is by having the "citizen" voting for them, this is not DT electing each other [congress members get elected by the votes of other congress members]. In fact, there is no criteria in the system that require a DT1 to be elected by other DT1. IIRC, there was a situation where someone without any other DT trusting him and he still got elected as a DT1.

If you're talking about "dis-votes" instead of "votes" though, i.e.: where DT members "elects" another DT to be kicked out of the system, was it not the very practice of democracy too? There is no absolute power where someone can not unilaterally kick someone else, there has to be an enough agreement between the DT to kick the said user [who abuses their power, if I may add] from the system.