|
NotLambchop
|
 |
December 21, 2014, 07:14:13 PM |
|
... Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.
No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you. Ah, you were removed from default trust then? Will neg rep you back, my apologies.  Nice job, whoever's responsible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a common myth that Bitcoin is ruled by a majority of miners. This is not true. Bitcoin miners "vote" on the ordering of transactions, but that's all they do. They can't vote to change the network rules.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
malaimult
|
|
December 22, 2014, 03:45:42 AM |
|
... Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.
No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you. Ah, you were removed from default trust then? Will neg rep you back, my apologies. -snip- Nice job, whoever's responsible. From the looks of it, CanaryInTheMine removed Mabsark from default trust list. I do think this is a good start, but his trust list still does not appear to be significantly pruned and still contains a large number of people that probably should not be there. |
|
|
|
|
peligro
|
|
December 24, 2014, 11:19:06 AM |
|
... Just noticed Mabsark removed the neg. rating he left me.
No I didn't. I'd only remove that feedback if theymos created a special "Forum's Biggest Troll" rank especially for you. Ah, you were removed from default trust then? Will neg rep you back, my apologies. -snip- Nice job, whoever's responsible. From the looks of it, CanaryInTheMine removed Mabsark from default trust list. I do think this is a good start, but his trust list still does not appear to be significantly pruned and still contains a large number of people that probably should not be there. It is not a good start. CanaryInTheMine had previously indicated that he endorses Mabsark's actions. Removing him when faced with the threat of getting his Level 1 status taken away is a bad sign. |
|
|
|
|
|
SpanishSoldier (OP)
|
|
December 25, 2014, 04:55:52 PM |
|
-snip-
Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.
Thank you theymos for keeping your word... -snip-
From the looks of it, CanaryInTheMine removed Mabsark from default trust list. I do think this is a good start, but his trust list still does not appear to be significantly pruned and still contains a large number of people that probably should not be there.
I hope, in future, u'll be vigilant like this. Merry Christmas  |
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
|
|
December 25, 2014, 07:34:48 PM |
|
Let me get this straight. This person thought you were acting unfairly, he called you out on it, and you made it so his profile would be labeled as a scammer until he retracted his statements about you acting unfairly. Is this an accurate representation of what happened?
In other words, you want to be able to act unfairly and to allow no one to call you out on it.
If anything his trust rating should have been improved for calling out unfair business activity. What he was doing had nothing to do with him potentially scamming and therefore a negative trust rating is not warranted.
You seem to be complaining a lot about the fact that you were removed from default trust list, yet you fail to understand that your ratings given do not have anything to do with scamming or the ability to trust others and as a result are not accurate and should not be relied on
No, that is not an accurate representation of the situation. Armis was harassing me, not pointing out anything "unfair". I was selling a gift card for face value, he decided that getting what I paid for for my gift card was unfair. I made it clear he was unwelcome and he continued to make posts including insults and other harassment. If he was just "calling me out" on something, why stick around to make insults? I then reported his posts but the reports were ignored. At this point I left him a negative rating with the assumption that uninterested 3rd parties would not be forcing their involvement in the situation, so that we could BOTH be restored to our former states. The rating was left for his harassment, and that is exactly what the rating stated. I guess I should take the strategy of everyone else here and just lie about it, and say I think he is a scammer, and then it would magically be ok. After I left a rating for him he proceed to make slanderous posts on 5 more of my threads, demonstrating to me very clearly that his intent from his first post was harassment. At no point did Armis ever take responsibility for his participation in this conflict or even try to deescalate. Of course the staff are not interested in restorative justice, they are only interested in making sure the "default trust" maintains its "integrity" (HA!) so they can maintain their dominant influence over all traders on this forum and make sure their paychecks keep flowing. I do not leave negative trust flippantly, I have only left a handful of negatives over 3 years of trading. Other users on the default trust hand negative ratings out like candy for even the weakest of suspicious, and use "Scam busting" as a convenient cover for burning down a few personal enemies in the process and letting them get lost in the fray. Of course my single alleged misuse of a trust rating is unforgivable and negates my credibility. Sounds like uniform enforcement of policy to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrTeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 05, 2015, 07:40:10 PM
Last edit: January 05, 2015, 08:59:57 PM by MrTeal |
|
Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust. It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already. If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam. BTW - I notice that you aren't giving me crap about how I posted negative trust on PBmining's profile. Why is that? |
|
|
|
|
|
SpanishSoldier (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2015, 09:05:45 PM |
|
Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust. It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already. If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam. If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox. Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest. The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies, though it really does not mean that all these companies will be able to able to survive in these cut throat competition of cloud mining. |
|
|
|
|
MrTeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 05, 2015, 09:16:15 PM |
|
Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust. It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already. If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam. If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox. Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest. The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies. You don't remember correctly. I haven't even had a signature in the last year. I've never owned an AM share (though I almost did get some in the IPO and was kicking myself that I didn't), nor have I purchased any AMHash. I had no account on Hashie or Havelock to buy or sell AM shares at all. My being added to Canary's trust list had nothing to do with AM or Friedcat. He sent me almost 6 figures worth of non-AM product up front without escrow; I paid him for them at the prescribed time in full. Hence, trust added. Again, you don't need another round of logic because every premise of your argument is false. I don't imagine I'll see an apology out of this as well when TeraBox goes tits up, but maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me. |
|
|
|
|
Mabsark
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 05, 2015, 11:04:57 PM |
|
Out of all the people that you are calling AMHash sympathisers (MrTeal, Puppet, Raskul and I), I am the only one who has ever had an AM signature. Raskul has a Spondoolies (a competitor of AM) signature and is a massive Spondoolies fan. Puppet isn't a fan of mining at all and advocates buying and holding, and MrTeal just told you his story. How many times do you need be told that before it sinks in? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
DiamondCardz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1105
|
|
January 07, 2015, 09:01:11 PM |
|
It's been stated before, CanaryInTheMine has a ridiculously sized trust list that is not at all used for its purpose.
At the end of the day, people on Level 1 are supposed to choose people for Level 2 based on who they think will give good and accurate trust ratings. They're not supposed to add every single damn person they've traded with to Level 2! (He may not have added ALL of the people he has traded with, admittedly, but still...)
|
BA Computer Science, University of Oxford
Dissertation was about threat modelling on distributed ledgers.
|
|
|
|
Muhammed Zakir
|
|
January 08, 2015, 06:23:33 AM |
|
He has changed the negative feedback to neutral, so now there is no need for removing him as he is a scam-buster and made right trust feedback almost all time. ~~MZ~~ |
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
|
|
January 08, 2015, 08:35:37 AM |
|
He has changed the negative feedback to neutral, so now there is no need for removing him as he is a scam-buster and made right trust feedback almost all time. ~~MZ~~ I disagree. He can claim that he learned his lesson and changed his mind, but he was clearly attempting to intimidate me into silence about his abusive behavior. Additionally this is not the first time he has done this to users, and it will not be the last. If VOD has not demonstrated he does not deserve the authority he holds by his actions, I don't know what does. I can't think of anyone else on this forum that would be tolerated if they acted like this, certainly not among the general public. He keeps saying he has "corrected" his behavior by trying to resolve the situation amicably AFTER he attacks people by abusing the default trust, but then he goes and does it again, and again, and again. VOD is a detriment to this community, regardless of how many "scammers" he has "stopped". |
|
|
|
|
|
Muhammed Zakir
|
|
January 08, 2015, 08:49:06 AM |
|
He has changed the negative feedback to neutral, so now there is no need for removing him as he is a scam-buster and made right trust feedback almost all time. Additionally this is not the first time he has done this to users I have only seen 2 reports so far. Can you please give link(s) to thread/proof of any such thing he did? ~~MZ~~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpanishSoldier (OP)
|
|
January 08, 2015, 02:22:15 PM |
|
Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust. It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already. If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam. If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox. Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest.The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies. You don't remember correctly. I haven't even had a signature in the last year. I've never owned an AM share (though I almost did get some in the IPO and was kicking myself that I didn't), nor have I purchased any AMHash. I had no account on Hashie or Havelock to buy or sell AM shares at all. My being added to Canary's trust list had nothing to do with AM or Friedcat. He sent me almost 6 figures worth of non-AM product up front without escrow; I paid him for them at the prescribed time in full. Hence, trust added. Again, you don't need another round of logic because every premise of your argument is false. I don't imagine I'll see an apology out of this as well when TeraBox goes tits up, but maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me. You skillfully skipped my actual Q. So, magnified for U. Out of all the people that you are calling AMHash sympathisers (MrTeal, Puppet, Raskul and I), I am the only one who has ever had an AM signature. Raskul has a Spondoolies (a competitor of AM) signature and is a massive Spondoolies fan. Puppet isn't a fan of mining at all and advocates buying and holding, and MrTeal just told you his story. How many times do you need be told that before it sinks in? Mabshark => AM hash MrTeal => Asic Miner Raskul => Spondoolies Tech Jimmothy => HaveLock Puppet => HaveLock CanaryInTheMine => Anything friedcat goes fine with him. All of the above has conflict of interest with direct selling cloud mining companies. |
|
|
|
|
MrTeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 08, 2015, 03:07:41 PM |
|
Can you provide any kind of evidence I'm an AMhash sympathizer? I haven't owned a crypto share of anything since before GLBSE shut down. There's a great number of cloud mining Ponzis out there that I haven't given negative feedback to and some that I have, though it has nothing to do with trying to paint every possible Ponzi. When I left my feedback for PBmining and TeraBox, they still had neutral trust. It's similar to my rating for blackarrow, AMT and hashcoins. All of those outfits had neutral (or positive in the case of BA) trust that shouldn't, so I provided my opinion of their legitimacy. I haven't posted negative trust for BFL or EMIC or MAT because those have been more than covered already. If TeraBox can prove something resembling legitimacy I'd have no problem removing my trust rating on them. This probably has little to do with specific problems with my trust rating for TeraBox though, and more with you being pissed off that my involvement with PBmining meant you couldn't keep whoring your PBmining referral links around trying to bring new people into the scam. If I remember correctly, you were wearing the signature of AM hash or AsicMiner or some of the friedcat led cloud mining eyewash game product a few days ago which are directly competing businesses like TeraBox. Whom do you think of yourself that company should prove their legitimacy to you ? You ofcourse do have the right to leave -ve feedback on anyone you think is untrustworthy, just like I have the right to think that friedcat is playing a legitimacy game by remaining anonymous. But, if you can not publicly back up your claim with proof (I mean proof from you, not the person/company who is accused), then you DO NOT have the right to be associated with DefaultTrust. For any cloud mining company, your -ve is a conflict of interest.The case of MrTeal is exactly the same as of Mabshark and MrTeal is again in the trust list of friedcat product's group buy leader CanaryInTheMine. We do not need another round of logic and explanation to prove the case of MrTeal. Either MrTeal be removed from trust list of CanaryInTheMine or CanaryInTheMine be demoted to depth 2 of DefaultTrust, so that the friedcat army can not create problem for upcoming cloud mining companies. You don't remember correctly. I haven't even had a signature in the last year. I've never owned an AM share (though I almost did get some in the IPO and was kicking myself that I didn't), nor have I purchased any AMHash. I had no account on Hashie or Havelock to buy or sell AM shares at all. My being added to Canary's trust list had nothing to do with AM or Friedcat. He sent me almost 6 figures worth of non-AM product up front without escrow; I paid him for them at the prescribed time in full. Hence, trust added. Again, you don't need another round of logic because every premise of your argument is false. I don't imagine I'll see an apology out of this as well when TeraBox goes tits up, but maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me. You skillfully skipped my actual Q. So, magnified for U. Out of all the people that you are calling AMHash sympathisers (MrTeal, Puppet, Raskul and I), I am the only one who has ever had an AM signature. Raskul has a Spondoolies (a competitor of AM) signature and is a massive Spondoolies fan. Puppet isn't a fan of mining at all and advocates buying and holding, and MrTeal just told you his story. How many times do you need be told that before it sinks in? Mabshark => AM hash MrTeal => Asic Miner Raskul => Spondoolies Tech Jimmothy => HaveLock Puppet => HaveLock CanaryInTheMine => Anything friedcat goes fine with him. All of the above has conflict of interest with direct selling cloud mining companies. You're free to your opinion that I'm now an Asicminer shill and that's a conflict of interest, though it's wrong. I'm not even sure how you somehow backed off me being an AMHash shill to now being an Asic Miner shill; it seems like it'd be a pretty inconsequential difference. I assume it's because I wish I'd gotten in on the IPO at 0.1 when it jumped to 4BTC/share 8 months later, but that's a similar logic jump to saying I'm a shill for the lottery company for wishing I'd picked the right PowerBall numbers even though I don't buy lottery tickets. Your opinion though, as you say. As for leaving negative feedback for TeraBox, I cannot prove they are a ponzi, that is true. They display all the classic signs of a Ponzi though, in the same way that PBmining did. I couldn't prove PBmining was a Ponzi either (a fact you and all your Ponzi sympathizers seemed to love stating before PBmining blew up), but that didn't change the fact it was one. Is there a chance that TeraBox isn't a Ponzi? Probably. They could be a legitimate cloud mining company masquerading as a Ponzi. As I've said before, I would have no problem removing the feedback is TeraBox contacted me or provided any shred of evidence that they aren't a scam. Until then, much like Tomatocage tagging likely loan scammers, I will use my discretion to tag a company this is almost certainly going to default on their contracts. Since my leaving feedback for them isn't a conflict of interest as I have no stake in any cloud mining, my lack of right to be associated with default trust is simply your misguided opinion. I don't do it for you though, I do it for guys like this. I am glad that i came here 1st, i was going to join Terabox, i will buy own miner other than cloud mining now, i have lost with others to scared to take them chances
Now a question for you, do you have any shares in Terabox, have you taken one of their free vouchers, and/or have you advertised a referral link to them or received any referral hashing power? |
|
|
|
|
|
Keyser Soze
|
|
January 08, 2015, 04:57:17 PM |
|
Mabshark => AM hash
MrTeal => Asic Miner
Raskul => Spondoolies Tech
Jimmothy => HaveLock
Puppet => HaveLock
CanaryInTheMine => Anything friedcat goes fine with him.
All of the above has conflict of interest with direct selling cloud mining companies.
Where do you come up with these lists? For example... It is now almost known to everyone into cloud mining that U, [..] have HaveLock stocks and hence trolling the forum to push stock prices up. Its pretty well known to anyone that knows me, that my only btc investment is a cold wallet (and casacius coins, though I dont see that as an investment). I already challenged you to find one single post ever where I recommend anyone to buy anything havelock, BTW, accusing me of shilling for rather than against havelock is pretty hilarious after the blunder you made reading my latest post in their thread. You just cant stop lying can you? |
|
|
|
|
Mabsark
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1004
|
|
January 08, 2015, 06:27:52 PM |
|
Where do you come up with these lists? For example...
Basically, because I've got an AMHash sig and criticised a cloud mining ponzi he invested in, everybody else who criticised the ponzis became a sockpuppet for AM - those Chinese scammers led by Havelock/Friedcat that are running the real ponzi. In other words, he's stark raving bonkers. |
|
|
|
|
|
