Request to have michaeladair removed from BadBears trust list

[michaeladair]

I deleted it a long while ago because I didn't want everyone to think that just because I persuaded him that I was in cahoots with him.

It can be verified by BadBear if you want. Send him a PM.

Already sent him a pm about 4 hours ago so he would check this out.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Anyone on the default could give their alts positive trust, but if they did and it was found out (which wouldn't be that difficult especially in Quickseller's case) they likely would be removed. It also doesn't matter how long someone has been here but how trustworthy they are with their ratings. If it's abused by them they'll be removed so it's in their interests to keep their feedbacks accurate.

Damn right.

Also "I support ponzi schemes until they stop paying" is an absurd statement any way you slice it. If this guy isn't involved in at least one of them I will eat my hat

It was an hyip. I don't support ponzi schemes, just the games based on ponzis...

I was tempted to turn this into a meme and be done with it. But I'd like you to explain this semantic shuffle. Is ponzi game like assault dance?

[michaeladair]

Anyone on the default could give their alts positive trust, but if they did and it was found out (which wouldn't be that difficult especially in Quickseller's case) they likely would be removed. It also doesn't matter how long someone has been here but how trustworthy they are with their ratings. If it's abused by them they'll be removed so it's in their interests to keep their feedbacks accurate.

Damn right.

Also "I support ponzi schemes until they stop paying" is an absurd statement any way you slice it. If this guy isn't involved in at least one of them I will eat my hat

It was an hyip. I don't support ponzi schemes, just the games based on ponzis...

I was tempted to turn this into a meme and be done with it. But I'd like you to explain this semantic shuffle. Is ponzi game like assault dance?

Ponzi games involve people gambling on the chance that someone else will send money after them. I support the ones that clearly state the consequences and the risks involved in sending money.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Anyone on the default could give their alts positive trust, but if they did and it was found out (which wouldn't be that difficult especially in Quickseller's case) they likely would be removed. It also doesn't matter how long someone has been here but how trustworthy they are with their ratings. If it's abused by them they'll be removed so it's in their interests to keep their feedbacks accurate.

Damn right.

Also "I support ponzi schemes until they stop paying" is an absurd statement any way you slice it. If this guy isn't involved in at least one of them I will eat my hat

It was an hyip. I don't support ponzi schemes, just the games based on ponzis...

I was tempted to turn this into a meme and be done with it. But I'd like you to explain this semantic shuffle. Is ponzi game like assault dance?

Ponzi games involve people gambling on the chance that someone else will send money after them. I support the ones that clearly state the consequences and the risks involved in sending money.

via Imgflip Meme Maker


...and blackmail

[michaeladair]

*Insert dumb meme here*

Ponzi Schemes don't fucking say that they are Ponzis... Go to this thread here and try and prove the people that believe me wrong. These games show that there is a risk in what they are doing unlike Ponzi Schemes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=927206.0

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

*Insert dumb meme here*

Ponzi Schemes don't fucking say that they are Ponzis... Go to this thread here and try and prove the people that believe me wrong. These games show that there is a risk in what they are doing unlike Ponzi Schemes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=927206.0

Is this the blackmail thread then?

[michaeladair]

*Insert dumb meme here*

Ponzi Schemes don't fucking say that they are Ponzis... Go to this thread here and try and prove the people that believe me wrong. These games show that there is a risk in what they are doing unlike Ponzi Schemes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=927206.0

Is this the blackmail thread then?

It's thread in which I and many others prove that negative trust is not necessary for Ponzi Game sites.

And I already said that I want to be off the Default Trust list.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

*Insert dumb meme here*

Ponzi Schemes don't fucking say that they are Ponzis... Go to this thread here and try and prove the people that believe me wrong. These games show that there is a risk in what they are doing unlike Ponzi Schemes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=927206.0

Is this the blackmail thread then?

It's thread in which I and many others prove that negative trust is not necessary for Ponzi Game sites.

And I already said that I want to be off the Default Trust list.

I read the thread. A ponzi is a game when it's called a ponzi. Very clever. We should move all the threads to the beginners and help section. Newbies love 'games'

[michaeladair]

*Insert dumb meme here*

Ponzi Schemes don't fucking say that they are Ponzis... Go to this thread here and try and prove the people that believe me wrong. These games show that there is a risk in what they are doing unlike Ponzi Schemes.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=927206.0

Is this the blackmail thread then?

It's thread in which I and many others prove that negative trust is not necessary for Ponzi Game sites.

And I already said that I want to be off the Default Trust list.

I read the thread. A ponzi is a game when it's called a ponzi. Very clever. We should move all the threads to the beginners and help section. Newbies love 'games'

Clearly you didn't understand it because you are too Blind.


I'm out of the default trust now, I'm gonna work with badbear and sort out the claim made against me that i use all those alts. (See my trust for the list that quickseller made)

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[Quickseller]

Oh yeah, most definitely. In fact promote him to admin. Isn't it obvious?

And while we're on the same topic, you better feed me with some positive trust. Or else... you're gonna get it...

Point made. Thanks

You better give me positive trust right now else I'm going to kill your dog.

Please delete this post and dont threadjack I'd like badbear to see my latest post.

Just PM him if you want him to remove you from his trust list, I doubt he will deny your request.

I want him to see that whole post because quickseller is claiming that I am an alt of those accounts and I'm not (check my trust for reference)

His feedback says you're either an alt or an associate of Plutonium & co. I'm not sure if you're the same person, there isn't conclusive evidence here, but there is good reason to think you were involved in his operations. You made many posts promoting his scheme and left him positive feedback. You also offered to get Plutonium to remove the negative trust he left me, which I'm not sure why you would have done if you didn't have some sort of relationship with him:

O shit, he negged you? Want me to try and get him to remove it?

You should have known you were staking your reputation by endorsing his scam.

I messaged him and convinced him because it wasnt right then he gave you negative trust. Also, I'm not involved or an alt of the bitcoinstocks ponzi, I only supported it because it kept paying me out. I didn't support it when it stopped sending.

Please post that PM here and report it to an admin so they can verify its legitimacy. I believe Quickseller would agree with me that this would be sufficient proof that you are not his alt.

Correct. Or really even any PM with him (at least 2 weeks old) that is backed up by previous posts made by you about your communication with you.

Even if you can show you were not an alt/associate of any of them the best case scenario would be that I edit my rating to show you are only an extortionist

[BadBear]

I'm out of the default trust now, I'm gonna work with badbear and sort out the claim made against me that i use all those alts. (See my trust for the list that quickseller made)

In general, I'm not going to get involved with these sorts of accusations of alts/sockpuppets. If I'm not going to confirm such accusations, then it's a bad idea to deny them as well. In cases where I do not deny them, people would see it as effectively a confirmation, when there are other reasons I may not want to confirm such allegations. You'll also end up in situations where people will just start throwing a bunch of accusations out to see what sticks.  

Besides, I can't state with any authority whether x is not y, only thing I can do is state whether there is evidence they are (and see previous statement for why I won't disclose that). Lack of such evidence doesn't mean they aren't.

There are lots of bad reasons to start doing this sort of thing, in the end I've decided it's best to just stay out of it, as an admin anyway. This doesn't mean I won't take actions regarding my personal trust list.

[michaeladair]

I'm out of the default trust now, I'm gonna work with badbear and sort out the claim made against me that i use all those alts. (See my trust for the list that quickseller made)

In general, I'm not going to get involved with these sorts of accusations of alts/sockpuppets. If I'm not going to confirm such accusations, then it's a bad idea to deny them as well. In cases where I do not deny them, people would see it as effectively a confirmation, when there are other reasons I may not want to confirm such allegations. You'll also end up in situations where people will just start throwing a bunch of accusations out to see what sticks.  

Besides, I can't state with any authority whether x is not y, only thing I can do is state whether there is evidence they are (and see previous statement for why I won't disclose that). Lack of such evidence doesn't mean they aren't.

There are lots of bad reasons to start doing this sort of thing, in the end I've decided it's best to just stay out of it, as an admin anyway. This doesn't mean I won't take actions regarding my personal trust list.

Is it not possible to check the ips that logged into to the alts and my account?

I know you are against doing it as an admin, but I don't want to be marked with this false negative trust...

[Quickseller]

I'm out of the default trust now, I'm gonna work with badbear and sort out the claim made against me that i use all those alts. (See my trust for the list that quickseller made)

In general, I'm not going to get involved with these sorts of accusations of alts/sockpuppets. If I'm not going to confirm such accusations, then it's a bad idea to deny them as well. In cases where I do not deny them, people would see it as effectively a confirmation, when there are other reasons I may not want to confirm such allegations. You'll also end up in situations where people will just start throwing a bunch of accusations out to see what sticks. 

Besides, I can't state with any authority whether x is not y, only thing I can do is state whether there is evidence they are (and see previous statement for why I won't disclose that). Lack of such evidence doesn't mean they aren't.

There are lots of bad reasons to start doing this sort of thing, in the end I've decided it's best to just stay out of it, as an admin anyway. This doesn't mean I won't take actions regarding my personal trust list.

Is it not possible to check the ips that logged into to the alts and my account?

I know you are against doing it as an admin, but I don't want to be marked with this false negative trust...

Like I said above even if it were shown that you are not an alt of the people claimed to be you I would only edit the negative to reflect you being an extortionist, which I think is the worse of the claims. Like MadZ said, my feedback says you are either an alt or an associate (e.g. in the same scamming ring) of them. Like I said, I would accept you publishing a single PM to/from Plutonium as proof you are not one and the same.

EDIT: updated to only reflect you are an extortionist.
Moreia's will likely remain however I am willing to hear his argument as to why it should be removed/edited

EDIT2: I updated it back to that I believe that you are an alt/partner of the people who I believe you to be partners with since you are trying to take out loans without collateral in a scammy way

[michaeladair]

I'm out of the default trust now, I'm gonna work with badbear and sort out the claim made against me that i use all those alts. (See my trust for the list that quickseller made)

In general, I'm not going to get involved with these sorts of accusations of alts/sockpuppets. If I'm not going to confirm such accusations, then it's a bad idea to deny them as well. In cases where I do not deny them, people would see it as effectively a confirmation, when there are other reasons I may not want to confirm such allegations. You'll also end up in situations where people will just start throwing a bunch of accusations out to see what sticks. 

Besides, I can't state with any authority whether x is not y, only thing I can do is state whether there is evidence they are (and see previous statement for why I won't disclose that). Lack of such evidence doesn't mean they aren't.

There are lots of bad reasons to start doing this sort of thing, in the end I've decided it's best to just stay out of it, as an admin anyway. This doesn't mean I won't take actions regarding my personal trust list.

Is it not possible to check the ips that logged into to the alts and my account?

I know you are against doing it as an admin, but I don't want to be marked with this false negative trust...

Like I said above even if it were shown that you are not an alt of the people claimed to be you I would only edit the negative to reflect you being an extortionist, which I think is the worse of the claims. Like MadZ said, my feedback says you are either an alt or an associate (e.g. in the same scamming ring) of them. Like I said, I would accept you publishing a single PM to/from Plutonium as proof you are not one and the same.

I really don't care if I am labeled as an EXTORTIONIST, that is basically what I did to you and I realize that. I just do not want to be falsely accused of something that I did not do.

[Quickseller]

I'm out of the default trust now, I'm gonna work with badbear and sort out the claim made against me that i use all those alts. (See my trust for the list that quickseller made)

In general, I'm not going to get involved with these sorts of accusations of alts/sockpuppets. If I'm not going to confirm such accusations, then it's a bad idea to deny them as well. In cases where I do not deny them, people would see it as effectively a confirmation, when there are other reasons I may not want to confirm such allegations. You'll also end up in situations where people will just start throwing a bunch of accusations out to see what sticks. 

Besides, I can't state with any authority whether x is not y, only thing I can do is state whether there is evidence they are (and see previous statement for why I won't disclose that). Lack of such evidence doesn't mean they aren't.

There are lots of bad reasons to start doing this sort of thing, in the end I've decided it's best to just stay out of it, as an admin anyway. This doesn't mean I won't take actions regarding my personal trust list.

Is it not possible to check the ips that logged into to the alts and my account?

I know you are against doing it as an admin, but I don't want to be marked with this false negative trust...

Like I said above even if it were shown that you are not an alt of the people claimed to be you I would only edit the negative to reflect you being an extortionist, which I think is the worse of the claims. Like MadZ said, my feedback says you are either an alt or an associate (e.g. in the same scamming ring) of them. Like I said, I would accept you publishing a single PM to/from Plutonium as proof you are not one and the same.

I really don't care if I am labeled as an EXTORTIONIST, that is basically what I did to you and I realize that. I just do not want to be falsely accused of something that I did not do.

If I had to choose between being called a thief or an extortionist then I would pick thief any day (I am not either of them).

I have edited my feedback to show you as only being an extortionist, although I cannot guarantee that someone else will look at the same evidence I looked at and make the same conclusion (and potentially leave similar feedback that I originally left you).

[michaeladair]

I'm out of the default trust now, I'm gonna work with badbear and sort out the claim made against me that i use all those alts. (See my trust for the list that quickseller made)

In general, I'm not going to get involved with these sorts of accusations of alts/sockpuppets. If I'm not going to confirm such accusations, then it's a bad idea to deny them as well. In cases where I do not deny them, people would see it as effectively a confirmation, when there are other reasons I may not want to confirm such allegations. You'll also end up in situations where people will just start throwing a bunch of accusations out to see what sticks. 

Besides, I can't state with any authority whether x is not y, only thing I can do is state whether there is evidence they are (and see previous statement for why I won't disclose that). Lack of such evidence doesn't mean they aren't.

There are lots of bad reasons to start doing this sort of thing, in the end I've decided it's best to just stay out of it, as an admin anyway. This doesn't mean I won't take actions regarding my personal trust list.

Is it not possible to check the ips that logged into to the alts and my account?

I know you are against doing it as an admin, but I don't want to be marked with this false negative trust...

Like I said above even if it were shown that you are not an alt of the people claimed to be you I would only edit the negative to reflect you being an extortionist, which I think is the worse of the claims. Like MadZ said, my feedback says you are either an alt or an associate (e.g. in the same scamming ring) of them. Like I said, I would accept you publishing a single PM to/from Plutonium as proof you are not one and the same.

I really don't care if I am labeled as an EXTORTIONIST, that is basically what I did to you and I realize that. I just do not want to be falsely accused of something that I did not do.

If I had to choose between being called a thief or an extortionist then I would pick thief any day (I am not either of them).

I have edited my feedback to show you as only being an extortionist, although I cannot guarantee that someone else will look at the same evidence I looked at and make the same conclusion (and potentially leave similar feedback that I originally left you).

I'd rather be an Extortionist rather than a thief... thank you.

[Remington_Steele]

Like I said above he is clearly trying to silence the opinions that he does not agree with which is not something that the trust system was designed to do.

Yet when Vod did the same to iCEBREAKER, you defended Vod. Bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Anyway, it's interesting to see BadBear adding you, an account seller, and Michaeladair, a ponzi supporter/operator, into his trust list. More interesting than watching you and Michael flinging handbags at one another.

[michaeladair]

Like I said above he is clearly trying to silence the opinions that he does not agree with which is not something that the trust system was designed to do.

Yet when Vod did the same to iCEBREAKER, you defended Vod. Bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Anyway, it's interesting to see BadBear adding you, an account seller, and Michaeladair, a ponzi supporter/operator, into his trust list. More interesting than watching you and Michael flinging handbags at one another.

Let the court know, the ponzi operator deal is just an accusation. And its a Prada Handbag...

[DiamondCardz]

In my honest opinion...Quickseller should drop the negative trust.

Just my BTC0.02.

[michaeladair]

In my honest opinion...Quickseller should drop the negative trust.

Just my BTC0.02.

I mean, it's true I kinda did extort my trust in order to attempt to get him to remove the negative trust he kept sending to the gambling games...
I'd agree with you if he just made it into neutral, but I don't think it should disappear.