This is what QS always does. It's the same with the dice sites I played on and talked about that ended up disappearing with people's money. He says I "supported" them, but in fact went to great lengths to repeatedly state that I didn't know who ran them or whether they were trustworthy.
Wait, you didn't know who ran the ponzi in question? I am confused, I thought you said his name was Kyle in this very same post. 
By now I'm pretty sure you're trolling us but I highlighted the relevant bits for you anyway.
The only reason I was even looking at the script was because Klye was having problems with it. As I understood it, he was marketing his Ponzi truthfully and not attempting to steal anything from anyone. From what I've heard nobody other than Klye himself ended up out of pocket from using that script.
Quote from: suchmoon
Of course you don't need a PSA or any kind of other formal process to post a neg. The PSA is just a choice of some members to warn about their intent and is not a forum rule. Which is why I still don't understand why some posters even in this thread are not negging dooglus but for some reason are expecting others to do that. If anyone distrusts dooglus for the reasons presented in the OP or any other reasons - just go ahead and do it, how hard can it possibly be.
dooglus has excluded anyone who has seriously questioned him and anyone who has left him negative trust who were previously anywhere near the Default Trust network (both myself and BAC). Maybe they are afraid of receiving an exclusion from dooglus if they leave him a negative rating, which could potentially undue a lot of their prior work.As far as I can see dooglus posted a neutral for BAC and nothing for you. Exclusions don't matter, BAC is still in DT2 and you're not in DT2 at all, not because of exclusions. What are you talking about?
Quote from: suchmoon
Is that how you really think? A risk to a position in DT would be more important than exposing a potential scammer of this caliber? Seriously flawed logic. Luckily most members didn't think that way when e.g. Master-P or escrow.ms needed to be tagged.
I am only speculating, and I cannot speak for those who have left negatives for those that promoted ponzis and those that have sold ponzi scripts but have not left negative trust for Dooglus yet. I do know that Vod once offered to give up his account when BadBear was threatening to exclude Vod from his trust list in order to avoid being removed from DT. I would also point out that those that are leaving most of the negative trust for those accosiated and participating in ponzis appear to be trying to make a name for themselves, or at least that is how they come across to me -- this is getting a little off topic though. Quote from: suchmoon
I also think it's disingenuous to be opposed to the way cryptodevil and whywefight and others are negging ponzis, but at the same time expect a significantly more wide-ranging criteria to be applied to someone you dislike personally. Now that would be the wrong use for the trust system but thank God theymos for the tilde.
I am opposed to those who are leaving negative trust for anyone who talks about participating in a ponzi as I disagree with the conclusion that anyone posting about such participation is supporting a ponzi, and in turn is a scammer. In fact, I have noticed that many people who have received negative trust have posted something along the lines that the ponzi is not sustainable in the very post they write of their participation, so if anything they are warning others of the risks involved in participating in a ponzi. If you look at my sent trust, you will see many negative ratings for operators of ponzis. I don't think that it is a bigger stretch to say that dooglus was/is supporting a ponzi, then those who post of their participation in ponzis. Dooglus created software (a script) that would allow a potential ponzi operator to run a ponzi, when they would not otherwise be able to run said ponzi. If participants did not post about their participation in a ponzi, then the operator could still post information about funds being received on the blockchain and other various stats, and the lack of said posts would not prevent a ponzi operator from being able from running.
My having negative personal feelings towards someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam. Similarly, just because I am close to someone does not preclude me from calling them out on a scam or saying that I think they are wrong publicly. I am sure that many people in this thread will not believe me, however all of my trust ratings are based on fact, and my personal opinions do not influence any of them, and this thread was not made because of any personal opinions or feelings (although I may have spent a little extra time looking into this issue after receiving this tip due to personal feelings).
Well, I've seen you quite a few times dragging dooglus into topics that have nothing to do with him so I'd say there is more to it than that. Between Vod and this there is a good reason to believe that you can't be impartial in this debate. That's just my opinion.