Quote from: fearofnegativeACC on November 15, 2017, 12:10:27 PM

Robbing banks were illegal.
Robbing banks were illegal.
Robbing banks is still illegal.
People who were caught several years after crime has been committed were put in jail.
Account sales were negative rated even back in 2013, nothing has changed - read REASON 4!

Sure. You had one incident of someone being rated negatively due to account sales. I'm not sure how strongly the first two users felt about account sales but the latest feedback talked about hacked accounts. Maybe that played a role in the trust, I don't know.

Quote from: fearofnegativeACC on November 15, 2017, 12:10:27 PM

Quote from: actmyname on November 15, 2017, 11:37:18 AM

Quote from: fearofnegativeACC on November 15, 2017, 11:25:37 AM

Quote from: fearofnegativeACC on November 15, 2017, 11:25:37 AM

Lauda and Xanis were in 2 signature campaigns at the same time back in 2014. So why giving negative trust for accounts which are enrolled in his signature campaign without breaking forum rules or cheating his campaigns:
Proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904885.msg18902983#msg18902983 how is that justified? Negative without any proof.

Quote from: Lauda on May 06, 2017, 11:49:53 PM

Here is the list just from last week (OP is slightly better than this list): kikeda, Format.C^, loges, yueno. I don't know why, but I have noticed a pattern which I'm not going to publicly elaborate as I may lose my advantage in combating it. There seems to be an influx of one-liner/short-posting & post-bursting in an attempt to get 1 maximum payout from Bitmixer before the account is permanently blacklisted and/or neg. rated.

Giving negative for "pattern" is not justified and it is not solid proof - lauda said it many times in "known alts of everyone" thread.

I send out negative trust towards those that are spammers. One-liners and burst-posting is usually indicative of spam.

I send? I don't remember quoting your post in reason 2.
Speaking about patterns - yours is the same as lauda's.
Do you see how ridiculous is to give someone negative just because pattern?

You fucked up the quoting, so your first sentence is irrelevant.
This type of quoting ≠ Spamming. If a user consistently posts one-liners within minutes of one another, can you really justify it? Are they seriously being constructive? Especially when they post in the 30+ page spam megathreads with their garbage general/vague replies?

[Not talking about extortion.]

Quote from: fearofnegativeACC on November 15, 2017, 12:10:27 PM

Quote

http://prntscr.com/haq80u
Lauda ≠ Welsh ≠ tysat. Trust is at a user's discretion.

Not if you are doing the same fucking thing, it is not justified. What happened to those 10 accounts lauda was about to buy? Has he bought them, farm signatures with them or sold them?

Once again, pull your head out of lauda's ass and stop talking to me and explaining things to me like I am 5 year old child.

It was rated negatively in 2013 by those accounts. Doesn't mean that people had the same opinions back in those days. In fact, when I sold the accounts I do remember there being quite a few escrows willing to do the job.