Quote from: TECSHARE on March 18, 2019, 02:00:22 AM

Quote from: nutildah on March 17, 2019, 12:25:14 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 09, 2019, 06:16:44 PM

Ok, so it seems to me his comment was in fact directly involving finance. If I say I really like XYZ gambling site, and they are actually a fraud and you redtag me for it, are you not negative rating me for what I said?

His comment referenced me posting a news story about Monero. Has nothing to do with Dash. The Dash part of his comment has nothing to do with finance. It stemmed from when I asked him what was up with his multi-year obsession with trolling Dash. If you want to argue that does have to do with finance, OK fine, but as far as them actually being a fraud is concerned, that point is not well evidenced by iCEBREAKER. As I said previously I don't even hold Dash anymore, I was just intrigued when I saw iCEBREAKER had returned to continue his epic trolling saga.

After seeing my comment, he dug up and commented on several old threads of mine, looking for a reason to red tag me I suppose.

Quote from: TECSHARE on March 09, 2019, 06:16:44 PM

Lets look at a few examples from your own ratings:

"bataklik   2019-02-23   0.00000000   Reference   Promoter of scam project that is pretending to be a successful project. Please see here for scam accusation thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110191.0 . This user's account has likely been hacked and is untrustworthy. "

"BrieMiller   2019-02-22   0.00000000   Reference   Promotion of HYIP products, part of a bumping service that bumps threads with low-value posts. Not genuinely concerned with the outcome of projects. Do not trust this user or take any of their questions seriously. "

"cryptobenn   2018-12-02   0.00000000   Reference   Promoting the ETH token scam "FREE Coin" "

There are more but I would rather not be here all day. I am not even saying your ratings shouldn't have been left, maybe they should, but that is irrelevant.

It seems to me iCEBREAKER's rating for you is functionally indistinguishable from these ratings you have left for others as defined by your own terms of what makes it invalid. Being critical of some one is not trolling just because you are having trouble dealing with it.

The difference is he left his rating for me spreading what he considered to be "fake news." Has nothing to do with finance or transactions. My ratings all implicate the user of having financially-related motivations and being involved in what is potentially a scam, and they are backed by evidence displayed in the referenced link.

Do you believe "being critical of some one" is a good reason to leave a negative trust? If the answer is "no," then you should remove iCEBREAKER from your inclusions.

He specifically referenced feedback you have left for the DASH dev (which it appears has been deleted since, I am not sure I don't see it) as well as your posts about Monero. Also you again have left negative ratings for others simply for promoting projects that you feel are not legitimate. If those ratings are valid for you to leave I see no reason why his rating left for you should not be valid. Your ratings have just as much to do with "financial transactions" as yours seeing as you provided zero evidence to support your claims.

Usually I might be inclined to discuss this rating with him, but you seem intent on insisting you have a right to leave ratings like this for others while claiming ratings motivated by the exact same type of activity are invalid when left for you. I am willing to reconsider actions to resolve this if you are willing to start observing a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws when leaving negative ratings. Until then all I see is a hypocrite crying that they got a tiny taste of what they dish out to others freely without evidence.

OK.