Quote from: Lauda on June 13, 2019, 12:36:16 AM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 13, 2019, 12:32:49 AM

The selective enforcement part is confusing the hell out of me because you seem to be supporting Tecshare's claim from that thread from years ago linked earlier, yet you don't support the argument he made. I don't know much about what you are talking about with EFS, so unless its very relevant to your point, I'll skip it. If its important, I'll look up some threads about it.

I support his claim that there is selective enforcement, not his particular instance. I haven't gone in depth into that thread to be able to support the particular claim. Meriting =/= support.

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 13, 2019, 12:32:49 AM

You can leave negative feedback just as you've always done. You can't flag him though. Flag = Help! I've been scammed! Negative feedback = Watch out, this guy is shady! I'm not sure why you are under the impression that you have no recourse against scammers now just because there is now a distinct warning and alarm system. If you haven't been scammed, you post a warning. If you have been scammed, you signal the alarm.

This is completely wrong. You forget that:
1) There is no trust score.
2) There is no bold red - it is now orange. Orange is not a colour of danger nor warning.
3) There is no warning written on someone with negative ratings.

Every single scammer ever has been let loose. You seem to actively fight this fact (cognitive dissonance makes accepting this hard, which in return further strengthens the scammers' positions).

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 13, 2019, 12:32:49 AM

The flags are for "I"ve been scammed!" and misrepresenting your feedback is the only thing that counts as trust abuse in my eyes anyway.

Fun. I suggest we add QS next to DT1. Maybe his pal TF too. Where's the contract violation? Clown-forum.

You can stop responding to me and discuss with others about it. Claiming that we have a warning system when there is actually no warning written after someone received a negative tag is just factually wrong. The rest you can debate ad-naseum; re: who is right/wrong. I am no longer interested in this particular discussion.

Let us remember lauda that you are a scammer? so those you brand scammers are likely NOT scammers are they? I mean who trusts the word of a proven scammer and liar??