Love how the accusers are all of a sudden pretending to be the voices of reason so they can project their own behavior on to everyone calling them out. This is of course as they have their proxies attack via trust ratings and spamming false accusations in other threads. How long is everyone going to put up with this kind of behavior?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=156113
And who that "well known member" will be?
@TECHARE all your other "opinions" are very well documented here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214377.msg53534115#msg53534115.
Since the mods seem to think this post is on topic for some reason...
What does this rating have to do with the mobbing behavior regarding Quickseller? Am I creating several threads looking for Koshgel's alts and casting more accusations like is being done here? Do I have a years long vendetta with Koshgel, like the one that is being demonstrated here? Also, several of your pals tagged Koshgel before I even tagged him. These two things are no where near comparable. This is just more "NO U!" tactics designed to distract from criticisms of your friends you don't want to be too carefully considered.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=557356
"not saying that you are mobbing quickseller since 2015. or anyone else here", just help me to understand, newtons1 registered account on 25. September 2015. and wrote 27 posts till 27. September 2015., which is the time you "accused" them of being Quickseller's alt account. Sorry, "probably" QS's account.
Based on what have you made those 2 connections?
There have been multiple examples in the past in which negative trust was removed after no-collateral loans have been repaid, and when stolen money has been returned to it's rightful owner. Often times a neutral rating replaces such negative rating, however this is nowhere nearly as detrimental as a negative rating.
I don't understand the logic that someone who has caused no monitory loss should be labeled a scammer when someone who took money and later returned it late is not.
I don't understand the logic that someone who has caused no monitory loss should be labeled a scammer when someone who took money and later returned it late is not.
- "monitory"
This sounds like a sure fire way to corrupt the merit sources and change merit from being a reward for making posts the forum needs more of to something with monitory value.
Until this happens, it is most likely that deposits and withdrawals will not be processed due to the high risk of monitory loss.
