Re: The Objective Standards Guild - Testimonium Libertatem Iustitia
It clearly does favor you. You were openly selling your account.
Did you just point something from 2016. while complaining that someone is pointing something you did in 2016.?Speaking of 2016...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=812074
Here is reference link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1407150.msg14333933#msg14333933
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=148389
Reference link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1407150.msg14333933#msg14333933
Do you and BAC have solid proof that comicguy79 is alt account of user justbtcme? What if I tag OGNasty and I say that he didn't like that no one wanted to bid higher than 0.59btc so he outbid that only one bid? How that circumstantial evidence sound?
This is not by your standards! Why are you tagging users based on circumstantial evidence???
I (again) suggest to update OP with suggested exclusion:
~TECSHARE
~Bayareacoins
That user failed to honor a bid he made. An auction is a contract, which that user violated. Thank you all for the wonderful demonstration of what happens any time anyone suggests changes to the broken system here.
You are talking about some objective standards in this topic.
Your feedback is on account comicguy79 and BAC's feedback is on account justbtcme. It clearly says "ALT ACCOUNT OF JUSTBTCME" and "JUSTBTCME USED SHILL ACCOUNT TO OUTBID HIMSELF"
Both reference are linking this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1407150.msg14333933#msg14333933.
Can you please post proof that account justbtcme used account comicguy79 to do what you two claim they did?
If you can't link proof of connection then you both abused trust(according to you):
Quote from: TECSHARE
Core tenets:
1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.
2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
1. A standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws shall be documented in an objective and observable way before negative rating or flagging users.
2. Accusations without some form of documentation should be minimal.
Circumstantial evidence:
1) Ognasty did it because he wasn't satisfied with current bid
2) You or BAC did it because you both have been engaged in fight with this user
3) Justbtcme did it because he didn't want to buy item
4) Anyone else did it
You want to talk about objective standards so talk.
Cmon, tecshare, why didn't you tag account justbtcme and painted their wall with the same words? Look, this is what you claim:
Quote
Reference link Alt of "justbtcme", used to out bid himself in an auction he did not want to honor. Scam accusation open for this user regarding an unrelated incident.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1398871.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1398871.0
I just can't find proof looking at the reference link, please post proof to back up your own words from this topic. As the matter of fact, please post solid proof of scamming, not "he said she said then I said, I can't because I didn't...". I just can't make my mind reading those threads linked as reference, seems there are, I don't know, 5-6 feedback for the same thing.
When you do this, we shall talk about these observable instances:
I have time to go trough every questionable feedback (according to this topic and you), so we shall discuss it. When we reach end of discussion about "suggested inclusions" we shall make comparison between trust feedback of "suggested inclusions" and "suggested exclusions".
Please, don't just talk, lets walk. For start post proofs of connection between justbtcme and comicguy79.