Lol some members believe they have the power to ban other members

Lol i left a bad itrader for a reviewer but wait i know you cant leave i trader for freebies but specifically told him not to give out to much info on the review and he didnt but the second post he made on the thread he gave away basically the whole ebook then he comes to me threatening me with this

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=757043

check his first post its a good honest review but his second post gave everything away



Hehe i just think its funny

 

wow.....noooooooooooob!!!!

 

Yeah, I think its really funny too. You will get banned, by a mod or admin for leaving false iTraders. Feel free to read the whole information on this situation here:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=7009069

Oh, and if you think thats funny, how about this:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=737254

You go out and steal copies of peoples eBook (you got a review copy), then you go and resell the methods.

 

false itrader i believe not my friend read the itrader fully i said you gave away to much info and in the thread you posted it says i just said bad review and i explained why

i am willing to give a copy to mod and admin so they can see how much info he gave

theres his original post from

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7008462

 

wow, sounds like this is heating up.

 

You should be banned for being a snitch horrible human, when you take in a review you don’t spill the content no matter what asshole, its none of your concern, all you had to say is you don’t recommend the e-book. You should be banned, screaming like a bitch. You seem like those DP haters who would click on your adsense to cause you get banned. You could say anything universally general to describe it, like you wouldn’t personal use it, etc. BUT you were so ferocious and exposed the whole thing!

 

If you take a review copy, you have a responsibility to give an honest review. The book contained methods with are likely illegal and certainly against eBay TOS. If you read the post he says:

"this method will work and i dont see how it can get you screwed over anyway .."

He didn't see the way, I explained it to him.

 

that might be true, but you still shouldn't give out the exact methods to the public. You first post was fine it was the second post that went over the line.

 

Maybe it was a little over the line, still doesn't justify a neg iTrader, thats against the DP rules. No transaction (>$5) was done, therefore no iTrader can be left.

And talking about going over the line, look at Keith who blatantly steals other peoples method and resells them.

 

He doesn’t understand it, you pretty much summed it up!

Well I don’t know what to say, but you my friend are a bad reviewer, no matter what the circumstances you shouldn’t have exposed the EXACT procedures. All other things put aside, we’re talking about your review, and where you went wrong, not if Keith has a bad jail history, get it in your head and argue your case.

 

Knight Rider you should just edit your post and ask the admins to remove the neg itrader. Or you guys can flame each other, that would be more entertaining.

 

Lol he came to me claiming that xxkingdom_SEoxx was my friend and thats why hes argueing for me

 

I will not go over the problems yet, but
if the leaving of itrader is against the DP rules then it is for there are many who got banned for leaving itraders
(no trades done or not allowed to leave itraders = both result as False itrader)

and members do have indirect powers to get someone banned from leaving false itrader (thats what report button's for and haven't failed me yet)

if the seller is not satisfied with the reviewer, then only -rep can be given in none-itrader cases.

 

I think it all boils down to reputation of your name/image. knight rider has a fantastic reputation for his ebooks and reviews of them. If he was to not post an honest review and reply in the manner he did, his own rep would have been on the line.

I have also received a copy of this ebook and can sympathies with knight riders predicament. I wont go into its details, but will only say knight rider is justified in what he did. He saved many people from spending there hard earned $$$

 

I was satisfied by the review wat i wasnt satisfied wasn't even part of the review which was his second post which gave away everything thus being the reason i left negative i trader

 

with the review problem, its both side's wrong actually but we should stop it here.

I cant actually say anything since I dont know real content, however if the ways are not legit or can be against TOS, it may be risky and watse of money if bought unknowingly. So in the title such as "Black Hat" or some sort foreshawoing it should be included.

and as for reviewer, it is not right to leak out all the info but then the contents in review copy could be wrong to an extent and unsafe to everyone but then I cant tell in this case and reviewer could be wrong as well.

Nevertheless, both party's wrong and only -rep could be settled.

 

I agree completely with kaung, and monkeyknackers, these guys said it correctly. I personally believe Knight Rider is very immature, he assumed I’m a friend of Keith, I don’t even know Keith, I speak with logics, there’s no agenda. In fact I have nothing personal with anybody in this internet realm, even if my friend's in the wrong, he’d be hearing it from me, with rightfulness and logics, solely.

 

I'm glad you agree with moneyknackers, let me reiterate his post:

Personally, I wouldn't care if this thread was closed right now.

I'm sorry I leaked some details out which gave some of the methods away, maybe I shouldn't have, but if you read the eBook, you might feel it was necessary.

Cheers,

Reid

 

Thanks for being reasonable, I was trying to stress the same way monkeyknackers could present his input, you could’ve, well all clear and straight then? You were justified, as any good forum citizen, but blatantly revealing something marked classified (the whole reason it’s being sold), regardless of what the content is, could’ve been done without doing so, you could’ve said it violates some TOS, here and there, etc.

 

Ok, I've modified my 2nd post to remove the contents.

Cheers