Jaguar.Force: History of a FRAUD!

avatar


   When no one is in charge of watching over those who watch over us, they roam freely, believing the kings of the place. - Anonymous

   I think that the phrase with which this article begins is quite representative of what I am going to show you next, about a project that calls itself anti-plagiarist but which, as far as I am concerned, has shown a total lack of knowledge about the world of plagiarism and its norms, as well as a total lack of impartiality and professional ethics.

   It all started when the group accused the user @zeleiracordero of having committed aberrant plagiarism. At first I was surprised, because I know the trajectory of this user but, as in these cases you never know, this warning alerted me and led me to put myself to investigate the case myself.

   For everyone to know (as I let this group know) I use a plagiarism detection program that has quite good criticism: it's called Dupli Checker. and compares texts of up to 1,000 words with everything it finds similar on the net.
In addition, as its own website indicates and is something that I agree with, plagiarism detection programs are faster and more effective against manual detection since, in addition, in the human can be given factors that cloud that precision such as factors of a personal nature, of the antipathy type, hatred, eagerness to find more to be able to get daily reports (as is the case of this group, which profits from it daily ) and, ultimately, factors that lead to an impartiality, necessary in each and every case.

   Well, continuing with the main topic, this group strongly affirmed that this article in Spanish of the mentioned user contained an insurmountable plagiarism.
But what did Dupli Checker say about it? That only a 6% of the article had words equal to the original and that a 94% of the article was legitimate.



   At this point, it is necessary to inform and know (something that this group does not know or want to know) that to consider a text as intentional or unintended plagiarism, there must be at least 20% similarity between texts. And I'm talking about texts and official cases, such as doctoral theses, etc.

   Important fact to know, since these people are calling plagiarists and scum to people who may have 6% or 3% similarity between texts; normal thing when the text is a paraphrase of the original.
Can you imagine? These people blame other people and blacklist them because of a 100-word text, 6 or 3 are equal to the original text. Words that can be commonly used such as: that or what, how, a, and, etc..

   To be fair, at this point I will say that this first article of this user, reflected a bibliographic source where had supposedly paraphrased from, but not the one that Jaguar Force said, which I recognized but that I alleged could have been a confusion or neglect , since the rest of the article contained a big number of photo credits, etc..

   A curious fact, which reaffirms my claim that they are based on low percentages of alleged plagiarism (or what they consider as such), is that their modus operandi is based on putting screenshots of supposed paragraphs taken from the original source and the alleged plagiarized source, framed in red and blue, as proof of plagiarism.



   Well, up here you have the real example of the case of this user and, those who know Spanish, you will see how in the paragraphs almost no word fits, although they put them as proof that they are identical.

   That's playing dirty dear jaguar...

   After talking to them privately (if what we had could be called conversation), they tried to reaffirm their position by bringing and showing me another article by the same user where, supposedly, it also contained a terrifyingly clear plagiarism.

   Can you guess what Dupli Checker told me? I show you:



   0% plagiarism!

   In addition, the source that Jaguar Force cited as the original in his article of a new plagiarism report, did not match in any of the 50 poems I read, with the paragraph he put there as an image and proof of having found two equal paragraphs.

   Were you trying to cheat me blatantly, jaguar?

   10 days ago they accused and blacklisted another user: @sandracabrera.

   I took the trouble (I don't charge for this, unlike them) to check it out for myself and guess what Dupli Checker said?



   8% of equal content, 92% of unique content. An article that clearly paraphrases some things but that the rest is totally original.

   And they, without this data or any knowledge, go to other projects to tell them to stop voting for these users because they are compulsory plagiarists....

   As I told you before, I do not take any of this and yet I went to alert one of those projects to ignore this swarm of thugs without any knowledge.

   We, @dresden speaking on behalf of the The Talent Club project, have stopped voting them or their reports, of course; for lack of professionalism and for being a walking fraud.

   Someone should take serious measures against these people to stop establishing their kingdom of chaos and false or misguided accusation.


   I did not want to say goodbye without showing you the amount of insults that this group told me in private, by running out of arguments against my personal investigations.


   True gentlemen.



0
0
0.000
39 comments
avatar

The path of life reserves us surprises, good and not so good, but worth living to incorporate as learning, because we come to this world to that: to learn. However, the matter is not so easy and sometimes nothing pleasant. For example, being objected as a person for sharing the good word, the one that exalts, the one that rescues, the one that allows the spirit to flow in freedom, because we are what we think, say, live, vibrate.
As a growing being, I consider that we are more than we appear and much more than others think we are. I have as a maxim of life to let the Universe flow for what I must learn, without my intervention, because the ego and pride is what is exalted in disputes, in accusations and, sometimes, even in defenses . For this reason, I do not usually replicate or try to convince, I think it is an energetic wear that does not contribute anything positive, because whoever does not have Love in his heart, moves within a vibratory field of hate, suspicion, evil; dark energies that dirty the entire environment that lurk.
However, I cannot remain silent in the face of this gesture of Love from @dresden, because generosity, solidarity and family move it; because although the notion of FAMILY in Steemit goes unnoticed, we are, even if we congregate in smaller nuclei. Steemit is a big family and the family is respected, educated if they make mistakes, supported; It is not destroyed, it is not accused, it is not hunted ... It is LOVED.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @trafalgar. Can you tell me why the downvote?

0
0
0.000
avatar

I would imagine it would probably have something to do with the large bid bot vote.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Probably, yes.
Now the poor have no right to receive a large vote even if it is paying for it.
That's sad.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hoe about instead of paying for a vote, you use that Steem to power up AND actually participate in influencing the ecosystem.

People that just buy votes without powering up seem like they don't really want to have skin in the game like the rest of us.

That's not really something we should be rewarding if we understand the economics of this place.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hello. You're talking to an user who has more than 20,000 SP Powered Up, between his account and the accounts of his 2 projects and being here for 3 years.
How about don't tell him what he's supposed to do moreover when you have only 5,000 SP and he's not bidvoting often, just in some cases where he wants some promotion for some concrete article.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah after I submitted I checked that. Thought I deleted. Oh well.

But yes, that brought me to you and was curious about the claim of 1500% ROI which I'm all frankness is a bit extraordinary.

How exactly is such a fantastic ROI provided? Guess you got an opportunity for a plug.

If you, @talentclub, are a responsible curator then delegating is a good thing. We need more positive curation that brings talent and thus value here.

Anyways, really interested in that ROI proposition. Would you point me to a link that lays it out?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi there again.
The things it's easy.
If you delegate to us an amount between 1 SP and 5,000 SP we assure you a 1500% daily ROI with an upvote from our account.
Example: If you delegate us 400SP, and 400SP actually gives to yourself in your account 0.01$, we assure you a 0.15$.
If you're interested just go through our Discord.
Grertings.

0
0
0.000
avatar

lol.jpg

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Have you ever wonder that maybe it's you who don't even know what it means?
We're actually multiplying per 15 the amount that quantity of SP gives, so that's a a 1500%.
A pity you are not able or don't want to see it: you will earn more being member in clubs such as mine.
Thanks.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don’t need to wonder.

Someone that doesn’t know what 1500% return on 400SP is clearly shouldn’t be retorting back at me.

You can’t even tell difference between a 15x vote and actual return.

Let Bitconnect be a refresher course for you: they offered daily 1% return.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Man, If you had read you will see that we said a daily return or a daily ROI.
We're capable of return daily, a 1500% ROI for an amount of SP "x".
Don't try to be a smartass: everything is invented and actually people already is taking advantage of you that, besides of speaking like if you know what you're saying, are offering a 1500% return since 1 year and a half ago.
I would explain it to you in a special Math class for dummies, but I don't have time actually.
Thanks.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Please. Let me know in which special world that 0.15 a day for 365 days will give a 400SP person 1500% return.

Maybe if Steem crashed into the ground, you could argue the person got 1500% off of 400 Steem.

Your entire premise is based on manipulating numbers to make the returns seem big.

I don’t need to be a smart ass. I know misinformation when I see them.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Ok, you gonna make me give it to you the special class.
It's not about they gave us 400 STEEM it's about Steem Power.
Let's see if you understand that:
-They delegate us 400 SP.
-We daily upvote them with 6000 SP (that's x15).
-They go from earning 0.01$ daily to earn 0.15$ daily.
-Since we offer that daily we can say that monthly and annually it's the same for the supposed 400 SP amount:
-Monthly - they would have earnt 0.30$ but we give them 4.50$.
-Annually - they would have earnt 3.65$ but we give them 54.75$.

A perfect 1500% ROI, my man.
I hope you finally understand that we're not misleading anything. On the contrary, we are actually giving more than a 1500% ROI to some members.

For being more clear, when you multiply x1 the benefits in percentage is represented as 100% return.
X5 - 500% return

And that is. You don't need to multiply per 1500 because 1500% is a representation of x15 in return.

1% ROI it's about x 0.01

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Lmao

If they self vote 10x a day they would earn $0.10 a day plus their own curation.

You voting them takes a curator’s cut.

Hint: daily ROI = compounding. Bet Bitconnect taught you nothing why 1% daily is unsustainable.

Don’t use words you don’t understand. Stick to your mother tongue.

You 15x’d their income (even that’s not true, more like 50% more if you give curation back) Not their return. The return is compared against the 400 Steem.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That way you say they would spend 20% VP in 10 votes, thing we save them. Moreover, 10 times upvoting yourself doesn't give you 0.01$ since as far you spend VP the reward lowers and finally goes to 0 soon (in the case of 400SP).
Ok, so ROI means the Return Of Investment and one of its formula is Return(Net)/Investment x 100. That way our ROI would be 84%= 54,35$/64$ (400 STEEM) × 100. Not bad either.
Ok so you have the reason about the ROI.
Well, we just wanted to mean 1500% return but that was before the HF21/22, true, because now curator keep more than 50% and the rewards are lower.
Anyways I'm sure we're actually giving a 750% return or 40% ROI to some of our members wich thing is still not bad, don't you think?
Thanks anyways for clearing the misunderstanding.
I owe you an apology.

0
0
0.000
avatar

No problem.

I apologise for being crass, but the wording would have thrown many people off.

At best, people would think you don’t know what you are on about. At worst, outsiders will think you are scammers.

Take care.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I will publish a communicate talking about our misunderstanding with ROI and return and going to change it righ now in the profile text.
Thanks again.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Dear dresden, you are making a fool out of yourself by stating that you think duplichecker is the measure to assess if an article is plagiarized or not, no cleaner in this platform uses such basic tools to assess plagiarism, since it can only detect dixit (word for word) plagiarism, in reality most sophisticated plagiarism uses spinning or rephrasing (an aggravated form of plagiarism that is implemented by plagiarists so as to avoid cheetah detection).

You can ask any cleaners, including anyone at @steemcleaners, for example @guiltyparties who is our SC liaison, every single cleaner will tell you that they dont use such basic tools as DupliChecker, and that what such tools will tell you is irrelevant. Only clueless amateurs such as you use these tools to determine if an article is plagiarized and to what extent.

As per the first user @zeleiracordero , here are the 2 reported cases:
https://steempeak.com/antiabuse/@jaguar.force/plagiarism-case-39-caso-de-plagio-39-zeleiracordero
https://steempeak.com/antiabuse/@jaguar.force/plagiarism-case-40-caso-de-plagio-40-zeleiracordero

In the first case the user is caught blatantly paraphrasing a Scientist.
In the second case the user is caught blatantly paraphrasing a known poet. Both these cases, taking into account the seniority of the user in the platform, and the fact she knows that she needs to cite sources, demonstrate intentional aggravated plagiarism.

As per the second user:
https://steempeak.com/antiabuse/@jaguar.force/29e7a2-plagiarism-case-42-caso-de-plagio-42-sandracabrera
Here is the user blatantly paraphrasing an article which is not cited as source, in other words, plagiarism: trying to pass other's content as yours. Paraphrasing doesn't make plagiarism more acceptable, on the contrary, it is an aggravating factor since it shows the intent to obfuscate its detection.

Furthermore, your ridiculous statement that in order for something to be considered plagiarized it needs to be 20% word for word plagiarism is far from accurate, and even more in academic presentations as you preposterously claim, in most serious academic institutions, if you are found plagiarizing one paragraph, you whole paper will be dismissed to start, and you will get sanctioned.

BTW, here is you telling me that you spoke with the author and that she herself admitted to you that what she does in her articles is paraphrase other articles, which she, of course, doesn't cite as sources, in other words, aggravated intentional plagiarism.
screenshot-discordapp.com-2019.09.09-15_28_09.png

And you even have the nerve, in that same screencapture, to tell me that the ONLY bad thing you see is that she doesn't cite the sources that she is rephrasing!!!!!!! Nonsense, let me inform you that it is precisely the lack of attribution that makes plagiarism plagiarism, if the source was attributed it wouldn't be plagiarism. So both the author and you are implicitly accepting this is plagiarism, since again, plagiarism is defined by the lack of attribution.

Your statement that the ONLY bad thing you see is the lack of attribution of the paraphrased source is as ridiculous as if a defense attorney would defend a thief saying "But your honor, the ONLY thing my client did wrong is taking the property of another person, ONLY THAT!!"

The only fraud here, is you, because you are condoning and enabling plagiarism, which as you might know, is a form of fraud. You might as well go ahead and rename your club to: The Plagiarism Talent Club.

Have a wonderful day.

0
0
0.000
avatar

As far as I'm concerned and as far as me, myself, carried out the investigation in these 3 cases I can just say there's no plagiarism at all in any of the 3 cases, so you can call them whatever you want, but I'm sure that for a big part of the community this research ad these proves are enough to say the same and to expose your bad practices.
Hey, you dream with having a club such as mine. Don't be ridiculous. Noone in my club is a plagiarist and here we have an evidence again on how easy you say someone or some people is a plagiarist, with no evidences than your hate.
By the way, I gave you a very little flags in this comment just for lying again but the truth is that you should have some reports fully flagged or, at least, not upvoted by people.

Have a nice day you too.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

As far as I'm concerned and as far as me, myself, carried out the investigation in these 3 cases I can just say there's no plagiarism at all in any of the 3 cases

Well lets see the objective reality of the first case and let the audience decide for themselves then:

Paragraph from Kevin Warwicks' book "There's a Future: Visions for a Better World" (Page 140):
"Humans are also limited in that they can only visualise and understand the world around them in terms of three-dimensional perception, whereas computers are quite capable of dealing with hundreds of dimensions. Perhaps most importantly, the human means of communication, essentially transferring a complex electrochemical signal from one brain to another via an intermediate, often mechanical slow and error-prone medium (e.g. speech), is extremely poor, particularly in terms of speed, power and precision. It is clear that connecting a human brain, by means of an implant, with a computer network could in the long term open up the distinct advantages of machine intelligence, communication and sensing abilities to the implanted individual."
Source: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/BBVA-OpenMind-Book-There-is-a-Future_Visions-for-a-Better-World-1.pdf

Paragraph from the post by @zeleiracordero (GoogleTranslated so the English speaking audience can read it):
"Connecting a human brain, through an implant, with a computer network could expand the advantages of artificial intelligence, as well as the communicative and sensory abilities of the implanted individual. The human being understands the world in three dimensions and communicates through speech, mainly, that it is a slow system compared to a computer network that has a very diverse communicative capacity and handles many dimensions."
Source: https://steempeak.com/spanish/@zeleiracordero/superhumanossuperhroesohumanos-26vkw0wgr4

Oh and BTW, since Anthony mentioned it, how is it precisely that the daily 1500% ROI is gonna be delivered for The Talent Club delegators?
I would really love to know.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You're a waliking fraud disguised as a bad joke, man.
Community should not trust people like you.
Don't make me lose more of my precious time with you, please.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

The evidence is there clear for all to see.
Now everybody can see your pathetic "Duplichecker" plagiarism detection skills, and what a pathetic joke your club is, in addition to how you actively condone and enable plagiarism in this platform.

What about that 1500% ROI that the talent club supposedly gives its delegators? No explanation? mmmmmmmm

Now THAT is fraud, hardcore scamming and fraud.

Have a wonderful day, imbecile ;)

0
0
0.000
avatar

You still didn't notice that he was meaning The Talent Club and not The Circle and that the answer is already commented, really?
Do you see how you're not caoable of doinf an antiplagiarism work with your bad sight and your ill mind?
By the way, The Circle could offer a 400% ROI to an early investor but as far as we give the upvote as a free service, it doesn't matter.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

You dont even understand what ROI fucking is, what you explained is not 1500% ROI, and even if that was the definition it would be 150%, imbecile, because if a person delegates to you the equivalent SP of a 1 cent vote, and considering that person has 10 full power votes per day, then 15 cents would be 150% of those 10 cents, Mr "CEO" that cant even do basic math.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi there. I read this article with great interest and even spent some time looking at the paragraphs in question. I then did an informative post on what plagiarism really is...

I am not sure where you got that 20% figure from - my information from Plagiarism.org is that any unauthorized/uncredited use of someone else's work is plagiarism. It doesn't have to be word-for-word either. Paraphrased/spun work is also plagiarized if it has not be properly credited (at the very least.)

Plagiarism is a serious problem on the blockchains and harms all of us by making the platform look like it approves of theft - as that is what plagiarism is - theft of someone's intellectual property.

I agree that jaguar could have been kinder in his manner of speech, but having got to know him, I know that's simply part of his language - a jaguar isn't elegant when bringing down a croc... and that is how he has styled himself. He means well for the blockchain - even if he treads on a few toes in the process.

Thank you for your time.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I must clarify that my insults were not unwarranted,
"imbecil", which is the adjective I use in the chat, is the word imbecile
which is etymologycally based on baculus, and means, "he who needs a walking stick to walk", this applied to plagiarism detection, fits perfectly 1 on one with a person that uses duplichecker to detect plagiarism, I hope you can understand the "insults" were not gratuitous.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Don't keep exposing yourself being so ridiculous with your so ridiculous arguments, please Jaguar.

0
0
0.000
avatar

This guy is a character, he thinks we're all stupid.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hello, @viking-ventures.
A pleasure to meet you and thank you for your reading.
We all know the Plagiarism thing it's is a more difficult matter than we think, but for this purpose, more and more accurate rules have been created and must be put into operation in Steemit.

Talking about that, logic tells us that in order to define something as plagiarism you must meet a series of requirements and, among them, in my opinion and in the opinion of many professionals, you must meet some percentage requirements. Because also logic says that you can not say that a paraphrased paragraph in a 3000 words work it's a plagiarism, although that paragraph could be very similar to the other one.

As I exposed in my article, the actual ratio in Spain it's a 20% and talking about official cases such as PhD thesis, end of degree projects, end of master projects, etc..
Even recently, the current president of Spain was subjected to an anti-plagiarism test for his master's thesis and justice decided that there was no plagiarism because only 14% of the text was equal to others. Justice, I remark again. And they use both, manual and program revision, as I did in these cases exposed.

The same way justice says there is a time limit for the plagiarism to expire, like any misdemeanor, which is between 6 months and 1 year. So, you can't go, like Jaguar does , to a 3 years ago article when someone plagiarized and call him plagiarist, because legally he's not already, because his felony expired.

But I did not this article to really talk or discuss about that: I have the things clear on that respect and many anti-plagiarism projects should have them clear also.
I wrote this article to expose the Jaguar's FRAUD, trying to manipulate the evidence of the cases to make people believe that their searches are accurate. That's the real intention of this article if you read it carefully: to expose the bad ways and the lack of professionalism and knowledge of Jaguar.Force.

He lied to me, manipulating sources; he lied to me, showing me a second evidence (a poem) where no was any plagiarism; he did screenshot different paragraphs (of supposed plagiarism) trying to make them go through the exact same paragraphs because people don't even bother to check them.
That's the real case here.
The danger that supposes to have this jaguar doing some work well (because he sometimes catches some real plagiarism, I'll recognize that) and some work really bad, but with with joy and nocturnality.

We cannot trust a group that catch 4 plagiarism and then lies about 3 more because they want to publish a daily report or because they just don't like the people they're false accusing.

So, as I clear as I have seen their fraud I did want every part of the community to know what kind of people is this people and the danger they suppose for the community if they keep camouflaging very bad practices among some good.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

So, Spain has admitted that they can't expect anyone to be free of plagiarism? That's a sad state of affairs. Can't they expect their university graduates to produce their own material?

In any case, I'm not in Spain. Jag is not in Spain. Most of the problem plagiarism on Steem is not in Spain. We are not governed by Spanish law. Nor does the time thing exist for us - it looks like Spain has caved in to the plagiarists because the problem is so rampant there - we should take that as a warning - not as a meter stick for everyone else.

Paraphrased plagiarism doesn't have to be the exact same paragraphs. It's more about taking one source, swirling it around and spitting it back out again - as happened in this case. I did look at the chosen paragraphs and even with my limited spanish, I could see the spinning.

The reality is that any plagiarism on the blockchains hurts us all. It makes us look like we accept spun articles as quality work when they are actually the work of others. We need to be good models, so we (as a community) can attract funding. (I will include Jag with his tact on this one...) If it looks like we accept plagiarism in all forms, then we won't get these people interested in what we're doing.

Now that I'm involved, I will be watching more of Jag's work. If I see fraud on his end, I will call him out on it, (though I will most likely do it privately, not publicly) - knowing that sometimes while fighting fraud, it's possible to occasionally catch the wrong person... simply because one is conditioned to see wrongdoing.

Thank you for your respectful reply.

Addendum: I keep forgetting to give you the link to the post I wrote last night...
Plagiarism - How to Avoid Trouble - Block Cleaning
I choose to fight through education, first and foremost.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think your reading comprehension is not as good as I would wish so I will not take you (nor to me) more time discussing clear statements said by me than you or Jaguar are misleading after.
And I did it publicly just because it's a blatant fraud with joy and nocturnality made by a supposed anti-plagiarism project that tried to cheat me in the face.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar

Not considering the alleged insults that were exchanged in "private". So what I'm reading is a flight of privacy. As has been repeated by @viking-ventures, 9 words are enough to be considered plagiarism. If we also consider that the author very often uses similar situations to the original source, assembling only more parts, it seems clear the abuse

0
0
0.000
avatar

The thing here is that they were not assembling any parts. Both girls just paraphrased in a good manner as legit to do it and Jaguar just stated those paragraphs as evidence of assembled paragraphs but they're false evidences.
That's the real case here.
And let me say NO again against your 9 words plagiarism statement.
As I explained in my article, 9 words exactly could happen in common words as "what", "who", "and", "a", "man", etc..
The important thing in plagiarism it's the percentage as in the officisl cases for justice.

Posted using Partiko Android

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

the important thing is that they are not in a row and frankly I do not think we are talking about conjunctions or grammatical forms, but words that make sense...

if you try to look at the situation from another point of view, you will realize that the subjects in question, have taken inspiration from other articles, and not mentioning them makes what they have made a plagiarism.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hello @dresden:
I think that you are right about this particular case, is difficult to see plagiarism there. Two scientific articles that speak of the same surely tend to coincide in expressions.

But I don´t have a good opinion about @corderozeleira. I don´t know really what is she doing now, but I know she used to plagiarize poets.

Take a look to this:

I don't know how that plagiarism percentage works, but that is just a collage with different poems of Sucre, a latin poet. You can see for yourself that there she takes other people's verses and modify them a bit to mislead.

It may be considered a good work of selection and mixing of verses, but in that case he should have cited the sources of those verses that appear the same in some cases and with slight variations in others.

I could see that by those times when she published poetry she did this several times. And actually at the beginning I read her publications with interest, believing she was a great poet. But I could realize that it was a fraud.

As I said before, may be she is doing things right now, but for my part I have lost the interest in her publications.

I greet you cordially.
And I take this opportunity to recognize the great work you do on this platform.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Lástima que no vi esta publicación antes este tipo se cree Dios el único que lo sabe todo el dueño de steemit es un caso lo he visto varias veces ofender usuarios con un lenguaje nada profesional de muy mal gusto de rata de alcantarilla y nadie le puede dar un parado? Nadie le puede decir que controle un poco su actuar parece policía venezolano abusando de su autoridad e investidura llenando de maltrato a los usuarios aquí vemos las pruebas. Espero que alguien le de un parado en algún momento a usted detrás del usuario @jaguar.force por que la razón se pierde si no se sabe expresar aprenda modales esta tratando con personas.

0
0
0.000