Will you stop deleting and re-posting? It's against the rules and annoying AF
I'm not sure which specific part of the rules it is against
As an aside, it is really pathetic when someone accuses you of using a "method" with which you allegedly boost your post count by not merging a few separated replies to different posts into a single one, and then someone else is not quite happy with you doing the exact opposite (i.e. merging your posts into one)
Kinda feels like spamming your watch list, doesn't it?
So it is now about spamming watch lists. Okay then, but I'm more interested in what you are still doing here, in this very thread. Haven't you already spent more time on this subject than it deserves?
Damn! I don't know why deisik is getting hazed so hard in this thread, but man is this harsh
That's okay really
It just reveals what people are up to as such accusations are telling not much about myself as about the ones making them. But I find it amusing (to say the least) to actually see someone spending so much time and effort reading all that bullshit we were writing 5 years ago (release your inner Sherlock, huh). The insane amount of posts we had been submitting could actually be considered spam by today's standards but even back in the day I was far from being the most malicious spammer on the block
Deisik, I wouldn't worry about the account sale attempt from 2014, as I don't think anyone is going to go back that far to tag someone for account buying or selling--nor do I think they should. It was a different time back then, and the account dealing situation wasn't the massive problem that it would turn out to be
It may in fact turn out to be a good thing in the end as it will show real intentions of some people here, and I could always use this thread for future reference once these pathetic attempts of throwing mud at me fail, which they will
As I said, I never considered deisik a shitposter. He did crank out a huge number of posts in a short period of time, but as far as quality goes, I've seen much worse. It is possible for someone to devote a tremendous amount of time to posting and in the process churn out 250 posts in a week and still manage to make most of them relatively decent. I still don't think it's right to tag you for the amount of posts you made, but since it's untrusted feedback, I would recommend just rolling with it and move on
It's an interesting topic in itself as it shows how primitive (and low) people really are
As an age-old wisdom goes, it is a sin to think bad of people but it is rarely a mistake. For example, quite a few people think that if someone makes 200 posts weekly, he is necessarily a spammer. But I can make 200 posts daily without a lot of effort if I'm in my element and find a worthy "drinking buddy", so to speak. If you are experienced in something and love your thing, you can talk about it all day long and likely attract a lot of listening ears (that's why I was barely making the required 15 posts in the Gambling section as I'm not much of a gambler). Imagine Satoshi Nakamoto comes back online and starts answering questions here 24/7
And technically, in the last few years it was only on a few rare occasions that I actually made like 200 posts a week and never made more than 250. I can easily prove that but as the burden of proof is on the one who accuses, I expected them to come up first with at least some evidence proving the opposite. Instead, they came up with the idea of me deleting my posts. But the irony is that I can just as easily present proof that it is no more than yet another unsubstantiated accusation. For example, I still have access to my Coinroll account where there is a log of my activity in the forum on a daily basis. My activity in the Stake.com signature campaign is pretty well documented too
Retaliatory feedback is usually not justified, btw. Be the bigger person and maybe Lucius will cool down and reconsider. If not, it's not the end of the world
I agree that retaliatory feedback is not the right thing to do, which I stated in the OP myself. But as I was asking DT members to give negative rating to the offender, it started to look like I had been trying to hide behind their backs which is not a good thing, obviously. And I gave that dude a neutral rating anyway, so it is not strictly a retaliatory feedback, though they definitely deserve red paint on their chest, at least until they accept being flat-out wrong in this case
As such behavior destroys the purpose of the trust system and thus cannot be ignored if it is to be taken seriously
