Topic: Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT - page 4. (Read 2769 times)

The question of how it is viewed by others? The facts are clear and observable. A person (whom is a proven liar) comes to my thread unprovoked and 3x calls me a liar and 3x will not provide evidence. The 3rd time I reply and tell him that will I encourage others to investigate his own post history (where I know full well there is evidence he has lied) if he keeps making these unsubstantiated claims. This proven liar then gives me red trust for merely telling the truth. Then his goon friends admit giving me red trust for stating facts about his lies and his abuse. The entire thing is quite ludicrous. The other DT's are complicit by not booting them out and removing my red trust. I will keep shoving those facts and observable events in their faces until they start to realise that this kind of injustice is not going to just go away. I guess there is no reason not to do this. I refuse to fit in with their agenda to try and hope they may decide I will now be complicit with their shady crap and undo this abuse.

The systems work as I said they work on my other thread. Actually it is far worse now because the DT key positions of power are the 250 earned merits. This subjective and meaningless cycled and gamed junk is dropped to this circle of abusers to do with it as they please with no mandate and no clear criteria. So essentially you just gave full control of the entire DT system to these persons that are cycling this around to themselves as clear on bpip and dt lists.

The long long game may correct itself to a degree ,but I suspect these housewives will just strong arm theymos to keep raising the earned merit threshold so that they alone posses the key positions of power. I have no idea how they forced him to ignore all the older legends airdropped merit as if their contributions for years meant zero and push the earned merit threshold up to a level where they cyclers are the only ones that meet it.

Also there is no point at all starting with a group of PROVEN in black and white bad eggs in a trust system it makes no sense.

As I have said if you wish to refute how the systems operate and the implications of them operating as they do then the other thread is the place for that I am willing to take time and demonstrate just how damaging and dangerous building upon subjective, misleading, and gamed scores derived from merit is.

I have no interest in fitting in with a bunch of people that immediately fail to recognise proven liars red trusting persons for mentioning the FACT they lied is a complete disgrace. Then their pals red trusting further for posting the evidence of that lie and the fact they have abused the trust system. Sorry those accepting this behaviour are complicit and need removing also. You have DT's here refusing to review the evidence that is there in black and white.

Actually, it sounds like you're the one who wants a tighter system of control.  The community itself can now act as judge, jury and executioner.  It's quite liberal when you consider the hierarchical alternatives.  I'm sorry if that doesn't suit your preferences.  

Meta is now where the community are coming together to decide how it's going to be and this topic is a part of that decision, so I suggest you rethink your current antagonistic approach and engage in a more civil discourse if you want to have any kind of positive influence here.  It's still early days and things may yet change.



I can see how it's a big deal from your perspective.  We're not refuting that.  The question is how it's viewed by others.  It's now an ongoing decision for everyone else in the community to decide if your treatment was justified or not.  If the community are not happy with the conduct of those who have red-tagged you, they will change their trust lists accordingly.  Or those who have tagged you might be pressured to change those tags if the community deem their actions contrary to (the still evolving) community standards.  Alternatively, you'll need to find a way to come to terms with the community's decision if people don't change their trust lists and the tags against you are deemed appropriate.  But I can assure you that you aren't doing yourself any favours with your constant rage-posting about this matter.  We get it, you're quite indignant about this.  Message received.  Loud and clear.  Now, for your own sake, just simmer down a bit.

I don't think so but that's why it's subjective. If there is a wider context showing the user behaving in other untrustworthy ways - maybe.

I get so much of that garbage that I prefer to just ignore it and not get into a whole set of new debates about retaliation and whatnot.

This again is anecdotal nonsense and faux rebuttal. I may or may not have had my free speech impinged upon but that again does not answer for others who clearly can be effected by the systems of control that I have demonstrated exist and implications arising from those systems. I am quite open to debate further on my thread over this. So far I see no refutation to any of my central points.

Nobody here may or may not see them as substantial concerns - this is meta a very small subset of which many benefit from the current systems of control forming and operating as they do.

Come to my thread and debate if you wish. However I do not feel there can be any refutation of observable fact that demonstrate clearly the systems and the implications of systems operating as they do.

Now imagine that you are simply presenting facts demonstrating a lie and you get red trusted by that lier and his friends red trust further and admit they did it because you posted those facts again. Don't lie to me and pretend you would simply say that is no big deal. I do not at all believe you.

This isn't a police state.  It's more akin to a neighbourhood watch scheme.  Community standards set by the community.  The fact that you've cross-posted your views over as many topics as you have clearly demonstrates that your free speech isn't suffering at all.



I could, but that topic is mostly just you working yourself up into a state of agitation over something other users deem to be insubstantial.  Then, when just about every reply is subtly hinting at you needing to take it down a notch, you don't listen.  And you clearly aren't going to listen if I add my +1 to everyone else telling you stop making mountains out of molehills.  It doesn't warrant the bump, to be blunt.  This topic serves a better purpose and takes a far more neutral stance, so I'll keep the discussion here.

Some items are repeated.

---

Let's say that the user wrote a slander that someone stole his money. Does it deserve a red trust?

This need to be reported immediately to the moderators. This requires immediate ban.
Red trust can be given but first priority is to get all links/post removed.

That is not the point I made. That is the point you made then projected on to me. I never said anything about since we can't get them all we shouldn't tag any. This is your own addition not mine. What I said is there should be a standard of evidence of documentation, an agreement violated, and or a law violated before rating.

With this base standard the rating system again becomes an accurate guide of who can be trusted to trade with rather than who washes all the right balls. The alternative, is to continue as it is and have the trust system not only be a joke, but a constant source of conflict serving as cover for con artists to hide in the chaos, steal more, and take retribution on those that exposed them.

LOL  that makes zero sense. Imagine a police state with no mandate or rules/criteria on how they operate.
Can you imagine how free your speech would be under such a system?

You can not have people who stand to benefit selfishly from a control system being part of that system with no rules to govern their actions. Subjectivity there is the same as saying you trust people to not act selfishly and apply rules fairly to all persons. Please be sensible.

 

Go here and continue this debate https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-most-important-thread-you-can-contribute-to-this-yearno-kidding-5088852

Subjectivity is protected by free speech.  People are free to form their own opinions and either trust or distrust you accordingly.  Nothing is being stifled.

Sadly though that is not the complete set of factors that need to be considered.

The system also brings a lot of other negatives like destroying peoples accounts that can prove they should not have had them destroyed.

Also the biggest issue is the subjectivity there allows it to stifle free speech. So you can therefore see the negatives currently outweigh the positives.

The entire picture needs to be considered here.

I completely agree with your points regarding teaching people to do their own due diligence, and yes, some noobs will get scammed regardless of how much you try to warn them. There is no helping some people.

However, I completely disagree with your point that because we can never tag 100% of scammers, we should therefore not tag any scammers. It's like saying because seatbelts don't save 100% of lives, we should stop wearing them - all they do is give people a veil of safety, which in turn encourages them to drive more dangerously. I just don't agree. Yes, some scammers will get away with it, but we shouldn't be using that as justification to just let the scammers roam freely.

This is of no interest to me I have no desire to be a DT.

Which threads have been removed? seems like you are trying to derail this thread.

What is the best way to deal with these noobs? Constantly running after them like mommy and daddy trying to keep them from bumping their heads and padding every sharp corner? Or to we teach them that they need to do their own due diligence?

Some times people need to get robbed before they learn, and the people getting robbed WILL get robbed regardless of how much you preemptively try to protect them. All this policing does is give these scammers a veil of legitimacy to operate under because of the army of half ass forum cops running around professing how much they're protecting the forum. This gives new users the impression that some one has already done this due diligence so they need not.

 In realty their motivation is usually just to give themselves influence. Unfortunately their reputation is usually raised at the cost of people just trying to do voluntary trades with each other they don't agree with for whatever reason.

Because as I said, newbies are regularly fooled by these scams. What may seem like a blatantly obvious scam to you or me is often just convincing enough to lure in someone less familiar with this space, who doesn't know that "bitcoin doublers" aren't a real thing or some users shill their own scam threads with fake accounts.

As is the case in most jurisdictions around the world, where a plan or attempt to commit a crime is a crime itself, we don't need a scam to be successful to know it is a scam. There is no benefit to letting these scammers get one or two "for free" before tagging them.

I notice lots of your posts & threads have been removed - have you had a warning yet?

DT is really none of your business - checking your exclusions the whole forum would need to include you now for you to stand half a chance

Just proofen on that thread that there are thousand other posts using that word.
You are even to dumb to use google properly.
Or are you going to make the assumption that all these accounts also belong to me ?

LOL no wonder so many people call you an abuser.
Your are to stupid to make a proper research.
But thats the result when you tag someone not because he is scamming but because you defend your group to defame someone and search afterwards for a valid explanation of that tag.


Hey that legandary account is using the same word like me.Are you going to tagg him as my alt ?
Since you said you tagged me because of that word i wait that you tag that account too because its using the same word.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.43850828


DT members have the rule of tagging for fake negativ trust.Suchmoon admited he had no evidence.
If there won't be a tag on his account because of that it just proofs that the DT members are worthless and are even unable to clean their own small group and executing double standards.
Hero members have been bombarded by these people with negativ trust for far less.

excuse the pharmacist aka huge black woman he can't grasp not everyone here is the same as himself.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17808231

that is more like proof..

Of course if i were to wish to remain anonymous i could adopt someones posting habbits or traits so those alone are not solid proof that it is the same person. I mean I have seen time travel offered as reasonable explanation by legends of repute (apparently) here.

Better to discuss proven facts of sockpuppets like your own than ones that seem possible or probable but as yet unproven.

I there is clear cut dry documentation of attempted fraud then I would agree a negative rating would be appropriate. However every numpty with a CSI playset around here wants to play Sherlock Holmes to raise their own profiles and entertain themselves at the expense of the reputations and freedoms of others. This isn't ok either. There has to be some basic standard of evidence otherwise this whole forum is little more than a puppet to dance at the pleasure of con artists.

If you can't see that proof that was presented was a slam dunk, maybe you ought to invest in a seeing-eye dog and a cane.

Busted.