Topic: DT members are allowed to use lies as reason to give red tags? (Read 335 times)

We don't have any sympathy to venal DT-Troll "The Pharmacist" too. Stop protecting various DT scammers like sucmoon & others. Stop pretending that you keep order here. When this masquerade with costumed DT-prosecutors is over?

I couldn't agree more based on the independently verifiable evidence I have reviewed.

The problem is the merit and trust system have actually worked to crush the freedom of speech here and create an environment where from within DT1 you can scam with impunity.

On top of this once you're in and a merit source you're almost entrenched and can not be removed.
Of course just a handful of smart dedicated and knowledgeable people could finish the group and crush their sponsors rep.
Sponsors are the weak link. They should not want to be associated with scammers or those protecting scammers.
Just 3 or 4 dedicated posters could crush those sponsors.
Threads kept active asking their sponsors why they are sponsoring scammers and extortionists or trust abusers liars trolls etc
Those threads kept active enough would eventually crack the rep of the sponsor.
You need hard indisputable evidence. That is not hard to find If you know where to look.


These people only wish to take control of the forum and crush free speech for financial gain
Take away the financial incentive they are done.

No, that is based on your reasoning.

How can you claim to know my reasoning.

The flags opened and for what reason specifically against them I didnt even read entirely. So it is impossible that I am supporting the flags and if I wanted to support the flags I would have clicked support.

I am simply stating that if anyone is looking for a full list of whom I consider to be part of the lauda gang to see if the flagging reasoning may apply to them to then check out that flag and all those that appear to be resisting a flag that is based upon iron clad evidence of deception and lying for financial gain aka scamming.

I would support a flag against those people on those grounds because opposing a legitimate warning based on undeniable evidence of scamming is worthy of a flag. I just have not bothered to create flags based on that evidence and reasoning because I assume it would be impossible to garner support if nobody will support a direct warning against a proven scammer.

That is clearly my reasoning.  

He has no evidence to support his claim I am supporting those specific flags I have not examined the evidence and I may support them after i have reviewed the evidence.   I will when i get time.

A red tag from that scammer facilitator and scumbag implicated in an extortion scheme owlcatz is of no import to me. However the precedent for using lies as a basis for a flag is to be examined.

I have not supported those flags since I have not investigated what specific gripes those flags are based on.

I think the reference for the said negative feedback is clear. People are opposing the flag created by smartcontracts100 while you commented that "everyone opposing" the flag given to lauda is part of Lauda's Gang meaning you are supporting the flag. You may now click the "support" button in the flag itself but your negative opinion about them opposing it shows that you are agreeing to the flag created by smartcontracts100. This isn't a lie but the DT member just based it on your own reasoning.

Well said.

That sounds like the proof Lafu is part of the exit scam that cryptopia pulled costing investors 10s of millions of dollars
He was pushing people to this exchange right up to the scam

Lafu is a proven scammer.

Open 2 threads on the same page and you are cryptohunter.
Imitation the highest form...

There is no conclusive proof.
Thanks for demonstrating just that.

The other cowards running away once I start pulling them towards details and specifics was also entertaining and revealing.

The Proof for that this is an alt Account from CH are the text walls and again complaining about DT and the flagg system.

Im sure that he is and also open 2 threads at the same time as Ch has done with his last alt Account.
Hows it going Ch? We missed you not!

Provide the evidence I have supported any of those flags.
YOU CAN NOT.
Therefore it is a lie.

Please provide the conclusive proof of my old account
YOU CAN NOT

Explain the shady motives in detail and how they are shady
YOU CAN NOT.

I am not backing the flags I have not read the flags or visited the flag pages.
I am saying that I agree there is a colluding group of DT1 that protected and facilitated the scammer lauda
Prove otherwise
YOU CAN NOT

Supporting a persons opinion on one thing is not supporting every action they have ever taken
I have not investigated bitcoinSV so have no idea if you are making up more lies or not

Now make sure to take time and think before you make mode groundless allegations.

Take your time but do not run away and hide.

I had not noticed thepharmacists reply which seems to consist of:  if you have a new account that seems to have knowledge he does not expect a new account to have, then you can be given red trust on the basis of lies.
Thanks for your input thepharmacist.  

I don't see any lies in all the red tags made against your profile

Who says you shouldn't use your old main account to continue posting here?

Yeap much worse, it shows how shady your motives are towards certain DT members

You are backing Bitcoin SV scammers on the false flags they created against the other members. That should be enough to show you are untrustworthy. You are supporting scammers.

Please do

No, you stop making drama stirring alt accounts. All will be scrutinsed.

Really a proven alt of "whom"? Evidence please.

Also can you provide the evidence of this prior members financially motivated wrong doing?

Also can you provide the evidence of this prior members posts where he is trolling ? Aka knowingly presenting false information as true?

Have you evaluated and analyses this prior members post history and can explain specifically how you conclude he was negative?

I hope you can or are you just making up false allegations or lies ?

Please do not run away. I will see your evidence.

I repeat do not run away and hide.


JackG  says if you only join here to wear a sig you should have a red tag WHILE SPAMMING CHIPMIXER

Also Where did I say I only joined to wear a sig? I did not.

What evidence did I claim to have posted? What specifically are you referring to ?

Ps. I am not specifically picking fights with people I am simply wishing to establish the limits for the trust system and what is being allowed to take place here now.

Well done all my new friends for daring to enter debate. Many are cowards that simply hide away.

People shouldnt really trade gold without escrow anyway and I doubt it'll hinder too much.

If your only intention is to join a sig then it's probanly good you've been negged.

I didn't actually see you post any evidence even if you say you can produce it?


It should NOT have been provided as the reason for giving the flag then! Because I can imaging it doing exactly that... nvm it was a lot of flags it maybe could.

Supporting someone or opposing flag is technically not worthy of a negative feedback no matter what the flag is because the forum has a democracy on that matter. But since you are tagged as alt of someone with negative feedback related on trolling in the forum politics. Your support on flag is clearly just for personal vendetta and worthy for a negative feedback indeed.

I want to emphasize for newbies that supporting or opposing flag whoever the person created is not worthy of negative feedback. This is just an isolated case because OP is a proven alt account of someone that has a bad reputation in the forum. So don't be scared on participating flag votes

I looked at OP's feedback and thought for a second that it might be unfair to neg him for being a troll....and then I looked at his post history.  It's obvious OP is not a newbie and is an alt of someone else who's been around for a while.  The question being asked in the title therefore is misleading, because he absolutely has to know the answer to it.  To a genuine newcomer it would be a valid question, but coming from someone who's only posing as a newbie it just comes off as shady.

Suchmoon's feedback suggests that OP is an alt of cryptohunter (or one of his clique, if such a thing even exists anymore).  I'm not 100% convinced that's true, but based on OP's post history I definitely wouldn't rule it out--plus CH has a pattern of creating new accounts when old ones start getting onto too many ignore lists, so that could be it. 

Whatever the case may be, OP is going on ignore and I don't have any sympathy for the state of his trust page.

It devalues the warning system in general and now i can't be on chipmixer either
Also if I wish to trade my gold bars people may be put off now that I have a red tag claiming I am telling lies ?

I think that DT1 should not be handing out negative trust based on lies they make up or statements they can not prove or at least provide corroborating evidence.

Deliberately making up lies to justify fake red tags dilutes the warning system. That is facilitating scammers.

This is simply a DT1 making up lies to apply a red tag to my account.

He is doing this because he wants to use the trust system to crush my free speech and deter me from speaking the truth.

The trust system is not there to punish those telling the truth or those expressing an opinion they can strongly corroborate with independently verifiable evidence.

I wish it to be examined.

@ BA

You are wrong this is for meta it has system wide implications.

Can a person make up lies as a basis for a red tag ? Yes or  no?

Who says a new account is not permitted to post anything an elder member can?

Matters worse?

Support of scammers ? Proof please.

I am supporting his opinion there is a gang that involves lauda for which I have supplied strong corroborating evidence. I can supply a lot more.

Please take more care over the assumptions and allegations you are making.
They will all be scrutinised.

This does not belong to Meta, Reputations board is more suitable. Looking at your post history I am not surprised you got such feedback on your profile. You seem to be too addicted to the politics around the forum for a newbie and to make matter worse, you seem to be in full support of scammers. Why would anyone side with trolls and scammers like Bitcoin SV?

People can do whatever they want with the trust system technically.

I can't say about the flag thing but I unless you've deleted or edited the post, the other one is potentially overkill however it is just a neg, what affect does it have on you? It's not a flag and it's not trading related?

I seem to have a red tag that states

1. I am supporting flags? I don't recall ever supporting a flag?
2. I am spreading lies? Can you present your evidence to demonstrate the lies?

Can DT members just make up anything to justify a red tag?