Topic: IS GIVING RED-TRUST THAT NON-EXPLANATORY ? - page 2. (Read 2901 times)

You never answered my question. If I am to perform what is arguably a public service of dispute mediation, exactly what do I need to meet your fine and arbitrary standards so that I can some how prove what is happening in my mind and this public service is not being done in some strange reverse Machiavellian plan where I do good and useful things to help people, just to take over everything. Then of course step 3: profit.

No I think I will keep referring to you as a clown as I prostitute your goat to Nutilduhh for quarters. You are impugning my character and based on your interpretations of what you believe I intend for that matter rather than facts. You can go fuck yourself with your civil discourse because you don't operate by the rules of logic when it doesn't suit you, therefore logic alone is never going to make a difference in a discussion with you. This is all about an image you have been sold by a collection of turds being flushed down a toilet bowl around here as they go down the drain. You are confirming your bias and arranging interpretations around me rather than looking at facts and then coming to conclusions.

As far as the rest of your jibbering, the point is not oh the poor scammers. The point is the poor regular users who get caught up in this horse shit that allows certain users around here to run around like geeked up control freaks lording over people as they put on their little internet cop hat and clown noses. That has a negative affect on the user base and I have seen it drive a lot of great users who would have otherwise stayed away. At the end of the day the scammers are back in minutes on a bought account. The legit users burned in retribution for certain speech or the arbitrary/unclear/unwritten rules often just leave for good. Most of these accusations are more about the accuser boosting their own image by creating a reputation as a "Scam buster" by sheer arbitrary volume. This kind of behavior is destructive to any community online or not and should not be tolerated. People should be able to go about their business unless otherwise victimizing some one. Violations of forum rules should be reported to staff. The end.

More and more almost daily..

Because he does what he can to keep the forum true to its roots, despite those who are not here for the reasons Bitcoin and this forum were created..

Bias towards theymos because he will continue to keep the forum free while you would rather turn it into a police state..

It's really that simple..

Any chance of having a constructive discussion without stooping to CH level ad hominem attacks?  I would actually like to resolve all the DT1 infighting, but this type of discourse isn't helpful.



Whether nutildah's post predated my conclusions or not is irrelevant.  I know it doesn't suit your argument, but I am capable of critical thought despite the influence of others.  Regardless of the chronology it's my opinion that nutildah has made a valid point.  You are manipulating and using the Turkish member to further your DT1 agenda and expand your influence.

Coincidentally, I have no issues with nutildah, and as far as I know he has none with me, despite the two of us being on opposite sides of the political spectrum.  Maybe your issues with nutildah aren't so much your politics, but how you debate them?  But I digress.



This is a philosophy that I can totally stand behind when it comes to limiting governing power.  As a conservative minded person, the last thing I want to see is a Minority Report type of punitive system in place.  But this isn't Philadelphia in the late 1700's, and we're not the Constitutional Congress.  This is an internet forum with many successfully anonymous members, some of whom are scammers.  

There isn't going to be any real justice if a guy shows up and makes wild claims of exorbitant ROIs if you invest in his cloud mining ponzi.  There is no "Justice System" in place here that can recoup the losses of the victims of such scammers.  How can there be a "restorative" system in these cases?  There's the old adage; an ounce of prevention...  That's the best we can do on this forum.

I'd like to believe I'm restrained when handing out negative reviews, and I hope all who are in the DT system also demonstrate thoughtful and cautious restraint.  There have been instances where the evidence was incomplete, yet I felt a warning to the community was warranted.  Those situations have been few.  If someone within the system doesn't show restraint I'll make a voting decision based on the value vs. detriment of allowing that person to remain on DT.  It's a difficult decision to make, and shouldn't be taken lightly.

To address the "punitive" part of your statement, what can possibly be done to someone on the internet that would be considered "punitive?"  There's no forum jail, or court system.  Most criminal scams that happen here aren't going to garner much attention from real-life law enforcement.  No one is going to jail for promoting LiveCoin, Yobit, or any other scammy exchange or ICO.  The only thing that's going to happen is a little red number shows up next to the scammer's (or "scammer's") name.  If you consider that punitive, well then, okay, we'll have to agree to disagree.

See, you have it all wrong! The climax is over, it was when theymos went after me and I clashed right back at him this summer earning myself a ton of distrust. Statistically I lost there, but I understand why lotta people around here would never side against theymos but that's for a different topic. This is more like a Falling action before the catastrophe.

Respect theymos because he's an authority here, or because he 'tries'? I'm much more right to disrespect him if/when and how I want than >99% of the users here are having "worked alongside" him and the mod. team for years.

The goal is to be sober and still be like TMAN at his finest.

Again, you write because of bias. It's not worth my time, I just post a lot like I always have. Sometimes spamming, sometimes swearing, almost always very grumpy and always having a laugh at the same time. If our dance indulges you as much as it does me, then please do spend your time engaging with me. I do admit though, I've lost way too much time here since December (especially today).

---

"Tyrannical authoritarian" now that one gave me quite the laugh, it's been a while.  

It is quite entertaining, especially the climax of the game when it's time for everyone to put their cards on the table..

Right, like I haven't spoke against your attempted authoritarianism for years, and haven't been being randomly attacked by you for years here.. Lol..
Surely this is something new..

It has been increasing lately because 1. you are going off the rails, leaving many abusive ratings and blatently refusing to follow guidelines while showing utter disrespect for theymos and his efforts..
2. It's time to show the cards right? You ready? My chips are obviously on the table as far as whose side of this I think will come out on top in the end..

Then I can be drunk and know things like TMAN

Why is it worth your time? You would just love it if I shut up wouldn't you...

This thing you claim as "abuse" has been removed. There is nothing that you could even remotely consider abusive feedback on you anymore, aside from maybe the user sergey1980 but that's your own issue.

Are you talking about this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53502238 If yes then indeed the good deeds don't even remotely outweigh your bad deeds. Estimating the damage caused by ICO bumping is next to impossible due to many factors.

I am sad that someone like you had to involve yourself here to fight for the abuse on me, as I never expected such still I respect you from the past.

But, the extent of such abuse is to were you are referring to the good deeds of there scam busting, but on other hands, they don't even think twice to tear apart the repo of another scam buster like me. One can surely see these goods deeds really doesn't outweigh the damage caused on another side.

(I don't intend to involve you in any type of drama, you could just stay away and still act right).

This was true from the very beginning, I just wasn't testing these "freedom-of-speech" limits before. Is fun, for me and a couple of other blokes at least.

See, you're completely wrong about me and yet you keep at it[1]. Whatever happens it's a win for both me and everyone else around here. You need to look at the bigger picture (and possible outcomes) when one tries to force players to play their hands.

---

[1] I believe this is due to the rating which you claim has no effect on you whatsoever, but since then you seem highly biased against me (in a very unnecessary and negative way). I'm two clicks away from being removed from the forum (which is the real threat) is something surely somebody who thinks they're untouchable would say.
Have a glass of wine or two, or whatever you like. This incident between us is not even worth the time you spend posting about it. Save the time and enjoy your life!

I highly doubt it..


This user has obviously and openly gone rogue against the systems guidelines..

I have a hunch that this is about to get more prevalent and their is being a push to normalize it, seeing as their is currently an attempt to set precedent on it and all..

They think they are untouchable and will get away with absolutely refusing to follow the guidelines...
We will see..

Sorry that certain individuals always cause collateral damage like this to others because of me. The day that I realized that people shuffle each other on trust lists because of singular cases of ratings[1] with which they don't agree with or are out of line is the day I stopped participating as much. Now you have to be very careful what you say (especially what you do) out of fear of others undoing a lot of work, quite a change of pace!

---

[1] Not talking about myself[2] before these people get a hard on; I've stopped participating that much a long time ago.
[2] I am controversy royalty.

I happen to agree with you here on all points, a rarity, eh? 

This drama about negs being given for petty reasons could be obviated if only we had some strong guidance from up top.  I really don't like it when DT members have to fight it out like this--it isn't that we all have to agree with one another, but it would be so fucking nice to be all on the same page about a few things.

I trust most of Lauda's feedbacks.  The one I countered, I didn't agree with and I rarely give a counter positive.  I just did not think it was appropriate to neg a member because of a difference either in perspective of the facts or opinions.  I'm pretty sure Lauda has a strong spine and can take a lot of BS that's thrown his/her way, so it was surprising when I saw that neg.

I don't want any more part of this drama than what I've already inserted myself into.  And just because I countered a single feedback by Lauda doesn't mean I no longer trust Lauda as a scam buster and a member who generally stands up for forum issues.  Since most of Lauda's feedbacks are spot on IMO, I'm keeping Lauda on my trust list.  We tend to think alike on some of the negs we've left.

LOL


Firstly Moronbozo you need to keep away from complex concepts like double standards. You clearly do not have the capacity to grasp the REAL meaning of such things.

Lauda is a PROVEN trust abuser. Giving red trust to a person on the basis they are meriting a high value post that is NOT conclusively proven false or misleading (actually it looks to be of high value) is obviously trust abuse.

You (we believe) were tagged for giving merit to a post that DOXED the forum treasurer which is kind of like condoning this rule breaking dangerous (financially clearly since he was then holding millions of USD for the forum)  behavior. This is not equivalent to the behavior of  hacker AT ALL.

Also Lauda is a PROVEN scammer and scam pusher. He is also strongly implicated in MANY shady examples of financially motivated wrong doing. So again this is NOT equivalent to OG where there is no conclusive proof.

So it is clear that Lauda is once again abusing trust, and the double standards are just a figment of your moronic broken mind.

The board needs to start also noting down those that will support ANY action of trust abuse or CLEAR financially motivated wrong doing that is undeniably placing other honest members at higher risk. Direwolf, moronbozo, nutildah micgoosens and plenty more now including JJG these ALWAYS seem to be on the side of trust abusers or scammers.

Bottom line is this is clearly again the trust system being used for PERSONAL gain /retribution that has nothing AT ALL to do with protecting the honest members here from scammers and those with undeniable observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing (lauda et al).

Clearly though as with merit "feedback" will always be abused since there is no criteria and can be weaponized for personal gain. Poor design = poor results.

Lauda has a long documented history of using red trust to silence others presenting observable instances from his own dirty history here TRUST ABUSE. Problem is nobody gives one shit until he does this to them. LOL

You may be describing another Lauda, Laudas, cat, cats, user, users, entity, as the above is not characteristic of me.

A couple of you semi-shady folk are taking all of this very seriously, while I am just having my fun with y'all whilst doing good at the same time. That's the key difference. Many back-rooms of both sides (and yes, I am inside both "factions'" Slack channels and whatnot) do get their share of laughs from all of this. Every now and then I truly wonder how some users could possibly take all of this as seriously as they do, as if the forum and its systems of injustice law and policing right here are the crux of their whole life. Maybe they really are. Talk is cheap and for fun, just actions are what matters.

Here's to another undoing of my words. Almost scammed myself, too bad you can't rate for almost.

I'm very disappointed to be honest. I'm now more concerned that this erratic "change of heart opinion" will slow down the rate of distrust that's been building positive momentum over the past year. I had a lot more respect for this uncompromising & antagonistic nihilist, that openly doesn't care about the community or DT, as by consequence they were helping to bring awareness of "trust issues" within DT1 for the longer-term benefit. This was invaluable imo. It held more importance than removing an irrelevant negative trust (that already been countered, thus had become more or less worthless), but instead they threw this valuable case of DT accountability away, instead opting for self-accountability after the assurance this wouldn't happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for hacker1001101001 that his neg trust was removed, but disappointed for the community given the progress that was being made.

Sequence of events (for historical documentation purposes):






¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Your rating was just an example. You could round me up to anything scam realted which I am nowhere involved in and didn't even cause any financial damages to any real victims and use the trust system as you see fit. This thread was never about you alone anyways.

---

Removed the 'bogus rating', updated with a "law-abiding" one. Good luck with all the mud-slinging and side-fights. That's enough for this thread from me.

I don't just throw accusations around, I use specific references and keep public records of all of this abuse as you can see above. You however practice the Vod school of accusation. You project crimes on to people, then when asked to substantiate them you never seem to have an answer and just pretend it is obvious and slide the topic until everyone forgets you never actually substantiated anything.

let me do like suchmoon
shit, your welcome bro

I am defending it here without any personally indulge benifits.It is more targeted to the betterment of the use of red trust in an more organized and explanatory maner. Don't try to bend it towards me alone, there are many others who are facing such type of abuse and there is an list of examples I tried to avoid mentioning in the OP as I myself was an recent example.



Shady shit in relation to trust ratings is limited to really scamming with funds or trying to scam with funds, rest of things are just opinions about if they would scam or not observed just from there views towards the system which is wrong, even that could be indicated with the use of a neutral rating. TECSHARE is nowhere near an harm to the DT network not even to the forum overall.

---

Thank you for acting right, it's really not that difficult to judge an act right but only things that are avoiding people to do so boils down to 1. Hidden agendas. or 2. Fear. It would be dam effective even if the second group starts acting on it.

ooo suchmoon you started late, again, humiliation or something, one-word auditions, superiority, and the supporters are sending merit.

Don't worry, son, no one can take this place from you.