Topic: "Last of the V8s" is filing fake scam reports (Read 1058 times)
Never mind that. So much chatter everywhere it's easy for the eye to slip. Pretty instructive thread all round though.
Well, what V8 gave the negative rating was actually about a false allegation realr0ach made on a fellow member. I guess in your view, false allegations are ok as long as they aren't made on the hallowed trust comment page.
Just because I don't agree with a negative rating for it doesn't mean I condone it. For example I would consider a neutral trust rating with a reference for this perfectly acceptable. If the roles were reversed no one would give a shit, but some people are more equal than others.
Oh, sorry, I guess that makes my point totally erroneous.
Well, what V8 gave the negative rating was actually about a false allegation realr0ach made on a fellow member. I guess in your view, false allegations are ok as long as they aren't made on the hallowed trust comment page.
Just because I don't agree with a negative rating for it doesn't mean I condone it. For example I would consider a neutral trust rating with a reference for this perfectly acceptable. If the roles were reversed no one would give a shit, but some people are more equal than others.
Well, what V8 gave the negative rating was actually about a false allegation realr0ach made on a fellow member. I guess in your view, false allegations are ok as long as they aren't made on the hallowed trust comment page.
Just because I don't agree with a negative rating for it doesn't mean I condone it. For example I would consider a neutral trust rating with a reference for this perfectly acceptable. If the roles were reversed no one would give a shit, but some people are more equal than others.
Yeah well, as I said the cost of being free to speak yourself is some times being subjected to ideas that offend you. You are free to click ignore, or walk away from the computer at any time. This need to control the speech of others frankly scares me more than all the insane views in the world being spoken freely.
When it comes to "free speech," some of what realr0ach comes up with is light years away from any "fine line." I'd sooner make it legal for someone to yell fire in a theater.
Well, what V8 gave the negative rating was actually about a false allegation realr0ach made on a fellow member. I guess in your view, false allegations are ok as long as they aren't made on the hallowed trust comment page.
Just because I don't agree with a negative rating for it doesn't mean I condone it. For example I would consider a neutral trust rating with a reference for this perfectly acceptable. If the roles were reversed no one would give a shit, but some people are more equal than others.
Yeah well, as I said the cost of being free to speak yourself is some times being subjected to ideas that offend you. You are free to click ignore, or walk away from the computer at any time. This need to control the speech of others frankly scares me more than all the insane views in the world being spoken freely.
Well, what V8 gave the negative rating was actually about a false allegation realr0ach made on a fellow member. I guess in your view, false allegations are ok as long as they aren't made on the hallowed trust comment page.
Just because I don't agree with a negative rating for it doesn't mean I condone it. For example I would consider a neutral trust rating with a reference for this perfectly acceptable. If the roles were reversed no one would give a shit, but some people are more equal than others.
Well, what V8 gave the negative rating was actually about a false allegation realr0ach made on a fellow member. I guess in your view, false allegations are ok as long as they aren't made on the hallowed trust comment page.
Just because I don't agree with a negative rating for it doesn't mean I condone it. For example I would consider a neutral trust rating with a reference for this perfectly acceptable. If the roles were reversed no one would give a shit, but some people are more equal than others.
I have to ask then, all of this considered... what is wrong with using the ignore button?
Because someone is bound to quote him. Many community members have encouraged ignoring him. However, some are prone to peek or are new and have no idea what is about to transpire. Then someone sees a quoted post, attacking them, their wife, their sex, or their race, and we're off to the races. Or it could all start from a simple counterpoint to one of his more "sane" posts attacking BTC and devolve from there.
It sounds to me that this is just a consequence of everyone being free to speak, and the response is verging on obsessive levels of wanting to control the speech of others. Just because what he has to say is repugnant, annoys you, or you find it distracting is really not an excuse for all of this. If everyone is free to speak there will always be people saying things objectionable to you, and no matter what you say some one out there will find it objectionable. This is just human nature, the first amendment need not even come into the equation.
Well, what V8 gave the negative rating was actually about a false allegation realr0ach made on a fellow member. I guess in your view, false allegations are ok as long as they aren't made on the hallowed trust comment page.
I have to ask then, all of this considered... what is wrong with using the ignore button?
Because someone is bound to quote him. Many community members have encouraged ignoring him. However, some are prone to peek or are new and have no idea what is about to transpire. Then someone sees a quoted post, attacking them, their wife, their sex, or their race, and we're off to the races. Or it could all start from a simple counterpoint to one of his more "sane" posts attacking BTC and devolve from there.
It sounds to me that this is just a consequence of everyone being free to speak, and the response is verging on obsessive levels of wanting to control the speech of others. Just because what he has to say is repugnant, annoys you, or you find it distracting is really not an excuse for all of this. If everyone is free to speak there will always be people saying things objectionable to you, and no matter what you say some one out there will find it objectionable. This is just human nature, the first amendment need not even come into the equation.
I have to ask then, all of this considered... what is wrong with using the ignore button?
Because someone is bound to quote him. Many community members have encouraged ignoring him. However, some are prone to peek or are new and have no idea what is about to transpire. Then someone sees a quoted post, attacking them, their wife, their sex, or their race, and we're off to the races. Or it could all start from a simple counterpoint to one of his more "sane" posts attacking BTC and devolve from there.
This place is crazy... like an old leaky boat in the cartoons where they keep patching holes with pieces of chewed gum and plugging fingers into a hole just for another to open up again. Just band-aids on top of band-aids while the system as a whole slowly loses its wheels one by one.
In this case I would suggest contacting the thread owner as it states in the screenshot...
Since the current designated thread owner, inforfront, is not staff, all that will result in will be a few of the most offending posts getting deleted. Since infofront is not staff, no other accelerated action can be taken. Since infofront is a volunteer, many of the offending posts can persist for hours, days or overlooked. By that time, more likely than not, an argument has already ensued and the damage is done. Also, infofront cannot be too heavy handed in the deleting of posts. Otherwise bitching of infringing on "freedom of speech" ensues.
I know the arrangement for this thread appears a little odd. What happened is that the original op of the thread became inactive. It ended up becoming a great deal of work for the staff to moderate, so theymos locked it. However, the thread is quite popular and members wanted the thread reopened. So theymos unlocked the thread and appointed a new thread owner.
Overall, the thread is a bit lively. However, then realr0ach comes in and shits in the pool.
I have to ask then, all of this considered... what is wrong with using the ignore button?
This place is crazy... like an old leaky boat in the cartoons where they keep patching holes with pieces of chewed gum and plugging fingers into a hole just for another to open up again. Just band-aids on top of band-aids while the system as a whole slowly loses its wheels one by one.
In this case I would suggest contacting the thread owner as it states in the screenshot...
Since the current designated thread owner, inforfront, is not staff, all that will result in will be a few of the most offending posts getting deleted. Since infofront is not staff, no other accelerated action can be taken. Since infofront is a volunteer, many of the offending posts can persist for hours, days or overlooked. By that time, more likely than not, an argument has already ensued and the damage is done. Also, infofront cannot be too heavy handed in the deleting of posts. Otherwise bitching of infringing on "freedom of speech" ensues.
I know the arrangement for this thread appears a little odd. What happened is that the original op of the thread became inactive. It ended up becoming a great deal of work for the staff to moderate, so theymos locked it. However, the thread is quite popular and members wanted the thread reopened. So theymos unlocked the thread and appointed a new thread owner.
Overall, the thread is a bit lively. However, then realr0ach comes in and shits in the pool.
Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...
I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion.
That was probably the wrong tangent. I guess the main point is there is a quandary in my mind between the principles of free speech and the repugnant nature of what r0ach's fingertips unleash on the WO board. The members who regularly post on the WO board have been more than longsuffering with r0ach. He's lucky that this current account of his has only accumulated 2 red tags. I think anyone who would initiate a trade with him on this forum should take a glance at his post history, first. And Lauda has used his post history as the evidence link. It's probably all moot anyway, since I doubt r0ach will be doing any trades on this board considering that he thinks all cryptocurrencies are shit coins. Also, the WO board, where he posts almost exclusively, doesn't display trust ratings.
Frankly this seems like more of a moderation issue than a trust issue. If he is being disruptive of the overall forum people should be reporting him not tagging him.
He cowers away in the Wall Observer thread which has special moderation rules
so we seem to be stuck with him.
This place is crazy... like an old leaky boat in the cartoons where they keep patching holes with pieces of chewed gum and plugging fingers into a hole just for another to open up again. Just band-aids on top of band-aids while the system as a whole slowly loses its wheels one by one.
In this case I would suggest contacting the thread owner as it states in the screenshot...
Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...
I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion.
That was probably the wrong tangent. I guess the main point is there is a quandary in my mind between the principles of free speech and the repugnant nature of what r0ach's fingertips unleash on the WO board. The members who regularly post on the WO board have been more than longsuffering with r0ach. He's lucky that this current account of his has only accumulated 2 red tags. I think anyone who would initiate a trade with him on this forum should take a glance at his post history, first. And Lauda has used his post history as the evidence link. It's probably all moot anyway, since I doubt r0ach will be doing any trades on this board considering that he thinks all cryptocurrencies are shit coins. Also, the WO board, where he posts almost exclusively, doesn't display trust ratings.
Frankly this seems like more of a moderation issue than a trust issue. If he is being disruptive of the overall forum people should be reporting him not tagging him.
He cowers away in the Wall Observer thread which has special moderation rules
so we seem to be stuck with him.
Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...
I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion.
That was probably the wrong tangent. I guess the main point is there is a quandary in my mind between the principles of free speech and the repugnant nature of what r0ach's fingertips unleash on the WO board. The members who regularly post on the WO board have been more than longsuffering with r0ach. He's lucky that this current account of his has only accumulated 2 red tags. I think anyone who would initiate a trade with him on this forum should take a glance at his post history, first. And Lauda has used his post history as the evidence link. It's probably all moot anyway, since I doubt r0ach will be doing any trades on this board considering that he thinks all cryptocurrencies are shit coins. Also, the WO board, where he posts almost exclusively, doesn't display trust ratings.
Frankly this seems like more of a moderation issue than a trust issue. If he is being disruptive of the overall forum people should be reporting him not tagging him.
Since op brought him up, further examples of jbreher's disingenuousness
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50071754 v. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50070092
Anyway, as to your lies, both of you, DT consensus is just that they don't merit negative trust.
before:
now:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50071754 v. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50070092
Anyway, as to your lies, both of you, DT consensus is just that they don't merit negative trust.
before:
now:
nothing but a bunch of pump and dump scammers lying about things like "decentralization" for your own financial self-interest.
Wouldn't that be your description of like 99.9% of all the people that post on bitcointalk?
That's why people like Last of the V8s are afraid of me. His IQ is high enough to know I'm right, and he's completely incapable of putting up ANY type of argument against me ever time after time, so in order for him to not be a scammer himself, he has to pull Saul Alinsky communist tactics to try and un-person or defame me pretending that will allow his false reality to take precedent if I don't exist. Then he can go about his business lying about things such as decentralization and trying to profit off pyramid schemes guilt-free if he's just capable of believing his own lies with nobody there to remind him they're lies.
edit i see that is not the case
nothing but a bunch of pump and dump scammers lying about things like "decentralization" for your own financial self-interest.
Wouldn't that be your description of like 99.9% of all the people that post on bitcointalk?
You already became quite disenchanting with this whole cryptocurrency thing way back in the summer of 2016. Don't you think it's time to let go and move on to better things? Like figuring out ways to increase your silver hoard? But that's not the whole deal, is it? r0ach is accusing another member of attempting to scam the whole community, which is an allegation for which he can only provide circumstantial evidence.
I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything. I said that Bob was posting "hodl", "to the moon", and bull spam the entire time he was dumping $5 million worth of digital shitcoins on people. This is factually true. Then I post quotes of HIMSELF in chronological order showing how he was doing so. It's objective, factual reality, and this scumbag Last of the V8s still sits here and claims I'm lying when Bob provided the evidence for it himself in quotes of his own words.
Then Bob comes and says yesterday he sold nowhere near $5000 of the top and I post a quote of him saying he sold $1 million at $14.5k catching him in a lie yesterday. I don't have any agenda against this particular person, I'm just highlighting the fact you're all (particularly people like Last of the V8s) nothing but a bunch of pump and dump scammers lying about things like "decentralization" for your own financial self-interest. Do you need those Bob quotes again? I post something objectively true and Last of the V8s lies and files a scam report against me:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50053934
The problem with most of you people is that you have lied about things like "decentralization" so much you started to believe your own lies. It's 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency. Transaction validators are always designed to centralize. Now you act like you're in a religious cult and that anyone who challenges your FALSE beliefs is the bad one. You're operating under the 'maybe tommorow' scam. Maybe tomorrow a random autistic person will alter the codebase and change bitcoin from something designed to centralize with no fundamentals to actually working like the whitepaper claims. Anyone who has studied these issues long enough knows it's not possible.
Jump to: