Topic: Neg tag for opinion about laws. JohhnyUA's trust (Read 705 times)

The topic is closed. Hope Bob123 will check the opinions here of other members and he will change his mind.

I understand it and I pointed out to Smartprofit earlier in the thread that his argument doesn't help here. Perhaps that was the intent.

As for "defending" - no, it doesn't have to mean you've done something bad. Maybe you've been accused incorrectly. But if you're saying that (1) your trust ratings on KTChampions are not different from bob123's rating on you; and (2) those ratings are valid - I don't get why you'd expect that bob123 or anyone should waste time reviewing it.

More than that, I'm trying to make an argument from the trust system usage point of view and you're making it really hard by showing your inability or unwillingness to understand the basic principles of the trust system laid out right there on the page where you send those trust ratings:



FWIW I still think bob123 should revise the rating but I'm worried that it would just embolden you to abuse the trust system even more.

yes, and i was tagged for this reason at first. But after my apologize he removed his tag (as you can see in my trust rating).
 

I don't see where i "demanding others to prove my point". This is open topic and every clown like korner and fxpc, (and this is not all trolls who have personal vendetta against me, so here will be more fun soon) can write here anything, so your second statement it's also very strange.

I don't see how Smartprofit could "made a huge mess about my defence" because i'm not defending here. I'm just clarify what i mean under "don't care against the laws". Defending means that i've done something bad and/or terrible, but here is topic about trust rating, not about some deeds. And , at second, this is words of Smartprofit, not mine. You should understand it.



Bob should use his own brain. I'm sure he will see all views. My arguments and view on situation still in his PM and in first my message here. I'm will be fine with this feedback or without it, doesn't matter too much for me now.

[mod note: removed non english content]

What does third-party feedback have to do with this case?  Are we discussing about johhnyUA here or who? He doesn't want to discuss himself and calls the facts trolling.

Lauda's use of the trust system in such cases is sometimes incorrect and not a good example to rely on. I didn't say you've brought up Lauda before... just that you're unable to justify your trust rating on its own and have to resort to fallacies and rationalizations. Probably a good sign that the rating is questionable.


My apologies. It was not a trust rating, you sent a PM to marlboroza insulting his ancestors. Not cool but not trust system abuse.


Not sure why we'd need such a quote. I consider your sent trust ratings invalid and retaliatory for the reasons I already explained. I consider bob123's rating on you unnecessary for the reasons I already explained. Why do I need to find your quote to show my opinion? Doesn't make sense.
 

So bob123 should leave his rating in place? It's really hard to figure out what you're saying when you keep talking in riddles and demanding that others prove your points. Plus Smartprofit made a huge mess of your "defence". Do you think bob123 should remove his red trust on you and why?

It isn't for you to talk about constructive. Trolls? Clown, you forgot to write that this is a provocation. I still have some popcorn and wait "constructive" moves from you.

You are free to show another examples of me, "brining up Lauda". I think you 're confusing me with someone else. I just showed another example of correct use of trust rating (yes, i consider liars as a high risk for trade, especially if they're lying about someone else reputation).
 

no, that was Vadi2323. His feedback is still active, tho. But i'm not not surprised that you still confusing people.


Can you please bring correct quote where i'm telling that neg for lying and neg for "disrespecting the law" is different things?
Let's try again:

And in my response for you, i clarified the reason why i left feedback for lying. How do you find out that i think that both feedbacks are different? In fact, they're pretty the same in meaning that someone left red trust for behaviors which he can't accept and consider as shady.

Besides, It's not the first time when you juggling your opponent quotes and senses behind it in some weird manner (at least in my view)

---

And this what i talked about, topic full of russian trolls (one is right above me) and without any constructive moves. So, i think that Veleor should close this topic (i think bob will see everything here and make his own decision).

johhnyUA himself leaves high risk warning feedback to others without proof.


In the Imaginationland? If you refer to constitution, you must write which one.

I think bob123 over reacted by giving JohhnyUA a red tag for merely stating he doesn't care about a law. Even I don't like some laws and think it's acceptable to voice an vaild opinion against it.

Bob123 seems to be an friendly guy overall and he could reconsider the feedback as it is reflected in DT feedback to many. It can also harm JohhnyUA's business one way or another.

Yes, sure, more fallacies will fix this LOL.

Carry on. I've had my daily dose of talking to a wall.

I also do not respect some laws.  Let bob123 leave negative feedback for me too.  And let Satoshi Nakamoto also leave negative feedback.  Satoshi was also an anarchist.  How can you trust us three?

Suchmoon violates my freedom of speech in unspeakable ways. Suchmoon must be red-trusted

There was nothing about Ukraine in the original context and johhnyUA didn't say anything about laws being imperfect. It was a blanket statement that he doesn't care about something being against the law and it was made in a discussion about a scammy exchange, which johhnyUA was defending. I personally would still consider that as an opinion and not subject to the trust system but I can also see why bob123 could consider it as untrustworthy regardless of his nationality or johhnyUA's jurisdiction.

I don't think there is any legal or national argument that needs to be made here. Even this very forum has rules against trading illegal goods so it's not like we exist in some lawless space because bitcoins. It's a matter of whether silly statements like that make someone high risk in a trade. I think johhnyUA is just full of shit up to his ears but probably not a high risk.


You might wanna red-trust johhnyUA then, because he doesn't care about your constitution and will violate your freedom of speech in unspeakable ways. /s

Why did bob123 leave a negative review for the fact that someone considers the laws of Ukraine to be imperfect?

Where is bob123?  Why doesn't he give an explanation?

Perhaps he lives in a totalitarian country?  I dont know.
I live in a free country.  My constitution says that censorship is prohibited in my country.  For me, freedom of speech is not an empty phrase.

This not a Ukrainian or a German forum and bob123's nationality has fuck all to do with anything. If it were e.g. ok to scam in Ukraine you'd still get a flag for scamming on this forum. So again, does johhnyUA's conduct make him a high risk in a trade - that's the question that needs to be answered in order to justify (or not) red trust. Not some hypothetical BS about Satoshi.

I'm getting a feeling that you're trying to help johhnyUA to dig his hole a little deeper.

Are you versed in Ukrainian legislation?  Bob123 - an expert on Ukrainian legislation?  He is German.  I am sure that he does not know the laws (legal acts) of Ukraine and cannot give them a legal assessment.  Why did he put him a negative review in the trust?  Satoshi Nakamoto may also not respect the laws (we don't know for sure).  But could you please give him negative feedback for that?  Is he trustworthy?  If Satoshi Nakamoto told me: “Smartprofit, to be honest, I do not respect Ukrainian laws.  Isn't that an obstacle to the deal for us? "  I would say, “Dear Satoshi Nakamoto, I am honored to make a deal with you.  The fact that you do not comply with Ukrainian law does not bother me!  You created Bitcoin and that's enough for me! "

I have already expressed my opinion about bob123's trust rating. This has nothing to with freedom of speech nor does a complaint about freedom of speech make sense while johhnyUA is handing out retaliatory red trust and red trust for opinions to others.

If johhnyUA wants to dispute that trust rating (doesn't really sound like it but whatever) then it should be done without all this rhetorical bullshit. Does johhnyUA's disrespect for the law mean he's a high risk in a trade or not? Does his sockpuppeting mean he's a high risk in a trade or not?

We're talking about bob123's misconduct now, not KTChampions' misconduct.  The principle of freedom of speech has been violated.  An attempt to censor the forum.  Why didn't bob123 apologize to all of us?

DT is a very big responsibility.

Same shit, different shovel. Even now you can't keep it in your pants and need to bring up Lauda. Pathetic. Didn't you also tag marlboroza at one point for some idiotic reasons?

The point is, KTChampions presented a well-substantiated case against you. You didn't. Red trust for "lying" (unless it's lying in a trade or some other business-related context) or "insulting" is red trust for opinion. Like red trust for disrespecting the law. If you can't reflect on your own actions... well, I still think you deserve bob123's leniency but your blow-up high horse is leaking badly.

For what purpose? Russian DT members don't discuss local feedback because they are too busy selling their signatures. Why should bob123 worry about the Russians if they don't care about each other locally? Why are you initiating this discussion here? Is johhnyUA a small child or maybe you are his mommy? johhnyUA really don't care if something is "against the law". I remember when johhnyUA wrote that it is acceptable to kill someone for 5000BTC, because the killer will not go to prison for long, but when released, he will be rich. bob123 feedback doesn't prevent johhnyUA from using the forum. Just as chimk's liarly feedback doesn't prevent me. If johhnyUA wants to use the forum to make money, it may interfere. Probably, he should get a job. johnnyUA deserved this feedback. In addition, he is a legendary liar and defender of violators. He blames me without evidence and did nothing to get me banned. Meanwhile, my popcorn is getting cold


Difficulties in translating? Nice try. Do you think bob123 is an idiot?

Ban evasion

johhnyUA
Kvanko Banned

Ok, despite i don't ask Veleor about such topic (but i appreciate his attitude to trying to help people), i'm here.

Let's go in order:


There was a little conversation in PM, which i can't disclose (without bob's agreement) in quotes, but close sense of this conversation was the next: I told him that my quote doesn't mean that i'm doing something against the law and it even doesn't mean that i'm appreciate such behavior. He answered that he doesn't mean anything like that, but he can't trust people with such worldview and he needs to warn another people, and let them decide (for that reason there is sentence "Check context" )

I understood that in PM there will not be any productive conversation, but the things i hate even more than controversial red tags in my profile - is shitting and bitching in Reputation. So i butthurted in our local russian thread for a little bit and give up on it. Life continues, you know.

Above replica is also fit for this quote:

---

Exactly. I think the problem in mentality: for Germans (bob123 is from Germany) it's something really terrible to "do not care against the law" at the same time, for many nations living with corrupted governments (like in my country) it's not a question of preferences, it's necessity.

Also, as many of you said above (the same as i said in PM, if IIRC) there too many awful and dangerous laws in our world, which forbid freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom to be your own bank and so on.
I can understand why Bob left me this feedback, but i can't accept it (in meaning of acceptance, not like i'm still butthurting about that)

The same answer to
Coolcryptovator


For honest - no. I was pretty clear and i know English at least enough to translate my thoughts correctly to what i mean (most of the time, and this is such case).
There is morality in this world, and laws. Morality is common to all nations, such things like "do not kill, do not steal, do not lie" crossing to many cultures in different times.

Laws is synthetic terms which directly correspond to country which created them. Most of first laws crossed with morality (like laws which forbid stealing) but times passes and there is many laws which at least controversial, but some times they're oppose morality.

And my replica was a statement that i don't accept raw arguments like "it's against the law". Maybe expressed in some rude form.


At first, i wanted to ignore this (about my second feedback) (for example in Dave's replic) but after your "IIRC" i must to answer

No, your memory is playing bad jokes with you. Let me clarify it to you: He used very controversial situation (the argument that i was tagged only by him, noone else tagged me. I will tell you a little more, at first bob123 tagged me about "cheating" but after strong proofs the removed his tag) to sort out with his opponent. Just like personal vendetta.

My feedback is about that this person is a liar, who accused people (not me, important moment) in strong sins without any proofs (just his "view"). So i think, that with such people, who can accuse you in stealing, "corruption" and so on, red trust feedback fit pretty well.  
The only difference between me and Lauda is that Lauda tagged by himself people which accused him in "stealing/corruption/so on" while i tagged someone who accused third party.

Do not thank for clarification.

---

P.S: But again, it's like one year passed i don't want to create another drama. If bob will see it and decide to leave his feedback as it is, when this is his decision and i fine with this. He is at least not a last member in this community and his feedback is in fact do not affect too much.

Neutral assessment is also not suitable here.  Everyone has every right to freely express their opinions and thoughts.

IIRC KTChampions exposed JohhnyUA's sockpuppet and got hit with a retaliatory red trust. Two wrongs don't make it right and all that shit (and I think bob123 should revise that negative rating, and KTChampions' second rating is probably unnecessary) but JohhnyUA is abusing the trust system himself in that case.

It would be nice if bob123 would reconsider its decision and remove the negative tag. I think this is caused by difficulties in translating from Russian to English and taken out of context. If bob123 thinks otherwise, it can replace the negative feedback with a neutral one, because it doesn't deserve a negative tag.

I don't want to add a DT1 member to my distrust list without a strong reason. At first I would like to know his arguments more clearly and I believe that this situation can be resolved peacefully. But it will be another matter if Bob123 doesn't answer. Anyway my single vote won't have a significant effect to his position in the DT list.
I've created this thread, because I believe that the community should achieve a general vision on such type of issues.

If you don't trust someone's feedback then you can place that person to your distrust list. It's simple. Just do it.

Negative feedback doesn't fit for this reason. I have read the references thread linked to the feedback. My government doesn't allow me to use Bitcoin, but still, I am using it. So basically I am working against the government rules of my country. So if I say it verbally here that I don't care government rules about bitcoin then should I get negative feedback? It's pretty clear the reference links was about bitcoin and explaining about an example regarding tax that earning from bitcoin.

I think bob123 should reconsider his feedback, at least should be turned into neutral, and it would be the best solution. I don't know JohhnyUA very well, but a person should be untrusted on the forum just for leaving opinion about a county's rules

IMO we should separate our opinion from facts, even if JohnnyUA "doesn't care about the law" it doesn't mean he is not following them or abide to them also it doesn't mean that he did something illegal. Saying those lines "I don't care about the law" doesn't even incriminate you on any kind of crime it doesn't even get you arrested just by solely saying that so I don't think a negative trust for something you just said in relation to this is worthy of that, only if he said that after he scam someone from Bitcointalk is the only time I would consider a negative tag if I am a DT member.

Perhaps this is not an entirely correct approach to positively address this issue. Why start calls for the removal of bob123 with DT? Conflicts are always easier to resolve by consensus. I don't think bob123 can be a person who is incapable of normal dialogue.

First, the situation that has arisen should be resolved between two opponents between whom mistrust has arisen. For an interested person, you need to remove all your emotions, you should not show your aggression.

But in another case, a person who is endowed with a certain sense of power should behave competently and with dignity.
It is not necessary to show who is in charge here, but on the contrary, try to understand why such a situation has arisen and try to positively resolve this misunderstanding.

Perhaps, to express your distrust, it is enough to leave the tilde, which has been standing for a long time.

What about freedom of speech? bob123 doesn't respect all of us if he does this. DT are the best people on our forum. bob123 shames that title.

Looking at johhnyUA's feedback I would be a bit more distrustful of him based on the feedback left by KTChampions then the ones by bob123
However, since I don't know KTChampions if I was doing a trade with JohhnyUA I would still have to spend time poking around their posts to see what is going on.

But, since you have let JohhnyUA and Bob123 know about this post, and it's been a few days and neither has come here to post, I don't think either one cares that much.

Just my view.

-Dave

I think bob123 should be removed from the DT members.  We are on a cryptocurrency forum.  And not on the forum of tax inspectors or the forum of the municipal police.  What does he allow himself?  Why did bob123 do this?  Why offended the principled crypto trader of 2016?  I think bob123 is not worthy of being a DT.

Well, I viewed the message from where the quote was made. And there is a worldview position about the place of law in human life. We all know that there could be illegal laws and laws that can conflict with basic human rights and freedoms. Placing morals and ethics higher than law is not even unpopular opinion as suggested above, it is a very popular belief, and many archaic laws are being cancelled because they don't correspond to the ideas of good and evil of modern man. Some obsolescent laws that are not being cancelled yet are also not being applyed by the same reason.

So I definitely agree that leaving a negative feedback in the trust system for a worldview position is incorrect.

I've notified JohhnyUA and Bob123 about this topic. Hope they will appear here and settle the conflict.


JohhnyUA wanted to create a topic in Reputation as soon as he received a negative trust from Bob123. He said that in the Russian section, but then for some reason changed his mind. However, I believe that negative feedback is wrong, especially from a DT member, and such reviews undermine the credibility of the entire forum trust system.

Hmm.  Looks like all the feedback bob123 has sent since the one in question has been valid.  I didn't look at feedback left for members prior to that one, but I did take a look at pretty much all of the ones afterward and I don't see any instances of abuse, much less a pattern.

This looks to me like one wrongly-left neg among a great number of ones that were left for valid reasons.  Hopefully bob123 might revisit this one, but if not I don't think it makes a case for kicking him off DT or anything like that.  Quite a few DTs have controversial feedbacks, as I'm sure you're aware, Veleor.

DT2 from June 2019 / DT1 from November 2019

Lol, that trust is pretty unjustified IMO.  JohnnyUA was saying he didn't care if not paying taxes was against the law, he's comfortable doing it.  I mean, come on.  This is a cryptocurrency forum after all, and I'd say a lot of us really have a deep, abiding hatred toward the tax man.  I'm sure a lot of people don't write about it in their posts, but I'm fairly certain  a lot of members here do or have evaded paying taxes in one form or another in their life.  Bob123 might be a saint in that regard, but I don't think it warrants leaving a neg on someone else's trust page because they disagree.

I don't happen to think so, but the trust system allows it.  If johhnyUA wants that feedback removed, I'm sure he knows that it'll have to be worked out between him and bob123.  They're not newbies and they know how things work.

Edit:  I don't know how to check this fact: how long has bob123 been on DT?

I would like to discuss the negative feedback that was sent to Legendary johhnyUA from Default Trust member bob123.

I've asked bob123 in PM on this case six months ago, but there was no response from him.


What Bitcointalk community thinks about this comment?



I believe that there are unspoken ethical rules that help people coexist together and build a harmonious community, as well as state laws which do not always help people, but sometimes restrict their freedom. By using cryptocurrencies in some countries, you do not violate anything, while in other countries you will be punished. So, is it right to blame people and mark them with a negative trust if they don't agree to obey such laws?



[Map: Legal Status of Cryptocurrencies]


I will also quote a well-known history researcher from Russia Yevgeny Ponasenkov about laws.