[NEM] NEM -New Economy Movement - No Envy Movement - Updates+Discussion thread - page 279.

cupper5

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: Spider on March 23, 2014, 07:29:33 AM

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 23, 2014, 07:17:58 AM

Quote from: Emill on March 23, 2014, 06:00:50 AM

Dear Dvictim watch this and your gripes will go away
http://www.country1011.com/2014/01/20/video-of-ottawa-woman-gone-viral/

Thanks for that Emill!! Thought provoking

It recalls to enjoy what we have and give the best of yourself.

Yeah....puts all this in perspective....the fact is we have life....celebrate!!!!!

Spider

full member

Activity: 171

Merit: 100

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 23, 2014, 07:17:58 AM

Quote from: Emill on March 23, 2014, 06:00:50 AM

Dear Dvictim watch this and your gripes will go away
http://www.country1011.com/2014/01/20/video-of-ottawa-woman-gone-viral/

Thanks for that Emill!! Thought provoking

It recalls to enjoy what we have and give the best of yourself.

dgex_victim

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: Emill on March 23, 2014, 06:00:50 AM

Dear Dvictim watch this and your gripes will go away
http://www.country1011.com/2014/01/20/video-of-ottawa-woman-gone-viral/

Thanks for that Emill!! Thought provoking

SZZT

sr. member

Activity: 273

Merit: 250

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 23, 2014, 06:48:37 AM

Issue is UP will damage NEM if he looks dishonest.

Oh, so you are now making sure UP does not look dishonest to community?
Really?
This your motivation for all your issues? Ha, UP, here;s a fan, he cares about your reputation so bad, it hurts
Grin

No mate, the issue you have is that your socks are being pruned.
You keep implying that the devteam is not honest and fair because they are taking out socks.
Which is like the complete opposite of what the rest in this thread are saying.

So, unless you want to help root out some more socks, i would suggest that you keep quiet and stop your veiled ad hominem attacks.
We can see through you Wink

lucienlu

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

any one could get it free?

cupper5

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: SZZT on March 23, 2014, 06:18:09 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

If you play the 'good guy' card you have to be 100% trustworthy - that's so obvious!

Ok, now i am convinced, you are just circlejerking are you not? Grin

How many socks do you have? care to share the number with us?

I joined in the early days before payment was required with an 'interested'. If you think this is about me you're wrong. I'm sad to see utopian damage his chance with NEM over this ridiculous issue. You can't change what was said. Sockpuppets will haunt NEM & UP like a dead body.

To go on to such an extent it is obvious that you have multiple sock puppet accounts before your specified date where virtually no payment was required . At least sock puppets after your date paid for each account.

You are wrong and people will in the fullness of time see that there may have been a few sock puppets
But the worst of them were weeded out making it the fairest distribution of any coin.

patmast3r

hero member

Activity: 980

Merit: 1001

Quote from: rockhill on March 23, 2014, 06:49:15 AM

anyway, UP acquiesced multiple buy-in in the beginning. i just hope NEM project can get through this stuff.

There is a difference between acknowledging the fact that there isn't much that can be done against sockpuppets and to support it.
To acquiesce something doesn't mean you say you'll never do anything about it.

regardless...

Even if UP had said that sockpuppetry is okay and he would have welcomed all sockpuppets with a hug and a cup of coffee I'd still not call it dishonest to do something about it now. Those people get their money back! They are not being robbed or anything they're just not welcome anymore. People are allowed to change their opinions are they not ?

Imagine this scenario.

You found a club for all the cool kidz and you even let in a couple of dbags because you think that it won't do much harm. If you later notice that the dbags are actually ruining it for everyone else would it be dishonest to kick them out of the club ? I don't think so.

utopianfuture

sr. member

Activity: 602

Merit: 268

Internet of Value

Quote from: rockhill on March 23, 2014, 06:49:15 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: SZZT on March 23, 2014, 05:47:06 AM

so, i read what you are saying, correctly.

You say that,
because sockpuppets were not anticipated to be such a problem,
and because the devteam decided to deny them access to this project on a date later than the announcement
then socks should be accepted, because they were accepted in the beginning.

is this correct?
do you need to correct my statement anywhere, to reflect better what you are saying?
Let me repeat it, for the record, with less words. Please corret me if i am wrong somewhere.

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not acepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Do the above two lines reflect your issue, or do you need to correct it?

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements, like the one below. I've said enough - obviously

- why don't you read utopian's statement below and try and point to anything that justifies naming and shaming people who created multiple accounts prior to Jan 29.

"I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in."

edit: I'm just the messenger

anyway, UP acquiesced multiple buy-in in the beginning. i just hope NEM project can get through this stuff.

Up to 5. No more.

rockhill

newbie

Activity: 18

Merit: 0

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: SZZT on March 23, 2014, 05:47:06 AM

so, i read what you are saying, correctly.

You say that,
because sockpuppets were not anticipated to be such a problem,
and because the devteam decided to deny them access to this project on a date later than the announcement
then socks should be accepted, because they were accepted in the beginning.

is this correct?
do you need to correct my statement anywhere, to reflect better what you are saying?
Let me repeat it, for the record, with less words. Please corret me if i am wrong somewhere.

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not acepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Do the above two lines reflect your issue, or do you need to correct it?

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements, like the one below. I've said enough - obviously

- why don't you read utopian's statement below and try and point to anything that justifies naming and shaming people who created multiple accounts prior to Jan 29.

"I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in."

edit: I'm just the messenger

anyway, UP acquiesced multiple buy-in in the beginning. i just hope NEM project can get through this stuff.

dgex_victim

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: SZZT on March 23, 2014, 06:39:02 AM

yes, but you know what the funny part is? The image you are pushing uotwards.
Your only issue is that the devteam is actively pruning more and more socks each day, and this makes them not fair!

https://i.imgur.com/nPBRkIq.gif

Issue is UP will damage NEM if he looks dishonest.

SZZT

sr. member

Activity: 273

Merit: 250

yes, but you know what the funny part is? The image you are pushing uotwards.
Your only issue is that the devteam is actively pruning more and more socks each day, and this makes them not fair!

Emill

member

Activity: 63

Merit: 10

Quote from: dgex_victim on March 23, 2014, 06:22:34 AM

Quote from: SZZT on March 23, 2014, 06:08:58 AM

@dgex_victim do not avoid simple questions please, be an adult. I've been in this thread for quite some time, and i have seen the argument you are using, being used so many times, it is not even funny, so i am trying to have a serious discussion. I've been discussing with people for quite some time in my life, and frankly you do not seem to want to engage in it. You seem to just want to spread mud.

also, no do not pretend you are a messenger, you are interpreting things how they suit you. That is neither rational, nor fair, is it?

Quote

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements

This statement of yours, in simple english means that you interpret things the way you want to interpret them.

So lets go again:

The statement you quoted, simply acknowledges the fact that socks are an issue. You are comfortably leaving outside of your quotation, the part that says that they will be hunted, and audited, so what the UP statement you quoted says, as i interpret the whole of it, is this:
"We will do our best to stop the socks."

HUG A TROLL

So, to recap, and to be clear please use your words, do not quote someone elses half statements and twist them to suit your needs:
You seem to be stating these two lines, in a veiled way, if this is wrong, please tell me where you disagree

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not accepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Sorry SZZT, but I don't feel I'll get anywhere debating you. Why? Because you said you were able to distil this:

Quote

"We will do our best to stop the socks."

from this:

Quote

"I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in."

That makes you a card carrying 'yes-man' in my books. Don't get me wrong, NEM needs guys like you who are in 'boots and all', and I respect that, but you haven't put a dent in any of my arguments IMO. Part of this is 'emotion', but part of this is 'reason'. You lack enough reason to engage, sorry!

dgex_victim

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: SZZT on March 23, 2014, 06:08:58 AM

@dgex_victim do not avoid simple questions please, be an adult. I've been in this thread for quite some time, and i have seen the argument you are using, being used so many times, it is not even funny, so i am trying to have a serious discussion. I've been discussing with people for quite some time in my life, and frankly you do not seem to want to engage in it. You seem to just want to spread mud.

also, no do not pretend you are a messenger, you are interpreting things how they suit you. That is neither rational, nor fair, is it?

Quote

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements

This statement of yours, in simple english means that you interpret things the way you want to interpret them.

So lets go again:

The statement you quoted, simply acknowledges the fact that socks are an issue. You are comfortably leaving outside of your quotation, the part that says that they will be hunted, and audited, so what the UP statement you quoted says, as i interpret the whole of it, is this:
"We will do our best to stop the socks."

So, to recap, and to be clear please use your words, do not quote someone elses half statements and twist them to suit your needs:
You seem to be stating these two lines, in a veiled way, if this is wrong, please tell me where you disagree

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not accepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Sorry SZZT, but I don't feel I'll get anywhere debating you. Why? Because you said you were able to distil this:

Quote

"We will do our best to stop the socks."

from this:

Quote

"I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in."

That makes you a card carrying 'yes-man' in my books. Don't get me wrong, NEM needs guys like you who are in 'boots and all', and I respect that, but you haven't put a dent in any of my arguments IMO. Part of this is 'emotion', but part of this is 'reason'. You lack enough reason to bother engaging you, sorry!

Emill

member

Activity: 63

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Spider on March 23, 2014, 06:02:42 AM

Only a handful of people shares your point of view. They all will get their money back.

I think as far as this thread goes you are correct, everyone is telling UP he is as good as gold.

Once NEM and 'utopianfuture' are launched, I fear the sockpuppet saga will haunt NEM, and limit the effectiveness of the message. NXT doesn't even bother with the fairness argument. It's all about the tech. As Adam B Levine put it, the NEM IPO was about "proof of give a shit", and it looks like the NXT stakeholders are doing decent things now as far as funding goes.

With NEM the argument is more emotive - we're the good guys, we're about community and fairness. That's what my warning is about. The sockpuppet saga can be used to show UP & NEM are just self-serving entities that will change the rules to suit themselves. Not a very good look.

If you play the 'good guy' card you have to be 100% trustworthy - that's so obvious!

HUG A TROLL

SZZT

sr. member

Activity: 273

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

If you play the 'good guy' card you have to be 100% trustworthy - that's so obvious!

Ok, now i am convinced, you are just circlejerking are you not? Grin

How many socks do you have? care to share the number with us?

SZZT

sr. member

Activity: 273

Merit: 250

@dgex_victim do not avoid simple questions please, be an adult. I've been in this thread for quite some time, and i have seen the argument you are using, being used so many times, it is not even funny, so i am trying to have a serious discussion. I've been discussing with people for quite some time in my life, and frankly you do not seem to want to engage in it. You seem to just want to spread mud.

also, no do not pretend you are a messenger, you are interpreting things how they suit you. That is neither rational, nor fair, is it?

Quote

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements

This statement of yours, in simple english means that you interpret things the way you want to interpret them.

So lets go again:

The statement you quoted, simply acknowledges the fact that socks are an issue. You are comfortably leaving outside of your quotation, the part that says that they will be hunted, and audited, so what the UP statement you quoted says, as i interpret the whole of it, is this:
"We will do our best to stop the socks."

So, to recap, and to be clear please use your words, do not quote someone elses half statements and twist them to suit your needs:
You seem to be stating these two lines, in a veiled way, if this is wrong, please tell me where you disagree

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not accepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Spider

full member

Activity: 171

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: SZZT on March 23, 2014, 05:47:06 AM

so, i read what you are saying, correctly.

You say that,
because sockpuppets were not anticipated to be such a problem,
and because the devteam decided to deny them access to this project on a date later than the announcement
then socks should be accepted, because they were accepted in the beginning.

is this correct?
do you need to correct my statement anywhere, to reflect better what you are saying?
Let me repeat it, for the record, with less words. Please corret me if i am wrong somewhere.

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not acepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Do the above two lines reflect your issue, or do you need to correct it?

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements, like the one below. I've said enough - obviously

- why don't you read utopian's statement below and try and point to anything that justifies naming and shaming people who created multiple accounts prior to Jan 29.

"I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in."

edit: I'm just the messenger

Only a handful of people shares your point of view. They all will get their money back.

Emill

member

Activity: 63

Merit: 10

Dear Dvictim watch this and your gripes will go away
http://www.country1011.com/2014/01/20/video-of-ottawa-woman-gone-viral/

SZZT

sr. member

Activity: 273

Merit: 250

so, i read what you are saying, correctly.

You say that,
because sockpuppets were not anticipated to be such a problem,
and because the devteam decided to deny them access to this project on a date later than the announcement
then socks should be accepted, because they were accepted in the beginning.

is this correct?
do you need to correct my statement anywhere, to reflect better what you are saying?
Let me repeat it, for the record, with less words. Please corret me if i am wrong somewhere.

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not acepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Do the above two lines reflect your issue, or do you need to correct it?

dgex_victim

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

Quote from: SZZT on March 23, 2014, 05:27:07 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

dgex_victim's comment

If we overlook for a moment that you created an account with the sole reason to attack an exchange and if we pretend for that minute to forget what that fact thells us about yourself, let me ask you this?

How long have you been around, in this thread?
Not long enough i suppose. The sock discussion has been up so many times, it is pointless to come back at it. Do you even have a clear argument?
i have been reading your posts, and i cant seem to locate a clear reasoning behind your comments, so for the sake of a sober discussion, can you make your issue clear?

What exactly is your point?

All i see you and some more argue about, is the fact that because the large number of socks were not anticipated in the first weeks of this project, then we should allow for them to play along, even after we have spotted them?
Can you spare a moment and clear that for me?

UP accepted sockpuppets up until Jan 29. By denying that he looks dishonest. It's very easy to show this. Others will do it. NEM has lost it's best marketing person & strategy.

I've been on this forum for over 18 months. I used this account to avoid what happened to 2kool4skool. I never ended up needing it because graviton fixed my problem without needing to post about it publicly.

I honesty do support NEM, but I hate spin, and I hate seeing people walk in front of a bus.

Last time - it is easy to paint utopianfuture as dishonest - he accepted sockpuppets orignally, then he changed the rules. Then he allowed naming and shaming of people who only followed his original rules. Those are the acts of someone with a low character. I believe UP IS someone of high character, but this thread has too many 'yes men'.

UP needs people to tell him the truth.

"UP, you're just about to go into public with your fly undone, and people can see your y-fronts. It's embarrassing to be the one to tell you, but you're going to look really stupid if you don't do something"

Utopianfuture can be made to look like someone who changes the rules to suit himself. NEM needs a leader who appears 100% honest.

Topic: [NEM] NEM -New Economy Movement - No Envy Movement - Updates+Discussion thread - page 279. (Read 661499 times)