Topic: [NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content - page 3. (Read 1458 times)

Ok, I know it's probably pointless, but let's try a picture just in case you're verbally challenged:

https://i.snipboard.io/50xUIJ.jpg][img width=500 alt=Loading...]https://i.snipboard.io/50xUIJ.jpg

Let me guess your next argument: the question mark makes it the other guy's fault?

Am I? Sounds suspiciously like one of those things that you make up when you get caught lying.

The whole thread is focused on what is the topic of the thread. That doesn't mean BitcoinSupremo's scammy sockpuppeting history suddenly ceased to exist.

you did however claim this case was not about his words but rather about fraud

I know better than waste my time trying to make sense of your ramblings. I'm reasonably certain though that I didn't say anything about fraud nor is fraud the only reason to exclude someone so knock yourself out arguing that non-existent claim.

Is it? Is it really though? One could argue the title of a thread tends to denote the subject at hand, and the subject at hand in the title has nothing to do with fraud. Run along now and formulate another failing sophist semantic attack strategy and pop your head in again as usual when you think up something that sounds convincing.

Repeat the straw man argument again, check. A couple more times and you can declare yourself a winner in this debate, congratulations.

The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay.

Am I? Sounds suspiciously like one of those things that you make up when you get caught lying.

The whole thread is focused on what is the topic of the thread. That doesn't mean BitcoinSupremo's scammy sockpuppeting history suddenly ceased to exist.

This whole thread is focused around his words and claims it is a call to violence, homophobia, etc, but you are really claiming he was excluded because he is a legitimate threat of fraud?

Me either. Personally, I just don't like you, as you are a dickhead. Cheers.  

You do realize that anyone can look at BitcoinSupremo's rap sheet and see that you're lying?


Also contradicted by publicly available information.

This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public.

Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not.

Oh.. how could i forget our Data-scraping-AI-machine 

Thanks 


Based on last week:

TECSHARE is included by 9 DT1's:


TECSHARE is excluded by 10 DT1's


Seems like Kalemder included him.

~

Well the person who posted that is likely very young by the posting style, likely just mouthing off and wouldn't do anything at all to any homosexuals. That does not invalidate your point that it is morally and ethically wrong and demonstrates poor judgement and attitude.  However as you yourself are not above a bit of morally and ethically wrong doing for direct financial gain in terms of the fact you are a campaign scammer. So will bend your ethics and morals for financial gain.

Coupled with the fact that you include on your DT list other persons that have undeniably done things morally and ethically wrong for direct financial gain.

This you can not deny.

So I say again that since the trust system is there specifically NOT there to protect people from homosexual negative rants but  IS THERE to protect people from financial wrong doing and scamming. Then all your indignation at this person being on the trust system is perhaps misplaced and members should be MORE directed to yours and your scamming pals observable wrong doing that is independently verifiable.

For that reason we say again clearly that this person is probably unsuitable for a TRUST position but he is MORE suitable than ANY person that has demonstrated a propensity for financially motivated wrong doing.

It is quite clear.

Can you and steamtyme pull up your DT includes?? and all the others that are CERTAIN that you can not have people that do and say things that are morally and ethically wrong?  then we can see how your reasoning clearly works.

You guys seems slightly confused about the TRUST systems intended purpose. Which is to protect traders and other members from being the victims of financial wrong doing. Not protect them from homophobia in the case of the OP NOR the racism or ethnic negativity spewed by the pharmacist under the HugeBlackWoman account (which seemingly does not seem so upsetting for you) which was done sneakily and deviously for payment on another account.

I mean if you are all homosexuals and this touches a personal nerve MORE than racism and ethnic/religious negativity that is understandable. However, really morals and ethics should apply to protect ALL members not just some and these are not ALL relevant to protecting people from clear financially motivated wrongdoing. In this progressive time then people should be free to live who they wish as long as they are not harming others and all involved consent (within reasonable limits)

To be clear though we would not personally add any people clearly demonstrating any of the above traits to our trust list including the person in the OP. We would certainly though be MORE likely to exclude many of the people you all have on your includes due to the reasons already stated above. The trust system is for financial protection of members only.

I don't see this point being debunked at all so therefore we can conclude you are all willing to allow morals and ethics to be bent and broken with regard direct financial wrong doing from " your friends and yourselves" but  morals and ethics from "others" are held to higher and tighter controls and standards even if not directly related to the purpose of the TRUST system.  That is both wrong and dangerous for the optimal functioning of the TRUST system.

Great thread. Glad you started it moronbozo. I think such scrutiny should be performed on ALL DT1 inclusions. There should be tick boxes so they can't weasel out of it pretending they don't want to examine the evidence or don't want to be involved LOL or say they are NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH. Where observable behaviors are listed and each DT1 must tick a box either == behavior demonstrates suitable for trust position  Y or N.  We would help listing observable behaviors right away. Always willing to help. If they refuse to tick either box they are blacklisted.

TL DR - so far the debate and concerns by DT members seems slightly bogus if you take their actual behaviors concerning their DT inclusions into consideration. So we conclude virtue signaling with real purpose to prevent of cast doubt on TS being added to DT1. They seem to have no real issue with racism, religion and ethnicity being cast in a highly negative light, no problem with ethical and moral codes being broken for direct financial gain. The only possible other explanation is they are all homosexual and this is  very personal to them. If so then that is fine but recognize the trust system is to protect people from financial wrong doing not protect you from the macho boastful 14yr old tough guys who talk tough on the internets. We are trying to give our answer to the OP and our reasoning behind the answer. The reader will always be fully furnished with the information for them to benefit and make the optimal decision themselves.

Just sig ban him for a couple of years.

If he is a good member and just made some sloppy mistakes and got lazy on referencing then not really worth losing a good member (if he is one i don't know him myself). We need all the REAL enthusiasts we can get for this movement.

Only financially motivated shit posters should be banned perm. Even then if you just take away their sigs for a few years it will likely have the same outcome.

I would rather see Yogg banned (from DT and merit source) for trust abuse and collusion with other known bad eggs on DT.

I'm not in favour of perm banning any person that really is true fan of building an end to end trustless decentralised arena unless they really do not care at all about damaging this board for their own personal and selfish financial gain.

His name starts with T and ends with ECSHARE  

Yeah but he's never ever wrong and I'm sure he'll be around shortly to tell us that

BTW the person quoted in the OP doesn't belong in a sane person's trust list for many many reasons even if you think that homophobic comments wouldn't affect their judgement. Looks like some kind of affirmative action on TECSHARE's part to support shit-stirring scammers.

Seems like Kalemder included him.

I do, see http://loyce.club/trust/

OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
qwk
Ticked
Rmcdermott927
teeGUMES
WhiteManWhite
bobita
Matthias9515

Vod
Foxpup
Flying Hellfish
TMAN
TheNewAnon135246
mindrust
suchmoon
owlcatz
nutildah
The Pharmacist