Topic: [NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content - page 4. (Read 1458 times)

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

According to the latest trust data dump:


TECSHARE is included by 10 DT1's:

TECSHARE is excluded by 10 DT1's

Unfortunately i am not keeping the history of data dumps.
I only always work with the latest data, so i can't say what exactly changed here.

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.

The real problem is the person who has this user included. He just entered DT1 again.
His name starts with T and ends with ECSHARE 

I remember that conversation, and no he shouldn't be on DT2.

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.

Lets just keep it this way for now.

I used to think that DT stood for "dementia tremens" until I joined Bitcoin Talk. I'm starting to think that the original meaning was apposite.

Who wrote this?

A statement like this is morally and ethically wrong, and shows that the creator has mental instability and a lack of common sense to boot. These are all things that make its author 100% absolutely not fit for DT.

On a personal note you should be fucking disgusted with what kind of human being you became. Sickens me this shit is still so prevalent in 2019.

Eventually, everyone will be on DT1.  :/

I don't think Theymos anticipated this kind of trust abuse.  There are no negative repercussions for adding everyone and anyone to your trust list.    

What a clueless bunch of goofballs (I hope that's not considered racist in Turkey). They are wondering about shit like why he merited the thread if he doesn't support the flag. Ideally they should step back from the trust system for a couple of months and come back when they've figured out what it's for. Along with TECSHARE  

It can be confusing if you look at the system with tunnel vision, it's easy to miss the big picture. The whole system is opinion based, simple as that. Yes obviously to me and anyone who I would place on my trust list, a person out to do financial harm has no place being included. They also should carry feedback, the actual tool in the system to help identify these issues.
To answer your question, that claim shows extremely poor judgement IMO so they would not be included in my trust list.

TL;DR: Homophobia is the new lemoniphilia. Have I got that right?

So their judgement to hurt some financially is not a consideration?

The trust systems main goal is not to prevent this happening to members?

What a confusing trust system we have.

So for instance if your judgement on homosexuals is that you feel you are tougher than them and could easily beat up one up you should not be trusted to protect others from being scammed?

BUT

If your judgement is that you will pull an auction scam or any other scam or support scammers into the trust system, or extort members, or dox members and risk their safety and the boards finances . Then you should be trusted to protect others from being scammed and be judge of who else should be there to protect others from financial risk?

You see the problem with this idea it does not matter if you are a scammer or supporter of scammers and you get elected to DT is rather strange and very problematic, especially when they start getting their friends elected with the very same scamming or scam supporting attitudes.  

So their likelihood to harm someone financially is of no consideration you say?

I start to see why DT has a few issues.

Imagine when you get a DT1 stocked full of people that are observably financially dangerous because that is of no matter here? but their judgement on homosexuals is neutral or they are pro homosexuality. We're all going to never have to worry about being scammed again , DT will have our backs (not that we would turn our back on them lol)

Have you ever considered that when you get a bunch of people that are likely to harm people financially that they do it for their own personal gain?  have you considered that when they work out they can work together (because now they are only accountable to themselves) they will be in position to fuck over who they want and just all look the other way or pretend it does not matter... because we have good judgement on homosexuals and we can even demonstrate we have good judgement in pointing out others that are financially high risk and need scam tags (even though these are often less damaging and dangerous than what we the DT members have done ourselves)

Sorry that's all too long and complex for you all. I know you can't be bothered to read all of that trolling off topic lies and garbage. Just carry on telling people that a persons willingness to financially harm other members is not a consideration for DT1.  Far more important to know they are pro homosexuality.

You heard it folks... don't even bother considering their likelihood to harm someone financially when you make your trust list. Better to have confirmed scammers on your trust list than those who think they are stronger and tougher than homosexuals.

The DT handbook to bitcointalk. Where can we get a copy?  

Meta board vs the twilight zone.

Can we get that twilight zone music to auto play when you open meta board Theymos ?That would be brilliant.

Obviously we just don't understand the trust system at all. Why don't we just detail how it all works when it's already full of DT1 members with observably financially high risk behaviors and they are the only ones with enough "merit" to JUDGE who else is eligible

Really they only way this racket can continue is for them to PRETEND not to notice the undeniable financially high risk behaviors of other DT members AND OR when they are pointed out just say that is not important only their judgement is important on things like homosexuality etc.

This thread is virtue signalling to prevent tecshare being put on to DT1. They fear any member they don't think they can control 100%. I'm not sure if they need to worry or not. Some people just want on to DT and be part of power. They don't essentially want to make serious changes for the better. Time will tell.

All up in arms about someone saying they are tougher than homosexuals, not to worried about HugeBlackWomans aka the pharmacists racial , ethnic and religious errrr views. Go read some of those posts because we had some disgruntled "people of color"  and "jews" here.... oh WHOOPS that entire thread got deleted.

Trust list is about their judgement, not their likelihood to harm someone financially. It should always comedown to their actions and opinions. I don't go through everyone on my lists posts but this would get someone removed from my list; as it shows poor judgement and thought processes.

Oh, and if you're wondering what happens if they don't reciprocate... well, I'm sure nobody is really wondering.

Şıkıdım Şıkıdım...

Oh nice, TECSHARE made it back into DT1, what a time to be alive

S-he/it is entitled to have an opinion no matter how fucked they are.

If poster's sense of judgment coming only from one point of view (homophobic) every time then Nope not a chance. BTW the poster is dead wrong, one of my mate is gay, and he's a wrestler. He can beat the shit out of full-grown men IRL. I witnessed it because I was on the receiving end.

Having said that, if poster can put his homophobic opinions on the side and his views not dictating his judgment when taking any decisions, then why not?