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

Not really sure what you are even implying here, but it sounds quite ominous and illicit I am sure. I have been targeted for daring to speak up against abusive people here pretty much continually for something like 7 years. There is no coincidence, it is just a long collection of miscreants struggling to take potshots at me using any angle they can pry into, no matter how flimsy the basis.

I would like to point out as well, no one bothered contacting me directly with their concerns, I just happened to stumble upon this thread. One would think if the target really was BitcoinSupremo that some one would try messaging me with their concerns, but nope, not one message. Just another aptly timed 3 ring circus complete with clowns and a sad magician.

Occam's razor. It's not the first time this kind of scenario is playing out with you. Third one since the overhaul of the trust system IIRC. Getting harder each time to believe in those coincidences.

Glad I have you here to explain to me why I do things, very helpful thank you.

Still defending Lauda huh? Why? Still got that brown mark on your nose? Of course he didn't get my support for standing up to abuse, and based on the simple fact you were collectively targeting him, no no, its because he ranted against Lauda. Got it. Solid logic.

No, it's more likely that you included BitcoinSupremo because you liked his rants against Lauda or whoever, and didn't even bother to check his trust feedback or any other accomplishments. Tends to happen a lot with you. It's no big deal really, anyone should feel free to do whatever they want with their trust list.

You caught me. I used the word fraud. So what is that supposed to prove now? Is that supposed to prove you didn't claim this thread was not about his words and opinions but about his "scammy" behavior? Scammy, that is another word for fraudulent is it not?


BTW, you never did quote what you claim I was lying about or make any references. My entire premise was that he was excluded because you little Maoists in training want to punish people for having ideas you don't approve of, and this whole thread is filled with nothing but discussion of his politically incorrect thought crimes. Your little semantic context flipping diversion is irrelevant.

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



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

That is a rather convenient excuse to not substantiate any of your claims. No one said fraud was the only reason to exclude people, you did however claim this case was not about his words but rather about fraud, so that is a directly relevant response to your argument.

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.

Tell me, exactly what am I lying about? Use quotes and references.

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.

Thanks for the public admission you value your whims more than the constitution of the trust system and overall well being of the community. What you are describing is called a popularity contest, not a trust system.



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? Funny how everyone is talking 100% about his words and not one bit about the supposed fraud he is responsible for, and which I don't see in any of those ratings.

That is just a log of DT changes. All that that is, is a log of when it happened, not why it happened. You are free to make baseless insinuations, but that doesn't make it factual or even meaningful. I included and excluded people as new information became available, not based on if they included me or not. I also have proof of the contrary, and it is far more convincing than your insinuation.

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


Also contradicted by publicly available information.

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

This couldn't be retribution for calling you out in this thread could it OP? Interesting timing. I especially like the part where you are mining for intelligence. I expect you to hit molten magma before you find any. Serves me right for trying to help people solve their issues amiright?

The intent of this three ring circus is clear. This is a collection of OCD ass hat wanna be tyrants who have all at one point or another been confronted by me for their own PERSONAL behavior or ideas, and since then they have been collecting together and have been desperately thirsty for retribution, but finding nothing to grasp on to have had to resort to proxies and guilt via association. I have the user in question on my trust list for one single reason.

Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle.

This is just a sad excuse for a collection of former despots taking revenge. None of these people here making all kinds of accusations of racism, homophobia, etc give a fuck about any of these things, they are here because they think they can use it to "get me". Its pathetic and transparent.

Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not. I do however exclude people such as most of the people here in this thread pointing fingers who exclude me because all their buddies said so, I once hurt their feelings, I once called out a wrong they did, or I argued against their ideology that time and they find this a good excuse to sooth that cognitive dissonance with some good old fashion petty retribution.

@chibitcity

3x in one day you say? whilst being in a sig campaign? There are legends banned for far less that are still banned.

So you are telling us you only use sig campaigns to fund charity? that is always what you have done or that is what you did when you got busted to try and make it look a little better?  that sounds a bit like you're friends story that they were attempting a sting operation whilst it looks like they were trying to extort people.

The central point here is that you AND those you support strongly mostly ALL have clear observable instances of financially motivated wrongdoing in their histories that are UNDENIABLE. What is more, some have admitted in black and white to using the trust system to punish other members for presenting observable instances of these financially motivated wrong doing. This is undeniable and again the  WORSE JUDGEMENT that you can possible dream up for those in a TRUST position.

What is BRILLANT on this thread is that it complete demonstrates how corrupt and colluding some DT1 members are.

Notice the date below totally corroborates the claim in this thread here

That those DIRTY TURDS with clear observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing don't just cycle merit, don't just include "each other on DT" but indeed the collude together to hold out those they view as a clear threat to their RACKET.

Match those excluding Tecshare  with those on the dirty turds poll.


match these excluding against the Dirty turds list.  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/poll-the-official-dirty-turds-poll-which-dt-needs-flushing-first-5170789

How can this same bunch (many of which are on this thread ) sit there crying that it is so financially dangerous to include some kid claiming he is tougher than homosexuals in light of the undenible evidence of financially motivated wrong doing by them and their friends and the OPEN AND OBVIOUS COLLUSION between those that have already demonstrated they are high risk operating alone. LOL

Their claims are bogus when taken in the full context of their observable behaviors.

They are terrified of some HONEST and UPRIGHT people with no observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing getting on DT1.  The want to fully control who gets on DT via their merits they cycle to each other.

We believe they are worrying to much about TS anyway. When people get into positions of power they usual "adapt" in order to remain there. Worry more when some people that want to see corruption stamped out at ALL COSTS get to DT1.

So we do not buy the excuses and flawed logic of those on this thread. We still maintain this person mentioned in the OP is more DT material than themselves and their friends. There is no PROOF that he is financially high risk or will employ flawed judgement on financially sensitive matters. You can see DT1  colluders will willingly scam, facilitate scams or protect those that do and abuse the trust of whistle blowers.  That is terrifying since they control the trust and merit system. LOL

More than does not mean we would include him though as we have said the board must be able to muster 20 honest  members with zero instances of clear financial wrong doing who do not make irrational claims about all homosexuals.

Bring on the those that claim to be tougher than ALL homosexuals to the TRUST system that protects you financially rather than proven scammers and their supporters. Just say those gimp masks and 18" dildos, sybian saddles (and get a new space hopper)  you guys are buying on the sales/market forum here  are for your girlfriend and not for bones and the foxhole dungeon parties,  haha and you will  all be fine. Oh yeah don't use that blue oyster bar delivery address any more that is a dead giveaway (JOKE before more virtue signaling ).

If you guys are that scared of him, we'll have a word with him and tell him to leave you babes alone.

Trading experience (when available) is great for evaluating someone's trustworthiness, but in order to add someone to (or to exclude someone from) your trust list you should also evaluate their fairness/judgement. DireWolfM14 posted a great essay on the topic today so I'll just take the lazy route here and suggest to read it:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/my-musings-about-the-trust-network-5182903

Cryptohunter .. a few things

First, I copy pasted maybe 3 posts one single day. I didn’t try taking it as my own and I got lazy and didn’t reference the author. I was wrong, absolutely. However you demented feeble minded moron, how many times do I have to repeat that every single satoshi I ever earned in sig campaigns was donated to charity. Every single satoshi and then some.

I hardly think this one mistake defines who I am. Theymos let me back for a reason. Admins , DT members, and many other outstanding members of the community showed support and fought for me to come back (which I’m beyond grateful for). None of these people would show one ounce of support for yourself. The admins would LOVE for you to slip up just once so they could nuke your account!

Get off it already. I paid for my mistake and have continued to try and make up for it.

A quote from you on my situation that you clearly seem to forget writing. (Sorry to everyone else having to see any of this nonsense, I will never respond to this moron again).

Without knowing the name of the poster I would stay know. If he has a personal biased towards one kind of gender from our members then you know the outcome of any kind of conversation in any topic would be really know good. Saying those words in the forum alone shows his attitude towards one kind of gender, it would be more toxic rather than do any good in the forum.

Back in June when I posted this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/do-we-need-1-more-datapoint-for-trust-in-trades-and-only-trades-5154576
I was hoping that DT1  / DT2 drama would calm down a bit.

Guess I was wrong.

The issue is IMO and continues to be we are trying to take several complex issues and shrink them down to merit & trust & feedback.
There are several members of this board (one of whom is on my trust list) that I can't fucking stand and think they are an ass.
But I trust them not to rip you off. I would not want to go out for a beer with them. I would not want to hang out with them.
Here on the board, I can post and comment with them and say with 99.999% confidence that they will not rip you off.
I have bought from them, I have sold to them. 0 issues.

This is because we have a limited way of doing this so we work with what we have.

It's also why after creating my trust list I have slowed down adding people because it requires more thought.

That is also why there are some people NOT on my trust list. Going back though years of posts, they are VERY VERY helpful, and polite, and VERY VERY useful to the forum.
They fight scams and protect newbies. BUT...they have not bought or sold a thing.
How can you trust them? They should have a lot of merit (which they do), but they also have a lot of positive trust and feedback (which are linked).
Trust? You have had 0 money dealings on the forum So while I trust you to fight scams, we have no idea if you are an honest trader.
They should have a lot of good feedback comments about them, but trust. Sorry no.

Which is why, going back to the post I referenced above, I think we NEED more data points.

Yeah, I know a lot of you disagree with what I am saying. But I think many of you don't notice how much trading goes on here and how desperate we are to know if we can trust the other people.

-Dave

T ?

Maybe T will place something like this on their trust page:



Something like...

"openly supports beating the hell out of people for free who don't share their sexual orientation"

Lets see how will T do his DT thingy this time.

As stompix helpfully pointed out on page 1

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52390033

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.

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?

You'll find it's likelier than you think, cryptohunter.

Interesting question.

We would not likely put him on our trust list . Although that statement does not essentially mean that the person is a financial high risk to other members. Also a dislike for certain practices or people that practice certain behaviors does not mean you will essentially scam.

If we had to have him on there OR people like yourself or other scammers from this list

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/poll-the-official-dirty-turds-poll-which-dt-needs-flushing-first-5170789

then we would likely rather take a risk on having him. On the basis that his view that homosexuals are weaker or easier to defeat in a fight do not essentially say he is going to scam them.

people on this list either would scam people or they support those that would scam people being in positions of trust. Therefore for the sake of the members here and their financial well being he is less "high risk".

If you can not have him on there then those more dangerous are certainly not eligible.

Also check physical ..

Little poll for now, that's pretty much it.