I do not think that any action is warranted in this matter.
Who is the plagiarism apologist now?
Heh..
Topic: Plagiarism apologist #92110 “cryptohunter” rationalized dishonesty in principle (Read 886 times)
May 23, 2020, 03:56:21 PM
Who is the plagiarism apologist now?
Heh..
May 23, 2020, 02:16:38 PM
Nullius seeming thinks plagiarism is not too bad now ?
I see him defending laudas plagiarism?
I see him defending laudas plagiarism?
Yes, because these people are not honest. Rules do not apply to their friends. Their judgments are unreliable. My advice to everyone: Delete them from your list.
May 23, 2020, 02:07:16 PM
Nullius seeming thinks plagiarism is not too bad now ?
I see him defending laudas plagiarism?
I see him defending laudas plagiarism?
January 08, 2020, 11:20:35 AM
Something's not right with this nullius,maybe some retarded shitty hoe manage to get his account password just look at how he write right now.
January 04, 2020, 06:35:51 AM
Nullius, is creating his own straw man, but does not realise it. Suggesting that plagiarists face a ban, (the most serious possible punishment) is not defending them. Or excusing them from punishment!
Empathy alone, is not something that should ever be punished.
It is entirely inline with my own views: that a starving man thieving a bun for his family to survive, should face the same punishment as the wealthy man, for committing the same crime. However, posting pics of his starving family and making fun out of his reasons, or excuses, for doing so, is not something I would engage with. I would perhaps speak out against this. It portrays a negative and nasty mob.
Writing skills? The original nullius (from reading his post history) is very unlikely to have stooped to such a retort. The OP is not error free to my own eyes.
Saying he believes ridiculing their excuses is in poor taste, is not as nullius claims and attempt to justify and excuse. The suggestion of a ban clearly demonstrates he believes there is no rational or excuse that should prevent the correct punishment. Would nullius return simply launch into a silly and petty attack like this.
If this is nullius, then apologies for suspecting otherwise.
Empathy alone, is not something that should ever be punished.
It is entirely inline with my own views: that a starving man thieving a bun for his family to survive, should face the same punishment as the wealthy man, for committing the same crime. However, posting pics of his starving family and making fun out of his reasons, or excuses, for doing so, is not something I would engage with. I would perhaps speak out against this. It portrays a negative and nasty mob.
Writing skills? The original nullius (from reading his post history) is very unlikely to have stooped to such a retort. The OP is not error free to my own eyes.
Saying he believes ridiculing their excuses is in poor taste, is not as nullius claims and attempt to justify and excuse. The suggestion of a ban clearly demonstrates he believes there is no rational or excuse that should prevent the correct punishment. Would nullius return simply launch into a silly and petty attack like this.
If this is nullius, then apologies for suspecting otherwise.
January 03, 2020, 10:06:56 PM
If theymos ever made a statement specifically about issuing negative trust feedback for merit abuse, I must have missed it.
HereIf a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.
Aside from that, if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that.
Aside from that, if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that.
I see no evidence that the sky is falling, or that I accidentally broke the trust system.
Funny users aren't flocking in here to defend CH..If this was a clean legendary with 500+ earned merit, friends, and a good history, I think it would be a different story..
Especially if you want to get into the "good outweighs the bad" debate, just because their isn't much opposition to you tagging CH like that doesn't mean it will work on every user in every case i.e. no "precedent"..
a thin, dangerous line
Your Reductio ad Absurdum hypothetical is based on the subjectivity of how egregious each possible case is interpreted to be by every other voting member independently with the threshold rising tremendously based on the credibility of the subjected user in question.. I am unsure about this particular tag, slightly in the negative on it, but I do not believe that this example has any bearing on any other case, past, present, or future, as they are all independently interpreted by many independent interpreters and therefore will vary..
I think that I should better explain what I am trying to do, in terms that are not so abstract.
It would be nice for you to further expound on this subject.. I am unsure what you are trying to do here but am thinking you may be trying to... .. .. .
set precedent in what is effectually the Bitcoin Forum’s common law on use the trust system.
Which I would have to wholly disagree with.. 
January 03, 2020, 08:48:05 PM
johhnyUA: Off-topic, but thanks for suggesting this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200104000755/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159946.420
By way of general preface to my replies, I think that I should better explain what I am trying to do, in terms that are not so abstract.
Imagine that somebody made the following nonsensical argument in defence of a scammer who was caught red-handed:
...not only that I don’t trust his judgment about the trustworthiness of others.
Thanks. But isn’t this the very reason why he created the flag system? I didn’t flag #92110: I saw the new flags, didn’t see any explicit criteria that met this situation, and left an old-fashioned negative feedback.
Unfortunately, since feedbacks have been neutered, this will do little to protect newbies who do not know how to investigate through the trust system. But that is a different topic.
In OP, I referred to trust feedback as a sort of “common law”. It uses have been decided and adapted by precedents set in reaction to different types of untrustworthy behaviour. For an example that I myself experienced, two years ago, when the merit system was introduced, scammers and spammers immediately started feeding merit to their alts. People started red-tagging them; and it became a regular practice, widely accepted on grounds that it was necessary to protect the the integrity of the merit system. If theymos ever made a statement specifically about issuing negative trust feedback for merit abuse, I must have missed it. (Granted, I may have done just that.)
As such, I wanted to see people’s reactions—not as any sort of vote, but more to assess baseline acceptability by the forum community. Thus far, reactions are a mixed bag: Some approval, some idiocy that I can safely disregard, and some disapproval...
...case in point.
I see no evidence that the sky is falling, or that I accidentally broke the trust system.
(It is an interesting question, but offtopic here, whether the trust system was broken by placing DT under long-term control of mob-rule, and thus demagogues, alt-armies, and people with infinite free time to figure out new ways to game the system.)
Steamtyme raised a concern that is not invalid per se, but it is not something I care much about:
Aren’t such individuals bold anyway, without “emboldening”? I see no shortage of prolific new topics by people playing the victim because they got their hands caught in the cookie jar. Moreover, I myself do not customarily give a tinker’s damn about the bluster of such people. They will make noise; and if you fear the noise they make, then they will make worse noise.
I don’t see any other criticisms warranting a response more specific than: I will agree to disagree.
Note to self: In the future, on self-moderated threads, add an explicit note that posts quoting a whole post will be deleted. I don’t want to censor hostility toward me in a reputational discussion, so I will not delete this one. But please, for the sake of readers, have some forum etiquette!
You expect for that to make a Bitcoin privacy advocate reveal some juicy evidence of his money? LOL.
Writing skills would help. Graded F. Try harder.
Thanks.
I will mathematically prove how this works. Given:
n = l, n = s, cw = s
∴ l = cw
Lauda is Craig Wright! Q.E.D.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200104000755/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159946.420
By way of general preface to my replies, I think that I should better explain what I am trying to do, in terms that are not so abstract.
Imagine that somebody made the following nonsensical argument in defence of a scammer who was caught red-handed:
The course of action that you should be taking is ~ them from your trust list as you don't trust their judgement.
...not only that I don’t trust his judgment about the trustworthiness of others.
I actually asked theymos to give input on this, but he may or may not. 
Thanks. But isn’t this the very reason why he created the flag system? I didn’t flag #92110: I saw the new flags, didn’t see any explicit criteria that met this situation, and left an old-fashioned negative feedback.
Unfortunately, since feedbacks have been neutered, this will do little to protect newbies who do not know how to investigate through the trust system. But that is a different topic.
In OP, I referred to trust feedback as a sort of “common law”. It uses have been decided and adapted by precedents set in reaction to different types of untrustworthy behaviour. For an example that I myself experienced, two years ago, when the merit system was introduced, scammers and spammers immediately started feeding merit to their alts. People started red-tagging them; and it became a regular practice, widely accepted on grounds that it was necessary to protect the the integrity of the merit system. If theymos ever made a statement specifically about issuing negative trust feedback for merit abuse, I must have missed it. (Granted, I may have done just that.)
As such, I wanted to see people’s reactions—not as any sort of vote, but more to assess baseline acceptability by the forum community. Thus far, reactions are a mixed bag: Some approval, some idiocy that I can safely disregard, and some disapproval...
Is it supposed to be a big deal or something?
It seems nobody really cares too much other than to say it is a pretty shitty tag and a pathetic choice of a target..
It seems nobody really cares too much other than to say it is a pretty shitty tag and a pathetic choice of a target..
...case in point.
I see no evidence that the sky is falling, or that I accidentally broke the trust system.
(It is an interesting question, but offtopic here, whether the trust system was broken by placing DT under long-term control of mob-rule, and thus demagogues, alt-armies, and people with infinite free time to figure out new ways to game the system.)
Steamtyme raised a concern that is not invalid per se, but it is not something I care much about:
Actions such as this are honestly only emboldening the individuals who feel on the outs, or that having opinions are why they are targeted. They then use these instances as a lightning rod to others, and they aren't wrong when they get handed these gifts that "prove" their opinions on the system to be right.
Aren’t such individuals bold anyway, without “emboldening”? I see no shortage of prolific new topics by people playing the victim because they got their hands caught in the cookie jar. Moreover, I myself do not customarily give a tinker’s damn about the bluster of such people. They will make noise; and if you fear the noise they make, then they will make worse noise.
I don’t see any other criticisms warranting a response more specific than: I will agree to disagree.
Note to self: In the future, on self-moderated threads, add an explicit note that posts quoting a whole post will be deleted. I don’t want to censor hostility toward me in a reputational discussion, so I will not delete this one. But please, for the sake of readers, have some forum etiquette!
1. noobious does not have a miilisatoshi so it matters little to cryptohunter we are sure
You expect for that to make a Bitcoin privacy advocate reveal some juicy evidence of his money? LOL.
Nice to put this fucktard in our sights though and see his true colors. Look forward to plenty of public destruction scumbag. Fancy words and " sounding smart" won't stop us pulling you apart in debate.
Look forward to your own thread.
Look forward to your own thread.
Writing skills would help. Graded F. Try harder.
And wow, nullius is back! My attention span doesn't allow me to read everything he writes, but it's cool that he returned.
Thanks.
I don't know if TECSHARE is right that he's an alt of someone, but who knows.
I will mathematically prove how this works. Given:
- nullius = Lauda (Source: forum somebody said so)
- nullius = Satoshi (Source: forum somebody said so)
- Craight Wright = Satoshi (Source: Craight Wright)
n = l, n = s, cw = s
∴ l = cw
Lauda is Craig Wright! Q.E.D.
January 03, 2020, 08:03:07 PM
I actually asked theymos to give input on this
Why?
Is it supposed to be a big deal or something?
It seems nobody really cares too much other than to say it is a pretty shitty tag and a pathetic choice of a target..
January 03, 2020, 12:03:16 PM
If you shame bad people, you will be shamed. I observed that “cryptohunter” did this to The Pharmacist.
Can't remember who I shamed, but it's probably happened quite a few times. But if cryptohunter tried to shame me he failed, as I'm pretty shameless. I do recall him being so annoying that I had to put him on ignore--and that was over a year ago at this point.And wow, nullius is back! My attention span doesn't allow me to read everything he writes, but it's cool that he returned. I don't know if TECSHARE is right that he's an alt of someone, but who knows. But from what I remember he wasn't a huge drama queen when he was here just after the merit system was implemented, just a very thoughtful and intelligent poster. I'd love to know where he's been if he hasn't said already.
January 03, 2020, 11:57:00 AM
Kek, only one interesting thing: i can't find any pgp signature or bitcoin signature from nullius after his return (since 2nd January).
His pgp keys is well known - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pgp-256-airdrop-bounty-signature-spam-campaign-old-school-crypto-3107429
Are you sure this is real nullius?
His pgp keys is well known - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pgp-256-airdrop-bounty-signature-spam-campaign-old-school-crypto-3107429
Are you sure this is real nullius?
January 02, 2020, 06:20:48 PM
I don't understand why that post is supposed to be untrustworthy?
It is his (crypto hunter) opinion that they (plagiarists) should be banned in sever cases, but where there was weaker evidence to suggest deliberate or financial gain for their actions, it was in bad taste to ridicule them on certain grounds. He thought those ridiculing had been guilty of more serious wrongdoings in some cases.
I see no support of deliberate dishonesty. I don't believe that speculating ,rationalising or empathizing can be untrustworthy in this cases, as he states they must be (in serious cases )be banned. Neutral is already enough here if you really wish to be cautious.
It is his (crypto hunter) opinion that they (plagiarists) should be banned in sever cases, but where there was weaker evidence to suggest deliberate or financial gain for their actions, it was in bad taste to ridicule them on certain grounds. He thought those ridiculing had been guilty of more serious wrongdoings in some cases.
I see no support of deliberate dishonesty. I don't believe that speculating ,rationalising or empathizing can be untrustworthy in this cases, as he states they must be (in serious cases )be banned. Neutral is already enough here if you really wish to be cautious.
Plagiarism is a violation of forum rules and should be handled by forum staff via reporting, not managed in the trust system.
I agree with what you say. I don't understand nullius claiming the referenced post by crypto hunter is untrustworthy. When crypto hunter states that in many cases they must be banned in that same post. Crypto hunter saying he thinks it is in bad taste to ridicule some of their reasons for the non financially motivated copy and paste seems a possibly valid point.
This red trust is not one I agree with.
January 02, 2020, 06:08:51 PM
I don't understand why that post is supposed to be untrustworthy?
It is his (crypto hunter) opinion that they (plagiarists) should be banned in sever cases, but where there was weaker evidence to suggest deliberate or financial gain for their actions, it was in bad taste to ridicule them on certain grounds. He thought those ridiculing had been guilty of more serious wrongdoings in some cases.
I see no support of deliberate dishonesty. I don't believe that speculating ,rationalising or empathizing can be untrustworthy in this cases, as he states they must be (in serious cases )be banned. Neutral is already enough here if you really wish to be cautious.
It is his (crypto hunter) opinion that they (plagiarists) should be banned in sever cases, but where there was weaker evidence to suggest deliberate or financial gain for their actions, it was in bad taste to ridicule them on certain grounds. He thought those ridiculing had been guilty of more serious wrongdoings in some cases.
I see no support of deliberate dishonesty. I don't believe that speculating ,rationalising or empathizing can be untrustworthy in this cases, as he states they must be (in serious cases )be banned. Neutral is already enough here if you really wish to be cautious.
Plagiarism is a violation of forum rules and should be handled by forum staff via reporting, not managed in the trust system.
January 02, 2020, 03:09:44 PM
I don't understand why that post is supposed to be untrustworthy?
It is his (crypto hunter) opinion that they (plagiarists) should be banned in sever cases, but where there was weaker evidence to suggest deliberate or financial gain for their actions, it was in bad taste to ridicule them on certain grounds. He thought those ridiculing had been guilty of more serious wrongdoings in some cases.
I see no support of deliberate dishonesty. I don't believe that speculating ,rationalising or empathizing can be untrustworthy in this cases, as he states they must be (in serious cases )be banned. Neutral is already enough here if you really wish to be cautious.
It is his (crypto hunter) opinion that they (plagiarists) should be banned in sever cases, but where there was weaker evidence to suggest deliberate or financial gain for their actions, it was in bad taste to ridicule them on certain grounds. He thought those ridiculing had been guilty of more serious wrongdoings in some cases.
I see no support of deliberate dishonesty. I don't believe that speculating ,rationalising or empathizing can be untrustworthy in this cases, as he states they must be (in serious cases )be banned. Neutral is already enough here if you really wish to be cautious.
January 02, 2020, 11:51:50 AM
I did not intend for the following to be a post. It started as a simple observation on the trustworthiness of a user, then grew into an opinion that I think should set precedent in what is effectually the Bitcoin Forum’s common law on use the trust system.
In that light, I must emphasize the narrowness this opinion. I think it would be a massively destructive abuse of the trust system to use it to, say, punish people for their political opinions. The trust system is in effect an economic weapon; and the use of economic weapons to enforce groupthink is odious. E.g., nowadays, there are places where you can be fired from your job for using the correct pronouns, or making simple, factual observations about reality—let alone expressing the “wrong” opinions.
In the general case, if I see on this forum an opinion that I think is wrong, even horribly wrong, my reaction is either to say why it’s wrong, or to ignore it as garbage. I may sometimes personally avoid transacting with people I disagree with, in the manner of a quiet boycott; but there are even many people on this forum whose opinions I find disagreeable, with whom I would have no qualms about transacting financially.
By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it. Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed? I say, yes!
It would be interesting to see some intelligent analysis and critique. I admit it’s arguable whether this is a good idea, for I am walking a thin, dangerous line. However, I sincerely, unarguably, and unalterably distrust this user, for the reasons stated below; and what is the purpose of the trust system, if it is not for expressing a well-founded distrust so as to warn others?
[The following is what I intended to use as a trust comment. It invoked an error: “Comment too long. Create a topic and link to it instead. A draft was saved.” In my actual trust rating, it will be replaced with a link to this topic.]
In the linked post and subsequent posts on the same thread, #92110 “cryptohunter” rationalized and morally minimized plagiarism. He did this with no apparent direct self-interest; judging only by the thread on its face, he appears to have done this to protect plagiarists from shame *as a matter of principle*. #92110 admits that plagiarists “need to be banned”, but vehemently objects to shaming them with ridicule. For the purpose of judging trustworthiness, all this only makes him worse.
A.
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
Thus, anybody who defends, excuses, or morally minimizes plagiarism in principle is *ipso facto* untrustworthy. Anybody who considers plagiarism not shameful is definitely untrustworthy. And this applies a thousandfold to anybody who attempts to manipulate the emotional sympathies of the public to stop social shaming of plagiarists: It is no less than an attempt to protect fraudulent criminals by depriving a community of a needed weapon, i.e. social shame, that the community uses to defend itself.
Perhaps worst of all in concept, this last is hereby seen done via a values inversion that shames the people who are shaming dishonest, fraudulent plagiarists. Further down the thread, #92110 even has the audacity to issue a preachy, self-righteous tirade disparaging and ridiculing the “moral compass” and “critical decision making capabilities” of The Pharmacist: The latter has no sympathy for poor, desperate plagiarists who are being deterred by public shaming from the forum and its financial opportunities. Evidently, he expects for The Pharmacist to be ashamed. (I do not hereby reach #92110’s other arguments, other to note that they are are completely wrong.)
B.
There are instances in which a disagreeable opinion is just that, and reveals little or nothing about the trustworthiness of the holder of that opinion for financial transactions. I absolutely would not issue a negative trust rating in those instances. This is not one of those instances. The linked post is tantamount to a self-righteous declaration that “even though [scammers] need to be banned I can't say I have no idea why they do this”, and they shouldn’t be shamed for ripping people off, especially if they are “poor as fuck” or have “semi legit reasons” (!).
Indeed, substitute the word “scammer” for “plagiarist” in the context of the linked discussion, and you will immediately see why I have chosen to tag #92110 as untrustworthy for financial transactions. I would not trust a plagiarism apologist with even a millisatoshi.
Coda
I see that #92110 is accused by others of abusing alts. If/when I have time for the needed investigation, I should issue a negative trust rating to any alts that I independently verify actually belong to the same person(s). It’s low on my priorities list, but I hope that I will get to it eventually.
Archival link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200101215600/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084319.0;all
In that light, I must emphasize the narrowness this opinion. I think it would be a massively destructive abuse of the trust system to use it to, say, punish people for their political opinions. The trust system is in effect an economic weapon; and the use of economic weapons to enforce groupthink is odious. E.g., nowadays, there are places where you can be fired from your job for using the correct pronouns, or making simple, factual observations about reality—let alone expressing the “wrong” opinions.
In the general case, if I see on this forum an opinion that I think is wrong, even horribly wrong, my reaction is either to say why it’s wrong, or to ignore it as garbage. I may sometimes personally avoid transacting with people I disagree with, in the manner of a quiet boycott; but there are even many people on this forum whose opinions I find disagreeable, with whom I would have no qualms about transacting financially.
By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it. Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed? I say, yes!
It would be interesting to see some intelligent analysis and critique. I admit it’s arguable whether this is a good idea, for I am walking a thin, dangerous line. However, I sincerely, unarguably, and unalterably distrust this user, for the reasons stated below; and what is the purpose of the trust system, if it is not for expressing a well-founded distrust so as to warn others?
[The following is what I intended to use as a trust comment. It invoked an error: “Comment too long. Create a topic and link to it instead. A draft was saved.” In my actual trust rating, it will be replaced with a link to this topic.]
Quote from: nullius
In the linked post and subsequent posts on the same thread, #92110 “cryptohunter” rationalized and morally minimized plagiarism. He did this with no apparent direct self-interest; judging only by the thread on its face, he appears to have done this to protect plagiarists from shame *as a matter of principle*. #92110 admits that plagiarists “need to be banned”, but vehemently objects to shaming them with ridicule. For the purpose of judging trustworthiness, all this only makes him worse.
A.
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
Thus, anybody who defends, excuses, or morally minimizes plagiarism in principle is *ipso facto* untrustworthy. Anybody who considers plagiarism not shameful is definitely untrustworthy. And this applies a thousandfold to anybody who attempts to manipulate the emotional sympathies of the public to stop social shaming of plagiarists: It is no less than an attempt to protect fraudulent criminals by depriving a community of a needed weapon, i.e. social shame, that the community uses to defend itself.
Perhaps worst of all in concept, this last is hereby seen done via a values inversion that shames the people who are shaming dishonest, fraudulent plagiarists. Further down the thread, #92110 even has the audacity to issue a preachy, self-righteous tirade disparaging and ridiculing the “moral compass” and “critical decision making capabilities” of The Pharmacist: The latter has no sympathy for poor, desperate plagiarists who are being deterred by public shaming from the forum and its financial opportunities. Evidently, he expects for The Pharmacist to be ashamed. (I do not hereby reach #92110’s other arguments, other to note that they are are completely wrong.)
B.
There are instances in which a disagreeable opinion is just that, and reveals little or nothing about the trustworthiness of the holder of that opinion for financial transactions. I absolutely would not issue a negative trust rating in those instances. This is not one of those instances. The linked post is tantamount to a self-righteous declaration that “even though [scammers] need to be banned I can't say I have no idea why they do this”, and they shouldn’t be shamed for ripping people off, especially if they are “poor as fuck” or have “semi legit reasons” (!).
Indeed, substitute the word “scammer” for “plagiarist” in the context of the linked discussion, and you will immediately see why I have chosen to tag #92110 as untrustworthy for financial transactions. I would not trust a plagiarism apologist with even a millisatoshi.
Coda
I see that #92110 is accused by others of abusing alts. If/when I have time for the needed investigation, I should issue a negative trust rating to any alts that I independently verify actually belong to the same person(s). It’s low on my priorities list, but I hope that I will get to it eventually.
Archival link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200101215600/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084319.0;all
What an obvious scammer supporting shit stain we have here.
1. noobius does not have a miilisatoshi so it matters little to cryptohunter we are sure
2. this dumb fuck expects us to believe he scanned through all of cryptohunters posts failed to notice that he missed the part where CH demonstrated clearly demonstrated that undeniable scammers that were far more financially high risk than these turd word desperados were celebrating their punishment which in many cases seemed very heavy handed. WHEN THESE SAME scammers were begging for their pal chibitchity to be REINSTATED for deliberate sneaky financially motivated plagiarism.
I mean noobius likes to sound smart, but reveals himself clearly as a fucking hypocrite and shit stain scammer supporter. Where are the red tags on the proven scammers and willing scam facilitators that CH spend the last part of his posts highlighting??
The point CH was clearly making (and only really for instances where the "copy and paste" bullshit looked either innocent or NOT for direct financial gain ) is that bunches of scammers and scammer supporters sitting around making up bingo games regarding excuses from copy and past nothing burgers whilst themselves posing far greater financial danger to the forum was HYPOCRISY.
This noobius is clearly the one demonstrating he is UNTRUSTWORTHY and a far greater danger to the forum. Get red flagging the people on the dirty turds thread noobius you moronic piece of shit.
Nice to put this fucktard in our sights though and see his true colors. Look forward to plenty of public destruction scumbag. Fancy words and " sounding smart" won't stop us pulling you apart in debate.
Look forward to your own thread noobius.
Those that SPEND THEIR TIME looking to punish small time petty shit whilst IGNORING the more dangerous scammers here are the REAL scumbags. Noobius is one of those.
Some say lauda controls the nullius account. That seems plausible both like to "sound" smart whilst it is easy to crush their stupid minds in real debate. Fancy over done wordy posts mean nothing once you start pulling them apart piece by piece.
Glad we have another dreg to pull apart and crush whenever we like. Well another alt of some idiot like lauda anyway.
Hurry up and flag this account this is to serve as a honey pot for all the scammers and scammer supporters here.
What is EVEN more amusing about this is that noobius does not notice that those making the bingo and taking the piss out of SOME MEMBERS that were banned for copy and paste that WAS not financially motivated, and was just some copy and paste of their own projects twitter annoucements or some other non financially motivated and helpful copy and paste ....THOSE SAME PEOPLE were BEGGING for the REINSTATEMENT of their pal chibitchity or whatever the fuck this campaign scammers name was WHO ADMITTED HE COPY AND PASTE FOR FINANCIAL GAIN. LOL
I see people here are easily swayed by noobius flowery waffle. He is a fucking computer nerd that can push out some flowery crap that "sounds impressive" to idiots.
Watch how we will crush this fucking scumbag in real debate.
He is misrepresenting and pulling CH's words out of their full context. Whilst demonstrating his purpose is NOT to increase the safety of members here at all. He glances straight past the far more damning and dangerous actions of his scamming pals like lauda (who is awarding nullius 20 merits) LOL
LOOK at robovac still crying with his 20 merits that CH demonstrated clearly
1. he is a 1 trick raw stats pony who starts crying when CH smashed its dumb face in on the merit cycling debates
2. a stupid bitch who kisses up to tmans swearing , cursing and generally low level tourettes laded spew then cries trolling and tears any anyone else who is "rude"
Oh look a self moderated thread. That is supposed to be a big no no here ....well when it suits them.
Noobius?? who??? who the fuck is this guy? can you bring his big achievements here please so we can have a good laugh at them?? just another nobody
A fucking NOBODY with some flowery shit nerd speak to impress idiots. Sounding smart to imbeciles is one thing. This noob fool even daring to mention a real achiever like CH is a joke. Go sell your polished gibberish elsewhere cos we will expose it for the low functioning spew it is.
January 02, 2020, 11:27:35 AM
I think it is long past time where anyone believes you give a fuck about Theymos's input. Good try though.
Oh, so young and gullible. You fall for my posting traps too easily. I actually asked theymos to give input on this, but he may or may not. Yes, it was all part of your eVIL plan to look like a hypocritical tyrant. You sure got me!
January 02, 2020, 11:25:50 AM
I think it is long past time where anyone believes you give a fuck about Theymos's input. Good try though.
Oh, so young and gullible. You fall for my posting traps too easily. I actually asked theymos to give input on this, but he may or may not. Yes, it was all part of your eVIL plan to look like a hypocritical tyrant. You sure got me!
January 02, 2020, 11:23:24 AM
Your reference should in fact be pointing to a case of them scamming or trying to scam an individual.
For something to be a scam there does not have to be any direct financial damage (It could be indirect, collateral, or even non-existent).A.
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
The logical argument deriving from the reasoning by OP is very sound without any subjective nonsense. Maybe theymos will give his input on this.
I think it is long past time where anyone believes you give a fuck about Theymos's input. Good try though.
January 02, 2020, 04:59:34 AM
Your reference should in fact be pointing to a case of them scamming or trying to scam an individual.
For something to be a scam there does not have to be any direct financial damage (It could be indirect, collateral, or even non-existent).A.
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
The logical argument deriving from the reasoning by OP is very sound without any subjective nonsense. Maybe theymos will give his input on this.
January 01, 2020, 10:04:43 PM
Welcome back.
Though I must imagine you have been keeping up with the forum just not logging in or posting. I'm just going to disagree with you on your left feedback. While your opinions are your to have and use to shape how you interact with others. The trust system as a tool, like all others, a right and wrong way to be put to use. I'm sure I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but it has to be said. This is at best a neutral, there is no grounds for a negative feedback in this case. Your reference should in fact be pointing to a case of them scamming or trying to scam an individual. The course of action that you should be taking is ~ them from your trust list as you don't trust their judgement. Beyond that you can say anything you like about their character and poor judgement in defending those that you find indefensible in a neutral comment on their feedback wall.
I'm sure the discussion here will go over my head at points, I can admit it especially when some of it become tl;dr in regards to having to reason why we are doing something. There is a clear intent behind this new system and I don't understand why intelligent individuals are blatantly choosing to ignore the intent behind it. Actions such as this are honestly only emboldening the individuals who feel on the outs, or that having opinions are why they are targeted. They then use these instances as a lightning rod to others, and they aren't wrong when they get handed these gifts that "prove" their opinions on the system to be right.
I feel you have likely read this, if not I recommend it. LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system
Though I must imagine you have been keeping up with the forum just not logging in or posting. I'm just going to disagree with you on your left feedback. While your opinions are your to have and use to shape how you interact with others. The trust system as a tool, like all others, a right and wrong way to be put to use. I'm sure I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but it has to be said. This is at best a neutral, there is no grounds for a negative feedback in this case. Your reference should in fact be pointing to a case of them scamming or trying to scam an individual. The course of action that you should be taking is ~ them from your trust list as you don't trust their judgement. Beyond that you can say anything you like about their character and poor judgement in defending those that you find indefensible in a neutral comment on their feedback wall.
I'm sure the discussion here will go over my head at points, I can admit it especially when some of it become tl;dr in regards to having to reason why we are doing something. There is a clear intent behind this new system and I don't understand why intelligent individuals are blatantly choosing to ignore the intent behind it. Actions such as this are honestly only emboldening the individuals who feel on the outs, or that having opinions are why they are targeted. They then use these instances as a lightning rod to others, and they aren't wrong when they get handed these gifts that "prove" their opinions on the system to be right.
I feel you have likely read this, if not I recommend it. LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system
January 01, 2020, 08:47:44 PM
bingo
Ah, the bingo thing..
I think CH was using anything he could against them at the time, and this was one of the poorer examples he tried to use..
To save you some work this is the alt account in question.. https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/the-one-above-all-2580400
It shows -18 for me, so I doubt one more would help or hurt much..
Continually tagging CH at this point is a bit like beating a dead horse..
January 01, 2020, 08:39:54 PM
Tell me, exactly how you delineate the difference between opinions that are inexcusable, and opinions that are simply in opposition?
I expounded on this. Was it TL;DR for you?
By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it. Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed? I say, yes!
I get the very distinct impression that this is a sock puppet for another well known little girl here...
Stop trying to prove that Lauda is Craig Wright. It is defamatory.
What is stopping you from just claiming an opinion is "directly, unavoidably, substantially" untrustworthy frivolously? These are all extremely subjective things by its very nature. The ambiguity in punishing opinions and speech of any kind is inevitably a back door for abuse. All one has to do is claim that the speech/opinion is XYZ and therefore it is justifiable to use the trust system against it.
All this will result in is the perpetual conflict the trust system has seen in the past as people frivolously accuse others of being liars or supporting scams by offering defense of people they believe to be scammers. Regarding your comment about Lauda being Craig Wright, I have never once made such an accusation, so I am not sure what you are jibbering about.
January 01, 2020, 08:11:52 PM
You came back for cryptohunter?
No; check post history.
I think plagiarizers, scammers, and many types of criminals should be shamed too, but you know, it seems that about half the world out there are apologists for criminals and blame it on poverty, just about every time a black guy gets shot by the cops..
Moreover, shame has been turned on its head: If you shame bad people, you will be shamed. I observed that “cryptohunter” did this to The Pharmacist. You yourself should prepare to be shamed for what I just quoted, not despite, but because of it being a simple, lucid observation about the world in which we live.
The trick only works, because the people who should have the moral high ground are ipso facto those who are capable of feeling ashamed. The ones shaming them are shameless, and highly manipulative. You did not actually say anything wrong; but if you are sneered at and jeered at with unlimited hostility in a way that plays on your emotions, guilts you for being unsympathetic, slaps you with meaningless labels, impugns your motivations in a hundred ways, etc., then it could get to you. Conveniently, the shameless will not feel ashamed of doing this to you.
Compare what “cryptohunter” did in the linked thread: He portrayed a bingo game that ridiculed plagiarists’ flimsy excuses as if it were some sort of cruel injustice against poor, desperate people who are just so... so... needy. Objectively, it is just the brand of dangerous stupidity that may persuade people who don’t think it through. Subjectively, in my case, this peculiarly outraged me because I have experience with being poor. As in, “imperiled for my short-term physical survival due to a decidedly painful lack of food and shelter” level poor. Poor enough to be able to attest the maddening effects of chronic hunger (and resulting long-term detriment to the body). I did not scam people, or spew plagiarized posts on the Bitcoin Forum. “cryptohunter” implies that if I had, others should have been somehow sympathetic; and that offends me by degrading my dignity. Surely, in today’s society, in the Year 2020, I am entitled to me-centred outrage based on being personally offended!
I'm glad you distrust these people.. I do too to an extent.. Poor judgement.. But I don't think I'd hand out negative ratings to every user who has ever blamed crime on poverty, or I bet you could go to the P&S section and gather a sizable list..
True enough. But, (a) “cryptohunter” did not merely blame crime on poverty. He went beyond that in ways that showed a high tolerance for dishonesty, even a sympathy for it, per what I stated above. (b) One must start somewhere; otherwise, nothing will ever change.
Tell me, exactly how you delineate the difference between opinions that are inexcusable, and opinions that are simply in opposition?
I expounded on this. Was it TL;DR for you?
By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it. Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed? I say, yes!
I get the very distinct impression that this is a sock puppet for another well known little girl here...
Stop trying to prove that Lauda is Craig Wright. It is defamatory.
January 01, 2020, 07:00:14 PM
You came back for cryptohunter?
I get the very distinct impression that this is a sock puppet for another well known little girl here...
Tell me, exactly how you delineate the difference between opinions that are inexcusable, and opinions that are simply in opposition? Is not the very act of making such a declaration excusing the use of the trust system to punish opinions you do not agree with? How exactly do you prevent this from degrading into full on abuse in a system that allows for such massive ambiguity? What stops people from simply declaring opinions they don't agree with as being unacceptable thereby supposedly justifying the use of the trust system to silence them?
January 01, 2020, 07:00:00 PM
You came back for cryptohunter?
OK, sure.. One more reason to tag CH.. For being an apologist of plagiarizers..
I think plagiarizers, scammers, and many types of criminals should be shamed too, but you know, it seems that about half the world out there are apologists for criminals and blame it on poverty, just about every time a black guy gets shot by the cops..
I'm glad you distrust these people.. I do too to an extent.. Poor judgement.. But I don't think I'd hand out negative ratings to every user who has ever blamed crime on poverty, or I bet you could go to the P&S section and gather a sizable list..
OK, sure.. One more reason to tag CH.. For being an apologist of plagiarizers..
I think plagiarizers, scammers, and many types of criminals should be shamed too, but you know, it seems that about half the world out there are apologists for criminals and blame it on poverty, just about every time a black guy gets shot by the cops..
I'm glad you distrust these people.. I do too to an extent.. Poor judgement.. But I don't think I'd hand out negative ratings to every user who has ever blamed crime on poverty, or I bet you could go to the P&S section and gather a sizable list..
January 01, 2020, 05:29:38 PM
I did not intend for the following to be a post. It started as a simple observation on the trustworthiness of a user, then grew into an opinion that I think should set precedent in what is effectually the Bitcoin Forum’s common law on use the trust system.
In that light, I must emphasize the narrowness this opinion. I think it would be a massively destructive abuse of the trust system to use it to, say, punish people for their political opinions. The trust system is in effect an economic weapon; and the use of economic weapons to enforce groupthink is odious. E.g., nowadays, there are places where you can be fired from your job for using the correct pronouns, or making simple, factual observations about reality—let alone expressing the “wrong” opinions.
In the general case, if I see on this forum an opinion that I think is wrong, even horribly wrong, my reaction is either to say why it’s wrong, or to ignore it as garbage. I may sometimes personally avoid transacting with people I disagree with, in the manner of a quiet boycott; but there are even many people on this forum whose opinions I find disagreeable, with whom I would have no qualms about transacting financially.
By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it. Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed? I say, yes!
It would be interesting to see some intelligent analysis and critique. I admit it’s arguable whether this is a good idea, for I am walking a thin, dangerous line. However, I sincerely, unarguably, and unalterably distrust this user, for the reasons stated below; and what is the purpose of the trust system, if it is not for expressing a well-founded distrust so as to warn others?
[The following is what I intended to use as a trust comment. It invoked an error: “Comment too long. Create a topic and link to it instead. A draft was saved.” In my actual trust rating, it will be replaced with a link to this topic.]
In the linked post and subsequent posts on the same thread, #92110 “cryptohunter” rationalized and morally minimized plagiarism. He did this with no apparent direct self-interest; judging only by the thread on its face, he appears to have done this to protect plagiarists from shame *as a matter of principle*. #92110 admits that plagiarists “need to be banned”, but vehemently objects to shaming them with ridicule. For the purpose of judging trustworthiness, all this only makes him worse.
A.
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
Thus, anybody who defends, excuses, or morally minimizes plagiarism in principle is *ipso facto* untrustworthy. Anybody who considers plagiarism not shameful is definitely untrustworthy. And this applies a thousandfold to anybody who attempts to manipulate the emotional sympathies of the public to stop social shaming of plagiarists: It is no less than an attempt to protect fraudulent criminals by depriving a community of a needed weapon, i.e. social shame, that the community uses to defend itself.
Perhaps worst of all in concept, this last is hereby seen done via a values inversion that shames the people who are shaming dishonest, fraudulent plagiarists. Further down the thread, #92110 even has the audacity to issue a preachy, self-righteous tirade disparaging and ridiculing the “moral compass” and “critical decision making capabilities” of The Pharmacist: The latter has no sympathy for poor, desperate plagiarists who are being deterred by public shaming from the forum and its financial opportunities. Evidently, he expects for The Pharmacist to be ashamed. (I do not hereby reach #92110’s other arguments, other to note that they are are completely wrong.)
B.
There are instances in which a disagreeable opinion is just that, and reveals little or nothing about the trustworthiness of the holder of that opinion for financial transactions. I absolutely would not issue a negative trust rating in those instances. This is not one of those instances. The linked post is tantamount to a self-righteous declaration that “even though [scammers] need to be banned I can't say I have no idea why they do this”, and they shouldn’t be shamed for ripping people off, especially if they are “poor as fuck” or have “semi legit reasons” (!).
Indeed, substitute the word “scammer” for “plagiarist” in the context of the linked discussion, and you will immediately see why I have chosen to tag #92110 as untrustworthy for financial transactions. I would not trust a plagiarism apologist with even a millisatoshi.
Coda
I see that #92110 is accused by others of abusing alts. If/when I have time for the needed investigation, I should issue a negative trust rating to any alts that I independently verify actually belong to the same person(s). It’s low on my priorities list, but I hope that I will get to it eventually.
Archival link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200101215600/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084319.0;all
In that light, I must emphasize the narrowness this opinion. I think it would be a massively destructive abuse of the trust system to use it to, say, punish people for their political opinions. The trust system is in effect an economic weapon; and the use of economic weapons to enforce groupthink is odious. E.g., nowadays, there are places where you can be fired from your job for using the correct pronouns, or making simple, factual observations about reality—let alone expressing the “wrong” opinions.
In the general case, if I see on this forum an opinion that I think is wrong, even horribly wrong, my reaction is either to say why it’s wrong, or to ignore it as garbage. I may sometimes personally avoid transacting with people I disagree with, in the manner of a quiet boycott; but there are even many people on this forum whose opinions I find disagreeable, with whom I would have no qualms about transacting financially.
By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it. Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed? I say, yes!
It would be interesting to see some intelligent analysis and critique. I admit it’s arguable whether this is a good idea, for I am walking a thin, dangerous line. However, I sincerely, unarguably, and unalterably distrust this user, for the reasons stated below; and what is the purpose of the trust system, if it is not for expressing a well-founded distrust so as to warn others?
[The following is what I intended to use as a trust comment. It invoked an error: “Comment too long. Create a topic and link to it instead. A draft was saved.” In my actual trust rating, it will be replaced with a link to this topic.]
Quote from: nullius
In the linked post and subsequent posts on the same thread, #92110 “cryptohunter” rationalized and morally minimized plagiarism. He did this with no apparent direct self-interest; judging only by the thread on its face, he appears to have done this to protect plagiarists from shame *as a matter of principle*. #92110 admits that plagiarists “need to be banned”, but vehemently objects to shaming them with ridicule. For the purpose of judging trustworthiness, all this only makes him worse.
A.
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
Thus, anybody who defends, excuses, or morally minimizes plagiarism in principle is *ipso facto* untrustworthy. Anybody who considers plagiarism not shameful is definitely untrustworthy. And this applies a thousandfold to anybody who attempts to manipulate the emotional sympathies of the public to stop social shaming of plagiarists: It is no less than an attempt to protect fraudulent criminals by depriving a community of a needed weapon, i.e. social shame, that the community uses to defend itself.
Perhaps worst of all in concept, this last is hereby seen done via a values inversion that shames the people who are shaming dishonest, fraudulent plagiarists. Further down the thread, #92110 even has the audacity to issue a preachy, self-righteous tirade disparaging and ridiculing the “moral compass” and “critical decision making capabilities” of The Pharmacist: The latter has no sympathy for poor, desperate plagiarists who are being deterred by public shaming from the forum and its financial opportunities. Evidently, he expects for The Pharmacist to be ashamed. (I do not hereby reach #92110’s other arguments, other to note that they are are completely wrong.)
B.
There are instances in which a disagreeable opinion is just that, and reveals little or nothing about the trustworthiness of the holder of that opinion for financial transactions. I absolutely would not issue a negative trust rating in those instances. This is not one of those instances. The linked post is tantamount to a self-righteous declaration that “even though [scammers] need to be banned I can't say I have no idea why they do this”, and they shouldn’t be shamed for ripping people off, especially if they are “poor as fuck” or have “semi legit reasons” (!).
Indeed, substitute the word “scammer” for “plagiarist” in the context of the linked discussion, and you will immediately see why I have chosen to tag #92110 as untrustworthy for financial transactions. I would not trust a plagiarism apologist with even a millisatoshi.
Coda
I see that #92110 is accused by others of abusing alts. If/when I have time for the needed investigation, I should issue a negative trust rating to any alts that I independently verify actually belong to the same person(s). It’s low on my priorities list, but I hope that I will get to it eventually.
Archival link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200101215600/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084319.0;all
Jump to: