Topic: PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user - page 2. (Read 2858 times)

Locking this thread at least temporarily since Quicksy is obviously intent on derailing it.

Quickseller - create your own thread about whatever it is you want to post.

Edit: unlocked. Quicksy's thread here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/reeee-pm-from-admin-demanding-to-exclude-a-certain-user-5154729

No I do, please come out and say you are a global mod with proof please. It will make my day

It is not made up. I don’t think you want this specific issue addressed.

I guess this is bad that user that received the PM did not maintained the privacy of the PM.

Act on that PM or not is your wish but leaking it is not correct. Might be theymos is implicitly want to know the view of the community.
His PM's should deserve the response in PM.

PS:  Is this forum is in hurry of blurting out everything .(like that happened in Og -vod thread).

Obviously he's just making it up as he often does. Can we please ignore the trolls.

Did you put a 1 pixile sized image in your signature in order to track that?

How would you know the IP addresses of those who log in? Unless you are an alt of admin/mod. (That would be fucking nuts if quickseller was an alt of theymos)

Perhaps this is because certain IP addresses used to access your account match that of someone else of particular interest.

Color me puzzled then.


I'm rather enjoying the white sand beaches outside of the DT1 downtown hustle. Certainly starting to better understand why some highly-respected users decided to opt out altogether.

Eventually everyone (who otherwise qualifies by vote etc) is going to have only a ~40% chance of being in DT1 in any given month anyway.

@qwk (what does it mean anyway?)

please don't be deliberately ignorant. "DEMANDING" then going on to say I don't like it done in private should have been done publicly. Trying to spin it as a negative sneaky action not just on the basis of spamming. If the train-man demands....then it happens. It was a request. If he wanted it kept secret he would not have sent to 110 members. Suchmoon to react like this is simply another indication lauda is an alt of suchmoon. She will deny it but I would bet she gets many exclusion inclusion suggestions from other  members.

The reader can see what is really going on. This acceptance by you of ONLY 100% irrefutable (even by crazy ludicrous lengths of unbelievable excuses or explanations being given consideration and weighted far more than any normal person would allow) FACT is bogus. Even when you spot there that denial is just looking silly, you say you don't care about the truth. This means it is pointless to try to convince you of something you do not want to accept. You just will not operate under what are generally considered the accepted rules of reasoned debate.

Anyway going off topic towards the end but this thread is bogus.

Anyway fine you will be qwk from now on. I thought the letters QWK represented words.

Ridiculous. We should have a politburo system or similar, so the best ones are always there on DT1, and only the 'bottom-feeders' like myself and, well, others, come and go. /s
You and most other holidaying politburo members seen to be taking it very well though.

The only observable truth here seems to be an open SPAM accusation against forum user theymos.

Now, I don't know how many users received the PM in question, but obviously not each and every one on DT1 received the PM, so it's fair to assume that it was only sent to a select subgroup of users, which at least somehow mollifies the SPAM accusation.


BTW: no need to yell, my name is "qwk", not "QWK"

Let's keep it this way.

All DT1 members that have not excluded someone with this much dirt hanging over them

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-flags-are-appropriate-for-each-scenario-listed-here-5153864

should have been excluded and painted up red a long time by any RESPONSIBLE and TRUSTWORTHY DT member. All the ass felching gimps and greedy scum that ride the lauda gravy train need to be pushed off.

This thread seems to have served its purpose well.

1. Reveals suchmoon as a back stabber and possible alt of lauda.
2. Reveals theymos is already unwilling to push DIRECT BLACKLISTING of lauda even after he immediately gave the new rules the same abuse he did the old rules.
3. Reveals theymos is too nice to people that stab him in the back and try to twist and spin his very kind action of just keeping lauda out of DT by the normal exclusion process rather than hand him a bitch slap black list directly for the board to rejoice and gloat in laudas face  is being spun into somehow theymos is the bad guy here for trying to keep a PROVEN scammer and PROVEN trust abuser out of the trust system.

Let's lock the thread. It's not like you don't ALL send PM's recommending who to remove and who to exclude on DT. What a bunch of hypocritical and backstabbing pieces of shit you all turn into when your ABUSING POWERS are threatened.

Disgusting.

QWK has previously stated

1. He is not interested in the truth ?

2. He feels it is good that innocent members are given red trust because it increases awareness of scamming

or some such madness. We should not be taking what qwk says at face value.  He said when lauda tells him to buy him a amazon gift voucher he just does it?  

The guy is certainly smarter than most of you low functioning dregs on meta,  but is operating completely independently from the morals and reasoning patterns with regard honest and dishonest or right vs wrong ..that 99.99% of other human beings accept as normal and reasonable.  Again not a person you want on DT.

His critical words about theymos are therefore again to be treated with extreme caution and investigated thoroughly before accepting them as TRUE.

This thread rather than casting any doubt on theymos who send this to 110 people so certainly not a sneaky attempt but rather again another example of theymos being too nice and too lenient when it comes to dealing directly with scammers , liars and their gang of corrupt scumbag pals.

I'm currently DT1, don't exclude Lauda, and never received it. I did previously have Lauda included, but removed the inclusion before the PM was sent (I think - certainly hours before I saw it first mentioned) after reading about her issue with The Pharmacist.

It appears to have been sent to current and potential DT1 members who don't exclude Lauda. For example I'm not currently in DT1.

But this is exactly the issue: "trust" and what people deem to be shady behaviour is completely subjective. One person can think anything with bitcoin in the name other than the original bitcoin is being shady and trying to mislead whereas others don't or don't care. I think people who try become escrow with no previous trade history are either pretty naive or are trying to steal others money but either way I don't trust them. Does it deserve negative feedback? Arguably, yes. Some people would disagree. Some people don't care. Account selling is another issue. Some people find the selling of bitointalk accounts extremely shady. Others don't. Others are on the fence. Selling an account isn't directly a scam but it can certainly lead to them. Should we leave negative for account sellers? Some people think so and other don't. Even more probably don't care. People get into petty spats here for a multitude of reasons and others are quick to try dig up dirt and blow things out of proportion to try get their comeuppance and they sometimes use the feedback system to do that and the cycle continues. This update does help to curb that but it's also going to make life easier for a lot of scammers, but as I've always said you're never going to be able to please everyone with any feedback system whatever you do.

Actually, given the title of this thread, this discussion is off-topic.
But since we're on meta, where every thread derails...

I strongly believe that I do indeed have a case of "breach of contract" by all Fork-Coiners.
We're all part of the Bitcoin project.
We do have a social contract based on best practices of the open source community.
One of the unwritten rules of this contract could be expressed as
"if you fork a project, rename it so that others are not led to believe you're the original".
This part of the open source community social contract has been breached at least by BCash.

So, yes, I do indeed reserve the right to say "BCash broke a contract with me".

(I wouldn't necessarily use bitcointalk's trust system to make this claim, though, since BCash seems highly irrelevant here.)

I think the tl;dr goes something like this:

1. Quickseller is an untrustworthy account trading (the basis by which many scams have been perpetrated) forum member with a long history of extremely shady behaviour, including fraudulent misrepresentation (self-escrow).
2. By his own actions, Quickseller cannot be trusted within this community and gullible newbies especially should have the means to be readily alerted to this fact when reading his posts or interacting with him directly
3. The scammer flag forum mechanism is considerably more profound a marker of a forum member's reputation than trust ratings and should only be used by a victim to assert an actual fraud or crime has taken place
4. However, Lauda, and others, have used the flag mechanism to highlight forum members who are generally considered to be extremely shady in order to alert those who may be unaware5. Theymos is pissed that the flag system is not being used solely by victims of an actual fraudulent or criminal act
6. Lauda withdraws their flag for Quickseller
7. Theymos thinks Lauda should be considered as untrustworthy for having used the flag mechanism the wrong way


I'm going to take it as Lauda figured Quickseller deserved a large painted sign above his profile alerting all to the fact he is and has long been a shady fuck, but erroneously employed the scammer flag in order to do so. I don't think that warrants flinging their trust ratings out of the window quite yet.

I also think that Theymos seriously underestimates, or perhaps not, the weight of his authority when sending DM's to people 'recommending' an action be taken. While I do understand why he would be alarmed about the flag system being misused, it is likely that many of those who have done so took the action in the belief it was warranted in order to serve as a warning to others based on their prior knowledge of that forum member's past actions.

Just a minor fact-check. I'm on DT1 this period. I didn't get the theymos pm. I ~excluded Lauda all along.

I'd like to take this argument a little further:
In sending a PM to all DT1 members, theymos set a precedent of using what I would call unsolicited mass email aka SPAM to get his message across.
We're on bitcointalk, a forum, goddammit.

Dear theymos, you want to get a message out to a lot of people?
Start a thread on "Meta"!

(Of course, the same would apply to Lauda, who sent a PM as well. But this might be forgiven, since it was obviously a reaction to theymos' PM).

Why all these drama surrounding a PM? Feel lucky that he (theymos) did not tell that he will ban/blacklist anyone who will not listen to him like Lauda's red trust for QS.


Edit:
I am glad to see that The Pharmacist is improving. He now is trying his own voice. Try to sleep less LOL. It's the time zone.