Topic: PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user - page 4. (Read 2858 times)

lauda is upset he can no longer unilaterally tag people without anyone else's support -- he is upset he can no longer use the threat of negative trust as a weapon to silence his critics

Let us remember lauda that you are a scammer? so those you brand scammers are likely NOT scammers are they? I mean who trusts the word of a proven scammer and liar??

I support his claim that there is selective enforcement, not his particular instance. I haven't gone in depth into that thread to be able to support the particular claim. Meriting =/= support.

This is completely wrong. You forget that:
1) There is no trust score.
2) There is no bold red - it is now orange. Orange is not a colour of danger nor warning.
3) There is no warning written on someone with negative ratings.

Every single scammer ever has been let loose. You seem to actively fight this fact (cognitive dissonance makes accepting this hard, which in return further strengthens the scammers' positions).

Fun. I suggest we add QS next to DT1. Maybe his pal TF too. Where's the contract violation? Clown-forum.

---

You can stop responding to me and discuss it with others. Claiming that we have a warning system when there is actually no warning written after someone received a negative tag is just factually wrong. The rest you can debate ad-naseum; re: who is right/wrong. I am no longer interested in this particular discussion.

The selective enforcement part is confusing the hell out of me because you seem to be supporting Tecshare's claim from that thread from years ago linked earlier, yet you don't support the argument he made. I don't know much about what you are talking about with EFS, so unless its very relevant to your point, I'll skip it. If its important, I'll look up some threads about it.

You can leave negative feedback just as you've always done. You can't flag him though. Flag = Help! I've been scammed! Negative feedback = Watch out, this guy is shady! I'm not sure why you are under the impression that you have no recourse against scammers now just because there is now a distinct warning and alarm system. If you haven't been scammed, you post a warning. If you have been scammed, you signal the alarm.

This is a step towards the system that I've been preaching all along while somewhat (and I emphasize somewhat) defending your past feedback. Leaving feedback is a good thing. There are a lot of considerations people may or may not care about when deciding to trade with someone. All Theymos did was separate more severe scam accusations to flags, and freed up the space for people to put more subjective things as regular feedback. Subjective feedback isn't necessarily bad as long as you don't misrepresent it. If you want to tag Quickseller for being a liar, some percentage of the forum might agree with that feedback and decide to take your claim to heart. Others wont, and thats perfect, users forming their own opinions by reading and weighing feedback is the most fair system in my opinion. The flags are for "I"ve been scammed!" and misrepresenting your feedback is the only thing that counts as trust abuse in my eyes anyway.

That is sort of where we are at. If Quickseller didn't take your money, then they deserve feedback not a flag.

No it is simply a reset. It is sadly required to start a NEW path that can not be corrupted.

This is a NEW shift to create an environment where all persons now and in the future are treated fairly and equally.

Don't blame theymos. BLAME EVERY DT WEAK ASS PIECE OF CORRUPT SHIT that did not reverse these abuses when they could have done but rather doubled down on this abuse. Theymos tried to create previously something fair. He gave WARNING AFTER WARNING AFTER WARNIGN AFTER WARNING  RED TRUST IS FOR FUCKING SCAMMERS , you all ignored this. You either all abused the trust system or supported those that did. If you are not going to reverse peoples abuse you are allowing them to do it. Would you stand there and allow an adult to abuse a child in front of you?? saying well I don't support it but you know....I'm not interested in what that adult is doing really, not my business.

How many times must theymos ask, tell, beg and scream red trust should be used only for scammers???

These changes are here because DT's made them essential.

We see you as one of the more fairer and better ones mikey. You will see the new system is going to be WAY WAY WAY  better long term.

Stop worrying so much about saying the MOST GREEDY and MOST STUPID from themselves. Start worrying about pushing forward the adoption of this decentralized trustless end to end arena we want to see built here for the future.

People need to see the bigger picture here. You guys playing whack a mole with 1000 small time scumbags is equal to about a 10th of one huge ICO scam that you can never stop because none of you have the tech chops to demonstrate the white paper is bunk and even if you could demonstrate it is not going to solve all btc's issues you would not stop the MOST GREEDY and MOST STUPID wanting to invest in it.

Free speech and educating people what this forum is about not stopping people getting robbed by themselves. People must learn you don't get a 500 bucks gift card for 20 bucks from a new person on the internets for this new magic money that does not come back once you send it.

Get flagging all that you can and the rest will get busted along the way. However, there is now a procedure to complete, this is for the long term good of the board.

Don't be short sighted here. THEYMOS has perhaps realized you need to build things on STRONG FOUNDATIONS. You need scammers to be REAL SCAMMERS to give them a scam tag else the entire thing become meaningless and people start abusing more and more until the tool to stop scammers becomes a tool for scammers to silence whistle blowers.

Your 1000 2 bit scammers will take about 0.001% of what gox did or any big ICO that raised 100's millions that will fade away to page 20 cmc and never be heard of again but those devs will be back on page one with a new ico under a new name. Only a handful of people here have the tech chops to recognize them or stop them. Even then the most greedy would still insist on investing

Stop believing average joes with a dt badge are making such a big difference in the grand scale. You are only fooling yourselves. To believe that is worth crushing free speech is madness.

REMEMBER ALL DT members are responsible for these changes should have taken heed of the abuse and put a stop to it.. I am sure theymos did not want the extra fucking hassle of coding it all out for the fun of it.  

Theymos was being KIND to lauda here. He has given lauda enough fucking warnings about trust abuse. Lauda has started saying he is the master and theymos is the student. He will NOT obey these rules... etc etc. Theymos should just have bitch slapped that scammer out of DT rather than trying to give him an exit of dignity just getting excluded out.

Suchmoon trying to spin it as some devious and sneaky move has revealed herself now. She will do ANYTHING to retain lauda in DT adding to the very possible explanation that lauda is suchmoon.  Either that or she has demonstrated some MAJOR double standards here.

The, now withdrawn, rating was selective enforcement. EFS has been long-term abusing his position. I'm not familiar with theymos selectively enforcing staff-related things himself, but this was a case of selective trust-enforcement. It happens on all levels as demonstrated (trust/staff/non-staff doesn't matter).

Leaving me negative rating does what about my flag? Nothing. Right.

I'm not a direct victim of Inaba, so Inaba is not a scammer and I can't flag him. Lovely system, priorities indeed.

---

You actually need even more people than ever before to get scammed in order to have a sufficient sub set of victims that are able to- and willing to come forward with credible "contract violations" before you can fully establish that the introduced system is garbage. Not enough contract violations = not enough victims able to speak out = silent scamming can and will continue. Incentivizes scamming, de-incentivizes flagging and flag-support. I'll leave you to process that.

---

Tl;dr: I welcome the idea of separation, but I am disgusted by this implementation which is really just scam-enabling. Have fun.

I'm not following. Who is doing the selective enforcement if not Theymos? Why is it qualified to be selective if not from a position of implied authority?


I'm saying that as Quickseller is not on DT. As far as feedback goes, Quickseller who is not on DT has the same weight as anyone else not on DT. You are on DT, so your feedback matters more, therefor it was more pressing a matter to point out whatever you did rather than whatever Quickseller did in the case that you both did the exact same thing at the exact same time.

As far as you being allowed to flag him, if I'm understanding, the problem is that you used are improperly using the new flag system. Feedback is for people who haven't contractually scammed you, people that are untrustworthy ie, liars, account farmers, people who like lemons. Flags are for people who have stolen money from you put simply.

Does Theymos get involved in scam accusations? No. Does Theymos get involved in Scam accusations towards staff members? Probably. >>> Same situation


As pointed out earlier, Inaba doesn't have a flag yet. Is that because they don't deserve it? No, its because people prioritize when they make actions and which to take first.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/inaba-8198

I didn't mean it like that; I meant that it happens on all levels. I should have clarified.

You're looking at it from the opposite perspective. I'm not saying that theymos is causing selective enforcement, I'm saying that he's ignoring it (it happens exactly due to the lack of "impending hammer").

Are you saying Quickseller is not in any position to get it? Are you saying that people are not harmed by his fake accusations just because there is no contract violation? Oh right, I'm not allowed to tag flag him even though I'm a victim. I can remove myself from DT, not that it matters at all any more. This will not solve selective-enforcement nor solve the opening of the gates to every scammer that ever touched this place (Quickseller included).
I must add: Both Bcash and BSV are no-brainer examples of how this system is broken (ignore user-dispute-related ratings). User: I bought BSV thinking it was Bitcoin, i.e. got scammed? Forum: Sorry, we can't tag this as you had no contract.

Clown-car.

   Yes, and now it is clear that one of the ways that theymos will seek to remove people from DT ASAP is to PM a recommendation to DT1 members. Since it is now clear that this is indeed a recommendation rather than a demand, those DT1 members are free to either take these recommendations to heart or take them with a grain of salt. I am uncertain if this matter will be accelerated any further if it does not go in the direction theymos is expecting.

I hope that you are not giving up on us.

Seems to me that BIG escalations and never-ending feuds over fairly petty stuff remains part of any active forum in a bitcoin community that involves actual humans.

Don't get me wrong, it seems to me that your various attempts at tweaking forum systems including adding merit and making various tweaks to trust (including this latest flag addition) serve as great attempts to make forum improvements, yet people are a moving target, and I doubt that forum tweaking is ever going to be "over with," and I doubt that BIG feuds over petty squabbles will ever be stamped out of any kind of decent forum, such as this one... accordingly, to me, it seems that BIG feuds and petty squabbles are what humans are all about, so please don't attempt to turn us into bots......    

It was meant to be sarcasm, I figured you'd pick up on it immediately. And yeah, thats my point. Just because staff members may be coincidentally involved, doesn't mean Theymos is funneling orders down and forcing DT staff or otherwise to obey. Theymos sent a PM asking people to reevaluate their choice, you have sent people PMs asking them to reevaluate their choice, other DT members have done so as well. Because Theymos is distant and there is no impending hammer, it is not selective enforcement by staff or otherwise.

Fine, Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on legendary members that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

My point was that you got the attention of Theymos because you are in the position to get it. Any other member on DT doing the same thing would have also gotten the same PM sent.

You don't have to be liberal to support it, you can just be confused. Maybe we need a couple more thousand people to lose money in BSV and Bcash before we start realizing that this actually causes damage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I would never.

See, more lies. Where's the tag theymos?

1, I am not liberal, 2 you are not centre-right. You are authoritarian, who disregards consensus of opposition to what you are doing, and tries (often successfully) to silence those who criticize you. Further, you are corrupt.  

2, you do not care about anyone getting scammed. You do not prevent anyone from getting scammed, rather the opposite, as you have diluted the effect of negative trust so much that people have learned to ignore it. In the process, you have damaged the reputations of many people for arbitrary reasons, often without any kind of violation of even a clear guideline.

Based on your corruption and history of extortion and scamming, you should be given an untrustworthy tag similar to the one that Matthew M Wright has.

He is being intentionally dishonest. He has always used this strong language whenever he was excluded from DT multiple times. I suspect this somewhat has to do with why he kept receiving additional inclusions under the old system. There was never any basis for this kind of language. 

I support the changes. Am I a liberal? I think pretty much anyone who has spent any time in Politics and Society would disagree. In fact I would describe your approach as totalitarian.

You're kidding, right? He's as distant as possible, and as a staff member (especially of a local section) you can reach absurd levels of abuse (as demonstrated by EFS) without any action taking place. Maybe it was like that under BadBear, which I unfortunately only briefly was a part of. Under theymos this is definitely not the case unless things have completely changed since 2016.

Firstly, no. Secondly, exaggeration fallacy.

Come now, you've been a moderator as well. You know exactly how harsh the directives Theymos forces upon the poor staff, and the constant state of fear they are in over whether they will still have a position or an account if they disagree with the supreme overlord's opinion.

Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on all of the newbies that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

Wrong. Theymos is willing to let people get scammed. I am not. That's the difference between liberals and centre-right. Here you are, lying again. Yet theymos won't tag you. Honk-honk some more. 

You can't possibly think so, I am not satisfied with the new changes, you can see to yourself, look at the rating i left for scammers, they are now almost invisible.

 Not saying i 100% agree with the previous settings, for example non of the feedback on CH profile for example are valid, they are misues/abuse call it how you like it , but you don't make a system that releases a 1000 scammer from their cage only to be fair to 10 innocent members whom have been abused/mistreated by DT members.

there were other  simple solutions to that problem, but Theymos picked the long path that might never see the light.

This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda.

On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters.

That's the goal, but it doesn't do that. You can still selectively enforce whatever you want with flag type 1 (you won't get blacklisted). You can't use flag type 2 nor 3 for it though. Additionally, his own actions have enacted the resolution of the previous guideline (you no longer need to have any relation to scamming whatsoever to receive negative ratings), and you can leave negative ratings almost as you see fit (which, for those is worse than before).

Selective, unless he tags Quicksie for starters and maybe fires EFS et. al.

They are great. The whole world is a clown show, and the forum has joined the game.