Topic: PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user - page 5. (Read 2858 times)

The way I see it the recent changes by Theymos has largely rectified this selective enforcement and created a more equitable system. Furthermore this incident also being applied to you demonstrates to me that it was not an isolated (selective) incident. BTW, stop trying to force memes you fucking normie, its lame.

Actually the initial response by theymos is just added proof for Tecshare's claim. Not only are forum-rules being selectively enforced from the top-down (by the forum-staff), so is the trust system. Lauda: Get tagged for one instance of lying on a ridiculous pre-written flag. Quickseller: Gets ignored after 100 cases of lying. I also find it odd that nobody merited that thread, so I just did.
Did I introduce you to clown pepe? He's officially joined the forum.

Very much the same situation. Theymos (and others) PMed DT members with Tecshare on their trust list back then to ask them to reconsider. Its not an uncommon occurrence from Theymos or other DT members. Sometimes you agree, and sometimes you kindly tell them to mind their own business.

You totally demonstrated the prior system needed an upgrade by using red trust to facilitate your own scamming.

When people who have OBSERVABLY scammed in the past like you have start giving scam tags to the people that outed you as a lying scammer back then, simply for daring to mention it then you know change was coming fool.

You have demonstrated nothing. Nobody cares about your vocal dissent. We will crush you down every time you try to bully theymos to bend to your scamming and extorting ways.

You are a SCAMMER do you not get that. Who cares what you and your scamming crew of scum say. Fuck off.

Please tell me your username on all other platforms we will be there with the PROOF you are a scammer and piece of shit to demonstrate to people you are not worth listening too.

Stop threatening theymos in public you look foolish. PROVEN Scammers are going to speak out against theymos for pushing out fair and transparent rules that ensure all persons are treated equally. ....LOL ohhh noooo

and then lauda said : theymos stopped me using red trust to silence whistle blowers presenting observable instances of my lying and scamming.....hahaha


Whilst lauda was holding a nice bag of these instamined coins..

Oh selective enforcement is nothing new here. Look at EFS and the Turkish section. Remind me when theymos did something about him?

I am speaking on behalf of messages that I have received today; my own dissatisfaction is irrelevant. I have shown the the system is flawed in many ways (some of which are trivial e.g. no edit/deletion). Whether it created good as you think it will, or whether it created more bad as I belief it will you can argue with whoever participates in the system down the road. My exclusion and vocal dissent against theymos on all platforms will remain until scammers are back where they belong (and who I mean by scammers, you can rightfully ignore anyone I have tagged - think about the tags before my time e.g.).

Do you really think lauda gives one fuck about anything that happend before to you tec?  he is trying to garner some spin here for his own ends


Theymos has eventually demonstrated he WANTS to provide the standards you were requesting. Let's not fuck it up at this stage.

This is a huge step forward in satoshi's end goal. Every person is treated equally and fairly according to a set of transparent RULES.

This is what the trust system should be. You can prove or demonstrate strongly someone is a scammer then they get a scam tag. Anyone who wants to use red trust for their OWN purposes or to silence whistle blowing have NO place in positions of trust.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10072726



It has been a day, isn't it a bit early to call this a never ending feud? I see a good portion of people satisfied as well. I think you give yourself too much credit as if you are the only levee between a flood of scammers and the forum.

Wrong EVERYONE is satisfied except the DT members that were enjoying being able to use red trust as their own personal weapon for their own means.

Since those parasitic swine are the most vocal in meta you relying on a very bogus metric. I see MOST of those that are NOT GANG members are VERY HAPPY.

Anyone who wants a fair set of transparent rules where every member must be treated equally is happy. Those that were enjoying being part of the self appointed DT crew that all cream off the top sig spots, escrowing positions, campaign manager slots, all red trusting people who dare raise observable events from their past they want to remain hidden are obviously not going to be happy.

Both sides ? there are only 2 types of member.

1. Those that want transparent and fair rules that ensure all members are treated equally.

2. AND THOSE THAT DO NOT.


You are a proven liar and scammer. Who gives one fuck what you think lauda. You were a liar and scammer when you came here. You are a liar and scammer now.

The mere notion of you being in a position of trust is quite ludicrous.

Ironically (assuming that people aren't privately lying to me), you've done the exact opposite. A good portion of people from both sides are dissatisfied. Naturally, the scammers celebrate once more.

It's a recommendation, not a demand. As I said:

---

As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.

For non-agreement issues, use a newbie-warning flag and give them a negative trust rating. These actions are in the different scopes of warning newbies or informing other users of your opinions, which have less severe consequences and therefore lower bars.

I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)

Oh becoming very accommodating now are we not lauda worm tongue. You STATED  you will not work within these new rules, you said he can change the rules or black list you. He was likely trying to be NICE to you rather than outright bitch slap you with a black list in public for us all to gloat over.

Suchslob has just demonstrated clearly that

1. she will not only include you on dt after she knows you lied and scammed
2. she win not only include you on dt and not reverse your trust abuse when you use red trust to hide and facilitate your own scamming
3. she will now try and stab theymos in the back and make him look bad for trying to usher you out of the back door leaving you with some dignity in the hope this now makes you untouchable

she should be blacklisted herself, she is now making a mockery of the trust system by giving lauda POSITIVE trust because she says lauda must have told her the truth atleast once.

She is deliberately not co operating and supporting her pal/alt lauda who is trying to give theymos the big fuck off again.

Get both dirt bags blacklisted.

Resolved? Lauda broke a RULE punishment should follow like so many you have tagged in the past.

Call me delusional then. Anyone thats been around a while (all parties I'm speaking with now) should at least have the feeling that Theymos isn't petty enough to do anything about it if everyone that he sends a PM to recommending that they do whatever about doesn't do it.

This is pretty clear

Considering that they have already resolved this situation, it seems strange to insert yourself into this. It's like offense culture.

LOL, since when were the rules clear around here?  Even the list of rules that are pinned to the board are "unofficial."

Context would help.

It's simple Lauda broke a clear rule and should be manually removed from DT forever

What is suchmoon claiming has happened now?

Theymos dared to try and save lauda public humiliation of being blacklisted by asking a back stabbing scum bag and possible alt of lauda - suchmoon to exclude the trust abusing lying scamming piece of shit lauda? better to just straight up black list this piece of shit and lauda together. They will NEVER play fair with the rest of the board.

Suchmoon has been shown PROOF lauda is a liar and scammer, suchmoon has been shown lauda will use red trust to facilitate his own scamming by trying to silence whistle blowers. She has not done the right thing then. She will never do the right thing in the future. Blacklist them both and ANYONE else who REFUSES to stop with the trust abuse or will support those that do trust abuse.

If suchmoon is trying to spin this into something "positive" in laudas favor then we suchmoon just revealed how far she will go to protect that proven liar, scammer and trust abuser.

LOL at least Theymos can see what an EXCELLENT member suchscumbag is now. The true colors are revealed. She will do anything to keep her gang in power.

Just BLACKLIST every DT member that will not abide by the rules. Let's drain this swamp.

Of course meta board will try to reject anything that removes their ability to game this board and cream off the power and money.

Suchmoon needs to be forced to answer in public some VERY STRAIGHT questions. 

As far as I know there is no overlap of individuals that got requests in both instances. There is however overlap in those that dismissed my arguments against Theymos requesting exclusions personally as if he did not also carry the weight of the admin. They were dismissive of or silent in response to the argument then, now they suddenly support the argument. This is not an argument based on principles, it is an argument based on personalities.