Topic: realr0ach is a danger to newbies and guests. (Read 1946 times)

That's cool. Everyone knows people standing around reassuring each other is an acceptable substitute for a logical argument.

Feeling absolutely same way, TEC and this discussion can't keep me awake anymore, time to go for a sleep

I just stand by my support of this created FLAG and thats my good right...

lets agree to disagree.

As usual, having no actual logical argument to fall back on, you run away. This is about preserving the integrity of the trust system and the ability to speak freely on this forum without penalization. These things override your compulsions to be controlling and punitive to those you disagree with. Maybe you can pretend ignore me again until you can't restrain yourself...

Keep up with the semantic gymnastics, some day you will get the gold kid. I linked a definition of the logical fallacy for reference, but we both know you are only interested in selling your rhetoric and not facts.

Holy shit, really? Are you actually that dense that you don't see how totally hypocritical your statements are almost to the point of being hilariously obvious? The thread is about the flag on roach, you keep bringing up Vod, then lecture me about "avoiding the issue" and "deflecting". Then you IMMEDIATELY proceed to criticize me for doing EXACTLY what you just did to me, only my argument is not subjective, you are factually documented to have done it. You have zero credibility. You are a joke.

Just because my observations make you butthurt doesn't make them personal attacks. You always argue from a position of Pathos, and almost never from a position of Logos. You are one of those people who thinks emotion and logic are interchangeable. Sorry cupcake, but they're not. You don't get to just summarily dismiss arguments because they offend you.

I haven't read through all 5-pages of the thread yet, but I did completely read the OP and all of the "supporting evidence".
All I'm seeing are opinions.

If I'm missing something, that would lead someone to believe that realr0ach is likely to break a contractual agreement, then I think that would help your case tremendously. Without more evidence, it doesn't make sense for this flag to exist or be supported. Either I am missing significant information or the flag system is not being used as intended here. I'm just giving my opinion, after not doing much digging, but as someone creating the flag I would think that's something you would have already done; if these are the best examples to give context to your flag then this is an unhealthy use of the flag-system. I don't even think negative trust would be appropriate with what you've given us in OP. This would seemingly be a perfect case for the use of neutral-feedback.

"Warning Newbies" doesn't mean that you disagree or believe the user to be a liar; it means that you believe the user will scam or violate a contractual agreement if given the chance.
"More Subjective" flag doesn't mean an entirely subjective flag.
Being a distraction isn't a reason to support a flag on someone.


You think he got hacked, because he was a dynamic/developing opinion?

I'm just baffled at the use of authority against ideas; we should combat bad or incorrect ideas with better and truthful ones. Do we really want to use Marketplace Trust or Contractual Violation Flags for dissenting opinion(s)?
Even Lauda's negative feedback on them just links to their "recent posts"; how does that help me or anyone understand how this person trades or follows through on their word/contracts?

Don't take what I say too seriously, I haven't been around as much to read all of the threads and keep up with the forum zeitgeist; life gets in the way sometimes. This is how it looks to me, maybe throw me some information if it's relevant. Not that my vote matters, but I'm heavily leaning towards opposing; you're legally allowed to burn the American flag in America, hope that makes sense.

Wrong. For instance, "Everything living eventually dies." That's a broad generalization that is 100% correct. That's just one example of many.


We're talking about one issue and you keep deflecting it and bringing up another issue. If you were tagging Vod solely on the basis of doxing Og, why wouldn't you have limited your verbiage to that subject?


Now you're resorting to bringing up a tired issue which only the trolliest of trolls continue to rehash. I've never tagged people for attempting to sell their own accounts BTW, only for being professional account sellers. But don't let little details get in the way of your righteous indignation.


Personal attacks aren't "arguments" so yes they are worth dismissing completely. But you're right, the history of issues speaks for itself, which is why you are excluded from DT1.

Yes, always. generalizations are not always wrong, broad generalizations by their nature include erroneous conclusions by the very nature of their over inclusiveness. I am not confusing anything, this is just you vomiting up more word salad to try to confuse the situation since you are running out of arguments.

I am glad you can tell me what my intent was, ever think of working for Mrs. Cleo? No one on this forum really believes Vod was not out of line with what he did, your false equivocation and selective interpretation of my rating to try to sell further abuse is convincing no one. You have some nerve talking about double standards when you yourself pretend your attempt to sell your account is ok while you condemn others for the same act. You are not one to point fingers.

Rather convenient you can dismiss completely arguments you have no retort for isn't it? The history of the issues over the trust system in the past speak for themselves.




It is not at all reasonable, because every piece of evidence presented was based solely upon his opinion, not any risky actions which may cause a risk during trade. I don't think the flag is intended to harm the forum, I think it is intended to harm realr0ach, but with a very clear side effect that directly harms the integrity of the trust system as well as the preservation of free speech on the forum. Essentially the flag backers are putting their spite and need to fulfill their emotional compulsions above the best interests of the forum.

Just one question to those that oppose... Isn't it a bit reasonable for someone to @least create that flag and think its a good thing rather than a bad thing?
You can't seriously say that this is a flag being made to do harm to the forum and to the people that wanna learn from the forum about BTC, than it is to protect those and do good for them....?

Not always. Besides, you are confusing V8's opinion with roach's opinion. We're talking about two separate things.


Your trust for Vod wasn't just for doxing Og, you included a bunch of other language that is thoroughly your opinion and not based on Vod's trade history. Seems like you just want everyone else to adhere to a standard while you yourself remain free to do whatever you want.


This is projection-based stupid talk and not worthy of a response lengthier than this.

Because broad generalizations are a logical fallacy, hence not based in logic.

"Last of the V8s alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with realr0ach is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

Again, for literally the 4th time the rating was left for his abusive and doxing behavior, something Theymos himself said was reasonable. You know this, but what is important is you dig up any tiny morsel of a fault possible to project on my part to justify your abuse. Judging ones opinions also falls firmly under the description of "judging the content of those words". All you are doing is semantic gymnastics to try to make this ok when everyone knows damn well what your motivation is, and it is not protecting the user base or the integrity of the trust system. We have a chance here to form new standards different than the previous clusterfuck of abuse under the old system, and people such as yourselves rush immediately to turn the new system into the old system so you can get your little control freak red tinged dopamine click hit.

#IsupportTHEflag.

How does A exclude B? Its possible to do both simultaneously.


No, he did not. Please share with us where you read that.

Again, the situation is no different than you thinking Vod's "mental instability" is a red flag when it comes to trust related issues. Vod has never failed one trade yet you decided to negative trust him on the basis of your opinions.

Nobody would make a flag about somebody if they said they hated chocolate ice cream, even though that is also an opinion. Its more than just roach's words being an "opinion" we're talking about here. Its about a user's words suggesting that they should not be trusted based on the content of those words. There is a logical case for this given the content across the breadth of roach's posts.

You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean that everybody else shouldn't.

I like how you lecture me about rational thinking as you make broad generalizations int he same breath. Type 1 flags are meant to be "more subjective". More subjective does not mean totally subjective. Additionally the language Theymos used EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED the flag being used to object to people's opinions, making your subjectivity argument moot.




Is that supposed to shock me into agreeing with you? I don't have to endorse what he says to object to this abuse of the trust system. Again, there is no explicit call to violence, if there was the staff would most definitely take action for liability reasons regardless where it is located. I never said your interpretations were irrational, just that they aren't his words, they are your interpreted meaning of them. People shouldn't be responsible for what other people interpret their words to mean, if that was the case all kinds of abuse could be justified, again because the interpretation exists only in your mind and can not be objectively observed.

Please advise how you think someone implicitly calling for genocide is somehow less evil than offering an account for sale? Get some perspective.

Don't just take my word for it. Take it from the system's creator:



You've been harping on this issue for months now. Open your own flag about it since it bugs you so severely.

Have you actually read his posts? Here is a sample.


Seems like a rather explicit call for violence to me. The only reason he gets away with this statement is:
A) The financial system hasn't collapsed, yet. So this is only hypothetical.
B) The WO thread isn't moderated by staff.
C) Infrofront didn't delete this post. Probably because in this case, realr0ach isn't trolling a distinct individual. Unfortunately, all Infrofront has the power to do is delete posts. He can't issue bans.

Also, I don't believe that my interpretation of statements like this are somehow irrational, that somehow "only exist in my mind." What rational person would come up with a different conclusion? 

Quoting for future reference. Thanks for confirmation of your understanding of the type 1 flag.

The thing is here though, that your OWN opinion of YOURSELF is that you are EVIL and willing to FACILITATE SCAMS FOR 0.3BTC?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50719875

Why are you not opening a flag on yourself rather than appearing on every other persons flag thread trying to support the fact they have a flag for perhaps far less EVIL and scam facilitating behaviors.

Is he explicitly calling for violence? I doubt it, because that is illegal and would most likely be addressed with moderator action. Therefore your comparison is not valid. You still are not addressing the impact upon the fidelity of the trust system that results from using it as a tool to punish people for their opinions just because you find it objectionable. This is more about the precedent that this flag is acceptable than roach. This is about protecting the system and preventing its continued abuse under the new metrics which is far more important than your little flag on this user because you object to his rhetoric.




People love using that term "dog whistles". It is a great way to defame people you don't agree with, because you aren't actually addressing what they said, but instead what you INTERPRET what they said to mean, which is of course impossible to argue against as it exists only in your mind. This is just another bullshit excuse to do a semantic dance to put lipstick on this pig and pretend this is not about punishing him for his objectionable opinions. The op has CLAIMED it is not about his opinions, but I have not seen any evidence presented OTHER than his opinions. You people think you are gaining something with this behavior, but you are making us all less free, and less able to enjoy these systems of protection here just to fulfill your compulsion to smite those that offend you.

The backstory behind Tecshare's attitude toward the trust system can be found here and here.

^
Indeed Bones and still there is enough support, just why that TEC. guy doesn't see the reason is appropriate of some level.....