Topic: realr0ach is a danger to newbies and guests. (Read 1961 times)

OK this conversation has officially come to an end as it is now 100% about nothing.

Enjoy your victory, you worked hard for it and you deserve it.

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

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

lets agree to disagree.

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

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

OK this conversation has officially come to an end as it is now 100% about nothing.

Enjoy your victory, you worked hard for it and you deserve it.

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

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

lets agree to disagree.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: nutildah on June 24, 2019, 11:17:13 PM

OK this conversation has officially come to an end as it is now 100% about nothing.

Enjoy your victory, you worked hard for it and you deserve it.

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...

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

bill gator

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1123

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.

Quote

2. Previous account got hacked ... his views on whether to trade bitcoin have changed considerably

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.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Quote from: nutildah on June 24, 2019, 12:55:26 AM

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.

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.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Because broad generalizations are a logical fallacy

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

"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.

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.

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 24, 2019, 04:44:51 AM

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.

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

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.

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....?

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.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

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....?

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Because broad generalizations are a logical fallacy

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

"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.

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.

Quote from: nutildah on June 23, 2019, 03:45:58 AM

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.

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

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

To a wanker whose ego overrides common sense and rational thinking, everything to be said by anyone is only an opinion if they disagree with it. Likewise, anything to be said by someone is a fact if they agree with it.

Type 1 flags are meant to be subjective, aka opinion based. Get over it.

I like how you lecture me about rational thinking as you make broad generalizations in the same breath.

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

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.

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.

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.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

#IsupportTHEflag.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

To a wanker whose ego overrides common sense and rational thinking, everything to be said by anyone is only an opinion if they disagree with it. Likewise, anything to be said by someone is a fact if they agree with it.

Type 1 flags are meant to be subjective, aka opinion based. Get over it.

I like how you lecture me about rational thinking as you make broad generalizations int he same breath.

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

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.

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.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: bones261 on June 22, 2019, 08:37:07 AM

To a wanker whose ego overrides common sense and rational thinking, everything to be said by anyone is only an opinion if they disagree with it. Likewise, anything to be said by someone is a fact if they agree with it.

Type 1 flags are meant to be subjective, aka opinion based. Get over it.

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 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.

Quote from: realr0ach on November 17, 2018, 12:26:37 PM

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.

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

You can tell how close the system is to collapsing by how desperate they are to try and grab the guns so they can try and force a new debt based currency scam on people when this one blows up. I really hope they continue this completely hopeless plan up until the very end. The kikes could just take all their stolen wealth and try to flee somewhere else and change their last names like they always do, but if they stay and don't try to run, they're as good as toast because everyone knows exactly who is behind it.

So, please Jews, I beg you, do not attempt to flee America. Stay in the US and continue your hopeless plan so you'll all be eradicated.

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? Huh

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.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on June 22, 2019, 06:09:00 AM

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.

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

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on June 22, 2019, 06:09:00 AM

To a wanker whose ego overrides common sense and rational thinking, everything to be said by anyone is only an opinion if they disagree with it. Likewise, anything to be said by someone is a fact if they agree with it.

Type 1 flags are meant to be subjective, aka opinion based. Get over it.

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

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

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on June 22, 2019, 06:09:00 AM

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
- Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
- Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.

Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

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.

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

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

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.

Quote from: realr0ach on November 17, 2018, 12:26:37 PM

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.

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

You can tell how close the system is to collapsing by how desperate they are to try and grab the guns so they can try and force a new debt based currency scam on people when this one blows up. I really hope they continue this completely hopeless plan up until the very end. The kikes could just take all their stolen wealth and try to flee somewhere else and change their last names like they always do, but if they stay and don't try to run, they're as good as toast because everyone knows exactly who is behind it.

So, please Jews, I beg you, do not attempt to flee America. Stay in the US and continue your hopeless plan so you'll all be eradicated.

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? Huh

The-One-Above-All

member

Activity: 252

Merit: 56

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 21, 2019, 03:11:50 PM

To a wanker whose ego overrides common sense and rational thinking, everything to be said by anyone is only an opinion if they disagree with it. Likewise, anything to be said by someone is a fact if they agree with it.

Type 1 flags are meant to be subjective, aka opinion based. Get over it.

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.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Still if one is here speaking free mind of bombing and terrorism etc that would be a NO GO imo, (to be extreme) if one was talking people into that sh*t and almost recruiting to do so, that would be eliminated imo

So r0ach is imo also a bit extreme when he talks like jews need to be gone, (said in in many different manners) ....
Then I suggest people reading him taking care as he already lost a lot of credibility with his free speaking in the forum, why are you so difficult and can't you see that its a warning flag to take care with this dude, cause what you read could harm especially when people are less good minded or bit simpel....
Also F*** man its a soft flag, we talk with this dude for over a few 1000 pages, I guess the F*** we know what we are saying and I don't think the OP is making outrageous flags or anything, V8 is a highly recommended member and I would support him with a lot as trust him with BTC!
I will not do that with that F***ed up being of a r0ach.

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.

Quote from: bones261 on June 21, 2019, 03:24:48 PM

Yes, r0ach keeps blowing those dog whistles. He always states it in a way that doesn't overtly call for genocide. However, anyone with half a brain can gather what he means when he states that jews need to be expelled from every nation on Earth. I doubt that he means putting them in some ghettos on seasteads or putting them on a colony on the moon. (Although he could mean just sterilizing them and making their "cult" illegal. Who knows.) Also, he talks frequently about preparing for some kind of war against them.
Unfortunately, the OP has made it clear that the flag isn't about r0ach's extreme views on many things. Otherwise, I would be more tempted to support it. After all, I doubt any jew would be perfectly safe having any dealings with him, much less financial dealings. Furthermore, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want to have any dealings with him either. After all, what woman wants to do deals with a guy who basically believes all woman are gold digging whores?
Also, I have to admit that I actually listened to some of his financial advise and bought a small amount of silver with BTC in mid 2017. Needless to say, that appears to be a bad trade considering the current price of silver and BTC. However, I don't think we should set a precedent by yellow tagging people that give bad investment advise. Also, I haven't sold my silver yet. So who knows, maybe it will skyrocket to the moon, like it did in the early 80s. Cheesy

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.

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 21, 2019, 03:35:32 PM

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

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

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

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

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 21, 2019, 03:11:50 PM

So r0ach is imo also a bit extreme when he talks like jews need to be gone, (said in in many different manners) ....

   Yes, r0ach keeps blowing those dog whistles. He always states it in a way that doesn't overtly call for genocide. However, anyone with half a brain can gather what he means when he states that jews need to be expelled from every nation on Earth. I doubt that he means putting them in some ghettos on seasteads or putting them on a colony on the moon. (Although he could mean just sterilizing them and making their "cult" illegal. Who knows.) Also, he talks frequently about preparing for some kind of war against them.
   Unfortunately, the OP has made it clear that the flag isn't about r0ach's extreme views on many things. Otherwise, I would be more tempted to support it. After all, I doubt any jew would be perfectly safe having any dealings with him, much less financial dealings. Furthermore, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want to have any dealings with him either. After all, what woman wants to do deals with a guy who basically believes all woman are gold digging whores?
   Also, I have to admit that I actually listened to some of his financial advise and bought a small amount of silver with BTC in mid 2017. Needless to say, that appears to be a bad trade considering the current price of silver and BTC. However, I don't think we should set a precedent by yellow tagging people that give bad investment advise. Also, I haven't sold my silver yet. So who knows, maybe it will skyrocket to the moon, like it did in the early 80s. Cheesy

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Still if one is here speaking free mind of bombing and terrorism etc that would be a NO GO imo, (to be extreme) if one was talking people into that sh*t and almost recruiting to do so, that would be eliminated imo

So r0ach is imo also a bit extreme when he talks like jews need to be gone, (said in in many different manners) ....
Then I suggest people reading him taking care as he already lost a lot of credibility with his free speaking in the forum, why are you so difficult and can't you see that its a warning flag to take care with this dude, cause what you read could harm especially when people are less good minded or bit simpel....
Also F*** man its a soft flag, we talk with this dude for over a few 1000 pages, I guess the F*** we know what we are saying and I don't think the OP is making outrageous flags or anything, V8 is a highly recommended member and I would support him with a lot as trust him with BTC!
I will not do that with that F***ed up being of a r0ach.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 11416

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 21, 2019, 06:35:29 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 20, 2019, 10:21:31 PM

At this time, I am not going to support this particular flag, but I am not going to oppose it either.

I, personally, believe that this particular Roach flag and the support for the flag goes beyond opposing roach for his opinion, or at least there is more than ample reason and evidence (provided by V8, others and Roach himself) to oppose roach for his actual trolling and shill style - which is a form of disrespect of the forum, disrespect of others, which are reasons that a lot of trolls/shills are banned from many forums.

Likely, since Roach is still here, posting away on a semi-regular basis, admins have not been able to conclude that his conduct has crossed a high enough threshold for banning, but there does seem to be sufficient argument and evidence that his conduct has rises to a high enough level to receive a flag (especially within an acceptable range of reasonableness in the discretion of some other members - some of whom have chosen to support this particular flag).

Of course, the posting behaviors of roach - not just his opinion - actually interfere with the ability of threads to stay substantively focused. So, contrary to your assertion, Tecshare, I doubt that this particular flag is merely based on a disagreement of Roach's opinion, and I think V8 and substantive discussion in this thread provides reasonably sufficient evidence that the flag is not merely because of an opposition to Roach's opinion as you are attempting to frame the matter.

If what you claim is correct, then all of those issues fall under forum rules. Anyone interfering with thread focus is a matter for moderation, not the trust system. As you have already stated the moderators have not deemed his conduct sufficiently disruptive enough to take action against him, which is exactly why this step is being taken against him. Since the moderators won't do what you want and silence this person, you all are attempting to penalize him for his opinions via abuse of the trust system. This is not "many forums", this is one of the only places left on the internet where people are still allowed to speak freely, and I would think you people would understand the value of that over trying to punitively punish some one by abusing a system designed to protect people from fraud when making exchanges.

You do a semantic dance to put lipstick on this pig all you want, this is base authoritarian behavior, and it is destructive to the cohesion of the trust system on top of it. The levels of freedom of speech allowed on this forum and the fidelity of the trust system are exponentially more important than your collective butt hurt over some "troll" as you define it. Also lets all put aside that another definition of troll is some one who has opinions that agitate you. Good thing you have this nifty system to abuse to sooth your collective butt hurt and make yourself feel like you have some power over him right? You redefine his opinions 100 different ways, it has nothing to do with trading or risk of trades, it is just a pathetic attempt to punish him over his opinion.

The cost of everyone being able to speak freely here is occasionally some one agitates or offends you. Deal with it. If you can't deal with it put him on ignore. Stop using the trust system as a crutch to deal with your inability do control your own emotional state. This flag is pathetic, and so is everyone supporting it.

The essence seems to be that there is difference of opinion regarding reasonable use of these new things, labelled trust flags, and some folks have concluded that they believe it is reasonable to use such trust flags to draw negative attention to persons, such as roach, about whom the forum is not willing to ban or to otherwise close down, so in that regard, Roach's free speech is not stopped, it is just accompanied by a label that might warn others that his conduct has gone to such a level that some members of the community believe it warrants a flag - even though admin has not concluded to ban.... ...

And, hey, you never know, if there is enough support for various flags against certain members, those flags could be used as part of additional evidence (that might not have otherwise been available) to suspend or ban some members, such as roach. Whether roach is going to be banned or suspended based on these flags (which I personally doubt) is another question.. like the price of bitcoin, difficult to predict the future with any kind of meaningful precision.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 20, 2019, 10:21:31 PM

At this time, I am not going to support this particular flag, but I am not going to oppose it either.

I, personally, believe that this particular Roach flag and the support for the flag goes beyond opposing roach for his opinion, or at least there is more than ample reason and evidence (provided by V8, others and Roach himself) to oppose roach for his actual trolling and shill style - which is a form of disrespect of the forum, disrespect of others, which are reasons that a lot of trolls/shills are banned from many forums.

Likely, since Roach is still here, posting away on a semi-regular basis, admins have not been able to conclude that his conduct has crossed a high enough threshold for banning, but there does seem to be sufficient argument and evidence that his conduct has rises to a high enough level to receive a flag (especially within an acceptable range of reasonableness in the discretion of some other members - some of whom have chosen to support this particular flag).

Of course, the posting behaviors of roach - not just his opinion - actually interfere with the ability of threads to stay substantively focused. So, contrary to your assertion, Tecshare, I doubt that this particular flag is merely based on a disagreement of Roach's opinion, and I think V8 and substantive discussion in this thread provides reasonably sufficient evidence that the flag is not merely because of an opposition to Roach's opinion as you are attempting to frame the matter.

If what you claim is correct, then all of those issues fall under forum rules. Anyone interfering with thread focus is a matter for moderation, not the trust system. As you have already stated the moderators have not deemed his conduct sufficiently disruptive enough to take action against him, which is exactly why this step is being taken against him. Since the moderators won't do what you want and silence this person, you all are attempting to penalize him for his opinions via abuse of the trust system. This is not "many forums", this is one of the only places left on the internet where people are still allowed to speak freely, and I would think you people would understand the value of that over trying to punitively punish some one by abusing a system designed to protect people from fraud when making exchanges.

You do a semantic dance to put lipstick on this pig all you want, this is base authoritarian behavior, and it is destructive to the cohesion of the trust system on top of it. The levels of freedom of speech allowed on this forum and the fidelity of the trust system are exponentially more important than your collective butt hurt over some "troll" as you define it. Also lets all put aside that another definition of troll is some one who has opinions that agitate you. Good thing you have this nifty system to abuse to sooth your collective butt hurt and make yourself feel like you have some power over him right? You redefine his opinions 100 different ways, it has nothing to do with trading or risk of trades, it is just a pathetic attempt to punish him over his opinion.

The cost of everyone being able to speak freely here is occasionally some one agitates or offends you. Deal with it. If you can't deal with it put him on ignore. Stop using the trust system as a crutch to deal with your inability do control your own emotional state. This flag is pathetic, and so is everyone supporting it.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 11416

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 20, 2019, 07:06:16 PM

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 20, 2019, 06:47:31 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 20, 2019, 06:05:02 PM

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 20, 2019, 04:50:18 AM

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for.

If everybody thinks it needs 0-support then its flawed and not activated, I wasn't gonna create myself (thought about it, but V8 explained it better) and with the flag being out, I was sure to support it!

So if more think samewise then they will support if more think like you then they will oppose. 'crystal clear'

I don't know if you have noticed, but just because a mob forms doesn't mean they are acting justly. Theymos made it very explicit that flags period should not be used for punishing people's opinions. I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence presented that this flag is for anything other than his opinions.

At this time, I am not going to support this particular flag, but I am not going to oppose it either.

I, personally, believe that this particular Roach flag and the support for the flag goes beyond opposing roach for his opinion, or at least there is more than ample reason and evidence (provided by V8, others and Roach himself) to oppose roach for his actual trolling and shill style - which is a form of disrespect of the forum, disrespect of others, which are reasons that a lot of trolls/shills are banned from many forums.

Likely, since Roach is still here, posting away on a semi-regular basis, admins have not been able to conclude that his conduct has crossed a high enough threshold for banning, but there does seem to be sufficient argument and evidence that his conduct has rises to a high enough level to receive a flag (especially within an acceptable range of reasonableness in the discretion of some other members - some of whom have chosen to support this particular flag).

Of course, the posting behaviors of roach - not just his opinion - actually interfere with the ability of threads to stay substantively focused. So, contrary to your assertion, Tecshare, I doubt that this particular flag is merely based on a disagreement of Roach's opinion, and I think V8 and substantive discussion in this thread provides reasonably sufficient evidence that the flag is not merely because of an opposition to Roach's opinion as you are attempting to frame the matter.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 20, 2019, 06:47:31 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 20, 2019, 06:05:02 PM

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 20, 2019, 04:50:18 AM

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for.

If everybody thinks it needs 0-support then its flawed and not activated, I wasn't gonna create myself (thought about it, but V8 explained it better) and with the flag being out, I was sure to support it!

So if more think samewise then they will support if more think like you then they will oppose. 'crystal clear'

I don't know if you have noticed, but just because a mob forms doesn't mean they are acting justly. Theymos made it very explicit that flags period should not be used for punishing people's opinions. I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence presented that this flag is for anything other than his opinions.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 20, 2019, 06:05:02 PM

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 20, 2019, 04:50:18 AM

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for.

If everybody thinks it needs 0-support then its flawed and not activated, I wasn't gonna create myself (thought about it, but V8 explained it better) and with the flag being out, I was sure to support it!

So if more think samewise then they will support if more think like you then they will oppose. 'crystal clear'

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 20, 2019, 04:50:18 AM

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 20, 2019, 03:51:56 AM

I contribute plenty to the forum just by jamming up 2bit authoritarians like you.

Spoken like a true troll.

You don't have to accept this flag as legitimate. Something tells me the world will continue to turn.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: nutildah on June 19, 2019, 09:34:59 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 19, 2019, 09:05:21 AM

I quoted you in full, then I quoted a subsection of text. No context was removed. You are just repeating yourself at this point, but whats new. This is blatant abuse of the trust system, using it to punish people for their opinions. I didn't abuse the trust system to punish Vod for his opinion, he has however done so several times to myself and countless times to others. That is the difference. You enjoy your delusional double standards, and be careful not to wash that brown mark of protection from your nose.

I feel the same way about your feedback towards Vod. Its based on your personal disliking of him. He's never caused you any loss financially and you've never traded with him, yet you felt the need to leave him a red trust. At least you shut up about wanting a system with "objective standards," that's a nice change.

Who "protects" me BTW? What would be their reasoning? Perhaps if you contributed something positive to the forum, your existence here would be seen as having some value.

You will notice your statements always are about your feelings. My rating for him had nothing to do with my feelings. If it was feelings my rating was based on I would have negative rated Vod years ago, but I never have until then. I contribute plenty to the forum just by jamming up 2bit authoritarians like you. Remind me what does any of this have to do witht he topic at hand? Oh right, absolutely nothing, this is just yet another way for you to exploit the trust system to punish violations of your frail feelings.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 19, 2019, 09:05:21 AM

I quoted you in full, then I quoted a subsection of text. No context was removed. You are just repeating yourself at this point, but whats new. This is blatant abuse of the trust system, using it to punish people for their opinions. I didn't abuse the trust system to punish Vod for his opinion, he has however done so several times to myself and countless times to others. That is the difference. You enjoy your delusional double standards, and be careful not to wash that brown mark of protection from your nose.

I feel the same way about your feedback towards Vod. Its based on your personal disliking of him. He's never caused you any loss financially and you've never traded with him, yet you felt the need to leave him a red trust. At least you shut up about wanting a system with "objective standards," that's a nice change.

Who "protects" me BTW? What would be their reasoning? Perhaps if you contributed something positive to the forum, your existence here would be seen as having some value.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: nutildah on June 19, 2019, 04:35:22 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 19, 2019, 02:55:22 AM

You did say one true thing though in your statement "we feel the same way about roach." This is about your hurt feelings and your compulsive need to punish him for having ideas and opinions that hurt your feelings. This is not what the trust system is for.

You cut out part of my sentence in order to take it out of context. The whole sentence reads:

Quote from: nutildah on June 18, 2019, 09:12:28 PM

Just as you consider Vod unsafe to trade with because of his "mental illness," we feel the same way about roach.

There's several degrees of difference between the trustworthiness of Vod and roach (Vod is much more highly trusted and respected around here despite your opinion), and you've never traded with him. So what exactly is the difference? How do you consider yourself not abusing the trust system but V8's is?

I quoted you in full, then I quoted a subsection of text. No context was removed. You are just repeating yourself at this point, but whats new. This is blatant abuse of the trust system, using it to punish people for their opinions. I didn't abuse the trust system to punish Vod for his opinion, he has however done so several times to myself and countless times to others. That is the difference. You enjoy your delusional double standards, and be careful not to wash that brown mark of protection from your nose.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 19, 2019, 02:55:22 AM

You did say one true thing though in your statement "we feel the same way about roach." This is about your hurt feelings and your compulsive need to punish him for having ideas and opinions that hurt your feelings. This is not what the trust system is for.

You cut out part of my sentence in order to take it out of context. The whole sentence reads:

Quote from: nutildah on June 18, 2019, 09:12:28 PM

Just as you consider Vod unsafe to trade with because of his "mental illness," we feel the same way about roach.

There's several degrees of difference between the trustworthiness of Vod and roach (Vod is much more highly trusted and respected around here despite your opinion), and you've never traded with him. So what exactly is the difference? How do you consider yourself not abusing the trust system but V8's is?

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: nutildah on June 18, 2019, 09:12:28 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 18, 2019, 02:25:16 PM

Great use of logic. The only problem is the burden of proof is on you not me. The subjectivity is exactly what you are exploiting to CLAIM he is lying in an effort to punish him for his opinions. You don't give a shit about this community or the fidelity of the trust system, you put your need to punish ideas that upset you above all of it. The trust system is just another tool for you to exploit.

Yeah, and you would never do that, would you? You would never leave trust feedback for someone because you consider them to be a "mentally ill stalker," because you're the bigger man, right?

Just as you consider Vod unsafe to trade with because of his "mental illness," we feel the same way about roach.

I assure you your efforts to twist this semantically will be futile, so I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

Oh, so you are done pretending to ignore me again? I already responded to your implication that my rating for him was for being "mentally ill" 3 times, but reality is secondary to the narrative you would like to portray.

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 01, 2019, 09:24:39 PM

I see, so suddenly you want protection under my metric! Thanks for demonstrating its usefulness. Unfortunately we are not operating under my objective metric of a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, we are operating under a subjective free for all, one you take full advantage of on a regular basis. Under the current standard we are operating under, even Theymos himself said leaving you a negative rating was completely valid, and after seeing you feign remorse and then move right back into unrepentant abuse just as you always do I decided to leave that rating for you because you more than earned it. As far as your mental illness, that is evident from your own continued unyielding escalation of unrepentant abusive behavior, but that is not why I left you the rating, I left it because you doxed and reported a user to the IRS as a form of retribution for their criticism of you. It is more than evident you have trouble controlling yourself.

You will notice the subject of the sentence in my rating is "stalker", meaning that is the focus of the statement, but you keep imagineering whatever suits you.

I don't see this user stalking anyone. I don't see this user abusing the trust system. I don't see this user putting people at physical risk by doxing other users. You did say one true thing though in your statement "we feel the same way about roach." This is about your hurt feelings and your compulsive need to punish him for having ideas and opinions that hurt your feelings. This is not what the trust system is for.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 18, 2019, 02:25:16 PM

Great use of logic. The only problem is the burden of proof is on you not me. The subjectivity is exactly what you are exploiting to CLAIM he is lying in an effort to punish him for his opinions. You don't give a shit about this community or the fidelity of the trust system, you put your need to punish ideas that upset you above all of it. The trust system is just another tool for you to exploit.

Yeah, and you would never do that, would you? You would never leave trust feedback for someone because you consider them to be a "mentally ill stalker," because you're the bigger man, right?

Just as you consider Vod unsafe to trade with because of his "mental illness," we feel the same way about roach.

I assure you your efforts to twist this semantically will be futile, so I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Quote from: mikeywith on June 17, 2019, 09:16:13 PM

Quote from: bones261 on June 17, 2019, 06:51:12 PM

For a while I thought you were being serious, i thought "they" brain washed you ,anyhow fuck Silver ! Hodl bitcoin , actually come to think about it , realr0ach doesn't seem to be that stupid to believe everything thing he says, in fact he does sound like an intelligent person to some extent, maybe he is trying to spread some fud in order to buy BTC for cheap ? Grin

He will always be to proud to return or the dumb (he is smart) but just isn't in this particular most important world changing thing...

So actually how smart he writes will always be flawed and I must believe the r0ach is the most stupid person alive today, I hope he get payed in some useless silver pieces for he's personal war what he's fighting on he's very own in that WO-thread!

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 18, 2019, 12:34:10 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 18, 2019, 11:56:30 AM

You keep saying it is not about his opinions over and over again, and then source nothing but his opinions. Just saying it is not about his opinions doesn't magically make it true. You aren't substantiating anything, just making empty claims.

You keep saying it is about his opinions over and over again. Just saying it is about his opinions doesn't magically make it true.
Some people's subjective experience in this case is that there are opinions and some that there are lies. Some believe the claims are empty. Others do not.

Great use of logic. The only problem is the burden of proof is on you not me. The subjectivity is exactly what you are exploiting to CLAIM he is lying in an effort to punish him for his opinions. You don't give a shit about this community or the fidelity of the trust system, you put your need to punish ideas that upset you above all of it. The trust system is just another tool for you to exploit.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 18, 2019, 11:56:30 AM

You keep saying it is not about his opinions over and over again, and then source nothing but his opinions. Just saying it is not about his opinions doesn't magically make it true. You aren't substantiating anything, just making empty claims.

You keep saying it is about his opinions over and over again. Just saying it is about his opinions doesn't magically make it true.
Some people's subjective experience in this case is that there are opinions and some that there are lies. Some believe the claims are empty. Others do not.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 18, 2019, 05:05:03 AM

snip
If you didn't see it, here's theymos' official take on "Type-1" (yellow) flags:

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
- Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
- Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.

Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

This is why I don't feel bad about supporting this flag. Was on the fence about it for a while. I wouldn't open one like this myself, but in this case, I do support it.

People see what they want to see. I quoted it earlier, but theymos uses long words sometimes.

After another outburst of Ibian racist stuff on WO thread:

Anyway, what a shitshow I just read through.
snip~

I disagree with Ibian's opinions on race and religion last night, and always, and with the other little trolls that came out being all raycis and shit. But I don't raise newbie warning flags against them because they don't have documented dishonesty throughout their posts as shown in the op, this thread and the previous one referred to. They aren't showing any dishonesty. If someone doesn't believe that roach is dishonest or that that is a 'red flag' from the links, fine, it's a subjective flag, vote against or abstain. It's not about roach's opinions or mine. Other people are shown in those links to think him dishonest, well before this flag.

If someone can't bear the subjective balance within theymos' description and further guidelines on newbie flags, @him not me.

You keep saying it is not about his opinions over and over again, and then source nothing but his opinions. Just saying it is not about his opinions doesn't magically make it true. You aren't substantiating anything, just making empty claims.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

snip
If you didn't see it, here's theymos' official take on "Type-1" (yellow) flags:

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
- Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
- Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.

Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

This is why I don't feel bad about supporting this flag. Was on the fence about it for a while. I wouldn't open one like this myself, but in this case, I do support it.

People see what they want to see. I quoted it earlier, but theymos uses long words sometimes.

After another outburst of Ibian racist stuff on WO thread:

Quote from: bones261 on June 17, 2019, 06:51:12 PM

Anyway, what a shitshow I just read through.
snip~

I disagree with Ibian's opinions on race and religion last night, and always, and with the other little trolls that came out being all raycis and shit. But I don't raise newbie warning flags against them because they don't have documented dishonesty throughout their posts as shown in the op, this thread and the previous one referred to. They aren't showing any dishonesty. If someone doesn't believe that roach is dishonest or that that is a 'red flag' from the links, fine, it's a subjective flag, vote against or abstain. It's not about roach's opinions or mine. Other people are shown in those links to think him dishonest, well before this flag.

If someone can't bear the subjective balance within theymos' description and further guidelines on newbie flags, @him not me.

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 6688

be constructive or S.T.F.U

For a while I thought you were being serious, i thought "they" brain washed you ,anyhow fuck Silver ! Hodl bitcoin , actually come to think about it , realr0ach doesn't seem to be that stupid to believe everything thing he says, in fact he does sound like an intelligent person to some extent, maybe he is trying to spread some fud in order to buy BTC for cheap ? Grin

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 17, 2019, 06:24:26 PM

Still I think if a person is a Jew and ask the r0ach to buy/sell some silver.... that he wouldn't hesitate to scam a Jew is imo very likely (not proven but I would say be aware Grin

)

To be fair, what would probably happen is that he would pay the Jew 1 BTC for 1 OZ silver and think he outsmarted the jew. After all BTC is worth zero and silver is going to the moon as soon as the financial apocalypse is upon us.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Still I think if a person is a Jew and ask the r0ach to buy/sell some silver.... that he wouldn't hesitate to scam a Jew is imo very likely (not proven but I would say be aware Grin

)

bones261

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1828

Quote from: mikeywith on June 17, 2019, 01:52:56 PM

@Last of the V8s I usually do agree with you but not this time, I don't think a newbie-flag or any other flag is suited for his case, maybe a neutral feedback and that's all about it,don't get me wrong , If i had the power to ban realr0ach I would , IMO he is a piece of shit ,I do read his posts in the WO thread and I never bothered to start a conversation with him, but all that aside , I do not think the trust system is intended for this type of stuff.

Unfortunately, these tags have no way of only reaching out to a specific group of people. If someone happens to be a Jew, I definitely believe that all of the flags are there that R0ach will probably scam them, in addition to making his best effort to run them out of every nation on Earth.

mikeywith

legendary

Activity: 2464

Merit: 6688

be constructive or S.T.F.U

@Last of the V8s I usually do agree with you but not this time, I don't think a newbie-flag or any other flag is suited for his case, maybe a neutral feedback and that's all about it,don't get me wrong , If i had the power to ban realr0ach I would , IMO he is a piece of shit ,I do read his posts in the WO thread and I never bothered to start a conversation with him, but all that aside , I do not think the trust system is intended for this type of stuff.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on June 16, 2019, 10:47:59 AM

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on June 16, 2019, 12:32:03 PM

...snip...I can tell by his one post here roach is far more intelligent than any of you posting here...snip

Who cares?

I got mediocre school grades, dropped out of college. I run two businesses & have done far better in life than pretty much all of the people that I went to school with. Most of them went to university & ended up being fucking teachers or something.

Being good academically counts for close to nothing in real life. Most of the uber intelligent people at school couldn’t close a business deal to save their lives, they end up working for somebody else & being their bitch for 40 years.

As for bitcoin, r0ach has 0 & sold very low (a dumb decision). Most of us here before 2015 have a fairly significant amount of coin. Being intelligent, putting together long, grammatically correct paragraphs on a forum doesn’t get you anywhere in life. Give me real life experience, hard work & taking a chance on yourself in life over a school diploma any day.

I don't really give a fuck how you rank yourself in relation to others, this is all irrelevant. This is 100% clear to me know this is about punishing this user for wrongthink. If one person loses their right to free speech, we all do. The trust system is not for punishing wrongthink.

Wendigo

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 1036

Oh look we have little Zuckerberg prodigy over here Grin

Silence Mr red trusted for multiple alts. At least I don’t have to cheat give away threads with loads of alts Cheesy

Nice trust feedback ‘bruh’.

Mr. Internet Underpanties Tycoon like I fucking care. Except I have a diploma and a real job Cool

But you can go ahead and work your 'posting' job Grin

Do you send Lauda a care package with your finest goods once a month Mr Pantslicker?

LFC_Bitcoin

legendary

Activity: 3556

Merit: 9709

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Oh look we have little Zuckerberg prodigy over here Grin

Why so bitter?

Silence Mr red trusted for multiple alts. At least I don’t have to cheat give away threads with loads of alts Cheesy

Nice trust feedback ‘bruh’.

sirazimuth

legendary

Activity: 3388

Merit: 3514

born once atheist

roachie poachie must be quite proud of a thread started in his honor,
though to be fair, it does seem to be going off the rails a bit....

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

Oh look we have little Zuckerberg prodigy over here Grin

Don't be ridiculous.

You can be a business owner just by writing your own blogs. It doesn't matter what job you do at this point, what matters is how you do it.

If you do it better than others, you make money, as simple as this.

If I am not wrong LFC is online selling some beauty accessories for girls. Anybody can right now decide and start doing it but not all will be making money. Why? Because some know what to do, some not.

LFC_Bitcoin

legendary

Activity: 3556

Merit: 9709

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

Quote from: nutildah on June 16, 2019, 09:48:33 AM

...snip...I can tell by his one post here roach is far more intelligent than any of you posting here...snip

Who cares?

I got mediocre school grades, dropped out of college. I run two businesses & have done far better in life than pretty much all of the people that I went to school with. Most of them went to university & ended up being fucking teachers or something.

Being good academically counts for close to nothing in real life. Most of the uber intelligent people at school couldn’t close a business deal to save their lives, they end up working for somebody else & being their bitch for 40 years.

As for bitcoin, r0ach has 0 & sold very low (a dumb decision). Most of us here before 2015 have a fairly significant amount of coin. Being intelligent, putting together long, grammatically correct paragraphs on a forum doesn’t get you anywhere in life. Give me real life experience, hard work & taking a chance on yourself in life over a school diploma any day.

realr0ach

sr. member

Activity: 924

Merit: 311

#TheGoyimKnow

Here's a testament to the vast intelligence of roach:

Quote from: realr0ach on June 16, 2019, 09:30:11 AM

I wonder if people like Infofront are even going to bother to get in the car and go vote for Trump after shit like this:

https://dailystormer.name/trumps-iran-hoax-this-is-literally-the-sloppiest-goofiest-contemptible-false-flag-in-all-of-history/

As it stands right now, nobody gives a "ratt's ass" what the Jewish occupied government says on the right or left. It has literally zero authority, so it doesn't even matter if Chuck Schumer himself is president because everyone will completely ignore every single thing he says and comply with absolutely nothing. We already saw this phenomenon when the kikes tried to force Obamacare on the goyim and everyone unanimously said "HAHA FUCK YOU" and refused to comply with it. Maybe the best possible thing that can happen is Chuck Schumer being made president, tries to ban guns, zero goyim submit to his scam, and Jews are expelled once and for all.

He's basically insane. Which in TS's book is a good enough reason to administer somebody a red tag. After reading this comment, I'm in agreement with this flag. Even though roach is unlikely to ever trade on the forum, people should be aware he's mentally unstable if he does decide to start trading.

What do you claim is "insane" about that post? Please point out which number:

1) That the Iran "attack" is a false flag

2) The evil cult of Judaism is the fifth column of America and have the #1 most powerful govt lobby AIPAC and control of the media and most of the banking system

3) One of the main reasons the Obamacare scam had to be dropped is almost total lack of compliance

4) Chuck Schumer and most of the evil cult of Judaism want to ban guns and disarm America (for your own good of course)

Just because the truth makes you and other leftist scum look bad, or in this case, fucking terrible, doesn't change the fact it's true.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Here's a testament to the vast intelligence of roach:

Quote from: realr0ach on June 16, 2019, 09:30:11 AM

I wonder if people like Infofront are even going to bother to get in the car and go vote for Trump after shit like this:

https://dailystormer.name/trumps-iran-hoax-this-is-literally-the-sloppiest-goofiest-contemptible-false-flag-in-all-of-history/

As it stands right now, nobody gives a "ratt's ass" what the Jewish occupied government says on the right or left. It has literally zero authority, so it doesn't even matter if Chuck Schumer himself is president because everyone will completely ignore every single thing he says and comply with absolutely nothing. We already saw this phenomenon when the kikes tried to force Obamacare on the goyim and everyone unanimously said "HAHA FUCK YOU" and refused to comply with it. Maybe the best possible thing that can happen is Chuck Schumer being made president, tries to ban guns, zero goyim submit to his scam, and Jews are expelled once and for all.

He's basically insane. Which in TS's book is a good enough reason to administer somebody a red tag. After reading this comment, I'm in agreement with this flag. Even though roach is unlikely to ever trade on the forum, people should be aware he's mentally unstable if he does decide to start trading.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 15, 2019, 04:47:52 AM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 14, 2019, 05:19:54 PM

altcoins? woodcollector? emotional outbursts and incomplete truth in the red trust department? gosh that guy really has made good progress since those heady days.
...
aww it was just getting interesting, but you're right of course.

I can tell by his one post here roach is far more intelligent than any of you posting here. Thanks for proving to me keeping you excluded is the right choice. You can't handle anyone disagreeing with you without making it into a personal attack. BTW, anyone who knows those users, knows them to be mentally ill, a fake charity con man, a thief, a sock puppet shill account, and a mobbing trust abuser in that order. Remind me, when did this become a thread about me? Oh right, when you ran out of logical arguments to defend your flag abuse.

Good to point out r0ach as an highly intelligent person, I can also see that with his approach towards BTC, we can all see how smart he is, selling at 3-digit etc He also always use his intelligence to FUD BTC continuously at the WO-thread what works fine as well cause everybody believes every worth of him Roll Eyes

Then again recently V8 is proven wrong by HM on actual happening sh*t and he deal with it as a gentlemen as he always does....
I truly can't say much wrong about V8 and have co-posted with him for 2 years or something, as he also helped me out when I was a very very fresh newbie on the thread...

So TEC imo you're wrong here with your assumptions towards other members....

I also don't know you very very well and i'm not gonna argue over what I think know from you cause thats still not enough, but its strange to me that you can't agree a soft-warning-FLAG is an appropriate FLAG for r0ach.... maybe as with the FLAG someone could at a neutral feedback in his trust with read careful as he might post outrageous stuff and always try to talk bad over BTC while his assumptions are not proven or grounded by anything...

Just because he didn't maximize his profits with crypto doesn't make him dumb. He has a point, have you considered he maybe sold his coin as a principled stance? Because the trust system is not for punishing ideas you don't agree with. Period.

"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."

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 14, 2019, 05:19:54 PM

altcoins? woodcollector? emotional outbursts and incomplete truth in the red trust department? gosh that guy really has made good progress since those heady days.
...
aww it was just getting interesting, but you're right of course.

I can tell by his one post here roach is far more intelligent than any of you posting here. Thanks for proving to me keeping you excluded is the right choice. You can't handle anyone disagreeing with you without making it into a personal attack. BTW, anyone who knows those users, knows them to be mentally ill, a fake charity con man, a thief, a sock puppet shill account, and a mobbing trust abuser in that order. Remind me, when did this become a thread about me? Oh right, when you ran out of logical arguments to defend your flag abuse.

Good to point out r0ach as an highly intelligent person, I can also see that with his approach towards BTC, we can all see how smart he is, selling at 3-digit etc He also always use his intelligence to FUD BTC continuously at the WO-thread what works fine as well cause everybody believes every worth of him Roll Eyes

Then again recently V8 is proven wrong by HM on actual happening sh*t and he deal with it as a gentlemen as he always does....
I truly can't say much wrong about V8 and have co-posted with him for 2 years or something, as he also helped me out when I was a very very fresh newbie on the thread...

So TEC imo you're wrong here with your assumptions towards other members....

I also don't know you very very well and i'm not gonna argue over what I think know from you cause thats still not enough, but its strange to me that you can't agree a soft-warning-FLAG is an appropriate FLAG for r0ach.... maybe as with the FLAG someone could at a neutral feedback in his trust with read careful as he might post outrageous stuff and always try to talk bad over BTC while his assumptions are not proven or grounded by anything...

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 14, 2019, 09:20:46 PM

That's a cute little neutral rating you left for me. I find the people that most often reference the Dunning-Kruger effect ironically end up fitting the description far better than those they are attempting to characterize using it. Thanks for once again proving you don't know what the trust system is for and demonstrating how incapable you are of handling criticism.

First time I've seen it fit someone so well. The fact is you are a bit dim and shouldn't be trusted in any complicated endeavours. You scam people of their time with your faux-logic repetition and lack of reading comprehension. Take a step back to look after yourself. Read far more than you write. Ponder the nature of subjectivity.
Ignored.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

That's a cute little neutral rating you left for me. I find the people that most often reference the Dunning-Kruger effect ironically end up fitting the description far better than those they are attempting to characterize using it. Thanks for once again proving you don't know what the trust system is for and demonstrating how incapable you are of handling criticism.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 14, 2019, 05:19:54 PM

altcoins? woodcollector? emotional outbursts and incomplete truth in the red trust department? gosh that guy really has made good progress since those heady days.
...
aww it was just getting interesting, but you're right of course.

I can tell by his one post here roach is far more intelligent than any of you posting here. Thanks for proving to me keeping you excluded is the right choice. You can't handle anyone disagreeing with you without making it into a personal attack. BTW, anyone who knows those users, knows them to be mentally ill, a fake charity con man, a thief, a sock puppet shill account, and a mobbing trust abuser in that order. Remind me, when did this become a thread about me? Oh right, when you ran out of logical arguments to defend your flag abuse.

All very subjective.

It became about you when you picked up on roach's 'cult' comment and started talking about it yourself, saying they

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 14, 2019, 02:57:09 PM

have been coming after me for years

Remember?
That seems unlikely anyway, you'd be a nobody to them. The only links I found are where they laugh their socks off at your idiocy defending some scammer.
Remember?
Perhaps you should ~include roach. You really need some of that intelligence on your side.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 14, 2019, 05:19:54 PM

altcoins? woodcollector? emotional outbursts and incomplete truth in the red trust department? gosh that guy really has made good progress since those heady days.
...
aww it was just getting interesting, but you're right of course.

I can tell by his one post here roach is far more intelligent than any of you posting here. Thanks for proving to me keeping you excluded is the right choice. You can't handle anyone disagreeing with you without making it into a personal attack. BTW, anyone who knows those users, knows them to be mentally ill, a fake charity con man, a thief, a sock puppet shill account, and a mobbing trust abuser in that order. Remind me, when did this become a thread about me? Oh right, when you ran out of logical arguments to defend your flag abuse.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

altcoins? woodcollector? emotional outbursts and incomplete truth in the red trust department? gosh that guy really has made good progress since those heady days.

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 14, 2019, 05:02:14 PM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 14, 2019, 03:13:31 PM

lol
links?

Time to use your time for better purpose, this could go for XXX pages with still the same outcome, where r0ach will stay the delusional idiote he is and TEC will keep arguing till he dies for pointless and stupid sh*t .......

(if one doesn't agree that the r0ach is an idiote and the biggest troll on the forum, where people have to take care with not because he have done something! But still its a member where its appropriate to say take care with dealing with! Then your the idiote to disagree imo)

aww it was just getting interesting, but you're right of course.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 14, 2019, 03:13:31 PM

lol
links?

Time to use your time for better purpose, this could go for XXX pages with still the same outcome, where r0ach will stay the delusional idiote he is and TEC will keep arguing till he dies for pointless and stupid sh*t .......

(if one doesn't agree that the r0ach is an idiote and the biggest troll on the forum, where people have to take care with not because he have done something! But still its a member where its appropriate to say take care with dealing with! Then your the idiote to disagree imo)

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

lol
links?

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: realr0ach on June 14, 2019, 06:56:03 AM

Nice, Last of the V8s from the Popescu cult who pretends to be the ruler and dictator of Bitcoin made a thread about me. Yes, we are all aware virtually nobody on the entire planet speaks in such a delusional, self-felatiating manner as the Popescu cult and it's members, but the fact is you are nobodies with no power over anything, and virtually none of the text material put out by the Popescu cult is even based in objective reality. It's grandiose jibberish from a textbook example of some type of narcissist insane asylum.

But while we're on the subject of objective vs subjective, here's a dose of objective reality for you that you're going to claim is subjective when it's not:

Only idiots support digital currency over physical metals. Why? Because governments can and have been forced to use metals as their unit of account, which acts as a governor on fiscal recklessness and tyranny. Is it even possible to force governments to use Bitcoin at all? No. Since digital shitcoins have no Schelling point, government will simply 'print' up their own digital shitcoin instead to maximize seigniorage fee they extract from their ~~citizens~~ slaves.

Due to digital shitcoins being entirely artificial, Keynesian constructs with no Schelling point, there is no way possible to stop government from doing this. Government cannot just 'print' up a new gold or silver, though. In the end, shilling for completely artificial, Keynesian, digital Ponzi tokens will accomplish absolutely nothing besides giving credence to the cashless society, government tracking and slavery token the state wants to create and impose on you. Casting a vote for any artificial, digital token is simply empowering the state.

Well, shit... I didn't know V8 was part of "the Popescu cult", but now that is out in the open it makes a lot of sense. That retard and his friends have been coming after me for years. Back on exclusion you go V8...

realr0ach

sr. member

Activity: 924

Merit: 311

#TheGoyimKnow

Quote from: mindrust on June 14, 2019, 07:01:22 AM

The best punishment for roach is ignoring him completely.

Aren't dangerous individuals supposed to be banned to protect the children, though?

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/03/719897599/facebook-bans-alex-jones-louis-farrakhan-and-other-dangerous-individuals

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: mindrust on June 14, 2019, 07:01:22 AM

I am not sure if being a master troll deserves a red scammer flag.

Its actually the yellow-type flag, not red. Yellow is might scam, red is did scam.

Quote from: mindrust on June 14, 2019, 07:01:22 AM

I know the new trust system made it unnecessarily complex and sucks but it is how it is now.
The best punishment for roach is ignoring him completely.

These statements are both true.

mindrust

legendary

Activity: 3276

Merit: 2442

I am not sure if being a master troll deserves a red scammer flag. I know the new trust system made it unnecessarily complex and sucks but it is how it is now.

The best punishment for roach is ignoring him completely.

realr0ach

sr. member

Activity: 924

Merit: 311

#TheGoyimKnow

Nice, Last of the V8s from the Popescu cult who pretends to be the ruler and dictator of Bitcoin made a thread about me. Yes, we are all aware virtually nobody on the entire planet speaks in such a delusional, self-felatiating manner as the Popescu cult and it's members, but the fact is you are nobodies with no power over anything, and virtually none of the text material put out by the Popescu cult is even based in objective reality. It's grandiose jibberish from a textbook example of some type of narcissist insane asylum.

But while we're on the subject of objective vs subjective, here's a dose of objective reality for you that you're going to claim is subjective when it's not:

Only idiots support digital currency over physical metals. Why? Because governments can and have been forced to use metals as their unit of account, which acts as a governor on fiscal recklessness and tyranny. Is it even possible to force governments to use Bitcoin at all? No. Since digital shitcoins have no Schelling point, government will simply 'print' up their own digital shitcoin instead to maximize seigniorage fee they extract from their ~~citizens~~ slaves.

Due to digital shitcoins being entirely artificial, Keynesian constructs with no Schelling point, there is no way possible to stop government from doing this. Government cannot just 'print' up a new gold or silver, though. In the end, shilling for completely artificial, Keynesian, digital Ponzi tokens will accomplish absolutely nothing besides giving credence to the cashless society, government tracking and slavery token the state wants to create and impose on you. Casting a vote for any artificial, digital token is simply empowering the state.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

^
One thing is very sure, I know whatever that been said or done or.... you will have the last post, that no lie and seems to be a fact that that will happen.

Then again if I hate or whatever the r0ach, what I clearly don't cause I can laugh and amuse myself with his idiocy! But if I would of hate him and mis-use the system, then I would of give him red trust in the previous trust system what I didn't, cause that was to much of what he deserved.... I was not willing to scare people if he would try to buy or sell something.

Now with this system whats still new for everybody are just 3 flags, which the first is a warning for new users.... and imo appropriate, but if you don't see it fit then yes just oppose and be done with it.

Here I saw V8 created a flag and in this one my choice was easy to rather support it then oppose it.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 13, 2019, 07:04:20 PM

Quote from: Theb on June 13, 2019, 02:53:02 PM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 01:38:10 PM

Quote from: Theb on June 13, 2019, 02:53:02 PM

So far only TECSHARE is only opposing the red flag you have made for realr0ach and I can say that I am leaning on his side as well. The posts you have provided only voice out his opinion towards BTC. He doesn't suggest any other cryptocurrency or shill any kind of investment program towards members, there isn't even the slightest of hint that he is promoting anything else. For me his just another nocoiner messing up the forum with his opinions and false accusation to others. But if you do provide a convincing evidence that he is scamming people then I'll be on your side.

That would be grounds for a different kind of flag and hopefully much more black and white. This type is much more subjective I agree, yet proactive.

Still the bottom line here is you haven't proven anything that realr0ach have scammed someone nor have a potential to do so to other members. It's like you are just flagging him because you have varying opinions with Bitcoin because he is a nocoiner and your not. I don't remember the exact post I made but I might have replied to one of his post about his unrealistic views towards Bitcoin and during that time I didn't see him worthy of a red tag just because of us having different opinion with BTC nor he is worthy of being flagged now.

theymos has changed the trust system just because of this reason on tagging people with personal grudges on and with no relations to any kind of trade whatsoever. Just take a look at his post stating that flags are created for "contractual violations only".

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51452954

I still think this post explains why the 'soft just warning flag' =appropriate

Also he assume stuff about members and spread real lies over them, thats also just d*mb sh*t if you don't know anything about the involving person..., lies that other people could believe and are not grounded by anything (so total lies of fellow members) Roll Eyes

Yeah well, I say you are really secretly a Mr. Potato Head, and you claiming not to be is a lie. See how easy that is? Grow up people and use the system to protect people, not to fight your petty fucking interpersonal disputes.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 01:38:10 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 13, 2019, 04:43:00 PM

So far only TECSHARE is only opposing the red flag you have made for realr0ach and I can say that I am leaning on his side as well. The posts you have provided only voice out his opinion towards BTC. He doesn't suggest any other cryptocurrency or shill any kind of investment program towards members, there isn't even the slightest of hint that he is promoting anything else. For me his just another nocoiner messing up the forum with his opinions and false accusation to others. But if you do provide a convincing evidence that he is scamming people then I'll be on your side.

That would be grounds for a different kind of flag and hopefully much more black and white. This type is much more subjective I agree, yet proactive.

Still the bottom line here is you haven't proven anything that realr0ach have scammed someone nor have a potential to do so to other members. It's like you are just flagging him because you have varying opinions with Bitcoin because he is a nocoiner and your not. I don't remember the exact post I made but I might have replied to one of his post about his unrealistic views towards Bitcoin and during that time I didn't see him worthy of a red tag just because of us having different opinion with BTC nor he is worthy of being flagged now.

theymos has changed the trust system just because of this reason on tagging people with personal grudges on and with no relations to any kind of trade whatsoever. Just take a look at his post stating that flags are created for "contractual violations only".

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51452954

I still think this post explains why the 'soft just warning flag' =appropriate

Also he assume stuff about members and spread real lies over them, thats also just d*mb sh*t if you don't know anything about the involving person..., lies that other people could believe and are not grounded by anything (so total lies of fellow members) Roll Eyes

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 02:59:59 PM

Theb I've shown r0ach's dishonesty in the op (as well as the stupidity you mentioned, but that is by the by). You're not up to speed with the different types of flag discussed in the theymos link you gave, nor the one here in this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51455278

How many times do we have to tell you it is not appropriate to flag people for their opinions. Just because you call it lies doesn't make it so. This is a clear case of abuse of the trust system.

Absolutely NO abuse, I have pointed some correct things in this thread why to be warned when a member reads of the r0ach, as its a soft flag just to warn people of his intentions towards the main topic of the forum what still is BTC....

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 02:59:59 PM

Theb I've shown r0ach's dishonesty in the op (as well as the stupidity you mentioned, but that is by the by). You're not up to speed with the different types of flag discussed in the theymos link you gave, nor the one here in this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51455278

How many times do we have to tell you it is not appropriate to flag people for their opinions. Just because you call it lies doesn't make it so. This is a clear case of abuse of the trust system.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Theb I've shown r0ach's dishonesty in the op (as well as the stupidity you mentioned, but that is by the by). You're not up to speed with the different types of flag discussed in the theymos link you gave, nor the one here in this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51455278

Theb

hero member

Activity: 1680

Merit: 655

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 01:38:10 PM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 02:23:46 PM

So far only TECSHARE is only opposing the red flag you have made for realr0ach and I can say that I am leaning on his side as well. The posts you have provided only voice out his opinion towards BTC. He doesn't suggest any other cryptocurrency or shill any kind of investment program towards members, there isn't even the slightest of hint that he is promoting anything else. For me his just another nocoiner messing up the forum with his opinions and false accusation to others. But if you do provide a convincing evidence that he is scamming people then I'll be on your side.

That would be grounds for a different kind of flag and hopefully much more black and white. This type is much more subjective I agree, yet proactive.

Still the bottom line here is you haven't proven anything that realr0ach have scammed someone nor have a potential to do so to other members. It's like you are just flagging him because you have varying opinions with Bitcoin because he is a nocoiner and your not. I don't remember the exact post I made but I might have replied to one of his post about his unrealistic views towards Bitcoin and during that time I didn't see him worthy of a red tag just because of us having different opinion with BTC nor he is worthy of being flagged now.

theymos has changed the trust system just because of this reason on tagging people with personal grudges on and with no relations to any kind of trade whatsoever. Just take a look at his post stating that flags are created for "contractual violations only".

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 13, 2019, 02:16:03 PM

Still its not a red flag? is it? Just to take special care for reading his stuff cause a lot of it is made of delusional minded BS.... its a soft flag for just to be careful with what you gonna read

His potential flag is showing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1115697
but yeah be careful with this guy, he's not to be trusted.

Yeah thats what I mean its just to read and take care while reading

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 13, 2019, 02:16:03 PM

Still its not a red flag? is it? Just to take special care for reading his stuff cause a lot of it is made of delusional minded BS.... its a soft flag for just to be careful with what you gonna read

His potential flag is showing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1115697
but yeah be careful with this guy, he's not to be trusted.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Also V8's flag is based of years of interacting with the fool in the same thread, as V8 never did outrageous claims etc
Imo this is a careful well thought FLAG and should be supported.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

Still its not a red flag? is it? Just to take special care for reading his stuff cause a lot of it is made of delusional minded BS.... its a soft flag for just to be careful with what you gonna read

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: tmfp on June 13, 2019, 12:34:27 PM

So far only TECSHARE is only opposing the red flag you have made for realr0ach and I can say that I am leaning on his side as well. The posts you have provided only voice out his opinion towards BTC. He doesn't suggest any other cryptocurrency or shill any kind of investment program towards members, there isn't even the slightest of hint that he is promoting anything else. For me his just another nocoiner messing up the forum with his opinions and false accusation to others. But if you do provide a convincing evidence that he is scamming people then I'll be on your side.

That would be grounds for a different kind of flag and hopefully much more black and white. This type is much more subjective I agree, yet proactive.

Theb

hero member

Activity: 1680

Merit: 655

So far only TECSHARE is only opposing the red flag you have made for realr0ach and I can say that I am leaning on his side as well. The posts you have provided only voice out his opinion towards BTC. He doesn't suggest any other cryptocurrency or shill any kind of investment program towards members, there isn't even the slightest of hint that he is promoting anything else. For me his just another nocoiner messing up the forum with his opinions and false accusation to others. But if you do provide a convincing evidence that he is scamming people then I'll be on your side.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 11:23:09 AM

Do you think it is advisable for newbies to trade with the guy?

Most people involved in the Physical Silver/Nazi Memorabilia market (ticker:SS/AG) can look after themselves.

TIL. This guy, though, is not so good at looking after himself, claiming to have gotten his account hacked, and to have sold his bitcoin at the bottom before deciding it was 'bad' and launching into a career of deceit. But anything could be true here.

tmfp

legendary

Activity: 1932

Merit: 1737

"Common rogue from Russia with a bare ass."

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 11:23:09 AM

Do you think it is advisable for newbies to trade with the guy?

Most people involved in the Physical Silver/Nazi Memorabilia market (ticker:SS/AG) can look after themselves.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 13, 2019, 11:10:51 AM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 09:30:48 AM

Separate the wheat from the chaff.

That sure sounds a lot like you think it is you who gets to decide who is wheat and who is chaff.

'Separate the stuff in the op about the guy's opinions from his lies there.' It wasn't clear, true, so you fitted it into your agenda.

The rest of your comments we've been through more than once.

Do you think it is advisable for newbies to trade with the guy?

Tidied up the op a bit, some people couldn't see the wood for the trees Roll Eyes

Couple links added, ty for sending them in. Some people are scared to comment.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 10:51:04 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 13, 2019, 10:14:22 AM

"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."

You call it lies, this could simply be a difference of opinion. Furthermore nothing you are stating is at all trade related. This flag is 100% based off of his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited. It is not your job to judge who people should and should't trade with. You have a tool intended to warn users of potential fraud, you are using this tool to punish this user for words you don't like. That is not only counterproductive to the intended use case of the trust system, it is quite childish.

You seem to be cottoning on, if slowly. It's a subjective flag. Complain to theymos. If he tweaks the rules, I'll comply.

Quote from: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 10:54:02 PM

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
- Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
- Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.

Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

There are clear lies in the op.
How can you trade with a liar? One who knows a bit about Bitcoin but insists it has no value and everyone should buy silver?
Where do I claim it's my 'job'? Don't put words in my mouth. It's the forum's job to vote on this advisory flag, though.
For the umpteenth time, it's not about his bigotry and what all else.
Take your 'childish' ad hom elsewhere. You are not coming off as 'knowledgeable or reasonable'.

"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."

You conveniently left out the bold part. More subjective does not equal totally subjective. I didn't use any ad hominem attacks, I am characterizing your behavior and backing it up with logical arguments and evidence.

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 09:30:48 AM

Separate the wheat from the chaff.

That sure sounds a lot like you think it is you who gets to decide who is wheat and who is chaff. I didn't put any words in your mouth. I am already convinced removing your exclusion was a mistake. I see you presenting ZERO EVIDENCE of shady trade related activity, your conclusions are based 100% on his opinions. This is absolutely an abuse of the flag system.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 13, 2019, 10:14:22 AM

"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."

You call it lies, this could simply be a difference of opinion. Furthermore nothing you are stating is at all trade related. This flag is 100% based off of his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited. It is not your job to judge who people should and should't trade with. You have a tool intended to warn users of potential fraud, you are using this tool to punish this user for words you don't like. That is not only counterproductive to the intended use case of the trust system, it is quite childish.

You seem to be cottoning on, if slowly. It's a subjective flag. Complain to theymos. If he tweaks the rules, I'll comply.

Quote from: suchmoon on June 12, 2019, 10:54:02 PM

Can you explain how supporters (or opponents) of these two flags are or are not misusing the system:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=56

It almost sounds to me like flags should have either 100% support or 100% opposition. If there is a split then one side is wrong and that side is misusing the system... what am I missing?

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
- Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
- Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.

Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

There are clear lies in the op.
How can you trade with a liar? One who knows a bit about Bitcoin but insists it has no value and everyone should buy silver?
Where do I claim it's my 'job'? Don't put words in my mouth. It's the forum's job to vote on this advisory flag, though.
For the umpteenth time, it's not about his bigotry and what all else.
Take your 'childish' ad hom elsewhere. You are not coming off as 'knowledgeable or reasonable'.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 09:30:48 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 13, 2019, 08:57:57 AM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 07:26:31 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 13, 2019, 09:24:28 AM

I am glad you took our little discussion to heart. The trust system is not there as a mechanism to punish people for bad or wrong ideas, it is there to help protect people from fraud. Stop using it as a tool to punish people who piss you off.

Thanks for reading my post so carefully. I quite agree that it's there not for their ideas, but to stop them ripping off newbies. Your last sentence doesn't quite parse, because as you have read, I'm not tooling around. Perhaps you mean it as a general invitation to others.

If it is not for their ideas, why is this entire post filled with nothing but their ideas? I don't see any evidence of them trying to rip anyone off. To me, it looks like you are in fact using the trust system as a tool to punish this user for his ideas that you do not agree with.

It isn't. Separate the wheat from the chaff. There's plenty. I'll write what I like, but the vote part is abundantly clear.
That evidence isn't required for this type of flag. We're in the realm of the subjective.
I note your theory. Thanks for contributing your views.
Please vote as you wish, or not at all.

It sounds like you don’t like the guy.

I haven’t seen any evidence this guy is possibly dangerous to trade with or even that he even trades.

Would it be some sin if I didn't like him?

I don't like TECSHARE, but I'm not opening up a newbie warning scam flag. He doesn't seem to lie all the time, causing people to doubt him in a potential trade.

Newbies do join because of his posts, btw, and who knows what goes on in their personal messages?

You can also find him on games platforms, so you don't need even to be logged in to be faced with his dishonesty.

"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."

You call it lies, this could simply be a difference of opinion. Furthermore nothing you are stating is at all trade related. This flag is 100% based off of his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited. It is not your job to judge who people should and should't trade with. You have a tool intended to warn users of potential fraud, you are using this tool to punish this user for words you don't like. That is not only counterproductive to the intended use case of the trust system, it is quite childish.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: Quickseller on June 13, 2019, 09:58:50 AM

Maybe I was unclear. It sounds like you are opening the flag because you don’t like him, and not because you actually believe he is dangerous to deal with.

Further, I don’t see evidence he actually trades with anyone, which implies this is a smear attack against him.

Thanks for you opinions. Let's hope this stops him from trading with anyone.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Maybe I was unclear. It sounds like you are opening the flag because you don’t like him, and not because you actually believe he is dangerous to deal with.

Further, I don’t see evidence he actually trades with anyone, which implies this is a smear attack against him.

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 13, 2019, 08:57:57 AM

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 07:26:31 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 13, 2019, 09:24:28 AM

I am glad you took our little discussion to heart. The trust system is not there as a mechanism to punish people for bad or wrong ideas, it is there to help protect people from fraud. Stop using it as a tool to punish people who piss you off.

Thanks for reading my post so carefully. I quite agree that it's there not for their ideas, but to stop them ripping off newbies. Your last sentence doesn't quite parse, because as you have read, I'm not tooling around. Perhaps you mean it as a general invitation to others.

If it is not for their ideas, why is this entire post filled with nothing but their ideas? I don't see any evidence of them trying to rip anyone off. To me, it looks like you are in fact using the trust system as a tool to punish this user for his ideas that you do not agree with.

It isn't. Separate the wheat from the chaff. There's plenty. I'll write what I like, but the vote part is abundantly clear.
That evidence isn't required for this type of flag. We're in the realm of the subjective.
I note your theory. Thanks for contributing your views.
Please vote as you wish, or not at all.

It sounds like you don’t like the guy.

I haven’t seen any evidence this guy is possibly dangerous to trade with or even that he even trades.

Would it be some sin if I didn't like him?

I don't like TECSHARE, but I'm not opening up a newbie warning scam flag. He doesn't seem to lie all the time, causing people to doubt him in a potential trade.

Newbies do join because of his posts, btw, and who knows what goes on in their personal messages?

You can also find him on games platforms, so you don't need even to be logged in to be faced with his dishonesty.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

It sounds like you don’t like the guy.

I haven’t seen any evidence this guy is possibly dangerous to trade with or even that he even trades.

bitmover

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 6089

bitcoindata.science

I think newbies do not visit WO thread, as it is very hard to navigate there for them.
Even if r0ach was a threat to newbies, I doubt any would ever read what he writes. WO is a hard to find thread (almost a forum inside the forum, with it own rules [or lack of them]) and even harder to navigate into it. Just the elite of bitcointalk goes there.

A negative trust for him for trolling maybe be appropriate, but he is like a mascot of WO.
Sometimes I have fun reading his trolling stuff

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Quote from: Last of the V8s on June 13, 2019, 07:26:31 AM

I am glad you took our little discussion to heart. The trust system is not there as a mechanism to punish people for bad or wrong ideas, it is there to help protect people from fraud. Stop using it as a tool to punish people who piss you off.

Thanks for reading my post so carefully. I quite agree that it's there not for their ideas, but to stop them ripping off newbies. Your last sentence doesn't quite parse, because as you have read, I'm not tooling around. Perhaps you mean it as a general invitation to others.

If it is not for their ideas, why is this entire post filled with nothing but their ideas? I don't see any evidence of them trying to rip anyone off. To me, it looks like you are in fact using the trust system as a tool to punish this user for his ideas that you do not agree with.

El duderino_

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 13618

BTC + Crossfit, living life.

I am glad you took our little discussion to heart. The trust system is not there as a mechanism to punish people for bad or wrong ideas, it is there to help protect people from fraud. Stop using it as a tool to punish people who piss you off.

How I think on this...

People should be careful with reading from the r0ach cause of few simple reasons I pointed above and to make it more easy imo, r0ach have proven to be a somewhat smarter person you can see that in his writing.

-Then we have PM's every single BTC'er can say there is serious value/merit in gold and other metals as for numerous things, they have pro's and con's ... but still there is value and use for PM's
-Then we have BTC, every again smarter perso,n involved in the space can say there is value/merit in BTC and it waaaaay more then a useless valueless token, as same way we can all say its a decentralized asset, right?

So I can say both are good and for both is value and use and they could always both be needed!

Then we have r0ach always breaking it down as a total valueless thing completely centralized by the government, not scarce etc many times being addressed and proven wrong about what he says, still he continue he's lies etc

He would be OK, if he just says to like PM's more as why he thinks and so on but not breaking of BTC continuously based on BS! As I said if he would be a total dumb f*ck I wouldn't mind at all, but as a smarter person its obvious he's here on a mission and that could be flagged so newbies are aware of what other members think of person in question.

(I don't hate him, as I think he's funny from time to time, but to read and be aware! Don't be misguided!)

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank