Topic: So you have DTs who do not want you to talk openly? - page 4. (Read 1817 times)

lauda is correct

observable instances can not be called trolling. That is trolling trolling as has been explained to you before.

Repeating things that have been demonstrated as incorrect is trolling.

Which "attacks" do you wish to dispute? please let me know so I can demonstrate you are an imbecile for trying to term them as trolling.

What you are looking for is called OBSERVABLE proof and OBSERVABLE facts.

Problem isn't about "open talk", problem is about target specific DT or a group of DT (called DT gang). I don't know you are alt of which DT and I know very well you never worried about this account. Attack someone doesn't mean " open talk". You could always make an argument about DT judgement and its always welcome to me. But I can't accept "DT troll" although I haven't tag anyone for it and likely I wouldn't even future.

But your feedback is appropriate in my opinions. Always troll and attack someone obviously not a wise attempt. Constructive discussions always welcome but, "No troll & attack"

Please keep your 3rd world trash feltching false accusations to yourself.

Here is a challenge for you bitch.

Present now anything related to scamming this person has done to deserve a scam tag or you will be called out as a liar in future.

Also I can present outright scamming from lauda and it does not have a tag.

Lauda tags people and encourages her eurotrash gang/alts to tag persons presenting observable instances of her wrong doing. She is trying to silence whilstleblowers which of course facilitates scamming.

RED trust is for scammers or those you can present STRONG case have scammed. Get that into your undeveloped thick skull.

Now present the evidence to substantiate your claims or retract them.

You are proliferating FALSE information that facilitates scamming.

It is undeniable that the intial poster is correct SOME DT use red trust to silence people mentioning observable instances in their post history they want to remain hidden.  Other DT members do not do that themselves but support those that do. ALL are facilitating scammers.

We know you are only here to spam your sig for as high rates as possible gobble on as much cock as required to do so. Disgusting fool.

If this was Medium I'd give you 50 claps and then log on to a different account just so I could give you 50 more!

From more of an outsiders perspective looking in, with some detail - take it or leave it - I agree there is only a handful of dubiously trustworthy members in DT, and therefore like many people I have recently excluded some and added others. However I have to criticize the idea that it is a decentralized trust system, it's clearly hierarchical (DT1, DT2, DT3, etc), you can even view your trust list in it's hierarchical format to confirm this theory.

Personally I don't have a problem with this, the forum is built on distinct hierarchies from the moderators/legends down to the newbies, it's based on rank and merit, so believing there can be a decentralized structure (DT) that effectively assesses the trustworthiness of members is a complete fallacy in my opinion, even if the intent is to be decentralized. There is even the hierarchy of "trust knowledge"; for example it took me hours digging through meta/reputation threads to make my own semi-informed decisions. It took me months before I even realized I could edit my own trust list. If you're thinking "you noob" for that last comment, then question the accessibility of this hierarchy; it's relatively low, as it requires a lot of knowledge to be applied effectively from the ground up - the basis of decentralized structures.

Skimmed but didn't read? I didn't criticize any individual member here, or the DT group for that matter, only the concept that a hierarchy can be decentralized.
This is also completely fine, this forum is not a blockchain technology, therefore it's not expected to be decentralized, even if it could be improved.

Edit: Food for thought: DT trust accountability from the ground up

Same here, I just exclude them in my trust list. I understand why some DT members do so (same for tagging alt accounts). There are currently ~80 DT members and only a hand full are being considered as part of "the gang". Those few members could easily be excluded (including Lauda) if they were actually acting maliciously like all these sad trolls are claiming. The way I see it that Theymos has created a decentralized trust system which will continue to grow with all the new inclusions. Perhaps these bad actors should stop complaining and try to contribute instead.

You got exactly what you deserve, and it's just a matter of time before you get your main account tagged too, that's if it hasn't been tagged already. In as much as you have freedom of speech that don't mean you should use that freedom wrongly. You can't go around the forum accusing other members falsely and don't expect a retaliation since such act can be considered untrustworthy. You and your types are those making the forum uncomfortable and if there was a way to get rid of you all I won't hesitate to second that decision. We all can engage in the activities of the forum without getting red tagged by simply obeying the forum rules and learnings from mistake of other. If you don't engage in untrustworthy activities you won't get red tagged. It's as simple as that.

But, but I thought you part of this gang? How come you are allowed to act independently?

---

From which I think DT members should be careful to leave tags if they diagree with someone else because their Trust-net-effects are significant, that can make others mad. If things highly correlated with scams, or untrusted exchanges, negative feedbacks surely appropriate used; but if it is just disagreements in perspective, or trolls, as theymos (not only you) pointed out in his guide, negative trust is somehow in appropriate.

---

I agreed that there are so many recycled threads on this issues recent months, and we all tired to see them floated around in Meta board.

So much this. I don't (even though I get the "gang" label) give out negs to any of the trolls either but I do understand the ones that do. It's like a broken record at this point.

Edit; Would have given you more merit but I'm broke

Personally I would not (and didn't) leave you any negative trust--for the same reason I haven't tagged cryptohunter, Thule, or any of that gang.  But after reviewing your posts, you're doing exactly what Lauda said you were, which is perpetuating untruths about DT members.  You and all the other DT critics are lumping all DT members into this big, imaginary cabal that's all-powerful and evil. 

And that's not true.  May I remind you that Lauda is just one single member of DT.  Don't paint all the other members with the same brush, because not everyone agrees with Lauda.  In fact, there are many disagreements among DT members about a lot of issues, and it's supposed to be that way.  Theymos expanded DT1 for a reason, which was to give it more diversity of opinion. 

I don't think trolls like you should be tagged for spreading falsehoods, but that's just my opinion.  I have no control over what Lauda does, but obviously Lauda doesn't trust you and has given you a neg accordingly.  And frankly, a lot of us are tired of hearing this same old bullshit being recycled with alt accounts.  It's time to stop; if you don't like the structure of this forum, leave it.  Theymos obviously isn't listening to your tired-ass, threadbare criticism.

This is an ALT by the way. I do not care about the tag however here is a point I want to make.

The reference of the tag: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51067377
https://i.imgur.com/ltnuUhq.png

Do you still trust her judgements that she does not misuse the trust system for her own benefit? Looking at the inclusions I would say yes, you do. What a shame community.