Topic: Spineless cowards making posts - page 2. (Read 1401 times)

Funny, that sounds exactly like the point he was trying to make. Your transparent refractory semantic games to try to appropriate his argument, as if it was what you were saying all along, is quite pathetic.



Who said anything about a squabble? He is objectively abusing the trust system, and he refuses to substantiate any of his ratings, and you use any excuse you can to make justifications for the abuse of your friends while condemning it in others, yet I am the hypocrite.

What, you mean the top down standard of requiring evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating? That seems unreasonable to you does it? Is that perhaps because you and your friends would then not be able to keep control of the default trust among your small group of nepotistic abusers using ambiguously and selectively enforced rules? Funny, you are free to make judgements about who you include and exclude, but when I do it I am a hypocrite and abusing the trusts system.

This was posted in another thread, another reason why someone should use newbie account.

If you publicly share your opinion, you will be accused of being "petty and vindictive", "dishonest" and so on. Users are just afraid that someone will accuse them if they speak truth. Thanks @figmentofmyass for proving me right.

Again, I'm not the "standards" troll here nor do I have an obligation to exclude anyone whom you have a squabble with. But if what I do or don't do looks like bad judgement to someone then I would encourage them to exclude me from their trust lists. If more people used that option instead of expecting a top-down standard then many problems would go away, including the topic of this thread.

Yet you are de facto implying I am a worse problem than the regular and systematic abuse perpetrated by the people you support by deflecting attention away from their activities and redirecting it at me as if it is priority.

Very nice example, thank you. As you can see here you expect me to hold me to standards I am advocating for while simultaneously excusing yourself and others from those standards. That is not hypocrisy on my part, that is me refusing to let you dictate the letter of the law to me in order to find reasons to excuse your friends so you can continue ignoring those same laws. This is the constant pattern with you and nearly your only argument:



Nutilduhh tried to sell their account. Nutilduuuh negative rates others for account sales. Nutilduhhh doesn't get to punish others for something they do themselves, then complain when they are held to their own standards. Me not excluding that user is in no way hypocritical. Would you like to talk about hypocritical? Lets talk about your inclusion of Vod even though you know very well his claims have no substantiation and are a pathetic attempt at retaliation. Nah, that's not important, what is important is that I refused to cave to your demands that one time over something Nutilda deems unacceptable by their own standards.

What were we talking about again? Oh right, we got deflected from the topic of default trust users abusing the trust system to punish people for speaking. Coincidence I am sure.

All this shows that you're reading entirely between the lines instead of what I actually said. I can't help you with that.


I didn't say you're the sole or even the worst problem, but you're certainly a good example of hypocrisy. I did exclude some users in no small part due to how they treated you but you've shown that you wouldn't do that for someone who disagrees with you - nothing nebulous about it. Quite ironic when you consider that I'm not raving about "standards" and sure as shit I don't pretend to be some forum justice warrior slash martyr. I do what I think is right, I'm certain I make mistakes along the way, and I expect other users will hold me accountable.


I take it you're talking about yourself. When I have something to say I say it without hiding behind sockpuppets, Mr. Kettle.


No need for elaborate plans. Do what your conscience tells you to do and let the chips fall where they may.


Excluding hypocritical loud assholes is not wrong. I wish this - along with "Ignore" - was used far more often instead of endless bickering and trying to impose opinions on each other and using red trust for differences of opinion.

What plan do you suggest to acheive it?

Sockpuppeting will not exist if we starts to practice giving a valid reason (please read valid reason) for every negative feedback we leave. If no valid reason has presented and the feedback still stands then exclude him from everyone's trust list. We need to stop going political and say X has right to leave a feedback hence he can leave one for Y.

Hhampuz dealt it with top class responsibility. If I read his statement right then he said he will pay from is own pocket if the dev does not show up. So if this was meant for Hhampuz then I don't think it's appropriate. However I think campaign managers should be the one who ensure the payment to every participant in a campaign.

I think you answered your own question as to why the person referenced in your OP created a new account to voice his concern.

If you don't want to see this type of thing happening, you must push back against every tag that is questionable, and other people need to do the same. This will continue until it has been a long time since that have been any tags you describe as "questionable".

I have noticed your aversion to participating in forum drama, and I don't find this unreasonable. There are plenty of reasons to want to avoid participating in drama....it is exhausting, it is often childish, this is not the reason why most of us have come to participate in the forum, and applicable to the liberals, it means someone disagrees with you.

I think it is probably safe to say Hhampuz appreciates a "fake newbie" (I don't believe that person ever claimed to be a new user) bringing up the subject. Based on his response, it is safe to say that Hhampuz felt obligated to repay the campaign participants.

Taking this presumption, it is much more reasonable to delay paying participants two weeks today than it would be if someone else complained six months from now.

Don't you think this is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

are you implying people should be tagged for "being pricks"?

to answer your question, they might be tagged for retaliatory purposes. this has been known to happen. let's not insult each other's intelligence by denying that.


sort of like saying "many innocent people have ended up in prison, but at the same time there have been many criminals imprisoned as well". is that really the standard you want---many innocent people getting punished?


DT members do that with their real accounts all the time, but they don't get tagged for it. regular members, however, are usually expendable. nobody defends them against red tags because no one wants to antagonize DT members. that's the difference.


DT1 members need to look in the mirror. set a good example about consistent standards in the trust system, and maybe we can get somewhere. refusal to exclude abusive DT2 members who engage in the above behavior is a huge part of the problem.

for example, you still include Vod in your trust list, which suggests that frivolous and retaliatory ratings are perfectly acceptable. what example are you setting?


i'm not trying to "sound cool". if i wanted to do that, i would parrot the DT members because they hold the majority opinion.

saying it's "everyone's fault" is a blatant cop-out. the only people with power to change anything are DT1 members. they have the power to exclude those who don't use the trust system fairly or consistently. they have the power to use feedback in a responsible way.

regular members have zero control over what DT1 members do. it's insulting that you are trying to claim we (or newbies?!) have the power to change anything. we can change precisely nothing.


here you go:



then why have you ignored everything i've said about DT trust abuse, while projecting all blame onto newbies? btw, here you go:



so the thread is about newbies making such posts, but not about why they do? interesting claim......


nobody said sockpuppeting would solve anything. what i've said repeatedly is that many DT members are retaliatory and abusive, so sockpuppeting is reasonable and to be expected.

anybody expecting otherwise is just being dimwitted.

So in short, unless the user first makes the appropriate tithing to their default trust Gods by first stroking them off, or not talking to them in a tone you dictate, they have no right to raise legitimate complaints? Plenty of legitimate claims are made and dismissed based on the simple fact the accused and their supporters are upset that a legitimate complaint was made. Then people like you make excuses for it by being the tone police. Of course, the tone is the most important thing, and not the fact that there is a legitimate complaint right? I mean after all, who are these filthy plebeians who think they may approach one of the chosen and expect to be paid for their services right?



Really? Of this whole forum, I am the problem am I? I have exhibited EXORBITANT amounts of restraint in my use of the trust system. Your accusations of hypocrisy are again nothing more than projection to deflect from the behavior you excuse from your friends. You say you respect me for speaking out under my "main" (only) account, but yet you refuse to exclude those who use the trust system as a tool to punish me for doing so. Then in the same breath you accuse me of manipulating the trust system. No, you and your friends and their systematic abuse aren't the worst problem, it is me and my nebulous and undefined "hypocrisy".

The most basic responsibility of a signature campaign manager is to make sure that they have funds to make the promised payouts to those working for them. I find it disgusting that those who were robbed of their payouts are being blamed for speaking out.

Beware of any campaign manager who thinks it is ok to promise payouts and then not make them. I get that everyone wants free money with no risk, but washing your hands with risk and leaving those who worked for you with empty pockets while you collect a payment for failing at your most basic responsibility is nothing short of scammy behavior.

Many people won’t speak up about this because they don’t want to jeopardize potential future revenue, but it is clear that the spineless cowards are those who promise payouts with no money in their hands and then blame those who actually did meet their responsibilities.

I didn't say that. Please refrain from making shit up.


I didn't say that either. You sure you're responding to me and not to one of your straw people?


That's because the thread is about newbies making such posts. If you want to discuss DT members - there's plenty of other threads about that.

Sockpuppeting is not going to solve DT problems. FWIW I respect e.g. TECSHARE for using his main account to rant about the "system" even if I disagree with his rants. However that doesn't make him any less of a hypocrite when he refuses to take the very same actions he expects from others. That's a major problem. We can all talk the talk (newbies or legendaries) but most are too chickenshit to walk the walk.

Let's stop encouraging sockpuppeting and start encouraging some loudmouths here to grow a backbone, or just exclude the loudmouths and build sane trust networks.

You are wrong if you think I will not post here again. You make a fair point, but think about your response. If users are asking legitimate questions, without being pricks, why would they be tagged?

I am not saying it hasn't happened. There have been many questionable tags given to users, but at the same time there have been many acceptable tags.

For example, since I used the Hhampuz thread in the op, this user had a legitimate concern. Had he asked his question with a respectful tone, and created a discussion, he would not or should not have had to fear a tag.

As suchmoon says, users use a throwaway account and toss shit at the wall and see if it sticks. Those are the posts we as a community should avoid. Defamation, rude, ulterior motivated posts meant only to stir up drama and cause chaos shouldn't be given the time of day.

@Royse777 the term bitches was correct in its use.  When we tag someone just because, that's being a bitch. Multiple users, probably including myself, are guilty of this and it needs to stop.

Coming in here trying to sound cool doesn't make you cool man. Everyone thinks DT are at fault, but in reality its everyone's fault. It's also everyone's responsibility to fix it.

Step up and do your part guys/gals. Think about your tags before you give them. Think about your responses. Treat everyone with a little respect until they show they don't deserve it.

you're specifically not doing that. the topic is whether regular members can post criticism without fear of DT retaliation. you are completely sidestepping that question by claiming that every instance of such criticism is automatically meritless.

your claim is obviously unprovable, and it does not address the original question in any way. like TECSHARE implied, you're trying to flip the issue on its head to take attention away from DT trust abuse and project it on powerless newbies instead.

this narrative you are trying to paint where newbies have all the power and DT members are powerless is laughable. anybody with a brain can see right through that bullshit.


this entire board is a waste of space. it's mostly DT members throwing around baseless accusations and engaging in flame wars against people they don't like. why are you fixating on newbies when highly respected DT members are constantly perpetuating this behavior?

I'm addressing the topic of the thread and your pretzel-shaped justification of sockpuppeting. How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum, versus just some random drama bullshit? It has become a ridiculous circular argument - a newbie accuser pops up so it must mean DT is so bad that the poor schmuck can't use his real account... nonsense.

If shit's not worth saying with your main account then saying it with a newbie account is not going to make it less shit.

Projection is usually a tool manipulative abusers favor. D.A.R.V.O. tactics.

who cares if a newbie makes an unproven accusation? DT members constantly make unproven accusations around here, yet only one of the two groups has the power to ruin the other's reputation.

you're not addressing the actual problem: people can't post from their real account without fear of retaliation from DT members. therefore, expecting people to post critical views from their real accounts is flat out ridiculous. that was my point to the OP, who i doubt will post here again.

you are making it out like newbies have all the power and DT members have none. totally backwards!

It absolutely can work. As I have said 1000 times before ratings and flags need to be left to observable instances of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. Theymos had an opportunity to make a break with the old system with the introduction of flags by implementing this standard.

Instead he intentionally chose to leave in arbitrary language which left loop holes so big you could drive a bus through them to abuse the system. I warned him this would result in failure of his new system, and here we are. He seems to maintain this idealistic delusion that large groups of human beings will self regulate outside of a very specific regulatory structure, and is using us all for his little social experiment. It isn't fair to the user base, and it causes the forum to hemorrhage good people that never return.

Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate".

Ashamed and us to be blamed here. We were not able to create an open platform to speak up loud for everyone I guess. There are few exceptions as always though.

Well here comes free speech LOL
Some of the Baboons family use bitching as a tool to seek approval of their Alpha characteristics where in reality they smell their teen girl's blood wet Tampon and feels it on their own d**khead.

Anyway, if I read it correctly in other thread then I think Hhampuz took the responsibility on his shoulder and declared to pay it from his own pocket. Although he was not obliged to make such statements but I think it's another example of his strong leadership character.

Nope, that is just what shows when they used to ban a user but didn't nuke all their posts, or something like that.