Topic: The Pharmacist,actmyname,Vod.. The mafia trying to get controll of bitcointalk ? - page 4. (Read 2836 times)

Come on, it is funny how butthurt persons link to the same thread every time. It is the thousand time I see people saying that some specific persons are trying to controll bitcointalk forum. Well I can say it and my word is of greater value in the matter since I hold red trust my self but I am not butthurt to anyone, so stop linking people to this bullshit, I am getting bored, imagine the persons who see their names in such stupid threads how they are feeling. Bring solid evidence or stop the madness and the bullshit. End of story.

Is this how liberalists respond when their arguments get subjectively, anecdotally or objectively crushed (depending on which kind they attempted to use)? "Memes are offensive"; "If you don't use the tone that I want you to, you are [insertSomeWhinyBullshit][1]"? Because that's exactly what happened here. None of the lame excuses that you've made have any basis, neither theoretical nor practical.
Your class A example, i.e. OP, is an example that confirms that the work of the mentioned users is not only warranted, but just, and more necessary than ever before.

---

[1] This isn't a research paper; grow up and learn to deal with proper usage of language. Classic butthurt-scammer play.

It is posts like these make me wonder why other reputable people want to be associated with you. This is probably not a conversation they want to have.

Sounds about right, don't it lad?

I am sure this bait is just a lame attempt for you to distract from your own issues. BTW, I didn't call you a nazi, I said the Stazi would have loved you. Quite a difference, not like facts are important to you though when you have a narrative to push.

You know what makes the forum worse? Pushing out people before they even get a chance to learn the rules here by shotgunning negative ratings. Scammers will always return, the legit users you burn won't.

Yes, you and anyone who wants to let the shady individuals run wild are essentially perpetrators. In certain scenarios, allowing certain actions to be committed can make you worse than the one who actually commits the action. There are plenty of non-forum scenarios where this is objectively correct; now apply accordingly.

The only thing I can clearly see is that you like slapping the word Nazi on the opposing side. Now where have I seen this before? Hmm.

As usual the same characters have trouble having a discussion like adults and resort to personal attacks. I didn't even say this guy was innocent, I said I could see how he could be. Lets not pretend like you all carefully investigate each and every claim before rating. Sorry what happened 4 years ago or whatever it was does not invalidate my words in perpetuity. Especially in consideration of what the system has turned into since then (but who knew it would happen, not me!). I find it hilarious people pointing out the speck in my eye when they have a redwood lodged in their own. I have opinions you don't always agree with. Deal with it.


No, my argument is I have been here for the entirety of the system and before it, hence I have seen its degradation, and warned about much of this early on, and as usual was attacked for pointing this out, much like you are doing now.

Interesting you accuse me of a logical fallacy while in the same breath using a false choice fallacy, as if not shotgunning negatives left and right is equivalent to letting go "thousands of abusers, cheaters, and attempted scammers". Oh, I see now I am the PERPETRATOR here, and after anal retentively searching my ratings that is all you could come up with I'm sure. The Stazi would have loved you.

In another thread you leveled this same statement at me personally, and I'll point out again that you don't know me and assume you know my trading experience based on what I've posted on bitcointalk (but it is true that I don't do a lot of trades here).  I would also challenge your assertion that there's some sort of minimum amount of trading that needs to be done before someone is qualified to be on DT--that's what you seem to be saying, anyway. 

I don't see how one needs trading experience to spot scammers anyway, and I would also like to point out that I mainly tag account dealers and I've given my reasons for doing so many times before. 

I have always said that the trust system here is a broken mess, and I still think that's the case.  When anyone can leave feedback for anyone for any reason, there's going to be abuse, mistakes, and everything else.  It'd be nice if there had to be a record of trade between two parties before feedback could be given (like eBay), but there are too many drawbacks to that idea on bitcointalk and I understand why the trust system wasn't set up that way.

Sure would be nice if you'd tell us exactly who you're talking about.  I can say for myself that being on DT is not something I get off on, and a lot of times it's a pain in the ass.  Sometimes there are judgement calls that I hate making when deciding to leave a neg on someone, and there have been many times where I've second guessed myself.  I do in fact try to give people the benefit of the doubt, which is why I don't tag suspected merit abusers and also why I've removed some feedbacks I've left for account sellers and others.

I tend to stick to tagging account sellers, but I do tag others if there's enough evidence to do so.  I try to stay out of the feuds between some of the older members (the Lauda-OgNasty one comes to mind immediately) and I'm not a part of anyone's "gang". 

As I said above, I wish this was a viable option but I don't think it is unless an addition to the trust system was made for "verifiable trades".  There does need to be a way to warn people about shady members and potential scammers, and it's unfortunate that the trust system is currently the only way to do it.

I think the trust system works pretty well in most cases, and these issues of reputable users falling foul of it for whatever are probably in the minority though, it's just that when they do happen they obviously cause the most drama and controversy and then suddenly the whole system is broke according to them because of that. Requiring that a user actually be scammed though is counter-productive and does nothing for preventing scams. Sometimes people come here and their only intention is to scam and when that's pretty blatant or highly likely they should be tagged as such rather than waiting for them to scam then leave them it by at which point they've probably just abandoned the account as mission accomplished. I think the system should probably be tweaked a little and people doing tiny trades of say things like $10-50 shouldn't count for much and certainly shouldn't make people 'green' trusted. As for higher ranked users with lots of trust/feedback who end up with a negative feedback or two for some dispute or petty quibble perhaps their long-history or trades should be taken more into consideration and it effects them less or not at all unless quite a few 'trusted' users also leave them feedback (in the cases of someone pulling off a long con or whatever (and sometimes some highly trusted users he do pull a dirty for whatever reason)). Whatever we do (or don't do) there's just no way we can satisfy anyone with anything we do regarding trust and as I've said multiple times before I've never seen a perfect feedback system any where. I remember years ago on eBay when both parties could leave negative feedback, but if you ever did leave the seller negative feedback for whatever reason they just neg-bombed you straight back. People have suggested in the past that two people have to 'agree' to a trade first before negative feedback can be left by either party but we'd just run into the same problem. Just look at all the retaliatory feedback people already get on here and it'd just be the same, though luckily feedback from 'unreputable' people doesn't effect your score, but then of course people also complain about that.

I honestly don't know what we could do other than get rid of the scoring system and there's just a log of trades but I think that would just cause far more issues than it solves and make scammners lives easier whilst reputable users with lots of trades look less reputable or 'trusted' in the process.

So your argument is: appeal to authority && ad hominem filled with lies? Nice rebuttal. It's lovely how you are trying to let go thousands of abusers, cheaters and attempted scammers because it suits your biased narrative. Not similar to OP at all.

---

You're the exact type that would let semi-fraudulent people appear trustworthy here due to their pajeet trades (Oh right, it's not like we've already had examples of people buying stuff from DT members that leave positive ratings for minuscule amounts).

---

It's worth placing this here again.

Yeah what do I know I have only been here since before it existed and watched it degrade every step of the way from pretty much every angle. The only real way to demonstrate trust is by having an exchange where the ability to steal is there, but does not happen. Otherwise what you are describing is a system of belief, not a system of trust. By the way, speaking of trust, you think you might find that missing BCH any time soon?

It's not a trade system, it's a system-of-trust. Stop spewing nonsense.

This is kind of at the essence of the problem, the people the rating system effects the most, traders, are pushed to the side and lots of political games are played to the point it becomes less useful for those that need and use it the most. IMO there needs to be a requirement of some kind of material loss that can be documented to leave valid ratings. Either this or some other form of feedback that is purely for anything OTHER THAN trade.

What is goal of this thread?
Is it:

a) DT members are mafia and criminals?
b) DT members are trying to control bitcointalk?
c) I received negative because I have tried to take loan with collateral I was trying to sell?
d) The Pharmacist, actmyname, Vod.. didn't tag all scammers on this forum?

What do you really want to accomplish with this topic? To get rid of negative trust, showing that you have changed and this was really honest mistake and at the same time you are accusing DT members of being criminals and taking bribe to "close their eyes":

I think there's very few people who craved more power here than you and you tried to get a lot of it as quickly as you could. My only wonder is if you tried to do this for nefarious/scammy reasons and/or for purely monetary gain or not. You tried your best to get numerous positions of power here starting with default trust and then escrowing and you were even gunning for a staff position, one which you probably would have got eventually. People seem to love the default trust system here and look to achieve it and once they're on it and they have that 'power' it's great for them, but then as soon as they're removed or fall foul of it it's suddenly the worst system in the world and full of tyrants and abusers. I don't doubt that there's some people here who get off on leaving feedback, but I think the vast majority of people are just doing what they think is right and trying to protect other users, but one thing I do know is it's more hassle than it's worth and you get little in return from it and as I just said:



I don't usually look for people who have lots of trading experience, but for people who can leave what I believe to be accurate ratings. I have done very little actual trading here in the grand scheme of things, and was put on DT initially by BadBear probably for my ratings on scammers which he must have thought were accurate enough. At the time of that I'd probably only engaged in one or two actual trades here other than earnings from signature campaigns etc. 

A select few people in power around here seem to be very power hungry.

Further, many on both Blazed's and hilariousandco's trust lists have little to no trading experience (yet interestingly have a decent amounts of trust ratings ), and as such, they reasonably do not have any real incentives to maintain a marketplace with accurate trust ratings, nor do they have the experience necessary to distinguish between someone "not knowing any better" not to do something shady, and someone who is likely to be an actual scammer (someone who will actively attempt to steal money from others, or otherwise fraudulently obtain money from others). Also, these people have little to lose in their own business when they go around giving out unjust trust ratings.

Okay, that's it. marlboroza remove your rating. I was wrong, and so were you. OP is clearly innocent. Gotta love the hilarious (&& pathetic) leftist victim card.

Shush, back to the Bahn.

I see , you have so many friend to help. you are such a nice guy helping each of your friend. I think your friends are also good guy but forum moderator  decided to ban them to show that they have power.
I think forum is very unfair to the nice guys like you and your friends. I will suggest you to leave the forum to protect your self-esteem.

You talk about Me spamming arent you spamming this thread ? Cuz u are talking out of this thread goal