Topic: They are abusing their power. - page 2. (Read 1436 times)

This is my thread. Who are you telling me to go out? You get lost stupid, poor illiterate noob.

There is not any proof get lost text spinner.

Just Shut up..Cheater, Merit hunter, You are an alt account of @Quickseller.
Here is the proof: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53538429

Just get lost. Cheater, Merit hunter, Account Farmer.

IS THIS ABUSE OR NOT?? depends how you want to twist it really... if laudas lies about being on the xcoin launch and no premine/instamine + extortion, + shady escrow + trust abuse or TMANS auction SCAMMING deceptions for direct financial gain are not worthy of red or tags LOLOLOL

Since the trust system is so fucked and lacks clear guidelines for lemons flags and red trust the subjectivity will obviously be exploited and the double standards will be pushed for personal gain.

I will agree with what lauda is claiming "Any kind of highly deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, there is no going around this." IF he agrees to have this applied to his lies about being on the launch of xcoin and there being no instamine/premine. WHILST HOLDING HUGE BAGS OF IT and trying in various threads to shove that scamming shit coin out there as a fair and honest launch.  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50628003

I mean ANY KIND OF DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR is fucking retarded. Nullius has put he is 2 years old on his account? is that deceptive?? perhaps we can say do some mental gymnastics and claim this has financial gain in it?? what if he wants to get in with VOD or LFC?? I mean is he leveraging this age deception?? I mean sure he is about as smart as a 2 year old window licker from tmans gene pool, but that is not the point.

This kind of stupidity has to stop. Lauda and tman have told lies and been undeniable deceptive for FAR clearer and direct financial gain FFS. You other DT members look fucking pathetic and weak letting this croatian scum bag making you all look corrupt and scammy when you are just mostly pussies. haha

His unbelievable "undercover agents " extortion scheme.

His constant LIES regarding cryptohunter LYING, and then never being able to produce ANY solid evidence of a single lie CH told.

Tman's auction deception where he was caught red handed by OG. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51677057

ANY KIND of deception Lauda claims. Then flag this long over due scammer and shit stain. Get some balls DT members.

Also when did noobius become Laudas latest felching twat? was this member always such a pathetic slobbering ass licker of lauda or did his new fetish only kick off when that account was REACTIVATED.

Was there a password change. I mean when some member appears from huge time away and instantly starts supporting A SCAMMER like laudas clear agenda and using terms like "LAUDA AND ME" in his posts.. LOL yeah I will come back and work with the king of scammers whilst finding those seriously dangerous members who prepare answers to questions to get merits (apparently) or other pathetic slobbering reasons to give honest members red trust.

YES, this is abuse. I agree with the initial poster. NOT because the trust system SHOULD NOT be used in this way. BUT it is abuse because there is no consistent agreement on that and it gets USED IN THAT WAY by scammers and deceptive scum to simply punish others.

No lauda WHY should all deceptive behavior get red trust and lemons flags but yours and TMANs undeniable deceptive  and flat out scamming FOR DIRECT FINANCIAL GAIN get no punishment.

OF course you or your mongrel dog tman will answer and I am not interested in listening to noobius ass feltching twats flowery word salad spew excuses either.

Let's here YOUR excuses and why this is NOT abuse based on DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Also ieoeie or whatever that fucktard calls himself is a lying piece of trash. I do not see CH using this trust system to flag and tag all those that attacked him at all. Total lies.

The reader should examine this for themselves.

@actmyname - why is a lemons flag or even TYPE 3 flag any worse for the member than a red trust ?

All most members care about is there sig campaign status. Red trust is used by most CM to deny entry. Even if it is given for the most stupid of reasons that even that CM does not understand they will still mostly ask you to get the DT to remove it first LOL

To me this is abuse based again on the people supporting it should have flags of their own because their deception is in LESS DOUBT and there is a CLEAR DIRECT FINANCIAL GAIN in the cases of TMAN and LAUDA.

If suchmoon was not such a grumpy and bitchy woman she could be DT material. Of all the scumbags she seems to have NO financially motivated wrong doing, and NO clear cases of abusing the trust system. Has tackled at least a pretty big scam too. Only recently started sig spamming. A clear new improved version of her lately. Also has more balls that 99% of the guys on DT those wussy little girls all cringing away cowering and not daring to speak back to lauda and his core of scumbags.

Yes it is abuse currently. However, if ALL deceivers like TMAN and LAUDA are tagged and flagged we can say it is fair and therefore OKAY. Perhaps not sensible still UNLESS there is a CLEAR financial gain or wrong doing involved.

Depends on your definition of "belief". I would be one to say that in order to honestly state that a position is true, then you would have to believe it... if you had doubt in the truthfulness of the statement, why would you deem it true? We can go into an epistemological dialogue about this but I see no issue with the wording.

Despite that, I don't personally like seeing a flag used here in lieu of a simple negative trust instead.

In reality, the flag barely sense and is completely subjective, so I do get Lauda's argument of it's intent. "I believe" followed by "not based on user's opinion" is oxymoronic at best. The entire premise of the flag is based on opinion. Despite the accusations of merit farming and plagiarism, I don't believe there is a high risk of losing money from this user. I'd argue there's a 5-10% higher chance of losing money as it all seems "a bit dodgy", but I wouldn't classify this as "high risk". High risk should be reserved for scammers.

I'm sure other user's believe their alternative opinions for their own reasons.

I don’t wish to get involved in your drama, but I noticed you opened a frivolous flag and only newbies who have given you merit are supporting it.

I don’t care what you do on your own time, but kindly cut the crap about involving me in your drama.

If you want some solid advice, you should consider taking responsibility for your actions instead of blaming others when you act in ways that the community as a whole doesn’t like and you get caught.

Even more of a reason to not use the trust system for this. Report to moderators. There is no need for the trust system to encroach on the enforcement of forum rules.

This flag should not be supported by "any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user".

It is the deception that in my eyes triggered the flag. The merit he received will allow him to potentially appear more competent than otherwise and will allow him to potentially earn money from having that merit (this is not assuming he sells it — he could earn money without selling the merit).

BINGO!

---

So...  On a forum that does not ban scammers for scamming,^* a case that involves ban-worthy behaviour of an extremely dishonest nature does not indicate a “high risk of losing money” in trading?

With all due respect, I think that’s extraordinarily naïve at best.

The ban-hammer will almost surely fall on this one.  The-Devil says, “Some of my posts coincide with an article by coincidence.” (!)  Would you risk any money trading with this person?


Indeed, would any sane person above the age of four risk money with this person?

/thread

---

(* I understand the reasoning.  The point stands, with delightfully twisted irony.)

Sure. We can flag each other for liking lemons or melons. Look at korner / Bitcoin SV flagging everyone without any consequences. Everything appropriate I guess.

No, that's not what I meant. You are using it appropriately to oppose it, but we are also using it appropriately to create and support it. That's the crux of theymoses quote, but it doesn't seem that it go through to you.

I'm pretty sure I'm using it appropriately to oppose a flag that is not meeting the minimum requirements. Unless you can ELI5 the high risk of losing money in this particular situation.

I am very saddened by your misunderstanding of what is appropriate use of this system even in light of theymoses quotes. 

When you support this flag you're saying that there is a high risk of losing money dealing with this particular user (not in some hypothetical account sale scenario) and that the referenced thread contains evidence.

I will oppose the flag for now because I "believe that it is at least partially false".

I think your focus on "losing money" and the exact "high" (risk) wording has made you miss out on how this system is supposed to be used. Is there a high risk of losing money with every purchased account? Even theymos argued against it ("Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though"), and said it was still appropriate use of the system.

It's not about defending a merit farmer. The wording about "high risk of losing money" is important in this context. I don't see the high risk of losing money here.

Just updated the post, see above. My apologies. It's from a PM response from an inquiry with permission to post. Since he didn't dispute it since October, you can safely assume it being the original despite a lack of formal confirmation.

Do you have a link to that quote, please?

Are you stupid?

Here, I'm even going to do your job for you:

Look where active deception i.e. what OP did is. The points go from the strictest to the most lenient one. In case you all missed it, the quote also directly implies that flag type-1 for lying is appropriate use of the system even in passive deception let alone active deception. Some people may disagree with it and thus not support it, but it is appropriate use nevertheless.

---

If you don't see it, or refuse to see it I shalt post it at maximum font size on every other post.