Topic: Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis. (Read 1573 times)

still

If the cap fits....

huh! ...right on cue.

I have faith in you, just try harder and you'll get there.

Merit worthy post is subjective. But still, I see a quite a lot politics in gambling section, like 3 line post gets merit which doesn't have any substance.

You are mistaking my lack of a need to feel liked with a lack of self awareness. Case in point huh? If only all arguments could be solved with projecting eh?

" a lot of people" = proven liars, proven trust abusers who admit it, proven sneaky greedy racist trolling sock puppet sig spammers  and their ass kissers and supporters?
Hate from those kinds of dirt bags is like a public endorsement for trust and being fair.

You are in line with them on many other issues which include the most important issue that is their agenda to prevent a transparent and fair system that ensures equal treatment for all members. They want the systems of control left as they are so they can continue to abuse them and so do you. You support that and you support their proven wrong doing by including them in your trust list. So stop lying that you are not ass kissing them to get some minor feltching role in their gang.

Yeah because if i supported someone-- I would then also support those proven untrustworthy scum bags whom have ~him because it does not matter apparently. Sounds legit. Make a stand if you are not a cowardly ass kissing little snake.

I don't like you, and I don't like any other person here supporting proven liars, trust abusers and other dirt bags with proven DIRT in the history whom dare to paint red on persons accounts for presenting facts.

All of you need to be kept well away from positions of trust and any other position on this board that is not closely protected and guarded by a framework (theymos creates) that prevents or punishes abuse for selfish gain.

I am please to hear that he is now considering making the trust system for those that HAVE been proven scammers and those STRONGLY  likely to scam.  The rest of the abuse needs to be removed or else you all get blacklisted for trying to use the DT system to silence those that present facts and observable events demonstrating prior wrongdoing by DT members themselves.

I personally can't wait for the systems to get tightened up so they are not having such an influence over free speech here and I can get back to a much more sensible and enjoyable part of this forum -- the alt sections. I never had many issues with people there in all of these years and most seemed a lot more fair and trustworthy than those lurking away in meta. This is a pit of vipers and scumbags. Also I am blinded with more sigs in here than in the community threads I used to post in.

How is it so many legends still need to spam for btc dust? are you all total losers and did not make enough in the last bull run to live well for the rest of your lives? or just greedy?

Remove your sig and contribute because you really are an enthusiast.

Look at the "gang" members (who support each others views in nearly every thread when one of them or their tactics to take control of DT  or merit circling is questioned ) , then look on bpip just at the top 10 fans and receivers (imagine the top 20) of each of them.

These top receivers and fans are riddled with each other. It is one big political "pals" circle jerk.

Their explanation is they are the best posters in each others minds and that is that.

Then it just happens they all mostly include each other on DT

Then it just happens they all mostly excluded the same people on DT

Like I have been saying for quite some time this is there in black and white and nobody "here" in meta speaks up simply because the vast majority here are the very ones doing it and reaping the benefits and control.


I did not realise the extent of this growing issue until I found meta board and the group that resides there.

The others here are mostly noobs that are scavenging for merit crumbs from this group.

I mean nutildah is observably just a snake who says he supports bruno but some how just now ends up supporting all those that ~ bruno on DT.  Makes false accusations then runs when you ask him to present evidence. Just ended up a spineless asslicker like 90% of the others on meta hoping for some minor position in the "gang"

Suchmoon.... Well, this imbecile makes some of the most ludicrous statements ever and has observable double standards. She's also a self diagnosed scammer who goes on to claim that good poster/bad poster are meaningless terms without definition/criteria but then supports leaving the merit system as it is in it's meaningless state (for obvious reasons if you look at the cycled merit it grabs up and gives out).

You only have to debate with her for a few moments before it starts spouting ludicrous statements and defeating it's own claims. One min moaning about sock puppets next moment using them or sticking up for them.

You can clearly win the debate/argument over and over but will not garner more support in meta because most benefit from the way things are now.. I am just relaxing and watching it all gradually devolve into a full on war.

People will not accept punishment/red trust for minor wrongdoing or even just simple disagreements with those that have far more dirt on them in black and white in their own post history. Nor those that support these types of people in a trust system knowing full well their prior deeds.

It doesn't, not even close. ScumBuster doesn't have a single DT vote and most of those merits had been sent before the new DT1 system was established. Your bitching about someone meriting a post that you don't like is quite ridiculous. It's a good post highlighting your utter lack of self awareness.


Case in point.

Well good thing I have you here to tell me everything is a-ok. I am very sorry my goals of entertaining you have fallen so short. I will ask those ninjas I sent to your home to force you to read my comments to leave. Maybe they can juggle for you or something before they go.

No one has defined what "gaming the trust system" is, and based on the metrics used for removing the first merits, I would say this example fits firmly within the same description. I am aware some people don't like me. Thank you. The fact is this has very little meaning to me. If you are having problems separating your emotions and your personal opinions from my arguments, then I am not the one with a problem, you are.

You do. What are you talking about "redress"? No unfair action has been committed against you. Everything you think is wrong is all in your head. You can continue to bitch and moan every day but its getting quite boring, and you aren't doing your cause any favors by repeating yourself ad nauseum.


Because the merits theymos deleted were specifically toward the end goal of gaming the trust system. He explained it quite thoroughly. Some people don't like you because they think you're a pompous ass, I happen to be one of them. It has nothing to do with politics.

Even if that were true, which is pretty evidently not, but lets say for the sake of argument it is. Exactly why do I not personally deserve as much redress as anyone else here? Why is it meriting socks to argue with your opponents and trying to get them banned anonymously ok for some people, but other people don't get to leave merits because they were "political".

Give that hamster you got running that wheel that powers your brain a snack and buckle down and make a logical reply instead of this pathetic attempt at marginalization via badgering. Or maybe suddenly you will hurt my feefees and I will go home. You never know.

Of course silence. Things like this are only enforced if you are in the club. Yet another example in the growing pile of examples of "rules for thee and not for me" around here.

Speaking of leaving merit for a political basis, everyone take a good look at the post and merit history for ScumBuster. Well since it is them collusion with socks, meriting themselves, and making attempts at getting their opponents banned without revealing themselves is A OK right? How overt do they have to get before people start speaking up?

I agree, it is not only overly complex, it is actually counter productive to its intended goals. I also agree reading ratings would be a better use of the system, which is why I am advocating for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating, and teaching users to do due diligence.





I already directly answered your question to you elsewhere before, but hey lets all pretend like none of you have had answers to these questions already.




Sock puppets now? You are taking the moral high ground from a sock puppet now? This is how desperate these people are to hold on to their control and have no accountability. They don't even want the accountability of confronting me so they don't have to look like they are trying too hard.

The difference is I want to engage in a logical discussion, and I have. I suppose I should be stoic and stand silent while I get mobbed so I can meet your standards better eh Mr. Sock Puppet who is totally not part of the trust cartel?






Actually you got several explanations from me which you continually pretend don't exist. Here is another one of them quoted below. I have repeatedly attempted discussion with you and you repeatedly demonstrate you would rather play games and side track the discussion. This demonstrates to me among other things your inability to counter the logic of the argument itself.

>Posts endless personal attacks and bickering
>Complains about personal attacks and bickering

Can we take a minute to appreciate how telling this statement is?

"You don't dare engage me in a logical discussion because you know you can't succeed."

So what is TS trying to say? There's just no point in being logical with him?

I'd love it if it was related to trading honesty. It is so complex at the moment, that I wouldn't know how to use it to evaluate a potential trading partner. It would be easier just to read the post history to form an opinion.

I tried to figure out a way for your "standards" to be enforced and all I got back from you was that I'm feigning ignorance. If you're unable to support your proposal with very basic details ("how would it work") then you deserve all the ridicule you get.

BTW "you know you can't succeed" doesn't sound like a good premise for a discussion. This might be one of many reasons why you're not being taken seriously.

Can you explain why this matters so much to you that you've talking about it every day for months? Is limiting negative trust beneficial for you or your potential clients? I don't understand the connection. You have to be more specific if you want to garner sympathy.