Topic: Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis. - page 2. (Read 1573 times)

Jet Cash, that is easy for some one who does little to no trade here to declare. It like saying no one needs air tanks because you don't ever go scuba diving. It gets used against you like it or not.

If you don't like the trust system, then don't use it. Right now it is only relevant for low end sig spammers.

We take serious any kind of censorship and abuse.
No matter is in forum, real life.
There is group of scammers running the DT "Trust" and if you don't agree with them you are out.
Is that Jesus and the ten chosen ones ?
If someone not agree with them he goes to hell ?
For god sake, remove that abusive default trust system already.

There is a difference between disagreement and the usual hectoring personal attacks and bickering you use to distract from the premise of a thread. You don't dare engage me in a logical discussion because you know you can't succeed. So keep it up with the yuck yucks, its showing the forum just how seriously you take this place.

You should have that stick up your ass checked out, it seems to be causing brain damage.

A joke at your expense is not "political", despite your feeble attempts to run a political-style campaign with your "standards". Your inability to handle any criticism or disagreement is genuinely hilarious.

I would like to know the logic behind why you decided to remove merits left by some users as being used for a  "political basis", but yet merits like this are acceptable?


First of all it is not even on topic, clearly an attempt to distract from the premise of the discussion. That aside, what makes these not merits for "political" reasons and the others merits for "political" reasons?

"gang" and "gong", just one small letter that makes all the difference.

Sorry been enjoying myself doing other things other then helping bitcointalk get rid of the bunch of self appointed "trustworthy" rogues and turds.

I have no need to flame you. You have a right to your own opinion.

However the fact I am not missed is a sign of great encouragement.

Then again even though there is no need... I can't resist just a little bit....

Perhaps in between licking various DT members assholes you can find time to highlight the SPECIFIC issues you have with my SOLE goal here of seeing implemented criteria that crushes the subjective swamp where these abusers draw their power from a goal that ensures fair and equal treatment for all persons on this entire board?


Once you can do that then perhaps I can find time to enter into a discussion with you about something solid rather than just wondering why you are such a pathetic ass kisser. Or such an imbecile you can not see that is all I am requesting.

I know in life it is hard to stand out from the "gang" and do the right thing. Well, I have never had any problems with it as we can see from my post history. Always having been one to fight for fairness and equality of all and trustworthy above and beyond reproach.

 This small battle in meta with a bunch of mostly low functioning morons that have to put me on ignore because they have never even once beaten me in debate (produce it if you find they have) and I have constantly crushed their excuses and lies that reveal they are abusing these systems of control that control PAID2POST that they are spamming and infesting over this board in their sigs.


Compared to some previous disagreements I have had on this board and in RL they are just fun to bitch slap around with facts about their past that is there in black and white and the fact the majority will NO WAY IN HELL remove their sigs to set a good example or prove they are not financially motivated shit posters themselves. Their double standards/hypocrisy and outright lies and abuse of these systems of control are self evident, only fools and complicit ass lickers can say otherwise.

Time for a sensible and fair change where all persons are treated equally. Merit the subjective self awarded nonsense is the first thing that needs removal or tightening up. Where noob trash with zero capacity to make any real difference here get to call real legends who are finishing up the missing pieces of the end to end decentralised trustless arena here - spammers, shitposters and worthless because they have feltched more political merit from their system abusing masters.

The thing persons need to realised here is that they can not have histories here in black and white riddled with wrongdoing and untrustworthy deeds and then expect other members to accept punishment from them for the same things or even deeds of a less serious nature. Human beings will never accept this it just goes against the grain.

You want persons on the DT list that are observably fair and have no provable of observable wrongdoing in their past. However with strict criteria keeping DT in check then it will help prevent future abuse for their personal gain.

I would prefer total chaos to unfair order.

@vit05 just another one that vanishes when you ask them to present examples of their "claims"  I should really create an entire thread of those that mouth off a load of garbled word salad riddled with false accusations then vanish when you ask them to produce evidence. They are fishing for political merit but their posts are not worthy because they are always faux and empty rebuttals and are net negative.
 


 

take your time dude.
I doubt you will be missed by most around here....

(cue incoming flame in 3...2...)

1. you are wrong about that.
2. present a negative thread
3. present the unwarranted attacks.
4. which values. I guess you must be against a fairer system for all that is free of abuse.

Funny to see my name on the list of distrusts from cryptohunter. You probably put my name there because you knew I had put your name on my list. And to know that, you probably used the tool provided by LoyceV, which is also on your distrusts list.

So the reason I put your name on my list of distrust is the same as @xtraelv

To get a little bit back on topic here:

I don't see a problem in spending Merits for posts that are similar to your point of view as long as they offer any additional value to the reader. In sections like Meta / Reputation it's always a matter of opinion because the topics need a point of view like is it correct to do a or b. Either you agree or you disagree and a bad suggestion / an insulting post is not worth a merit in my opinion.
Posts in Meta / Reputation are totally different compared to a guide how to use BTC or something else. It's like in school when you have to do a math test and and an essay. It's easy to figure out the quality of your math test (if your calculations are correct) but not very easy in an essay. Your opinion may differ completely from that of your teacher but finally he is the one determining your mark.

And it's quite normal that people give merit to other people on boards where they are also writing posts themselves. Usually, everyone has some preferred boards to read and write and sncc made a great post about it in May 2018, long before Merit was tied to DT power: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/global-structure-of-merit-networks-3650124

You can read his entire post, I'll just pick a visualisation that it's totally normal to have some preferred boards:

Purple = Meta / Reputation / Scam Accusation...
Green = Wall Observer
Blue / red / light green = Russian local board
Black = Indonesian local board
Orange = Turkish local board

1. you should be interested if you are enabling untrustworthy persons into positions of trust
2. I posted 2 links to prove it it was perhaps 500 words total. Not my words. The others posted their own guilt in their own words.
3. fair enough.

I have many events on today so i will sadly be gone for some time.

The only side I am on is mine.  I haven't studied the topics for 3 reasons. I'm not really interested. The posts are verbose, repetitive and voluminous, and I don't really have the time to read them. The third reason is that it is easier to play with the associated board traffic if I only have a superficial knowledge of the topic.

This is true as i have said you may not be as bad as some however your support of them in light of the fact I have presented evidence of their untrustworthy behaviour and you still maintain that you feel they are trustworthy and refuse to even acknowledge there is proof of their untrustworthy behaviour is fucked up.

If I was caught using a sock puppet account to racist troll sig spam on this board for btc dust you would easily find time to review it and be sure to have a lot to say about it too. I can see Huge Black Woman would be getting brought up a lot more if it was my sock puppet account I was busted for.

It I was demonstrated to have lied you would  have no issue calling me a liar.

It I said in black and white -- I can, will,  and have red trust someone for presenting facts regarding wrong doing you would find time to say yes cryptohunter that is wrong too. You should not do that I can't trust a person that does that. Dt is meant for you to present facts of wrongdoing not punish persons presenting those facts.

You can not say because they have not done those things to you they deserve to be in a trust system. You should not support them in a trust system. You could say okay i don't give a shit they did these things because I don't even like cryptohunter and it is funny they gave him red trust, fuck him.  --That is fair enough, that is your call... but you are helping install them into positions of trust, that is different.

You are one sided because you are either scared of them or you want to keep being pals with them

This is unfair and untrustworthy in its own right although it may not be as bad as directly doing those things yourself.

Please be sensible.

@caanalbism13 -

Your posts have zero value so they are annoying noise clouding issues and the motive i suspect is to get some btc dust or merits. I see no new important information in them just your slobbering noob trash ass kissing clutter. It insulting to me that you grind btc dust from your projects spamming support for proven untrustworthy persons. I would say that you could be viewed untrustworthy for supporting persons that are proven untrustworthy. Ask suchmoon. Alex says that supporting " possible" scams makes you untrustworthy.

Offering me merit by request can be worthy or red trust. What do you mean?

can't find anything. (sad feeling). Where's the spam mate? I'll tell you where it is... Its in the OP.

---

I do have 1 merit left, if you want it just tell me I can help you gain one from a none negative trust user just for you to be happy

I love the way you use shortcut keys to insert phrases in your posts. It's a pity that you don't have any that are relevant to me. The readers in this forum with average intelligence will have noticed that I don't use local rules, and it isn't very often that I start self-moderated threads. If fact I didn't bother to moderate the few that I did start,

I tend not to read your posts because they are a bit repetitive. I'm not part of the forum police either. I may be on the DT list, but that is for me to comment on my personal experiences with members here. It doesn't mean that I have to dedicate my life to checking the activities of all of the members. If I trust someone, it means that I trust them. The fact that I don't mention somebody, doesn't mean that I don't trust them, it probably just means that I haven't had any dealings with them, and so I can't venture an honest opinion.

Mods have to give the appearance of being fair. You don't mind admitting in public you are too afraid to review evidence and facts of untrustworthy behaviour of those you support on DT

That is a big difference.

The echo chamber you would create would be dangerous.

Just stick to hiding on rep with self moderated threads or hiding behind local rules here.

You notice my local rules??

Anyone can post who provides evidence or supporting corroborating events to substantiate their posts. Not sneaking and hiding away like a bunch of cowards and colluders.

Nope - I suggested that posting and thread starting was open to all from Brand New right up to Satoshi himself. I suggested that a small group of legendaries moderated the board, and that is no more exclusive than admin appointed mods ruling the boards. Probably less so, as it has been quoted that most of the mods are old timers, so using young vibrant members like me would open up the posting.

Photographic proof to back up CH's pussy claim.