Pages:
Author

Topic: Theymos can you explain your reasoning on merit allocated on a political basis. - page 3. (Read 1573 times)

legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
@xtraelv

I stick to what I posted regardless of your "explanations" for your actions and the actions of others. I notice you cherry picked out the 1st of the pharmacists false accusations and political ranting - which is quite untrustworthy behaviour.

There are others in the OP that are far far worse still.


I quoted what was relevant to the thread.. I agreed with:

12 legendaries who aren't going to bitch and fight with each other.
Yeah, good luck with that.  Pose a problem to 12 Legendary members, and you'll get 13 different opinions.



Creating a club could lead to more conspiracy theories and more fighting, too.  I don't think the forum needs less inclusivity (I know that sounds very SJW, sorry) right now.

It was an observation that was right on the money. Jetcash in the context of the thread was suggesting an exclusive club. Which would just result in an isolated echo chamber.

The post was against political isolation.

Although I can understand Jetcashs motivation for suggesting it. The bickering is tiring.




You gave the POST merit. You cant give a post merit that has one piece you like and then goes on to make a bunch of false assumptions and political rantings. The merit endorses the entire post.

You must quote the entire post that you merited. It was a tirade of political ranting from a proven untrustworthy sock puppet sneaky racist trolling sig spammer. Who is pissed because he keeps getting bitch slapped with that evidence.

I mean you do realise Huge Black Woman is aka the pharmacist do you not?

Jet cash is  crying pathetic baby. This is observably true. He cries he will not report anymore because 1 out of 1000 reports was marked wrong. He cries that his thread was moved to a more suitable thread. He is afraid to even review facts that demonstrate untrustworthy behaviour  by those he includes in the trust system.

Of course he wants and echo chamber for him and other untrustworthy persons to chat tell each other how they agree with everything each of them says away from those that want to inject truth and observable events into their nonsense.
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
Bitch slapping only seems to work if you can connect. It seems to me that you are consistently missing your targets. I'm assuming that this is a deliberate policy, and is similar to air kissing by the Hollywood snowflakes. Smiley

No look here i do it again.

You are a pussy and dare not even review proven facts of wrong doing by those you include in the trust system.

See here again this is true so it connects.

You are untrustworthy ... see there it is again. You can not even deny it because it is true.

I can call you a pussy and back it up with evidence. I can call you untrustworthy and clearly demonstrate it is true.

You are just making false assumptions and have zero evidence to back anything up.

Now why not get back to your big mac and ass kissing up to proven untrustworthy scum bags.

legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1926
฿ear ride on the rainbow slide
@xtraelv

I stick to what I posted regardless of your "explanations" for your actions and the actions of others. I notice you cherry picked out the 1st of the pharmacists false accusations and political ranting - which is quite untrustworthy behaviour.

There are others in the OP that are far far worse still.


I quoted what was relevant to the thread.. I agreed with:

12 legendaries who aren't going to bitch and fight with each other.
Yeah, good luck with that.  Pose a problem to 12 Legendary members, and you'll get 13 different opinions.



Creating a club could lead to more conspiracy theories and more fighting, too.  I don't think the forum needs less inclusivity (I know that sounds very SJW, sorry) right now.

It was an observation that was right on the money. Jetcash in the context of the thread was suggesting an exclusive club. Which would just result in an isolated echo chamber.

The post was against political isolation.

Although I can understand Jetcashs motivation for suggesting it. The bickering is tiring.


legendary
Activity: 2814
Merit: 2472
https://JetCash.com
Bitch slapping only seems to work if you can connect. It seems to me that you are consistently missing your targets. I'm assuming that this is a deliberate policy, and is similar to air kissing by the Hollywood snowflakes. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
@xtraelv

I stick to what I posted regardless of your "explanations" for your actions and the actions of others. I notice you cherry picked out the 1st of the pharmacists false accusations and political ranting - which is quite untrustworthy behaviour.

There are others in the OP that are far far worse still.


@cabalism13 please shut up noob trash. I am not interested in you using my sensible thread to spam you  noob signature all over it whilst spouting out pure garbage. Ass kissing noob trash sucking up to untrustworthy scum for merit is more sickening that the actual scumbags themselves posting about busting scammers whilst supporting scams for their own financial gain.

@Jetcash

I am proud to be part of your ~ club

I mean when someone is such an observable pathetic chicken shit as you and therefore untrustworthy if you did not ~ me then I would be in the dirty company of those you include. I have no interest in DT anyway so it is of no consequence to me. I am hoping the entire dirty system of control is abolished.

However, the fact in black and white you refuse to consider or even look at the clear evidence that demonstrate you include such proven scumbags just makes you a pathetic loser and now untrustworthy too. A FACT that I shall not let you forget and shall enjoy bitch slapping your around with it whenever I feel like having some fun.

legendary
Activity: 2814
Merit: 2472
https://JetCash.com
@CH

I'm sorry to hear about your hand, you need to relax, and stop banging the keyboard so hard.

I'm proud to be a member of the CH tilde club, and I may add that to my profile. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1166
🤩Finally Married🤩
Did anyone else also skipped the thread after reading the first paragraph and started reading the comments to get a glimpse of what is the point of all this?  Roll Eyes

I am not even reading the comments too. I lost the interest in reading whatever the CH is alleging and whatever other are defending.
I think it is now become a cycle.

I am just trying to find if Theymos replied or not.

Count me in, I'm just concern on Direwolf (an innocent guy that has nothing to do with CH, I guess?)being on the list of CH, for he is also a good poster across the forum, didn't read the OP, for I know he just wants to have a debatr on something else instead of what he always says "FACTS".

I just hope LAUDA and TMAN would just turn those red into neutral feedbacks to end this kind of .... ~ ... oh well whatever.

P.S. I'm a bit surprised for a list of CH that even really good posters are included. Tongue

@cryptohunter, just a little bit more mate, your trust feedback will turn in black, (Though I'm not wishing you to be on a good luck, but its just people being tired of seeing your facts that you keep on mentioning, so that leads you on a black colored trust again) Huh
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1926
฿ear ride on the rainbow slide

Negative THREADS not one post that is makes a very valid point. That entire discussion must be viewed to understand the collision.

One instance and not an example of what you claimed... and if you read the entire thread not just one post  I clearly state the point is valid. People can read the entire thread and make their own minds up. Bring me lots more - - the sheer number of negative a

I will peruse your posts in a few mins and locate some political bolstering of your pals for which you get or give merit. Of course with merit there is no abuse possible since there is such a degree of subjectivity. But clearly a substantial number your posts and your pals that receive and give merit are mostly just actions to bolster and support each others politics here. I can only see 120 days back how to see merit since - it was introduced? are you a merit source or not?


That is the thread I remember the most vivid and the one that involves me directly. It stood out because you also verbally attacked the poster before me. To be honest I'm not that interested in searching for more threads that involve bickering. I prefer to concentrate on the more positive parts of the forum or investigate scammers.

I'm not so interested in what merit people sent to me. I'm interested in the understanding the accusation you made against me. There are a few threads that I am very proud of and are ongoing projects - those that I wear in my signature. Those are also the ones I got the most merit for. Hopefully people look at those articles well after I am gone and expand on the research I've done.
People from all sides of the political spectrum have made great contributions there.


So anyway just gave a quick glance over you 120days merit

Now actually I will not say at all that you are a shit poster whom deserves no merits. Actually I notice I have given you merits for some nice research and I notice some of your posts add value. You are also not actually one of the persons I consider to be INTENTIONALLY fighting against a fairer system. However in my opinion it is clear that there is cycling on political (shared values and pals) which i don't object to but all persons should be allowed to narrow their focus of applying merit too.


A fairer system is more inclusive. Bickering between people on DT1 is not healthy. There will always be some preference towards the people who have done it for years. Fighting scammers - particularly feisty ones can make a person cynical and distrusting.

Some criminals will deny everything until the evidence is overwhelming. Lowbander80 for example:

Scam accusation: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mefy-ico-has-fake-team-members-and-is-being-promoted-by-a-fraudster-4679775
Investigation and DOX: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--4679939

Took a long time to unmask his many identities and RLI. Cryptodevil made the real breakthrough. Lauda had tagged some of his accounts already for minor issues which made the investigation easier once we knew who we were dealing with.

I'm not part of Laudas trust list but I recognize the value of the work that Lauda has done. I have also been quite vocal (without being disrespectful) about the Russian issue.
At the end of the day I have to accept that someone elses opinion may be different to mine. So they won't always follow my recommendation or values.

Time spent bickering is time wasted that could have been spent looking for real scammers.

Trust is not something that is there automatically. It is something that builds up over time.


let me list some examples it took me 5 mins to find some

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49589048

politically motivated nonsense


That was a joke that a Dr Who fan like timelord understands. (Which is why I linked it so others could understand the joke too)
You will find that we don't consider each other pals.

A lighthearted remark that hopefully made some people laugh. Which I believe succeeded.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49491647

politically motivated nonsense and making fun of a serious cycling of merits

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49478856

so much merit so little content look who awards all of this


That is a parody post intended to make people laugh. I like making peoples day a bit more pleasant by making them laugh.

The merits awarded are also quite small.

Keep in mind that I have sufficient merit for ranking up to the final rank of legendary (just not enough activity) so any merit that is sent to me provides me with sMerits to send others.
So it is far more important how I award the merits rather than how I receive them.

People who took the time to expand on it made me laugh so I gave them merit. I believe humor is "good content".


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49538086

merit endorsement for politics and false claims and assumptions.


12 legendaries who aren't going to bitch and fight with each other.
Yeah, good luck with that.  Pose a problem to 12 Legendary members, and you'll get 13 different opinions.

Do you really disagree with that ? The internal politics are far more complex than what is on the forum. A lot of issues are resolved through respectful dialogue via private message. When talking to others you cannot demand to change their opinion. You can respectfully ask them to consider some more facts. Sometimes they change their mind and sometimes they don't.

One of the reasons I really respect The Pharmacist is because he has a very different opinion to mine. When I am not certain of something I ask for his opinion because it will be different than what I have thought of.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49053422

merit again for a proven untrustworthy person getting more merits. notice too the others supporting his request...


You misread that post.


I respect that you made me a merit source even though I did not ask to be one. I'm trying to give merits to the lower ranks (Newbie-Sr. Member), but I'm always falling short of sMerits.  Always.  And I've earned quite a few sMerits from my own posts, and those are all gone now too.  


At that stage Meta was full of newbies that lost their privileges because they didn't have any merit. There was a particular drive to give more merit to noobs. Something that I support.

Legendary members like The Pharmacist don't need any merit to rank up. Merit at that stage was of no real value to him.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49057251

post making fun of the fact persons have deep concerns of cycling and another cycler getting merit source
no value in that post from yahoo and another support with merits on this thread after already


Yahoo is not on my trust list and he distrusts some of the people I trust.

His comment was a funny lighthearted joke. Merit worthy.


A merit application by a good poster who has more merit than required for ranking up. Of course I show my support.
He would have no benefit of the merits he receives other than being able to give out the smerits.

---------------
Now as promised I use your merit distribution as a standard:

Out of all the merit you have given in 2019 all but two posts are political.



Funny how chipmixer shills everywhere in this thread jesus christ, you guys would probably cry if you couldnt post for money on this forum.



thank you for posting this conclusion. i think you are right.



You have my support. But nobody will care. Because I am not one of the "system controllers".




only if they care about their rank.
and i can understand that people care about their rank. and not just because they want to be able to be in a "Paid2Post Campaign".
but because the have something important to say and they are most of the time just ignored because of their rank.




I think this would be an option.

and I don't know why this have been done already.

thats why i have to ask this questions:
more sig-spamming => more traffic?
more traffic => more money for the "owners" of this forum?
is this the reason that paid sigs are here?


edit: corrected some typos

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49039664

i just transfer all to one adress and staking this one

I excluded you because your ratings are shit. Didn’t you trust aTriz as he was scamming everyone with lies and fake ICOs?  Now you have Lauda who is a documented extortionist included in your trust network... You’re a good example of a user who should be blacklisted... Your judgement is awful.

I actually hate this forum a lot, its like a gang of mafia giving each other favors and its also like a group of teenage girls gossiping about how gets negative trust plus other bullshit like this.

Lot of these people get off on their "power" of having merit or being able to red mark someone, this shit is so ridiculous and most of you spend too much time on this forum, especially the paid signature spammers.  Probably can't even make money outside this forum so you resort to posting.

this is foolproof

if you want lauda tman and owlcatz off of dt this is how you accomplish that goal

add this to all of your trust lists



i tagged him we will put him also on the ditrust list for false tagging



how can you be sure it was a trustworthy sting operation if you dont know what it was about ?


facts are facts from quickseller or theymos they are facts


view the pic for harassing his mother/family
https://i.imgur.com/7rKMCmo.png
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17624090

 
https://archive.fo/szqRf
view this archive about the taxes and extortion
https://archive.fo/szqRf

------------------



these examples Plus the prior posts I made demonstrates clear that a group of "pals" share political views and even by posting piss taking jokes aligning with those views will get your merits even if those views are incorrect.

I mean there is no doubt that if you post something that aligns with a persons politics even if it is proven incorrect can get you merits here. Or even if the poster posting it is blatantly demonstrating double standards and hypocrisy  will still get them merits if they are pals or their post politically align with their pals.

merit cycling is not always intentional nor to enable manipulation and selfish gain via the systems of control it can be a natural thing like: i meet some cool people who share my views and i enjoy their posts so i look for them and naturally they will attract more merit from me.

 I get this but then sometimes views and opinions form that may not be correct but the group will act as a gang to incorrectly try to stop their views being demonstrated as incorrect. This is okay but not at the expense of having the power to damage other persons accounts whom are correct especially if they are presenting FACTS.

We simply need a system or systems that push for full transparency fairness and equality for each member. Anyone opposing those things is acting selfishly.

Suchmoon makes posts that are aligned with my sense of humor and are clever (some people don't get the joke)
If I had unlimited merits I would give Suchmoon many more. But I'm conscious that it is pointless giving merit to a merit source that has more merits than they need.
So the merits given to Suchmoon are quite conservative.

Do you think that the merit cycling post was not a clever humorous way for people to look at how merits were being distributed ?

Sometimes the best ideas are transferred in a friendly tongue in cheek way. How many business deals are done over dinner versus where two parties scream at each other ?

If you disagree with someone you won't change their minds with insults or demands. Reasoned and respectful dialogue is usually what changes peoples minds and sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
funny how these shitcoiners like cryptohunter think that bitcoiners know every shitcoin and their backstory

Well a captive instamine on huge rewards for linux and devs may not be a true scam to you, when combining that with cutting the minting by 75% later... some people would define that a near a scam as you can get. I don't complain further since i discovered a little stash someone had mined for me. However, keeping quiet is the best policy. Why drag this thread to the top just to defend actions that can not be defended.

You sold a shitcoin (to unsuspecting new victims) you deemed a scam? just wow

Huge black Woman? LaudaM

1. You do not know how many BTC that I have. I am more of a bitcoiner than you most likely

2. False accusation please provide evidence of sale.
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
I will not seem to be the one begging for your attention. This is not the case. I am helping you. So the fact you are imposing these strange rules is not an issue for me. If you walk away from the debate and appear to not accept the facts I am presenting you in black and white. It simply reflects poorly on you rather than on myself.

the instamine was proven long before lauda made that particular statement . Of course it was proven when the miners at launch realised there was no way to mine it. Only the devs could mine because as you can see

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4593601
Edufield said the github version was not updated, nobody could compile and only Edufield was able to mine until that time. It is 5.09 am and Edufield instamined alone 1153 block at 500 DRK + 60 block at reward 277 = 593120 DRK for him alone in about 1 hour.

Now Lauda who claims he knows there was NO premine because he was THERE on the launch.

Perhaps lauda was not lying but was simply high on pills at the time and did not know what it was typing it was a typo and meant to say there was a premine. Perhaps Laudas account was hacked but they only came on and posted lies when lauda was a sleep and did not notice this had taken place?

Now I notice you say that the Truth does not interested you? this is not surprising to me since this seems a common ailment in meta.

Now even false red trust is a good thing because it creates additional warnings that although invalid or even untrue are positive because it creates a sense of more awareness of possible wrong doing on the whole? Are you saying you request red trust on your own account for the greater good of the trust system?

I see now you that are trolling me.

Let me see you define bitch, bile, and bickering, and provide examples of myself matching these else I say that is a false accusation. I mean you claim that there are many many examples so you will therefore not have issue finding 5.





newbie
Activity: 17
Merit: 1
funny how these shitcoiners like cryptohunter think that bitcoiners know every shitcoin and their backstory

Well a captive instamine on huge rewards for linux and devs may not be a true scam to you, when combining that with cutting the minting by 75% later... some people would define that a near a scam as you can get. I don't complain further since i discovered a little stash someone had mined for me. However, keeping quiet is the best policy. Why drag this thread to the top just to defend actions that can not be defended.

You sold a shitcoin (to unsuspecting new victims) you deemed a scam? just wow
qwk
donator
Activity: 3542
Merit: 3413
Shitcoin Minimalist
qwk please be serious.
I was, am, and will be.
You've so far only "spent" a little less than 500 words, so I'll see this post as an extension, even though this is against rule number 1, again.
BTW: this post is another 262 words.

The fact is there in clear black and white.
Not in your post, unfortunately.
Tbh, I wonder why you didn't simply go to the length of preparing the post in a meaningful way in the first place.
In the links you mentioned, I could already "glimpse" what you are hinting at, but why haven't you just fleshed it out?

1. darkcoin (xcoin) was proven a captive instamine. You have seen it in black and white and years later even the dev admitted it and offered an airdrop that could have been worth 2 Billion dollars.
That Darkcoin was an instamine may or may not be true.
I myself have no knowledge of that, for the simple reason of not touching Altcoins with a stick, whenever I can avoid it.
I'm not interested in them, I find most of them useless or worse.

Gostrol was only 1 person to analyse the launch. I was actually on the launch as you can see from the first page of the thread so I know it to be true first hand. The instamine took place it is an accepted FACT.
Then why didn't you elaborate on this in your post?
You just pointed me to gostrol's post (which is basically a collection of links itself), and that was it.
From my perspective, you left me guessing at what precisely you wanted to convey.
What do you expect to happen under these circumstances?

2. Lauda can be seem denying the instamine and claiming he knows it never happened since he was on the launch.
That much is true, as far as I can tell.
What I cannot know at the moment, is the timing of
- Darkcoin instamine becoming known
- Lauda "vouching" for it
What I also especially cannot know is
wether Lauda at the moment of her statement knew of an instamine going on.

If she claimed to know that no instamine happened, while at the same time an instamine had already been established as a fact, she might just have been mistaken.
That would lead me to doubt her judgement on matters of instamines, but not necessarily make her untrustworthy, btw.


Please don't be silly now and deny that this is an observable LIE.
For a lie, you have to know better.
I have no information wether this was true for Lauda at the moment of her post.


The very notion you will not accept the FACT that lauda lied and is therefore untrustworthy means that you are either a confused because you did not read the evidence else you are deliberately trying to pretend to be confused.
No, I'm neither confused nor am I trying to pretend being confused.
And why would I?
I was confused by a lot of your posts and even by many parts of your last post, though.

This is not just a single instance of this claim and his protecting and pushing this scam darkcoin over the years.
I'm still unaware of any protecting or pushing from the side of Lauda.
All I've seen is a (potentially) misleading statement about the status of an Altcoin project I don't care about.
Granted, that may have been a lie. It may be true that Lauda is really an evil mastermind of Instamine-Crime and a perpetrator of scams on a global scale.
But the evidence you've provided doesn't lead to that conclusion at all.


Now please revisit the evidence and then come back with a more sensible reply.
No.
You want me to review this case?
You provide the facts in a meaningful, legible way I can digest, and I might just do that.
So far, you've failed.

Nobody who is familiar with this denies it even their strongest advocates or even the dev himself who offered the airdrop after we applied pressure to do so.
Again, I'm not familiar with the Altcoin "scene", so please forgive my lack of knowledge regarding these things.


Also you are missing the point in my OP in another area when you are ignoring the reasonable assumptions/conclusions based upon observable events and not just facts because that was related to obtaining merit. Do you see that I claim that post must have merit?  
I don't really understand, sorry.
(I'm not fooling you here, this is where my comprehension of the English language sometimes fails me).


Now I am trying to be nice to you but I suspect you are not being genuine in your responses to me.
Rest assured, I'm being genuine.
I also sometimes make my little jokes with you, but don't get me wrong:
if you have a case and are willing and able to substantiate this in a meaningful, legible way, I'm here for you.

This serves only to demonstrate to the objective reader here that you may not be trustworthy.
I'll simply ignore that you even wrote that. Roll Eyes

So let's try again.
You are aware that you had more than your fair share of chances, are you?
I'm even willing to give you one more, but please, take your time, re-read before you post.
Look at what you want to post from the perspective of a normally uninformed reader.
If it makes sense from that perspective, post it. If not, re-write!

It seems strange also that you say regarding the alleged extortion and escrow debacles that you have no interest because there are layers of .... bitching, bile, bickering.... this again seems a very weak excuse for not investigating deeply yourself.
I see nothing strange there, but of course, that's something where we might disagree.
I simply don't feel like wading through dozens of pages of those infights on Meta.
I know them, of course, because you really can't overlook them, but I try to stay away.


You are in a position of trust. You should find it your duty to investigate and use all information possible to find the truth qwk.
I'm not interested in the truth, tbh.
I consider the trust system a tool that may serve one purpose:
warn people of certain behaviours.
That may even be false warnings, because "better safe than sorry".
That's what I always stood for, and I have no intention to change that.

People don't like my take on the trust system?
Vote me out! I'm fine with that. Cool


Now also if we are going to start using personal insults like when you say bitching bile and bickering from people "like you"
I don't think that's an insult.
Who creates all those threads about "Lauda being evil", "DTers being evil" on Meta?
It's certainly not me.
When it's suchmoon, it's just to make fun of you.
So who is it?
You. And Tecshare, I think (I'm not even sure and I don't feel like researching).

then you see it is impossible then to complain if I speak to you in this way and say things to you that seem to be a personal attack. Do you say that I  bitch, spit bile and bicker??  Please explain what exactly you mean?
Yes. That's what I'm saying.
You bitch, you bicker, you spit bile.
That's an opinion, again.
I'm holding you personally responsible for pages upon pages of posts that do not convey more than just the same allegations, accusations and anecdotes over and over again. Not you alone, mind you, but you specifically more than anyone else I'm aware of.

If you find that hostile of me, well, so be it.
I don't mean it that way.
I want you to stop, which is why I'm still listening to you.
Which is why I still want you to come to me with a compelling argument.
Which is why I'm still giving you an opportunity to show me clearly that e.g. Lauda is a Scammer.

But be aware: my patience isn't endless.
And if you fail to provide the required proof, I will expect you to stop the bickering and bitching.
Because after all is said and done, you'll simply have to accept that when you cannot convince even me (who's still willing to listen to you), there's simply no way for you to convince a lot of other DT1ers.

Come let us not become hostile toward each other again.
Rest assured, I'm not becoming hostile towards you.
But there will be an end to my patience sometime, and after that, I'll simply ignore you.

I am only hoping to assist you to do the correct and honest thing. You will thank me genuinely once you realise that mistake you have been making by allowing someone who is a proven liar to dupe you into including them into a position of trust.
Just one more thing you should know:
Lauda (and I guess that's who we're talking about, after all), never ensnared me with her beautiful cat eyes to dupe me into allowing her into a position of trust.
I check other people's Trust Feedback pages and Trust Lists from time to time, and when I notice that they might be useful to people who have me in their Trust List, I include them. Period.
So, Lauda isn't in my Trust List because I trust her so much (which I do, btw, I traded with her without escrow and went first), but simply because she fits my model of a useful "Truster".
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG

qwk, you just wasted what I suspect was a good chunk of time with an explanation I could have predicted the outcome of beforehand.  This is why I'd suggested just ignoring cryptohunter and stop jumping through the hoops he puts up for his entertainment.  Nothing you write, regardless of how rational it is or how much sense it makes, is going to appease him.  His goal is not to be appeased but entertained.  

Huge Black Woman please explain your post and state what outcome your sock puppet racist trolling sig spamming little mind sees here?

So far I just see qwk being given evidence of a direct lie and himself denying the evidence in public.

Perhaps you can shine some light on the rational qwk employed to not see a blatant lie when I just presented the clear evidence of just that in front of him.

legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6981
Top Crypto Casino

qwk, you just wasted what I suspect was a good chunk of time with an explanation I could have predicted the outcome of beforehand.  This is why I'd suggested just ignoring cryptohunter and stop jumping through the hoops he puts up for his entertainment.  Nothing you write, regardless of how rational it is or how much sense it makes, is going to appease him.  His goal is not to be appeased but entertained. 
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
qwk please be serious.

The fact is there in clear black and white.

1. darkcoin (xcoin) was proven a captive instamine. You have seen it in black and white and years later even the dev admitted it and offered an airdrop that could have been worth 2 Billion dollars.
Gostrol was only 1 person to analyse the launch. I was actually on the launch as you can see from the first page of the thread so I know it to be true first hand.  The instamine took place it is an accepted FACT.

2. Lauda can be seen denying the instamine and claiming he knows it never happened since he was on the launch. This is a LIE it is impossible for it to be the truth. Please tell me how this can be the truth. He was a known darkcoin protector (ie trying to justify or deny the instamine and praise it in other areas)


Please don't be silly now and deny that this is an observable LIE. The fact lauda lied is there in black and white or explain how it is not a lie.


This is not just a single instance of this claim and his protecting and pushing this scam darkcoin over the years.

Now please revisit the evidence and then come back with a more sensible reply.

Nobody who is familiar with this denies darkcoin even their strongest advocates or even the dev himself who offered the airdrop as compensation after we applied pressure to do so.

Also you are missing the point in my OP in another area when you are ignoring the reasonable assumptions/conclusions based upon observable events and not just facts because that was related to obtaining merit. Do you see that I claim that post must have merit?  

Now I am trying to be nice to you but I suspect you are not being genuine in your responses to me. This serves only to demonstrate to the objective reader here that you may not be trustworthy. I mean why would you not wish to have a sensible serious debate over this?

So let's try again.

It seems strange also that you say regarding the alleged extortion and escrow debacles that you have no interest because there are layers of .... bitching, bile, bickering.... this again seems a very weak excuse for not investigating deeply yourself. You are in a position of trust. You should find it your duty to investigate and use all information possible to find the truth qwk should you not?

 Do you say that I  bitch, spit bile and bicker??  Please explain what exactly you mean?

Come let us not become hostile toward each other again. I am only hoping to assist you to do the correct and honest thing. You will thank me genuinely once you realise the mistake you have been making by allowing someone who is a proven liar to dupe you into including them into a position of trust.

You still have not even told me which of my "opinions" you disagree with? if you tell me and you wish to locate the truth I will try to help you find it. If you do not want the truth and are not interested in the truth just tell me that and I will not bother trying to help you further.





qwk
donator
Activity: 3542
Merit: 3413
Shitcoin Minimalist
@qwk
post of 1000 words starts below because the other one was for xtraelv
I hope you're aware that I could easily refuse to answer this post, because it absolutely disregards the first rule I had made.
If you want this to be your single "challenge post" for me, though, I'll answer it.
At least it's even less than 500 words Wink

1. you quoted me and it says there... facts and Reasonable conclusions based on evidence or corroborating events then went on to only address each of my points and measure them against what you would consider a FACT.
Yes, that is not very precise, but basically correct.
I quoted your post and (superficially) checked each and every single statement I could easily make out against the premise of it being a fact.
For each given "fact", I've given my conclusion wether or not it is a fact or e.g. an opinion.

You made no further mention of reasonable conclusions based on corroborating evidence/events.
I did not, that is true.
My post was solely focused on the question "are the statements in this post a fact or not?".

This was kind of thing I would not expect from you. Let's us be sensible and reasonable with each other.
I'm very sorry that you expected otherwise from me, but tbh, then you obviously don't know me very well.
I can be a real stickler and/or know-it-all.
Or "Besserwisser", as we Germans say (tbh, in my case, people often prefer the less polite word "Klugscheißer").

I mean we both understand many things would fail the threshold of a fact but are reasonable or highly probable and therefore still worthy of deep consideration.
We may both know that.
The truth of the matter though is: you were beginning your OP with the requirement of keeping to facts.
I've shown that I consider your very own post as not compliant with that requirement.


Now to test out if you are going to accept Facts and Facts I must ask you for a 3rd time to review a what I consider to be a fact and see if you will consider it to be a fact too.
Do continue.

Now since you have promised to answer me I am hoping you will do so now.
I will. But again, I feel not obliged to, because I don't consider this post to be abiding to the rules.
I'm actually doing you a favor here.
Bathe in my generosity Wink

Then after establishing this I will make what I find to be a reasonable statement based on that fact and you will tell me if it is reasonable or if not you will explain why it is not reasonable.
Assuming your success in establishing a fact, and also assuming the reason of your statement based on the aforementioned fact, I will tell you if it is reasonable?
That's a logical fallacy.
If my statement is dependent upon the reason of your statement, my own statement will tautologically be proof of the reason, thus rendering my judgement of reason moot Wink

After clearing that up we should move to the other points in my post that you and I shall debate and see if my "opinions" are reasonable or not or if some are indeed facts.
Opinions are just that: opinions.
If we disagree, we disagree.
If they are facts, they're no longer opinions.
I will not debate wether or not your opinions are reasonable.
I have not agreed to do that, and quite frankly, I'm not interested in such a debate:
Under these circumstances, I swear to provide you with a satisfactory(2) and concise(2) reply, outlining my opinion on each and every single case in your posting.


This is regarding a project that annouced a fair pow launch (no premine/instamine)
I wasn't expecting that.
I'm not usually familiar with ICOs, tbh, so I consider myself to not be up to the challenge, seriously.

"It"? Did what?
I honestly don't understand at all.
A user called "gostrol" posted something about a user called "eduffield" (mistyping the username, btw)?

he made these comments on many occasions over many months we had quite a few arguments over it
"He"? "It"? Huh
Who posted what on which occasions and what were you arguing about?

Now this is a posting by "Lauda", neither "gostrol" nor "eduffield", saying:
Now this is clearly a financially motivated lie.
Well, I'll have to guess here, because your post by itself is ambiguous:
Your statement seems to be:
Lauda saying that with Darkcoin there's "no pump going on" and "there was no instamine" is a lie.

Unfortunately, you don't provide any evidence for that.
I myself have not the slightest idea if
a) Darkcoin was "instamined"
b) Darkcoin was "pumped"
c) Lauda had at the moment of her post contradictory knowledge

My conclusion based solely on the presented facts would be:
Inconclusive.


Scammers are financially motivated liars.
That is a true, yet no comprehensive definition.
It encompasses more than just money:
Do you think to have someone on your DT inclusions that has been proven to be a liar and i say a scammer therefore because it is a deception for financial reasons.... so yes why do you include such a person ??
Again, I just have to assume that you mean to say "Lauda is a liar, because she said Darkcoin was no instamine & not pumped".
You have not provided any evidence for neither part of that statement.

Why do I include Lauda (again, I'll have to guess here) into my Trust List?
The reasons for my inclusion of her is that I find her Trust Feedback useful for newbies.
Lacking a good reason to exclude her, it's logical to include her.

I have, so far, not seen even the slightest evidence that might even lead to the weak assumption that her being on my Trust List could be harmful in any way.


Have you read the full threads in my sig
No. I have a life. Wink

and do you find them to be the actions of a trustworthy person?
I cannot answer this question, since I haven't read those threads.
Even though your sentence seems to imply that now you're talking about a person, where first you've talked about threads.
This is confusing.

combined with the fact that he is a liar for financial reasons.
Again, I have to assume or guess what you mean.
Is this really the way you want to discuss things?

I thought we had a deal here: you'd provide facts, I'd answer.
Now if I were to call this a "breach of contract", would you agree?


How about the extortion attempt or the escrow business?
You don't provide evidence, links, quotes, as agreed upon.
Breach of contract?


what are your opinons on those?
I have obviously read about the "extortion" and "escrow" allegations against Lauda.
I never considered them worthwhile to find out more, though.
The reason was mostly that they are covered under layers upon layers of bile, bickering, bitching by people like e.g. you.

If you ever wanted a serious discussion about these allegations against Lauda, you had more than your fair share of chances.
And that is my opinion.


I am trying to sample your thoughts so that I can see this high threshold of acceptance of facts or reasonable/probable explanation in light of observable /corroborating events and circumstances.
You've utterly failed me, young padawan Sad
You failed to establish facts.
You failed to follow a few basic ground rules.
You failed to write up a "readable" post (again, my opinion).


I would like to hear your detailed thoughts on these things which I say are very relevant to the OP because if you are not politically motivated and you are objective that will be welcome news. I thought we may have got off to a bad start but i was impressed at your cool nature even when I was swearing at you.
Again, I'm flattered, but unfortunately, flattery will only take you so far.


I need to learn this type of coolness myself.  I feel it will certainly help me convey my thoughts to a wider audience.
Now that may not be a fact, but an opinion we both share. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
sadly for you guys I have damaged my hand in a slight accident so I will be typing lot less until it is better since to type with one hand is way way slower and a post of 1000 words taking perhaps 10 mins -15mins is now going to be perhaps 1 hour or even greater..

So xtraelv you are missing my point i feel. It is perfectly legit to merit according to political views even if you openly state this so long as the post is providing value and is merit worthy. The motive should not be relevant or considered for the purposes of merit because the post itself should stand on its own to be analysed objectively.

I mean to say you do not merit in a politically driven manner is quite unlikely let's check out your bpip (this is only the top10 if feel the top20 would give an even more clear picture.

Favorite profiles to send sMerit to
Profile   Number   Sum
suchmoon   29   29
taikuri13   19   19
Lafu   3   19
theymos   10   10
marlboroza   9   9
o_e_l_e_o   9   9
morvillz7z   9   9
DdmrDdmr   8   8
ICOEthics   8   8
The Pharmacist   8   8


Most of those merits were given well before the current voting system was introduced.
The topics they were given for are non political. I'm hardly going to put people on my list that I have never encountered before. The trustlist expanded a lot since the default trust changes. Most of those people were not on my list when the merit was given.

A list of people that are good posters (an the most merited list), that post a lot in meta and that I happen to trust is not proof of what you are saying.

You said it was for political noise.

You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here on this board a lot of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here. This is merely political noise.

I would like to see the political noise posts..



I think according to the statistics distributed 474 merit on 448 different bitcointalk posts to 150 different members.

Many on my trust list have never received any merit from me.


now I wonder about your own dt inclusions exclusions


That is a very outdated list that you posted but it also had an error that I just corrected.

It is not just for DT voting. Some of the people on my list may never be eligible for DT. It is who I trust.

"I just believe that with the sheer number of negative threads you make in various places, the unwarranted personal attacks that you have made on me and others and the feedback that you have left previously for others and the people you trust and distrust does not align with my values. "

1. point me to the negative posts
2. the unwarranted personal attacks.

Plagiarism is plagiarism and results in a permaban. There is no valid excuse.

It is super easy to use quotes and/or list a source.

Please mr nobody

Stfu

Look at hypocrite ... worried about others peoples prior art..

this is just in a couple of pages of his history  ...pleb

Does that count ?






Negative THREADS not one post that is makes a very valid point. That entire discussion must be viewed to understand the collision.

One instance and not an example of what you claimed... and if you read the entire thread not just one post  I clearly state the point is valid. People can read the entire thread and make their own minds up. Bring me lots more - - "the sheer number of negative ...blabla"

I will peruse your posts in a few mins and locate some political bolstering of your pals for which you get or give merit. Of course with merit there is no abuse possible since there is such a degree of subjectivity. But clearly a substantial number your posts and your pals that receive and give merit are mostly just actions to bolster and support each others politics here. I can only see 120 days back how to see merit since - it was introduced? are you a merit source or not?

So anyway just gave a quick glance over you 120days merit

Now actually I will not say at all that you are a shit poster whom deserves no merits. Actually I notice I have given you merits for some nice research and I notice some of your posts add value. You are also not actually one of the persons I consider to be INTENTIONALLY fighting against a fairer system. However in my opinion it is clear that there is cycling on political (shared values and pals) which i don't object to but all persons should be allowed to narrow their focus of applying merit too.

let me list some examples it took me 5 mins to find some

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49589048

politically motivated nonsense

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49491647

politically motivated nonsense and making fun of a serious cycling of merits

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49478856

so much merit so little content look who awards all of this



https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49538086

merit endorsement for politics and false claims and assumptions.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49053422

merit again for a proven untrustworthy person getting more merits. notice too the others supporting his request...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49057251

post making fun of the fact persons have deep concerns of cycling and another cycler getting merit source
no value in that post from yahoo and another support with merits on this thread after already

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49052232
again notice others meriting


these examples Plus the prior posts I made demonstrates clear that a group of "pals" share political views and even by posting piss taking jokes aligning with those views will get your merits even if those views are incorrect.

I mean there is no doubt that if you post something that aligns with a persons politics even if it is proven incorrect can get you merits here. Or even if the poster posting it is blatantly demonstrating double standards and hypocrisy  will still get them merits if they are pals or their post politically align with their pals.

merit cycling is not always intentional nor to enable manipulation and selfish gain via the systems of control it can be a natural thing like: i meet some cool people who share my views and i enjoy their posts so i look for them and naturally they will attract more merit from me.

 I get this but then sometimes views and opinions form that may not be correct but the group will act as a gang to incorrectly try to stop their views being demonstrated as incorrect. This is okay but not at the expense of having the power to damage other persons accounts whom are correct especially if they are presenting FACTS.

We simply need a system or systems that push for full transparency fairness and equality for each member. Anyone opposing those things is acting selfishly.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1926
฿ear ride on the rainbow slide
sadly for you guys I have damaged my hand in a slight accident so I will be typing lot less until it is better since to type with one hand is way way slower and a post of 1000 words taking perhaps 10 mins -15mins is now going to be perhaps 1 hour or even greater..

So xtraelv you are missing my point i feel. It is perfectly legit to merit according to political views even if you openly state this so long as the post is providing value and is merit worthy. The motive should not be relevant or considered for the purposes of merit because the post itself should stand on its own to be analysed objectively.

I mean to say you do not merit in a politically driven manner is quite unlikely let's check out your bpip (this is only the top10 if feel the top20 would give an even more clear picture.

Favorite profiles to send sMerit to
Profile   Number   Sum
suchmoon   29   29
taikuri13   19   19
Lafu   3   19
theymos   10   10
marlboroza   9   9
o_e_l_e_o   9   9
morvillz7z   9   9
DdmrDdmr   8   8
ICOEthics   8   8
The Pharmacist   8   8


Most of those merits were given well before the current voting system was introduced.
The topics they were given for are non political. I'm hardly going to put people on my list that I have never encountered before. The trustlist expanded a lot since the default trust changes. Most of those people were not on my list when the merit was given.

A list of people that are good posters (an the most merited list), that post a lot in meta and that I happen to trust is not proof of what you are saying.

You said it was for political noise.

You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here on this board a lot of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here. This is merely political noise.

I would like to see the political noise posts..



I think according to the statistics distributed 474 merit on 448 different bitcointalk posts to 150 different members.

Many on my trust list have never received any merit from me.


now I wonder about your own dt inclusions exclusions


That is a very outdated list that you posted but it also had an error that I just corrected.

It is not just for DT voting. Some of the people on my list may never be eligible for DT. It is who I trust.

"I just believe that with the sheer number of negative threads you make in various places, the unwarranted personal attacks that you have made on me and others and the feedback that you have left previously for others and the people you trust and distrust does not align with my values. "

1. point me to the negative posts
2. the unwarranted personal attacks.

Plagiarism is plagiarism and results in a permaban. There is no valid excuse.

It is super easy to use quotes and/or list a source.

Please mr nobody

Stfu

Look at hypocrite ... worried about others peoples prior art..

this is just in a couple of pages of his history  ...pleb

Does that count ?




legendary
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167
MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG
sadly for you guys I have damaged my hand in a slight accident so I will be typing lot less until it is better since to type with one hand is way way slower and a post of 1000 words taking perhaps 10 mins -15mins is now going to be perhaps 1 hour or even greater..

So xtraelv you are missing my point i feel. It is perfectly legit to merit according to political views even if you openly state this so long as the post is providing value and is merit worthy. The motive should not be relevant or considered for the purposes of merit because the post itself should stand on its own to be analysed objectively.

I mean to say you do not merit in a politically driven manner is quite unlikely let's check out your bpip (this is only the top10 if feel the top20 would give an even more clear picture.

Favorite profiles to send sMerit to
Profile   Number   Sum
suchmoon   29   29
taikuri13   19   19
Lafu   3   19
theymos   10   10
marlboroza   9   9
o_e_l_e_o   9   9
morvillz7z   9   9
DdmrDdmr   8   8
ICOEthics   8   8
The Pharmacist   8   8


suchmoon   31   155
Vod   12   71
BitcoinFX   2   51
Spidersbox   1   50
cryptodevil   3   46
qwk   14   35
TMAN   10   30
bones261   17   28
LoyceV   21   26
paxmao   14   25


Now that is kind of telling is it not I mean I see many names there that are listed in the OP


now I wonder about your own dt inclusions exclusions

included by

1miau
         Alex_Sr
         Bitze
         Coolcryptovator
         DJ1554
         DarkStar_alt
         DdmrDdmr
         Epicyclic
         ICOEthics
         Lafu
         TMAN
         The Pharmacist
         cryptodevil
         iasenko
         marlboroza
         morvillz7z
         owlcatz
         qwk
         r1s2g3
         suchmoon
         taikuri13
         theyoungmillionaire
         tmfp

you include

        1miau
         AUKING
         Alex_Sr
         Bigjohnson124
         Coolcryptovator
         DJ1554
         DarkStar_
         DdmrDdmr
         Hhampuz
         ICOEthics
         Lafu
         LoyceV
         Lutpin
         Mitchell
         MySeriousFaceIsOn
         Pieter Wuille
         Rumhurius
         The Pharmacist
         TripleHeXXX
         Veleor
         Vod
         Welsh
         Xal0lex
         actmyname
         bones261
         coinlocket$
         cryptodevil
         dooglus
         gmaxwell
         gost111
         hilariousandco
         hilariousetc
         iasenko
         ibminer
         marlboroza
         minerjones
         morvillz7z
         mprep
         nutildah
         o_e_l_e_o
         owlcatz
         pazor_true
         phantastisch
         qwk
         suchmoon
         taikuri13
         theymos
         theyoungmillionaire
         tmfp
         waya
         xandry

now I see there once again these contain the exact persons that I have mentioned before.

so from a board of 150k users now it is a big coincidence that this you find their posts the most worthy of merit and amazingly they find your posts most worthy of merit.  

You feel they should be on DT and they feel you should be on DT


What is even more freakish is that the entire circle also feel a huge proportion of the same people need to be excluded from DT.


Now what you are seeing on my trust list and the others trust lists is a RESPONSE to the circling of merits and the manipulation and abuse of DT . This abuse is proven but sadly the subjectivity of the systems of control allow for the deniability of collusion when everything else points to it.

So to recap.

I am saying there is nothing wrong with political meriting as long as the post is merit worthy. This is of course not fair because you will be withholding merit from others by not viewing their posts as much or if you dislike them or their posts are not in agreement politically with  your views or the views that enable you personally to benefit from these systems then these will be strongly resisted.

I mean let me take the rest of your post

"I just believe that with the sheer number of negative threads you make in various places, the unwarranted personal attacks that you have made on me and others and the feedback that you have left previously for others and the people you trust and distrust does not align with my values. "

1. point me to the negative posts
2. the unwarranted personal attacks.

You do realise my MO is simply

Criteria be set for DT and Merit that ensures fair and equal treatment of all persons here. Can you show me a post of mine that does not seem to be pushing for that ??

My posts only seem negative to those that the status quo suites better than the fairer system I would like to see introduced.

Please think about this post before you reply.

@qwk

post of 1000 words starts below because the other one was for xtraelv


------------------------------------------------------------------

1. you quoted me and it says there... facts and Reasonable conclusions based on evidence or corroborating events then went on to only address each of my points and measure them against what you would consider a FACT. You made no further mention of reasonable conclusions based on corroborating evidence/events. This was kind of thing I would not expect from you. Let's us be sensible and reasonable with each other. I mean we both understand many things would fail the threshold of a fact but are reasonable or highly probable and therefore still worthy of deep consideration.

Now to test out if you are going to accept Facts and Facts I must ask you for a 3rd time to review a what I consider to be a fact and see if you will consider it to be a fact too. Now since you have promised to answer me I am hoping you will do so now. Then after establishing this I will make what I find to be a reasonable statement based on that fact and you will tell me if it is reasonable or if not you will explain why it is not reasonable. After clearing that up we should move to the other points in my post that you and I shall debate and see if my "opinions" are reasonable or not or if some are indeed facts.

This is regarding a project that annouced a fair pow launch (no premine/instamine)

It then did this

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7535561

he made these comments on many occasions over many months we had quite a few arguments over it

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6748208

Now this is clearly a financially motivated lie. Scammers are financially motivated liars.

Do you think to have someone on your DT inclusions that has been proven to be a liar and i say a scammer therefore because it is a deception for financial reasons.... so yes why do you include such a person ??

Have you read the full threads in my sig and do you find them to be the actions of a trustworthy person? combined with the fact that he is a liar for financial reasons. How about the extortion attempt or the escrow business? what are your opinons on those?

I am trying to sample your thoughts so that I can see this high threshold of acceptance of facts or reasonable/probable explanation in light of observable /corroborating events and circumstances.

I would like to hear your detailed thoughts on these things which I say are very relevant to the OP because if you are not politically motivated and you are objective that will be welcome news. I thought we may have got off to a bad start but i was impressed at your cool nature even when I was swearing at you. I need to learn this type of coolness myself.  I feel it will certainly help me convey my thoughts to a wider audience.









legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1926
฿ear ride on the rainbow slide
https://archive.fo/WeJk2

         xtraelv

You will notice a significant proportion of merits they allocate each other are not because the post is of great value because those posts introduce no new facts based nor substantiated information at all, they are merely in many cases a brief personal statement that confirms they subscribe to the same political (where the board is concerned - approval of or non approval of certain members regardless of whether they are proven scammers or not or on other political matters regarding the running of the board) views or have the same ideas as those meriting them.

You will notice a lot of merit given for empty or faux rebuttals to political statements based on fact here on this board a lot of the time, just as much as merit given for unsubstantiated agreement in the form of groundless opinions and ideas. There is no value here. This is merely political noise.


Since my name is on your list I'd like to see the evidence implicating where I have done that. (Invoking the local rule)

As a standard I will compare it to how you have spent your merits.




Local rules - NO PERSON that does not substantiate their answer with facts and observable events may reply. If you wish to voice a groundless opinion which when called on it will not be able to provide evidence or corroborating events to back it up then I wish you to NOT post in this thread.


You will also notice these person withhold merit from posts that do not fit their political agendas or are made by persons they do not like or persons they have argued with previously. This is without doubt the case.


I disagree with this statement. I have given merit to numerous people I dislike or have argued with previously when I feel their post is worthy of it. I am not a merit source so the smerits are for me to spend as I see just. I also don't always have smerits available to give.

Sometimes people can give very valuable contributions - even though I may not be aligned with their opinions.

Examples of people I have had disputes with or that dislike me that received merit from me: (Not a complete list)
February 04, 2019, 09:34:15 PM: 1 to Quickseller for Re: Discussion about subjective behaviors that may result in a red tag.
February 04, 2019, 06:26:33 AM: 1 to TECSHARE for Re: The most iconic bitcointalk threads. History on Bitcointalk.
January 30, 2019, 02:01:01 AM: 1 to mdayonliner for My philosophy to entrust and ~distrust members
October 15, 2018, 01:41:52 PM: 1 to S_Therapist for Re: Wall of fame / shame. Shit posts so bad that they are actually funny

There are also numerous people that I do not particularly like or have had no previous conversations with that received merit.

Merit is given purely for the quality of the post. I think I deserve an apology for the accusation.


Their connection/collusion/political allegiance  is also clearly evident on the DT inclusions exclusions.


My exclusions list is purely based on people who I don't trust , have a manner which I believe to be incompatible to be on DT1 or whose trust feedback I disagree with (e.g. have people listed as trusted or red tagged).
People on my trust list are those whose [opinions) feedback ratings I (generally) want to see.

I disagree with the bickering and you will notice that the majority of people on my trustlist are people who contribute positively on the forum and have moderate views.
The people that are more vocal I believe to have a positive contribution to the forum.
A lot of people I agree with and disagree with also don't appear on my list because they may be involved in disputes where I am not prepared to take sides on.


The reason you are excluded on my list is not because I have an extreme dislike. I just believe that with the sheer number of negative threads you make in various places, the unwarranted personal attacks that you have made on me and others and the feedback that you have left previously for others and the people you trust and distrust does not align with my values.


Your own trust and exclusion list looks very political:




Pages:
Jump to: