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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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)

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.


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.


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.


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".



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.


You misread that post.


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.


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.





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







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



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.

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.

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.

funny how these shitcoiners like cryptohunter think that bitcoiners know every shitcoin and their backstory


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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.


For a lie, you have to know better.
I have no information wether this was true for Lauda at the moment of her post.


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.

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.


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.

Again, I'm not familiar with the Altcoin "scene", so please forgive my lack of knowledge regarding these things.


I don't really understand, sorry.
(I'm not fooling you here, this is where my comprehension of the English language sometimes fails 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.

I'll simply ignore that you even wrote that.

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!

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.


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.


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).

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.

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.

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".

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.

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. 

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.

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

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.

I did not, that is true.
My post was solely focused on the question "are the statements in this post a fact or not?".

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").

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.


Do continue.

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

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

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:


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"? "It"?
Who posted what on which occasions and what were you arguing about?

Now this is a posting by "Lauda", neither "gostrol" nor "eduffield", saying:
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.


That is a true, yet no comprehensive definition.
It encompasses more than just money:
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.


No. I have a life.

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.

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?


You don't provide evidence, links, quotes, as agreed upon.
Breach of contract?


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.


You've utterly failed me, young padawan
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).


Again, I'm flattered, but unfortunately, flattery will only take you so far.


Now that may not be a fact, but an opinion we both share.

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.

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.


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.



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.



Does that count ?

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.

https://archive.fo/WeJk2

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.





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.


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:

the reasoning to make merit associated with political votes is flawed

Here's just the fact, we're all humans and most times we do things unconsciously. You can't take out the fact before you consider a post as a quality one you have to see it as one too. That been said, when you're active on a particular board and always come across repeated quality post from a particular user or selected few, you unconsciously become a merit fan of that/those user sending them merit almost daily. Take DdmrDdmr as an example, I'm so used to his quality posting that if I had the power all his post deserve at least 1merit. Don't think he has ever made a shitpost.

That been said if the users you mention above are sending themselves merit via quality posts, I see no crime there.

@OP, Do you know the different between Political post & Constructive post really ?  Let us know briefly how you consider this post as a constructive and valuable post. (FIY, admin marked it as a political post.)

That is true.

Really, then spend your time with your family and stay cool..........
Theymos aware about current situation, let him handle himself. Or are you expecting theymos should handover forum to you?  


Honest suggestion for you; Please don't make complain post always. Try to make constructive and useful post, so that newbie could learn something. Don't suggest always to theymos how he should handle this forum, he know very well. You become too tired, take rest now. You have worked too much for forum let us do the rest work.  


I have bothered to reply your thread since you have mentioned my name, otherwise I am not encourage to reply here. I believe I have received less merit what I contribute for forum.

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.

Interesting post cryptohunter, I had you on ignore but had to take it off so that I could reply in here.

Would you mind pointing out on what sort of posts I've received substantial (Out of my 645 earned merits) amounts of merit due to political views? I'd truly appreciate that.

Considering you are all about facts this shouldn't be hard for you to supply.

I understand that you believe that fighting for an transparent objective and fair system renders me negative to the way you wish things to continue.

Where as I can demonstrate clearly that you are terrified to review observable fact of a lie by another DT member and comment on it. Once again that is far more telling and far more net negative that fighting for clear and transparent criteria that ensures fair treatment for all.

Alone55 please refer to my local rules.

Your attempts to call anything trolling that does not fit with your politics is quite evident and revealing.

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? 


P.S: Does anyone from that list need this? Let me know.

If Theymos had a "political" bias, then he would have banned Crypto Hunter.

I admit that I have a subjective approach to the awarding of merits - I only award them to people that I think are contributing to the forum in a positive way. I apologise to Crypto Hunter that I don't include him in that category.

I am also aware that I am awarding sMerits to posters in threads that I have started, and I would like to reduce this, and spread the merits to a wider range of posters. I would be grateful if Crypto Hunter ( and others)  could start some quality threads about Bitcoin and the new government backed cryptos. The proposed gold backed Iranian one could be a good start.

I'm still waiting to be accused of giving merits to lower-ranked accounts as a means of somehow politically influencing them to be on "my side".  That accusation hasn't come yet, but it seems to be the next logical step for cryptohunter and the rest of the trolls.  The members on that list of his are never going to do anything right in the trolls' minds, regardless of what those members do.

These members are all pretty good posters overall, and there are many others too.  It shouldn't be surprising that they've earned quite a bit of merit for their efforts.  I'd also point out (again) that the number of sMerits I've given to these members as a percentage of the total amount I've given out is, I think, relatively small.  I have not done the math and am only speaking for myself here.

Most of the merits I've given have not been source merits, either.  The vast majority of sMerits I've given to anyone on the above list have been ones I've earned.  I only got made a merit source a few months ago, and my allotment was pretty small to begin with.  And take a look at the number of members who aren't on this list that I've merited; you'll hardly see evidence of abuse.

They can. They must not. I'm such a stickler for semantics

In most cases, I simply couldn't care less and have no measurable opinion of my own
I was just pointing out where you don't follow your own requirement of a "fact" based post.
Opinions are by definition not facts.

I don't usually edit my posts (well, tbh, I actually often edit them within the fist minutes of posting, to fix typos etc.).

I never felt compelled to change someones opinion.
If we disagree, we disagree, I'm okay with that.
As long as there's a respectful exchange of ideas, I'm a happy cat.

Actually it was for good use of hyperbole for rhetorical effect. Nobody (well, nobody with a brain) would take the lemon example literally. In fact, nobody did: you got your red trust for reasons entirely unrelated to your liking of lemons. Exactly what political motives do you think I had?

Merit sources are the only ones bound to rules, people are free to do whatever they want with their own merits if they are not a merit source. If User A wants to give User B 500 merits for liking lemons (sorry had to do it) they are free too, because they earned the SMerits they have. If they are using the Smerits given to them by the forum as a pillar of the merit system to award to people for reasons laid out before applying as a merit source, they are held to higher scrutiny.

Example: Merit sources cannot sell merit. Non merit sources can sell merit, but people will negative tag them.

Can you briefly explain this statement or expand upon it.

Please don't come at me with more lemons nonsense which I now find that I should have called nonsense from the very start.

This post is actually a good example of exactly what I am talking about.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.48752174

Foxpup one of the main political merit givers and cyclers gives you 2 merits for that pile of junk telling me liking lemons is quite a just reason for me getting red trust.

This has been proven to be nonsense as per theymos last post regarding DT and of course was a diabolical post that would render trust scores a complete joke.

Now he gives you 2 points for political reasons.

I await qwk to also tell if if all points where he has put "opinion" if he refutes or supports that opinion. Please edit your post so I can see which ones need full attention first. Because the ones if there are any you agree with are those I can leave until later.

Actually qwk if you disagree whilst I am away could you say if you disagree and why you do. So that I know what I can do to assist you to see it in a reasonable and objective way. Or that you may assist me to change my own opinions ...this is why it is great to debate things. It helps everyone and there are no losers. You just all get a more optimal view after all information is analysed.

@ nutildah please allow the adults room to discuss. I can't waste time on snakes like you. I notice you ran away from my last debate with you like a total pussy. Stop derailing this sensible and interesting thread with your politically driven rantings and childish pics.

Yes well I will be on vacation actually for long time so although I like to enjoy myself I will selflessly make time to defend the forum and persons right to free speech from snakes like yourself. Generosity like this may seem insane to someone like yourself.

This is how you choose to spend your vacation??

Remember when you wanted me to point out to you one of your comments that looked like insanity?

Well this is it. Theymos already told you he's not going to read your long-winded diatribes, but you chose to double-down. Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, so goes the great adage.

"Known" merit sources in bold:
Source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/top-200-the-most-generous-users-giving-merits-4523027

Are any of these people merit sources? Otherwise, merit "rules" don't apply.

Just for starters: I don't like being forced to simple "yes or no" answers, I consider myself a person of differentiation.

Unfortunately, I cannot answer this with a clear "yes" without certain limits being defined beforehand.
Otherwise, I'd put myself at your mercy when it came to a possibly never-ending text of yours, in which case it is obviously very much my right to deny you the satisfaction of an answer.

So, here's my conditions for a "yes":
- you create a single post with no more than 1,000 words (for reference: your OP has 1671)
- you limit yourself to a maximum of 5 examples / cases
- you provide links and quotes that support each case
- you establish facts, when you call them that(1)
- you grant the persons in each case the right to also make a post in response under the same conditions
- you keep the text "readable"(2)
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.
I cannot guarantee a timely answer, though, because that will depend upon factors like my "mood", "laziness" and factors outside of my personal influence. Usually, I'm pretty quick, though.

(1) I consider myself a sceptical person, so my standards for establishing facts on your behalf may be higher than you'd usually expect.
(2) by definition or obviously, that's not objectively measurable, so you'll have to trust my judgement on this.

I'm on vaction but reserve this post to answer each of those points that you raise. When i get sensible opportunity to give you post the consideration it deserves.

However, I am looking forward to a full debate with your qwk and on this occasion I hope that you will not be shy and tell me that you do not WISH to review evidence that I will supply to validate my "opinion"s.

I will make an effort to reply to your post if you will promise me now not to "shy away" from hard evidence that I will provide and give an opinion on ALL evidence i bring forth. Will you make that PROMISE qwk? Then I will certainly thrash out all of the "points" that you bring up. I have only been asking for someone to debate these with me for quite some time.

Yes or NO qwk do you promise to review and give your public opinion on all evidence that I provide to substantiate my OPINIONS that you call into question? YES OR NO?  no half debating then this time vanishing or saying you do not wish to review or comment. Or that it was a typing error. This time please check the entire post you made for anything that seems incorrect before I spend time with you debating the points in the OP.

Also can you make it clear if you are in agreement with items you have branded "opinion" as if they are groundless and can not be backed or supported by observable events? You are saying you disagree or agree? please revisit your post and clarify. Don't agree or agree. I will not waste time on debating if you already agree because it will require more effort to bring forth the case than is needed if you already accept my opinion. I hope you understand what I mean.

But you must agree to answer everything that I ask you and visa versa... else the debate is one sided.

I like you qwk and look forward to this. Almost want to miss out my afternoon partying later just to focus on this.

So this is about facts?
I somehow fail to see that you live up to your own standards:

Belief.

Significant?
Do you mean statistically? If so, that might be a fact.
If so, how did you measure it?

Any hint as to which posts precisely you're referring to, and how you established the "fact" that they are mere personal statements?

"Groundless" is an evaluation by yourself.

I wonder how one can "withhold" merit.
My understanding is that people are free to give or not give merit.

Not a fact. I doubt it.

Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.

Not a fact. I don't see it clearly.

Where's the evidence?

Opinion.

Opinion.

Not a fact. That depends upon the definition of "value" in this case.

Opinion.

Opinion.

"True value" is a strong word.
Care to elaborate how such a valuation might be established?

Opinion.

Opinion.

Opinion.

Opinion.

Opinion.

That's an impossible standard you're applying.

Speculation.

Opinion.

Opinion.

I somehow fail to see the problem here, because that's precisely what is expected from DT1 members.
Discuss if someone should be on trust lists (and come to a conclusion).

Unachievable standard.

Theres no such rules with these people,if they are meriting each other's posts,giving trust to each other it is okay but if someone has given merits,trust or even multiple accounts you will get red tagged even if you are doing something which isnt violating any rules you will get red paint.Abusive people does have double standards when it comes to their friends or enemies,i pitty this forum even the admins cant handle this type of abusive people.

This is what happens when you have ambiguously and selectively enforced rules Theymos. Every time.

Theymos can you explain your reasoning on honest meriting of merit worthy posts by those that clearly announce their intentions vs those that are sneaky about it and report others whilst clearly doing it themselves?

This is not a criticism I want to understand how this even works here in your mind.... It is another long post but I feel that if you read it all and give a thorough explanation then this could start to push the systems of control in the correct direction faster and create less collateral damage along the way. Merit is the key to these newly introduced control systems.


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.

Anyone following those rules can post.


This is a system wide discussion of a topic that theymos commented on personally himself and made clear that political motivation for a post is not allowed and only the post value itself should determine the merit given.

So let's just discuss on the FACTS and reasonable conclusions we can substantiate with corroborating observable events.


If you were to take an objective view of the posts made by persons here below and merited by each other
(I will add others because actually I believe many many persons merit based on pure political agreement and do not even bother to analyse the post for VALUE that you can substantiate if they were called on it. Just claiming their opinion is valuable because it demonstrates a consensus with your own and strengthens your case (in your mind) is of course political in terms of discussing other members or issues relating to how the forum functions.)


         Foxpup -
         Lauda -
         The Pharmacist -
         marlboroza
         owlcatz
         suchmoon
         Coolcryptovator
         DireWolfM14
         Hhampuz
         Jet Cash
         LoyceV
         TMAN
         o_e_l_e_o
         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.

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.

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

So we see here clearly that many merit sources here are meriting/not meriting on political grounds. However, they are just sneaky and would seek to deny it even though the evidence is there in black and white.
This actually makes them far less trustworthy than a person that says "okay i subscribe to these political views and I will scan those persons posts and find merit worthy posts that are objectively worthy of merit and then allocate them merit"

So not only have you (in my opinion) on suchmoons (provable double standards and highly politically motivated merit cycler) guidance punished an honest person regarding his intentions you have removed merit from merit worthy posts that present factual information of great value in the removal of stingers and his correctly applied (from an objective pov) merit . This is not wise in my opinion because...

The merit should have only been removed if the posts themselves were clearly not merit worthy else that is demonstrating the system is nothing to do with the objective post quality. Motive can have no influence over the objective value of the post. That is a fallacy of the ad hominem variant.

Post quality should be judged on its own merits. You should analyse a post, and to your best ability pick it apart for useful relevant information that can be seen to contribute to the optimal outcome.


If a merit score is supposed to represent the true value of a post then we have just punished an honest person and rewarded a sneaky person for complaining about the same actions he takes, but he is too devious (or not as blatant) about announcing it, but his actions clearly demonstrate this as do the actions of most other merit sources from his circle.


I say the merit system is broken and damaging greatly this board now that you have once again pushed (possibly by the same circle I am referring to here) to raise the DT threshold to something that suites them nicely ie 250 earned and self awarded (in a nice little circle of pals) to each other.

Punishing someone who announced their intentions honestly to find merit worthy posts and merit them from persons who subscribe to his personal political views on this board at the behest of a circle that are doing that in plain sight and making jokes about it is quite a bad move. I mean just look at the merit back scratchers and back stabbers joke threads the complainer suchmoon is nearly at the top of both of those?? I mean this is making a mockery of the merit system.

Surely there can not be one rule for one side of this political rift and not for the other can there?

I mean surely you can see they are meriting based on political shared views rather than on the actual post value (many of which have zero value and are misleading)? also are withholding merit on this same basis??

Or do you deny this is happening? You actually are going to tell me that these people are objectively analysing posts and allocating merit in this way free of politics and prior interactions with other members? Please try to be really look at this situation deeply and objectively.

I have clearly said before that I do believe you want what is best for the board and that is your only concern. I still believe this even in light of the curious and strange answers that you gave last time which I would still love to debate with you and I am sure that I could alter your views.

However, i am speculating that you are willing to take some collateral damage to innocent persons to achieve an eventual result that is more fair than the path that leads to that.  This i understand, but I feel that just a bit of analysis of what I have said here and some strong words to those committing WORSE than what stingers got punished for could speed up to the eventual result that you are looking for. I am however happy you have spoken out on DT lately and said that should be for scammers only to get red trust. This is a great announcement and should now allow person to voice their love or hate of lemons more freely.

I mean if you tell me that these people are objectively meriting posts on their value and that they are not guilty of WORSE than stingers (because he made efforts to merit only merit worthy posts and openly announced his intentions) whilst they merit posts of zero value and low effort but will not admit they do it for political reasons and ignore valuable posts of the same basis. If you tell me that then I will know then that there is no further point to try to discuss things with you and help this board in this way.

I am genuinely interested in a real discussion on this very important matter since now the DT is directly a merit dependant system. I have no idea why merit would equal trust anyway because it is allowing persons with a very short history here to be put into positions of trust where legends with years of observable history demonstrating no dishonest or untrustworthy actions is verifiable. I also see CLEAR discussion by those with the 250 earned merits commenting on other person trust lists and cherry picking if THEY consider that therefore makes them ripe for inclusion or exclusion.

These new systems are quite risky if you do not mind me saying. I have had legends and other old members tell me in pms (which you can probably see them) that they are scared to support some of my views because although they share some of them they are afraid of reprisals from the gangs that those systems have allowed to form. This is a clear clear illustration of free speech being crushed along the way.

This i say again is not a direct criticism of you personally other than to say the systems need some tweaks in my mind to prevent those things I have described happening. I think you should listen less to the suchmoon group and really investigate and consider the concerns of the opposing group here who only want a fair and equal system for all persons. Surely that is what you want to is it not?

Please can you just give some criteria for merit and red trust that ALL persons must abide by equally from now on. Also consider lowering earned merit too 150 and entering an activity of 1500 therefore the person has longer history to check against and has a more senior account to risk here from untrustworthy actions.