Topic: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST (Read 717 times)

Personally I love the lemons thing. At first I suspected you could be trolling me (providing false almost ludicrous information in a serious tone). However, as I now understand the DT and trust system I see now that you were simply demonstrating the subjective nature of DT.  I mean I find it more reasonable inside a trust system to get red trust for lemons love than I do for some of the red trust I have witnessed already.

Disruptive I will accept. I do not find being disruptive is essentially negative. Indeed if you believe systems of control are suffocating or influencing free speech then to disrupt is positive - logic and reason must be applied to what they are disrupting and what their agenda is. I mean as noted I have no power other than to present facts. My agenda is clear for a fairer and more transparent set of rules that prevent abuse and freedom of speech being muted. If that is something you would distrust then that is something for you to either explain or not.

Anyway this was not essentially meant to be a post that focus on my trolling/not trolling it was meant for trolling in general.

I thought the LQ HQ post criteria went rather well and I think a quite comprehensive and exhaustive set of criteria was set.

Now I notice a lot of talk about trolling all over the forum. It seems to have become an umbrella term for posts that seem very different in tone and content and humour.

So I was simply hoping to emulate the HQ LQ post and see if we could drill down and see how what people consider as trolling.

I'm really glad that I'm seeing my lemons example popping up everywhere. I also use lemons when I'm comparing triggered emotional responses from someone who has had five family members choke to death on lemons, and someone who has had no bad experiences with lemons.

Its been summed up pretty well, but lets put simply that trolling is bad forums behavior. Everyone will have a slightly different idea of what bad forum behavior is. The part that 99% will agree on is what we'll call the accepted definition of trolling.

Should someone be given red trust for trolling? Well it depends. It is absolutely fair to not trust someone because of their behavior. You can't give a complete and comprehensive list of what behaviors everyone will find unacceptable. No one is going to write you out a list that says

• I trust people that make jokes
• I don't trust people that use lies in their jokes
• I trust people who dislike lemons
• I don't trust people that are habitually disruptive: Read addendum 15 for definition of habitually disruptive

Point to specifics, and people will give you their interpretations on a case by case basis. If the question is whether you are a troll, I don't know, but I'd definitely consider you disruptive.

I've been on wind up too... I just didnt think of going so extreme as you though ...with the uncles touching children and carrots and fruit up the ass pipe...

Can't believe you bit the bait.

I was undercover trying to flush out the real mad fuckers. You ruined it all now. I know how you feel on that extortion thing.... getting your cover blown by some well meaning goodie goodie.

Of course not, you're my merit sponsor. I'm still waiting for that dinner.

I don't think even my extensive pill abuse can reach this level of crazy.

Ok I am the mongrel you are steven hawkings love child, I get it - but it doesnt change the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

That thread shows 10,000,000 levels of crazy - its not the content it is the way you behave. That lead to me tagging you - because of the way you behave IE. Crazy. now in the same breath you think I am crazy as I was on a wind up (which has obviously worked) about strange sexual behavior (you bit the bait)

please tell me you understand that - I dont need war and peace, I dont need you referencing anything other than what I have said in bold.

I think we're all due for a stern reprimand from The Pharmacist.

You just can't leave me alone, can you? Anyway, time travel doesn't work like that, but I don't expect your limited mind to understand why, so I won't bother attempting to explain it.

No sorry that thread is a presentation of FACT you dumb moron. You see me calling you a dumb piece of shit is just obvious fact. I mean if you want to call  some one crazy for swearing at scammers daring to leave a scam hunter red trust ....then you need to therefore at the very least remain calm and civil (not that would prove anything other than the person is understandably annoyed at spending time fighting scammers only to see them get in positions of trust and leave them red trust for bringing up the fact they are scammers).

 However you go off the scale from swearing at scammers giving red trust to scam hunters and start expressing worrying sexual deviance

You then go full retard and start with some insane sexual deviance with NO facts and end up admitting you gave the red trust to me for simply telling the truth about your scamming mate lauda.  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49158592


 SO see you  are factually proven a dumb fucking turd. Do you understand yet?

 this is sexual deviance and far more insane

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49156092

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49158299

with no facts at all.

you don't get to call me crazy for just swearing whilst i present facts about scammers. Sorry.


If you ask me again I will copy and paste this for you every time until you grasp the concept or that your head collapses like a rotten pumpkin under the strain.

See how it feels to be crushed over and over and over again in public. Go ask suchscamoon the self diagnosed scammer.. he will tell you the only thing you can do in the end is press ignore and tell yourself that you just do want to listen to bullshit ( proven facts that nobody can deny lol)  because in the end you realise people presenting facts and truth can not be beaten. Plus it does not help that you are both thick as shit.

Listen here you window licking mongrel

"Crazy can be funny, it can also be scary and this poster is scary, scary mental crazy like the kind of crazy that needs a straight jacket and padded walls"


I DO NOT TRUST YOU AS YOU ARE MENTAL.


The reference is a thread where you are acting like a deranged crack addict jonesing for a hit - why oh why do you make assumptions and not actually read what is written in front of your spastic head?

LOL that is not true I have it in black and white you said you have given it for presenting factual information about your friend being a scammer.

So there is nothing you can do about that now because I requoted it and archived it ....oh dear.

Also you are the one talking about shoving carrots into your asshole and uncles touching them up.....

I present facts you talk about things sexual deviant nature and go full retard with zero facts and then think you can get away with calling me crazy

sorry moron wont work.

trust abuse from scammers to silence scam hunters revealing their past = fact.

You are a moron that just self destructed your own argument by going full sexual deviant psycho on me. You dumb shit.

Dont you get it even my harsh language does not make me crazy. I am simply not sugar coating you are a dumb fuck this is a fact. I mean look how you admit in black and white  YOU WILL CAN AND HAVE  after I say you can not red trust me for presenting only facts about scammers.

Then look how you go full sexual deviant psycho with no facts at all and try to say because I use harsh language to present facts I am crazy. haha

Got it you thick piece of shit.

I've told you 20 fucking times, I tagged you because you are certifiably insane - you should be locked up.

I DO NOT TRUST YOU AS YOU ARE MENTAL.


end of - nothing to do with the Cat, Owl, Moon or any other fucker on here

you are mental and cannot read or process information

Well you may not know them but lauda is a proven scammer and tman is its bitch. That's about all you need to know. There is no need for me to resolve my problems with them because unless they can get in foxy's time machine and go back and not be a scammer and scammer bitch then why should I need to resolve shit.

The FACT remains they have ADMITTED IN BLACK AND WHITE  that they have left me red trust for presenting facts about lauda scamming.

What more can I do to explain this to people??

They have now realised that they can not find anything I have done wrong at all except present facts they are scammers. So now they are changing tactics to say oh he is crazy because he swears at us and shouts at us. Then they come here saying to shove carrots up my ass and that my uncle is touching me up or some sexual deviance that Tman seems to enjoy.

They are complete retards and scammers. Nothing more. If anyone says they don't understand what I am telling them they are either dumb or part of the collusion it is that simple because it is there in black and white.

They are using DT to silence scam hunters highlighting their past scamming tactics. It is there in fucking black and white yet the other bunch of DT pussies do nothing so now I say they are scammers too for allowing this scamming shit to happen. Kick every one of them out.

Anyone finding any flaws in what I have said bring it with FACTS or stfu

This user has a large number of problems, the main one being trump syndrome - where only they can be correct.

Bloke is a full blown lunatic - deserves a padded cell and lots of drugs

this is cryptohuner's problem, the moment you do/say something he/she dislike you become a potential enemy, I think if cryptohunter tackled the issue with a better approach he would have gotten better support from both DT and non-DT-members. i don't know TMAN and Lauda but i think if cryptohunter comes with a better behavior whatever issues they have can be solved easier.

I voted "No", Just because someone is considered or proven to be troll doesn't make them likely to be scam anyone but, your voting options is bias and illogical, It obviously just portrayed your sentiments for creating the poll/thread. If a proven troll is tagged for being a troll without being regarded as scammer then its fine IMO, Just as an account trader with the most honest and successful deals would solely get tagged for trading accounts and not regarded as scammer.

You don't have any arguments scammer

LOL here is suchmoons friend lauda on DT now pumping and lying about the now famous captive instamine that is PROVEN to have taken place.


apparently he says he was there and there was no instamine.... oh really???

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



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

It's pointless. I stood up for her when marlboroza tagged her and in return I got just more vitriol. She's not gonna change so it doesn't really matter at this point. I'm not going to even suggest that Lauda or TMAN revise their ratings. This is firmly in the "flat earth" type of dispute now. Some users are convinced that this level of reality-defying nonsense is a strong indication of untrustworthiness and I don't have any good argument against that anymore.

I agree.

There is the truth and there is lies. There is no let's meet in the middle and make a middle ground.

Some things are beyond absolute proof but if there is highly powerful corroborating evidence then that is enough that must still be taken very seriously.

Of course always civil discussion if they will allow it but no point just keep being nice to people that do everything they can to be openly hostile to you first.

sometimes there has to only black and white = only 2 perspectives. you have raise your voice so that people start thinking about things.
but after that you have to calm down and try to listen and to talk with each other.

Thanks for support.

They gave me red trust for presenting facts and highly probable events based on observable events and evidence ONLY. Not one statement was lacking substantial grounding or absolute fact.

I have never actually made a statement on this entire meta board that is not either backed by FACTS or strong corroborating evidence/events.

If a person can show me even one statement I have made and I can not provide observable facts that either prove it true or provide reasonable and a high probability it is true then I will accept I have done something wrong.