|
Title: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 10, 2019, 12:27:19 PM Let us define trolling.
It would seem that people are trying to use trolling as some umbrella term and give it red trust? What exactly is trolling? and why does it essentially mean you are likely to scam people exactly? Is trolling making up lies? and having no point to your post? Come what defines a trolling post. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: rhomelmabini on January 10, 2019, 01:08:05 PM Are you the King of Poll, or the Prince of Troll?
Instead of discussing more sensible ideas you're just starting every post of yours with HATE to someone you'd like to, I guess that's define trolling. Consider yourself as one base on your recent post history. Add to the poll. Quote Yes trolling should be given red trust because you are more likely to Let us always remember the rules and know that trust is not moderated. Easy as that. 3. No trolling. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 10, 2019, 02:12:45 PM Are you the King of Poll, or the Prince of Troll? Instead of discussing more sensible ideas you're just starting every post of yours with HATE to someone you'd like to, I guess that's define trolling. Consider yourself as one base on your recent post history. Add to the poll. Quote Yes trolling should be given red trust because you are more likely to Let us always remember the rules and know that trust is not moderated. Easy as that. 3. No trolling. Can you explain 1. what is trolling to you - see below before answering 2. why a troll would be more likely to scam someone Also as a side interest. 1/Can you tell me why it is wrong to hate a proven scammer or scam enabler and bring evidence and facts to present they are scam enablers and trust abusers? 2/ can you tell me why it wrong to hate a scammer or scam enabler for red trusting you for threatening to tell others factual events demonstrating your claims Do you realise your previous post is net negative and if not can you explain why it is not. Take your time, but do not run away and thanks for voting :) Is english your first language just so I am aware of any language barrier that may have arisen. What do you mean trolling is not moderated? is that a typo? Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: Alone055 on January 10, 2019, 02:22:01 PM Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain. Does that sound anywhere like yourself to you? ::) Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: hilariousetc on January 10, 2019, 02:22:26 PM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Quote In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain. Asking what the definition of a trolling post is is like asking what is constructive. Purely subjective. Sometimes people come across as trolls when in fact they're just idiots, just like sometimes people think they're making substantial posts when they're really not. Does trolling automatically make you a scammer? No, but I would be less likely to trust a troll, especially if it's their full time job here. Would you trust someone in real life who just acts like an immature jackass all the time and never takes anything seriously? Probably not. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 10, 2019, 02:28:18 PM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll Quote In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain. Asking what the definition of a trolling post is is like asking what is constructive. Purely subjective. Sometimes people come across as trolls when in fact they're just idiots, just like sometimes people think they're making substantial posts when they're really not. Does trolling automatically make you a scammer? No, but I would be less likely to trust a troll, especially if it's their full time job here. Would you trust someone in real life who just acts like an immature jackass all the time and never takes anything seriously? Probably not. Oh interesting. I mean if they are presenting facts that should be known to the board then is that trolling to you? What about people responding in an immature way to others that have trolled them or tried to abuse systems of control to their detriment...are they trolls even when presenting facts? Can you show me one of these assumed substantial posts that are not substantial? I am interested in your specific subjective interpretation of a troll and and to understand via examples and step by step what helps you This is a substantial post because many people are having their reputations ruined with red trust over another very subjective opinion from many different people. Are you in any way refering to me in your post. Let's be clear. If so please explain this to me. Would you trust someone who expressed a liking for lemons or not? should then be given red trust? these are serious questions and not a troll. What is your opinion of lauda and his past history here. Has he ever trolled people? has he ever protected and enabled scams? has he misused other peoples money for personal gain, has he ever tried to extort people? Should lauda be a DT member?? Have you recently deleted my posts on this board? if so can you explain why? I would like to discuss it in public because I want to understand the reasoning behind it. Please answer all points even the lemons - that is not trolling this comes directly from a DT member that lemons loving or dislike is grounds for Red trust. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: hilariousetc on January 10, 2019, 02:45:31 PM Would you trust someone who is erratic, unstable and acts like a fool? Some people call that trolling and sometimes it's just their natural immature behaviour. Either way that's up to the individual as to whether they trust them or not. Sometimes people don't trust others if they spread what they believe to be lies or misinformation about them or others. The person or troll may or may not believe the info is untruthful and it may or may not be. That's why issues need to be taken on a case by case basis.
Liking lemons or not is subjective taste and irrelevant to whether you're trustworthy or not. Someone who acts like a buffoon is different matter, but it's down that individual person whether they don't trust them or not. I think some trolls likely do deserve negative trust and some don't, but that depends on the specific behaviour. If someone acts like a buffoon 99% of the time then I would be less likely to trust that person. As to whether you want to leave feedback for that is entirely down to the individual. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 10, 2019, 02:54:03 PM Would you trust someone who is erratic, unstable and acts like a fool? Some people call that trolling and sometimes it's just their natural immature behaviour. Either way that's up to the individual as to whether they trust them or not. Sometimes people don't trust others if they spread what they believe to be lies or misinformation about them or others. The person or troll may or may not believe the info is untruthful and it may or may not be. That's why issues need to be taken on a case by case basis. Liking lemons or not is subjective taste and irrelevant to whether you're trustworthy or not. Someone who acts like a buffoon is different matter, but it's down that individual person whether they don't trust them or not. I think some trolls likely do deserve negative trust and some don't, but that depends on the specific behaviour. If someone acts like a buffoon 99% of the time then I would be less likely to trust that person. As to whether you want to leave feedback for that is entirely down to the individual. True or untrue is not for debate. If there is evidence in black and white that people said or done things in their post history why would there be need of opinion if you can observe clearly they did or said something. Also strong corroborating events to an argument or view must be analysed and if they make a reasonable case they must not be dismissed. Unstable how? what defines unstable.... do they stop presenting facts and start stating unsubstantiated claims with no corroborating evidence or events at alll? or just talk total nonsense that has no support people can review? or unstable how? Acting like a fool depends on what you mean. If they can provide observable fact for their claims and they are important then the manner of presentation is funny or even if it is extreme (still fact based) due to prior behaviour toward them by to others then no of course I would not think they will scam me. Why would I? If you can just re read and answer clearly on my prior important questions that would be very helpful. That broad answer does not really provide any insight to what your opinions are. I am not trying to pick any fights with you I want to understand your opinions and grounding for them only. Everything needs defining and drilling down as much as possible if you are trying to automate or decentralise power/control mechanisms else they just get abused and broken and provide zero or negative influences. You want fair, you want transparent, you want systems that encourage optimal results in terms of optimal solutions and answers to problems you need enforceable mandates and criteria that are defined or it all become a mud slinging match like it is now with the truth being drowned out by dilution and people that don't even understand the issues. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: rhomelmabini on January 10, 2019, 04:29:21 PM Can you explain 1. what is trolling to you? cryptohunter - Quote a troll person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the bitcointalk forum to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the his amusement or a specific gain. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: hilariousetc on January 10, 2019, 05:02:53 PM True or untrue is not for debate. If there is evidence in black and white that people said or done things in their post history why would there be need of opinion if you can observe clearly they did or said something. People seem to think the earth being flat or not is up for a debate regardless of the objective truth. Surely it's also up for debate on whether someone is an idiot or a troll or not? Unstable how? what defines unstable.... do they stop presenting facts and start stating unsubstantiated claims with no corroborating evidence or events at alll? or just talk total nonsense? or unstable how? Are you actually going to ask me to define every single word? How many times do I need to use the word subjective (or does that need defining now). Do you actually expect me to list every possible instance or scenario there might possibly be of somebody falling under the banner of being unstable? Acting like a fool depends on what you mean. If they can provide observable fact for their claims and they are important then the manner of presentation is funny or even if it is extreme (still fact based) due to prior behaviour toward them by to others then no of course I would not think they will scam me. Then that's your opinion. Others may agree or disagree. You can present facts whilst still acting like a fool. If someone is stating facts but kicking and screaming and swearing whilst they're doing it then you can still choose not to trust them due to their erratic behaviour. You could be the most factual person on the planet but if you can't share or explain facts in a suitable manner then people are probably going to lose respect for you. If you can just re read and answer clearly on my prior important questions that would be very helpful. That broad answer does not really provide any insight to what your opinions are. Can you define 'clearly' and 'important'? :D Regardless of what I tell you I don't think you'll accept anything I say so it's probably pointless even continuing the debate. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 10, 2019, 05:44:21 PM True or untrue is not for debate. If there is evidence in black and white that people said or done things in their post history why would there be need of opinion if you can observe clearly they did or said something. People seem to think the earth being flat or not is up for a debate regardless of the objective truth. Surely it's also up for debate on whether someone is an idiot or a troll or not? This is not the same thing. I am saying that for example I now claim that you hilariousandco just said "Surely it's also up for debate on whether someone is an idiot or a troll or not? " then what is the point of debating if you said it or not it is there in black and white. You are talking about a complex issue for some that can not use their direct senses to confirm something for themselves and have to have faith in things they may not fully understand. This is completely different. Unstable how? what defines unstable.... do they stop presenting facts and start stating unsubstantiated claims with no corroborating evidence or events at alll? or just talk total nonsense? or unstable how? Are you actually going to ask me to define every single word? How many times do I need to use the word subjective (or does that need defining now). Do you actually expect me to list every possible instance or scenario there might possibly be of somebody falling under the banner of being unstable? No not at all just asking for a definition or example of something you use to reach the opinion the person is unstable Acting like a fool depends on what you mean. If they can provide observable fact for their claims and they are important then the manner of presentation is funny or even if it is extreme (still fact based) due to prior behaviour toward them by to others then no of course I would not think they will scam me. Then that's your opinion. Others may agree or disagree. You can present facts whilst still acting like a fool. If someone is stating facts but kicking and screaming and swearing whilst they're doing it then you can still choose not to trust them due to their erratic behaviour. You could be the most factual person on the planet but if you can't share or explain facts in a suitable manner then people are probably going to lose respect for you. Well yes but then you would look to the context surely and if they had any reason to be presenting OBSERVABLE FACTS in that manner. The fact remains they still presented observable truth and fact. Context is very important in all cases. The worst mistake one can ever make it to ignore context. Do you agree with that? If you can just re read and answer clearly on my prior important questions that would be very helpful. That broad answer does not really provide any insight to what your opinions are. Can you define 'clearly' and 'important'? :D Regardless of what I tell you I don't think you'll accept anything I say so it's probably pointless even continuing the debate. Well you were clearer than before but like i always say the devil is in the detail. The greater the details the clearer things get. Important for the reasons I specified at the end of my last post. I want to continue the discussion because finding out the true opinions of a global mod is very enlightening. So far it has been reasonable and civil why not continue to explore this topic? Please return. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: vlom on January 10, 2019, 07:39:43 PM i cant define trolling.
and i am sure that trolling is not scamming. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: mikeywith on January 10, 2019, 08:05:57 PM cryptohunter, you are not a troll , your ways of communicating with others are not polite enough IMO.
I voted "no", i do not think you deserve a tag for being a troll or annoying or an accuser, but you also can't get away with your behavior of simply treating people with only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side. I encourage the DT members to remove their tags on you, and give you one more chance to debate/protest with better manners. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 10, 2019, 08:11:48 PM cryptohunter, you are not a troll , your ways of communicating with others are not polite enough IMO. I voted "no", i do not think you deserve a tag for being a troll or annoying or an accuser, but you also can't get away with your behavior of simply treating people with only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side. I encourage the DT members to remove their tags on you, and give you one more chance to debate/protest with better manners. 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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: vlom on January 10, 2019, 08:13:34 PM only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side. 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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 10, 2019, 09:29:22 PM only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side. 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. 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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: suchmoon on January 11, 2019, 03:11:23 AM cryptohunter, you are not a troll , your ways of communicating with others are not polite enough IMO. I voted "no", i do not think you deserve a tag for being a troll or annoying or an accuser, but you also can't get away with your behavior of simply treating people with only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side. I encourage the DT members to remove their tags on you, and give you one more chance to debate/protest with better manners. 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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 11, 2019, 03:16:29 AM cryptohunter, you are not a troll , your ways of communicating with others are not polite enough IMO. I voted "no", i do not think you deserve a tag for being a troll or annoying or an accuser, but you also can't get away with your behavior of simply treating people with only 2 perspective of whether you are on my side or on the "gang's" side. I encourage the DT members to remove their tags on you, and give you one more chance to debate/protest with better manners. 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. 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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg7535561#msg7535561 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg6748208#msg6748208 Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: Harkorede on January 11, 2019, 05:12:21 AM 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.
Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: mikeywith on January 11, 2019, 12:43:33 PM 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. 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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: TMAN on January 11, 2019, 12:48:02 PM this is cryptohuner's problem 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 Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 11, 2019, 12:55:30 PM 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. 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. 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 Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: TMAN on January 11, 2019, 01:28:06 PM ~SNIP~ 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 Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 11, 2019, 02:13:19 PM ~SNIP~ 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 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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: TMAN on January 11, 2019, 02:16:47 PM ~snip~ 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? Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 11, 2019, 02:20:36 PM ~snip~ 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? 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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095381.msg49158592#msg49158592 SO see you are factually proven a dumb fucking turd. Do you understand yet? this is sexual deviance and far more insane https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095381.msg49156092#msg49156092 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095381.msg49158299#msg49158299 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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: Foxpup on January 11, 2019, 03:35:27 PM 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. 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.Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: suchmoon on January 11, 2019, 03:41:27 PM I think we're all due for a stern reprimand from The Pharmacist. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088527.msg49178372#msg49178372)
Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: TMAN on January 11, 2019, 03:49:59 PM Plus it does not help that you are both thick as shit. 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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: Lauda on January 11, 2019, 04:03:06 PM You just can't leave me alone, can you? Of course not, you're my merit sponsor. I'm still waiting for that dinner. :-*That thread shows 10,000,000 levels of crazy I don't think even my extensive pill abuse (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2881533.0) can reach this level of crazy.Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 11, 2019, 11:29:42 PM Plus it does not help that you are both thick as shit. 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'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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: SaltySpitoon on January 11, 2019, 11:51:14 PM 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
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. Title: Re: Trolling let's define it here and also vote on if it should be given RED TRUST Post by: cryptohunter on January 12, 2019, 12:40:21 AM 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
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. 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. |