Bitcoin Forum

As I explained in the other thread:

This better suits in the Reputation section (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0)

---

I think this as a wrong way of using trust by the way. But trust system is not moderated and you would be at a better chance to remove the neg by PMing Last of the V8s (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=479624)

I personally think the negative trust is unwanted for such issues.

And here's some evidence to prove my point:

I came to understand, feedbacks which aren't related to trade or scam like activities shouldn't be left with a positive or negative tag. The third option which is the neutral feedback should be used in a case if you feel the need lo leave a feedback.

Although realr0ach, you aren't supposed to worry about every feedbacks you get, the trust system isn't moderated people will always take advantage of that but you should know, most feedbacks are worthless, they don't contribute to your trust score.


Thanks for the information, I viewed his profile and didn't see a score could be because of my custom trust list.

V8 is now DT2, so it does effect his score....However, given r0ach's current stance on crytocurrency, I don't see exactly how this would impede him at all. Unless he is hoping to use bitcointalk to construct a network of people white men willing to do face to face commerce involving silver and gold bullion.

This should be moved to Reputation. It is a user-based issue and not that of the forum.

Which is false. Stop spreading misinformation.

---

I was contemplating whether to act on this or not for a long time just like I did with bcash scammers. There you go.

I am also really annoyed by his topic with basically wrong guidelines regarding tags, which he keeps bumping as if it was THE TRUTH.

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100675.0

I don't know why you think it is a misinformation, but thats exactly what's stated by theymos, about the usage of trust.

Annoying =/= consistently posting misinformation (there is no doubt about OP when it comes to this clearly). This is elementary school knowledge, don't waste our time.

Sadly there is little that can be done (based on current forum policies) to prevent the spread of such or any other misinformation.

Of course the scammer feedback system is not for completely arbitrary opinion bullshit like you don't like their taste in music or fashion so you give them a negative score.  It's pretty obvious Last of the V8s is abusing the system when he filed a scam report against Jbreher for simply owning Bcash (lol).  I could give two shits about Bcash, and Jbreher and I are not friends, but if you can file a scam report against someone for owning Bcash, then filing a scam report on people for owning Dogecoin or Monero would be valid too.  

Hell, it would also be completely viable for me to file a scam report against EVERY SINGLE PERSON on the ENTIRE FORUM supporting bitcoin for being scammers because transaction validators are designed to centralize in every cryptocurrency and decentralization is a 100% completely unsolvable problem.  So do you really want to play by the rules you and Last of the V8s advocate now, Lauda?  I just noticed you left a fake scam report on my page too.  

You're literally an ANTIFA member.  They're unable to win in any legit debate so their only valid tactic is to try and censor or practice defamation.  Just like you, Last of the V8s is also incapable of beating me in debate which is why he did this.  Nothing I've said is even false.  It's YOU that's spreading disinformation.  Creating a decentralized digital currency is 100% impossible, and any non-fungible currency is also a permissioned ledger by default, which is why I advocate physical metals.

Then we have:


Which is what Lauda and Last of the V8s are arbitrarly doing to random people they disagree with or can't beat in debate.  Did I also mention women perjure themselves in court at a rate far higher than men which is why no civilized nation in the past ever allowed women to be stand as witnesses in the first place?  They have no form of honor whatsoever, no integrity, do not respect any type of logic or reason, and just lie to try and distort things in their favor. Your (Lauda) cognitive dissonance level is so high that you don't even understand I'm the only person on the forum NOT lying and that you are the one attempting to lie about "decentralization" for personal gain.

This is good to know. Keep trying.

I see, so some one disagrees with your burn them all attitude and they are automatically spreading misinformation and get a negative rating. You believe whatever serves you at any given moment. The tide is changing around here, and you aren't going to like the way you look, I guarantee it.

https://i.imgur.com/RqKL9ei.gif

No, Lauda has not given CryptopreneurBrainboss a negative rating. She has given R0ach a negative rating. However, if you want to become a white knight for realr0ach, please go ahead. I'm popping the popcorn, now.The stuff he posts on this forum would have gotten him banned on the vast majority of social media platforms. Him being allowed to continue to post here is a testament to how liberal bitcointalk is when it comes to letting people express their views.

@R0ach. Have you attempted to get your original account back recently? If you still have the original e-mail that you created that account with, the chances are fair you can have it back in about a week.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5089777.0

REALLY?? so you are saying you will do what you like then? Because I just saw Theymos say red trust will be for scammers or those strongly likely to scam.

Of course you will continue to abuse the trust system as suits you and the goons. Right up until the tide builds against you. Then you and the rest of the turds are going to be flushed down and away from the systems of control you abuse.

@bones

This could or could not be true (i have not read his recent posts but he is a famous poster from the old days on the alt boards and I never saw anything very offensive there - this is the original roach or not??) but again this is a matter for ADMIN not a bunch of self serving goons to take care of. Unless it is scam related this is not a scam tag issue.

Yes this is the original R0ach. His points are exactly the same from when his account got hacked in 2017. He didn't miss a beat. Also, if you happen to be a women, a jew, or have any skin color other than white, you probably are not going to enjoy a great deal of his material... :D Also, r0ach has "evolved" quite a bit from the old days. Basically, he thinks cryptocurrency as a whole is a load of BS. I think the turn around was complete just prior to bitfinex getting hacked.

Well, I can not say that I ascribe to these views. However I hold to the view that these are admin related concerns and not for DT red trust nazi's to take into their own hands when clearly their mandate is for scammers and scam related matters. When you start allowing red trust for any other reason it leads to abuse and the crushing of free speech.

Exactly, r0ach is just a troll. I have no idea why he posts here. He enjoys ridiculing bitcoin too, his presence here is a total waste of his time. Life is too short!

If you were a women, a Jew, or a non-white person, would you want to engage in trade with this guy? (Especially divulging shipping details.)

This was all hashed out in our thread very eloquently:


This is not about his hate agenda or his anti-bitcoin trolling, it's about him lying to pursue those agendas.
This is not his only lie by any means. There's more, even in this thread. You can't trust him, hence the red mark.

We need to be very careful defining a troll. If a person presents an argument that you do not agree with then unless you can debunk it then it is not trolling.

Trolling is not so much of a worry as persons proliferating incorrect and misleading information that is observably proven incorrect or supporting those that do. Those are just slightly less damaging than scammers and way less detrimental to crypto than real trolls who are basically just piss takers.

@bones

I see nothing to say that he would be any more of a scammer than those that sound calm and reasonable. Scammers tend to be slick not be putting peoples backs up before they strike.

     Given V8's response, I think it is best to let the WO regulars handle this in their own way. If Lauda wants to back it up, more power to her.

As despicable as I find r0ach's comments and blatant bigotry, I am torn about the use of the trust system in this way.  However, bones261 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117829.msg50064734#msg50064734) makes a really good point.  I'm a fairly trusting person, but I would have a hard time trusting people who spew hate such as r0ach does.

But that's not the whole deal, is it?  r0ach is accusing another member of attempting to scam the whole community, which is an allegation for which he can only provide circumstantial evidence.  That makes this a different type of situation.  Spreading misinformation about another member should never be tolerated.

@r0ach, if you have a suspicion about another member, feel free to share it, but don't make it sound like it's a proven fact when the only "evidence" that exists is "he said/she said."

 

Did I say Lauda negative rated CryptopreneurBrainboss? I don't know R0ach from a hole in the ground, and I am not white knighting for anything other than principles. This is not a question about how liberal this forum is, it is a question of this negative rating being abusive. I don't think people should be able to negative rate people just because they don't like something that they said, as I have explained before I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to be the standard for negative rating. He may be a racist asshole, but that doesn't make it open season on him for trust system abuse.

Well, it all depends on what "principals" you think are more important. I can't believe the party of Lincoln has accommodated those with similar points of view to R0ach. That's what the Democratic party was supposed to be about...

I explained in detail what I meant by principles. I really don't see how political parties play into his discussion.

Bitten off more than you can chew r0ach.

That was probably the wrong tangent. I guess the main point is there is a quandary in my mind between the principles of free speech and the repugnant nature of what r0ach's fingertips unleash on the WO board. The members who regularly post on the WO board have been more than longsuffering with r0ach. He's lucky that this current account of his has only accumulated 2 red tags. I think anyone who would initiate a trade with him on this forum should take a glance at his post history, first. And Lauda has used his post history as the evidence link. It's probably all moot anyway, since I doubt r0ach will be doing any trades on this board considering that he thinks all cryptocurrencies are shit coins. Also, the WO board, where he posts almost exclusively, doesn't display trust ratings.

I didn't "accuse" anyone of anything.  I said that Bob was posting "hodl", "to the moon", and bull spam the entire time he was dumping $5 million worth of digital shitcoins on people.  This is factually true.  Then I post quotes of HIMSELF in chronological order showing how he was doing so.  It's objective, factual reality, and this scumbag Last of the V8s still sits here and claims I'm lying when Bob provided the evidence for it himself in quotes of his own words.  

Then Bob comes and says yesterday he sold nowhere near $5000 of the top and I post a quote of him saying he sold $1 million at $14.5k catching him in a lie yesterday.  I don't have any agenda against this particular person, I'm just highlighting the fact you're all (particularly people like Last of the V8s) nothing but a bunch of pump and dump scammers lying about things like "decentralization" for your own financial self-interest.  Do you need those Bob quotes again?  I post something objectively true and Last of the V8s lies and files a scam report against me:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117829.msg50053934#msg50053934

The problem with most of you people is that you have lied about things like "decentralization" so much you started to believe your own lies.  It's 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency.  Transaction validators are always designed to centralize.  Now you act like you're in a religious cult and that anyone who challenges your FALSE beliefs is the bad one.  You're operating under the 'maybe tommorow' scam.  Maybe tomorrow a random autistic person will alter the codebase and change bitcoin from something designed to centralize with no fundamentals to actually working like the whitepaper claims.  Anyone who has studied these issues long enough knows it's not possible.

Wouldn't that be your description of like 99.9% of all the people that post on bitcointalk?  :D You already became quite disenchanting with this whole cryptocurrency thing way back in the summer of 2016. Don't you think it's time to let go and move on to better things? Like figuring out ways to increase your silver hoard?

edit i see that is not the case

That's why people like Last of the V8s are afraid of me.  His IQ is high enough to know I'm right, and he's completely incapable of putting up ANY type of argument against me ever time after time, so in order for him to not be a scammer himself, he has to pull Saul Alinsky communist tactics to try and un-person or defame me pretending that will allow his false reality to take precedent if I don't exist.  Then he can go about his business lying about things such as decentralization and trying to profit off pyramid schemes guilt-free if he's just capable of believing his own lies with nobody there to remind him they're lies.

Since op brought him up, further examples of jbreher's disingenuousness
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg50071754#msg50071754 v. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg50070092#msg50070092

Anyway, as to your lies, both of you, DT consensus is just that they don't merit negative trust.

before:

https://i.imgur.com/pnF8jAE.png

now:

https://i.imgur.com/rVsgsp8.png

Frankly this seems like more of a moderation issue than a trust issue. If he is being disruptive of the overall forum people should be reporting him not tagging him.

He cowers away in the Wall Observer thread which has special moderation rules

https://i.imgur.com/N9XtRHz.png

so we seem to be stuck with him.

This place is crazy... like an old leaky boat in the cartoons where they keep patching holes with pieces of chewed gum and plugging fingers into a hole just for another to open up again. Just band-aids on top of band-aids while the system as a whole slowly loses its wheels one by one.

In this case I would suggest contacting the thread owner as it states in the screenshot...

      Since the current designated thread owner, inforfront, is not staff, all that will result in will be a few of the most offending posts getting deleted. Since infofront is not staff, no other accelerated action can be taken. Since infofront is a volunteer, many of the offending posts can persist for hours, days or overlooked. By that time, more likely than not, an argument has already ensued and the damage is done. Also, infofront cannot be too heavy handed in the deleting of posts. Otherwise bitching of infringing on "freedom of speech" ensues.
      I know the arrangement for this thread appears a little odd. What happened is that the original op of the thread became inactive. It ended up becoming a great deal of work for the staff to moderate, so theymos locked it. However, the thread is quite popular and members wanted the thread reopened. So theymos unlocked the thread and appointed a new thread owner.
     Overall, the thread is a bit lively. However, then realr0ach comes in and shits in the pool.
   

I have to ask then, all of this considered... what is wrong with using the ignore button?

Because someone is bound to quote him. Many community members have encouraged ignoring him. However, some are prone to peek or are new and have no idea what is about to transpire. Then someone sees a quoted post, attacking them, their wife, their sex, or their race, and we're off to the races. Or it could all start from a simple counterpoint to one of his more "sane" posts attacking BTC and devolve from there.

It sounds to me that this is just a consequence of everyone being free to speak, and the response is verging on obsessive levels of wanting to control the speech of others. Just because what he has to say is repugnant, annoys you, or you find it distracting is really not an excuse for all of this. If everyone is free to speak there will always be people saying things objectionable to you, and no matter what you say some one out there will find it objectionable. This is just human nature, the first amendment need not even come into the equation.

Well, what V8 gave the negative rating was actually about a false allegation realr0ach made on a fellow member. I guess in your view, false allegations are ok as long as they aren't made on the hallowed trust comment page.

Just because I don't agree with a negative rating for it doesn't mean I condone it. For example I would consider a neutral trust rating with a reference for this perfectly acceptable. If the roles were reversed no one would give a shit, but some people are more equal than others.

Well V8 did change another one of his ratings to neutral. We will see if he takes your advisement to heart. However, given a recent comment realr0ach made which basically was trying to emasculate V8, I doubt it. Especially since realr0ach's attitude on woman is that they are all morally equivalent of prostitutes.

Yeah well, as I said the cost of being free to speak yourself is some times being subjected to ideas that offend you. You are free to click ignore, or walk away from the computer at any time. This need to control the speech of others frankly scares me more than all the insane views in the world being spoken freely.

When it comes to "free speech," some of what realr0ach comes up with is light years away from any "fine line." I'd sooner make it legal for someone to yell fire in a theater.  :D

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117829.msg50089685#msg50089685

Oh, sorry, I guess that makes my point totally erroneous.

Never mind that. So much chatter everywhere it's easy for the eye to slip. Pretty instructive thread all round though.