Bitcoin Forum

Thanks to theymos who created the red warning box all DT members can now be hold liable for their negative feedback.
The red box clearly states that you claim the user is a scammer or you stronlgy belive so.

Being a DT member knowing that such a box will appear based on your judgement you need to be aware that you have now special responsibility and are made liable for your negative feedbacks.
Theymos on the other hand instantly stated on the red warning box that the feedback is unmoderated and made himself not liable for your feedbacks.


Defamation calling someone a scammer with no full proof can soon break some DT members their neck even they gave the negative feedback based on their opinion for some other bs.DT members won't be treated as regular members by law.

Be aware of your responsibilty now.



Since i'm now called officaly on every thread a scammer i'm asking all DT members who tagged me to show proof that i scammed someone or was going to scam someone.If you are not able to provide that proof i request to remove that red tagg.


To be continued......

you skam us of our time reading these threads.

your tags are accurate

Theymos doesn't care if DT members left you negative trust, and that disclaimer is as far as he's willing to go in terms of defining what a red tag should mean.  He's not enforcing the definition with consequences for DT members who might tag individuals for reasons other than scamming, and your appeal to the folks who tagged you is going to fall on deaf ears.  Why?  Because you're a nuisance and nobody trusts you.

In addition, even if your trust page were wiped clean you'd still be complaining about something and probably would still be smearing various members' reputations and trying to aid scammers by attempting to tear down the trust system.  You'd think that you would understand this by now, given how many rants you've gone on, but apparently that isn't the case.  Just give it up already.

Warning (Red box, you meant) is solely a warning, and it emphasizes that visitors should create an account in the forum, then log in to find out more about topics with Warning! Visitors, who want to invest to such projects warned that they should investigate more about those projects (by reading feedbacks that lead to negative trust and given proofs attached) before taking risks. Theymos does not conclude that all projects with Warning! are scam projects or people whom get red trusts are actually scammers. They likely did something wrong in the past. And, theymos also stated that users should give opportunities for others to come back from their past faults. However, severity of past faults is important.

I decided to ignore the other feedback because i haven't following the those "wars"
However, when I looked at the first red tags you got and the reference links, I am pretty sure with your current attitude, even if the later tags were not considered, your reputation would still be not good.

Account buying/selling is an old thing that is no longer tolerable by the community since it's done by scammers and spammers

https://i.imgur.com/Sx0gdgq.png

I think if you had been someone calmer and accepted you mistake and contributed more rather than attack people, you would be having a much better reputation, perhaps some DT members would even consider turning the feedback neutral given that you have been on the forum since 2014 but instead you decided to make a mountain out of the situation and climbing it is now impossible.

Every DT member who tagged you has, without exception, left a Reference link as proof of their strong belief that you are a scammer. But if you insist on seeing it here... I solemnly swear that Thule is up to no good (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.msg49497349#msg49497349). :)

It is not for DT members to use their subjective opinions on other members attitudes as a basis to decide if they leave the scam tag or not.

This would leave DT open to gaming, abuse and seriously encroaching on free speech if this was inside their mandate. It is not.

There needs to be transparent guidelines that are applied equally to all members.

1. you need to present evidence they are a scammer
2. you need to present strong evidence they are trying to scam

that is your mandate, where does it say you get to judge how people speak to you after you have abused the trust system? how do you expect to be spoken to when you abuse trust here? f you can not meet those criteria you have no business leaving a scam tag.

What is more. There is a DT member nutildah who calling people EVIL, Villains, and scum for selling their accounts and claiming that it facilitated scamming. He then decided to turn into an Evil villain and facilitate scamming (his own claim) later on. He is obviously more untrustworthy than someone who buys an account on behalf of another person that does not consider them a scammer. The intent is clearly more toxic from the DT member nutildah but LAUDA and all the other DT members refuse to give him a scam tag. Double standards.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

I think DT members are fully complicit when refusing to leave scam tags for other DT members where there is clear evidence of lying for financial gain, or strong evidence for other financially motivated shady behaviors. They should be held liable for this for sure.

I see no references to a SCAM or SCAMMING On his feedback. Remove the red or apply the red to all those engaging in buying selling accounts.

Foxpoop  your link proves what exactly?


This is the level of reasoning our current DT and merit sources are capable of.


What is that dishonest auction by proxy, trust abusing imbecile doing in any position of trust? the board is not that desperate is it?

You'll find that next to the Reference link on the Trust page is a Comments field which provides a convenient explanation of what the link is intended to prove, and I refuse to indulge your Oedipal fetishes by reading it to you while explaining what the big words mean. Sorry.

Nobody has the power to put himself on DT. Let's assume you're right, and DT members are indeed liable for their feedback. Doesn't that mean the users who voted someone onto DT are liable as well?

What warning box are you referring to?

Edit: if you are referring to the box seen by guests when the OP has net negative trust, this is really not new because the description of a negative rating says the person is a scammer. In reality, anyone leaving a negative rating could potentially be liable for libel, however damage to ones reputation is likely going to be small for someone who isn’t on DT.

Most people on DT are likely to have little assets and it would be fairly expensive to even find their identity if someone tried to sue them.

Edit2: someone leaving negative trust without “full proof” will not necessarily cause liability, the threshold is if the person is actually a scammer or not. Although having “full proof” is a very good way to avoid liability.

Read the rest of my above post.

Having someone on your trust list is saying “you should listen to this persons ratings” so a court may find liability. This is only in theory.

Edit2: the stipulation that the reviewer *strongly believes* the person to be a scammer may provide some protection but this is not absolute

No you are liable for your feedbacks.A user who trusts you doesn't have the requirement to check all your feedbacks based on vadility.

DT members are aware of being DT members and that their feedback will show as Default and now also as a warning that member with negative feedback is being accused in public of being a scammer.

Getting now a reasonable timeframe to proof the scam or remove the false tagg is enough to be liable for a false feedback.

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100111.msg50788835#msg50788835

Accordingly to.. which jurisdiction ?
Coocoo-land ?

Fuckedupistaaan

It’s where CH lives as well

You're wrong.  In a defamation suit the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the statements made are provably false and resulted in damages by the defendant.  Forum members giving their opinion about another member are protected under the First Amendment, because they are just expressing their opinion.

Now if you want to talk about defamation; here's a prime example (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5106712.msg49606801#msg49606801).

Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything.
Also proofing that you didn't scammed anyone or even tried to scam anyone wouldn't be difficult where even these DT members confirmed they made the negative feedbacks not for scamming.


Giving an opinon is protected by law and free speach correct.But marking a member as scammer is no free speach anymore expecially not when its being displayed on every of his thread.
Marking has nothing to do with free speach

None of your reviews claim that you scammed, or tried to scam.  They express the opinion of the reviewer, that you are an unhinged internet troll, which (in their opinion) makes you untrustworthy.  None of that is defamatory because it cannot be proven false.

But claiming suchmoon scammed another member is defamatory; because it was an obvious lie intended to damage the reputation of suchmoon.  Do you see the difference?

your like one of those prison lawyers you read about, think they are hot shit but end up getting people in trouble for different things due to the maximum level of retardedness

I'm not going to waste my time here anymore argumenting with your poor statement.
Thats something i declared myself.Less writing more actions.

Thanks to theymos he opened way more possibilities to me.

About TMAN i hope i will be able to hold him accountable.I hope he lives in the UK.Let's see somebody already initiating the escrow.


About the abusive feedbacks i will give enough time to proof that i scammed someone or tried to scam someone which would justify the strong belive that i'm a scammer.

Bitcointalk is not a right free space where people can defame and abuse without being hold liable for it.


TMAN just got my full attention for attacking under the waist.


I'm not here to harm anybody or waste my time but i will now activly defend myself from these kind of language and defamtion holding people accountable for their actions.

You can think its just random talk based on Vod since i let it go at that time but being now marked on every thread as scammer is exceeding my tolerance.

leaving a negative rating in itself is calling the person a scammer. Read the description of a negative rating on a trust page.

Right continent - wrong country, 1500 miles away cunty.

I tell ya what. Ill give you part of the dox and you pay me that money then ill give you my full dox, ok princess?

Sofia - Bulgaria.

How's your lawsuit against Vod coming?

You will be able to talk with him about your own case soon.
Will be a nice warning to the other.

So I live in Bulgaria and have done for a few years, pretty sure 20 odd collectors who I have traded with will confirm this.

Best of luck with understanding the language and laws here princess.

The negative trust setting leaves it open for users to express their belief.  

Thule's behavior has been libelous, which is a form of scam.  His attempt to defame suchmoon is clear as day.  He presented no evidence suchmoon scammed the mystery newbie, yet continued to treat the accusation as if it was a slam dunk, open and shut case.  I believe he did it out of retribution.

None of the reviews suggest that Thule attempted an out-right scam, but are expressing the opinion that Thule is untrustworthy, with which I totally agree.  

I'm once a month in bulgaria meeting some business partners in sofia........i was even several years ago checking bulgaria as my new company location because of the 0% tax promotion at that time.
So no big deal for me and i know the corruption very well.

But lets see when i receive the docs

Exactly.. I got more money and I live here.. ha ha ha

you do realise fighting against me here is like arguing with your mother - no means no my little flower..

anyway let me know when you are over and if you want ill meet you for a coffee to discuss your situation with me and the other members of DT.

Let's see.......likei said less wasting time on writing more actions.

IMHO trying to dox someone out of spite also deserves a bright red warning. This is not the type of person you'd want to deal with, particularly if e.g. you need to share personal info (shipping address etc) in the deal.

I am glad to know that you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be slandered.

Well here you said it yourself. No claim of scammed or tried to scam. Does not pass the threshold test for red trust. I do not feel that people who post things like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5138619.0  and all the other "experts" there who cry if you are not polite to them and use their correct username you are a troll, and yet celebrate and raise money for a rap of TMANS sexual deviance "trolling" likely caused by abuse by his parents.

I'm not sure where those experts, burger flippers and double standards fools get to decide on who sounds more insane out of thule or tman.

Can you present some insane posts from thule here because they will likely turn out to be some kind of pissed off expression at getting as he perceives it trust abused and ridiculed.

"an obvious lie" you say? I do not agree. Someone that openly includes observable liars, scammers, probable extortionists and shady escrows on to DT are likely capable of not paying for some mining equipment.  So it looks to me as if it was the actions of an honest member asking if he should alert the entire community.

NOW suchmoon seems rather concerned and pushing for more red.

What I think DT need to be MORE worried about is knowingly DEFENDING observable liars and scammers and probable extortionists and shady escrows and ensuring through their inclusions they get into positions of trust and leaving the board vulnerable and possibly even facilitating scams here.

If it can be argued (which it likely can because the evidence has been presented many times to them personally in multiple threads) these DT members and even ADMIN were made aware of these prior super worrying instances of lying and scamming, extortion etc and they assisted in the red trust removal of those kinds of untrustworthy members, and deliberately included them into positions of trust. If those positions of trust were leveraged and found to be prime contributors to pulling the scam off and lots of people losing money..... then you see how that could look. Refusing to red trust, them, including them in DT,  even insisting their scam tags are REMOVED... looks like you are all complicit in anything they pull in future.

You have all had plenty of observable instances pushed under your noses about several DT members and their untrustworthy bordering on criminal behaviors and it looks to us like you are all colluding with them to give them a clean slate and let them appear super trustworthy 300 green trust no less.

That's how they may all be liable in the end for this corrupt behavior.  The negative feedback we have was left because we tried to warn members about these observable instances as to protect them from future scamming... they are using the red to silence whilstle blowers. Doubly damning for them if the shit hits the fan.

I think they will be held liable. Can't say it will be a shame either. Time to put the garbage out.




 

I didn't mention or imply slandering at all but you're a well-known liar so making such ludicrously false statements is par for the course I guess. And you believe that anyone who does something you don’t like deserves to be doxed so there is a great deal of projection in your statement as well, as usual.

The only manipulator and liar here is you.
Who did i doxed ?

Just for you the meaning of doxed
Which information have i published ?
Asking for somebodies identity to make him accountable is not doxing if i don't publish his details publicly.

You always were and will be a manipulator.
Let's see how you will explain in court all your bs claims.

You are implying someone should have a “bright red warning” if they do something you don’t like, which is implying they should have negative trust as you have a “bright red warning” when you receive negative trust. Receiving negative trust means that the person is calling you a scammer. Doing something you don’t like doesn’t make you a scammer and as such you are advocating for anyone who does something you don’t like to be slandered.

@QS do you not feel CH, Thule and the latest raft of loonies are skaming everyone of there time with the multiple shitty threads and posts?

This can be seen playing out live with the Craig Wright lawsuits. Dr Craig will never see one satoshi from those.

I'm not. I'm quite clearly stating a specific instance of a dangerous action that I consider untrustworthy, and that's why I think they deserve red, not just because I "don't like" it. Everything else is just voices in your head.

For example I don't like escrow scammers but my dislike is not the reason they deserve red trust. The scamming part is the reason. I know that's some next level shit for you but try to keep up.