Bitcoin Forum

Since the "Lauda PM" is now public knowledge let me just state that this sort of thing - forum owner/admin sending a PM demanding "recommending" to exclude a certain user from my trust network - is deeply unwelcome. Theymos can blacklist anyone he wants, there is no need for him to coerce others into doing this. At the very least this call for action should have been done publicly. I want to put this out in case anyone wants to exclude (or blacklist  ;)) me for this opinion.

If you're not quite familiar with the events, please read cryptodevil's excellent write-up (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51451987#msg51451987).

Not sure if this is more a Meta topic or a Reputation topic, feel free to move as appropriate.

No, I and quite a few others agree with you. It makes no sense really. I mean, PM'ing users to exclude lauda over a "mistake" made on Quickscammer's flag? Fuck that.... Not right... Deleted the PM. ::)

Decided to ask advice from a couple of OG DT1’s. Was told to ignore it so I did :)

I do understand what you are saying, just a PM with fact would be OK imo and wouldn't be a problem so each member can make there ow mind on a given FACT...

Still what happens here is an exact same example as Lauda doing a similar thing not long ago, with asking other DT members to trust or distrust people...  :-\

Same no go, if you wanna point something to members to make sure they don't miss it in the forum could be OK, just let the reading party make up there own mind whiteout any pressure from no-one :)

Perhaps he should just blacklist anyone who keeps lauda in their trust list.

He was trying to convince others to agree with him.

So with this logic i can plagiarize and get banned and claim it was a mistake and i can be unbanned?  I mean the rules were clearly posted by theymos.  Was not a mistake Lauda has been on "It's" high horse forever thinking IT can get away with anything.

The flag-type is wrong. I have advised others to use flag-type 1 and successfully convinced a lot of people to support it.

Just to make it clear: I obviously don't mind theymos expressing his opinion, I appreciate it. I dislike the way it was done. He can blacklist users (and preferably explain the decision) if he wants to. Or post his opinion publicly and let everyone make their decisions.

And no, it's not the same as someone else (e.g. Lauda) campaigning for inclusions/exclusions. I could tell Lauda to fuck off and nothing would happen regardless of what the conspiracy theories would lead you to believe. I don't think many recipients of that PM would feel the same way about a request from admin. Perhaps my reading of the situation is flawed. Let's hope that's all there is.

Let's see where all those users are which claim that others act when I PM them only because they are afraid of me. This must be taken to the next-level if the admin PMs you then, no? In comparison to a swift blacklist and authority-figure, I have zero power here.

You can tell Theymos to fuck off too if you want. He doesn't take it too personal.

Theymos' pm to me contained a recommendation, not a demand, and I'll treat it as such.

Are you sure that all users know that? Are you sure that all those users are not afraid of authorities?

Your pm was about more than one user, or is this just a turn of phrase?

Nope, but I also don't know that all users are not afraid of ducks either. This is pretty much the same thing I said when people were complaining about you "bullying" others. People are free to ignore anyone they want whether its a random newbie, a legendary account, a DT1 account, or an admin (can't ignore admins about rule breaking I suppose). If you don't know that, that isn't the admin, your, or the duck's fault.

Fair point. I would however, at this point question the trustworthiness and honesty of anyone who cried "bullying" about me but does not do the same now regarding this PM.

My teeth are grinding.

My teeth are grinding.

Did I mention that my teeth....

I'm sitting on this for the moment, as it's an unprecedented request since I've been a member here.  I've always thought Lauda did more good than harm, and I've had a fair amount of loyalty to him/her since before my DT days because of support I received.  Lauda was definitely impulsive today with the exclusions over the bill gator thing and the QS flag. 

Lauda, I'm going to do nothing but sit on my hands right now and see how this crap goes down.  I may step away from the keyboard for a while after this as well. 

I did support someone else's flag referencing QS's escrow shenanigans, so that one I felt justified in getting behind.  The friggin' highlight of my day right there, sorry QS.

Lauda said:





You literally asked to be removed, didn't you?

I agree with the general sentiment of suchmoon and others here. Especially now when this new flag thing was implemented, it isn't surprising to see it being accidentally misused or problematic at this point. Also, I would not go distrust Lauda solely because Lauda really just made a negative flag about Quickseller, regardless of whatever was incorrect or bad in the flag.

I did not ask for anything. I said that I'd accept it for the greater good or as proof of fake-decentralization.

Ah ok, I was just asking.
No problem for me, thanks.

No worries. The flag is a mistake; I'm not insisting on it nor have I asked for support on it after realizing that isn't proper use of the current "rules". I am, however, insisting that the system is fundamentally flawed now (much worse than where were before).

Again, people can question the trustworthiness and honesty of anyone based on their own opinion. People who cried about you bullying them either have those that support, oppose, or don't care about their opinion. You could say that Theymos is "bullying" other users now if you want, and similar groups will form that either support, oppose, or don't care.

Theymos is not an absolute detached party from trust, and not unreasonably far out of reach of having the same authority as DT. While I don't know for certain what would happen if everyone decided to exclude Theymos, I doubt he'd have a fit and rig the system so that others would have to listen to him. Given that hes essentially just another member of DT, I don't think its unreasonable for him to share his opinion with others or ask for their consideration regarding this matter the same way that its reasonable for you or any other member to do so.

Reminds me when the school principal recommended me to flush the pack of Marlboro reds down the toilet in lieu of other consequences.


Just Lauda. I edited the OP. My initial thinking was that this might be an ongoing strategy but since we have only one example let's make it singular.


I don't think Lauda meant "theymos, please send a PM to everyone and recommend them to exclude me" but that's not quite the point. theymos has the power to blacklist and should use it if he deems appropriate. Exclusions should be voluntary.

The flags are just implemented and could work better, as the directly crazy red tagg's so a new member is already afraid whiteout knowing anything of that persons real trades ::)

Also not because the flags are here today that means dozens of people need to be instant red flagged ...

Need to give this new system e proper time.... instead of already writing it out.

He can blacklist on both levels, no?

You are delusional to think that people see theymos as "just another member of DT" or that he would actually be just a member of DT.

I know j/k, but in this case what are the "other consequences" of failure to act on his recommendation?
Theymos excludes me because I decide not to exclude Lauda?
the tmfp account vanishes as if it were never there?
I should stop answering the door/phone?
What?

Funny, none of you had any objection whatsoever when the same was done in my case.

Possibly. But the two known blacklisted users (marlboroza and mikeywith) have been removed only from DT1 and are still in DT2.


Calling your parents, duh ;D

Actually I don't know, in either case. The principal never told me. Theymos didn't either. Both have the power to do unpleasant things to me. Thus the stupid analogy.


Funny indeed. He didn't PM me about you, I wonder why.

So what exactly would blacklisting me from DT1 accomplish if I left a false flag? This makes even less sense.

You do nothing but abuse DT...You deserve a ban from it

This quote is funny to me

[/quote]
Excluded. I don't trust flawed judgement.
[/quote]

Preconceived notions and biases do not often mix well with quality discussion.

Probably because I was never on your trust list, but those that had me on their trust list were requested to exclude me, and not a peep of objection from any of you objecting here today was heard.

This is drama on steroids.

Please no more.

Now there is a lauda PM asks me to exclude theymos.

WHAT AM I GUNNA DOOO

edit: since I did the opposite of what theymos asked, I guess I'll add theymos to my trust list.  ;D

Blacklisting me from DT1 would accomplish nothing, especially not if this "gang" exists.

I don't ask, I suggest. Read the last part again. Have fun. <3

Agreed, Theymos is not a regular user at all. I decided to just remove my entire list and get removed from this whole DT disaster moving forward. The never ending drama of this stuff has gotten old and just ignoring it all makes life easier.

Dunno, maybe that's why he wants you "~"-ed instead of blacklisted so that you'd be gone from DT2 as well.

Oops, I just deleted that message because I realized that if he blacklists everyone that includes you from DT1, then you would be excluded from DT2 as well. However, if he did not take that extreme measure, I believe he would have to do a tweek on the system, so if a DT1 member included someone on the blacklist, it doesn't add them to the DT2 list.

Good point. However, my main argument is that blacklisting me for this would destroy all the efforts he made to decentralize the system so far. Therefore, he chose that path. I would doubt any claim that he can't single-handedly blacklist on both levels.

Very fair deal, but my reasoning was far wider and superior than his.

You might not have liked it but you don't have to act on it. I'm sure many of the people complaining have also done similar things via PM against others. Maybe had theymos made threats or demanded we do it it would be a different matter. Maybe both parties did things in haste but it seems to have been sorted now anyway.


I think a lot of people here probably need a vacation. And not one of the pretend ones Cryptohuter is on.



My first thought was just to wipe my trust list completely as I've thought about doing that several times. More hassle than it's worth.

But he hasn't blacklisted you, has he?
Thanks for the pm, I think.
Irony Alert: Theymos' objection to the description of SV as a scam.

He is providing you a decentralized solution, but you are refusing to follow the standards of that system and instead demand special privilege to abuse it. You only have yourself to blame.

The only reason for which I haven't done this already is the people that got included by me.

Doesn't look like it. Like I said, doing so kills the credibility of the decentralization efforts i.e. would prove that they are fake.

You're welcome. I didn't exclude anyone from the list of recipient, regardless of my personal opinion of them.

The whole system is backwards, but the general idea could work. The BSV case is just an argument against the system.

He can, and should hardcode exclusions to anyone who has you on their trust list.

The majority of people who have you on their trust list are scammers, and/or what amounts to your puppet incapable of thinking for themselves. In all cases, they are showing extreme bad judgment

I made this same argument when SaltySpitoon and others were requested to exclude me on their trust lists, no one objected then. It is very interesting to see this supposed victim make many of the same arguments I did, but thought it was perfectly reasonable when applied to me.

When exactly did this happen? I actually would have to re-read whatever happen before I could say anything.

What then is the overlap of users? Surely you can comment on their hypocrisy.

As far as I know there is no overlap of individuals that got requests in both instances. There is however overlap in those that dismissed my arguments against Theymos requesting exclusions personally as if he did not also carry the weight of the admin. They were dismissive of or silent in response to the argument then, now they suddenly support the argument. This is not an argument based on principles, it is an argument based on personalities.

What is suchmoon claiming has happened now?

Theymos dared to try and save lauda public humiliation of being blacklisted by asking a back stabbing scum bag and possible alt of lauda - suchmoon to exclude the trust abusing lying scamming piece of shit lauda? better to just straight up black list this piece of shit and lauda together. They will NEVER play fair with the rest of the board.

Suchmoon has been shown PROOF lauda is a liar and scammer, suchmoon has been shown lauda will use red trust to facilitate his own scamming by trying to silence whistle blowers. She has not done the right thing then. She will never do the right thing in the future. Blacklist them both and ANYONE else who REFUSES to stop with the trust abuse or will support those that do trust abuse.

If suchmoon is trying to spin this into something "positive" in laudas favor then we suchmoon just revealed how far she will go to protect that proven liar, scammer and trust abuser.

LOL at least Theymos can see what an EXCELLENT member suchscumbag is now. The true colors are revealed. She will do anything to keep her gang in power.

Just BLACKLIST every DT member that will not abide by the rules. Let's drain this swamp.

Of course meta board will try to reject anything that removes their ability to game this board and cream off the power and money.

Suchmoon needs to be forced to answer in public some VERY STRAIGHT questions. 

It's simple Lauda broke a clear rule and should be manually removed from DT forever

Context would help.

LOL, since when were the rules clear around here?  Even the list of rules that are pinned to the board are "unofficial."

Considering that they have already resolved this situation, it seems strange to insert yourself into this. It's like offense culture.

This is pretty clear

Call me delusional then. Anyone thats been around a while (all parties I'm speaking with now) should at least have the feeling that Theymos isn't petty enough to do anything about it if everyone that he sends a PM to recommending that they do whatever about doesn't do it.

Resolved? Lauda broke a RULE punishment should follow like so many you have tagged in the past.

Oh becoming very accommodating now are we not lauda worm tongue. You STATED  you will not work within these new rules, you said he can change the rules or black list you. He was likely trying to be NICE to you rather than outright bitch slap you with a black list in public for us all to gloat over.

Suchslob has just demonstrated clearly that

1. she will not only include you on dt after she knows you lied and scammed
2. she win not only include you on dt and not reverse your trust abuse when you use red trust to hide and facilitate your own scamming
3. she will now try and stab theymos in the back and make him look bad for trying to usher you out of the back door leaving you with some dignity in the hope this now makes you untouchable

she should be blacklisted herself, she is now making a mockery of the trust system by giving lauda POSITIVE trust because she says lauda must have told her the truth atleast once.

She is deliberately not co operating and supporting her pal/alt lauda who is trying to give theymos the big fuck off again.

Get both dirt bags blacklisted.

It's a recommendation, not a demand. As I said:

---

As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.

For non-agreement issues, use a newbie-warning flag and give them a negative trust rating. These actions are in the different scopes of warning newbies or informing other users of your opinions, which have less severe consequences and therefore lower bars.

I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)

Ironically (assuming that people aren't privately lying to me), you've done the exact opposite. A good portion of people from both sides are dissatisfied. Naturally, the scammers celebrate once more.

Wrong EVERYONE is satisfied except the DT members that were enjoying being able to use red trust as their own personal weapon for their own means.

Since those parasitic swine are the most vocal in meta you relying on a very bogus metric. I see MOST of those that are NOT GANG members are VERY HAPPY.

Anyone who wants a fair set of transparent rules where every member must be treated equally is happy. Those that were enjoying being part of the self appointed DT crew that all cream off the top sig spots, escrowing positions, campaign manager slots, all red trusting people who dare raise observable events from their past they want to remain hidden are obviously not going to be happy.

Both sides ? there are only 2 types of member.

1. Those that want transparent and fair rules that ensure all members are treated equally.

2. AND THOSE THAT DO NOT.


You are a proven liar and scammer. Who gives one fuck what you think lauda. You were a liar and scammer when you came here. You are a liar and scammer now.

The mere notion of you being in a position of trust is quite ludicrous.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917438.msg10072726#msg10072726



It has been a day, isn't it a bit early to call this a never ending feud? I see a good portion of people satisfied as well. I think you give yourself too much credit as if you are the only levee between a flood of scammers and the forum.

Do you really think lauda gives one fuck about anything that happend before to you tec?  he is trying to garner some spin here for his own ends


Theymos has eventually demonstrated he WANTS to provide the standards you were requesting. Let's not fuck it up at this stage.

This is a huge step forward in satoshi's end goal. Every person is treated equally and fairly according to a set of transparent RULES.

This is what the trust system should be. You can prove or demonstrate strongly someone is a scammer then they get a scam tag. Anyone who wants to use red trust for their OWN purposes or to silence whistle blowing have NO place in positions of trust.

Oh selective enforcement is nothing new here. Look at EFS and the Turkish section. Remind me when theymos did something about him?

I am speaking on behalf of messages that I have received today; my own dissatisfaction is irrelevant. I have shown the the system is flawed in many ways (some of which are trivial e.g. no edit/deletion). Whether it created good as you think it will, or whether it created more bad as I belief it will you can argue with whoever participates in the system down the road. My exclusion and vocal dissent against theymos on all platforms will remain until scammers are back where they belong (and who I mean by scammers, you can rightfully ignore anyone I have tagged - think about the tags before my time e.g.).

You totally demonstrated the prior system needed an upgrade by using red trust to facilitate your own scamming.

When people who have OBSERVABLY scammed in the past like you have start giving scam tags to the people that outed you as a lying scammer back then, simply for daring to mention it then you know change was coming fool.

You have demonstrated nothing. Nobody cares about your vocal dissent. We will crush you down every time you try to bully theymos to bend to your scamming and extorting ways.

You are a SCAMMER do you not get that. Who cares what you and your scamming crew of scum say. Fuck off.

Please tell me your username on all other platforms we will be there with the PROOF you are a scammer and piece of shit to demonstrate to people you are not worth listening too.

Stop threatening theymos in public you look foolish. PROVEN Scammers are going to speak out against theymos for pushing out fair and transparent rules that ensure all persons are treated equally. ....LOL ohhh noooo

and then lauda said : theymos stopped me using red trust to silence whistle blowers presenting observable instances of my lying and scamming.....hahaha


Whilst lauda was holding a nice bag of these instamined coins..

Very much the same situation. Theymos (and others) PMed DT members with Tecshare on their trust list back then to ask them to reconsider. Its not an uncommon occurrence from Theymos or other DT members. Sometimes you agree, and sometimes you kindly tell them to mind their own business.

Actually the initial response by theymos is just added proof for Tecshare's claim. Not only are forum-rules being selectively enforced from the top-down (by the forum-staff), so is the trust system. Lauda: Get tagged for one instance of lying on a ridiculous pre-written flag. Quickseller: Gets ignored after 100 cases of lying. I also find it odd that nobody merited that thread, so I just did.
Did I introduce you to clown pepe? He's officially joined the forum.

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

The way I see it the recent changes by Theymos has largely rectified this selective enforcement and created a more equitable system. Furthermore this incident also being applied to you demonstrates to me that it was not an isolated (selective) incident. BTW, stop trying to force memes you fucking normie, its lame.

That's the goal, but it doesn't do that. You can still selectively enforce whatever you want with flag type 1 (you won't get blacklisted). You can't use flag type 2 nor 3 for it though. Additionally, his own actions have enacted the resolution of the previous guideline (you no longer need to have any relation to scamming whatsoever to receive negative ratings), and you can leave negative ratings almost as you see fit (which, for those is worse than before).

Selective, unless he tags Quicksie for starters and maybe fires EFS et. al.

They are great. The whole world is a clown show, and the forum has joined the game.

This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda.

On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters.

You can't possibly think so, I am not satisfied with the new changes, you can see to yourself, look at the rating i left for scammers, they are now almost invisible.

 Not saying i 100% agree with the previous settings, for example non of the feedback on CH profile for example are valid, they are misues/abuse call it how you like it , but you don't make a system that releases a 1000 scammer from their cage only to be fair to 10 innocent members whom have been abused/mistreated by DT members.

there were other  simple solutions to that problem, but Theymos picked the long path that might never see the light.

Wrong. Theymos is willing to let people get scammed. I am not. That's the difference between liberals and centre-right. Here you are, lying again. Yet theymos won't tag you. Honk-honk some more.  :)

Come now, you've been a moderator as well. You know exactly how harsh the directives Theymos forces upon the poor staff, and the constant state of fear they are in over whether they will still have a position or an account if they disagree with the supreme overlord's opinion.

Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on all of the newbies that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

You're kidding, right? He's as distant as possible, and as a staff member (especially of a local section) you can reach absurd levels of abuse (as demonstrated by EFS) without any action taking place. Maybe it was like that under BadBear, which I unfortunately only briefly was a part of. Under theymos this is definitely not the case unless things have completely changed since 2016.

Firstly, no. Secondly, exaggeration fallacy.

I support the changes. Am I a liberal? I think pretty much anyone who has spent any time in Politics and Society would disagree. In fact I would describe your approach as totalitarian.

1, I am not liberal, 2 you are not centre-right. You are authoritarian, who disregards consensus of opposition to what you are doing, and tries (often successfully) to silence those who criticize you. Further, you are corrupt.  

2, you do not care about anyone getting scammed. You do not prevent anyone from getting scammed, rather the opposite, as you have diluted the effect of negative trust so much that people have learned to ignore it. In the process, you have damaged the reputations of many people for arbitrary reasons, often without any kind of violation of even a clear guideline.

Based on your corruption and history of extortion and scamming, you should be given an untrustworthy tag similar to the one that Matthew M Wright has.

He is being intentionally dishonest. He has always used this strong language whenever he was excluded from DT multiple times. I suspect this somewhat has to do with why he kept receiving additional inclusions under the old system. There was never any basis for this kind of language. 

You don't have to be liberal to support it, you can just be confused. Maybe we need a couple more thousand people to lose money in BSV and Bcash before we start realizing that this actually causes damage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I would never.

See, more lies. Where's the tag theymos?

It was meant to be sarcasm, I figured you'd pick up on it immediately. And yeah, thats my point. Just because staff members may be coincidentally involved, doesn't mean Theymos is funneling orders down and forcing DT staff or otherwise to obey. Theymos sent a PM asking people to reevaluate their choice, you have sent people PMs asking them to reevaluate their choice, other DT members have done so as well. Because Theymos is distant and there is no impending hammer, it is not selective enforcement by staff or otherwise.

Fine, Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on legendary members that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

My point was that you got the attention of Theymos because you are in the position to get it. Any other member on DT doing the same thing would have also gotten the same PM sent.

I hope that you are not giving up on us.

Seems to me that BIG escalations and never-ending feuds over fairly petty stuff remains part of any active forum in a bitcoin community that involves actual humans.

Don't get me wrong, it seems to me that your various attempts at tweaking forum systems including adding merit and making various tweaks to trust (including this latest flag addition) serve as great attempts to make forum improvements, yet people are a moving target, and I doubt that forum tweaking is ever going to be "over with," and I doubt that BIG feuds over petty squabbles will ever be stamped out of any kind of decent forum, such as this one... accordingly, to me, it seems that BIG feuds and petty squabbles are what humans are all about, so please don't attempt to turn us into bots......     ;) ;)

   Yes, and now it is clear that one of the ways that theymos will seek to remove people from DT ASAP is to PM a recommendation to DT1 members. Since it is now clear that this is indeed a recommendation rather than a demand, those DT1 members are free to either take these recommendations to heart or take them with a grain of salt. I am uncertain if this matter will be accelerated any further if it does not go in the direction theymos is expecting.

I didn't mean it like that; I meant that it happens on all levels. I should have clarified.

You're looking at it from the opposite perspective. I'm not saying that theymos is causing selective enforcement, I'm saying that he's ignoring it (it happens exactly due to the lack of "impending hammer").

Are you saying Quickseller is not in any position to get it? Are you saying that people are not harmed by his fake accusations just because there is no contract violation? Oh right, I'm not allowed to tag flag him even though I'm a victim. I can remove myself from DT, not that it matters at all any more. This will not solve selective-enforcement nor solve the opening of the gates to every scammer that ever touched this place (Quickseller included).
I must add: Both Bcash and BSV are no-brainer examples of how this system is broken (ignore user-dispute-related ratings). User: I bought BSV thinking it was Bitcoin, i.e. got scammed? Forum: Sorry, we can't tag this as you had no contract. ::)

Clown-car.

I'm not following. Who is doing the selective enforcement if not Theymos? Why is it qualified to be selective if not from a position of implied authority?


I'm saying that as Quickseller is not on DT. As far as feedback goes, Quickseller who is not on DT has the same weight as anyone else not on DT. You are on DT, so your feedback matters more, therefor it was more pressing a matter to point out whatever you did rather than whatever Quickseller did in the case that you both did the exact same thing at the exact same time.

As far as you being allowed to flag him, if I'm understanding, the problem is that you used are improperly using the new flag system. Feedback is for people who haven't contractually scammed you, people that are untrustworthy ie, liars, account farmers, people who like lemons. Flags are for people who have stolen money from you put simply.

Does Theymos get involved in scam accusations? No. Does Theymos get involved in Scam accusations towards staff members? Probably. >>> Same situation


As pointed out earlier, Inaba doesn't have a flag yet. Is that because they don't deserve it? No, its because people prioritize when they make actions and which to take first.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8198

The, now withdrawn, rating was selective enforcement. EFS has been long-term abusing his position. I'm not familiar with theymos selectively enforcing staff-related things himself, but this was a case of selective trust-enforcement. It happens on all levels as demonstrated (trust/staff/non-staff doesn't matter).

Leaving me negative rating does what about my flag? Nothing. Right.

I'm not a direct victim of Inaba, so Inaba is not a scammer and I can't flag him. Lovely system, priorities indeed.

---

You actually need even more people than ever before to get scammed in order to have a sufficient sub set of victims that are able to- and willing to come forward with credible "contract violations" before you can fully establish that the introduced system is garbage. Not enough contract violations = not enough victims able to speak out = silent scamming can and will continue. Incentivizes scamming, de-incentivizes flagging and flag-support. I'll leave you to process that.

---

Tl;dr: I welcome the idea of separation, but I am disgusted by this implementation which is really just scam-enabling. Have fun.

No it is simply a reset. It is sadly required to start a NEW path that can not be corrupted.

This is a NEW shift to create an environment where all persons now and in the future are treated fairly and equally.

Don't blame theymos. BLAME EVERY DT WEAK ASS PIECE OF CORRUPT SHIT that did not reverse these abuses when they could have done but rather doubled down on this abuse. Theymos tried to create previously something fair. He gave WARNING AFTER WARNING AFTER WARNIGN AFTER WARNING  RED TRUST IS FOR FUCKING SCAMMERS , you all ignored this. You either all abused the trust system or supported those that did. If you are not going to reverse peoples abuse you are allowing them to do it. Would you stand there and allow an adult to abuse a child in front of you?? saying well I don't support it but you know....I'm not interested in what that adult is doing really, not my business.

How many times must theymos ask, tell, beg and scream red trust should be used only for scammers???

These changes are here because DT's made them essential.

We see you as one of the more fairer and better ones mikey. You will see the new system is going to be WAY WAY WAY  better long term.

Stop worrying so much about saying the MOST GREEDY and MOST STUPID from themselves. Start worrying about pushing forward the adoption of this decentralized trustless end to end arena we want to see built here for the future.

People need to see the bigger picture here. You guys playing whack a mole with 1000 small time scumbags is equal to about a 10th of one huge ICO scam that you can never stop because none of you have the tech chops to demonstrate the white paper is bunk and even if you could demonstrate it is not going to solve all btc's issues you would not stop the MOST GREEDY and MOST STUPID wanting to invest in it.

Free speech and educating people what this forum is about not stopping people getting robbed by themselves. People must learn you don't get a 500 bucks gift card for 20 bucks from a new person on the internets for this new magic money that does not come back once you send it.

Get flagging all that you can and the rest will get busted along the way. However, there is now a procedure to complete, this is for the long term good of the board.

Don't be short sighted here. THEYMOS has perhaps realized you need to build things on STRONG FOUNDATIONS. You need scammers to be REAL SCAMMERS to give them a scam tag else the entire thing become meaningless and people start abusing more and more until the tool to stop scammers becomes a tool for scammers to silence whistle blowers.

Your 1000 2 bit scammers will take about 0.001% of what gox did or any big ICO that raised 100's millions that will fade away to page 20 cmc and never be heard of again but those devs will be back on page one with a new ico under a new name. Only a handful of people here have the tech chops to recognize them or stop them. Even then the most greedy would still insist on investing

Stop believing average joes with a dt badge are making such a big difference in the grand scale. You are only fooling yourselves. To believe that is worth crushing free speech is madness.

REMEMBER ALL DT members are responsible for these changes should have taken heed of the abuse and put a stop to it.. I am sure theymos did not want the extra fucking hassle of coding it all out for the fun of it.  

Theymos was being KIND to lauda here. He has given lauda enough fucking warnings about trust abuse. Lauda has started saying he is the master and theymos is the student. He will NOT obey these rules... etc etc. Theymos should just have bitch slapped that scammer out of DT rather than trying to give him an exit of dignity just getting excluded out.

Suchmoon trying to spin it as some devious and sneaky move has revealed herself now. She will do ANYTHING to retain lauda in DT adding to the very possible explanation that lauda is suchmoon.  Either that or she has demonstrated some MAJOR double standards here.

The selective enforcement part is confusing the hell out of me because you seem to be supporting Tecshare's claim from that thread from years ago linked earlier, yet you don't support the argument he made. I don't know much about what you are talking about with EFS, so unless its very relevant to your point, I'll skip it. If its important, I'll look up some threads about it.

You can leave negative feedback just as you've always done. You can't flag him though. Flag = Help! I've been scammed! Negative feedback = Watch out, this guy is shady! I'm not sure why you are under the impression that you have no recourse against scammers now just because there is now a distinct warning and alarm system. If you haven't been scammed, you post a warning. If you have been scammed, you signal the alarm.

This is a step towards the system that I've been preaching all along while somewhat (and I emphasize somewhat) defending your past feedback. Leaving feedback is a good thing. There are a lot of considerations people may or may not care about when deciding to trade with someone. All Theymos did was separate more severe scam accusations to flags, and freed up the space for people to put more subjective things as regular feedback. Subjective feedback isn't necessarily bad as long as you don't misrepresent it. If you want to tag Quickseller for being a liar, some percentage of the forum might agree with that feedback and decide to take your claim to heart. Others wont, and thats perfect, users forming their own opinions by reading and weighing feedback is the most fair system in my opinion. The flags are for "I"ve been scammed!" and misrepresenting your feedback is the only thing that counts as trust abuse in my eyes anyway.

That is sort of where we are at. If Quickseller didn't take your money, then they deserve feedback not a flag.

I support his claim that there is selective enforcement, not his particular instance. I haven't gone in depth into that thread to be able to support the particular claim. Meriting =/= support.

This is completely wrong. You forget that:
1) There is no trust score.
2) There is no bold red - it is now orange. Orange is not a colour of danger nor warning.
3) There is no warning written on someone with negative ratings.

Every single scammer ever has been let loose. You seem to actively fight this fact (cognitive dissonance makes accepting this hard, which in return further strengthens the scammers' positions).

Fun. I suggest we add QS next to DT1. Maybe his pal TF too. Where's the contract violation? Clown-forum.

---

You can stop responding to me and discuss it with others. Claiming that we have a warning system when there is actually no warning written after someone received a negative tag is just factually wrong. The rest you can debate ad-naseum; re: who is right/wrong. I am no longer interested in this particular discussion.

Let us remember lauda that you are a scammer? so those you brand scammers are likely NOT scammers are they? I mean who trusts the word of a proven scammer and liar??

lauda is upset he can no longer unilaterally tag people without anyone else's support -- he is upset he can no longer use the threat of negative trust as a weapon to silence his critics

Great, the score was meaningless before anyway. How does one rate how trustworthy someone is on a scale from -999 to 400ish? I don't know what the upper positive trust scale was. I don't think you should get a number for being an alleged liar or successfully trading 1000BTC. I think whoever is going to trade with you should decide the validity of the claim themselves and how much they are willing to trust you with.

The color doesn't matter either, why should green, red, or heliotrope tell you who is trustworthy. Just read a person's feedback and you'll get all of the info you want. I'm against the go ahead and trade recklessly if you see green, or avoid at all costs if you see red mentality that seems to have accidentally been cultivated here. I've traded with actual scammers in the past. You just use escrow. I've requested escrow be used with deep green trusted members. Numbers, scores, and reassuring colors just numb your gut feeling.

Sure, lets add QS to DT1, maybe then you'll feel better when they get a PM sent about them from Theymos for misusing the new system. I have really come to loath the use of the word factual or its derivatives on Bitcointalk. We have a difference of opinion on the definition of what constitutes a warning. if I cared or you cared, we could discuss this further, but you are right we aren't going to come to an agreement and there is no point in wasting our time continuing.



This is what I don't get. No, the new system DOES unilaterally allow people to tag whoever they want for whatever they want. There is just now a distinction between Flag, this person scammed me, and feedback, this is a warning I think this person is a scammer and here is why. I'm now free to leave people positive or negative feedback for lemons. I've been dangerously close to leaving CryptoHunter lemon feedback to prove a point, but didn't do so because of some people's fixation on feedback as a unified structure of infallible information.

I don't see how telling a large group of users to exclude a certain person can resolve any feuds. This brings the drama level up a notch. Based on some conversations I had, it seems to have just added more anxiety on top of whatever other shit was going on.

But thank you for clarifying the intent. I sympathize with it, if not the execution.

Tags are now relegated to the meaningless lemons garbage they were allowed to degrade to. So people looking at the score didn't know if the person ate lemons or steals bitcoins without scanning a ton of weird strange personal nonsense unrelated to scamming.
Flags are the real deal. I mean we already have a nice new shiny flag let's see if this is allowed to stand or these scum bags get black listed. We are not too bothered because it is still a huge move in the right direction and they will not get away with this on everyone only very very unpopular persons like us where the board is willing to allow scammers and their miscreant pals to give a flag to a person that they have ZERO chance of demonstrating has scammed or tried to scam ANYONE  out of money. The change was never just about us or our fav true legend, it was about gaining free speech for the entire board free of the threat of your sig being zapped away if you said something a gang of scammers, liars and their supporters didn't want you to say.

Theymos seems to be getting bullied around by some very ANGRY dt scammers and their gang right now. Let's hope theymos has some REAL supporters who want to see fair and transparent rules applied equally to all members.

Nice to see the DT scammers and their excellent member pals reveal themselves for who they really are now though. Nice to see suchmoon trying to spin this message theymos sent to 110 people as some sneaky stealth move he really wanted kept secret and now he is a bad guy. Rather than the real reason that is probably he felt sorry for lauda (fuck knows why) and didn't want to bitch slap him with a black listing so we could all gloat. But rather have his support eroded from beneath him with excludes.

Either way win win. People always show their true colors eventually. We believe suchmoon is lauda and have for quite some time. This certainly adds weight to that possibility. Usually suchmoon can be found brown nosing theymos constantly why suddenly turn against him for lauda?? because how can it turn on it's self. I remember someone once saying somewhere oh suchmoon we didnt know you could speak croatian >??? it started saying oh no it was " then some excuses" like moron bozo taught me a few words or some such explanation. That could be smoke with no fire but then again it could be a furnace below the surface.

I have two problems with the reputation + flag system.

One: we have to go back and find our flaggable tags. Although you'll have the negative reputation points, one thing that is missing is the newbie flag. They are still likely to fall prey to a scammer.

Two: flags can only be created by victims. This means that when a flag is created, the scammer will have most likely already gotten what they wanted.

Sometimes in life to start building on strong foundations the old building must be destroyed. A total reset where we ENSURE only REAL scammers get a scam tag it seems sadly it is the only way to start again. You may have made all legitimate red tags. I believe in your case it is plausible. However the same can NOT be said for other DT members. Therefore a general rule must sadly accommodate the worst cases of trust abuse. We must not blame the creator of the systems for giving too much credit to those that abused the systems or failed to stand against the abuse. The creator this time is taking no risks with over estimating the system controllers integrity.

Long term point 1 will be a non issue.  We must look long term hence the need for strong foundations.

Point2 - there will always be a trade off for guessing or speculating or having faith that a person will scam against innocent members being flagged as scammers. That is just the thin end of the wedge or the start of the rot as they say. This FAITH that someone will scam can be gradually reduced down to eating lemons if left unchecked. That has obvious implications for free speech which is the corner stone of such a progressive movement as this.  It is more important to ensure all members are treated equally and fairly than it is perhaps to protect some of the most greedy risk takers. It is my belief only a handful of people here have the tech chops to stop the largest and most damaging scams and even with their valid warning you will see a lot of greedy and foolish people screaming take my money.

Let's never allow free speech to be crushed to save people from themselves.

To bring this back to the intial post though. We are pleased this thread was started. We and most sensible people can see it is an attempt to shed negative light on theymos who is trying his best to rid this forum of the cancer of scammers that seek to use the trust system to facilitate their own scamming and silence whilstle blowers. We hardly think sending the REQUEST not demand (if it was a demand then I am sure it would be happening by now) to 110 people is the sign of someone trying to do any back room manipulation. We stick to the belief it was an attempt to allow lauda to be removed from a position where it can bring more damage without making him look like he just got the boot from the forum owner in public. Theymos tried to be nice and look what happens they turn it on him trying to suggest he was being sneaky. Disgusting behavior by excellent member suchmoon. As we say it adds weight to our suspicion that suchmoon is lauda.

I think this is why one option is for heavy scam potential;  vs. an actual accusation of a scam that happened....

Innocent until proven guilty must still hold; or everything falls apart quickly...

One option is in relation to reputation. I have no problem with this, at all. I think this is a good addition save for the fact that it has a lessened effect on all the previous genuine negative feedback.

Flags are inherently flawed in the fact that the victim of a scam must flag the user.

Innocent until proven guilty, sure. But with this one it is unflagged until victim proves scammer guilty. If no victim acts on the flag, then nothing is done. You are not allowed to flag without first being scammed.

Our trust now shows a flag and those people have not proven we have scammed anyone because that would be impossible. So this may not be the case.

I don't mean the guest/newbie flags. I mean the type-2 and type-3 flags, which are reserved for victims of scams.

No, you are just not allowed to use the high-power scam flags -- intended mainly for punishing people, not really for preemptively warning about scams -- without first being scammed. You can still use the newbie-warning flags and negative ratings, which have plenty of warning power.

Previously, leaving a negative rating would effectively cripple a person's ability to conduct business, as it created the bight red warning to "trade with extreme caution", regardless of what the comment said. Now, if you were to leave negative trust for "liking lemons" there will be no bright red warning, and anyone reading this comment will promptly ignore the rating -- in other words, the negative rating no longer cripples a person's ability to conduct business.

What the above means is Lauda can no longer use the threat of him sending a negative rating as a means to get what he wants out of people, others will no longer be afraid of criticizing him (Lauda has given many people negative trust for criticizing him, recently explicitly for doing this, and previously, the comment was for other, bogus reasons, but was done immidiately after they criticized him. if lauda wants to open a flag against someone, they need to create a thread in which the person in question can be defended by himself or others -- lauda had said today that "no discussion is necessary" for flags he opened today.

I suppose we did want differing degrees of severity in regards to negative feedback. I'll have to give this some more thought and form a more substantiated opinion as discussion develops.

---

Is there any message indicator for when a user PMs a flagged user? I know that some users have tried to sneak their way into scamming others in sections that hide trust ratings (and now flag markers).

I agree with this;   having a scaled impact value vs.  a simple yes/no;  needs to be considered IMHO.  I have seen people with negative trust;  just because they were duped into advertising for a scam unknowingly.....

In the same regard; my Yobit banner could potentially have harmed me if yobit truly went south for the winter and started ripping everyone off blatantly (which i personally am surprised they haven't yet); because for me;  the sig was just a way to put a little coin in my pocket for doing the same thing I have always done;  help in the areas I can help in;  when I am physically/mentally able to do so.....  Never once did I advocate anyone use them or go out of my way to shill for them;  I would only suggest people go in and hit up the free coins when there was something worth nabbing (like the free .01 ETC every 24 hours), or when I was gung-ho on a [still in progress] "coin" that I believe the project has merit (as a DEX)....
Shit; I already have a negative distrust from some asshat on the old system for my yobit banner;  with literally no real reasoning for it other than I would rebut or continue the discussion with logical processes and analysis in my process of trying to help them through the issue they were having.    I think it might even be the guy whom sent an ETH smartcontract token set to his ETH wallet on yobit;  which they have never supported..... he was quite butthurt at my honest curt replies.


 Yeah;  but here's the rub;  If you dont have evidence of a scam;  it's a blind accusation from you in the eyes of everyone else with an objective mind.....  so that's a double edged sword of a concept to try and modify that way.  Even if the people who trust you see it;  they have nothing on it past your say so;  that doesn't fly in the online world unless you are truly respected by even the people who havent conversed with you.   Very few people reach that status in any regard. (at the same time, I am baffled why people put so much stock into actors' opinions these days)

I don't think anyone is demanding infallibility, simply objective and publicly observable information on which to judge an accusation, I.E. not just beliefs and opinions. As I stated before, everyone can play pretend time and claim they think XYZ, but it is much more difficult to manufacture objective facts over and over.

Well this has got messy pretty quickly, although I wouldn’t expect it any other way really, just perhaps not so soon. The positive side to it is that it brings up the flaws pretty quickly, which leaves a possibility to alter the system or guideline it better before the damage is structural.

I personally dislike receiving PMs encouraging supporting or disapproving mal use in one way or another, and they are related to the usual drama which I occasionally glimpse through, but have no desire to read on a permanent basis as if I was reading The Mirror reporting on how “Fun with Flags has hit Bitcointalk, and is being used to tell people to Flagoff”.

@Theymos’s PM states what seems like a fact: the red flag given to Quickseller did not (to my finding) have any solid supporting contractually proven evidence, and hence was uncalled for. @Lauda later amended as far as flags allow, by removing support to the flag.
The flag is therefore Inactive due to Insufficient support, but I find it still tarnishes one’s profile since it cannot be deleted. I would prefer for flags to be erasable by it’s creator, providing it does not have other people’s support. If the creator of a flag wants to delete a supported flag, he would need to convince the supporters on the arguments for it to happen, and if all retracted their support, it could be erased. 
 
Theoretically, the reading of the OP where @theymos verbalized the Trust flags (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51435911#msg51435911) introduction and subsequent changes indicates that “If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP”. That is what he has done by delegation, although when I read it I assumed it was going to be a direct act.
Whether the suggested call to action is harsh or not after barely a few hours of setting the new system in motion is subjective, and therefore we can decide whether to follow or ignore the suggestion enclosed in @theymo’s PM.

It does raise the question of whether every single flag (at least DTs) will be scrutinized from here on with the same cause of action. That seems like a hell of a job to do, and even more so considering that people come and go from the DT list be it due to votes or to capping the list to 100. I’m not even sure if DT2 counts towards flags the same way as DT1 does (I think it does). If so, this multiplies the number of flags to potentially supervise, which seems like an overly task (likely, only those brought to attention would need a revision).

Theymos tries to follow his own system. I think it's very good and trustworthy behavior. Of course, many 'justice warriors' that cries about how much they care about forum would turn it into Gulag.  (with corruption, of course)

Just reccomendation. no demand (as i understand). Blacklisting is shit, the shittiest shit and it's a little strange that people in Bitcoin forum who is on DT1 saying something like: "It would be better to blacklist @user, than asking to distrust him". Lol, it's pathetic



Lol. Please look at this topic - CLICK (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147938.0). Many users, like yahoo62278 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147938.msg51273031#msg51273031) told to OP that "no victim - no scam". "If bestmixer would created this topic, we would tag Hharmpuz" states they. For me, i think it's right statement. Because you can't punish someone for things that he didn't done

Just to confirm, it does.

The good thing about this new trust flag is that, no one single handedly leave a red flag to anyone's account. This will reduce the trust misuse which we have seen from the last trust system.

Correct -- that's what Lauda has been saying too.


Your subjective non-contributing view to the matter, which also contradicts what Lauda says about himherself.

That is not pathetic , i understand Theymos does not want to use his Admin's privileges in the trust system so he limited his actions to what is available for the average DT member, that is great and all, but really , why create all the mess?

 I can't see anything wrong with theymos directly controlling DT list and blacklisting whoever he thinks are not worthy of being a DT, after all he can very much adjust the rules to simply exclude every member whos name starts with L and get rid of Lauda forever, We know he is not going to do such a thing but still he is the one who created the system based on what he thinks right.

 therefore it is always better to get his hands dirty and manually fix what is broken, the only time this would be invalid is when forum members themselves chose how they want the system to be like, and since it is not the case then who ever has the power to create/alter/modify the system should use that power to fix what needs fixing.

To be honest, at first I thought admin (theymos) account has been hacked when I saw the message from him. But after visit meta I realized that message came from real admin. Seems Lauda has been removed/blacklisted from DT1 and asmin want to remove her from DT2 as well and that's the reason to ask distrust(~) her from trust list. My question is, why admin had not bothered to make public post with his opinion instead of send personal messages? Because sending messages to all DT's means it has become publicly. This kind of PM isn't appreciated to me from any users.

Why all these drama surrounding a PM? Feel lucky that he (theymos) did not tell that he will ban/blacklist anyone who will not listen to him like Lauda's red trust for QS.


Read:
and I will tag you as well.

https://i.imgur.com/QfxZ5Dk.png

Besides, you all did not have any problem when Lauda was asking HH not to respond in QS post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147938.0), when Lauda asked LFC_Bitcoin to remove/distrust Bill^* and many other occasions where she was convincing/ordering uses in their PM to do that and this?

You guys are moaning for a barking bitch.

Just do this:
~Lauda

She has done this to herself. I do not see anyone here to be blamed. She was using the old trust system as her weapon to silent users. A strong example is the red trust left for me in this account LOL

---

^*

Edit:
I am glad to see that The Pharmacist is improving (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153495.msg51442163#msg51442163). He now is trying his own voice. Try to sleep less (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153344.msg51442095#msg51442095) LOL. It's the time zone.

I'd like to take this argument a little further:
In sending a PM to all DT1 members, theymos set a precedent of using what I would call unsolicited mass email aka SPAM to get his message across.
We're on bitcointalk, a forum, goddammit.

Dear theymos, you want to get a message out to a lot of people?
Start a thread on "Meta"! >:(

(Of course, the same would apply to Lauda, who sent a PM as well. But this might be forgiven, since it was obviously a reaction to theymos' PM).

Just a minor fact-check. I'm on DT1 this period. I didn't get the theymos pm. I ~excluded Lauda all along.

I think the tl;dr goes something like this:

1. Quickseller is an untrustworthy account trading (the basis by which many scams have been perpetrated) forum member with a long history of extremely shady behaviour, including fraudulent misrepresentation (self-escrow).
2. By his own actions, Quickseller cannot be trusted within this community and gullible newbies especially should have the means to be readily alerted to this fact when reading his posts or interacting with him directly
3. The scammer flag forum mechanism is considerably more profound a marker of a forum member's reputation than trust ratings and should only be used by a victim to assert an actual fraud or crime has taken place
4. However, Lauda, and others (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=406594), have used the flag mechanism to highlight forum members who are generally considered to be extremely shady in order to alert those who may be unaware5. Theymos is pissed that the flag system is not being used solely by victims of an actual fraudulent or criminal act
6. Lauda withdraws their flag for Quickseller
7. Theymos thinks Lauda should be considered as untrustworthy for having used the flag mechanism the wrong way


I'm going to take it as Lauda figured Quickseller deserved a large painted sign above his profile alerting all to the fact he is and has long been a shady fuck, but erroneously employed the scammer flag in order to do so. I don't think that warrants flinging their trust ratings out of the window quite yet.

I also think that Theymos seriously underestimates, or perhaps not, the weight of his authority when sending DM's to people 'recommending' an action be taken. While I do understand why he would be alarmed about the flag system being misused, it is likely that many of those who have done so took the action in the belief it was warranted in order to serve as a warning to others based on their prior knowledge of that forum member's past actions.

Actually, given the title of this thread, this discussion is off-topic.
But since we're on meta, where every thread derails... ::)

I strongly believe that I do indeed have a case of "breach of contract" by all Fork-Coiners.
We're all part of the Bitcoin project.
We do have a social contract based on best practices of the open source community.
One of the unwritten rules of this contract could be expressed as
"if you fork a project, rename it so that others are not led to believe you're the original".
This part of the open source community social contract has been breached at least by BCash.

So, yes, I do indeed reserve the right to say "BCash broke a contract with me".

(I wouldn't necessarily use bitcointalk's trust system to make this claim, though, since BCash seems highly irrelevant here.)

But this is exactly the issue: "trust" and what people deem to be shady behaviour is completely subjective. One person can think anything with bitcoin in the name other than the original bitcoin is being shady and trying to mislead whereas others don't or don't care. I think people who try become escrow with no previous trade history are either pretty naive or are trying to steal others money but either way I don't trust them. Does it deserve negative feedback? Arguably, yes. Some people would disagree. Some people don't care. Account selling is another issue. Some people find the selling of bitointalk accounts extremely shady. Others don't. Others are on the fence. Selling an account isn't directly a scam but it can certainly lead to them. Should we leave negative for account sellers? Some people think so and other don't. Even more probably don't care. People get into petty spats here for a multitude of reasons and others are quick to try dig up dirt and blow things out of proportion to try get their comeuppance and they sometimes use the feedback system to do that and the cycle continues. This update does help to curb that but it's also going to make life easier for a lot of scammers, but as I've always said you're never going to be able to please everyone with any feedback system whatever you do.

It appears to have been sent to current and potential DT1 members who don't exclude Lauda. For example I'm not currently in DT1.

I'm currently DT1, don't exclude Lauda, and never received it. I did previously have Lauda included, but removed the inclusion before the PM was sent (I think - certainly hours before I saw it first mentioned) after reading about her issue with The Pharmacist.

Let's keep it this way.

All DT1 members that have not excluded someone with this much dirt hanging over them

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153864.0

should have been excluded and painted up red a long time by any RESPONSIBLE and TRUSTWORTHY DT member. All the ass felching gimps and greedy scum that ride the lauda gravy train need to be pushed off.

This thread seems to have served its purpose well.

1. Reveals suchmoon as a back stabber and possible alt of lauda.
2. Reveals theymos is already unwilling to push DIRECT BLACKLISTING of lauda even after he immediately gave the new rules the same abuse he did the old rules.
3. Reveals theymos is too nice to people that stab him in the back and try to twist and spin his very kind action of just keeping lauda out of DT by the normal exclusion process rather than hand him a bitch slap black list directly for the board to rejoice and gloat in laudas face  is being spun into somehow theymos is the bad guy here for trying to keep a PROVEN scammer and PROVEN trust abuser out of the trust system.

Let's lock the thread. It's not like you don't ALL send PM's recommending who to remove and who to exclude on DT. What a bunch of hypocritical and backstabbing pieces of shit you all turn into when your ABUSING POWERS are threatened.

Disgusting.

QWK has previously stated

1. He is not interested in the truth ?

2. He feels it is good that innocent members are given red trust because it increases awareness of scamming

or some such madness. We should not be taking what qwk says at face value.  He said when lauda tells him to buy him a amazon gift voucher he just does it?  

The guy is certainly smarter than most of you low functioning dregs on meta,  but is operating completely independently from the morals and reasoning patterns with regard honest and dishonest or right vs wrong ..that 99.99% of other human beings accept as normal and reasonable.  Again not a person you want on DT.

His critical words about theymos are therefore again to be treated with extreme caution and investigated thoroughly before accepting them as TRUE.

This thread rather than casting any doubt on theymos who send this to 110 people so certainly not a sneaky attempt but rather again another example of theymos being too nice and too lenient when it comes to dealing directly with scammers , liars and their gang of corrupt scumbag pals.

The only observable truth here seems to be an open SPAM accusation against forum user theymos.

Now, I don't know how many users received the PM in question, but obviously not each and every one on DT1 received the PM, so it's fair to assume that it was only sent to a select subgroup of users, which at least somehow mollifies the SPAM accusation.


BTW: no need to yell, my name is "qwk", not "QWK" ;)

Ridiculous. We should have a politburo system or similar, so the best ones are always there on DT1, and only the 'bottom-feeders' like myself and, well, others, come and go. /s
You and most other holidaying politburo members seen to be taking it very well though.

@qwk (what does it mean anyway?)

please don't be deliberately ignorant. "DEMANDING" then going on to say I don't like it done in private should have been done publicly. Trying to spin it as a negative sneaky action not just on the basis of spamming. If the train-man demands....then it happens. It was a request. If he wanted it kept secret he would not have sent to 110 members. Suchmoon to react like this is simply another indication lauda is an alt of suchmoon. She will deny it but I would bet she gets many exclusion inclusion suggestions from other  members.

The reader can see what is really going on. This acceptance by you of ONLY 100% irrefutable (even by crazy ludicrous lengths of unbelievable excuses or explanations being given consideration and weighted far more than any normal person would allow) FACT is bogus. Even when you spot there that denial is just looking silly, you say you don't care about the truth. This means it is pointless to try to convince you of something you do not want to accept. You just will not operate under what are generally considered the accepted rules of reasoned debate.

Anyway going off topic towards the end but this thread is bogus.

Anyway fine you will be qwk from now on. I thought the letters QWK represented words.

Color me puzzled then.


I'm rather enjoying the white sand beaches outside of the DT1 downtown hustle. Certainly starting to better understand why some highly-respected users decided to opt out altogether.

Eventually everyone (who otherwise qualifies by vote etc) is going to have only a ~40% chance of being in DT1 in any given month anyway.

Perhaps this is because certain IP addresses used to access your account match that of someone else of particular interest.
::)

Did you put a 1 pixile sized image in your signature in order to track that?

How would you know the IP addresses of those who log in? Unless you are an alt of admin/mod. (That would be fucking nuts if quickseller was an alt of theymos)

Obviously he's just making it up as he often does. Can we please ignore the trolls.

I guess this is bad that user that received the PM did not maintained the privacy of the PM.

Act on that PM or not is your wish but leaking it is not correct. Might be theymos is implicitly want to know the view of the community.
His PM's should deserve the response in PM.

PS:  Is this forum is in hurry of blurting out everything .(like that happened in Og -vod thread).

It is not made up. I don’t think you want this specific issue addressed.

No I do, please come out and say you are a global mod with proof please. It will make my day

Locking this thread at least temporarily since Quicksy is obviously intent on derailing it.

Quickseller - create your own thread about whatever it is you want to post.

Edit: unlocked. Quicksy's thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154729

Global mods don’t have access to IP information. Only admins do.

You can ask the Cookie Monster if there is any reason why his IP would sometimes show up as another forum member outside of because of using the same VPN or tor exit node.

It might explain why he didn’t receive a PM.

I'll just leave this here:


Good luck trying to reduce feuds.

---

Sorry for locking again, I don't have the time to deal with Quickseller's nonsense.

---

Edit: unlocking now as Quickseller said he'll drop the aforementioned nonsense (https://archive.fo/h6qzv#selection-4267.0-4267.62). We'll see if this holds.

How many of you good people turned a blind eye when Lauda sent PM's out "suggesting" others be excluded from the DT's? Hands up.

---

No good can come from doing a deal with The Devil.

You are confused. What theymos did was detrimental to lauda. He also used fact based logic not heavy handed “suggestions”.

I smell Sulfur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur#Antiquity).


Enlighten me...

...and I suppose you received said PM?

Sarcasm. Those displaying outrage have double standards.

Oh no, I'm actually very outraged at Lauda becoming admin and not telling me.

Should I be worried?


This is the second week in a row quickseller has responded to my posts...

---

Pleaseeee tell me you're trying to be funny?

Weird, right? Not only that but you can say my name without having your post deleted ;)
Trying is the key word in your statement.

Lauda is not becoming admin. People in this thread are displaying their double standards. They are willing to do any and everything to protect their allies.

Just guessing. Lauda becoming an admin would be the only explanation why you two would be bringing that up in this thread ;)

No, seriously, the difference between Lauda and theymos was addressed quite early in the thread:


I don't know what else there is to say about that.

When you have a request from a random forum user that's a different case, when have it from theymos (forum admin) it feels a lot different.

When you hear it from theymos it is like you don't really have a choice. Actually you can tell theymos to duck off (i didn't say it but came pretty close when I got the PM) just like you do it to any people but you understand the difference.

I don't usually lurk in Meta...

Trust is extremely subjective. There are a number of people on this forum that I don't trust but have refrained from expressing that opinion because I don't think they are a threat to peoples funds.

We made an attempt to get some agreement about acceptable and unacceptable behavior (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.0) but the consequences were not really discussed.


In the absence of guidelines or rules it is also hard to draw a clear line between good and evil. The scam tags under the old system sat between mediocre behavior and slightly scammy to proven scammer

I feel the new flag system has moved the scam tags exclusively to those proven to be total scammers.

It wasn't without damage but Lauda did spend a lot of time pursuing those that had bad intent. I felt at times that it was too harsh on some but the overall result was that a lot of dodgy stuff was being stopped.

I don't know Lauda so I don't feel I am in a position to make much of a judgement.

With the current flag system I feel a lot of scammers will now be "under the radar"

Some will be judged because they fail to pay back a single loan while others - with a criminal record - proven scammers - will now scam more freely using their multiple alt accounts.

When someone is completely exposed as a scammer they are at their weakest. Those that really need to be warned against are those that are just starting their scam and all the evidence will not yet be available.


At the early stage there will just be the warning signs - like bought accounts, fake identities and other unethical behavior.

There's an admin who in a PM to me claimed he is an alt of quickseller... after my posts started getting deleted... (which is still going on) ... then a couple of days ago quickseller in an open post made reference to my posts being deleted (https://web.archive.org/web/20190619163402/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153678.msg51484049).  So, yeh, I can accept one of quicksellers' alts is an admin.

 ;D username of the admin?


Where is my pop-corn?
https://media.giphy.com/media/tFK8urY6XHj2w/giphy.gif

Satoshi  ;)

satoshi is not an admin anymore https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3

I know, but I just happened to wake up hella punny today.

 But saying that "some user" has done something, and keeping the secrecy by not saying who that user is, is kind of pointless. If you want to expose something do it all at once, or don't do it at all

Ps: username of the admin could be admin  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1) yes, I've seen that account has been inactive for 10 years

I'd put a wager on it that Quickseller doesn't have an admin alt.

Your posts get deleted because you have a habit of multi-posting and duplicate posting which is against the rules.

32. Posting multiple posts in a row (excluding bumps and reserved posts by the thread starter) is not allowed. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0)

I think I know who the admin global moderator is that sarcastically trolled you by saying he is an alt of Quickseller. A synonym for funny.

Rather been Hushed, you can possibly post here the PM for verification if you don't mind because, this seem unfair to quickseller reputation.