Bitcoin Forum

Little poll for now, that's pretty much it.

Interesting question.

We would not likely put him on our trust list . Although that statement does not essentially mean that the person is a financial high risk to other members. Also a dislike for certain practices or people that practice certain behaviors does not mean you will essentially scam.

If we had to have him on there OR people like yourself or other scammers from this list

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

then we would likely rather take a risk on having him. On the basis that his view that homosexuals are weaker or easier to defeat in a fight do not essentially say he is going to scam them.

people on this list either would scam people or they support those that would scam people being in positions of trust. Therefore for the sake of the members here and their financial well being he is less "high risk".

If you can not have him on there then those more dangerous are certainly not eligible.

Also check physical ..

You'll find it's likelier than you think, cryptohunter.

S-he/it is entitled to have an opinion no matter how fucked they are.

If poster's sense of judgment coming only from one point of view (homophobic) every time then Nope not a chance. BTW the poster is dead wrong, one of my mate is gay, and he's a wrestler. He can beat the shit out of full-grown men IRL. I witnessed it because I was on the receiving end.

Having said that, if poster can put his homophobic opinions on the side and his views not dictating his judgment when taking any decisions, then why not?

Oh nice, TECSHARE made it back into DT1, what a time to be alive ;D

Şıkıdım Şıkıdım...


Btw, Foxpup, you're crowned the most "unreliable" user around:

Oh, and if you're wondering what happens if they don't reciprocate... well, I'm sure nobody is really wondering.

Trust list is about their judgement, not their likelihood to harm someone financially. It should always comedown to their actions and opinions. I don't go through everyone on my lists posts but this would get someone removed from my list; as it shows poor judgement and thought processes.

So their judgement to hurt some financially is not a consideration?

The trust systems main goal is not to prevent this happening to members?

What a confusing trust system we have.

So for instance if your judgement on homosexuals is that you feel you are tougher than them and could easily beat up one up you should not be trusted to protect others from being scammed?

BUT

If your judgement is that you will pull an auction scam or any other scam or support scammers into the trust system, or extort members, or dox members and risk their safety and the boards finances . Then you should be trusted to protect others from being scammed and be judge of who else should be there to protect others from financial risk?

You see the problem with this idea it does not matter if you are a scammer or supporter of scammers and you get elected to DT is rather strange and very problematic, especially when they start getting their friends elected with the very same scamming or scam supporting attitudes.  

So their likelihood to harm someone financially is of no consideration you say?

I start to see why DT has a few issues.

Imagine when you get a DT1 stocked full of people that are observably financially dangerous because that is of no matter here? but their judgement on homosexuals is neutral or they are pro homosexuality. We're all going to never have to worry about being scammed again , DT will have our backs (not that we would turn our back on them lol)

Have you ever considered that when you get a bunch of people that are likely to harm people financially that they do it for their own personal gain?  have you considered that when they work out they can work together (because now they are only accountable to themselves) they will be in position to fuck over who they want and just all look the other way or pretend it does not matter... because we have good judgement on homosexuals and we can even demonstrate we have good judgement in pointing out others that are financially high risk and need scam tags (even though these are often less damaging and dangerous than what we the DT members have done ourselves)

Sorry that's all too long and complex for you all. I know you can't be bothered to read all of that trolling off topic lies and garbage. Just carry on telling people that a persons willingness to financially harm other members is not a consideration for DT1.  Far more important to know they are pro homosexuality.

You heard it folks... don't even bother considering their likelihood to harm someone financially when you make your trust list. Better to have confirmed scammers on your trust list than those who think they are stronger and tougher than homosexuals.

The DT handbook to bitcointalk. Where can we get a copy?  

Meta board vs the twilight zone.

Can we get that twilight zone music to auto play when you open meta board Theymos ?That would be brilliant.

Obviously we just don't understand the trust system at all. Why don't we just detail how it all works when it's already full of DT1 members with observably financially high risk behaviors and they are the only ones with enough "merit" to JUDGE who else is eligible

Really they only way this racket can continue is for them to PRETEND not to notice the undeniable financially high risk behaviors of other DT members AND OR when they are pointed out just say that is not important only their judgement is important on things like homosexuality etc.

This thread is virtue signalling to prevent tecshare being put on to DT1. They fear any member they don't think they can control 100%. I'm not sure if they need to worry or not. Some people just want on to DT and be part of power. They don't essentially want to make serious changes for the better. Time will tell.

All up in arms about someone saying they are tougher than homosexuals, not to worried about HugeBlackWomans aka the pharmacists racial , ethnic and religious errrr views. Go read some of those posts because we had some disgruntled "people of color"  and "jews" here.... oh WHOOPS that entire thread got deleted.

TL;DR: Homophobia is the new lemoniphilia. Have I got that right?

It can be confusing if you look at the system with tunnel vision, it's easy to miss the big picture. The whole system is opinion based, simple as that. Yes obviously to me and anyone who I would place on my trust list, a person out to do financial harm has no place being included. They also should carry feedback, the actual tool in the system to help identify these issues.
To answer your question, that claim shows extremely poor judgement IMO so they would not be included in my trust list.

What a clueless bunch of goofballs (I hope that's not considered racist in Turkey). They are wondering about shit like why he merited the thread if he doesn't support the flag. Ideally they should step back from the trust system for a couple of months and come back when they've figured out what it's for. Along with TECSHARE  ::)

Eventually, everyone will be on DT1.  :/

I don't think Theymos anticipated this kind of trust abuse.  There are no negative repercussions for adding everyone and anyone to your trust list.    :(

A statement like this is morally and ethically wrong, and shows that the creator has mental instability and a lack of common sense to boot. These are all things that make its author 100% absolutely not fit for DT.

On a personal note you should be fucking disgusted with what kind of human being you became. Sickens me this shit is still so prevalent in 2019.

Who wrote this?

I used to think that DT stood for "dementia tremens" until I joined Bitcoin Talk. I'm starting to think that the original meaning was apposite. :)

Lets just keep it this way for now.

Well the person who posted that is likely very young by the posting style, likely just mouthing off and wouldn't do anything at all to any homosexuals. That does not invalidate your point that it is morally and ethically wrong and demonstrates poor judgement and attitude.  However as you yourself are not above a bit of morally and ethically wrong doing for direct financial gain in terms of the fact you are a campaign scammer. So will bend your ethics and morals for financial gain.

Coupled with the fact that you include on your DT list other persons that have undeniably done things morally and ethically wrong for direct financial gain.

This you can not deny.

So I say again that since the trust system is there specifically NOT there to protect people from homosexual negative rants but  IS THERE to protect people from financial wrong doing and scamming. Then all your indignation at this person being on the trust system is perhaps misplaced and members should be MORE directed to yours and your scamming pals observable wrong doing that is independently verifiable.

For that reason we say again clearly that this person is probably unsuitable for a TRUST position but he is MORE suitable than ANY person that has demonstrated a propensity for financially motivated wrong doing.

It is quite clear.

Can you and steamtyme pull up your DT includes?? and all the others that are CERTAIN that you can not have people that do and say things that are morally and ethically wrong?  then we can see how your reasoning clearly works.

You guys seems slightly confused about the TRUST systems intended purpose. Which is to protect traders and other members from being the victims of financial wrong doing. Not protect them from homophobia in the case of the OP NOR the racism or ethnic negativity spewed by the pharmacist under the HugeBlackWoman account (which seemingly does not seem so upsetting for you) which was done sneakily and deviously for payment on another account.

I mean if you are all homosexuals and this touches a personal nerve MORE than racism and ethnic/religious negativity that is understandable. However, really morals and ethics should apply to protect ALL members not just some and these are not ALL relevant to protecting people from clear financially motivated wrongdoing. In this progressive time then people should be free to live who they wish as long as they are not harming others and all involved consent (within reasonable limits)

To be clear though we would not personally add any people clearly demonstrating any of the above traits to our trust list including the person in the OP. We would certainly though be MORE likely to exclude many of the people you all have on your includes due to the reasons already stated above. The trust system is for financial protection of members only.

I don't see this point being debunked at all so therefore we can conclude you are all willing to allow morals and ethics to be bent and broken with regard direct financial wrong doing from " your friends and yourselves" but  morals and ethics from "others" are held to higher and tighter controls and standards even if not directly related to the purpose of the TRUST system.  That is both wrong and dangerous for the optimal functioning of the TRUST system.

Great thread. Glad you started it moronbozo. I think such scrutiny should be performed on ALL DT1 inclusions. There should be tick boxes so they can't weasel out of it pretending they don't want to examine the evidence or don't want to be involved LOL or say they are NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH. Where observable behaviors are listed and each DT1 must tick a box either == behavior demonstrates suitable for trust position  Y or N.  We would help listing observable behaviors right away. Always willing to help. If they refuse to tick either box they are blacklisted.

TL DR - so far the debate and concerns by DT members seems slightly bogus if you take their actual behaviors concerning their DT inclusions into consideration. So we conclude virtue signaling with real purpose to prevent of cast doubt on TS being added to DT1. They seem to have no real issue with racism, religion and ethnicity being cast in a highly negative light, no problem with ethical and moral codes being broken for direct financial gain. The only possible other explanation is they are all homosexual and this is  very personal to them. If so then that is fine but recognize the trust system is to protect people from financial wrong doing not protect you from the macho boastful 14yr old tough guys who talk tough on the internets. We are trying to give our answer to the OP and our reasoning behind the answer. The reader will always be fully furnished with the information for them to benefit and make the optimal decision themselves.

I remember that conversation, and no he shouldn't be on DT2.

The real problem is the person who has this user included. He just entered DT1 again.
His name starts with T and ends with ECSHARE  ::)

Yeah but he's never ever wrong and I'm sure he'll be around shortly to tell us that :)

BTW the person quoted in the OP doesn't belong in a sane person's trust list for many many reasons even if you think that homophobic comments wouldn't affect their judgement. Looks like some kind of affirmative action on TECSHARE's part to support shit-stirring scammers.

According to the latest trust data dump:


TECSHARE is included by 10 DT1's:

TECSHARE is excluded by 10 DT1's

Unfortunately i am not keeping the history of data dumps.
I only always work with the latest data, so i can't say what exactly changed here.

I do, see http://loyce.club/trust/

Oh.. how could i forget our Data-scraping-AI-machine  ;D

Thanks  :)


Based on last week:

TECSHARE is included by 9 DT1's:


TECSHARE is excluded by 10 DT1's


Seems like Kalemder included him.

As stompix helpfully pointed out on page 1 ;)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52390033#msg52390033

T ::)?

Maybe T will place something like this on their trust page:

https://i.imgur.com/EwpKMN2.png

Something like...

"openly supports beating the hell out of people for free who don't share their sexual orientation"

Lets see how will T do his DT thingy this time.

Back in June when I posted this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154576 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154576)
I was hoping that DT1  / DT2 drama would calm down a bit.

Guess I was wrong.

The issue is IMO and continues to be we are trying to take several complex issues and shrink them down to merit & trust & feedback.
There are several members of this board (one of whom is on my trust list) that I can't fucking stand and think they are an ass.
But I trust them not to rip you off. I would not want to go out for a beer with them. I would not want to hang out with them.
Here on the board, I can post and comment with them and say with 99.999% confidence that they will not rip you off.
I have bought from them, I have sold to them. 0 issues.

This is because we have a limited way of doing this so we work with what we have.

It's also why after creating my trust list I have slowed down adding people because it requires more thought.

That is also why there are some people NOT on my trust list. Going back though years of posts, they are VERY VERY helpful, and polite, and VERY VERY useful to the forum.
They fight scams and protect newbies. BUT...they have not bought or sold a thing.
How can you trust them? They should have a lot of merit (which they do), but they also have a lot of positive trust and feedback (which are linked).
Trust? You have had 0 money dealings on the forum So while I trust you to fight scams, we have no idea if you are an honest trader.
They should have a lot of good feedback comments about them, but trust. Sorry no.

Which is why, going back to the post I referenced above, I think we NEED more data points.

Yeah, I know a lot of you disagree with what I am saying. But I think many of you don't notice how much trading goes on here and how desperate we are to know if we can trust the other people.

-Dave

Without knowing the name of the poster I would stay know. If he has a personal biased towards one kind of gender from our members then you know the outcome of any kind of conversation in any topic would be really know good. Saying those words in the forum alone shows his attitude towards one kind of gender, it would be more toxic rather than do any good in the forum.

Cryptohunter .. a few things

First, I copy pasted maybe 3 posts one single day. I didn’t try taking it as my own and I got lazy and didn’t reference the author. I was wrong, absolutely. However you demented feeble minded moron, how many times do I have to repeat that every single satoshi I ever earned in sig campaigns was donated to charity. Every single satoshi and then some.

I hardly think this one mistake defines who I am. Theymos let me back for a reason. Admins , DT members, and many other outstanding members of the community showed support and fought for me to come back (which I’m beyond grateful for). None of these people would show one ounce of support for yourself. The admins would LOVE for you to slip up just once so they could nuke your account!

Get off it already. I paid for my mistake and have continued to try and make up for it.

A quote from you on my situation that you clearly seem to forget writing. (Sorry to everyone else having to see any of this nonsense, I will never respond to this moron again).

Trading experience (when available) is great for evaluating someone's trustworthiness, but in order to add someone to (or to exclude someone from) your trust list you should also evaluate their fairness/judgement. DireWolfM14 posted a great essay on the topic today so I'll just take the lazy route here and suggest to read it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182903.0

@chibitcity

3x in one day you say? whilst being in a sig campaign? There are legends banned for far less that are still banned.

So you are telling us you only use sig campaigns to fund charity? that is always what you have done or that is what you did when you got busted to try and make it look a little better?  that sounds a bit like you're friends story that they were attempting a sting operation whilst it looks like they were trying to extort people.

The central point here is that you AND those you support strongly mostly ALL have clear observable instances of financially motivated wrongdoing in their histories that are UNDENIABLE. What is more, some have admitted in black and white to using the trust system to punish other members for presenting observable instances of these financially motivated wrong doing. This is undeniable and again the  WORSE JUDGEMENT that you can possible dream up for those in a TRUST position.

What is BRILLANT on this thread is that it complete demonstrates how corrupt and colluding some DT1 members are.

Notice the date below totally corroborates the claim in this thread here

That those DIRTY TURDS with clear observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing don't just cycle merit, don't just include "each other on DT" but indeed the collude together to hold out those they view as a clear threat to their RACKET.

Match those excluding Tecshare  with those on the dirty turds poll.


match these excluding against the Dirty turds list.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

How can this same bunch (many of which are on this thread ) sit there crying that it is so financially dangerous to include some kid claiming he is tougher than homosexuals in light of the undenible evidence of financially motivated wrong doing by them and their friends and the OPEN AND OBVIOUS COLLUSION between those that have already demonstrated they are high risk operating alone. LOL

Their claims are bogus when taken in the full context of their observable behaviors.

They are terrified of some HONEST and UPRIGHT people with no observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing getting on DT1.  The want to fully control who gets on DT via their merits they cycle to each other.

We believe they are worrying to much about TS anyway. When people get into positions of power they usual "adapt" in order to remain there. Worry more when some people that want to see corruption stamped out at ALL COSTS get to DT1.

So we do not buy the excuses and flawed logic of those on this thread. We still maintain this person mentioned in the OP is more DT material than themselves and their friends. There is no PROOF that he is financially high risk or will employ flawed judgement on financially sensitive matters. You can see DT1  colluders will willingly scam, facilitate scams or protect those that do and abuse the trust of whistle blowers.  That is terrifying since they control the trust and merit system. LOL

More than does not mean we would include him though as we have said the board must be able to muster 20 honest  members with zero instances of clear financial wrong doing who do not make irrational claims about all homosexuals.

Bring on the those that claim to be tougher than ALL homosexuals to the TRUST system that protects you financially rather than proven scammers and their supporters. Just say those gimp masks and 18" dildos, sybian saddles (and get a new space hopper)  you guys are buying on the sales/market forum here  are for your girlfriend and not for bones and the foxhole dungeon parties,  haha and you will  all be fine. Oh yeah don't use that blue oyster bar delivery address any more that is a dead giveaway (JOKE before more virtue signaling ).

If you guys are that scared of him, we'll have a word with him and tell him to leave you babes alone.

This couldn't be retribution for calling you out in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52390535#msg52390535) could it OP? Interesting timing. I especially like the part where you are mining for intelligence. I expect you to hit molten magma before you find any. Serves me right for trying to help people solve their issues amiright?

The intent of this three ring circus is clear. This is a collection of OCD ass hat wanna be tyrants who have all at one point or another been confronted by me for their own PERSONAL behavior or ideas, and since then they have been collecting together and have been desperately thirsty for retribution, but finding nothing to grasp on to have had to resort to proxies and guilt via association. I have the user in question on my trust list for one single reason.

Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle.

This is just a sad excuse for a collection of former despots taking revenge. None of these people here making all kinds of accusations of racism, homophobia, etc give a fuck about any of these things, they are here because they think they can use it to "get me". Its pathetic and transparent.

Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not. I do however exclude people such as most of the people here in this thread pointing fingers who exclude me because all their buddies said so, I once hurt their feelings, I once called out a wrong they did, or I argued against their ideology that time and they find this a good excuse to sooth that cognitive dissonance with some good old fashion petty retribution.

Me either. Personally, I just don't like you, as you are a dickhead. Cheers.  :P

You do realize that anyone can look at BitcoinSupremo's rap sheet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=754727) and see that you're lying?


Also contradicted by publicly available information (https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx).

Thanks for the public admission you value your whims more than the constitution of the trust system and overall well being of the community. What you are describing is called a popularity contest, not a trust system.



This whole thread is focused around his words and claims it is a call to violence, homophobia, etc, but you are really claiming he was excluded because he is a legitimate threat of fraud? Funny how everyone is talking 100% about his words and not one bit about the supposed fraud he is responsible for, and which I don't see in any of those ratings.

That is just a log of DT changes. All that that is, is a log of when it happened, not why it happened. You are free to make baseless insinuations, but that doesn't make it factual or even meaningful. I included and excluded people as new information (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181723.msg52379325#msg52379325) became available, not based on if they included me or not. I also have proof of the contrary (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5047060.msg51765652#msg51765652), and it is far more convincing than your insinuation.

Am I? Sounds suspiciously like one of those things that you make up when you get caught lying.

The whole thread is focused on what is the topic of the thread. That doesn't mean BitcoinSupremo's scammy sockpuppeting history suddenly ceased to exist.

Tell me, exactly what am I lying about? Use quotes and references.

The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay.

Repeat the straw man argument again, check. A couple more times and you can declare yourself a winner in this debate, congratulations.

Is it? Is it really though? One could argue the title of a thread tends to denote the subject at hand, and the subject at hand in the title has nothing to do with fraud. Run along now and formulate another failing sophist semantic attack strategy and pop your head in again as usual when you think up something that sounds convincing.

I know better than waste my time trying to make sense of your ramblings. I'm reasonably certain though that I didn't say anything about fraud nor is fraud the only reason to exclude someone so knock yourself out arguing that non-existent claim.

That is a rather convenient excuse to not substantiate any of your claims. No one said fraud was the only reason to exclude people, you did however claim this case was not about his words but rather about fraud, so that is a directly relevant response to your argument.

Ok, I know it's probably pointless, but let's try a picture just in case you're verbally challenged:

https://meem.link/i/a/50xUIJ.jpg
Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

Let me guess your next argument: the question mark makes it the other guy's fault?

You caught me. I used the word fraud. So what is that supposed to prove now? Is that supposed to prove you didn't claim this thread was not about his words and opinions but about his "scammy" behavior? Scammy, that is another word for fraudulent is it not?


BTW, you never did quote what you claim I was lying about or make any references. My entire premise was that he was excluded because you little Maoists in training want to punish people for having ideas you don't approve of, and this whole thread is filled with nothing but discussion of his politically incorrect thought crimes. Your little semantic context flipping diversion is irrelevant.

No, it's more likely that you included BitcoinSupremo because you liked his rants against Lauda or whoever, and didn't even bother to check his trust feedback or any other accomplishments. Tends to happen a lot with you. It's no big deal really, anyone should feel free to do whatever they want with their trust list.

Glad I have you here to explain to me why I do things, very helpful thank you.

Still defending Lauda huh? Why? Still got that brown mark on your nose? Of course he didn't get my support for standing up to abuse, and based on the simple fact you were collectively targeting him, no no, its because he ranted against Lauda. Got it. Solid logic.

Occam's razor. It's not the first time this kind of scenario is playing out with you. Third one since the overhaul of the trust system IIRC. Getting harder each time to believe in those coincidences.

Not really sure what you are even implying here, but it sounds quite ominous and illicit I am sure. I have been targeted for daring to speak up against abusive people here pretty much continually for something like 7 years. There is no coincidence, it is just a long collection of miscreants struggling to take potshots at me using any angle they can pry into, no matter how flimsy the basis.

I would like to point out as well, no one bothered contacting me directly with their concerns, I just happened to stumble upon this thread. One would think if the target really was BitcoinSupremo that some one would try messaging me with their concerns, but nope, not one message. Just another aptly timed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181723.msg52379325#msg52379325) 3 ring circus (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.0;all) complete with clowns and a sad magician (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182990.0).

Sorry Techy, I have no idea what you are talking about ? Why do you think, when I opened thread, that I knew it was you who added BitcoinSupremo to your trust network ?

Why would anyone contact you for anything? Look what you have answered me last time I contacted you in very polite way to add some crucial information to thread:


Anyway, I am glad that you came here to give your point of view about topic and poll.

---

To spice it little with P&S, completely off topic:
History has shown that this kind of "free speech" and "opinions" leads to people getting beaten, killed and on larger scale it leads to wars. Not to mention speech of hate is forbidden in certain countries and you could get fine or jail penalty because of it (guess why...).
Free speech is one thing but speech of hate is completely different thing, maybe it is time for English lesson?

The feigning of ignorance is quite convincing. Yeah, you have been totally polite in your obvious coordinated clown car attack. I live in the USA where we still have free speech, and according to the law hate speech doesn't exist, so maybe a lesson in law?

Repeat it as many times as you like, it won't become true, you know  ::)

I don't live in USA and according to law in my country hate speech does exist. So tell me, why have you included BitcoinSupremo to your trust list?

I don't have to, it is observably true and blatantly obvious. You don't live in the USA? Sucks to be you. Too bad the forum is based here, and the forum still protects free speech. I suggest you try Facefuck or Twatter if you want your frail sensibilities protected from evil words. I already explained why he is included (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52400616#msg52400616), as you are well aware.

Does it apply to everyone who does not live in USA or just me?

Your conclusions are, as usual, wrong.

So you included liar, self voucher, someone who has solid connection to scammer via bitcoin address because he said something?

Can you quote correct post?

Sucks for anyone not free to speak. Am I wrong? Seems to me like Theymos has made it pretty clear he intends to protect free speech.

Your suspicions do not constitute guilt. Provide me evidence and we can discuss it. Your condemnations are worth less than the goose shit on my shoe.

Of course this isn't really about them, this is about using them as a vector to defame me.

Everyone who hate someone should come to USA to spread that hate and to say they would beat the hell out of them for free?

That is publicly available information.

You didn't actually say why you included him. So please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying you included him because you thought he was being unfairly "excluded." Pray tell, what exactly was he being excluded from? He only had 1 Trusted by and 1 Distrusted by before you trusted him and Hhampuz distrusted him (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-05-25_Sat_07.01h/754727.html). He wasn't on DT before Hhampuz distrusted him.

https://i.imgur.com/znr9Qji.png

So he wasn't being "excluded" from anything or by anyone except Hhampuz (and the pre-existing non-DT Timelord2067), and there's no way you could have known that Hhampuz had excluded him as you both updated your trusts lists with him in the same week.

Interestingly, it did happen to be the same week he left you this nice positive feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=15728):

https://i.imgur.com/bF5dPCH.png

Regardless of any of the above, perceptions that someone has been mistreated should not be the sole criteria for adding someone to a trust list.

Anyone who comes to the USA is allowed to say whatever the fuck they want as long as it is within the law. If that is what they want to say I don't care. Words are not violence, violence is violence.

If the information is so public and easily available, why don't you share it with the class?



I dunno, that looks like a pretty clear answer to me. I am very sorry if you aren't satisfied with it grand peanut hunter.

He was excluded, as in inclusions and exclusions from trust lists. Enjoy your alternate definitions of words to try to squeeze a drop of whatever you can out of this pathetic display.

Glad I have you here to dictate to me who, why, and how I should be using my trust list. I don't know how I would keep count of the peanuts in my turds without you.

https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--UkKyhcQi--/c_crop,x_10,y_10/c_fit,w_1109/c_crop,g_north_west,h_840,w_1260,x_-76,y_-93/co_rgb:fffffe,e_colorize,u_Misc:One%20Pixel%20Gray/c_scale,g_north_west,h_840,w_1260/fl_layer_apply,g_north_west,x_-76,y_-93/bo_180px_solid_white/e_overlay,fl_layer_apply,h_840,l_Misc:Art%20Print%20Bumpmap,w_1260/e_shadow,x_6,y_6/c_limit,h_1134,w_1134/c_lpad,g_center,h_1260,w_1260/b_rgb:eeeeee/c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1521491747/production/designs/2494328_0.jpg

Well I guess that settles that then.

You really stuck it to Timelord pretty hard by including BitcoinSupremo after he had excluded him. Showed him who's boss.

I still don't think that's a decent way to guide your trust list setup, but that's wholly your decision, and you are of course free to do as you see fit.

Carry on.

Until next time cupcake. I know you will be back as soon as you see me eating another Snickers bar.

That's totally one of them coincidences, I'm like 1% sure of that.

Well, if true, that certainly would be a mountain, and not a mole hill.

Not too sure who is the bigger joke, techspaz or cryptohunter.

Pretty sure by now you are just trolling everyone TS

I mean, you're not wrong. I have already argued my points. No answer I ever give will be good enough for the clown car. I might as well use them for my own entertainment if they are going to keep following me around playing clown music.

Okay, this thread started out bad, but it just got Fucik'd (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0).

Tomorrow (hopefully) he will learn the letter "D".   :)

What now?

Sounds exactly the same as any other country.

Clown Car 1, TECSHARE 0.

http://theparlourri.com/wp-content/uploads/a-clown-car-1-438x329.jpg

Hell no, there's too much hate already in this country--but people generally don't get beat up for expressing those kinds of sentiments unless they're at a rally or demonstration or something where the left and right wings mix on the streets.  You know, Antifa/SJWs, that sort of thing.

I certainly don't condone violence against gays, but as far as trusting a person who said those words in the OP....I guess it would depend on everything else the member has said and done.  I'm pretty sure those kinds of feelings are fairly prevalent in certain parts of the world, and it could just be internet bluster as well.  It would be a strike against them if I were deciding to add him to my trust list, and there's a good chance I wouldn't.  It all depends.

I admit, I don't like the words he used, however his words shouldn't be used as cover to take retribution for his deserved criticism of some of the DT members, which he was also very vocal about. Coincidentally everyone suddenly seemed to care about his post history at that time. People shouldn't be penalized here for sharing ideas you don't agree with, they should be judged based on their actions.

I agree, BitcoinSupremo should remove his -ve criticism from trust walls.
I agree, BitcoinSupremo should be excluded from your trust network.

Like any other user, he is free to leave negative ratings at will. He has little to no power in this system. If he does start abusing any authority he has let me know and I will handle it one way or another. Until then, your complaints ring hollow and remain a transparent attack on my own reputation rather than a complaint about BitcoinSupremo.

I completely support his free speech right to state his/her opinion about gays but the last sentence is pushing it too far hinting about personally committing violence..
Looks like drunk posting..

That last sentence in that now redacted post, and some other inconsistencies of his brought up in the thread it originated from, lead me to believe he would infact be a mistake to be added to DT, but not because he doesn't like gays..
It's not the hugest mistake in the world though as if one is expected to search a users entire post history for out of character drunken rants before including them..

I don't necessarily dislike gays if they are cool but I dislike flamers of any variety.. I've had gay friends but not so much ones you can tell are gay just by looking at them, or at the first sound of their voice.. No thanks.. Just my opinion..

If you are going to be tolerant I think you should be just as tolerant of the guy that doesn't like flamers as you are of the flamers themselves.. You don't have to like and befriend either one but respect their right to be whatever they are, but any sort of offensive violence coming from any camp is unacceptable and intolerable..

He was on DT2. That's relatively a fair amount of power.


The main problem I see is that TECSHARE included him specifically because Timelord excluded him. That's a dumb reason to add people to your trust list: because they are being excluded by other people... It should be about the contents of their trust ratings, and secondarily the contents of their trust lists... not about whether or not that person is being "harassed" by people you don't like.


What does any of this have to do the trust system?  ::)

How would you compare this drunken mistake in terms of financial risky behavior to the board..... to let's say

1. screaming you are sure that anyone selling their accounts is facilitating scams, are evil and must have red trust. .... and then trying to sell their account for months for 0.3 btc??

2. Or getting your pal to auction your stuff and then pretend you would love to buy it and it is going far to cheap and worth much more? so using deception to try to pump the sale price of your own items?

3. Or claiming you were on a launch of a pow coin and can state there was no instamine/premine because you were there and know it never happened. (when you have bags of that coin) when it was UNDENIABLE that it took place?

Imagine if these people were all then implicated in a very serious extortion or supporting those that were on to a trust system?


I mean just those 3 things compared to saying you can beat up a homosexual and you hate them?

I see these people guilty of observable financial wrong doing screaming that this homosexual hate is more financially risky to the board than their own directly financial wrongdoing? this is very strange. Nobody seems to want to address this.

Especially them or their DT pals lol ??

How can these same people be here  screaming this is serious grounds for not being on DT after what they and their friends they support on DT have done??

This place is like the twilight zone.

Right..
This has just turned into an opportunity to attack TS rather than he/she who posted the offending post.. Another "gotcha"..
TS's counter may not have been the best move given these revelations but neither is this thread the best way to bring it to TS's attention and solve the problem.. Drama..


All this talk about "hate speech" VS Free Speech..

So you will just go "lalalalala"?

I have already told you that is publicly available information, so when you say "let me know", I did.

Nonsense.

---

Yes, this thread turned into something for sure...
So you made assumption that I knew that it was TECHSHARE who included BitcoinSupremo to trust list or you know that I knew that it was TECHARE who included BitcoinSupremo to his trust list?

As usual, you just take the parts of my words you want to respond to and ignore the rest. It is not just because he was harassed, it was WHY he was being harassed. Plenty of people are constantly harassed around here and I don't add them. He was being targeted for speaking out. FYI, I never had any conflict with Timelord until I spoke out about his abusive flags against some of the Turkish community (after first defending him from the same abuse BTW). I added BitcoinSupremo quite a while ago, not that timelines matter in your shitslinging narrative.





I reviewed the information you presented. It consists of little more than accusations and suspicions, as usual when targeting an individual here, much as you are attempting to do with me. Furthermore you didn't just "let me know", you tried to start a circus over it to defame me, clearly telegraphing your true intent of harming my reputation and not addressing your so called concerns about BitcoinSupremo.

He made the assumption because it is publicly available information. No one buys your feigned ignorance, especially with you personally pushing 2 or 3 threads, Vod starting one with a retaliatory negative rating, and the rest of the clowns all chiming in at once. This was clearly coordinated.

Not really but you hid all the facts in your OP about who even posted the quote about gays to where I had to find the thread myself to read the context and started a poll with as minimal information behind it as possible.. What was the point of that?

Did you "knew that it was TECHSHARE who included BitcoinSupremo to trust list or you know that I knew that it was TECHARE who included BitcoinSupremo" before you started this poll OP or not? No?

It's easy to see that TS quickly became the subject..


Which was nonsense, like a lot of stuff coming out of Vod lately..

Like I (thought I) just responded to The-One-Above-All about forgivness..


Talking about beating people up is pretty bad but a lot of people here have made mistakes, aren't squeaky clean, and have been forgiven about it..

If Vod can be forgiven that easily for doxing, snitching to feds (or just a threat to snitch or lie that he snitched? still unclear..), and leaving BS negs in that OG situation (that still exist), I don't see how this bitcoinsupremo situation is even a blip on the radar..


People make mistakes and are forgiven usually after the situation is handled but sometimes even before..

I don't like what Bitcoinsupremo posted about beating up gays, I don't like what I saw about him being inconsistent about gender either, I think he probably shouldn't be in DT because of it, but I think maybe a few others shouldn't be in DT because of their situations aswell but maybe people are more forgiving about stupid actions than I am, or have lower standards for DT..

I'm not going to raise a huge public fuss about it (like this thread), but I remember it for myself..

To be perfectly frank, if some one had simply politely notified me of this issue, I probably would have just removed him. Unfortunately his words were always just a mechanism to target people for their ideas, be it about life in general or the forum. As a result, you are all essentially assuring I CAN'T remove him from my inclusions, because to do so would be to provide validation to and incentivize these coordinated kinds of reputational attacks. So, good job on making the forum a better place to be Piddles, Bozo, and Shakes.

This is not true. He was tagged because his account has bitcoin connection with scammer egg.chuck, he was tagged because he used alt accounts to self vouch for payed gambling tips ("I bought tip, would recommend") and he was tagged for making blatant lies. As I said few times, everything is publicly available information, together with his other retaliatory nonsensical feedback you ARE ignoring right now.

I am sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. I am pointing that next users become default trust members/will maybe become DT members:

1)scammers
2)banned accounts
3)hacked accounts
4)inactive accounts

Seems you can't understand this and you see this as personal attack.
FTFY. How many times will you ignore my post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52405611#msg52405611)?


Of course, my counter to Vod's -ve feedback was also coordinated by clowns.

This was also coordinated by clowns.

There you have it. It's everyone else's fault that TECSHARE has that dipshit in his trust list.

And back into the sophistry you slip, answering to what you wish I had said instead of what I actually said.  You knew very well I included BitcoinSupremo when you pitched this particular circus tent. Just because you make a few weak ass token attempts at appearing impartial doesn't disguise this.



Not everyone's fault, just a small car full of clowns. Maybe I was wrong about you understanding this ongoing dynamic. It's ok, you will learn.

No, I don't think I can ever understand how you can keep someone in your trust list not because you trust their judgement but just to spite some "clowns".

I can't wait to see who else is going to show up in your trust list by the time you get back into DT1. One of Quicksy's alts would be my recommendation. That would make for a memorable showdown with the clown car.

Former is publicly available information, I have no clue about later. How can I possible know what you know?

---

@TECSHARE, whatever you say, you have been pointed several times already who you have in your trust list, including BitcoinSupremo:
This is just not true. You have been notified 3 months ago. You are very aware of this and you did literally nothing, look: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149597.msg51388548#msg51388548

---

Anyway, truth to be told, I started this poll because I wanted to know forum member's opinion, it somehow become discussion about T. It actually wasn't my intention, I was hopping to have poll without members knowing who posted something, who included who etc. Just can't have these things around here without "investigations", eh?

Well, clown car driver instructed me to lock thread so locking this. @TECSHARE if you have anything to add, send PM to our clown car headquarters and they will coordinate me to unlock it.

Ok ok, unlocked, so you can lock this one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5183844.0) where you demolished my point  :)