Bitcoin Forum

This is in response to a post I read earlier when I hopped online https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225789.0 and i'm getting pretty fed up with cowards lately. This is obviously not the 1st time a post like this has been made and probably will not be the last but grow a backbone people.

First of all, if you don't have the balls to attack someone with your main account, then don't make the post. You look like a big pussy and need to crawl back in your hole and hide. That's basically what you're doing by making the post anyways. Hiding behind the new account thinking, "if i post this with my main account, i'll be attacked" is total bullshit. Noone is going to tag you for asking a question unless you act like a total retard while doing so.

Secondly, you're attacking someone who has been nothing but an exceptional campaign manager in his tenure here. Hhampuz has done nothing but act professionally when it comes to campaigns. There has not been a time that I can recall where payments have not been made. If something happened in the campaign he has been right there to give an answer as to why.

Now this situation happened, totally not his fault. Only thing he could've done differently is post the campaign might be paused sooner then he did. Other then that, he has handled it fine.

I ask that the community not respond to any accusation such as this unless a person posts from their main account. Likely might be considered an unreasonable request but these cowards need to learn what a backbone is and if they want the community to help them then be a man/woman and post correctly.

I'm sick and tired of the attacks on veterans when it's not even remotely needed. Someone could pm the person they have an issue with and likely get a response from them if they act civil. Let's not turn this community into something ugly.

@Hhampuz don't pay attention to these types of threads man. You're handling things just fine.

one legend to another, competition complementing each other...

QS and Lauda making babies...

this place is ready for the next bull run!

Bromance in the making lol

Seriously, whether a company chooses him or me, they cannot go wrong. We both do a great job and I have no reason to dislike the guy.

this... you both have respect from me (which is hard as I think everyone is a cunt until proven otherwise)

I love this - no competition, no price gouging - just chooose fuckers, BMW or MERC, both German engineering..

Well unless you want TMAN, ELECTRIC new - might go to the moon, might blow up - might not work - TMAN doesnt do any work anyway!

xxx

seriously you two are decent, as many other managers but I do respect what you did here Yahoo

The situation has been resolved. What is the problem?

The problem isn't the situation or it being solved. The problem is pussies not having the balls to make a post without hiding.

I have no problem telling you you're an asshole from my account. You have no problem telling me what you feel either. That's how it should be handled everytime.  Whether we like or dislike each other, respect the person and the forum enough to say your thoughts or feelings without fear of retribution.

Unfortunately people abuse the trust system as a tool of retribution for speaking out. I don't blame them for using an alt to make that post. Many of the users here have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to use the trust system as a tool to silence criticism from other users.

Speaking anonymously is basically the main reason that alt accounts are allowed on this forum..

Users get attacked all the time for speaking out, get their entire post histories dug for anything to tag them for or ban them for.. All the time..

I would rather see a problem/question posted from an alt account than not at all..
Truth prevails no matter its source..

I get Yahoo62278's point, though I also understand why Justice_ used an alt account to complain about not getting paid--if he did it from his main account, he likely thinks he's running the risk of being blacklisted.  

On the other hand, it's a ridiculous complaint to begin with since Hhampuz bears absolutely zero responsibility to pay campaign participants if the campaign wallet hasn't been topped up by the owners.  Frankly, I wouldn't worry about an alt account being used here and I'd just address his concerns on their merit.  Justice_ is obviously pissed off and it looks like he has a right to be--but he's directing his ire in the wrong direction; it should be aimed at blender.io and not Hhampuz.

Ah. Then I'd probably just let this rest, although Justice_ was being a bit of a jackoff by getting steamed at Hhampuz.  Yahoo62278 is just feeling the need to defend Hhampuz, that's my guess as to what's going on here.

While I do agree with TECHSHARE and eddie13 as far as sometimes the wrong road is taken by users, I believe that a person shows much more character by having the balls to say what they feel without fear of retribution.

I can see the argument both ways and it's a total bullshit situation. Veteran forum users also need to stop being bitches as well. If I have been a bitch I apologize. I would rather see users treat other with more respect vs having a dick measuring contest on here.

If we keep going the way we are going, this place is going to be a warzone. Who wants that? What will we accomplish positively that way?

I'm not only defending Hhampuz, i'm trying to show users that hiding is not the way. This isn't the 1st post like this where someone has hidden behind an alt account.

If Hhampuz wanted to be a dick, he could look at the spreadsheet and blacklist everyone in the campaign. It's obviously 1 of the participants right? The person who made the post could hurt everyone if the manager felt like saying fuck it.

We cannot keep being negative here guys. It's not gonna do anything but push people away from bitcoin. The forum doesn't belong to 20 users, it belongs to everyone. I don't mean everyone owns bitcointalk. I'm just saying we need to open our eyes before it gets to the too late point.

It is almost like having a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before leaving a negative rating would solve a lot of these problems. I recall saying this before and being punished for it by you.

I feel sorry about that, I think you still need to be more patient with such people,it is one of those things coordinating different heads entails, normally you cannot satisfy everybody. And no matter how much of your lungs you boil for people you still have ungrateful ones. You already detected the coward came through a new page, you have what it takes to fight him or her hands down,I have said it several times here that morals Should be a point in the forum.i hope it  be established one day.

Looking at the last thread where someone posed a question to hhampuz regarding his campaign management selection. The member appears to have received 6 red tags. The question appears to have been validated by verifiable evidence-based and compelling data.

The use of alts is to be celebrated and praised if they present objective evidence to substantiate their unpopular views, claims or questions.

The alt you are referring to posed a question that hhampuz answered in a very trustworthy and classy way. The thread increased my faith in hhampuz actually. If I were on that campaign I would likely not expect him to pay out. The reason he gave for not taking the btc upfront makes sense. This is going to have to be thought through more clearly if there are huge btc fluctuations and $ is part of the equation.

Not sure why yahoo is upset ?

Relax, it was a perfect and a reasonably inexpensive opportunity for hhampuz not get caught like this in a similar more expensive scenario, and to demonstrate he can be trusted to treat the participants fairly if things go wrong. Win Win.

I expect most will refuse payment or take a reduced pungent now they have heard his side.

I can see why you're taking it personally, I would too in your situation.  The idea that Hhampuz is responsible for paying the participants while he too is among those not getting paid is absolutely ludicrous.  Obviously Hhampuz is working for the same company, also expecting compensation.  Anyone with half a brain should understand that.  It's an audacious, tactless request.

He expects someone who also got scammed to pay him, so he's not the one getting scammed.  Someone who did actual work; auditing and counting many people's posts while he only had to make posts he would have made anyway.  Furthermore, it demonstrates that he cares more about the pay than he does for his fellow forum members, and being a contributing member of the forum.  I wish he had used his main account because now I'm curious who this shitbird is.

And that's why he used an alt.  Which is allowed, and I'm glad it's allowed.  Look at the responses in that thread he created.  Look at my reaction to his audacity.  If he had used his main account he very likely would have been tagged and/or excluded.  If not now, eventually.  He would have had his post history scrutinized, and likely would have been exposed for the sig-spammer he is.  

So, maybe this shitstick gets away this time.  Maybe he sees this thread, as well as the one he created, and takes all these responses to heart.  Maybe he turns a new leaf, and this is a good thing in the end.

Or, maybe he remains a sig-spammer and eventually gets found out.

Some of you may have noticed I've dipped a toe into the waters of signature campaigns this week.  I know from many years experience that there are those who will use alts to double dip in multiple campaigns and then there are those who (for whatever reason) really do seem to rely on the few dollars they get from campaigns.

I don't know the back story of what's transpired recently, but I take my hat off to all the campaign managers who I've seen get kicked around by some seriously butt hurt people when they don't get paid, or when it's not on time.

I'll go along with both yahoo62278 and Hhampuz in any decision making they are faced with because they wouldn't have gotten to where they are now without having to make those tough decisions in the past.

So what exactly did he get away with? Questioning one of the chosen? Having opinions you don't like? Still looking for those principles you claim to maintain.

Their could have been some merit to the argument if he was supposed to be escrowing the campaign funds in advance to protect the posters.. But..


Taking PN7's word for it Hhampuz was not "escrow" so he is not liable..
He very well could be if he was escrow though..

This is the first time I have ever heard the consequences of asking a question to be described as "getting away with it".

I am literally speechless for words as to how to respond to that. That sounds a lot like something someone might say who is being graded by the chinese social credit system.

BTW, I don't think Hhampuz thinks it is as ludicrous to expect payment as you do:

I won't comment on what I think Hhampuz should have done, but this was his reaction.

If you are doing business with someone, and you don't receive payment when you expected to, I don't think it would be an appropriate reaction for the person you are dealing with to "take it personally" when you question why you didn't receive payment.

I guess someone forgot to tell whoever Justice_ is that the marketplace subs are a "safe space"

Where are you quoting from?

---

---

Where are you quoting from?

Stupid locked thread...  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225789.msg53838262#msg53838262
I hate locked threads..

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225789.msg53838262#msg53838262
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225789.0;all

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225789.msg53838897#msg53838897

I'll remind you that you don't need to actually speak when posting.   ;)

(I'm only a grammar nazi when people misuse the word literally, which is a word meant to clear ambiguity)

As a manager of signature campaigns, you always set common criteria to protect other managers, which is really great. It's not like what's always on this forum, struggling, lowering prices, ... you're the one I admire the most  ;)
Definitely, the posting person above is a member of that signature campaign, but instead acts transparently to ask questions or PM for Hhampuz, he sneaky  >:( I bet he is afraid his account will be tagged with such questions  ??? a silly fear  ::) Thinking for a bit, this action stems from his fear of not being able to participate in any other campaign run by Hhampuz  :D

I don't think this is a good advice overall and taking it would not be an ethical decision from an good campaign manager.

I am just trying to say that what DireWolfM14 said is appalling and is really not a good look.

I think taking this advice has the potential to harm Hhampuz’s reputation. He can delay responding for some time to evaluate the facts if he needs to. 

This is the first time I've seen @ yahoo62278, her emotions explode, like missiles.

I know its nature @ yahoo62278, the person is very patient and generous, which I have seen when he was managing the yobit campaign, millions of problems that came when the yobit campaign was run, but did not explode his anger like this.

Actually @ yahoo62278 has good intentions, he doesn't get angry easily, he always tries to deal with campaign participants he manages wisely and positively, but this time it's different.
If I draw from the conclusion the topic @yahoo62278, for the future for campaign participants, it is up to whoever the manager is, no problem.

In essence, if you have a problem in a campaign, please act with the main/participant account.

Give a problematic opinion and complaint, I'm sure the manager will treat it well, no need to be afraid, (no need to hide behind the scenes) You will not be raped and tortured, you will be served lovingly by your manager.

He needs to report whatever issues are happening in a campaign in the campaigns thread, but as far as responding to users in a thread meant to attack, he can disregard.

Long as he has posted the issue in the campaign thread, paused campaign, and done all he could all is well.

Yes, and sneaky bitches like you keep appearing here to lick other people's asses, nice job  ;) If you're brave enough and kind enough to live as a human, come here with your main account, or no, feel comfortable to continue being a bitch  ;) Payment issues are not entirely by the manager, so do not find ways to blame them.

Ideally this should happen in an ideal world but reality is different sometimes. If money was not involved in this forum, then they would have argued with the main account.
 
Now a person with Sr/Hero account complain to you or any other manager,  even though you are fair and wouldn't mind, other managers may not think the same way. The least which they can do is to put them on the ignore list and wouldn't accept them in future campaigns and no one will know that.
Secondly, they are afraid from account being tagged, not by the person they complain but maybe by the DT friends of that manager. Even though all this may not happen but sometimes the fear is enough to take this step by using newbies accounts.

You would agree that everything is not fair here, so no one takes the risk to expose their clean account but yes you will see the troll from the -ve trusted Sr/Hero accounts because they are useless accounts (can't make money).

Cool story, bro.  If you can't see that I was using my own indignant emotional reaction to express why my rationality would excuse the user's action, then I don't know what to say.  Take the whole post into account, please.  Don't focus on eight words, and pretend like they were about "asking a question."  I'm sure you're reading comprehension skills are more acute than that.

It can be one of participants and it can be anyone else. It can be competition. It can be someone who is tagged by Hhampuz. It can be someone who is kicked from campaign or someone who is not accepted.
I would like to point that it is irrelevant who is making accusation as long as accusation is true and valid, that is all what matters at the end.

---

There are some posts somewhere in this forum of some senior members who think that managers should escrow funds to avoid situations like this one, that they share some responsibility and should pay from their pocket, just like some other senior members think that managers should not pay because it is company who should pay and if company doesn't pay managers shouldn't either.

Hypothetically if someone pays me to place advertisement on my car, I would expect them to pay me, if they say they can't pay me because company didn't pay them it is only up to me to say "it is ok, you don't have to pay me" or "I don't care, pay me from your pocket".

I think Hhampuz is great person, manager and everything and this is forum after all, users should not use it as "pay-to-post system", and if I was participant I would say "it is ok, who fucks blender, lets move on"  just like I would say for any other campaign but I also know that someone doesn't share my opinion and they do have right to ask for what they agreed on, as much as they have right to "anonymously complain".

This not an accurate analogy when we are talking about signature campaigns, though. It isn't the campaign manager who is paying to have something advertised (excluding, of course, the scenarios where campaign managers pay to advertise themselves and the services they offer). It is the company in question who is paying for the advertisement - the campaign manager is really only a middleman in this situation.

It would be more like it someone came to you and said "I am the manager for company X in this town. We are paying people to place an advertisement on their cars. My job is to come round every weekend to check your car, and if the advertisement is still there, we'll pay you weekly". If company X suddenly goes bust and doesn't pay either me or the manager one weekend, then I don't think any reasonable person would demand that the manager should pay people for the last week out his own pocket - they'd simply remove the advertisement and move on.

---

To go back on topic regarding the initial post: We can all repeat the statement that no user is going to be tagged for asking a question, and certainly, that is the way it should be. However, the mere fact that users keep posting from alt accounts means that the belief that they will be attacked exists, regardless of whether or not that is true. It points to wider issues with the culture of the forum, a forum which is one of the best in terms of freedom of speech not being moderated, that people are scared of exercising their free speech because of the trust system.

This post was not made only because a person hid behind an account to make an accusation or speak a truth. It's not about whom they attacked/questioned.

It's a post to tell people to stand up and have a voice. There is no need to hind behind a new account.

If users have a concern or question, they should be able to voice it without fear. If we all treated each other with mutual respect this place would be so much better. We don't all have to like each other, but should respect one another.

I'm not completely innocent as far as not respecting others at all times either. I never said I was, but I will be trying to change that from now on.

I completely agree, but we are both talking from relatively safe and privileged positions on DT1, and can both be fairly confident that we could raise controversial or unpopular opinions without fearing any real retribution, and certainly not being red tagged by other DT members because of it. As I said, I completely agree that all users should be able to raise questions or concerns without fear, but the very fact that people continue to hide behind new accounts suggests that not everyone feels this way, and that is something that should be addressed.

Having said all that, anonymous reporting is commonplace throughout the world, in workplaces, colleges and universities, to law enforcement agencies, in healthcare and other public services, and so forth. Although it is regrettable that users feel they have to use alt accounts for some issues, we shouldn't be seeking to restrict their freedom to do so if they so choose.

people get DT red tagged on this forum based purely on opinion. they get tagged for having trust lists other people don't like. they literally get retaliatory negative feedback for publicly speaking out against others.

it's painfully obvious that people should hide behind alt accounts.


"should be able to" =/= "can".

this doesn't mean shit coming from DT1 members, who perpetually reinforce and turn a blind eye to trust abuse. until you guys actually take a stand against improper use of the trust system, nothing will change.

so stop complaining......

I think the messenger shouldn't be killed. IN this case since the evidence is laid out publicly for everyone's eyes, an accusation in my eyes is just as valid coming from an anonymous source, as by a party harmed.

Yes, the manager in question has maintained a good record... But in my very humble opinion any claims made against them should still be taken seriously regardless of past records or the accuser's status.

In my view, this answer from he other thread is most reasonable.


If the manager was claiming to hold escrow, it should be disclosed that funds aren't sufficient for an ongoing term. The liability for paying lies with the advertised party if they didn't also inform the manager. In this case I would take the past record of the manager into account also as it is unlikely that there was anything planned with malintent. But caution should be exercised always when managing and escrowing to avoid such situations. Attacking the messenger doesn't help in my view.

On the subject, I don't really like the idea but perhaps the managers if they are trustworthy enough they should have the payment a week in advance, just in case things go like this one.

On the other hand, I wouldn't blame the dude for using a alt with all the cuntheads around even if I would normaly do.
Also, if your account is doxxed there is no other way to achieve privacy and speak out.

Edit: some also like to get their nose where it doesn't belong for the simple fact of trying to be the liking of others and not being actualy helpful, note my flag supporters.
Edit2: I don't think anyone can blame OP of that post either, a manager shouldn't manage a probable scam just because he gets paid to, look at parodium, I got banned because making a death threat to that fucker which still promotes things of arguable trustworthyness.
On my defense I were already half bottle of jd in.

Edit3 days after: I lost quite a bit of trust in yahoo after this post. Not a bit towards the trustworthiness but yes about the interests and clan he might of joined.

Ya tbh, i stay out of most non-bitcoin things on this forum for this reason, im scared of the retaliation ive seen MANY times between members
People can argue that it happens or not, but thats just how i feel and what i have seen personally (especially in the last year or so)

I have doxxed myself many times over the years thru physical trades here, and i just cant risk my family by rocking the boat with people/groups here, so i dont.
My own fault for not being anon i guess, but who would have thought this place would get like it is now?

Its easy for those who are still anon here to have a strong opposing opinion, or those already established in the circles here, but for the rest of us....  
i totally understand people making alts to express themselves, and attacking them over it maybe isnt the right way, maybe we should look as to WHY people feel/act this way...

Ok.
Bob pays me to find one person who will dig holes. He gives me 0.01 BTC for the job. I hire you to dig hole, and I tell you that Bob wants you to dig few holes and that you will get 0.01BTC for each hole you dig. I pay you 0.01BTC for first hole and knowing I don't have any money left I let you dig another hole. After all that, I say that I don't have money to pay you for that second hole because Bob never gave me more money and you should wait for Bob to pay me.

---

"be a man" and risk that you will be ignored, probably won't receive merits in future, maybe tagged if you keep pushing something over and over again which "you" think it is true but is nothing but false conspiracy theory, probably blacklisted by several campaign managers. Hm, maybe main account is tagged, maybe someone doesn't have enough users who will agree with them so they create alt account to look like there is more agreement, maybe someone made many deals, shared info and doesn't want to risk anything using main account, maybe someone wants to express themselves but doesn't want to engage in more drama than necessary, there are many reasons to use newbie account, it is not just simple as "be a man and post from your account".

I remember reading the same statement from theymos a long time ago. I tried to find back that post once, but failed, so is someone can find it, I'd appreciate it.

As much as I dislike seeing alt accounts used for this, I do understand it. Bitcointalk can be quite intimidating when it comes to (negative) feedback.

I'm just quoting this part for visibility :) I'd love to see less drama and more constructive interaction on Bitcointalk.

Well said! I'll agree some more :)

From what I've seen from Hhampuz before, that's exactly the response I expected from him. He's much more fair than needed.

That's basically what any HR-department does.

I try to learn from the best :)
IIRC it was in the context of why alt accounts should be allowed as one of the main reasons..

I understand what you are describing, but there is a little difference here, and right in this case (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225789.0), It is just a question, anyone can ask about it, it's everyone's freedom, as long as you don't accuse someone, you're okay, you're not hostile to anyone. This is just to say that everyone has the right to ask questions without worrying about hostility.
if I'm not mistaken, it is this statement:
But in the case of Yahoo62278, it's not something that is controversial, it's just a question and anyone can ask, don't be scared. If you are participating in a signature campaign and you do not receive payment, you have the right to request it. Because it is your right, you have worked and you should be paid, there is nothing excessive here  :)

Maybe I should be worried because one fine day in the future, I wake up and see my account has a negative trust. And it would be something similar: This user makes negative comments that harm the community, avoid trust, ...bla bla  :D

Yeah, that... Good job..
A "post as a guest" feature would be cool too.. I think their used to be one..

So you mean anyone can post as a guest without having to make an account, if this feature is implemented. This will make more life easier for the trollers to express their opinion  with just a click of a button.

Nope, that is just what shows when they used to ban a user but didn't nuke all their posts, or something like that.

Ashamed and us to be blamed here. We were not able to create an open platform to speak up loud for everyone I guess. There are few exceptions as always though.

Well here comes free speech LOL
Some of the Baboons family use bitching as a tool to seek approval of their Alpha characteristics where in reality they smell their teen girl's blood wet Tampon and feels it on their own d**khead.

Anyway, if I read it correctly in other thread then I think Hhampuz took the responsibility on his shoulder and declared to pay it from his own pocket. Although he was not obliged (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225802.msg53844474#msg53844474) to make such statements but I think it's another example of his strong leadership character.

Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate".

It absolutely can work. As I have said 1000 times before ratings and flags need to be left to observable instances of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. Theymos had an opportunity to make a break with the old system with the introduction of flags by implementing this standard.

Instead he intentionally chose to leave in arbitrary language which left loop holes so big you could drive a bus through them to abuse the system. I warned him this would result in failure of his new system, and here we are. He seems to maintain this idealistic delusion that large groups of human beings will self regulate outside of a very specific regulatory structure, and is using us all for his little social experiment. It isn't fair to the user base, and it causes the forum to hemorrhage good people that never return.

who cares if a newbie makes an unproven accusation? DT members constantly make unproven accusations around here, yet only one of the two groups has the power to ruin the other's reputation.

you're not addressing the actual problem: people can't post from their real account without fear of retaliation from DT members. therefore, expecting people to post critical views from their real accounts is flat out ridiculous. that was my point to the OP, who i doubt will post here again.

you are making it out like newbies have all the power and DT members have none. totally backwards! ::)

Projection is usually a tool manipulative abusers favor. D.A.R.V.O. tactics. (http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/darvo.htm)

I'm addressing the topic of the thread and your pretzel-shaped justification of sockpuppeting. How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum, versus just some random drama bullshit? It has become a ridiculous circular argument - a newbie accuser pops up so it must mean DT is so bad that the poor schmuck can't use his real account... nonsense.

If shit's not worth saying with your main account then saying it with a newbie account is not going to make it less shit.

you're specifically not doing that. the topic is whether regular members can post criticism without fear of DT retaliation. you are completely sidestepping that question by claiming that every instance of such criticism is automatically meritless.

your claim is obviously unprovable, and it does not address the original question in any way. like TECSHARE implied, you're trying to flip the issue on its head to take attention away from DT trust abuse and project it on powerless newbies instead.

this narrative you are trying to paint where newbies have all the power and DT members are powerless is laughable. anybody with a brain can see right through that bullshit.


this entire board is a waste of space. it's mostly DT members throwing around baseless accusations and engaging in flame wars against people they don't like. why are you fixating on newbies when highly respected DT members are constantly perpetuating this behavior?

You are wrong if you think I will not post here again. You make a fair point, but think about your response. If users are asking legitimate questions, without being pricks, why would they be tagged?

I am not saying it hasn't happened. There have been many questionable tags given to users, but at the same time there have been many acceptable tags.

For example, since I used the Hhampuz thread in the op, this user had a legitimate concern. Had he asked his question with a respectful tone, and created a discussion, he would not or should not have had to fear a tag.

As suchmoon says, users use a throwaway account and toss shit at the wall and see if it sticks. Those are the posts we as a community should avoid. Defamation, rude, ulterior motivated posts meant only to stir up drama and cause chaos shouldn't be given the time of day.

@Royse777 the term bitches was correct in its use.  When we tag someone just because, that's being a bitch. Multiple users, probably including myself, are guilty of this and it needs to stop.

Coming in here trying to sound cool doesn't make you cool man. Everyone thinks DT are at fault, but in reality its everyone's fault. It's also everyone's responsibility to fix it.

Step up and do your part guys/gals. Think about your tags before you give them. Think about your responses. Treat everyone with a little respect until they show they don't deserve it.

I didn't say that. Please refrain from making shit up.


I didn't say that either. You sure you're responding to me and not to one of your straw people?


That's because the thread is about newbies making such posts. If you want to discuss DT members - there's plenty of other threads about that.

Sockpuppeting is not going to solve DT problems. FWIW I respect e.g. TECSHARE for using his main account to rant about the "system" even if I disagree with his rants. However that doesn't make him any less of a hypocrite when he refuses to take the very same actions he expects from others. That's a major problem. We can all talk the talk (newbies or legendaries) but most are too chickenshit to walk the walk.

Let's stop encouraging sockpuppeting and start encouraging some loudmouths here to grow a backbone, or just exclude the loudmouths and build sane trust networks.

The most basic responsibility of a signature campaign manager is to make sure that they have funds to make the promised payouts to those working for them. I find it disgusting that those who were robbed of their payouts are being blamed for speaking out.

Beware of any campaign manager who thinks it is ok to promise payouts and then not make them. I get that everyone wants free money with no risk, but washing your hands with risk and leaving those who worked for you with empty pockets while you collect a payment for failing at your most basic responsibility is nothing short of scammy behavior.

Many people won’t speak up about this because they don’t want to jeopardize potential future revenue, but it is clear that the spineless cowards are those who promise payouts with no money in their hands and then blame those who actually did meet their responsibilities.

So in short, unless the user first makes the appropriate tithing to their default trust Gods by first stroking them off, or not talking to them in a tone you dictate, they have no right to raise legitimate complaints? Plenty of legitimate claims are made and dismissed based on the simple fact the accused and their supporters are upset that a legitimate complaint was made. Then people like you make excuses for it by being the tone police. Of course, the tone is the most important thing, and not the fact that there is a legitimate complaint right? I mean after all, who are these filthy plebeians who think they may approach one of the chosen and expect to be paid for their services right?



Really? Of this whole forum, I am the problem am I? I have exhibited EXORBITANT amounts of restraint in my use of the trust system. Your accusations of hypocrisy are again nothing more than projection to deflect from the behavior you excuse from your friends. You say you respect me for speaking out under my "main" (only) account, but yet you refuse to exclude those who use the trust system as a tool to punish me for doing so. Then in the same breath you accuse me of manipulating the trust system. No, you and your friends and their systematic abuse aren't the worst problem, it is me and my nebulous and undefined "hypocrisy".

are you implying people should be tagged for "being pricks"?

to answer your question, they might be tagged for retaliatory purposes. this has been known to happen. let's not insult each other's intelligence by denying that.


sort of like saying "many innocent people have ended up in prison, but at the same time there have been many criminals imprisoned as well". is that really the standard you want---many innocent people getting punished?


DT members do that with their real accounts all the time, but they don't get tagged for it. regular members, however, are usually expendable. nobody defends them against red tags because no one wants to antagonize DT members. that's the difference.


DT1 members need to look in the mirror. set a good example about consistent standards in the trust system, and maybe we can get somewhere. refusal to exclude abusive DT2 members who engage in the above behavior is a huge part of the problem.

for example, you still include Vod in your trust list, which suggests that frivolous and retaliatory ratings are perfectly acceptable. what example are you setting?


i'm not trying to "sound cool". if i wanted to do that, i would parrot the DT members because they hold the majority opinion.

saying it's "everyone's fault" is a blatant cop-out. the only people with power to change anything are DT1 members. they have the power to exclude those who don't use the trust system fairly or consistently. they have the power to use feedback in a responsible way.

regular members have zero control over what DT1 members do. it's insulting that you are trying to claim we (or newbies?!) have the power to change anything. we can change precisely nothing.


here you go:



then why have you ignored everything i've said about DT trust abuse, while projecting all blame onto newbies? btw, here you go:



so the thread is about newbies making such posts, but not about why they do? interesting claim......


nobody said sockpuppeting would solve anything. what i've said repeatedly is that many DT members are retaliatory and abusive, so sockpuppeting is reasonable and to be expected.

anybody expecting otherwise is just being dimwitted.

I think you answered your own question as to why the person referenced in your OP created a new account to voice his concern.

If you don't want to see this type of thing happening, you must push back against every tag that is questionable, and other people need to do the same. This will continue until it has been a long time since that have been any tags you describe as "questionable".

I have noticed your aversion to participating in forum drama, and I don't find this unreasonable. There are plenty of reasons to want to avoid participating in drama....it is exhausting, it is often childish, this is not the reason why most of us have come to participate in the forum, and applicable to the liberals, it means someone disagrees with you.

I think it is probably safe to say Hhampuz appreciates a "fake newbie" (I don't believe that person ever claimed to be a new user) bringing up the subject. Based on his response, it is safe to say that Hhampuz felt obligated to repay the campaign participants.

Taking this presumption, it is much more reasonable to delay paying participants two weeks today than it would be if someone else complained six months from now.

Don't you think this is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

What plan do you suggest to acheive it?

Sockpuppeting will not exist if we starts to practice giving a valid reason (please read valid reason) for every negative feedback we leave. If no valid reason has presented and the feedback still stands then exclude him from everyone's trust list. We need to stop going political and say X has right to leave a feedback hence he can leave one for Y.

This sounds very wrong. Out of frustration?

Hhampuz dealt it with top class responsibility. If I read his statement right then he said he will pay from is own pocket if the dev does not show up. So if this was meant for Hhampuz then I don't think it's appropriate. However I think campaign managers should be the one who ensure the payment to every participant in a campaign.

All this shows that you're reading entirely between the lines instead of what I actually said. I can't help you with that.


I didn't say you're the sole or even the worst problem, but you're certainly a good example of hypocrisy. I did exclude some users in no small part due to how they treated you but you've shown that you wouldn't do that for someone who disagrees with you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5118010.msg50060817#msg50060817) - nothing nebulous about it. Quite ironic when you consider that I'm not raving about "standards" and sure as shit I don't pretend to be some forum justice warrior slash martyr. I do what I think is right, I'm certain I make mistakes along the way, and I expect other users will hold me accountable.


I take it you're talking about yourself. When I have something to say I say it without hiding behind sockpuppets, Mr. Kettle.


No need for elaborate plans. Do what your conscience tells you to do and let the chips fall where they may.


Excluding hypocritical loud assholes is not wrong. I wish this - along with "Ignore" - was used far more often instead of endless bickering and trying to impose opinions on each other and using red trust for differences of opinion.

Yet you are de facto implying I am a worse problem than the regular and systematic abuse perpetrated by the people you support by deflecting attention away from their activities and redirecting it at me as if it is priority.

Very nice example, thank you. As you can see here you expect me to hold me to standards I am advocating for while simultaneously excusing yourself and others from those standards. That is not hypocrisy on my part, that is me refusing to let you dictate the letter of the law to me in order to find reasons to excuse your friends so you can continue ignoring those same laws. This is the constant pattern with you and nearly your only argument:

https://i.imgur.com/Qa304zE.jpg

Nutilduhh tried to sell their account. Nutilduuuh negative rates others for account sales. Nutilduhhh doesn't get to punish others for something they do themselves, then complain when they are held to their own standards. Me not excluding that user is in no way hypocritical. Would you like to talk about hypocritical? Lets talk about your inclusion of Vod even though you know very well his claims have no substantiation and are a pathetic attempt at retaliation. Nah, that's not important, what is important is that I refused to cave to your demands that one time over something Nutilda deems unacceptable by their own standards.

What were we talking about again? Oh right, we got deflected from the topic of default trust users abusing the trust system to punish people for speaking. Coincidence I am sure.

Again, I'm not the "standards" troll here nor do I have an obligation to exclude anyone whom you have a squabble with. But if what I do or don't do looks like bad judgement to someone then I would encourage them to exclude me from their trust lists. If more people used that option instead of expecting a top-down standard then many problems would go away, including the topic of this thread.

This (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853263#msg53853263) was posted in another thread, another reason why someone should use newbie account.

If you publicly share your opinion, you will be accused of being "petty and vindictive", "dishonest" and so on. Users are just afraid that someone will accuse them if they speak truth. Thanks @figmentofmyass for proving me right.

Funny, that sounds exactly like the point he was trying to make. Your transparent refractory semantic games to try to appropriate his argument, as if it was what you were saying all along, is quite pathetic.



Who said anything about a squabble? He is objectively abusing the trust system, and he refuses to substantiate any of his ratings, and you use any excuse you can to make justifications for the abuse of your friends while condemning it in others, yet I am the hypocrite.

What, you mean the top down standard of requiring evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating? That seems unreasonable to you does it? Is that perhaps because you and your friends would then not be able to keep control of the default trust among your small group of nepotistic abusers using ambiguously and selectively enforced rules? Funny, you are free to make judgements about who you include and exclude, but when I do it I am a hypocrite and abusing the trusts system.

I don't see why is it funny? Have you read this thread? I really said (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225901.msg53845793#msg53845793) something like figmentofmyass did!

I am only using your words to beat yahoo's argument here! WTH dude? Crossposting from another thread:

Users should use new accounts because other users will call them "pathetic little people". Better post something from new account, you don't want to risk "real account" and users calling you "pathetic".

Except we aren't talking about getting your feels hurt with words you don't like, are we? We are talking about the fact that the default trust abuses their authority to punish people for speaking when their own feels are hurt, thus making using alts perfectly logical.

This is yet another endless example of the kind of the intellectually disingenuous arguments, topic sliding, projection, hypocrisy, and semantics pushed by everyone trying to excuse the abuse of the default trust system for personal interests, or at the very least confuse the situation so much people give up trying to look at it in order to maintain the status quo.

I am sorry, but yahoo said be a man/woman and post from real account(please read topic again) and:


I am only proving him wrong and it is not just simple as "you might get tagged". I posted factual info, you two literally attacked me because I posted it from "main account".

Why are you attacking me again?

I don't think I'm justifying abuse by not doing what you're demanding me to do in your conflict with another user. On the other hand you explicitly said that your "standards" don't apply to someone you disagree with (nutildah). I think that's a big difference but let's continue this... uhmmm.... squabble elsewhere as it's veering way off topic.


Anyone is free to include or exclude whoever they want. I'm also pretty sure I'm free to consider your reciprocal/retaliatory actions in my decision process and I'll definitely make fun of it because it's cringy AF.

More intellectually dishonest projection and attempts to confuse the situation in order to deflect repercussions from the trust system abuse of your friends.


More "NO U!". Are you sure you don't want to tell me " YOU MOM GAY!" too just to top it off?

You are justifying abuse by including people abusing the trust system. It has nothing to do with what I demand. That is not at all what I said. Now you need to resort to making straw man arguments as if I was the one to make them, then act as if I should defend myself from your own words. Everyone is free to include and exclude who they like, but if you and your friends don't like who I exclude or include then it is acceptable to negative rate me for "trust system abuse". Meanwhile you toss out a few more "NO U!s"' in the hope no one thinks too hard about the fact that you only want people you choose to be held to their own standards, and that you yourself don't even observe your own standards.

um, all i did was defend myself against your meritless public accusations. are people no longer allowed to defend themselves or confront their accusers?

you publicly attacked me, claiming everything i say "is extremely likely opposite the truth" and you based that on the fact that i told a joke 2 years ago! all you've done is make meritless accusations against me. please refrain from referring to that as "truth".

and what did i do? i responded by pointing out how you dug through years of my post history in a pathetic attempt to discredit me. sorry to break it to you, but that was obviously "petty and vindictive" of you.  i pointed out how you purposefully misconstrued a joke as a serious judge of character. and yes, that was obviously "dishonest" of you.

my accusations towards you are 100% factual and logic-based. i invite everyone to read the post you linked to see that. the same cannot be said of your accusations against me.

and please remember, you publicly accused me first. i merely responded to your accusations by 1. utterly discrediting them and 2. showing that if anyone engaged in immoral behavior, it was you. you are the one who is constantly digging through peoples' post histories to try to publicly malign them. you are the one initiating baseless public accusations. not me.

your public attacks show you obviously have a bone to pick with me, but tbh the feeling is not reciprocal. i am merely reacting to your attacks.

This is not true, I edited post, you can read it, accept it or continue with your false agenda.
I see exactly what you did there with that joke, don't worry  ;)
So is my, 100% factual and logic-based.
That is also not true, you accused me that I am tagging people for spamming.

You accusing me == OK
Me accusing you == NOT OK

Ok, got it  ;)
How is quoting your reply to ME digging trough your post history? Are you now accusing me that I don't remember what you have told me?
I went trough MY post history to find this post. WTH, are you now saying that users are not allowed to read and quote other peoples posts?

This just proves that yahoo is wrong, people should be afraid to post from their real accounts.

right, so i was just imagining this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002


no. you've misconstrued the facts and made totally illogical conclusions. i ripped apart your accusations here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853263#msg53853263


you literally just pulled a post of mine from may 2018 and used it to publicly discredit me. this happened today! ::)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002

why are you playing dumb?

I don't think I said that.


Again, not what I said or implied. I don't proclaim any standards that I would expect you to adhere to, and you are free to ignore your own standards. All I'm saying is that your posturing is worthless and hypocritical. If that's your intent - who am I to argue. Carry on.

I thought you were talking about that other post. Misunderstanding
No, you didn't. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853793#msg53853793)  :)
Why are you cherripicking quotes again? I pulled post of yours because I have find it in post history of my. Are you trying to say that users are now not allowed to quote your posts???

Are you now accusing me of digging trough my own post history?  :o

Another one for yahoo.

If you say something someone doesn't like, they will accuse you of "playing dumb". Ok, I will stop now proving yahoo that he is wrong about people "should not be afraid to speak up", I believe he has more than enough proofs.

/I am out of this thread.

You aren't really proving me wrong but proving others right. I appreciate you demonstrating how issues can be blown up and how users shouldn't handle things.

Instead of everyone trying to fight with each other, use that ignore button as it was intended.

It's obvious that rather then solve an issue between yourselves and coming to a conclusion, youd rather argue and both feel you are right.

There's no need for the fighting period. I'm sure most of us could keep an argument going and prove points thus increasing the size of our cocks, but what's that helping?

If you don't like a persons opinion move on right? If you're not interested in resolving differences, don't post.

My opinion obviously isn't always gonna be right and neither is anyone else's. The point is people should be able to speak without being attacked. Maybe there are times that call for an alt account, on that I can agree, but the bs attacks on a persons character or business are not those times.

Instead of fighting all the time, let's find a way to prevent petty wars with each other and solve our issues.

Can that be done, probably not the way this is looking,  but 1 can hope.

Yes, everyone move along. Nothing to see here. Lets all maintain the status quo where we are in charge and continually excuse abuse of the trust system. No reason to argue about it when we can just keep things how I like them, and fuck anyone who has legitimate grievances. Unless they are one of the chosen of course, then burn the witch.



You don't need to say it. You implicitly support it by including those that regularly and willfully abuse the trust system by negative rating people for little more than speaking. Also, you did explicitly merit the accusation of trust system abuse against me (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837), which is an implicit statement that you think the forum needs more posts like that. Like I said before, your role is to walk a fine line and maintain just enough legitimacy so you can leverage it to cover for the abuses of your friends.

Any principles regarding acceptable use of the trust system you enforce are calculated moves designed to give you the appearance of being reasonable while you ignore and cover for the self evident and regular abuse of the people in your inclusions, and make minimal compromises to maintain this image. You feel free to bring out more "NO U's" about that one time I did that thing you didn't like that happened a year ago. Maybe it will distract from the continual and current abuse you enable with your inclusions and cover for with your deflection and intellectually dishonest arguments. Tell me some more about how you don't proclaim to hold me to any standards, then in the same sentence do exactly that. You do not speak with candor.

How does it work? Attacking someone and expecting not to be attacked?

The issue with you is, there is no arguing with you on anything. You do not see anyone's point except your own in a discussion.

Who wants to help someone who cannot and will not ever admit fault? Because DT doesn't explicitly listen to you and your demands, we are all corrupt right?

That's horseshit and you know it. I want the endless drama to end around here, but users that act like you make it nearly impossible to see that happen.

That's why users should use the ignore button and move on from a conversation with you.

No I'm not saying turn a blind eye and not pay attention to claims, but you cannot say you're 100% right in your claims or opinions. Well you cannot, but you will.

Look all over the reputation section man, you have a minimum of 3 reeeeeee threads claiming abuse by a DT member. Given enough time, I'm sure you'll have a separate thread on everyone who has given you a neg, untrusted you, or disagrees with you.

You want people to stand up and advocate with you, then chill out and admit fault and actually try to solve your issues calmly vs trying to make everyone look bad over a rating they gave you.

Let's say for a minute all your claims are correct. I would still likely ~you from DT due to the way your brain works. Your opinion is all that matters and that's NOT how to look at things. That's not having an unbiased opinion, that's not what a DT member should be.

If I knew the answer to that, we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

I think there are some pretty smart people in this community, including Quickseller and TECHSHARE. Just because I disagree with how they approach things doesn't mean I find them unintelligent. We as a community should be able to figure something different out vs the current shoot 1st and ask questions later system we are using.

I'm sorry that my actions (or lack thereof) don't meet your expectations. I will continue to argue that red-trusting you for your opinions is wrong and I hope one day you'll come around and start doing the same regarding people you dislike. I don't really know what the rest of your diatribe is supposed to mean since I never promised to be the enforcer of your standards, but it's veering off topic again so let's pick it back up somewhere else at some other time.

um, your conclusion still doesn't follow from your premise. you didn't bother to address that at all. sort of important in matters of logic. ;)

merely posting a response doesn't change the fact that i showed your accusations to be completely baseless and meritless.

since marlboroza is trying to pass off baseless accusations as fact, i urge people to read why his accusations are complete and utter bullshit:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853263#msg53853263
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853648#msg53853648


lol! that's the best you can come up with? i'm "cherry picking"?

oh, you just happened to be randomly reviewing your own posts from 2018? and then you came across a joke i made and thought, "to the public-accusation-mobile!" (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvBEFgRUEAALxh0.jpg)

right, we all believe that, coming from someone whose entire forum existence seems to revolve around investigating other peoples' accounts. ::)

the timing of your accusations was also interesting considering what i was in the middle of saying about DT2 trust abuse. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225901.msg53852876#msg53852876)

anyway, you're the one pathetically pulling my posts from years ago, desperately trying to contort them into wrongdoing so you can publicly malign me. you're the one initiating meritless public accusations out of nowhere, for no good reason, and with zero basis in reality.

what did i ever do to you to deserve that? what have i ever done to anybody on this forum to deserve that?

i may think you're a piece of shit marlboroza, but do you see me quoting years-old posts from you in an effort to smear your name---in an effort to convince people that everything you say is a lie? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002) that's what you did to me.

i have done nothing dishonest and i have not shown poor judgment, but since i say things you disagree with, you will continue attacking me---this much i can gather.


cool story. so you completely glossed over the fact that you---unprovoked---are investigating my account and trying to publicly discredit me. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002) and, amazingly, you are now claiming to be the victim?

seriously---you publicly attack other people (pretty much constantly) and then you cry because one of them accused you of "playing dumb"? ::)

i'd tell you to grow some thicker skin, but we both know you are putting on an act. what you did---publicly lob baseless and unprovoked accusations at me (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5219253.msg53853002#msg53853002)---is so much more deplorable than what i did---defend myself.

i hope your attempts at false equivalence will not go unnoticed.

edit:


amazing, it only took you 90 minutes to prove me right.

Is that the issue with me? Perhaps the issue with me is I argue my points a little too well, and you have run out of logical arguments to justify your own bias. Please do tell me, what am I at fault for? Facts please, not assumptions, emotions, or projections. Users like me make it impossible to end the drama huh? Yes, I am sure this place would be a lot more drama free if everyone who wasn't one of the chosen were to just shut the fuck up and let you and your pals abuse the trust system at will and selectively and arbitrarily enforce its rules.

Certainly it is my fault for putting up such a vociferous defense of myself when the system is abused against me, and not the ones that abuse that system, or the people who enable that abuse by refusing to exclude those users. Obviously it is my fault multiple users are simultaneously abusing the trust system against me. After all, everyone knows the volume of accusations makes them more valid, regardless of the facts of the matter.

This forum doesn't respond to chill. It responds to cutting throats, because that is the only language it speaks. Pure control and power over others, which those currently holding it relish abusing. I am very sorry if me pointing out this dynamic bothers you so much, but passivity is never a solution to dealing with tyrants. No compromise will ever be enough, and there is no path to redemption with you people. This will never end until your power is removed, because that is all you value.

You feel free to wax poetic about my character flaws all you like. None of it excuses your willingness to abuse the trust system, your enabling of it in others, or your deflection from all of this.



Except I do already do that, but that doesn't serve your NO U narrative very well now does it? I regularly defend people I don't like or don't get along with if they are not in the wrong. This is just more pathetic projecting on your part. Not my standards, your standards. Yep, you seem to be out of deflection tactics. Time to move on and regroup with some new bullshit to accuse me of.

But you know this is not going to happen no matter how long or deep it is discussed?

Users will always use new accounts for <insert any reason>, of course, I will listen to your advice and ignore few accounts here, I should have done it long time ago.

I think we should still believe in something that we know does not happen, because it is a belief, it is a desire for what we think is good. It's like we believe that God will help us, God will take us to heaven, or God will cleanse us from our sins  :D But does that really happen? Yahoo62278 wants people not to post in a sneaky way, I think it's good, whether this works or not, it's always a good thing, at least for his beliefs.

Maybe even just for fun to see what reactions would be made..
For example.. This account made its first post in over 4 years, just one post, and the funny thing is, someone immediately created a fresh newbie account to reply to that post, and attack me with wild speculation.. Flattering..

It also got a neutral rating almost immediately! A+ on that response time..
I do think it would be better as a Qualified Statement (https://valenciacollege.edu/students/learning-support/osceola/writing-center/qualifying.php) though..


(he went all OT and got our posts deleted)

It looks like users really assume the worst when they see a "new" account post, like I must be a ban evader, my IP is eviled up, I need a neutral trust, I'm afraid to post from my main account, etc..

It's almost like racism or something, lol.. Very enlightening..