Bitcoin Forum

Let's have a sensible civil debate regarding this red trust given to eddie13 today for daring to utter the truth.

eddie13   2019-12-02   Reference   Selectively acts as as your "friendly neighbourhood guy", but those double-faced pricks are the worst. Most of what he does nowadays, he does out of spite.
After being called out for his virtue-signalling several times, he tries to attack here and there with half-baked "legitimate concerns".
I wouldn't trust this user nor his judgement with anything.

The reason for the red is this post.



Does this require red trust? I mean I see one undeniably TRUE statement from eddie.

Yes escrowing for a projects bounty ( likely making money from it) will present a conflict of interests when discussing

a/ whether they should be forced to have an escrow ( lauda himself)
b/ escrowing their bounty will not help at all if they are a scam  

So one true statement

and

eddie also just says hmmmmmmmmmm in response to a reasonable post by jolly good?

For this he gets told he is getting red trust, and further more if he keeps making posts like this (the truth) the red trust will remain??


Before deciding DT members should

1/ review this post and read the thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192497.msg52742577#msg52742577

2/ look into how that project was "forced" into using escrow ( they amazingly chose laudas escrow)

3/ the clear financial motive for lauda to want to silence eddie13 simply stating truths??


I mean again it seems the trust system is totally being leveraged in a very net negative way. The DT members were all meriting jollygoods discovery and supporting the notion it looks scammy. Now eddie is getting red trust for simply stating some undeniable truths about it??



SO DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST.

then tell us if this is a valid use of negative trust and what you are intending to do about it if anything.

To us this is almost up there with using the trust system to punish whistle blowers.  But will be interesting to hear sensible reasoning from other members.

Let's not immediately derail it. Keep on topic and relevant. Let's all try to remain civil too.

I don't mean to sound patronising, but the idea is that if you don't agree with the trust left by the user in question, you don't add them to your trusted list.  It's up to each individual to draw their own conclusions on not just this particular feedback, but all feedback from that user, then decide if, on the whole, those ratings are accurate.  Clearly you don't like what that user is doing, so obviously you aren't going to trust them.  What more do you want?

For what it's worth, I certainly wouldn't have left red trust for that.  But that's just my personal take on it.  I can't speak for others.

I haven't added Lauda to my trusted list, as I do find some of their ratings a little reactionary.  But at the same time, I don't distrust them either and am aware of the many perfectly legitimate ratings they have left.

Based on what Lauda's feedback states, I think it was pretty harsh.  Lauda might not trust eddie13 based upon his words, but that's a judgement call on Lauda's part that seems to be questionable.  Myself, I wouldn't have left eddie13 a neg for that but that's just me.  Lauda is free to distrust whoever he/she wants, and if any DT or non-DT members disagree with the feedback enough, they can counter it.

Is Lauda still on DT1/2?  I've got them on my trust list so eddie13's neg shows up as trusted, but as DT members keep getting rotated in and out, I have a hard time following whether certain members are even on DT2.  I'm assuming Lauda is on some level of DT, which makes that feedback suck for the recipient even more.  In any case, there's no much that can be done about it unless Lauda is removed from DT entirely, and I tend to think he/she does more good than harm--but at the same time I hate to see feedbacks like this one and flags like the one Lauda created against a member that I felt obligated to oppose. 

The trust system shouldn't be used to neg members based on a difference of opinion or an interpretation of someone's words that seems kind of a stretch.  Excluding them from your trust list might be a better option, but a red trust doesn't seem appropriate IMO.

Pleases either engage in the debate and give your reasoning on yes it is  valid or no it is not valid. OR ELSE just stop derailing.

This is not a thread to discuss my motives for asking is it?. They are irrelevant. since I am only asking for other peoples opinions on AN OBSERVABLE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE INSTANCE.

I am genuinely interested in the DT's reasoning here on this forum.

Let's continue.

@The Pharmacist

Yes, we agree with the points in general that you have made there. We simply want to try to understand how any person DT or otherwise can consider an observably true statement and a hmmmmmm to someone elses post reason for giving them red trust.

Let's await what other DT members offer up as their view on this use of the trust system.

Good to see that so far there we can keep it civil and stay on topic.

Lauda is a cunt, I am a cunt - you trust us both! if anyone (TOAA) doesn't trust our ratings - then that user can go trust their own mother (I believe TOAA's mother didn't trust him and dropped him on purpose) FUK YOUR MOTHER IF YOU WANT TO FUK

anyway - the system is working, those of us in the DT rotation couldn't give a flying fuck if we are on DT-1 or DT-2, I mean really? I don't even know what day it is half the time, the only users who care about this shit are the gimps like TOAA who prove OBSERVABLE instances of FANNY ITCH against the whole DEFAULT TRUST system of MERIT CYCLING.

This is true, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of your feedbacks left for other members, and I'm sure it goes both ways.  If you see that I've left a neg for someone and you didn't think they deserved it, I would expect either of you or anyone else to challenge me on it.  That's part of the way DT members police themselves.

That may be the case, but if you're leaving negative trust for members you ought to realize that when you're on DT it carries much more weight and that DT members should be held to a higher standard because of that.  That's the reason why I don't tag shitposters anymore or spammers or even members who are being dishonest unless they're actually trying to scam someone. 

Account sellers are a personal crusade for me, because I genuinely believe they're doing a disservice to the forum and shouldn't be trusted, but I'm aware that there are people who disagree with feedbacks I've left because of that.  I welcome dissention, as it makes me reevaluate my position (though I haven't yet changed it).

I assume whatever device you're writing posts on has a calendar app, so maybe that might help you....?  Lol.

1) OP is a massive douche canoe.
2) That doesn't change the fact that negative feedback on eddie13 for his opinion ("virtue signaling") is massively inappropriate.

Like OP Logic does not work with me sir...

but if I dont like your feedback I can do a few things.

1) PM you
2) ignore it
3) counter it
4) start a thread
5) call your mum
7) do nothing
69) ask TOAA to post about it
420) smoke a J and chill winston !

This is totally wrong and harsh use of trust system, eddie13 was just expressing his opinion about the exchange and that was the sole reason for that thread creation he was commenting in.



I would probably go with this most of the times.

I agree. His behaviour could be a reason to distrust (~) him though.

Eddie is a cunt, reminds me of billcuntygator

not a cunt in a nice way like me..

more like sand in your arse crack/vagina type pain..

i am headache pain from drinking 12 hours... eddie is pain in scrotum

" do nothing" No this is not really how DT is designed to work as The Pharmacist explained to you above. DT can not self regulate if people do nothing when they feel something is clearly wrong. If you are not willing to take action when you see things are clearly wrong. DT is not a place for you.

If you feel that there has been a CLEARLY inappropriate use of tags of flags. Then really you act upon this by resisting those inappropriate tags and flags or DT simply will not work. Theymos has designed the system to function on FRICTION / RESISTANCE and AGREEMENT if everyone just sits there when they notice CLEARLY inappropriate use of the trust system. The trust system can not self regulate.

Let's try to keep this thread civil.

Anyway, since you are here now why not give your opinion on the red trust. I mean if you believe it is a valid use of red trust then just relax do your best to form a transparent and clear account of your reasoning for that. This is a civil debate concerning a 3rd party to us.  . This is simply a good example we believe of the red trust being misused in a very net negative way when you consider the entire context surrounding the project he was referring to in his post and the potential motivation for applying red trust to silence his correct and undeniable criticisms.

Anyway, if you think this is a valid or invalid use of red trust, then just go ahead and give your opinion/reasoning or leave it to others that want to have a civil debate.

An interesting and in some ways very surprising thread so far though. Some objectivity, and sensible well reasoned answers. There is a modicum of hope for the future of decentralized trust, although of course we believe a central point of authority with both ultimate power and sole accountability would work best, but the responsibility, workload (even at only a final say level) and future possible legal blowback is too much to expect from any one person. Still regardless of recent events one must never forget the opportunities and benefits this forum has given us all. For that we must be grateful.

Anyway on with the debate.

@thenewanon - It would be good if you can keep the the appropriate use of the red trust in this instance. Another thread concerning these " behaviors" you claim could make him worthy of an exclusion should be debated in the full context of other comparable behaviors that you are NOT going to exclude for IN A DIFFERENT THREAD if possible thanks.

This will derail from the specific use of red trust here. Lauda likely has excluded him anyway. We have not looked into that part, because although it could be viewed as a form of punishment, is not something that is used currently as such a massive threat as destroying his reputation score and leaving red marks on his account that can be jumped upon as leverage for FURTHER discrimination in terms of campaigns and other opportunities. Red marks currently (by a design flaw we believe) hold huge influence over nearly all rev streams and trading.

So please make a thread about these "apparent behaviors" YOU feel COULD be worthy of trust exclusions. if you like.

Since you are here, and have decided to go with the potential for exclusions suggestion as an alternative, CAN WE ASSUME that you feel red trust in NOT VALID in this instance? Yes?

Tman seems to be intent on making accusations and insults about eddie but provides zero evidence or corroborating events to substantiate them. Best to probably do your own research before accepting anything at face value.

Edit - tman seems to have given a semi reasonable opinion now,  and is saying the red trust in this instance does not seem valid. I am going to give him 10/10. I'm sure he will start to warm to us now.

So that means so far we have pretty much 100% agreement that the red trust is NOT valid.  That was rather surprising in a good way.











 

ok to stick to the rules...

I agree Eddie is a dick - like billgator. but should he be tagged? I think not.. seriously I disagree with the cat fiddler on this.

now back to the TOAA guessing game..

CLEARLY
DT
TMAN
TRANSPARANT

can someone mark me please

I'd say no but to each their own. If you want to make an informed decision take a few minutes to read the related discussion. Not the OP's wall of text but starting from eddie13's feedback and the link in his signature (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=580327). I'm pretty sure he's still up for the 0.25 BTC bet too, if you want to take advantage of that.

Bottom line: he's not a megatroll, he's not abusing the trust system, he's not a sleazebag trust farming escrow scammer, his biggest crime is that he disagreed with Lauda.


I don't think he bought an account or plagiarized anything but maybe you know something I don't. You're a dick too but I wouldn't hold that against you :)

Well, I didn't expect this, but it lit my PM notifications up pretty good so here I am..

So far, other than mentioning it a couple times, I have basically chosen...
Because I think..
Which may be coming true..
I haven't really dug to prepare references much yet but I think I could make it clear that Lauda has a long history of attacking me over my opinions going back a long time..
I think this one of many (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201132.0) instances of Lauda attacking, in this case for supporting freedom of speech, threatening to flag me, and I called their bluff on it, is what really pissed Lauda off this time..

Out of that came this pretty interesting quote..
Which I find abhorrent..

I agree that I am a Cunt in the eyes of some as you suggest..

To those authoritarians who hope to shut down freedom of speech, who engage in hypocritical sketchy actions, who try to twist the truth, who abuse the trust system in attempt to silence users like me, I hope I am a HUGE "sandy asscrack hangover headache type pain in the scrotum" just as you describe..

If my postings in support of maintaining libertarian culture and high standards for DT, who I believe should be good role models for the masses to look up to, is a "pain" or damaging to anyone, good..


In the case of the reference in my negative trust from Lauda I was posting about this inconsistency..


First off I don't think it is correct to "force"..
Secondly, if you yourself think it is a scam, why would you attempt to facilitate their advertisement in any way? Escrow or not..
mosprognoz seems misguided here to me..

It seems me mentioning this made me a "sandy asscrack hangover headache type pain in the scrotum" to Lauda, and they abusively negative trusted me for pointing it out..

So here we are..



Edit: BTW I did not buy this account, I haven't worn a paid signature in probably years, I have been DT2 at all times that I know of since the new implementation of the trust system, I am now on DT1 and have never abused these positions, and I have been trusted with over $2,000 worth of BTC in a single trade and did not scam.. (I know it's not really that much)

So if you think I am untrustworthy I'd like to know your definition of "untrustworthy"..

I have like 54 responses to that, but I’m doing my best to withold my inner child.

As for Eddie, I could be totally wrong and if I am I apologise in advance, but I thibk there is something off with his posts.

We can agree to disagree like we have on many other topics. And guess what no walls of text TOAA....

Your misunderstanding stems from the fallacy that you believe it matters who posts about whether it's "valid" or not, or what their justification is.  Expressing an opinion in one of your inane topics doesn't actually change anything.  We're not playing by your totally imaginary rules here.  That's not how it works.  What matters is who each of us does or doesn't include in our trust list.  Perhaps I need to be more patronising if you can't grasp that.  

Maybe you feel the need to question everyone's intelligence by assuming they don't factor incidents like this into their decision as to whether or not to include someone in their trusted list.  I'm personally content to assume that people on DT aren't stupid and have enough attention span to notice these things sooner or later (without making a massive song and dance about it) and will continually evaluate whether those ratings are still worthy of inclusion or not.  But please keep crying about people not dancing to your tune.  It doesn't look pathetic at all.  

Lauda has a long history of disregarding rules around the trust system, even when Theymos himself is the one handing them down. Clearly Lauda believes they can set their own rules and do whatever they like abusing the trust system. Lauda doesn't belong anywhere near any level of trust. Unfortunately this community has a habit of excusing this kind of behavior from their special children until they get too big for their britches and it becomes a huge problem that creates other issues much like a certain other 3 letter user name here.

Oi.. watch out , next itll be people calling you TOAA/Cryptocunter..

come on - change the record. Everyone knows lauda is a law to themselves. but... Plus/Minus - the net gain to this place is many multiples more for all the good the cuntycat has done over the years.  Seriously Twatshare, man up - change the tampon/maxipad and move on.

When you open a topic and you see this :

https://i.imgur.com/TE768Zd.png

you know it has to be good.

So let me rewind this a bit
- we have a crappy exchange that has been accused of scams and of fake volume a thousand times
- they start a signature campaign
- everyone jumps and starts throwing red bolded flaming poo at them
- Lauda is chosen as an escrow
- everyone: Pikachu face!

Out of all the things in this thread, I'll simply rag on this one thing. Whether a slip of the tongue (or rather, fingers) or a miscommunication, it doesn't matter, but this is something that I want to address.

Words may be defined as many different things and thus if I attempt to state, "this is not X," it is possible for both my statement to be honest and align with my truths (i.e. I see it as genuinely true) while being false in other people's languages.

I define language as the collection of semantic and syntactical rules that one uses to communicate, by the way.

---

Stating "I completely am against freedom of speech when" puts a restriction upon freedom of speech. If this is suited in your rigorous definition thereof, then that's fine.

But, I disagree with restricting communication. Restricting what one may/may not communicate leads to a slippery slope. But wait: isn't that fallacious? Yes, yes it is. And what of it? Humans are not infallible creatures, are they? Legislation is not rooted in rationality.

And I fear that restrictions upon freedom of speech will lead to compounding restrictions, closing us off into an echochamber of madness.

---

Feel free to interject with any opposing thoughts.

The negative feedback for me was more retaliatory rather than something appropriately done. There where no scams that took place, no transactions happened and there are just only words that maybe Lauda didn't accept well. I don't know but basing it from his negative feedback Lauda might have built a tick that he had enough of eddie that's why he have sent that feedback but even though it's because of that reason I don't see why this negative feedback for eddie is deserving.

It's all part of a devious plan. This puts cryptohunter into the merit cycling running hiking thingy so now he will stop bitching about it.

Or maybe not.

Pretty sure you and your turdburgle gang already tried that. Oh no don't call me names! Lauda is a net detriment to this forum because they have no regard for anything but what they personally unilaterally decide.

Try to be even remotely sensible Tman. Start by producing some of laudas personal achievements that have made any difference here.

Then you must try to balance those ( that are non existent anyway) against.

Being the single most determined person here to fight AGAINST the board receiving a 2 BILLION DOLLAR equiv compensation offer from a scam he was pushing.
I mean just to balance that he would need to be one of the largest achievers here.

Trust abusing the person that DID scam hunt that project down and force such a compensation offer .... Oh dear looking VERY net negative.

But then you must consider all his other brilliant " net positive"  behaviors

Extorting (under cover agents)
Trust abusing many others and trying to crush free speech on this forum ( that is a big one) even got theymos into some action. Well so did the extortion didn't it? was he not removed from mod?
Supporting other scammers
I mean the list of NEGATIVES is rather endless LOL

You are clear what net positve means right?

Anyway please stop derailing this thread. You have said that you believe lauda has given red trust inappropriately in the case of eddie13. You need not hang around further. There is not really a need to justify trust abuse or excuse trust abuse. If it exists it should be immediately dealt with.

@doomad

I think you need to think it over further. If you were eddie would you rather pressure was applied to the trust abuser to remove the red trust, or rather some other DT's that confirm it is invalid use of red trust to counter the abusive red trust?  or as you seem to be suggesting , sit around waiting for years for enough people to decide (according to your reasoning) that his bad decisions outweigh his good?  We do not follow with that anyway. If there is even ONE clear instance of the trust system being used to silence others for merely disagreeing with your views (that you should be able to make money escrowing for scams) then you need to be removed instantly. There is not place inside the trust system for those that will seek to abuse the privilege (even one time).

Proposing restrictions on speech is one thing, even if targeted at an individual, but abusing the trust system in attempt to silence someone is entirely another..
Wouldn't you agree?

I know you're trying to produce an analogue for your situation but given that I don't know the full details, I can't say anything in relation to that.

However, when it comes to this premise, I agree. The trust system should be used responsibly and as objectively as possible. One cognitive bias that would be very prominent in trust systems is the association of traits towards a person. These might then influence how you process their posts/information, leading to skewed outcomes and potentially significantly-different perspectives when two people look at the same issue/topic.

---

Is this what's happening?

This thread is about my situation..

Most of the pertinent information and links are in this thread.. I ask you kindly to review the full details and make your judgement on what's happening..

Basically click my signature link and read that whole thread... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201132
Then click my trust and read the whole thread which is referenced in the questioned rating.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205331

Go ahead and PM Lauda for their side of the story or to seek any supporting evidence they think they may have, so it is fair and you get both sides..

I am quite confident after thorough review any honest half inteligent person would come to the conclusion that I have been wronged..
But you know, I might be biased a little bit, so don't take my word for it and please make your independent review..

Or, you could always just ignore it, but some may consider that failing to uphold the duties of DT..


Completely independent of the fact that it should be removed, more importantly, people should know..

Only going to break down the first page as that is where the negative is rooted.

---

Fallacy of relative privation as a case for dismissal.

The reference for the negative.

I don't see anything that shows eddie is untrustworthy. Skepticism should be a part of all discussions, otherwise we will get virtue signalling due to the social pressure of the dominant side.

And yeah its kinda rare for CH. But to be honest I have to agree with him.

Yes, it should be, now that I'm a DT1 I wanted to propose something good,  that in this kind of issue Trust System (Leaving Feedbacks) shouldn't be used freely without a valid reasoning, and to be specific on Trades or what so ever we can make use of this Trust System truly operational that is said to be fair.

---

In this case Lauda should have just leave a Neutral or just exclude and ignore you, Normal person would use that AFAIK, but as we all know ever since we have an issue of abuse on the Trust System there are still folks out there that didn't care about shits.

---

Some one has bad - mouthed you, Is it really right to put a Negative on a user's account?
-Hell, No.
(Now I remember that shitty guy blurryeyed/IconFirm...)

Trully an unacceptable reason for a Negative.

I think I see the problem here.  Nuance isn't one of your strong suits, is it?  Everything has to be black and white in order for you to find it acceptable.  The slightest shade of murky and off the handle you fly.  It's pretty clear you wanted a list of posts in this thread by various users saying "Lauda is wrong because x/y/z", because you want some sort of unilateral intervention.  But that's not how trust is designed to work.  Pressure is acceptable, but it's never going to be as clear-cut as an automatic, instant removal from DT (unless the offence is egregious enough to warrant a ban, or theymos decides to step in, that is).  It clearly doesn't matter to you that you have the option to exclude Lauda AND exclude everyone who includes Lauda, which, as if by magic, changes that trusted feedback into untrusted.  You can quite literally build a trust network of your very own.  But nope, that's not enough for you.  You want to overrule everyone and force them all to see it exactly the same way you do.  No dissenting viewpoints.  No ifs, buts or maybes.  

Sorry, but life doesn't work that way.  Find some coping mechanisms or something.

Each person still gets to make their own judgement calls and some of those people are still choosing to include Lauda, despite the fact this isn't the first controversy they've been embroiled in.  Based on the guidelines that have been issued by theymos, that particular rating that triggered you is inappropriate.  But you are not judge, jury and executioner when it comes to what qualifies as "abuse" of the trust system.  It's not up to you to declare who suddenly has to go just because you don't like something they did.  It's currently unfair to eddie13 and that's unfortunate.  But the alternative, where an unsuspecting user who doesn't have a custom trust list might fall victim to a scam because the warning feedback for the perpetrator is no longer trusted, becomes a very real possibility.  And if multiple victims are scammed, that's arguably far worse than a pissy comment on eddie13's page that has already been countered twice.

//EDIT:  Three counters now.

You seem more reasonable than most so lets see how this goes..

READ IT ALL BEFORE COMMENTING FURTHER - if you want to give a sensible well grounded reply then you must find points that you clearly understand and can present a clear and sensible rebuttal to.

Firstly it is good that something was done about eddies undeniable trust abuse, we want to see fair treatment of ALL members. Lauda seems to be losing its grasp over the acolytes and does not even sound like the old (pre break) lauda at all. If it is lauda that will certainly upset them. Good.

HOWEVER the other suggestions that you make are clearly poorly researched. Lauda is NOT the prime focus. He and his supporting cronies are simply a symptom of the poor design. If they were all removed then over time the same situation would arise. Admittedly theymos STARTED with entrenching a tight knit bunch of scammers, willing scam facilitators, scammer supporters, trust abusers and generally greedy sig spammers like the pharmacist with DT positions and the powers (merit allocation) to entrench themselves deeper and deeper by only allocating merits to those they feel certain they can control. So recommending starting your own trust network is pointless. I mean the merit system would have been a GREAT honey pot actually to highlight those that will manipulate things for their own ends when such an easy to abuse system is put into place.

I mean have you read this thread, keep in mind that thing then were WAY less rigged since trust and merit had not been united (as clearly warned against in this thread) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0  so now the systems of control are far far far easier to manipulate.

The focus is removing ALL POSSIBLE areas of subjectivity (that is where the abuse is allowed to manifest). Theymos tried ( we are still willing to believe he wants the same thing as ourselves a fair transparent system that ensures everyone is treated equally)  with the flagging system but because he is too afraid to really piss the entire DT bunch off fully he left them the feedback system. This is ACTUALLY FAR WORSE NOW THAT WE THINK ABOUT IT BECAUSE..

He lowered the threshold for what you can give red trust for without it being classed as clear abuse  BUT LEFT FULL PUNISHMENT POWERS THERE. It no longer apparently has to be for scamming or even for financially motivated wrongdoing. It is totally and utterly subjective and wide wide wide open to abuse for purely personal gain.

So ask yourself what MORE do you get for getting the highest level flag that you get for telling someone who comes to your thread (where you have posed 3 observable instances as scenarios) and starts ranting that those scenarios mean YOU HAVE BEEN FUCKED IN THE ASS to many times... and if you then tell them to either tackle the points made in the initial post or fuck off . THEN YOU CAN BE GIVEN RED TRUST by that person and his friends.

So for defending your own thread where you are randomly attacked and insisting he stay on topic and stop making weird sexual slurs and tackle the points made, you get the same punishment as if you DID A HUGE SCAM HERE and ripped hundreds of people off??

The worst punishment for most people here is having their sig stripped away by corrupt sig campaign managers that simply remove accountability from themselves and say... oh you have red trust from a DT you can't be trustworthy now and you can't join our scampaings. Or oh whoops our pals (who are all on our scampaigns btw) did not give you enough merits this month LOL ...sadly were too busy giving them to each other so that THEY can be on the best campaigns...haha


The entire systems of control have become MORE broken since the flagging system came in NOT less broken.  Certainly in terms of crushing free speech.

The systems of control are WIDE OPEN TO ABUSE (to the point it is impossible to prove merit abuse it is so subjective) and then financially reward abuse LOL
They also allow you to entrench yourself inside them and to then punish others that state any truths about yourself they do not like.

If you can debunk ANY of our points then do so. Make sure you read the thread link to ensure you have a full understanding (not that it is difficult to grasp unless people do not WANT to grasp it) before posting further. There is no point arguing with people who do not understand clearly how the mechanisms operate and the clear undeniable implications of those mechanisms..

Keep in mind that no person has debunked that thread or any points made there. Because they are merely correct and accurate descriptions of how the systems of control worked BACK THEN before madness of linking merit/trust and then lowering the threshold of FEEDBACK to give it for what the fuck you like but still the punishment for receiving it is the same.

The implications for US is nothing. We care about sigs or trading but the implications for the free speech of others that do 99% of the board are clearly horrific.

Theymos has perhaps "tried" to improve things but has undeniably made things worse ever since merit was introduced.  We notice he is throwing merit everywhere now trying to speed up the self regulating process. It will EVENTUALLY create more friction and some small improvement in self regulation but the friction and MAD threat to maintain order will still turn this entire board into a war zone because he does not understand that humans will NEVER accept being punished for lesser deeds by those that have committed far greater evils. That is the gaping hole in the great masterplan. You must remove THE SUBJECTIVITY or ROOM TO ABUSE.. subjectivity allows a 2 tier system to thrive.

The only way to fix it is to remove ALL subjectivity where at all possible and hand out some REAL punishments for blatant system controllers that abuse. Not fake punishment like blacklisting from DT1 so they just go on DT2 LOL  ....

You note that NOBODY wants to discuss the 2 changes to fix up a lot of the subjectivity and make it a far more objective (FAIR) system??? WHY??? because the people hanging in meta board and whispering in theymos ear " pssss raise it to 250 merits theymos"...." pssss theymos let me be a merit source "..."psssss look I busted a couple of small time scammers you can't believe I would extort members right"....  "psss theymos your ideas area all great theymos don't listen to him about changing things they are working just great (for us)"...." psss theymos you're our hero have some merits for farting"...

Then when theymos dares to suggest they exclude a proven scammer and trust abuser pal....." err theymos is SNEAKY, I don't like how theymos handled this in secret DARING To ask me things in PM,  I don't appreciate theymos you daring to request me to do things It puts pressure on me"  " hmm theymos is heavy handed isnt he..." " hhmm i may not post here for a while now"... LOL

LOL if theymos thinks these snakes that have snaked their way into merit source, DT are his pals and want the best for this forum he has rocks in his head. We have presented clear undeniable evidence of their prior scamming, sneaking, willing scam facilitating for pay, socket puppetry for pure financial gain, and the excuses they all make for each other, all the merit top 20 merit fans and recipients of each other (mostly). Punishing whistle blowers.

He would need to be MORE than blind and foolish NOT to notice all of these things but still he heaps MORE rewards to them, now a nice merit volume button for them to turn people down who they don't wish to be heard.

Perhaps he really does try to make things better but he is blundering from one mess to another. The implications of his alterations are undeniable.

If you want to debunk these points COME AND DO IT.  Even theymos will not come and debate he hides there giving merit to anecdotal faux rebuttals from noobs who have no understanding of this forum AT ALL.  They believe because they are the new useful idiots of these old time scammers and scum so are afforded some small rewards and a chipmixer badge that its all hunky dory haha

The 2 changes we have suggested will WE BELIEVE make things a lot better around here. It pulls away most of the subjective areas where they derive their abusive powers.

Make the fucking trust system about protecting people from FINANCIAL DANGER directly. Not make perform insane mental gymnastics and say because you like lemons you are likely to be untrustworthy or if you don't allow people to derail your threads and make strange slurs on you that you are clearly a financial danger.

That is EXACTLY how they totally pervert the systems of control so that you end up with a bunch OF PROVEN SCAMMERS AND THOSE THAT WILL EXCUSE THEIR ACTIONS  using the trust system to punish THOSE HONEST MEMBERS THAT HAVE NOT EVEN 1 INSTANCE OF FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED WRONG DOING and have been arguably THE most net positive person in terms of making thing fair in the history of this forum.

Debunk ANY point that you can. We would welcome even a mild challenge to one of the central points we make. It is boring as fuck being surrounded by cowards and low functioning useful idiots or turd word servile scum that will do or say anything to get a higher paid sig spot (although we sympathize with them more than the totally greedy other scum here)

Even those that try to stay out of it claiming "don't want to get involved with politics" although they see clear scammers here punishing whistleblowers are pathetic weaklings that are contribution to the corruption by preventing the self regulation that is KEY for the systems to function as designed.

QUEUE the excuses... too long to read, boring, insane, trolling, lying, mental illness, wrong it works fine for me, theymos does not care, on ignore can't read it, or just silence due to no person being able to debunk or demonstrate any of the central points are correct.

Not one clear debunking of ANY of the central points though.  

Lauda continues to remove and replace their abusive negative rating on my account, multiple/many times by now, which I find quite humorous, so I figure I'll give this thread a bump..

I haven't bothered tracking it down, but I do remember Theymos explicitly stating directly that this is an abuse of the trust system.

You didn't understand the post then, for which again I am not liable. I don't trust him, and based on the current system dynamics the exact reasons are irrelevant for the justification of a rating. Reasons are relevant if one wants to include/exclude someone else based on their ratings, but feel free to do that. Do not waste my time with petty inquiries about why I don't trust ten-faced (yes, ten, not two) hypocrites like mr. eddie.

Thankfully I am not a fucking useless bag of meat like most of you wankers, I'm a cat.

Actualizations to past ratings are not abuse of anything. I will replace ratings as many times as necessary, and you will whine, cry and shout many more times than that. :-*

---

Next time add my name in the Title, don't be a coward. I want to be famous.

Oh yeah, pardon me my queen LoL, forgotten cat, I almost consider you as a human. My bad.

I find it offensive, but we don't have a word for it yet so if it were up to the libtards of this forum I should say: You're racist and a nazi! ::) There's no point in me responding to individual points if you can't even bother to get my species right, is kind of a future reference thing.

You have the wrong person mate, unless you are talking about the 'username' itself. :D :D

I find it odd that users use neutral ratings when financial transactions occur but do not use neutral ratings when making character assessments on trustworthy behavior. Seems like the neutral ratings feature that was added a while ago isn't being used efficiently. Forum posting behavior is absolutely an indicator of trustworthiness so I don't blame any user for wanting to tag someone but red trust seems a bit harsh unless that person willfully or attempted to steal from someone.


Have you considered a neutral trust rating if you do not trust the person? Readding the rating over the counters seems a bit harsh, yes?

I have emphasized, and proven that the use of neutral trust ratings is useless and have never prevented any damage on this place for many years. I am strongly against almost any use of it other than leaving notes or reminders.

What counters? My trust list is unique, and I have not seen a single counter on any of the mentioned profiles. Countering counters consistently would be very harsh, yes.

I was referring to teeGUMES's rating on eddie13's account that was added on December 28th, 2019

In the grand scheme of things the trust rating isn't going to change but the downside is that it can chronologically mess with users leaving counter trust ratings, if they choose to do so in a situation where there are differing views on whether the account should be tagged or not.

Why have you been continually removing and replacing your shitrating if you didn't see any counters? Eh?



https://i.imgur.com/N4EoqwT.png

Gyfts is probably talking about all of those counters by DT members countering your shitrating..


That is 4 DT members countering your feedback that you keep removing and replacing..

I don't use DT, thus they are not counters for me. You're assuming a conclusion in your premises, thus all of it is wrong.

That's new, but doesn't surprise me. He's just butthurt from the past, but I guess "countering" solely because you're butthurt or have an vendetta against someone is not abuse but countering such a counter is. ::) I don't usually counter anything, I write updates and corrections.

---

Lauda is not DT, thus why the fuck you keep being butthurt about my ratings? Don't like the rating that much? ~Lauda. If this isn't a sufficient solution to non-DT ratings for you, then you have an obsession and I suggest you talk to a professional about it.