Well that is exactly the point. Why "report" or red trust any person or project that is not confirmed as a scam or STRONGLY intending to scam.  You can not have it both ways. I mean if you consider a gambling site with no address , no lic, no ID's for the owners not to be likely to scam then fair enough leave them alone. If they have NOT scammed and  you don't consider them not having any contact details available meets the STRONG threshold for intending to scam, then leave them alone and in peace until issues crop up. Perhaps they have other reasons for withholding their ids that are not related to scamming at all.

I say don't poke your nose into peoples business unless they are scammers or strongly intending to scam. DT's running around being all righteous and actively tagging ANYONE they think could "possibly" be thinking of scamming in the distant future should rather be challenging them and questioning them if they must do something on thread, not just giving out red trust on a hunch because the "offending party" demonstrated some behaviour a DT didn't personally approve of for their own selfish reasons.

The point is you can not have it both ways just because it suits you to.

It is quite simple. Who is more likely to scam.

casino1 - has a lic, known IDS of owners, known address of owners all confirmed.
casino2 - nothing known about the owners at all

Casino2 is more likely to scam or one could view it as more risky. However, that does not mean they WILL scam. If they have been functioning for years then perhaps they will not scam at all. Nobody knows. The person using these facilities should do their own DD.

However, if you are willing to go much further than not tagging but actually to help promote casino2 and not flag it or red tag them then you can not go and support DT's that go and red trust on a hunch or some tenuous and pathetically weak sauce case that "possibly" could suggest they may be untrustworthy in the future. You are sanctioning and approving their actions of preemptive scam tagging for their perceived "risk", but then want to allow "high risk" and promote it when it suits you?

I hope you can start to grasp how that is double standards.

I can see that thule has made a valid point concerning double standards. I see no possible refutation of that part.

If you can explain how the double standards concern is baseless then I am interested to see what you will present.

Double standards are always worth pointing out since they demonstrate lack of judgement or willful untrustworthy behaviour.

From what I can see Hhampuz is not a trust abuser directly but will still willfully support those that do abuse the trust system. He is more tolerable than the direct abusers themselves but he enables them to abuse so still needs to be held accountable.

If you support those persons on DT that will give out red on a "suspicion" or for a "possible" scam or even just to those that present unpopular facts that happen to be the TRUTH then you behaviour should be judged against those standards.

I am clearly saying that you are a person who SUPPORTS those that do FAR worse.
Exclude those that do run around painting accounts red for pointing out the fact they are liars then I can take you more seriously.
You openly support in DT some of the most shady individuals here. You also happen to exclude the same persons.

I am not saying you are as bad as they are. However even supporting these types opens you up to criticisms that would otherwise perhaps have no grounding.

If you do NOT support red trusting persons on NON scamming issues then that is different. Please demonstrate this by excluding proven trust abusers and proven liars who go much further and use red trust to silence the truth of their wrong doing being spoken.

Campaign managers are in a very precarious position when you think about this because their behaviour reflects upon 1/ the project and their choice to hire you, 2/ the investors in those projects (if icos I mean any project using someone who openly supports liars, trust abusers, and other such shady events in their history clearly are not doing their research)  3/ the sig spammers who rely on payments.

So any mud that sticks to a campaign manager not only damages them it damages the project that chooses to use them. If projects were made aware of this but still decided to use their services then that could look even worse for them.

I would distance myself from any persons that have observable events in their history that casts them in a very untrustworthy light. I would certainly not be seen to advocate their placement in a trust system and also collude to exclude those persons they exclude.

It is not only the actions you take that reflect upon you, it is also the actions of those that you openly support and seemingly condone on the one hand then wonder why people are questioning your double standards when you seem very willing to wait for proof of scam when it benefits you financially.

Eventually those that seem entrenched in the DT and merit cycle of power will start to lose their grasp on such power and those that thought it prudent to support them will regret it,  that will always be their in their post history.

That laudas cat club thread or whatever (that you started) was funny but i think that club needs to realise they must undo their trust abuse and clean up their act else that club has no future here except to be made pariahs.

@hulla

If someone does something that is proven untrustworthy and you know this to be the case yet you still promote them or enable them into positions of trust that therefore shows bad character.

This though was just my disclaimer and not really attached to main and relevant part of my post.

The point that I make about the double standards NOT just of Hhampuz but actually more in relation to the noob ass licking trash who oppose waiting for proof of scam or at a minimum a solid case to suggest STRONGLY intention of scam before red trusting who are now claiming there is no proof of scam here.

You either want to wait for proof of scam or else you are going to make preemptive red strikes against those you think are displaying behaviours that suggest they could intend to scam. For instance masking their ID's/addresses to limit and prevent any retribution IF they do scam.

I am of the opinion that one should wait for EVIDENCE or PROOF of scam before giving the scam tag or some behaviour that STRONGLY suggests intent to scam. However hhampuz supports clearly red tagging for merely speaking the truth about his pals as he has openly supported them with his inclusions and also some of his prior posts.

So that's where we are. Double standards, supporting proven liars, proven and self confessed trust abusers, and now working with and supporting/promoting/being paid by "possibly" dubious projects himself.

I mean this is a debate so people are free to make their rebuttals to my posts. I welcome them and any debate on these types of issues.

I do not trust hhampuz.
The reason for that is quite simply he supports proven liars and trust abusers on DT. That alone is reason enough to doubt him. I do not say he is as bad as some but merely supporting them is enough to create sensible suspicion and caution.

I think Thule does have a clear point here after reading through the thread.

If ico's were demonstrating these clear and obvious ID avoidance tactics they could be presumed "possible" scams.
Many DT's would be slapping red on them and anyone that supported them.

I mean ask yourself what means of retribution would you have if these casinos did scam you?

I observe clear double standards once again. On the one hand they fight against the implementation of criteria that would mean red trust can be applied  ONLY to scammers or  those STRONGLY likely to scam. Rather they are claiming it is too late by then and a preemptive strike against them is required to save people from these "possible" scams.

However, here I notice the same people demanding to see proof of scam before any action or criticism is forthcoming from them. Almost defending the ID avoidance tactics now it suits them.

I say that a "responsible" member would not be promoting nor enabling these types of casinos if they want to take the "preemptive" action they advocate for everyone else and any project they are not making money from.
If they believe innocent until they scam or try to scam then fair enough, but their prior arguments suggest this is clear selfishly motivated double standards.

It all boils down to making some btc dust.

And several years of history here to look at before being "trusted"

Fair enough. I respect your answer and thanks, the same to you to.

Why would giving you praise cause you to dislike me?

Not giving a fuck is fine. That is your call.

There is no debate. I am just presenting observable events.

Anyway, I will not contribute further to this thread unless you wish to debate anything I have said or if anyone else does. If you wish to term my prior post as "that shit" then fair enough. However, it does not stop it being the observable truth of how the mechanisms of control operate here currently and the dangerous implications associated with them.

I hope you get more merits or just get made a legend already - if you are really here to help then you are a legend already. I would rather see them go to you than the most serious abusers of the systems whom know full well how they operate and deliberately exploit them.

Mikey Mikey Mikey - please don't fail to over look the praise I have given you already. So it is not like I am having a go at you.

Let's examine your post and take it apart as I have done so with every other post you have made that makes a faux rebuttal of my observably true statements. This all relates back to my thread called the most important thread of the
year. I mean  just trace back through our prior debates. You will notice that you vanish when I start nailing you down to details. You either do not understand how it observably works or you are choosing to ignore it and feign ignorance.


1. you hang in meta = yes or no  

that would be yes.

2. you again try to defend the broken systems of control = yes or no

that would be yes and actually support them

3. you call observable fact relating to how the systems of control DO function and their implications a "conspiracy theory"

again true

4. you continue to use your anecdotal experience as validation for your false claims and general lack of understanding of these abused systems. Even after I have taken time to break it down and explain it to you many times.

again true

5. you claim to not be ass kissing or defending the DT abusers, but yet call accurate descriptions of their abuse and behaviours and its implications " conspiracy theories" therefore seeking to discredit the evidence provided.

again true

6. You see being familiar with other "meta" posters does not mean you will essentially gain their merit favour purely on meta board. Once you are on their merit merry go around ( observably aligned with their agendas) they admit they bookmark their fav posters and just search their post histories to bestow merits.

Merit system is the source of their power to abuse, it is the tool to influence or even crush free speech.

again true

Now let's be sensible.  You helping some new people with some issues resolve them is noble and deserving of merit indeed. However, my quest to bring forth a transparent and fair system ensuring equal treatment for all whilst preserving free speech for no direct personal gain and actually the destruction of my own account  -- well as you can imagine that is equally as noble and has far larger implications. That is without boring you all over again with my prior achievements.

Let's not get up set with each other. As I have said my main beef with you is not that you are a trust abuser, nor seemingly that unfair. It is that you are proliferating false information which is misleading and damaging to the freedom of speech of this board.

Now, I would suggest again that you go and read that thread of the year thread and keep reading it over until you grasp that it is not a debate, it is not an opinion and rather it is an accurate and observably correct presentation of how the systems of control merit and trust operate and the damage they are inflicting on free speech. Not only that, but there is built in motive and financial incentive to abuse the systems.

Now before responding here. Go and respond to one of the other debates we were having until you just vanished or go read the thread of the year and understand the full implications of the merit system "which you are promoting here"

People that keep saying pre merit members were lucky or got easy merit are being disrespectful to those that accomplished many amazing things and made posts that were far far better than the vast majority of "high" merit cyclers are even capable of.  I mean some say "most" pre merit legends are spammers....imagine that kind of crazy allowed to proliferate.

Now again, well done on your merits , but stop making far reaching statements that are simply not true or at best misleading and inaccurate.

I have no idea why you are so upset since I said you were likely more deserving for your efforts than most of the cyclers. Certainly though you need to read more before posting on certain aspects of this forum. Experience and knowledge of many members histories and previous events here are paramount really when making a case for certain admin level changes or even commenting on the systems of control. Hence why I think most noobs should not be hanging in meta at all. Most are here to merit up, rank up , sig banner up, spam with impunity. Simple as that. Although that is the same for most of the meta club as we can observe.

I knew that would be your first concern.

Up your spamming rate ...quickkkkkkkk

This is  a fair point.

Well we are ALL financially motivated or were. It is natural. Anyone claiming they are not or were not at some point are likely lying.

However, deliberately text spinning others work, spamming, scamming, pumping garbage projects and doing anything that they know is ruining this entire movement and diluting others hard work is damaging. When they leave it is not like a tree running out of sap. It is like a tree no longer saturated in destructive parasites. We can not say at all their leaving is going to have a negative impact on the movement as a whole.

Actually anyone -- rich or poor , noob or admin that are willing to damage/game the board or the environment here for "extra" financial gain would not be missed imho. Numbers are not so important as a strong cohesive group.

I am just saying an organism ridding itself of net negative parasites is not a weaker or dying organism. This is a false assumption.

No. Those are simply the financially motivated shit posting scum that were ruining the place. Just another 33.3% reduction and we will start to see far more useful collisions between real enthusiasts.

Next we just need 70% of the current DT to leave and the systems of control to be fixed up a bit and we will be flying again.

These reductions in numbers of quick buck spammers are GOOD for bitcoin and this movement in general.

Don't fool yourself they will be staying away though... as soon as they smell a good old bull run coming then expect them to return.

Nobody who discovers crypto ever really leaves. Only the enthusiasts stick around during long bears.

This is clearly not true. You need to wake up and see most "new" members are only interested in the discussion boards or ann boards. It is very strange for a new member to join a board to sit around on the meta section spouting support for clearly broken systems that control the members of that board and those manipulative and proven untrustworthy controllers.

The "lucky" airdropped merit group did a lot more for this board than the "self " cycled merit gang. Some people were clearly shafted by the airdrop when matched to the actual contributions they made here. They still are being shafted because they are primarily working to fill the missing pieces of this end to end trustless decentralised arena and have no interest in the "merit" boards.

Noobs here that have a lot of merits generally follow this pattern

1. highly active in meta (strange)
2. highly supportive of the broken systems of control
3. Never "fall out" with the merit merry go round cyclers, and tend to regurgitate their nonsense repeatedly.
4. Oppose strongly those that
a/ prove how broken the systems are
b/reveal the manipulations and gaming of those systems for selfish gain employed by the "merit merry go round crew"
5. Slap on a gambling/mixing sig and start their own gainZ

Merit is at best misleading and is certainly impinges on free speech. It is the worst thing that happened to bct aside from icos. It would have been okay if it was left as a hurdle for account farmers and bots. Trying to apply any other meaning to it and saying it equates to trust is of course false.

Mikey is more worthy of merit than most of the merit merry go round but still has no real idea of how thing ACTUALLY operate so continues to spout nonsense and runs from any debates that start to lead to the trust in plain sight. He tries to be fair in some cases. However it is annoying to constantly see this merit system fanzine from him. I have taken time to demonstrate how it is broken and abused pal credits that impinges on free speech and yet I see him still blathering on about how great and fair it is.

Stop pushing merit like it is actually "MERIT". It is political pal credits in the vast majority of cases. It is misleading and dangerous junk.

Congrats to you Mikey that is fair enough but stop with the other false and ridiculous assumptions that you seem to KEEP making about the merit system.

TLDR

1. noobs that hang in meta supporting provably broken systems and their abusers = high merit
2. noobs that don't hang in meta supporting provably broken systems and their abusers = low merit
3. noobs that don't know about meta board and just use the discussion/ann boards = low merit
4. noobs that present the truth regarding the systems of control and the abusers of those systems = no merit

Mikey? did you get the point I am making or not. I have not heard back from you since the last post that I made.

Do you understand now how "less" in number can actually = more decentralised in real terms pf diversity that is relevant and useful and the reverse?

How long do we have to migrate or is it open ended ?  is there a cut off for the migration from safex wallet to the new safex token?

where is the best video or tutorial?

That's good to know. Set's kind of precedent doesn't it. Since I notice his were financially motivated after looking more closely. Although clearly he is net positive for the forum being a larger scale trader. Than a couple of errors of judgement. Still that should me that anyone NOT copy and pasting for money should get back on with perhaps a sig ban too.

What were the terms?

2 year sig ban?

Really? show me the clear explanation to which I said "why" to?  I still have no idea what you are hinting at but will not just come out and say it. I have no idea why you are telling me that I should look through the feedback on your trust section.

Anyway let's drop that because you obviously don't want to express you meaning clearly for some reason.?

Your other points about NOBODY caring.
That could be a good idea for a poll.  I had not considered nobody would care about this kind of thing. Seems they do care but only if non "gang" members do it. Well this is meta so I will not rule out most or all not caring if one of "their own" is caught out in such greedy and sneaky deeds.

I again challenge you to demonstrate that my posts are trolling. I am still waiting for anyone to present the incorrect information that I am presenting. Looks to me that it is accurate, important and revealing. My posts seem to be the best posts on meta that I am reading here. I mean again if you can present a post here in meta (made since I have been posting here regularly)  that is better than my most important thread of the year in terms of it has  larger implications for this board and its members then come and present it now.

The truth is most of the "top merit cyclers" and DT members are nothing burger shit posters that just spout politically motivated nonsense and regurgitate and reiterate the "gangs" great "ideas" and coaxing "suggestions" that serve their own financially motivated self interests and not the forums. Or just discuss their merits they have cycled to each other. There are some notable exceptions but barely a handful.

Who then all back slap each other with merits and include each other on DT. Hence now have completely entrenched themselves the layers of control under admin that are far more dangerous and have no real accountability except to each other. They all then collude to say any wrong doing that is discovered is nothing " and nobody even cares about it"..

Well, I care. I care because when I have senior members saying they dare not speak up and say what they wish (even thought there is no RULES to prevent them) I know something very troublesome is happening here to this forum.

What fallout? of course I know the thread, but I just don't see why you are mentioning it? and how it is related to your sent trust that I need to focus on? why should I focus on that rather than the politically motivated merits and generally making a mockery of the merit system?

Walk me through it starting from where I say I would indeed like to see him removed from merit source and DT on the grounds that I have already demonstrated to be true. Why do I need to focus on your sent trust more than on your abuse of the merit system?

Before I reply to you in full ( after I am back from my morning massage) I still need you to clear up your last point. I don't see what you are talking about. Your sent trust feedback?  how is this related to this thread? can you just detail what you are saying. I don't have time for guessing games.

I'm glad you just posted that. I will be using that frequently now that you openly condone it or don't care if it happens.
It demonstrates that you are fully aware and that is your attitude to such a person being in a position of trust. Thanks, your politically motivated merit abuse is being confirmed by your each subsequent post that you make now.

NOBODY CARES??? oh really so nobody cares if one of your gang is a sneaky greedy racist troll using a sock puppet to spam for extra btc dust?  

EVERYBODY DOES CARE  if other persons dare to troll , financial motivated shit post, use puppet accounts to do so? but nobody cares if the pharmacist aka huge black woman combines all three haha ,...... actually merit him for defending his actions and pretending not to know what I am talking about, then running off when I come to debate with him. You are funny.

Lol fox poop you need removal from merit source you are making the system a  mockery. You just merited a post that is making false accusations, pretending not to know what I am specifically talking about, and general cowardly sneaky sniping tactics because he knows I will pull him apart on this thread if he engages with me.

I would say you are the number 1 politically motivated merit abuser on this board.

Nobody cares - you heard it here. Untrustworthy greedy sneaky actions by "pals" nobody cares.

You know what happened last time??? what does that mean?