It is interesting that a forum moderator is engaging in censorship via a self moderated thread, and is trolling in others. This is particularly concerning given how much the forum values free speech. None of the posts in this thread are off topic, and all are attempting to add to the discussion. I guess this fits the left's belief that free speech is bad, and that ideas should not be debated, but rather that opposing ideas should be shouted down. Sad This demonstrates clearly Flying Hellfish either judges people or judges them based on his opinions of their opinions, but most certainly does not judge people based on the merit of their words. It most certainly looks that way.
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Mueller's report established multiple links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government... they were working towards the same goal and both benefited from working together!
Collusion delusion for sure...
This is fake news. Trump wanted to establish a better relationship with Russia, but his foreign relations policies were not pro-Russia except to the extent that Russia might have benefited from a better US-Russia relationship, the US however would likely have realized greater benefits though. A Clinton presidency on the other hand would have benefited Russia much more, both on relative terms and overall. It is also more likely Russia has dirt on Clinton that could be used to influence her. Russia wanted to make its "support" of Trump transparent so in the unlikely event Trump won, trust in US elections would be eroded, and so that Trumps ability to implement pro-US policy's would be diminished. |
|
|
|
Alright lads so what about "I'm fucked part"?
If I assume there is nothing they can find against me, why would I react this way?
The conversation was surrounding the impact of having a special counsel to his Presidency. It was being discussed that a special counsel will prevent Trump's presidency from getting things done, which is what happened. Trump also lost the political momentum that he had from being just elected. |
|
|
|
LoyceV, would you be able to calculate the sum of all trust scores of one's "excluders"? Or sum of merit scores? Perhaps do the same for "includers" and then calculate the difference. Or some sort of other metric in addition to the number of exclusions, which is heavily skewed by sockpuppets and bus-and-bicycle schemes.
None of that means anything when 15 people have sent 20.7% of all merit ever sent. All any of that would be would be a reflection of the opinions of those 15 people.... Well, if receiving merits from top 15 means reflecting their opinion then stop arguing with me and toe the line. Or maybe you're wrong and should reconsider turning every thread into your DT/merit whinefest. I am just pointing out that considering that who is on DT is ultimately based on merit, and that 15 people have given out over 20% of all merit, any trust or merit stat is going to be skewed heavily towards what those 15 people want. Some of these people are trustworthy, others, not so much, but none of them have come close to demonstrating it is appropriate to having anywhere near the amount of influence they have. |
|
|
|
LoyceV, would you be able to calculate the sum of all trust scores of one's "excluders"? Or sum of merit scores? Perhaps do the same for "includers" and then calculate the difference. Or some sort of other metric in addition to the number of exclusions, which is heavily skewed by sockpuppets and bus-and-bicycle schemes.
None of that means anything when 15 people have sent 20.7% of all merit ever sent. All any of that would be would be a reflection of the opinions of those 15 people.... For some people on the list, it appears there is an effort to coerce people into distrusting them.
I can see where there might possible be an effort to coerce someone to either remove or not include someone on the trust list. However, I think when someone takes the extra step to actually exclude someone from the trust lists, that person is pretty committed to the idea. Not necessarily when the person is being threatened with negative trust for frivolous reasons or being excluded for no reason. People tend to care about their reputations and generally will not be opposed to excluding someone if it means protecting their own reputation. |
|
|
|
It is interesting that a forum moderator is engaging in censorship via a self moderated thread, and is trolling in others. This is particularly concerning given how much the forum values free speech. None of the posts in this thread are off topic, and all are attempting to add to the discussion. I guess this fits the left's belief that free speech is bad, and that ideas should not be debated, but rather that opposing ideas should be shouted down. Sad |
|
|
|
|
For some people on the list, it appears there is an effort to coerce people into distrusting them. For others, it appears there is a wide consensus for them to not be on DT, but they are anyway because a very small number of people.
The whole idea of having trust exclusions is stupid and gives people cover for having someone untrustworthy in their trust list. If someone is on Alice’s trust list who is untrustworthy, then Alice should remove that untrustworthy person and if she refuses, Alice has no business being on anyone’s trust list.
|
|
|
|
Good luck trying to get feedback removed from Lauda. Not likely to happen, bud.
Do you think this because you think the rating is legitimate or because lauda doesn’t act reasonably What, only two choices? I wrote what I wrote because I know that once Lauda leaves a neg, it is not often reversed. I did not even read what was written in either of his negs from Lauda. I just took a quick glance at his trust page and noticed that there were two (and one positive not from Lauda). Don't try to ensnare me in your autistic little traps. This sounds like you think lauda doesn’t act reasonably (and that you support it). Good to know. If you are what is essentially taking laudas side without even looking at the rating in question, it looks like you are just blindly taking his side. |
|
|
|
Good luck trying to get feedback removed from Lauda. Not likely to happen, bud.
Do you think this because you think the rating is legitimate or because lauda doesn’t act reasonably |
|
|
|
This is not going to do very much. A manager does not need to be "not banned" to do their job as a manager, and they could potentially do their job in its entirety off the forum without even disclosing their account. Fair point. How about blacklisting then, as explained in the post I linked to above. If YoBit don't clean up their act, then YoBit as an entity will be banned from advertising on the forum. I still think we should be handing out escalating bans to the individual spammers though. I have long advocated for reports regarding damage done via individual company's signature campaigns in the form of number of bans issued, and posts deleted (and associated reasons). I think this would work great with the blacklisting idea. If your campaign has x number of posts deleted for spam, or x number of users banned for spamming, in y number of days/weeks, you get a warning. Repeat offending companies or entities are blacklisted. In order for a company to be blacklisted from advertising they would need to enroll in a signature subscription (with confirmation by the advertiser) service by the forum so to prevent someone from enrolling a bunch of accounts to wear a company's signature to create a bunch of shit posts and get the company banned from advertising. The threshold for blacklisting from advertising on the forum would be very high. It currently takes a lot for a person to get banned, even temporally for having insubstantial posts with a paid signature, and bans are generally only handed out after a sustained negative behavior and after a number of warnings (often in the form of deleted posts) are given out. The time required to have someone blacklisted would likely be a minimum of multiple months so that a company can evaluate performance and take corrective action. I do agree we should continue to punish spammers in the form of posting bans, and perhaps signature bans (and perhaps incrementally diminished signature abilities).
This is not going to do very much. A manager does not need to be "not banned" to do their job as a manager, and they could potentially do their job in its entirety off the forum without even disclosing their account. Which is exactly what's happening here: something that I've feared. High-count low-effort campaigns that induce spam, hosted off-forum. [/quote]I think this is one result of the long-term systemic abuse abuse of the trust system via the leaving of negative ratings for reasons other than someone reasonably being a scammer. There are a number of by all accounts, legitimately running businesses that have negative trust on bitcointalk, and do not have much to lose by running a signature campaign that spams this place up. Although in this case the rating may be justified. |
|
|
|
|
Lauda runs bounty campaigns and this is one way that he prevents others from competing with him for work.
Lauda is not going to remove the rating or discuss it with you in good faith.
|
|
|
|
The United States of Russia, Congrats USR you're criminally justice obstructing POTUS and his campaign were actively working with Russians to affect the your elections in Trump's favour!
The report was pretty clear in saying that Trump and his campaign were NOT working with Russians... |
|
|
|
We need bans. Bans for [...] managers who enable the spammers.
This is not going to do very much. A manager does not need to be "not banned" to do their job as a manager, and they could potentially do their job in its entirety off the forum without even disclosing their account. I have long advocated for reports regarding damage done via individual company's signature campaigns in the form of number of bans issued, and posts deleted (and associated reasons). theymos had previously broached the idea of people subscribing to a signature, but perhaps the "author" of a subscription could (optionally) need to authorize subscriptions so to prevent spammers subscribing to signatures with the intent of making a company/manager look bad |
|
|
|
|
I hope you got permission to do this ahead of time.
It isn’t any secret that it is possible to make large amounts of posts in short periods of time. The merit system has somewhat curtailed this by preventing shitposters (among others) from ranking up. If someone can’t rank up, the ad they display won’t be as attractive to advertisers.
As a side note, someone could potentially create many useful posts in a short period of time (although maybe not 100 posts in an hour), if you have sufficient knowledge of bitcoin related subjects.
|
|
|
|
Any idea on which page this is on? Very curious to see what the Russians are using Bitcoin for, even if it is neutral.
Pages 36-37 and 41. They mined and bought bitcoins and then used them to buy domain names and hosting, it seems. This is a also a nice quote: Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated -- including some associated with the Trump Campaign -- deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Lesson: always use encryption. If you are implying that using encryption will give you a license to lie to the government, I would suggest you reconsider this stance. Whenever you are using encryption in this regard, you are always communicating with someone else. If the person you are communicating with gives up their communication keys, via corporation or otherwise will potentially allow the government to view your communications (depending on the platform), and using a means to conceal a crime is generally going to lead to a more harsh punishment if/when caught. |
|
|
|
Quickseller at least refunded the users he wronged...
No, he didn't. That is an explicit, intentional lie. You very clearly have no understanding what it means to have integrity -- you make excuses and provide cover for those who steal from others (but help you), and you lie about those who are critical of you. You are a disgrace to Bitcoin and to this forum. |
|
|
|
Now now, boys. Semantics; Maybe OgNasty did say half of his NastyMining income is going to personal expenses, but that's not the same thing as half of NastyMining's income going to OgNasty's personal expenses.
OG wants to play the the "remember when?" game.  That's where you indirectly accuse someone of something by asking a question. The key is to make the question so close to the truth so that as many people as possible believe it. You literally just accused him of being a scammer for spending his own money.... I am not sure what kind of twisted logic you had to use to come to this conclusion. I don’t think the trust system is even worth debating with you considering you don’t even understand how it works and your denying of facts that don’t support your position and your outright fabrications. Most people abandon their accounts (and often the forum) after you troll them and don’t bother to address their defenses. OgN is right in saying that you only care about your ranking to stroke your ego. You would troll TECSHARE for months, only to stop when threatened with an exclusion from BadBear, which caused you to quickly remove the ratings against him. You will do whatever it takes to increase your stats here, regardless of how anyone else is affected. |
|
|
|
Reference? 4. No referral code (ref link) spam. [1] I tried this when I was a Newbie, and quickly learned it's not allowed when my posts were deleted. I still have the PMs: Read June 30, 2015, 09:57:35 PM Deleted Post Bitcoin Forum
Read July 01, 2015, 08:11:10 AM Deleted Post Bitcoin Forum
Read July 01, 2015, 12:49:47 PM Deleted Post Bitcoin Forum Perhaps we read this differently: 1 Irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to a large number of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.
[...]1.1 Unwanted or intrusive advertising on the Internet. My understanding and reading of the rule is that referral links are not disallowed, but that you cannot go around randomly posting the link when doing so is not relevant. There might be cases in which a referral link is necessary to answer a question, for example if a website requires a referral to sign up. |
|
|
|
I've seen tons of threads where OP asks people to sign up on X site for 0.1$ et al, and i'm pretty sure those didn't get deleted.. Another thread doing the same thing doesn't seem to be deleted?; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5131369.0 " Paying users $0.50 to sign up for a website, will be less than a minute" Those threads ask to PM for the referal code, marcotheminer showed it in his post. The former is allowed, the latter isn't.
Reference? |
|
|
|
Neither of those links are harming anyone. Nor have any potential to harm anyone. The FBI does have a tip line, and a page on their website where people can submit tips.
It appears your motives are that you don’t want anyone being critical of you or others within a certain group.
Ever heard of phishing? Neither of the links in question are phishing links.... |
|
|
|
|
You have been either trying to take out a loan, or have had a loan outstanding almost the entire time since you have returned.
Could you answer my question, regardless of your dispute of its predicate?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
