Given most of the posts on this page and the previous page, I guess any serious Trump impeachment discussion has ended and is now devolving into conspiracy talk, Trump worship and the like. Awesome. I thought those that worship Trump and conspiracy theories had their own derivative thread to do that in.
Fair. The 'serious' part of the discussion has definitely been going down hill. Since the impeachment is over, I changed the subject to US Politics and updated the rules a little in OP in hopes a civil discussion can continue. A thread for civil discussion on US national politics, formerly known as "Donald Trump has been Impeached [Serious Discussion]" and "Donald Trump has been Impeached, what's next? [Serious Discussion]" Local Rules: - No baiting, trolling or flaming. - If you aren't interested in the opinions of those you disagree with, do not post in this thread. - If you aren't willing to make an effort at being objective, do not post in this thread. - No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments. - Don't be an asshole. - No spam. If you have a signature from a spammy signature campaign, and you make vague post about US politics, I'll probably just delete it. If you don't like these rules, TECSHARE created a thread that isn't self moderated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201320.0
Please guys, at least make an attempt to consider each situation objectively ( ask yourself "would I have the same view of a specific situation if the parties were reversed?" ), avoid personal insults and responding to posts with political talking points from either side. I don't like deleting posts, I'm doing it because there's obviously no intention of trying to have a serious discussion in these posts, not because I disagree with you. Examples of things that will get your post deleted: They even got their conspiracy theories to the Senate this time!! Impressive!!
The piss tape conspiracy wasn't half bad either.. Good entertainment.. What's next?
Trump's been Impeached.
What's next?
Twitch recommends cheating the Wall Street Journal
So what's next?
Flynn gets off. What else is next?
Trump-Hate-a-GoGo.
State of the Union.
The babies cry about their Trump-hate.
Formal vote on "impeachment."
More Trump-hate.
Highest rating ever for Trump.
The reeking stink of the Trump-haters.
What else is next? Ever heard of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?
(don't bother babbling that it does not apply to Trump) So, you've lost. I hope you and your similarly minded propagandists and socialist operatives are finally finished with this nonsense. Yes, lets all move on from how obviously wrong you were for supporting an illegal coup attempt perpetrated by known criminals and move to other topics! You don't like deleting posts, or you don't like deleting posts that agree with you? Seems like there are more than a few perfectly valid deleted posts above. |
|
|
|
You can't understand the substiation. I have tried hard to explain it. Everyone else can though, and that's what matters.
You can keep posting that my claims have no basis if you think being a parrot will work for you. :/ You [TECSHARE] can't understand the substiation. I have tried hard to explain it. Everyone else can though, and that's what matters. Boldface: Thanks for the TL;DR of a part of what I just said. ;-) You can keep posting that my claims have no basis if you think being a parrot will work for you. :/ Here, let me update my post for you: I wish I had your [nullius’] ability to ignore unethical idiots. :/ I find it beneficial to the health. :/ You know the aphorism about “wrestling with a pig”; and... Good to know you speak for everyone now Vod. You keep claiming you substantiated your claims, and I just simply don't understand it. Please quote your substantiation, surely you can manage that much right? You and Nullius just keep making claims, and he claims your claim is substantiation for his claim, except you never substantiated your claim. This is your usual method of operation, as can be seen for pages and pages here. You just topic slide, claim you proved your accusations, make more accusations, get your buddies to parrot you, and repeat. You never substantiated ANY of your claims against me that you have negative rated me over. |
|
|
|
|
The PM from Theymos was unsolicited and a response to the thread I linked, but feel free to just invent whatever narrative you prefer to proliferate like you always do.
|
|
|
|
Theymos has stated you do not belong anywhere near DT. I don't think he has ever stated that about me. He has done the honorable thing and removed himself as DT overseer. That is why he doesn't exclude you or include me anymore - he knows the community will do the right thing.  Yep, that was 5 years ago Vod, here you are still trying to ride that original demonization wave. He doesn't just not include you, he explicitly excludes you. That is explicitly him saying he doesn't think you use the trust system in valid ways. You are the one who brought Theymos's opinions into this. Sorry if that kind of backfired on you, but that is usually how your baseless attacks end up. Then you feign remorse and start doing all the same shit again in a few weeks. |
|
|
|
I wish I had your ability to ignore unethical idiots. :/ I find it beneficial to the health. :/ You know the aphorism about “wrestling with a pig”; and... ...I don’t run on that track. OK bud - when Techy claims to win because you won't reply, I'll point users to this information. Thanks. Though I am not exactly afraid of TECSHARE making ten thousand posts on this forum, excitedly announcing that he “won” an Internet Argument because I explicitly refused to waste my time arguing with accusations by a known troll that any reasonable person can see are wrong. LOL. Anybody whose opinion actually matters will see that I am simply ignoring a pro-grade Internet Arguer who is trying to bully me with high-volume nonsense. That is what an impartial observer will see as for me—unlike suchmoon, who has spent the past nine pages dodging and then ignoring, inter alia, the iron logic of a simple syllogism, “If ~nullius, then ~Vod; if not ~Vod, then not ~nullius” over the singular tag for which she initially declared she would exclude me. (Her and eddie’s attempts to shift the goalposts notwithstanding.) Whereas if xolxol and similar creatures declare that TECSHARE “won”, then—well, I couldn’t care less.
Evidently addressing TECSHARE and Vod in the context:Are you guys still fighting behind this? Come on, y'all can forgive and forget.
I mean, Quickseller and Lauda had a dispute for years, and if they could come to terms with each other, you can too. That’s a quite different situation, not really relevant here; if warranted, I will address it in the pertinent thread. The summary is that it has evidently been a process of two parties starting from a position of extreme mutual distrust, and slowly working toward the start of a common understanding with a hopeful future. I must note the mutual distrust, in fairness to Quickseller: I have obviously and unapologetically always been on Lauda’s side in that dispute; and I must recognize that Quickseller had his own perspective on that, even if I think his perspective was dead wrong. I really don’t think it is a matter of “Eh, shrug, ‘forgive and forget’.” Not for either of them—and I would not trivialize it that way. Thus, sorry, I actually don’t see what your point is—unless you are suggesting a forecast that TECSHARE will go through a long period of not attacking Vod, and then suddenly, publicly, unilaterally apologize to Vod for years-old threads, with no assurance (or even rational expectation) that the reply will not be, “Too little, too late; go die in a fire”? It actually takes some sincerity and courage to do that. Whereas this is TECSHARE’s response to Lauda’s announcement of the new peace between herself and Quickseller: Trolling with bait to ignite a flamewar by derailing the peace thread into a “dozen or so” other ongoing fights in other threads, i.e. more “winning” in the retarded sense.http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5379/53799851.htmlNow only to get to the other dozen or so people you attack... Quickseller was never a simple troll. (I always accused him of worse in the sense of “evil mastermind”; but that is beside the point.) And I must remark, although he said earlier in this thread that he disagrees with my tag on TECSHARE, he has been fair here in the way that I can “agree to disagree”. Anyway, pugman, I would not hold out much hope for any kind of peace with TECSHARE when he himself reacts to others’ newfound amicability by trying to start a fight.
That statement wasn't directed at you. I appreciate the clarification. Sorry I scrolled straight past a post in almost illegibly bad English by an alleged/putative CH sock in the short span between this... ~ Demanding me to address some "points" sounds an awful lot like cryptohunter...and this: Hey cryptocunt, you try two hardy notttalky the inglich good. I furthermore presumed that insults were directed at me, because I am the topic of this thread, wherein you have previously seen fit to call me a... complete buffoon ...as part of your life advice to me, which I duly filed in “taken under advisement”. 🗑️ In the future, when cryptohunter has been mentioned, I will try to pay more attention to things that I would otherwise ignore, instead of drawing such inferences as seemed reasonable, but turned out to be in error. I will edit this post with an appropriate correction (clearly marked as an edit).
To avoid letting this post run too long and unwieldy, I must leave other issues for later. Another long winded screed with yet more accusations. Still no substantiation of your rating whatsoever from you or Vod, the accusation you are basing your own rating on. Just saying you trust Vod's word is not substantiation, even if it is enough to convince you personally. |
|
|
|
I've been the target of his finger for almost 5.5 years. I'd be curious what percentage of Techy's posts contain my name. :/
Thank you JaredKaragen for bring attention to my two negative trust entries against the OP. Is the general consensus they are valid?
I have stated who I trust, and I won't be making major changes soon. I have to finish a gift I think the community needs and will really enjoy.
I think in simplest forms for the recent neg trust that I analyzed: If we hold Theymos to be on a pedistal of "my word is law"... then; TEC can not be on DT. It was the easiest way for him to be removed back then, and since things are vastly different on the forum now; Assuming the above about theymos is to be held as law: your action continue that state of status quo by giving him that flag could be interpreted as ok; even though the flag system itself is to warn people about being scammed, ripped off or mislead (on the same level) by the individual getting the flag. If I am misinterpreting what the flag system is for; please correct me now.... but this is how I see it to be used. My recent red flag was to warn of a developer of a project that has mass investment, only to ignore the investors and produce nothing except losses. I see this as a reason to give the trust hit... I admit, I need to go back, and do my own little but more of digging on it as well; but the facts stood up to him being connected to such a thing. This is why; Its not a valid flag "prima face", but it is deemed necessary to return the status quo. IF the above is not correct... well.... You know my feelings by now I would think. I'm not sure about the second trust flag; as I don't think I even looked into it.... I myself removed myself from default trust and only have people added that I have personally done transactions/personal dealings with; or have never steered me wrong. As an outsider.... Its a tough thing to sort all of this out. But at least now I know; and TBH: I do feel for everyone involved in this. Hopefully... something amicable can come around. It has been nearly 6 years... The odds are in your favor for things to change for the better. But that isn't the "staus quo". This is exactly why Theymos made the trust system more decentralized, so he is not the ultimate arbiter of every little thing. Still, lets explore this avenue of reasoning... You say if Theymos is of the opinion I shouldn't be on default trust, then Vod's claim is some how correct? First of all, that doesn't substantiate any of Vod's claims that is just the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority". I understand your reasoning, but that is now how the system is supposed to operate. Even assuming you do believe that is how the system is designed to operate, Theymos removed his exclusion of me, what, like a year ago or something, I think. Vod is currently excluded by Theymos. If Theymos is the ultimate arbiter of truth in your mind, he clearly is at least indifferent to my participation in the trust system, and judged Vod's use of it invalid based on his exclusion. Again, none of this addresses the baseless nature of Vods accusations against me, or his well documented history of abusing the trust system against myself and others on the forum. |
|
|
|
Flying Hellfish can say he shits gold. That doesn't make it a fact. The section is under his moderation. If no one wants to take responsibility fine. Until that time, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume it was him in spite of your many highly synthesized protestations.
To be more specific, I don't care what you say. What he says is clearly relevant. I never claimed to prove anything. I am making a public log of moderator actions against my posts in the section. None of this changes the fact that only he and Theymos know for sure what happened.
Have you tried asking theymos if you're really so concerned about this alleged abuse and FHF allegedly lying about it? If you haven't (or if you have and FHF is still a moderator) then it's really hard to see your actions as anything other than a smear attempt. After Flying Hellfish very embarrassingly was caught moving posts around into unrelated sections to cause drama and being caught censoring OGNasty, I was explicitly directed by Theymos to make a post about any future complaints I have in Meta. This thread is exactly what I meant when I said "This environment is not really conductive to making public complaints.", and why my thread is locked. |
|
|
|
So, we agree FH does not get to defend himself from your wild accusations. As long as you prevent him, please don't complain if you perceive others preventing you from the same thing. Pathetic hypocrite.  TIL I have the power to silence moderators. You really, REALLY love projection don't you Vod? |
|
|
|
Certain users like marlboroza are intent on using "off topic" reports as a tool to silence any valid criticism against them. I am going to start reposting deleted posts in their appropriate thread so everyone can see exactly just how many off topic posts I have to defend myself from, and just how eager the mods are to delete my defenses, in my own threads, defending myself from these endless wild accusations.
Does FH get a chance to defend himself against your wild accusation? Nope - self moderated. You are asking him to prove his innocence (as you admit you don't have evidence to back the statement up) while complaining the rest of the community has double standards... There sure are a lot of tools here to silence hypocrites. :/ Yeah you are right, it is most likely you considering most of my removed posts are defending from your wild accusations. Of course is is hard to know for sure because you all operate as a collective when you think you smell blood in the water. Twist though, it is your own. |
|
|
|
Certain users like marlboroza are intent on using "off topic" reports as a tool to silence any valid criticism against them. I am going to start reposting deleted posts in their appropriate thread so everyone can see exactly just how many off topic posts I have to defend myself from, and just how eager the mods are to delete my defenses, in my own threads, defending myself from these endless wild accusations. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Why would anyone get the impression mods are bias against them when they aren't even allowed to defend themselves from accusations in a thread they created themselves to discuss it?
Stop shitposting, many posts have been removed from that thread, including my where I pointed you saying " no one cares about proofs of accusation". As for some other parts of this post, you said: Since the moderators have determined me defending myself from Vod's accusation in the thread about Nullius's trust system abuse is off topic, even though Vod's accusation is completely what it is based on, I guess I will just post my removed posts from there here since criticism of Vod's behavior always seems to be off topic even when it is very much on topic. And you quoted conversation between you and TwitchySeal, so you are accusing Vod and TwitchSeal that they are alt accounts. You are crazy. (not to mention that you said you posted PM because someone ignored you then you said it is not true - so you are crazy again.) Just accept that more people are accusing you, it is not Vod only. Archived for future reference: http://archive.is/wip/HNNqhSome how I don't find your observations to be very impartial considering your own history of trust system abuse against me. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213992.0 |
|
|
|
This outbreak checks a lot of boxes the CCP likes:
I don't think they'd do it to themselves intentionally. In Chinese culture, there's traditionally a belief that "luck" is actually sort of a skill, so the Chinese people are much more willing to blame the government for natural disasters and such. In other words, to the Chinese, this epidemic tends to come across as a direct failure of the government even before you consider any government response; it's not merely an uncontrollable event that the government might or might not rise to the challenge in handling, as we'd see it in the West. (In part, this is why the Chinese government likes to cover up these sorts of issues.) Their program of social credit & surveillance is IMO their most effective path toward controlling their population. Unless of course they can simply convince its population it was a Western bio-weapon, then that narrative would serve them well spurring nationalism as I already mentioned. |
|
|
|
british media is garbage, run by private businesses. there is in the end no media you can truly trust. The solution for bad speech is more free speech. |
|
|
|
if people want to keep other's posts out they should probably just self-moderate instead.
That wouldn't work for TECSHARE's mod abuse rants because Meta. He's basically using locking as a workaround for the lack of self-mod. One visit to the REE thread demonstrates pretty clearly why it is locked. That is the problem with removing the ability to use locked threads, people can just drown you out with sheer volume of posts. People being able to speak freely is a problem for some people like Suchmoon. |
|
|
|
|
This outbreak checks a lot of boxes the CCP likes:
-Justifies total lock down
-Effectively ends all legal dissent
-Perfect cover for rounding up dissidents
-Depopulation of an increasingly rebellious population they are losing control of & dependents
-Provides a good scapegoat for the failing economy
-Provides good fodder for spreading stories it was a Western attack to incite hatred & nationalism
-Provides a "controlled" environment to practice their bio-warfare defensive and offensive abilities
I am sure there is more, but this is what immediately comes to mind. The CCP sees life as being cheap, I wouldn't put this past them. When suspicious events happen, the first question should always be... cui bono?
|
|
|
|
This would totally negate the point of locked threads. Taking features from legitimate users to maybe possibly prevent some small amount of abuse is only going to result in less features on the forum. If people are abusing locked threads make your own post or leave a trust rating.
I would say the vast majority of people who lock and unlock their thread repeatedly and in quick succession do so to try avoid critical comments or warnings of their shady business. They bump the thread then quickly lock it hoping nobody will get the chance to chime in. I have thought in the past that there could be some sort of feature with a warning that if you lock your thread then you can't re-open it for x amount of time to prevent this sort of abuse but maybe it wouldn't be worth it or will effect legitimate users. I think if people lock a thread though that usually indicates it's done, or at least for the time being, but if people want to keep other's posts out they should probably just self-moderate instead. And the vast majority of people who use locking legitimately do so in order to prevent 3rd parties from derailing or distracting from the point of the OP. Forcing this cool down window will completely disable ones ability to have a locked thread and result in even more conflict as people play games to abuse that window. Nothing is stopping people from making their own threads to criticize any wrongdoing. |
|
|
|
Given most of the posts on this page and the previous page, I guess any serious Trump impeachment discussion has ended and is now devolving into conspiracy talk, Trump worship and the like. Awesome. I thought those that worship Trump and conspiracy theories had their own derivative thread to do that in. In other words, you were wrong, it is over and the accusations you supported failed, so lets not dwell on who is responsible for all the criminal activity to lead to this years long failed coup attempt, or how wrong you and your cult member friends were. Given most of the posts on this page and the previous page, I guess any serious Trump impeachment discussion has ended and is now devolving into conspiracy talk, Trump worship and the like. Awesome. I thought those that worship Trump and conspiracy theories had their own derivative thread to do that in.
Quite on the contrary, it would not bother me if people wished to continue discussing impeaching Trump, and all that Russian Collusion. After all, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."Maybe this could become a permanent subject, like the enemy EurAsia in 1984? EurAsia has always been at war with Orangemania. |
|
|
|
I've been the target of his finger for almost 5.5 years. I'd be curious what percentage of Techy's posts contain my name. :/
Thank you JaredKaragen for bring attention to my two negative trust entries against the OP. Is the general consensus they are valid?
I have stated who I trust, and I won't be making major changes soon. I have to finish a gift I think the community needs and will really enjoy. Who you trust is irrelevant to accusations you make being valid. I know you want this wrapped up before anyone looks too close, I expect another accusation to encourage a topic slide any time now. I thought I might also add this: This has nothing to do with risk. It is the principal of the matter. He shouldn't have been doing what he was doing in the first place. He was provided many opportunities to leave or diffuse the situation, instead every step of the way he chose to escalate. I have already taken several steps to deescalate this situation. He has taken none. I feel I have zero obligations to compromise with him in any way, especially since he has demonstrated he is unwilling to do so when offered. Instead he opted to dictate to me what he wants done. He has no leverage at this point. Regardless of this I am again stating I am open to deleting his feedback if he removes his posts in my op, locks this thread, and deletes me from his signature. He can learn to act like an adult or live with my feedback. Its his choice. That's fair. I would react the same way. Interesting. You seemed to agree my rating for Armis was valid and my reaction reasonable enough that you would have done the same. Others also reinforce the idea that trust ratings are not moderated and my rating was thus valid, but the trust system has always been an evolving system with constantly changing metrics and rules which aren't written anywhere. In this case I was used as an example and demonized as others were allowed to leave these sorts of ratings regularly which was what lead me to believe the rating was a valid use. This forums users want to only hold certain people accountable as they excuse others. This is why I have strongly advocated for clear metrics based on observable instances of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving negative ratings. Expecting people to follow arbitrarily enforced and unwritten rules is not only asinine but morally wrong, because there is no way to obey them even if you try. It is just a matter of some one who is popular enough coming along to accuse you. A two months after my criticism of Vod and the double standards he enjoys in that thread: Vod 16: -0 / +9(9) 2015-01-06 0.00000000 "Constantly posts lies about me in an effort to have me removed from the default trust list. Honest discussion is one thing, but he just posts BS with absolutely no basis.
Not trustworthy."Your first negative rating on my account, which you were eventually forced to remove because the community judged it invalid. Seems a lot like you, from the start, simply didn't like me criticizing you and thought that was justification for leaving me a negative rating. Seems unfair I get such a harsh punishment for something once Vod has been doing to me freely for years doesn't it? I thought so too. This in context you can see he is making a point that he can freely abuse the trust system exactly in the way I was punished harshly for as he accuses me for the same, because that is the kind of guy Vod is. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
