If it is absolute criteria it is not really based on anyone's views now is it?
I'm saying it's not possible to implement it the way you want it unless you manage to force everyone to agree with you. Your suggested criteria is based on your view that only committed scams should be subject to negative trust, but your view is clearly in the minority in DT1. Many other users prefer an early warning system. The trust system actually allows your criteria to be used (anyone who agrees with your criteria can add you to their trust list) along with any other point of view. Your argument for limiting the freedom of choice is quite perplexing. You aren't arguing against my points. You are just saying "no one will ever agree so I guess we have to have no standards". I like how you frame arbitrary tagging of users without documented basis as "freedom of choice". Almost makes it sounds like you are enforcing people's rights to take other people's rights to exist here like anyone else without being harassed over constantly shifting totally arbitrary rules. You have the right to shut the fuck up and be subject to the random whims of internet mobs. Que libertad! |
|
|
|
I think one of the main issues we are suffering from here is not one of intent, but application. It seems reasonable that ratings should be for objective documented circumstance right? "scam hunting" quickly turns into a nanny state when people inevitably start tribing up. Since this is the predictable end result, shouldn't we be basing these ratings on objective things like violation of contractual agreement, theft, or violation of applicable laws?
That's what the flags are for, type 2 and 3 in particular. Type 1 and red trust is for lesser stuff. Also is "lying" really a valid metric?
It can be. If someone is trying to sell a 1 PH 1 kW miner that's an obvious lie and a scam, even if they haven't violated any contracts. Problems start when people try to come up with absolute universal criteria based on their personal views, like any deceptive behavior needs a tag, or any lie is acceptable if there is no theft... The trust system (in theory) should combine subjective views of its participants into some sort of a communal view of what is trustworthy and what is not. I think the system works reasonably well given the circumstances. But I don't expect it to ever meet my expectations 100%. If it is absolute criteria it is not really based on anyone's views now is it? The point is, unless it is something observable based on factual documented events, transaction IDs, etc it is so totally subjective making it totally open to interpretation and abuse. It creates drama and is not preventing anything. The forum police are not Tom Cruise in Minority Report. Leave the future crimes to him. This is why due process exists in legal systems, so that a minimum standard of evidence is required before impugning on their freedoms with what would otherwise be arbitrary or abusive reasons. We need to have a more narrow definition of what is an acceptable negative rating, not a wider one. Think of it like electricity. You are jacking the voltage way up but it has no amperage because all the energy is being dispersed more widely and fractured. If you reduce the voltage, the amperage can increase making the energy exerted more targeted and useful to have a positive impact when it is really needed. The over use of negative trust and the trust system in general for every little thing is asinine. Everything doesn't need to be a codification, but a universal standard for a base accusation before using a system of penalties would seem pretty basic. |
|
|
|
Regarding clear objective standards to ascertain what might be worthy of a tag - I agree with you entirely. The problem however was (and still is) the lack of general consensus. If there was a uniformed stance against Yobit nothing would have made me happier and if there will be a uniformed stance for all present and future scams then it would be a great way to proceed.
You agree with me entirely? It seems you don't based on your statements. You are literally saying if everyone just agreed with me, everything would be fine, and since there is no consensus the only solution is to agree with your view. Either it is an objective standard or it is not. Guilt via association is not an objective standard and the reward for such activities is almost completely negative in sum even if a minuscule amount of scams are delayed. That is the problem, a fool and his money are soon parted regardless of how many red tags you can shit out. It accomplishes nothing and has many negative effects. All this Yobit situation demonstrates is public discussion works. The trust system just brought attention to it because people were abusing it. |
|
|
|
Given they never dreamed or seriously considered they'd get 2/3 in the senate, it's then useful to ask what the real motivations were. What were they actually trying to accomplish? I think a motive that has to be considered is that they are actually quite confused, and do not have clear motives. I think the House was thinking more about the case they were presenting to the country than the Senate. Also, they put a lot of republican senators in swing states in an undesirable situation by making them actually pick a side on something they have always defaulted to political non-answers when asked about. It's pretty common in congress to propose and force a vote on something that you know doesn't have a chance of passing just to get a record of it. (The Republicans did that often during the House Impeachment hearings, and the Democrats are doing it right now with amendment propositions, for example) All in all, I'm not comprehending what the witnesses were intended to accomplish and for what goal.
The whole trial was on whether or not Trump did something bad, and how bad it was. During the House hearing, Bolton said he would challenge any subpoena in court, which could take over a year. Before the Senate trial Bolton said he would not fight a subpoena, and that he had information that had not yet been made public. 'all hearsay, no direct evidence' had been repeated over and over in defense of the President. Bolton would be able to provide direct evidence. By refusing to hear any witnesses, and the fact that Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton were all considered 'democrat witnesses', is evidence that there is a cover up happening. The House has every opportunity to present all the witnesses and evidence it wanted. Now that they have zero authority in the situation because The Senate is in control of this portion of the process, they feel they can dictate terms still, in spite of that being the whole intent of splitting the authority between The House and The Senate. If the Democrats called them, then yes, they are officially the Democrat's witnesses. Gold star for trying. Why is it so important the subpoena is enforced in under a year? Oh right, it is an election year. Not transparent at all. Can't win at the ballot box so you have to try to win using the idiot box. |
|
|
|
|
I think one of the main issues we are suffering from here is not one of intent, but application. It seems reasonable that ratings should be for objective documented circumstance right? "scam hunting" quickly turns into a nanny state when people inevitably start tribing up. Since this is the predictable end result, shouldn't we be basing these ratings on objective things like violation of contractual agreement, theft, or violation of applicable laws?
The trust system is supposed to operate as a platform for trusted individuals to build reputations, not just filter out con artists. It doesn't have to be used as a hammer to work. Used less with more specific intent would reduce conflict exponentially. People are treating it as a wide net application systematically spamming ratings by the thousands. That is not productive and is just endless signal noise that makes valid negative ratings invisible. The trust system is like a donkey you just keep whipping over and over to make it work then finally you realize the donkey is dead and whipping it isn't actually accomplishing anything.
Also is "lying" really a valid metric? I have seen plenty of cases of people who live in far away frozen wastelands that like to make claims about lies, but they always some how rely on their own personal interpretation of what happened, not what is plainly observable. This is way too arbitrary of a metric.
|
|
|
|
https://imgur.com/gallery/2p3bW1AWhite Oak and Cherry Rolling tray. Maple Burl slice with 1/4” grommet to hold a poker or tool, or finished spliff. There’s a slot on the side that holds king size rolling papers. Brooklyn Papers included! $100 shipped within US   I really like the layered look. Nice effect. The slot for the papers is also a great idea. |
|
|
|
I’ve been a prolific hater of QS for years but I really respect his recent change on the forum. I can’t believe I’m saying this but maybe everyone should stop judging him on his past behaviour so heavily. The bloke knows his shit and can be an asset here. It’s not the same as forgiving TOAA, QS fucked up and has started to admit faults. I’m not suggesting to add him on your trust list but maybe people should give him a little leeway and see what happens. Come on people if Lauda and QS have kissed, made up and seem to be enjoying some mutual masturbation then maybe everyone else should chill and see what happens
Edit. It’s friday and I’m drunk, so everything I write could be horseshit
This has kind of been my view for some time. He seems genuinely motivated. I don't necessarily trust or like him, but so what? He is at least ATTEMPTING to contribute and not actively robbing people. Unless he is on one of his infamous rampages I don't see any reason to go after him, let alone engage with him if you don't like him. QS fucked up and has started to admit faults.
I'll withhold my lenience until he's finished admitting faults, and it's gonna be a long wait. Edit. It’s friday and I’m drunk, so everything I write could be horseshit
Can be easily fixed by more drinking, trust me on that one, I have secret empirical evidence. I detest the implication that if I'm not in a conflict with someone then opposing them is not "right". Maybe nullius was simultaneously wrong or maybe we just simultaneously disagree. Nope, you disagree, therefore you "attack people who stop forum abuse, manipulate DT voting, and otherwise undermine the trust system." Clearly more negative trust ratings are in order! |
|
|
|
Since nullius wants to wrap up this whole saga all neat and tidy after he got what he wanted and wants to manage the backlash and his personal responsibility in the manner he has locked this thread, upon which a productive discussion was actually happening. I suspect that was a reason it was locked too. Can't have anyone coming to a consensus that doesn't fit within his own right? My argument is guilt via association regardless of what Yobit did is a completely arbitrary distinction, and that is the source of endless conflict. Lets stick to burning people at the stake one at the time at least people, please?
Would you be against tagging accounts that were advertising "24 Hour Bitcoin Doubler - Just Send To This Address" in their signatures, and refused to remove it after a warning? I don't know. The whole point is it is rather arbitrary. Do you argue such a thing is not largely arbitrary? What exactly is wrong with a neutral rating? People who aren't going to bother to look that far are 100% going to get their money stolen no matter how many people are tagged as if that stops people from making risky decisions. All this mass tagging does is satiate the needs of the ones running around tagging and makes negative ratings meaningless with signal noise. This not only results in endless conflict that is antithetical to any decent community anyone wants to use, but allows actual serious con artists to hide in the noise and drama. All because Billy posted an ad you didn't like because XYZ. It is a simple risk vs reward calculation why this shouldn't be happening. We know what the risk is, we see it every day in the form of threads like these. What is the reward? |
|
|
|
Rather arbitrary to make this accusation isn't it?
Not to me.. I may very well tag someone for breaching such an agreement with me, if an agreement was made thereby closing the loophole.. If nullius shared "sensitive" information with SM it is likely he asked for it not to be shared, thereby closing the loophole.. I can't know that though, but just the threat on its own is greasy.. I meant outside of an explicit agreement, it is rather arbitrary... If an explicit agreement was made then I agree absolutely. |
|
|
|
When I seen the new sigs and seen a good amounts of comments regarding them, I contacted Yobit and told them changes needed to be made.
They changed the sigs (which is when I started wearing the signature code) and everything looked to be fine. I would not have been ok with the investbox staying
So.. They tried pulling a quick one on the forum to advertise what is generally accepted to be a "scam".. At the very least in my opinion a predatory investment scheme to scoop up the money from idiots.. This was obviously a big problem as even you yourself contacted them to change it.. It sparked outrage in the community did it not? So they change it to something pointing less directly to their "scam", you put it on and wear it proudly, and then "everything looked to be fine".. All was right in the world once again.. Yobit was no longer a disrespectful spam financier or scammer/predator as soon as they changed their 100% unacceptable signature.. Everything is fine.. I mean.. You make so much money here, and are such a respected member here, one would think that you may have some loyalty and devotion to this forum, but then you personally advertise for a company that does all it can to pay for as much spam as they can get away with here to advertise as close to their best scam as they can get away with, The logic is quite simple. Yahoo has been an active, successful manager. There was a time when he was the only one managing campaigns and his judgement has almost always been based on the commercial aspect. Keeping track of money is almost always easier than maintaining a stand when it comes to things like honor, loyalty, work-ethic etc etc which Lauda, Nullius etc are trying to shove down everyone's throats... Yahoo's claims about becoming the Yobit manager so the campaign got cleaned up may hold some weight but he was not doing it for free. I wore the signature myself initially as it was pay per post. I hadn't worn a signature for a long time as i did not fulfill the background needed mostly. I removed it a week or two later. When the X10 thing happened, that is when Yahoo could have taken a stand instead of enabling/ managing them. It comes down to the question that should the seemingly well known/ respected members be held to a higher standard? Personally i think Yahoo is a decent manager and he spends a lot of time managing these campaigns and it maybe a big operation for him. It'd be all fine if he was treated just that way. A good money manager. All this pretense about him being a respectable member and having done a lot for the forum should be dropped. (amplified by all the people fawning over him to get into his campaigns, which is something he should probably try to discourage). This is just another one of the instances when people doing business at the forum have shown that it is money that matters to them over the ambiguities of taking a stand or being the bigger person. An instance i myself know about is when he almost tried to wrangle an upstart by catching a "bug" he already knew about.Nobody is above the lure of money/ power. Everybody has a price. It just depends on the level you are at. DT was probably meant to be a sort of group of conscience-keepers but with the current system it is always going to be about letting people make their own decisions and let it play out. I would prefer if it maintained some semblance of ethics and was free from the effects of commerce. We can dream, right? I like the way in which you articulated your point. There were and are lots of questions raised regarding exactly what was going on during that period but yahoo62278 did rid the spammers and low-level quality posters that were simply posting to increase their post count for the sake of getting paid courtesy of their Yobit signature. Does that negate everything else related to Yobit? The answer is subjective and highly contentious. In my most humble of opinion, the failure of DT members to get to grips with Yobit and their campaign should be considered a watershed moment for the forum but the lack of agreement will only allow for other scams to be promoted here in future without a care in the world because nobody is above the lure of money as you rightly stated. The petty squabbling over whether all of Yobit was a scam if just the x10 was a ponzi scheme, did not help the situation. I read arguments for and against Yobit banners being allowed in the forum and read lots of posts where users were expressing their views about tagging all or some users displaying just x10 or all Yobit banners. Sadly in the future the lack of consensus surrounding the next scam or any return of Yobit will only continue the infighting between members here. I agree 100% with this post. My argument is guilt via association regardless of what Yobit did is a completely arbitrary distinction, and that is the source of endless conflict. Lets stick to burning people at the stake one at the time at least people, please? |
|
|
|
Let me know if you find anything good while you are digging through my shit looking for peanuts. I look forward to your future attempts at false equivalence, and whatever else you can come up with to "get me" in retribution for being critical of your friends.
Let me know when you finish your udemy course on Psychiatry. Then maybe you can provide this community an excuse for almost a decade of trust abuse, including the Administrator concluding you have no place where your trust abuse shows by default. Seek therapy. |
|
|
|
Do you think this discussion should end here and this topic should be locked, Nullius  We have achieved the final result as Lauda said We have looked the other way, and will do nothing. That was the indirect consensus that was reached.
The problem of Yahoo and Yobit has ended, there is no reason for this topic to continue to be bumped by such boring analysis or silly posts as above. This thread was started on January 23, 2020 and lucky the campaign ending was announced soon after that and the campaign was offline on Jan 27,2020. If the campaign was still continue, people might thought otherwise but now since the campaign has ended, the Yobit haters have been half cooled down and the intensity is quite less now. While I am not a particular fan of Yahoo, I think he has some self control issues, but I don't think any of this was about hating on Yahoo. This was more about the fact that people are running around tagging a bunch of lower ranked users aimlessly but giving Yahoo a pass even though he ran the same campaign. I think this is a great example of the arbitrary and selective enforcement used in the trust system, and why we shouldn't be tagging anyone unless we can establish clear and objective standards regarding what is worthy of a tag. It is a pretty widely accepted legal standard that unless a person is made aware that a specific act is a crime, they shouldn't be penalized for it. It is a bit like police making up secret rules as they go that you are subject to. What could go wrong there? |
|
|
|
~
You come here and post lots of rambling incoherent and pedantic spam hoping no one cares enough to read your screeds, never actually justifying any of your actions, and just hope people believe a decent reply is buried somewhere in your bullshit. Then you act like you are above replying and walk away. You have made it clear you are using the trust system simply to punish people who say things you don't like anyway and fast tracked yourself to irrelevance, so thanks anyway. That sure does sound a lot like an opinion. Rather arbitrary to make this accusation isn't it?
Techy, you have shared PMs without permission, right? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5148016.msg51275111#msg51275111Listed as a neutral on your profile. Do you think I should change it to red, hypocrite? Yeah pay no attention to the IRS kicking in your door, what is important is I posted a personal message in public!
________________________________________________________________ I would consider that quite untrustworthy behavior indeed, especially if either of you requested any information you shared in PM to remain private, or reasonably assumed so.. It could even be construed as trade-related danger IMO..
If it actually IN YOUR OPINION then what is more important to you? Techy endangering trades by behaving untrustworthy, or your dislike of me? Ah, threats, very becoming of you. Clearly a stable genius. Do you even care that nothing you say even makes sense or is all that matters is you feel that there is enough of a tangentially related reference to the topic to get around being removed as off topic? Don't answer, I already know. As far as published PMs, lets ask the person who sent the PMs I published... oh wait I am on their trust list last I checked. You care more than they do and you make no sense as usual with your accusations and threats. I have a reason to be in this thread... you are just the dingleberry that clings on to it hunting for peanuts. |
|
|
|
I have for sale a Banpresto Monkey D. Luffy 8" World Journey Statue Figurine #3316, new sealed in box. Imported from Japan.  Litecoin also accepted. PM me. Thanks!  (Production photo) Gallery
|
|
|
|
my dumping our PM discussions into this thread
Not sure what you could possibly prove by posting PMs publicly, other than the danger of communicating with you. I would consider that quite untrustworthy behavior indeed, especially if either of you requested any information you shared in PM to remain private, or reasonably assumed so.. It could even be construed as trade-related danger IMO.. That sure does sound a lot like an opinion. Rather arbitrary to make this accusation isn't it? |
|
|
|
Right, except that has no bearing on what they said and what I'm outlining. Strategy by either side has no bearing as both sides have done things purely for strategic and political purposes. It's only what's constitutional and legal that has any bearing. So, it goes something like this I think.
They had no right to issue subpoenas for impeachment unless the house authorizes it. Which they didn't. i.e. the subpoenas don't carry the weight of an impeachment until such time as the house actually has authorized it. The Democratic argument has been "we can do what we want since we have sole power" which is correct.. Except it wasn't "we". Without a house vote, there is no we.
The committees however do have the right to issue subpoenas for legislative oversight. But the democrats stated in their letters that it was for impeachment. The Democrats then argue that there is precedent in that there have been other inquires done without a vote. The lawyer said yes that's true, but there was no compelling of documents and testimony. i.e. no subpoenas in those instances and thus no precedent. That's the first time I had heard that and that's why I'm re-looking at this.
I'm not totally confident here, but I think whats constitutional and legal is theoretical in these cases (subpoena and house vote examples). Just because you can find one way to thread the unprecedented needle doesn't mean that it is or is not legal or constitutional. It would be one thing if there was already a ruling that 'a congressional subpoena is not valid if impeachment is mentioned but the House hasn't voted to begin an inquiry.' And if that were the case, they could've just not mentioned impeachment. If you only consider this argument: 'We sent them subpoenas, they didn't respond.' Then it's not that unreasonable to defend with: 'We didn't think the first few were valid because there was no vote, and we granted total immunity on the other ones' But if the argument includes: A) The President told us he would not respond to any request no matter and ordered the entire executive branch not to cooperate with us. B) He was planning to drag every single subpoena through multiple courts, multiple times, making it impossible to get a ruling within X amount of time. C) There is a valid reason that this trial needs to take place before X amount of time or The President will greatly benefit directly from what he's being tried for in X amount of time. Then that's a pretty strong argument, although unprecedented, that the President is literally stripping Congress of their power to provide oversight. side note: I really don't get how it's possible for someone to make it take so long to get a ruling for something that could be incredibly urgent. Seems like something the needs to be fixed, otherwise a President has free range to do whatever the hell he wants 12 months before the election, including literal crimes to influence the election, as long as he's successful at getting reelected and getting 34 of his friends in the Senate he can't be held accountable.
Funny moment in the trial just now. Schiff claimed there's a subpoena going through federal court right now, as in like literally this very moment. "So the judge says, 'Well if the Congress can’t enforce its subpoenas in court, then what remedy is there? And the Justice Department lawyer’s response is: 'Impeachment. Impeachment.' You can’t make this up!" No one is saying Congress can't enforce its subpoenas in court. The subpoenas HAVE TO be sent through the courts in order to be enforced. The president is exercising executive privilege. Until it goes through the court, The President has every constitutional right to exercise executive privilege. Since he has every right to do this, simply exercising his constitutional authority is in no way able to be construed as obstruction. That is why the subpoenas must be decided in court. To do otherwise would be to strip the executive branch of its power, giving all authority to The Congress, which is a co-equal branch. You cry about congress supposedly being stripped of oversight in the very same breath that you try to strip the executive of its authority. The office of the president was not meant to be a parliamentary system serving at the pleasure of the Congress. The Congress can not issue a subpeona, then unilaterally decide upon the validity of the subpoena they just issued. That is asinine. |
|
|
|
~
Let me know if you find anything good while you are digging through my shit looking for peanuts. I look forward to your future attempts at false equivalence, and whatever else you can come up with to "get me" in retribution for being critical of your friends. |
|
|
|
If you think mixing up a meme with Morpheus and a Star Trek captain (they're all the same to me as I don't watch the show) is a criminal offense, open a flag against me about it. It will fit in nicely with my 13 other inactive flags. Like me, you can't seem to find an interaction previous to this one, so yes, let's just declare it our first.
None of this is relevant to the topic of this thread. I know you could do this all night, but I don't really care to, so I'll let you have the last word. Not a criminal offense, just a demonstration of how you repeatedly project your imagination on to me as if it were factual. Even people who don't like Star Trek know who William Shatner is. If none of it is relevant, why did you bring me up to begin with? Oh right. More projection. |
|
|
|
What a coincidence 6 hours before you injected yourself into my conversation with another user there, I posted a thread about the attacks and threats on the Covington kids in Politics & Society. This was a thread you were clearly aware of as you later posted in it with clear disdain for even acknowledging death threats against children as being a serious topic of discussion just because they happen to be Trump supporters. I am sure it is just a coincidence... I don't really remember what you're talking about, and even though it does sound funny, its not relevant here. BTW, where was the part about Morpheus, I was looking forward to that part of your narrative.
Perhaps I confused Captain Kirk with Morpheus. I coulda sworn I asked you specifically about why you didn't like the trust system earlier, but I may be mistaken, as I can't seem to find the post. Of course you don't remember now I pointed all of this out. How convenient that, as well as your declaration of irrelevance even though it clearly demonstrates your disdain for my political views as well as the suspicious timing of your antipathy with me in meta beginning mere hours after that post. You could have swore you asked me about it earlier? Was this our first interaction or not? Make up your mind. It is hard to keep your story straight when you make it up as you go along isn't it? Also, where does Captain Kirk come in to all of this? Oh right, in your imagination just like the rest of your fairy tale. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
