Boblawblaw SCAMMER SUPPORTING AND TRUST ABUSING THREAD CAN BE FOUND HERE
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206829.0

ROBOVAC aka loyceV the low functioning one trick raw data spouting turd, does not have the capacity to realize

1. tman is breaking the rules and not providing any corroborating evidence to back up his claims' HENCE WHY IT IS GETTING DELETED
Bobblabla does not have the mental capacity to understand this so thinks we are abusing tmans right to be a moron..haha
2. Robovac the Absolute Imbecile, Is still making false accusations of trolling although he has been unable to debunk even one of our central points. Rather would make tman poetry threads consisting of pure swearing and sexual deviance that loyceV should read to her daughter to get some feedback on this fantastic poetry it claims to love so much. What a dumb twat loyceV is. How is this dreg the top merited person here. What single more proof could one need that this dumb bitch is another non achieving fool spamming away chipmixer for its btc dust. Back on the shit list robovac for repeating false accusations you have been challenged on multiple times before.

SHE (he , who care) gets only one thing correct. (this is rare)

You can not win.

This other filthy dreg boblawblaw the non achieving mentally deranged (by his own admission) imbecile does not understand that there are other posts that we left remaining in our thread that actually present at least some attempt at refuting our points. WHY WOULD we need to remove tmans to HIDE his brilliant and insightful undeniable rebuttal hahahahahhahaha

Why would we need to delete tmans low functioning spew that brings nothing in terms of a solid rebuttal??

This disgusting retard boblawblaw is a troll. Go look at some of his rancid posts and how he even describes himself as "I'm just the dumb gay negro"
Then goes on in other posts to describe how he and his boyfriend "rick" have been on holiday tanning their assholes??



Like this is the sort of information that is vital to pushing this movement forward.

The funny part is this confirmed mentally ill twat is apparently giving us red trust on the basis of he "believes" he has diagnosed us mentally ill haha ....probably sitting there wondering how he can apply red trust to his own deranged dumb ass.

The guy is a deplorable mentally ill scammer protecting troll that has achieved nothing here in the years he has been a member. Go tell stories about you and your boyfriend asshole tanning exploits elsewhere.

Bobboremore does not even understand that tman his PROVEN auction scamming pal and self confessed trust abuser (like bob) is breaking the rules by repeatedly reposting his garbage on my thread that break the rules stated in the initial post.

Got it now you low functioning gross piece of human garbage? get back on your meds retard.

Want to debunk any of those points we just made get right on it filthbag.

You MUST not. You can do what you like except ask stupid questions in my threads.

The reason for debate should be clear to anyone that joins a forum. You debate, you thrash out and improve the weak points. You then reach the optimal solution and that can then be brought to the attention of theymos via PM if there is merit to the ideas.

You are suggesting that theymos should have to evaluate every idea here before it is first optimized by running it past the brains of all the other members. Of course this is meta board so that gauntlet isn't going to optimize it as much as on one of the other boards. However this is the correct board for changes that have system wide applications here.

Now either read the suggestions and evaluate or get back to the real forum and stop lurking in meta for merit scraps.

No, your post does not address the irrefutable points that I made above. HE knew the conditions , HE CHOSE to accept the conditions, HE fucked up and brought into play the conditions HE knew HE agreed to operate under.

Get it now?

He should have chose to go somewhere else.

Give him the amount he over bet on back as we suggested earlier.

DELETE 22

It seems this one was deleted probably because owlcatz (tmans bitch) posted its usual low value garbage of some silly faces and I quoted it. Still just listing it here because it helps explain the number that could get weaponized at any time.


Delete 23


Another fuck up from the mods here. We are the first person on that thread (but others later make the same points and their posts are still there) to point out that the crying of tman over the OG using the forums funds to claim some BB but then says nothing and rewards his pal lauda for doing the same thing.

Deleting this is another example of very poor moderation and depriving the reader of that information.

Luckily other members pointed the same thing out later on.

Another example of how dishonest scammer supporter xtraelv is


Trying to pretend that poor moronic retard boblawblaw did not come swearing and pushing his sick sexual fantasies and swearing at us first.


Notice how this post is right before the one xtraelv scammer supporter quotes>??
Never trust that xtraelv scammer supporter
Get over to the dirty turds thread in meta to read how we crushed him moronic excuses and other blatherings time and time again before he ran away.
Now spends his time pouring over the post histories looking for something to get his rotten teeth into. What a sad losers lol

ALL THE OTHER POSTS THAT POSTED OPINIONS WITH NO CORROBORATING OBSERVABLE INSTANCES  WERE DELETED AS PER THE RULES IN THE INITIAL POST.

Let's debate these alterations and discuss if they would result in a net positive move. Or if you believe you can demonstrate these ideas would be NET negative when weighing all positives and negatives. Then simply post your civil reply and describe in detail your reasoning.

When implementing control systems it is important to consider not only how well they can reduce the negative behaviors we need reduced, but also what impact on the most important and desirable aspects of a community will they have.  Freedom to freely express your well reasoned views and creating a pleasant and cohesive environment are certainly even MORE important in this type of community even than protecting people against scams.


1. REMOVE the trust score for FEEDBACK - just have it as feedback for the old system. No positive, no negative. Just called feedback. People can still read through it all but there will be no "scores" and DT members will have no greater influence or weight than any other member but make a reference MANDATORY.

The reason being that the old system was undeniably BROKEN and abused. Hence the reason for the new objective flagging system.

Although the old system is clearly no longer useful due to people just using it for their own personal ends, and anything dealing with a REAL FINANCIALLY DANGEROUS persons that you have even a tiny bit of real evidence against.. is now covered by the flagging system ??

The negatives of  leaving it there hamstringing the flagging system are holding this back.

a/ it is still used as a personal weapon with no need to have ANY KIND of hard evidence or real reason to apply red trust with regard to being a clear financial danger.
b/ it crushes free speech (related to later points)
c/ Campaign managers still use it as a tool to remove accountability for their own decisions, and to ensure those dishing out red trust are the only ones that are guaranteed the highest paying sig spots. To punish those that have red tags.
d/ peoples opportunities here are still damaged by this regardless of whether they have done anything wrong at all.
e/ the subjectivity is what causes all the wars, if there was clear undeniable evidence of directly financially dangerous behaviors there would be far less bickering. The vast majority will accept yes we have been busted if there is clear undeniable evidence and leave. That is what the flags are supposed to do.

Further more it is totally illogical boarding on crazy to grandfather in the very trust abuse that was the original driver to develop a new LESS EASILY ABUSED flagging system. I mean the only people that are left with big signs on their account are those that had more NEGATIVES than positives in the old abused system??  that seems completely mad.  It is like saying to people. Yes we see that you are being trust abused. We will develop a system where the abuse is mitigated somewhat. But your abuse will remain grandfathered in forever??

Getting red trust now is clearly saying

We can not demonstrate you have done anything financially damaging to others  (else you would get a flag) but your punishment (no sig campaigns, trading damaged) will remain. Further more now that we have the flagging system we will say that you can give red trust for nearly ANYTHING you like but the punishment will remain the same in terms of sigs and trading etc.

Feedback must just be feedback. No scores no higher weighting for DT but there must be a valid reference. People who feel there COULD be some information that will protect them over what the flagging system can provide can spend time reading the low value nonsense contained in the OLD feedback system.


2. The LEMONS FLAG. The lemons FLAG needs to be tightened up. Sure it can be for NOT-YET-COMMITTED crimes and thought crimes. However there should be a requirement that there is some clear FINANCIAL danger posed directly by the observable actions of the person you are flagging. DIRECT AND OBSERVABLE SIGNS that clearly are reasonably the actions of someone setting up/preparing a scam.

I feel with just those 2 small improvements you will.

Reduce or completely mitigate

a/ it is still used as a personal weapon with no need to have ANY KIND of hard evidence or real reason to apply red trust.
b/ it crushes free speech (related to later points)
c/ Campaign managers still use it as a tool to remove accountability for their own decisions, and to ensure those dishing out red trust are the only ones that are guaranteed the highest paying sig spots.
d/ peoples opportunities here are still damaged by this regardless of whether they have done anything wrong at all.

But the most important points would be that people will not be afraid to say what they like without considering if someone will randomly decide to take away their sig, trading etc.

Easy to spot those that do not provide a reference.

Reduce the fighting and bickering over subjective, low value, and misleading feedback.

The new flagging system was a good idea but it was hamstrung badly by leaving the old trust system there. I mean making the little numbers next to your name slightly less damning if they were based on bogus trust abuse in the old system sounded attractive. However it is clear the old system (that should have been deleted or at least the scoring removed) is still the biggest threat to free speech. In fact it has got worse for free speech than before.

The reason being. We have reduced the requirement from it to be ONLY for directly financially dangerous matters (so now you can be given red trust for almost anything) but the damage of getting it is JUST THE SAME considering most are most terrified of their sigs being removed and the campaign managers still use this weapon.

The very most stupid and very most greedy are ALWAYS going to be victims of ... well themselves.  There is no reason to use them as an argument to provide tools that crush free speech and cause most of the wars over the abuse of subjective and unrealistic mental gymnastics to connect ANY action to a possible financial risk. It is that area specifically that is abused most frequently.

So if you don't understand...

If someone has clearly scammed - there will be little to argue about the observable instances of scamming will be there.  FLAG

If someone is clearly demonstrating they are showing classic signs of setting up a scam. Those will be there and be directly linked to a financial danger. Lemons flag. This flag could be given a bit more visibility than it is now if it was tightened up to be a more reliable indicator for financial danger.

If someone just says something you do not like, or shares an opinion you don't agree with,  but you are unable to demonstrate that is posing a direct financial danger without a lot of mental gymnastics then this is FEEDBACK with no score. People can read this and do their homework before sending their btc to people on the internets. This will most all consist of whining and bickering over small personal battles completely removed from anything that adds any protection or value over the flagging system. However it could be worth reading and researching all the reference links if you see something you directly think is related to a persons inclination to scam you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are clear what net positve means right?

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

@doomad

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

This is what we are suggesting, his winnings plus the over betting amount is the most sensible conclusion to it.

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

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

Let's try to keep this thread civil.

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

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

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

Anyway on with the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











 

Have we even got the story straight here.

Some are still claiming it was a bug, then I see it mentioned it was an intentional design (for some reason)


If you choose yourself to bet on a site where they have told you

1. max win is 2k
2. you can bid as much as you want but you will only get a max win of 2k

then you choose to go ahead and use the site under those conditions and then  bid MORE THAN YOU NEED to win the 2k, then THE SITE HAS MADE NO MISTAKE nor HAS IT SCAMMED YOU.

What is the FAIR??

Fair would only come into this if YOU WERE FORCED into using their website knowing how the 2 rules above. You chose to use it under those 2 rules right? Nobody MADE you use their site knowing their operating policy at the time (however unfair it does seem)

The title says their mistake
You claim you were scammed by them and they are scammers

Both seem bogus claims and are libel or actually by DT members standards defamation and blackmail/extortion rolled into one big clusterfuck.

The casino have counter arguments that could actually make it plausible you are extorting them using the trust system and using false accusations to do so.
You are also opening the fucking flood gates for any other user that spots this thread that feel this applies to them also.

If they offer you 1k you have done well out of it considering everything.

If they offer you  500 bucks take it.

If they offer you  your entire stake of 300 (extra) whatever it was ,take it

If they say you get not one penny more and they will let it go. Drop the issue and make sure you have not left any false accusations or any other reasons for them to claim damages.

I think we are being more than generous suggesting 1k. If they gave you that I would be shocked. However, if they are going to allow themselves to be leveraged using the feedback here (however inaccurate) when clearly it was the users mistake so easily now. Others will try similar in the future.

When you KNOW and are fully AWARE of the conditions you will be operating under and you CHOOSE to go forward then FAIR becomes something that is pretty subjective when you start claiming it is their mistake YOU DECIDED to go ahead and then make the fuck up yourself.

Yes the original conditions to us do not sound fair but is it fair you decided to proceed under those conditions and then cry for them to change those conditions you were willing to proceed under.

Fair gets rather complex.

As you know we don't really like you since you are a known supporter of undersirables here and have previously attacked honest members and made false accusations against them.

However, that does not matter/has not factored into this opinion. If this had happen to myself I would have accepted the 2k gladly and just said to myself it would be poor class and embarrassing to make a fuss in public about conditions I clearly went forward under, for those only to be brought into play due to MY OWN mistake. If I got anything extra even a refund on my entire stake amount that I over bid on. So all the winnings you go PLUS whatever ever you Over bid. I would have been very happy with.

If a person spots a clear weakness in the reasoning above then feel free to point it out. There is always an outside possibility we have got something wrong and need to adapt that opinion. It is not something we have investigated at length.

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

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

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

Let's continue.

@The Pharmacist

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

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

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

Read the requirement of bringing observable instances to corroborate opinions. Everyone will abide by the rules. His post is a bunch of garbage. Tell your pet to form a sensible post with opinions fully corroborated by observable instances.

Although what need of tman now that we have the organ grinder.

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

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

The reason for the red is this post.



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

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

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

So one true statement

and

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

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


Before deciding DT members should

1/ review this post and read the thread

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

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

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


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



SO DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST.

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

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

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

No. Bring your observable instances I am looking forward to everything this thread is going to involve. His scammer protecting and attempted silencing of the truths run right back to you scammer.

Bring it here.

Stick to what you can corroborate with observable instances and we welcome you here lauda worm tongue.

Seems you just tried something similar on eddie13.

Those double standards and the scenarios listed there are going to need to be analysed in depth. Under cover agent lauda.
Who better than you to come for a nice long chat here in public

You're looking weak here. If you are convinced about this scam then you must treat lauda the same as the last bounty manager else you are clearly just a coward.

P2PB2B Bounty Manager   2019-12-01   Reference   Anybody promoting coinsbit scam exchange and p2pb2b scam exchange cannot be trusted

BEWARE - Ukrainian scamme


Lauda is willing to work with any project regardless of whether they are a clear danger. Agreeing to just go your separate ways and WISHING HIM WELL is very weak.

Eddie13 just got red trust from lauda for essentially backing your findings and actually speaking the truth that escrowing for them will not change the fact you have demonstrated it is a scam. Other DT will just sell him out and leave him there to get trust abused whilst lauda and his pals ensure they make money from helping get their sigs rolling.

Whilst you are all terrified of lauda and his gang you will not do your jobs as DT and therefore are not doing your best to protect honest members here.

@fratoshi... well said but watch all the scam hunter fade away and go quiet now lauda is working with them.

I think he means HE is trying to apologize to chibitcty not the other way around.

It seems now that this disgusting piece of filth

BobLawblaw member of bitcointalk

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=569455

Has started to defend scammers and abusing the trust system by trying to derail threads that bring attention to their clear double standards.

He believes that if you start a thread and present observable instances for open debate that that is cause to give out red trust.

He has previously described himself as

"Maybe I'm just the dumb gay negro in the thread"

He confesses constantly that he has a long history of mental illness and is completely unstable and unsound of mind.

We believe he should be removed from the DT system as quickly as possible. We are reaching new lows here regarding the moronic human waste that is permitted to abuse the trust system.

He does not attempt to debate the points raised in this thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206130.0

He simply lists that thread as reason to give red trust. I mean if you read the thread you will notice he comes to the thread and just starts trying to derail it with some kind of homoerotic fanatasies

This is his first post in response to a sensible debate on defining blackmail and extortion as per DT explanations and behaviors.



Then claims we should have red trust?  this forums trust system becomes more of a joke daily. He should have red trust for coming to a thread that presents observable instances and immediately derailing with his own homo erotic moronic scammer protecting garbage.

These kinds of trust abuse will only serve as MORE ammunition for ridding this board of the trust system entirely.

Also this TRUST ABUSE was immediately conducted after we thwarted his derailing offtopic sexually deviant attempts to cast doubt on observable instances.

THEN

It went directly and supported a FLAG against us. This is clear evidence of the trust system being weaponized on personal grounds and destroys the real value of protecting people financially ( from scammers like his pals).

Any posts that do not bring clear observable instances to corroborate their opinions and are on topic  will be deleted.

Let me break it down to you.

You knew the max win is  2000 = YES
You knew there was a bug that was currently being fixed that could allow this to take place= YES OR NO?

the 2nd question is VERY important.

If the answer to the 2nd question is YES then YOU HAVE ZERO CASE AT ALL.

If the answer is no then you have a case to complain about it being unfair that idiots can OVER BET.  You still have ZERO case to claim it was a SCAM since there is ZERO DECEPTION AT ANY POINT.

So if you had stopped there you may have been better.

When you started a SCAM thread, and even on this thread are calling him a scammer in the initial post. You already could be said to have caused his site damages.

When you start using the TRUST system and this forum to add leverage to getting compensation for something that is CERTAINLY partly or perhaps TOTALLY (if you knew the bug was there and still decided to use the site of your own free will) you own fault. That is again blackmail and extortion by many DT's standards.

I mean it is quite possible for them to argue you are using FALSE accusations and the trust system to extort them for your own mistake. I mean they paid you the 2K right??


This question is the MOST IMPORTANT

You knew there was a bug that was currently being fixed that could allow this to take place= YES OR NO?

If it is YES then you have no leg to stand on.

Well if they specifically mentioned there was a bug for that specific problem and the onus was on the player to decide whether knowing that they wish to proceed, and whether they can not mess up and accidentally over bid. Then I see 0.3 as excessive.

But perhaps it " could " be worth it to them to offer 1k extra if he removes all the screaming about scamming and all other shit that does not make it clear HE made the mistake and he was aware such mistakes were possible on the players part if they chose to proceed during the phase the hole is getting plugged.

Really though they (casino) could have a valid case for calling extortion or blackmail on yahoo using the trust feedback here to leverage his "compensation" when it was his own decision to proceed and their own mistake, and making undeniably false claims of scamming him.

If yahoo got another 1k he should feel pretty lucky, and they should plug the hole asap.