pretty sure this is what a mental breakdown looks like

Maybe you can't.


Unless the "newcomer" is the alt of a scamming piece of shit, in which case they should be tagged ASAP.


All scammers are dumb, as the nature of scamming is a net stupid-inducing affair. Scammers are only scammers because they are too stupid to do anything else.

Being evil for profit is dumb, as whatever gains you made are offset by the amount of stupidity you've introduced into the universe. Besides, it always ends poorly for those who can't stop scamming. Look at what happened to Bernie Madoff. Would anybody call his life choices "smart"?

Well i think the main problem is there are too many scammers who would over-run the forum with stupidity and make it unusable for everyone if they had the chance. Such assholes are the reason why we have to deal with these measures in the first place. If all the scammers suddenly decided it was a good idea to stop being evil for a living, then we wouldn't have anything to worry about. But alas, some people just insist on being pieces of shit, and they get banned, stupidly try to come back under a new account thinking nobody knows its them, etc.

As usual, you were correct. He sent himself a merit just a few days ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5308447.msg56068206#msg56068206

That is enough to solidify the connection for me. Anybody who thinks fancynancy is not Rambotnic's alt, speak your mind now, or forever hold your cod piece.

LOL. You want to make a deal with a banned scammer? Good luck.

Well, he's likely still around here under another name, so you can probably still find him if you look hard enough.

I'm sure things will go quite smoothly for you here. 

And we wonder how Trump got so many votes... its because these people can still breed.

Don't do this. The issue died in November.

If you want to shill a casino with your alt accounts that you purchased at a bulk rate, so be it. But don't senselessly attack other casinos with them because you have nothing better to do.

If a player presents a scam accusation, that's one thing, but this is all internal matters and there's no reason for it to be discussed here as it's not a reflection of Betnomi's ability to run a casino.

LOL. Summoning Jesus for the specific reason of causing you suffering -- that's got to be a first. Jesus has laid dormant for about 2000 years; people endlessly waiting for his return, for centuries, erecting churches in his honor and in hopes of ushering in the second coming, which he ignored to come back and punish actmyname for his reporting sins. Seems legit.

Found inside Block 666,666:

Are bounty hunters negatively affected by neutral trusts these days? If so, I can see how this could be a problem.

If not, well, the best thing to do is prove actmyname wrong by writing better posts. Then perhaps he'll reconsider his rating.

Thanks for stopping by -- there's no issue really -- I just wanted to promote discourse on trust system-related issues. I don't want to tell people how to run their trusts lists. The people you've included that I mentioned aren't causing any trouble and I see you added them ages ago. If they were added today I would find them to be un-DT-worthy, personally speaking, but the situation is understandable... I will probably exclude 3 of them, fair warning. Hopefully I've made it clear enough why.


That question occurred to me the other day, about whether inactive members should be DT, and I'd say its ok if their ratings are still accurate.

I like to keep my # inclusions around 50 and rotate people out who have been inactive for a while. I removed ICOEthics after about a year of inactivity and removed TMAN recently.

Not saying other people should do this -- I think relying on the ratings of inactive users is for the most part fine. Sometimes things will change though and their feedback will no longer be accurate... In that case, it might be worth looking at their ratings as a whole to see if they are still worth including.

Putin has years of experience with the subject, could give Trump some tips on how to be a despot.

Scammer. Account belongs to the scammer DayTrader27:


Don't deal with this user or you will be scammed.

Word. I agree to take this pledge as a temporary measure to help restore sanity in the WO.

I'm leaning toward nothingburger. We'll know one way or another in less than 48 hours.

Not to be terribly unoriginal but I would like to nominate BADecker as well, who I've had on ignore for about 23 of the last 24 months.

There's some real mental illness flourishing in the P&S section. Its home to several posters who have specific threads they hang out in and basically just chronicle news items that confirm their paranoid suspicions. I'm pretty certain they all have diagnosable schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or schizoaffective disorder... But for the most part they're not really hurting anyone and I'd feel bad mentioning them by name.


If I am allowed a second nomination, it would be for franky1, specifically for meeting all of the above criteria to a degree shared by few others, at least several thousand times.

With 33,500 posts in all (#2 on the forum), its going to be hard to beat BADecker, tho.

For some reason I just spent the last couple hours looking at bonafide shitposts, and I'm thinking about starting a thread for "Best Trust Feedbacks" (as in "funniest" feedbacks).

The Pharmacist has some colorful tags for such posters... There was one guy he tagged, I forget if it was neutral or negative, which he declared "toxic" to Bitcointalk as his posts were just maddening gibberish, the result of a shitty text spinner. His posts were indeed the worst posts I've ever seen, and I wouldn't wish reading them upon anybody, as if doing so opened up some sort of Pandora's Box in which trapped evil escaped and was released upon the world for all eternity.

You can feel The Pharmacist's rage when having to suffer "extreme shitposters" as he calls them.



The second entry is for the following poster:

*rushes to phone to watch game previously thought to be assuredly over*


edit: what a game!

Damn, sad to see Satoshi suffered a brain injury. He lost about 40 IQ points along with his respect for grammar and spelling. Sad.

Well I'm undecided about whether or not its worth doing anything about (by that I mean trust list changes). I think most of the people have been on his trust list for a long, long time, so its not like it was a sudden thing. And the accounts aren't changing much by being on DT as they don't have many ratings.

I just don't think its a good idea to add people who only have a couple of ratings and no trust list... there's nothing to determine whether or not they are actually a good judge of how to use the trust system. I posted this thread to spark discussion as perhaps there's something I haven't considered.

Not everything has to do with something not explicitly stated. I've never encountered that user and have no opinion of them one way or the other.

But since you said "sure"... do you think users who have only ever left 1 trust rating are good for DT, everything else being equal? That opens the DT inclusion standard to thousands of members.