Most local forum participants don't even speak proper English to come here and participate in any meaningful debate except in their local section, so naturally most of their interactions and trust selections will consist of the people they can comfortably communicate with. And I'm sure that's a huge factor. I'm not faulting anyone for their use of trust settings. Notice theymos isn't weighing-in on any of these debates? He set up a system that's decentralized. It's up to us to make sure it works for everybody, not just a select a select few. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I set up my trust list for my own personal needs. I never asked anyone to be on DT1 or 2, and I'll keep setting up my trust list for my personal needs if I get kicked off both. It's of no fault of mine that my actions have a resounding effect on the forum as a whole. However, there is a method to my madness, as I've tried to illustrate in my original post. And that's exactly the point, maybe the method of madness I employ is the reason I'm on DT1 (still.) And those who stack their trust-list with every single trade partner they've ever had, or their friends, or their countrymen? Probably not. But you know what the best part is? Those people can still use their trust list the way they want. It still works for them to go on as if nothing happened, because really nothing particularly important happened. They just got kicked off DT1, no big deal, life goes on. Or is it such a big deal? If it is, one needs to question why. Its not your fault your actions have a resounding effect, but it is my fault my actions have a resounding effect huh? You want to know why? I will cut you some slack, since you are a noob here. This goes back a VERY long time, and involves many conflicts you have no knowledge of, and have no reason to care about because they don't involve you. Also, I am just a very stubborn motherfucker who refuses to submit to manipulation or intimidation as a matter of principle. One would think this would be a highly valued characteristic in a protocol designed to prevent fraud, but apparently the exact opposite is true. One needs to question, why? |
|
|
|
The arguments are very real, and you seem to love them  None of the arguments (such as racism) presented are valid reasons for a flag. and ok good to know by your own admission, since that flag is long removed now,
Do you still think it was ok to create the flag to begin with? And why did you withdraw your support for it? Could it be because he was targeted using the same methodology first? Nah. I am sure all these attacks on me that sprung up after convincing several of the Turkish members to withdraw support for it because it doesn't serve their goals are total coincidences as well. We cant have the out group acting respectable and earning the respect of too many users right? That could challenge your unilateral nepotistic control now couldn't it? They have been under attack, but not because they are Turkish, but because they are not part of the special boy default trust circus club and their presence challenges your control. |
|
|
|
You don't live in the USA? Sucks to be you.
Does it apply to everyone who does not live in USA or just me? I suggest you try Facefuck or Twatter if you want your frail sensibilities protected from evil words.
Your conclusions are, as usual, wrong. already explained why he is included, as you are well aware.
So you included liar, self voucher, someone who has solid connection to scammer via bitcoin address because he said something? Can you quote correct post? Sucks for anyone not free to speak. Am I wrong? Seems to me like Theymos has made it pretty clear he intends to protect free speech. Your suspicions do not constitute guilt. Provide me evidence and we can discuss it. Your condemnations are worth less than the goose shit on my shoe. Of course this isn't really about them, this is about using them as a vector to defame me. |
|
|
|
Just because you manufacture suspicion about a user doesn't make him "obviously hacked". Users can be banned for breaking forum rules but still have valid trust, the same goes for inactive users. None of this explains why you never simply addressed me personally about these concerns instead of directly using it to formulate an attack on me personally. |
|
|
|
Some one who was legitimately concerned about my inclusions would contact me. If no one bothers to lodge a complaint with me, exactly how am I supposed to know anyone has a problem? Oh right, I forgot I am supposed to uphold a higher standard than practically everyone else on your own trust list. I forgot, its rules for me and not for thee.
Ok, so you asked question and you answered it, you don't need anyone's reply then. Anyway: Please address obviously hacked accounts/scammers/inactive accounts/banned users in your trust list. Cute avoidance of making any reply. I also like the part where you demand I answer accusations about unnamed people over and over again. You are literally demanding I hold accountability for people you refuse to even name. Now why would I interpret that as personally targeting behavior? |
|
|
|
Yeah, you have been totally polite in your obvious coordinated clown car attack.
Repeat it as many times as you like, it won't become true, you know  I live in the USA where we still have free speech, and according to the law hate speech doesn't exist, so maybe a lesson in law?
I don't live in USA and according to law in my country hate speech does exist. So tell me, why have you included BitcoinSupremo to your trust list? I don't have to, it is observably true and blatantly obvious. You don't live in the USA? Sucks to be you. Too bad the forum is based here, and the forum still protects free speech. I suggest you try Facefuck or Twatter if you want your frail sensibilities protected from evil words. I already explained why he is included, as you are well aware. |
|
|
|
Please direct your obviously coordinated attack to reputation where it belongs.
Please address obviously hacked accounts/scammers/inactive accounts/banned users in your trust list. If you really gave a fuck about who I included you would message me
Why would I do that https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52405611#msg52405611 ? Trick me once...this is about targeting me personally, not who is on my trust list.
Oh, victim card. Some one who was legitimately concerned about my inclusions would contact me. Some one who is hoping to craft an attack narrative would pitch a tent, invite all his clown friends, and set up a 3 ring circus. You refuse to even name the "obviously hacked/scammers/inactive/banned users". I don't know if you have noticed, but I have been in this community for almost a decade. Things change in such a period of time. If no one bothers to lodge a complaint with me, exactly how am I supposed to know anyone has a problem? Oh right, I forgot I am supposed to uphold a higher standard than practically everyone else on your own trust list. I forgot, its rules for me and not for thee. |
|
|
|
What in gods fuck is this.
Holy shit why isn't the media reporting on this happening. Or at least, why isn't this front page news like it should be? I haven't seen any of this and this is a horrible thing to see in the world.
Not liking immigrants, while despicable, is one thing. But burning them alive and physically assaulting them (and even killing them) in the streets is another thing. This is a whole other level of how horrible humans can be to one another.
It's one of the horrors the first world nations fear the most - that these, as a certain powerful individual would say, "shitholes" are going to eventually reach a boiling point and spill over to their borders. To be frank, there's a huge role to be played in this by big corporations and centuries of colonialization by the various European powers. They left one gigantic mess - that cannot be cleaned. And now, they will reap what they sow. Hence, the "build that wall" and "Brexxit" and apocalyptic tv shows inundating us with horrors that are all becoming too real. [sees Africans slaughtering Africans] [types furiously on his iPhone] "It must be the corporations! Evil colonialists!" Why is it Africa doesn't hold responsibility for Africa? Has anyone considered if Africa stopped eating itself, it might be strong enough to be independent? No, lets just keep eating each others faces and blame corporations and "the whites", that is easier. |
|
|
|
"Reasonable people can disagree about how whether some things are evil. For example, some people believe that meat is murder, so eating a chicken burrito or wearing leather shoes is evil. Some people would argue that owning stock in (pick your favorite "evil" company) is itself evil; a few of those people would even consider it evil to own an index fund--which might hold shares of hundreds of companies--simply because the index fund might hold a few shares of the "evil" company.
To live a life (either as a person or a corporation) so that no one, anywhere in the world, at any time can accuse you of evil is impossible. I think a Bloom County comic strip made this point, with Opus the penguin getting more and more timid until eventually he was dangling from a tree to avoid stepping on things and killing them by accident. Even then, in the final frame Opus realized that by breathing he was killing tiny organisms in the air.
So I think "Do no evil" is an impossible standard: reasonable people can disagree on which choices are evil, and for different reasons. I prefer "Don't be evil" because it leaves room for honest disagreements, but still encourages Google to strive to make the world better.
By the way, when I see "do no evil" instead of "don't be evil" in an post or article, I know the author is much more likely to criticize Google. Once you start noticing how authors frame Google's core value as "Don't be evil" vs. "Do no evil" you'll often know what to expect from the article. Keep an eye out and you'll notice it in the future too."
Source: This was taken from Matt's Google+ feed which is now defunct" Sounds like the perpetual cry of the Postmodern relativist justifying cultural suicide. |
|
|
|
Interesting you don't seem to care if the OP deserves his rating any more... almost as if... you are here to focus on targeting me personally.
World is not spinning around you mr. troll  Not the world, just a clown car. |
|
|
|
If there is one flaw in my actions to which I will admit it's not taking the time to PM you and discuss my actions with you privately. I do like you so perhaps I should have given you that courtesy. In fact, I should probably start giving everyone I choose to exclude that courtesy. But your repeated insistence that this fable I've constructed was purely about you is quite narcissistic. It's not a good look, man.
To be specific, a homophobic bully who condones violence against those who's sexual orientation he finds distasteful was the final straw. There are and were others, which is what caused me to remove you from my inclusions six months ago. By not including you the issue was solved. The issue remained solved until a few days ago when you convinced a disenfranchised ethnic group that you were on their side. Ironically that ethnic group became disenfranchised for the very same reasons I excluded you.
Yes, if you were honest and your concern was my inclusions, and not just looking cool for your new nepotist buddies by targeting me, you would have contacted me directly. You came to a conclusion first then decided to craft your narrative around it. Narcissistic? So this is not a fable? You just got done telling me this thread is not about me, and here you are admitting "the final straw" just so happens to be exactly the same scenario that you cite as an excuse for excluding me. I think he doth protest too much. Regarding BitcoinSupremo, he absolutely did not condone violence. He stated his personal views. He didn't make a call for violence. Homosexuals should be free from violence, and homophobes should still have free speech. Taking a freedom from one group to give to another is not freedom, that is despotism. That said, in reality it has nothing to do with his politically incorrect words, really it is about targeting him for openly criticizing the nepotism, hypocrisy, and double standards of those maintaining a tight stranglehold on the default trust. Much like this thread itself, it is all part of a coordinated attack to bring retribution for the crime of resisting the nepotism in public. If it wasn't specifically crafted to attack, as I already stated, you would have simply raised your concerns to me personally. Of course that was never your goal. |
|
|
|
Those are nice fancy words. Makes it feel like they had substance. You still didn't explain why you removed or excluded me, but you sure made it sound like you did huh? I use the words that come to mind, substantial or otherwise. For clarity I'll try to answer with less pedanticism: I excluded you because I don't agree with your inclusions. I don't care to have those whom you've included affect my trust network's ratings and reviews. That's it, as simply as I can articulate it. I excluded you, as most of my exclusions, because it is apparent to me I was excluded in an attempt to satiate the existing group of nepotists controlling the DT. The pattern is consistently retaliatory and timed with critical statements of their behavior or that of their pals. Then right out of Goebbels handbook, they accuse me of the crimes they themselves are guilty of. I have been watching your trust list for a while and have watched you ooze your way into the clown car with your virtue signalling inclusions and exclusions, and it worked! You are now part of the in club. Congrats. All it cost was your principles. Now here you are justifying punishing and excluding some one from a system of trust who you know damn well wouldn't steal from a billionaire, to preserve your own special boy status. Good for you. I hope that works out for you. I predict it won't, but good luck anyway.
Well, okay then. I'll take you for your word, I hope you can take me for mine. I'm not trying to be accepted by any club, least of which one that will have me as a member. I'm not trying to punish you, and the fact that you see my exclusion as a form of punishment speaks volumes about your desire to be on DT1, and that makes me question your motives. No, I don't think you're a scammer. Yes, I do believe you are a trustworthy individual, and I find you a valuable contributor to the forum. I also think you'd be a pleasant dude to share a beer with. But I don't like how you build your trust-list. Unfortunately I can't take you at your word, because if you were being honest, you would have simply raised the issue to me personally instead of attempting to avoid this critical examination of your actions entirely with this whole theoretical scenario, followed by empty pedantry, then by another empty excuse with no actual explanation of the flaws you are supposedly addressing with my exclusion. This is the behavior of some one managing a narrative, not some one with organic motives. So once again, I will ask, specifically what is wrong with my inclusions? Who, and why? |
|
|
|
What in gods fuck is this.
Holy shit why isn't the media reporting on this happening. Or at least, why isn't this front page news like it should be? I haven't seen any of this and this is a horrible thing to see in the world.
Not liking immigrants, while despicable, is one thing. But burning them alive and physically assaulting them (and even killing them) in the streets is another thing. This is a whole other level of how horrible humans can be to one another.
This is a great demonstration of why you should include a wider range of sources for your topical information. There is no such thing as bad information, only useless interpretations of it. The key is recognizing the source and its motives. |
|
|
|
He is not scammer, he is trusted trader but his moral is questionable.
I don't even think his moral(s) are questionable, at least from what he's demonstrated on this forum. He's a hot-headed troll, yes, but he's not a scammer from what I've seen. In fact I do recall writing quite a long time ago that I would do business with him if we hadn't butted heads and made such a relationship untenable. I'm not sure what kind of argument Vod is trying to make here, but I'd certainly like some clarification on the "scammer" aspect of it. Lobbying to get yourself on DT isn't sinister in and of itself, and we all knew TECSHARE wanted and thinks he deserves to be on it. I kind of figured he'd end up back on the list eventually, along with OgNasty. This is what the clown car is terrified of right here. People who don't necessarily like each other maintaining principals we are all held to, regardless of our personal feelings. After all, if we aren't too busy bickering, we might realize we agree on something. Something that might mean they are also held to those standards if too many people get "uppity" and start following actual principles instead of just a popularity contest. |
|
|
|
In the last two weeks we have seen the words racist and scammer used in very very poor fashion on the forum. These words have no meaning nowadays because of you people. Open a dictionary or google the proper terms you are looking for.
These are now used for clickbait to gather the uneducated pitchfork mobs. The world has gone to shit in this regard, don't let our forum follow.
The enthusiasm with which people engage in these mobs is terrifying, never once considering that inevitably they will be on the other end, because now that is just the accepted standard. |
|
|
|
That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl. Lol, no ignorance needs to be feigned. It's really, really NOT all about you. Really. I excluded you because your inclusions are counterproductive to my trust-system philosophy. Why did you exclude me? Answer carefully, because it looks like retaliation. There was a time when I had you included in my trust-list, but about 6 months ago I realized that your inclusion was incongruent to the development of my trust network. So I removed your inclusion. Those are nice fancy words. Makes it feel like they had substance. You still didn't explain why you removed or excluded me, but you sure made it sound like you did huh? I excluded you, as most of my exclusions, because it is apparent to me I was excluded in an attempt to satiate the existing group of nepotists controlling the DT. The pattern is consistently retaliatory and timed with critical statements of their behavior or that of their pals. Then right out of Goebbels handbook, they accuse me of the crimes they themselves are guilty of. I have been watching your trust list for a while and have watched you ooze your way into the clown car with your virtue signalling inclusions and exclusions, and it worked! You are now part of the in club. Congrats. All it cost was your principles. Now here you are justifying punishing and excluding some one from a system of trust who you know damn well wouldn't steal from a billionaire, to preserve your own special boy status. Good for you. I hope that works out for you. I predict it won't, but good luck anyway. |
|
|
|
~
The problem is the reciprocal part of those relationships. Adding or removing someone with or without conversation is everyone's personal business. But when a quid pro quo (or retaliatory) pattern develops you can expect raised eyebrows. Your exaggerations are not helping either, someone might see you as a conspiracy nutjob and consider it a flaw in your judgement. [proposes a conspiracy, then criticizes opponent for making up conspiracy theories] There was never any quid pro quo, or any pattern of it, this is just your projections upon the situation because it serves your goals of punishing me for working to unseat your clown cartel. This is 100% a matter of self preservation of your own authority, which not shored up with an iron nepotist hand, will collapse like a pile of sand when exposed to an actually decentralized DT where people are offered legitimate choices instead of just "with us" or "against us". You want to talk about retaliatory patterns now? Why are the retaliatory patterns of exclusions enacted upon me that continually JUUST so happen to occur after I call one of you clowns out? Why is it none of you righteously object then? Your collective retaliation is sanctified though is it? How about your best bud Yahoo62278 for example, deleted multiple positive trust ratings for me after I was critical of him in this thread, which coincidentally is about another almost decade long pattern of retaliation. He shouldn't be abusing the trust system for retaliation, but of course not a peep from the circus. I guess they were on vacation that day. This is as it has been for a long time here, two sets of standards. One for you, and one for everyone else. |
|
|
|
That's cool, feign ignorance like a scared child. I am sure your exclusion of me was purely coincidental with the timing of my inclusion as well as this screed. Lots of coincidences eh? Way to burn any respect I had left for you by showing me you don't have even enough spine to talk to my face, instead resorting to this theoretical form of "conflict avoidance" like a little girl.
Oh yeah, shame on DireWolfM14 for sharing his thoughts like a little girl. Your tantrums are so grown up. https://i.giphy.com/media/xUKTfpLS9BYUT2vprT/giphy.gifIf only gifs were an argument, maybe you would have a point. He is doing what all people terrified of addressing any conflict do, they dance around the subject never addressing it directly. If he had messaged me or even said my name instead of this transparent theoretical which everyone knows the subject is about, at least he would have the nuts to make a direct accusation. Of course he doesn't so he has to hide behind his shield of theoretical situations as if everyone doesn't know what he is talking about. Of course this way he doesn't have to actually defend or debate his position either, because it is all theoretical see! |
|
|
|
Lets wait for ABitNut to respond. These other clowns are just here to stalk me. Let me throw some peanuts at them until they feel dumb and go away. They want to sabotage this resolution just to try to frustrate me. Don't give them any ammo by replying. You made the first step towards being reasonable. You and I both hold the moral high ground. All these idiots can do is piss up into the air and try not to get wet.
The kind of PMs he sent to me. Pure egoism. This is disturbing. I hope this message is not truth because it looks like author think there is some kind of conspiracy going on in this thread. Sending you PM (to account StonerStanley).
" StonerStanley 2019-09-08 He tried to make me thinking that it is my fault if he add a liar into the "trust" feedback list. Very dishonest person, don't deal with him, maybe a scammer. " Say "thanks marlboroza" @T, seems you don't have it any more. Now do correct thing. Go fuck yourself clown. He removed it because the clown car organized to have me excluded from DT1 again, thus dropping his own negative rating off of DT, not because of you. Since the OP finds it to be fine to post PM's freely read this one: Ok, so my account is back to the normal. Sorry but i tried to defend myself. I understand your reaction because you had your goal and i hope
that you understand how it was also hard for me because i'm person with a lot of emotions.
Anyway i just want to thank you that you tried to help me and i hope that you won't give me a negative feedback.
Interesting you don't seem to care if the OP deserves his rating any more... almost as if... you are here to focus on targeting me personally. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
