All of my giveaways will be paid out as planned. I'll publicly announce the winners when the giveaways will conclude.


That's very nice from you but I'll cover these 0.5 mBTC for you to avoid tx fees. 
Many thanks for your contribution of course.

Have you read your entire post or are you not capable to remember?
Here’s how this is going on:

(translated)
Archived: https://archive.is/DNO3I#selection-7255.454-7255.530

I think, there’s no comment needed anymore that your rant was completely insane and you aren’t even showing today any regret about the abuse back then.
There are guidelines and we need to respect them.
Pyramid quoting should be avoided and it’s up to you to correct that mistake!

Interesting how you are (not) following your own announcements. First, you say you won’t respond and after that, we get 4 (!) new replies from you!
And you are calling me a clown? 

Your whole post is about belittling my well-meant advice that we need to follow the rules to avoid pyramid quoting. You are even lying there, once again:

(translated)
Archived: https://archive.is/DNO3I#selection-7255.0-7255.88
Fact is: your pyramid quote is NOT following the guidelines! Not at all!


Your whole post is that you give a shit about this advice! Otherwise, you would have followed the rules and avoided that pyramid quote!

Your whole post is about how proud you are that you are having the “balls” to write your bullshit rant.

Your whole post is about how you are unwilling to improve, you are even proud of it!

Thanks for showing today, that you have learned exactly NOTHING since then, that you are not even willing to admit your childish behaviour back then!

You were trolling by pyramid-quoting my entire post, while my post is exactly about improving posting quality...  
You are proud of your rule violation, you are not showing any regret over that childish behaviour!


Only "a" pyramid quote, YES a very big one!  
Maybe it's time for you to realize to remove the pyramid quote?


No, but you just did that after announcing the opposite thing, that you wouldn't respond anymore.  
So, stop calling me clown, you are the clown here!

It's a big surprise for me, why digaran is expecting on the one hand that people will forgive him, on the other hand, he's escalating his already excessive trolling once again with defamations and sowing discord. Like his "petition" to remove me as a Merit source.
While NeuroticFish is a big contributor, who's beneficial for the community, digaran is a big troll, who's exactly the opposite.
And then, he's crying that he's collecting more negative trusts. A bit delusional but what could we expect from such a proven troll. He's proving it again and again that his trusts are well deserved and is even begging for new ones.

Playing the victim card is core part of your strategy. Should someone dare to criticize your lies, your disproven propaganda you excuses about your uninteresting low quality one-liners, you've repeatedly doubled down on your misbehaviour, instead of admitting your wrongdoing. That's also part of my neutral trust feedback on your account:

You said, you don't care, don’t need to follow the rules and you threw defamations around. You are even proud of your bullshit. Just look at your bullshit posts, where you pyramid-quoted my entire post, despite the whole topic was about avoiding such simple mistakes: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5392188.msg59672279#msg59672279
You pyramid-quoted my post on purpose, just to show me that you don't care about the rules, what a childish behaviour to show your unwillingness to improve! 

And thanks for pointing out in your rant above again that my neutral trust is well justified because you have learned nothing!


Hmmm, let's check the case I've just mentioned above about that pyramid quote.


Who's lying here, you shitposting troll?!
Are you capable of checking your post back then, where you got the neutral trust for? 
It's in the reference link! That's why these trusts are on your profile to make readers aware of that!


These announcements are always coming from you and still, you keep coming back, denying any of your past abuses, which are publicly available! 

Looks like you are the clown here...

---

You should get one additional negative trust entry per week in my opinion due to your repeated abusive trolling, derailing the Reputation board with your insane accusations and anti-DT defamations considering your latest trolling attempts!

Yes, I'm willing to review my feedbacks but you are not willing to stop your malicious behaviour.
You are even escalating it and that's why all of your trusts are well deserved!

To review everything, it will take some time to make a careful consideration. I’ve already removed many of the recent feedbacks from 2023 when there was room for improvement, to clear the recent cases.
Like d5000 has said, double entries will be narrowed down when justified and I’ve done that already for several cases. Some feedbacks were even removed entirely.
I’ve received neutral trusts as well and also of the same category, so this will be taken into consideration.

Neutral trusts are just normal comments, where the case is not enough to justify a negative one.
If in question, a feedback is neutral. That’s how I’m handling this.

---

The context is all there.  

You are always trying to play the victim card to cover your wrongdoings. Here again, where you are withewashing your excessive shitposting, trolling and topic derailing. You are even proud of that, this is a disgusting behaviour.
Instead of trying to improve, you are doubling down on your shitpost spam and the only “argument” has been that you have been getting away with it so far because shitposters like you always try to push the boundaries for their excessive shitposting.
You can’t stand criticism of your already disproven propaganda, and you call that criticism “oppression” and it’s not on the table for you to even try to improve your posting quality, you can’t face criticism for that, you are incapable of that.

Your weekly post count is barely more than the requirement of posts, whatever the requirement is.
Someone could make a statistic in Meta about that and prove my claims.
You are just here to milk signature campaigns with your uninteresting shitposts. I’ve criticized that in the past and made aware of it. Shitposting should be condemned, not encouraged.
Shitposting is why the forum is going down, the more of it, the worse.

The big problem is here, that you are not willing to improve, you are now willing to admit that simple fact that you are here just for paid sig campaigns, where it's very important for you to put in the lowest effort as possible!
And you are even proud of it!
Your reply above is a perfect example how you are playing the victim card again, just because I dare to bring up the topic of improving posting quality.
Your neutral trust to point out that simple thing and make readers aware, is deserved. Deal with it.

And your attitude here shows very well, why it’s so dangerous to encourage shitposters like you!

---

---

Regarding the giveaway: topic is already edited and prizes will be paid out to the winners as promised.

---

I’ll take some time to re-read all of the neutral feedbacks, and linked reference links. That’s why I’ve included these links, that it’s always possible to read up on each issue – neutral feedback.
To read up everything, I’ll take my time and come to a final conclusion on January 10, 2024.

To remove any of the remaining trusts it’ll be of very high relevance, if these entries are still valid. Because I believe even shitposting can be improved or – at least – the willingness to improve. If there’s willingness to improve, there’s already a (small) improvement and that’s the right way to go.
At least in the topic here, we will see the reaction and can directly compare if their behaviour still shows, if my neutral feedbacks are legitimate.
I’m doing my part to review the feedbacks and any new feedbacks could be reviewed any time as trust is public.

Nice to see we can find some common ground here and I'll look into my past feedbacks tomorrow.
After all, we need to come along with each other and reviewing my past feedbacks can help here in my opinion.

Techically, that could be expected, yes.
For now, no one has been damaged as my giveaways aren't finalized but the winners definitely could make claims after the giveaways have concluded.
I could re-open it or (for example) send some funds to someone else on my behalf to deal with it.
I will find a solution, where none of the legitimate winners will suffer any loss.

---

There'll be a positive solution, where prizes are paid.  

Yes, after a few days off, it’s always better to find a solution and despite all the disagreements with my neutral trusts, I’m here to address it.

---

These are my voluntary, private giveaways, which I've been running every year as a community contribution. I've been far too generous instead of ill-seeking trolls like you. It's my giveaway, if someone doesn't like free Bitcoin, don't participate. I'm handling the funds as it's my giveaway. No giveaway was concluded and the return of all sponsoring funds, was discussed and settled with funds being send back.

---

First, many thanks for those, who tried to explain the situation on the German board, why I’ve left these neutral ratings.

It happened quite frequently, that threads in the German board were derailed on purpose by those, who have caught a neutral trust back then. And these neutral trusts are very important for readers to get an impression before interacting with these people, that every reader can make up his own opinion.
The abuses were quite severe because repeatedly, they’ve trolled with blunt lies even after the remaining members had debunked them. Anyone who dared to criticize the massive trolling was accused of "oppression", like these spammers are still calling it today but the reality is that our trolls can’t face any criticism without crying "oppression".

They just want to spread their propaganda without getting exposed as lies and getting called out for doing that.
That’s what they want and of course I will use my right for free speech to debunk that and call them out for spreading lies.
It’s not my problem that they were not ready for criticism.

So, our trolls are the ones who were always trying to prevent our spot-on criticism against their lies. Because it exposed their lies.

And these abusers in question did that derailing, lying and trolling again, again and again, despite some warnings from the moderation in the early days.
Quite a few members called out our trolls back then for their derailing, but unfortunately, some of these sane members have left the board, while a whole bunch of these abusers is still around.
Annoyed from the drama and despite the obvious lies from our trolls, the trolls were successful to trick the German moderator into doing little to nothing, sometimes a few weak warnings, when the derailing was too much. But overally, the trolls always tried to push the boundaries to their benefit. Of course, we pushed back, with criticism, with exposing their lies and neutral trust if there was any documented abuse.

We called for the moderator to sort out the issue and to do the moderation job. Even Nazi sympathizing gained traction or, legitimizing the war of Russia against Ukraine and spreading proven lies, of course. The trolls tried to derail our criticism by posting the same lies, re-phrased, again and again. But our feedback to take action against this was not heard.
Even later, plagiarism was covered up and even clear rule violation posts were ignored.
Of course, that emboldened the trolls. And they are now taking the chance to get rid of the consequences they got back then. 

At some point, we have to ask, if such misbehaiour is really beneficial for Bitcointalk or if the community should be able to push back and add a simple neutral trust for this mixture of lies, propaganda, trolling, derailing, shitposting and other things, where neutral trust is appropriate.
I believe, yes, it’s possible.
Neutral trust is completely fine for such things, it’s not negative, if there’s no abuse involved, where a negative trust is deserved. Neutral trust is “hey, before any interaction, you might be interested to read this, here’s a reference link”. 
That’s a very uncontroversial neutral trust in my opinion.
And DT will approve or disapprove that.

Of course, I will also PM certain abusers before opening a topic in Reputation to avoid more drama, if that drama can be avoided. Or should I slap them the topic directly in their face, without any heads-up, like mikeywith did here?

No need for me to be on DT, I believe in a truly decentralized system, where no one is able to dictate, which neutral trust ratings are acceptable or not. If other members are getting legitimized to interfere how other members are allowed to give out neutral trusts, our trolls will start new witch hunts again and again, terrorizing DT members.
And mikeywith is clearly doing this, without backing down from his initial claims, that I would have to remove all past feedbacks of the sort explained above AND for new feedbacks (and if there are new feedbacks, there would be the same witch-hunt again).
Let the whole community decide if they want to have these neutral feedbacks visible by default or not.

To address some of the abuses, where a legitimate neutral trust was given, without doubt:


MinoRaiola

MinoRaiola is a known plagiarizer, getting caught already in 3 cases (probably, there’s even more).
MinoRaiola is a known shitposter, also defending his shitposter friends.
MinoRaiola was caught to circle positive trust for no reason with his pal Unknown01 to bolster their accounts in signature campaigns.
That’s why MinoRaiola deserves his neutral trust.


Unknown01

Unknown01 is an excessive shitposter in our local German section.
He got even a reprimand:


My reminders to apply a high posting quality have been met with aggressive name-calling, crybaby excuses and defamations (see the neutral feedbacks on his account).
Unknown01 was caught to circle positive trust for no reason with his pal MinoRaiola to bolster their accounts in signature campaigns.
That’s why Unknown01 deserved his neutral trust.

It's no surprise, we can find even more, when we are digging. For everyone who wants to make his own opinion, you can read the trust feedbacks and click the reference link. That’s why I’ve always included a reference link for every reader to make DYOR.
These liars and their enablers might show up here and tell you anything. All the feedbacks have a reference link, where everyone can read up the truth himself. The links above are a great start for the abuses, MinoRaiola and Unknown01 are involved in.


Another issue is paid shitposting.
Signature campaigns are somehow a problem causing this but I believe the real problem are greedy shitposters and I’ve been ready to call them out. Unfortunately, when there are too many of these, they will take revenge at some point. I’ve left them neutral trust ratings, that everyone can read up on the issue and make up his own opinion, so everyone will be aware of some of them.

Now, that they are seeing the witch hunt launched by mikeywith here, they will gladly join to score some cheap points.
Like mikeywith, they are obsessed to throw with dirt.

Just to address the last accusations.

Luckily, the situation had calmed down on the German board over the last year a bit.
I'm not so sure if that will stay like that after the recent discord.
But let's hope so.

---

I’ve left the [banned mixer] signature campaign as well to give other members a chance to join as I will reduce my time here on Bitcointalk for now and I don’t want to block this spot.

---

Regarding a possible solution:

The last time, I’ve already made massive concessions regarding future trust feedbacks.

To find a suitable solution, I’m also willing to review all of my trust feedbacks in question.
But I’ll decide which ones will stay and which ones will get removed. That’s already a massive concession since I believe, that trust interference is setting a very dangerous precedent, as described above.

So, I’m crossing my red line both in future feedbacks and also in past feedbacks. I’ve done my part here to find a solution, also for future "abuses", where anyone can complain here but if there’s not enough controversy for these presented "cases" of my new, neutral trust feedbacks, these people will expose their true, malicious intentions. 

Dieses Gewinnspiel wird leider abgesagt.
0,25 mBTC, welches ich damals bereits verwaltet hatte, wurde an die Adresse von Lakai01 zurückgesendet.  
Aktualisierung:
Gewinnspiel wird ausgezahlt, die bereits an Lakai01 zurückgezahlten 0,25 mBTC übernehme ich.

Dieses Gewinnspiel wird leider abgesagt.
1 mBTC, welches mir damals bereits zugesendet wurde, wurde an die Adresse von CryptKeeper zurückgesendet, von der es damals verschickt wurde.

Aktualisierung:
Gewinnspiel wird ausgezahlt, die bereits an CryptKeeper zurückgezahlten 1 mBTC übernehme ich.

Dieses Gewinnspiel wird leider abgesagt.
0,5 mBTC, welches mir damals bereits zugesendet wurden, wurde an Learn Bitcoin zurückgesendet.  

Aktualisierung:
Gewinnspiel wird ausgezahlt, die bereits an Learn Bitcoin zurückgezahlten 0,5 mBTC übernehme ich.

Dieses Gewinnspiel wird leider abgesagt.
Vielen Dank für die Sponsorengelder an [banned mixer].
Die Rücktransferierung der 5 mBTC Sponsorengelder von [banned mixer] ist mit icopress abgeklärt.

Aktualisierung:
Gewinnspiel wird ausgezahlt, inklusive Sponsorengeld von MixTum. 

Your repeated accusations and name calling is achieving exactly nothing.
In addition, that's setting an extremely dangerous precedent, where one power-hungry DT member is trying to dictate another member's ability to give out trust feedbacks.
And you are acting against DT consensus, which is even more concerning! 
And DT will probably remove you, not me.
So, let's go back to a civil discussion how to solve the issue, we have had enough back and forth already.

---

Definitely, that's how we can discuss and that's how we can find common ground. I agree in general to follow that path. I'm willing to concede my red line that no one should be able to dictate my feedback for some time to calm down the situation between us. That way, people are not "afraid anymore to speak out", like you call it (where I'm having a fundamentally different opinion of course but we have that discussed already and let's agree to disagree here). So let's follow that goal for now, that we fullfill your statement, you've voiced here.
That's a very generous offer in my opinion from my side.
But you need to concede ground as well. Old feedbacks are not on the table as they are a thing of the past and otherwise DT would have removed me, which didn't happen - it's relevant what happens from now on, after we have agreed to find a solution for this.
In addition I'm conceding to you that if there is any trust feedback (not exclusions) you consider abuse, you are allowed to unlock this topic and to start a poll in this topic, where DT members (and only DT members) can vote, if that's abuse. Both of us will have to accept the decision from that DT vote.

So, I'll concede some ground, you'll concede some ground and we will find a solution, where both of us are happy. 

Unfortunately, calling names and keep bringing up the same old, wrong accusations is not going to settle the issue.
What's going to settle the issue is trying how to get along with each other, where everyone has to concede some ground. I'm already willing to concede some ground while mikeywith still isn't willing to concede even a little bit.

Thanks for proving once again, that you are just here for trolling, derailing any possibility to find a solution and sowing discord among DT members. And it's visible for everyone, that you are the problem!

But when we are at it, let me address this. Each DT member, who was mentioned in the post above, if you want to review the issue:
The following post is my current suggestion how to solve the issue, where I've already conceded ground:

Any DT member voices if this is a reasonable approach are appreciated.

Another approach could be just to lock the topic and if mikeywith still feels it's an issue, he can re-open it on 1st January 2024. That way, some time would pass to find a more level-headed solution as we will be able to review it with a bit distance. Then, a better solution could be found with much less drama.

Happy to hear any answers.  

So, everyone can see that I'm really interested to find common ground, that we can move on and avoid this unnecessary drama.

@fronti
Thanks for your post, I've already suggested the solution above, where I've even conceded ground.

Pointless? Finding a solution is pointless? Yes, maybe for drama lovers like you... 
I'm just following what LoyceV suggested here, to find an agreement to settle on instead of my suggestion of a 3rd party DT member decision: 


But we all know that you don't like DT, digaran!
You are not interested to find a solution.
You are just here to create drama.
You are just here to sow discord.
Your backfired attempts to discredit me everywhere, there's a new topic from Poker Player about you. This topic is spot on.

Lets get back on the topic to find a solution:

@digaran
I'm just trying to find a solution where we both can agree on. That's what LoyceV also wants us to do.
We can also wait for a call that is given from 2 or 3 Top 10 or 20 DT members and both of us have to accept that.
Repeated rants don't bring any solution, its just sowing discord.

---

Another suggestion for mikeywith, where I'm ready to concede ground:

Lets lock this topic until 01.01.2024 that the dust settles.
You can watch my feedbacks and trust list changes until then.
If you think, from now on until 01.01.2024 there would be "abuse" according to you, you could open this topic again, presenting evidence.
The outcomes:
- If the evidence is weak, DT will judge that accordingly.
- If the evidence is true and DT confirms this, I'll accept further distrusts from DT members.
- If there's no abuse, the topic will remain closed and we will move on.

You could review my trust feedback and trust list any time, from every entry that happens from now on until then. That way, you could interfere into my DT decisions for some time.
So you see, I'm ready to concede massive ground to find a solution here. I'm stepping back from the demand that any interference into my DT decisions is not acceptable.
I'm stepping back from my demand.
So, as I've said I'm ready to concede this massive ground to you.
How about that?

I know your opinion and I agree to disagree. Let's move on without misleading statements, lies and name-calling. This topic is a wall of 7 pages now.



I disagree to the way how you are expressing this by using emotionally loaded words once again. That's not helpful to find common ground.
But I will accept your call that you distrust me and I will live with it.


So, what about this call?
Let's find a solution, where we both can agree on:  

I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt for a very long time. But after all the things piling up from late 2022 on, this was very hard to give a pass at some point.
I have no problem if any of my posts gets criticism but this has to be in a civil way and if you are replying in my self-moderated topic of our campaign, you have to accept the rules of self-moderation. Removed posts were even allowed to post again but with proper German language, so no opinion was stifled. Your suggestion that opinions were stifled in that self-moderated topic is simply wrong.
Ignoring the self-moderated rules repeatedly despite me giving reminders of that Bitcointalk rules, is a Bitcointalk nettiquette violation.

I hope the above statement answers your question.
If we could sort out this one, what in general caused this whole drama, it's beneficial to see how this can prevented in the future.  

---

My call would be that'll try to get along with all members, even if we disagree.
Two suggestions:

- We can keep the topic open and have a civil discussion, without misleading accusations.
- We can close the topic and DT has now 6 pages to read up on. In this case I would give in on this and give mikeywith the last reply in this topic before it's getting closed.

I'm okay with both of the above solutions.