Let's say that someone posts how much they hate theymos and how they want him dead. If theymos doesn't ban them, does that mean that he likes them? Does that mean that theymos agrees them? (Hint: No)

Tolerating something (as in, creating a trash can for it to not litter the rest of the forum) != condoning it. I really don't see what you are having such a hard time understanding about this.

Nothing, as scams are not moderated (and hopefully never will be).

Maybe you should stop posting tendentious crap and read the replies you get.


That doesn't mean they are condoned.

Scams aren't moderated because of the potential for bias. Meaning that if a mod hates someone and that someone opens a service without the intention to scam, the mod might pull down the service just to spite that someone. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

internationAL classifiEd aDs & auctiONS
It's a short name

Awesome,so are we going to keep branching out and applying negative trust to stuff?
How exciting...

- People that use poor Inglish
- People that disagree with me
- People that do not post often enough
- People that do not make me happy with their posts
- People that post to much
- People that think they are cops
- People that you think may smell behind their keyboard
- People with serious OCD
- People who do drugs
- People that sound like they are in a Militia bunker
- People the support Altcoins
- People that do not work
- People that talk about having a life outside bitcoin
- People that have signatures
- People that trust build
- People with agendas
- People that wear pink on Tuesdays
- People that have more than one account
- People that can not sign a message proving they have bitcoin

Oh boy Oh boy...Lets string up and go to town!!

====================================================================

This wanting to police the forum is becoming a serious problem and it was kind of funny at first and now truly sad the lengths some of you are willing to go with this crusade. Already noticing some people that I used to enjoy reading that had thoughtful things to say and not trolling have gone quiet. If you want to live in a perfect cookie cutter forum go create one and have the people with glass houses
follow you in. Stop trying to make some kind of righteous utopia and let people be ffs!

The very notion is insane ; if the faucet reopens, that means that there will be more coins as distribution continues, but the crazy part is
that you're probably right, for some unknown reason to me, people seam to start buying the most when faucet is working and people are selling more  

What exactly would be the argument here? BTCT is supporting X because BTCT allows it and has 'significant influence' while others don't? No, I'm not familiar with similar forums because they're mostly filled with conspiracy rubbish (e.g. HF fanatics). As far as Bitcoin forums go, BTCT is the most popular one, yes.

Why would I have to provide proof of 'non-existing' support when you haven't provided proof of 'existing' support. Tolerating those 'games' is one thing, participating and supporting them is another.

Incorrect. I provided (or at least tried) to provide you with the correct information the whole time. Usually in trust-related cases (DT2) the options are:
1) Contact the person who left you the rating.
2) Contact the person from DT1 who has them in their list.
3) Try to get other DT1 members to exclude them.

About point 2: That would be dooglus; I've told you this already

i indirectly thanked you for that if you remember

---

---

Do you have any other requests/questions? Has this thread served its purpose or is it going to be continued with the "BTCT supporting ponzi's" stuff?

What's wrong with that statement? Do you have a proof that Bitcointalk doesn't support the illegal ponzi schemes? [ironic smile]

I never said that it was impossible. What I did say is that there is no sign of clear/extensive abuse which would require the intervention of the administration. Just because you don't agree with someones ratings that does not mean that they're abusing something.

Example: Facebook also supports every single evil entity that shares anything that could be considered 'immoral'? Doubtful at best.

Again, you seem to fail to realize even how this forum works. You don't usually get negative rating for breaking the forum rules, you get punished (e.g. banned). You got negative ratings for things that are 'frowned upon' by the community, e.g. support ponzi's, scam and such.

Do I have to draw this out for you? Staff does not moderate trust ratings.

If you actually bothered to read the link I gave you it is perfectly clear why negative ratings are the weapon of choice against scammers and those who support them.

That IBG is getting fewer new scam threads with much shorter lifespans is evidence enough that this community action works.

Freedoge, perhaps this will help you better understand that this is a community action, not a forum rule:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1381105.0

In that it is a community action you can quit demanding that staff attend to your displeasure and simply accept that you are being held to account for your actions by the community.

Ponzi schemes *need* people to post encouraging comments in order for them to function. This policy of marking users who help these scams function is extremely effective at limiting their propagation, particularly when it comes to the fact it is no longer worthwhile for scammers to buy senior forum accounts with which to fraudulently vouch for their operation.

That scammers are trying to hide in other forum sections isn't sufficient as most experienced users are quick to flag them as a likely ponzi and then they are moved into IBG and dealt with accordingly.

BTW, not all threads in IBG are scam operations, just most of them.

The whole thread is based on you not being able to participate in signature campaigns. Apart from that, you have made no clear and valid arguments (which is why it is irrational). You're asking for:
1) Removal of the section.
2) Moderation of DT.
Both of which are extensive changes.

yes i started this topic asking for removal the cryptodevil from DT, but you said is not possible, ok i see the dead end. So i go further to get some explanation why i should accept that trust while the ponzis are allowed here based on current situation.

Is the thread about cryptodevil, "BTCT supporting ponzi's" or Lauda? Pick one; you can't have it all at once.

do you see any signature under my posts? you said i'm a signature spammer instantly, just based on my request and honesty that i wanted to get red trust removed to join the signature campaign

No, BTCT does not support everything that is present on it nor can it be held responsible for the actions of the users.

ok, but also bitcointalk donesn't moderate ponzi threads, which indirectly supports it

He doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no rule against ponzi's as far as the forum's rules are concerned. When it comes to trust ratings, the the story seems to be different.

---

---

Again, you need to focus on what you really want to do here. If you want to get the ponzi section removed and ponzi's banned, then focus on building up the proper argumentation for your request.

well, what i wanted is simple justice. If ponzis are allowed why would i get red trust for it, in those sites are not allowed then ok my red trust is earned. I hoped that the staff could remove it as i wasn't doing anything against forum rules. But i see it's impossible quest considering your attitude since the beginning, so this thread is now only about bitcointalk supporting the ponzi schemes

Ponzi sites aren't allowed in this forum that's why you received a negative trust from cryptodevil. You were saying something about cryptodevil not responding to your messages, now that he responded in this thread, grab the chance and talk to him. Actually though, you still have a lot of negative trusts to get removed.

And for the record, I don't see it as something impossible. There's a possibility that theymos would have a lot of spare time and he check on this thread but that is unlikely to happen.

You *kindly* asked me to remove the rating?

So I can add liar to the description of your untrustworthy behaviour?

You responded in thread by giving an excuse for supporting ponzis which does not hold up to scrutiny, namely, that EVERYONE knows how ponzis work and that it is 'like gambling'. Neither of which are true statements. Ten minutes later you posted that I should be banned from the forum.



"Someone must stop this scam obsessed individual" - Stated as though it means something really profound. Pro-tip: It doesn't.