It's interesting that the word "scammed" is being used when bob123 wasn't enriched by even 1 satoshi for this. I don't see any evidence that bob123 used this acquired information to try and extort the OP. Also, punishing a whistle blower for revealing the truth with a red flag is a bit heavy handed, especially in this case.
I also don't think buying and selling accounts, in most cases, is legitimate. Someone is basically paying money so that they can present a reputation that does not truly represent them. Even if they are only purchasing it to get into a signature campaign, they are using it to land a gig that they probably don't legitimately qualify for.
If we are both newspaper salesmen, and I burn down your newspaper stand, that doesn't directly provide me a profit does it? Yet I still violated the other salesman's property rights now didn't I? You all love using the widest interpretation possible to justify flags for people saying naughty words, but some one directly destroying the property of another doesn't count as risky behavior? The trust system is not your personal cudgel to be used against your opponents and kept from being used against those you agree with. You analogy is flawed. There is no evidence that bob123 is a rival account seller. Therefore, he had absolutely nothing to financial gain from eliminating competition. Second, regarding the other situation that you elude to, I have not supported or opposed that particular flag. However, I do believe that particular user's posts fall rather close to threats of violence against a particular ethnicity. It goes farther than mere "naughty words." However, it appears it falls just under what is considered an offense worthy of a ban. Also, bob123's act is not equivalent to burning the particular product. All he did was reveal which products are for sale. It's rather dubious that we have market where it is detrimental to reveal that the product is for sale. Most legitimate businesses would welcome someone informing others exactly which products they have for sale. I'm sure that you don't mind if i post the links to these threads: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127280https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5120800Then reveal to everyone that you are selling gold coins and your sole. It is irrelevant if bob123 is a rival account seller or not. He still used deception to destroy the property of another. The point of the analogy is you can cause financial damage to others without direct financial (or any financial) incentive. It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules. It is circular logic. We need to destroy his product because we run around destroying his products. |
|
|
|
It's interesting that the word "scammed" is being used when bob123 wasn't enriched by even 1 satoshi for this. I don't see any evidence that bob123 used this acquired information to try and extort the OP. Also, punishing a whistle blower for revealing the truth with a red flag is a bit heavy handed, especially in this case.
I also don't think buying and selling accounts, in most cases, is legitimate. Someone is basically paying money so that they can present a reputation that does not truly represent them. Even if they are only purchasing it to get into a signature campaign, they are using it to land a gig that they probably don't legitimately qualify for.
If we are both newspaper salesmen, and I burn down your newspaper stand, that doesn't directly provide me a profit does it? Yet I still violated the other salesman's property rights now didn't I? You all love using the widest interpretation possible to justify flags for people saying naughty words, but some one directly destroying the property of another doesn't count as risky behavior? The trust system is not your personal cudgel to be used against your opponents and kept from being used against those you agree with. That is not a legitimate comparison. A more realistic comparison would be you meet some one on Craig's List because you think they are selling a stolen bike, then you run it over with your car so they can sell it. Engaging in deception to damage the value of the accounts is not excusable just because some one suspects they might be stolen. You all need to get lives and stop pretending you are on an internet version of "COPS".
Or perhaps we should dispense with the stupid analogies and generalizations and take the facts at their face value. You think account farming is a legitimate "business" here. I don't. It's a scam. You are the one who started with the stupid analogies. I don't have to agree it is a legitimate business in order to agree that the user still has property rights which were violated through deception. If the user is scamming then produce evidence of it and open a flag and I will support it. These are two separate issues and one does not justify the other. |
|
|
|
Though the article is as biased as usual when you give a link, it contains something interesting. Yeah I call that biased when an article use 80% of testimony and 20% of facts. The one interesting thing is: how to limit extremism in teaching? Because gender theory is perfectly correct and when the teacher says "boys and girls aren't real" she's not wrong as gender are a social construct. But should it be taught in such strong and violent way? The teacher is obviously taking this subject at heart and it impacts her teaching. That would be the same with a racist teacher in a colonial history class or very religious teacher talking about civilization evolutions. How do you ensure that the personal beliefs of a teacher don't impact the school, or at least not to the point of harming children? I don't have an answer to this problem. I would love to see this unbiased news source you claim exists. That would be amazing. How to limit extremism in teaching? Get the federal government out of the educational system. Close The Department of Education. Home school your children. Are you honestly arguing there is zero biological component to gender differences? Here you are again making claims that the "nature vs nurture" debate has been concluded... |
|
|
|
because you continue to repeat your argument against Soviet Union, Venezuela and Cuba. I admire those systems but those aren't the type of systems I or any leftist I know are advocating for. So yeah. As long as that straw man is repeated, I will repeat that point. . They sought to eliminate the market regulatory mechanism and replace it with directives of the central planning authority. dont want a centrally planned economy \collectivized everything and everyone, and implemented an official planned economy. dont wanna collectivize everything and everyone price of the goods and services that were established by the market and not dictated by the government. dont want price controls so basically cool story that is not relevant today. You can do this all day just don't put us in it. Do you. Have fun arguing against a nation that doesn't exist anymore. Do you ever have any of your own ideas or is repeating the ideas of other all you are capable of? How about you tell me again about your goals. I am sure none of them will conflict with your previous statement. |
|
|
|
nope. no one has the flawed ideology you claim I have. No one wants the very things you claim cause the consequences. 100% strawman.
So your retort is to repeat yourself. Good show Captain Postmodern. The things that cause the consequences are in fact the things you advocate for. |
|
|
|
Don't you just hate when schools try to teach Science to little kids instead of dogma?
Yeah, because mutilating and chemically castrating children is "science". |
|
|
|
I wanted to get into this discussion but everyone in it is mischaracterizing the left and what the left wants so I have no argument here. No one wants the things you guys are arguing against.
All I can say is go read the platforms of leftist and socialist parties around the world.
If you think high taxes is the only thing socialist about Scandinavia, then you need to look more into their policies as well.
You keep repeating this phrase over and over again "no one wants etc". Your intent is completely irrelevant. No one wants to become an addict junkie when they do their first line of cocaine or their first injection of heroin. No one wants to become morbidly obese. No one wants PTSD when they sign up for the military, but it is a fact there are well known circumstances that tend to lead to those negative results. What you want is irrelevant. What is relevant is your ideology is flawed and results in these negative consequences no matter how much you wish them away and imagine it to be something other than what it is, a failure. |
|
|
|
Didn't read the OP yet, but still I would be very surprised mindrust would create a flag when its not appropriate, he's one of the members that has my highest respect in is always honest with his posts and his vision/thought towards BTC and other forum members, I will also look to your post a little later, cause not to much time atm.... But I just wouldn't see him do anything thats not in line with the forum....  Mindrust withdrew his support for the original flag against Matthias9515 over this issue. Logic dictates that then the trust rating is also not valid since it was left over the same issue. Matthias9515, I would recommend you delete your negative rating for Mindrust and be the bigger man here. I think a neutral rating would be appropriate if you feel it is absolutely necessary, but I think much like with the flag withdraw, it shows your intent toward reconciliation rather than retaliation, and would go a long way in motivating Mindrust as well as others around him that he should reciprocate and also remove his rating for you. |
|
|
|
Gay? Where does it say that Atrazine causes a change in sexual orientation? Put down the bourbon and read it again. I don't drink. Don't you have some old church ladies to go brow beat and lecture about how superior you are to them? |
|
|
|
I think his point is the average unknown user could easily catch a tag for this kind of behavior, but the Op is one of the "special" ones that the forum mall cops see fit to ignore.
Can you show example of average unknown user rickrolled someone and got tag after that? You know damned well this is not about a rick roll and is about a false accusation Captain Semantics. Now you think you are inside my head. Crazy. Either you are arguing you are mildly retarded and genuinely believe people are objecting to a rick roll, or you are just pretending to shift the subject away to another topic. Which is it? What was funny about it? LMFAO people asked questions and took him at his word, THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS!
Glad we're on the same page. It is irrelevant if the accused like it or not, it effects the entire forum.
... Also... Rush Limbaugh is a comic? I learn more an more about the delusional caricature of me you hold in your mind every day.
I don't think he's a comic, the caricature of you in my mind does. Edit: You know, I've done some thinking about it, and you're right. This is serious. As far as I can tell, this is the first time in the history of the forum that Lauda and minerjones have been falsely accused of anything. Interesting, the forum is such a serious place when you have an opponent to smear, but otherwise it is just a big joke to you people unless it serves your preferred narrative. The difference between this accusation and the others is this isn't just a flimsy accusation, it is openly, intentionally, and admittedly frivolous. People have a lot invested in this place, their reputation shouldn't be your plaything children. This whole thing demonstrates the mentality many of you approach this forum with quite well. |
|
|
|
Jesus H. It was meant to be a joke. A joke! It may not have been the funniest thing in the world but its at a level of trolling the forum is not used to. I found the reactions to it to be quite humorous. You know damned well this is not about a rick roll and is about a false accusation Captain Semantics.
Did you just call somebody "Captain Semantics" after using the words "false accusation"?  Quick somebody ask the 'falsely accused' if they give a flying F. Also: Also I am a big fan of all kinds of comedy
I find this hard to believe unless "all kinds" means everything from Dennis Miller to Rush Limbaugh. Hey look who couldn't restrain themselves and stopped pretending to ignore me already. The fact that it was meant to be a joke is irrelevant. What was funny about it? LMFAO people asked questions and took him at his word, THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS! Or is the real joke that anyone bothered to take actmyname seriously at any point? You are right, we should just assume anything he says is a joke and is totally bullshit from now on. Yeah, because that is what it was, a false accusation. Intent aside, that is EXACTLY what it was. You know damn well the objection is not the fact that there was a rick roll, the objection is that making fake accusations against members who are entrusted with large amounts of money from many users is a very stupid precedent to set, and creates a clear security risk that could delay reaction to any real reports in the future, causing people losses. It is irrelevant if the accused like it or not, it effects the entire forum. Also... Rush Limbaugh is a comic? I learn more an more about the delusional caricature of me you hold in your mind every day. Lol fucking Rush Limbaugh. What a tool you both are. |
|
|
|
Some people still think amateur vigilante sting operations are a good idea?
Bob most definitely engaged in deception with the intent to damage other users business dealings and property value.
Maybe I don't like stores that sell lotto tickets and alcohol due to my religion but that doesn't make it right for me to go destroy their products..
Not sure about it fitting a flag yet though.. I'll watch some more..
It's more like finding out that someone is selling a stolen bicycle and reporting them to police. Sold accounts are being exposed all the time, often after the sale. Is is any better if the buyer ends up screwed? The whole "business" is based on deception and the seller basically shifts the risk to the buyer. FWIW I don't agree with some of what bob123 did or said but there is no doubt to me that the account farmer's flag is bogus and frivolous. That is not a legitimate comparison. A more realistic comparison would be you meet some one on Craig's List because you think they are selling a stolen bike, then you run it over with your car so they can't sell it. Engaging in deception to damage the value of the accounts is not excusable just because some one suspects they might be stolen. You all need to get lives and stop pretending you are on an internet version of "COPS". |
|
|
|
|
I am not seeing any evidence in this thread to support a flag on Matthias9515, if you believe I have missed something in translation please do post it in Turkish as well as English in text so I can verify the translations, along with an image if need be. As it stands right now, it appears this flag is totally unfounded, and most likely an attempt to smear "political" opponents.
|
|
|
|
So you supported flag based on SaltySpitoon's opinion? You didn't read thread which is linked in OP, you wouldn't say what you said if you did  Can you post which accounts SeW900 tried to sell? Salty will be the first to tell you I don't agree with his opinions just because he is the one to state them. I do however agree with his logical conclusion that these are separate issues, and one act does not justify the other. I don't need to post anything because that is irrelevant to this thread. |
|
|
|
This flag is a retaliatory and unjustified use of the flag system.That doesn't mean I think your premise is wrong, just that this is not what the trust system is for. Remove it and I will consider reviewing the accusation against you. Thanks. EDIT: Matthias9515 has taken the first step toward reconciliation and preservation of the integrity of the trust system by removing his support for this flag, which to me speaks well of his intent. I suggest anyone reading this should review this flag on him, which at this time I believe to be unjustified, and vote on it. |
|
|
|
I think his point is the average unknown user could easily catch a tag for this kind of behavior, but the Op is one of the "special" ones that the forum mall cops see fit to ignore.
Can you show example of average unknown user rickrolled someone and got tag after that? You know damned well this is not about a rick roll and is about a false accusation Captain Semantics. |
|
|
|
Kind of like Russia.
Pay no attention to the millions of foreign nationals being allowed to flood over our border to manipulate voting demographics. What is important is Russia bought $2000 worth of Facefuck ads! They can't vote so what are you talking about. It is illegal for them to vote* There, I fixed that for you. Oh you are one of those conspiracy theorists I see. So do not focus on Russia influencing the election because it favored your side but all of a sudden you are worried about Google doing the same thing. Wonder why? Ah, ad hominem attacks, the last bastion of those without any logical argument. It is a fact that illegal aliens are voting even though they are legally prohibited from doing so. This is the main motivation behind issuing them drivers licenses, because many states automatically add people to the voter registration rolls when they apply for one. Russia isn't shipping millions of people into the country to vote. Russia also does not have the power to almost completely silence 50%+ of the population. |
|
|
|
While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.
Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place? If that is the case, and the original owner wants to make a flag and has evidence I would support that as well. "what if" games do not justify this behavior. So you supported flag without reading thread? It seems that accused didn't broke any agreement as accuser have tried to sell bob123 what it seems to be hacked account: WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!
Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox, I haven't even used this account for weeks...
Further, you are not allowed to sell hacked accounts and admin should look into this case and ban your ass if this turns out to be true. You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally. This ^ |
|
|
|
While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.
Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place? If that is the case, and the original owner wants to make a flag and has evidence I would support that as well. "what if" games do not justify this behavior. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
