Probably because I was never on your trust list, but those that had me on their trust list were requested to exclude me, and not a peep of objection from any of you objecting here today was heard.

Funny, none of you had any objection whatsoever when the same was done in my case.

I find it terrifying you are teaching other people. Who taught you how to source? I see a meaningless picture.

OOOOoor, Bill Gator can continue to live his life without bowing to every dictate Lauda demands as if they are some kind of lord over the entire forum, and Lauda can just deal with the loss of their dictatorial control like an adult.

The entire purpose of requiring a flag thread is to allow open discussion of the circumstances and whether they justify a flag.

Has Lauda totally lost it now and their mind has finally fractured into multiple personalities conversing with themselves?

Agreed. Kudos for preempting the semantic circus and being specific. You can definitely tell he consulted some legal guides 

I have already been over this before. Theymos is not going to enforce local rules where you prohibit people from defending the accused in these threads. Good luck trying though. BTW, who is TECHSHARE?

If it was not clear, I was being facetious. I know sarcasm can be difficult for some non-native English speakers (not that your English isn't perfect).

I am sure you will see to that.

After further examination this is also my conclusion.

You are soon to join that list since you insist on dictating your own rules upon the entire forum.

1. You are not a claimant (victim), thus by Theymos's standards you are not permitted to create a contractual violation flag.


2. The affected parties were not only refunded, they have forgiven Quickseller.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12366566#msg12366566
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12366803#msg12366803
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.msg12352452#msg12352452

"Lauda alleged the following, but later withdrew it: Quickseller violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. Quickseller did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around September 2015. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

You are endorsing a false statement. No damages were incurred, any fees for services not actually rendered have been refunded, and those effected have forgiven Quickseller.


3. That is a cute local rule excluding people from defending themselves, or those most likely to defend them from posting. Also local rules not added with the original post are not valid. You edited the OP to add the local rule after I posted. Good luck getting that enforced.

Quote for reference:

It seems to me the previous formula for calculating ranking may be broken, or at least less accurate after some further examination. I guess time will tell.

Thanks for the quick reply. So basically until everyone is re-scraped the list is going to be inaccurate, but will largely return to the previous status once complete?

So I was looking over my stats as the new trust system changes were implemented, and earlier today I was ranked 16th most trusted. I checked just now and I am ranked 304th most trusted (and dropping). I assume it has to do with the new trust system changes, but the rest of the ranking don't seem wildly effected. Can anyone explain what is going on here?

Since when did Lauda become the admin and get to decide the metrics by which the forum is run?


You heard it here folks. It is now time for any respectable users intent on using the trust system as designed to start excluding Lauda. It didn't make the DT less relevant, it just made you less relevant.

You could try to argue a rock dropped, in mid air is in fact flying, but trends and time will demonstrate without a doubt it is falling. Just as cutting your own arm off to nourish yourself might work for a short period of time, eventually you run out of limbs to amputate.

"Copayment/Deductibles. 10% to 40% copayments.

Technology. The government does not reimburse new technologies very generously and because of global budgets and fee restrictions, there is little incentive to make capital investments in medical technology.

Waiting Times. France has generally avoided waiting lists, likely due to the fairly high coinsurance charges. Recent trends towards Increased restrictions, reduced reimbursement rates, and rationing has increased wait times however.

Tanner’s summary. “To sum up: the French health care system clearly works better than most national health care systems. Despite some problems, France has generally avoided the rationing inherent in other systems. However, the program is threatened by increasing costs and may be forced to resort to rationing in the future.”"

https://www.healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/14/health-care-around-the-world-france/


"Indeed, in a World Health Organisation comparison of 191 different countries, France came out at number one.

It’s important to be clear, however: Beyond legitimate questions about the WHO’s methodology, the ranking itself dates from 2000. That said, France remains on top of the list, because it was the first and last such ranking conducted by the WHO. Since then, France has occupied a number of positions in other rankings, depending on their criteria and definition of what constitutes a “good” health care system.

A July 2017 analysis by the New York–based Commonwealth Fund compared the health care systems of 11 industrialized countries. They put France at number 10, just above the United States, with the United Kingdom at number one. Yet in another ranking – published in May by The Lancet, it looked at 195 countries – the UK was ranked 26th, while France came in 15th. And in the top position, the tiny principality of Andorra. All this demonstrates just how difficult it is to interpret such rankings."

https://theconversation.com/how-healthy-is-the-french-health-system-83329

While these systems may function for a time, bureaucratic bloat uninhibited by market forces always takes over.

Scalability is in fact a very valid argument. Small Socialist/Communist organizations can work because the members of the group all know each other, have high levels of trust, as well as accountability. At scale none of these factors are valid any longer. Simply look at the death of gifting based economies brought on by outside influence for further evidence of this. Communism does in fact require Capitalism to function, and your argument of what came first is incorrect if not asinine. Humanity for most of human history consisted of small collectives that were largely indistinguishable from Communism. Market economies of scale are largely a new invention, while the basic concepts of "free markets" or open trade are not at all new. The fact is even these communes relied upon market trade in order to function, as would modern Communism. The fact is Communism provides disincentive to create resources as personal responsibility is collectivized to the whole. Capitalism creates the required inductive force to motivate actors within it to create the capital goods required for either system to exist. Communism is neither effective nor efficient at managing and creating these requirements, hence Communism requires Capitalism, but Capitalism does not require Communism. This is something even Karl Marx himself admits.

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." - Critique of the Gotha Program, April-May 1875, Karl Marx, P. 5