This is not just about me being removed from the default trust, it is about HOW I was removed from the default trust, and how those same standards do not apply to other users here like VOD. The staff had no problems mobilizing themselves to ensure I was removed from the default trust by personally going around requesting that the members who trusted me remove me, but these same staff members are unwilling to do the same when one of their own pals goes MUCH FURTHER, repeatedly abusing the trust system without remorse.
You did something that motivated people to go around and suggest others removed you from their trust list. Vod didn't do something to trigger that reaction. Maybe you're just better at pushing peoples buttons / stepping on peoples toes than others. As a side note, I would trust my pals over a random stranger on a forum any day.  No one ever explained to me that responsibilities were also included along with being on the default trust, I was just added one day with no explanation. I am not sure how I am supposed to honor responsibilities I didn't know existed, were not explained to me, and are not written anywhere. This is why I was removed from the default trust, not because I am "untrustworthy".
There are no explicit responsibilities attached to being on someone's (even Default trust's) trust list. Being on Default Trust's list does however creates more visibility and potentially more scrutiny. Someone's actions may or may not lead to being added or removed from a trust list. It is not a perfect system. It is probably not even fair. Yet it mostly works. |
|
|
|
Do you recall when another mod came along and expunged ~30 posts and banned the offender, only to have Maxwell come along and reinstate the posts declaring that the issue had been resolved and the mod in question is no longer a mod? That said, I'm gettin' a fresh cup of coffee and puttin' Dylan on the turntable.
I remember that. I guess gmaxwell handled that well enough. It seems harsh to me to remove a mod for one (presumebly big) mistake, but I don't no any context. There may or may not have other issues with that ex-mod which would warrant removal. That's all water under the bridge now though. Enjoy your ground up bean water. |
|
|
|
I think you're missing the context here.
Accusations of lying that arise out of a flame
war aren't reliable. Case in point: Takagari
"lying" about his zipcode.
First of all (and on topic) NO person should decide who is on anyone's trust list. Asking someone with administrative powers to modify some other person's trust list is wrong. I you think person A should remove person B from their trust list you have to convince person A to actually do it. "DefaultTrust" is managed by administrators so if you want a person to be removed from it you can try to convince an administrator. Vod is not direclty trusted by DefaultTrust. Asking to get him removed from DefaultTrust is therefore nonsense. I consider Vod's first trust to be a good test. If the user can't handle it well (goes off on some verbal rampage) then I'd prefer not to deal with that user. If the user does handle it well... Hey, Vod does remove feedback when it turns out to be wrong. I got myself involved in the whole evershawn drama and I left the following feedback for him: Acts very unprofessional when faced with issues / obstactles. I won't do business with anyone acting like him. In return he left this for me: Shill account, created by a coward to perpetrate scams. Account only has the purpose of leaving negative feedback for people and scamming. Don't trust this person, clearly dishonest. Obviously I feel my trust on him is totally valid. I also think my feedback clearly conveys why I left it. His feedback however.... Well, do you think I am a shill? Do I "perpertrate scams"? Does my account exist only leave negative feedback? Does my account scam? I followed a few other "Vod is a <noun here>" threads and found that in general he seems to weed out scammers and hotheads/assholes. I'm fine with that. |
|
|
|
Props to Steven Reid for managing to erase his vomit though. He has poked the bear and then managed to get the zoo keeper to clean up the mess afterwards. We've seen that he's a idiotic piece of shit, yet he got that done. More idiocy and conclusory accusations with zero evidence or reasoning. Try this "Steven(sic) Reid is an idiotic piece of shit and wrong about TROs because (then put whatever you think will support your statement here)" or, "Super Stephen the MahaRushie the idiotic piece of shit, the last few findings by the court are incorrect because the evidence at hand (you know what to put here)". Do you think people will take that more seriously or less seriously? I think a lot of you simply don't understand that projecting your likely-justified anger about BFL on me, even if you really, really, REALLY, FOR REALZ hate what I have to say is of no value whatsoever. If you put your reproductive organ into a beehive expect to get stung. That's what you did. I call that poking the bear. You should have read the quote in my signature, it also applies. If you really think you didn't do that then I don't know what to say... Also as a lawyer you should realise how malleable people and their impressions are. I reckon that is why you wanted the whole episode erased. I agree with you that the whole thread is a mess. The related content is not readily available anymore so I can't go and quote you specifically. You - regardless if you were right or wrong - were the catalyst of a whole new load bullshit in it. Maybe I should rephrase my statement: "Props to Steven Reid for managing to erase a load of vomit that he caused. He has poked the bear and then managed to get the zoo keeper to clean up the mess afterwards." And it was not proper to end with name calling. But hey, IANAL and it was a knee-jerk reaction to the seemingly random moderation (If only gmaxwell had just stated his cleanup was triggered by a request from you). I am after all a typical BCT armchair anarchist so I get upset at trivial shit like that. You did handle the situation poorly at best. And now you are here and your demeanor is again aggravating. |
|
|
|
[...] I am as sure that gmaxwell acted appropriately for the situation as I am that it was not a spontaneous clean up operation. ? (Evidence/arguments please.) All circumstantial I am afraid. I have seen no evidence that gmaxwell is acting maliciously. He's most likely acting in the best interest of bitcointalk.org. Maybe brush242 made a reasonable request to have the entire clusterfuck around him removed. Maybe something else triggered the "clean up". I find it hard to believe it was spontaneous. I also find it hard to believe that gmaxwell is covering up for BFL. Or maybe he really just made a new years resolution to finally reign in the mess that is the "BFL fucked us over again" thread (I'm not buying that, but it is actually in the realm of the possible). |
|
|
|
How is the connection between an active and disruptive forum participant and a BFL official considered OFF-TOPIC here  Because, it's lunacy: The allegation being made (which was after I initially removed the posts, FWIW, when I started removing them there wasn't even that much) is that some decades ago some BFL person ran a BBS in one state, and some BCT user ran some BBS(es) in another state, an activity tens of thousands of people engaged in. And somehow this makes them connected. This just seems like a desperate attempt to draw any connection at all; and it makes the forum dumber for it, because some people have no clue what the words mean, and act like its significant (and as a result makes everyone there look like fools). I administered BBSes (in Florida, in my case) in the mid 90s. Am I suddenly Josh?! Sbogovac, you've drank water before, haven't you?!?!? We all know that Sonny Vleisides was seen drinking water in court. The connection is CLEAR (I suppose I should go full gauge here and use red text?)!!!! Witches also drink water. Clearly you are both Sonny _and_ a witch! Everyone, grab the torches!  Sorry Gregory to read your "argumentum ad absurdum", nice try but no fly... I am not "on trial" here (there, here is the meta-discussion), but BFL is. So yes, people defending BFL publicly are open to scrutiny (hell, everybody is as far as I'm concerned). That having been said... Your simple black and white logic may work in your programming zero's and one's environment but does not work well in the real world with real people. In the real world you deduct information bit by bit (pun intended). By scratching the surface and going deeper and deeper a lot of relevant information gets discovered eventually. Information that at first might have seemed irrelevant. But yes, people "network". That's natural. Decades? Yes, I still do business even with friends I met in elementary school (and believe me, that's a lot (30-40) of years ago. So sorry Gregory, you might be a great programmer. I don't know. but it is seeming more and more you are not capable/willing to understand how people interact (like in a forum) where "simple rules" do not apply (but more complicated do). To be quite honest, I don't have the confidence in you to bring this to a positive outcome... Sorry, Slobodan I am as sure that gmaxwell acted appropriately for the situation as I am that it was not a spontaneous clean up operation. |
|
|
|
To be fair there are a few members trying to analyse the market using various tools and I found a (very) few threads in the speculation subforum interesting enough to watch. While the majority falls into the before mentioned three groups there are a few notable exceptions. People can try make predictions based on charts or other such 'tools' but have any of them ever been even remotely right? I haven't seen any. No tool is perfect, and I reckon a lot comes down to the skill / instinct / talent or whatever of the user. I have found https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=672187.0 useful. And yes, I do think they have been remotely right. Not everytime, but hey... You don't have to win every single trade as long your bottom line ends up positive. If you can't deal with loss then trading is not for you. Even the best make bad trades too. |
|
|
|
there are 3 types of posters in the speculation sub.
1. To The Moon!
2. Sky Is Falling!
3. Sideways forever!
none of them know what they are talking about.
I don't think anyone does when it comes to the price/valuation. I don't really go/post in the Speculation sub becsuse it seems to be just kids saying the same three things you mentioned day in day out thread after thread. To be fair there are a few members trying to analyse the market using various tools and I found a (very) few threads in the speculation subforum interesting enough to watch. While the majority falls into the before mentioned three groups there are a few notable exceptions. I think that as was said above, too many folks bought into bitcoin at the same time as a sort of get-rich-quick scheme. This is what caused the price to skyrocket so high. Now, slowly but surely, these folks decide "whoops" and sell off their bitcoins. Those of us who bought in early haven't lost money and are still around, still hashing blocks, still developing cool technology on the protocol.
I don't feel the "Get rich quick" group generally would spend lots of time and energy venting their resentment on this forum. It doesn't really benefit them in any way. I would expect them to at most make a few posts and then to move on. What would motivate them to keep complaining for more than a month? I think there must be other motivators for the sustained trolling. Market manipulation seems the most obvious one to me, though I wonder if posting on this forum is an effective to manipulate anything. IMO the influx of trolling and infighting is due to the fact that STAFF NOW MODERATE TRUST. This has become a very effective methods for trolls to make accusation after accusation against trusted members in order to make sure they are burned by the staff run witch hunt. This is a simple way for burned scammers and trolls to get retribution, by burning down a trusted user's hard earned trust (often takes years to build). This results in all sorts of infighting and forces long trusted members to have to defend their reputations from any user who can manage to type up a complaint about their trust rating. This is causing the community to eat itself from the inside out, and the staff are helping the trolls rip this community apart, realizing it or not.
Since when do staff moderate trust? I never got that memo... Is it true? Sounds like you got burnt and are taking it out on... Anyone other then yourself. Just my totally unfounded opinion though. |
|
|
|
Who knows the guy may have a change of heart, and come back on here and do something very noble.
But, dont count on it as if its like some life support.
He has been here a couple of times ... on New Years Eve I was fortunate to be able to have a series of messages back and forth with him ... I think that was because I was civil and didn't resort to gutter language and threats. Following that various notable forum posters became heated in their choice of posting style and used colourful language ... Why would Boyko want to be exposed to that ? Investor respect (Henry) decided that because I'd been able to have a conversation with Boyko, that I must be Boyko and has used threatening language and profanity towards me ever since. Faced with a mall ninja lead mob baying for blood why would Boyko even bother ? *Okay Henry, get your big red font out now and abuse us all ... no doubt you've up a good head of steam, don't you burst a blood vessel now ya hear  Oh well on Investor Respect's reckoning I must be Boyko as I too have had the pleasure of having a conversation as I too was civil in my approach. It's funny how it gets you further than using some of the more colorful language that some choose to use on here, weird huh? So how much further did you get? Did Boyko compensate you in any way? Share a plan? I'm sure it's nice and all to have a civil chat, but in the end it's results that count. |
|
|
|
This forum is definately full of trolls. They just spam so that they can get into their signature campaigns.
A lot of signature campaigns have rules and guidelines and they often check peoples posts to make sure they are not spamming their way to the top or to exceed posts or to make sure its not just a 1 liner or lol bump and try getting paid for it. In fact a lot of signature campaigns now set limits in place like a max of 100 to 300 and some only have a max of 50 posts counted in a month due to the overwhelming amount of people that where abusing the power of it. Myself I like them as to many others do to. Some abuse it and just cause more to run into problems with spam. Its a cheap way to get exposure for business to grow and expand providing they get the exposure and customers. Some it is money wasted but gets their name out their for the future and ranking across places like alex ranks. Many abuse signature campaigns. I see accounts writing 2-3 line comments that on superficial inspection seem to be fine but actually show the poster has not even read the thread and/or understands the subject. Sure, some campaigns filter out obvious spam posts. But there are many low quality posts because of the signature campaigns. But I feel that is a separate problem. Trolls and accounts spreading fud in attempt to manipulate the markets have been poisoning the forum for a long time. There is still value here, but you have to look good to find it. |
|
|
|
|
Didn't get out of BitCoin yet? Do it now to maximize your loss! You know you need that money you invested to buy food and pay your bills! Take it now! Don't take time to have a levelheaded look at the market.
God, this speculation forum is so full of manipulation I wish I could sell it.
|
|
|
|
|
The timing of the sudden "clean up" of the BFL fucked us over again is curious at best. If you believe Steven Reid's shit had nothing to do with that I suggest you go out to buy Occam's razor and get a good shave. It may have been Off Topic for that thread but it is definitely an topic that should have been split into a separate thread instead of flat out deleting it. I do consider this a moderation mistake. But hey, nobody is perfect. It would be great if the relevant post could be restored as a new thread. Say from a hidden subforum that contains deleted messages.
Props to Steven Reid for managing to erase his vomit though. He has poked the bear and then managed to get the zoo keeper to clean up the mess afterwards. We've seen that he's a idiotic piece of shit, yet he got that done.
Other noteworthy things:
- GMaxwell will remove his own posts too, which will hide the fact that a moderation sweep ever took place in that thread.
- The stage has been set for account bans
- Some good came out of it too. At least now GMaxwell has committed to keeping the thread "clean". Not sure for how long though.
|
|
|
|
Ah, it seems the moderation team is starting of strong in 2015. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. Leeroy, please remove me from your signature.
Thank you. Sure, jus' 'cuz yew sez so. Thank you, very much. I consider civilized behaviour off topic in this thread. So please take your polite and respectful banter somewhere else. ;-) Happy new year to everyone, BFL shills and trolls alike! |
|
|
|
Charlie, buy some bitoin now with that money you said you had...
Buy bitcoin? I thought he was suppose to use the bitcoin he received from sales of physical coins? Why don't you explain how him buying bitcoin to pay you would be fair? Alright. Charlie agreed to sell the physical coins. He created the impression that they were an easy sell and that he had buyers lined up. Yet, months down the line bracek has not been paid for the sale. It is fair for bracek to get paid. How Charlie obtains the funds to pay is not that relevant. Would you please explain how it is fair that bracek doesn't have his physical coins and didn't get paid for them either? It would be very difficult to sell the physical coins unless you are very trusted. My impression of the situation was that barek approached charlie to sell the coins on his behalf and charlie is giving barek a premium over the value of the bitcoin in the physical coins. Charlie will need to sell the coins above both their face value and above the premium (or at the premium) that barcek is getting in order to pay him "back". Charlie has also paid money out of his own pocket in order to get the coins graded (getting coins graded is not free). He is providing barcek a service by selling the coins on his behalf. If barcek were to have the physical coins in his possession then all he could do with them is hold them as if he were to spend the bitcoin in the coins they would lost the majority of their value Your understanding of the stituation appears to be very poor. There, one more post for you to reply to on your signature spam run. Mind you, this is the last one I'm giving you. |
|
|
|
Charlie, buy some bitoin now with that money you said you had...
Buy bitcoin? I thought he was suppose to use the bitcoin he received from sales of physical coins? Why don't you explain how him buying bitcoin to pay you would be fair? Alright. Charlie agreed to sell the physical coins. He created the impression that they were an easy sell and that he had buyers lined up. Yet, months down the line bracek has not been paid for the sale. It is fair for bracek to get paid. How Charlie obtains the funds to pay is not that relevant. Would you please explain how it is fair that bracek doesn't have his physical coins and didn't get paid for them either? And on a side note - if you're in the explaining mood already - why did you buy an account that has only 36 posts? Good luck on your posting spree to get some money out of that signature campaign. |
|
|
|
The title says all - purchasing either of the accounts listed in the title.
PM me your price.
Do not post here for obvious reasons.
You will be signing a bounding contract; legal and written up by an attorney friend of mine.
Thanks.
~ Seg
Why would anyone agree to this condition? You are clearly a scammer (and will attempt to use the accounts to scam). Plus there is a good chance that you are going to trick others into giving them their identity which will lead to their identity being stolen Yes, sure...whatever you say. I am not a scammer; you are making a bold, false accusation...per usual. Fuck off my thread. What would be any other reason that someone would require the use of a signed contract when buying a forum account? If you are concerned about your privacy then you should pay a fair, competitive price to the seller. If you are concerned about you yourself getting scammed then you should use an escrow that is willing to be desecrate. To keep the name in private...what else for? I have conducted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of business here. Do not be mad that you have zero connections. Your a peasant, get over it. I don't normally get personal but when I do I tell to you to buy yourself a better attitude for Christmas. You can sell your high horse if you need money for it. |
|
|
|
Sorry if this was said already (post skipped after page 1), but for those who are crying "Poor Charlie"... http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/SchremFaiellaChargesPR/Faiella,%20Robert%20M.%20and%20Charlie%20Shrem%20Complaint.pdfLong story short, BTCking triggered AML and and email was sent to him by bitinstant (some people CC'ed on the email, Charlie included), and said they were closing his account. Charlie went behind that email and solicited BTCking to continue using them, and told him how to avoid triggering their AML policy (keep in mind as their AML office in charge of enforcing those policies). Silk road, drugs, government not getting a cut (taxes), and every other conspiracy here aside, what Charlie did was reckless, stupid, and illegal. Those who are cheering him on as some martyr need a reality check. Just shows that he will have a promising political career ahead of him. He has shown he has no respect for rules and regulations, is experienced in back room deals and he has the charisma to make people think he's still a good guy. Just the kind of guy you want running your community! For all you liberal, freedom minded people out there... The current system is plenty liberal. You can break the law and do anything you want without consequence. You don't get punished for that. There's only one rule: Don't get caught! You only get punished for getting caught. And there are ways to mitigate punishment even if you do get caught. As is demonstrated by Charlie cum sui in this particular case. |
|
|
|
update
Mandatory comment about these not being TLD's. You said you enjoy those, so enjoy! It should totally be a meme |
|
|
|
Who said it is easy to be Santa? Merry Christmas and spread the joy. |
|
|
|
|
1) Exhale (emptying your lungs)
2) Submerge yourself
3) Inhale (fill your lungs with water)
You will sink. It may feel slightly unpleasant. It's not something you (want to) get used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
