Would it be an idea to reduce the strength of Trust color in certain circumstances? Many users on DT1 with a lot of green feedback also have one or a few negative tags. Examples: My suggestion is to make the orange numbers black for users who have at least 10 times more positive than negative feedback. That would make the above examples look like this: Additionally, I suggest to make the green numbers black for users who have less than twice as much positive as negative trust. My reasoning behind this suggestion is that real scammers easily receive a lot of negatives and shouldn't have any green feedback left, and negative feedback for highly trusted users can be less prominent as they aren't a real risk in most cases.
(Editing this quote was a lot of work on Mobile, but the weather is too nice to go inside again)I wouldn't try and pretent to be capable of "reasoning " yet robovac. Better off sticking to copy and paste raw data with very mild processing. We find it strange that you should be worrying about this just as some "non" gang members are about to "nearly" get into the much guarded DT1 and when they do the ratings from other non gang members and acolytes will start to become more visible. Then again you couldn't have worked that out so someone must have told you to make this post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of2HU3LGdboALL RED WARNINGS or red tags should be viewed as WARNINGS and attract attention if they deserve to be there AT ALL. Of course MANY of the most "untrusted" with multiple red marks and no positive (because they don't trade) have zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing AT ALL. So should not even have any red trust. Of course you can't do 20 good trades then scam one person (that most DT members are too scared to red trust) and that is all fine and should be ignored or not considered when trading with them. The very idea is completely stupid. So not entirely surprising that a weasel brained moron like you though it up. Of course the best scammers not the retards who scam for tiny amounts will build up a GOOD trust score first to entice the BIG SCAM later. As soon as they DO A BIG SCAM it needs to be drawn attention to immediately even if they are DT gang leaders. Since most DT1 and their acolytes dominate the numbers for visible trust and clearly don't choose or rather they DO CHOOSE to ignore the SCAMMY behavior of other DT1 and their pals then you need any negative to gain as much notice as possible. Really though this would be a moot point if the old trust system was deleted (like it should be) and only type 2 and higher flags existed. Anything below this does not indicate the person is a scammer, ONLY that some people speculate they may be going to scam. Bogus system, and you are trying to make it even EASIER for scamming at the top to go under the radar. Of course we sympathize with OG who has been damaged by rogue DT1 but that is the fault of the old crap system and theymos allowing observable scammers like tman, lauda and their kind into positions of trust. Very strange how this only becomes a consideration now of all times. A BETTER IDEA is make the old trust system that causes all the arguments, is subjective junk, and does not even warrant a type 2 flag or above VANISH. or Leave the scoring off and call it feedback only. If people can't be bothered to read the feedback, do their own research and reach the optimal opinion let the lazy and greedy slobs take risks they need not if they had read it. Your posts all seem a waste of time, you are either presenting your merit stats, trying to validate and impress with your cycled bag of junk derived from blathering on about this meaningless and dangerous gamed metric or the OLD trust system which again is subjective, and dangerous garbage. Try to ramming into the furniture more until you start to understand this robovac. TLDR that grew just as long sorry Stupid idea that only serves to whitewash the legitimate wrongs that some of the most dangerous scammers and extortionists here have done. Presumably only presented now since the DT1 members start to fear a "few" that will not 100% support their untrustworthy ways may start having some of their feedback go visible and some nice red marks may start to attract attention on their account. Actually theymos should really consider that with the warnings at the top of the pages. If any DT members believe there is even 1 instance of scamming worthy of a negative trust then they should get a banner. Not say if you have more green than red you are okay. If you find the DT members negative trust bogus, remove them. Having this abuse grandfathered in to the trust system is bogus. Get rid of the old system or make it feedback only with no score. There is no reasoning behind if you do a fair trade 20x then scam someone 1x you are okay or you should whitewash it. Either the scores mean something or they do not. Thats why only the type 2 flags and above should be relevant AT ALL. Anything below it is clearly subjective and therefore wide open to abuse and gaming for personal gain and retribution. Anything less should just be FEEDBACK with no scores. People read it or don't red it. Too lazy to research then you get scammed. You could still have DT feedback at the top IF YOU MUST but with no score so the comments could cast a negative OPINION and give their subjective argument but the readers decide and there is NO SCORE for these highly paid sig campaign manager friends to weaponize to shoot down non DT applicants. OPINIONS about things not directly related to financial danger should not carry a financial danger warning. That is fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain. It just clouds the issue and causes a ton of fighting and misuse of power. Feel free to debunk our central points. Very stupid idea that also punishes the honest and stronger DT members (none really there in dt yet although some are "more" honest and strong than others there )and creates even more disincentive to speak up under the current conditions. Which are not really suitable, but still , that would tip it even more. Type 2 flags and above have shown where there are HARD RULES that are not open to opinion then they are not often if ever broken. Where there is ANY subjectivity involved you get immediate abuse or usage that is not beneficial to the trust system or the environment here. |
|
|
|
Imagine if we found his trust list
I myself have a hard time imagining it. Like your good "friend" cryptohunter, you've always proven too lazy to find publicly available information, even when it would support your (what I'm generously calling) arguments. when you chop up quotes they can mean what you want them to I guess. suchmoon has adopted a different approach ... simply quote a reference to one thread then make a reply to a different thread. LOL Or steamtyme who cuts my quote short to make it appear I am incredulous that homophobics are not DT1 worthy. When I was incredulous that scammers and racists were and homophobics not. Let's only do that if you are making it clear you are not really attempting to tackle the central points. It is GOOD that you admit viewing direwolfs trust list would support our argument.
Since you believe it is generous to call observable undeniable instancesn and their undeniable implications.. a pathetic attempt at making and argument, then you will have no issue debunking it here. Or helping direwolf to debunk our central points. That his musings are bogus or else he is not following his own advice.
So look, anyone here on meta is free to debunk our points. Get on with it. What is the betting you will not try and if you do try you will fail? Have you noticed yet we don't have our central points debunked? ever? why? because they are true and correct. Once this is all fixed up and honest members are not wearing scam tags or living in fear of getting scam tags from scammers or their supporters. Then we will have very little interest in meta board. For this to happen measures need to be put in place to make that impossible. If you need more clarity on the central points again, the just ask. We are always happy to present our case over and over. |
|
|
|
Please do source the substantiation for these claims in the non-theoretical context if you will.
That won't be necessary, because the timing of my essay and your inclusion into DT1 was purely coincidental. Really, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote it. But now that you mention it, there is a significant correlation. So now we have it. They try to prevent you with hoarding their cycled merits. They try to prevent you by finding ANY excuse to claim you are financially high risk, If you get the earned merits and they can not find any excuse to say you are a scammer. They will rthen use their subjective opinions of your judgement of others assumed character traits that either make them suitable or not for DT. Just another layer of control to make sure ONLY THOSE THEY WANT get on DT1 if you are squeaky clean and get the 250 cycled merits threshold. So far very few have because the 250 earned merits are only given out to that threshold level to their alts or acolytes. TS is one of only a tiny few that have the merits and the clean sheet that are not 100% in their pockets so they are shitting bricks. This dire posting burger flipper can't even create a sensible and credible case, and refuses to present the RESULTS of his musings and produce his own trust list so we can EXAMINE his judgement CAN HE?? Imagine if we found his trust list riddled with those that have observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing ?? then what about his musings? BRING YOUR TRUST INCLUSIONS LIST DIREWOLF so we can see if we should follow your guidance and direction to creating our own trust lists. Let's not discuss the possible theoretical results of who would then be there. Let us look at the real time results of your musing and guidance now. WHAT YOU DON'T WANT PUBLIC ANALYSIS OF YOUR TRUST LIST ? where you are FORCED ON THREAD to say YES OR NO to whether their observable and undeniable actions were trustworthy and show good judgement one by one?? BRING IT. WE CHALLENGE YOU TO DO IT NOW. Then we may look again at your musings. |
|
|
|
.if you needed a friend to deposit a large sum of cash into my bank account you would call ALICE??? WTF
Hahah let me listen to your advice on things please. hahaha
If it does not get stolen, spent on crack, blown-up, shot, thrown over board, burned, eaten, or freely given away to that lovely man who said he would help alice carry it to a different bank that was run by fluffy tailed squirrels ... Foxpoop get over here please you are going to lap this one up.
Of course. Because if there's one thing I love lapping up more than the taint sweat of my alleged merit/trust buddies, it's the equally hot and salty pretzels you so lovingly make by twisting other people's words.  If I was sick and needed a friend to deposit a large sum of cash into my bank account, I’d call Alice… Unless her boyfriend, Bob is around.
unless conjunction
except under the circumstances that; except on the condition that.
Clearly, DireWolf's point is that he will not in fact call Alice to handle his large sum of cash, precisely because of her relationship with Bob. Trust you to read the opposite of the actual meaning because you don't know what a simple word like "unless" means. LOL at you devouring your own pretzels freshly expelled semi undigested by your merit cycling , trust inclusions/ exclusions " alleged but fully observable" friends. "unless" it is rather that you can not read... he will ask alice unless her boyfriend is not around at the time. That does not mitigate ANY of the potential hazards of letting Alice anywhere out of your sight with a large wad of your cash. Unless you could install some reality of the REAL world and her REAL associations. Well done for accusing us of twisting others words whilst you twist our words and dire posting burger flipper words. Brilliant agent fox poop. ALso willing at once to accept a scenario magnitudes less probable than some girl having her phone grabbed from her and shouting at the thief give my phone back or I report this to the cops. LOL what a vile merit cycling vixen. And then Agent foxpoop said..... hahahaah So a good way to not have honest people on DT is to say they have bad judgement and rather have scammers on DT because you say they have good judgement. See how this works you take away the objectively verifiable HAVE THEY SCAMMED OR BEEN INVOLVED IN FINANCIAL WRONG DOING ( lots of DT1 have been) then you replace it with some subjective garbage LIKE do we the scammers on DT SAY they have good judgement or bad judgement so along with the subjective merits we give out its ike a double security measure to make sure we don't get honest people who will stop our scheme we have going. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Really though, Alice probably designed our DT election process (then was talked into making it worse by jeff and bob) then went off believing all those very kind and respectful people on meta that are very nice to her (face) are also to be trusted to act totally selflessly when there is money on the table and no more accountability to anyone except themselves. Also didn't notice that they were a bunch of servile sneaky back stabbing scamming trust abusing scum who like to feel they at last have some small amount of power at long last after being bullied all of their pathetic lives. Luckily some of those excellent people on meta have been trying to back stab alice lately and not been so nice she notices. Alice is starting to wonder if these people are not as trustworthy as she originally thought. Let's see how it progresses now that her REAL friends have shown up on meta to reveal the TRUTH to alice that she has been taken for a mug and it is time to face the observable instances of wrong doing that those nice friends on meta have been up to , and how they have clubbed together to silence her new REAL friends whilst attempting to stay in positions of power to cream off all of the best sig campaigns and act out their revenge for being bullied all of their lives. If Alice wants REAL friends who want to really help her then she must stop assisting those back stabbing, scamming, and ruthless slime balls silencing via spamming, trolling, trust abuse, weaponizing gamed and abused metrics. That's all to complex for most meta dwellers and far too long. These posts are primarily for the people that will read this board as students of the root hub of the paradigm shift that is about to take place, and Alice if she is waking up. Alice (the real alice) may be intelligent but has been brought up by a scientist on an island 300 nautical miles SSW of the Fiji  Actually that scene in twins with the smooth talking fellow underwear admirer is brilliant. It is almost a perfect analogy of how it works around here. Suchmoon befriends Him, then signals for tman or lauda on the bike to grab the case of money and goods.... haha then after they are accidentally harmed whilst robbing (given red trust and booted off DT the first time) he takes pitty on his poor new pals and tries to help fix the damage. LOL brilliant Here is the suchmoon edited version that cuts out the part where she signals to her pals to steal the case to make it look like theymos just being careless and inconsiderate and heavyhanded.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS-zP7JWJUoany witnesses that have the full clip then please produce it. The scene where jeff asks alice to LIFT the merits bar to 250 earned. Helping those poor victims that could be out there about to be harmed if the wrong people with not sufficient cycled merits were to get on DT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADFz4JYOVWwYou see if you raise a members merit score to greater than 250 then the automatic assumption they are trustworthy cuts in and you can scam and get away with it. Movie of alice once she has been on the mainland a while and met a new REAL FRIEND and REAL LEGEND discussing their latest views on bob an jeff and their merit cycling bitches haha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzvFNLAnYNwOR perhaps... Theymos arriving at meta board for another long day ahead...haha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DjGVcFwD3IVod clearly having a good time...lol Meanwhile cryptohunter (played by the same actor our fav) on route to the DT1 merit cycling party.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9FYBjSc3cUExcuse me I forgot to introduce myself " I'm Cryptohunter and I love my unsullied trust score".... haha Tman I don't like you using foul language, not a classy auction scammer like you haha What a true lengend that guy was. |
|
|
|
Long boring post that clouds the issue that should be simple.
Funny and ludicrous analogy that will not go down well with fox poop since telling a thief who has stolen your phone to give it back or you will report him to the police is far fetched and worthless.
Let's have a look at your analogy, that falls down almost immediately and tells the discerning reader to pretty much ignore the rest of the retarded ramblings. SO... 1. YOU have a friend ALICE 2. ALICE has a/ a boyfriend you suspect is fucked up enough to scam his own granny b/ a boyfriend that has a friend who is always around that is a known and convicted thief c/ friends that you say would consider taking and mishandling fire arms and explosives to a party on a boat whilst excessively indulge in alcohol and drugs. (alice invites you) d/ a propensity to believe anyone that is nice to her she can trust. and wait for it folks....wait wait...... .if you needed a friend to deposit a large sum of cash into my bank account you would call ALICE??? WTFHahah let me listen to your advice on things please. hahaha If it does not get stolen, spent on crack, blown-up, shot, thrown over board, burned, eaten, or freely given away to that lovely man who said he would help alice carry it to a different bank that was run by fluffy tailed squirrels ... Foxpoop get over here please you are going to lap this one up. I guess when that happens you could start an loan shark scheme up - where you charge massive interest to bobs granny or others less well off than yourself, depends on how much you have left I guess.. lol You story is fun (in a bad way) but let's be sensible on bitcointalk for a moment and implement something that actually is not full on retarded and gives these HIGH MERIT brain box musers and scammers with brilliant judgement regarding others wrongdoing but terrible judgement with regard their own choices to observably get busted for financially motivated wrong doing. Can you present your TRUST INCLUSIONS so we can see what your amazing insights have resulted in. Is the next part of the story where you include BOB (lauda) and Jeff (tman) because although you don't want them taking your money to the bank, they can recognize other scammers like themselves and bust them to make themselves look trustworthy whilst taking granny's cash and stealing and peoples electronics. Then imagine when they get their hands on the guns, explosives and crack. They can get people hooked on the crack( merits) use the guns and explosives to extort and silence other members. This is brilliant. Just when we thought your analogy was totally bogus it goes and describes the current trust system rather well. Oh actually.... That's great we should fill DT with bob's and jeffs and their pals because they can spot people like themselves. Then because they are so honest they won't collude together once in DT power to use their great judgement against OTHERS but NOT EACH OTHER. Haha this is a brilliant story. I want a trust system like this. Oh wait.. Lap it up lemmings. How about we get people that are not observable scammers and willing scam facilitators who collude to send merits to each other, include each other on dt and all collude to exclude anyone that they perceive as a threat to their entrenched power to scam and punish anyone else who mentions they have scammed by giving the whistleblowers scam tags. The get themselves on all the best sig campaigns for the highest rates? imagine we scrapped that brilliant design?? Brilliant, give the OP more merits. Certainly original, thought err inspiring (in a bad way) and a bit too long (how did you all struggle through all of those words???) Here are our musings and common sense approach. 1. Get 20 -30 legends/heros with lots of trading history and NO observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing at all. 2. Make them DT members, when and if they make provably BAD decisions that have negative impact on people financially, then we can decide if we remove them or not and replace them with others that fit with 1. 3. Serious undeniable wrong doing financially then we delete their accounts or reduce them down to newbie with a scam tag on. How could it be any worse than it is now? do you really think you will EVER have peace on a forum where those that are observably financially high risk (some proven scammers and scam facilitators and their supports and weak ass dregs that dare not stand up to them (AND HAVE SAID SO IN PUBLIC), openly admitting to putting scam tags on their whistleblowers. LOL Lets not start confusing it more with race, gender, religion. Scamming is scamming, financially dangerous is financially dangerous. No matter from who. Now let's await dire posters TRUST LIST so we can see the end results of this MUSING. BoB was booted off - so he won't be there. Although we wonder if Bob was on there before he good manually removed lol How about jeff? is he on your trust list? Still good effort (for you). Keep trying and we will keep assisting you. |
|
|
|
@chibitcity 3x in one day you say? whilst being in a sig campaign? There are legends banned for far less that are still banned. So you are telling us you only use sig campaigns to fund charity? that is always what you have done or that is what you did when you got busted to try and make it look a little better? that sounds a bit like you're friends story that they were attempting a sting operation whilst it looks like they were trying to extort people. The central point here is that you AND those you support strongly mostly ALL have clear observable instances of financially motivated wrongdoing in their histories that are UNDENIABLE. What is more, some have admitted in black and white to using the trust system to punish other members for presenting observable instances of these financially motivated wrong doing. This is undeniable and again the WORSE JUDGEMENT that you can possible dream up for those in a TRUST position. What is BRILLANT on this thread is that it complete demonstrates how corrupt and colluding some DT1 members are. Notice the date below totally corroborates the claim in this thread here That those DIRTY TURDS with clear observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing don't just cycle merit, don't just include "each other on DT" but indeed the collude together to hold out those they view as a clear threat to their RACKET. Match those excluding Tecshare with those on the dirty turds poll. Oh.. how could i forget our Data-scraping-AI-machine Thanks Based on last week: TECSHARE is included by 9 DT1's: OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
qwk
Ticked
Rmcdermott927
teeGUMES
WhiteManWhite
bobita
Matthias9515
TECSHARE is excluded by 10 DT1's Vod
Foxpup
Flying Hellfish
TMAN
TheNewAnon135246
mindrust
suchmoon
owlcatz
nutildah
The Pharmacist
Seems like Kalemder included him. match these excluding against the Dirty turds list. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0How can this same bunch (many of which are on this thread ) sit there crying that it is so financially dangerous to include some kid claiming he is tougher than homosexuals in light of the undenible evidence of financially motivated wrong doing by them and their friends and the OPEN AND OBVIOUS COLLUSION between those that have already demonstrated they are high risk operating alone. LOLTheir claims are bogus when taken in the full context of their observable behaviors. They are terrified of some HONEST and UPRIGHT people with no observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing getting on DT1. The want to fully control who gets on DT via their merits they cycle to each other. We believe they are worrying to much about TS anyway. When people get into positions of power they usual "adapt" in order to remain there. Worry more when some people that want to see corruption stamped out at ALL COSTS get to DT1. So we do not buy the excuses and flawed logic of those on this thread. We still maintain this person mentioned in the OP is more DT material than themselves and their friends. There is no PROOF that he is financially high risk or will employ flawed judgement on financially sensitive matters. You can see DT1 colluders will willingly scam, facilitate scams or protect those that do and abuse the trust of whistle blowers. That is terrifying since they control the trust and merit system. LOL More than does not mean we would include him though as we have said the board must be able to muster 20 honest members with zero instances of clear financial wrong doing who do not make irrational claims about all homosexuals. Bring on the those that claim to be tougher than ALL homosexuals to the TRUST system that protects you financially rather than proven scammers and their supporters. Just say those gimp masks and 18" dildos, sybian saddles (and get a new space hopper) you guys are buying on the sales/market forum here are for your girlfriend and not for bones and the foxhole dungeon parties, haha and you will all be fine. Oh yeah don't use that blue oyster bar delivery address any more that is a dead giveaway (JOKE before more virtue signaling ). If you guys are that scared of him, we'll have a word with him and tell him to leave you babes alone. |
|
|
|
A statement like this is morally and ethically wrong, and shows that the creator has mental instability and a lack of common sense to boot. These are all things that make its author 100% absolutely not fit for DT.
On a personal note you should be fucking disgusted with what kind of human being you became. Sickens me this shit is still so prevalent in 2019.
Well the person who posted that is likely very young by the posting style, likely just mouthing off and wouldn't do anything at all to any homosexuals. That does not invalidate your point that it is morally and ethically wrong and demonstrates poor judgement and attitude. However as you yourself are not above a bit of morally and ethically wrong doing for direct financial gain in terms of the fact you are a campaign scammer. So will bend your ethics and morals for financial gain. Coupled with the fact that you include on your DT list other persons that have undeniably done things morally and ethically wrong for direct financial gain. This you can not deny. So I say again that since the trust system is there specifically NOT there to protect people from homosexual negative rants but IS THERE to protect people from financial wrong doing and scamming. Then all your indignation at this person being on the trust system is perhaps misplaced and members should be MORE directed to yours and your scamming pals observable wrong doing that is independently verifiable. For that reason we say again clearly that this person is probably unsuitable for a TRUST position but he is MORE suitable than ANY person that has demonstrated a propensity for financially motivated wrong doing. It is quite clear. Can you and steamtyme pull up your DT includes?? and all the others that are CERTAIN that you can not have people that do and say things that are morally and ethically wrong? then we can see how your reasoning clearly works. You guys seems slightly confused about the TRUST systems intended purpose. Which is to protect traders and other members from being the victims of financial wrong doing. Not protect them from homophobia in the case of the OP NOR the racism or ethnic negativity spewed by the pharmacist under the HugeBlackWoman account (which seemingly does not seem so upsetting for you) which was done sneakily and deviously for payment on another account. I mean if you are all homosexuals and this touches a personal nerve MORE than racism and ethnic/religious negativity that is understandable. However, really morals and ethics should apply to protect ALL members not just some and these are not ALL relevant to protecting people from clear financially motivated wrongdoing. In this progressive time then people should be free to live who they wish as long as they are not harming others and all involved consent (within reasonable limits) To be clear though we would not personally add any people clearly demonstrating any of the above traits to our trust list including the person in the OP. We would certainly though be MORE likely to exclude many of the people you all have on your includes due to the reasons already stated above. The trust system is for financial protection of members only. I don't see this point being debunked at all so therefore we can conclude you are all willing to allow morals and ethics to be bent and broken with regard direct financial wrong doing from " your friends and yourselves" but morals and ethics from "others" are held to higher and tighter controls and standards even if not directly related to the purpose of the TRUST system. That is both wrong and dangerous for the optimal functioning of the TRUST system. Great thread. Glad you started it moronbozo. I think such scrutiny should be performed on ALL DT1 inclusions. There should be tick boxes so they can't weasel out of it pretending they don't want to examine the evidence or don't want to be involved LOL or say they are NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH. Where observable behaviors are listed and each DT1 must tick a box either == behavior demonstrates suitable for trust position Y or N. We would help listing observable behaviors right away. Always willing to help. If they refuse to tick either box they are blacklisted. TL DR - so far the debate and concerns by DT members seems slightly bogus if you take their actual behaviors concerning their DT inclusions into consideration. So we conclude virtue signaling with real purpose to prevent of cast doubt on TS being added to DT1. They seem to have no real issue with racism, religion and ethnicity being cast in a highly negative light, no problem with ethical and moral codes being broken for direct financial gain. The only possible other explanation is they are all homosexual and this is very personal to them. If so then that is fine but recognize the trust system is to protect people from financial wrong doing not protect you from the macho boastful 14yr old tough guys who talk tough on the internets. We are trying to give our answer to the OP and our reasoning behind the answer. The reader will always be fully furnished with the information for them to benefit and make the optimal decision themselves. |
|
|
|
We would not likely put him on our trust list . Although that statement does not essentially mean that the person is a financial high risk to other members. Also a dislike for certain practices or people that practice certain behaviors does not mean you will essentially scam.
Trust list is about their judgement, not their likelihood to harm someone financially. It should always comedown to their actions and opinions. I don't go through everyone on my lists posts but this would get someone removed from my list; as it shows poor judgement and thought processes. So their judgement to hurt some financially is not a consideration? The trust systems main goal is not to prevent this happening to members? What a confusing trust system we have. So for instance if your judgement on homosexuals is that you feel you are tougher than them and could easily beat up one up you should not be trusted to protect others from being scammed? BUT If your judgement is that you will pull an auction scam or any other scam or support scammers into the trust system, or extort members, or dox members and risk their safety and the boards finances . Then you should be trusted to protect others from being scammed and be judge of who else should be there to protect others from financial risk? You see the problem with this idea it does not matter if you are a scammer or supporter of scammers and you get elected to DT is rather strange and very problematic, especially when they start getting their friends elected with the very same scamming or scam supporting attitudes. So their likelihood to harm someone financially is of no consideration you say? I start to see why DT has a few issues. Imagine when you get a DT1 stocked full of people that are observably financially dangerous because that is of no matter here? but their judgement on homosexuals is neutral or they are pro homosexuality. We're all going to never have to worry about being scammed again , DT will have our backs (not that we would turn our back on them lol) Have you ever considered that when you get a bunch of people that are likely to harm people financially that they do it for their own personal gain? have you considered that when they work out they can work together (because now they are only accountable to themselves) they will be in position to fuck over who they want and just all look the other way or pretend it does not matter... because we have good judgement on homosexuals and we can even demonstrate we have good judgement in pointing out others that are financially high risk and need scam tags (even though these are often less damaging and dangerous than what we the DT members have done ourselves) Sorry that's all too long and complex for you all. I know you can't be bothered to read all of that trolling off topic lies and garbage. Just carry on telling people that a persons willingness to financially harm other members is not a consideration for DT1. Far more important to know they are pro homosexuality. You heard it folks... don't even bother considering their likelihood to harm someone financially when you make your trust list. Better to have confirmed scammers on your trust list than those who think they are stronger and tougher than homosexuals. The DT handbook to bitcointalk. Where can we get a copy? Meta board vs the twilight zone. Can we get that twilight zone music to auto play when you open meta board Theymos ?That would be brilliant. Obviously we just don't understand the trust system at all. Why don't we just detail how it all works when it's already full of DT1 members with observably financially high risk behaviors and they are the only ones with enough "merit" to JUDGE who else is eligible Really they only way this racket can continue is for them to PRETEND not to notice the undeniable financially high risk behaviors of other DT members AND OR when they are pointed out just say that is not important only their judgement is important on things like homosexuality etc. This thread is virtue signalling to prevent tecshare being put on to DT1. They fear any member they don't think they can control 100%. I'm not sure if they need to worry or not. Some people just want on to DT and be part of power. They don't essentially want to make serious changes for the better. Time will tell. All up in arms about someone saying they are tougher than homosexuals, not to worried about HugeBlackWomans aka the pharmacists racial , ethnic and religious errrr views. Go read some of those posts because we had some disgruntled "people of color" and "jews" here.... oh WHOOPS that entire thread got deleted. |
|
|
|
BUT THEN that would add considerable weight to our central point.
You seem to advocating that rather than explain the reasoning behind his bias moderation and corruption he just run away and lock the thread.
Thanks for highlighting the problem with allowing corrupt moderation.
If they were not corrupt and had ZERO TOLERANCE for ALL posts that were off topic and irrelevant that would be great. Please ask them to return.
Yes that is my exact point. Where do you get that Bitcointalk is fair, unbiased and has moderators that are a paragon of virtue or should be? I've been here since the earliest days of this forum and it's not really any different now than it was back in 2010. This is a private, cost free, BITCOIN biased forum ran by people with very strong opinions. You can always just hop on over to Roger Ver's happening place LOL. ~BCX~ That's all well and fine but if they apply different rules to different members then they should not be upset when people recognize this and bring it up. Perhaps Ver has a point then. If moderators are free to and clearly do discriminate against different members with different views and enforce the rules as they suit them and not objectively and transparently, then he is free and correct to comment on that. The point is more favorable (for this board) if you are talking btc vs bch - the bias moderation would still be bias but there could be some case for stating this is a btc forum and understandably there could be some deep rooted opinions that are going to be harder to push toward 100 % objective moderation since people believe in the merits of btc over bch (since 99.9% of the board likely are not trained in the technical matters to make a truly informed decision) then it is not something easy to be truly objective about. Although really it should be a strongest argument (when view and analysed objectively) that wins and that is adopted. The point is far less favorable when it involves sheltering observable and independently verifiable scammers and financially dangerous individuals against whistle blowers. Then when you notice the same group are all wearing and creaming off the highest paying sig (including the mods) you start to see that the two tier system of rule enforcement is quite a matter of self enrichment only, rather than supporting differing ideas of a decentralized trustless project. We would like a set of transparent rules that are enforced equally and fairly for all members as much as possible. If the board freely admits that will never happen, then that is fine. Let's not complain though when people recognize their is certainly unfair and biased censorship. Another forum is of no interest to us at this time. For the most part the freedom of speech is still excellent. Only when you question the systems of control and dare to examine the backgrounds of those self elected to those systems will you start to get censored and given a financially dangerous warning on your account. |
|
|
|
Interesting question. We would not likely put him on our trust list . Although that statement does not essentially mean that the person is a financial high risk to other members. Also a dislike for certain practices or people that practice certain behaviors does not mean you will essentially scam. If we had to have him on there OR people like yourself or other scammers from this list https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0then we would likely rather take a risk on having him. On the basis that his view that homosexuals are weaker or easier to defeat in a fight do not essentially say he is going to scam them. people on this list either would scam people or they support those that would scam people being in positions of trust. Therefore for the sake of the members here and their financial well being he is less "high risk". If you can not have him on there then those more dangerous are certainly not eligible. Also check physical .. |
|
|
|
WILL BE BUMPING THIS every 12 hours until the cowardly scum bag reporters and cowardly corrupt sig spamming shady moderator who deleted them answers and debates with me on their actions. Stop hiding away because it is not going to be swept under the carpet. We are feeling refreshed and energized after our vacation.
Hilarious could simply lock this thread and it would be game over for you. I wish that Badbear or RaoulDuke would return as a Global Mod, then you would know what zero tolerance really means. ~BCX~ BUT THEN that would add considerable weight to our central point. You seem to advocating that rather than explain the reasoning behind his bias moderation and corruption he just run away and lock the thread. Thanks for highlighting the problem with allowing corrupt moderation. If they were not corrupt and had ZERO TOLERANCE for ALL posts that were off topic and irrelevant that would be great. Please ask them to return. |
|
|
|
Thanks suchmoon, we knew you were not serious. SUCHMOON calls us a coward for deleting a thread (BEFORE SHE POSTED ON IT) saying we are avoiding her debate.
Of course you're avoiding it. You're deliberately refusing to stick to the only condition of the debate knowing that I don't appreciate your shitposting all over the forum and that was the main reason for the offer I made back in April. You're again too chickenshit to admit that you simply don't want to discuss anything with anyone, you just want to post your walls of text and enjoy your imaginary superiority. Well done you have defeated your own claim within a single post again ( that we are scared to debate with you) and confirmed our statement that we refuse only on the basis of your stipulation to be marooned on rep in your shit thread but offered to open the locked thread (destroying your first claim) and stating again you are welcome to join in and try to debate and debunk our central point on any threads we have made or will make. Stop humiliating yourself like this is makes us feel almost sorry for you. The only reasonable explanation is that we will not be marooned in rep. We post where we like when we like. I like also how suchmoon quotes us referring to one thread then just sneakily introduces a different thread into her reply as if it is in relation to the same thread. Doesn't matter because she self crushes her own argument as usual. Even better hilarious weasel moderator gives a self debunking post that is also a sneaky attempt to conflate to separate instances as one and the same. Probably just too stupid to realize. hmmmmm actually how knows when you are this openly bias and corrupt. 5 merits for a post that is the epitome of pure stupidity. Anyway now we have had our fun with suchmoon and her grand FALSE claims that collapse into the bullshit they are when you put they under some scrutiny let us get back on topic. |
|
|
|
Also will be posting where I want when I want and not being confined to any threads because you say so... lol
Then there is no need for a special debate. You can keep shitposting and get laughed at wherever you want. If you can't follow even one simple condition - I have no interest in wasting my time with you. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH AHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH AHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH AHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH AHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH AHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH AHAHAHAH Thanks suchmoon, we knew you were not serious. SUCHMOON calls us a coward for deleting a thread (BEFORE SHE POSTED ON IT) saying we are avoiding her debate. WE OFFER TO REOPEN THE DEBATE IF SHE WILL HAVE IT ALONE WITH US YES OR NO SUCHMOON NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I can't waste my precious feasting time. You are being laughed at right now. This is us laughing in your fat chubby little face. Thanks this is another funny moment brought to you by suchmoron. BRILLIANT. Okay fine we are going to get ready for our expensive evening out and enjoy some very expensive fine wines ... well we just opened one now to celebrate this OBSERVABLY FUNNY MOMENT. Have a great weekend chunky trunks - dreaming of finding a central point of ours one day you can debunk. Thanks, weekend off to a great start. |
|
|
|
Brilliant , just what we are waiting for .... some idiot like such moon to appear with a genuine challenge for a debate??
But is she serious? will she run away?
The offer was made 4 months ago and you weaseled out of it: I know I'm gonna regret this but...
Dear cryptohunter,
Let us - and I don't mean just me and you but anyone interested - have this open debate that you want so much. On one condition: it is to be conducted in ONE non-self-modded thread in Reputation (or Meta if you can keep it entirely about forum matters but since you often want to discuss personalities I'd say Reputation is more appropriate). If you can keep it in one thread only and not post outside of it for the duration of said debate, including any of your alts, I promise I will read your every post and respond to the best of my abilities, and I hope others will join too. I hope you'll take this offer and help keep this forum clean. Thank you in advance.
--sm.
It seems that you're the one who's not serious. No we simply do not agree to your terms of being kept in one thread in rep forever. That is a stupid stipulation and you don't get to stipulate anything to us. I have edited my post please re read before agreeing. Fuck off will it be in reputation I will reopen the thread that we started with a note to other members you have agreed to just make it you and ourselves. Every time we have a debate you LOSE so why would we not want a debate with you? do you think we feel so sorry for you that we just don't want to crush you in public again? YES OR NO? Then we will reopen. Also will be posting where I want when I want and not being confined to any threads because you say so... lol We are going out later this evening so get a move on or it will have to wait until after the weekend. Although we MAY make time over the weekend if you provide enough entertainment. |
|
|
|
Brilliant , just what we are waiting for .... some idiot like such moon to appear with a genuine challenge for a debate?? But is she serious? will she run roll away? Let's first demonstrate what kind of person you are dealing with. 1. we had deleted that post and marked the thread for deletion before she even posted on it. Because we decided not to at this time bring people that have not attacked us or our friends into this. Therefore suchmoon is lying about the motivation to close the thread. 2. We already debunked her points that she brought up LOL This is like the time she tried to spin that theymos is sneaky and heavy handed because he requested 100 DT to exclude a proven scammer and willful trust abuser. HOWEVER THIS IS TOO TEMPTING TO PASS UP. It is addictive humiliating this fat slob especially after she tried to get a true legend banned by weaponizing her shitty snitching. We will unlock the thread if you and only you will continue the debate and not run away until we have fully crushed you to pulp again. No self debunking straight away though because that is not half as satisfying as watching your mind collapse and start spewing ludicrous statements to laugh at. YES or NO. You really want a debate on or not? obviously had a few hours racking your tiny brain and feel you have some kind of cast iron argument that we will not debunk in short order.... LOL you never learn do you snitchmoon. I will put a note at the top of the thread that we have an agreement only you and ourselves will post on the thread for a serious debate on the points that you raised. YES OR NO? |
|
|
|
|
Of course RANK should be the PRIME weighting of getting into DT1 along with TRADE HISTORY. Impossible to gain in a few months via some ass kissing or generous alt donations/cycling.
Lol at making merit alone = trust. Merit is not even correlated to "good post" is is subjective garbage for the most part. Most of the observably untrustworthy and dangerous scum bags with observable instances of wrong doing have buckets of it (all from each other LOL)
DT1 should rely upon
Activity Legend at a bare minimum hero. ( not replaced in 5 mins and have some history to examine)
merit 100 + (if you must have it) can be gamed
Trade history ( 50k USD total and 25 successful transactions from at least 5 different high ranking accounts) can be gamed but let's make it a bit harder. Can be examined and debated.
NO OBSERVABLE INSTANCES OF FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED WRONG DOING AT ALL IN THEIR HISTORIES.
ANY NEGATIVE TRUST GIVEN FOR NON FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED WRONG DOING = immediate removal.
You don't need 100's of people in DT1. You don't need an algorithm ALONE to auto select based on gamed and abused subjective data.
Some sensible human intervention by theymos or which ever admin will accept responsibility to scan new applicants, human intervention to remove and ban them if needed.
Make it a position of TRUST that if you fuck it up you can't just splatter some merits via your circle to power new alts. You will need years to build up the rank again.
Who cares if NOOBS can be in DT1. Do you trust people who you met yesterday who seem nice or your life long pals who have never done you down over the years?
Fucking common sense people. You EARN TRUST and TIME is certainly a prime factor in that. Also legend accounts will be valuable if you make the merit system actually mean MERIT not politically contrived mess so risking it being destroyed is something to consider.
Only those that want to power they new alts and acolytes they control would oppose such a system.
You can not you auto do this you will need some small human intervention now and then. Sorry that is the only way. The only AI we have here is better suited to sucking dirt from floors right now. You can code out reliable systems that are fed subjective meaningless garbage and expect reliable results. The very notion is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
VER vs Bitcointalk cencorship = Ver very well may have a point right now. We still have very good standards of free speech here over many aspects but if you question the observable actions of some DTs or moderator members you may find your posts vanishing, and you may find one liner insults that are groundless being merited by moderators. Let's fix this so people can not criticize this great forum and substantiate their claims with observable instances.
Compared to VerForum Bitcointalk is a paradise. There you can't even write Bitcoin.com inside post... If you don't believe me then try it yourself VerForum is like Phantom Zone from Superman universe  As we said this place is great until you want to bring up some observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing by DT members. Try that and see if you get away with out a ton of scam tags screaming you are a defamer and scammer. You say you can't give me a scam tag for presenting FACTS in the history that anyone can verify THEY WILL SAY "I CAN I WILL AND I JUST HAVE" this is from a confirmed and documented auction scammer who supports a proven scammer who was caught red handed denying the project he held bags of tokens for was premined/instamined and he knew this because he was on the POW launch. It is accepted and documented FACT that it took place, there is strong case for him extorting people and a shady escrow to his name that many believe was for a small fortune. You mention any of it and you will get a scam tag and THEYMOS allows this to happen and says if you whistleblow on observable financially high risk DT members - you MAY have a case for saying this is wrong, but now you got angry about being trust abused by proven scammers that means you are CRAZY so therefore there is some mental gymnastics that say although you have been here years, done one trade (successful) and never attempted any others, fought the largest scams and won a 2 000 000 000 USD airdrop compensation offer to the board and made many people rich from presenting your trading advice for which they have been publicly grateful. That even so.. because you got angry the same scammers you fought and defeated to induce a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer have BRANDED ALL YOUR THREADS AS ONES STARTED BY A SCAMMER... now you are actually a scammer yourself? errrr okay theymos What about them the real scammers those with observable instances of financially motivated wrongdoing ? well Theymos says, I will talk to OG and other members and work things out so any scam tags the REAL SCAMMERS have on them can be taken away so there is no more fighting. Fighting is counter productive. Only because people Theymos is familiar with OG, lauda, Vod and other meta board people were effected did he bring forth the much needed flagging system. Theymos does not care about other members not from meta board in our opinion because he does not hear about it and can get back to watching tv. You don't have to be dishonest or against free speech yourself when you are running a forum to indirectly allow an environment that crushes free speech. If you want to be warden of this board you need to ensure you are keeping an eye on things like this and not allow a 2 tier system to spring up where rules only apply to "some people". This is a very important movement taking place and this is the center of it. You don't want a censored ANTI SATOSHI 2tier system springing up at the center. Fair transparent rules FOR ALL MEMBERS. If best efforts are not taking place to ensure this then for sure ROGER VER and anyone else can start saying Theymos is responsible for it since he is the warden of this board. That is why it is VERY IMPORTANT that theymos stamps out any corruption or double standards as soon as he sees them. Not just say oh its a few red marks on their account what's the big deal, or a few deletes here and there. Stop squabbling and being counter productive. Clear double standard from mod or system controller = Last warning before perm expulsion. Clear scamming or financial wrong doing from anyone in the trust system = Out and perm ban no sweeping it under the carper or roger ver can not be denied to having a point, whether theymos is directly or indirectly involved. We support theymos as a person and believe he is honest and want the best for the forum. FOR SURE WHY WOULD HE NOT We don't support the "oh it will sort itself out" "oh what you're and auction scammer and observable imbecile - sure DT and merit source for you", " what you have never scammed anyone and have no observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing but scammers gave you a scam tag.... shut up with your boring long winded moaning " Wake up , Man up and get rid of the censorship on this board in terms of dirty corrupt moderators and scamming untrustworthy DT members and their weak ass supporters....this is all a form of censorship if you allow them to have power to damage other persons accounts and put notices on the top of their threads saying THIS THREAD STARTED IS A SCAMMER.... you are censoring their entire output here and years of their hard work. Let's get on with it. So people like VER say hey theymos board is censoring me and deleting my posts. We can say NOT TRUE unless you broke the rules that apply to ALL MEMBERS if you stay within the rules your post was 100% NOT DELETED AND NOT CENSORED. We can not say that right now. You can say what you like with a negative trust score but you will be censored because 1/ people will fear saying or asking certain things (even if they are true) because they don't want red trust 2. People will be also be ignored (just because they spoke the truth) as they have big scam sign on their account. Who bothers to read what they have to say after that is on the top. This is wrong. We are STRONG SUPPORTERS OF THEYMOS HIMSELF because he seems to be the best person for this type of movement in that he does not seem greedy or dishonest and does support free speech. However he is NOT perfect. He needs to man up and get rid of the corrupt and observably financially dangerous scum bags here. They are the censorship because you allowed them (as selfish , greedy and corrupt people do if you don't keep an eye on them) to gain a lot of power and influence here. Theymos also does not like to debate. Especially if you start demonstrating his initial assumption (based on lack of bothering to examine evidence) is either wrong or certainly not accurate. He just vanishes and that's that. So theymos 8/10 - ten for intentions being good , but room for implementational improvement for sure. Ver appears to be more difficult to gage but seems willing to back scams - this we can not support in anyway. Especially when this was made clear and there were threads about those projects some from one of the best scam hunters here Bruno. If he was unaware before that is a possibility. TLDR?? You don't have to directly censor yourself to be responsible for censorship. That is theymos's current issue. He needs to get on top of it. Overall we think you can trust theymos on a personal level for sure. If ver is allowing censorship then he is again open to criticism. Although why you can not mention the domain he owns is confusing. We have not used his forum and do not intend to. This is the prime forum for crypto and should remain so. That is why we need to make it a non hostile environment. We can only do that if if it is provably a fair and open environment where rules are applied equally to all members. |
|
|
|
|
good to see that fat slob turning up to bring DOCTORED quotes and taking them out of context as If i went to his thread and posted that ... when really this is a part of a quote that is corroborated by observable instances of deliberately trying to derail and prevent open debate of my initial post.
How did you quote this I deleted the topic already. Anyway locking this since we will deal with the rule breaks that seem above the law here by other means if possible before troubling others that are of no trouble to ourselves for the most part. Or we will approach it in a more diplomatic manner.
If people want to make their on topic and relevant case relating to the OP and then if validated want to make a claim that is observably correct. Then that is different.
This is NOT what they are doing. They are appearing and ADMITTING to not reading the OP and trying to derail and stop open debate of the central points contained.
Now fuck off before you debunk your own argument and get to look foolish and humiliated all over again. We tired of defeating fat weak minded slobs that can't even avoid running to the cookie jar every 2 mins. We want REAL debate with individuals that have some form of capacity for critical thinking and sensible reasoned debate. You obviously would not fit that description.
Now stop quoting posts we deleted since we deleted them for a reason.
Also we understand you are in idiot but I am sure quickseller does not support you having that banner and we are sure he is not paying for you to wear it.
Therefore your point is as useful as most that you try to make on this forum. AKA fucking net negative.
|
|
|
|
|
decided not to trouble those that have not directly troubled us ...
delete this thread.
should really be an option to delete your own thread if nobody has replied on it as yet.
|
|
|
|
I would suggest everyone to put OP on ignore, talking to OP might get your posts removed as well because you will very likely break forum rules(not intentionally), like me in this thread:  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. True, but don't tell me you expect anything more from TOAA. It's nonstop keyboard diarrhea, just like the flow from cryptohunter. Not surprising.
She is back on ignore, I don't think I will miss anything valuable from TOAA's posts. This was very bad attempt to change subject from " plagiarist and thief in DT" to whatever she wrote there. Don't feed troll. Do you mean like this very post. Because if it is not breaking the rules we are coming to your every thread and posting similar warnings with no corroborating evidence like you are. This post you just made is derailing since it seeks to deter discussion of the central points. You are a fucking scum bag croatian dog. I will post that in your threads and tell people to avoid you scam supporting piece of shit. I will even bring corroborating observable instances and explanations of you supporting proven scammers so I will be at least validating my claims. Don't feed rabid croatian dogs like moronbozo and his skanky croatian scamming pal lauda. I will be posting this all over your threads and if it is deleted and your post is not then there you go. DOUBLE STANDARDS CORRUPT MODERATION. Reporting your post now. Now no more off topic derailing low functioning spew from scammers and their supporters. Tackle the central point or fuck off. At least you ADMIT you are breaking the rules but when we reported it then the moderator marked the report BAD. Proves our point. The other way to see it is That discussing the ACTUAL RESULTS of the default trust changes rather than dreaming up what MIGHT be the advantages and disadvantages of such a duff design could be MORE USEFUL for the reader. So this is why permitted flow needs to be defined and drilled down on. BUT THEN by that same token our post which again discusses the direct results SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED. So either way the moderation is BIAS. Anyway what further proof do we need. " who made this cunt bleed" - on its own no attempt to make it relate it to the central points of the op or discuss the reasoning behind it GETS MERITS and is marked BAD when we reported it. Same here " DONT FEED THE TROLL" - no example of trolling given and no reason as to Why this invalidates the observable instances or should prevent discussion of them on this thread. A PAID POST BY CHIPMIXER that breaks the rules, and then that fucking dirty weasel hilarious and co marks the report bad and gives it MERIT. LOL Then they get up in arms when people may say , the censorship and moderation here is bogus if you talk or mention certain things. This idiot mod has been sniping with merits, deleting our on topic posts THE LAST ONE WE DEBUNKED CLEARLY SUCHMOONS REASON FOR REPORTING IT AND DEMONSTRATED IT IS BIAS MODERATION ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5135599.msg51730433#msg51730433) so she ran off .. well.. rolled away. We never used to report any posts here at all since we just thought the smart reader will just cast of these empty statements and bogus claims and get to the real meat of the debate. HOWEVER since this sneaky snitching fat pig such moon and others like pharmacist, moronbozo (the usual gang) reporting anything they want remaining hidden then you can not even have a fair debate because when they start losing (they never win EVER) they simply get corrupt CHIPMIXER spammer hilarious weasel or dumb fish to delete our posts away? I mean often they will just randomly make provably false accusations then when you call them on it you are told that is off topic and it is deleted away ... so their accusation remains and it appears that you accept it is true?? FUCK OFF, that is not going to happen. The rules MUST be applied fairly and equally to all members. Or we will never stop going on about it. This is how you create a fair and open society. The first instances of CLEAR INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE BIAS you highlight it and say fuck off we will not stand for that. People who try it are cast out of positions of power and those that can be fair and apply the rules equally to all members are given a chance to remain there. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
