My ideology matches up a lot more closely with countries like Iceland, Sweden and Denmark.  The people who have lived through the results tell me its a great success and they love it.  You are mischaracterizing the specific set of policies I support and are using a vague umbrella term to try and align me with things I am against.  

Well V8 did change another one of his ratings to neutral. We will see if he takes your advisement to heart. However, given a recent comment realr0ach made which basically was trying to emasculate V8, I doubt it. Especially since realr0ach's attitude on woman is that they are all morally equivalent of prostitutes.

You don't act like you enjoy it, so I'll call bullshit.

I would have thought you'd mature in two years on ignore, but no, you still stand behind more respected people while taking potshots at everyone.

If you hate this forum so much, go away??

lol - you ignorant fool.  Stay on topic (this is NOT ABOUT YOU)  or stop posting :  local rule

Well, what V8 gave the negative rating was actually about a false allegation realr0ach made on a fellow member. I guess in your view, false allegations are ok as long as they aren't made on the hallowed trust comment page.

I agree with you.  

I've been doing what I do successfully for a few years, so I won't start second guessing myself.  If Theymos wants to state the explicit rules, those that do things differently may have to leave.   But I believe rules are needed if only to control trolls like yourself and Quickie.

Until he sets rules though, I am going to continue my pattern of tagging people I do not trust.

lol - you ignorant fool.  Stay on topic (this is NOT ABOUT YOU)  or stop posting :  local rule

Because someone is bound to quote him. Many community members have encouraged ignoring him. However, some are prone to peek or are new and have no idea what is about to transpire. Then someone sees a quoted post, attacking them, their wife, their sex, or their race, and we're off to the races. Or it could all start from a simple counterpoint to one of his more "sane" posts attacking BTC and devolve from there.

      Since the current designated thread owner, inforfront, is not staff, all that will result in will be a few of the most offending posts getting deleted. Since infofront is not staff, no other accelerated action can be taken. Since infofront is a volunteer, many of the offending posts can persist for hours, days or overlooked. By that time, more likely than not, an argument has already ensued and the damage is done. Also, infofront cannot be too heavy handed in the deleting of posts. Otherwise bitching of infringing on "freedom of speech" ensues.
      I know the arrangement for this thread appears a little odd. What happened is that the original op of the thread became inactive. It ended up becoming a great deal of work for the staff to moderate, so theymos locked it. However, the thread is quite popular and members wanted the thread reopened. So theymos unlocked the thread and appointed a new thread owner.
     Overall, the thread is a bit lively. However, then realr0ach comes in and shits in the pool.
   

You sent 600 negative ratings in under 24 hours (closer to 22 hours)....just to have the most number of ratings sent? That works out to one every ~2.2 minutes assuming you were working the entire 22 hours with no breaks.

I can’t imagine you possibly did enough research to confirm each of those people are in fact scammers in that time. It seems to me that you just effectively excluded 600 people from participating in the marketplace for no reason other than to have an “award” for having sent the most number of ratings.

There is no issue whatsoever to have this on the board. Leaving a feedback about his behavior is good. You should also add it as a neutral feedback to his profile with this topic as reference.

It never ceases to amaze me how many times people from former Communist nations and current Socialist collapsing states will tell you Marxism and its child ideologies are a tumor on society, and yet you continue to defend it.

Saying my country should stop interfering with them is not the same thing as "defending" them.  I'm not just against intervention because it is immoral and causes suffering around the world, I'm also against intervention for the libertarian reason that it is costly, undemocratic and does not serve a direct purpose in the everyday lives of Americans.  I don't think you realize that when we all did a political test, I was the least authoritarian (or most libertarian) leaning person on this board.  

No it's not "Free." So let's not call it "free," if it is actually more enslaving.

The blackout was the operation.  Marco Rubio was accidentally the first person to report on this by tweeting a comprehensive summary just 3 minutes after it began.  
https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1103782022537977857

There is no way someone could find out about all of that, fact check it, and then type up the tweet in 3 minutes. He could be a really sloppy co-conspirator or at worst, just a really irresponsible tweeter.   Either way, you shouldn't believe anything he says.

Also this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003

I guess Canada's healthcare system caused this blackout.  

He cowers away in the Wall Observer thread which has special moderation rules



so we seem to be stuck with him.

Because trust should be reserved for matters directly involving finance: the exchange of goods and services for crypto or money. It shouldn't be used because somebody said something that you disagree with.

But I already know any answer I give you will not suffice. I should have stuck to ignoring you; you're clearly trolling me at this point. I think everybody else can see what is going on here. This is what you do, you talk in circles until your "opponent" gets bored and moves on, and then you can declare victory.

It would be in your own best interest and reflect your own endlessly-explained belief system if you removed iCEBREAKER from your trust list. Not doing so is clearly hypocritical on your part. Have a terrific day.

/end of discussion

Yeah but uhh... this is a forum. You don't need a court of impartial lawmakers to be sure that people's rights aren't being infringed. Pretty much all that should be guaranteed is that conversation should be allowed to happen, but thats up to Theymos as well. Your reputation can be ruined by any anonymous jerkoff who wants to call you a bad name if you don't have anything to stand on, thats how internet forums work. People in general are smart enough to be able to figure out for themselves whether a claim against you is valid or not. Anything anyone thinks they are entitled to is just precedent set by the good faith thats been done up until now. I'm not saying people don't have the right to complain when something is unfair, but there are a lot of people that need to take a step back and chill.

Trust, merit, etc are all constructs for use by the userbase, again steadfast rules limit the usefulness of tools given to us. By allowing the rules to evolve to suit users needs, the people implementing the systems don't need to be in touch with what it'll be used for. They just develop tools and let the users figure out how they want to use them. I think its safer to say that we all deserve to expect an unfair shake and be pleasantly surprised when things work out, thats kind of the way of limited moderated internet interactions. Someone claims you did something to a goat, you accuse their mother of being that goat, etc.

A lot of these issues would be solved if everyone just played nice with others, but that isn't the case.

*edit* Side note, a lot of the unofficial rules here are created by the Moderators without Theymos' say. At any point Theymos could decide, hey I don't like that, so thats not a rule anymore. Hence why a lot of them are unofficial.

My original point was that thule potentially may have got a raw deal, but at the same time plenty of people see red feedback for account trading and don't care. It didn't ruin their ability to conduct trade here or anything, it ruined their ability to conduct trade with people who think they are untrustworthy for buying an account.

How do you expect a party to agree to a contract that is unwritten and ever changing?

Most of us here are not lawyers. What lawyer is bitcointalk going to hire to write out a detailed explanation of standards of evidence for idiots? (It would probably be preferable to write it in multiple languages too.)After all, I see in another thread you chiming in on negative trust given by someone not even on DT1 or DT2. Therefore, all members would need the standards explained to them. Also, what measure are we going to take for those members that leave inappropriate trust feedback? In my case, I have three comments claiming that I spread doomsday virus, suck ass the best, and am an alt of yogg.

I was just gathering community feedback.  Stop seeing battles everywhere. 

I would argue that it depends. Perhaps they've just been lurking for a few weeks/months and now decided that they wanted to launch a project and get reviews on it. There's a lot of attention towards DT lately, and it's members so naturally they'd want high profile users. If it would be reworded to "Top Users according to Bpip.org", would that be better? I'm just saying I get where they are coming from and it doesn't necessarily have to be shady although I see your point as well.

Your exact words were these:


I thoroughly complied with your request. This is entirely based on my opinion, which holds in regard the opinions of others.

Edit: BTW, thanks suchmoon, I appreciate your kind words, and your earlier guidance in matters surrounding what DT should be used for.

That was probably the wrong tangent. I guess the main point is there is a quandary in my mind between the principles of free speech and the repugnant nature of what r0ach's fingertips unleash on the WO board. The members who regularly post on the WO board have been more than longsuffering with r0ach. He's lucky that this current account of his has only accumulated 2 red tags. I think anyone who would initiate a trade with him on this forum should take a glance at his post history, first. And Lauda has used his post history as the evidence link. It's probably all moot anyway, since I doubt r0ach will be doing any trades on this board considering that he thinks all cryptocurrencies are shit coins. Also, the WO board, where he posts almost exclusively, doesn't display trust ratings.