He wasn't saying that.
Just like the camps don't justify the beheading. Or is the teacher not a victim.

In western society you don't get to decapitate people for saying words or for showing cartoons.
In the middle east that may be okay.

Don't like western society rules = don't go there
Don't like middle eastern rules = don't go there

Some great contributions here.

Excellent work. Except for that shit stain suchmoon who I have reported once again, like that last 4 or 5 times that dumb fuck has spammed my threads with demands to cease a legitimate and sensible discussion and it has been marked bad each and every time.

So yes it should be transparent which slime ball cunt rag of a mod is permitting people to demand discussion is halted in legitimate threads.

In the previous threads that were all highly valuable and legitimate this behaviour has been permitted.
If anyone else did this and targeted other members threads with spam and demands to cease the discussion it would be removed.

Now getting back to sensible and cordial civilised discussions on these matters.  

Lets first tackle the transparent polls.

Why would you not wish people to see which option you voted for?
Would that not be tantamount to being sneaky and devious ?
Give me an example of why you would not personally wish the forum view which option you have selected on a poll

If there are negatives to a suggested action that does not mean the action is not optimal.
There may be greater negatives for inaction. There are many reasons why polls are lacking in credibility here and they relate to the fact they are anonymous.

To poor deranged tool suggesting this is the same as revealing RL data or kyc please find another thread where your moronic slobbering will be appreciated by the sound of clapping seal flippers as you toss your putrid rotten fish comments out at will.

If you want people want to give their honest opinions out and have them given credibility why be afraid to stand behind them ?
If your opinion is credible and you truly believe it's a reasonable opinion to have then why fear scrutiny and examination ?

Same for this crying about I don't want people to see I report their posts?
Why not? If the forum was moderated correctly then you need not fear reprisals from anyone.

You can either post the on topic relevant truth or points you can corroborate strongly with independently verifiable evidence or you can be deleted. I mean what is there to fear?

If you have no dirt in your post history then how ever hard people look for it there will be nothing for them to leverage against you.
If there is dirt to use against you then you have no fears.

Anyway people can object to any truths that you post and decide they wish to make you an enemy and try any tricks they can to get you banned or ruin your trust rating or starve you of merit.  So then you must fear what you can post but rely on sneaky devious tactics claiming around in the dark to dare express your true feelings and opinions.

There is indisputable evidence of mod bias that is never attended to unless we can all go around slapping warning pictures demanding debates are ended whilst not being able to demonstrate why they are not valid or reasonable debates to have.

That is clear mod bias.

I expect you would find the same mods and reporters colluding and punishing certain members.
Let's make it transparent.

If you want to take an action here against another member why need to be sneaky about it?
Either it was the correct action which you can defend successfully in open debate or you shouldn't be taking it.

Mods and DT especially should have their actions made transparent. You want positions of trust then let's make sure you're trustworthy.
Sneaky little shits all shirking any accountability and fearing public scrutiny. Disgusting.

Anyway focus on the polls first.

Want credible polls make them transparent. I think it would be a nice way to sniff out alts and collusion too.
If you're voting in away that makes you ashamed or reveals who you really are then tough.

There is no excuse saying you fear reprisals for your actions.  If you've got no dirt in your past and are not going around pushing undeniable double standards what have you to fear here from anyone. This is an anonymous forum.  

You post on topic relevant and credible and useful information or it is removed right? Same rules for everyone.
You are honest and don't scam or you are a scammer and get tagged and flagged right? Oh yeah that's wrong forgot it works the other way sometimes with scammers tagging and flagging members that whistle blow on them.

Mods are not there to allow a one sided and debunked narrative to be dominant by removing on topic relevant and independently verifiable evidence from threads depriving the reader of locating the truth right? Do their job then nothing to fear.

You fear having your actions made transparent or have any other excuses let me know. I will help resolve your reservations.

Polls first.

Re Quoting yourself like this gets you banned? Its against the rules right?

Also you need to debunk each separate claim if you can. You can't just claim is all incorrect even if you have conclusively debunked one item he posted, which I'm not sure you have done anyway.

People should be allowed to investigate for themselves if you have no conclusive evidence to debunk it with here. Just produce your specific counter argument now and let them review that.

Should the title have question mark at the end? Who can say.

Why not make a few things fully transparent here?

Post reporter

You see who reports what posts

Mod dealing with report

You see which mod deleted the post or marked it bad

Poll votes

See how people voted on polls
Could even be optional for the polls starter and warning given to those voting
I would prefer all polls were transparent no other option personally.

What reasons not to do this?

I think it would help members and mods act more responsibly.

Only a retard would say they miss a proven scammer and self confessed trust abuser that has never posted anything that is original thought provoking and made any lasting difference here at all. Hence why it was no surprise to see your name there lauda I mean amishmash.

I concur the moderation here is at times concerning. I have posted a delete that no mod would care to stand behind.
I have seen others make similar challenges which mods flee from.

I don't share the OPs views regarding bitcoin although I have seen no irrefutable evidence provided to conclusively debunk his claims.
However when you do bring up undeniably correct points that don't suit those benefitting or that have designed the mechanisms that define the status quo here on the forum you can expect to be unfairly moderated and your freedom of speech suddenly be restricted to a level it would not be if you were pushing the opposing but clearly debunked views.
This is wrong.

Either defend your argument, debunk opposing arguments or accept there is no way to validate or debunk and move on.
Deleting posts that are undeniably and demonstrably true is only going to ruin the rep of the forum.

Of course making claims you can't validate or strongly corroborate with independently verifiable evidence that are especially outrageous or potentially damaging should be warned to provide evidence or cease.

There is no point repeating things over and over that have been debunked or that have no independently verifiable evidence that corroborated your claims. That could well be grounds for moderation. The forum should do its best to allow members to access useful and accurate information as frequently as freely as possible.

Bitcointalk is not optimal in that respect as yet and is moving in the wrong direction in recent times. This should be watched closely.
Fortunately I notice it primarily operates poorly in meta/rep which most members don't visit.

Why do you object to the introduction of objective standards as a basis for the trust system?
Something to fear?

Also what makes you believe there is any leader?
Why would a set of objective standards require a leader?

Why would the idea of  introducing some objective standards into the trust system suddenly not be worthwhile because one person is offline for 2 months.

Yes of course the previously banned financially motivated self serving  plagiarist is sad that shit posting proven scammer and self confessed trust abusing troll tman is not posting regularly.

Cryptohunter aka the true legend is of course enjoying the high life he deserves for ensuring bitcoin was never knocked from top spot on cmc, forcing a 2 billion dollar air drop compensation offer to the entire forum fighting the largest scams and making multiple millionaires from his selfless tips and the only member to constantly tackle any and all DT1 scammers and scammer supporters. That and always pushing for the fairest and most transparent standards to be upheld in every project he was part of and the entire forum. However there are his friends and admirers that will continue his great work here I expect.

Only 50 alts?

Even mentioning someone like CH and that peasant dreg scammer tman in the same post should be a banning offense.

Anyway to the OP

Terrible to have any allergies that deprive you of the pleasures those without such defects enjoy carefree. Those people that come out to a fine restaurant and insist upon speaking personally and loudly to the chef about their allergies should be thrown out ( unless super good to look at) . Spoiling the experience for those that are fit and healthy. Also these saffron and coconut milk face masks are wonderful for my skin. It is upsetting to hear you're going through all of this turmoil.

Now, with all that boring irrelevant stuff out of the way..2020 was simply uneventful for the forum. It was strange for cobra to hand over bct domain but since he didnt step in or intend to step in to correct the terrible DT and merit sham then it is not a huge difference for the end user.
The forum is still very useful to members if not as useful as before. It will likely remain as is until the next btc ATH.

I'm expecting the big fireworks to kick off sometime next month in the US.

Stay well xldiv I am very pleased you've returned even if in an even more dilapidated state than before. I was just joking above. Sorry to hear of your recent woes. God works in mysterious ways. Hence why I make sure to ensure I'm always doing my best to be fair and righteous.

I'm watching the situation with the teacher in Paris. I wonder if this is going to spark a movement or will fizzle out and be forgotten next week. Well, we still have a couple of months left of 2020 perhaps saving the best until last.

Well people know where you're from so shut up scammer supporter.

Most people use tor and or along with other obfuscation here for a reason.
So the idea is not sensible for most users.
I mean the very famous ones are known anyway.

But maybe if you want to be on DT? then that could be a sensible requirement ? Scammers and nefarious scum obviously wouldn't want that. Maybe full KYC is a sensible requirement for those that want to be cops ?

What a slow coach.
The vile vixen aka foxpoop can read perhaps 20 posts on different threads evaluate the and award them sensible and credible amounts of merit in 10 seconds total.

Seconds are vast chasms of time to some here.

You could bump 100 threads with excellent on topic and relevant replies in a min or two if you prepped the messages then just slapped them in and hit post.

One word posts are deleted usually.

Your trust abuse here is undeniable. Filthy old desperate perv.

Your hypocrisy is even more embarrassing. Giving red trust because someone said it was in poor taste to ridicule the reasons some members had given for their plagiarism. So heinous was the crime of plagiarism and your post defending your trust abuse was merited by your scamming pal lauda (who's scamming you tried and failed to defend ) ..

Then what happens lauda is busted for multiple counts of intentional sneaky plagiarism grafting clumps of others words into his own paragraphs and you start defending lauda.

You are pure dirt you filthy old twat and should not be on any trust system ever. More likely should be on some sex predators watch list.

Your trust abuse is well documented and undeniable.
Leaving this here for the truth to be known.

Meta is the best place to present any and all instances of the DT scum bag scammer crew abusing the trust system.
Suchmoon is part of that crew make no mistake.
Alway first to oppose warnings on proven scammers like lauda.

The trust system is openly abused to the point where the DT scammer crew will tag and flag anyone that presents evidence of their scamming and financially motivated wrongdoing.

The problem is they want to take all the best rev streams here albeit sigs, campaign management,  escrow, etc. If you notice them scamming or bring competition to their rev streams they will find a way via the trust system to abuse your account.

So many people notice this but as yet have not organised or mobilised to crush them.
They are not directly vulnerable but their sponsors are.

Their sponsors should not be paying or sponsoring this kind of scammy behavior.

Meantime meta is a far better board to bring irrefutable evidence of the trust system being used like a protection racket by scammers and scammer protectors that have voted themselves on to DT.

This is a great post for a 1990s experimental AI.

However, any reasonably intelligent human being having read the details provided kindly by myself in this thread would recognise the undeniable failings and dangers of allowing proven scammers to use the trust system to punish and deter whistle blowing and use it in the multitude of other ways I have mentioned to scam with impunity.

Therefore you not having a problem with it is entirely irrelevant and doesn't  to the distinct points laid out in the OP.

I agree you must not rely on it and do your own investigation but that doesn't mean the current trust system aka DT hasn't been infested and spoiled by scammers and those willing to enable scammers and collude and protect them.

Available criterias? Aka self awarded and cycled merits based on nothing since there is no criteria or definition for giving merits except you think it's good? And since there is no definition or criteria of what good is then it is impossible to know if people even think the post they merit is good.

There is vast chasm between not perfect and completely crap and dangerous.

Sorry but your low functioning spew is only making a point you could feel is valid.
Of course

1. Anyone can continue to post and show support in a thread they didnt start.
2.  Only someone who eats ass as voraciously ass yourself could conveniently miss the indisputable evidence even nutildah dare not tackle.
3. Your accusation of alt is speculation and is irrelevant
4. You're a moron.
5. What a shock spamming a gambling sig? Lol
6. Claims solid evidence of scamming by DT is " horribles accusations" lol and a waste of time to read.
7. Your lack of comprehension and critical reasoning are nauseating. I can only hope bitsler or whatever your shit sponsor is roasts in eternal hell for paying you to inflict such putrid dirt on this once great forum. Either that or your segment in the sub human centipede
Of DT places you between lauda and vod.

@ nutildah

1. Still no refutation of any one of my points.
2. You're a proven willing scam facilitator for pay who tries to delete the evidence when caught. Then trust abuses those that present the evidence of your shady past.
3. The point of the thread is that DT scammers have used the trust system to abuse others. Which is undeniably true.

Stop trying to make the thread about DT1 using the trust system to implement scams.

However using these
1.punish those presenting the evidence of their wrong doing.
2. Prevent legitimate warnings being given via the trust system aka opposing legitimate flags
3. Coercing and rewarding abuse of the trust system via bestowed trust includes and merits
4. Mutual red tag removals

Is assisting you pull off the scam and getting away with it.

I mean anyone can pull off a scam but for the evidence of scamming to be irrefutable  and transparent but you receive no punishment then DT1 makes that possible.

Of course DT that have scammed previously may have only pulled if off because

1/ people didnt want to speak out for fear of punishment via the trust system
2. People may have perceived that the perp being on DT meant they were trustworthy.
3. Collusion between other corrupt DT members preventing prior warnings on their account.

Even so the purpose of the thread is to demonstrate scammers on DT abusing the trust system have broken it.

It's not about whatever you want to make it so we can say your prior documented willing scam facilitating for pay and trying to delete the evidence is okay. Or that the other proven scammers are okay to be on DT and abuse the trust of other members.

Stop running away from the points I am making.
Also as a prior NEM stake holder ( worth 300 btc at one stage) and an early dash adopter who was recently begging for 0.02 btc loans from your mud hut in some third world mess.... lol there is only one person here that should be crying and butthurt. You're basically a guide on how not to bitcointalk. Nutildah trading tips anyone?

You seem to be taking a leaf out suchmoons scuttling techniques. Ignoring the core points and half quoting something you can try to make some snarky moronic comment that falls apart under mild scrutiny anyway.


Now since you are unable to refute any of the evidence I have provided that undeniably demonstrates what an unsuccessful loser and willing scam facilitator for pay you are that would sneakily delete the evidence if you could and firm pal and supporter of other proven scammers on DT then best to concede and agree. I mean what else can you do except try some diversions or make some more excuses which I will immediately crush and pulverise with the observable and undeniable truth?

Thanks for not running away. I'm enjoying you again. Bring more wannabe human centipede segments to play too. I like them bumping and slobbering their moronic excuses or just blatant lies and misinformation on the thread for me to debunk whilst asking them how much DT ass they want to be forced to publicly consume on their inexorable path to certain evisceration at the hands of the independently verifiable truth.

Past scamming is okay?
You are not a scammer or willing scam facilitator if it happened in the past?

You are not abusing the trust system if you punishing whistleblowers for pointing out you have scammed or been willing to facilitate scams in the past?

You seem to also be cutting out from your quotes that those are the adjectives you are conflating with telling the truth.
Those are your adjectives.

Past scammers aka scammers
Past willing scam facilitators for pay aka willing scam facilitators for pay

Are abusing the trust system and using it to punish whistleblowers for presenting the truth about them.
They are also seeking to palm those truths off as crying whining and butthurt.

Clearly you don't want to tackle the evidence contained in the links. You know you can't tackle the truth don't you?

You don't get to say well DT members who scammed in the past on this forum are not scammers.
You don't get to say well DT members who use the trust system to punish whistle blowers are not abusing the trust system because we scammed in the past.

You don't get to use the trust system in several ways to scam with impunity and punish those that present the truth about your scamming which you can not refute or debunk.

DT contains proven scammers who abuse the trust system in multiple ways.
The op is correct.

Well the link

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5249969.0

Here details lying and deceiving others for financial gain
Aka scamming people.
I guess youre protecting your scamming pal

Makes sense

This link details your willingness to facilitate scammers for a fee and then try to delete your post history

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0

I mean we can see you used the trust system to punish the whilst blower there also.

Of course if you need the details of the tman auction scamming you can request those also.

Lets focus on you though first DT1 willing scammer facilitator for pay and trust abuser.
You are a prime example of what the op refers to.

Come back, stop running away.

Telling the truth about scamming DT1 scum = crying, whining, butthurt, I will expand the list as we proceed.

Love it when scammer facilitators for pay bite. This will be good.

I don't see any rebuttals to my points?
Try again please.

" we all" ? That's other willing scam facilitators for around 300 bucks who try to delete their post histories but get caught and then use the trust system to try to punish those that blew the whistle on you? Or just you?

Anyway just try to make a sensible rebuttal.
Take Your time.

Let's see. Or does it pull the old suchmoon scuttle on me and run and hide.

Nutildah is a clear example of what the OP is correctly pointing out.

Not to mention he was close pals with 2 other proven scammers that are on DT or were.
Both of whom openly used the trust system to punish their whistle blowers. One even stated he gave red tags to a member for presenting facts about his scamming pal.

How much more clear can they make it   

This is a brilliant example of a proven willing scam facilitator for pay who would seek to delete his post history to disguise this fact if he were not busted by a real scam hunter.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0

Notice this proven scammer facilitator for pay red tags the OP and anyone he thinks is related to revealing these inconvenient facts about himself.

So when proven scammers and scammer facilitators for pay can use the trust system to punish their whistleblowers then you know the trust system is broken.

His other points are also bogus.

The trust system is designed by 1 person. The design can only be altered by 1 person.
The trust system can only be policed at the top by 1 person.

So flagging abuse was meant to be policed by 1 person.
There is no such thing as tagging abuse now.

This is a pseudo democracy.

It removes the accountability largely from theymos so really it is less reliable. Although theymos is the only person that can police it.
It does not police itself and never can because the design forces collusion to maintain their grip on the rev streams the position of DT1 and merit source affords them. There is far more incentive to collude than to do what is trustworthy in most cases.

So when theymos picked the DT1 and they were caught scamming there was pressure on him to remove them.
Now when DT1 are shown to be scamming there is no pressure to remove them on theymos.
You can see what happens when irrefutable evidence of scamming is presented relating to one of the DT1 core scumbags?
Well look here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5249969.0

They all collude to support them and prevent warnings.



This crying and whining about it being unfair = undeniable independently verifiable evidence of scammers and willing scam facilitators for pay using the trust system to:

1. Punish those presenting the evidence of their wrong doing.
2. Prevent legitimate warnings being given via the trust system aka opposing legitimate flags
3. Coercing and rewarding abuse of the trust system via bestowed trust includes and merits
4. Mutual red tag removals
5. Crushing free speech and encouraging echo chambers

Aka scamming with impunity, rewarding those that support them and punishing those that whistleblow on them

Sorry for crying and whining.


The trust system was ruined by its design and implementation

Scammers and their pals are simply using it as it allows itself to be used.

The best use of merit and DT1 is a honey pot for the most greedy and untrustworthy.

The OP is quite strange.

There is clear financial incentive to cycle merits, there is clear opportunity to cycle merits, there is strong compelling evidence in the form of merit fans and recipients data that people cycle merits.

Yet that is most unlikely?
Lol

Like the guy running out of the bank with swag bags spilling with money , with a gun, cashiers screaming and alarms ringing behind him, members of the public pointing at that guy with the swag bags and the gun and telling the police he just robbed the bank.

The cops say... nah most unlikely...probably a legit withdrawal

I mean for a start why would anyone want to steal money? Says the cops?
Also the gun doesn't provide any known opportunity to help steal money? Says the cops?
Also the alarm and screaming cashiers is certainly not to be conflated with sounds that indicate such activities like bank robbery? Says the cops.

Sensible conclusion is criminal activity in this case = most unlikely indeed.

Can you transparently present the thought process that makes you feel merit cycling is unlikely?
I am very interested.

Only then can I evaluate the solution your are proposing. I mean I would suggest burning every single merit on the forum. That may help.
Best to kill the spam or remove the negative of the spam, rather than kill the forum.

The problem is that without some stipulation or definition or criteria as the Lower threshold of good.
Or even an guarantee that the person believes the post to be good ( however weird and wonderful good is to them) then there is nothing preventing the member meriting what they know is a completely misleading net negative piece of garbage aka not good.

This therefore means that they know wilfully that there is no credibility or reliability or value at all to the post and they could wilfully merit misleading net negative shit. What is to stop them? What is to motivate them? Well read the " most important thread you can contribute to ..." on this very board.

Yes, some reliable, credible and useful metric could be sensible but merit is not anywhere near that.
There is no sensible argument  ( which will stand up to scrutiny)that merit is useful.  

If you want people to look at merit and say well the more merit the more inaccurate more misleading it is then that is likely more useful in meta and rep. I have not examined the other boards as much.

If people are relying on merit as some kind of metric or accurate and useful indication of useful data then ..... ?

I liked your reply though. It represents what many people probably think, and is perhaps why they are willing to give the system a chance. I mean if so many people genuinely consider it a good post then maybe there is some value? That is very optimistic

But do they?really?

Do people do they really reward what they think is objectively optimal for all persons aka the truth or what is best for them?
You know the answer and so do I. Even at this very moment.

People find merit in what is best for them. That is only natural. Any designer should know this.



  

So to be clear you are saying that a persons threads do not have a financially dangerous or scammer warning at the start of them without them having a flag?

I am sure that if you have more negatives than positives before flags came in then you got one of these false and defamatory warnings.
Unless this has been changed.

Are you saying this had been changed?

I mean even a type 1 flag can be given for any reason. There is no requirement for their to be any evidence of scamming , attempting to scam or any financially motivated wrong doing of any kind. You can give it people for whatever?
This is a different point but equally as strange. There is no point of a type 1 flag it can be given for any reason.

But let's tackle the first point. Why are the abuses that inspired the need for the flagging system grandfathered in.
If they were given for any other reason that scamming attempting to scam or some form of financial wrongdoing they should not bet there. So for the forum software to convert you drink lemon tea into you are a scammer is ludicrous.

Are you sure this doesn't happen? Some may say well only people with less than 10 days login time or whatever see those warnings but still that is quite a bit and it's defaming members that have never even thought of scamming.

We can discuss the level 1 flag requirement also. Let's clear the original point up first.

Constantly remained tagged now is different because you only have to not like the individual. Previously it was for proven scamming or strong evidence of scamming,  attempting to or setting up a scam.

How does the forum excuse telling new members that all threads started by a member that maybe was here 8 yrs with no evidence of any financially motivated wrongdoing is a scammer or guilty of financial wrong doing.
Needs to be fixed unless you believe indisputable defamation or deliberately false accusation is sensible.

I mean even the new type 1 flag is almost as bad. That should not have any financially dangerous or misleading bullshit warnings when there is zero evidence of any scamming or financially motivated wrongdoing in years of being a member.
That should just say some twat DT scum don't like this person for some reason that has nothing to do with financially motivated wrongdoing or scamming. Totally bogus nonsense the forum tells about members ? Wtf?