Oh come on, some of the shit you say is genuinely funny. Don't let the clown car to discourage you from pursuing a career as a comedian. But you might want to switch from dick drawings to something post-middle-school and read the fucking forum rules, how hard can it be... Don't you worry about that. I just think it is pretty pathetic all the dirty little con games you all pull out of your ass because you can't handle a joke. |
|
|
|
So then I'll ask you again - why have you wasted a decade of your life here? It's because you are a troll. Let me know when you learn how to count to ten Vod. |
|
|
|
|
Were did you all go? TwattySqueal? SuchGoon? Nutilduuuh? Suddenly none of you want to debate this farce of an investigation any more! Weird...
|
|
|
|
Yep, those damn conspiritards making statements directly from the director of Ventura County Public Health himself. Clearly it is a deep fake. That guy talking is just Alex Jones with CGI over it. Do you people ever just stop and think for 3 seconds... "are we the baddies?" |
|
|
|
I realized what Lauda said was true, it's hard for me to operate in a community where most people are cheaters. With some bullshit deals and now I'm under investigation  It is ironic you don't see the connection between the inquisition type atmosphere you promote, and the "probing" you are experiencing right now. It is all fine and dandy when it is other people. Unfortunately everyone gets a turn at having legions of bored autists dig through their toilet bowl looking for peanuts. |
|
|
|
The only reason these kind of things don't happen to you is I have better things to spend my time on than following you around looking through your toilet bowl for peanuts that "break the rules".
LOL. No you don't. If a mod doesn't delete the post you reported, you open a thread about it. When mods delete posts of yours, you open a thread about it. When the starter of a self-moderated thread deletes your post, you open a thread about it. You quite obviously have nothing better to do, and you never stop obsessing over the most trivial of matters. Yes, because that is the result of selective enforcement, and the whole point of exploiting it. It is indistinguishable from the usual arbitrary and selective enforcement of the rules and facilitating the abuse of the reporting systems as a tool for censorship. |
|
|
|
My goal was to make fun of your theatrical rage against your arch nemesis nutildah but I keep forgetting what a humorless stuck up twit you are. In hindsight it now makes sense that your affliction would lead you to post a dick drawing as a response to "pictures or it didn't happen" so I apologize for pushing you down this path of delinquency. Don't start doing drugs please. My goal was to be able to enjoy a joke, but your little clown clan's obsession with me pretending as if some one will get in trouble at work for a 10 pixel wide ms paint cartoon penis as an excuse to prevent that joke from being made, quite intentionally. Not because it serves the community, but because it serves you and yours because you are a group angry little twats that can't handle a joke at your expense. The only reason these kind of things don't happen to you is I have better things to spend my time on than following you around looking through your toilet bowl for peanuts that "break the rules". Many major social media sites, such as twitter enforce rules in a specific way so that certain groups of users are affected more than others. I hope this is not a road that bitcointalk is going down.
I haven't reviewed the deleted posts by TECHARE that he posted closely, but I would agree that at least some of them did break the forum rules around NSFW posts. Even though I don't know this to be true, I would even stipulate all of TECHARE's posts violated forum rules. However I would caution against going full Gretchen Whitmer on users, especially if they are objectively speaking making a good faith effort to debate, and engage with other forum members. If someone posts a NSFW image, [ img] it out, so it won't display by default. Off topic rules state that for a post to be on topic, it must be related to the OP of a thread, and some people are very good at making the majority of the post be off topic, and a single sentence at the end be related to the OP -- when this happens, and the off topic portion is responded to, without anything in the response being related to the OP, a topic split should be created.
You don't know what you are talking about in spite of it being right here, but you are perfectly willing to have an opinion. Funny, you are complaining about reports being abused in your own thread simultaneously while dismissing my post. You have become quite the obedient little eunuch ball washer haven't you? Pretty pathetic. |
|
|
|
Some idiot is going on an unnecessary reporting spree. It's mostly pointless reporting the majority of old posts but if someone reports something then some mod will likely handle it. I don't think we should de-facto prohibit people from reporting all old posts but reporting low-quality posts from 5 years ago isn't really needed.
Like I have said several times before, the moderators really need some kind of feedback mechanism to highlight excessive reports coming from or targeting a single user. "Just enforcing the rules" has been a favorite little game of people targeting those who they would rather were not able to speak at all. Furthermore, the more mods respond to these abuses of the reporting system, the more they incentivize these users to do so. |
|
|
|
What is the excuse for censorship this time?
The red rectangular dicks make it non-compliant with Bitcointalk's high artistic standards. I apologize, I wouldn't have asked for pictures if I had known that a simple flippant remark was going to cause you so much stress. You can stop with the pictures now, I'll take your word for it - you're clearly an ass-head expert. That is a cutesy way of avoiding admitting your goal was only censorship from the beginning. |
|
|
|
Oh plenty will come of this, don't worry cupcake. Biden's legacy is over, and many other high level officials are going to face prosecution. You argue about meaningless peripheral issues all you like. The truth is coming out, and your butt is going to be so hurt you are going to suffer a prolapse from the sheer force of your head being yanked out of your ass when the news breaks.  |
|
|
|
|
The problem with all of the arguments advocating this type of system here is you are only examining the intents of it, and totally ignoring the unintended consequences of it being implemented. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
|
|
|
|
What is the excuse for censorship this time? 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. Yes, clearly this user is the problem. Not the fact Lauda thinks it is acceptable to run around tagging and flagging people for making predictions they don't like. I am not sure you could possibly get your head any further up Lauda's ass.
Pictures or it didn't happen. This is image was SO GRAPHIC it had to be censored for the good of the Bitcointalk userbase. Lauda is constantly abusing the trust system, and Nutilduuuh is hoping to earn favors by inserting his head up Lauda's ass as far as possible. The picture speaks for itself. |
|
|
|
Actually that is kind of the whole point of the trust system.
No, its not, at all... Trust lists
- If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
You are not basing your inclusions on this criteria. You are basing them on 1. their willingness to include you, and 2. who has excluded them from their trust lists. This kind of mindset has led to scammers, banned users and users who blatantly misuse the trust system being added to DT. Actually, it is. There are supposed to be counterbalancing forces within the trust system, that is the entire point of implementing it as opposed to just having Theymos unilaterally decide who is on it. We have been over your baseless smearing and mind reading act several times and when pressed to substantiate your claims, you have no evidence other than your assumptions that any of that is true. You already publlicly admitted your accusations are based on your assumptions. Not at all. You have every much a right to include who you want as I do to assume you were fishing for reciprocal inclusions. You continue to assert you some how know what my internal thoughts and motivations are as if you are Ms. Cleo. Additionally basing ones inclusions and exclusions on ones on judgement of the validity of their own trust list is exactly what you are advocating, you just want it to be your trust list picks. I think you and your red nose red ass buddies are using the trust system inappropriately, and I see no evidence that these people are using it inappropriately, thus I think you should be counterbalanced with their inclusion. I have seen reliable evidence presented against almost none of these people
It's literally in the post you're replying to: Add me to your trust list and I'll add you
Give me feedback and I'll give you
I'm quite impressed with the lengths you go to in order to deny reality. I never included wolwoo, but I am not really that impressed with the lengths you go to to manufacture reality. |
|
|
|
I support (some) of them because they are a counterbalancing force to the totally unaccountable iron grip you and your red nosed red assed buddies have over the trust system. I have seen reliable evidence presented against almost none of these people who are regularly and perpetually attacked because they threaten the existing unilateral control of the trust system.
Again -- terrible reasons to include somebody in your trust list, and indicative of your continued misunderstanding of the basic functions of DT. Actually that is the whole point of the trust system. In spite of that, you feel that you have a right to not only choose who you think uses the system correctly by making your own trust list, but also dictate who I and others can include in our trust lists. The mere act of adding some one you don't agree with is "abuse". Also adding people who add people who you say are "abusive" is also "abuse". The only thing not "abuse" according to you is if we copy your inclusions and exclusions exactly. |
|
|
|
This is a HORRRIBLE idea. I can not overstate this enough. Merit and the trust system are already heavily abused to the point of their being almost totally counterproductive. Adding negative merits will turn this place into just another retarded fucking echo chamber like every other site. All that will happen is people will only say what is popular, and everything else will either be punished, or silenced. This place will then proceed to completely turn into a cesspool instead of just mostly a cesspool. This MUST NOT happen under any circumstances.
Try reading the full topic before overreacting. It has since been clarified by gmaxwell that they simply meant having a way to mark a post as nonsense. They're not proposing deducting merits from users: Everyone is getting too caught up on the idea that this would remove merit. I would consider it more like a newbie flag, but rather than being placed on a person it would be on a post.
Right. Apparently I screwed up by using the word "demerit" in my post. Removing merits is not something I consider particularly useful. I did. Any iteration of this idea is retarded and will cause horrible unintended consequences. I suggest when people say things that you don't like you find a way to cope with it or use the existing systems instead of obsessing over new an improved ways to control the speech of others. |
|
|
|
|
This is a HORRRIBLE idea. I can not overstate this enough. Merit and the trust system are already heavily abused to the point of their being almost totally counterproductive. Adding negative merits will turn this place into just another retarded fucking echo chamber like every other site. All that will happen is people will only say what is popular, and everything else will either be punished, or silenced. This place will then proceed to completely turn into a cesspool instead of just mostly a cesspool. This MUST NOT happen under any circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I am sure a degenerate such as yourself was very offended and simply wanted to protect the forum from those horribly graphic cartoon pixels sort of resembling a penis. I am sure it had nothing to do with the fact that it was a humorous reply at the expense of one of your ball washing red nosed buddies. Weird... all of a sudden no one seems to think the image is a problem now that it is not in the original thread. Funny how that works.
[EDIT: and now after the fact you report it to pretend like you were just trying to preserve the rules and not censor all along]
|
|
|
|
Similar to how you don't support "these people" because you care about them, you support them because they support you. You include people who put someone like this on DT1 I support (some) of them because they are a counterbalancing force to the totally unaccountable iron grip you and your red nosed red assed buddies have over the trust system. I have seen reliable evidence presented against almost none of these people who are regularly and perpetually attacked because they threaten the existing unilateral control of the trust system. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
