Negative THREADS not one post that is makes a very valid point. That entire discussion must be viewed to understand the collision.
One instance and not an example of what you claimed... and if you read the entire thread not just one post I clearly state the point is valid. People can read the entire thread and make their own minds up. Bring me lots more - - the sheer number of negative a
I will peruse your posts in a few mins and locate some political bolstering of your pals for which you get or give merit. Of course with merit there is no abuse possible since there is such a degree of subjectivity. But clearly a substantial number your posts and your pals that receive and give merit are mostly just actions to bolster and support each others politics here. I can only see 120 days back how to see merit since - it was introduced? are you a merit source or not?
That is the thread I remember the most vivid and the one that involves me directly. It stood out because you also verbally attacked the poster before me. To be honest I'm not that interested in searching for more threads that involve bickering. I prefer to concentrate on the more positive parts of the forum or investigate scammers.
I'm not so interested in what merit people sent to me.
I'm interested in the understanding the accusation you made against me. There are a few threads that I am very proud of and are ongoing projects - those that I wear in my signature. Those are also the ones I got the most merit for. Hopefully people look at those articles well after I am gone and expand on the research I've done.
People from all sides of the political spectrum have made great contributions there.
So anyway just gave a quick glance over you 120days merit
Now actually I will not say at all that you are a shit poster whom deserves no merits. Actually I notice I have given you merits for some nice research and I notice some of your posts add value. You are also not actually one of the persons I consider to be INTENTIONALLY fighting against a fairer system. However in my opinion it is clear that there is cycling on political (shared values and pals) which i don't object to but all persons should be allowed to narrow their focus of applying merit too.
A fairer system is more inclusive. Bickering between people on DT1 is not healthy. There will always be some preference towards the people who have done it for years. Fighting scammers - particularly feisty ones can make a person cynical and distrusting.
Some criminals will deny everything until the evidence is overwhelming. Lowbander80 for example:
Scam accusation:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4679775.0Investigation and DOX:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4679939Took a long time to unmask his many identities and RLI. Cryptodevil made the real breakthrough. Lauda had tagged some of his accounts already for minor issues which made the investigation easier once we knew who we were dealing with.
I'm not part of Laudas trust list but I recognize the value of the work that Lauda has done. I have also been quite vocal (without being disrespectful) about the Russian issue.
At the end of the day I have to accept that someone elses opinion may be different to mine. So they won't always follow my recommendation or values.
Time spent bickering is time wasted that could have been spent looking for real scammers.
Trust is not something that is there automatically. It is something that builds up over time.
That was a joke that a Dr Who fan like timelord understands. (Which is why I linked it so others could understand the joke too)
You will find that we don't consider each other pals.A lighthearted remark that hopefully made some people laugh. Which I believe succeeded.
That is a parody post intended to make people laugh. I like making peoples day a bit more pleasant by making them laugh.
The merits awarded are also quite small.
Keep in mind that I have sufficient merit for ranking up to the final rank of legendary (just not enough activity) so any merit that is sent to me provides me with sMerits to send others.
So it is far more important how I award the merits rather than how I receive them.
People who took the time to expand on it made me laugh so I gave them merit. I believe humor is "good content".
12 legendaries who aren't going to bitch and fight with each other.
Yeah, good luck with that. Pose a problem to 12 Legendary members, and you'll get 13 different opinions.
Do you really disagree with that ? The internal politics are far more complex than what is on the forum. A lot of issues are resolved through respectful dialogue via private message. When talking to others you cannot demand to change their opinion. You can respectfully ask them to consider some more facts. Sometimes they change their mind and sometimes they don't.
One of the reasons I really respect The Pharmacist is because he has a very different opinion to mine. When I am not certain of something I ask for his opinion because it will be different than what I have thought of.
You misread that post.
I respect that you made me a merit source even though I did not ask to be one. I'm trying to give merits to the lower ranks (Newbie-Sr. Member), but I'm always falling short of sMerits. Always. And I've earned quite a few sMerits from my own posts, and those are all gone now too.
At that stage Meta was full of newbies that lost their privileges because they didn't have any merit. There was a particular drive to give more merit to noobs. Something that I support.
Legendary members like The Pharmacist don't need any merit to rank up. Merit at that stage was of no real value to him.
Yahoo is not on my trust list and he distrusts some of the people I trust.
His comment was a funny lighthearted joke. Merit worthy.
A merit application by a good poster who has more merit than required for ranking up. Of course I show my support.
He would have no benefit of the merits he receives other than being able to give out the smerits.
---------------
Now as promised I use your merit distribution as a standard:
Out of all the merit you have given in 2019 all but two posts are political.
Funny how chipmixer shills everywhere in this thread jesus christ, you guys would probably cry if you couldnt post for money on this forum.
<snip>
thank you for posting this conclusion. i think you are right.
<snip>
You have my support. But nobody will care. Because I am not one of the "system controllers".
<snip>
only if they care about their rank.
and i can understand that people care about their rank. and not just because they want to be able to be in a "Paid2Post Campaign".
but because the have something important to say and they are most of the time just ignored because of their rank.
<snip>
I think this would be an option.
and I don't know why this have been done already.
thats why i have to ask this questions:
more sig-spamming => more traffic?
more traffic => more money for the "owners" of this forum?
is this the reason that paid sigs are here?
edit: corrected some typos
i just transfer all to one adress and staking this one
I excluded you because your ratings are shit. Didn’t you trust aTriz as he was scamming everyone with lies and fake ICOs? Now you have Lauda who is a documented extortionist included in your trust network... You’re a good example of a user who should be blacklisted... Your judgement is awful.
I actually hate this forum a lot, its like a gang of mafia giving each other favors and its also like a group of teenage girls gossiping about how gets negative trust plus other bullshit like this.
Lot of these people get off on their "power" of having merit or being able to red mark someone, this shit is so ridiculous and most of you spend too much time on this forum, especially the paid signature spammers. Probably can't even make money outside this forum so you resort to posting.
this is foolproof
if you want lauda tman and owlcatz off of dt this is how you accomplish that goal
add this to all of your trust lists
<snip>
i tagged him we will put him also on the ditrust list for false tagging
------------------
these examples Plus the prior posts I made demonstrates clear that a group of "pals" share political views and even by posting piss taking jokes aligning with those views will get your merits even if those views are incorrect.
I mean there is no doubt that if you post something that aligns with a persons politics even if it is proven incorrect can get you merits here. Or even if the poster posting it is blatantly demonstrating double standards and hypocrisy will still get them merits if they are pals or their post politically align with their pals.
merit cycling is not always intentional nor to enable manipulation and selfish gain via the systems of control it can be a natural thing like: i meet some cool people who share my views and i enjoy their posts so i look for them and naturally they will attract more merit from me.
I get this but then sometimes views and opinions form that may not be correct but the group will act as a gang to incorrectly try to stop their views being demonstrated as incorrect. This is okay but not at the expense of having the power to damage other persons accounts whom are correct especially if they are presenting FACTS.
We simply need a system or systems that push for full transparency fairness and equality for each member. Anyone opposing those things is acting selfishly.
Suchmoon makes posts that are aligned with my sense of humor and are clever (some people don't get the joke)
If I had unlimited merits I would give Suchmoon many more. But I'm conscious that it is pointless giving merit to a merit source that has more merits than they need.
So the merits given to Suchmoon are quite conservative.
Do you think that the merit cycling post was not a clever humorous way for people to look at how merits were being distributed ?
Sometimes the best ideas are transferred in a friendly tongue in cheek way. How many business deals are done over dinner versus where two parties scream at each other ?
If you disagree with someone you won't change their minds with insults or demands. Reasoned and respectful dialogue is usually what changes peoples minds and sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.
Show Posts
).
