You previously claimed that without definition (ie criteria) good post bad post is meaningless. Hence claiming merit scores are meaningless full stop.

I have clearly demonstrated with observable events and facts that this current system is broken and infested with

1. liars
2. racist sock puppet sig spamming greedy paid2post addicts
3. trust abusers
4. weak and complicit users who will not stand against proven abusers and liars.
5. That merit is clearly cycled and abused and that now for some reason the ones obviously cycling it are the key positions for the trust system. LOL  just check bpip for each user and then look a their fans and receiver look at their ganging up on posts and then look who included and exclude who on DT lists. It is quite ridiculous.


Now they try to bring forth some censorship if all of that is not enough to prevent relevant, on topic facts and observable events being presented in meta if it does not fit with their agenda. I see sounds legit.

there is a need for a facts based objective trust system and a union to stand against corrupt and broken system controllers.

I suggest locating and listing their abuses (clear abuses) and then we will make a list of the DT members that have demonstrated untrustworthy behaviour in clear black and white. Over time the more they abuse and we can present facts and observable instances of this abuse then we can discredit them and rightly so.

I mean not everyone knows everything that has taken place on this board.

I was not aware until someone told me recently that the pharmacist was using a sock puppet Huge Black Woman to generate racist and offensive to some trolling to spam his other sig for btc dust.  To me that is untrustworthy. To see him lecturing on trolling or racist stuff or sig spamming is completely sickening.

I mean not to mention having such a greedy person as a system controller in both systems of control for paid2post and trading is quite insulting to the board.

I think this is an excellent idea so long as we keep it to 100% fact based and limited to observable events/instances of abuse that are clear cut.

I am thinking also of creating a DT post history review that people who have been abused can help to analyse for previous untrustworthy behaviour. 

I have already presented observable facts demonstrating untrustworthy behaviour to some DT's who have refused to even review the information that is there in black and white.

That makes them complicit and untrustworthy also.  They are in a position of trust it is their duty therefore to consider all observable events and facts to warm of untrustworthy behaviour.

Thanks that would be great. I am thinking of starting a union on this board. However now that theymos went against my advice of totally separating DT and Merit sources he has firmly placed DT in the hands of merit cyclers it would seem impossible for the systems to self regulate at all. All i see happening now is merit cyclers club (mostly the only ones to meet the merit threshold for the 2 key positions) will just recruit those they can be sure of support from.

A union will actually be quite effective against this group though because if we stick to posting facts and observable events demonstrating wrong doing and untrustworthy actions eventually we will eventually keep up enough pressure to force them to either abandon the board or remove any trust abuse they have conducted. This is the fairest way and the only way left open to us. If we lose our main accounts then it will be essential for friends to be asked to join whom have similar views to ourselves. Ie that every person should be treated fairly and judged on the real merit of their contributions here.

Of course we can not represent people that are proven untrustworthy but for real victims of their DT abuse we can provide support and also force these factual and observable abuses over and over until they are forced to debate the red trust and prove it is sensible and reasonable or remove it.

I know a few people who have contacted me have said they can not dare post under their real accounts because they fear that they will be destroyed. i fully understand this and do not blame you at all. Just beware you will all be accused of being me with no evidence provided at all and likely be red trusted on the mere suspicion.

I may also start a full DT listing with each member having a full facts based review of actions/non actions to factual observable events presented to them that they refuse to review or respond with a sensible response to.

This to me makes them untrustworthy also. I mean if you went to the police with factual evidence of someone breaking into your home or committing a crime and they flat out refused to view the evidence you can assume they are corrupt and complicit in the crime.

Stronger ban??

Hmmm who have you been talking too pussy cat. I wonder why that would be getting discussed with you......hmmm

What about a provable liar and trust abuser?  what kind of ban would they get taking into consideration being implicated in an extortion scheme and misappropriation of escrow funds?

Why would I be getting any kind of ban.

Presentation of facts and observable events may warrant red trust by a liar and trust abuser like yourself but I will see a reason for any ban that I receive.

Thanks for your support. I agree with you.

I mean I provide observable fact that these people lie and abuse the trust system and people are too scared to even comment and flat out refuse to even look at the evidence.

Still you will see many will rise up under such corrupt and broken systems of control. In the end you will have the board completely revolt against their double standards, lies and abuse. I am just providing facts and observable events to support free speech and fair treatment of all members. Anyone fighting this is net negative and provably so.

where did tman vanish too? oh yeah I asked him to answer questions that would reveal his real motives for wanting on topic and relevant facts from being presented on his thread............like roaches they vanish when the truth spotlight is focused on them?

Your advice is dire as I have demonstrated clearly on several other occasions.

You will find many other legends are unhappy with the gang tactics on here.

Notice which swarms of people come here and accuse me with no evidence.

I have no need to post under and alt and never will.  I like to crush you all with facts and observable events over and over. What a waste doing it under and alt.

I bring evidence to substantiate my claims. You guys as per usual bring nothing.

I have no sock puppets that is for the pharmacist aka huge black woman LOL

Sorry but this demonstrates you have no understanding of the wider implications.

Please try to gain understanding before continuing to discuss sensibly.

I have answered the "start a separate thread rebuttal" I have idea why you present it again.

Can you present here a molehill I am making into a mountain.

I disagree with your post.

Do you mean mole hills like - the entire boards right to free speech and the corruptions of the systems of control that seek to stifle and corrupt that?

Do you mean like with facts demonstrating this happening?

what molehills do you refer to?

Well we have disagreed now so it is up to your interpretation of rule 26 as to whether you respond.

Define trolling.

suchmoon either

1. wants to be banned
2. does not believe in local rules on meta

which is it such moon

these are different threads this is for clarity on the rule and the reasoning of the rule makers.

the other thread is for normal users to give their views.

@ LFC

I am disagreeing with you now on the basis of this post is simply to clarify the rule I see people trying to enforce on meta and nothing personal.

Well you either


1. want to be banned
2. do not agree with the notion of local rules on meta board.

which is it?

bake your noodle?

Sorry you will be banned soon if you have disagreed with me in the past.

this is not good enough you can not tie these 2 threads together forever.... therefore the facts and observable events will with held from analysis and this allows for the proliferation of false and misleading information and ideas.

this is the very reason there is no self moderated threads here.

Of course I don't agree with this idea of denying the presentation of relevant/on topic facts so for now I can simply say think about what you are saying carefully before posting again since if such rules hold sway here then they apply to you also.

Can you present a sensible case why you think facts and observable events should be precluded if they are on topic and relevant?

Maybe don't answer before you check if we have disagreed before at anytime. haha

I certainly do not want self moderated threads on meta.

This is about rule 26 where some people they can believe they can outlaw facts and observable events using ad hominem fallacy based reasoning.

If people are restricted to presenting facts that are on topic and relevant and logical analysis of such the forum would be magnitudes more efficient and useful.

Most people present statements/ideas/views then asked why or what they are based on they vanish. These are mostly groundless and incorrect blatherings that are net negative.

LOCAL RULES - NO POSTERS THAT HAVE DISAGREED WITH ME EVER IN ANY THREAD ALLOWED TO POST HERE. LOL imagine this was possible to enforce. Completely mad.





I started a thread here.  I would like to have full clarification of this rule on boards where there is no self moderation and it is not a sales based thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099936.0

It seems there is need for clarity and reasoning behind such a rule being applicable on meta board.

Some people seem to believe that facts and observable events that are relevant and on topic can be censored by using and  ad hominem fallacy based reasoning.

I mean if the poster is confined to posting only facts and observable events that are relevant and on topic  then why would it matter who creates the post?

It seems to me certain persons are asking for the right to spread and proliferate ideas, assumptions , actions and statements that are incorrect, misleading and dangerous  whilst setting rules that prevent facts, observable events that would dispel these net negative and dangerous ideas.


Meta has no self moderated threads for this exact reason. It seems certain people believe that they can create a self moderated environment here by setting their own local rules and having them enforced by mods.

I think this matter should be cleared up because before when I have requested certain people do not post unless they back up their claims with some credible case i was told no person can dictate who replies or takes part in a thread in meta.

So it seems there is need for clarity on this.

I can personally see no positive outcome or reason for preventing facts and observable on topic and relevant information being presented. So long as that  criteria is obeyed then what reason could there be to preclude it.

I think this needs clarification because this issue is not one I have ever noticed on this board before. The rule seems to leave it to the mods discretion since I mean any kind of crazy rules could be invented by the poster,

Would be good to see what kind of reasoning is behind this and if it is valid on meta at all. Where there is no self moderation for good reason.

The idea of precluding individuals posting on a thread here I was told previously is impossible if they keep to facts and it is on topic. It seems people are saying differently now.

If this rule is applicable on meta board and I put local board rules stating that posts that are not accompanied by facts or observable events that support their post ....then peoples posts can be deleted that do not abide by these rules and they can be banned for breaking my local made up rules?

I mean that even makes sense but using ad hominem fallacy to preclude facts and observable events that are relevant seem ludicrous and dangerous.

this proves you are scared of answering my questions.

why are you not answering them?

answer them now and stop diverting

Answer my questions first.

why are you afraid to answer?

I don't accept your rules have any validity in meta. For the reasons above stated. Please try to understand that and stop asking the same question over and over.

Your interpretation of the rules is obviously broken if you think you can leave red trust for facts being presented about liars or relating to scams.


Why are you scared to answer my questions and why are you scared of facts and observable events which are on topic and relevant?

Make sure to answer or else you look to be diverting.

What happened to your statement that you would not engage with me again outside of rep. Can we trust anything you say?

I have finished posting the facts that I wished to post there. That is it.

If i wish to post additional facts and observable events I will do so.  

You can make any rules you like but sensible and reasonable moderation will take place when and if a mod decides to take it.

I can only see very negative implications for removal of facts and observable relevant and on topic posts here in meta hence why no self moderation is allowed.

ARE YOU TMAN AFRAID OF FACTS AND OBSERVABLE EVENTS ? WHY IS THAT?



Which facts and observable events are you scared of?

So you red trust for facts and observable events and now want to stop facts and observable events being posted when on topic and relevant.

Sorry that is not just unfair it is dangerous for the entire board.

Salty spittoon says he has banned people for posting on topic and relevant facts in meta. That sounds like enabling the proliferation of potentially false and misleading information. I would not expect he had thought about that before reaching for the ban hammer.

Imagine those persons posting net positive information and getting banned for the sake of net negative misleading and incorrect posters in a sub board that has implications for every single member.

Seems very strange to me. Hence why it is good to have a thread about it like this.

1. to understand the how the rule is enforced in meta
2. to understand the reasoning behind the enforcement.

sorry you just want to silence facts and observable events when red trusting people for presenting them does not work.

Rule 26 should  have no bearing on meta board where facts and observable events are concerned..  You can not silence facts and observable events that are on  topic and relevant in this section it makes zero sense. It would only benefit trust abusers and other untrustworthy individuals not interested in finding the truth but rather to present their own agendas with no sensible analysis.

Let's see if you can back up the rest of your statement.

Stop begging for me to get banned you pathetic weasel. I know you are terrified of the facts and observable events that I present.

The only people that want to silence on topic and relevant facts are people like you. There are observable events and facts that I can and have presented that you are untrustworthy and a system abuser.

However this thread will not be derailed by this. This is to discuss rule 26 and its bearing on meta board.  I am quite sure that nobody will be prevented from posting on topic and relevant facts to any thread in meta. The very notion is completely ludicrous.

What happened ?? you said you would never engage me in meta again...  can't rely on anything you say can we... .seems untrustworthy to me  lol

What if he is soon? then that neg will glow red trust on his account with every post.

If this person was DT i would take the issue to meta board where it gets more attention.

I would do this because it would be an abuse of the SYSTEM the system can only be fixed by the admin to prevent such abuse happening over and over again.

There needs be strict criteria for red trust else it will always be open to abuse.