FAIL FAIL FAIL  - black list this piece of shit and the other 3 idiots please.

Now dummy try and listen and understand YOU are responsible for your support of that flag not the other members of DT YOU.

I repeat (and don't try to hide behind other DT members previous abuse...)

now find the instance of us scamming people out of money, trying to scam people out of money or being remotely related to dealing with another members funds in anyway

I will keep pushing for your blacklisting if you do not present even 1 instance of what I am requesting you present right now. The others will come after you now.  Cabalism13 that self confessed troll is going to be asked to present next.

Watch this fool vanish.

Yes now find the instance of us scamming people out of money, trying to scam people out of money or being remotely related to dealing with another members funds in anyway you fucking moronic feltching puppet.

That page of ABUSE is why we needed to change from that old system to this one.

I already challenged you today to present ANY instance of scamming people out of money that will stand up to scrutiny. Where is it?

PRESENT IT NOW.  That is a page of lies and bullshit from a bunch of scammers and their supporters like you.

Watch this idiot FAIL to present anything to do with scamming people out of money ever. LOL

Can we blacklist this goon already?

Why would anyone listen to someone that is already abusing the trust system?  can you present the instance where you see us scamming people out of money exactly or been remotely connected in anyway to dealing with other peoples money ever?

The orange means caution. That is because it is supposed to signify caution. Do you get it now. RED is for proven scammers really like your master lauda.

Can we get this idiot blacklisted if he can not present ANY instances of even dealing with another persons money here by us? same for the other 3 scum bags on that fake trust flag just because I have been destroying their arguments all day.

The same 4 persons I have spent most time arguing with out of a board of millions are the only 4 so far to have trust abused our account.

This leaves type 1 flags kind of open to the abuse the old system was open to? we have a type 1 flag don't we? or what kind of flag is it? we have not scammed any person, we have not tried to scam anyone and actually we don't deal in anything to do with peoples money or in anything where we could scam someone out of money?

We are still pleased this is a great step forward for free speech here anyway for old members, but if you can get a type 1 flag and no person can even produce some scenario where you could have taken some persons money in a scam, it seems strange to still have a warning saying this person is high risk of taking your money?

Anyway fine we are not going to start bitching too much since it is such an excellent move in the correct direction. Although people should not really face this kind of flag if they never attempted to trade, scam, or deal in scenarios where other peoples money was even involved. You know they are going to use this to still encroach on free speech to a degree. You present evidence they are a scammers boom type 1 flag you are now high risk with peoples money. It is a far lesser punishment on whistle blowers who don't require sigs, but if "the gangs  friends who are campaign managers still use the ANY FLAG will make you ineligible for a sig" then it will still encroach on free speech to some degree or almost the same degree for those that really want to have sig.

Better to keep flags for proven scammers or STRONG case or atleast SOME case they have scammed people or going to. Not let flags become another eating lemons makes you HIGH RISK /scammer. Especially when the people placing the tags are the same 4 people you have been arguing with the most on the same day they leave the flag. Seems bogus.

This seems rather a violent and nasty reply.

Hhampuz seems rather shady lately.

1. refusing to be transparent in his campaign selection process
2. supporting the dox and placing at risk the forum treasurer and the boards funds.
3. Now he is engaging in trust flag abuse
4. it appears that he may be stealing btc

Please deal with the fact people that sometimes seemingly do the right thing for a time can go off the rails. Hhampuz is demonstrating he is clearly not fit to be a campaign manager lately for the sake of the reputation of the projects that use his "service"

what other projects is hhampuz "managing funds for" this should perhaps be brought to their attention to alert them of the distinct and real dangers here with this individual.

When can we expect them to be blacklisted ? people abusing flags are to be blacklisted right ? let's get on with blacklisting ... what's the hold up. Boom get them off. Let show the abusers we mean business here. You will abide by the rules or you will get blacklisted. Simple.

So lauda flag abused already on QS(lied on the flag submission form) and is not blacklisted for some reason.

Now we notice we have a FLAG - so to get a flag do you have to have scammed some person out of money or not??

Because this seems impossible that they can bring evidence we scammed any person out of money ever? so how is it you still get a scam flag?

Are these people going to get black listed or is this now allowed?

At least the flag is lemon colored but still I would like to see the EVIDENCE and OBSERVABLE instance of us scamming people out of money. I must have forgotten about doing that probably because it never happened?

Seems very strange it is the same 4 people I have been disagreeing with quite a lot today?

Almost like it is for personal reasons again isn't it??

Let's have them produce the people we scammed out of money or black list these  trust abusing scum bags and scammers.


Lauda, Hhampuz, mosprognoz, cabalism13

I mean it is a motley crew of scammers, dox supporting, shady campaign managers, a nobody, and self confessed boasting troll and ass feltcher of lauda and gang.  Let's see how this goes down.

All of them should present the instance of scamming people out of money somewhere right?  or is this not a requirement of a lemon flag? you can still claim a member has scammed people out of money when it never happened? or is liking lemons still valid reason to get a lemon flag?

It is still a nice improvement but still why have lemon flags at all? let's just have SCAMMER FLAGS where you need to have SCAMMED PEOPLE OUT OF MONEY and evidence has been presented.


answered - apparently you can have a newbie warning flag even if you have not scammed anyone. Okay well still a big improvement but still a little room for clear trust abuse inside the flags. Anyway still we are going in the right direction now.

Our trust now shows a flag and those people have not proven we have scammed anyone because that would be impossible. So this may not be the case.

"Ill have to make due " is this post from 1640? or are you ill?

Perhaps you mean: I'll have to make do ?

Sorry we have not time to tidy up our posts. We at times post 1000's of words per hour. We hammer it out and done. Read it dirty and still educate yourself for free. Stop complaining grammar nazi.

Can you present the specific examples of the illogical claims we have made ? We guarantee you will present nothing that stands up to scrutiny . Another snipe and hide coward. Please someone quote this so the fool can have an opportunity not to look like such a coward. We love making new friends.

If you or anyone can present a strong refutation to any of our points then present it. Don't hide behind....its all so illogical, its trolling, its poor grammar. That is a cowards way.

Sometimes in life to start building on strong foundations the old building must be destroyed. A total reset where we ENSURE only REAL scammers get a scam tag it seems sadly it is the only way to start again. You may have made all legitimate red tags. I believe in your case it is plausible. However the same can NOT be said for other DT members. Therefore a general rule must sadly accommodate the worst cases of trust abuse. We must not blame the creator of the systems for giving too much credit to those that abused the systems or failed to stand against the abuse. The creator this time is taking no risks with over estimating the system controllers integrity.

Long term point 1 will be a non issue.  We must look long term hence the need for strong foundations.

Point2 - there will always be a trade off for guessing or speculating or having faith that a person will scam against innocent members being flagged as scammers. That is just the thin end of the wedge or the start of the rot as they say. This FAITH that someone will scam can be gradually reduced down to eating lemons if left unchecked. That has obvious implications for free speech which is the corner stone of such a progressive movement as this.  It is more important to ensure all members are treated equally and fairly than it is perhaps to protect some of the most greedy risk takers. It is my belief only a handful of people here have the tech chops to stop the largest and most damaging scams and even with their valid warning you will see a lot of greedy and foolish people screaming take my money.

Let's never allow free speech to be crushed to save people from themselves.

To bring this back to the intial post though. We are pleased this thread was started. We and most sensible people can see it is an attempt to shed negative light on theymos who is trying his best to rid this forum of the cancer of scammers that seek to use the trust system to facilitate their own scamming and silence whilstle blowers. We hardly think sending the REQUEST not demand (if it was a demand then I am sure it would be happening by now) to 110 people is the sign of someone trying to do any back room manipulation. We stick to the belief it was an attempt to allow lauda to be removed from a position where it can bring more damage without making him look like he just got the boot from the forum owner in public. Theymos tried to be nice and look what happens they turn it on him trying to suggest he was being sneaky. Disgusting behavior by excellent member suchmoon. As we say it adds weight to our suspicion that suchmoon is lauda.

Point 1 = true but after a period of abuse at the hands of proven scammers it has a cathartic property that is hard to resist. Some times although unpleasant calling a proven scammer a scamming piece of shit is so much more satisfying. Agreed though it reduces a persons credibility even if it should not. Although once we enjoyed a thread you made in the political section where you were advocating not mincing words or ....hhhmm it escapes me now but it was that using tactful non aggressive sounding words to deliver aggressive messages was kind of a form of dishonesty. Excuse me if I just butchered what you were saying there previously.

Point 2 = only true if you can be sure they read all 4 threads though so kind of untrue

Point 3 =  we do our best not to bloat but our style of writing is not concise ??

Point 4  = That is their excuse to avoid tackling the content of the post. We ask them to present the example of trolling no person has ever presented anything. Demonstrating they KNOW it is not trolling.

So you agree it is not derailing? or you still say the permitted flow should follow the last post not the initial post? we feel permitted flow should have a strict guide so there can be a sensible format that ensure optimal information is presented to the reader. We have come to agree it should be related at least in part to the initial post even if you are responding to a direct false accusation.

Anyway to bring this post on topic and relevant we believe our post is in the readers best interest because it furnished the reader with additional information regarding laudas previous lying and scamming that on its own should be enough to ensure he is blacklisted. No person that has been proven a scammer has a place on any trust system. That is without all the other dirt one can observe and is verifiable.

The blacklisting should have been the simple way forward. No nice gradual exclusion next month. Just boom -- scammer out now. Scammer saying to theymos fuck off I make my own rules here --- of course out now.  That is our opinion.

Tags are now relegated to the meaningless lemons garbage they were allowed to degrade to. So people looking at the score didn't know if the person ate lemons or steals bitcoins without scanning a ton of weird strange personal nonsense unrelated to scamming.
Flags are the real deal. I mean we already have a nice new shiny flag let's see if this is allowed to stand or these scum bags get black listed. We are not too bothered because it is still a huge move in the right direction and they will not get away with this on everyone only very very unpopular persons like us where the board is willing to allow scammers and their miscreant pals to give a flag to a person that they have ZERO chance of demonstrating has scammed or tried to scam ANYONE  out of money. The change was never just about us or our fav true legend, it was about gaining free speech for the entire board free of the threat of your sig being zapped away if you said something a gang of scammers, liars and their supporters didn't want you to say.

Theymos seems to be getting bullied around by some very ANGRY dt scammers and their gang right now. Let's hope theymos has some REAL supporters who want to see fair and transparent rules applied equally to all members.

Nice to see the DT scammers and their excellent member pals reveal themselves for who they really are now though. Nice to see suchmoon trying to spin this message theymos sent to 110 people as some sneaky stealth move he really wanted kept secret and now he is a bad guy. Rather than the real reason that is probably he felt sorry for lauda (fuck knows why) and didn't want to bitch slap him with a black listing so we could all gloat. But rather have his support eroded from beneath him with excludes.

Either way win win. People always show their true colors eventually. We believe suchmoon is lauda and have for quite some time. This certainly adds weight to that possibility. Usually suchmoon can be found brown nosing theymos constantly why suddenly turn against him for lauda?? because how can it turn on it's self. I remember someone once saying somewhere oh suchmoon we didnt know you could speak croatian > it started saying oh no it was " then some excuses" like moron bozo taught me a few words or some such explanation. That could be smoke with no fire but then again it could be a furnace below the surface.

Please detail how the post is a derailment from the intial post? we honestly do not at all get your meaning.

You need to understand we believe that not all readers view all threads. A reader should be furnished with the full and optimal information in order to reach the optimal level of understanding and form the optimal opinion?

Each thread needs to stand on its own.

Why is he not black listed? lauda said HE WILL NOT work within the rules. He lied on the flag form and QS asked after this why should anyone believe what he says. We are furnishing the reader with futher vital and important information that lauda did NOT ONLY lie there but there are other more serious observable instances of his lying. This should warn the reader that if he will not only lie to abuse trust but will lie for his own direct financial gain then ......

We do not feel it is fair to the readers of this thread (only) to be deprived of such on topic and relevant information. Why take leave it to chance someone else will assist the reader if we can do it our selves.

Why not provide the reader with the best chance of reaching the optimal level of understanding? it seems both lazy and inconsiderate.

To even suggest this is related to trolling seems very strange. 

I mean what is laudas story here to avoid blacklisting

1. he claimed he will not work within the rules and will do what he wants and likely get blacklisted (this is what he said) THE MOST LIKELY
2. he lied on the flag submission form  RELATED TO 1
3. he didn't lie but didn't understand the submission form ? SEEMS LESS LIKELY

or now are we saying on bitcointalk permitted flow is nothing to do with the initial post you just follow the last post? seems the rules on permitted flow need some guidelines. We have had posts deleted on the basis they are not specifically related to the initial post??

This is true. However, it is not wise to boast about trolling that seems to be pushing things near the mark. We have no interest in seeing any non scammer banned.

However to boast you have been trolling ever since you joined these campaigns seems very brazen.

It will be used as a warning for any future projects considering hiring this person and to any campaign manager who knowingly hires a person who boasts about trolling during their campaigns.

We don't think that cabalism13 is suitable for any project that wishes to retain a credible reputation.

what like he has not been caught out lying and scamming before ??

how many chances does this lying scamming piece of shit get?? let's just get this dirt bag out.

We were presenting observable instances of his lying and scamming for months? how is it still permitted to be in a position of trust? this without the extortion and shady escrow business and trust abusing whistle blowers.

Just quoting this because it seems cabalism13 is unaware that trolling is a serious matter and can result in a ban. To admit you are always a troll just makes it easier.

We will use it to save your next project from such a taint.

Also let us note cabalism13 FAILED to present any incorrect information we had presented?? so he can't find any trolling it seems LOL what a fucking idiot. No more sig spots for you soon cabalism13 unless the project wants to be associated with people that admit to trolling and that seemingly threaten others with trust abuse.

can we see the victims that we scammed we notice you and your pal hhampuz and some noob dreg have given us a shiny new flag.

be great when you are all blacklisted.

Well it could have something to do you with you being a proven scammer yourself? or a probable extortionist or a shady escrow? or using red trust to silence whistle blowing??  or saying fuck off you will not work within the new fair and transparent rules that ensure everyone is protected from scamming trash like you?

Pharmacist has been distancing himself from your abuse for a while.

Let us remember lauda that you are a scammer? so those you brand scammers are likely NOT scammers are they? I mean who trusts the word of a proven scammer and liar??

because if people do not stay on topic and relevant and only post accusations or statements they can back with observable instances then it is nothing but distracting noise and we don't want that crap on our threads.