No, although I don't agree with Foxpup's feedback on you.  DT members can and will disagree with each other, but that doesn't mean any of us need to jump right to exclusions or counter-negs or counter-positives (which I have a distaste for).  If someone is consistently wrong or is abusing the trust system, they'll end up off DT.  That happened with TECSHARE and a couple of others if I'm not mistaken.  I've left negs in the heat of the moment, out of emotion, and have removed them after cooling down.  Nobody is perfect.

And I still believe there are people who shouldn't be getting paid to spam this forum with nonsense.  I didn't destroy any accounts or any lives by giving anyone a red trust based on how bad their posts were.  That's just nonsense--members who think bitcointalk is a place to come to work by posting garbage like this ought to be banned, never mind given trust (though as I said, I wouldn't leave a neg on them these days):


Yes, I did become hardened to the begging and whining and also to their sense of entitlement and lack of insight into how they were continuing to wreck an awesome forum.  Should I have treated these people with....forgiveness and understanding?  Hell no!  They're the ones who were making the forum much worse for the rest of us. 

As I said, I think I removed all of those trusts based on post quality.  There were some I missed since last year, and I've been contacted here and there and I've continued to remove those.  Even if there were any left, I'm pretty sure those members have either abandoned those accounts or otherwise continued on with the red trust.  It was only a small window of a couple of months that actmyname and I were tagging shitposters, which was November 2017-January 2018 (IIRC), right before the merit system was created.  Those are all old news now anyway, but I will take a look.

Yes, I was doing that before the merit system came into existence, and yes I did indeed criticize shitposters with no command of the language trying to post in the English sections and thereby making them unreadable.  I don't regret any of that, because it was far different pre-merit system.  Those feedbacks should all be gone, because I was asked to remove them when I got put on DT last year and I don't leave trust like that anymore, nor do I even criticize people for their horrible English much, because the merit system sorts all of that out naturally. 

All of those feedbacks were a poor use of the trust system, and I've admitted that.  They were left out of pure frustration at how bad the forum had deteriorated, and there were no tools at the time to deal with it--but now there is, and I'm a lot less frustrated.  And yes, it's easier if someone has a problem with a trust I've left to contact me but I'll see what I can do about reviewing the trust I've left.  Contrary to what you might think, I'm not unapproachable.

Lauda is Lauda, that's how she/he rolls.  What I support is the anti-spam/anti-shitposting/anti-forum pollution attitude and actions.  Nothing else.  I don't support scams or extortion or even abusive feedback, which is why I haven't given cryptohunter or any of these other guys a neg.  Do I trust them?  Not really.  But as Theymos said, this is just forum politics and isn't worthy of negative trust.  You can quote me on this and delete the post, I don't care, but that's what's in my mind.

Edit:  I took that thread as a joke on Lauda's part, though I'm sure he/she does want people to make that trust list into their own.  There's not an actual cult or gang, but there's obviously a divide between a lot of senior members here.  I'm starting to gravitate toward the middle instead of digging in my heels.

Just FYI, I don't endorse leaving anyone a neg because of a differing opinion and I don't think I've ever left one out of sheer anger, politics, or just a disagreement.  I've left a lot of feedback, though and it would take me forever to review it all.  If anyone has a gripe with a red trust I've left, PM me or list it here or whatever.  I'll review it.

The only reason I've excluded OgNasty is to make it a mutual exclusion.  I don't know him personally and don't even necessarily distrust him.  He started this silly feud by excluding me from his trust list and thus getting me booted off DT2 last year.  That made a lot of account sellers do a little dance, and Og has given different stories about why he did this.  I also suspect there's collusion on his and QS's side of the fence which includes Tomatocage and zazarb, whom I've done nothing to. 

This shit is just beginning to annoy me.  What it boils down to is me being loyal to those who supported me on this forum early on (which also includes Vod and people who left me positive trust and encouraged me in 2016 to keep fighting against account sales). 

I have friends in the real world who've done bad things in their life, and I've worked with people professionally who've done horrible things.  Just because I encourage such people in doing good acts (and discouraging the bad stuff) doesn't mean I support any shenanigans.  Having said that, I don't fully understand the scam accusations against either Lauda or OgNasty from a technical perspective.  The extortion episode I've always seen as a sting operation and I haven't looked at what evidence there was in about two years, i.e., I don't remember the details of it.  If there's hard evidence that their intent was to actually extort zeroxal, point me to it.

That isn't true, and I wish that line would stop getting repeated.  Welcome back, Joel_Jantsen.  Long time, no see and I was wondering where you were at.

You can include whoever you want, though you'll probably get shit for it however you choose.  I can't even imagine taking a break from bitcointalk and then coming back right after the trust system changes happened--it's been like a madhouse around here lately.  Stay sane, keep calm.

All true stuff, glad you pointed it out--and this thread just keeps getting better as it goes along.  I was actually surprised to see a "how I earn merit" thread in Meta after all this time, because we had a great streak going where such turds weren't being cranked out.

If I had any piece of advice to give an actual newbie, it would be to avoid sections like that where not only your post but the thread it's in is going to get buried within a matter of minutes.  Even if it was truly merit-worthy, it's not likely that the post is going to be seen by someone with merit to give in a section like Altcoin Discussion (or Bitcoin Discussion, Economics, Speculation, and probably a couple other sections).

Yep, that's the name of the game with shitcoins and I guarantee you that if you manage to make a profit from your investment, the losers on the other end of the trade would understand your statement completely.  There isn't anything else these coins are used for except trading back and forth. 

Great way to test whether you can actually 'buy low, sell high' with coins that aren't worth the electricity used to maintain their blockchains.  If there was ever a good time to buy them, I suppose it would be now.  Good luck with the experiment and props for being smart enough for not going overboard with the dollar amount of your purchases.  I haven't even heard of about 3/4 of the coins in this list, and that's usually a litmus test for shittiness.

I've never had any problem with Timelord2067.  On the contrary, he's been quite civil and tolerant of me in the handful of PMs he's sent me in the past couple of years, considering I know he does not care for my brand of humor.  He's a good guy, and the only thing that's kept him from being in my trust list is the fact that I think he's wildly off the mark on some of his account-linking.  I couldn't give a specific example, since I haven't given the matter much thought as of late, but I do recall him accusing multiple members of being alts of Quickseller that I thought were very wrong. 

He certainly has done a lot to help the forum, dedicating a lot of what must be his free time to doing detective work--that's a lot more than can be said for many others 'round these parts.

Um, no.  I don't know any of those members personally.  The judgement comes from their overall trust, i.e., the decentralized trust system.  Gleb has a neg right now, but I disagree with that one and thus haven't tagged him.

Edit:
Sorry, not a fan of giving counter-feedback.

Take this up in a new thread if you have an issue with tagging of alts/account sales.  Alts are allowed and are not automatically red-trusted by anyone unless the main account is red-trusted.  Timelord2067 is/was giving neutral trust for alts, though I'm not sure if he's still doing that.

Theymos answered my question about account sales, and I appreciate it.  Every case should be judged individually, IMO, which I waffled on for quite some time--and that's one reason why suchmoon's purchase of Gleb's account didn't result in me tagging either one of them; why I removed my tag on iluvbitcoins; why I didn't tag OmegaStarScream; and so on.  Those peeps are otherwise trustworthy, even if they did engage in a behavior I disagree with.

Leave me the fuck out of this.  I'm not making any trust inclusion/exclusion changes based on who's on the new DT list, so what you wrote is absolutely not true. 

Just wanted to thank you for giving some guidance as far as feedback-giving goes.  What I get from your input is that trust feedback really should be about trust, but we've all got different standards on that.  TECSHARE wants trust to be solely about documented trades and such, whereas I tend to not trust account sellers/buyers.  The message I'm taking from this is that you don't approve of leaving negs for differences of opinion or politics, but I'm wondering whether you specifically disapprove of account dealers being tagged--not necessarily your opinion on the matter, but whether you'd consider that an inappropriate use of the trust system.

It's not a moderator issue since there's no rule for it, and it harms the forum overall so I'd argue that DT ought to be able to tag them.

Nice, thanks for your research and input on this.  I'm betting he's not the original owner of the account just on language alone, and I'm hoping he'll just come clean now if that's true.  He's already tagged with the possibility of the account being locked still on the table, so he might as well be honest at this point.

I've sort of wondered about this myself, where the line exactly is when it comes to word combinations and what constitutes plagiarism.  Pretty sure that bitcointalk doesn't have a set standard, but I don't know if any standard exists in places like academia as far as using idioms and such.  If it's a quote from a famous person, I would think you should cite the source even if it's in an informal manner--that Wayne Gretzky quote I'd never heard before, and I'm of the opinion that if someone wrote that here they ought to mention where it came from. 

However, I would not ban someone for not saying it came from Gretzky.  There's a big difference between writing out something you have in your memory versus selecting some text with your mouse and copy/pasting it into your post.

Gee, I didn't expect this thread to end up being about Lauda.  I'm shocked, I tell you.  Shocked.

If we're talking about things like signature campaigns, most already have provisions in place that preclude anyone tagged with a DT neg from joining, which I agree with.  Projects don't want to be associated with scammers or even red-trusted members who aren't necessarily scammers but who might have done questionable things in the past (like mdayonliner) which earned them red trust.  The difference in the eyes of campaign managers (IMO) between Lauda's ill-advised sting operation and mdayonliner's $100k escrow attempt is the relative amount of trust each has.  Lauda has earned a ton of positives and has a far more established, net-positive reputation than mdayonliner.  

I'm not trying to single either member out, but it's a good example of why one might get accepted into a campaign and one might not--though I don't think mdayonliner has been denied before.  Maybe he could clear that up; I do recall him applying to one and getting in despite his overall red trust and that's likely because he's never actually pulled a scam here, ponzi history aside.

This question is so loaded and agenda-driven that I'm not sure what c-hunter is expecting to accomplish here.  I doubt anyone would want a proven scammer working for them, so the question really comes down to the definition of proven.  On bitcointalk, that's kind of a community consensus, with a sprinkle of politics on top since the actual outcome of an accusation depends on what DT members do.  

Edit (it'll get deleted in the other thread):
Meow.

Solar-powered calculators don't work in dark, festering troll caves.  They must have gotten a different number.

I had to go back and read Theymos's original post about how the voting thing works, and I get it now (more or less).  How these jokers plan to get even one member onto DT1 baffles me, and their claims of an overthrow are ludicrous--unless Theymos steps in, which would make their claims of a centralized trust system ironically self-serving.  Don't think he's going to do that, however.

Now we're hearing new claims about suchmoon buying Gleb's acount, but although I'd love to respond to those, scunter edit: Thule (I can't keep 'em straight) made the accusations in their self-moderated thread and any replies I make are going to get deleted.  They'll try anything.

Translation: he's caught, he knows it, and he's painted himself as far into a corner as is humanly possible, and is all out of imaginary fairy tale reasons why he wrote all that crap.  Rambotnic was playing it straight right up until he wrote:

...after which he started treating all of this as just dribbling idiot humor.  I think he called himself a cop and wanted to perform some lawyering as a side gig at one point. 

Still wondering if anyone is actually going to support him in his quest for the victimhood olympics trophy.  Obviously DT has terribly abused him.  Rambotnic even said it himself, so it must be true.

Cryptohunter and the rest of the gang can only aspire to trisomy 21. 

While we're at it, and a little bit off-topic, but where are all the Rambotnic defenders now?  He's getting harrassed to death in multiple threads by them g'dawful DT ganger-bangers.  I really am dying to hear scunterhunter drop in to lend some help with an enormous Mexican Trump WoT.  Could it actually be that the only members actually concerned with busting scammers are some DT members (and a few others)?  Nah, couldn't be.

This thread has gone on longer than it should have, and OP should lock it.

By the way, Thule--why don't you bitch to TECSHARE that he left me a horrible, unjust neutral feedback based on a disagreement we had?  Go ahead and check my trust page, it's there.