Lol so full of shit. That's why suchmoron said it was completely stupid to suggest that some of the 99.93% of the forum could make posts as good as some posts made by  the 0.07% of top merit earners. Or that all pre merit legends were spammers.

Do you think the threads are not publically available where you bunch of idiots were claiming there merit score was a legitimate metric for appraising post value. People only need to pull up CH's original threads here on meta when he stated posting regularly here to see you are completely bullshittkng.

I'm irresistible to foxy. However much the the other merit cyclers tell her not to talk to me she can't stop herself.

Ignore foxpups clear lies or opinions not based on any form of reasoning   Simply pull up the top 20 merit fans and recipients of the usual gang members and see they are infested with each other, as are their trust includes.

So anyway since you have all decided to forget you were claiming high merit score = super valuable poster  .. or that the score had any objective and useful meaning at all then why is the trust system based upon it and why do campaign managers care about it at all?

Merits were seriously cycled hard especially early on, they still are now but That was the crucial period. Now they may try to scatter them around to lots of different people in very minute measures knowing full well that those people will never have enough to release the strangle hold the current gang have on DT1 and therefore the best rev streams.

The entire merit based control systems have been converted into a tool to create a 2 tier system and protection racket.

I mean the OP details exactly why merit score is completely meaningless in terms of objective post value and completely open to abuse motivated by financial gain.

Now suchmoon ownes Bpip can you expand merit fans and recipients to top 25. Top 10 is to shabby.

First rule about merit cycling club
Never admit there is a merit cycling club.

Second rule about merit cycling club
Never ever ever admit wrongdoing however conclusive the proof is that a DT1 is a scammer.

Third rule about merit cycling club
Claim anyone noticing merit is cycled is CH

Obviously try to get them banned, tag them, merit starve , falsely accuse of trolling etc

Suchmoon should have stuck to her more simple explanation :

You have a merit score ? It is meaningless with regard post value. It's also a tool to crush free speech. It has other far more dangerous applications but let's not get repetitive.

Or even more concise. Merit was cancer for this forum.

What ? Now merit score isn't a super accurate indicator of undeniable value when analysed objectively?
That must be why you said the terms good poster and bad poster are meaningless without strict definition and criteria to measure against.

So the only issue is..
why is this meaningless garbage the basis for the trust system ?
Why do campaign managers put any stock in this meaningless nonsense?

Anyway good to see some reality creeping in.
Challenging the status quo or presenting very valuable information that is also inconvenient to DT or merit sources ( generally the same thing shockingly) will not get your posts ignored. They read them are unable to debunk them but of course would never merit them or any other valuable insights you offer whether they agree with those or not.
Once you are on the merit starvation list you don't come off.

It really doesn't matter I guess to any that are not here for financial reasons.
The only shame is that theymos sanctioned those controlling this meaningless crap to manipulate the forum software into turning their petty gripes and annoyance at being whistle blown on into fake lies of scamming and claims of financially motivated wrongdoing.

That is more of a design error.  Well the entire shambles of merit and trust is one big design error but that is the most offensive part.

When a meaningless metric empowers proven scammers to label their whistle blowers as scammers with zero evidence you start to see the dangerous mess merit is in its totally subjective and meaningless form.

A members true value is based only upon any lasting change their posts resulted in.  Whether that be for bitcoin,  another project or for a group of people who's lives you have changed in a huge way they didn't expect.

The forum has given thousands of members an opportunity they would have never had elsewhere. For that we all should be grateful.  Merit is a cancer but fortunately even that can not destroy the forums past. It can destroy the forums future but let's hope its prevented from turning the entire place into an echo chamber and completely discouraging new users.

The most valuable post is that which opposes popular or accepted widely held views and conclusively debunks them.
Of course CH bingo posts are valuable too. Anything pertaining to real legends deserves a nice sprinkle of merit.

I think perhaps he is just that polite these days. Someone should hit him up with an invite.

That is because he is undeniably correct. Of course I would support statements that can not be debunked because they are true.

So since you seem to be suggesting that I am the OP why not just ask me the same questions directly?

I will be pleased to give you the definition of scamming and scammer and point you undeniable independently verifiable evidence that clearly meets that definition.

Go ask the OP to make some more threads I can support if they are reporting the truth could you.

Yes, I agree this has been a much more sensible discussion than most I've had on social media or on this forum.
I have no doubt that however hard we try to be objective over such complex issues we will always allow our past experiences to be a factor. So yes I think that's a fair point.

Cheers it was nice to have a civil chat here on bitcointalk.

Not only is it incorrect is is completely pointless.

The people needing protection the most are the noobs who have no clue who to trust.
How to expect them to create their own reliable trust lists.

So to  attain this pointless goal we should destroy the free speech of the forum and ensure a period of such untrustworthy scum on DT1 that it becomes so horrendous and so many people are negatively impacted that we abandon that and grasp around making our own trust lists.

Give them a bunch of long term traders of significant sums with long histories of exemplary financial conduct and zero instances of financially motivated wrongdoing as a default or forget it.
Defaulting them to trust proven scammers is messed up. Claiming its is fully intentional the corruption and negative impact of a default trust of self elected scamming slime will be very helpful at forcing people to form their own trust list is a possibility but surely just as easy to say no default trust make your own when you start.

Doesn't work, very dangerous in that it allows scamming with impunity from inside DT1 that are forced to collude or risk being booted anyway and repercussions. Kills free speech to a high degree.  Mad for moral and reputation of the forum.

I see now that you've tightened up on your definition of racism.
That is sensible.

You see the word discriminate isn't really enough either. It is simply the ability to make a distinction.

What you seem to be getting at is provably unfair, suboptimal and unwarranted treatment/distinction based on race.
You will probably say and genuinely mean it " yes that's what racism is"
But many are not willing even to confine it to that.

This will really mean that every single scenario will be open to debate on what is unfair,unwarranted and suboptimal.
There is no point saying something is racist unless you can conclusively prove it is unfair, unwarranted and suboptimal.

The knife crime example I provided is a perfect example.

I disagree with you that most people want to use the term racism as a debate opener.

I have experienced this on twitter and other social media and in RL.
You only have to say that you disagree with them and start to present you argument and they will immediately scream racist racist racist. They never attempt to debunk or refute your points or even in many cases willing to allow you to present them.

Also racism is not only used by many when they believe there is clear negative or suboptimal discrimination they will scream racist at any discrimination aka any distinction observed or proposed. They seem to see no requirement to demonstrate it is negative in any meaningful or useful way.

I feel the analogies with animals may be upsetting you so I will leave that. However, you've later answered your own point. If I had access to the statistics on any given situation in would use those to my best ability to attain my goal.  This included statistics on large cats or any creature.
As you say this is just being smart and attempting to behave in an optimal way in that situation.

I don't see the animals as an inappropriate analogy.  But anyway.

It seems that we are more in alignment when you are describing how you would behave based on data you have access too.
However many would call that racism and I believe this is exactly the same as how the police operate with the stop and search for knives. You goal is to preserve your life, their goal is to preserve as many other lives or prevent as many deaths due to stabbing as possible.

Like chinese people who screamed racism when covid was first announced to the west and its origin was china and only chinese persons so far had been tested postive. So you get a bunch of chinese tourists next to you in the museum and you may decide to move away based on that data you have and your goal of not getting infected. This is sensible and reasonable behavior.

This is why racism is not useful as a word because it is so widely abused and expanded that it encompasses to many people any distinction made on race. You can keep saying but yes it has a definition ?but the definition is not drilled down on sufficiently to be useful.
Better to say to the person you are debating with I will not recognize your claim of racism until such at time your argument demonstrates that my own is sub optimal.  I will not accept my opinion or argument is simply racist because you've said your magic word and that's the end of it you win.


The word racist must be used when the debate is concluded or not at all. Conclusive proof or irrefutable evidence is harder to attain than many believe hence why the term racism is never going to be provably appropriate in most scenarios that realistically would be considered debate worthy. I mean most true racism could likely be explained sensibly by incredibly low functioning and mental illness.

The definition of racism to me is intentionally open ended and vague. Hence its huge power to cower people into submission and encompass nearly anything they like.

I still say it is a useless term simply because it is too vague and hence too subjective. Subjectivity is rarely useful.

If racism had a very tight definition and was drilled down and down upon until it was near impossible for people without complete understanding of the topic to misrepresent then it could be useful.
Most people screaming racism and hate speech on Twitter and other social media rendered those terms meaningless along time ago when they accepted racism to be any distinction made on the basis of race. .

Sorry if my English is not crystal clear. It is not my first language.

Any specific points you wish to clarify just ask.
I simply like to debate for my own personal expansion.
I like being shown it is optimal to adapt my views.
I am very open minded.
My experience with White and Black people has been pretty much equally positive.
In my anecdotal experience which means little I have found Black people to be more sincere and open than white people. White people to be more diplomatic and less physically violent. That is only limited to environments where both were I would estimate to be of middle class. I would honestly say though that black people in my opinion seem to consider race a lot more than whites in general discussion. I wouldn't say that makes them more " racist" but certainly they would bring race into discussions a lot more than whites. That may be sensible and relevant so not a negative or positive just an observation.

I would love to see a diverse environment world wide and for that to be optimal for human kind.

I do fear this is not realistic without a huge amount of turmoil and suffering along the way.
I'm not sure diversity is natural and that humans are ready for this as yet.
Somethings are hardwired in via evolution and these fears and genetic differences are insoluble.
As a dominant or more populace race sees another race growing to a size to rival their own those evolutionary traits come to the surface.

It seems that the next stage in evolution may supersede or make those differences redundant so in 50yrs this entire problem will be resolved by technology.

Anyway that is for another time.

When people call you a racist or claim you are guilt of hate speech getting them to drill down on their definition and make their reasoning transparent for analysis often results in the opponent either just repeating the allegation or running away.

Lets just focus on one point at a time and take it from there.

As per your definition of racism aka treating people differently according to race.
You think that must be a negative.
I simply don't agree.
It can be positive thing.

Let's think up some hypothetical examples.

Fatalities due to stabbings. Not carrying knives.

If we say 95% of fatalities due to stabbing were perpetrated by black people

The goal is reducing fatalities due to knife crime.

Then it is perfectly sensible and reasonable for the police to stop and search far far more black people than white.

I mean even if you claim that there is no significant difference in the numbers of each race carrying knives but you will obviously only find more on black people if you stop and search them more. Really doesn't matter if the goal is reducing fatalities due to stabbings and not having a goal of simply making sure equal amounts of both races are busted for carrying knives.

Your point about cat and lion and criminal and non criminal is not sensible.
I am distinguishing between cat and lion and black and white.
I mean if it makes it seem more analogous

I am housing sitting a wealthy persons home. He tells me he has 2 exotic pets a black panther and snow leopard. He says the black panther will simply lick you and be pals, the snow leopard well.. don't open its cage because it will maul you.

So again panther wanders in, I'm chilled and relax let it snuggle up. Snow leopard  gets in somehow then i run to another room lock the door and make some phone calls.

I mean without the information the friend gave me and my sensible goal of preserving my life then I couldn't tell from appearance only if I should act any differently to either. Since I have the stats to hand that panther has demonstrated he is a lick and snuggle kind of cat and the other is tear your arms off kind of cat then I can sensibly elect to treat them very differently according to their species.

Making sensible and reasonable use of information to attain your goals is clearly not a negative. Where the goals are themselves no immediately or after debate established as a negative.

For instance some may say that reducing fatalities due to knife crime is a negative because the stats further show that the fatalities resulting from black knife crime are 99% black.  They may argue that therefore this is helping to reduce the black population. Therefore stopping and searching blacks is entirely wrong and indeed racist.   That could be seen as a preposterous by others who say the goal is not to reduce the black population via black on black stabbings at all and that stop and searching blacks for knives as much as possible is a sensible idea to save black lives and is not racist because it is not a negative to save their lives and see a nice booming increase in the black population.

Each suggestion must be weighed on its merits according to the goal. That goal must be analysed sensibly to establish its value and merit.

Treating people differently according to race is entirely sensible in certain scenarios.
I'm sure you don't claim affirmative action is racist. That is treating people differently according to race.

Racism is not a useful term. Actions are either sub optimal or optimal. There must be debate to establish this not just a magical one word that seeks to win every debate by insinuating the opponents argument is negative and must be rejected when that is not true.

These terms such as racism and white supremacy, hate speech, white privilege are generally so broad and encompass so many different things and scenarios to so many different people they are now of little real value or use. Same for woke, radical left etc

These terms are usually thrown in when people shy away from deep debate.
They are used to immediately cast aside opposing views. Almost like an immediate condemnation and alleged debunking of opposing  opinions that requires no analysis or debate.

I don't even recognize such terms. Either bring a specific example of what you are referring to and prove that your opinion is conclusively more optimal that my own. Or accept my views are as valid and correct or nearer to optimal than your own.

I don't accept bitcointalk is primarily far right.  That is ludicrous.
I would expect on other issues that are not specifically race related most would be leaning far more to the left or certainly centre.

Far right ... another bogus term when applied by those who simply disagree with your opinions and wish to get a bunch of low functioning plebs to start bleating their support for opinions they can't corroborate or give any credibility to,  due to having no supporting  evidence to base any argument that would hold up to scrutiny.


Black crimes if you can rely on the stats at all, are clearly a big problem in the US.
Especially violent crime. Actually this pattern seems universal not just the US.
White crime is a problem too especially in other areas.

I'm not racist in the negative sense, of course I can distinguish and  take note of observable differences and apply sensible arguments to support how different approaches and different treatment is sensibly and credibly justified.

Just as I can distinguish between a domestic cat and a lion entering my home through and open downstairs window and apply sensible and reasonable behaviours towards those animals like pulling a gun on one whilst I back away and run out of my own backdoor or picking one up and placing it outside my back door.

For instance if 90% of knife crime was provably and undeniably committed by black people. Then the police focusing stop and search on black people for knives is quite sensible and useful.

The same for if 90% of drunk driving accidents were committed by white males and random searches at xmas were predominantly conducted on white males that would be sensible and optimal action from the police.

You are distinguishing between different behavioral patterns that seem to relate to race and clearly treating each race according to those observed patterns for an optimal solution.

People denying there are such patterns or differences need to take it up with stats. If you can find fault with the numbers to the point the stats are fully bogus or misleading then you can change the way you discriminate or treat differently the races.

I have no care for race. You will get bad eggs in all.
But these terms are bullshit invented by people who want to win a debate or argument by saying a magic word.

If something is sub optimal then it needs attention. If something is optimal is does not need to be changed.

I guess the big question if you took a large population of blacks and whites gave those groups a similar level of educational that resulted in similar grades and ensured they obtained similar levels of employment and income.

Would you see similar crime levels in specific categories of crime.
Even then what would happen in terms of those crimes  if you mixed the two populations together?


Can diversity ever work? Or is it a long experimental path to oblivion.
I guess we are on the cusp of finding out.
If diversity is sub optimal for all races from this point then what next?

I'm not woke, right wing, racist, liberal, white supremacist or radical left.
Bogus meaningless terms now used as if they are an infallible and conclusive proof you are wrong to disagree with those throwing them around.

Who are you responding to oh unshaven one?

You seem to be in full agreement that accusing people of scamming with zero evidence is wrong
This is a good first step.

Can you explain why lauda specifically is required to leave any feedback on your own account for you to observe there is a group of colluding DT members that may involve or even revolve around lauda?

Are you disputing his claim or that is is not legitmate for him to even make that claim or that is just not provably relevant to his current gripe?

I am often surprised to see you actmyname falling off of the fence on to the wrong side.
I have yet to ever observe you speak out against lauda or support concerns over the worrying amount of both smoke and raging fire that comes from the putrid account of lauda?.


It didnt take gmax more than 2 minutes to conclude what any objective member would conclude when reviewing just one incident involving the scamming piece of dirt that is lauda?

Yet so many of the same " not laudas gang" all immediately concluded they must oppose a warning on the basis of the identical evidence

I want to believe you play devils advocate rather than the devils pawn.

I know you like and appreciate those you believe are smarter than the average apes here.  That however should not influence your opinions on what is clearly fair and equal treatment of all members. Smart people are not always good people sadly as I'm sure you know.

It is easy to say get over something that does not personally effect you.
It is even easier to say get over something when saying that assists you. ( not that I am claiming that is your motivation)

However, one should at least try to be impartial.

You are smarter than the average lauda gang ape, but even the very smartest people can't disguise a pattern of behavior if repeated too frequently. Better to mix up some small condemnation on both sides where it will stand up to scrutiny. Rushing to defend one group and then condemning and lecturing another group for identical behaviors is not really sensible

What is your opinion on the merit and trust system? Entirely free of abuse and collusion ?  The possibility does not even exist such is the brilliant design?  

No disrespect of course. Just clarification and reasoning is always useful when trying to understand fully a post.


Of course mikey still there ignoring that fact that many improvements have been suggested.
Improvements that nobody could debunk or refute.

Mikey still believes his anecdotal experience of benefiting from the status quo is conclusive proof that no improvements are possible.
Well not for him anyway.
Remember mikey played it very smart. No sigs or signs of being here for sigs until boom straight to chipmixer.

It always comes back to the same thing for excusing abuse or actually abusing  aka cheating. .....money or power.

It does not surprise me you genuinely may not have understood.

I will spoon feed it to you as simply as I can.

1. Provable trust abuse aka red tags that were applied for any other reason than proven scamming, or strong evidence of scamming, IOW must be evidence to prove or corroborate financially motivated wrong doing ( the strict stipulation for red tags before flagging was introduced ).  Must be removed.

2. Why? Because they are the very reason the flagging system was introduced.

3. The warnings of scamming and financially motivated wrong doing at the top of every thread that are based on these old bogus tags ( where there is no such evidence)  are provably false and incorrect.

These abuses and false claims are grandfathered into the system. This is crazy.

Sure you can tag people for any reason now. However they do not get warnings claiming scammer or financially wrongdoing on the top of all of their threads. So that is why the incorrect and false warnings on the very innocent members that inspired the need for the flagging g system is grandfathered in ? Tags no longer have this power.


It is completely crazy.

If you don't understand what I'm explaining now but genuinely want to then get someone with experience in assisting those with learning  difficulties.

Let's tackle this point first.

TLDR.

why does the forum software convert a claim saying perhaps "you drink lemons" or " I think you're rude to whistleblow on DT1" into a claim on the top of your threads claiming you're a scammer or guilty of financially motivated wrong doing ?

This is slander and defamation on the same abused honest members who's unfair treatment inspired the flagging system.

No new members will have to endure such bullshit due to tags. This is a reserved treat for elder members.

Where is the logic or reasoning behind this ?

Why did Theymos grandfather in to the trust system the very abuse that motivated him to try to fix this issue by introducing the flagging system.

So let's think about this.

1.  Under the old system (pre flag) red tags were intended for proven scammers or where there was strong corroborating evidence of scamming , attempting to scam or other explicit financially motivated wrong doing.

2. This was clearly stated regardless of mods claiming your admission of drinking lemon tea was sufficient to have your account ruined and labelled a scammer.

3. All other tags were clear abuse of the old tagging system. Unless theymos specific words when asked for clarity were meaningless.


The flagging system comes in which actually made things far worse.  But that's another thread.  


4. Theymos grandfathers in the very abuse that was the driving force to supplement / fix with the flagging system.?


Why?

Your threads all get a " this is a scammer or financially dangerous " warning on them forever?

How come? Surely all tags that do not provide a link that provides the required threshold for giving a tag should be removed?

If you can prove that none of your tags are based on financially motivated wrongdoing before the flagging system removed that stipulation on the tagging system then you should not have a warning on all of your threads?? Or any tags at all before that date.


There is no logic at all to grandfathering in trust abuse ?

Those that were demonstrably given tags that were not meeting the stipulated financially motivated wrong doing or scamming.
Should have the tags removed.

Sure they can be reapplied under the " you can tag people for drinking lemon tea" or " if you think" it may make them unsafe to trade with subjective easily abused nonsense.

But those reapplied bullshit tags would not guarantee abused honest members threads were labelled scammers threads or financially dangerous.

Seems ludicrous to me that the very abuse that drove the need for flagging system is grandfathered in forever.

What is the logic and explanation for this?

Should members be permitted to request DT members present their pre flagging date evidence  via PM or dedicated thread and demand those tags are removed if those were clear abuse of the prior system?

Failure to remove them should result in DT blacklisting.

This would remove the grandfather in abuse.  They could reapply those same bogus tags now but they would not result in warnings on the top of the members threads.



It is also clear to me that the new lemons flag is pointless if it is the same as the new tagging system aka " for any reason you want to make up and nothing to do with financially motivated wrong doing at all "  

The type 1 flag must be at least as powerful as the old tagging system or what is the fucking point of it?  Some form of strong evidence of scamming or setting up a scam or some kind of financially motivated wrong doing ?

Or how else do you justify giving a header on threads that say " financially dangerous "

That heading is clearly bogus if there is zero evidence for that at all.

It seems the system was slapped together with very little thought of the implications for those that have never engaged in any form of financially motivated wrongdoing at all .. zero.

Let's debate this sensibly.

1. That doesn't make it a useful system with regard creating credible and valuable scam warnings. It dilutes and devalues them.

2. " you think" = subjective wide open to abuse lazy design

3. Even where there is stipulation like for flags admin does nothing about abuse.

Some people think that if you report DT1 members prior scamming then that makes you high risk to trade with. Lol
Guess who those people are? DT1 you got it.

Again the trust system like the merit system is a cluster fuck because you can not abuse it.

You can give any reason for saying you think the person is high risk to trade with however ridiculous that is.
Just like you can say you think any post is a good post even when it is 100% undeniably a misleading dangerous shit post.

When you provide financial incentive to abuse systems then leave them wide open to abuse to the point it is impossible to prove abuse ....guess what happens.

I mean unless the intention of the merit and trust systems are mimicking the central banking system and ensuring the forum is as corrupt and unfair as possible then it is broken beyond repair.

Scrap it and merit cancer system. Or tighten it up and force retroactive conformity to the tighter rules.

There is no point mentioning merit or tagging abuse. It is designed to be impossible to prove abuse takes place.

" you think " drinking lemon tea makes you unsafe to trade with then you can give red trust.
" you think"  whistleblowing on scammers makes the whistleblower unsafe to trade with you can give red trust.

Just like " you think " posting debunked false and misleading crap is a good post = you give merit to it 

There is really no way to claim it is abuse. You can ask if it is appropriate and useful to give red trust for and then present the details and invite debate. Then they will just post pictures demanding the debate stops.
The mods allow this to take place.  If you report these pictures demanding the debate stops the mods mark the reports bad.
You can call theymos to debate. He will ignore it or tell you you are boring and that scammers are suboptimal but your account can stay red trusted and have a big warning on all of your threads telling everyone "Yes this members posts and threads are that of a scammer"

Best thing to do is simply hound these trust abusing scum bags and bring up inconvenient on topic and relevant truths about them when you get time and have the inclination. I generally enjoy doing so when they are lecturing and punishing others for things they reward themselves and their pals for on DT1.

You make a good point about merit requiring some further criteria and definition rather than " you think it's a good post "  , since everyone will have a different definition of what makes it good then merit score is meaningless in terms of objective post value and quality.
That loose subjective guide to giving merit was cancer to the forum for which the implications are very far reaching in a negative way.  


Meta is such a tiny board it is very easy to moderate.

Any posts which actually break the rules here can easily be removed.

There is no real financial incentive to spam, scam etc on meta it will be immediately noticed by the " police " and would be far easier and have a far more gullible audience on other boards.

With most new automated restrictions you impose to prevent things we may view as undesirable the collateral damage and implications on valuable activity and volume is negative.

Some people are justifiably unwilling to earn " privileges" if there is not an observable and provably fair and clear way to do so.
Some will be unwilling anyway to work for privileges they consider should be automatically given because they don't understand why their necessity or advantages to the forum that are obtained by such restrictions being there.

The answer is not to try and remove all low quality posts here, but to prevent them having negative impact upon those that wish to have only high quality discussions and debates. Both can bring huge value via advertising, investment traffic, etc. Doesn't have to one or the other. Trying to cut them out altogether will create a less productive environment all factors considered I believe and certainly way less revenue for the forum. Also you could rid the forum of its negative snitching and punishing to large degree and replace with rewarding and appreciation.

But yes merit needs to be tightened up to be more objective and reliable or completely removed.
The forum will not progress well if merit remains simply pal points or political points.

Crazy if true... vod says suchmoon is in debt now?

How much is suchmoon owing BPIP?

Maybe she will clear this off once they get their next CM payment
Would BPIP accept some moldy cookies as some security for now?
I though she was just joking about having to live under the freeway.

Ah, the resident doxing expert. 

To be fair if you dox anyone you could be opening them up to being injured. Whether you deliberately incite and encourage their harm or not.

Releasing a scammers dox on the appropriate board is maybe okay. I would perhaps  worry that if someone had pulled a scam that caused serious financial impact upon a person or persons and  if they did take your the dox you posted  and  harm came to innocent 3rd parties aka the families or children of the alleged or even proven scammer, then you may have that on your conscience.

I'm not sure legally where you would stand if someone was shown to have used the dox you provided to locate someone and cause them serious harm.

For sure if I knew and angry mob who had been robbed blind by a scammer where baying for blood, then I would be very cautious to reveal the dox. Better to take all possible legal means to resolve. If not then I guess best to try to make sure they live alone before releasing the dox.

Previously I would have just said any scammer should be named and shamed. Now though since reading through some similar cases, the other implications and collateral damage is worth factoring in.

Tough decision. 

attempting a diversion and not daring to form any kind of rebuttal?
Okay.

Can't debunk the truth. You're learning.

I agree that the trust system is a complete joke and very dangerous.

Look at the excuses from those benefitting nicely from the current mess of merit and trust.

1. You've not been here long enough to possess the knowledge you seem to have so that means you must be an elder member ?

Proof? Who cares alts are allowed? No debunking of any of his points.

This excuse from the sneaky and greedy sock puppet racist sig spammer thepharmacist  aka Hugeblackwoman who got busted jumping from one sig to another to get a tiny bit extra rev

Also has stated he does not know if his pal lauda did scam people during an escrow but will protect them anyway out of loyalty
Certainly part of lauda gang.

He and the others have reviewed conclusive proof of scamming but condone and protect it.


2. Please go to another forum.

Lol okay yeah scammers and scammer protectors say don't like our scamming or scammer protecting or trust abuse just leave.

From UltraElite the known pal of scammers and is a scammer protector.


3. The old argument that red trust and flags don't stop you posting or they may say does not effect your free speech.

Whilst it is true they don't stop you posting they can ruin the credibility of what you post and they can also prevent your account from getting paid to post like they certainly want to be. I mean look at the chipmixer spammers just on the few replies you've had more or less telling you the status quo is great and excusing the blatant abuse.

This ability to abuse the trust system for any reason you like crushes free speech and fair trade and services. You whistle blow on scammer DT1 you get your account tagged, your business starts to compete with theirs or their sponsors don't be shocked they find a reason to tag it.

4. loyceV as always presents the most retarded defense and is another scammer supporter and protector.

A/ doesn't prove that your possibly valid objection to being tagged by those you correctly claim are part of a colluding mass of scammer supporting shit stains is trust abuse. I mean there is clear evidence many of these deliberately try to prevent legitmate scammer warnings put of scammers accounts.

B/ even so if someone unfairly uses the broken tagging system to abuse your account then you are not permitted to tag them back?

That's kind of like saying a random maniac attacks you with a broken bottle in the street for no reason so you pick up another broken bottle and fight back. Now you are the bad guy?

Also that analogy is being generous because I would say that their is strong evidence to corroborate what his tags claim about those people. Evidence I have not seen anyone debunk.


The truth here is that even when a person with many years on this forum for which they could find zero financially motivated wrongdoing,  was the largest scam hunter of all time and most effective (bar perhaps 1 or 2 others) whistle blew on one of the worst scammers here who was telling lies about him who then trust abused that honest and brilliant member ... what happened? Yes DT, mods and even the forum administrator took the side of the proven scammer and trust abused and told lies about the honest and brilliant member.

So you will win no support here because they are all pals and are colluding to cream off the best rev streams from the forum.
I don't say the administrator has this motivation but is either too lazy to do his own investigations and listens to those he thinks he can trust or is just always siding with them because he thinks they provide some kind of useful service to the forum by playing whack a mole with non important inconsequential 2 bit scammers ( or those that provide competition to their own sponsors and other ventures )

They don't provide any net postive service and have crushed free speech here and now use his broken systems to scam with impunity.

Sadly one person that could have changed things for the better on the forum has been removed further from having influence.  He recognized lauda and his cronies for what they were and didnt like the merit or trust systems. Sadly he handed full control to theymos now. So since theymos took some time designing these systems he will allow them to ruin any semblance of free speech and for the DT1 to scam with impunity and no consequences it seems.  The motivation is either to see if the systems will ever self heal in a few decades or just being stubborn or just enjoys some of the resulting drama. Who can really know.

So expect no support here in meta. I mean pointing out we need changes to DT to those in DT who benefit from the status quo of DT is I guess going to yield nothing but excuses and bullshit.

If anyone would like independently verifiable evidence that corroborates what I have said then just feel free to ask.

LoyceV btw is also actively helping protect proven scammers and of course spamming chipmixer.

Anyone wearing a sig has an agenda to maintain that sig. Anyone needing a sig is here for money. The need for money or the ever greedy lust for more money corrupts most people.

loyceV is quick to point out your feedback is irrelevant? That is not true. It is clearly relevant and as yet debunked or refuted. How can any feedback pertaining to trust be irrelevant? Whether it is reliable ( the claims are reliable ) or is seen by the mistaken and mislead members here as having much credibility or truth is a possibility. The fault is with the design and abuser of that design. So the point by loyce is again useful to the case of the OP.


TLDR?  the OP is correct and clearly has some valid points regardless of this specific case which I have not investigated.

Yes i believe it is wrong for DT to give red tags unless there is conclusive proof of scamming or strong corroborating evidence to demonstrate there was clear intention to scam or setting up for a scam.
Even the flagging system is abused so the entire thing is a dangerous misleading cluster fuck.

Your post is so dangerously misleading that it is every honest members duty to refute it strongly.

Now to address you bogus claims.

1. No, none of the chipmixer participants are famous or at all important in the history of bitcoin nor the forum.
2. Most of the chipmixer legend members are terrible traders and broke down bums.
3. Most of the chipmixer legend members have zero achievements of any lasting note at all.
4. Many of the chipmixer legend members are scammer protectors.
5. If you asked most chipmixer legend members to present their best original thought provoking posts that made any lasting difference they would have nothing to present that wasn't laughable.
6. Many of the chipmixer spammers are trust abusers.

The very notion that members that have been here years and years and still need to spam chipmixer sigs are not either total failures or super greedy is moronic. I mean if they are so smart and super helpful then why are they broke after 2 huge bull runs? If they are rich then why are they greedily taking all the best rev streams and hogging the best sig spots?

Chipmixer legends in this very thread are clearly motivated to post for money and have confessed this.

Even darkstar dare not face a debate on his selection choice.

Merit, dt1 and their iron fist grip on the rev share is a racket.

If you doubt any point that I have made here then then ask for the evidence and reasoning and try to rebut or successfully refute it.

Almost every nauseating eulogy and brown nosing celebration of the chipmixer goons is very misleading to the point of dangerous for the reader.

Why is this even in meta?

If you really believed in the fantasy you shared out in the OP then I am here to help you find the truth.
But if you'd prefer to shy away from reality I won't mind.

There are some okay chipmixer posters.

Red pill or Blue pill?

Can you explain your reasoning on that? I like the rotating more ( I mean the entire system is clearly nothing like a meritocracy  and is dangerous) but explain why rotating would make it a meritocracy over leaving the most included in.

Or is that not what you meant?  I am genuinely curious.