I've been lurking for years, that's why i have a good understanding of what's going on here. The fact that I've only been lurking also shows up in the fact I don't even know who "Lauda" is even though she is regarded highly on here.


Except you quoted a thread that implies just that as the reference. Your authority goes unchecked doesn't it? because you don't even know what the reference you but for a trust rating there and that's basic stuff

Surely he must take this seriously considering the evidence outlined

If you don't care then why do you reply? The reason why this is a post and not a pm was clearly stated in the OP but in your haste to make posts to claim from your signature campaign I doubt that you actually read the post.

It seems I had received negative rating from someone on DT for being an alt of someone I don't know. I will just go ahead and state my case here because If I message the user directly, my messages will simply be brushed aside.

People seem to think my account is connect to other accounts that I'll list below.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2578585
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2580400
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2579977

Let me go ahead and evaluate the differences between my account and the others that it's claimed I'm associated with.

---

1) My account's username and it's meaning.

    Unlike the other accounts, it's clear for anyone who knows football that this username means something to me and isn't random as the usernames for the other users are. In the post linked below, I make a joke about England and the world cup, and I spoke of how I want an English team to win the UCL. That on itself means nothing but when you realize that my username was modeled from the name of a young English player then it's clear that some amount of thought went into my username as opposed to the others. If whoever I'm accused to be an alt of is a massive Chelsea and England fan as I am then it's okay to be suspicious but I'm sure that whoever I'm accused of being an alt of doesn't even watch the EPL.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121365.msg50346921#msg50346921

2) Registration dates.

    If we look at the registration dates of the other accounts that I should be connected to, there are clear differences that should raise flags. Of the three other accounts, one was created on the 8th of April and the others were created on the 11th of April. My account on the other hand was created on the 26th of March.

3) Forum behaviour.

    If you take a look at the post history of the other users, you'll see that they only post in meta and reputation. I've actually made posts in other sections of the forum, showing the knowledge that I have in football, politics and society and I even attempted to launch a photoshop service in order to get some practice. If some reading is done into our posts then it's clear that there are differences in our writing styles.

As much as all the suspicion is stacked one way, the actual evidence is stacked completely opposite.

The accounts that I'm mentioned to be linked with seem to be linked back to one main account. If anyone know which country that person comes from then I'm more than willing to provide proof that I'm not that person by jumping on a skype video call. I'm from a very distinct part of the world and I'm willing to prove it to have my account cleared.

Oh, he made an excuse, so there is no chance he might be lying, right?
[/sarcasm]

There was no post made before that one, It was the opening post of a thread so there is virtually no context to examine except the post itself.
The sender is not important, what I find is that people have feel differently when they know the sender than when they don't.

What interest could he have? The only way we can argue about his interests leading to his decision to send 10 merit points is if he is interested in generic questions that add zero value to the forum.



This is clear abuse, you would be saying the opposite if it was someone you weren't fond of.

The content of the post is quoted above. The objective is for you guys to judge if the post is worth 10 merit points without knowing who sent or received the merit points. Those factors aren't important. What is important is post itself

Is this post worth 10 merits?


What I see is just someone asking a question, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that but that doesn't mean it's worth 10 merits.
What I find funny is that there are people here constantly looking for merit abusers but whenever someone highly trusted on the forum does something like give 10 merits for a post that doesn't deserve 1 then nobody asks any questions. They don't find it curious that when the user that sent the merits was confronted about this, they abandoned the thread and avoided the question.

If it was a normal member of the forum that gave 10 merits to that post, they would be labeled with negative feedback for merit abuse.

Maybe you're retarded or maybe you just refuse to read. If you gloss over my thread, I literally call someone out for sending somebody 10 merits for a post that doesn't deserve to be merited.
Because it's a friend of yours you turn a blind eye.

Again, literally no clue who that individual is.
All this proves is that you haven't been reading. Sure, there are massive issues here with the trust system but the biggest issue here is the merit system.
The trust system has been reduced to shambles and cannot be saved. Nobody takes it serious. It's a lost cause.

---

As for the users who mentioned that they go out of their way to find good posts and award merit: Commendations to you guys but as hard as you guys try, you'll never be able to review a sizeable amount of the thousands of posts posted here daily.

It's quite funny that you all know something is wrong with the state of spammers here on the forum (there is one in this thread asking about boobs). You guys will lobby for tighter signature restrictions, new systems like the merit system but you guys will never accept that the spam will only go away if we end these campaigns for good. I wonder why...

Naturally, when they can't put an argument together, they run away claiming that I'm an alt of someone who I don't even know.

How are people who spend only a couple of hours on here on a weekly basis going to construct a trust list from scratch? Building your own trust list is reasonable only for those who spend countless hours here, normal/conservative don't absorb enough information to construct a trust list that would be reliable in any sense.


Do I have to spell everything out? If you read carefully, you'll realize that my argument is that that post doesn't deserve to be merited at all. My quarrel is not with the amount that was merited.

A bit rich coming from you, that fact that you've given or gotten merits from every DT member that has given you positive feedback points back to the circle-jerk that I have been speaking of. You merit each other, and you leave each other positive trust. That's all you do.

Well, almost all, whenever you aren't busy sending jackg merits everytime he sneezes, you're on the forum handing out 10 merits for posts like this.



Absolutely shocking how there are people making dozens of constructive posts here on the forum without getting a single merit when members like 'Jet Cash' has the ability to give a single account the ability to rank up twice by sending 10 merits for a post that doesn't add value to the forum. You should be embarrassed to the point where you shouldn't feel comfortable showing your face in this thread. You are the poster-child of the self righteous members on here that I've been speaking about.

Here we see some of the virtue signalling that I had mentioned before.
This individual sped through the post to make a generic reply posted many times on the forum in many different threads.
He really is just posting thing like this to please others, hopefully he gets some merit for this as it's clear that that's what he is working for here.

If you had spent some time to read the post then you'd realize that I don't care for receiving merits, I want that system gone. I also want signature campaigns gone, I think that struck a nerve with you for some reason. Maybe because you benefit from these campaigns (that I want gone) on a weekly basis.

---

Imagine how surprised everyone was when someone abusing signature campaigns was against the idea of ending signature campaigns.

Consider this scenario.

A few users, powerful users use their influence to change the forum dynamics.
We see now where we have a merit system where it is set up that these powerful members decide who decides to rank up, particularly considering that these powerful users are awarded merit points out of thin air for nothing. I think you call them merit sources. Besides from merit sources, these powerful members constantly virtue signal by meriting each other for every half-arsed thread posted in  meta (or anywhere where they see each other post really). We now have a forum where only these powerful people and people who they like rank up.

When we take a look at high-ranked accounts that earn money from signature campaigns, there is a downward trend. The fact is that owners of these accounts sometimes leave the forum, or even die. Accounts may get banned or given negative trust for some reason. What happens here is that you have less high ranking members every day because people are leaving and because of how the powerful members I mentioned before operate, very few members rank up to take the positions of those gone.

The trouble starts when we realize that those high-ranked accounts are used to enter signature campaigns to make money.

To look everything over, these powerful members control the ranking system. A system where they themselves and people who they like rank up. Other high ranking members are eliminated from the scenario for reasons mentioned above.At the end of the day, we have only these high powerful members and their friends in the higher ranks of the forum. What happens is that only this select group are able to make any sort of money from their accounts.
It gets worse, these powerful members also run the campaigns. They are paid to pay their friends and people who they like. Because of the ever declining number of high ranking accounts, these campaigns in time will pay more as demand stays the same but supply decreases. This leads to campaign managers and campaign participants (Powerful members and people they like fall into both categories) being paid more.

Now all we see are people virtue signalling these powerful members (basically sucking their dicks digitally) to get on their good side and maybe have some merit sent their way.

Signatures should be banned on the forum, if companies are serious then they can bid for banner spots on the forum. This, unlike signature campaigns, will directly contribute to the development of the forum.

Still taking requests for those interested!

It's sad to see what they've become. They're trying to pivot because everything they've been talking about for the last 2 years (Russia) has collapsed. The fact that they've been pushing that aggressively for such a long time makes them look ridiculous, or it should. It's beyond me why or how people take anything from CNN seriously when it's clearly propaganda.

Hello lads, starting a photoshop service on here. I won't be requiring payment as I've started using the software just recently and I'm still learning. I can do standard things, editing bodies, editing stuff out of the background and stuff like that. If you guys are interested then post here or shoot me a DM. The aim is for me to get as much practice as possible so as of right now I'm accepting all jobs and as said earlier and in the title, the cost is free.

It’s coming home 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿.

On a more serious note, I hope an English team wins it this year, hopefully Spurs, I hate the other English teams.
Barca seems to be on fine form, probably the best team in Europe by a mile, they are the biggest threats. UEFA is clearly pushing for Juventus to head into the final so we should watch out for them. Ajax is a dark horse.