"Someone" doesn't like when humorous critical observations are made about their manipulative behavior, so have opted to use the forum reporting system as a tool to silence criticism against them. They also really don't like it when Vod is proven a liar with his own words.









If some one burns down the house of their opponent, but builds their friends two houses, are they a net gain to the community? Should they not be punished? Is that how justice works? Perhaps if they raise 3 children it is acceptable to kill 2 others?

More abuse of the forum reporting system to silence criticism:





Suchmoon refuses to answer a direct question, so "some one" reports it to make sure they don't have to. Also a gif demonstrating Vod's sociopathic behavior in a humorous way, that clearly is disruptive and needs to be removed from a thread demonstrating Vod to be a liar. A humorous post about marlboroza was removed, and I also had a 7 year old post removed that was nothing more than a joke demonstrating some one is digging through years of my posts looking for peanuts in my turds to try to use against me.



_____________________________________________________________________





Thank you for finally answering this question directly Suchmoon. Now a couple further questions. If Vod is leaving me invalid trust ratings why is he still in your trust list? Are you not directly supporting trust system abuse by including him?

Can you explain why my rating for Vod is not valid? Theymos himself said a trust rating for him over this issue was a valid use of the trust system. Why are we both wrong, and what exactly is invalid about my rating for him?

Yeah you're right, it doesn't mean much because you ignored the parts of the post that do. Of course, it kind of does mean something because Trump was accused of politically motivated actions for asking for information to be shared about already conducted investigations, which is exactly what that treaty is for, but lets not focus on that too much.




Biden is no longer a candidate, he is a joke and his legacy is in fact over, and even more family ties with Biden's handouts have been exposed since then. As far as the rest of it, real criminal prosecutions (as opposed to politically motivated fluff) take time. Don't worry, I know you are eager to have your rectum prolapse, but soon enough.


Well looky here:

"Appeals court rules House can't sue to enforce McGahn subpoena"

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/485218-appeals-court-rules-house-cant-sue-to-enforce-mcgahn-subpoena


A nice video for those with reading comprehension issues:

"Trump Just Won MAJOR Court Victories Proving Impeachment Was BUNK, Trump's Nearing Vindication"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi6e070bo60


I guess I was right, and those subpoenas were totally invalid, along with any basis for obstruction charges made in the impeachment. Are any of you going to admit you were wrong, or are you just going to continue to try to assassinate my character using forum politics, baseless accusations, and abuse of the trust system because you don't like losing a debate?

As we can see here, Lauda openly admits that it is his criticism of them that is motivating their actions.

~Lauda


How many examples of their abuse do we need?

Yes Nuttillduuh, you certainly don't have your own history of suspect activity and making baseless accusations against me. I am sure you weren't suggesting I excluded him for retaliatory reasons at all.

"Pre-emptively" interesting choice of words... that implies he was going to exclude me... and that I did it before he could do it to me first, as opposed to simply not agreeing with his use of the trust system. You were just saying something about not accusing me of excluding him in retaliation?


"You basically feel that if someone disagrees with you, they must be wrong, which is something I've known about you for quite some time. "

A lot to unpack in that statement.

-I disagree with you
-You think I must be wrong
-You have been assured of your conclusion for a long time

No projection here.

All I am advocating for is a standard of evidence of theft, contractual violation, or violation of applicable laws before leaving negative ratings. The coordinated attacks on me via the trust system for doing nothing more than advocating for this demonstrates why this change is needed very clearly.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213992.msg53936512#msg53936512
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg53925898#msg53925898
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221450.0;all


Resolved:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225907.0

What has changed all of a sudden that all of these users known for their abuse of the trust system feel the need to tag me in a very short period of time? Right, me being vocal about their abuse of the trust system. How exactly is this system supposed to operate if criticism of abuse is allowed to be met with more abuse? It won't, and it will eventually become a tool for con artists to suppress reporting of their crimes, if it isn't already.

You fellows here to get ahead of something?


marlboroza   2020-02-28      "Interfering with investigations, posting lots of lies, trolls, deflects, http://archive.is/wip/7ygI5, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.0, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214377.0 user is highly deceptive. "


At what point does this community acknowledge I am under a coordinated attack by trust system abusers? If you think they will just quit when they are done with me, you are a moron. Time to stop being jellyfish and speak as one.

Now the fact that I want any say in how the trust system is run is being used as "evidence" to support a negative rating. Do they have to tattoo it on your face before you will admit what is going on?

Due to the one child policy China used to have, many female babies were aborted or killed because families depended on their child to be a male wage earner. Over time, as a result there was a large imbalance in the sexes of the Chinese population, and now there are way more men there than women, meaning that a much larger percentage of men in China will end up being single because they can not find a partner.

Since this is not the case in most other parts of the world, it makes sense that there would be more women seeking husbands. Because of the imbalanced nature of marriage law in the US, it makes men extremely vulnerable to divorce, having their children and hard earned wealth taken in court. This has had a result of causing less men seeking marriage as well.

Yep, he is clearly a scourge on the forum, and this peanut hunting expedition has absolutely nothing to do with his opinions on Lauda or the trust system. How do we know this? Lauda said so. Case closed.

I am sorry if 2 small paragraphs addressed to you is a difficult read for you. It is about half as long as what I was replying to, perhaps you are seeing your own quote and adding it to "the wall". It is a rather convenient excuse for you to avoid any retort though isn't it?

Having a say in the trust system does not equal "the universe revolving around me", but a good demonstration of more character attacks while you avoid addressing any of the topics at hand as usual on your part.

Ah veiled threads for not complying with your baseless smearfest. Very becoming of you.

Is that what happened though? So far all I see is evidence the accounts might be linked, not proof they are in contractual violation with any campaign manager. As you can see I already addressed this early in this thread:

A common sense interpretation of this rule, at its maximum restrictiveness, would seem to dictate to me that this rule is attempting to bar an individual from actively enrolling multiple accounts. The simple fact he had previously applied and been rejected on an alt is not evidence of malfeasance or even a contractual violation.



Fraud that only exists in your mind as a result of obsessive need to punish anyone who criticizes your abuse of the trust system, with more abuse of the trust system? Yes I support those people. You feel free to keep digging through his turds looking for punitive peanuts though if it makes you happy.

Nutilduhh was trying to cast my exclusion of you as retaliatory, but they didn't realize I was the first to exclude you, then you excluded me very shortly after. Of course when I do this it is "retaliation" and is a violation, when anyone else does it it was for "reasons" and is perfectly acceptable. I exposed the fact that you in fact were the one to reciprocate the exclusion. My conduct? You mean the fact that I excluded you right?

For something that no one cares about, you seem to be trying pretty hard to convince me of this.

"In the thread you alluded to you were begging users to take action against me for adding you to my distrust list a short time after you added me to your distrust list."

Begging? You mean this?


I am pretty sure that is the only time I brought up your exclusion of me, feel free to prove me wrong with a quote. I don't see any begging or "emotional instability" there, just pointing out more double standards.




Who said people had to follow my suggestions? So what is your point here? That I shouldn't be free to make suggestions for inclusions and exclusions based on my judgement of how the users are using the trust system? Isn't that exactly what custom trust lists are for, and something literally every person who uses them does? This is what I am talking about, the simple fact that I use these systems or have any voice in them whatsoever is presented as some kind of illicit behavior. I am not doing anything different than anyone else using the system, you people are just terrified that some one has opinions that don't align with your own, and others might agree, so you need to characterize me as having some kind of ulterior motives.





It doesn't necessarily, at least not directly anyway. It does however expose their abuse of the trust system, promotes awareness of their behavior, and is a countering force to their abuse by building a coalition of people to remove the authority under the system they are abusing by excluding abusive users. The end goal being that their behavior results in exclusions which either diminishes their ability to use this force within the system, or motivates them to leave more accurate ratings. Is that not the whole point of everyone being able to "vote" using their own custom trust lists, or is this another example of me being up to no good any time I use the trust system as it was designed to be used?

This sounds a lot like your previous circular logic, only rephrased:

So do you get paid to try to manage this narrative or is it just a hobby?

Don't underestimate the hubris of the kind of people that see no problem with victimizing others. People often make the mistake of looking at situations like this in an "if I were them" perspective. You aren't them, and he doesn't think like you, because he is not like you.

He is not ruled by the same set of standards you are, thus it is hard for you to imagine a mindset where other people are mere meat puppets to be manipulated and destroyed at will. That said, I think he or some one involved in his crimes most likely is responsible.

If you would take a break from being adversarial Trash, you would see I am agreeing with you on everything except your disagreement that N95 FFP2 will in fact help prevent the wearer from being infected. The fact that retards exist and don't bother protecting themselves is not evidence that they won't. Eye protection is also advisable.

"SBI opens case on Biden's pressure on Shokin – lawyer"
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/643674.html

"Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters"
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

"Former Ukraine Prosecutor DEMANDS Criminal Charges Against Joe Biden, Evidence SUPPORTS Trump's Case"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-plQi6NbkA&feature=emb_logo

"The Myth Of Incompetence: DNC Scandals Are A Feature, Not A Bug"

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-myth-of-incompetence-dnc-scandals-are-a-feature-not-a-bug-4f264352d4f7


There most certainly is a lot of stupidity, incompetence, hurt pride, and laziness in the DNC, but this is the perfect environment for the Democrat establishment to illicitly manipulate outcomes in the directions they desire, even if it is contrary to the wishes of their general voter base.

The 2016 election process showed pretty clearly there was a conspiracy to disenfranchise Bernie. Unfortunately he just bent over and spread his ass even wider rather than protesting it, and as a result, a lot of people who were voting Bernie are now voting Trump as a giant "FUCK YOU!" to the DNC.

Thanks for even more evidence that you intend to use the trust system as a tool to force compliance with your demands to silence criticism.


I am criticizing you for your use of the trust system in a clear attempt to force my silence using it. If anyone has any evidence Lauda was blacklisted by their own request I would love to see it. I haven't seen any. None of this however changes the fact that Lauda has a long history of abusing the trust system to silence criticism, as clearly demonstrated here.



Unlike Lauda, I have never had any credible accusations of being untrustworthy with the funds of others made against me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0

Take over what? This giant pile of shit you call the trust system? Now because I offer any resistance whatsoever to this abuse by exercising my right to have a voice in the system I am trying to "take over"? All I am doing is advocating for supporting people who I think use the trust system properly. Everyone else is free to form their own little cliques and abuse people who criticize them. Of course any time I include, exclude, criticize, or organize people within it it is automatically evidence of abuse of some kind.



Who is free of bias? You? Anyone who claims to be free of bias is lying. You are free to maintain your own bias just as I am, even if that were the case that the list is bias. This list is nothing more than a number of users who I feel either use the trust system appropriately, or abuse it. What you want from me is submission and silence in the face of abuse, not lack of bias.