|
You seem to be rather intent on managing this discussion and topic sliding Trash.
|
|
|
|
Is not my rating for Vod valid? Are Vod's negative ratings for me not invalid? Convenient you suddenly can't be bothered when a direct question is asked.
I already answered in the shortest and most direct way possible, literally in the post you just quoted. I can't help you with your compulsive lying issue, sorry. You didn't answer my question. You responded to it, but you didn't actually answer it. Oh I am a compulsive liar now? Refractory projection much? Are you taking lessons out of Vod's book now? *compulsive liar
He definitely has a compulsive disorder and has no qualms about lying to everyone's face over and over and over again. He seems to believe as long as he never admits fault no one will notice his constant self contradictions.
Anyone who does point it out is "lying about him" and gets attacked and tagged via the trust system, and some members of this community refuse to take responsibility for him by removing his authority under the system he abuses to serve his own compulsions at the expense of the larger community. It terrifies me to think of how many peoples lives he might have ruined as a cop in real life with his lack of self control. |
|
|
|
It is absurd that a user is in Bitvest campaign, quote an application of another user to apply to Roobet campaign and saying that he is a member of Roobet campaign
It is. But what if Little Mouse just copied the Proof of Authentication post from RaptarX as reference for his submission post, then forgot to remove his username? There's instance like this and he will realize that he didnt edit it before he send his own application. What if your in his shoes, with the abovementioned scenario and someone quoted your wrong application? How do you defend yourself? Unless he is guilty or didnt explain it to be like that. The reason is too shallow to be tagged as alt account IMO. Definitely a possibility. This is a good example of why objective standards of evidence are a good idea before rating. |
|
|
|
|
Covered a few of them for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say this constitutes pretty clear evidence of this being an alt account. I don't think any flags or ratings are appropriate at this stage. I think it would be appropriate to inform the managers of any campaigns he is involved in. If he is violating the terms of those campaigns, then a rating or a flag may be appropriate. I would like to hear the manager(s) comments on the matter.
|
|
|
|
All the facts laid out being true: I believe the red trust flag has been abused.
If this is untrue:
Correct me on how I am wrong; I was very clear in my analysis; and my opinion will be re-evaluated.
I do see a lopsided fight.
I do see rules being broken.
*edit* this has been going on for so long, and its multi-faceted; I am merely going off the single red trust I evaluated via my previous posts. But this seems like a clear misuse of red trust. Thank you for taking the time to review this. I know no one wants to spend any time on these issues, and most who do are met with retaliation, meaning even less people want to get involved. I would like to see Vod try to substantiate any of his claims to a 3rd party as he seems to be unwilling to any time I ask him to, but I am not holding my breath. Thanks again for your efforts. |
|
|
|
Clown music There is a difference between using the fact that Theymos excluded me 5 years ago to justify other negative ratings (makes no sense), and the fact that Theymos gave a specific directive on how the trust system should be used. Is the rating I left for Vod valid or not? Are the ratings he left for me valid or not?
No and no. Stop using theymos as a crutch when it suits you. He also said "it'd be best to forgive". Until you, Og, and Vod start seriously working towards deescalation I can't be bothered to care about it anymore. Five minutes of being adults is all it takes. Look at Lauda+Quicksy = ♡. You can do it too, I believe in you, don't let me down. That rating I left for Vod was the FIRST AND ONLY negative rating I have EVER left for him. You know how many times he left me false and abusive negative ratings and was forced to remove them years before that? At least 3 times, as many as 5. So you are suggesting that doxing a forum member and reporting him to the IRS because of an interpersonal conflict should be excused? Usually that is an instant ban let alone grounds for a negative rating, but Vod never has to follow any rules now does he? Rules are only for people like me. He is free to tag thousands of people for whatever he likes, but he is still free to break all the rules and still be above reproach. Of course you can't be bothered now that I asked you explicitly. Lets try again. Is not my rating for Vod valid? Are Vod's negative ratings for me not invalid? Convenient you suddenly can't be bothered when a direct question is asked. Lauda 2020-02-26 Reference " Dishonest. Hypocritical. Malicious. Shows no remorse for any misdeeds. This rating has nothing to do with anybody's opinions. Consistent deceptive behavior. See reference links for summary." I heard this community removed people from the default trust when it is abused to silence others and it is used as a retaliatory tool. So when exactly is that going to happen? I guess as long as you say "This rating has nothing to do with anyboy's opinions" you can leave ratings for peoples opinions and it makes it ok. How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this? Until its gone? FYI, this is the 6th time Lauda has removed and replaced a negative rating for me to manipulate the trust system to make sure it is the first thing anyone sees when they view my trust history. If your actions create more references and behavior that I must document, then I will indeed do this however many times I need to. Unless of course you prefer the alternative: Having 6 (at the time being) individual negatives from me and more if you create reasons for newer ratings. I think a single new rating is always better, but I am willing to let you choose which way you want it out of kindness. Let me know.  Until you, Og, and Vod start seriously working towards deescalation I can't be bothered to care about it anymore. Five minutes of being adults is all it takes. Look at Lauda+Quicksy = ♡. You can do it too, I believe in you, don't let me down.
Stupid life is, is it not? Not being able to show any remorse is a major character flaw..  Remorse for what exactly? What did I do wrong. Be specific. |
|
|
|
Is this really the best you can do with the suggested list? If you were being genuine from the bottom of your heart and hand on your heart is it really the best you can come up with?
The primary criteria for being on the TECSHARE shitlist is that they have TS excluded, mutual exclusions are bolded: ... Funny you mention that considering I excluded JollyGood, then he replied with his own exclusion. Of course it is only retaliatory when I do it right? |
|
|
|
While this is pretty much gravedigging ish now, this is a pretty crazy conspriracy theory to think about. Though it doesn't fully make sense when you realize that the government would never own their own social media platform (like reddit, facebook, instagram, myspace, etc)
While corporations do police what people post, it's done for the advertisers to be happy. Not for any other reason -- at least that's what I think on the issue.
I'd love to hear you explain a bit though Not a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy fact. The government has been involved in funding from day one in companies like Facebook and Google. Some terms for you to look up: PRISM FIVE EYES Total Information Awareness LifeLog In-Q-Tel Also it is undisputed fact governments can simply buy these databases. They tried pushing these programs in the 90's, but could not get any traction, so they "shut them down", and the next day LifeLog became Facebook, a private enterprise. In-Q-Tel is also a known venture capital arm of the CIA. |
|
|
|
Why am I not surprised to see your name on the suggested exclusions list? Was it not added purely because you are biased as you are the author of the thread and suggested lists?
I also did not see the names of those that merited the opening post on the thread.
Nor did I see the names of the local language board users that cheated their way to DT1 but thankfully kicked off it after DT users took action last month.
Is this really the best you can do with the suggested list? If you were being genuine from the bottom of your heart and hand on your heart is it really the best you can come up with? Speak English much? I assume you mean your name on the list. Your name is on the list because you regularly leave negative ratings based on suspicion alone, as well as things like advertising a banner for organizations you suspect, I.E. guilt via association. What is your point exactly other than the fact that you object? |
|
|
|
So, now you are suggesting
LOL, sure, keep making shit up, that'll fix all issues. If I wanted to say something - I would. I don't need you to be my interpreter. What is to interpret? You just said I should reconsider my rating for Vod, one that Theymos himself said would be a valid use of the trust system to rate over, because Vod decided to use the trust system in a clear attempt to extort me into removing it. You are very clearly implying I share responsibility for Vod's abuse of the trust system against me, and I should remove a valid rating in order to barter for removal of his abusive ratings. Is the rating I left for Vod valid or not? Are the ratings he left for me valid or not? Set deflectors to maximum. |
|
|
|
|
I suspect you have ulterior motives. As a result all of your arguments are void and you should be shot in to space. Anyone who agrees with me is above reproach, and anyone who disagrees with me is participating in a conspiracy to manipulate the trust system. It is known, and so it shall be done. As The Grand Poobah gate keeper I so decree.
|
|
|
|
What do you mean being forced to reform? Who can force them to reform? No one, no one at all can force them to reform.
How in gods name did I prove your point by saying that Andrew Yang ran as a Democrat? Just because you run on the party line doesn't mean you're a member of the party or share the ideals of the party.
I would say that Donald Trump, as a candidate, was a moderate on a good deal of issue and only ran on the Republican ticket because that's the only way you're able to win.
Andrew Yang did the same thing. You're not able to gain as much relevance if you run as a third party candidate. Like right now if I began to run on South Carolina as a democrat and picked up one delegate, I'd be able to be on the debate stage -- that's the reason people run. They get a platform. Even if they don't agree with the party they're running with.
I wouldn't describe someone like Bloomberg as a Democrat in the least, but he runs on their ticket as that's the only way to be able to win. Sure they can, by withdrawing support and allowing them to slip into irrelevance if they don't. This process is already well under way, and is the primary driver of the extremist left turn of The Democrat party. They realize they need change, but they are still making the wrong changes. Who said anything about sharing ideals? Does not the very concept of reform necessitate a change in ideals? Trump is a good example of reform. Most of his platform would have been considered moderate or even liberal 20 years ago. The Republicans just got the first mover advantage on reform and The Democrats are desperately still trying to push The Overton window further left, making moderates and classic liberals appear right leaning in comparison. |
|
|
|
Notice how nothing I said was actually addressed in favor of more deflection. Not just lack of protest, active deflection from these issues and literally giving abusers power to abuse. Thanks for proving my point.
If you really want to resolve your issues with Vod, start showing signs of compromise regarding your own red trust on him. Does that sufficiently address your tangent? So, now you are suggesting it is legitimate to use negative ratings to extort other users into removing valid negative ratings left. That is about as abusive as it gets. |
|
|
|
Well, it was you that put AIDS in the mix. Quite frankly I think it has done absolutely zero to help bolster your case. I much prefer the clown analogies. At least that analogy is good for a chuckle while still being rather insulting to your adversaries. Plus it has the bonus effect of plaguing your adversaries with annoying earworms.  Thank you for the open admission of your adversarial stance. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
