Yet you don't do much protesting when it happens do you?
Oh wow, not enough protesting is the problem now. Feel free to fuck right off with that kind of "logic". You spend an exceptional amount of time attempting to slide the topic on any related thread pointing out these issues. You do in fact support trust abuse, not only by actively covering for it, but by refusing to exclude those that abuse their DT position. Are you suggesting that Vod's negative ratings for me have basis? He has a long history of leaving baseless ratings and refuses to substantiate them. Why is he still on your trust list then? That sure looks like supporting abuse to me.
Why are you sliding this topic now? Don't you have a bunch of Vod threads to bump? 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. |
|
|
|
@TechshareWhat are you whining about phony feedback??? Years ago you left me phony trust accusing me of "This user is one of the biggest trolls/extortionists/market manipulators out there."If you don't like being red-trusted for you opinions, then STFU. But since you've been crying about this for years on end, I doubt you will.  ~BCX~ You mean the neural rating? Your market manipulation, altcoin hacking, FUD, and threats are well documented on this forum. You like the fact that I am being attacked, but you don't want to explicitly support the abuse because it might harm your own reputation, so you refuse to take any position on the matter. Now why would anyone call you disingenuous?
No, I don't like the fact that you're being red-trusted for what is essentially your opinion, and I have already made that clear numerous times. I have excluded Lauda from my trust list due to this and other ratings that I disagree with. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with you or even call you a lunatic if I choose to. Nice try making it sound like I want to support trust abuse but that's false. And your attempt to use an outdated quote to make a point is still pointless. Yet you don't do much protesting when it happens do you? You spend an exceptional amount of time attempting to slide the topic on any related thread pointing out these issues. You do in fact support trust abuse, not only by actively covering for it, but by refusing to exclude those that abuse their DT position. Are you suggesting that Vod's negative ratings for me have basis? He has a long history of leaving baseless ratings and refuses to substantiate them. Why is he still on your trust list then? That sure looks like supporting abuse to me. |
|
|
|
Just FYI, A.I.D.S does not cause your immune system to go into overdrive. It is the exact opposite. You may want to consult the Wikipedia page listing autoimmune diseases to find a disease that better fits your analogy. There are multitudes of them. For example, I think Rheumatoid arthritis probably better fits your above analogy. Noted. Thanks for more pointless topic sliding about usless side issues intended to cause maximum distraction from the actual content of the OP. |
|
|
|
tell me, what makes this rating at all justifiable or substantive
I never said it's "justifiable or substantive" so I can't really tell you that. You might need to ask Lauda. Yet you are perfectly willing to dedicate your time to deflect from this fact by sliding the topic to inconsequential side topics, or anything you can use to attack. That is a slick way to word it. You like the fact that I am being attacked, but you don't want to explicitly support the abuse because it might harm your own reputation, so you refuse to take any position on the matter. Now why would anyone call you disingenuous? |
|
|
|
Yep, even in countries with large numbers of parties -- at the end of the day these parties typically end up in a coalition with two large groups. One being the people in power, and the others being apart of the opposition.
It's just a more complex way of going to two parties again.
Though I think in the US when we talk about having a third party, we think and talk about this party taking the place of one of the other two. At least that's what I think. We have a better chance reforming the existing parties. Both have gone through lots of change. IMO the Republicans have made some improvements while the Democrats are in full reverse. Not sure of that, what reason would the parties want to be reformed and how would they be reformed? A party is like a private company, they cant be forced by the government to change things just cause they want to. The parties (from within) are the only chance to change things, which I think limits the ability for this change to happen without some sort of 3rd party challenge. That's how a good deal of change (politically) has happened in America. A 3rd party has grown, or brings some sort of idea to the forefront of politics, and one of the 2 big parties uses that ideas and runs with it. That's why someone like Andrew Yang ran for office. He knew he wasn't going to win, but he wanted to bring the information relate to UBI to the people. Who said anything about them wanting to reform? They are currently being forced to reform like it or not. The Democrat party's actions have become so unpopular, in order to continue existing as an effective party, they are being forced to change, or be abandoned. Andrew Yang ran as a Democrat, not a third party, so you are kind of proving my point. |
|
|
|
I am referring to protocol for use of the trust system Theymos has commented on
The system has changed since then - re-posting red-trust doesn't change the trust score anymore, doesn't put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode so that comment is outdated. You have a point that re-posting puts it at the top and might make it potentially more visible, but quoting that comment to support your argument is disingenuous at best. Speaking of being disingenuous, I know you are working overtime to topic slide from anything resembling a logical argument, but tell me, what makes this rating at all justifiable or substantive? There is no nefarious trading activity to speak of. This is all just a huge stack of hyperbole and pure bullshit used to reinterpret my opinions as crimes so that Lauda can pretend these ratings have any basis whatsoever when they are clearly retaliatory in nature and designed to silence and discredit opposing viewpoints by using the trust system as a tool of retribution. |
|
|
|
I have no interest in responding to a post from the latest in a long line of alt accounts, riddled as it is with disingenuous nonsense and deliberately misleading claims to altruism. Before I leave this toxic thread, I'll make clear that my posts and use of the forum systems are inline with the current guidelines laid down by the forum administrator. My so called AIDS posts are meant to inform and hopefully educate, and any feedback I leave comes from the same motivation. I don't align with any of these apparently rife? cliques which are endlessly referred to, and I have no financial incentive for posting or for the content of my posts. I don't disagree that some abuse of forum systems exists. I disagree completely about unilateral solutions to it, especially when the main driver behind this proposed imposition is a hypocrite of the highest order. The idea that the censorship you propose somehow supports and encourages "free speech" is beyond absurd. You and anyone else can include or exclude me from their trust; I won't blatantly retaliate, then thrash about pulling varying justifications out of my ass, like your boss does. [img ]http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/29/AbandonThread.gif[/img] The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your posts aren't A.I.D.S., your subjective use of trust ratings are. Like the A.I.D.S. virus, trust police are like an over active immune system causing the body to attack its own healthy cells. You don't align with any of these cliques, you just have most of them in your trust list and share most of the same inclusions right? Requiring evidence is not a "unilateral solution", it is a very simple basic standard, one that is required for any rational justice system. Censorship? What the fuck are you even talking about? You know what fosters censorship? When people can just make up any excuse they like to use the trust system as a tool to punish people who say things they don't like, and they never have to prove anything. You aren't thrashing about pulling various justifications out of your ass here? You could have fooled me. |
|
|
|
Since you have pointed me to this thread; I thought I wud present my views on objectivity here as well. - let me make my stand clear. No human can claim to be objective, value-neutrality is an illusion and I very much agree with Paul Feyerabend (Epistemological Anarchism) and Max Weber on this issue. So to claim that rules devised will be objective would be a misnomer IMO, because to have objective assessments we need to use our subjective faculties.
To claim that my current situation should push me to join any such venture would again be an opportunist assumption; I would have gladly partaken in such a venture even if I wasn't red trusted; had I believed that such a step will lead to objectivity.
I have always been clear with my intentions on this forum; even if the current situation continues to be so and none other deem it worthwhile to respond on this situation, I would still not be willing to claim objectivity.
Even in my posts here I have maintained a sense of subjectivity and to compensate have given them the benefit of doubt within my margin of error (now see even that's subjective).
-
#peace Humans have trouble being objective. If you actually bothered reading the thread you would see I am advocating for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE being presented exactly for this reason. You complain about abusive trust ratings but still have that user in your trust list. Based on this OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, you aren't exactly one to be giving advice and analysis on the trust system. |
|
|
|
I don't want to derail the current topic; but now since you have questioned me on this topic; let me make my stand clear. No human can claim to be objective, value-neutrality is an illusion and I very much agree with Paul Feyerabend (Epistemological Anarchism) and Max Weber on this issue. So to claim that rules devised will be objective would be a misnomer IMO, because to have objective assessments we need to use our subjective faculties. To claim that my current situation should push me to join any such venture would again be an opportunist assumption; I would have gladly partaken in such a venture even if I wasn't red trusted; had I believed that such a step will lead to objectivity. I have always been clear with my intentions on this forum; even if the current situation continues to be so and none other deem it worthwhile to respond on this situation, I would still not be willing to claim objectivity. Even in my posts here I have maintained a sense of subjectivity and to compensate have given them the benefit of doubt within my margin of error (now see even that's subjective). P.S. I do respect you for trying to start something better; but let's not turn vindictive for the sake of countering vindictiveness. EDIT: -
Some DT members behave such a way that it seems they feel satisfaction red painting an account. It's better to raise voice under an alt account.
Then it is the collective failure of BTCTalk DT members that they continue to accommodate Trust system Abusers within their ranks and if theymos has acknowledged the failure of the system implicitly, then it is better to do away with it altogether. Exactly how is advocating for people presenting evidence before negative rating vindictive? Could you possibly project any more? You complain about the abuse of this user, but you make accusations against the only people resisting it, and have the person who abused you on your trust list. I can only conclude you are not the brightest bulb in the box. |
|
|
|
I am curious why you aren't expecting Vod to defend his position whatsoever and just defaulting to what Theymos said 5 years ago. A lot has changed in 5 years.
I'm curious why you continue to quote Theymos from five years ago. How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this?#hypocriteLOL. TS's comments in this thread and that one are 10 minutes apart. He waited exactly 10 minutes to engage in hypocrisy. I think that's a new record. I'm going to have a hard time taking him seriously about anything in the future; so should everybody. I know facts are irrelevant to both of you when you have some one to attack, but I am referring to protocol for use of the trust system Theymos has commented on, in this thread, and discussing the use of Theymos's opinion from years ago, which has demonstrably changed, as is being used for justification for trust system abuse. Of course this would be clear if the quote were not selectively edited so you can manufacture your preferred story and cover up for abuse both of you are perpetrating. I thought I already addressed this but I will try again. Theymos had excluded me in the past. Theymos no longer excludes me. Theymos currently excludes Vod. Theymos has made it clear he wants the users to be the ones to collectively decide who is on default trust, so it is not appropriate to just say "Well Theymos said" that one time, and it is forever scripture.
Even IF you want to take that position, it is worth noting, as I said Theymos currently excludes Vod, but does not exclude me. That is an explicit statement Theymos does not think Vod should be on the default trust, and at worst he is neutral on the position of me being on the default trust currently. Regardless of what Theymos thinks, it does not validate Vod's behavior or use of the trust system. Theymos has made it clear he does not want to be the sole arbiter of who is on the default trust, which is why he enabled voting on it. His vote counts just as much as anyone else's... I wonder why Vod edited all of that out! |
|
|
|
Thanks for the demonstration of exactly how hard you will work to stray from the point of a subject and argue as many peripheral issues as possible.
So the subject is no longer the punitive nature of a neutral rating? Or is it only punitive when you receive it but not when you send it? Please elaborate. It doesn't matter what the subject is, you will manufacture a way to slide the topic regardless. |
|
|
|
@TECSHARE and @hacker1001101001 Thanks for the concern, although I am very much in favour of objective standards, but I guess it wud derail the topic at hand. -
You are to be blamed too! I am sure Lauda is not in your trust list now? When everyone of you will have this end then you will realize who to add and who not to add in your trust list.
-
It wud hv been better had u commented from your main account. Obviously you are scared or have some sinister motive, also I had a curated trust list prior to being red trusted, so it's not like Lauda isn't in my Trust List NOW. P.S. Shud I be surprised at the wariness shown by other DTs to not infuriate the so very VINDICTIVE Abuser  One would assume you would be for objective standards for leaving negative ratings given your current circumstance, but apparently not. |
|
|
|
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. No, that's intentional. - If a person has mostly negatives, then they should clearly have a negative score. - If a person has only positives, then they should clearly have a non-negative score. - If someone who previously had lots of positives gets a negative, this is interpreted by the system as "This person could very well be a con man! I can't be sure, though, since it's just one rating. Better show ??? just in case". - If they then get several more negatives after the first negative, the ??? will turn into a negative score, as it should. - If they get positives after the first negative, then this is interpreted as "Oh, it looks like that negative is probably wrong. I guess I can now mostly ignore it." See the full algorithm here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1066857.0It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted. |
|
|
|
I will be raising a flag type-1 against this user[1] in the near future on similar reasoning that was used for the flag type-1 against Quickseller. If somebody has any objections, please state so.
[1] And on any and all of his alt accounts.
Theymos is a chump for giving you another chance. Your actions are clearly retaliatory in nature and designed to punish dissent. |
|
|
|
I've been the target of his finger for almost 5.5 years. I'd be curious what percentage of Techy's posts contain my name. :/
Thank you JaredKaragen for bring attention to my two negative trust entries against the OP. Is the general consensus they are valid?
I have stated who I trust, and I won't be making major changes soon. I have to finish a gift I think the community needs and will really enjoy.
I think in simplest forms for the recent neg trust that I analyzed: If we hold Theymos to be on a pedistal of "my word is law"... then; TEC can not be on DT.
It was the easiest way for him to be removed back then,
and since things are vastly different on the forum now;
Assuming the above about theymos is to be held as law: your action continue that state of status quo by giving him that flag could be interpreted as ok; even though the flag system itself is to warn people about being scammed, ripped off or mislead (on the same level) by the individual getting the flag. If I am misinterpreting what the flag system is for; please correct me now.... but this is how I see it to be used. My recent red flag was to warn of a developer of a project that has mass investment, only to ignore the investors and produce nothing except losses. I see this as a reason to give the trust hit... I admit, I need to go back, and do my own little but more of digging on it as well; but the facts stood up to him being connected to such a thing.
This is why; Its not a valid flag "prima face", but it is deemed necessary to return the status quo. IF the above is not correct... well.... You know my feelings by now I would think.I'm not sure about the second trust flag; as I don't think I even looked into it.... I myself removed myself from default trust and only have people added that I have personally done transactions/personal dealings with; or have never steered me wrong. As an outsider.... Its a tough thing to sort all of this out. But at least now I know; and TBH: I do feel for everyone involved in this. Hopefully... something amicable can come around. It has been nearly 6 years... The odds are in your favor for things to change for the better. That's the meat of it. Its centered on how red trust was used and why. I believe it is for obvious or proven scammers, faulty devs, etc.... people whom are a detriment to your security in transaction, or to be mislead in such a manner.... not to change a persons status based on a personal belief or something not in line with the aforementioned. was red trust misused? or did I mis interpret how its supposed to be used? because; if the concept of it being issued to continue theymos's removal from tecshare on DT is valid still; then is it ok to misuse red trust in this instance? is theymos' old word/action still law with todays vastly different system and rule set?? *edit* added formatting to quote and more description I thought I already addressed this but I will try again. Theymos had excluded me in the past. Theymos no longer excludes me. Theymos currently excludes Vod. Theymos has made it clear he wants the users to be the ones to collectively decide who is on default trust, so it is not appropriate to just say "Well Theymos said" that one time, and it is forever scripture. Even IF you want to take that position, it is worth noting, as I said Theymos currently excludes Vod, but does not exclude me. That is an explicit statement Theymos does not think Vod should be on the default trust, and at worst he is neutral on the position of me being on the default trust currently. Regardless of what Theymos thinks, it does not validate Vod's behavior or use of the trust system. Theymos has made it clear he does not want to be the sole arbiter of who is on the default trust, which is why he enabled voting on it. His vote counts just as much as anyone else's. Vod brought this up as a distraction from having to address any of these issues himself. He is unable to substantiate any of the ratings he has left for me, when asked to, he just repeatedly claims he did already and refuses to quote it. I am kind of feeling like you are treating me guilty until proven innocent and expecting me to prove my innocence and not expecting Vod to prove any of his accusations. So far all of your questions have been focused at me, and I have done my best to respond to them while Vod avoids interacting with you completely. I am curious why you aren't expecting Vod to defend his position whatsoever and just defaulting to what Theymos said 5 years ago. A lot has changed in 5 years. Why is it you feel Vod does not have to substantiate any of his claims against me exactly? This is starting to feel decidedly one sided. |
|
|
|
Yep, even in countries with large numbers of parties -- at the end of the day these parties typically end up in a coalition with two large groups. One being the people in power, and the others being apart of the opposition.
It's just a more complex way of going to two parties again.
Though I think in the US when we talk about having a third party, we think and talk about this party taking the place of one of the other two. At least that's what I think. We have a better chance reforming the existing parties. Both have gone through lots of change. IMO the Republicans have made some improvements while the Democrats are in full reverse. |
|
|
|
That word has more than one definition, I put the applicable descriptors in bold to make it easier for you. If it was positive it wouldn't be punitive by definition.
Synonyms are not definitions or descriptors. Neutral by definition is impartial but since you're redefining it as punitive will you review your own neutral ratings? Thanks for the demonstration of exactly how hard you will work to stray from the point of a subject and argue as many peripheral issues as possible. |
|
|
|
|
I find them annoying. This isn't Snapchat. Also emojis can be a vector of attack that creates security issues. I am sure Theymos went over this, but there are plenty of historical examples on other platforms.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
