That is not ok.
I dont recall asking you what is ok and what isnt OK you fucking Pajeet cuntfacetwatwaffleshiteatingdicklickingnobber please stop posting again I am requesting you to stay away from threads that I have started, this constant malicious behavior of yours does deserve a negative, leave me alone, leave my threads alone, stop trying to cyber bully me please Techshare, I dont appreciate your behavior and I am warning you now should you to continue to post in my threads you will force me to give you a negative tag for your stalker like actions. thanks xxx peace out you fucking wankstain You inject yourself into my threads constantly. I suppose you would prefer if you were the only one free to use the forum as you please. Cyberbully you? What are you 12? Go ahead, prove you use the trust system as a tool to try to silence others from speaking. I don't know if you have noticed by now, but I don't respond to threats. |
|
|
|
Maybe it would be a healthy change for you to mind your own business. You are not the arbiter of what freedoms people have on this forum, in spite of your totalitarian tendencies.
maybe you should just shut up ya fucking toejam licker. how come it is ok for you to open up 12million threads but me not one? this is an observable instance of crushing free speech (like you love to preach every fucking day and 5 times on a sunday ya cuntwaffle) now shhh.. let the adults talk or I will be forced to add local rules specifically about you, should you continue on this tirade of sticking your micropenis in other peoples business then I would also be forced to tag you due to your behavior. xxxx laters fucko I don't recall telling you it is not ok to open a thread. However you seem to think you can dictate to others how they are free to use the forum or not. That is not ok. |
|
|
|
Excuse me. Don't lump me in with that description. I did absolutely NONE of those things. I don't deserve to be lumped in with this garbage false equivalence. Whatever you think about other disputes has nothing to do with Vod's behavior in regard to his rating for me. How much more evidence do you need to demonstrate Vod is abusive and a danger to others here? Does he need to be let off the hook for another 5 years? Ten? I went out of my way to avoid him, he follows me everywhere looking for any possible way to inject himself into a situation, antagonize, and throw accusations around in addition to his repeated and regular abuse of the trust system over a period of years. I would love to have no relationship to Vod whatsoever, but he has made it clear that is not only impossible, but is not what he wants. He can't control his obsessive behavior.
I am not trying to lump you into anything. If anything, I am trying to help you get rid of this mess or whatever you wanna call it, and make your life here on the forum more easier. I don't know what is up with Vod's rating with regards to you abusing the system, but I do disagree a little bit with Vod's second rating, that rating has more to do with personal agenda than with the trust/trade system. And both of you, stop calling each other mentally ill stalkers, you both are using the term way too much without even knowing the meaning of it. You're just throwing words at each other at this point, you both aren't willing to have an adult conversation about it, nor are you willing to let it go. Y'all are acting worse than Kindergarten children for goodness sake. "I am not lumping you into anything!" [proceeds to make false equivalencies lumping me in with Vod] I know its really easy for you as an uninterested observer to just throw your hands up an call it a wash, but if you bothered to look into this at all you would see all of his accusations against me are completely baseless and a transparent attempt at extorting me into removing the very valid and well documented rating I left for him. Him simply repeating me in a refractory manner doesn't make my statements any less valid, and false equivalence is exactly what he hopes to acheive with this childish behavior, eliciting exactly the response you are exhibiting here so he can create the appearance of this being a two sided thing. I did nothing to deserve any of this and there is no reason I should tolerate it. You aren't helping me, you are negating my claims here creating a false equivalence as if I deserve responsibility for his actions. Just as a fun little exercise to demonstrate you are projecting upon me, go back through this thread and count how many times you can see me insulting Vod. Weird... pretty sparse if any. You know why? I have explicitly refrained from doing so to prevent the exact false equivalency you are applying to me right now, of which Vod relies on to escape accountability from his own actions. I am very sorry that you don't like the conflict that results from me calling him out on his abusive behavior. I have tolerated it for over 5 years, and I am done putting up with it. The only thing I have been doing in this thread is making a critical examination of his, and Nullis's abuse of the trust system. Nothing more. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe it would be a healthy change for you to mind your own business. You are not the arbiter of what freedoms people have on this forum, in spite of your totalitarian tendencies.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO we need to go the other direction. Turn Bitcointalk into a classic dial up BBS.
|
|
|
|
There is still the problem of mob justice and the lack of accountability in the trust system. The excuse of many has frequently been that xx is a net benefit to the trust system and this is why a controversial rating can be overlooked. I don’t think this should be an acceptable answer, especially if the controversial rating in question is actually many ratings regarding many distinct situations.
This. I have grown to agree with this excuse being improper for overlooking something. An occasions or two perhaps, but over many distinct situations no. OP's suggestion doesn't do much, red trust has barely any effect nowadays. I'm also sorry that you're being attacked over this, but as some others have pointed out: Wage war - you get attacked for it, make peace - you get attacked for it. Nothing one does is correct.  *Barely has any effect on people like you who do little to no trading here anyway. Why should you give a fuck when other people are paying the cost? |
|
|
|
I found this DEFCON 27 talk covering what is called a "money mule" scam. This is a popular method of fraud you often see on the forum here as Bitcoin provides a convenient semi-anonymous outlet for the defrauded funds. One of the more popular ways they do this is direct shipping items from Amazon for example, using fraudulent credit cards or other methods. I thought this was something the users here should be aware of so they can protect themselves, as they would be legally receiving stolen property and potentially could personally be held accountable for these activities by unknowingly participating in this scam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IT2oAzTcvU |
|
|
|
Encryption seems great for security and may if it's creates a peer-2-peer link, but given their disregard for privacy and data custody, we'll have to see.
I think only once there is a truly large scale demand and adoption of privacy focused or rather data custody focused tech, will we see big tech really adapt.
But privacy will be monetized.
We really need large scale privacy focused tech and there are definitely a few key players that are doing the work. All of these true cypherpunks are making huge strides in taking the internet back into our hands. Whether it be Satoshi or David Chaum mentioned in the article Insuring that user privacy is respected by the likes of Facebook would require inspection and surveillance of their operations, unless.... Data from you to your friends, transiting through them... was encrypted by a method unbreakable by them, not of their making or control. AND... Your very identity, from the point of logging on their system to exiting it, was concealed. |
|
|
|
Andrew Yang was among my favorites. I liked the program he promised. Who should I vote for now?
Trump  |
|
|
|
wow, i taught this is only happening in Africa. another coward in Africa (BUHARI) is talking about passing social media hate speech bill!!
It happens in the USA too, except here the role is played by corporations as a proxy for the government and other entities to work around that pesky first amendment to The Constitution. |
|
|
|
He is more forgiving, less "harsh" and I feel he does not view theft as a big deal if no violence was used and no harm is done.
If he is OK with theft as long as nobody loses an eye... then why is he banning people for plagiarism? Something doesn't add up. Theymos is not "ok with theft". This is simply a mischaracterization to place the blame on Theymos for the tendency of certain users here to abuse the trust system arbitrarily and in a manner that is targeting specific users rather than the alleged crimes themselves. He, rightly so sees the abuse of the trust system over petty matters to be counterproductive and antithetical to the mission of the trust system and the forum itself. This idea that he is "ok with theft" is simply a manipulative ploy to try to pressure him into allowing these users abusing the trust system to do so in an unrestricted manner and to shift the blame from the abusers to Theymos. Vod painted himself into a corner here, now he is grasping for any straw he can to excuse his behavior. |
|
|
|
|
Hey Hhampuz, you know what you could use right now? Some friends who aren't jellyfish. It is always some one else's problem until it is your turn at the stake. It is unfortunate you don't seem to see the relationship. Hopefully this doesn't turn into another Livecoin fiasco for you.
|
|
|
|
You know what I like? Crypto and meta stats, and strategy games. I'm glad you've decided to move on to things that you like again, life's too short to fight on the internet I'm looking forward to your new site. Yep, he only likes starting fights. He likes to "end" them only when he has what he wants, and before he suffers any repercussions, and then wants no further discussion of the matter. Of course this is just a temporary measure until his compulsions inevitably get the better of him again and he reverts to his previous abusive and antagonistic behavior within a few weeks, as demonstrated by his previous claims of "taking a break" in the past. |
|
|
|
Well you can make that argument if you want but it's not a fact that someone is a weak child just for self-modding. Sure, it's not great for an open debate and doesn't look good as they should be able to debate you openly but maybe they just don't want to get involved or are tired with certain people and they are free to do that just like you are free to call them weak or childish. If someone on the street challenges me to a fist fight for whatever reasons and I decline and walk away it doesn't necessarily mean I am weak or scared or can't beat them; maybe I just don't want to get involved with such shenanigans or pettiness and avoid that situation. If the other person wants to call me a weak child then they can do so but that would just be their opinion which may or may not be correct. Please reread what I said, you seem to be conflating separate comments. No one is forcing anyone to engage in the Politics & Society subforum, everyone is free to have as much or as little participation in that section as they like. The preservation of this platform as one of the very few remaining outlets for free speech very much outweighs the petty annoyances you describe. Well ok. Yes, you are free to make the argument that self-modding makes people scared little children that need a safe space and also free to shame them for it, but as I said, I don't think just because someone self-mods a thread makes them so for the reasons I've already stated. Does locking and re-opening threads in Meta make you a scared little child or weak? I wouldn't say so, but others may make that argument, but to me it just looks like you're tired of certain people chiming in and maybe that's what's happening with people who self-mod threads in P&S. So yes, ideally people should be able to openly debate without feeling the need to potentially censor anyone and it doesn't look good for them when they do, but either ignoring discussion or self-modding threads doesn't inherently mean they are weak or can't make a valid or strong argument, but I would take it on a case by case basis. EDIT: FYI- this was posted in Politics & Society originally. Considering it is addressing not only the forum subsection but the nature of free speech itself, I don't see why it was moved to Meta, but the local moderator there enjoys interfering with my activities there as much as he is able to. As usual, any chance he gets to act upon my posts are taken advantage of immediately while almost all the reports I make there go ignored.
Just seen this edit. It was me who moved it here based on a report. Any discussion about specific boards or features of the forum do belong in Meta, but I can see how you can make an argument it belongs there. I would say it's not merely addressing free speech though, but free speech within a specific subboard and the confines of forum features hence why it belongs in Meta. Threads in Meta are not purely for discussion at all times. There are instances when either notices, public announcements, or general information needs to be posted without interference from 3rd parties looking to slide the topic to something other than what the OP is for. Additionally locked threads don't allow for selective removal of a discussion to manage the general perception of consensus within it as self moderated threads do. Self moderated threads allow for a deceptive perception of consensus to be synthesised by removing any opposing view points or valid criticism the OP can not logically argue against, or refuses to respond to. Politics & Society is purely for the sake of discussions and debate of ideas, ones that are often contentious. There is a very big difference. I welcome anyone challenging my ideas in Politics & Society, and I see that largely as the point of the section. I find it interesting you accuse me of being tired of hearing the opinions of others while I am quite literally advocating for the ability of everyone there to speak freely without interference. You accuse me of not wanting my own ideas to be challenged, and you seem to find this repugnant, but at the same time you project this perception on to me as if I am the one perpetrating it and not chastising it. Regardless of the intent, normalizing self moderating topics in the section is dangerous for the reasons already stated above. If people are tired of having their ideas challenged they have pretty much the entirety of the rest of the internet to have nice safe space walled moderated gardens where they are protected from ideas they don't like. This platform is a rare instance where people are not prevented from speaking freely, and that is important to preserve regardless of the petty annoyances that may result. Regarding the move to Meta, I assume it is one of the usual reporters of my posts hoping one will stick just to get their kicks from interfering with my activities as much as they are able to. I am not advocating any changes in forum policy but simply discussing the culture of the subsection itself. I disagree with your logic of moving it to Meta, especially since the entire purpose of it was to effect the culture of the subsection, and moving it to another section largely negates that ability. |
|
|
|
Sounds complex and maybe it would help, but it usually quickly becomes apparent which users have issues with each other as you'll see the same names popping up in the queue. For instance, I tend to avoid reports from certain users or against certain people and especially when they have your name in them or when they're from users who are known to have issues with you. Oftentimes the reports might be accurate or technically against the rules - off topic etc - but it's usually not you who started the subject going off topic and I'm not going to go through all the posts just to try find where things went sour. Of course, another mod may see the report and then act on it and just remove your posts and I can see why that would leave you feeling like there's biases going on. Personally, I don't find slight deviations in topics that much of a big deal as that's naturally going to happen but when entire threads are derailed and overtaken by personal beefs that's when things become a problem. I am aware that this may be the source of some or all of the confusion. As moderation duties often overlap, some moderators may be less aware of these dynamics than you are, which is why I made this suggestion to make it a simple task to quickly identify this activity for all of the moderators regardless of how familiar they are with the most recent spats or the tendency of people spamming reports about a particular user. I mostly take issue with the fact that, as you stated, some moderators will simply remove the posts not taking all the things into account you have mentioned. This defacto creates a passive state of selective enforcement, intended or not, just by virtue of the fact that the reports themselves are targeted. The people spamming reports know the mods have a lot of reports to get through, and statistically if they spam enough reports, a portion of them will get removed. This is why I suggested this, or perhaps maybe a similar system, that has some kind of built in feedback to make it clear to moderators when this kind of activity is occurring. |
|
|
|
Well you can make that argument if you want but it's not a fact that someone is a weak child just for self-modding. Sure, it's not great for an open debate and doesn't look good as they should be able to debate you openly but maybe they just don't want to get involved or are tired with certain people and they are free to do that just like you are free to call them weak or childish. If someone on the street challenges me to a fist fight for whatever reasons and I decline and walk away it doesn't necessarily mean I am weak or scared or can't beat them; maybe I just don't want to get involved with such shenanigans or pettiness and avoid that situation. If the other person wants to call me a weak child then they can do so but that would just be their opinion which may or may not be correct. Please reread what I said, you seem to be conflating separate comments. No one is forcing anyone to engage in the Politics & Society subforum, everyone is free to have as much or as little participation in that section as they like. The preservation of this platform as one of the very few remaining outlets for free speech very much outweighs the petty annoyances you describe. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
