Incorrect. The first interaction I ever had with you was in Meta (feel free to prove me wrong if you'd like). I think our first disagreement (and one of the reasons I decided to add you to my distrust list) was because of your overall approach to the trust system. Then a few replies later you posted a lengthy meme about what the trust system meant to you. That may be the one I was thinking of; regardless, I felt your reply was overly pompous while simultaneously unclear, and it was then that I knew I didn't agree with your judgment. Only after a couple of months of interacting with you did I realize you were always displeased and arrogant about everything, and in our first interaction you were only exhibiting your natural demeanor. Our first direct interaction was here. What a coincidence 6 hours before you injected yourself into my conversation with another user there, I posted a thread about the attacks and threats on the Covington kids in Politics & Society. This was a thread you were clearly aware of as you later posted in it with clear disdain for even acknowledging death threats against children as being a serious topic of discussion just because they happen to be Trump supporters. I am sure it is just a coincidence... BTW, where was the part about Morpheus, I was looking forward to that part of your narrative. I don't see anything wrong with my comments in meta you replied to, and clearly others found it productive. As I implied earlier, I think you have some serious issues with projecting upon people who have different political view points than you, and your little Morpheus fairy tale and accusations of "going nuts" being "pompous" and "unclear" demonstrate that. Clearly you just have trouble tolerating people having ideas other than what you approve of as evidenced by your attempts to manufacture baseless narratives about me in order to impugn my character. |
|
|
|
I am not a big fan of conducting or participating in auctions. These are the only Polymerbit notes I own, sorry.
Since you are not interested in auction can you tell all of us how much you want for each of these notes? If you put a price tag they will sell faster. I think the white note should be .007 btc and the sky blue peeled note should be .004 btc These are just my opinions. Tell me if you trust my pricing. If you do not trust my pricing I can give you further evidence. No just let me give you the evidence check physibit & Coin Community Shop. Their product qualities are the best I have seen because I buy now the only question stands out what is your next step Anyone have feedback on this pricing? PM sent. |
|
|
|
NEW BOXES NOW AVAILABLE!
. Can you ship box's to Australia Yes, but additional shipping cost applies. Usually for international purchases it is better to buy two mystery boxes to make up for the shipping cost, which is not much more for the extra stuff. PM me for fastest response. |
|
|
|
I'll be rewriting my feedback on OP in the short future to clarify that it's not related to trolling, because it isn't, and never was, and it seems that a lot of people are confused by it. Dishonesty and manipulative behavior (both or which are per definition a user's actions, not a user's opinions) are more than appropriate for negative ratings on DT1 and DT2.
Thank you for the discussion.
Cool story bro. Leave a rating because you don't like what I have to say, then just refine your lies to further justify it. Your rating still has zero basis in fact. |
|
|
|
@Vod & @marlboroza  Thanks, you two are doing more to discredit your own accusations than I ever could. Keep it up. |
|
|
|
Theymos:"I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where: - The evidence was very thin. - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal. - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation. - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective... Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive." You are going against the wishes of the admin, which is not suprising, since he knows you don't belong on DT. Also notice your ability to change the subject title and write what you like! Thanks.  Yet even more unsubstantiated claims. That is your MO, shit out as many accusations as possible, substantiate nothing resting assured that people will claim you are a "valuable member" of the community and excuse your endless abusive behavior. |
|
|
|
The trust system is still used to punish people for criticizing certain members on a daily basis
Aha - the motive behind your trust abuse to get on DT is revealed. You should take your meds Vod, you are clearly having another OCD episode. It is not good for your heart condition to get all worked up and obsessed like this. |
|
|
|
None of the accusations made against me by Vod, Nutilduh, Lauda, or you have any basis in reality whatsoever
My rating is 100% correct - you manipulated your way into DT. Even the Administrator of this forum believes you have no place there. None of the feedback you have left is factual. Believing you are a doctor and can read minds should also be a concern to anyone trading with you. :/ As with all of your accusations against me here and in the past, you have zero substantiation to support them. You have been rightfully tagged for doxing and using government agencies as a weapon to fight your petty grudge matches. Speaking of the administrator of this forum, here is what he had to say about your actions: Theymos:"I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where: - The evidence was very thin. - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal. - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation. - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective... Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant..." You have abused the trust system against me several times in the past as documented here, refusing to substantiate anything, and being forced to remove your frivolous abusive ratings. Your current rating is equally unsubstantiated and just an extension of your past abuse of the trust system. |
|
|
|
Ehmmm... Sorry to interrupt here but I guess there's no need to go nuts here because he's given an example here and even when I checked your ratings, I can see a +31 / =5 / -3, so 10 times the green trust and you are still in a condition where none of the new people would suspect you that you'll scam 'em away. I know you're talking about some of your personal issues but there are many good ratings in your list which can defend you in your case.
My first interaction with TS that I can recall having was asking him why he was so upset with the trust system given his great rating, and this was back during the time of the old scoring system, when he had zero DT negatives. I was just trying to ask him an honest question and he proceeded to be extremely condescending in his answer, going so far as to compare himself to Morpheus. Long story short: you can't stop some people from going nuts. Actually the first time we interacted was when I was passing through the local red light district, and I saw you in an alley eating your own feces. I tried to tell you to stop, but you insisted it was delicious Belgian chocolate. Story time is fun isn't it? Why recall reality when you can just make up whatever you want without substantiation? If you were being honest our first interactions were in Politics & Society where you got very upset at some of the ideas I discussed, then later saw fit to inject yourself into trust system related disputes I was involved in with concern trolling to fight your political battles via other methods since you can't muster a reasonable debate. You aren't a victim little girl, you are a perpetrator, as evidenced by your baseless accusations here. |
|
|
|
Irony: ...
You've just breached your own topic's subject... That's not irony, that's the entire point of this thread. Thanks for helping me prove it. |
|
|
|
Yobit being a scam is no longer an opinion, it wasn't an opinion for a very long time. It's a been a fact[1] for a long time derived from the definition of the word and their continual actions. Very bad example by Tecshare and now by you. Some other entity could have been used as an example of a "scam" that is a scam by opinion.
[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0. This still doesn't change the fact you are advocating for tagging people for guilt via association. This is not a strategy that can be universally applied and will by definition result in arbitrary and selective enforcement. Furthermore it does nothing to stop the actual perpetrator and will create massive amounts of conflict as well as open wide the doors for abusing the trust system for ulterior motives. All they have to do is claim what is in their sig is a scam, and boom, excuse for punishing people arbitrarily. This strategy achieves nothing and creates MANY negative side effects. Irrelevant, wasn't responding to that. Read: @Lauda @nullius
The campaign is over.. It's been shut down..
All of this fuss has been a fair warning to not advertise scams or facilitate the advertisement of scams..
I think it should be let go for now, with no tags, but not next time..
I'm fine with that as an ending resolution, but you and I both know that there's no "not next time" but "it depends who manages and is recruited in the next one". The same as it was with this one. I don't see much support for a "not next time". Was the money worth it to dishonor yourself so?
No, relevant. I don't give a shit what you were responding to. I am responding to you. |
|
|
|
It's a relic feature that dates back to IRCs so that tangents could more easily be followed. It was actually a handy feature and utilized effectively in those days. Oops, did I just inadvertently give away my age? Oh well, you guys probably already know that I'm a dinosaur Gen-Xer. Yeah it's not a big deal in forums. It can be fun sometimes and annoying most of the time. Except here we are supposed to stay on topic, this feature as you suggested is for rambling aimless conversations. |
|
|
|
I get your point as most people who do this seem to use it as a tool for trolling, though sometimes they are funny, though it is often also annoying when loads of people start to quote the changed header. This flaw is too often abused.
I ask this seriously: is it really abused that often? Maybe I haven't noticed it because it's a problem in sections I don't visit that you do (like P&S, which I think you post in), but I haven't seen members changing the thread title all that much. Or it could be that I'm just not paying attention to it since there's really no need to. Not often, but it is another angle people use to attack other users when they want get another dig in and it can take things off topic. Somehow I can't see it catching on
How about also not being able to change the usernames in quotes as well?  There are two opposite sides of the allowable option to modify post title inside threads: Advantages:- OPs or the other posters are able to modify post titles to mark changes of projects (developmental upgrades, future plans, ie.), campaigns (Open, CFNP, Full, ie.), etc.
Disadvantages:- There are many different post titles inside one thread, from OPs, or from the the other posters, that might mislead new guests.
- It will probably cause uncontrolled trollings, ie. that is what TECSHARE asked for changes.
It seems like a lot of people don't bother reading before posting. Nothing I am suggesting would prevent people from modifying subject headings anyway. All I am requesting is that replies automatically mirror the subject heading in the original post, which may then be edited if so desired. I dunno. Is this feature even necessary? The thing you seem to be complaining about is a minor thing compared to people using it to just troll. I'm not sure whether full on making it so others can't change the topic title would be better, but when users use it troll maybe those posts can be reported to be edited if they're off topic. I am really not sure exactly what is so hard to understand about this concept. I am not suggesting locking the subject heading or preventing people from editing it if they so choose. All I am suggesting, is that when people reply, instead of quoting the subject heading of what they reply to, it quotes the subject heading of the op, which then if they so choose they can edit anyway. This filters out the ability for people to essentially abuse people's lackadaisical approach to the subject heading and prevents it from being hijacked, and everyone still gets to post whatever they like. |
|
|
|
Please don't talk if you don't actually have anything to counter my arguments. That's what the link was for, to counter your arguments. |
|
|
|
The thing most people missing here is, trust works in layers. Like a pyramid.
At the top of the pyramid, there are common scums like hyip/ponzi promoters, people who say that they can crack the genesis block, bsv promoters etc. These are obviously scammers and there are no problems with the negative trust ratings you leave on them. [Layer 1]
Then there are account sellers and account farmers. These belong to the layer 2 on the pyramid. These are getting negative trust ratings too. Do you know why they are getting tagged? It is because they are enabling the upper layer of scammers. I am sure nobody here is arguing against this. [Layer 2]
Now, here is layer 3 scammers... Bottom of the pyramid. Trust abusers, criminal lawyers. People who game the trust system. (Are you starting to see pictures or should I draw one?) These people, enable the upper layer of scammers and their trust lists do matter. The upper layer of scammers take their power from users that belong to this layer. [Layer 3, Deep layer]
Now, why it is appropriate to tag an account seller but not a trust abuser? An account seller can be trusted as long as he delivers what he promises. If you ask him, he'll tell you that he is doing an honest job!! Both the buyer and the seller are happy. The buyer gets his account, the seller gets his money, who are you to tag both of these people? He didn't scam anybody on paper!
If you are tagging account sellers&farmers, why is there a problem with tagging a trust abuser?
Ah look, another person that can't handle being called out on their bad behavior who thinks the trust system is a weapon to fight their petty vendettas with. |
|
|
|
Yobit being a scam is no longer an opinion, it wasn't an opinion for a very long time. It's a been a fact[1] for a long time derived from the definition of the word and their continual actions. Very bad example by Tecshare and now by you. Some other entity could have been used as an example of a "scam" that is a scam by opinion.
[1] Empirical proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168200.0. This still doesn't change the fact you are advocating for tagging people for guilt via association. This is not a strategy that can be universally applied and will by definition result in arbitrary and selective enforcement. Furthermore it does nothing to stop the actual perpetrator and will create massive amounts of conflict as well as open wide the doors for abusing the trust system for ulterior motives. All they have to do is claim what is in their sig is a scam, and boom, excuse for punishing people arbitrarily. This strategy achieves nothing and creates MANY negative side effects. |
|
|
|
~
None of the accusations made against me by Vod, Nutilduh, Lauda, or you have any basis in reality whatsoever, but you all have one thing in common, you really don't like what I have to say and want to find any way you can to punish me for saying it, using the trust system and lots of creative writing skills if need be. By definition, everyone on the default trust list "manipulates" it in some way. The claims against me have no factual support, and are just the fantasies of some one with severe antipathy toward me and who I choose to put on my trust list. It is rather convenient for them they just get to unilaterally decide who is acceptable to add to trust lists and who is not, and if you choose people they don't agree with then you are "manipulating" it, or "trading votes". None of these people have any evidence of this whatsoever, they just have logs showing additions of people to trust lists, which they claim are proof of vote trading because they happened within a short time of the other. This same standard could LITERALLY be applied to anyone on the default trust making changes to their lists, the only difference is some of you are looking for a reason to confirm your own bias against me, and this was plausible enough for you to feel like it wouldn't blow back against you for supporting the theory. Everything else past this point is just more people with serious grudges/obsessions with me attempting to spin this initial baseless accusation to get their own retribution using the trust system as a weapon to do so. Very few people around here are willing to put up with this kind of systemic abuse in the name of speaking freely. If there is no one willing to call out these types of people who perpetuate it because they don't want to deal with the attacks, then this community will be ruled by abusive tyrannical control freaks. Which is worse, me being annoying from time to time calling them out, or them? People like me are easy to avoid. People like them attempt to insert themselves into every facet of your lives. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
