I heard this conspiracy (or may be true) that if a user has issue with other user or if a user wants another user to be penalized then they target the user and reports their posts as many as they can.
that's not against the law, therefore it's not possible that it's a conspiracyA conspiracy is all this is. it's not illegal, it cannot therefore be a conspiracyAs far as the conspiracy theory goes, it's certainly possible that someone could be reporting a lot of your posts out of spite. a theory that people are targeting users with malicious post reports is not a conspiracy, because abusing internet forums like that is not illegal, and therefore not possible to conspire aboutI gave you 5 merits for trying to introduce some humour into the forum.
Please note - this award is not part of a conspiracy.
giving people merits to manipulate an internet message board (or making a joke about doing that) is not illegal, and therefore cannot be part of a conspiracyfurthermore, if you commit a crime on your own, without planning it with others, it is also not a conspiracy, that is referred to instead as pre-meditated merit-milking (which is still not yet illegal) Conspirator will always find a topic for them to stay busy :-D
a conspirator is the perpetrator of the planning of a crime not someone who accuses others of engaging in a conspiracy. I am literally begging you all, please learn what the word "conspiracy" really meansWhile I absolutely share your disgust with the total disregard for the meaning of the word conspiracy, and in a legal context you are 100% correct, but the word does in fact have meanings outside of the strictly legal terminology. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy |
|
|
|
Hmm, I also got that same exact error at least half a dozen times today trying to edit some of my messages or to quote someone. I recall this being the first time i encounter "Session verification failed". I can also see it being reported multiple times over the years.
Should i be concerned about it and is there anything i can do?
This is a normal event if you leave a tab open for a long time. No action is needed, just reload the page (from a direct link not a refresh). |
|
|
|
I never said do nothing, this is what is called a "false choice" logical fallacy.
No, this is something called "I am not interested in your political games". No, its called a lack of a logical argument so you need to make character attacks to distract from it. If you are right about this you could prevent potential scam
Character attacks? Interpretations? You literally suggested second chance for user who has strong connection to scammer because they are " overall constructive addition to the forum". You are not hypocrite? You accused FH for deleting topic which he said he didn't remove and then you tried to hide behind question mark - and now you are lecturing us about "harming innocent users"? You suggested OP to do "nothing" unless account: I would highly suggest you simply monitor the account and collect evidence if it reveals itself. I know you have good intents, but there are a lot of ways you might cause some unintentional harm here. Unfortunately the user is now aware you suspect them, so if they are up to something illicit they may now attempt to conceal it. If the account does act as if they are setting up fraud of some kind, then I think some more public scrutiny would be warranted.
If that happens, who will decide it is fraud? Or maybe account is not hacked and you will harm innocent user by waiting "something" to happen and then accusing them, which will potentially cause them more damage. I suggested OP to reveal account earlier, you suggested later, my logic is wrong and yours is correct? I know you see every interaction with me as an opportunity to try to cast aspersions upon me, but please try to restrain yourself and stay on topic. I don't need to defend myself from your chopped up and rearranged quotes, interpretations and off topic shitstirring. Accusations aside, I feel like this user has been an overall constructive addition to the forum and may be worth a second chance. Perhaps Hhampuz can weigh in on this since he effectively represents the damaged party.
As you can see from my unmodified quote, I was clearly saying that I found the user to be constructive, not that the accusations should be ignored completely. Now regarding the actual topic, I love how you built this narrative that if I advocate for discretion any fraud that takes place is my culpability. No, the ultimate responsibility rests with the harmed user. What you are pretending to not understand is that these indiscriminate inquisitions you are so fond of are arguably far more destructive to this community than any scammer. In the end, users can protect themselves by doing their own due diligence. How do users protect themselves from a mob of OCD clowns perpetually looking to "get the bad guy" at all costs, even when it costs the people they are claiming to protect? |
|
|
|
|
Apparently it wasn't just one photo, but 3. For the amount of virtue signalling he does this is pretty hilarious seeing him eat crow in a very subject appropriate way. Also in this case it wasn't like it was from his high school years but was from 2001. Hard to say "it was a different time" for this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Offer your services as a researcher rather than a public face of vetting projects. This is still a valuable service I think will be useful for managers, except you explicitly leave the final culpability with the managers. You would be simply selling your time rather than making public declarations about the legitimacy of the project in question and instead provide private reports to managers. Just make sure you have the manager explicitly state that you are to take no responsibility for the validity of any of the information as part of the agreement, and final vetting decisions are theirs to make based on the information presented along with their own due diligence.
|
|
|
|
Oh really? Please explain the primary method of earning a positive reputation here other than trade. I am very interested to see this verbal semantic dance.
Catch scammers.Educate newbies. Build tools. Thanks for proving my point. This is one of my primary grievances with the culture of this forum. If you are right you get to feel good about yourself and tell everyone how great you are for preventing scams, raising your own profile in the process. If you are wrong, oh well it costs you nothing to seriously invade some ones privacy, disrupt their life, income, and possibly burn their reputation. No skin off your back, so fuckem right? I have hockey pads, I can be Batman too!
This mentality is exactly why systems of due process exist in law, and exactly why Theymos made some of the most recent trust system changes.
|
|
|
|
Oh really? Please explain the primary method of earning a positive reputation here other than trade. I am very interested to see this verbal semantic dance.
Not sure how to put this to you so that you wouldn't make it into a conspiracy theory, but I'm not really that interested in wasting my time explaining things that you make up. Particularly since I don't think that trade or the whatever-the-fuck-you-mean-by-profile is anywhere near the top of the list of what this forum is for. So knock yourself out. That is a rather convenient out from your self contradicting arguments. Funny how that works (no conspiracy necessary). EDIT: Bitcoin us designed as a method of exchange and trade, but trade is no where near the top of the list of what the forum is for? Sorry but your personal values don't translate globally. Saying trade isn't important on a Bitcoin forum is like saying food isn't important on a cooking forum. This is an additionally asinine comment considering the trust system is designed to help protect people during trading, not to rank up in like BitCop Simulator 2.0. |
|
|
|
I never said do nothing, this is what is called a "false choice" logical fallacy.
No, this is something called "I am not interested in your political games". No, its called a lack of a logical argument, so you need to make character attacks to distract from it. |
|
|
|
Explain meaning of "raising your own profile"
A safe bet with these QUICKOGTECHUNTER types is that they use projection. Raising one's profile is likely how TECSHARE imagines this whole DT thing, perhaps part of the reason why he's so upset every time he gets kicked out. Oh really? Please explain the primary method of earning a positive reputation here other than trade. I am very interested to see this verbal semantic dance. |
|
|
|
I don't want people to fall victims to scams either
It doesn't look so, just recently you said something like "scammer is overall good member" and they "should be unbanned". It is impossible to protect everyone from themselves and their own lack of due diligence.
If we "protect" at least 1 member I would say that is a good progress. Make small steps. Or, do you think, "if you can't make big steps don't do anything at all"? That would be wrong. Even if innocent this whole mob justice OCD process you have all set the precedent as being the norm is an equal if not greater threat to innocent users because it is unending and there are zero repercussions if you are wrong.
I think you are very hypocritical here. I am sure you believe you are doing what is right
Exposing scammers and making newcomers and people who fail to do due diligence is not right thing to do? That is another side of trust system. Do you think trust system should have only one side? So what is wrong with exposing potentially hacked account?  I said no such thing. I don't need to defend myself from your interpretations, only what I actually said. Protect one member at what cost exactly? I never said do nothing, this is what is called a "false choice" logical fallacy. I do not participate in mobs, so no, it is not hypocritical. Again, the question is what is the cost of this pattern of behavior. If it drives away 10 contributing members forever to out one scammer who will just be back in seconds on a new account is it worth it? |
|
|
|
I believe it was a conspiracy.
It is so difficult in a country like the US to let an airplane fly so low in a place with so many skyscrappers around.
Everything seems so wrong in this story, in a country with so many security levels...
Now it seems like something that would never happen. When it happened though, there had been no real safety features on a plane. The doors to the cockpit weren't locked, barely any screening at airports, no air marshals, no large scale intelligence at airports to be looking for this sort of behavior. If we look at it from a lens of today, one that is pretty much relying on all of the intelligence we have today and the security features it's going to be hard for you to see it happening. But it did happen, its' not a conspiracy theory. Two planes hit the WTC. One hit the pentagon, and another was going for the White House and it was taken over by the people on board. What else is there to know about it? A lot. I was an adult when it happened and witnessed the events unfold that day (on the news) as it happened. Even then there was no excuse for this to be possible. There is so much that is wrong with the official story, but the part no one can argue with is the laws of physics. Unfortunately according to the official story the laws of physics were broken multiple times that day. Just so I know, and can potentially agree/refute what you're going to say next. What laws of physics were broken that day? I am not really in the mood to go into what will inevitably be a long drawn out and fruitless debate about information that has been available to the public for many years. The information is available if you can cast aside your confirmation bias and spend some time wading thru some peripheral bullshit. However just to get you started a few things... - Free fall collapse speeds - 4 ton girders ejected hundreds of feet laterally in every direction (see FEMA debris field report) - Temperatures in excess of those achievable via jet fuel documented by infrared satellite - Pulverization of the majority of the rubble to dust - Fires including molten metal burning for over a month - Aluminum/titanium planes punching through external steel girders and out the other side like a cartoon - Extremely short time periods for fire to cause "collapse" even in WTC 7 not hit by a plane - All of the buildings falling directly downward through the path of most resistance into their own footprints - Report claiming jet fuel was burned multiple times in the impact fireball, flooding down the elevator and exploding in the lobby, then melting the steel framework - No steel framed high rise structure has EVER or since collapsed due to fire no matter how long it has burned, but it supposedly happened 3 times that day There is so much more. I like to stick to physics because this is empirical data any individual can confirm for themselves while leaving minimal subjectivity. Please just spend some time reading about it, I likely will not engage in further discussion of it as I have already spent nearly 20 years explaining this to people and it gets old spoon feeding people who really don't want to hear it anyway. |
|
|
|
This is one of my primary grievances with the culture of this forum. If you are right you get to feel good about yourself and tell everyone how great you are for preventing scams, raising your own profile in the process. If you are wrong, oh well it costs you nothing to seriously invade some ones privacy, disrupt their life, income, and possibly burn their reputation. No skin off your back, so fuckem right? I have hockey pads, I can be Batman too!
This mentality is exactly why systems of due process exist in law, and exactly why Theymos made some of some of the most recent trust system changes.
No you overreacting narcissistic moron, if someone suspects that account has been hacked or changed hands it should be shared among other forum members to prevent potential scam, especially if it is "trusted" account. It has nothing to do with feeling good or whatever you think it does. Some people don't like scams and are fighting against it, it has nothing to do with "raising profile", like it or not. I don't want people to fall victims to scams either, however the fact of the matter is in the end a fool and his money will always be parted no matter how shiny you think your internet police badge is. It is impossible to protect everyone from themselves and their own lack of due diligence. Even if innocent this whole mob justice OCD process you have all set the precedent as being the norm is an equal if not greater threat to innocent users because it is unending and there are zero repercussions if you are wrong. I am sure you believe you are doing what is right, however the process is seriously flawed and destructive. Conveniently though this costs individual trust police nothing when they are wrong. |
|
|
|
Arguably the opposite is not right either - holding off exposing the hack because the account is famous or something. Ignore that part and just look at the facts and potential risks etc.
I would argue that this should be the course of action no matter who the account is. Frankly there is enough info here for the resident autists to dig this up as it is. What is more important is the behavior of the person in control of the account. Hacked or sold? Can you post account ID? If you are right about this you could prevent potential scam - highly green trusted account in wrong hands can be dangerous. If you are wrong don't worry too much about it, you have every right to suspect that some account has changed hands because of "certain things". Also one problem is that their is a lot of potential for bias against this account and I can't help but feel some would just love for it to be erased from BTCT history..
What do? Stick to facts and proofs, ignore the rest 
Edit* I should probably remove last part as it looks like I repeated "suchmixer's"  words, but, the truth is, I should probably click "preview" button next time before posting something... This is one of my primary grievances with the culture of this forum. If you are right you get to feel good about yourself and tell everyone how great you are for preventing scams, raising your own profile in the process. If you are wrong, oh well it costs you nothing to seriously invade some ones privacy, disrupt their life, income, and possibly burn their reputation. No skin off your back, so fuckem right? I have hockey pads, I can be Batman too! This mentality is exactly why systems of due process exist in law, and exactly why Theymos made some of the most recent trust system changes. |
|
|
|
|
This guy has been a well known degenerate and suspected murderer who has been protected by his political connections for a long time now. This has happened MULTIPLE times at his residence. He is practically begging to be caught. Hopefully he is convicted and sentenced to die via lethal injection.
|
|
|
|
|
I would highly suggest you simply monitor the account and collect evidence if it reveals itself. I know you have good intents, but there are a lot of ways you might cause some unintentional harm here. Unfortunately the user is now aware you suspect them, so if they are up to something illicit they may now attempt to conceal it. If the account does act as if they are setting up fraud of some kind, then I think some more public scrutiny would be warranted.
|
|
|
|
I believe it was a conspiracy.
It is so difficult in a country like the US to let an airplane fly so low in a place with so many skyscrappers around.
Everything seems so wrong in this story, in a country with so many security levels...
Now it seems like something that would never happen. When it happened though, there had been no real safety features on a plane. The doors to the cockpit weren't locked, barely any screening at airports, no air marshals, no large scale intelligence at airports to be looking for this sort of behavior. If we look at it from a lens of today, one that is pretty much relying on all of the intelligence we have today and the security features it's going to be hard for you to see it happening. But it did happen, its' not a conspiracy theory. Two planes hit the WTC. One hit the pentagon, and another was going for the White House and it was taken over by the people on board. What else is there to know about it? A lot. I was an adult when it happened and witnessed the events unfold that day (on the news) as it happened. Even then there was no excuse for this to be possible. There is so much that is wrong with the official story, but the part no one can argue with is the laws of physics. Unfortunately according to the official story the laws of physics were broken multiple times that day. |
|
|
|
|
I can confirm. I have also been targeted this way heavily in the past, and banned as a result. Of course the reports I made were almost completely ignored. More recently this hasn't been an issue, but a very large percentage of my reports still stay permanently unhandled.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
