How many times do we have to tell you it is not appropriate to flag people for their opinions. Just because you call it lies doesn't make it so. This is a clear case of abuse of the trust system. |
|
|
|
Time to start making some phone calls
Hawaiian for me. Thanks. You aren't presenting any evidence he is likely to lose anyone money. Your beliefs are irrelevant.
[...]
suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe
Due largely to the frivolous accusation against Hhampuz, I believe users dealing with Quickseller have a high risk of losing money, directly or indirectly, as a result of Quickseller's unpredictable and dangerous actions. Great, so you admit that this is not only based on his opinion, which is expressly prohibited, but this is also very likely retaliatory. "suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions." You selectively omitted a key part of the requirements for this flag. |
|
|
|
I recently heard this breakdown of exactly why this system is a danger that I thought was quite eloquent and does a good job getting past the "conspiracy theory" aura around this discussion and covering factually possible application. Can it kill mosquitos? If you have enough antennas up, and enough power, it is literally capable of sterilizing the entire surface of the Earth down to the bacteria. So I would put that down as a yes. Absolutely terrifying. And to think at first I thought the headaches I experienced when I was next to my wi-fi router was just a coincidence. I also stopped microwaving my food, although not sure how much that really matters. I want to make it clear that this is not simply a "side effect" of the technology, but rather a "dual use" application. The hardware physically has the potential to be used in this way. While there are plenty of reasons to question the health effects of 5G as it is intended to be used, this would not be the immediate result. |
|
|
|
I would also oppose a flag on Hhampuz based on the evidence I have seen so far. He has a right to make poorly formed accusations. You don't have a right to punish him for it.
The yellow box is specifically designed to warn newbies and guests. Based on the comment below I feel more justified to use it than e.g. old-school negative trust, which had a red warning visible to everyone. I believe newbies and guests should be made aware of Quickseller's bad business habits and that is not a punishment but rather information to help them make informed choices. There are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. Newbie-warning flags are only for warning newbies, not for warning experienced members who should know better, or for harming the target. The "#" symbol is supposed to be inconspicuous, since it's not supposed to be a warning or a "mark of shame".
(I won't rule out adding a per-post warning for newbies if people evade the per-topic warnings, though.)
You aren't presenting any evidence he is likely to lose anyone money. Your beliefs are irrelevant. Objective facts are relevant. That is the entire purpose of this new flag system, you have to provide something more than your beliefs. "suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions." |
|
|
|
"Last of the V8s alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with realr0ach is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."
You call it lies, this could simply be a difference of opinion. Furthermore nothing you are stating is at all trade related. This flag is 100% based off of his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited. It is not your job to judge who people should and should't trade with. You have a tool intended to warn users of potential fraud, you are using this tool to punish this user for words you don't like. That is not only counterproductive to the intended use case of the trust system, it is quite childish. You seem to be cottoning on, if slowly. It's a subjective flag. Complain to theymos. If he tweaks the rules, I'll comply. Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe: - Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions. - Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic. Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it. The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents. There are clear lies in the op. How can you trade with a liar? One who knows a bit about Bitcoin but insists it has no value and everyone should buy silver? Where do I claim it's my 'job'? Don't put words in my mouth. It's the forum's job to vote on this advisory flag, though. For the umpteenth time, it's not about his bigotry and what all else. Take your 'childish' ad hom elsewhere. You are not coming off as 'knowledgeable or reasonable'. "Last of the V8s alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with realr0ach is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions." You conveniently left out the bold part. More subjective does not equal totally subjective. I didn't use any ad hominem attacks, I am characterizing your behavior and backing it up with logical arguments and evidence. Separate the wheat from the chaff. That sure sounds a lot like you think it is you who gets to decide who is wheat and who is chaff. I didn't put any words in your mouth. I am already convinced removing your exclusion was a mistake. I see you presenting ZERO EVIDENCE of shady trade related activity, your conclusions are based 100% on his opinions. This is absolutely an abuse of the flag system. |
|
|
|
|
Here is a flag I can get behind. Too bad we cant plant it into his head.
|
|
|
|
I recently heard this breakdown of exactly why this system is a danger that I thought was quite eloquent and does a good job getting past the "conspiracy theory" aura around this discussion and covering factually possible application. Can it kill mosquitos? If you have enough antennas up, and enough power, it is literally capable of sterilizing the entire surface of the Earth down to the bacteria. So I would put that down as a yes. |
|
|
|
Is this the part where you claim everyone who ever starves is a direct result of Capitalism, as if Communism would have fed them as if by magic?
Well this is the part where I claim that capitalism is an extremely shitty ressource allocation system as it produces more than the needs of the population and still manages to get millions of people starving. But that's probably the part where you claim that communism wouldn't have allowed anything at all and everyone would have died because... Well you won't have to give a reason but you'll be still right. You can claim the moon is made of whipped cream, that doesn't make it so. What a horrible system! It produces abundance! I think you are having some trouble with basic logic here. You have this utopian idea in your head that it is possible to provide for everyone. Technically, that is true, but we would all have to live under basically totalitarian rule and have others making all our decisions for us. That is the BEST CASE scenario, one which is quite unlikely considering the human population is potentially infinite. What is more likely though is we get the totalitarianism and even more people die. I have explained many times why Communism is a failed model, because it is totally inefficient, ignores human nature, and provides no incentive for people to create the capital we all rely on to survive because responsibility for survival is collectivized to the state. |
|
|
|
There is also a long historical record of Communism being harmful. I love how you dismiss the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy of "it's not real Communism", then immediately proceed to rephrase the same argument.
I'm very sorry you consider changing the condition the same as doing repetedly the same thing. Probably linked to your lack of scientifical knowledge.If every time it fails, you make an hypothesis on why it fails and you chenge it, there is no reason it will fail. Nothing has changed, Communism is still the same failed model as before. Pro tip, if you are going to try to critique someone's knowledge level, try not to look like a total moron doing it. |
|
|
|
You will notice, before belief part it says "Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic", and I don't see you substantiating any risk of theft. I do however see you making lots of claims based on his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited.
The flag doesn't say anything about risk of theft. We can play word games all day long. I believe the presented facts point to Quickseller's intent to cause harm in retaliation to Hhampuz. You don't. Sounds like an excellent case to oppose. You play all the semantic games you like. I still don't see any evidence of him losing anyone money, or him engaging in trade activity that would result in that. "suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions." I would also oppose a flag on Hhampuz based on the evidence I have seen so far. He has a right to make poorly formed accusations. You don't have a right to punish him for it. |
|
|
|
I am glad you took our little discussion to heart. The trust system is not there as a mechanism to punish people for bad or wrong ideas, it is there to help protect people from fraud. Stop using it as a tool to punish people who piss you off.
Thanks for reading my post so carefully. I quite agree that it's there not for their ideas, but to stop them ripping off newbies. Your last sentence doesn't quite parse, because as you have read, I'm not tooling around. Perhaps you mean it as a general invitation to others. If it is not for their ideas, why is this entire post filled with nothing but their ideas? I don't see any evidence of them trying to rip anyone off. To me, it looks like you are in fact using the trust system as a tool to punish this user for his ideas that you do not agree with. It isn't. Separate the wheat from the chaff. There's plenty. I'll write what I like, but the vote part is abundantly clear. That evidence isn't required for this type of flag. We're in the realm of the subjective. I note your theory. Thanks for contributing your views. Please vote as you wish, or not at all. It sounds like you don’t like the guy.
I haven’t seen any evidence this guy is possibly dangerous to trade with or even that he even trades.
Would it be some sin if I didn't like him? I don't like TECSHARE, but I'm not opening up a newbie warning scam flag. He doesn't seem to lie all the time, causing people to doubt him in a potential trade. Newbies do join because of his posts, btw, and who knows what goes on in their personal messages? You can also find him on games platforms, so you don't need even to be logged in to be faced with his dishonesty. "Last of the V8s alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with realr0ach is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions." You call it lies, this could simply be a difference of opinion. Furthermore nothing you are stating is at all trade related. This flag is 100% based off of his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited. It is not your job to judge who people should and should't trade with. You have a tool intended to warn users of potential fraud, you are using this tool to punish this user for words you don't like. That is not only counterproductive to the intended use case of the trust system, it is quite childish. |
|
|
|
I am glad you took our little discussion to heart. The trust system is not there as a mechanism to punish people for bad or wrong ideas, it is there to help protect people from fraud. Stop using it as a tool to punish people who piss you off.
Thanks for reading my post so carefully. I quite agree that it's there not for their ideas, but to stop them ripping off newbies. Your last sentence doesn't quite parse, because as you have read, I'm not tooling around. Perhaps you mean it as a general invitation to others. If it is not for their ideas, why is this entire post filled with nothing but their ideas? I don't see any evidence of them trying to rip anyone off. To me, it looks like you are in fact using the trust system as a tool to punish this user for his ideas that you do not agree with. |
|
|
|
It is a perfect metaphor. Doing cocaine makes you feel great. Why don't people do cocaine all day every day then? Oh right, because that is not a viable long term strategy for living.
Yeah but we can prove that cocaine is harmful to the body. See the difference? Yet we have never seen a communist country that didn't eventually hit the pavement.
Stupid argument at the same level than the "it's not real communism" Because it failed before it can't succeed in the future? Guess you never heard of changing the conditions in a scientific study then. There is also a long historical record of Communism being harmful. I love how you dismiss the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy of "it's not real Communism", then immediately proceed to rephrase the same argument. |
|
|
|
Pinochet killing a 1000 communists is totally proving communism is a superior system.
Especially when these 3 regimes have such little death tolls
Mao Tse Tung - 40+ million
Stalin - 28 million
Pol Pot - 3 million
Just keep virtue signalling.
That's not virtue signaling, that's trying to have a bigger point of view than just "hey capitalistic countries are making more money" yeah thanks dumbass, communist countries don't even have money normally so yeah they're not going to produce the same things. Really wanna go with the death toll? You understand that capitalism lost this battle decades ago right? Is this the part where you claim everyone who ever starves is a direct result of Capitalism, as if Communism would have fed them as if by magic? |
|
|
|
Alright so no need to discuss anything with you anymore again then. Since you'll choose to be blind.
Unless you have any evidence to present then, no not really. Is that supposed to bother me that you are going to ignore me? You calling me blind could also be interpreted as you being wrong, but that is not possible now is it? |
|
|
|
I am seeing zero evidence of threat of theft or fraud and tons of evidence of spite, butt hurt, and want for retribution here. Keep putting up flags like this, all you are doing is exposing who has no self control one by one.
"suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."
Feel free to oppose it then. I do believe Quickseller intends to cause harm and newbies deserve to know that. I do believe that a reasonable person would consider frivolous scam accusations a red flag against the accuser. You will notice, before belief part it says "Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic", and I don't see you substantiating any risk of theft. I do however see you making lots of claims based on his opinions, which is explicitly prohibited. |
|
|
|
Wanna talk about how great Pinochet was?
I'm talking about the economy not about the style of rule. Oh then if you don't take into account anything else that $/capita then I guess the comparison is easy. Of course it tells a lot about your ability to conceive the world, but at least the comparison is easy. Pinochet killing a 1000 communists is totally proving communism is a superior system. Especially when these 3 regimes have such little death tolls Mao Tse Tung - 40+ million Stalin - 28 million Pol Pot - 3 million Just keep virtue signalling. Those numbers are quite conservative as well. |
|
|
|
No, that's called not just blindly believing anything that calls itself a study. All that is is a collection of cherry picked metrics and massaged statistics leaving out lots of very relevant information. Furthermore it is from a snapshot in time just before massive failures in these modern forms of Socialism/Communism. It would be akin to throwing you off a building, taking a picture, and saying look its ok, see, he can fly. You are still going to eventually hit the pavement regardless of the fact of the picture of you in mid air.
Funny you use this metaphore a lot but the good thing is that it ends every possible argument. "oh no it's not working, it's just working temporaly before it fails" Yeah thanks dude, great argument really. It is a perfect metaphor. Doing cocaine makes you feel great. Why don't people do cocaine all day every day then? Oh right, because that is not a viable long term strategy for living. |
|
|
|
|
I am seeing zero evidence of threat of theft or fraud and tons of evidence of spite, butt hurt, and want for retribution here. Keep putting up flags like this, all you are doing is exposing who has no self control one by one.
"suchmoon alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with Quickseller is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
