None of this other jibber jabber matters. Provide me some evidence of damages and we will talk.
You do not think that the scam accusations, the obvious ramp up in posting over different topics/sections while wearing questionable signatures is harmful and potentially causes damage? Irrelevant. You know damned well you aren't going to get anywhere with me with these semantic games. You don't seem to be internalizing the idea that the trust system should not be a tool for you to settle interpersonal disputes. It was used that way and look at the constant cluster fuck that resulted. The trust system is to help protect people from fraud and theft, not as a stick to hit your opponents with. He is free to be a shithead and make accusations all he likes. I don't endorse it, but all you are doing is further incentivizing it by trying to pretend this is about protecting others from theft when everyone knows damned well this is just about retaliation for him accusing you. Furthermore I really don't buy that you believe this caused you any demonstrable harm other than your agitation. All you are doing is harming your own reputation pushing this, more than he ever could with his accusation threads. |
|
|
|
Well, that is a very impressive 33 year old cherry picked study. You know its relevant when it is still referencing East Germany. Have any studies that are maybe created after the internet?
Well we both know you would never accept any fact that goes against your agenda right? I've never seen you accept anything unless it goes your way 100%. That's what you call fanatism. I can see the good sides of capitalism but you never accepted any pro of socialism or communism. That's what you call brainwashing dude  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. |
|
|
|
So is that a no? Was this act years ago suspect and slimy? Sure. Was it anything worse than other so called trusted members have done? Absolutely not. He just happened to be the one who got caught. He was out of control and needed to be taken down a few pegs and that is exactly what happened. He misrepresented himself but he didn't steal from anyone. Furthermore this was a time in the forum where things were more fast and loose and there were no clear lines of what was acceptable. I don't condone it but I think this flag is motivated out of retribution rather than a genuine belief he intends to defraud anyone.
As long as he can control himself I think the forum is better off with him than without him, and that is said as a former target of his. If we aren't providing an avenue for reform all that is going to happen is he s going to regress to his previous behavior. Giving him this opportunity means he has incentive now to earn back his reputation instead of just shit slinging. You can only beat some mules with a stick so many times before they stop caring, some times you need to try carrots too.
I gave him an opportunity to even earn some a while back.. see where that got me? 
Do you honestly believe that the numerous baseless claims and accusations is something the forum really needs? The only reason I even hired QS in one of my campaigns was because of how much he does in the beginners section, which I do acknowledge and can even respect to certain level. But then it's like a 360 and he comes up with something new that is dodgy to say the least, mostly targeted at someone that would otherwise be considered "more respectable". Believe you me, if he came after you with something I would have the exact same reaction. The flag is needed, now that their profile doesn't look too shady. None of this other jibber jabber matters. Provide me some evidence of damages and we will talk. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
So can anyone in support of this flag define the damages for me?
You of all people would probably be the last one I'd suspect to oppose this flag. It is a type-1 flag and it is very self explanatory (including the information you can find in this thread). Are you just opposing it for opposing? So is that a no? Was this act years ago suspect and slimy? Sure. Was it anything worse than other so called trusted members have done? Absolutely not. He just happened to be the one who got caught. He was out of control and needed to be taken down a few pegs and that is exactly what happened. He misrepresented himself but he didn't steal from anyone. Furthermore this was a time in the forum where things were more fast and loose and there were no clear lines of what was acceptable. I don't condone it but I think this flag is motivated out of retribution rather than a genuine belief he intends to defraud anyone. As long as he can control himself I think the forum is better off with him than without him, and that is said as a former target of his. If we aren't providing an avenue for reform all that is going to happen is he s going to regress to his previous behavior. Giving him this opportunity means he has incentive now to earn back his reputation instead of just shit slinging. You can only beat some mules with a stick so many times before they stop caring, some times you need to try carrots too. |
|
|
|
I'll leave this here even though anyone who believes in actual research already rejects capitalism. In 28 of 30 comparisons between
countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL (physical quality of life) outcomes. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661Well, that is a very impressive 33 year old cherry picked study. You know its relevant when it is still referencing East Germany. Have any studies that are maybe created after the internet? |
|
|
|
We're use to seeing RED warning below the user profile in threads where they participated. Now we have to look into their trust to check if a user has the credibility before making transaction.
You should be doing this anyway. |
|
|
|
I've been dangerously close to leaving CryptoHunter lemon feedback to prove a point, but didn't do so because of some people's fixation on feedback as a unified structure of infallible information. I don't think anyone is demanding infallibility, simply objective and publicly observable information on which to judge an accusation, I.E. not just beliefs and opinions. As I stated before, everyone can play pretend time and claim they think XYZ, but it is much more difficult to manufacture objective facts over and over. |
|
|
|
|
This seems like a forum related issue (if anything). What are the damages? Who are the victims? Just to be clear I am going to continue to ignore your attempts at barring certain individuals from arguing for or against specific flags.
|
|
|
|
|
So can anyone in support of this flag define the damages for me?
|
|
|
|
|
I think the real question people should be asking is, what is the alternative? China taking that role? Do you really believe that would be an improvement?
|
|
|
|
hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH,
This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda. On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters. Wrong. Theymos is willing to let people get scammed. I am not. That's the difference between liberals and centre-right. Here you are, lying again. Yet theymos won't tag you. Honk-honk some more.  I support the changes. Am I a liberal? I think pretty much anyone who has spent any time in Politics and Society would disagree. In fact I would describe your approach as totalitarian. |
|
|
|
Oh selective enforcement is nothing new here. Look at EFS and the Turkish section. Remind me when theymos did something about him? Very much the same situation. Theymos (and others) PMed DT members with Tecshare on their trust list back then to ask them to reconsider. Its not an uncommon occurrence from Theymos or other DT members. Sometimes you agree, and sometimes you kindly tell them to mind their own business. Actually the initial response by theymos is just added proof for Tecshare's claim. Not only are forum-rules being selectively enforced from the top-down (by the forum-staff), so is the trust system. Lauda: Get tagged for one instance of lying on a ridiculous pre-written flag. Quickseller: Gets ignored after 100 cases of lying. I also find it odd that nobody merited that thread, so I just did. Did I introduce you to clown pepe? He's officially joined the forum.  The way I see it the recent changes by Theymos has largely rectified this selective enforcement and created a more equitable system. Furthermore this incident also being applied to you demonstrates to me that it was not an isolated (selective) incident. BTW, stop trying to force memes you fucking normie, its lame. |
|
|
|
|
You mentioned corruption... a few things that might solve the issue.
-Try reindexing the blockchain
-Try re-downloading the blockchain from scratch
-Check your hard drive for errors and or if it is full
I have had similar issues before and these have been effective solutions.
P.S. I would suggest you remove your email from this public thread otherwise you will be getting a boatload of spam. Also it is a bit of a security threat assuming your account is restored.
|
|
|
|
Probably because I was never on your trust list, but those that had me on their trust list were requested to exclude me, and not a peep of objection from any of you objecting here today was heard.
What then is the overlap of users? Surely you can comment on their hypocrisy. As far as I know there is no overlap of individuals that got requests in both instances. There is however overlap in those that dismissed my arguments against Theymos requesting exclusions personally as if he did not also carry the weight of the admin. They were dismissive of or silent in response to the argument then, now they suddenly support the argument. This is not an argument based on principles, it is an argument based on personalities. When exactly did this happen? I actually would have to re-read whatever happen before I could say anything.
Context would help. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.
Ironically (assuming that people aren't privately lying to me), you've done the exact opposite. A good portion of people from both sides are dissatisfied. Naturally, the scammers celebrate once more. It has been a day, isn't it a bit early to call this a never ending feud? I see a good portion of people satisfied as well. I think you give yourself too much credit as if you are the only levee between a flood of scammers and the forum. |
|
|
|
Probably because I was never on your trust list, but those that had me on their trust list were requested to exclude me, and not a peep of objection from any of you objecting here today was heard.
What then is the overlap of users? Surely you can comment on their hypocrisy. As far as I know there is no overlap of individuals that got requests in both instances. There is however overlap in those that dismissed my arguments against Theymos requesting exclusions personally as if he did not also carry the weight of the admin. They were dismissive of or silent in response to the argument then, now they suddenly support the argument. This is not an argument based on principles, it is an argument based on personalities. |
|
|
|
Given that hes essentially just another member of DT
You are delusional to think that people see theymos as "just another member of DT" or that he would actually be just a member of DT. I made this same argument when SaltySpitoon and others were requested to exclude me on their trust lists, no one objected then. It is very interesting to see this supposed victim make many of the same arguments I did, but thought it was perfectly reasonable when applied to me. |
|
|
|
This is a terrible, terrible idea.
Showing what is essentially a scammer flag to people with account ages only less than 7 days essentially just opened the door to 10,000's of scammers. There are so many accounts that I've previously tagged that I no longer can, because it doesn't fit into the narrow definitions.
For example, the guy with 20-30 accounts who is permabanned off the site but who keeps creating more... I can't 2. or 3. tag him, and 1. will do next to nothing...
You could say that he is violating a written or implied contract/agreement. If the violation is ongoing, you could move the date up to the present. Further, if he is banned, you should report him to the administration and additional accounts he creates should be banned. Since ban evasion is a violation of the terms of service of the site, this clearly falls within violation of contractual agreement. |
|
|
|
So what exactly would blacklisting me from DT1 accomplish if I left a false flag? This makes even less sense.
Dunno, maybe that's why he wants you "~"-ed instead of blacklisted so that you'd be gone from DT2 as well. Good point. However, my main argument is that blacklisting me for this would destroy all the efforts he made to decentralize the system so far. Therefore, he chose that path. I would doubt any claim that he can't single-handedly blacklist on both levels. since I did the opposite of what theymos asked, I guess I'll add theymos to my trust list.  Very fair deal, but my reasoning was far wider and superior than his. He is providing you a decentralized solution, but you are refusing to follow the standards of that system and instead demand special privilege to abuse it. You only have yourself to blame. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
