Dieses Gewinnspiel wird leider abgesagt.
1 mBTC, welches mir damals bereits zugesendet wurde, wurde an die Adresse von CryptKeeper zurückgesendet, von der es damals verschickt wurde.

Aktualisierung:
Gewinnspiel wird ausgezahlt, die bereits an CryptKeeper zurückgezahlten 1 mBTC übernehme ich.

Dieses Gewinnspiel wird leider abgesagt.
0,5 mBTC, welches mir damals bereits zugesendet wurden, wurde an Learn Bitcoin zurückgesendet.  

Aktualisierung:
Gewinnspiel wird ausgezahlt, die bereits an Learn Bitcoin zurückgezahlten 0,5 mBTC übernehme ich.

Dieses Gewinnspiel wird leider abgesagt.
Vielen Dank für die Sponsorengelder an [banned mixer].
Die Rücktransferierung der 5 mBTC Sponsorengelder von [banned mixer] ist mit icopress abgeklärt.

Aktualisierung:
Gewinnspiel wird ausgezahlt, inklusive Sponsorengeld von MixTum. 

Your repeated accusations and name calling is achieving exactly nothing.
In addition, that's setting an extremely dangerous precedent, where one power-hungry DT member is trying to dictate another member's ability to give out trust feedbacks.
And you are acting against DT consensus, which is even more concerning! 
And DT will probably remove you, not me.
So, let's go back to a civil discussion how to solve the issue, we have had enough back and forth already.

---

Definitely, that's how we can discuss and that's how we can find common ground. I agree in general to follow that path. I'm willing to concede my red line that no one should be able to dictate my feedback for some time to calm down the situation between us. That way, people are not "afraid anymore to speak out", like you call it (where I'm having a fundamentally different opinion of course but we have that discussed already and let's agree to disagree here). So let's follow that goal for now, that we fullfill your statement, you've voiced here.
That's a very generous offer in my opinion from my side.
But you need to concede ground as well. Old feedbacks are not on the table as they are a thing of the past and otherwise DT would have removed me, which didn't happen - it's relevant what happens from now on, after we have agreed to find a solution for this.
In addition I'm conceding to you that if there is any trust feedback (not exclusions) you consider abuse, you are allowed to unlock this topic and to start a poll in this topic, where DT members (and only DT members) can vote, if that's abuse. Both of us will have to accept the decision from that DT vote.

So, I'll concede some ground, you'll concede some ground and we will find a solution, where both of us are happy. 

Unfortunately, calling names and keep bringing up the same old, wrong accusations is not going to settle the issue.
What's going to settle the issue is trying how to get along with each other, where everyone has to concede some ground. I'm already willing to concede some ground while mikeywith still isn't willing to concede even a little bit.

Thanks for proving once again, that you are just here for trolling, derailing any possibility to find a solution and sowing discord among DT members. And it's visible for everyone, that you are the problem!

But when we are at it, let me address this. Each DT member, who was mentioned in the post above, if you want to review the issue:
The following post is my current suggestion how to solve the issue, where I've already conceded ground:

Any DT member voices if this is a reasonable approach are appreciated.

Another approach could be just to lock the topic and if mikeywith still feels it's an issue, he can re-open it on 1st January 2024. That way, some time would pass to find a more level-headed solution as we will be able to review it with a bit distance. Then, a better solution could be found with much less drama.

Happy to hear any answers.  

So, everyone can see that I'm really interested to find common ground, that we can move on and avoid this unnecessary drama.

@fronti
Thanks for your post, I've already suggested the solution above, where I've even conceded ground.

Pointless? Finding a solution is pointless? Yes, maybe for drama lovers like you... 
I'm just following what LoyceV suggested here, to find an agreement to settle on instead of my suggestion of a 3rd party DT member decision: 


But we all know that you don't like DT, digaran!
You are not interested to find a solution.
You are just here to create drama.
You are just here to sow discord.
Your backfired attempts to discredit me everywhere, there's a new topic from Poker Player about you. This topic is spot on.

Lets get back on the topic to find a solution:

@digaran
I'm just trying to find a solution where we both can agree on. That's what LoyceV also wants us to do.
We can also wait for a call that is given from 2 or 3 Top 10 or 20 DT members and both of us have to accept that.
Repeated rants don't bring any solution, its just sowing discord.

---

Another suggestion for mikeywith, where I'm ready to concede ground:

Lets lock this topic until 01.01.2024 that the dust settles.
You can watch my feedbacks and trust list changes until then.
If you think, from now on until 01.01.2024 there would be "abuse" according to you, you could open this topic again, presenting evidence.
The outcomes:
- If the evidence is weak, DT will judge that accordingly.
- If the evidence is true and DT confirms this, I'll accept further distrusts from DT members.
- If there's no abuse, the topic will remain closed and we will move on.

You could review my trust feedback and trust list any time, from every entry that happens from now on until then. That way, you could interfere into my DT decisions for some time.
So you see, I'm ready to concede massive ground to find a solution here. I'm stepping back from the demand that any interference into my DT decisions is not acceptable.
I'm stepping back from my demand.
So, as I've said I'm ready to concede this massive ground to you.
How about that?

I know your opinion and I agree to disagree. Let's move on without misleading statements, lies and name-calling. This topic is a wall of 7 pages now.



I disagree to the way how you are expressing this by using emotionally loaded words once again. That's not helpful to find common ground.
But I will accept your call that you distrust me and I will live with it.


So, what about this call?
Let's find a solution, where we both can agree on:  

I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt for a very long time. But after all the things piling up from late 2022 on, this was very hard to give a pass at some point.
I have no problem if any of my posts gets criticism but this has to be in a civil way and if you are replying in my self-moderated topic of our campaign, you have to accept the rules of self-moderation. Removed posts were even allowed to post again but with proper German language, so no opinion was stifled. Your suggestion that opinions were stifled in that self-moderated topic is simply wrong.
Ignoring the self-moderated rules repeatedly despite me giving reminders of that Bitcointalk rules, is a Bitcointalk nettiquette violation.

I hope the above statement answers your question.
If we could sort out this one, what in general caused this whole drama, it's beneficial to see how this can prevented in the future.  

---

My call would be that'll try to get along with all members, even if we disagree.
Two suggestions:

- We can keep the topic open and have a civil discussion, without misleading accusations.
- We can close the topic and DT has now 6 pages to read up on. In this case I would give in on this and give mikeywith the last reply in this topic before it's getting closed.

I'm okay with both of the above solutions.  

When you are making accusations here and accusing other members as well, you also need to show the whole picture. We excluded you because already way sooner previously back in 2022, you repeatedly opposed the Campaign to improve Posting quality on local board in the german section, where we lined out how important it is to avoid unnecessary Denglish. The campaign was launched by me and co sponsored by GazetaBitcoin.
You came in our self-moderated topic, violated our rules multiple times despite my explanation that the self-moderated rules need to be applied but you ignored this repeatedly. That was disrespectful, especially after doing this repeatedly.
The deleted posts are archived.
We can keep the accusations going here but that would lead to the exact issues, why the discussion was always heated.


Definitely, pointless fights, one-sided accusations, heated discussions and similar are a waste of time. I fully agree to your quote.
You are right, that we should focus on things to provide interesting content to the Forum, especially now that a new price cycle is about to start ahead of the halving.  

---

When there are accusations against me and other members, I will address them, showing the whole picture. That's part of the opinion building process.
But after all, I agree that it's important to remember that even when there are different opinions about an issue, we need to agree to disagree.  

Definitely!
Thanks for your comment and let's start from here to settle this further.
If we are willing to make improvements and find a solution, we will make improvements and find a solution.

Like mindrust said, this has to come to a conclusion.
So, I'll accept either call, be it the one from yahoo already or if LoyceV decides to offer his solution as Switzerland.

The "coming out" of you and your friends was already addressed in this post (scroll down a bit in the post).
The problem with you and your friends is that you can't face any criticism for your bold claims, like documented here.
When you are criticized, you are immediately claiming that you are getting silenced or whatever victim card you play then.
Criticism is not silencing, it's part of the debate.

However, we try to avoid each other as often as possible to avoid any mess and at least for the recent time, that has improved.

And Unknown01, I'm not "attacking" anyone in my post here, but I'm well allowed to address accusations against me.
It's not helpful that certain members of our local board always play the "victim card".


Thanks again for your troll post:

---

I've also thought about another option, how we could solve our issue:



From what we have right now, it seems that proposals brought up by both of us (mikeywith and me) don’t have any chance to find an agreement.

If we can't find common ground there, it seems this can only be settled by a 3rd party call. LoyceV and yahoo are both high ranked DT members with Top 10 community inclusions. They’ll make a call here and we will agree to that call.
LoyceV or yahoo will then check if both of us will play by the rules of that call.
Of course, either LoyceV or yahoo need to agree that they are willing to do this. Both have a good judgement and experience.

Maybe that's another possibility, where both of us can agree.

I really don't know what's your end goal but keep showing the community that your comments are solely to create drama, spam and sowing discord.
That way it's very easy for anyone to spot, that the truth is usually the opposite of that what you are saying in your troll posts.  

You need to improve your trolling because even cryptohunter had a better trolling that was at least funny sometimes.


Anyways, I'll lock this topic now because it's time to get over the drama. 

That's going nowhere, mikeywith if you keep to continue your full demands, as you've done already so often in this thread.
I'm willing to give in, agree to yahoo's approach and after that, you are coming with your full demand that you can dictate which feedbacks I'm having to remove. That's just not helpful.
And that's not something a sane DT member can agree to because DT is a decentralized feedback system. No individual is allowed to dictate anyone anything.
However, the call from yahoo is reasonable and I'm willing to follow his approach.

In this scenario, the community will decide. Community decisions are never bad and I'm willing to apply the community feedback for any of what happens from now on. I'm okay, when I'm getting excluded for the time being like yahoo did above, if that helps to settle our issue. You can distrust me as well, using your DT vote against my feedbacks. I would have to accept any distrust I get.
Furthermore, I will consider community feedback like the one from LoyceV here:


And I'm willing to lock my other topic about you: mikeywith needs to grow a thicker skin regarding DT issues.
Edit: done already to keep it going to find a solution here


I believe the call from yahoo is reasonable to approach this:

---

---

So,

@yahoo, I'm accepting your call. If you think anyone of us is violating your call, feel free to leave a comment here, I'm ready to accept your terms.  

Looks like the community has already decided that the "petition" doesn't has any Merit.
And how often digaran wants to prove that he's just here for trolling and fueling any conflict?
What an unnecessary drama to spend our time on the forum for.

Regarding my distribution of Merit, I'm alwys trying to be fair, to reward quality posts and, of course, to listen to community feedback.
As even the OP doesn't provide any post, where I've distributed an unjustified amount of Merit to, I think there's everything said about the credibility of the "petition".
It's just because digaran wants to continue his trolling.

As said by other people in the topic, I'm a Merit source for a long time, I'm trying to reward quality posts, new, interesting and helpful content and members who are trying to show some effort to contribute to the forum. That's deserving Merit in my opinion.

---

Thanks for your feedback, mole0815 and despite we have some fundamental disagreements, I would say, that you are distributing Merit mostly fairly as well.
We might have a different understanding to evaluate a post and I'm more trying to focus on well-thought quality posts, each Merit source is unique, as long as there's no abuse.

I trust your call here that you did not consult with digaran, mole0815.
We might have disagreements but I trust you here.

---

Thanks for the feedback everyone else here.  
I'll continue to do a good job by rewarding quality posts.  

Thanks for the feedback, yahoo62278.

DT needs to be more rational that's right. I'm open to listen to the community if mikeywith is willing to do the same.
As DT is a decentralized community feedback system, I believe we should listen to the call of the community.
I think you are a long time DT member and believe your feedback can help here to get this solved, move on and dedicate our time to more important things.
As said before I'm willing to accept any outcome DT will conclude.

So, what's your approach to solve the issue?
I'm willing to give it a try and look how we can come together.

I'm not against any religion, I'm against people abusing their religion.
Islamic extremism doesn't mean Islam.
Christianity doesn't mean "let's repeat the crusades".
But as said by mikeywith, it's not helpful to start a P&S discussion here. We have some nice replies in that topic, how P&S discussions are creating big, big drama.  
We have different believes and of course, that's very legitimate.  

Neutral trust is not controversial at all like you are going to paint it here. Everyone can read up on the issue or are you the one here who's trying to stifle the right to point this out via reference links, where everyone can read up on the issue?
I think everyone is capable to make their own decision and research about this and can judge accordingly.

What you are calling "intimidate others via PM": it's not allowed to try to sort out issues via PM first before bringing the big hammer in Reputation?
You might interprete that as "intimidating" but in reality this is a chance to avoid big drama, to sort it out via PM. But we know this, some people here like the big drama, especially trolls. Keep feeding them!
Of course, we can jump right to the drama in Reputation and intimidate people here if they do something you don't like, like adding you to their distrust list, like you "punished" me for adding you there.  
Now we know that if someone will disagree with you and add you to their distrust list, they are at risk to get a slap in the face from you with a big drama in Reputation!
That's whats intimidating and punishing, not trying to solve the issue via PM!

Also read up about the abuse on the German section. I've linked the topics already, where these shitposters are involved in all sorts of abuse, yesterday.
Most of the level-headed members in the German section have given in to the abusers or are gone. Because plagiarism is not enforced, because political troll Spam is derailing the discussions on purpose, because its funny to throw the Ukrainians under the bus, because shitposting is stylish and profitable and much more and in case someone dares to criticize this, he will be met with accusations from the very same shitposters to be against their right of expression. They are always playing the victim card.
I've contacted a longtime member of the german section this morning on Telegram, linked him the discussion and he said that these folks are completely lost. I had to agree to him as he's totally right.
Of course, he doesn't want to comment in the German section anymore as any criticism of our abusers, whose feedback you can see in my feedback list, will be met with harsh force. Yet, they are playing the victim card and you are enabling them.

It's up to you if you enable proven abusers and plagiarizers on the Forum because that will destroy the forum.
Consider their lies, read up about their past abuses!

Thats why I've left the neutral feedbacks with reference links on their accounts!!!

@digaran, thanks for pouring more oil into the fire!
That's always helpful in a discussion!

---

As a German I can tell you that this approach is, well... catastrophic.
If you read up on WWII and Hitler.