Please stop lying that you have conclusive proof that it is a lie. Asserting it is a lie is indeed a lie on your part or at a minimum a false allegation. Neither is on topic.

We will not bother with explaining to you again THEYMOS is not a wizard. Do you get that now. The server side information he has we want him to have. Even a moron like you understands tor/tor browser right?? Everyone knows actmyname is probably cryptohunter have you not see their posts when they want to revert back , you can be cryptohunter too, we can all be cryptohunter it is merely an observable instance you fucking pathetic imbecile, it is not that TRICKY. It is a very distinctive style and those whom wish to adopt it will not find it that difficult to do. There is nothing subtle about this style. Software can easily be made to replicate this kind of style.

Three is more powerful evidence that you are not nutildah, we hear that account has changed passwords more than tman has said "twat" or "cunt" on this forum lol

Now again stick to the central points and stop derailing or the rest of your posts will be deleted. You must stick to the rules of the thread NEM STAKE HOLDER INDEED hahahaha

No more derailing here. Tackle the central on topic points you conveniently just REFUSED TO TACKLE or be deleted.

NOT ON TOPIC AT ALL

The topic is regarding the specific observable actions of bob after coming to our thread about blackmail/extortion

How the fuck has your shit post about our handlers or royal, lies about our trollling... got anything to do with that you dumb shit?? stick to the specific points.

If you have no clue what observable instances are then don't post on the thread. How can you conform to rules you claim you have no understanding of???

Get a dictionary and have a read moron.

You need to voice your opinion " cunt" and then "cunt" you need to present observable instances (quotes of posts here ) that demonstrate or corroborate what your are asserting is true??

Got it "twatnozzle". When you understand and can come back to the thread we will be happy to pull you to pieces then. Got it "cunt"

What is it with you retards that all joined around the same time obsession with "twats" and "cunts"??

Got to love your other bogus point you made here "cunt"


double standards there "cunt"

No of course you are welcome back to the thread. Stick to the central points and bring some corroborating evidence (observable instances) to demonstrate you did not just pull it out of bobs ass before slobbering it all over my thread.

Also try to voice your opinion without sounding entirely confused and befuddled ... think it all over before you start hammering it out on your sticky keyboard.

Well done retard now that post clearly demonstrates

1. it is not on topic or relevant to the central points in our initial post
2. there are NO observable instances as required in our initial post
3. derailing off topic crap,speculations and false accusastions.

well done we deleted it and will continue to do so until you understand you need to adhere to the rules in the initial post you pathetic gimp.

jayjuangay or whatever his pleb name is said he has better things to do or no time to debate our central points.... then comes to our thread anyway and starts slobbering his low functioning off topic false accusations and speculations whilst totally avoiding the central points of the OP. Then when we delete him the sissy goes mincing off to his girlfriend bobs thread to cry he was unfairly deleted HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Listen ass feltcher. Stand and debate or stfu and go cry to your bitch friends in WO thread.

Okay now you are at least engaging in some form of debate. Let's pull you apart. No off topic thanks. Stick to the OP. The person posting from the cryptohunter account HAS NEVER posted from this account. We will not address this again.

Now let's tackle your points.

The DOUBLE STANDARDS we were demonstrating on our thread was the ABUSE of scammers DIRECTLY.

He is claiming that because we present those clear and undeniable double standards by scammers to punish whistle blowing under the guise of blackmail/extortion (which they agree with and reward when they do it and for clear financial gain)

Boblawblaw then comes into our thread and tries to derail it and asserts that presenting those instances of clear double standards means we have been fucked in the ass and we are likely nefarious for complaining and should accept scammers punishing whistleblowing by pretending it is blackmail and extortion when they do worse themselves for pure financial gain.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206130.msg53236298#msg53236298

scammers are here including you scam facilitator and trust abuser

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.msg52014561#msg52014561

We tell him stay on topic you twat debunk the points or debate the on topic points or FUCK OFF and that girly sissy runs crying to trust abuse our account.

This is undeniable.

The rest of your speculations are about as useful as your trading tips or your " PURPORTED " opinons of account sellers being scam facilitators until you wanted to sell your account and make some money

OR YOU CLAIMS you are not here for signatures LOL

THEN DELETES THE EVIDENCE.....  see how that backfired for real. I see you put it back now sneaky piece of shit.

There is NO WAY you are the original nutildah NEM stake holder and early dash adopter. You would have to have shit for brains to now be reduced to begging for 0.02btc loans. You bought that account and are broke.

Anyway enough of this bickering and speculations (well from you) mine are not because you are either a scam facilitator or a liar. Those are not speculations it has to be one or the other.

Bob is a scammer supporter and trust abuser. This is undeniable. He supports scammers abusing honest members via trust abuse and took a leaf from their actions.

Debunk it or accept it. Also I have found that dirt bag protecting scammers before in arguments and attacking us out of the blue. That weasel will not stand and debate he runs away crying to red trust or his feltching friends on WO thread.

Keep hiding there wussies.

nonsensical nonsense hehe how's the writing career taking off over there in pajeetville ??

I'll use you for the bump which is all you are worth before deleting you later.

Now MORON understand he brought ZERO observable instances to back up his claims/opinions and false allegations. NOW go and read the initial post the rules clearly state no groundless crap opinions that are not supported by observable instances.

Also he never attempted to debate the ontopic and central points of the OP.

Got it scam facilitator and scammer supporter + broke ass NEM stake holder lol  = the anti midas nutildah.

Now your post and his post will be deleted when I feel the need. You will stay for the bumps only then pooooof  you'll be gone. Go cry feltch for merits and spam your sig for btc dust elsewhere notildah.  Go cry to your pajeet girlfriend in pajeet land where your 0.02btc loan can at least give you subsistence level existence for a few days.

Yeah because our central points and yet undefeated debating talents are under great threat from the speculations regarding the meaning of "us" and "we" LOL no wonder we rush to delete them LOL ... that's a very compelling argument you don't have there hahaha... yep disproved all of our central points in the initial post... way to go JJG and micgoosens haha

Let me take another sip of the very expensive wine I have here whilst I enjoy the image of you there sweating away in some hut with your pajeet girlfriend ordering you to get some more btc dust for the next bag of rice. When are you coming back to the US? I have some bags of rice going free? bit out of date but your kind are accustomed to that right? shame to waste it.

Since you are determined to derail... how much did you sell your NEM stake for?? haha I'm guessing you did not hold out for the full 300 BTC?? haha

No NO pm me, we must not let you guys derail this thread.

Back on topic to boblawblaws scammer supporting , trust abusing behaviors I think. Can't let that wussy weasel get away with it entirely can we even if he fav feltchers like you and jayjuangay would have it that way.

The reader should read this post and note there will be NO DEBUNKING OF THE CENTRAL POINTS there is no IRREFUTABLE PROOF of what they are claiming took place ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE. It is all speculation the critical evidence is the "word" of a convicted "scammer".

These SAME DT members have previously claimed  WHEN IT SUITED THEM.

That accusations or EVEN QUESTIONS that are too pointed are to be classed as DEFAMATION AND LIES and those bringing them forward should have RED TRUST.

Clear DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Our questions (to hhampuz) were accompanied by 100% undeniable independently verifiable observable instances and NONE of the DT members even dared dispute them and they still said it was DEFAMATION AND LIES and we got 8 red trusts for that question and supplying the corroborating evidence that they did not dispute.

So how can we trust these same DT members that are now WILLING to 100% believe the words of a convicted "scammer" (as their only strong evidence of full refund) and YEARS LATER THEY SUDDENLY GET ALL INTERESTED  when OG gets back on DT and their accounts are glowing with CORRECTLY GIVEN red trust demonstrating many of them are scammers or extortionists.

The reader should note that this other JayjuanGEE or whatever his pathetic dreg name is has been CLEARLY demonstrated to be dishonest and in league with the proven scam facilitators and other trust abusing scum. I would not trust the SPIN he attempts to put on anything. This fool falsely presented evidence out of full context and deliberately deleted out "nutildahs" asserting that we just made the mistake of believing. He is often found in cahoots and protecting the SAME SCAMMERS and SCAMMER supporters he is aligning with NOW.

See this thread for more Undeniable independently verifiable instances of FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED WRONG DOING (no need to rely on the desperate words of a convicted fellon) you can read and investigate this all for yourselves.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

Then look at the ONLY DT to be flagging these correctly as scammers OGNASTY and then ask yourselves I wonder WHY NOW AFTER ALL OF THESE YEARS are these scammers and scammer supporters who are only now starting to glow red because OG got back on DT.

They are trying anything and willing to believe anyone and scrape any dirt up to get OG off DT.

Do not trust their slanted speculations

This is not to say we claim to KNOW that OG is not guilty of what they claim. BUT they have clear motivation for attacking him NOW and are proven scammers or scammer supporters themselves.  So I would await CONCLUSIVE PROOF of guilt before listening to their SLANT on it.

Love their willingness to believe 100% what a convicted "scammer" says but Unwilling to accept undeniable conclusive proof when it demonstrates financially motivated wrong  doing ON THEIR PART.

If we hold to THEIR SELF IMPOSED STANDARDS then OG is NOT GUILTY and it is DEFAMATION and LIES until CONCLUSIVE PROOF (even then it will be defamation and lies if it is regarding themselves LOL)

Twitchy scum bag is an obseravble supporter of scammers and scammer supporters. I mean let's look at who is on his trust list.... and where his merits come from.


OG is 100x more trustworthy than these foul leaches. He just returned 500BTC to the foum after years. Do you think you would see that 500BTC from lauda, twitchy,tman, JJG, LFC bitcoin, nutildah or any of these undeniable scum bags.


DEBUNK ANY OF OUR CENTRAL POINTS SCAMMER AND SCUMBAGS here and now. YOU CAN NOT.

here comes the crying "trolling" "lies" "mentally ill" " who is we" "any other excuse not to tackle the central points because we are unable to".... LOL


this jayjuangee is the scammers new front man they have rolled out it seems. Another scumbag going on the dirty turds thread soon. He already is protecting other trust abusers/scammer supporters and protecting willing scam facilitators. RUNS AWAY from debating with us because we will pull this scumbag to piece in public.



TLDR?? OG IS NOT GUILTY BY DT MEMBERS OWN SELF IMPOSED STANDARDS. Do not let them impose double standards on other members.

From revisiting this thread is is apparent most people simply do not understand the reasoning we have presented. Of course they can not debunk it because it is undeniable once you do understand it.

They are correct that alts should not be permitted but still are promulgating the INCORRECT reasons for this. AKA projects make their own ruled ...end of story.

There is no point continuing to claim alts are not allowed purely because project owners can set their own rules whatever they may be. It is completely moronic. Their rules don't mean shit if they are opening up deliberately honest members to be scams. Do you say scammers have the right to set their own project rules that put them and an obvious and scammy advantage ?? NO that's just because it is clearer to most people that they are DIRECTLY scamming so they call them scammers not project mangers/dev teams, well ..... bounties/sig campaigns are just not as DIRECT so most people do NOT realize this is actually the way the BIGGEST scams operate.

You may as well say scams can set any rules they like since they are the project owners right??

Let us try and explain it in another way that you may understand better.

Say the project owners said ONLY alts are allowed to join are of the first 5 people to join the promotion (sig campaign)(who will be them and their pals since they know exactly when it is launched). It's their rules right?? Imagine a project where a substantial amount of the initial distribution is given in that bounty. So how would that end up??  YES completely dangerous for all members to get involved with. The easier for a few people to control and collude and market make = SCAM or if you don't believe it meets the criteria of scam it is fucking super super dangerous to get involved with or trade those tokens. You want a WIDE initial distribution, the narrower the more dangerous and scammy.

The rules projects make here are NOT UP TO THEM really. Well, they can make any rules they like, but honest members can certainly call them out for dangerous / scam projects and make them pariahs unless their campaign managers provide transparent rules to ensure all members have a fair(ish) chance of acceptance. 

ALTS must be prevented where possible else you are opening up the honest members to be fleeced and scammed. Also if there are only a few high paying sig spots these should be given to the REAL best posters and NON SCAMMERS and rotated if possible if you want it to be fair and not again be open to abuse and kick backs.

If you do not have TRANSPARENT RULES that ensure fair treatment of all members then you have ABUSE AND GAMING = dangerous and scamming. It is not difficult to understand. Have another read and think about it.  If campaign managers can NOT present a clear and strong case where you have been fairly assessed in the context of others that were accepted/denied and demonstrate clearly why you were accepted/denied then they are NOT doing their job and are very very very LIKELY to be corrupt and dangerous. I mean behind the curtain of WE DO WHAT THE FUCK WE WANT FOR WHATEVER REASONS WE THINK BEST  then anything can be going on.

Most DT members here have no clue, most highly merited members here have LESS of a clue. I laugh when I read their reasoning and ideas. Most are likely housewives or other unemployable stay at home dregs. How can you expect them to understand anything that is not completely obvious??


TLDR = no fucking alts in the same project for numerous reasons. FAIR TRANSPARENT RULES where the campaign manager actually does his job and weeds out the best posters ( or posters above a certain threshold of quality) and NO SCAMMERS - first come basis (but watch out if he is selecting the same people who mysteriously come to his campaigns first everytime) perhaps some rotation if that keeps happening to give everyone a fair chance who meets the required thresholds.

Read it, Undestand it, then agree or debunk it.

The above bunch of garbage that gayjuangee splurged out had to be deleted since it was off topic, full of false accusations and contained no observable instances.

It is interested "we" notice that this bitcoin begging dreg is obsessed with the word "twat" to which it affixes any other childish moronic word to it. RATHER LIKE the scammers and scumbags he seeks to protect from our valid criticism. It should also be noted that these "noobs" joined all around that same time. Tman, lauda, JJG, newanon, owlcatz etc etc

Anyway when this moronic dreg decides to stop hiding from the real debate here rather than hiding behind off topic and irrelevant speculations as to "our" reasons for referring to "we" or "our"  when those have been explained many times before anyway, and he abides by the threads rules, then we will review his post and pull it to pieces. Weak minds like his are of no challenge to ourselves.

NOW come and debate the points JJG you moronic bitcoin begging fool or STFU and hide back in the WO thread with the rest of the low functioning broke ass bums.

Does it not bother you at all that most of the forum knows that you were busted posting sneaking around using a sock puppet for extra bounties until you were caught out??

I mean how can you lecture people on the very things that you yourself were caught doing?? spamming away racist trolling garbage jumping from one bounty to the next to get max bounty returns???

You are out of line trying to speak for any "elites" here because you are not in contact with any of them nor would they give you time of day.

Now to address the points in the initial post directly

1. you need to find out exactly WHY you were banned? It could be for something else.

2. You need to realize only DT members are allowed to facilitate scams or suspected scams and get paid for it here. There is a 2 tier system you are unaware of.

According to recent posts we are reading it goes like this....(we do not agree with this action of course)

You need to get the possible scam or clear scam to say they will be pushing a sig campaign regardless. Then you pipe up and say well I better profit from making sure they pay the bounty hunters right??  i mean they are going to do it anyway I may as well make some money?? and make sure people get their bounties??

You will need to be DT before you attempt this. DT1 and fully entrenched with some pals who can get in on it. Then it will be okay. Until then, do not say or do anything DT may not like or you can be given red trust and a flag.  Well actually if you are banned then you are stuck in this thread so pretty much game over.

You now need to listen to the pharmacist aka HugeBlackWoman lecture you on not doing things he does whilst he gets paid at the highest rates to shove his double standards holier than garbage down your throat. Better to self terminate and accept your fate.

I need not investigate my own intentions other than I see no reason for us not to make things as transparent and provably FAIR as we possibly can and to roll back subjectivity and room to abuse where we can. I would ask you conduct your own thought experiment and start investigating your support of NON transparency and No rolling back subjectivity and room to abuse. Let me know how this goes for you.

Actually I have no idea what you are getting at regarding this. Motivation should be irrelevant only the merits of the plan for the entire forum should be considered, neither my own or your own personal gain/loss.

Now it seems that nobody has presented any NEGATIVES of making things more transparent and fair. Certainly they have not debunked the positives because that would be impossible.

It seems nobody has debunked the high risk to the honest members by NOT making it more transparent and fair.

They only seem to be saying IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FAIR.

However in saying this they are also claiming the members here have NO RIGHT to only accept projects that are not deliberately choosing to put them at higher risk and also have no right to be treated fairly.

I disagree. It would only take perhaps a handful of people that will not accept projects and campaign managers deliberately putting them at far higher risk of being scammed to ensure it was in the projects best interests to hire campaign managers who behaviors can stand up to public scrutiny and therefore NOT being deliberately putting the boards honest members at far higher risk of being scammed.

I see no rebuttals to the negatives of NOT having transparent rules. I see only people that are currently benefitting from the lack of transparent rules claiming they don't believe it is fair that they have to compete fairly against other members.

I will say this may NOT apply as strongly to actmyname as it may other members since it is quite conceivable that he could compete fairly and still retain his sig.

I see no debunking of our central points at all. I simply see a bunch of excuses to keep the status quo that benefits them in place.

This is the same for merit and trust. This is the issue with it being discussed in META. META is a concentrated bunch of people that benefit strongly from the status quo so any suggested changes to the status quo are immediately non beneficial to these members. Hence even though there is STRONG negatives for the majority of the board for it to remain as it is which they are unable to refute they will still find any excuse not to change it.

Here the only excuse is we have no right to ask for all members to be treated fairly.  We have no right to order them to change. However we clearly have the right to voice our opinions en mass regarding their proclaimed right to treat the majority of members unfairly and perhaps endanger them financially deliberately.

When you start to understand that without transparent selection rules and that they can allocate positions to who they want for whatever reasons they make up, then you start to realize that they are saying they clearly set you up to be manipulated and scammed.

That's fine but if you want to deliberately set people up to be scammed through market manipulations then your project can clearly be classed as dangerous and tainted. Else why not choose to go transparent and be scrutinized.

I have no idea why you are asking me to present my own intentions. It really has no bearing on things. Things are either transparent and fair and open to public scrutiny or else they are private, backroom, gamed, abused, and unfair and perhaps deliberately deceptive and scamming. They will be what they will be regardless of the person suggesting or seeking to prevent.

 think every member here has the right to prefer and state preference for fair treatment and more security against getting scammed. The key is transparency. Scams thrive behind the curtain, pull the curtain away and let in the day light and those sucking the blood of honest members soon scream out with excuses and indignation.

I mean do you have the right to NOT be scammed?? if you say no we do not have that right then why punish scammers? why not reward scammers? why take any action at all to prevent ? why have default trust?  Do we have the intrinsic right to read valuable posts??

This is larger than having the right to be paid 2 post. There are many other implications.

Anyway we will have to agree to disagree on the ALTs part. I see you feel alts should be allowed.  Again though there I think you are not considering all implications of this.

It is a shame we so often find ourselves on opposite sides of things actmyname, still makes for better debating that if we have to suffer those that are clearly lacking in the capacity for reason. At least a worthy challenge and some effort at presenting a thought process that can be followed.

There is nothing snide there for your personally actmyname. I believe you are a fan of playing what they may call devils advocate, this is not a bad thing I suppose. It is good that you seek to help us close any holes in our proposals or points.


Some of what this thread seeks to discuss seems to have been touched upon here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5205864.0

for further reading.

The only thing you have made clear is that

1. you are unable to debunk my points
2. you have motivation for CLAIMING they should be able to avoid transparent rules
3. you have no idea what you are talking about

You don't get to dictate what MOST scammers chose to do. That does not mean we should not change things so it is fairer and better for all members here.

PRETENDING you are allocating positions to the BEST posters and MOST trustworthy when you are clearly not is DECEPTION and pretty much scamming.

ONLY scammers and untrustworthy are afraid of transparent rules that are applied equally to all members.

Saying we have no control over this is wrong. If the board decides we want campaign managers to have transparent rules or else the projects are branded deliberate SCAMS then that is what can happen.

If you are refusing to have your actions scrutinized against then you are refusing for a reason. Refusing transparent rules is refusing scrutiny.

This is dangerous for honest members and pressure should be applied to campaigns and projects to makes sure they do. For the sake of all honest members here. This is UNDENIABLE.

Stop ranting please.

This is also a bogus claim because you are not setting the full context as if to make it appear we randomly act in that way without first having exactly those sorts of behaviors inflicted upon us first. Calling people dirty scammer supporting turds is not adhominem either when we are discussing their scammer supporting ways and their undeniable observable instances of doing just that. THOSE are statements of fact too. Either way let's stay on topic.

Now as to the point that you feel you would need to sift back through 1000' of "rants" to get your answer, when it was in the last post I made to you clearly illustrates that you do NOT understand the issue with letting campaign managers operate without transparent and clear rules that ALL members are measured against equally.

Now can you present a list of pro's and cons to support your nonsense that we should leave it totally subjective or just confess you are only claiming this because you seek to not be in competition with other members fairly because you fear that your chipmixer sig will be vulnerable. I say it will clearly just be gone instantly because you do not have the capacity to demonstrate you are one of the top 57 best posters here and certainly not one of the most 57 top posters that are clearly not a scammer supporter.

But skipping the adhominem/not adhominem debate on that part list your pros and cons and clearly debunk my assertion that transparent and clear rules/thresholds should be introduced and that campaign mangers should stop hiding behind their DT pals manipulated metrics so that they can GIVE THOSE SAME DTS ALL THE BEST SIG SPOTS LOL.

Who would have guessed you would not like the idea of being measured against transparent rules/thresholds in fair competition with other honest members but prefer your campaign manager DT loving pals keep giving the chipmixer spots to you hahahaha


WHY WOULD ANYONE object to some transparent rules/thresholds being set that are not obviously gamed and abused to match applicants against??? you really have to consider that question first. YES the only reason is that they are likely already benefitting from this current subjective gamed abused mess. THAT IS EXACTLY what we see here oeeieie is a chipmixer spammer already hey??? that is not adhominem is it? that is a statement of fact that you are one already?? the motivated is questionable but what other motivation is there for NOT wanting transparent rules for all members to be measured against??? let him supply them.

Alts we agree on since you don't have any. Then again if you had some perhaps we would no longer be in agreement??? who can say.

Alts are certainly not a good idea in the same sigs especially on new tokens.

Please do not ONLY bring adhominem. The other points you raise are already clearly answered previously and debunked by the answers I have already given. Especially if you are at all concerned about the honest members here getting fleeced. Which you claim to be. Just because you seem to not understand those points is not our problem. Have another read. If there are no transparent rules that are objectively and independently used to measure each applicant equally against then of course there are endless shady and scammy implications for that. Hence why similar rules exist in RL. Although really they are far more important here than in many cases in RL.

Those "rants" contain important central points that have never been debunked. You should address them for what they clearly are insightful posts that get right to the truth of the matter.

@actymyname.

Well better slightly "fuzzy" borders between transparent clear rules that are applied equally to all members than observably and undeniably misleading and dangerous bogus metrics.

I mean those examples were really just a rebuttal to the IN RL claims ioeieoei was making.

Here on this board we can actually do things a little better since we ALL have access to ALL the posts made by members so we can ALL analyse them.

ANY attempt to roll back subjectivity (the home of abuse) is an improvement over what we have now. Even the law is a work in progress right?

So if we are claiming access to campaigns is based on

= no clear examples of financially motivated wrong doing (apparently what red trust is for)

= the highest value posters or a threshold of minimum standard of posting = merit score


then these need to be made robust so that public examination and scrutiny corroborates the campaign managers choices.

AKA

the member should have ZERO clear and objective instances of financially motivated wrong dong  CHECK

and

let's say we were to set standard of less than 5 shitposts (opinions that were not corroborated with observable instances and did not add any real value to reaching the optimal decision or solution in that thread .. I mean this can be thrashed out as one member already attempted to do previously when defining a post of value which was very interesting) from your last 100 posts.

OR any clear transparent rule that ALL applicants are measured against.

I mean it should be first come first served that meet some good thresholds we can put in place. Any argument that ONLY the best posters are allowed in would clearly require the campaign manager has a larger capacity or equal to the best posters applying. This is likely not possible so a minimum threshold will be required.

If campaign managers do not want to put in the work so that their decision stand up to public scrutiny then chuck them out and get some that will put in the work and be fully accountable.

Of course it will be a work in progress nothing is perfect straight away. However that is no reason to leave it WIDE OPEN and TOTALLY BROKEN.

There is NO reason NOT to approach it just like this if we want to claim only the BEST posters and most TRUSTWORTHY members are being selected for the BEST paying sig campaings. Or it is a clearly bogus claim.

This was hammered out on the way to the gym so there may be a rethink required ... improvising to plug up subjective and gamed holes is part of the process.

"his time" moron.

Besides his time is better served splurging him moronic mentally deranged drivel to idiots like you who are very deserving of it. haha

That does not refute the clear undeniable points we are making in the initial post. It rather serves to substantiate them.

Above is clear evidence of ignoring the prior challenge. Also off topic. This thread is about the claim of abusing self moderated trust. Stay on topic or get back to supporting scammers you noob feltching trash.

@ioieioe

Their clear rules are open to abuse. As we clearly detail. Their rules rely on abused metrics. Therefore the rules are not valid  nor transparent. They need to be thrashed out so that they are objectively verifiable and a clear detailed explanation can be given with examples that substantiate that the person was either rejected or accepted in a fair way that is not easy to abuse. No alt accounts can be seen as an objective transparent and fair rule but there must be clear and compelling evidence that it is an alt.


SHIT TOKENS or perhaps ico's of projects that get market caps of HUGE USD totals. Are even more cause for danger for the entire board. Giving out btc dust to individuals does not pose such a danger in terms of market manipulation. I am actually agreeing alts must NOT be permitted in the same campaign but it is far more important for tokens where the bounty makes up a large proportion of the initial distribution.

You have alts?? we I do not think it would be fair for alts to be on chipmixer because it is very limited and others should have a chance. Actually those spots should be on rotation really.

No they are not allowed to set the ANY rules and if they do set them they need to be transparent. You will find that discrimination charges can be brought quite frequently where there is suspected discrimination.  Try putting no females, no gays, no black people, and see how your rules go.

So if you say must have x merit and you had merit clearly being a cycled bunch of bogus garbage cycled among 0.01 that allocated it mostly to each other. OR must not have negative trust (where that has been clearly demonstrated to be so abused another system was required to be devised) then in real life started trying to use those undeniably broken and gamed metrics to hire people you will find you will have a lot of criticism and problems cropping up rather shorty. Especially when they then notice the campaign managers are all pally pally with those mates getting the jobs.

The only thing transparent about the big campaign managers is that they enforce and reward the corrupt abuse and gaming of the systems of control and are the MAIN part of the problem.

No alts should be quite sensibly denied though we can agree on that part.

I would suggest making ONE meta thread and linking to the separate threads in rep if you need . This is all for one eventuality: banning people that are evading bans right?

In your case it could result in 100x threads being spun up in a very short time there will be no space for anything else in meta.
Of course it is up to you. Just that it will look mad if you find 100 people that need banning for ban evasion and the entire page of meta is bogged down with them and they are all out of number order. If you put them all in one thread the mods can work through them in number order?

Anyway your choice. I was just suggesting this idea.

What would have ever made you think that? The guy is a clear and undeniable asslicking scammer supporter and imbecile.

This thread is the 2nd clear OG witch hunting meta thread in the last couple of days under the guise of some other neutral board related topic. It was soon latched upon by the SAME people that have been trying to pull OG down with EXTRA DESPERATION since he made it back on to default trust.

1. some of the clear accusations here would get red trust as defamation by their clear double standards usually. We were given 8 red trusts for ASKING hhampuz if he was knowingly hiring scammers AND NOBODY even denied or questioned the evidence we presented. That was apparently LIES and defamation. He we see clear claims of lies, and  stealing with NO conclusive proof at all?? where is their defamation and red trust on their accounts?? DOUBLE STANDARDS to protect their monopoly over DT1.

2.The SAME people here seem the only ones that are claiming it is TRUE without conclusive proof.

3. This is the 2nd thread in the last few days started by KNOWN scammer supporters who want OG removed from DT. Xtraelv and Steamtyme both of whom have been busted for CLEAR and UNDENIABLY double standards and scammer supporting. That at first pretended to be neutral before suddenly being jumped upon by those of the same DT gang that clearly want OG removed from DT.

The reader should note that this is not a clear denial of OG being involved in any wrongdoing since there seems no conclusive proof it seems they are breaking their own self imposed rules that you can not make these kinds of statements without conclusive proof or you are defaming and damaging the illustrious member and board escrow that just returned 500btc after many years.

I think the thread should get back onto the "neutral" subject matter that the OP can PROVE happened rather than the specific witch hunt for POSSIBLE wrong doing of OG.

After all of these years??? then suddenly when OG makes it back to default trust and they are getting DESERVED RED TRUST they get all nostalgic about this specific point...well ONLY THE SAME PEOPLE seem to be getting very nostalgic about it. Strange that those that lost 1400 BTC are not here screaming for their coins isn't it?? where are they?

Seems fishy to me they only start all the OG speculation in real earnest now that he got back on DT1.

DO we have a love of OG?? NO we do not really love OG at all.. he is OKAY. He is far to weak and servile to theymos. He will stand there and not even complain if these systems of control entrench proven scammers with the power to cast honest whistle blowers as scammers. Just says oh it will eventually sort itself out.  He will remove the red paint from lauda a real scammer just because theymos may have brokered a deal. He needs to man up and and start making some wave here and no making ANY DEALS with people like lauda. Tell theymos this system of control is broken ffs. Stand up for those that get abused.

Still there is NO conclusive proof of OG's wrong doing SO FUCKING BRING CONCLUSIVE PROOF before making accusations OR FACE your own self imposed defamation and spread LIES claims. We asked a question and have undeniable evidence of people scamming. You are making clear accusations and have NO conclusive proof at all.

Build your IRON TIGHT case that demonstrates UNDENIABLE WRONG DOING or STFU.

Get back to the NEUTRAL account of proven historical events thanks.


TLDR - there seems NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF of OG's financially motivated wrong doing. There is CLEAR EVIDENCE to suggest these ACCUSATIONS and SPECULATIONS are motivated by a dislike of OG himself and a dislike of of OG getting back on DT recently. These same people are often found attacking OG. These same people are found breaking their own self imposed rules of conclusive proof first or it is defamation and LIES...according to them.  They (rogue dt's) should be flagged red for making such accusations and speculations according to themselves.

are you planning on littering meta with 100's of these?

I see on the first page of meta about 6 different threads on this. Just compile them into ONE thread. People I want banned.

Are these even meta ?

The problem is when campaign managers are corrupt and do not apply the same transparent rules to all members, this opens them up to back handers and ALL KINDS of legitimate criticism.

We should probably insist that all campaign managers present transparent clear rules that can be applied to all members. They should also be able to detail why a person was excluded or accepted with their own examples. Not just relying on the self awarded merits and self awarded trust positions/scores of those system controllers that BY COINCIDENCE happen to award only themselves enough trust and merit to be accepted by the very best paying sig campaigns ACCORDING to those campaign managers. Sadly though the level of trust and merit each is REALLY deserving is easily debunked as FALSE.

I mean many people on chipmixer are the same people that have clear and undeniable observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their histories BUT apparently are accepted due to being so TRUSTWORTHY lol. Same for merit many of the top merit holders are unable to present even 10 of their best original thought inspiring posts for analysis because they know they have no really made any that will stand up to scrutiny.

YOU ARE CORRECT that sig campaigns and campaign managers are actually the ROOT of many of the problems on this forum. The only people you will find claiming there needs be no transparent clear rules applied to all members ARE THOSE ON THOSE HIGHLY PAID SIG CAMPAIGNS. They do not want fair competition.

This is EVEN MORE dangerous when dealing with the initial distribution of tokens if the bounties make up a substantial amount of the initial minting available when it hits exchanges. If you allow corrupt and back room deals and manipulation here then you are placing the entire board in danger.

Something should be done about it and campaign managers need to be accountable for their OWN decisions not pass the buck and accountability to DT who are proven untrustworthy already.

Clear transparent rules stated. Applied equally to all forum members. NOT relying on the undeniably gamed metrics of merit and trust. They need to some some work themselves or move over for campaign managers that will stand by their own decisions.