Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 10:26:02 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 »
481  Economy / Reputation / Re: Record of our deleted posts - permitted flow preventing relevant information on: September 15, 2019, 10:58:03 PM
Delete 19

Obviously do not want other members that are the victims of DT RED TRUST TAGS double standards getting access to the correct ontopic and relevant evidence to support their claims in the initial post. Certainly on topic and relevant to their central point in the OP.

We agree in part with the OP that debate has no place as far as these members are concerned with the consistent and fair use of red tags. The rules do not apply to them only others.


Quote from: Bitcoin Forum
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Quote
Hello,
as always i keep roasting ignorant people accusing me of scamming, and as always after losing the argumentations they either
- delete the posts 
- start a persecution battle spamming on my thread and reporting every message
- leave very stupid and non-fundend negative feedbacks (A guy that i never even talked with , from all the lending situation understood that i run a ponzi with 5% interest rate . Really Vod? Grin Grin


Now i want to say it once and for all, you silly jealous little spineless people, keep trying to stop my business. this is your life, when others build and succeed you feel bad with yourself and try to destroy it because you are NOTHING ELSE THAN A RANK ON A FORUM. I don't care a bit of redtrust. i have all kind of evidence that everyone can access to see i'm legit. I don't care if i'm only a member, and i don't care if you refuse to understand my explanations.


you disgust me.

Also notice how all the roasted users are high rank, most of them legendary. that is not a case. most high rank members are closed in their imaginary cocky fortress where they think they are always right simply because of the rank. NOPE. Grow some balls, and when you understand to have made a mistake, apology instead of acting as a spineless kid

We support some of your claims.
We do not know if you objectively deserve red trust or not. So on that part we can not comment. However we would say that there is a strong case to demonstrate that "if" you deserve red trust many of those on DT should also have red trust.

To us a potential threat of being financially dangerous however probable, is not as BAD as a proven and objectively verifiable instances of scamming and attempting to deliberately facilitate scamming.

Certainly  many DT members adolphin wolf, vod etc  (not rank dependent) are spineless and employ foul double standards. This part is cause to complain about.

We have a few suggestions

1. Read this thread and research
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

2. Ask the people here suchmoon, direwolf etc etc
their reasoning on why YOU a member demonstrating what they consider "possible or even highly probable" financially dangerous behaviors should have red trust or SCAM TAG

then check out their trust inclusions to see who they are saying should be part of the boards tiny selection of TRUSTED individuals.

You will likely notice they are claiming their friends who have observable histories of ACTUAL scamming, or attempting to facilitate scams for a price,  Should be the members that we most trust here?

3. Realize that you will attract more red trust by "appealing" on meta board.

Suchmoon although a total and utter scum bag is not usually stupid enough to flagrantly and openly  trust abuse. So if she has left you red trust then she is likely pretty certain she can defend her reasons for doing so.  The best solution you can hope for is that she will then refuse to answer why auction scammers, those willing to facilitate scamming for a price and her even more shady old pal/alt lauda should deserve her support into the trust systems and yet you should be cast as a scammer.

We are hoping you can ask her to explain her behavior and reasoning.

First though take time to study the DT system, and educate yourself on the past histories of those that are now claiming YOU are worse than they and their friends are. Not just worse you are a scammer, they are the MOST trustworthy people on this forum.

Direwolf loves getting down and dirty in certain circumstances just not with you it seems. When lauda et al tells him to get down and dirty, down and very dirty does he get.

So to recap you are correct you are dealing with spineless weasels here. The red marks would require objective analysis but certainly should be reviewed in the full context of their own actions and the actions of their DT pals.

We want objective standards applied to all, not double standards.
482  Other / Meta / Re: THEYMOS - we want open debate on how YOU are on the wrong path here. on: September 15, 2019, 10:53:52 PM
some reasonable points.

No need for embarrassment it is possible that you are the only person that will dare attempt a real debate with us. That is more worthy of merit than most posts that have been slathered up in merit.

It is good that we are drilling down to the crux of the matter and the real items of contention that we should thrash out.


1/ Well, some minor, and maybe some not so minor things done in the past by some members have been forgiven by the general community and I do agree with some of these instances of forgiveness.. So you are not just going to get everyone out that has ever done anything wrong in their past ever.. It's just not going to happen..
You don't have to like all of them but you will need to get onboard with a little forgiveness especially if you expect any to be returned to you..
Some can probably be removed for some things, but not all of them for every little thing..

I would likely be more concerned about current and future poor behavior rather than past behavior..
Watch for current and new things.. The past is mostly settled already wither you agree with what the outcome was or not..


It is EXACTLY the transparent and fair definition of minor or major / not really financially dangerous / crosses the threshold that meets the SCAMMING or ATTEMPTING to scam in a directly financial sense that needs to be defined. The current double standards are quite terrible.

So for instance - telling lies to deliberately mislead investors into a monstrously premined and centralized scheme because you hold bags of it is to me a serious matter. It is scamming investors into believing the distribution is wide and therefore much less high risk that a tiny few people who can manipulate and dump at any time. This is a VERY SERIOUS instance of scamming/ deception for direct personal financial gain. It could have cost the board $ 2 000 000 000. That taken on its own is bad. When you start to notice this person is also implicated in an extortion attempt, shady escrow, and then abusing members trust who present links to those instances. Then we notice his VERY close supporters are escrow scammers, implicated in the same extortion and then abusing by their own admission members for presenting those instances again.

Then we can safely say that if these types of people do NOT meet the threshold of HIGH RISK FINANCIALLY to this board. You can forget about ANY person reaching that threshold.

If this happened in the past or it happened yesterday the fact that they have not been punished and no other DT members consider them worthy of punishment demonstrates clearly these DT members are NOT fit for their positions.

That is undeniable. These are the BITCOINTALK JUDGES.  You do not put people that have proven they will scam or will facilitate scamming in a trust position EVER. Time and forgiveness does NOT come into this.

There are several reasons for this.

1. Their punishment of other members for lesser crimes will never seem fair and therefore never be tolerated.
2. You have no good reason to TRY and trust people that have scammed when you only need 30 people from 100s' of 1000's of members. It is insulting to the rest of the members.
3. You can not say for sure people that were once willing to scam and have crossed that threshold. Some several times ... will not choose to cross it again.

We must at some point discuss specifics which is the point at which we are assuming you will not be willing to continue because it makes you are target.

Perhaps even more dangerous than these types who don't even recognize they have done anything wrong themselves (although clear scammers and deceivers for financial reward) is a person who is for MONTHS running around the forum screaming that ANYONE selling their account is FACILITATING SCAMS and they claim this is EVIL behavior. That then decides they WILL FACILITATE SCAMMERS for payment and act in an EVIL manner. I mean if you are willing to become what you consider is EVIL for money then it would seem there is nothing they will not do for the correct amount of btc dust.


You see "minor" and being "forgiven" by a "tiny tiny tiny " subset of pals on this forum. Is not like the entire forum saying we "forgive you, you should be on our trust system, you should be paid at the highest rates for posting" I mean you could post a poll on all sections asking if these actions are "forgiven" and if they should NOT be punished and be allowed on DT whilst others perhaps say  promoting an ALT that some DT members consider "MAY" turn into a scam need to be punished with red trust.

Be careful not to conflate forgiveness from their DT pals and some on meta board with forgiveness and willingness to accept double standards from the entire board.

We did say CLEAR instances of financially motivated wrong doing. Not something semi minor like for instance sneaky racist trolling under a sock puppet for the max greedy rates he can get on his 2nd secret account before getting caught. Although demonstrates greedy, sneaky and double standards (for lecturing others on paid shitposting) is not essentially meeting the threshold of CLEAR financial danger to others. Perhaps though if this was combined with his own stated willingness to support a possible escrow scammer out of loyalty, who is also a proven scammer, supporting an auction scammer, supporting a scam facilitator etc etc ...this would start to push up toward the threshold and possibly beyond.

We need to make sure MINOR and MAJOR are the same for all members in a sensible manner.

I mean really it is insulting to the entire board that we even feel the need for ANYONE with ANY kind of financially motivated wrong doing on the trust system when we have apparently millions of members and only need 20-30 trustworthy people that are free of that type of wrong doing.

This would need be thrashed out person by person on DT.

Is knowingly supporting a proven scammer a bad thing? We think it obviously is.

2. As for theymos's part of it, he doesn't always make the 100% best actions/decisions but he did eventually blacklist lauda from DT1 right?

This is interesting really. Because after months of being presented with observable instances of lauda trust abusing punishing whistle blowers, and his prior scamming and shady shit, theymos says lauda has acted sometimes in a "sub optimal" manner but then has done some good things LOL, he does not accept the observable instances on many matters and CH is boring and acting insane,  and works out with OG vod etc that lauda has his red trust removed. I mean let us not forget lauda, tman etc were OUT of DT before theymos NEW design where they all shot back in. Let's not forget theymos made tman a merit source etc.  However sure once lauda just could not stop abusing the trust of "special members" that theymos does take some care about then he was "black listed"

But what really happened? nothing? laudas red trust abuse will remain and apparently is MORE entrenched in DT than ever before. Lauda still has a green trust sheet, lauda is still being paid at the highest rates? lauda seems fine??

theymos has time to code out a new merit = volume button for all members but can't work out that blacklisting him from DT1 did nothing so blacklisting needs to be DT all levels ? apparently he is more entrenched in DT now than ever before. Then theymos grandfathered in to the trust system the very trust abuse that brought about need of the new flagging system. Which can be abused but only to a lemons level. Still that is enough to mitigate any new strengths of the new flagging system with regard to abusing for financial reward.

theymos may have good intentions but if his systems are making things 10x worse then that makes it just as bad for the NON gang members. He does not listen nor debate. Just tried experiments on a live board? imagine devs just trying out new "ideas"  on a live project. That's what test nets are for. Whoops whats that you all lost your coins?


3.The problem is posting the same set of information, however correct or not, over and over again..

That is the very best way to get your point across. The point is in 2 parts.

1. we will not be rage quitting. It will never stop.
2. The truth where is it on topic and relevant must be heard and repeated until people accept there is no room for double standards.

We DO think you have a good point ... that we can quote or reference post where we have presented the same truths before. That would save us time and work and allow us to post on more threads.

4.I may very well be wrong but the first time I saw you here in a confrontation with "them" in meta was a thread about how all the Legendaries without any earned merit were all spammers and you were upset at being grouped in with the spammers because you didn't have any merit either.

The first contact between DT and Cryptohunter was regarding the unfair bullying of another member by DT members. Before that CH had no interest in merit, DT or even really took any real note of that kind of thing. It was after after this contact when he noticed 2 prior scam supporters were on this DT that can give weird little red marks that he started to look into this which then lead to a thread about merits.

You are possibly talking about a thread where Suchmoon made some strange and outrageous statements and refused to go back on them.


1. That ALL pre merit legends are spammers.

2. That it was WRONG and IDIOTIC to suggest that some of the 99.87 % of the board were capable of making posts as good as some of the posts made by the 0.13% of the board (which were the top 100 or 200 merit holders)

I don't recall exactly the figures but something like that.

Where she was claiming merit was such a brilliant and reliable metric when it suited her agenda... later to debunk all of that by openly stating "good poster" and " bad poster" are MEANINGLESS TERMS without definition and criteria to measure against. This is obviously correct and undeniable. Making her look INSANE or untrustworthy or very very confused.

5.I didn't really like the high merit threshold for DT votes either because of the way merit is so "top 1% ish", poor equality of distribution, and that I would also like to see lots and lots of votes for DT and a very large distributed DT network..
I would also like to see more distributed smerit distribution, like a small monthly airdrop to just about everyone, for better decentralization and less power concentration.

It's not perfect but not the worst that could have possibly happened, and who knows, my ideas could make everything worse, I'm no expert..


There is value here in what you have said. However it is the WORST thing that could have happened in that context. It bound merit to trust. So now you have 2 control systems bound together as 1. Far easier to collude and game control of both now.

That is one solution perhaps airdropped only to heros and legends since there will be enough to lose (their account)(if there is clear merit abuse to prevent them attempting it), however we far prefer to push for merit to be be attributed only to those that output posts with objective value in terms of pushing for the optimal outcome or solution to each thread. Another issue  with merit currently is someone can post something that "seems" very convincing and valuable. ONLY when it gets debunked fully at a later stage is it revealed to be misleading nonsense before that happens it gets a ton of merits. The problem seems that there is obviously a lot of back slapping and gaming and politically motivated meriting BUT ALSO there is a lot of what we consider Lemming meriting (not lemon that is the political issue) people see someone they know or like has given merits and then they think hey yeah we will give some merits too. Perhaps the merits you give should be invisible to others for 48hr or perhaps longer to allow cooling off. If people read a post and believe it deserves merit they should do so without needing confirmation from their pals.

Perhaps a limit on the merits you can give another person for 6 months say 10 merits so if you see someone with a huge merit score you don't find out it all came from the same 10-15 people and that they are all the top fans and recipients of each others merits. That 100's of people total unconnected have given merits because those posts matched the criteria of a valuable post.

Maybe merits should be merit 1 or no merit 0. I mean it is either a valuable effort or does not meet the threshold of being valuable. Perhaps 1-3 max range. With a 3 being an original and brilliant new insight that nobody has previously mentioned on that thread. Not some reworded agreement/disagreement already voiced 20x on the thread from a political POV.

I mean just ANY criteria a post should match to get merit could be useful, not just if you think it is a good post. How is that any kind of guideline. May as well say " hey if you get loads of these points you get to control the board including rev streams, who wants to give the points out Huh oh you 20 always hanging out here in meta wanting to control things and have been willing to scam people for money in the past.., okay here you go, now only give them to others you think make good posts" bye kids be good. ahaha

6.I agree.. That just escalates..

This part is incorrect in a way. It does not escalate. Not that escalating is wrong in all cases. Those one liner meaningless off topic and derailing  do not escalate. They derail. You can't read a post presenting the truth corroborated with observable instances, not even attempt to debunk them but just scream " who made this cunt bleed" or " you are a used tampon" and say that is escalating really. That is fully on thread hijacking and derailing. There is no attempt to making a counter argument. You can call people names but you need to tackle their central points.

A debate in some forms is a battle of opinions that people need to validate and corroborate with independently verifiable evidence. This may get heated in that people may present their views in a less and less polite manner as they become more frustrated the other party can not see they are correct even given the evidence or that they are angry they are getting pushed back with this evidence and they start to realize they were WRONG.  Eventually in most cases especially those based directly on observable instances historically recorded on this forum there can only be ONE correct or ONE dominant side to a debate. Or it will become a grey area where it is so near the threshold of supporting one side over the other that the clarity is only there for those that have the capacity to interpret the information 100% accurately and measure its weight correctly. In very complex matters or where huge amounts of variables must be considered then there is perhaps only "opinions" for those with anything other than the highest capacity and specific training. In some areas there can only be educated speculations.

If a pupil says to the teacher. Can you explain why you allow lauda and his friends to steal our lunch money and try to beat us up if we dare to report it. Then lauda and his friends scream fuck off you used tampon, don't feed the troll, who made this cunt bleed. This is not escalation this is a deliberate attempt to prevent people asking legitimate questions and finding out the reasons why this abuse is allowed to continue.

Then if the pupil gets told by the teacher , shut up you boring bastard, and he makes them prefects and hands them some weapons , and the pupil asks again teacher how come you are giving these mother fucking scum bags the means to abuse in with greater effect can you explain your reasons... then lauda and his pals scream " he is the biggest troll here" " ban him"  " should be expelled from this school" "  then again this is not escalation this is compounding their earlier abuse and the teacher is making judgement errors.

When 2 sets of ideas conflict and tension escalates it is okay if the war of words each time brings some new argument and counter argument corroborated by observable events or solid evidence. When one side has reached the point of the argument where they have support enough to debunk the opposing points and the other side has NO WAY to push them back or debunk their dominating points. There there is also no need for the clearly dominant or winning side to supply A NEW argument at all. They have WON the debate until new information is presented that can debunk their points. There is no point in the losing side to escalate tension after that point. It is futile and changes nothing in terms of the debate and brings ZERO VALUE. The optimal solution or outcome at that point in time is reached.

Passion and drive are good things if people all stick to the same sensible rules.

Our central points are never trolling. How can on topic relevant truth be conflated with trolling as per the board definition. The board has quite a sensible definition of trolling that is beneficial. If you present debunked, obviously false information repeatedly you are spreading misinformation intentionally. This may not fit with "trolling" in the general sense but since that is IMPOSSIBLE to define correctly in every situation then the boards definition of trolling is very sensible.

Under that definition there are many trolls in DT.

Anyway great debate we are enjoying a sensible exchange of ideas. We believe you will be a good addition to DT. At least offering a civil back and forth of points of view.

Not that we in any way wish to say your post does not deserve the merits. We are pleased you have received them. You should also be far more valuable on DT than the vast majority of DT1 members. We don't know if already you are there.

However it is important for the reader to recognize clearly that although we have answered and offered counters to your points to the level we believe of debunking many of them (the ones we disagreed with not many of your points that are sensible and valid)  or at least pointing out they are not fully representative of the reality of the situation. Our posts have ZERO MERIT.

If you do not agree with this eddie and you believe it is unfair of us to say that. Then please point out which point of yours (the ones we underlined or even ones you think we have not addressed yet) and we will take another look and discuss this with you here. You may say that we only believe they are debunked when our argument is actually bogus. But since you have not countered we assume you are accepting our counters as valid.

That in no way means we do not believe you deserve the merits at all, you deserve them far more than 99% of people on meta. It is just an illustration of how one sided and broken the merit system is.  The truth is not valued here. It is inconvenient and shunned. Merit is the tool that will be used to silence inconvenient truths or turn down the volume soon so that you can just about hear them from page 90. You are either politically desirable or not depending on the level you support the status quo.

The reader can also witness that we are very very civil to any person that will be civil with us and not try to abuse our account or the account of our friends.  Fair is fair.









483  Other / Meta / Re: THEYMOS - we want open debate on how YOU are on the wrong path here. on: September 15, 2019, 06:04:15 PM
You can not debunk a observable instance. Well perhaps one vixen could......in their mind anyway.
Oh, all right, if you insist...



You are increasingly centralizing power to those handful of people that have undeniable and independently verifiable instances of financially motivated wrong doing.  This again is quite undeniable.
False. DT was previously decided by theymos unilaterally. The new system, however much you dislike it, is decentralised by comparison.

You are allowing and sanctioning those same bunch of scammers and their supporters to punish whistleblowers. You are empowering these scammers to do so.
Okay, here you're onto something. I don't know why TECSHARE hasn't yet been blacklisted from DT any more than you do. My best guess is that theymos is waiting to see if the system will resolve itself in a decentralised way.

No point saying no because your posts are boring, or no because it's bullshit or no because you must be now banned, or sorry the posting style is too annoying or long winded.


Penmanship counts. You'd do well to heed Strunk & White's advice to omit needless words (or just omit words).


Please read more carefully vixen. Start with just reading this entire thread.

CENTRALIZING POWER. Power does not reside with DT. DT is merely a tumor that is a result of the true CANCER merit.

Merit directly controls members in the ways 1-10 we have specified.

Besides which even taking into consideration DT alone. We and any other member would certain benefit far more greatly from top down controlled fair and transparent rules. That are applied equally to all members. rather than this faux decentralized (to a group that collude as one on many important and dangerous issues)  that have no accountability except to themselves in many cases.    


MORE INTERESTINGLY

You claim Tecshare should be blacklisted from DT do you vixen? this is a view we do not share nor understand at this stage.

Could you explain your reasoning on this in the full context of your reasoning that those with objectively verifiable observable instances of financial wrong doing and in some cases outright undeniable scamming and self confessed willing to facilitate scammers for a price.

We are looking forward to you not running away and staying here to thrash this out. We want to give you every opportunity to present your reasoning and we will work with you to reach the objective and optimal decision.

So lets compare the reasons you want techshare, but not lauda, tman, nutildah  blacklisted. Rather you want lauda tman and nutildah included into a trust system?

This is going to be interesting.. or will we witness a high velocity vile vixen vanishing act?

To summon the agent one it seems need only mention 'vixen' and it appears to assist as best it can.

484  Other / Meta / Re: THEYMOS - we want open debate on how YOU are on the wrong path here. on: September 15, 2019, 03:50:47 PM
As much as we would (not) love a big bag of subjective worthless magic points we are not going anywhere until the new merit = volume button is switched on in meta. Then new strategies will need be formed.

In a real merits system it is not subjectively given. It is objectively earned. When that happens we shall have more merits than we could deal with.

I know regular truth injections to the back slapping echo chambers (meta threads) are inconvenient and annoying. Sadly for historical purposes they should be there as testament to the warnings that were issued early on, regarding this merit cancer/faux decentralization nonsense.

Why not just debunk the points we are making and then they can REALLY be termed as trolling if repeated then for REALLY trolling repeatedly.

Still the central points remain solid with no real attempt at debunking them. More if we are all honest a case of ... well okay they may be true, but perhaps you are exaggerating them. NO they are true, there is no exaggeration at all.

If other members and mods want to side with scammers and trust abusers to ensure their chipmixer btc dust payments, then that will be there in history for all to read about.
It is there in black and white and undeniable as are most of our central points, hence why NONE of them have been debunked. You can not debunk a observable instance. Well perhaps one vixen could......in their mind anyway.



485  Other / Meta / Re: THEYMOS - we want open debate on how YOU are on the wrong path here. on: September 14, 2019, 01:43:20 PM
-snip-

some sensible points, many incorrect statements


Congratulations on hitting legendary.
We are pleased you gained a nice bunch of merits. The post is more deserving than most here. However, we must still demonstrate vast swathes of it are incorrect or very misleading. This is not personal.

It is good to actually meet a member that is not afraid to debate in public. Even if we believe you are not presenting a picture that is really representative of the reality here. However that is what debates are for. So we look forward to it's continuation. So far it has served you well.

We believe you are being honest. However please review all the information and verify it for yourself. Then query any points you disagree with.


1.A lot of these "scammers", or whatever you call them, in DT and sources are not as bad as you think they are.. Sure they have their imperfections but you have an inflated view of their negativity due to your specific personal dealings with them

We would need specific examples of those we refer to correctly as scammers. We say correctly since they have observable instances of scamming in their histories. Others have other financially motivated wrong doing or clearly support those that do. Many DT members (suchmoon for sure) claim that if you are supporting even a possible scam then you can be viewed as a scammer. In most of DT's cases they are supporting known and documented scammers or those willing to facilitate scamming for a price.

Bring your examples of where we are being over harsh. I think you will find calling scammers " scammers" or scammer supporters " scam supporters" will be acceptable practice from and objective standpoint. Some have MULTIPLE instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their pasts.


2. Flying off the handle and going looney

If you examine carefully the time line of CH. The "looney" or getting annoyed is fully warranted if you examine the depth and severity of the injustice. Just a quick recap.

1. lauda lying and scamming accusing CH of being a liar and there was no premine/instamine because lauda was on the launch and could say that for sure. (and held bags of that specific coin.)
2. Lauda's lies debunked by CH and others who supported CH's claims.
3. CH pushes with others for devs to offer a $ 2 000 000 000 compensation offer for the entire board, that lauda sought to prevent.
4. Years later CH catches lauda being very negative about that premined project claiming it is (centralized - go figure when they premine all the minting), lauda says " yeah sorry I was new and foolish. CH graciously says.. okay never too late to come to the light.
5. Lauda appears years later accusing CH of being liar on a separate issue. CH challenges him to present the lies. Lauda refuses but continues to make false allegations.
6. CH says if you make those claims again without presenting evidence he will encourage others to review laudas post history for themselves.
7. Lauda gives a scam tag to CH for saying that.
8. CH presents observable events from laudas history. Tman (also an auction scammer and implicated working with lauda on an extortion plot) gives CH another red tag.
9. CH says to tman you can not give red tags for presenting facts. Tman says " I can, I will and I just have".
10. CH says remove the red tag or else I will make sure everyone knows the truth about this trust abuse.
11. Yogg (also involved with lauda and tman previously) gives CH a red tag. Claiming that if " you say you will inform others of why you got the trust abuse if it is not removed that means you need a scam tag.
12. CH presents this to several DT members. He gets replies like. " I am not interested in reviewing this"  " I don't want to get involved" " I am not interested in the truth" " It is a good thing when innocent people get red trust because it makes everyone more wary"
13. Theymos says - your posts are annoying long winded low value garbage.  Lauda has done some good things before. I don't accept your explanation. NO debate.
14. People use Theymos reply as validation that CH is the problem not the systems of control and the fact DT will not act against each other and collude.
15. Ch presents a brilliant thread that is never debunked detailing the undeniable flaws of the sytems of control and their dire implications and makes some good suggestions with the key one to keep merit and trust as separated as possible. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0
16. Theymos merits the faux rebuttal that CH debunked and then goes and binds merit and trust together essentially making "merit into trust"
17. Theymos then makes a deal with OG and lauda to remove Laudas scam tags so that he can be seen as one of the most trustworthy people on the board.
18. Theymos says ..."ch you may have had a point about your trust abuse but because for some UNKNOWN reason completely unfathomable after compounded abuse of your account by the same scammers and his friends that tried to scam the board out of a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer over months, my own reluctance to help (but I will help the scammer get his red trust removed) DT's all colluding and telling you it is good innocent members get red, and the truth is not of interest.  Then just for that you get all angry and agressive. The only explanation could be you are clearly insane.
19. After suchmoon tries to spin that fighting for a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation claim and winning it against her scammer pal is net negative because ch didn't a few times reference the post which provided CH with the first clear analysis and details of how the premine went down. Although many times of the 10's of times it was quoted he did that winning a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer against her scammer pal means CH should be perm banned.
20. Then more weaponizing of gamed metrics like deleted post count. Theymos says CH you will be banned soon because you have a lot of deleted posts.
21 What happens next? someone goes and reports every single short post 2 words or whatever in CH entire history LOL
22. Voted the biggest TROLL on this board. According to the board rules. Trolling is the continued posting of clearly debunked and false information. The people voting can not present 1 instance where this took place? strange isn't it.



So eddie you say CH is a hot head? unreasonable and seemingly gets angry above and beyond normal range for these small injustices at the hands of previously defeated scammers and their colluding supporters? now entrenching themselves deeply in power and ensure they are paid at the highest rates due to Theymos brilliant designs?

We CH/ us and other truth presenters are too negative you say? these people are just the types you want in positions of trust you say? We just need to get to know them a little more and make friends?

3.You shouldn't have been so pissed about not having merits and just understood that the merit system just sucked for you

Merit was never the original reason for our arrival on meta board. It is also untrue that in its current form we desire merit since we want the entire system deleted or confined to its original purpose that had no conceivable use for us.

This is kind of a strange statement. It is clear merit sucks for the myriad of reasons we have demonstrated it sucks for. This has implications for the entire board.

We don't give one shit about this merit dirt if it was left to hold out bots ONLY as it was designed. However when it  empowers, sanctions, and financially REWARDS abuse like the above ...none of which is accountable to any member except themselves. Then Yes we are more interested in seeing it adapted so this does not happen to ANY member. Our only point is that it is the prime tool for creating a 2 tier system, which closely represents the central banking system and is nothing like the principles satoshi envisioned.
The implications for free speech on equal terms just got a whole lot clearer with the new merit = volume of your voice tweak.

Please review our post history and this thread (which was pre merit=trust) to understand merit is grossly net negative.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0
Since then things have gotten an whole lot more dark in many key areas that satoshi would have fought to protect. It is simply a case of understanding the implications of these control systems.

4. What are you going to do now? What is the next step from here?
Their really aren't many ways left that you can reword your points and arguments you have posted hundreds of times. We have all read them and know what you have to say including theymos.. You aren't really helping yourself with your ranting extremely long posts about the same thing over and over again. You aren't helping yourself by calling them "scammers" and all sorts of names and completely burning every bridge to nothing but dust. (I know they call you names but be the bigger man and don't return the jab, namecalling makes everyone look foolish imo)


There is no requirement to reword the truth. When the truth is on topic and relevant then the truth shall be presented. It shall not be repackaged.

Scammers will be called scammers. There is no need to mislead people regarding their potential and already observed behaviors.  Name calling is fine if the names can be sensibly tied to the observable behaviors of the person. So calling someone a filthy scamming scum bag is reasonable and then to tie the relevance of this and their prior actions to the opening post is useful to the reader. We have no issue with names in our direction if the supporting argument is there to justify it.

So for instance.

" who made this cunt bleed"  is just silly and derailing low value garbage. That was marked BAD when we reported it.

rather

" You are a cunt, I hate you. You continuously bring up my scamming past to demonstrate that I have double standards for being negative about other members for lesser crimes, I would like to make your nose bleed you fucking stalking bitch"

There you see we would not object. Although the scammers frustration has caused them to claim they would like make our nose bleed. We would say to ourselves. He has explained and validated his outburts and name calling. The reader can now see that the scammer is trying to pull double standards and punish another member for things he himself has done. We will keep this in mind when forming our own conclusions in the full context of this situation.

There is a correct term that describes the persons behaviors that is just called describing correctly. There is swearing and attributing negative terms to a person and justifying your reasons with corroborating evidence in the context of the OP. That is fine too. Just screaming accusations like " trolling don't feed them" or " who made this cunt bleed" " or shut up you used tampon" " who made this cunts butt sore"  these kind of things are very low value and need to be validated and credible and also relate to the OP directly.


5.Give in just a bit and think about what you would accept as far as a mutual disagreement. What would be acceptable to you to establish atleast a wee bit of mutual respect.
Calm down, come back and put your cards on the table, and work towards some sort of peace agreement?


This would not be possible really without some serious adjustments. However to out line them as a kind of rough idea.

1. ALL members with ANY clear financially motivated wrong doing removed from positions of trust at ANY time now or the future.
2. Those supporting or not excluding members that match that description ALSO REMOVED.
2. All trust abuse removed from our account and any other person clearly being abused who has ZERO instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their histories.

That would certainly help put us towards much much less frequent truth presentation regarding matters of TRUST, scamming, etc. That side of things would be of little interest after that point.

We would also like help develop a  sensible and logical set of criteria that helps all members measure the objective value of a post (and many other measures to turn merit into something that resembles merit) and a set of sensible and logical criteria, examples etc of permitted flow.  This need not be negative and would only be viewed as such by those that want to maintain the status quo and abuse of the merit system. Those that want FAIR and TRANSPARENT allocation of merit will be more than happy to assist a system that pushes for that.


Thanks for this opportunity to have a sensible, cordial and civil debate.

@ hilarious you post is OBSERVABLY incorrect garbage and totally misleading to what we have said. Please review it, review our posts and amend else we will need to crush your claims as deliberately misleading and false rubbish.

@trannydung

Great dung post.


@mprep

as previously explained. PM's are not suitable for a transparent debate on issues that have implications for the entire board. Also even posting PM's is frowned on so that would not be at all useful in terms of relaying theymos words to the forum at any stage.

@the rest

not time for the bottom of the barrel right now.





486  Other / Meta / Re: Obscene disparity of Merit distribution on: September 13, 2019, 03:13:57 PM
ChipMixer.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935098.0 - Merit: 118 - Since May 26, 2017
A large proportion of the merits the original post in the above thread came from DarkStar_, so that skews the data just a wee bit.  I'm not going to comment on whether those merits were deserved or not, but it was well within DarkStar_'s rights to hand them out as he saw fit, and I can't fault him for that. 

This is really a non-issue.  Only when a member makes a habit out of either giving away obscene amounts of merits, gives them out to posts that are objectively bad, or sells or gives merits mainly to friends or alt accounts that there's a problem.  And even then, there isn't a guarantee that anything is going to be done about it.  Theymos has stated that he basically wants people to leave the merit system alone and let it work itself out.  That's why merit abusers haven't been getting tagged much.

Well that's that for the campaign managers then.. LOL

NON ISSUE - Leave them alone - will sort itself out.

The disparity is natural, it is intentional, no punishment, will sort itself out (one day in the distant future when humans have discovered it is wrong to act for their own selfish gain) 

Keep waiting until then until you complain please.

Do not notice these excuses for the disparity come from people wearing CHIPMIXER banners. Thanks for moving along until we can silence you with the new bumping rules. You can voice concerns from page 100 and below then.
487  Other / Meta / Re: Obscene disparity of Merit distribution on: September 13, 2019, 02:56:56 PM
Warning for everyone thinking about starting a discussion with the user above: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

Can't you all just freaking ignore him? Every single day a new thread appers and people start rambling with him, WHICH IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. I'm starting to think people only do this to increase their post count, because I can't see any other reason we would keep feeding him with more attention.

Since we are BOTH off-topic, I suspect that these posts will get deleted soon. But I don't care. PLEASE, just STOP it already.

Chipmixer is here to tell you that addressing the reasons for the disparity you mention in the OP are trolling.

You are only allowed to say that it is totally fair or there is no disparity. Chipmixer merit cyclers say so.

Fall in line and say sorry now or your voice will be too quiet to hear soon. We are voting for this system on meta soon so speak up here whilst you still can.
488  Other / Meta / Re: Obscene disparity of Merit distribution on: September 13, 2019, 02:50:04 PM
ChipMixer.com - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1935098.0 - Merit: 118 - Since May 26, 2017

BISQ.network (Old Thread) - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=647457.0 - Merit: 2 - Since June 10, 2014

BISQ.network (New Thread) - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4509053.0 - Merit: 2 - Since June 21, 2018

^Is it justified?
Everyone is free to spend their merits however they want. So yes, if the Chipmixer ANN is valued more by certain members of the community than BISQ, of course Chipmixer will receive more merits.

It's impossible to measure content quality the way you want to. And frankly, i don't understand the problem either. It's not like BISQ is in any way comparable to chipmixer. (And even if it was: your point is: ? )

So the disparity is totally fair and warranted. simple as that you say..

LOL valued by more certain members??? thanks for that excuse chipmixer promoter.

Of course, look forward to chipmixer complete domination soon, and any other project the "HIGH MERIT" cyclers decide fit.

Your volume is now at the mercy of the main merit fountains here. Better fall inline quick.

They may not hear you speaking though in threads that genuinely interest you, so best come to meta and become a scammer supporter and merit enthusiast asap.
489  Other / Meta / Re: THEYMOS - we want open debate on how YOU are on the wrong path here. on: September 13, 2019, 02:41:27 PM
Poor old robovac aka the merit obsessed dirt sucking tool.  Who has achieved NOTHING or real note since being a member here. NO achievements at ALL except spewing meaningless stats obsessed garbage and supporting anything that makes it appear a credible and important member even if that ALSO supports scammers and those observably directly a financial risk to the board.


10000 posts and NOT 1 real achievement. LOL brilliant robovac. Meanwhile Lauda has come over to theymos to demonstrate how himself and robovac work as a team to keep the truly dangerous in line.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIblMtZ0EYk&t=7s


Loyce and lauda explaining how it should be 250 earned merits or higher to Theymos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbuaUYMwOP8&t=19s



I mean look robovac you merit pumped dreg. Bring me here 5 of your ORIGINAL THOUGHT INSPIRING POSTS (not copy and past stats puke with very minor analysis) for analysis. Also since you are obsessed with a prior REAL LEGEND WITH MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF REAL ACHIEVEMENTS and since you like to argue with him previously. Bring here some EXAMPLES of your encounters where you were not demonstrated to be a dumb fool and spout moronic illogical junk?

Now get back to sucking up dirt and spewing out "stats" based upon a meaningless subjective metric. That is ALL you are "good for".

You even selectively quote theymos replies to a true legend that DO NOT INCLUDE his observably incorrect statements. Bring all the quotes. Also those quote demonstrate. 1 I will ignore and not tackle - then it followed some observably incorrect statements. One of which seems to have been self debunked by his own subsequent actions. 1 false accusation and refusal to then tackle permitted flow. Of course this varies depending on who you are.

In addition to that the "good" reports are a LAUGHING STOCK. BAD reports and GOOD reports are subjective and in many cases observably gamed and bogus decisions by corrupt mods.

Have a look on our "deleted posts" topic in rep and then we will compare those to some that are marked BAD from the DT abusers and merit cyclers like random spams like the one from oeioeie (or whatever that dreg calls himself)  

" who made this cunt bleed"

" shut up you used tampon"

these are now the good posts and credible and undenible rebuttals to their " central points" are off topic and irrelevent.

I know you are just low level Absolute Imbecile and pathetic robovac but there is no point in quoting FALSE accusations that collapse under scrutiny to try to prove whatever garbage you are spouting out now.

So again your misleading post is served up as garbage.

Stick to serving the "gang" members and trying to validate your "value" here by just slobbering out stats based upon meaningless metrics. If you create enough of those then you are doing the best that you are capable of.  You are an idiot I hope that you realize this clearly. If not go back review the merit cycling threads where your stupid attempts at reason were torn to bits by a real legend.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now at to eddies post ( the only semi credible attempt at a debate although he is not theymos himself so should not be posting under our local rules)


Still since this is the ONLY kind of ATTEMPT at a debate we are likely to encounter between Theymos hiding up and the merit cycling crew trying to derail. We willl tackle his points one by one.


Let's start.

1. OP have you ever seen any system work out 100% optimally in absolutely every aspect?

that is no excuse to have a system that is almost as SUB OPTIMAL as you could dream up.

Review these points we presented that are based upon a meaningless and misleading metric

1. rank
2. other peoples paid2post eligibility
3. other peoples paid2post rates
4. the volume of the entire board in that now you your voice will not be heard at all unless you have a nice amount of EARNED merits.
5. their own personal access to the highest rates of paid2post
6. The trust system eligibility and selection process (what a shock they all feel EACH OTHER are the most trustworthy even though many are PROVEN scammers and financially dangerous.
7. The perceived trust of other members and themselves.
8. Therefore other peoples ability to trade on this board.
9. Peoples (public opinions) via wanting to obtain merits and not get red trust.
10. Idiots perceived opinions since they look at merit score as some kind of validation of true value.

So the people that now have vast control of ALL of these things happen to ALSO be the same people that are listed here on the dirty turds poll.

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

You start to realize the "nothing is 100% perfect argument" is kind of funny.

2. The goal of the merit system is to slow down sig spammers and account farmers

This is CORRECT and 100% ALL it was designed for. Applying NEW meanings to it like,

To then say if you have the most merits you get to control  1-10 above is PURE IDIOCY.

There is no real way to abuse merit UNLESS those with the most merit say it is being abused = PURE IDIOCY.

3.The DT system's goal is decentralization and the casualty is drama and infighting and also the disadvantage of users the merit system is sub-optimal for.. I still think it will settle out, and is settling out, but the waves are still bouncing around in the pool from the cannonball that was thrown in when it was implemented..
A subset of users got a big head start because they were already using trust lists and were some of the first to act because they are most on top of new happenings.. Maybe they have been trying to keep it a bit too exclusive to like minded users and supporters but it is continually decentralizing and diversifying to many users of many mindsets..


It is NOT decentralization. If so the designer is a total and utter imbecile. MERIT is the controlling factor of the power the members will have themselves, AND the power to select who else has access to that power. NOW due to the design there is CLEAR FINANCIAL REWARD via sig campaigns, bumps, and multiple other direct financial incentives to retaining that POWER and ensuring that POWER only goes to those that will not clearly rival their power or financial advantages. AND YOU HOPE THING WILL IMPROVE AND THIS WAS JUST A HEAD START??   this is observably FALSE.  You are claiming that human nature on this board works in reverse to EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE OF HUMAN NATURE in history??  

You also seem to be ignoring the FACT that these people you think will suddenly start allowing "others" outside of their pals, alts and acolytes to gain some power were really lovely people to start with. Not noticing most of them are either proven to have scammed, or supported others that have scammed here.

This point is BOGUS that things will improve. It is impossible to say that will happen.

THE BEST you can HOPE will happen is that DT will break down in to FACTIONS that will not abuse each other due to MAD.  

The more you present observable instances of the failure of the merit system and the direct knock on results of the merit system. The MORE theymos sets up the board to financially reward and skew power based on MERIT.

It is clearly impossible he can not notice the direct results of this but seems now complicit to ensure the entire board (before this latest stupid move with merit = bump power the merit cancer was spreading its effect slightly more slowly) only serves to represent the opinions and financially rewarding results of the merit hoarders.

Your 3rd point here is in part TRUE but is stating the situation as it is now in very weak terms and exposing the reader to unrealistic hopes for an improvement in terms of fair treatment for all members.

Merit needs resetting, and some strict enforceable criteria set. Abusers are booted off AT ONCE. I mean look at theymos actions on this so far. HE REMOVED a merit source for openly saying I WILL REWARD GOOD POSTS THAT FIT WITH WHAT I AGREE WITH (POLITICAL POINTS) however we can NOT demonstrate those posts were net negative and actually some of those posts were EXCELLENT and their central points were never debunked.

Then THEYMOS gives merit source to people who SLATHER merits on politically contrived net negative and at times rule breaking garbage like fox poop.

The entire system is bogus and THEYMOS is now ADDING MORE additional financial rewards for an observably broken and misleading metric.

The most worrying thing is the free speech. It is undeniable that Theymos is ever more making the carrot more tasty and appealing (like crack now)  although has apparently attempted to lessen the blatant abuse of the stick (trust) to forcing people to repeat and regurgitate the " VIEWS" of the system controllers.  

I mean the flagging system is a GOOD IDEA but again VERY WEAK implementation so that you still get flagrant abuse of the old trust system which is left there for the system controllers and their scampaign manager friends to game for their own closed selection process.

The entire attempt at decentralizing control has FAILED.

It was better when theymos chose some DT members so he was directly accountable for enlisting scammers and trust abusers.

We have given him MANY great suggestions to curb the control by a tiny sub set of scammers and their supporters and each time he refuses.

Unless he can debate openly regarding the potential pros and cons of his decisions then he must be viewed as unsuitable to concoct these ludicrous systems that place scammers in the most lucrative and powerful positions of the board where they are accountable only to themselves in any meaningful way.

Whether it is deliberate or not this building upon this "merit" garbage is a FAIL in numerous ways.  

This is NOT the governance of someone suitable for satoshis principles.  Let's bring in some one sensible who has some understanding of human nature and can perhaps create something more credible that REALLY decentralizes power and does not just hand it immediately to the most greedy and dangerous members.

Let theymos be the warden but ffs let's get some developer who can create some systems that are not immediately gamed and manipulated by a few scammers and their pals. who then use their new given powers to take all the best rev streams and silence all those that dare to notice.

Is it impossible on a anonymous forum? perhaps it is so let's forget the FAKE DECENTRALIZATION and bring on some top down control that is FULLY ACCOUNTABLE.


So yes there was some value to your post eddie, however under scrutiny it falls very short of painting a true representation of what we have here right now and the outlook for this system in the future.

Next please.


@suchmoon you can not crush central points by ignoring them. Sorry try again. Bring your best arguments. We always enjoy humiliating you in public.

Theymos has only replied to us and our friends in MOSTLY 1 liner, poorly researched, observably untrue accusations and statements. Mixed with some subjective opinions.

We want a REAL DEBATE.

Unlike you suchmoon we do not kiss theymos ass then stab him in the back as soon as he take some small action against your scamming, trust abusing pals.

We tell theymos the TRUTH.

Merit is dog shit. You must have rocks in your head building control systems upon this gamed and manipulated garbage. You should be taking some REAL action against scammers infesting your trust system, you should not be giving merit source to scammers and shit posters, your mods are corrupt and will not dare debate their actions, the financial incentives you are providing for gaming your systems are foolish,

Stop weighting merit as if it is MERIT and start cleaning house of scammers and their supporters.


Suchmoon only calls theymos out as a sneaky heavy handed leader FOR ASKING SCAMMERS GET REMOVED.

Notice the difference??? theymos probably does not because he thinks suchmoon is an excellent member LOL


Sorry no debunking of the central points as yet. Keep them coming though. More screaming trolling for merits is appreciated for bumps.

Or

RUN OFF AND HIDE weasels.

490  Other / Meta / Re: THEYMOS - we want open debate on how YOU are on the wrong path here. on: September 13, 2019, 12:28:21 PM
We - you and bunch of your alts? It looks like that
"We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!"


Picture of touchnowmyanus's mommy's face during super anal meat injection by the true legend...haha




Dear touchnowmyanus

Stop derailing our post fool. Theymos is not scared of the central points here. He will soon be here to debunk all of those concerns in the OP.

Learn to read the local rules ass licker.

Get your mintdice everyone - more gambling spam - promoted by a real btc enthusiast. Mintdice everyone. Mintdice. LOL

491  Other / Meta / THEYMOS - we want open debate on how YOU are on the wrong path here. on: September 13, 2019, 12:09:16 PM
Local rule - this is addressed to theymos only. Therefore only his opinion is on topic and relevant. Nobody except theymos and our selves may post on this thread.


If you win the debate ( by debunking our central points) we will leave this meta board and not return.

We have lost all patience with this now.

We want to discuss merit and how empowering those that cycle it openly to each other (for posts that are of low value, or even trolling, breaking the rules of permitted flow)  is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Will you dare debate this with us or not?

You are increasingly centralizing power to those handful of people that have undeniable and independently verifiable instances of financially motivated wrong doing.  This again is quite undeniable.

You are allowing and sanctioning those same bunch of scammers and their supporters to punish whistleblowers. You are empowering these scammers to do so.

The ONLY hope is that you have not grasped this is exactly what is happening.

YES OR NO - you will debate or not?


No point saying no because your posts are boring, or no because it's bullshit or no because you must be now banned, or sorry the posting style is too annoying or long winded.

If you ignore this post or say no, then it is quite obvious that you are unable to debunk our central points. Therefore you are fully aware that you have enabled, empowered and rewarded a bunch of clear scammers and their supporters and placed at disadvantage any that wish to speak out against them.

MERIT is the key cancer here to this rot that has set in. What are you going to do about it? why are you continually building upon it.

How can you sit back and watch those with observable instances of clear financially motivated wrong doing and bunch of people that support that wrong doing be called DEFAULT TRUST 1

You define default trust 1 via your "merit system" and design. You are instructing the entire board that these scammers and their supporters are those they should trust in? That is dangerous and immoral since you MUST BE aware of this by now.

Stop hiding up. Why not have a sensible debate and crush our central points one by one. Then we will see WE are on the wrong path no you and this board.
492  Economy / Reputation / Re: DT everyone? on: September 13, 2019, 11:56:32 AM
its difficult to only get the top members on DT1 and thats a good thing....(not that spammers and scammers and etc are needed) but to have many very trusted members on DT isn't bad imo, I believe those that are very trust worthy and are honest with other people are doing a good job for online places like this ...

Spoken like TRUE MORON and ASS FELTCHER.

Only someone with your level of stupidity could try deny that DT1 is stacked full of untrustworthy scoundrels, scammers and their supporters. People as low functioning as you who can say this in the light of the facts produced in this thread should be stripped of all merits and frozen at a rank named full retard.

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

Yeah brilliant example of how scammers cycling merit to their supporters results in a mass of untrustworthy and weak scum in DT1
493  Other / Meta / Re: Bumping changes on some boards on: September 13, 2019, 11:24:23 AM
I can make valid contributions to the other threads to promote my signature, but it doesn't work that well.

If you make valuable contributions elsewhere in the forum and earn merits - your own bumps to your thread will have more weight.

If you just post in other threads trying to get views for your signature - it might backfire.

Unfortunately in my experience getting merits has nothing to do with good content.
And in the mean time this bumping system kills every initiative that is not promoted by big guys.

Stop talking sense around here. Have you not noticed this is the twilight zone yet. Theymos is intent of automating everything and along the way turning this entire board into an echo chamber based on his brilliant "merit" design.

So now those that cycle the meaningless, misleading and dangerous junk will AUTOMATICALLY control

1. rank
2. other peoples paid2post eligibility
3. other peoples paid2post rates
4. the volume of the entire board in that now you your voice will not be heard at all unless you have a nice amount of EARNED merits.
5. their own personal access to the highest rates of paid2post
6. The trust system eligibility and selection process (what a shock they all feel EACH OTHER are the most trustworthy even though many are PROVEN scammers and financially dangerous.
7. The perceived trust of other members and themselves.
8. Therefore other peoples ability to trade on this board.
9. Peoples (public opinions) via wanting to obtain merits and not get red trust.
10. Idiots perceived opinions since they look at merit score as some kind of validation of true value.


So what controls all of these things. I mean surely the warden of this entire board would not base ALL OF THAT on anything other than the most solid and reliable metric right?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Hey "select few members" already having a ton of scamming and financially untrustworthy actions in your past... here have some magic points to give out to WHO YOU THINK SHOULD HAVE THEM based on ..... well just WHO YOU THINK SHOULD HAVE THEM based on what you consider a "good post" and "bad post"

Hahahahahahhahahhaha

Brilliant Theymos. This is genius work.

Perhaps take note of suchmoons statement good poster and bad poster are MEANINGLESS TERMS if there is no definition or strict criteria

This bumping being based on earned merit (with some activity consideration) is again nothing but saying the SAME PEOPLE YOU HAVE GIVEN CONTROL OF THE BOARD TO ALREADY are now going to control the volume of peoples voices.

Every action you have taken here lately simple "CENTRALIZES" control or CONCENTRATES control to a handful of chipmixer spammers.

Even the Lauda situation demonstrates that you are NOT SERIOUS about getting rid of these scamming, self serving scum bags even though the proof is right under your nose daily. That now his abuse is more entrenched in support than before the black list is a spectacle of how dreadful these designs are.

Merit is garbage and whilst you keep basing all these NEW AND CLEVER designs on top of it they will remain damaging garbage.

The DEVELOPERS who are not bothered with the shitty merit system and have no merits earned in the last year will not even have their voices heard under this new stupid design.

Suchmoon just said to some the person we are replying to " THAT HE WILL NEED TO CONTACT HER AND SHE MAY BUMP  IT "   LOL yeah I'll tell all the developers who have produced some excellent and inventive designs to ASK SUCHMOON IF THEIR VOICES CAN BE HEARD.

This forum is becoming a laughing stock. Well done theymos. A place where scammers and their supporters control every aspect.

Of course you will not DARE debate any of this and ignore or delete it like usual.

DISGRACEFUL.

ALL SYSTEMS BUILT UPON MERIT = FAIL

try to understand this simple concept.

Like the governments that do everything they can to prevent the little guy at the bottom not getting squeezed for every drop of revenue they can whilst ensure themselves and their friends are given EVERY OPPORTUNITY AND LOOP HOLE to keep their ill gotten gains from widespread corruption and gaming of the unfair systems. Whilst making sure the little guy has no voice. Whilst making sure there is serious punishment for speaking up.

Satoshi would be horrified at this centralizing of control into the hands of a few scammers and their supporters.

This is Undeniable so there shall be no debate. Theymos says well everyone in meta board agrees with my brilliant ideas so you must be the odd one out. LOL hahaa#

Meta board = the bunch of scumbags that have from the start been ensuring they grab all the power. Actually the meta board has long been the place we notice that all those seeking power have been attracted to hanging around in. This is NOT a representative sample of the entire board theymos.

It is impossible to tell really if theymos and the 40 thieves in meta are all part of one gang or that theymos is really the unwitting and naive leader who REALLY BELIEVES in the advice the 40 thieves ply him with daily. Whilst pretending to stop the bad guys taking over the board.

We keep hoping it is the latter but every time he keeps heaping advantage and centralizing control to his fav merit cyclers then it seems impossible (in light of the evidence that we keep shoving under his nose that merit is gamed and misleading garbage) that a person can be this dense. So it is concerning to see this MERIT metric again being used for gaining MORE advantage here. In theymos mind a developer who could have produced a novel design then his own words deserve less volume than some scamming moronic highly paid sig spammer in meta regarding his OWN PROJECT. So now they will have to ask the likes of suchmoon or tman please can you comment on the fork I have just been working on for months please on my thread. Sure says tman for a small fee that could be possible. Or if they ask nutildah then who knows what will be required.

What comes next for the "meta cycling gang" I mean there is only so much advantage they can be given now they control the volume of peoples voices.

It is undeniable that this latest move is just ANOTHER move from theymos to hand MORE power to observable scammers and their supporters.

Even if the intentions are good basing they systems on merit are simply giving power to the corrupt and greedy.
494  Other / Meta / Re: REEE: [NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content on: September 11, 2019, 10:57:40 PM
It is human nature to want to be part of the in crowd. Imaginary? You know for a while just dismissing these accusations as conspiracy theory worked, but you and your face painted friends have jumped the shark. I don't have to convince anyone now of these coordinated attacks, you have all done an exceptionally good job doing that for me, so thank you.

So your theory is that if multiple users criticize your behavior then it must be coordinated? Is it possible that perhaps your behavior is not faultless?

Once again, I wasn't just notified, a tent was pitched, and a 3 ring circus was assembled. That is exactly what I will NEVER respond to positively, because I refuse to incentivize this attack mob type mentality by complying with its demands.

This is just amazeballs. You're so bravely destroying your own reputation just to resist something that you made up.

If ONLY THE SAME USERS keep criticizing someone for behaviors that warrant less negative attention than their own, and they appear to be worried personally about the out come of his behavior since it will take away their absolute domination of DT.  Then you can be pretty much sure that is collusion and gaming of the system by them.

Once again. We ask you to bring your includes and the other DT members ganging up on him,  and match your includes with his includes and we can all compare the implications of your trust list "behaviors"

Each person on your includes can be individually scrutinized in public and you can all say YES or NO to whether their prior behaviors are suitable for DT.

WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF AND WHY DO YOU REFUSE??

Now we notice suchmoon is saying.. perhaps it does not even matter is scoundrels or even proven scammers are on DT. LOL

Yep a trust system full of scammers does not matter at all. Brilliant idea. Sets a great example to the board and I am sure people speaking out against these prior behaviors will surely not mind a nice new scam tag for their efforts. Even scammers are going to say fuck off, if you can scam, I can scam. This is unfair and double standards.

Imagine having judges that were also all KNOWN criminals having committed worse crimes than they are handing down sentences for and never having been punished at all, actually they were rewarded instead. hahaha

Doesn't matter, what advantage does it give them says suchmoon. What is the possible problem here?

and then suchmoon said..... of course I can include a proven auction scammer, a proven and willing facilitator of scamming for the correct prices, a project pumping bag holding scammer, probable extortionists, probably shady escrows if I want. .... What's that tecshare?? call the police, someone said they are tougher than homosexuals. Shut the board down. we are all going to be robbed now. Quick my fellow scammers and extortionists, scam facilitators and auction scammers and their supporters... save our hard earned btc from this tough homosexual thrasher. haha

The twilight zone of meta board.

It is shocking how the worst scammers and their supporters even DARE to start this "we want to analyse the behaviors of people that are being included into the trust system". It is beyond strange. Only theymos the warden can sit by and enjoy the twilight zone he has allowed to spring up here over the years.

What is more strange is that the tecshare does not say to them. Okay scum bags I will openly compare the persons on my includes with the persons on your includes. I can't believe that there can be more hard evidence of financially motivated wrong doing in the past behaviors of his includes compared to MANY DT1 members.

What is this passive pussy board. Bunches of weak knee weasels and wimps. Same for the admin. All pretending this black lagoon is not forming right under their very noses.

Man up ffs.

Financially motivated wrongdoing = NOT TRUSTWORTHY = NOT PART OF THE TRUST SYSTEM.

Supporting those that have clear instances of financially motivated wrong doing = NOT TRUSTWORTHY = NOT PART OF THE TRUST SYSTEM.

Undeniable, and allowing this to happen is immoral and wrong.

This trust system reflects poorly on this entire board. I mean if from 100's of 1000s of members we can not even find 30 people that have zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing or even open scamming. That is a disgrace. I do not believe it is true.

495  Economy / Reputation / Re: DT everyone? on: September 11, 2019, 10:44:02 PM
If the account is banned, what is the problem? How is a banned account going to effect the trust system? Did they leave a bunch of false ratings or is this just a pathetic stretch for you to give the impression of impropriety?

NOTE TO MODERATORS: This thread is now clearly directed at me individually, please move it to the appropriate subforum of REPUTATION as per my report where it belongs. Thank you.
No, it is not. You are missing my point here. As I said, you see everything as personal attack.

What is point of DT system if hacked accounts are "allowed" to end up in DT?

Well obviously it was directed at him because you put @tecshare in the thread title and then just removed it now from the title as you can see, since it was still above your post before he asked it moved to rep.

This is the kind of sneaky behavior we are getting familiar with from DT and their pals.
496  Economy / Reputation / Re: Does it really matter if we have weasels, scoundrels, or outright scammers in DT on: September 11, 2019, 04:15:18 PM
If there's a true scammer on DT, that's a huge problem, and I think the consequences of this happening are pretty obvious.  Remember the Master-P incident?  If I remember the situation correctly, he leveraged his DT position in order to pull off a huge scam--and nobody expected that to happen because of his DT status and extensive history of not pulling off scams.  And in Master-P's case, there wasn't any warning that he was going to do what he did.

If we know for certain there's a scammer on DT, that scammer needs to be voted off via exclusions.  I'm not talking about a member who holds controversial views or is an abrasive personality, but one who is an actual dishonest member of bitcointalk.  I don't know how a scammer could end up on the list, but I'm sure it could happen--and it's the responsibility of other DT members to take action.

6) How vigilant are the other members of DT going to be towards unacceptable behavior?
This one is probably always going to be an issue, as there's usually a lot of debate about these issues before anything is done.  On the other hand, I have seen DT members act quickly to exclude members.  I understand the concern, but I tend to believe that there is a core group of DTs that keep a close eye on their fellow DTers and would blow the whistle at the first sign of potential shenanigans.  I'm being optimistic there, but my gut tells me it's the truth.

LOL what levels of proof do you need. We are ready to discuss this with you in public and you can explain clearly why tman is not an auction scammer and lauda is not a scammer too.

You do realize you can not just use a different " definition" of scammer as it suits you.

Love this new angle. Does it even matter if we have scoundrels and outright scammers on DT ?

Brilliant. Now it is undeniable since the evidence is here.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

We will swap to the angle that it probably does not matter that they are no DT.

Perhaps its a positive thing? meta board will certainly go for that. Also why is this thread not on meta. I mean of course cowards run to rep to self moderate but suchmoon must have forgotten to click SM this time.

Good for us and the board that some truth and observable instances can be brought to this party.

We already know who the nasty elements arrived on DT suchmoon  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

You and your friends put them there.

Can you highlight these other nasty scammers you seem to be referring too so we can compare their actions against your includes. Or are you talking about the same people but pretending you have not included them?

This is really a meta board matter. Let's bring it over there. Nobody reads rep really. You and your DT includes should be compared against these "OTHER" scoundrels and outright scammers under theymos nose. So he can compare himself. If your includes and those of people like pharmacist and tman are super clean in contrast to these "nasty" others then theymos should go on your side and blacklist them for sure. However if your includes and those of your friends (including them) are equally as bad or worse he should blacklist the lot of you and go with people that have zero instances of financially motivated wrong doing?

Are you open to this challenge you weasel and scoundrel and supporter of outright scammers and extortionists, trust abusers and other vile scum bags?  Or run away again?

497  Other / Meta / Re: [NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content on: September 11, 2019, 04:05:32 PM
Quote from: link972387 date=7434041
I just came here because of the title, violent and homosexual do not belong to the same sentence or the same person, gays are weak like pussies and anyone can beat the hell out of them. I would do this for free that is how much I hate homosexuals.

I completely support his free speech right to state his/her opinion about gays but the last sentence is pushing it too far hinting about personally committing violence..
Looks like drunk posting..

That last sentence in that now redacted post, and some other inconsistencies of his brought up in the thread it originated from, lead me to believe he would infact be a mistake to be added to DT, but not because he doesn't like gays..
It's not the hugest mistake in the world though as if one is expected to search a users entire post history for out of character drunken rants before including them..

I don't necessarily dislike gays if they are cool but I dislike flamers of any variety.. I've had gay friends but not so much ones you can tell are gay just by looking at them, or at the first sound of their voice.. No thanks.. Just my opinion..

If you are going to be tolerant I think you should be just as tolerant of the guy that doesn't like flamers as you are of the flamers themselves.. You don't have to like and befriend either one but respect their right to be whatever they are, but any sort of offensive violence coming from any camp is unacceptable and intolerable..

How would you compare this drunken mistake in terms of financial risky behavior to the board..... to let's say

1. screaming you are sure that anyone selling their accounts is facilitating scams, are evil and must have red trust. .... and then trying to sell their account for months for 0.3 btc??

2. Or getting your pal to auction your stuff and then pretend you would love to buy it and it is going far to cheap and worth much more? so using deception to try to pump the sale price of your own items?

3. Or claiming you were on a launch of a pow coin and can state there was no instamine/premine because you were there and know it never happened. (when you have bags of that coin) when it was UNDENIABLE that it took place?

Imagine if these people were all then implicated in a very serious extortion or supporting those that were on to a trust system?


I mean just those 3 things compared to saying you can beat up a homosexual and you hate them?

I see these people guilty of observable financial wrong doing screaming that this homosexual hate is more financially risky to the board than their own directly financial wrongdoing? this is very strange. Nobody seems to want to address this.

Especially them or their DT pals lol ??

How can these same people be here  screaming this is serious grounds for not being on DT after what they and their friends they support on DT have done??

This place is like the twilight zone.

498  Other / Meta / Re: Bumping changes on some boards on: September 11, 2019, 03:24:52 PM
So basically this will mean that the Chipmixer ANN is going to be pinned on the top of the board for... for ever?
Or really, any ANN from a company where more senior members here have a vested interest in bumping the topic..?

Maybe an unintentional side effect, but that's really a massive advantage that they'd get over other companies/etc.
Or not... I don't know.

Bitcointalk seems to become more and more of an esoteric meritocracy.. Where people with higher ranks, or those who spent more time here, now also have a more powerful voice? Hmm. (Or am i understanding this wrong?)

As much as i disliked these threads with account farmers talking to each other, i don't know if such drastic measures are warranted, or if this is the right direction for Bitcointalk to move towards to. (Although i must admit: i haven't visited the altcoin boards in a long time, if ever.)

While the side effect may be providing long time users with an advantage, ultimately I think the primary goal is to restrict new users, simply based on the fact that it is simpler to set up sock puppets on newer accounts to spam. I am sure if it was possible to prevent abuse otherwise, Theymos would let noobs post without even logging in. Sadly that is not possible.

Longer time user = more advantage in bumping with no other consideration would be okay. There is a very very strong merit anchor to their advantage. So some of the devs there will not be able to bump their own threads and they are the most important announcements.

Legend members need earned merits or they are noobs now.

Merit is becoming a very financially rewarding metric to game and it is wide open to gaming. You really want old members that also have LOTS of earned merits if you want to push your project regardless of whether they make good posts or are valuable real members of your community. CHipmixer is going to do well and so are any projects pushed by the SAME GANG. This is going to push scampaign managers to not even bother with manual review of posting quality now.... projects will want MORE MERITS pushers now regardless of whether their posts are good or not. This defeats any idea of getting campaign managers to review people manually for post quality and trust not just accept gamed metrics. The projects will insist they suck up the gamed merits score junk.

It is good activity is at least included here, but merit is given too much weight again.

junior with some small earned recent merits now trumps legend developer even regular posting legend devs who just don't get much merits because merit sources " don't bother with the alt sections according to them since they have them on ignore " lol

We best get the devs of any projects and their key community members over to meta board to apply for merit source or at least get feltching for merits.
499  Other / Meta / Re: Bumping changes on some boards on: September 11, 2019, 02:17:24 PM
Do you think this is the best solution?



1/ Some of the smartest and capable devs in the alt section don't acquire much merit at all, some have hardly any. When they post an important announcement like fork or even something more time dependent then this will maybe not even bump the thread to the top or at all?

2/ Some people who like to unjustly attack and derail threads often are held back because they have to weigh this against bumping the thread and giving attention to it. Now they can do this by just registering an alt account and not worry about  the bumping aspect. Competing projects can just derail and keep spamming their "better projects" without worrying about bumping the opponents thread.

3/ MORE (untrustworthy and selfish reasons) negative and bogus reasons to apply merit to certain members who promote your fav projects now. The more financial incentive we keep giving to abuse merit (well you can't even abuse it in it's current form since it is totally subjective and even when the post is debunked clearly people still apply merits because they want it to be true ) the more it will just become used for selfish gain and nothing to do really with the objective MERIT of the post.

Seems rather crazy to keep heaping financial rewards on those that abuse the merit system successfully.

While merit is not anywhere near a reliable or safe metric we need to reduce dependency on those scores to the max.

The only objective metric we have is activity. Activity takes "the min same time" for everyone to accrue. Activity needs to be given max reward for positive and max punishment for negative behavior. You try to base anything off of a subjective easily gamed metrics alone and at the same time place reward  for successful gaming of it = folly.

Solve one problem, more problems will appear.

Get the foundation layer you are trying to build things on top of solid first and at least difficult to abuse first. You are building on quicksand right now.

There is no solution as good as an objective standard of moderation and rewarding and punishing of a  NON gameable  objective metric like activity. Use the min time required for all members to gain high activity as the basis for these systems. Merit is broken what more proof could you have than meta board lol.  

Higher activity higher bump power - with under 50 having zero. A small merit weighting.
Get caught in fake conversations ( a sensible and effective activity reduction and sigs turned off for a year)

Let's get merit to a standard that it actually represents anything tangible before we start giving more incentive to game it.

That's our suggestion. However, since you have not seemed to realize clearly that merit is used to create echo chambers and serve as a tool to ensure those controlling it use it for their own personal financial gain then we know it is near pointless to expect any kind of reasoned debate on it.

It is likely less dangerous to allow anarchy than to concentrate power and governance to a tight knit circle of proven scammers and trust/merit abusers. These are free now to increase their own power in many effective ways and punish in many effective ways any that dare to notice, accountable only to themselves. Thread bumping payments will be the next thing meta board gang will be into.

A for effort
D for net positive effect

probably better than doing nothing... perhaps.

Sorry just our honest opinion. Why not recognize merit is not a reliable metric and is actually dangerous?

It is possible we are not fully getting this new proposal this time, so feel free to debunk these points, since we are open to finding the optimal solution.










500  Economy / Reputation / Re: DT everyone? - @TECSHARE? on: September 10, 2019, 02:15:01 PM
Users can be banned for breaking forum rules but still have valid trust
Lets see, banned user:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=79546
Nothing since 2014. in trust. Of course, most trust is without reference.

Just because you manufacture suspicion about a user doesn't make him "obviously hacked".
So why don't you counter negative feedback then? Or you don't trust user which you have in your trust list?

The fair and sensible solution is if ALL DT1 members agree to have to publicly state yes or no to whether each member on their trust list has financially motivated wrong doing in their past. Since this is the primary concern of default trust - to protect people financially. Not to shelter them from other peoples opinions on the strength and fighting capability  of homosexuals. Or any other non direct examples of clear financially motivated wrong doing.

If you are demanding he publicly explain yes or no in relation to his trust list includes. THEN YOU ALL SHOULD ALSO.

DO YOU AGREE TO DO SO? YES OR NO

Or he has to explain publicly but you do not?

Bring a big comparison thread so we the readers can see if his includes list looks more financially high risk to the board or whether REALLY his list looks to clearly be less RISKY and provide more protection than the rest of DT1.

These double standards that OTHERS must explain their actions but WE refuse to explain our own actions must be stamped out.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!