We are looking for his original thought inspiring posts
Here is a thought provoking post - FUCK OFF, no one likes you, no one wants you here - fuck even your mother probably didn't want you. SHHHH No one likes us? LIE red trust  Tmans a liar. Cryptohunter likes us I bet. Oh, that's very rude. Well, we can console ourselves that your mother wants us a lot, she wants anyone/everyone (except you for any amount that you have offered, although keep sig spamming and you may get lucky) is that a lie? well, only your mother could say. Then again she is likely such an untrustworthy toothless old dirt bag nobody could believe her. Thanks Tuffman always fun to read your poetry. We would give you some merits for your thought provoking post but we feel it would be unfair to those malfunctioning bots that provide greater value. It's fun to get down and dirty in the gutter at times. I hope they still allow you access to the internet when you banged up for extortion. We will miss you Tuffman. |
|
|
|
Most of his stats are useful and interesting IMO, however I do agree many of his threads would be better suited for a page on his website rather than a thread on BitcoinTalk.
I find him to be generally trustworthy, however his large number of trust inclusions is likely the result of his many stat related threads, which is probably a flaw in the trust system.
Those posts are often requested by others or inspired by others. He can pull stats and provide very minor and low level analysis of the raw data. Much related to the merit system which suchmoon correctly recognized as meaningless. We feel it is not only misleading but it is dangerous and promotes group think and an echo chamber. The best thing to do with merit is decouple it from rank after snr and leave it at that. Sitting around making thread upon thread on the entire meaningless nonsense is a waste of time. To just clear up 1 thing. 1. We do not consider him a scammer or untrustworthy in financial terms. Also it has not been noticed that he abuses the trust system. We do not say he is a "bad" person but he wants to call out others for their value and achievements then he should be called to compare his own. We are tired of his constant fighting against a transparent and fair set of rules that ensure all members are treated equally. He is also calling for a debate under his bogus rules where he gets to delete a post if it does not get merits. His false accusations of trolling are also tiresome and he will not answer for them in debate. He wants that debate he can have it here with no such rules. Both sides will not have posts removed on some bogus merit requirement. We are looking for his original thought inspiring posts (not just some stats puke he pulled and given the raw data some order or very minor analysis). Surely someone with such a huge merit score must have the ability to produce some original thought inspiring posts? all of these years must have some major verifiable achievements that made a difference here? Else why ask for such a debate? other than to humiliate himself? annoying sig spamming fool. |
|
|
|
As theymos noted, the red trust should be strictly for scammy behaviour.
The people who like to use their feedback as a weapon or to get one over on people because they have some sort of beef with them aren't going to care about leaving neutrals and it's those that are causing most of the issues, but of course the problem is also 'scammy behaviour' is completely subjective. Some people think certain behaviour is scammy or shady whilst others don't. If a stranger knocks on my door and asks to borrow money from me but promises to pay it back at a later date I would likely find that person very untrustworthy. I think that would be pretty shady behaviour here too and many people leave negative for that and some don't. Sure, they might return at a later date to pay it back but that's probably less likely. Whether you leave a negative, neutral or take no action is up to you, but there are of course many times when a neutral feedback may be more appropriate but sometimes not leaving the negative also lets scams happen. I remember a few times where I've given people the benefit of the doubt and left a neutral only for them to go on to scam and I should have just gone with my gut instinct. Two examples:  Some people think trying to escrow with no previous experience is very shady. Others don't or don't care. The neutral may or may not have been more appropriate but it obviously didn't stop him from scamming. I think every person who I left negative or neutral feedback for trying to escrow went on to either try scam or was successful in doing so, with the exception of mdayonliner. Had anyone sent him $100k to hold on to as an escrow I'm not sure whether he would have stuck around for long after but of course that is something we'll never know, but add that to the fact that his bread and butter prior to this forum was promoting and partaking in ponzis I think the negative feedback was just either way. Here's another user where I caught someone actively trying to cheat a giveaway:  In my opinion very untrustworthy behaviour but I left a neutral. It was then later found out that he was connected to multiple scammers and a farming ring. There's also issues like do you trust a liar? Do you trust someone who behaves like a petulant child or a psychopath? Probably not. Do those sorts of people deserve negative or neutral feedback? You can argue either way. You might find them untrustworthy but they could be an honest nutter. Someone who repeatedly tells lies obviously can't be trusted but they might not be a scammer. This post is taking on some tiny sample of anecdotal experiences and making wide ranging and broad strokes assumptions, speculations and guesses. What that post says is. We will create such subjectivity and broad ranging reasons to give red trust that it has obvious implications for free speech and also opens up DT to corruption and payment for red removal. All to protect the very most stupid and greedy. Yeah like most people will go to escrows with no history of being escrows or lend a stranger money over internet? Perhaps we need to stamp people with red trust on their foreheads in real life? this assumes we need to destroy the board, leave DT open to corruption and power to crush free speech to save the dumbest and greediest people here? NO. The only people fighting the implementation of "proof of scam" or STRONG case of scam are those that want to continue to have the power to influence others free speech and game the system for their own personal reasons. Behaves like a petulant child or psychopath (would require professional diagnosis)? this bullshit reason it transparent. Anyone who says something I do not like or agree with is petulant or psychotic. NO SORRY, prove they are a scammer, or have tried to scam people in financial terms or you don't get to spoil their account with a scam tag. Most arguments will end with one party saying that person behaves like a petulant child or they are crazy if they do not see things my way. Just wants a license to give red to anyone for their own personal reasons. You think they are petulant, disagreeable, annoying, don't see everything the same way as you do. Then leave a neutral and explain your case there. That does not give you license to give them a scammers tag. This subjectivity is the root cause for all of the arguments and infighting. It also allows red trust to be used to facilitate scams and scammers. |
|
|
|
|
LoyceV - The Absolute Imbecile only.
So loyceV aka robovac AI. Wants a debate? Oh really? Sorry no bogus meriting rules. Just come and debate robovac once you are done sucking up the dirt from Theymos's back room.
Okay sure robovac. We say you are the biggest waste of merits on this board. How can someone so observably stupid, capable only of raw stats puke to try and justify his huge bag of wasted merits.
We believe.
1. You have achieved nothing of note.
2. You pump out thread after thread of raw stats puke. You are a 1 trick pony.
3. In prior debates with cryptohunter you got made to look completely stupid. Yes we can provide examples and in the end you retreated to just leaving merits for your other pals who eventually debunked their own argument.
You want to measure your achievements against a true legend like cryptohunter? Please don't humiliate yourself in public with such a comparison.
Okay
1. Bring you 10 best original thought provoking posts (not stats related puke that tries to validate your worth through the broken metrics of merit) so that we can analyse them. Let's see what the raw stats puking robovac can output except .....well raws stats puke?
2. List your largest achievements that you have made since being a member here. Let's see what difference you have made.
After we all have a good laugh then we will present cryptohunters long list of great posts and his very long list of important achievements.
You asked for it. Now you have it. We know you are upset because cryptohunter correctly recognized you were a total moron the first time he met you in debate and crushed you. Then he really got you angry because your merit score is all you have? and that is based upon the same old tired stats spew you seem to enjoy. He challenged you to bring your important achievements and you went all quiet.
Come on robovac let's see what you can present for us to laugh and and pull apart. Revealing a big bag of merits and a total lack of high quality original thought inspiring contributions and ZERO achievements of any note that made any difference at all.
LoyceV - ROBOVAC - evidence that the merit system is total garbage. How can someone with zero high quality original thought inspiring posts and zero achievements that made any difference here have the most merit of any member except admins and satoshi??
You keep calling for a debate where you can remove posts? seems unfair? just debate here we will not remove yours we have nothing to fear from a low level Absolute Imbecile.
Been here years and STILL needs to spam his mixing sig for btc crumbs LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
Hilarious and co Only may post here.
Bring proof of any lies we have told else you will need to change your posts, again making false accusations against us?
You have 24hrs to bring PROOF of us lying. PROOF not some " we all know", "it is obvious", " seems like lying"
Each time was ask you for PROOF of all of these false accusations you provide NOTHING. Come on present it or we will hound you to remove the false allegations. You are meant to be an impartial objective mod.
I mean you cry about "lying" (that you can not prove and does not exist) and then go and support and include on DT observable liars, and scammers? Is there something wrong with your brain? or just like demonstrating clear bias, and being inappropriate as a mod?
You're a big bag of speculation and guesses and a sig spammer to boot. We do indeed care about those less fortunate but we do not like those that side against our call for a fair and transparent system that treats all members equally and favors REAL liars and scammers. Change your ways and support the honest and fair.
PROOF or remove your claim of us telling LIES.
I mean we know most people are fucking dumb as shit here. However when you are making an OBVIOUS joke like perhaps I am with your mum or sister - ONLY THE DUMBEST FOOL HERE would think that is to be taken seriously? Even trying to spin that as an intentional lie makes you look even more stupid. When you tell someone something they know is obviously a joke they don't call it a lie. For instance I may have said Santa got me a new addition to my garage this year to a friend. They are aware santa did not get it for me but realize I am making a joke? Are you that fucking stupid? Oh he's a liar, he told me santa brought him a new car? please fool don't persist in looking stupid all over this forum.
Bring the lie. Bring the proof of lying or STFU. Likely it is some obvious quip that even in presentation will demonstrate you are likely losing it far more than us.
Also we would like to see some of the conflicting posts that demonstrate some kind of personality fracturing on our part. We see nothing other than a consistent push for a fair and transparent system and booting from positions of trust and power all those with observable instances of financially motivated shady behaviors. We await the posts you can bring that clearly demonstrate the insanity angle you are trying to push.
This is your chance for an open and free debate.
|
|
|
|
DELETE 6
It seems only hilarious and co is allowed to throw insults at others and does not like any back his way
Do you have any proof that I don't like them or is this yet another lie from you? I actually love insults. Especially relevant and witty ones. Unfortunately you haven't said anything witty as of yet. I also don't see the insult. I asked a question since you refer to yourself as a group of people and in my opinion there's almost certainly only you, hence my diagnosis that you have some sort of dissociative disorder. Unless you'd like to fill us in on this other mystery person. I mean, we all know what game you're trying to play and who you mean, but that other person is you, therefore you're crazy and deluded. Uses a quote with "seems" as a start lol? but even if that were not present. " I actually love insults" - wow, you really proved we were lying. That was amazing. I don't think you understand the standard of observable evidence required to prove a person is lying. I think it is quite obvious that it is you the supporter or scammers and liars that is lying hilarious and co. LOL, demands proof or it is lying, and then proceeds to guess, speculate and make false accusations. "almost certainly" oh really. Well then its " almost certain" you don't like me insinuating the "we" could be me and your sister, or gf? perhaps I am too busy "filling in" other people? "in your opinion" - ha, you should have said, that is almost a guarantee it is garbage. "Your diagnosis"? as a pro board spammer? who needs 2 sigs to spam with? Okay, well, we may skip your diagnosis then since you have only speculation, an observably weak mind, and likely no training in such areas. "we all know"? - but have no proof? - therefore you know only what you think you know, perhaps you are wrong or lying ? Get back to deleting on topic and relevant posts your scamming and lying friends tell you to delete and spamming both you sigs for some btc crumbs. WE will just enjoy our day knowing we are honest and fair. Start appearing more fair and honest. |
|
|
|
It would be better to rename trust to "trading feedback" since "trust" implies some sort of personal and mostly subjective experience.
Agreed. BPIP has already started renaming trust to "feedback" on our reports. What's the point of saying "agreed". If you AGREE then stop abusing red trust like you do. You do NOT AGREE. You give out red trust for anything you like. You kept repeating Ognasty is a liar without presenting any evidence at all. Also triple posting in my self moderated thread. I deleted your later 2 posts after you already accused him several times before, and i then wrote no more accusations without firm evidence AND YOU GAVE ME RED TRUST for deleting your posts. You had already called him a liar several times without clear evidence so how could I be misleading people by removing your latter claims of the very same thing? Theymos just confirmed Og did not lie anyway. He told him to remove the red, and then later told OG he should not if OG felt is was needed. I do not see Theymos mentioning anything about blacklisting OG if he did not remove laudas tags anywhere. The ONLY people fighting against transparent fair standards for applying red trust are those that like having the power to abuse red trust. So if you agree then repeat this VOD. I vod will remove ALL red tags for persons that I can not present strong evidence of scamming for. I vod will never red trust a member in future unless I can present strong evidence of them being a scammer. So do you agree or not VOD? because words are easy, what about the actions? There is little point in saying you agree then doing the opposite of what you say is there? Or do you only agree with the 2nd point cobra made? You disagree with DT members needing to be able to present a STRONG CLEAR case of scamming or intending to scam for leaving red? |
|
|
|
DELETE 6 It seems only hilarious and co is allowed to throw insults at others and does not like any back his way Another on topic and relevant post with a defensive reply to some random insult from the resident biased mod. 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. We just noticed our thread was deleted and there was not even a message about it either. Just vanished. Who is we? You and your split personality? Off topic and irrelevant. Strange you try to push this insanity angle but can provide zero post examples you wish to bring as evidence. We note this is some subjective bullshit other low functioning idiots like tman wish to bring because in any other objective debate you will both be crushed. Same for trying to push the "rubbish posts" but can not present examples. The "we" could be myself and your girlfriend, your sister? perhaps we do lots of things together now, Who knows, and it does not matter. Just keep supporting "gray" dubious and shady characters on DT and deleting posts that are in opposition to that. Mods should put the reason they deleted it, and it should show which mod deleted it. Transparency is key in this movement. We have reported over 20 (says 17 now ?) off topic irrelevant posts and 0 have been deleted simply because the mods are biased. On the other hand we have had 5 posts deleted each can be considered WAY more on topic than all of those 20 and 1 entire thread we started vaporized without a trace and no deletion confirmation. Deleted posts metric is the new weapon to silence people with a ban. Each should be taken in full context or it is discrimination. In a system where mods are observably including scammers on DT and giving merit to their supporters garbage posts, their behaviors should be under close scrutiny by the entire board. Every time you are rude to us. We are going to be rude to you hilarious, so start being polite and unbiased. Perhaps it would be beneficial if you had a split personality disorder . Then part of the time you can support observable scammers and part of the time members that have always been fair and never scammed anyone. Then you could perhaps be neutral and not net negative. Treat us in the manner you wish to be treated. Thank you. |
|
|
|
I have come across some post about red trust this red trust that this for example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140151.0And I begin to wonder why are some users so boarder about the trust system Here is the forum rules https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0And I think the rules is very much plain and straight forward and if you follow the rules you would be very much guided and would not have much worries. Some of the effects of such post about about complains and so is that it might affect newbies or prospective users mentality about the forum. Let's not start a negative trend that is baseless and unhelpful member don't know each other in person so there is little issues of personal beef and if anyone has wrongfully given a red trust it can be overturned by the same person if it's proven to be an incorrect red trust. We all in this forum together and there is no need to cause it harm with our post let's all seek ways to improve it for ourselves and prospective users Where do these low functioning fools gain access to the internet? The thread clearly states you can now get red trust for deleting posts in your own self modded thread that 1, are triple posts (against the board rules anyway) 2, deleting accusations against other members with no evidence to substantiate it. this is an observable instance of truth. You can now get red trust for that. You post is word salad garbage. - 20 merits would be fair. Merit beggars are nearly as sickening as scammers and nearly as damaging since they will back any kind of behavior for a merit morsel . Filthy dogs. |
|
|
|
You have been given evidence and do not accept it. You intentionally misspell names to give them childish nicknames: "smarmacist", "cryptomanurebrainlessboss" etc., which can clearly considered as trolling.
"He likes to post false accusations and general low value noise." is one of your many false allegations. Your opinion =/= "the truth".
I'm not going to post an endless amount of quotes as "evidence". You're not worth the time.
EDIT: Why do you create self moderated topics? Any off-topic posts can be reported right?
This is the best you can provide after the generous extension I gave you?
Incorrect as usual. These name alterations are more befitting to the imbeciles that I award them to. Which names would you like to debate are not fitting to the individual. Is it trolling to call a smarmy sneaky trolling racist sock puppet sig spammer the smarmacist? I think not. It is a clever adaptation to inform the reader this is a smarmy, sneaky dirt bag.
The smarmacists above posts serves to refute your statement. It is incorrect (he has been challenged many times to provide observable instances of trolling he can not. His claims are false, his assumptions are groundless , they are net negative trash.
Bring his best original thought inspiring post here for me to pull to laugh at. Bring your own whilst your are at it.
Cryptomanurebrainlessboss again is a work of genius. Sums the sig spamming ass kissing shit for brains boss of nobody fool up perfectly. Most things he claims about merit and trust are observably incorrect and dumb driven by the desire to fill up his merits to spam his sig in a larger format.
Snitchmoon again a simple and informative title. Suchmoron again observably brilliant (not him) she is brilliant at debunking her own arguments I guess.
Notildah - again excellent and informative.
Moronbozo - no explanation required.
We create self moderated threads to keep the real idiots and trolls away like yourself. Be grateful we allowed you some thread time here.
We will delete your junk now since we feel you came with nothing after being given plenty of time to find some real evidence. We leave your quotes there though inside our own splendid posts.
Personally I think its pretty cowardly to post from alt accounts vs your main account for fear of retribution.Users should not tag you for having an opinion as long as you keep it civil. I also find all this Local rule bullshit or self moderated threads a load of shit as well. I'm not only speaking about you here, speaking about everyone in general. When did everyone turn into a pussy? Noone wants to speak out for fear of a tag from a DT. Come on guys, quit treating this like it's fucking high school and everyone grow up. Delete this post if you must but it's the truth. Are you sure you posted this in the correct thread? There is no evidence, there is someones incorrect opinion and failure to define trolling, as perfectly well explained in our own reply. This seems unrelated to my previous post? which part are you replying to? Let us remind you that unless you can present "video evidence" of the same person posting on any other account then it is speculation to call us an alt of anyone. Even so the post seems like it was perhaps made for another thread? You can delete it or explain why it is on this thread. Or we can delete it. |
|
|
|
It seems you can now get red trust for deleting peoples posts in your own thread.
Is this true?
Yes, if you're doing so to misrepresent what other people are saying about you, which could be seen as untrustworthy. Or if they're posts about lemons, obviously. 1. the thread is about someone else 2. requiring some form of evidence to substantiate their claims is not misleading. 3. triple posting is apparently not allowed anyway I would not usually care if they were replying to 3 different people but simply adding new things they could edit their last post with is up to the thread starter lemons are not mentioned. we see again people claiming to fall inline with the red trust for scammers or strong case for scamming only when really they will continue to use red trust to abuse who they want for whatever reason they want. Just delete this crazy DT system if we are not going to enforce strict fair and transparent rules that apply to all members. Some can scam, extort, pull shady escrow and walk around with 300 green, others require people to post evidence with their claims or not triple post are branded scammers. What a joke. |
|
|
|
|
It seems you can now get red trust for deleting peoples posts in your own thread.
Is this true?
If we don't want someone not double but triple posting (3x in a row -against the rules i believe) or posting accusations about other members without presenting some form of evidence then you can now get red trust for that?
This trust system is quite strange.
The inverse trust system.
We love it when members CLAIM to be removing inappropriate red trust and then just keep finding ways to add red for even more inappropriate things. Very trustworthy indeed. LOL
1. you bring observable instances to validate serious concerns you raise about others = you get red trust
2. You require other members to produce observable instances or evidence to validate their claims about other members or you delete them = you get red trust.
No point getting upset with trust abuse though because then you are insane and you deserve more red trust. Best to enjoy it and savor your red.
This trust system is a work of pure genius. It kills free speech and facilitates scamming at the highest levels. Brilliant.
|
|
|
|
I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded: If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't remove the rating, but then it wouldn't be fair for me to pressure Lauda to remove ratings against you. Personally, I find Lauda's history gray, not red. And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation. But if you really believe that Lauda isn't safe to deal with, then you should leave the rating.
Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably  cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating. The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome. This answer is good in that it brings some clarity to what actually took place. That is where the good news ends. Let's break it down and really think about it though. Perhaps theymos is not thinking it through clearly. 1. There seems to be a false equivalence. That ognasty removing laudas red is equal to lauda removing ognastys red? Not all red trust is equal. The nature of laudas scamming, lying, probable extorting, shady escrow and trust abuse compared to what Ognasty can be demonstrated to be guilty of is like comparing a criminal that has extorted, mugged, defrauded, committed armed robbery against someone who filled their car with fuel and drove away without paying once, likely by accident. It is like suggesting they both deserve the same punishment. Or that giving one of them another chance would be unfair without giving both another chance. This is simply not true and a strange mistake to make. Theymos here missed a KEY OPPORTUNITY to test the system. He should have said Either remove the red trust or present the strongest case you have for keeping the rest trust on. If you have left red trust on and your strongest case FAILS to convince me it meets the threshold for red you are blacklisted. This should all be transparent. 2. Lauda is gray not red you say? what now can we take from this it requires to be worthy of a red tag, your behavior must be WORSE than.. a/ lie for financial gain ( scamming) b/ a very serious looking probable extortion attempt c/ shady looking non transparent escrow d/ clearly using red trust to punish persons for presenting observable instances from their past. This raises the bar for red trust far too high. This leaves the board highly vulnerable 3/ Even if we could believe Lauda is gray ( we do not) then why should we have gray "possibly shady" people on DT? it makes no sense? this is a trust sytem? why put the board at risk like this? 4/ Theymos should you not be more concerned for the board members safety than how great the DT members appear to be getting along? I mean being pleased that a "gray" (possible scammer and certainly untrustworthy) is getting to flash with 300 GREEN trust? why does leaving the board in this vulnerable state seem a pleasing outcome? it makes no sense? we put the entire board at risk so that one "grey" quite possibly untrustworthy member remains on DT? None of it adds up at all. put every member at an increased risk for this one individual? So in summary, it seems theymos believes red trust can only be left for those that do MORE than a/ lie for financial gain ( scamming) b/ a very serious looking probable extortion attempt c/ shady looking non transparent escrow d/ clearly using red trust to punish persons for presenting observable instances from their past. Og just realized that was how it was here now. We can see a LOT of people that previously were "scammers" now going gray. No more red. Good outcome for DT friction. Poor outcome for the safety of the board. Be nice if this post is not vaporized like any other post that raises valid points for discussion that do not essentially fit with some strange agenda being pushed in meta by less than 0.01% of the board. We thought the trust system was for the good of the entire board, we didn't know it was some club whos members needs are greater and more important than the safety of all the other members here. We would love to hear theymos thoughts on these points. |
|
|
|
theymos told him to leave laudas red trust there
You are a fool. OG did not state Theymos told him to leave Lauda's red trust. Don't think Theymos would appreciate that lie... OG stated " IFyou [believe these filler words], THEN Theymos asked me to leave the trust. Do you see the cherry picking? lol I'll state the fact one more time. OGNasty was given a choice (not forced!) to remove his trust abuse or be blacklisted from DT.Where is theymos to tell us the truth? All this sneaking and snaking around. Transparency when we are dealing with scammers or the treatment of scammers is vital. Every persons fiances depend upon it. If you really want to have your mind blown... theymos actually told me NOT to remove the negative feedback rating I left for Lauda.  I'm sure most would agree that suggests that theymos told him not to remove laudas negative feedback. I very much doubt OG would try to mislead the reader to that degree. Can we not have some people on DT who are just not scammers and will red trust scammers when shown evidence of their scamming. How difficult can it actually be? |
|
|
|
DELETE 5. ON TOPIC AND ATTEMPTING TO BRING THE THREAD THAT HAS BEEN DERAILED INTO FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND TROLLING BACK ON TOPIC AND CHALLENGE FOR EVIDENCE OF FALSE CLAIMS. more biased moderation. from this thread which we correctly noted was being derailed https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139179.msg50888121#msg50888121A 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. o_e_l_e_o Is lying. Clearly cryptohunter would never attack any person that had not attacked him first. He is full of shit. Bring evidence of your claims and we will debunk them with ease. AverageGlabella Bring evidence of derailing EVERY thread please. This thread again has not been derailed the incidents mentioned are PRIME examples of EXACTLY what the intial post is referencing. There is should be NO NEED for appeals. You have a strong case or proof of a scammer that's the end of it. No begging or paying to have red removed. You don't get to scam and then be nice to the right people and the red is removed. You are a scammer You are always a scammer. You will ALWAYS be high risk. People that want to defraud others from their money are not given a second chance to do it again.TMAN 1. we can demonstrate you are actually financially speaking HIGH RISK bordering on a scammer. You also support observable scammers. 2. Your claims of cryptohunter being unhinged are bogus a/ you admitted you gave the red trust because he presented a facts and observable instances based post. When he said you can not give me red trust for presenting facts and observable instances about lauda you replied. I can, I will and I just have. That is clear admission of this. b/ Present examples of posts you believe indicate someone is unhinged. We will bring far more "worrying" and sexually deviant posts full of swearing cursing and all kinds of content that look to have spilled from the very damaged mind of your own. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5138619.0 that thread demonstrates not only are you damaged it also demonstrates that all the dumb fucks supporting this kind of thing as funny and brilliant but then call someone who adapts their username slightly to correctly represent who they really are as TROLLING and inappropriate and childish are actually insane themselves. CONSTANTLY - highlighting that red trust is being used as a weapon to silence whistleblowers is not madness. The need for change is clear. Free speech is under serious threat here. Honest members that have never scammed or tried to scam are being given red tags by those that have observably tried to scam, extort, use dishonest tactics to boost their auction prices. FUCK THAT. It is the duty of every member. By allowing scammers and extortionists to take positions of trust you are putting at risk every member here. SOME honest members seem to have sold out. They do NOT believe these people a not a risk to this community but have for their own sake decided to capitulate and give in to them. Not us. Remove our red tags and the red tags of every person that is not a scammer. Stop employing observable double standards. Only tag scammers and those you can present a STRONG case are going to scam. This interaction between vod and ognasty demonstrate the obvious issue with allowing gangs of scammers with free reign to red trust for anything they like in DT but this latest drama with Lauda has opened my eyes a bit...
Yeah, I've distanced myself with her. What can you do? You speak out and you get negative trust...How do I defriend Lauda without getting negative trust from her and ruining five years?
Do you think it’s acceptable that Lauda hasn’t tagged aTriz yet? Do you think there is any reason why everyone shouldn’t tag aTriz for what he did?
Let me answer that this way - how can I leave negative trust for either of them without ruining my account?DT is now a weapon for scammers to wield as they like. Most people on DT have no place inside the trust system. They are either dirty, or too weak to stand up against those that are. Theymos "asking" people to get along and remove EVEN LEGITIMATE RED TAGS is not going to help. That simply allows scammers to roam around with 300 GREEN TRUST. (according to vods latest claims ) MAN UP - tell every DT member. Bring evidence of scamming or a VERY STRONG CASE they will scam. Or do not leave red trust. You fail to present evidence of scam or intent to scam you are BLACK LISTED. What are you even doing allowing people with all of this dirt in their past getting on to DT? All this be nice to scammers so they remove your red trust, don't mention they are scammers and kiss up to them to get along here. Fuck that. This board is simply viewed as a cash cow by most DT, all wearing their gambling and mixing sigs. These sigs are not what real enthusiasts wear here. Where is your support of interesting new projects you believe in? this is purely financially motivated participation. Let's bring in some people that actually post and participate here because they love the idea behind it. The only reason that could have been deleted is that we put what VOD had claimed that theymos ordered Ognasty to remove the laudas red tags or he was going to get blacklisted. Still considering everyone else was derailing it to false accusations and trolling then this looks to be more biased moderation. They allow others to go off topic and bring false accusations but again do not allow you to ask them to present evidence and debunk those false claims. More weaponized post deletions. The thread owner even quoted portion of our post and said we helped him coin a new phrase trust appeals. |
|
|
|
So it’s VOD’s word V OG now.
@theymos @anduck @lauda
Who will bring OBSERVABLE PROOF?
And when OG get exposed as a liar again? Nothing will happen - he holds 500 btc of the forums money. theymos told him to leave laudas red trust there and theymos told him if he did not remove it, then he would be blacklisted from DT? these 2 statements seem pretty different. There would certainly have to be some "cherry picking" to convert one to the other. Perhaps vods and anducks terms were different. I have seen no evidence either of you are implicated or observed to be related in anyway to actual scamming directly. Other than perhaps supporting scammers. That is a bit different. It could be argued though by NOT red trusting persons you know are scammers or place members at financial risk then you have no business on DT. It is part of your task to red trust scammers and those that place the board members at risk regardless of what happens to your account. People who can NOT risk their own accounts to do the right thing should request themselves to be blacklisted from DT. LOL look at vod. None of you believe lauda is a scammer??Please, the observable instance of him lying for financial gain (scamming) is concrete. The extortion looks to have a strong case, the escrow looks bad, the trust abuse and silencing of whistle blowers is in black and white. Then it appears you can not believe ANYONE here is a scammer. When other people lie for financial gain, or there is a strong case they tried to extort another member, or they use trust to silence those that mention observable instances in their past they want hidden, or their escrow looks highly shady then they can NOT get red trust. It is INAPPROPRIATE to give them red trust. LOL Trust system is totally bogus. Delete it. You will still get trust abuse in this system until theymos enforces this
1. No hard evidence of scamming people financially = NO RED TRUST or DT gets black listed
2. Refusal to red trust a member when shown hard evidence of scamming = DT gets black listed.this decentralized system with no strict enforced guidelines, and not only room to abuse but financial incentive to abuse is ridiculous. How could it ever work? a couple of disobedient DT members getting black listed and they will all fall in line. |
|
|
|
If you really want to have your mind blown... theymos actually told me NOT to remove the negative feedback rating I left for Lauda. This is what we had thought. There is no way Theymos would act and request legitimate scam tags are removed from persons that have lied for direct financial gain. Then is seems a very ill advised move. If we consider keeping the board "aware" of people that have previously scammed, been implicated in extortion, shady escrow dealings, and trust abuse. It stands to reason you do not "forgive" scamming or forget scamming. It is straight forward, you try to scam or extort people out of money you are a scammer. It does not change over time, it does not matter who you are. I think it in the boards interest to re apply the red tags and if you feel you need to apply additional red tags to be fair then get slapping those down on other people too. Anyone whom has demonstrated clearly that they are dangerous in financial terms to other members they need a scam tag. Person on DT are not there to say : they are my pals, or we think they are okay now, or they may give us red trust back so we are scared to give red. Give red to scammers or get off DT. It is no place for the weak or frail. Then entire board is left vulnerable if you fail in your responsibilities. We are very pleased if what you say about theymos in this instance, is true ( we do trust the word of ognasty). We have been concerned that theymos had seemed to favor these types of dangerous persons over honest members who may kick up a fuss but for the right reasons. Transparent and fair rules for all persons, so that all members are treated equally. Thats the only way to proceed with this movement. |
|
|
|
You do understand to many it will appear you sold out here and that it will be a constant stain on your reputation. It certainly would appear that you have made a deal with the devil here.
Wow, the amount of hyperbole here is astounding. Don't know exactly what's transpired here, but I'm still reading. Still, if feedback is removed by OgNasty, Vod, Lauda, or anyone else involved in this feud I think it's a good thing. I don't think any of these parties involved has any malicious intent, and I do think hatchets need to be buried by all of them. The forum and/or the larger community in general won't be affected to the extent that you seem to be thinking it will. Who exactly is protected by these members having been tagged? Nobody. It isn't like Lauda or Vod or OgNasty is constantly scamming anyone....right? You are exaggerating the situation to enormous proportions, buddy. Oh really, can you show me anyone else on this forum that is an observable liar, scammer, implicated in extortion and shady escrow dealings, trust abuse and is still 300 GREEN and on DT? Please stop giving me these opportunities to crush your master in public. Even VOD wants to red trust lauda but does not have the balls, Now is trying to slap OGnasty after OGnasty had the balls to do it but apparently (according to VOD) was ordered by THEYMOS to remove laudas legitimate scam tags or face blacklisting (even if true Ognasty should have refused). Therefore rendering the entire forum vulnerable to his next scheme or scam other members. but this latest drama with Lauda has opened my eyes a bit...
Yeah, I've distanced myself with her. What can you do? You speak out and you get negative trust...How do I defriend Lauda without getting negative trust from her and ruining five years?
Do you think it’s acceptable that Lauda hasn’t tagged aTriz yet? Do you think there is any reason why everyone shouldn’t tag aTriz for what he did?
Let me answer that this way - how can I leave negative trust for either of them without ruining my account?EDIT - vod no more OG bashing claims without observable instances to demonstrate what you claim is true or credible. |
|
|
|
Reposting from another thread: As long as the feedback sender is not in the DT network, their trust feedback does not have any value....
Wrong. It has value to the person who left it. It serves as a reminder. The trust system might be borked, but it does have value. Yes, it has value like masturbation. The untrusted person can give a 1000's negative trust if that might have value then DT will go down by a single minute. Because DT receives maximum negative trust from Untrusted person(non dt). So if dogie was excluded from DT, you wouldn't see this feedback (or, you would think of it as a "masturbation") and wouldn't start this thread? Do you think this account should be in DT https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44611? If yes, why yes if not why not? You have 2 choices: 1) TMAN's feedback is correct 2) silverfuture's feedback is correct Who should be excluded? Who should be tagged based on your opinion as DT member? Tman should be excluded. Also the risked 99 BTC claim is that correct, because if not...? Tman thinks you can give out red for presenting observable instances, so he should taste some of that himself. |
|
|
|
|
No you can not without asking. This is a major flaw. It should say which mod deleted it in the message. Then you could message them directly. Also mods that are biased get to hide away deleting on topic relevant messages and you can not prove it is them that is doing it because they will never admit it even if you ask in public.
We just noticed our thread was deleted and there was not even a message about it either. Just vanished.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
