True. It's just frustrating to see people posting accusations from throwaway accounts. If they're certain their accusation is valid, why they need to hide behind new accounts? That's the reason I requested their participation video. Bitcointalk can be quite harsh when it comes to reputations, and I remember a post from theymos a long time ago, in which he says it's better to create an alt-account to speak your mind than not to speak at all if you don't dare post it from your main account. The problem, of course, being people's stringent requirement of the exact opposite for an idea to even be remotely considered. Much of the time, even on a subconscious level, we have newbie accounts dismissed -- yes, it does make sense to remain skeptical, though I'm sure that many of the veterans will note that the skepticism is quite severe.  |
|
|
|
.014  |
|
|
|
|
You can lock the thread with the "lock" button in the bottom-left. It can also be moved to a different board for cleanliness. The most common one for people to move obsolete threads to is called Archival.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to use non-alphabetical symbols?
e.g. a mark of -2021
|
|
|
|
This is one of the ways of remaining a little less censored. Local rules seem to be put in place by the majority of users to censor someone. However, its not the full blown self moderated way of censoring. At least its out in the public. I feel like local rules could definitely be applicable in auction threads, but elsewhere I probably wouldn't use them personally. I think local rules would find their place in threads which require additional format/structure to the replies. This will streamline things like the "Known Alts" thread or the "Signature Campaign" Service Discussion thread. Offering the option of drifting away from any asides and (not-exactly-on-topic-but-borderline) semi-off-topic replies is a good thing, in my opinion. Gives a bit of control to people who don't want to see pedantic or vague replies on their threads - to people who want to actually have a genuine discussion. |
|
|
|
I wanna say thank you all for participating in the topic, it gave me another red trust for I don't know reason but it also showed me that apology in this forum is useless and first mistake would be the last mistake. Way to act like an asshat all the way through with your self-serving victim mentality. Unfortunately, it's not so simple to say "sorry, my bad" and clear away everything as if nothing had happened. If you had given thought to reality or perhaps taken another individual's perspective rather than your own indignant view, then you would have realized that this thread is what's useless. |
|
|
|
-snip- This is where I will step in. You're trying to get people to be transparent in campaign rules to ensure fairness (i.e. equal opportunity) and that's a commendable thing, kind of. But the issue here is that we don't intrinsically have a right to campaigns, really... and they shouldn't have to be utterly transparent in everything they do. I want you to try a simple thought experiment: start tunneling down to the intent of your transparency, start asking questions like "why do this?" and let me know how the results flow. |
|
|
|
No they are not allowed to set the ANY rules and if they do set them they need to be transparent. You will find that discrimination charges can be brought quite frequently where there is suspected discrimination. Try putting no females, no gays, no black people, and see how your rules go. Well, my issue with setting limits on what someone can/cannot designate on a rule is that you have fuzzy borders. "No gays" -> Not OK? "No scammers" -> Not OK? "No shady individuals" -> Not OK? "No spammers" -> Not OK? "No gang members" -> Not OK? Where do you draw the line? And if it's case-by-case, then does that mean we're just making this up on the fly? |
|
|
|
|
It's strange to see people referencing the forum rules when they join a campaign, as if people are not allowed to establish their own rules to facilitate their own operations.
The forum rules may govern what we post here but those rules can be further limited if you are applying for a campaign which may have stricter requirements than what the forum allows. After all, as far as the forum rules are concerned, you can be a massive scammer, possibly stealing hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins, and still be allowed to post here. But, if you happen to plagiarize content, that's no good.
If someone is hiring you for a job, they can dismiss you at their discretion. Duh.
|
|
|
|
Random incoherent thoughts or remarks will be placed here. The opinions may not be that of the present but are true at the time of writing. No timestamps, to add a little bit of ch aos.
It is impossible to find anything worth discussing. The forum has slunk to a decrepit state of repugnant self-absorbed masturbation, wherein you have pointless power struggles and spam strewn across the forum. Pitiful. |
|
|
|
Only going to break down the first page as that is where the negative is rooted.
By looking at the accusations against your exchange, I think it would hardly take you some years to solve this all or probably never.
Just a good luck from me for your fake fight ! The same can be said for pretty much any exchange; don't let your bias cloud your judgement and let them try to resolve their issues rather than attacking them for trying. Tell me which exchange does not engage in fake volumes, or are you that naive? Fallacy of relative privation as a case for dismissal. There is no conflict of interest other than you trying to attack me for calling you out on your bullshit virtue-signalling on everything. The reference for the negative. I don't see anything that shows eddie is untrustworthy. Skepticism should be a part of all discussions, otherwise we will get virtue signalling due to the social pressure of the dominant side. |
|
|
|
Proposing restrictions on speech is one thing, even if targeted at an individual, but abusing the trust system in attempt to silence someone is entirely another..
Wouldn't you agree? I know you're trying to produce an analogue for your situation but given that I don't know the full details, I can't say anything in relation to that. However, when it comes to this premise, I agree. The trust system should be used responsibly and as objectively as possible. One cognitive bias that would be very prominent in trust systems is the association of traits towards a person. These might then influence how you process their posts/information, leading to skewed outcomes and potentially significantly-different perspectives when two people look at the same issue/topic.
Is this what's happening? |
|
|
|
T:35
P:98986
T:164822
P:51173 |
|
|
|
|
Slippity swoop, let me shoot this hoop:
1 @ 0.009
|
|
|
|
Out of that came this pretty interesting quote.. I am completely against freedom of speech when it is used by virtue signallers like eddie13 Which I find abhorrent.. Out of all the things in this thread, I'll simply rag on this one thing. Whether a slip of the tongue (or rather, fingers) or a miscommunication, it doesn't matter, but this is something that I want to address. Words may be defined as many different things and thus if I attempt to state, "this is not X," it is possible for both my statement to be honest and align with my truths (i.e. I see it as genuinely true) while being false in other people's languages. I define language as the collection of semantic and syntactical rules that one uses to communicate, by the way.
Stating "I completely am against freedom of speech when" puts a restriction upon freedom of speech. If this is suited in your rigorous definition thereof, then that's fine. But, I disagree with restricting communication. Restricting what one may/may not communicate leads to a slippery slope. But wait: isn't that fallacious? Yes, yes it is. And what of it? Humans are not infallible creatures, are they? Legislation is not rooted in rationality. And I fear that restrictions upon freedom of speech will lead to compounding restrictions, closing us off into an echochamber of madness.
Feel free to interject with any opposing thoughts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
