A new precedent for giving a red tag?let's discuss has far reaching implications

[Laudanum]

So now according to some DT1 members.

If you reply to a member ( who they claim is a scammer ) without knowing that person is accused of being a scammer by DT and talk about something entirely unrelated to their claimed scamming incident that a certain DT1 claims has taken place.. you are also now a scammer?

I mean so you could reply to a person on any topic and for speaking to them about anything ? You become a scammer because DT says that person has previously done something they claim is wrong ?

Is this true?

So one has to research every persons history and check with DT1 before you're allowed to speak with them?
Or you get a red tag?

Lol why nobody wants to be a member here anymore ? Must have thin skin I say.

I mean I know that sounds more reasonable that being marked a scammer for whistleblowing on a proven scammer but still let's discuss the implications for scammer contagion here lol


Is 2 +2 = 4 not the case if someone DT claims is a scammer says it is?

If you chime in a say hey I agree 2 +2 = 4

Then you are a scammer?
Lol since when?

[jackg]

Trust is unmoderated and partially democratic by design. You don't like someone's tags, get the people who added them to their trust list to remove them or signal distrust.

In most ways, trust shouldn't matter at all. If you're not actively trading on the forum you can just ignore the tags. If you are actively trading try to build a reputation that quashes your flag.

The system is imperfect though - like every other system that exists.

[DireWolfM14]

What the hell are you rattling on about?  You're barely literate when you've been drinking, so maybe you shouldn't start at noon.

Something to do with getting a red-tag if you talk to scammers and scam facilitators?  Here I am talking to you, do you think I'll get a red-tag?

[suchmoon]

[Foxpup]

TL;DR: Scammers are like lemons in that you can hypothetically get red trust for allegedly liking them. Have I got that right?

[Laudanum]

TL;DR: Scammers are like lemons in that you can hypothetically get red trust for allegedly liking them. Have I got that right?

Best answer. I like this but back to meta.

Direwolf is having trouble. Help him.
Also help the mod understand this is not a rep thread.

Foxpup where did liking them come from?

I said if a someone a DT claims is a scammer says 2 + 2 = 4

Then you agree with them and say yes 2 +2 = 4

Then you should have a tag for agreeing that their statement is correct and independently verifiable.
I don't believe that means you essentially have to like the poster does it?


Yes or no?

[Vod]

I said if a someone a DT claims is a scammer says 2 + 2 = 4

So you expect everyone to follow a ponzi scammer posting from a fake account?

[Xavofat]

So one has to research every persons history and check with DT1 before you're allowed to speak with them?
Or you get a red tag?

The answer is that DT1 members can exercise their own judgement regarding how trustworthy a user is and you can exercise your own judgement about how trustworthy they are by deciding whether or not to keep them on your trust list.

Clearly your claim about the 'precedent' being set is unjustified.  Most of the negative trust left on your account has clear references.  Why are you so afraid that people will click on the link and see what the fuss is all about?

[Vod]

Laudanum, regarding the trust you left on my account:

This user continues to insinuate that random accounts on the forum are my alts. I do not use alt accounts and don't have time for this type of nonsense. I have ignored this user and don't care to have this behavior brought to my attention. Just leave him negative trust feedback, add ~Vod to your trust settings to exclude him from your network, and hit the ignore button so you don't have to view his nonsense anymore.

I'm not insinuating anything.  I state again, I am willing to beat you at any argument if you stop being a coward.

[actmyname]

I said if a someone a DT claims is a scammer says 2 + 2 = 4

Then you agree with them and say yes 2 +2 = 4

Then you should have a tag for agreeing that their statement is correct and independently verifiable.
I don't believe that means you essentially have to like the poster does it?

Yes or no?

Analogies are nice in that they can create an isomorphic structure of which we extract semantic meaning.

The unfortunate part is that I can't decipher the intent, at least not entirely:

Is there someone handing out opinion-based negative feedback?
Does this negative feedback have to do with agreeing with a separate (-ve) account?
Alternatively: is this behavior that you wish to exemplify?
Or, is this behavior that someone is criticizing, but also hypocritically defending on their terms? Vice versa?

[Laudanum]

I said if a someone a DT claims is a scammer says 2 + 2 = 4

Then you agree with them and say yes 2 +2 = 4

Then you should have a tag for agreeing that their statement is correct and independently verifiable.
I don't believe that means you essentially have to like the poster does it?

Yes or no?

Analogies are nice in that they can create an isomorphic structure of which we extract semantic meaning.

The unfortunate part is that I can't decipher the intent, at least not entirely:

Is there someone handing out opinion-based negative feedback?
Does this negative feedback have to do with agreeing with a separate (-ve) account?
Alternatively: is this behavior that you wish to exemplify?
Or, is this behavior that someone is criticizing, but also hypocritically defending on their terms? Vice versa?

Well I'm saying that it is completely crazy for someone to give out a red tag because you spoke to someone with a red tag.

Also the content of the reply was independently verifiable truth.

This has far reaching implications if responding at all to tagged members means you must be tagged.

Vod can you please provide some compelling evidence now to corroborate your claims that I'm OG nasty.
I mean just anything solid that would be reasonable.
This is one of the more bizarre claims that seems to have been started by that extortionist and supporter and protector of scammers owlcatz.

[Vod]

Vod can you please provide some compelling evidence now to corroborate your claims that I'm OG nasty.

I've provided concrete evidence you ran a ponzi, and no one cared.   I'm just letting people know who you are. 

[Laudanum]

Vod can you please provide some compelling evidence now to corroborate your claims that I'm OG nasty.

I've provided concrete evidence you ran a ponzi, and no one cared.   I'm just letting people know who you are. 

I ran a ponzi?  Wow the things I get up to without knowing about them at all.
What else have I done.

First can you present the robust evidence you have to demonstrate I'm OG?

This ponzi claim is separate. I have not examined it because I'm not all up on this blockchain analysis stuff so I leave that to the boffins
 I figured if 2600btc was scammed then more than you would be moaning and OG would be in some deep shit.
But either way that's not the point here.

I simply need to know if I really am OGnasty? Please help me learn the truth.

Show me the completing evidence you have that will force me to acknowledge I am both me and he.

I mean if you have any evidence other than we both keep mentioning you're a trust abuser and coward.

I mean obviously even that corrupt willing scam facilitator for pay nutildah seems to have removed his tag reference and basis for the tag?

Seems he changed his mind ...you cant red tag someone for simply presenting variable truth to another member who has a tag.

He pulled a nutildah on his trust abuse now.
Going for the more sensible you can be red tagged for smelling of html garlic.
That as we know from SS is quite a sensible and credible reason for a red tag.

[Vod]

I ran a ponzi?  Wow the things I get up to without knowing about them at all.

Your typical sarcastic admission fools only the fools.