[NEM] NEM -New Economy Movement - No Envy Movement - Updates+Discussion thread

[utopianfuture]

http://coinmarketcap.com

Check the new comer aphoroditecoin. None makes highlander coin yet?

[dgex_victim]

Again what is your agenda, i hope you are not the same person who wanted a refund before the ipo for not seeing the whitepaper .

My agenda - I don't like 'spin'!

No long quotes and shouting? How refreshing ?

Fair comment, I'm not very good at editing all the html looking square brackets.

[patmast3r]

I'm saying utopianfuture trivialised rape by using it as an analogy to try and avoid confronting the fact that he was accepting of sockpuppets in January, and now he wants to weed them out. There is an indisputable period when UP's quotes support sockpuppet accounts in NEM.

That is trivialising rape IMO, and his analogy is weak, and not very well thought out. It doesn't support his use of retrospective rule changes. Obviously DNA testing in rape cases IS good, and EVERYONE has always been for catching rapists. The point is using UP's chosen analogy of sockpuppets are like rapists, I can say so when UP said supportive things accepting sockpuppets IS LIKE utopianfuture saying supportive accepting things of rapists, prior to DNA testing. Obviously ridiculous, just like UP's use of it below.

"That's one measure. Unfortunately for you, we do have some more new measures such as taint analysis + activity analysis to detect people with many accounts. I would consider applying them retrospectively is similar to applying DNA testing to samples from raping cases occurred before the invention of DNA testing. In both instances, they are quite useful, don't you think ?   "

The obvious weakness in UP's analogy is the police have always been against rape, even when they didn't have DNA testing, but UP was accepting of sockpuppets up until the point someone told him about taint analysis.

UP trivialised rape by trying to use it's obvious emotive power to throw people - sockpuppets are like rapists - weak argument to the point of trivialising rape.

The use of a very weak and intellectually poor analogy, and that's why IMO he trivialised rape.

edit: I know full well UP is against rape. I don't like his use of the analogy as a smoke screen.

I don't know if he's against rape. He has given us no reason to believe is is not against rape. But even without knowing him personally I can see that he was not trying to trivialize rape and you have blown the whole rape thing way out of proportion.
Sry but for me it doesn't mage any sense to discuss anything with you anymore so I'll hit ignore. What you're saying just doesn't make any sense to me.

[utopianfuture]

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1905706,00.html

Who is the master of spin?

[ashapasa]

this is just stupid, why are we even arguing if UP is for or against rape Nobody wants sockpockets even people with sockpockets would not want others to have sockpockets. What is being done is without question good no matter how u spin it. So please stop clogging this thread, clearly u will not change your view and u will not convince anyone. There is no point wasting anymore time on this.

[howi53]

I am appelled by the direction this thread is running. Stop "friendly fire" please and go back to the topic.

By the way - if NEM-logo is impressive, why not creating a NEM-Coin (like Casascius) but able to communicate with smartphone or computer.
Ideas are welcome

[dewey556]

wow the rapy atmosphere kills my sunday morning NEM vibe.
Whatever happened to that other guy claiming he had 90 accounts he was going to sell? wasnt there also a plan to make a market for nem shares to be traded prelaunch?
 

[SZZT]

dgex_victim's comment

If we overlook for a moment that you created an account with the sole reason to attack an exchange and if we pretend for that minute to forget what that fact thells us about yourself, let me ask you this?

How long have you been around, in this thread?
Not long enough i suppose. The sock discussion has been up so many times, it is pointless to come back at it. Do you even have a clear argument?
i have been reading your posts, and i cant seem to locate a clear reasoning behind your comments, so for the sake of a sober discussion, can you make your issue clear?

What exactly is your point?

All i see you and some more argue about, is the fact that because the large number of socks were not anticipated in the first weeks of this project, then we should allow for them to play along, even after we have spotted them?
Can you spare a moment and clear that for me?

[dgex_victim]

dgex_victim's comment

If we overlook for a moment that you created an account with the sole reason to attack an exchange and if we pretend for that minute to forget what that fact thells us about yourself, let me ask you this?

How long have you been around, in this thread?
Not long enough i suppose. The sock discussion has been up so many times, it is pointless to come back at it. Do you even have a clear argument?
i have been reading your posts, and i cant seem to locate a clear reasoning behind your comments, so for the sake of a sober discussion, can you make your issue clear?

What exactly is your point?

All i see you and some more argue about, is the fact that because the large number of socks were not anticipated in the first weeks of this project, then we should allow for them to play along, even after we have spotted them?
Can you spare a moment and clear that for me?

UP accepted sockpuppets up until Jan 29. By denying that he looks dishonest. It's very easy to show this. Others will do it. NEM has lost it's best marketing person & strategy.

I've been on this forum for over 18 months. I used this account to avoid what happened to 2kool4skool. I never ended up needing it because graviton fixed my problem without needing to post about it publicly.

I honesty do support NEM, but I hate spin, and I hate seeing people walk in front of a bus.

Last time - it is easy to paint utopianfuture as dishonest - he accepted sockpuppets orignally, then he changed the rules. Then he allowed naming and shaming of people who only followed his original rules. Those are the acts of someone with a low character. I believe UP IS someone of high character, but this thread has too many 'yes men'.

UP needs people to tell him the truth.

"UP, you're just about to go into public with your fly undone, and people can see your y-fronts. It's embarrassing to be the one to tell you, but you're going to look really stupid if you don't do something"

Utopianfuture can be made to look like someone who changes the rules to suit himself. NEM needs a leader who appears 100% honest.

[SZZT]

so, i read what you are saying, correctly.

You say that,
because sockpuppets were not anticipated to be such a problem,
and because the devteam decided to deny them access to this project on a date later than the announcement
then socks should be accepted, because they were accepted in the beginning.

is this correct?
do you need to correct my statement anywhere, to reflect better what you are saying?
Let me repeat it, for the record, with less words. Please corret me if i am wrong somewhere.

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not acepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Do the above two lines reflect your issue, or do you need to correct it?

[Emill]

Dear Dvictim watch this and your gripes will go away
http://www.country1011.com/2014/01/20/video-of-ottawa-woman-gone-viral/

[Spider]

so, i read what you are saying, correctly.

You say that,
because sockpuppets were not anticipated to be such a problem,
and because the devteam decided to deny them access to this project on a date later than the announcement
then socks should be accepted, because they were accepted in the beginning.

is this correct?
do you need to correct my statement anywhere, to reflect better what you are saying?
Let me repeat it, for the record, with less words. Please corret me if i am wrong somewhere.

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not acepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Do the above two lines reflect your issue, or do you need to correct it?

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements, like the one below. I've said enough - obviously  - why don't you read utopian's statement below and try and point to anything that justifies naming and shaming people who created multiple accounts prior to Jan 29.

"I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in."

edit: I'm just the messenger

Only a handful of people shares your point of view. They all will get their money back.

[SZZT]

@dgex_victim do not avoid simple questions please, be an adult. I've been in this thread for quite some time, and i have seen the argument you are using, being used so many times, it is not even funny, so i am trying to have a serious discussion. I've been discussing with people for quite some time in my life, and frankly you do not seem to want to engage in it. You seem to just want to spread mud.
 
also, no do not pretend you are a messenger, you are interpreting things how they suit you. That is neither rational, nor fair, is it?

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements

This statement of yours, in simple english means that you interpret things the way you want to interpret them.

So lets go again:

The statement you quoted, simply acknowledges the fact that socks are an issue. You are comfortably leaving outside of your quotation, the part that says that they will be hunted, and audited, so what the UP statement you quoted says, as i interpret the whole of it, is this:
"We will do our best to stop the socks."

So, to recap, and to be clear please use your words, do not quote someone elses half statements and twist them to suit your needs:
You seem to be stating these two lines, in a veiled way, if this is wrong, please tell me where you disagree

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not accepted, then the devteam is not fair.

[SZZT]

If you play the 'good guy' card you have to be 100% trustworthy - that's so obvious!

Ok, now i am convinced, you are just circlejerking are you not?
How many socks do  you have? care to share the number with us?

[Emill]

Only a handful of people shares your point of view. They all will get their money back.

I think as far as this thread goes you are correct, everyone is telling UP he is as good as gold.

Once NEM and 'utopianfuture' are launched, I fear the sockpuppet saga will haunt NEM, and limit the effectiveness of the message. NXT doesn't even bother with the fairness argument. It's all about the tech. As Adam B Levine put it, the NEM IPO was about "proof of give a shit", and it looks like the NXT stakeholders are doing decent things now as far as funding goes.

With NEM the argument is more emotive - we're the good guys, we're about community and fairness. That's what my warning is about. The sockpuppet saga can be used to show UP & NEM are just self-serving entities that will change the rules to suit themselves. Not a very good look.

If you play the 'good guy' card you have to be 100% trustworthy - that's so obvious!

HUG A TROLL

[dgex_victim]

@dgex_victim do not avoid simple questions please, be an adult. I've been in this thread for quite some time, and i have seen the argument you are using, being used so many times, it is not even funny, so i am trying to have a serious discussion. I've been discussing with people for quite some time in my life, and frankly you do not seem to want to engage in it. You seem to just want to spread mud.
 
also, no do not pretend you are a messenger, you are interpreting things how they suit you. That is neither rational, nor fair, is it?

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements

This statement of yours, in simple english means that you interpret things the way you want to interpret them.

So lets go again:

The statement you quoted, simply acknowledges the fact that socks are an issue. You are comfortably leaving outside of your quotation, the part that says that they will be hunted, and audited, so what the UP statement you quoted says, as i interpret the whole of it, is this:
"We will do our best to stop the socks."

So, to recap, and to be clear please use your words, do not quote someone elses half statements and twist them to suit your needs:
You seem to be stating these two lines, in a veiled way, if this is wrong, please tell me where you disagree

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not accepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Sorry SZZT, but I don't feel I'll get anywhere debating you. Why? Because you said you were able to distil this:

"We will do our best to stop the socks."

from this:

"I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in."

That makes you a card carrying 'yes-man' in my books. Don't get me wrong, NEM needs guys like you who are in 'boots and all', and I respect that, but you haven't put a dent in any of my arguments IMO. Part of this is 'emotion', but part of this is 'reason'. You lack enough reason to bother engaging you, sorry!

[Emill]

@dgex_victim do not avoid simple questions please, be an adult. I've been in this thread for quite some time, and i have seen the argument you are using, being used so many times, it is not even funny, so i am trying to have a serious discussion. I've been discussing with people for quite some time in my life, and frankly you do not seem to want to engage in it. You seem to just want to spread mud.
 
also, no do not pretend you are a messenger, you are interpreting things how they suit you. That is neither rational, nor fair, is it?

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements

This statement of yours, in simple english means that you interpret things the way you want to interpret them.

So lets go again:

The statement you quoted, simply acknowledges the fact that socks are an issue. You are comfortably leaving outside of your quotation, the part that says that they will be hunted, and audited, so what the UP statement you quoted says, as i interpret the whole of it, is this:
"We will do our best to stop the socks."

HUG A TROLL

So, to recap, and to be clear please use your words, do not quote someone elses half statements and twist them to suit your needs:
You seem to be stating these two lines, in a veiled way, if this is wrong, please tell me where you disagree

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not accepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Sorry SZZT, but I don't feel I'll get anywhere debating you. Why? Because you said you were able to distil this:

"We will do our best to stop the socks."

from this:

"I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in."

That makes you a card carrying 'yes-man' in my books. Don't get me wrong, NEM needs guys like you who are in 'boots and all', and I respect that, but you haven't put a dent in any of my arguments IMO. Part of this is 'emotion', but part of this is 'reason'. You lack enough reason to engage, sorry!

[SZZT]

 
yes, but you know what the funny part is? The image you are pushing uotwards.
Your only issue is that the devteam is actively pruning more and more socks each day, and this makes them not fair!

[dgex_victim]

yes, but you know what the funny part is? The image you are pushing uotwards.
Your only issue is that the devteam is actively pruning more and more socks each day, and this makes them not fair!

https://i.imgur.com/nPBRkIq.gif

Issue is UP will damage NEM if he looks dishonest.

[rockhill]

so, i read what you are saying, correctly.

You say that,
because sockpuppets were not anticipated to be such a problem,
and because the devteam decided to deny them access to this project on a date later than the announcement
then socks should be accepted, because they were accepted in the beginning.

is this correct?
do you need to correct my statement anywhere, to reflect better what you are saying?
Let me repeat it, for the record, with less words. Please corret me if i am wrong somewhere.

Because socks where not stopped on day 1, they should be accepted.
If socks are not acepted, then the devteam is not fair.

Do the above two lines reflect your issue, or do you need to correct it?

No, the issue has nothing to do with what I think, it's all to do with interpreting UP's statements, like the one below. I've said enough - obviously  - why don't you read utopian's statement below and try and point to anything that justifies naming and shaming people who created multiple accounts prior to Jan 29.

"I won't prevent multiple buy-in. It is impossible to prevent people making two- three accounts and register for them. But it won't matter much as our user bases would be huge. Furthermore, it takes time to make multiple accounts. It takes time to manage multiple accounts. Later on you would need to provide me passwords on these accounts. That's a lot of work already and if someone can go through all of that they have shown a lot of interest in NEM and probably deserve their stakes. And at this point, more accounts means more development fund to NEM. So I don't see the need to prevent multiple buy-in. It is very different from someone putting 10.000 NXT in and buy 10% stake of NEM. I very much doubt anyone can have more than 5-6 buy-ins. I hope this explanation clears the worry about double buy-in."

edit: I'm just the messenger

anyway, UP acquiesced multiple buy-in in the beginning. i just hope NEM project can get through this stuff.