Negative trust for an opinion?

[Vod]

Last time i checked, ignorance is not in any way corelated to mental issues (i am open to change my mind if anyone finds a medical report that states that).

I am just going to stop here, there is a clear bias with some users here, which IMO questions their competence.

Last time I checked, not trusting loonies does not make me incompetent.   :/

They are not ignorant - they have been given the knowledge and easy ways to prove it themselves.  They choose to believe in fairy tales instead.

[iluvbitcoins]

Using the somewhat centralized default trust system to 'threaten' people with dissenting beliefs is not consistent with the libertarian beliefs bitcointalk was founded on and the values of free speech.

It is up to the users of the forum to decide whether or not joe is a

retard

or not, and if he is a

retard

then we ourselves, will decide for ourselves.

He does not need to be red-tagged simply for the reason of beliving into something we find ridiculous.
And it is an abuse of power and a threat to free speech.

[o_e_l_e_o]

And it is an abuse of power and a threat to free speech.

I disagree. No one is trying to ban him, and his threads in the wrong boards haven't even been deleted. He's being allowed to spew his nonsense anywhere he goes. Negative trust does not stop him posting in any way shape or form.

Similarly, there are no free speech restrictions on trust, which is why most DT members have a plethora of ratings calling them pedophiles, racists, motherfuckers, faggots, whores, etc.

[iluvbitcoins]

And it is an abuse of power and a threat to free speech.

I disagree. No one is trying to ban him, and his threads in the wrong boards haven't even been deleted. He's being allowed to spew his nonsense anywhere he goes. Negative trust does not stop him posting in any way shape or form.

Similarly, there are no free speech restrictions on trust, which is why most DT members have a plethora of ratings calling them pedophiles, racists, motherfuckers, faggots, whores, etc.

Usual 'untrusted' ratings barely have any effect, while DT members have the power to render accounts almost useless for plenty of activities on the forum.

He can continue writing, but users who share unpopular beliefs are now more afraid to express them, knowing there's is a possibility they will get red-tagged!

That's why it's a threat to discussion.

That isn't a battle of ideas, an argument,  it's use of power in order to intimidate and silence.

It doesn't matter it's about flat-earth, it starts a bad precedent.

[Lauda]

Using the somewhat centralized default trust system to 'threaten' people with dissenting beliefs is not consistent with the libertarian beliefs bitcointalk was founded on and the values of free speech.

Libertarian bullshit again, ain't it?

And it is an abuse of power and a threat to free speech.

This has nothing to do with free speech. You can post the same way that you would regardless of the state of your trust rating. Any change in such would be a decent indicator of hidden motives.

He can continue writing, but users who share unpopular beliefs are now more afraid to express them, knowing there's is a possibility they will get red-tagged!

Unpopular =/= objectively false (a.k.a., a lie).

[iluvbitcoins]

Yes.
That's why it's an opinion and not a fact.
If you opinion means jack shit it doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion.

Well, I disagree.  

I believe you cannot have an opinion that the sun emits purple light.

Opinions should have something to base the opinion on...

Facts don't care about opinions.

The same way joe believes the earth is flat doesn't change the Earth from being round.
The same way, if you disagree with the definition of 'opinion', the definition still remains the same.

[iluvbitcoins]

Using the somewhat centralized default trust system to 'threaten' people with dissenting beliefs is not consistent with the libertarian beliefs bitcointalk was founded on and the values of free speech.

Libertarian bullshit again, ain't it?

And it is an abuse of power and a threat to free speech.

This has nothing to do with free speech. You can post the same way that you would regardless of the state of your trust rating. Any change in such would be a decent indicator of hidden motives.

He can continue writing, but users who share unpopular beliefs are now more afraid to express them, knowing there's is a possibility they will get red-tagged!

Unpopular =/= objectively false (a.k.a., a lie).

You as an individual with a red tag can keep posting.
But an individual without a red tag is disincentivized to post because of fear of getting a red-tag on his account.

Unpopular = false?
So, you too, believe in flat-earth?
Since, believing the earth is round was quite unpopular

Also, instead of arguing about flat-earth you could tell me how come you forgot to speak Croatian after resetting your e-mail?

[suchmoon]

It doesn't matter it's about flat-earth, it starts a bad precedent.

Bullshit. The subject matters and the user's blatant lying matters too. Your attempt to make this into some free speech issue is pathetic. This is a Bitcoin forum, not a "come here to lie without consequences" forum. I'm sure there are places for flat-earthers to discuss their pancakes without repercussions. On this forum however trust matters and it just so happens that a liar got called out as untrustworthy.

Here are some other things you want to avoid "discussing" here:

"$10,000 reward for a Super Hero Legendary Merit Source account and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for a plagiarism bot and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for running a ponzi ICO and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for killing Vod and hiding the body and how it relates to Bitcoin"

I'm sure there is an endless list of idiotic shit that one can frame as a "reward" and then claim to have an "opinion" justifying it. Doesn't mean everybody has to consider such behavior trustworthy.

[cabalism13]

Wasn't this flat thing issues over yet?
I really don't have an idea on why did the OP tried to open a new thread again? And it has the same number of replies, although he already have his answers from his previous post?

It doesn't matter it's about flat-earth, it starts a bad precedent.

Bullshit. The subject matters and the user's blatant lying matters too. Your attempt to make this into some free speech issue is pathetic. This is a Bitcoin forum, not a "come here to lie without consequences" forum. I'm sure there are places for flat-earthers to discuss their pancakes without repercussions. On this forum however trust matters and it just so happens that a liar got called out as untrustworthy.

Here are some other things you want to avoid "discussing" here:

"$10,000 reward for a Super Hero Legendary Merit Source account and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for a plagiarism bot and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for running a ponzi ICO and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for killing Vod and hiding the body and how it relates to Bitcoin"

I'm sure there is an endless list of idiotic shit that one can frame as a "reward" and then claim to have an "opinion" justifying it. Doesn't mean everybody has to consider such behavior trustworthy.

[+5]

Can't help myself from laughing at this entire moment

[suchmoon]

I really don't have an idea on why did the OP tried to open a new thread again? And it has the same number of replies, although he already have his answers from his previous post?

The OP is just an attention whore. Trolls need food too, winter's coming in the center part of the flat Earth. Or perhaps they don't have seasons, not sure.

[Flying Hellfish]

It doesn't matter it's about flat-earth, it starts a bad precedent.

For some reason people think context doesn't matter when its actually paramount LOL.

You might just be on to something I think we should let scammers remain untagged as well since its their opinion that they are not scamming and limiting their opinions is a violation of free speech as well...

I also don't think we should ban plagiarists since it's there opinion they are not doing anything wrong!

Murders shouldn't be prosecuted (at least any murder who's opinion is they are doing nothing wrong).

The OP is retarded, mentally unbalanced or lying and we as a society are not doing them or ourselves any favours letting him think hes a special snowflake who somehow beat science.

We literally have 1000's of photo's of the fucking earth, simply put even a retard can look at a picture and say round.

No we shouldn't make room for the OP's opinion we should ridicule and laugh his demonstrably retarded ass out of the fucking gene pool.

[Lauda]

We literally have 1000's of photo's of the fucking earth, simply put even a retard can look at a picture and say round.

All pictures, videos and/or livestreams claiming to be done from satellites or rockets are fake!!

[Tszunami98]

It doesn't matter it's about flat-earth, it starts a bad precedent.

Bullshit. The subject matters and the user's blatant lying matters too. Your attempt to make this into some free speech issue is pathetic. This is a Bitcoin forum, not a "come here to lie without consequences" forum. I'm sure there are places for flat-earthers to discuss their pancakes without repercussions. On this forum however trust matters and it just so happens that a liar got called out as untrustworthy.

Here are some other things you want to avoid "discussing" here:

"$10,000 reward for a Super Hero Legendary Merit Source account and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for a plagiarism bot and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for running a ponzi ICO and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for killing Vod and hiding the body and how it relates to Bitcoin"

I'm sure there is an endless list of idiotic shit that one can frame as a "reward" and then claim to have an "opinion" justifying it. Doesn't mean everybody has to consider such behavior trustworthy.

Adorable! Raging children are using the internet.

You should start behaving more like an adult than a North Korean general.

Literally every comment you make is designed to feed your ego, this type of bully behaviour is disgusting. Learn how to express yourself if you want someone to take you serious.

Really pathetic how the staff and DT members gang up so violently and aggresive on the community for daring to defend someone who they consider a victim of the trust system.

[Lauda]

Really pathetic how the staff and DT members gang up so violently and aggresive on the community for daring to defend someone who they consider a victim of the trust system.

Out of curiosity: Who exactly are you and why are you particularly interested in this particular reputation issue? Outlier names tend to catch my old eye, although I'm not up to date with all the newly active individuals here.

[iluvbitcoins]

It doesn't matter it's about flat-earth, it starts a bad precedent.

Bullshit. The subject matters and the user's blatant lying matters too. Your attempt to make this into some free speech issue is pathetic. This is a Bitcoin forum, not a "come here to lie without consequences" forum. I'm sure there are places for flat-earthers to discuss their pancakes without repercussions. On this forum however trust matters and it just so happens that a liar got called out as untrustworthy.

Here are some other things you want to avoid "discussing" here:

"$10,000 reward for a Super Hero Legendary Merit Source account and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for a plagiarism bot and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for running a ponzi ICO and how it relates to Bitcoin"
"$10,000 reward for killing Vod and hiding the body and how it relates to Bitcoin"

I'm sure there is an endless list of idiotic shit that one can frame as a "reward" and then claim to have an "opinion" justifying it. Doesn't mean everybody has to consider such behavior trustworthy.

I will not lie, I haven't read through the entire thread, I skimmed it mostly.
Can you pin-point the reply where he is blatantly lying?
I mean, as in lying, not having a different opinion.

It doesn't matter it's about flat-earth, it starts a bad precedent.

For some reason people think context doesn't matter when its actually paramount LOL.

You might just be on to something I think we should let scammers remain untagged as well since its their opinion that they are not scamming and limiting their opinions is a violation of free speech as well...

I also don't think we should ban plagiarists since it's there opinion they are not doing anything wrong!

Murders shouldn't be prosecuted (at least any murder who's opinion is they are doing nothing wrong).

The OP is retarded, mentally unbalanced or lying and we as a society are not doing them or ourselves any favours letting him think hes a special snowflake who somehow beat science.

We literally have 1000's of photo's of the fucking earth, simply put even a retard can look at a picture and say round.

No we shouldn't make room for the OP's opinion we should ridicule and laugh his demonstrably retarded ass out of the fucking gene pool.

Reductio ad absurdum.

It's their opinion to scam? Are you high or something?
Copy&pasting isn't an opinion.
Murdering someone makes harm to someone else, it is not an opinion.

Now I can red tag you because you're a

retard

who doesn't know the definition of an opinion?

opinion (ə-pĭnˈyən)►

    n.
    A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” ( Elizabeth Drew).
    n.
    A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
    n.
    A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

As I said so far, facts don't care about opinions.
So if your opinion is you're innocent what does that have to do with you killing someone?

The same way, him believing the earth is flat doesn't make it flat!
But you should not red tag him because of believing it since he's not doing harm to anyone!
Some time ago people behaved this way to those who claimed the earth was round

Really pathetic how the staff and DT members gang up so violently and aggresive on the community for daring to defend someone who they consider a victim of the trust system.

Out of curiosity: Who exactly are you and why are you particularly interested in this particular reputation issue? Outlier names tend to catch my old eye, although I'm not up to date with all the newly active individuals here.

Dunno, he's probably just someone who didn't mismanage 3000BTC.

[Tszunami98]

Really pathetic how the staff and DT members gang up so violently and aggresive on the community for daring to defend someone who they consider a victim of the trust system.

Out of curiosity: Who exactly are you and why are you particularly interested in this particular reputation issue? Outlier names tend to catch my old eye, although I'm not up to date with all the newly active individuals here.

Well, a user recieved a negative trust for being unscientific, while the reason for recieving the negative trust is also unscientific (having a mental issue for not knowing the shape of the earth).

And then tying all of that with some poor reasoning about because he believes what he believes makes him untrustworhty of repaing a loan and some nonsense like that.
The fact that 78% of americans believe in angels and in the same time being able to take loans from banks should say a lot.

And on top of that this kindergarden aggresive behaviour from people who sould be the leaders of the community against anyone who tries to dispute a controversial reputation issue.

What is so suspicious about someone having a different opinion? you sound like i have some hidden interest in this matter.
Not all people are like o_e_l_e_o, who's entire posting history is just a big string of ass sucking to his masters.

I give credit where it's due and call bullshit and hypocrisy when i find it ...this is who i am.

And i am not an SJW or snowflake or whatever names dumb americans are up this days...

[Lauda]

Really pathetic how the staff and DT members gang up so violently and aggresive on the community for daring to defend someone who they consider a victim of the trust system.

Out of curiosity: Who exactly are you and why are you particularly interested in this particular reputation issue? Outlier names tend to catch my old eye, although I'm not up to date with all the newly active individuals here.

Well, a user recieved a negative trust for being unscientific, while the reason for recieving the negative trust is also unscientific (having a mental issue for not knowing the shape of the earth).
-snip-
What is so suspicious about someone having a different opinion? you sound like i have some hidden interest in this matter.
...
I give credit where it's due and call bullshit and hypocrisy when i find it ...this is who i am.

You are the one who brought up suspicious and 'hidden interest' FYI. Unrelated to my question.[1] I was just wondering why this particular dispute is interesting to you because there are literally thousands of complaints (albeit they may not be the same, but the general approach is consistent). I haven't seen you active in this section before (you seem to be active elsewhere); that's why the question and that's it.

Not all people are like o_e_l_e_o, who's entire posting history is just a big string of ass sucking to his masters.

What exactly are these masters and who are "his masters"?
[1] There is usual suspicion when low ranking accounts pop up after a long period of activity and jump on a side (usually the wrong one). You don't fit either criteria.

[iluvbitcoins]

1. We red tag joe for believing in something that can be easily refuted

2. I can now red tag people who believe the moon landing was fake

3. I can now red tag people who believe 9/11 was an inside job

4. I can now red tag communists because there's irrefutable evidence around the world communism doesn't work

5. I can now red tag religious people for believing in an imaginary man on the sky

[suchmoon]

I will not lie, I haven't read through the entire thread, I skimmed it mostly.
Can you pin-point the reply where he is blatantly lying?
I mean, as in lying, not having a different opinion.

I have done these experiments.  Hence my view and confusion on what I was taught. NASA still says the boat disappearing over the horizon is the proof.

You can make the ship reappear when it disappears behind the water. It's simply going out of your perspective.  Once the ship is gone from your sight "perspective" if you use binoculars you can see the ship again.

One or the other is a lie. joerogers8 either never bothered to do this, in which case the first claim is a lie and the second one is just immensely stupid, or actually did it and is lying about the results.

Adorable! Raging children are using the internet.

You should start behaving more like an adult than a North Korean general.

Literally every comment you make is designed to feed your ego, this type of bully behaviour is disgusting. Learn how to express yourself if you want someone to take you serious.

Really pathetic how the staff and DT members gang up so violently and aggresive on the community for daring to defend someone who they consider a victim of the trust system.

My ego is well fed but thank you for your concern. Ridiculing your laughable "defense" is not violence so you might want to peek into the dictionary once in a while. Who knows, given some time you might even learn to tackle the argument, not just the person.

[Flying Hellfish]

1. We red tag joe for believing in something that can be easily refuted

2. I can now red tag people who believe the moon landing was fake

3. I can now red tag people who believe 9/11 was an inside job

4. I can now red tag communists because there's irrefutable evidence around the world communism doesn't work

5. I can now red tag religious people for believing in an imaginary man on the sky

First of all yes you and any users can tag anyone you want for any reason.
Second Vod has not red tagged anyone for any of those reasons so your logic is specious.