DefaultTrust changes

[cryptohunter]

-snip-
I too think there is an urgent need of forum endorsed guidelines to judge any case or else this is just turning into a total mess.

Which is a lie (neither is there any urgency nor is this place near the state of being a mess of that type); stop pushing false narratives using a hacked account. The end goal is to make account trading non-taggable again, and that is not going to happen. Your lies have really become tiring to read.

Lies lies lies, says the proven liar. Remove my red trust or debate in public with me why you gave it to me in the first place.

[1714498553]

1714498553

[1714498553]

1714498553

[JusticeForYou]

-snip-
I too think there is an urgent need of forum endorsed guidelines to judge any case or else this is just turning into a total mess.

Which is a lie (neither is there any urgency nor is this place near the state of being a mess of that type); stop pushing false narratives using a hacked account. The end goal is to make account trading non-taggable again, and that is not going to happen. Your lies have really become tiring to read.

This are not lies but guilty truth of yours to mob any one who tries to comment or question on your authority. You are not the saviour of the forum, also you don't have that job here at the first place. You are just pretending to be a forum police but hunting your personal power behind it and harassing users with your fake accusations.

Your tricks to hamper once repo have been seen by many here and reported much times. There is a need of readjustment and you already know that, there are much threads in your own name pointing to you as an trust abuser. They are not just one or two but many. You are also not included by theymos on his trust list, and no one wants you here basically.

[suchmoon]

You are also not included by theymos on his trust list, and no one wants you here basically.

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-29_Tue_08.13h/101872.html

vs

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-29_Tue_08.13h/18021.html

Looks like Lauda is "wanted" (pun intended) by quite a few more people than "no one".

[JusticeForYou]

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-29_Tue_08.13h/101872.html

vs

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-29_Tue_08.13h/18021.html

Looks like Lauda is "wanted" (pun intended) by quite a few more people than "no one".

Yes, but it is better to be detrusted by "no one" than "unwanted" by quite more people.

[suchmoon]

Yes, but it is better to be detrusted by "no one" than "unwanted" by quite more people.

The data is updated on Saturdays. Check back tomorrow.

Still it's not even close to "no one wants you here" in any feasible way that I can see. You're making these broad and fairly ridiculous statements quite consistently. Is this caused by the same issue that also caused you to "unlearn" English recently?

[cryptohunter]

Yes, but it is better to be detrusted by "no one" than "unwanted" by quite more people.

The data is updated on Fridays. Check back tomorrow.

Still it's not even close to "no one wants you here" in any feasible way that I can see. You're making these broad and fairly ridiculous statements quite consistently. Is this caused by the same issue that also caused you to "unlearn" English recently?

What caused you to unlearn everything recently?

Let's look at some of your statements shall we.

" most " pre merit legends are spammers -- that  is quite a good one

or

it is idiotic and incorrect to assume some of the 99.87% of the board can make posts as good or better than some of the 0.13%  (top200 merit cyclers)

Your statements are far more ludicrous. Please do not lecture people on making statements that you feel are ridiculous since that likely means they are quite sensible and reasonable.

Well let's rephrase .... nobody who thinks proven liars should be in positions of trust wants them there.

I don't care who is on DT so long as they are forced to work within a sensible framework and to a sensible fair mandate. If they will not they need removal. Of course it would be quite sensible to remove persons whom are proven liars since surely we can find others who are not to replace them.

[Quickseller]

You are also not included by theymos on his trust list, and no one wants you here basically.

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-29_Tue_08.13h/101872.html

vs

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-29_Tue_08.13h/18021.html

Looks like Lauda is "wanted" (pun intended) by quite a few more people than "no one".

There are a good amount of accounts that have lauda on their trust list who belong to a single account farmer and I know that some added lauda to their trust lists before he was ever anywhere near DT because that is when they were last logged in (others I cannot rule out adding lauda after he was added to DT because they logged in after lauda was added, but they nonetheless belong to the same person).

I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).

[Veleor]

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-29_Tue_08.13h/18021.html

I wonder, if Bitcointalk VIP member changed his nickname will this name modify in the users' Trust list automatically, or it should be edited manually?

[LoyceV]

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-29_Tue_08.13h/18021.html

I wonder, if Bitcointalk VIP member changed his nickname will this name modify in the users' Trust list automatically, or it should be edited manually?

The forum takes care of it:

~not sure what's gonna happen if he changes his name again. Hopefully it's based on user ID somehow.

You can just copy/paste his whole name, and it is stored as a user ID.

As for loyce.club, I try to find the "new" username from BPIP, and if that fails, I'll do a manual search.

[suchmoon]

I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).

If enough DT1 members exclude Lauda then Lauda won't be in DT1 or even DT2. Your clumsy attempt to redefine consensus on whether someone "should be anywhere near DT" has been duly noted but luckily that's not how it works.

[Lauda]

-snip-
I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).

Right, now excluded all those that I have rightfully negged from this list and you're down to what, maybe 10% of the original size?

I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).

If enough DT1 members exclude Lauda then Lauda won't be in DT1 or even DT2. Your clumsy attempt to redefine consensus on whether someone "should be anywhere near DT" has been duly noted but luckily that's not how it works.

There's nothing new to note; he tried this with either his alt gorgon or his main already quite some time ago.

[cryptohunter]

-snip-
I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).

Right, now excluded all those that I have rightfully negged from this list and you're down to what, maybe 10% of the original size?

I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).

If enough DT1 members exclude Lauda then Lauda won't be in DT1 or even DT2. Your clumsy attempt to redefine consensus on whether someone "should be anywhere near DT" has been duly noted but luckily that's not how it works.

There's nothing new to note; he tried this with either his alt gorgon or his main already quite some time ago.

That is rightfully tagged only in your mind. But then the mind of liar, trust abuser and someone implicated in several shady dealings is not to be trusted or relied upon.

Let's deal with FACT no opinion (especially yours) . A PROVEN liar should not be on DT. There is no wiggle room. Once you lie you become untrustworthy. How can you have proven untrustworthy persons on DT. It simply is not a place for proven liars, trust abusers nor persons that demonstrate clearly greedy and devious traits.

There is perhaps a bunch of 20 people that support you on DT, those themselves are also are highly questionable because they are knowingly and willingly supporting proven untrustworthy persons to be in a position of trust.

I have demonstrated clearly that some people supporting you are also liars and not to be trusted others are trust abusers, others are proven greedy devious and have double standards. I mean most people supporting you are clearly not trustworthy either.

You need persons on DT that are honest and will only tolerate honest persons on DT. 

Want proof or evidence to support anything I have said then request it and I will be glad to present it.

[TECSHARE]

-snip-
I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).

Right, now excluded all those that I have rightfully negged from this list and you're down to what, maybe 10% of the original size?

I don’t think there is any argument to say that there is not consensus that lauda should be anywhere near DT based on the very high number of high ranking, trustworthy people that have explicitly excluded lauda from their trust lists. (Plus the number of lesser known people that have also explicitly excluded lauda).

If enough DT1 members exclude Lauda then Lauda won't be in DT1 or even DT2. Your clumsy attempt to redefine consensus on whether someone "should be anywhere near DT" has been duly noted but luckily that's not how it works.

There's nothing new to note; he tried this with either his alt gorgon or his main already quite some time ago.

Well you have accused them. Clearly that means any complaints are invalid because your decisions and judgement are infallible are they? Life would be so much easier if you could just defame anyone who accuses you of anything amirite?

[JusticeForYou]

Well you have accused them. Clearly that means any complaints are invalid because your decisions and judgement are infallible are they? Life would be so much easier if you could just defame anyone who accuses you of anything amirite?

Yes, they do that and there is a very clear case of trust abuse happening with me. I am not engaged in any shady active here, even I don't earn form signatures by posting here and there is nothing scammy I have done which should state Warning: Trade with extreme caution!.

This is how they try to mob anyone here who tries to speak in some truth about there manipulative works. This is a clear case of lowering the value of once reputed account, without any prove of it being compressed.

[TECSHARE]

Well you have accused them. Clearly that means any complaints are invalid because your decisions and judgement are infallible are they? Life would be so much easier if you could just defame anyone who accuses you of anything amirite?

Yes, they do that and there is a very clear case of trust abuse happening with me. I am not engaged in any shady active here, even I don't earn form signatures by posting here and there is nothing scammy I have done which should state Warning: Trade with extreme caution!.

This is how they try to mob anyone here who tries to speak in some truth about there manipulative works. This is a clear case of lowering the value of once reputed account, without any prove of it being compressed.

Very interesting. What a shocker. Another person who has critical things to say punished with their own personal inquisition. I reviewed the case, and all I see is suspicion. There is no evidence of wrongdoing, just demands by the forum overlords for the user to prove their identity, and punishment for not doing so. I am sure it is just a complete coincidence this inquisition was rebirthed directly after them being critical of the trust police right? It is almost like they try to find anything they can to discredit and punish anyone who criticizes their inquisition type Barney Fife OCD forum cop behavior.

[JusticeForYou]

Very interesting. What a shocker. Another person who has critical things to say punished with their own personal inquisition. I reviewed the case, and all I see is suspicion. There is no evidence of wrongdoing, just demands by the forum overlords for the user to prove their identity, and punishment for not doing so. I am sure it is just a complete coincidence this inquisition was rebirthed directly after them being critical of the trust police right? It is almost like they try to find anything they can to discredit and punish anyone who criticizes their inquisition type Barney Fife OCD forum cop behavior.

Exactly, they try to force there words and just make the situation more worst for anyone speaking against there agenda. This is how they keep the system monopolized.

[tmfp]

This is how they try to mob anyone here who tries to speak in some truth about there manipulative works. This is a clear case of lowering the value of once reputed account, without any prove of it being compressed.

Exactly, they try to force there words and just make the situation more worst for anyone speaking against there agenda. This is how they keep the system monopolized.

When did you stop speaking English?

[bones261]

Well you have accused them. Clearly that means any complaints are invalid because your decisions and judgement are infallible are they? Life would be so much easier if you could just defame anyone who accuses you of anything amirite?

Yes, they do that and there is a very clear case of trust abuse happening with me. I am not engaged in any shady active here, even I don't earn form signatures by posting here and there is nothing scammy I have done which should state Warning: Trade with extreme caution!.

This is how they try to mob anyone here who tries to speak in some truth about there manipulative works. This is a clear case of lowering the value of once reputed account, without any prove of it being compressed.

Very interesting. What a shocker. Another person who has critical things to say punished with their own personal inquisition. I reviewed the case, and all I see is suspicion. There is no evidence of wrongdoing, just demands by the forum overlords for the user to prove their identity, and punishment for not doing so. I am sure it is just a complete coincidence this inquisition was rebirthed directly after them being critical of the trust police right? It is almost like they try to find anything they can to discredit and punish anyone who criticizes their inquisition type Barney Fife OCD forum cop behavior.

     I'm going to use an analogy here. Let's say someone lives in the US and just turned 21 two days ago. They decide to go to a nightclub, and somehow ends up losing their ID along the way. When the 21 years old goes to the nightclub, they discover that their ID is missing and the nightclub does not let them enter. Is the nightclub doing something wrong? After all, the person is 21 years old. They just don't have an ID.
     Unfortunately, it appears JusticeforYou has lost the keys that would have allowed him full reentry into our community. If I am not mistaken, Satoshi himself cannot even access his account here unless he can prove to the satisfaction of theymos that he is indeed Satoshi. So Justiceforyou has a privilege that the founder doesn't enjoy. At least he is free to post on this forum. We must take every precaution possible to ensure that this forum doesn't fall for a big con. You do realize that con is short for confidence, correct?
     I for one would hope that JusticeForYou finds a usb drive tucked away in a junk drawer, and is able to retrieve the private keys. Hopefully multiple keys that have no current UTXO attached to them so he doesn't have to reveal his wealth and can be totally vindicated. Also, JusticeForYou indicated that he sent a PM to theymos. Perhaps theymos himself feels that having access to the original e-mail is sufficient.

[TECSHARE]

Well you have accused them. Clearly that means any complaints are invalid because your decisions and judgement are infallible are they? Life would be so much easier if you could just defame anyone who accuses you of anything amirite?

Yes, they do that and there is a very clear case of trust abuse happening with me. I am not engaged in any shady active here, even I don't earn form signatures by posting here and there is nothing scammy I have done which should state Warning: Trade with extreme caution!.

This is how they try to mob anyone here who tries to speak in some truth about there manipulative works. This is a clear case of lowering the value of once reputed account, without any prove of it being compressed.

Very interesting. What a shocker. Another person who has critical things to say punished with their own personal inquisition. I reviewed the case, and all I see is suspicion. There is no evidence of wrongdoing, just demands by the forum overlords for the user to prove their identity, and punishment for not doing so. I am sure it is just a complete coincidence this inquisition was rebirthed directly after them being critical of the trust police right? It is almost like they try to find anything they can to discredit and punish anyone who criticizes their inquisition type Barney Fife OCD forum cop behavior.

     I'm going to use an analogy here. Let's say someone lives in the US and just turned 21 two days ago. They decide to go to a nightclub, and somehow ends up losing their ID along the way. When the 21 years old goes to the nightclub, they discover that their ID is missing and the nightclub does not let them enter. Is the nightclub doing something wrong? After all, the person is 21 years old. They just don't have an ID.
     Unfortunately, it appears JusticeforYou has lost the keys that would have allowed him full reentry into our community. If I am not mistaken, Satoshi himself cannot even access his account here unless he can prove to the satisfaction of theymos that he is indeed Satoshi. So Justiceforyou has a privilege that the founder doesn't enjoy. At least he is free to post on this forum. We must take every precaution possible to ensure that this forum doesn't fall for a big con. You do realize that con is short for confidence, correct?
     I for one would hope that JusticeForYou finds a usb drive tucked away in a junk drawer, and is able to retrieve the private keys. Hopefully multiple keys that have no current UTXO attached to them so he doesn't have to reveal his wealth and can be totally vindicated. Also, JusticeForYou indicated that he sent a PM to theymos. Perhaps theymos himself feels that having access to the original e-mail is sufficient.

Yeah, after 8 years of being around here I know how it works, thank you for the patronizing explanation though.

You are missing the point completely. It is irrelevant if he can't prove it is his account, because first of all there is no victim making a claim. Now if some one he had harmed came forward, ok sure I wouldn't have any issue whatsoever.

However in this case he is simply SUSPECTED of not being the owner. While he can't prove he is, why should he have to? Oh right, because the forum police have decided that you are guilty until proven innocent. This is exactly why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before rating.

I am sure that it is absolutely coincidence all these people decided now would be a good time to negative tag him. I am sure this inquisition has nothing to do with the fact that he is critical of the very same behavior these people who rated him perpetrate on a daily basis. This is the plausible deniability of harassment, inquisition, and dog piling these people use to justify their behavior by systematically discrediting anyone who criticizes them.

[nutildah]

This is how they try to mob anyone here who tries to speak in some truth about there manipulative works. This is a clear case of lowering the value of once reputed account, without any prove of it being compressed.

Exactly, they try to force there words and just make the situation more worst for anyone speaking against there agenda. This is how they keep the system monopolized.

When did you stop speaking English?

Sometime between August 2017 and November 2018.

Sure I'm full of ideas...

How about the Bitcoin Shark Tank?

What you do is get 5 Bitcoin investors together to listen to people pitch their ideas. Then those that come begging for Bitcoin will have to explain their idea, show how much they earned so far, and what their projections are for the next year. Then the Bitcoin Sharks will either make an offer or kick them out. Funny thing tho... All those that came begging for money on the 'real' Shark Tank with just an 'idea' got kicked out pretty quickly.

I understand missing their/there occasionally; most of us do it on occasion. But this guy went from having an extremely strong command of the English language (native speaker) to knowing it as a second language. He went from not posting in Meta too often to almost exclusively posting in Meta, and now Reputation because he's involved there (not their). It seems like he was awoken to perform a specific task.