DefaultTrust changes

[LoyceV]

You'il never shut me up.

Great! I love freedom of speech, and you should be allowed to say anything you want. That's one of the things that makes Bitcointalk so unique!
Excluding you from my Trust list doesn't mean I want to shut you up. I didn't put you on Ignore either. All it means is that your use of the Trust list and feedback is incompatible with what I think is right. And the fact that you don't seem to know this, proves my point.

[1713951767]

1713951767

[1713951767]

1713951767

[wolwoo]

You'il never shut me up.

Great! I love freedom of speech, and you should be allowed to say anything you want. That's one of the things that makes Bitcointalk so unique!
Excluding you from my Trust list doesn't mean I want to shut you up. I didn't put you on Ignore either. All it means is that your use of the Trust list and feedback is incompatible with what I think is right. And the fact that you don't seem to know this, proves my point.

You, your gang, your thoughts and your design in the forum...  

EDİT:
Take your filthy merit
I owe one
i am not merit rich like you

[gospodin]

Just in case anyone hasn't spotted it yet, marlboroza has been exerting peer pressure on others to remove their default trust of gospodin who is one of the group of people this thread and associated flags were created against.

I have never pressed anyone neither I said to anyone to remove gospodin from their trust list, stop making things up, you already have more than enough made up things in topic.

what is this?  one of them is a liar, or the other is a bully.  I am waiting answer.  do you think this is fair? I don't care to be dt1.  But very roughly...

[Vod]

Theymos had a very difficult job in protecting this forum.  He wanted free speech and anonymity but needed a system to balance it based on trusted people. 

Unfortunately, drama is now the main topic of discussion around here.   :/

[Rengga Jati]

Theymos had a very difficult job in protecting this forum.  

Absolutely. But I think he doesn't protect it alone. Besides Cyrus, mods, and staff, You and I must support him also, right?  

He wanted free speech and anonymity but needed a system to balance it based on trusted people.  

That's why sometimes it is needed to evaluate the current system. I think he has already many good men to help him considering an ideal system.  

Unfortunately, drama is now the main topic of discussion around here.   :/

We will always see drama everywhere. It is something unavoidable. We only have a choice to deal with it.

[marlboroza]

Just in case anyone hasn't spotted it yet, marlboroza has been exerting peer pressure on others to remove their default trust of gospodin who is one of the group of people this thread and associated flags were created against.

I have never pressed anyone neither I said to anyone to remove gospodin from their trust list, stop making things up, you already have more than enough made up things in topic.

what is this?  one of them is a liar, or the other is a bully.  I am waiting answer.  do you think this is fair? I don't care to be dt1.  But very roughly...

Oh, please, read it again.

[Lauda]

You'il never shut me up.
You can either close my account or go fuck you

I believe that this clearly warrants a type-1 flag.

Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

Consensus?

Unfortunately, drama is now the main topic of discussion around here.   :/

This happens when you fail to remove users whose sole purpose here is to troll, cause damage and problems. He'd probably only need to remove a couple dozen of users and it would return to where it should be.

[Steamtyme]

I believe that this clearly warrants a type-1 flag.

Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

Consensus?

No, not from me. A high risk of being told off or hearing an opinion I disagree with sure. That warrants at most a neutral feedback, being excluded from your trust list, and maybe even ignored if you are so inclined. Just because we don't like the message doesn't mean they are going to scam someone. Doing things your way just lends validity to the ranting and ravings of that user, it hten looks like people want to punish them or use feedback/trust to silence them.

Give them the rope they'll hang themselves... sure they already have.

[Lauda]

I believe that this clearly warrants a type-1 flag.

Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

Consensus?

No, not from me. A high risk of being told off or hearing an opinion I disagree with sure. That warrants at most a neutral feedback, being excluded from your trust list, and maybe even ignored if you are so inclined. Just because we don't like the message doesn't mean they are going to scam someone. Doing things your way just lends validity to the ranting and ravings of that user, it hten looks like people want to punish them or use feedback/trust to silence them.

Give them the rope they'll hang themselves... sure they already have.

Lovely double-standards. I wonder if I responded like that to trust-related matters (see theymoses posts) in my prime days whether I would be labelled as a high-risk user/sold account/whatever. Undoubtedly I would. If someone does get scammed by that account or his alts/shills, then that will be on you & co. Archive: https://archive.md/lPcHv.
One step forward, three and a half steps back for you guys it seems. No consensus, no flag then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[wolwoo]

You'il never shut me up.
You can either close my account or go fuck you

I believe that this clearly warrants a type-1 flag.

Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money. (This flag will only be shown to guests/newbies.)

Consensus?

Unfortunately, drama is now the main topic of discussion around here.   :/

This happens when you fail to remove users whose sole purpose here is to troll, cause damage and problems. He'd probably only need to remove a couple dozen of users and it would return to where it should be.

theymos
~Foxpup
2run
Deathwing
~Timelord2067
EFS
xzone
by rallier
~2double0
teramit
~stompix
Lydian
ziya1453
techman
GrinZ
hiburak
~suchmoon
~examplens
Zz
Danslip
~tmfp
peloso
varanvaran
mhanbostanci
muslol67
The Young Turk
~LoyceV
Kalemder
~The Pharmacist
cabsav
DarkStar_
dannybrown
BitcoinTurk
~JaredKaragen
bileq
~TryNinja
Halmater
ekiller
Muhtaixa
tekno
~marlboroza
sammys
~IconFirm
~blurryeyed
Aceeakell
Bitcoin-Turkiye
ophyrim
TaliskerDarkStorm
onurgozupek
otto_diesel
bobita
Vispilio
~JollyGood
enfarktus
Blacknavy
AlyattesLydia
PHI1618
lossnet
~Steamtyme
gumusi
~o_e_l_e_o
jopen
vycl87
El-Cezeri
gospodin
SkyLords
trendcoin
~rehberistan
anonymous3x
Hovarda
cryptobaro
~morvillz7z
Bthd
Cryptorianx
~Coolcryptovator
ismend
~DireWolfM14
~psycodad
kartepe
kriptobaron
KursatAelf
mandown
Tom Bombadil
Lachrymose
forumalacali
~LFC_Bitcoin
~Lauda

son liste bu şekilde benim

Here, let me help you, bitch. need for list of supporters

[Lauda]

Here, let me help you, bitch. need for list of supporters

I seem to almost recall someone warning against abuse in the Turkish section quite some time ago. What was the username of the user that did this

[Steamtyme]

Lovely double-standards. I wonder if I responded like that to trust-related matters (see theymoses posts) in my prime days whether I would be labelled as a high-risk user/sold account/whatever. Undoubtedly I would. If someone does get scammed by that account or his alts/shills, then that will be on you & co. Archive: https://archive.md/lPcHv.
One step forward, three and a half steps back for you guys it seems. No consensus, no flag then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sorry but I'm lost. Do you mean if you flew off the handle?? I don't think you would be tagged by anyone that matters. Removed from role or whatever maybe, excluded from lists, probably. I really don't know how to respond to this, maybe I'm just tired.
Bring me anything that proves he has a sold/bought account since I've been a member and I'll tag them. That would be a different story than they are loud annoying and not worth trying to reason with in a discussion.

I have never tagged you, and you can rant and rave all you want; I don't give a shit that's not worthy of negative feedback. Until you scam someone, or begin to offer some weird shady deals or sell your account I won't... that's all I can think of at the moment. Excluded from my list yeah until recently, and I have been on the fence about what to do moving forward. I was going to PM you after the holidays to see if one of your reds might go to a neutral. Just not something I planned to get into at this time.

Sorry if I and others aren't living up to what you expect of us, but we are using the system as we think it should be, and you are free to do the same.

[Lauda]

Removed from role or whatever maybe, excluded from lists, probably.

Contact me when someone else gets treated equally as I'd be treated assuming I acted comparatively-equal as the entity that I'm being compared with.

Sorry if I and others aren't living up to what you expect of us, but we are using the system as we think it should be, and you are free to do the same.

You (plural) are failing, following the master's footsteps because you (plural) limit your (plural) thinking within a pre-designed box. I wonder why this place is not improving that much (if at all [1]), and why most of the time spent is wasted in drama that shouldn't exist in the first place? Maybe you (plural) are using the system as you (plural) "think you should use it". Maybe you (plural) need to stop thinking for yourself and test out methods that may actually work? Seems that the system has taken the undesired turn and become primarily political, with members acting like entrenched royalty ("my way is the right way").

I have never tagged you, and you can rant and rave all you want

Neither have I said nor implied you did, and if you believe this is a "rant" or a "rave" you have no idea how the world works. This was me being as decent as possible, whilst conveying the message that the stance of looking in the other direction in spite of huge red flags is objectively flawed and will lead to casualties. Nothing more, nothing less.
[1] End of 2019, reflect back on the previous couple. Merit system, flag system, new trust system. Reduction in spam? Sure (overall reduction in activity). Reduction in abuse? Opposite is true (more DT members, more abusers). Reduction in scams? Maybe if you close your eyes to the general reduction in activity, you can politically parade the reduction. That's about all you can do.
[2] The promotion of a ponzi in their signature is also just a:

A high risk of being told off or hearing an opinion I disagree with sure.

but we are using the system as we think it should be, and you are free to do the same.

I did, I requested my blacklisting quite some time ago because you fools are causing more damage and drama than good at this time (and it has been like this for quite a while).

[Steamtyme]

I have never tagged you, and you can rant and rave all you want

Neither have I said nor implied you did, and if you believe this is a "rant" or a "rave" you have no idea how the world works. This was me being as decent as possible, whilst conveying the message that the stance of looking in the other direction in spite of huge red flags is objectively flawed and will lead to casualties. Nothing more, nothing less.

I wasn't referring to this as a rant in any way. I should have been more clear. I meant for it to come across that you could go on and do these things and I still wouldn't agree with you being tagged.
I also don't see this as looking the other way, had you created a flag against yobit for this it would have been a different discussion. Instead it was a flag you wanted to create on one user who happened to be wearing that signature and was expressing views we don't agree with.

You (plural) are failing, following the master's footsteps because you (plural) limit your (plural) thinking within a pre-designed box. I wonder why this place is not improving that much (if at all [1]), and why most of the time spent is wasted in drama that shouldn't exist in the first place? Maybe you (plural) are using the system as you (plural) "think you should use it". Maybe you (plural) need to stop thinking for yourself and test out methods that may actually work? Seems that the system has taken the undesired turn and become primarily political, with members acting like entrenched royalty ("my way is the right way").

This system isn't some new discovery. It's a system implemented by the Admins to overhaul an infinitely more political system that was in place. There are minimal guidelines but guidelines non the less. There is a right and a wrong way to do things and for your part, if you just tried to even remotely draw within the lines you would have a significantly louder voice in that system. Use the Neutral and you can honestly put whatever you feel about the user. Say you think they are scammy, great. Show the flaws in the system by actually trying to use it appropriately, and then maybe you'll see the change you desire. It shows all the same in the score now so there is no need to fit everything into + or -.

[1] End of 2019, reflect back on the previous couple. Merit system, flag system, new trust system. Reduction in spam? Sure (overall reduction in activity). Reduction in abuse? Opposite is true (more DT members, more abusers). Reduction in scams? Maybe if you close your eyes to the general reduction in activity, you can politically parade the reduction. That's about all you can do.

Merit doesn't matter here and is a moving target for whether it works or not. Flag system, it's hard to tell who it helps it's not like people post saying "hey that flagged stopped me from being an idiot" People are more inclined to post about being riped off after the fact as they stand there clueless; or as a shameful warning to others. Reduction in abuse depends on what is seen as an abuse of the system. I like that every month some people take it upon themselves to check things out and dig deeper to see what the system has delivered that month and work to correct blatant issues. If you have a concrete idea or suggestion for people to use present it, let people weigh in on it's merits and maybe we find a better way of doing things together.

[2] The promotion of a ponzi in their signature is also just a:

Not what you led with for wanting to create a flag. I believe that was already removed from the signatures yesterday.

I did, I requested my blacklisting quite some time ago because you fools are causing more damage and drama than good at this time (and it has been like this for quite a while).

I don't see how requesting and walking away from that role helps in molding the system in a way you see fit. While there are some here on this forum who relish in this BS feedback side drama I am not one of them. I only find myself sucked in, when for reasons I can't fathom people continuously insist on misusing it, in my opinion. I don't see us agreeing on who fits into what category all the time, I do believe your intention is to try and create a scam free environment. We just have fundamentally different approaches, and I fell references and discussion that clearly layout the issue are needed in feedback.

[eddie13]

No consensus, no flag then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good progress!

Merry Christmas all!

[Lauda]

was expressing views we don't agree with.

Incorrect. I have am not interested in his views or personal opinions not related to the trust system or trust in general.

Use the Neutral and you can honestly put whatever you feel about the user.

So naive, and hopefully young.

[2] The promotion of a ponzi in their signature is also just a:

Not what you led with for wanting to create a flag. I believe that was already removed from the signatures yesterday.
[/quote]
I'm only liable for what I say, not for what you understand. The user has demonstrated clear red-flags, whether your first thought is that I was solely relating to a single post I quoted or not is not my issue. It's a you issue.

I don't see how requesting and walking away from that role helps in molding the system in a way you see fit.

The system is inherently broken and politicized, way beyond it's previous political issue which was concentrated only around a few single individuals. You don't see, because you think inside a limited box that I've previously mentioned. It comes down what you intentions and goals are. If it is money that you seek and pretending to do good, then stick around here with the current system. Seems to be very efficient at doing "good" these days. Not that I'm saying that that's the only motivation to stick around, seems people have been misinterpreting my posts a lot lately.

[TECSHARE]

was expressing views we don't agree with.

Incorrect. I have am not interested in his views or personal opinions not related to the trust system or trust in general.

I don't know about that. You have a long history of trying to justify the use of the trust system to penalize people whom you have a difference of opinion with. Your negative rating left for me for example, supposedly for a months old discussion, but left exactly as I was becoming more vocal pointing out the lack of evidence in accusations against OGNasty leaves the motivations behind it very transparent. Of course you know I am not involved in any kind of fraudulent activity but the words I speak make it difficult for you to target your opponents with impunity, so you feel it necessary to leverage the trust system to try to coerce people to cooperate with your opinions and goals.

[Lauda]

was expressing views we don't agree with.

Incorrect. I have am not interested in his views or personal opinions not related to the trust system or trust in general.

I don't know about that. You have a long history of trying to justify the use of the trust system to penalize people whom you have a difference of opinion with. Your negative rating left for me for example, supposedly for a months old discussion, but left exactly as I was becoming more vocal pointing out the lack of evidence in accusations against OGNasty leaves the motivations behind it very transparent. Of course you know I am not involved in any kind of fraudulent activity but the words I speak make it difficult for you to target your opponents with impunity, so you feel it necessary to leverage the trust system to try to coerce people to cooperate with your opinions and goals.

No idea about lack or sufficient evidence and no idea about your opinions/statements or whatever. I have only seen actions. I do not have any goals here either. You must have confused me with someone else (try my self-admitted alt account moronbozo). Or try again in 2020.

[TECSHARE]

No idea about lack or sufficient evidence and no idea about your opinions/statements or whatever. I have only seen actions. I do not have any goals here either. You must have confused me with someone else (try my self-admitted alt account moronbozo). Or try again in 2020.

Cool story bro. You play your denial games all you like, the record of your actions is clear.

[Lauda]

No idea about lack or sufficient evidence and no idea about your opinions/statements or whatever. I have only seen actions. I do not have any goals here either. You must have confused me with someone else (try my self-admitted alt account moronbozo). Or try again in 2020.

Cool story bro. You play your denial games all you like, the record of your actions is clear.

No, the record of your actions is clear and archived.