DT2 SUCHMOON ABUSE.Who voted him into trust circle ?

[itomarketing]

Who voted Suchmoon as DT2 member ?

He is clearly abusing his power.He is first tagging to defame and afterwards search for any reason.Since there was no valid one he is trying hard to find any.
I would like to ask who voted him in to devote him so he takes full responsibility for his actions.
Should DT1 members not punish that abuse i will count these DT1 members as protecters of abusers and post their names publicly.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100071.msg49341444#msg49341444

[1714143046]

1714143046

[1714143046]

1714143046

[1714143046]

1714143046

[1714143046]

1714143046

[1714143046]

1714143046

[cryptohunter]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview

A DT1 i believe



TMAN - self confessed abuser of the trust system and implicated in extortion scheme with owlcatz lauda
Lauda - proven liar, scam promoter/protector ..implicated in extortion scheme with owlcatz and tman ... some people say escrow mishandling
yogg - imbecile and trust abuser
owlcatz - trust abuser and implicated in extortion scheme with lauda and tman
The Pharmacist- proven racist trolling sock puppet sig spammer
marlboroza - possible trust abuser not sure

suchmoon you can see supports many of these too although he is in full knowledge of their untrustworthy behaviour.

however of course all DTs should be made to review factual evidence of other DT's untrustworthy behaviour and continued support therefore means they are untrustworthy.

Any DT refusing to review facts based evidence of wrong doing or untrustworthy behaviour by other DTs needs to be black listed for the safety of the forum..

Anyone disputing the facts here can ask for evidence or supply their own evidence as a refutation of my claims here.

Just providing factual information to this thread.

[bones261]

Suchmoon is now a DT1 member. You can go to this thread to learn how the new process to select DT members works. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview
Unfortunately for you, in order to get Suchmoon out, you will have to harass more than a handful of members.  

[cryptohunter]

Suchmoon is now a DT1 member. You can go to this thread to learn how the new process to select DT members works. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview
Unfortunately for you, in order to get Suchmoon out, you will have to harass more than a handful of members.  

The word harass is not really suitable.

It is like claiming I must harass the police to get them to review factual evidence that I have been burgled with accompanying factual evidence of whom burgled me.

Bones here refuses to review observable facts that prove DT1 member is a liar.

So we must analyse his posts carefully to check for subjective and misleading information.

Next you'll be employing the broken logic of yogg, lauda tman and owlcatz


Apparently if you are on a bus and someone grabs your phone and starts to walk away. You shout out give that back else I will call the police and tell other people you stole my phone.. 

According to yogg you are now a blackmailer and and if you were to report this incident to the police they would lock you up. You would be allowed one phone call ... to the thief presumably on his nice new phone to apologise and check it is all working to his satisfaction. LOL

This is the kind of reasoning, morals and collusion you are dealing with here. Therefore expect zero support because those that are not fully part of this group of colluding untrustworthy scoundrels are totally scared of them and will not even review or comment on observable events that prove wrong doing.

[S_Therapist]

Do you know what theymos said about Lauda? If not, I request you to read the DefaultTrust threads.
What makes suchmoon on DT1 is-
He leaves valid feedback which is helpful to the forum members. If you do it, you also can be a DT1 member. And if you have problem with his feedback, put a tilde(~) before  his name on your trust list. Problem solved. That's how you can change the so called "DT ABUSE".

[bones261]

Suchmoon is now a DT1 member. You can go to this thread to learn how the new process to select DT members works. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtview
Unfortunately for you, in order to get Suchmoon out, you will have to harass more than a handful of members.  

The word harass is not really suitable.

It is like claiming I must harass the police to get them to review factual evidence that I have been burgled with accompanying factual evidence of whom burgled me.

Bones here refuses to review observable facts that prove DT1 member is a liar.

So we must analyse his posts carefully to check for subjective and misleading information.

Next you'll be employing the broken logic of yogg, lauda tman and owlcatz


Apparently if you are on a bus and someone grabs your phone and starts to walk away. You shout out give that back else I will call the police and tell other people you stole my phone.. 

According to yogg you are now a blackmailer and and if you were to report this incident to the police they would lock you up. You would be allowed one phone call ... to the thief presumably on his nice new phone to apologise and check it is all working to his satisfaction. LOL

This is the kind of reasoning, morals and collusion you are dealing with here. Therefore expect zero support because those that are not fully part of this group of colluding untrustworthy scoundrels are totally scared of them and will not even review or comment on observable events that prove wrong doing.

When it comes to Lauda, why don't you present your evidence to someone with a little more clout than silly old me? Maybe Greg Maxwell or someone else. 

[cryptohunter]

Do you know what theymos said about Lauda? If not, I request you to read the DefaultTrust threads.
What makes suchmoon on DT1 is-
He leaves valid feedback which is helpful to the forum members. If you do it, you also can be a DT1 member. And if you have problem with his feedback, put a tilde(~) before  his name on your trust list. Problem solved. That's how you can change the so called "DT ABUSE".

Incorrect you can not change the DT abuse unless you have the support of 2 or more with 250 earned merits those are they key positions in the DT system. Those people are main abusers of the merit system and now the DT system. The new DT system could have been okay but they broke it worse by adding that earned merit threshold.

[DarkStar_]

Who voted Suchmoon as DT2 member ?

suchmoon: 23
    Trusted by:
        dooglus
        qwk
        Vod
        TMAN
        Lauda
        vizique
        Blazed
        yogg
        hilariousandco
        cryptodevil
        owlcatz
        tmfp
        yahoo62278
        actmyname
        The Pharmacist
        DarkStar_
        marlboroza
        Lafu
        Hhampuz
        xtraelv
        Halab
        iasenko
        asche
        Coolcryptovator
        ICOEthics

Distrusted by:
    OgNasty
    TheFuzzStone

Have fun convincing 25 members.

[bones261]

Do you know what theymos said about Lauda? If not, I request you to read the DefaultTrust threads.
What makes suchmoon on DT1 is-
He leaves valid feedback which is helpful to the forum members. If you do it, you also can be a DT1 member. And if you have problem with his feedback, put a tilde(~) before  his name on your trust list. Problem solved. That's how you can change the so called "DT ABUSE".

Incorrect you can not change the DT abuse unless you have the support of 2 or more with 250 earned merits. Those people are main abusers of the merit system and now the DT system. The new DT system could have been okay but they broke it worse by adding that earned merit threshold.

Why? It is good that some of the OG regulars on the WO thread, who could give two shits about what goes on here in Meta, can add whoever they want.

[S_Therapist]

Do you know what theymos said about Lauda? If not, I request you to read the DefaultTrust threads.
What makes suchmoon on DT1 is-
He leaves valid feedback which is helpful to the forum members. If you do it, you also can be a DT1 member. And if you have problem with his feedback, put a tilde(~) before  his name on your trust list. Problem solved. That's how you can change the so called "DT ABUSE".

Incorrect you can not change the DT abuse unless you have the support of 2 or more with 250 earned merits those are they key positions in the DT system. Those people are main abusers of the merit system and now the DT system. The new DT system could have been okay but they broke it worse by adding that earned merit threshold.

You will also get support if you leave valid feedback. Coolcryptovator is not here from a long time. But he is in DT1 member if I am correct, what makes him DT1? Isn't because he leaves valid feedback towards other people? Despite having negative trust from him, I still set him as DT0 in my trust list because I know he leaves valid feedback. If you also provide valid feedback, you will also be included by others and that's how suchmoon was also included. Why are you messing it up with your imagined "Circle"? Well, everyone is free to think.

[itomarketing]

Just saw the system.
WTF who implemented such a stupid system.
No wonder Lauda and his gang took over control of DT members since they place now majority of their own people into DT and detrust their enemies.
A more stupid system wasn't possible ?

That gang pushing each other so even if they abuse there is no chance anymore to hold them repsonsible since they control the majority.
You just need to look at the DT members who have other opinion than Lauda and you instantly see his whole group instantly distrusting.

Its a clear power fight.
Am really asking myself wtf theymos is doing.His execution are so full of crap.
Is he blind?

[cryptohunter]

Do you know what theymos said about Lauda? If not, I request you to read the DefaultTrust threads.
What makes suchmoon on DT1 is-
He leaves valid feedback which is helpful to the forum members. If you do it, you also can be a DT1 member. And if you have problem with his feedback, put a tilde(~) before  his name on your trust list. Problem solved. That's how you can change the so called "DT ABUSE".

Incorrect you can not change the DT abuse unless you have the support of 2 or more with 250 earned merits those are they key positions in the DT system. Those people are main abusers of the merit system and now the DT system. The new DT system could have been okay but they broke it worse by adding that earned merit threshold.

You will also get support if you leave valid feedback. Coolcryptovator is not here from a long time. But he is in DT1 member if I am correct, what makes him DT1? Isn't because he leaves valid feedback towards other people? Despite having negative trust from him, I still set him as DT0 in my trust list because I know he leaves valid feedback. If you also provide valid feedback, you will also be included by others and that's how suchmoon was also included. Why are you messing it up with your imagined "Circle"? Well, everyone is free to think.

The stats prove merit is cycled
Bpip demonstrates this group cycles it
DT support lists demonstrates this group includes excludes as a group to a large extent
DT key positions are the earned 250 merits ... cycled merits very useful here

Not hard to understand there is no imagination required.

[Quickseller]

Who voted Suchmoon as DT2 member ?

suchmoon: 23
    Trusted by:
        [...](25 people)

Distrusted by:
   [...](2 people)

Have fun convincing 25 members.

I am not sure where you got 25 from.

In order to be on DT1, you must be trusted by 10 people with at least 10 merit, one of which must have 250 merit, both ignoring merit sent by the person, assuming you are not blacklisted by theymos.

Only one person needs to be convinced, theymos, as he can blacklist suchmoon from being on DT1. Otherwise, 15 people will need to remove suchmoon from their trust lists.

It would probably be best for her not to be in a position of authority, as she appears to always side with those with more power in disputes. Also, she does not appear to have any kind of trading history, nor currently is active in trading, which effectively removes any consequences to her receiving any retaliatory ratings.

[JusticeForYou]

It would probably be best for her not to be in a position of authority, as she appears to always side with those with more power in disputes. Also, she does not appear to have any kind of trading history, nor currently is active in trading, which effectively removes any consequences to her receiving any retaliatory ratings.

I would hopefully agree with you on this as @suchmoon has sent a very irrational and evidence less negative feedback on the OP. You just cannot say 2 persons are equal if they have a bit similarity's in spacing and paragraph formations as there are many people here who could have similarly in writing or could have been inspired by others to write in there fashion.

I personally think the negative feedback is fact less and there should be more clear proofs of being guilty before tagging anyone as an alt.

[Quickseller]

It would probably be best for her not to be in a position of authority, as she appears to always side with those with more power in disputes. Also, she does not appear to have any kind of trading history, nor currently is active in trading, which effectively removes any consequences to her receiving any retaliatory ratings.

I would hopefully agree with you on this as @suchmoon has sent a very irrational and evidence less negative feedback on the OP. You just cannot say 2 persons are equal if they have a bit similarity's in spacing and paragraph formations as there are many people here who could have similarly in writing or could have been inspired by others to write in there fashion.

I personally think the negative feedback is fact less and there should be more clear proofs of being guilty before tagging anyone as an alt.

Right, unless there is some undisclosed evidence, the evidence suchmoon has only shows the OP likely lives/lived in the same general area as the person the OP is being accused an alt of.

Being that the OP effectively has no power, any retaliatory feedback the OP gives will do nothing.

All this ignores the fact that the person the OP is being accused being an alt of has negative trust for very shaky reasons in the first place.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

You just cannot say 2 persons are equal if they have a bit similarity's in spacing and paragraph formations as there are many people here who could have similarly in writing or could have been inspired by others to write in there fashion.

Certainly there's a chance that Thule is the wrong alt, but OP admitted to being an alt of someone here and clearly that someone has a huge gripe with Lauda and other DT members.  Add that to the similar language oddities, and it really isn't that far of a stretch.  OP said his main account was Legendary, while Thule is a Sr. Member--but who knows how many accounts he has, anyway?  

My guess is that OP's main account is already tagged by DT and he therefore doesn't have much to lose by posting with it.  I think he just wants to play the victim, having to create a new account so that those evil DT members won't give him a neg *such injustice!  much victim!*.

Don't be fooled by the illusion of all these noob accounts who seem to be supporting the anti-DT trolling campaign.  Expect to see more of them emerge.  You can count on that.  Cryptohunter et al see that they're not getting any genuine support for their arguments, so they have to knit some socks.  It's transparent, and it would be laughable if it weren't so insulting that they think the community is stupid enough to fall for it.

Being that the OP effectively has no power, any retaliatory feedback the OP gives will do nothing.

The OP is an admitted alt account and registered yesterday.  Do you think he did anything that would earn him any respect/trust/power?

All this ignores the fact that the person the OP is being accused being an alt of has negative trust for very shaky reasons in the first place.

If you're talking about Thule, it's not surprising you'd disagree with the trust he got.  He's an account seller, which is what I tagged him for.  Other DT members tagged him for that and for misusing the trust system and threatening behavior.  Anyone reading this is welcome to see for themselves.

[bones261]

Yes, let's get out the posse and bring suchmoon to justice for improperly tagging a throw away noob account.   

Perhaps we can try suchmoon in one of those kangaroo courts crytohunter has set up in reputation. You know, the ones where only the accused and accusers are allowed to show up. all advocate responses are deleted.

[JusticeForYou]

My guess is that OP's main account is already tagged by DT and he therefore doesn't have much to lose by posting with it.  I think he just wants to play the victim, having to create a new account so that those evil DT members won't give him a neg *such injustice!  much victim!*.

Don't be fooled by the illusion of all these noob accounts who seem to be supporting the anti-DT trolling campaign.  Expect to see more of them emerge.  You can count on that.  Cryptohunter et al see that they're not getting any genuine support for their arguments, so they have to knit some socks.  It's transparent, and it would be laughable if it weren't so insulting that they think the community is stupid enough to fall for it.

I respect your thoughts as most of the time they are satisfactory and straight forward, also I am not being fooled in anyway by the DT- trolling happening lately in meta and other parts of the forum. I would rather give a personal opinion which I think has a sense of Justice in it.

Firstly we don't have specific rules for neg-tag which is a very big problem for now as most of the negative feedbacks are posted with not enough proof or not under any universal value. This not only makes DT look harassing and monopolized to others but also makes people think that it's just a group of people imposing rules for profitable gains or power. But if a forum endorsed set of rules for tagging would be applied here it would just put a stop to the troll as no one would directly oppose the administration as its there show already.

This case too refers to the same thing as there is no base for the neg-tag. OP thinks its a abuse of trust system and the person who tagged thinks he is right at his own set of rules to tag which he has in mind.

[Quickseller]

Being that the OP effectively has no power, any retaliatory feedback the OP gives will do nothing.

The OP is an admitted alt account and registered yesterday.  Do you think he did anything that would earn him any respect/trust/power?

The OP being an "admitted alt" is not evidence of guilt, nor wrongdoing. It is certainly plausible he is an alt of a reputable person afraid of negative consequences for being critical of Suchmoon (the question of if this fear is based on actual instances of Suchmoon engaging in this kind of behavior is another discussion).

No, the OP has not done anything for him to gain respect/trust/power -- this point was made in regards to theymos' comment that controversial ratings should carry an actual risk/cost by way of a retaliatory rating, and there does not appear to be any risk/cost to suchmoon in this case.

All this ignores the fact that the person the OP is being accused being an alt of has negative trust for very shaky reasons in the first place.

If you're talking about Thule, it's not surprising you'd disagree with the trust he got.  He's an account seller, which is what I tagged him for.  Other DT members tagged him for that and for misusing the trust system and threatening behavior.  Anyone reading this is welcome to see for themselves.

No, it should not be surprising I disagree with the underlying rating (at least in regards to the rating you left). Similarly, it is not surprising to me you left the rating you did. You think the sale of accounts allows scams to happen (and otherwise harms the forum), and I believe the sale of accounts makes it more difficult for certain scams to happen -- this is a difference of opinion, and I don't think you leave these ratings to help your business, nor to harm the forum. I am happy to discuss this somewhere else if you wish, however I doubt I will change your mind, and you probably will not change my mind.

I am a little more concerned about the rating Suchmoon left

Doesn't seem to be playing with a full deck. Abuses trust feedback and lives in alternate reality. Avoid any deals with this clown.

reference

[electronicash]

Firstly we don't have specific rules for reg-tag which is a very big problem for now as most of the negative feedbacks are posted with not enough proof or not under any universal value.

they do have proof and sometimes its self inflicted.  a guy confessing he has alt and later discovered he sent merits to his alt is just one of the evidence.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

But if a forum endorsed set of rules for tagging would be applied here it would just put a stop to the troll as no one would directly oppose the administration as its there show already.

Somehow I don't think the entire community could come up with its own criteria.  For one thing, only a minority would take the time to give their input and/or vote.  Remember when Theymos put the 1-merit requirement in place in order for Newbies to rank up to Jr. Members?  The day that went into effect, I recall quite a few posts from Jr. Members who'd gotten busted down to Newbie rank saying "Why didn't we get to vote on this?".  And the truth is that it was being discussed in Meta for months, and they were all too busy with their bounties to do any reading. 

Another thing is that any community resolution (assuming that it's even possible to get all the voters to agree on anything) isn't going to satisfy everyone.  So unless the rules for leaving trust came from Theymos and were enforced by mods, there would just be more bickering, more drama, and more chaos.  Because if the community somehow agreed to have certain criteria, no one would be forced to abide by it.  There would be counter-negs and counter-positives and complaints and everything else that we already see with the current system.

I would have no problem if Theymos set down some guidelines as far as what DT members can and can't do--but I seriously doubt he's going to step in to regulate the trust system when he's basically taken a hands-off approach thus far.  I suspect he wants the community to police itself, especially since scams aren't even moderated here. 

[xtraelv]

But if a forum endorsed set of rules for tagging would be applied here it would just put a stop to the troll as no one would directly oppose the administration as its there show already.

Somehow I don't think the entire community could come up with its own criteria.  For one thing, only a minority would take the time to give their input and/or vote.  Remember when Theymos put the 1-merit requirement in place in order for Newbies to rank up to Jr. Members?  The day that went into effect, I recall quite a few posts from Jr. Members who'd gotten busted down to Newbie rank saying "Why didn't we get to vote on this?".  And the truth is that it was being discussed in Meta for months, and they were all too busy with their bounties to do any reading. 

Another thing is that any community resolution (assuming that it's even possible to get all the voters to agree on anything) isn't going to satisfy everyone.  So unless the rules for leaving trust came from Theymos and were enforced by mods, there would just be more bickering, more drama, and more chaos.  Because if the community somehow agreed to have certain criteria, no one would be forced to abide by it.  There would be counter-negs and counter-positives and complaints and everything else that we already see with the current system.

I would have no problem if Theymos set down some guidelines as far as what DT members can and can't do--but I seriously doubt he's going to step in to regulate the trust system when he's basically taken a hands-off approach thus far.  I suspect he wants the community to police itself, especially since scams aren't even moderated here. 

There is already discussion about that in the form of a charter https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306851#msg49306851

Rather than "rules" there can be common ground and agreement while the more subjective issues can be discussed and a general consensus can be made on how to handle it.

[suchmoon]

It's a newbie. Of course it takes more evidence to red-tag an established account, as seen in my feedback on mdayonliner/S_Therapist. But it's gonna be a zoo here if we start demanding the same level of proof for total noobs, self-admittedly posting just to poke some users in the eye.

And yes, linguistic proof combined with the other stuff mentioned in the reference is enough for this newbie. No chance this can be a coincidence. I'd rather believe all those ETH-address-sharing alts are indeed "friends and family" than the OP being not Thule. Anyone disagreeing with that feel free to counter the rating, red-trust me, un-include me, exclude me, include Thule and cryptohunter - numerous options are available and I don't retaliate so don't worry about that.

regards to theymos' comment that controversial ratings should carry an actual risk/cost by way of a retaliatory rating, and there does not appear to be any risk/cost to suchmoon in this case.

There is nothing particularly controversial about this rating other than your attempt to help the OP to blow it out of proportion. By your twisted logic I shouldn't be leaving any ratings at all because there is no recourse for anyone tagged by me - in addition to your point about me not trading, I also don't give a shit about any "positions" on the forum so exclusions/public shaming/banning won't work either. Well, banning kinda works for any future red tags so you might want to pursue that route.

[TalkStar]

suchmoon: 23
    Trusted by:
        dooglus
        qwk
        Vod
        TMAN
        Lauda
        vizique
        Blazed
        yogg
        hilariousandco
        cryptodevil
        owlcatz
        tmfp
        yahoo62278
        actmyname
        The Pharmacist
        DarkStar_
        marlboroza
        Lafu
        Hhampuz
        xtraelv
        Halab
        iasenko
        asche
        Coolcryptovator
        ICOEthics

Distrusted by:
    OgNasty
    TheFuzzStone

Have fun convincing 25 members.

These 23 votes are only from DT1. There's more DT2 and other members who voted for suchmoon during selection of default trust.

Without proper evidence OP you can't blame on a DT like suchmoon. This forum isn't a place to show your emotions. As a active DT member suchmoon is one who works every single hour to make bitcointalk safer for newbies.

Nowdays a common things happening too much that when a DT taging someone with valid reason from that moment number of combined gang members starts to blame on DT. I think its not fair. Its making the situation much complicated.These guys are opening spam thread for every single taging. If this happens continiously on forum i think newbies of bitcointalk will be hesitated to works here.

In my opinion we should stop replying on this kind of meaningless thread. Basically its kinda tough not to give reply because instantly i am replying here on this thread to let everyone know about this. Ignore is best button for us

[itomarketing]

Wow what pathetic replies you guys are doing.

First of all the master peace of suchmoon

It's a newbie. Of course it takes more evidence to red-tag an established account, as seen in my feedback on mdayonliner/S_Therapist. But it's gonna be a zoo here if we start demanding the same level of proof for total noobs

If thats not the total proof of DT's abuse i don't know.Bitcointalk always denied to make this kind of decission because of the abuse.Here Suchmoon even admits that he taggs without much proof because the account is a noob.You just decided that noob accounts have other rights than established accounts.

@Theymos i guess you need to change the principles of this forum as its clearly showing of a centralised power trip

Also the poor try of thepharmacist to defame me again because of that alt account.
I don't know if he ever read the unoffical rules which has been updated.
There is cleary said that the use of multiple accounts is allowed on bitcointalk as long as the account hasn't been bought.
You wanna tell me that i bought that account ?
You DT members are so pathetic you don't even follow your own unoffical rules.
You set rules daily as you are pleased to justify your abuse.

Also suchmoon is playing clearly judge who doesn't need any evidences just assumptions.
What he makes are possibilities calculation.So you tagg people based on possibilities ratio.
Which Ratio is it nor allowed to go under?Is it enough to be possible 1:1000 to be someone to get tagged or even 1:1.000.000 ?

All explanations are just junk shit to justify his abuse.
He first tagged me and later tried to find evidence.
Something like that is in reality called police state .
The whole crypto niche was created to leave these bs and bitcointalk was created with the intense that noone can be unjustified called a scammer.
Now have a look where suchmoon and his group drove that board.People getting called scammer ,their accounts destroyed and because of what ?Because of their personal assumption if you really wanna belive on their poor argumentation.

You as DT members just proofed to be pathetic and to not even be able to uphold rules on your in your own group.
You are clearly on a power trip and the community is tired of it.
That group had always excuses that these are just a few alts.How does it come that topic isn't ending anymore for over a year and more and more people are getting tired of that bs ?

So here you have the hard proof.I'm not thule there are no evidences and still i'm tagged as scammer/alt of him and the DT1 member gives shit about it.He doesn't care if there is real evidence or not.He just admited he will stay at his personal assumption and no DT member is going to question his action without providing hard proof.

You just proofed again that the claims of all the hundreds of members yelling of abuse have been right since you can clearly see your tagging is no rational no justified.

Also the targeted false claim of thepharmacist aka racist bitch against thule just shows what poor level you DT member are.
He intentionaly spraid false info that thule were selling accounts.
Please show me where thule were selling accounts since i read all his red trust from your group carefully and he never sold a single account on bitcointalk.
You defamed and accused someone again for something he never died.


IF THAT THE STANDARD DT MEMBERS ARE USING ?IS THAT THE ROLE MODEL DT MEMBERS ARE SHOWING TO THE COMMUNITY ?

Also it was mentioned it was proofed that me and thule are from the same region ?How come i haven't seen that proof ?
What same region are you talking about ?
Would be nice to know what you are accusing me.

[itomarketing]

Here it goes the next 2 abuses of DT members from the same group.

The first one tagging just because he feels so not even claiming i'm somebody

An alt account of an untrustworthy member, dome say Thule, some say crypyohunter - doesn’t matter exactly which account but I would not trust this user

So because some say i'm an alt of thule and some say i'm an old of cryptohunter i'm getting tagged as scammer by another DT member.
You pathetic underhuman forget tagging me as an alt of QS.

Is that the quality DT members are tagging members here?Any more question why DT members are being called abusers and scammers?
So no evidence and he even doesn't care just made the assumption because somebody say that i'm an alt of an untrustworthy account.

If thats not a DT ABUSE of it finest


and here another one from the same group of course

Someone is mad and does not understand how the forum works .... sorry!!

So now i'm getting tagged as scammer for being mad ?
Is it now even not allowed to be mad on that forum ?Any other rules i missed from our beloved DT members?

[Lauda]

-snip-
So now i'm getting tagged as scammer for being mad ?

It has been long clarified that negative trust =/= scammer. The only one continuously spreading this false notion that negative trust must mean that you are a scammer is Quickseller.

[Jet Cash]

Thanks for reminding me that suchmoon wasn't in my trust list. I've now added him, and I apologise for this omission.

[itomarketing]

Carified by who?A bunch of self predicted assholes ?
Majority of bitcointalk members instantly acciocates negativ trust with being a scammer.You just need to read the post of people to members with negativ trust and you would instantly destroy your stupid ass claim.

[cryptohunter]

It's a newbie. Of course it takes more evidence to red-tag an established account, as seen in my feedback on mdayonliner/S_Therapist. But it's gonna be a zoo here if we start demanding the same level of proof for total noobs, self-admittedly posting just to poke some users in the eye.

And yes, linguistic proof combined with the other stuff mentioned in the reference is enough for this newbie. No chance this can be a coincidence. I'd rather believe all those ETH-address-sharing alts are indeed "friends and family" than the OP being not Thule. Anyone disagreeing with that feel free to counter the rating, red-trust me, un-include me, exclude me, include Thule and cryptohunter - numerous options are available and I don't retaliate so don't worry about that.

regards to theymos' comment that controversial ratings should carry an actual risk/cost by way of a retaliatory rating, and there does not appear to be any risk/cost to suchmoon in this case.

There is nothing particularly controversial about this rating other than your attempt to help the OP to blow it out of proportion. By your twisted logic I shouldn't be leaving any ratings at all because there is no recourse for anyone tagged by me - in addition to your point about me not trading, I also don't give a shit about any "positions" on the forum so exclusions/public shaming/banning won't work either. Well, banning kinda works for any future red tags so you might want to pursue that route.

the pharmacist is a proven sock puppet racist trolling shill sig spammer - red trust him
lauda ia a proven liar red trust him
tman is a self confessed trust abuser go red trust him

like I say you have doulble standards which are clearly evidence and support knowingly liars and other untrustworthy individuals this is clear and observable hence you are untrustworthy.

Jetcash has now added suchmoon - jetcash several times rejected facts and observable evidence of lies and untrustworthy behaviour and would not even review it. I would view them both as very unwise candidates for a trust system.

[LoyceV]

suchmoon: 23
    Trusted by:

That's not good, my name is missed from that list. I've just added suchmoon, thanks itomarketing for reminding me!

Have fun convincing 25 members.

And there's this:

- Suchmoon is an excellent forum member.

[Jet Cash]

Jetcash has now added suchmoon - jetcash several times rejected facts and observable evidence of lies and untrustworthy behaviour and would not even review it. I would view them both as very unwise candidates for a trust system.

I have a life away from the Internet, and I have a lot of projects running on the net. I don't have the time, or the inclination to review every post and topic here. I don't receive any payments, and I don't have to seek approval from anybody as a result of being part of a signature campaign.

A post that is a wall of text has to be compelling to persuade me to read it. and if it just appears to be yet another duplicate post that has already been reviewed by many in the community, then I can see no merit in my endeavouring to understand the ramifications. This is especially true if it outside my areas of interest.

[cryptohunter]

Jetcash has now added suchmoon - jetcash several times rejected facts and observable evidence of lies and untrustworthy behaviour and would not even review it. I would view them both as very unwise candidates for a trust system.

I have a life away from the Internet, and I have a lot of projects running on the net. I don't have the time, or the inclination to review every post and topic here. I don't receive any payments, and I don't have to seek approval from anybody as a result of being part of a signature campaign.

A post that is a wall of text has to be compelling to persuade me to read it. and if it just appears to be yet another duplicate post that has already been reviewed by many in the community, then I can see no merit in my endeavouring to understand the ramifications. This is especially true if it outside my areas of interest.

LOL okay well as a DT member I am sorry if clear evidence of another DT being a liar is outside of your interests.

[TMAN]

Jetcash has now added suchmoon - jetcash several times rejected facts and observable evidence of lies and untrustworthy behaviour and would not even review it. I would view them both as very unwise candidates for a trust system.

I have a life away from the Internet, and I have a lot of projects running on the net. I don't have the time, or the inclination to review every post and topic here. I don't receive any payments, and I don't have to seek approval from anybody as a result of being part of a signature campaign.

A post that is a wall of text has to be compelling to persuade me to read it. and if it just appears to be yet another duplicate post that has already been reviewed by many in the community, then I can see no merit in my endeavouring to understand the ramifications. This is especially true if it outside my areas of interest.

would you read a wall of text from me bud?

I dont get why this fool keeps on trying to disrupt the forum - tags aint going, no one is listening

[cryptohunter]

Jetcash has now added suchmoon - jetcash several times rejected facts and observable evidence of lies and untrustworthy behaviour and would not even review it. I would view them both as very unwise candidates for a trust system.

I have a life away from the Internet, and I have a lot of projects running on the net. I don't have the time, or the inclination to review every post and topic here. I don't receive any payments, and I don't have to seek approval from anybody as a result of being part of a signature campaign.

A post that is a wall of text has to be compelling to persuade me to read it. and if it just appears to be yet another duplicate post that has already been reviewed by many in the community, then I can see no merit in my endeavouring to understand the ramifications. This is especially true if it outside my areas of interest.

would you read a wall of text from me bud?

I dont get why this fool keeps on trying to disrupt the forum - tags aint going, no one is listening

Because I post facts and observable events maybe whilst you post sexual deviance and continuously demonstrate you are a low functioning imbecile? not to mention a self confessed trust abuser? implicated in an extortion scheme?

Why are you still on this board is what I am wondering.

[Jet Cash]

LOL okay well as a DT member I am sorry if clear evidence of another DT being a liar is outside of your interests.

I think that the fact that there is a diversity of interests in the ranks of the default trust members is evidence that it is decentralised. If you can't find anyone in the midst of this diversity who is prepared to espouse your cause, then you should realise that the community assigns little perceived value to it. You need some catchy slogans. Could I suggest "Speak clearer, not Lauda". "Improve your drive with TMAN". " For pain free posting - read The Pharmacist", " Vod - your V8 posting God". etc.

[cryptohunter]

LOL okay well as a DT member I am sorry if clear evidence of another DT being a liar is outside of your interests.

I think that the fact that there is a diversity of interests in the ranks of the default trust members is evidence that it is decentralised. If you can't find anyone in the midst of this diversity who is prepared to espouse your cause, then you should realise that the community assigns little perceived value to it. You need some catchy slogans. Could I suggest "Speak clearer, not Lauda". "Improve your drive with TMAN". " For pain free posting - read The Pharmacist", " Vod - your V8 posting God". etc.

Sorry the common interest of DT should be trust . The fact you are not interested in proven untrustworthy behaviour is telling. No way out of it.  The clue was in the title.

[itomarketing]

Jetcash has now added suchmoon - jetcash several times rejected facts and observable evidence of lies and untrustworthy behaviour and would not even review it. I would view them both as very unwise candidates for a trust system.

I have a life away from the Internet, and I have a lot of projects running on the net. I don't have the time, or the inclination to review every post and topic here. I don't receive any payments, and I don't have to seek approval from anybody as a result of being part of a signature campaign.

A post that is a wall of text has to be compelling to persuade me to read it. and if it just appears to be yet another duplicate post that has already been reviewed by many in the community, then I can see no merit in my endeavouring to understand the ramifications. This is especially true if it outside my areas of interest.

No one forces you to be a DT member and tagg people without having time to check if the claims are valid according to you.
You have no time for it then just stop.Easy as that

[actmyname]

No one forces you to be a DT member and tagg people without having time to check if the claims are valid according to you.
You have no time for it then just stop.Easy as that

How do you "stop" being a DT member?

[cryptohunter]

No one forces you to be a DT member and tagg people without having time to check if the claims are valid according to you.
You have no time for it then just stop.Easy as that

How do you "stop" being a DT member?

He can request people stop including him

He can requests theymos black list him

He can include some people that provide facts and observable events the gang does not want presented.

[marlboroza]

He can include some people that provide facts and observable events the gang does not want presented.

What gang?

[suchmoon]

If thats not the total proof of DT's abuse i don't know.Bitcointalk always denied to make this kind of decission because of the abuse.Here Suchmoon even admits that he taggs without much proof because the account is a noob.You just decided that

There is proof. You being the accused one I don't expect you to agree with it. You being a noob doesn't mean that proof is not needed. It means that I don't have to consider your prior history here on Bitcoitalk because there is none, and I'm certainly not going to make any assumptions favorable to you.

How do you "stop" being a DT member?

Interesting challenge. First you should clear your trust list. But that might still leave you in DT2. To get out of it I'd suggest to add Quickseller to your trust list. That should do it.

Another option is to just go crypto-hunting across multiple boards but that's a lot of work.

[The Cryptovator]

OP why not use your main account? Everyone free to share his opinions here. If you are on right way then why DT will tag you without any reason? Its seems you have created this account for fight with DT. You are self admitted that you are a alt of someone. Why really want to hide yourself? Are you worry about tag? If I say you are trying to make gang against DT member I don't think I will be wrong. If you are right then come on with your original account.

[cryptohunter]

OP why not use your main account? Everyone free to share his opinions here. If you are on right way then why DT will tag you without any reason? Its seems you have created this account for fight with DT. You are self admitted that you are a alt of someone. Why really want to hide yourself? Are you worry about tag? If I say you are trying to make gang against DT member I don't think I will be wrong. If you are right then come on with your original account.

Not your call. He has explained he does not want trust abuse to ruin his main account. The sad state of DT has forced him to post under a sock puppet.

[itomarketing]

Have you seen how many high ranked accounts they have destroyed once somebody raised his voice against them ?

[marlboroza]

Have you seen how many high ranked accounts they have destroyed once somebody raised his voice against them ?

Which one?

[TMAN]

Have you seen how many high ranked accounts they have destroyed once somebody raised his voice against them ?

Which one?

Lots of posts does not equate to a high rank BTW!

[cryptohunter]

Have you seen how many high ranked accounts they have destroyed once somebody raised his voice against them ?

Which one?

Go to rep and have a look around plenty of older legends than you with far greater achievements.

Me for one. Who are these proven liars, scam supporters, implicated in extortion schemes gremlins to leave me red trust by their own admission for stating facts about their past.

Disgraceful and the opposite of what dt is meant for.

There are many other people in rep that are legends complaining of unfair red trust when their "crimes" are totally unrelated to scamming in any shape or form.

Then you have people that are proven liars, proven trust abusers and proven sock puppet racists trolling sig spammers giving this red trust out. These are proven and clearly observable facts.

[itomarketing]

Have you seen how many high ranked accounts they have destroyed once somebody raised his voice against them ?

Which one?

For example thule or all the legends when exposing lauda and his extortion
If you can show me who he scammed that he deseverd 150 negativ trust points you will get $1000 from me

[actmyname]

Go to rep and have a look around plenty of older legends than you with far greater achievements.

I went to LoyceV's thread to find "Lauda" threads in Reputation, for reference.

LAUDA MISUSING HER TRUST POWER
Negative tag: ICO Bumping

Calling all reputed members esp. Lauda, ibminer, The Pharmacist to my apology
Negative tag: ICO Bumping

Lauda gave me a negative feedback.
Negative tag: Trust farming

My Negative rating - Kind attention Lauda Sir/Ma'am
Negative tag: ICO bumping; merit abuse

Who will stop Lauda ?
Negative tag: Merit abuse; ban evasionThese are the first Hero+ users that I found, going through the threads randomly.

For example thule or all the legends when exposing lauda and his extortion
If you can show me who he scammed that he deseverd 150 negativ trust points you will get $1000 from me

The account seller trader?

[itomarketing]

The account seller?

Show proof of your claim that he sold accounts.
As you are making up facts.

[actmyname]

The account seller?

Show proof of your claim that he sold accounts.
As you are making up facts.

Okay, you got me. It was trading.

Hero Member with Legendary Potential
Current Posts: 550+
Current Potential Activity: 950+
No red trust, No loans, No scams, No hacks, Clean Account, No stake Address

Starting Bid: 0.03 btc
Buy it now: 0.065 btc
Bidding Increments: 0.002 btc

Escrow is accepted

If you accept escrow i will take it

[marlboroza]

Have you seen how many high ranked accounts they have destroyed once somebody raised his voice against them ?

Which one?

Go to rep and have a look around plenty of older legends than you with far greater achievements.

NO.
You go to reputation and post evidence here.

Also, address this:

He can include some people that provide facts and observable events the gang does not want presented.

What gang?

List all members of this so called gang.

LAUDA MISUSING HER TRUST POWER
Negative tag: ICO Bumping

Payed shill.

Calling all reputed members esp. Lauda, ibminer, The Pharmacist to my apology
Negative tag: ICO Bumping

Self admitted payed shill.

Lauda gave me a negative feedback.
Negative tag: Trust farming

I guess you don't see my feedback. That account is connected with, if I counted correctly, 24 accounts.

My Negative rating - Kind attention Lauda Sir/Ma'am
Negative tag: ICO bumping; merit abuse

That is correct.

But cryptohunter has something different in mind:

Have you seen how many high ranked accounts they have destroyed once somebody raised his voice against them ?

I would also like to hear cryptohunter's opinion on these tags, but before she give her opinion, let her post accounts which have been destroyed because they disagreed with someone.

[actmyname]

But cryptohunter had something different in mind:

Have you seen how many high ranked accounts they have destroyed once somebody raised his voice against them ?

I would also like to hear cryptohunter's opinion on these tags, but before she give her opinion, let her post accounts which have been destroyed because they disagreed with someone.

My point was that most of the accounts I've seen were not tagged for any disagreements. Since I don't have time to pore over every thread and the onus isn't on me, cryptohunter must show evidence.

[itomarketing]

But cryptohunter had something different in mind:

Have you seen how many high ranked accounts they have destroyed once somebody raised his voice against them ?

I would also like to hear cryptohunter's opinion on these tags, but before she give her opinion, let her post accounts which have been destroyed because they disagreed with someone.

My point was that most of the accounts I've seen were not tagged for any disagreements. Since I don't have time to pore over every thread and the onus isn't on me, cryptohunter must show evidence.

How about you start showing evidence about my negativ tags when demanding something like that ?Demanding only evidence for DT members?
Double standards ?

[actmyname]

How about you start showing evidence about my negativ tags when demanding something like that ?Demanding only evidence for DT members?
Double standards ?

This point is irrelevant. Moreover, I am not the one that needs to provide evidence for your negative tags.

Much like your statement of "I even saw 2 people being red tagged for making a deal", you put the onus on yourself by making a claim like this. This is why I ask for the threads from cryptohunter.

[Quickseller]

regards to theymos' comment that controversial ratings should carry an actual risk/cost by way of a retaliatory rating, and there does not appear to be any risk/cost to suchmoon in this case.

There is nothing particularly controversial about this rating

Except the fact that you admit you don't have evidence beyond speculation to support your claim against the OP.

It looks to me that your rating was more intended to protect a position of power, and was less so about warning others about a potential scammer.

[suchmoon]

regards to theymos' comment that controversial ratings should carry an actual risk/cost by way of a retaliatory rating, and there does not appear to be any risk/cost to suchmoon in this case.

There is nothing particularly controversial about this rating

Except the fact that you admit you don't have evidence beyond speculation to support your claim against the OP.

It looks to me that your rating was more intended to protect a position of power, and was less so about warning others about a potential scammer.

That's completely false. Repeating ad nauseum how I'm so fervid towards "a position of power" sounds like a projection on your part.

There is evidence, you don't accept it, I get that. I would be shocked otherwise, given that you're often sympathetic to puppeteers and have engaged in this form of art yourself.

[itomarketing]

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE ?

Its not possible you have any evidence since i'm not Thule so i would love to see your so called evidence

[cryptohunter]

regards to theymos' comment that controversial ratings should carry an actual risk/cost by way of a retaliatory rating, and there does not appear to be any risk/cost to suchmoon in this case.

There is nothing particularly controversial about this rating

Except the fact that you admit you don't have evidence beyond speculation to support your claim against the OP.

It looks to me that your rating was more intended to protect a position of power, and was less so about warning others about a potential scammer.

That's completely false. Repeating ad nauseum how I'm so fervid towards "a position of power" sounds like a projection on your part.

There is evidence, you don't accept it, I get that. I would be shocked otherwise, given that you're often sympathetic to puppeteers and have engaged in this form of art yourself.

LOL says the supporter of pharmacist a proven sock puppet racist trolling sig spammer. haha

[mikeywith]

done with lauda now start with suchmoon, who is next? this is becoming boring already.

OP it would have made more sense if you used your real account and complained about a particular tag rather than farting in the wind.

[suchmoon]

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE ?

Its not possible you have any evidence since i'm not Thule so i would love to see your so called evidence

Just send the damn PM and let's end this. How hard can it be if you're not lying?

[Lauda]

done with lauda now start with suchmoon, who is next? this is becoming boring already.

Suchmoon is a member of my Cult. Updated image coming soon.

OP it would have made more sense if you used your real account and complained about a particular tag rather than farting in the wind.

This. Nobody likes 'X user abuse' crypto-hunter style rants nowadays.

[cryptohunter]

done with lauda now start with suchmoon, who is next? this is becoming boring already.

Suchmoon is a member of my Cult. Updated image coming soon.

OP it would have made more sense if you used your real account and complained about a particular tag rather than farting in the wind.

This. Nobody likes 'X user abuse' crypto-hunter style rants nowadays.

Well stop being scared let's have a debate laudaM just you and me. We will discuss your proven lie, trust abuse, and any other shady dealings you wish to clear up. Just us. We can clear it all up.

I mean if my claims are all just ranting with no substance why are you dodging me? let's have an open debate.

[itomarketing]

Still waiting for Lauda to participate in that open conversation.
Seems somebody is avoiding it at all cost

[theduuude]

@thread...why do you assume suchmoon is a he??

[cryptohunter]

@thread...why do you assume suchmoon is a he??

Apparently some house wife . Although it is not really important.

Posts should be weighed on their own merit. Who makes the post is largely irrelevant.

However, suchmoon has made such ludicrous statements whilst also knowingly supporting proven liars into positions of trust and therefore we must not forget that when dealing with matters of trust.