DT2 SUCHMOON ABUSE.Who voted him into trust circle ?

[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. 

[1715070480]

1715070480

[1715070480]

1715070480

[1715070480]

1715070480

[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.