DT members can now to be hold liable for their negative feedback

[Thule]

Thanks to theymos who created the red warning box all DT members can now be hold liable for their negative feedback.
The red box clearly states that you claim the user is a scammer or you stronlgy belive so.

Being a DT member knowing that such a box will appear based on your judgement you need to be aware that you have now special responsibility and are made liable for your negative feedbacks.
Theymos on the other hand instantly stated on the red warning box that the feedback is unmoderated and made himself not liable for your feedbacks.


Defamation calling someone a scammer with no full proof can soon break some DT members their neck even they gave the negative feedback based on their opinion for some other bs.DT members won't be treated as regular members by law.

Be aware of your responsibilty now.



Since i'm now called officaly on every thread a scammer i'm asking all DT members who tagged me to show proof that i scammed someone or was going to scam someone.If you are not able to provide that proof i request to remove that red tagg.


To be continued......

[TMAN]

you skam us of our time reading these threads.

your tags are accurate

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Theymos doesn't care if DT members left you negative trust, and that disclaimer is as far as he's willing to go in terms of defining what a red tag should mean.  He's not enforcing the definition with consequences for DT members who might tag individuals for reasons other than scamming, and your appeal to the folks who tagged you is going to fall on deaf ears.  Why?  Because you're a nuisance and nobody trusts you.

In addition, even if your trust page were wiped clean you'd still be complaining about something and probably would still be smearing various members' reputations and trying to aid scammers by attempting to tear down the trust system.  You'd think that you would understand this by now, given how many rants you've gone on, but apparently that isn't the case.  Just give it up already.

[btcsmlcmnr]

Warning (Red box, you meant) is solely a warning, and it emphasizes that visitors should create an account in the forum, then log in to find out more about topics with Warning! Visitors, who want to invest to such projects warned that they should investigate more about those projects (by reading feedbacks that lead to negative trust and given proofs attached) before taking risks. Theymos does not conclude that all projects with Warning! are scam projects or people whom get red trusts are actually scammers. They likely did something wrong in the past. And, theymos also stated that users should give opportunities for others to come back from their past faults. However, severity of past faults is important.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

I decided to ignore the other feedback because i haven't following the those "wars"
However, when I looked at the first red tags you got and the reference links, I am pretty sure with your current attitude, even if the later tags were not considered, your reputation would still be not good.

Account buying/selling is an old thing that is no longer tolerable by the community since it's done by scammers and spammers



I think if you had been someone calmer and accepted you mistake and contributed more rather than attack people, you would be having a much better reputation, perhaps some DT members would even consider turning the feedback neutral given that you have been on the forum since 2014 but instead you decided to make a mountain out of the situation and climbing it is now impossible.

[Foxpup]

Since i'm now called officaly on every thread a scammer i'm asking all DT members who tagged me to show proof that i scammed someone or was going to scam someone.

or you stronlgy belive so.

Every DT member who tagged you has, without exception, left a Reference link as proof of their strong belief that you are a scammer. But if you insist on seeing it here... I solemnly swear that Thule is up to no good.

[The-One-Above-All]

I decided to ignore the other feedback because i haven't following the those "wars"
However, when I looked at the first red tags you got and the reference links, I am pretty sure with your current attitude, even if the later tags were not considered, your reputation would still be not good.

Account buying/selling is an old thing that is no longer tolerable by the community since it's done by scammers and spammers



I think if you had been someone calmer and accepted you mistake and contributed more rather than attack people, you would be having a much better reputation, perhaps some DT members would even consider turning the feedback neutral given that you have been on the forum since 2014 but instead you decided to make a mountain out of the situation and climbing it is now impossible.

It is not for DT members to use their subjective opinions on other members attitudes as a basis to decide if they leave the scam tag or not.

This would leave DT open to gaming, abuse and seriously encroaching on free speech if this was inside their mandate. It is not.

There needs to be transparent guidelines that are applied equally to all members.

1. you need to present evidence they are a scammer
2. you need to present strong evidence they are trying to scam

that is your mandate, where does it say you get to judge how people speak to you after you have abused the trust system? how do you expect to be spoken to when you abuse trust here? f you can not meet those criteria you have no business leaving a scam tag.

What is more. There is a DT member nutildah who calling people EVIL, Villains, and scum for selling their accounts and claiming that it facilitated scamming. He then decided to turn into an Evil villain and facilitate scamming (his own claim) later on. He is obviously more untrustworthy than someone who buys an account on behalf of another person that does not consider them a scammer. The intent is clearly more toxic from the DT member nutildah but LAUDA and all the other DT members refuse to give him a scam tag. Double standards.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5134507.msg50719875#msg50719875

I think DT members are fully complicit when refusing to leave scam tags for other DT members where there is clear evidence of lying for financial gain, or strong evidence for other financially motivated shady behaviors. They should be held liable for this for sure.

I see no references to a SCAM or SCAMMING On his feedback. Remove the red or apply the red to all those engaging in buying selling accounts.

Foxpoop  your link proves what exactly?


This is the level of reasoning our current DT and merit sources are capable of.

you skam us of our time reading these threads.

your tags are accurate

What is that dishonest auction by proxy, trust abusing imbecile doing in any position of trust? the board is not that desperate is it?

[Foxpup]

Foxpoop  your link proves what exactly?

You'll find that next to the Reference link on the Trust page is a Comments field which provides a convenient explanation of what the link is intended to prove, and I refuse to indulge your Oedipal fetishes by reading it to you while explaining what the big words mean. Sorry.

[LoyceMobile]

Nobody has the power to put himself on DT. Let's assume you're right, and DT members are indeed liable for their feedback. Doesn't that mean the users who voted someone onto DT are liable as well?

[Quickseller]

What warning box are you referring to?

Edit: if you are referring to the box seen by guests when the OP has net negative trust, this is really not new because the description of a negative rating says the person is a scammer. In reality, anyone leaving a negative rating could potentially be liable for libel, however damage to ones reputation is likely going to be small for someone who isn’t on DT.

Most people on DT are likely to have little assets and it would be fairly expensive to even find their identity if someone tried to sue them.

Edit2: someone leaving negative trust without “full proof” will not necessarily cause liability, the threshold is if the person is actually a scammer or not. Although having “full proof” is a very good way to avoid liability.

Nobody has the power to put himself on DT. Let's assume you're right, and DT members are indeed liable for their feedback. Doesn't that mean the users who voted someone onto DT are liable as well?

Read the rest of my above post.

Having someone on your trust list is saying “you should listen to this persons ratings” so a court may find liability. This is only in theory.

Edit2: the stipulation that the reviewer *strongly believes* the person to be a scammer may provide some protection but this is not absolute

[Thule]

Nobody has the power to put himself on DT. Let's assume you're right, and DT members are indeed liable for their feedback. Doesn't that mean the users who voted someone onto DT are liable as well?

No you are liable for your feedbacks.A user who trusts you doesn't have the requirement to check all your feedbacks based on vadility.

DT members are aware of being DT members and that their feedback will show as Default and now also as a warning that member with negative feedback is being accused in public of being a scammer.

Getting now a reasonable timeframe to proof the scam or remove the false tagg is enough to be liable for a false feedback.

[LoyceMobile]

What warning box are you referring to?

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100111.msg50788835#msg50788835

[yogg]

liable for a false feedback

Accordingly to.. which jurisdiction ?
Coocoo-land ?

[TMAN]

liable for a false feedback

Accordingly to.. which jurisdiction ?
Coocoo-land ?

Fuckedupistaaan

It’s where CH lives as well

[DireWolfM14]

Defamation calling someone a scammer with no full proof can soon break some DT members their neck even they gave the negative feedback based on their opinion for some other bs.DT members won't be treated as regular members by law.

You're wrong.  In a defamation suit the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the statements made are provably false and resulted in damages by the defendant.  Forum members giving their opinion about another member are protected under the First Amendment, because they are just expressing their opinion.

Now if you want to talk about defamation; here's a prime example.

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

[Thule]

You're wrong.  In a defamation suit the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the statements made are provably false and resulted in damages by the defendant.  Forum members giving their opinion about another member are protected under the First Amendment, because they are just expressing their opinion.

Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything.
Also proofing that you didn't scammed anyone or even tried to scam anyone wouldn't be difficult where even these DT members confirmed they made the negative feedbacks not for scamming.


Giving an opinon is protected by law and free speach correct.But marking a member as scammer is no free speach anymore expecially not when its being displayed on every of his thread.
Marking has nothing to do with free speach

[DireWolfM14]

You're wrong.  In a defamation suit the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the statements made are provably false and resulted in damages by the defendant.  Forum members giving their opinion about another member are protected under the First Amendment, because they are just expressing their opinion.

Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything.
Also proofing that you didn't scammed anyone or even tried to scam anyone wouldn't be difficult where even these DT members confirmed they made the negative feedbacks not for scamming.


Giving an opinon is protected by law and free speach correct.But marking a member as scammer is no free speach anymore expecially not when its being displayed on every of his thread.
Marking has nothing to do with free speach

None of your reviews claim that you scammed, or tried to scam.  They express the opinion of the reviewer, that you are an unhinged internet troll, which (in their opinion) makes you untrustworthy.  None of that is defamatory because it cannot be proven false.

But claiming suchmoon scammed another member is defamatory; because it was an obvious lie intended to damage the reputation of suchmoon.  Do you see the difference?

[TMAN]

Marking has nothing to do with free speach

your like one of those prison lawyers you read about, think they are hot shit but end up getting people in trouble for different things due to the maximum level of retardedness

[Thule]

I'm not going to waste my time here anymore argumenting with your poor statement.
Thats something i declared myself.Less writing more actions.

Thanks to theymos he opened way more possibilities to me.

About TMAN i hope i will be able to hold him accountable.I hope he lives in the UK.Let's see somebody already initiating the escrow.


About the abusive feedbacks i will give enough time to proof that i scammed someone or tried to scam someone which would justify the strong belive that i'm a scammer.

Bitcointalk is not a right free space where people can defame and abuse without being hold liable for it.


TMAN just got my full attention for attacking under the waist.


I'm not here to harm anybody or waste my time but i will now activly defend myself from these kind of language and defamtion holding people accountable for their actions.

You can think its just random talk based on Vod since i let it go at that time but being now marked on every thread as scammer is exceeding my tolerance.

[Quickseller]

You're wrong.  In a defamation suit the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the statements made are provably false and resulted in damages by the defendant.  Forum members giving their opinion about another member are protected under the First Amendment, because they are just expressing their opinion.

Thats is wrong.It depends on the jurisdiction where the DT member lives.In Canada as example you don't need to proof anything.
Also proofing that you didn't scammed anyone or even tried to scam anyone wouldn't be difficult where even these DT members confirmed they made the negative feedbacks not for scamming.


Giving an opinon is protected by law and free speach correct.But marking a member as scammer is no free speach anymore expecially not when its being displayed on every of his thread.
Marking has nothing to do with free speach

None of your reviews claim that you scammed, or tried to scam.  They express the opinion of the reviewer, that you are an unhinged internet troll, which (in their opinion) makes you untrustworthy.  None of that is defamatory because it cannot be proven false.

But claiming suchmoon scammed another member is defamatory; because it was an obvious lie intended to damage the reputation of suchmoon.  Do you see the difference?

leaving a negative rating in itself is calling the person a scammer. Read the description of a negative rating on a trust page.