Bill Gator and OG not telling the whole truth.

[TMAN]

Right this is all stupid and pathetic but I want to be clear about the statement from theymos and I have just bolded what I believe is relevant

I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
 - The evidence was very thin.
 - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
 - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
 - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective.

It's good that Vod came to his senses on this after the fact, though doing it at all certainly blemishes his reputation in my mind, and I added to my notes the fact that those users merited such a post. Meriting it is saying basically that we need more posts like this on the forum, and we do not need more posts like this on the forum.

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.

For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.

so BG decides to just copy OG in his interpretation of this statement

Local Rule, No Thule, QS, CH, or TAA posting in here please - none of you are relevant to this



So lets all take a chill pill here about conspiracy theories and removing people off DT when it is quite clear that Theymos believes a lot more about peace than this stupid pissing match between two members (and OG's lapdogs)

OG I feel you would have a much stronger case against Vod if you stopped only selectively quoting Theymos and anyone else to the tune of making your story sound better.

anyway - peace in the middle east, is all this shit really worth it?

EDIT - SELF MADE LEGENDARY BITCHES. Fucking ironic the post that gets me my thousandth merit is about me mentioning peace.

[1714778715]

1714778715

[1714778715]

1714778715

[1714778715]

1714778715

[1714778715]

1714778715

[OgNasty]

OG I feel you would have a much stronger case against Vod if you stopped only selectively quoting Theymos and anyone else to the tune of making your story sound better.

There’s only so many characters allowed in that feedback box. I linked to the full quote as a reference.

[TMAN]

OG I feel you would have a much stronger case against Vod if you stopped only selectively quoting Theymos and anyone else to the tune of making your story sound better.

There’s only so many characters allowed in that feedback box. I linked to the full quote as a reference.

Funny how I can make it seem like a more accurate reflection of Theymos's words than you then. Your reputation is being ruined by yourself, Just stop selectively taking what you want out of statements and reflect the true message and less people will be excluding you from DT, It is publicly known that I hate you but even I am disappointed by this fall from grace caused by yourself and not others.

Your narcissistic attitude is causing all of this OG - you need a chill pill as well as Vod, you should both have a 7day cooling off ban, try Yoga or something man 

(tag removed, it was only to prove a point)

[OgNasty]

I’m good.    Thanks for the criticism.

[teeGUMES]

I felt like theymos was giving his feedback on the steps I initially took that started this whole thing off.. not giving a green light to use his statement as the basis of future negatives. It is unacceptable what Vod did so a properly worded negative rating is appropriate, but make it your own and make it sincere. Anyone can work in private and do their own investigation into anybody they want.. it's just that taking it public was the wrong way to go about it.

I've been called out for using negative trust for merit posting but theymos does say that there is an argument to be had there.. how I took this was that permanent red trust was not the answer, which is why I explained myself in neutral ratings and then after a day of each of the four being online I removed those aswell. Theymos said that red trust is "the wrong level" which is right, but there isn't really a forum tool that is the correct level needed to effectively get the point across that it was also not very acceptable behavior. Especially for fellow DT1 members.

On the forgiving part, I also agree here and Vod can confirm that when we talked and got rid of the dox post that I told him my negative trust would remain for 1-2 weeks and then I would bump it down to a neutral, seeings how he realized his mistake and in the end made things right by removing the post completely. When someone does something wrong they shouldn't be immediately forgiven.. there should be a minor consequence aka a week or two of a lower trust score. All this immediate countering of negatives doesn't help anybody realize that they did something wrong.

Now since we are all for forgiving Vod because he edited the dox to remove OgNasty's personal info, I would hope that this goes both ways and my use of a very temporary red tag for the merit posters should also be forgiven. ( Surprisingly one of the main reasons I did what I did was to attempt to protect the four members from having their name at the top of the dox post in case something did happen and law enforcement was involved.. I was not being malicious, I was actually trying to protect ). The word hypocrite has been thrown around by two members that have excluded me over this.. they need to take a look in the mirror.

I've taken a look at the hhampuz dox thread and need to figure out the best way to approach that whack job. IMO that one is up to theymos or a moderator to get rid of as anyone that brings up anything relevant is threatened with a dox of their own. Unless you've got locktight opsec it's a toughie and that is most likely why a lot of DT1 may not have stepped in there. A lot of us being Collectibles members is a bit scary as we probably have the worst opsec of the forum due to trading bitcoin for physical coins pretty much daily.

Please no circle talk and pointless replies, this should be a turning point towards making the forum a better place for everyone, there are a lot more members here watching from afar than you think.

Edit to add: My inclusions are based on the fact that not everyone I have included in my trust list are always going to agree.. what we need are some differing views sometimes, just because someone has an unpopular opinion or creates a few waves here or there doesn't mean they should be instantly excluded. The world would be boring as fuck if we all just agreed all the time.

[TMAN]

~snip

Breaking local rules, you are breaking forum rules...

see ya princess

[TMAN]

snip

26. Local thread rules, if stated properly when the thread was started, specific enough and don't conflict with the forum rules, have to be followed.[e]

As you don't know the rules.

[bill gator]

Forgiveness does not mean free of consequence.
I'm not advocating to ban Vod, or even remove Vod from DT - I thought a single temporary DT1 feedback indicating that he had a lapse of judgement that was significantly malicious was appropriate.
The only reason I even have anything to say about the situation anymore, is because I'm sitting here with the biggest bullshit negative feedback from somebody you are all defending as a hero.

[TMAN]

Forgiveness does not mean free of consequence.
I'm not advocating to ban Vod, or even remove Vod from DT - I thought a single temporary DT1 feedback indicating that he had a lapse of judgement that was significantly malicious was appropriate.
The only reason I even have anything to say about the situation anymore, is because I'm sitting here with the biggest bullshit negative feedback from somebody you are all defending as a hero.

maybe its difficult because I quoted too much, but to take a leaf out of OG's book ill just quote the relevant part to my story.

But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.

as for your tag I countered it already fella, although at this rate I might even change my mind to that - stop beating a dead horse

[TECSHARE]

stop beating a dead horse

[Drags dead horse into the room and starts beating it] Hey stop beating that dead horse! Beat this dead horse!

[suchmoon]

The word hypocrite has been thrown around by two members that have excluded me over this.. they need to take a look in the mirror.

I have excluded you for red-trusting other users for sending merits, and I have 15 thousand reasons for that. That's all there is to it. This is permanent unless you show that this was just a momentary lapse of judgement but seeing you're still trying to spin this - not looking likely. It's a shame since I used to think you're a level-headed dude but it appears you're letting your personal likes/dislikes dictate your use of the trust system.

I called you a hypocrite because you declared (unprompted) that you'll take the same anti-doxing stance against anyone, which I assume would mean red-trusting the doxer and anyone sending merits to the doxer... then you weaseled out of it when presented with a couple of opportunities to do so. Same goes for bill gator. Personally I don't believe in the "all or nothing approach" with trust ratings, i.e. if you red-trust someone for eating lemons I don't think you're obligated to red-trust every lemon-eating idiot. However when you voluntarily declare such a position and then don't follow through - yes, you're a hypocrite. That's neither here or there, I'm not gonna red-trust you for that... just an opinion.

I've taken a look at the hhampuz dox thread and need to figure out the best way to approach that whack job.

What's wrong with the way you approached OgNasty's dox?

[TECSHARE]

The word hypocrite has been thrown around by two members that have excluded me over this.. they need to take a look in the mirror.

I have excluded you for red-trusting other users for sending merits, and I have 15 thousand reasons for that. That's all there is to it. This is permanent unless you show that this was just a momentary lapse of judgement but seeing you're still trying to spin this - not looking likely. It's a shame since I used to think you're a level-headed dude but it appears you're letting your personal likes/dislikes dictate your use of the trust system.

I called you a hypocrite because you declared (unprompted) that you'll take the same anti-doxing stance against anyone, which I assume would mean red-trusting the doxer and anyone sending merits to the doxer... then you weaseled out of it when presented with a couple of opportunities to do so. Same goes for bill gator. Personally I don't believe in the "all or nothing approach" with trust ratings, i.e. if you red-trust someone for eating lemons I don't think you're obligated to red-trust every lemon-eating idiot. However when you voluntarily declare such a position and then don't follow through - yes, you're a hypocrite. That's neither here or there, I'm not gonna red-trust you for that... just an opinion.

I've taken a look at the hhampuz dox thread and need to figure out the best way to approach that whack job.

What's wrong with the way you approached OgNasty's dox?

Standards are for thee and not for me! HOW DARE YOU HAVE A STANCE THAT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY APPLIED! Only I and the loser DT mob are allowed to do that and then call out others as if we serve as a beacon of impartial justice!

It never ceases to amaze me how many times you will use this argument of a users standards against them, when you yourself don't even meet these standards as if you are allowed to pick and choose who you rate but when some one else does it, they are a hypocrite. Lol. This reminds me a lot of all of your negative ratings sent for account trading, yet when your buddy Nutilduhh was shown to have solicited their account for sale suddenly everyone needs to hold on a minute.

[suchmoon]

Standards are for thee and not for me! HOW DARE YOU HAVE A STANCE THAT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY APPLIED! Only I and the loser DT mob are allowed to do that and then call out others as if we serve as a beacon of impartial justice!

It never ceases to amaze me how many times you will use this argument of a users standards against them, when you yourself don't even meet these standards as if you are allowed to pick and choose who you rate but when some one else does it, they are a hypocrite. Lol. This reminds me a lot of all of your negative ratings sent for account trading, yet when your buddy Nutilduhh was shown to have solicited their account for sale suddenly everyone needs to hold on a minute.

Might help if you try reading what you're replying to. I'm all for a case-by-case approach. But when someone paints themselves into a corner by saying they'll do X and then don't do X - I think "hypocrite" is appropriate. Perhaps even "liar".

BTW I've only red-trusted a few account trades for blatant shit like selling a green-rated account so you must be confusing me with someone else.

[TMAN]

This reminds me a lot of all of your negative ratings sent for account trading, yet when your buddy Nutilduhh was shown to have solicited their account for sale suddenly everyone needs to hold on a minute.

Or where she "asked" DT members to remove the tag from the bought account Gleb Gamow or where she denied giving red trust for trying to sell accounts because that member didn't deserved to be tagged.

She is upholding the ultimate standard and at the same time claiming she doesn't need evidences for negative ratings on accounts which are not high ranked.An assumption is enough there.

Its these kind of statements of her which will make the court case very interresting.

why are you blatantly ignoring my rules? you have already had 1 set of posts removed, please kindly fuck off back to your poo street and leave the grown ups alone - you have no business here

[nutildah]

This reminds me a lot of all of your negative ratings sent for account trading, yet when your buddy Nutilduhh was shown to have solicited their account for sale suddenly everyone needs to hold on a minute.

What you should have learned was that "unearthing" publicly-available information written three years ago is not necessarily grounds for a red trust. If you feel so strongly that it is, why haven't you left one for me yet? You're trying to claim uneven application of a "standard" that never existed.

Your whole crusade against me and movement to get me tagged began because you felt I embarrassed you in Politics & Society... I told you I was putting you on ignore and you immediately visited my trust history to look for dirt to dig on me. Fifteen minutes later you were smearing it around in my Reputation thread... Talk about petty 

I have excluded you for red-trusting other users for sending merits

For the record, this was also my line of thinking, and I am open to changing my mind about it.

[TECSHARE]

This reminds me a lot of all of your negative ratings sent for account trading, yet when your buddy Nutilduhh was shown to have solicited their account for sale suddenly everyone needs to hold on a minute.

What you should have learned was that "unearthing" publicly-available information written three years ago is not necessarily grounds for a red trust. If you feel so strongly that it is, why haven't you left one for me yet? You're trying to claim uneven application of a "standard" that never existed.

Your whole crusade against me and movement to get me tagged began because you felt I embarrassed you in Politics & Society... I told you I was putting you on ignore and you immediately visited my trust history to look for dirt to dig on me. Fifteen minutes later you were smearing it around in my Reputation thread... Talk about petty 

I have excluded you for red-trusting other users for sending merits

For the record, this was also my line of thinking, and I am open to changing my mind about it.

Irrelevant. The point is there is no other plausible explanation for Vod's behavior other than malicious intent. There is literally no plausible excuse for why what he did was ok regardless of it being posted already elsewhere. I haven't negative rated you because unlike you I don't feel the need to run around with my plastic badge and police the forum.

What crusade to get you tagged? You were already tagged and I argued that others were just in doing so by standards you yourself advocate for. You hold others to those standards but you expect to be exempt yourself. How convenient. You embarrassed ME in Politics and Society? BWAHAHAHA, K. I guess that's why you needed to put me on ignore, because I was so embarrassed by your intellectual prowess! You had virtually no activity in P&S until you decided to follow me there to extend your circle jerk vendettas & try your luck, got spanked, and ran away crying, yes, talk about petty.

[nutildah]

Irrelevant. The point is there is no other plausible explanation for Vod's behavior other than malicious intent.

Has nothing to do with Vod. I don't think you understand what the issue at hand is.

What crusade to get you tagged?

The one you're still on, apparently.

You were already tagged and I argued that others were just in doing so by standards you yourself advocate for.

You mean the iCEBREAKER tag? He was removed from DT, as were you. The community has voted against both of your judgments. That's not what I was talking about, however.

You hold others to those standards but you expect to be exempt yourself. How convenient. You embarrassed ME in Politics and Society? BWAHAHAHA, K. I guess that's why you needed to put me on ignore, because I was so embarrassed by your intellectual prowess! You had virtually no activity in P&S until you decided to follow me there to extend your circle jerk vendettas & try your luck, got spanked, and ran away crying, yes, talk about petty.

Right, a brilliant revision of history, unsurprisingly in your favor. Compelling. Doesn't explain why you felt the need to continue to sling shit in my Reputation thread though. Frankly I don't care. Feel free to write another one of your famous neverending rebuttals to this comment so you can have the last word. I'm out.

[Quickseller]

Forgiveness does not mean free of consequence.
I'm not advocating to ban Vod, or even remove Vod from DT - I thought a single temporary DT1 feedback indicating that he had a lapse of judgement that was significantly malicious was appropriate.
The only reason I even have anything to say about the situation anymore, is because I'm sitting here with the biggest bullshit negative feedback from somebody you are all defending as a hero.

I see no reason why any rating should only be “temporary”, especially a few weeks temporary. Two weeks of having a negative rating is basically a non-punishment and realistically is the result of you being excluded from DT.

[TMAN]

SNIP

QS as entertaining as you have been recently you are breaking my local rules and your post is entirely off topic from my OP.

Please can you adhere to these rules fella, I feel this thread is serious enough where OgNasty is selectively quoting members and the Admin on this forum to further his own retarded pursuit of Vod, the pair of them have and are acting as prized cunts (I say that as I like one and dislike the other) i'm being unbiased here and would appreciate the same from others who are posting in this thread.

[marlboroza]

OG I feel you would have a much stronger case against Vod if you stopped only selectively quoting Theymos and anyone else to the tune of making your story sound better.

There’s only so many characters allowed in that feedback box. I linked to the full quote as a reference.

(tag removed, it was only to prove a point)

I can confirm that I also tested it and removed tag, there is enough characters to quote this:



I don't want to be a dick and start thread in meta about this, but OG should contact administration and tell them about this bug which affects feedback he sends.