So you have DTs who do not want you to talk openly?

[mightyDTs]

This is an ALT by the way. I do not care about the tag however here is a point I want to make.

<snip>
this is what happen when you talk free speech.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2602674
https://i.imgur.com/6RJKqLR.png
This is what you get when you anger Lauda.

Lauda: I already have explained that this an ALT account you did nothing for me but just proved that you are weak and your judgements are biased. In most cases you tag others who makes you angry.

@theymos, how many times you need proves. This also proves that why others are not excluding Lauda from their network.

The reference of the tag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143602.msg51067377#msg51067377
https://i.imgur.com/ltnuUhq.png

Do you still trust her judgements that she does not misuse the trust system for her own benefit? Looking at the inclusions I would say yes, you do. What a shame community.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Personally I would not (and didn't) leave you any negative trust--for the same reason I haven't tagged cryptohunter, Thule, or any of that gang.  But after reviewing your posts, you're doing exactly what Lauda said you were, which is perpetuating untruths about DT members.  You and all the other DT critics are lumping all DT members into this big, imaginary cabal that's all-powerful and evil. 

And that's not true.  May I remind you that Lauda is just one single member of DT.  Don't paint all the other members with the same brush, because not everyone agrees with Lauda.  In fact, there are many disagreements among DT members about a lot of issues, and it's supposed to be that way.  Theymos expanded DT1 for a reason, which was to give it more diversity of opinion. 

I don't think trolls like you should be tagged for spreading falsehoods, but that's just my opinion.  I have no control over what Lauda does, but obviously Lauda doesn't trust you and has given you a neg accordingly.  And frankly, a lot of us are tired of hearing this same old bullshit being recycled with alt accounts.  It's time to stop; if you don't like the structure of this forum, leave it.  Theymos obviously isn't listening to your tired-ass, threadbare criticism.

[Hhampuz]

~

So much this. I don't (even though I get the "gang" label) give out negs to any of the trolls either but I do understand the ones that do. It's like a broken record at this point.

Edit; Would have given you more merit but I'm broke

[tranthidung]

I have no control over what Lauda does, but obviously Lauda doesn't trust you and has given you a neg accordingly.

From which I think DT members should be careful to leave tags if they diagree with someone else because their Trust-net-effects are significant, that can make others mad. If things highly correlated with scams, or untrusted exchanges, negative feedbacks surely appropriate used; but if it is just disagreements in perspective, or trolls, as theymos (not only you) pointed out in his guide, negative trust is somehow in appropriate.
I agreed that there are so many recycled threads on this issues recent months, and we all tired to see them floated around in Meta board.

[Lauda]

I mean how far we have to go to have these clear that Lauda is threatening other DTs not to talk against her or they will be destroyed.

Which is yet another lie, and you wonder why I tagged you baboon? Come up with another account, I'll be faster next time.

I don't think trolls like you should be tagged for spreading falsehoods, but that's just my opinion.  

But, but I thought you part of this gang? How come you are allowed to act independently?

Woof, woof Meow, meow motherfucker.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

You got exactly what you deserve, and it's just a matter of time before you get your main account tagged too, that's if it hasn't been tagged already. In as much as you have freedom of speech that don't mean you should use that freedom wrongly. You can't go around the forum accusing other members falsely and don't expect a retaliation since such act can be considered untrustworthy. You and your types are those making the forum uncomfortable and if there was a way to get rid of you all I won't hesitate to second that decision. We all can engage in the activities of the forum without getting red tagged by simply obeying the forum rules and learnings from mistake of other. If you don't engage in untrustworthy activities you won't get red tagged. It's as simple as that.

[TheNewAnon135246]

I don't think trolls like you should be tagged for spreading falsehoods, but that's just my opinion. 

Same here, I just exclude them in my trust list. I understand why some DT members do so (same for tagging alt accounts). There are currently ~80 DT members and only a hand full are being considered as part of "the gang". Those few members could easily be excluded (including Lauda) if they were actually acting maliciously like all these sad trolls are claiming. The way I see it that Theymos has created a decentralized trust system which will continue to grow with all the new inclusions. Perhaps these bad actors should stop complaining and try to contribute instead.

[dragonvslinux]

Same here, I just exclude them in my trust list. I understand why some DT members do so (same for tagging alt accounts). There are currently ~80 DT members and only a hand full are being considered as part of "the gang". Those few members could easily be excluded (including Lauda) if they were actually acting maliciously like all these sad trolls are claiming. The way I see it that Theymos has created a decentralized trust system which will continue to grow with all the new inclusions. Perhaps these bad actors should stop complaining and try to contribute instead.

From more of an outsiders perspective looking in, with some detail - take it or leave it - I agree there is only a handful of dubiously trustworthy members in DT, and therefore like many people I have recently excluded some and added others. However I have to criticize the idea that it is a decentralized trust system, it's clearly hierarchical (DT1, DT2, DT3, etc), you can even view your trust list in it's hierarchical format to confirm this theory.

Personally I don't have a problem with this, the forum is built on distinct hierarchies from the moderators/legends down to the newbies, it's based on rank and merit, so believing there can be a decentralized structure (DT) that effectively assesses the trustworthiness of members is a complete fallacy in my opinion, even if the intent is to be decentralized. There is even the hierarchy of "trust knowledge"; for example it took me hours digging through meta/reputation threads to make my own semi-informed decisions. It took me months before I even realized I could edit my own trust list. If you're thinking "you noob" for that last comment, then question the accessibility of this hierarchy; it's relatively low, as it requires a lot of knowledge to be applied effectively from the ground up - the basis of decentralized structures.

Skimmed but didn't read? I didn't criticize any individual member here, or the DT group for that matter, only the concept that a hierarchy can be decentralized.
This is also completely fine, this forum is not a blockchain technology, therefore it's not expected to be decentralized, even if it could be improved.

Edit: Food for thought: DT trust accountability from the ground up

[Hhampuz]

From more of an outsiders perspective looking in, with some detail - take it or leave it - I agree there is only a handful of dubiously trustworthy members in DT, and therefore like many people I have recently excluded some and added others. However I have to criticize the idea that it is a decentralized trust system, it's clearly hierarchical (DT1, DT2, DT3, etc), you can even view your trust list in it's hierarchical format to confirm this theory.

Personally I don't have a problem with this, the forum is built on distinct hierarchies from the moderators/legends down to the newbies, it's based on rank and merit, so believing there can be a decentralized structure (DT) that effectively assesses the trustworthiness of members is a complete fallacy in my opinion, even if the intent is to be decentralized. There is even the hierarchy of "trust knowledge"; for example it took me hours digging through meta/reputation threads to make my own semi-informed decisions. It took me months before I even realized I could edit my own trust list. If you're thinking "you noob" for that last comment, then question the accessibility of this hierarchy; it's relatively low, as it requires a lot of knowledge to be applied effectively from the ground up - the basis of decentralized structures.

Skimmed but didn't read? I didn't criticize any individual member here, or the DT group for that matter, only the concept that a hierarchy can't be decentralized.
This is also completely fine, this forum is not a blockchain technology, therefore it's not expected to be decentralized, even if it could be improved.

If this was Medium I'd give you 50 claps and then log on to a different account just so I could give you 50 more!

[The-One-Above-All]

You got exactly what you deserve, and it's just a matter of time before you get your main account tagged too, that's if it hasn't been tagged already. In as much as you have freedom of speech that don't mean you should use that freedom wrongly. You can't go around the forum accusing other members falsely and don't expect a retaliation since such act can be considered untrustworthy. You and your types are those making the forum uncomfortable and if there was a way to get rid of you all I won't hesitate to second that decision. We all can engage in the activities of the forum without getting red tagged by simply obeying the forum rules and learnings from mistake of other. If you don't engage in untrustworthy activities you won't get red tagged. It's as simple as that.

Please keep your 3rd world trash feltching false accusations to yourself.

Here is a challenge for you bitch.

Present now anything related to scamming this person has done to deserve a scam tag or you will be called out as a liar in future.

Also I can present outright scamming from lauda and it does not have a tag.

Lauda tags people and encourages her eurotrash gang/alts to tag persons presenting observable instances of her wrong doing. She is trying to silence whilstleblowers which of course facilitates scamming.

RED trust is for scammers or those you can present STRONG case have scammed. Get that into your undeveloped thick skull.

Now present the evidence to substantiate your claims or retract them.

You are proliferating FALSE information that facilitates scamming.

It is undeniable that the intial poster is correct SOME DT use red trust to silence people mentioning observable instances in their post history they want to remain hidden.  Other DT members do not do that themselves but support those that do. ALL are facilitating scammers.

We know you are only here to spam your sig for as high rates as possible gobble on as much cock as required to do so. Disgusting fool.

[The Cryptovator]

Problem isn't about "open talk", problem is about target specific DT or a group of DT (called DT gang). I don't know you are alt of which DT and I know very well you never worried about this account. Attack someone doesn't mean " open talk". You could always make an argument about DT judgement and its always welcome to me. But I can't accept "DT troll" although I haven't tag anyone for it and likely I wouldn't even future.

But your feedback is appropriate in my opinions. Always troll and attack someone obviously not a wise attempt. Constructive discussions always welcome but, "No troll & attack"

[Lauda]

Constructive discussions always welcome but, "No troll & attack"

What you are looking for is called OBSERVABLE proof and OBSERVABLE facts.

[The-One-Above-All]

Problem isn't about "open talk", problem is about target specific DT or a group of DT (called DT gang). I don't know you are alt of which DT and I know very well you never worried about this account. Attack someone doesn't mean " open talk". You could always make an argument about DT judgement and its always welcome to me. But I can't accept "DT troll" although I haven't tag anyone for it and likely I wouldn't even future.

But your feedback is appropriate in my opinions. Always troll and attack someone obviously not a wise attempt. Constructive discussions always welcome but, "No troll & attack"

lauda is correct

observable instances can not be called trolling. That is trolling trolling as has been explained to you before.

Repeating things that have been demonstrated as incorrect is trolling.

Which "attacks" do you wish to dispute? please let me know so I can demonstrate you are an imbecile for trying to term them as trolling.

[TheNewAnon135246]

If this was Medium I'd give you 50 claps and then log on to a different account just so I could give you 50 more!

Did you just admit to wanting to make alt accounts so you can give people more internet points? Wait until QS hears about this!

[Lauda]

If this was Medium I'd give you 50 claps and then log on to a different account just so I could give you 50 more!

Did you just admit to wanting to make alt accounts so you can give people more internet points? Wait until QS hears about this!

Next up on America's Looney Tunes Gang: Hhampuz embezzeling medium claps.

[Theb]

With the given situation you are in the red tag Lauda gave to you is justifiable, your account is obviously created to complain about the DT system and it's probably you are one of the members who got tagged by a DT member one way or another. Based from what I have seen DT members are more lenient and understanding to high ranking members or at least the trustworthy ones since they have the balls to complain about it in their own account unlike you who just created an alt account to cover your identity. Keep in mind you are tagged because you are using an alt account that is trolling in the forum and not because you are standing up against them. You aren't even really standing up because you are just hiding in your alt account.

[TECSHARE]

With the given situation you are in the red tag Lauda gave to you is justifiable, your account is obviously created to complain about the DT system and it's probably you are one of the members who got tagged by a DT member one way or another. Based from what I have seen DT members are more lenient and understanding to high ranking members or at least the trustworthy ones since they have the balls to complain about it in their own account unlike you who just created an alt account to cover your identity. Keep in mind you are tagged because you are using an alt account that is trolling in the forum and not because you are standing up against them. You aren't even really standing up because you are just hiding in your alt account.

Is that so? Maybe some one should tell that to the 13 cult members excluding me because they don't like my criticism of their pals. I am sure the long list of people on the list no one has ever heard of are far more trustworthy. My crimes are too numerous to count after all.

[TheNewAnon135246]

With the given situation you are in the red tag Lauda gave to you is justifiable, your account is obviously created to complain about the DT system and it's probably you are one of the members who got tagged by a DT member one way or another. Based from what I have seen DT members are more lenient and understanding to high ranking members or at least the trustworthy ones since they have the balls to complain about it in their own account unlike you who just created an alt account to cover your identity. Keep in mind you are tagged because you are using an alt account that is trolling in the forum and not because you are standing up against them. You aren't even really standing up because you are just hiding in your alt account.

Is that so? Maybe some one should tell that to the 13 cult members excluding me because they don't like my criticism of their pals. I am sure the long list of people on the list no one has ever heard of are far more trustworthy. My crimes are too numerous to count after all.

I can't speak for the other 12 cult members but I excluded you after you publically posted a PM between you and Hhampuz. I don't exclude people if I disagree with them or just because I think that they are assholes.

[TECSHARE]

With the given situation you are in the red tag Lauda gave to you is justifiable, your account is obviously created to complain about the DT system and it's probably you are one of the members who got tagged by a DT member one way or another. Based from what I have seen DT members are more lenient and understanding to high ranking members or at least the trustworthy ones since they have the balls to complain about it in their own account unlike you who just created an alt account to cover your identity. Keep in mind you are tagged because you are using an alt account that is trolling in the forum and not because you are standing up against them. You aren't even really standing up because you are just hiding in your alt account.

Is that so? Maybe some one should tell that to the 13 cult members excluding me because they don't like my criticism of their pals. I am sure the long list of people on the list no one has ever heard of are far more trustworthy. My crimes are too numerous to count after all.

I can't speak for the other 12 cult members but I excluded you after you publically posted a PM between you and Hhampuz. I don't exclude people if I disagree with them or just because I think that they are assholes.

I see, so the fact that I posted that message is more of a problem than his duplicity and inability to have a conversation like an adult. Got it. You know what would have prevented that? Him willing to have a conversation about it, instead he chose to hide like a coward rather than explain himself. The message had nothing exceptional in it other than a demonstration of his duplicitous behavior, this is just a pathetic excuse for you to virtue signal to the DT mob. There is no presumption of privacy with personal messages. If this is your standard you should exclude Suchmoon too. I am sure I could find plenty of other examples of people on your trust list that have shared PMs as well, but oh that's right you people only apply these standards to others when it serves your bias. This is just a woefully pathetic pretext for retaliation.

[TheNewAnon135246]

With the given situation you are in the red tag Lauda gave to you is justifiable, your account is obviously created to complain about the DT system and it's probably you are one of the members who got tagged by a DT member one way or another. Based from what I have seen DT members are more lenient and understanding to high ranking members or at least the trustworthy ones since they have the balls to complain about it in their own account unlike you who just created an alt account to cover your identity. Keep in mind you are tagged because you are using an alt account that is trolling in the forum and not because you are standing up against them. You aren't even really standing up because you are just hiding in your alt account.

Is that so? Maybe some one should tell that to the 13 cult members excluding me because they don't like my criticism of their pals. I am sure the long list of people on the list no one has ever heard of are far more trustworthy. My crimes are too numerous to count after all.

I can't speak for the other 12 cult members but I excluded you after you publically posted a PM between you and Hhampuz. I don't exclude people if I disagree with them or just because I think that they are assholes.

I see, so the fact that I posted that message is more of a problem than his duplicity and inability to have a conversation like an adult. Got it. You know what would have prevented that? Him willing to have a conversation about it, instead he chose to hide like a coward rather than explain himself. The message had nothing exceptional in it other than a demonstration of his duplicitous behavior, this is just a pathetic excuse for you to virtue signal to the DT mob. There is no presumption of privacy with personal messages. If this is your standard you should exclude Suchmoon too. I am sure I could find plenty of other examples of people on your trust list that have shared PMs as well, but oh that's right you people only apply these standards to others when it serves your bias. This is just a woefully pathetic pretext for retaliation.

Publically posting PMs is a dick move, especially when you do so to force him into a conversation. It has nothing to do with virtue signalling since I honestly don't care what the "DT mob" thinks of me.

I am not going to exclude Suchmoon for something he/she did over 3 years ago. Unlike some people here I don't dig into peoples past, desperately hoping to find something I can bring up. I would exclude him/her if he/she posted it recently. It might sound strange but some people actually change their behaviour when they grow older, which is exactly why I am open to revising my trust ratings/exclusions after a while. You should try it.