PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user

[hilariousandco]

You might not have liked it but you don't have to act on it. I'm sure many of the people complaining have also done similar things via PM against others. Maybe had theymos made threats or demanded we do it it would be a different matter. Maybe both parties did things in haste but it seems to have been sorted now anyway.

I may step away from the keyboard for a while after this as well. 

I think a lot of people here probably need a vacation. And not one of the pretend ones Cryptohuter is on.

I decided to just remove my entire list and get removed from this whole DT disaster moving forward. The never ending drama of this stuff has gotten old and just ignoring it all makes life easier.

My first thought was just to wipe my trust list completely as I've thought about doing that several times. More hassle than it's worth.

[1713452873]

1713452873

[1713452873]

1713452873

[1713452873]

1713452873

[1713452873]

1713452873

[1713452873]

1713452873

[1713452873]

1713452873

[tmfp]

He can blacklist on both levels, no?

Possibly. But the two known blacklisted users (marlboroza and mikeywith) have been removed only from DT1 and are still in DT2.

So what exactly would blacklisting me from DT1 accomplish if I left a false flag? This makes even less sense.

But he hasn't blacklisted you, has he?
Thanks for the pm, I think.
Irony Alert: Theymos' objection to the description of SV as a scam.

[TECSHARE]

So what exactly would blacklisting me from DT1 accomplish if I left a false flag? This makes even less sense.

Dunno, maybe that's why he wants you "~"-ed instead of blacklisted so that you'd be gone from DT2 as well.

Good point. However, my main argument is that blacklisting me for this would destroy all the efforts he made to decentralize the system so far. Therefore, he chose that path. I would doubt any claim that he can't single-handedly blacklist on both levels.

since I did the opposite of what theymos asked, I guess I'll add theymos to my trust list.  

Very fair deal, but my reasoning was far wider and superior than his.

He is providing you a decentralized solution, but you are refusing to follow the standards of that system and instead demand special privilege to abuse it. You only have yourself to blame.

[Lauda]

My first thought was just to wipe my trust list completely as I've thought about doing that several times. More hassle than it's worth.

The only reason for which I haven't done this already is the people that got included by me.

But he hasn't blacklisted you, has he?

Doesn't look like it. Like I said, doing so kills the credibility of the decentralization efforts i.e. would prove that they are fake.

Thanks for the pm, I think.

You're welcome. I didn't exclude anyone from the list of recipient, regardless of my personal opinion of them.

Irony Alert: Theymos' objection to the description of SV as a scam.

The whole system is backwards, but the general idea could work. The BSV case is just an argument against the system.

[Quickseller]

Perhaps he should just blacklist anyone who keeps lauda in their trust list.

He was trying to convince others to agree with him.

All blacklisting would do is exclude someone from being DT1. He would have to completely overhaul the system to make it impossible for any DT1 member to include someone in their trust list, therefore making that person DT2.

He can blacklist on both levels, no?

He can, and should hardcode exclusions to anyone who has you on their trust list.

The majority of people who have you on their trust list are scammers, and/or what amounts to your puppet incapable of thinking for themselves. In all cases, they are showing extreme bad judgment

[TECSHARE]

Given that hes essentially just another member of DT

You are delusional to think that people see theymos as "just another member of DT" or that he would actually be just a member of DT.

I made this same argument when SaltySpitoon and others were requested to exclude me on their trust lists, no one objected then. It is very interesting to see this supposed victim make many of the same arguments I did, but thought it was perfectly reasonable when applied to me.

[Lauda]

Given that hes essentially just another member of DT

You are delusional to think that people see theymos as "just another member of DT" or that he would actually be just a member of DT.

I made this same argument when SaltySpitoon and others were requested to exclude me on their trust lists, no one objected then. It is very interesting to see this supposed victim make many of the same arguments I did, but thought it was perfectly reasonable when applied to me.

When exactly did this happen? I actually would have to re-read whatever happen before I could say anything.

[ChemicalSpillage]

Probably because I was never on your trust list, but those that had me on their trust list were requested to exclude me, and not a peep of objection from any of you objecting here today was heard.

What then is the overlap of users? Surely you can comment on their hypocrisy.

[TECSHARE]

Probably because I was never on your trust list, but those that had me on their trust list were requested to exclude me, and not a peep of objection from any of you objecting here today was heard.

What then is the overlap of users? Surely you can comment on their hypocrisy.

As far as I know there is no overlap of individuals that got requests in both instances. There is however overlap in those that dismissed my arguments against Theymos requesting exclusions personally as if he did not also carry the weight of the admin. They were dismissive of or silent in response to the argument then, now they suddenly support the argument. This is not an argument based on principles, it is an argument based on personalities.

[The-One-Above-All]

What is suchmoon claiming has happened now?

Theymos dared to try and save lauda public humiliation of being blacklisted by asking a back stabbing scum bag and possible alt of lauda - suchmoon to exclude the trust abusing lying scamming piece of shit lauda? better to just straight up black list this piece of shit and lauda together. They will NEVER play fair with the rest of the board.

Suchmoon has been shown PROOF lauda is a liar and scammer, suchmoon has been shown lauda will use red trust to facilitate his own scamming by trying to silence whistle blowers. She has not done the right thing then. She will never do the right thing in the future. Blacklist them both and ANYONE else who REFUSES to stop with the trust abuse or will support those that do trust abuse.

If suchmoon is trying to spin this into something "positive" in laudas favor then we suchmoon just revealed how far she will go to protect that proven liar, scammer and trust abuser.

LOL at least Theymos can see what an EXCELLENT member suchscumbag is now. The true colors are revealed. She will do anything to keep her gang in power.

Just BLACKLIST every DT member that will not abide by the rules. Let's drain this swamp.

Of course meta board will try to reject anything that removes their ability to game this board and cream off the power and money.

Suchmoon needs to be forced to answer in public some VERY STRAIGHT questions. 

[otrkid1970]

It's simple Lauda broke a clear rule and should be manually removed from DT forever

[Lauda]

Probably because I was never on your trust list, but those that had me on their trust list were requested to exclude me, and not a peep of objection from any of you objecting here today was heard.

What then is the overlap of users? Surely you can comment on their hypocrisy.

As far as I know there is no overlap of individuals that got requests in both instances. There is however overlap in those that dismissed my arguments against Theymos requesting exclusions personally as if he did not also carry the weight of the admin. They were dismissive of or silent in response to the argument then, now they suddenly support the argument. This is not an argument based on principles, it is an argument based on personalities.

When exactly did this happen? I actually would have to re-read whatever happen before I could say anything.

Context would help.

[bones261]

It's simple Lauda broke a clear rule and should be manually removed from DT forever

LOL, since when were the rules clear around here?  Even the list of rules that are pinned to the board are "unofficial."

[actmyname]

It's simple Lauda broke a clear rule and should be manually removed from DT forever

Considering that they have already resolved this situation, it seems strange to insert yourself into this. It's like offense culture.

[tmfp]

It's simple Lauda broke a clear rule and should be manually removed from DT forever

LOL, since when were the rules clear around here?  Even the list of rules that are pinned to the board are "unofficial."

This is pretty clear

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.

[SaltySpitoon]

Given that hes essentially just another member of DT

You are delusional to think that people see theymos as "just another member of DT" or that he would actually be just a member of DT.

Agreed, Theymos is not a regular user at all. I decided to just remove my entire list and get removed from this whole DT disaster moving forward. The never ending drama of this stuff has gotten old and just ignoring it all makes life easier.

Call me delusional then. Anyone thats been around a while (all parties I'm speaking with now) should at least have the feeling that Theymos isn't petty enough to do anything about it if everyone that he sends a PM to recommending that they do whatever about doesn't do it.

[otrkid1970]

It's simple Lauda broke a clear rule and should be manually removed from DT forever

Considering that they have already resolved this situation, it seems strange to insert yourself into this. It's like offense culture.

Resolved? Lauda broke a RULE punishment should follow like so many you have tagged in the past.

[The-One-Above-All]

Probably because I was never on your trust list, but those that had me on their trust list were requested to exclude me, and not a peep of objection from any of you objecting here today was heard.

What then is the overlap of users? Surely you can comment on their hypocrisy.

As far as I know there is no overlap of individuals that got requests in both instances. There is however overlap in those that dismissed my arguments against Theymos requesting exclusions personally as if he did not also carry the weight of the admin. They were dismissive of or silent in response to the argument then, now they suddenly support the argument. This is not an argument based on principles, it is an argument based on personalities.

When exactly did this happen? I actually would have to re-read whatever happen before I could say anything.

Context would help.

Oh becoming very accommodating now are we not lauda worm tongue. You STATED  you will not work within these new rules, you said he can change the rules or black list you. He was likely trying to be NICE to you rather than outright bitch slap you with a black list in public for us all to gloat over.

Suchslob has just demonstrated clearly that

1. she will not only include you on dt after she knows you lied and scammed
2. she win not only include you on dt and not reverse your trust abuse when you use red trust to hide and facilitate your own scamming
3. she will now try and stab theymos in the back and make him look bad for trying to usher you out of the back door leaving you with some dignity in the hope this now makes you untouchable

she should be blacklisted herself, she is now making a mockery of the trust system by giving lauda POSITIVE trust because she says lauda must have told her the truth atleast once.

She is deliberately not co operating and supporting her pal/alt lauda who is trying to give theymos the big fuck off again.

Get both dirt bags blacklisted.

[theymos]

It's a recommendation, not a demand. As I said:

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP.

As I mentioned in the flags topic, there are three very separate scopes for trust which need to be kept separate. For scammer flags, the point is to damage the person's forum existence in order to deter future scamming. This is a very serious action which should have a very high bar. Because it's so serious, I only want actual agreements considered here. In legal systems, there's additionally such a thing as tort law and statutory law, but the forum is very far from having the kind of cohesive legal system which could handle such things in a halfway-reasonable way. The only thing that approaches clear-cut scamming is violation of an agreement. If non-contractual offenses are allowed in the scammer-flag space, then we're going to get factions of forum users constantly fighting each other, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop. I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.

For non-agreement issues, use a newbie-warning flag and give them a negative trust rating. These actions are in the different scopes of warning newbies or informing other users of your opinions, which have less severe consequences and therefore lower bars.

I hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH, which were created with deception in mind, are technologically bankrupt, and are run by huge assholes, but you can't say that their supporters broke a contract with you when they didn't. Give them a newbie-warning flag if you want, but not a contract-violation flag unless they actually broke a contract with you. (Note that you might have a case for breach of implied contract if you were actually tricked into buying one of these coins instead of BTC.)

[Lauda]

I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds over highly-subjective and/or relatively minor things.

Ironically (assuming that people aren't privately lying to me), you've done the exact opposite. A good portion of people from both sides are dissatisfied. Naturally, the scammers celebrate once more.