PM from admin demanding to exclude a certain user

[The-One-Above-All]

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.

Wrong EVERYONE is satisfied except the DT members that were enjoying being able to use red trust as their own personal weapon for their own means.

Since those parasitic swine are the most vocal in meta you relying on a very bogus metric. I see MOST of those that are NOT GANG members are VERY HAPPY.

Anyone who wants a fair set of transparent rules where every member must be treated equally is happy. Those that were enjoying being part of the self appointed DT crew that all cream off the top sig spots, escrowing positions, campaign manager slots, all red trusting people who dare raise observable events from their past they want to remain hidden are obviously not going to be happy.

Both sides ? there are only 2 types of member.

1. Those that want transparent and fair rules that ensure all members are treated equally.

2. AND THOSE THAT DO NOT.


You are a proven liar and scammer. Who gives one fuck what you think lauda. You were a liar and scammer when you came here. You are a liar and scammer now.

The mere notion of you being in a position of trust is quite ludicrous.

[1713575875]

1713575875

[1713575875]

1713575875

[1713575875]

1713575875

[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.

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

Context would help.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917438.msg10072726#msg10072726

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.

It has been a day, isn't it a bit early to call this a never ending feud? I see a good portion of people satisfied as well. I think you give yourself too much credit as if you are the only levee between a flood of scammers and the forum.

[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.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917438.msg10072726#msg10072726

Do you really think lauda gives one fuck about anything that happend before to you tec?  he is trying to garner some spin here for his own ends


Theymos has eventually demonstrated he WANTS to provide the standards you were requesting. Let's not fuck it up at this stage.

This is a huge step forward in satoshi's end goal. Every person is treated equally and fairly according to a set of transparent RULES.

This is what the trust system should be. You can prove or demonstrate strongly someone is a scammer then they get a scam tag. Anyone who wants to use red trust for their OWN purposes or to silence whistle blowing have NO place in positions of trust.

[Lauda]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917438.msg10072726#msg10072726

Oh selective enforcement is nothing new here. Look at EFS and the Turkish section. Remind me when theymos did something about him?

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.

It has been a day, isn't it a bit early to call this a never ending feud? I see a good portion of people satisfied as well. I think you give yourself too much credit as if you are the only levee between a flood of scammers and the forum.

I am speaking on behalf of messages that I have received today; my own dissatisfaction is irrelevant. I have shown the the system is flawed in many ways (some of which are trivial e.g. no edit/deletion). Whether it created good as you think it will, or whether it created more bad as I belief it will you can argue with whoever participates in the system down the road. My exclusion and vocal dissent against theymos on all platforms will remain until scammers are back where they belong (and who I mean by scammers, you can rightfully ignore anyone I have tagged - think about the tags before my time e.g.).

[The-One-Above-All]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917438.msg10072726#msg10072726

Oh selective enforcement is nothing new here. Look at EFS and the Turkish section. Remind me when theymos did something about him?

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.

It has been a day, isn't it a bit early to call this a never ending feud? I see a good portion of people satisfied as well. I think you give yourself too much credit as if you are the only levee between a flood of scammers and the forum.

I am speaking on behalf of messages that I have received today; my own dissatisfaction is irrelevant. I have shown the the system is flawed in many ways (some of which are trivial e.g. no edit/deletion). Whether it created good as you think it will, or whether it created more bad as I belief it will you can argue with whoever participates in the system down the road. My exclusion and vocal dissent against theymos on all platforms will remain until scammers are back where they belong (and who I mean by scammers, you can rightfully ignore anyone I have tagged - think about the tags before my time e.g.).

You totally demonstrated the prior system needed an upgrade by using red trust to facilitate your own scamming.

When people who have OBSERVABLY scammed in the past like you have start giving scam tags to the people that outed you as a lying scammer back then, simply for daring to mention it then you know change was coming fool.

You have demonstrated nothing. Nobody cares about your vocal dissent. We will crush you down every time you try to bully theymos to bend to your scamming and extorting ways.

You are a SCAMMER do you not get that. Who cares what you and your scamming crew of scum say. Fuck off.

Please tell me your username on all other platforms we will be there with the PROOF you are a scammer and piece of shit to demonstrate to people you are not worth listening too.

Stop threatening theymos in public you look foolish. PROVEN Scammers are going to speak out against theymos for pushing out fair and transparent rules that ensure all persons are treated equally. ....LOL ohhh noooo

and then lauda said : theymos stopped me using red trust to silence whistle blowers presenting observable instances of my lying and scamming.....hahaha


Whilst lauda was holding a nice bag of these instamined coins..

Closure or loss of some earnings...hmmmm. No big exchanges will risk it if they try and ban it. It won't have this much volume after the pump is done.

Don't be such an obvious pumper, at least pretend to consider some possible negatives. The fact you believe there was no instamine is the best part.

I'd rather be closed than submit to the foul government. There is no pump going on. We have just started to get the attention of some media, wait for the full impact. There was no instamine, I was there.

[SaltySpitoon]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917438.msg10072726#msg10072726

Oh selective enforcement is nothing new here. Look at EFS and the Turkish section. Remind me when theymos did something about him?

Very much the same situation. Theymos (and others) PMed DT members with Tecshare on their trust list back then to ask them to reconsider. Its not an uncommon occurrence from Theymos or other DT members. Sometimes you agree, and sometimes you kindly tell them to mind their own business.

[Lauda]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917438.msg10072726#msg10072726

Oh selective enforcement is nothing new here. Look at EFS and the Turkish section. Remind me when theymos did something about him?

Very much the same situation. Theymos (and others) PMed DT members with Tecshare on their trust list back then to ask them to reconsider. Its not an uncommon occurrence from Theymos or other DT members. Sometimes you agree, and sometimes you kindly tell them to mind their own business.

Actually the initial response by theymos is just added proof for Tecshare's claim. Not only are forum-rules being selectively enforced from the top-down (by the forum-staff), so is the trust system. Lauda: Get tagged for one instance of lying on a ridiculous pre-written flag. Quickseller: Gets ignored after 100 cases of lying. I also find it odd that nobody merited that thread, so I just did.
Did I introduce you to clown pepe? He's officially joined the forum.

[TECSHARE]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=917438.msg10072726#msg10072726

Oh selective enforcement is nothing new here. Look at EFS and the Turkish section. Remind me when theymos did something about him?

Very much the same situation. Theymos (and others) PMed DT members with Tecshare on their trust list back then to ask them to reconsider. Its not an uncommon occurrence from Theymos or other DT members. Sometimes you agree, and sometimes you kindly tell them to mind their own business.

Actually the initial response by theymos is just added proof for Tecshare's claim. Not only are forum-rules being selectively enforced from the top-down (by the forum-staff), so is the trust system. Lauda: Get tagged for one instance of lying on a ridiculous pre-written flag. Quickseller: Gets ignored after 100 cases of lying. I also find it odd that nobody merited that thread, so I just did.
Did I introduce you to clown pepe? He's officially joined the forum.

The way I see it the recent changes by Theymos has largely rectified this selective enforcement and created a more equitable system. Furthermore this incident also being applied to you demonstrates to me that it was not an isolated (selective) incident. BTW, stop trying to force memes you fucking normie, its lame.

[Lauda]

The way I see it the recent changes by Theymos has largely rectified this selective enforcement and created a more equitable system.

That's the goal, but it doesn't do that. You can still selectively enforce whatever you want with flag type 1 (you won't get blacklisted). You can't use flag type 2 nor 3 for it though. Additionally, his own actions have enacted the resolution of the previous guideline (you no longer need to have any relation to scamming whatsoever to receive negative ratings), and you can leave negative ratings almost as you see fit (which, for those is worse than before).

Furthermore this incident also being applied to you demonstrates to me that it was not an isolated (selective) incident.

Selective, unless he tags Quicksie for starters and maybe fires EFS et. al.

BTW, stop trying to force memes you fucking normie, its lame.

They are great. The whole world is a clown show, and the forum has joined the game.

[Quickseller]

hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH,

This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda.

On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters.

[mikeywith]

Wrong EVERYONE is satisfied

You can't possibly think so, I am not satisfied with the new changes, you can see to yourself, look at the rating i left for scammers, they are now almost invisible.

 Not saying i 100% agree with the previous settings, for example non of the feedback on CH profile for example are valid, they are misues/abuse call it how you like it , but you don't make a system that releases a 1000 scammer from their cage only to be fair to 10 innocent members whom have been abused/mistreated by DT members.

there were other  simple solutions to that problem, but Theymos picked the long path that might never see the light.

[Lauda]

hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH,

This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda.

On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters.

Wrong. Theymos is willing to let people get scammed. I am not. That's the difference between liberals and centre-right. Here you are, lying again. Yet theymos won't tag you. Honk-honk some more. 

[SaltySpitoon]

Actually the initial response by theymos is just added proof for Tecshare's claim. Not only are forum-rules being selectively enforced from the top-down (by the forum-staff), so is the trust system. Lauda: Get tagged for one instance of lying on a ridiculous pre-written flag. Quickseller: Gets ignored after 100 cases of lying. I also find it odd that nobody merited that thread, so I just did.

Come now, you've been a moderator as well. You know exactly how harsh the directives Theymos forces upon the poor staff, and the constant state of fear they are in over whether they will still have a position or an account if they disagree with the supreme overlord's opinion.

Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on all of the newbies that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

[Lauda]

Come now, you've been a moderator as well. You know exactly how harsh the directives Theymos forces upon the poor staff, and the constant state of fear they are in over whether they will still have a position or an account if they disagree with the supreme overlord's opinion.

You're kidding, right? He's as distant as possible, and as a staff member (especially of a local section) you can reach absurd levels of abuse (as demonstrated by EFS) without any action taking place. Maybe it was like that under BadBear, which I unfortunately only briefly was a part of. Under theymos this is definitely not the case unless things have completely changed since 2016.

Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on all of the newbies that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

Firstly, no. Secondly, exaggeration fallacy.

[TECSHARE]

hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH,

This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda.

On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters.

Wrong. Theymos is willing to let people get scammed. I am not. That's the difference between liberals and centre-right. Here you are, lying again. Yet theymos won't tag you. Honk-honk some more. 

I support the changes. Am I a liberal? I think pretty much anyone who has spent any time in Politics and Society would disagree. In fact I would describe your approach as totalitarian.

[Quickseller]

hate having to "defend" BSV and BCH,

This is a good example as to the difference between theymos and lauda.

On one hand, theymos is willing to defend projects he, by all accounts hates (maybe a strong word, IDK), in the name of doing what is fair. On the other hand, lauda, and his supporters are willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the ethics and legality to maintain power, even if this means disregarding facts, and disregarding substantial evidence of scamming by one of his supporters.

Wrong. Theymos is willing to let people get scammed. I am not. That's the difference between liberals and centre-right.  

1, I am not liberal, 2 you are not centre-right. You are authoritarian, who disregards consensus of opposition to what you are doing, and tries (often successfully) to silence those who criticize you. Further, you are corrupt.  

2, you do not care about anyone getting scammed. You do not prevent anyone from getting scammed, rather the opposite, as you have diluted the effect of negative trust so much that people have learned to ignore it. In the process, you have damaged the reputations of many people for arbitrary reasons, often without any kind of violation of even a clear guideline.

Based on your corruption and history of extortion and scamming, you should be given an untrustworthy tag similar to the one that Matthew M Wright has.

Actually the initial response by theymos is just added proof for Tecshare's claim. Not only are forum-rules being selectively enforced from the top-down (by the forum-staff), so is the trust system. Lauda: Get tagged for one instance of lying on a ridiculous pre-written flag. Quickseller: Gets ignored after 100 cases of lying. I also find it odd that nobody merited that thread, so I just did.

Come now, you've been a moderator as well. You know exactly how harsh the directives Theymos forces upon the poor staff, and the constant state of fear they are in over whether they will still have a position or an account if they disagree with the supreme overlord's opinion.

Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on all of the newbies that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

He is being intentionally dishonest. He has always used this strong language whenever he was excluded from DT multiple times. I suspect this somewhat has to do with why he kept receiving additional inclusions under the old system. There was never any basis for this kind of language. 

[Lauda]

I support the changes. Am I a liberal? I think pretty much anyone who has spent any time in Politics and Society would disagree.

You don't have to be liberal to support it, you can just be confused. Maybe we need a couple more thousand people to lose money in BSV and Bcash before we start realizing that this actually causes damage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In fact I would describe your approach as totalitarian.

I would never.

See, more lies. Where's the tag theymos?

[SaltySpitoon]

Come now, you've been a moderator as well. You know exactly how harsh the directives Theymos forces upon the poor staff, and the constant state of fear they are in over whether they will still have a position or an account if they disagree with the supreme overlord's opinion.

You're kidding, right? He's as distant as possible, and as a staff member (especially of a local section) you can reach absurd levels of abuse (as demonstrated by EFS) without any action taking place. Maybe it was like that under BadBear, which I unfortunately only briefly was a part of. Under theymos this is definitely not the case unless things have completely changed since 2016.

Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on all of the newbies that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

Firstly, no. Secondly, exaggeration fallacy.

It was meant to be sarcasm, I figured you'd pick up on it immediately. And yeah, thats my point. Just because staff members may be coincidentally involved, doesn't mean Theymos is funneling orders down and forcing DT staff or otherwise to obey. Theymos sent a PM asking people to reevaluate their choice, you have sent people PMs asking them to reevaluate their choice, other DT members have done so as well. Because Theymos is distant and there is no impending hammer, it is not selective enforcement by staff or otherwise.

Fine, Is Quickseller on DT? Why isn't Theymos dropping the hammer as well on legendary members that have false claims against people? I suppose it really is unfair.

My point was that you got the attention of Theymos because you are in the position to get it. Any other member on DT doing the same thing would have also gotten the same PM sent.

[JayJuanGee]

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

I hope that you are not giving up on us.

Seems to me that BIG escalations and never-ending feuds over fairly petty stuff remains part of any active forum in a bitcoin community that involves actual humans.

Don't get me wrong, it seems to me that your various attempts at tweaking forum systems including adding merit and making various tweaks to trust (including this latest flag addition) serve as great attempts to make forum improvements, yet people are a moving target, and I doubt that forum tweaking is ever going to be "over with," and I doubt that BIG feuds over petty squabbles will ever be stamped out of any kind of decent forum, such as this one... accordingly, to me, it seems that BIG feuds and petty squabbles are what humans are all about, so please don't attempt to turn us into bots......    

[bones261]

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.

   Yes, and now it is clear that one of the ways that theymos will seek to remove people from DT ASAP is to PM a recommendation to DT1 members. Since it is now clear that this is indeed a recommendation rather than a demand, those DT1 members are free to either take these recommendations to heart or take them with a grain of salt. I am uncertain if this matter will be accelerated any further if it does not go in the direction theymos is expecting.