realr0ach is a danger to newbies and guests.

[TECSHARE]

snip
If you didn't see it, here's theymos' official take on "Type-1" (yellow) flags:

Type-1 flags are more subjective. If you believe:
 - Anyone dealing with the user is at a high risk of losing money, due to red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and not just due to the user's opinions.
 - Enough of the above-mentioned factors are listed in the linked topic.
 
Then you can support it. If you believe the first but not the second, then you should oppose it and create a separate flag. If you believe that the first is incorrect (ie. people dealing with the user are not at a particularly high risk of losing money), then you should oppose it.

The type-1 flags on Quickseller, BSV, etc. aren't misuse of the system by either supporters or opponents.

This is why I don't feel bad about supporting this flag. Was on the fence about it for a while. I wouldn't open one like this myself, but in this case, I do support it.

People see what they want to see. I quoted it earlier, but theymos uses long words sometimes.


After another outburst of Ibian racist stuff on WO thread:

Anyway, what a shitshow I just read through.
snip~

I disagree with Ibian's opinions on race and religion last night, and always, and with the other little trolls that came out being all raycis and shit. But I don't raise newbie warning flags against them because they don't have documented dishonesty throughout their posts as shown in the op, this thread and the previous one referred to. They aren't showing any dishonesty. If someone doesn't believe that roach is dishonest or that that is a 'red flag' from the links, fine, it's a subjective flag, vote against or abstain. It's not about roach's opinions or mine. Other people are shown in those links to think him dishonest, well before this flag.

If someone can't bear the subjective balance within theymos' description and further guidelines on newbie flags, @him not me.

You keep saying it is not about his opinions over and over again, and then source nothing but his opinions. Just saying it is not about his opinions doesn't magically make it true. You aren't substantiating anything, just making empty claims.

[1714065627]

1714065627

[1714065627]

1714065627

[1714065627]

1714065627

[Last of the V8s]

You keep saying it is not about his opinions over and over again, and then source nothing but his opinions. Just saying it is not about his opinions doesn't magically make it true. You aren't substantiating anything, just making empty claims.

You keep saying it is about his opinions over and over again. Just saying it is about his opinions doesn't magically make it true.
Some people's subjective experience in this case is that there are opinions and some that there are lies. Some believe the claims are empty. Others do not.

[TECSHARE]

You keep saying it is not about his opinions over and over again, and then source nothing but his opinions. Just saying it is not about his opinions doesn't magically make it true. You aren't substantiating anything, just making empty claims.

You keep saying it is about his opinions over and over again. Just saying it is about his opinions doesn't magically make it true.
Some people's subjective experience in this case is that there are opinions and some that there are lies. Some believe the claims are empty. Others do not.

Great use of logic. The only problem is the burden of proof is on you not me. The subjectivity is exactly what you are exploiting to CLAIM he is lying in an effort to punish him for his opinions. You don't give a shit about this community or the fidelity of the trust system, you put your need to punish ideas that upset you above all of it. The trust system is just another tool for you to exploit.

[El duderino_]

For a while I thought you were being serious, i thought "they" brain washed you ,anyhow fuck Silver ! Hodl bitcoin , actually come to think about it , realr0ach doesn't seem to be that stupid to believe everything thing he says, in fact he does sound like an intelligent person to some extent, maybe he is trying to spread some fud in order to buy BTC for cheap ?   

He will always be to proud to return or the dumb (he is smart) but just isn't in this particular most important world changing thing...

So actually how smart he writes will always be flawed and I must believe the r0ach is the most stupid person alive today, I hope he get payed in some useless silver pieces for he's personal war what he's fighting on he's very own in that WO-thread!

[nutildah]

Great use of logic. The only problem is the burden of proof is on you not me. The subjectivity is exactly what you are exploiting to CLAIM he is lying in an effort to punish him for his opinions. You don't give a shit about this community or the fidelity of the trust system, you put your need to punish ideas that upset you above all of it. The trust system is just another tool for you to exploit.

Yeah, and you would never do that, would you? You would never leave trust feedback for someone because you consider them to be a "mentally ill stalker," because you're the bigger man, right?

Just as you consider Vod unsafe to trade with because of his "mental illness," we feel the same way about roach.

I assure you your efforts to twist this semantically will be futile, so I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

[TECSHARE]

Great use of logic. The only problem is the burden of proof is on you not me. The subjectivity is exactly what you are exploiting to CLAIM he is lying in an effort to punish him for his opinions. You don't give a shit about this community or the fidelity of the trust system, you put your need to punish ideas that upset you above all of it. The trust system is just another tool for you to exploit.

Yeah, and you would never do that, would you? You would never leave trust feedback for someone because you consider them to be a "mentally ill stalker," because you're the bigger man, right?

Just as you consider Vod unsafe to trade with because of his "mental illness," we feel the same way about roach.

I assure you your efforts to twist this semantically will be futile, so I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

Oh, so you are done pretending to ignore me again? I already responded to your implication that my rating for him was for being "mentally ill" 3 times, but reality is secondary to the narrative you would like to portray.

I see, so suddenly you want protection under my metric! Thanks for demonstrating its usefulness. Unfortunately we are not operating under my objective metric of a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, we are operating under a subjective free for all, one you take full advantage of on a regular basis. Under the current standard we are operating under, even Theymos himself said leaving you a negative rating was completely valid, and after seeing you feign remorse and then move right back into unrepentant abuse just as you always do I decided to leave that rating for you because you more than earned it. As far as your mental illness, that is evident from your own continued unyielding escalation of unrepentant abusive behavior, but that is not why I left you the rating, I left it because you doxed and reported a user to the IRS as a form of retribution for their criticism of you. It is more than evident you have trouble controlling yourself.

You will notice the subject of the sentence in my rating is "stalker", meaning that is the focus of the statement, but you keep imagineering whatever suits you.

I don't see this user stalking anyone. I don't see this user abusing the trust system. I don't see this user putting people at physical risk by doxing other users. You did say one true thing though in your statement "we feel the same way about roach." This is about your hurt feelings and your compulsive need to punish him for having ideas and opinions that hurt your feelings. This is not what the trust system is for.

[nutildah]

You did say one true thing though in your statement "we feel the same way about roach." This is about your hurt feelings and your compulsive need to punish him for having ideas and opinions that hurt your feelings. This is not what the trust system is for.

You cut out part of my sentence in order to take it out of context. The whole sentence reads:

Just as you consider Vod unsafe to trade with because of his "mental illness," we feel the same way about roach.

There's several degrees of difference between the trustworthiness of Vod and roach (Vod is much more highly trusted and respected around here despite your opinion), and you've never traded with him. So what exactly is the difference? How do you consider yourself not abusing the trust system but V8's is?

[TECSHARE]

You did say one true thing though in your statement "we feel the same way about roach." This is about your hurt feelings and your compulsive need to punish him for having ideas and opinions that hurt your feelings. This is not what the trust system is for.

You cut out part of my sentence in order to take it out of context. The whole sentence reads:

Just as you consider Vod unsafe to trade with because of his "mental illness," we feel the same way about roach.

There's several degrees of difference between the trustworthiness of Vod and roach (Vod is much more highly trusted and respected around here despite your opinion), and you've never traded with him. So what exactly is the difference? How do you consider yourself not abusing the trust system but V8's is?

I quoted you in full, then I quoted a subsection of text. No context was removed. You are just repeating yourself at this point, but whats new. This is blatant abuse of the trust system, using it to punish people for their opinions. I didn't abuse the trust system to punish Vod for his opinion, he has however done so several times to myself and countless times to others. That is the difference. You enjoy your delusional double standards, and be careful not to wash that brown mark of protection from your nose.

[nutildah]

I quoted you in full, then I quoted a subsection of text. No context was removed. You are just repeating yourself at this point, but whats new. This is blatant abuse of the trust system, using it to punish people for their opinions. I didn't abuse the trust system to punish Vod for his opinion, he has however done so several times to myself and countless times to others. That is the difference. You enjoy your delusional double standards, and be careful not to wash that brown mark of protection from your nose.

I feel the same way about your feedback towards Vod. Its based on your personal disliking of him. He's never caused you any loss financially and you've never traded with him, yet you felt the need to leave him a red trust. At least you shut up about wanting a system with "objective standards," that's a nice change.

Who "protects" me BTW? What would be their reasoning? Perhaps if you contributed something positive to the forum, your existence here would be seen as having some value.

[TECSHARE]

I quoted you in full, then I quoted a subsection of text. No context was removed. You are just repeating yourself at this point, but whats new. This is blatant abuse of the trust system, using it to punish people for their opinions. I didn't abuse the trust system to punish Vod for his opinion, he has however done so several times to myself and countless times to others. That is the difference. You enjoy your delusional double standards, and be careful not to wash that brown mark of protection from your nose.

I feel the same way about your feedback towards Vod. Its based on your personal disliking of him. He's never caused you any loss financially and you've never traded with him, yet you felt the need to leave him a red trust. At least you shut up about wanting a system with "objective standards," that's a nice change.

Who "protects" me BTW? What would be their reasoning? Perhaps if you contributed something positive to the forum, your existence here would be seen as having some value.

You will notice your statements always are about your feelings. My rating for him had nothing to do with my feelings. If it was feelings my rating was based on I would have negative rated Vod years ago, but I never have until then. I contribute plenty to the forum just by jamming up 2bit authoritarians like you. Remind me what does any of this have to do witht he topic at hand? Oh right, absolutely nothing, this is just yet another way for you to exploit the trust system to punish violations of your frail feelings.

[El duderino_]

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

[nutildah]

I contribute plenty to the forum just by jamming up 2bit authoritarians like you.

Spoken like a true troll.

You don't have to accept this flag as legitimate. Something tells me the world will continue to turn.

[TECSHARE]

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

 There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for.

[El duderino_]

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

 There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for.

If everybody thinks it needs 0-support then its flawed and not activated, I wasn't gonna create myself (thought about it, but V8 explained it better) and with the flag being out, I was sure to support it!

So if more think samewise then they will support if more think like you then they will oppose. 'crystal clear'

[TECSHARE]

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

 There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for.

If everybody thinks it needs 0-support then its flawed and not activated, I wasn't gonna create myself (thought about it, but V8 explained it better) and with the flag being out, I was sure to support it!

So if more think samewise then they will support if more think like you then they will oppose. 'crystal clear'

I don't know if you have noticed, but just because a mob forms doesn't mean they are acting justly. Theymos made it very explicit that flags period should not be used for punishing people's opinions. I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence presented that this flag is for anything other than his opinions.

[JayJuanGee]

just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.

 There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for.

If everybody thinks it needs 0-support then its flawed and not activated, I wasn't gonna create myself (thought about it, but V8 explained it better) and with the flag being out, I was sure to support it!

So if more think samewise then they will support if more think like you then they will oppose. 'crystal clear'

I don't know if you have noticed, but just because a mob forms doesn't mean they are acting justly. Theymos made it very explicit that flags period should not be used for punishing people's opinions. I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence presented that this flag is for anything other than his opinions.

At this time, I am not going to support this particular flag, but I am not going to oppose it either.

I, personally, believe that this particular Roach flag and the support for the flag goes beyond opposing roach for his opinion, or at least there is more than ample reason and evidence (provided by V8, others and Roach himself) to oppose roach for his actual trolling and shill style - which is a form of disrespect of the forum, disrespect of others, which are reasons that a lot of trolls/shills are banned from many forums. 

Likely, since Roach is still here, posting away on a semi-regular basis, admins have not been able to conclude that his conduct has crossed a high enough threshold for banning, but there does seem to be sufficient argument and evidence that his conduct has rises to a high enough level to receive a flag (especially within an acceptable range of reasonableness in the discretion of some other members - some of whom have chosen to support this particular flag). 

Of course, the posting behaviors of roach - not just his opinion -  actually interfere with the ability of threads to stay substantively focused.  So, contrary to your assertion, Tecshare, I doubt that this particular flag is merely based on a disagreement of Roach's opinion, and I think V8 and substantive discussion in this thread provides reasonably sufficient evidence that the flag is not merely because of an opposition to Roach's opinion as you are attempting to frame the matter.

[TECSHARE]

At this time, I am not going to support this particular flag, but I am not going to oppose it either.

I, personally, believe that this particular Roach flag and the support for the flag goes beyond opposing roach for his opinion, or at least there is more than ample reason and evidence (provided by V8, others and Roach himself) to oppose roach for his actual trolling and shill style - which is a form of disrespect of the forum, disrespect of others, which are reasons that a lot of trolls/shills are banned from many forums.  

Likely, since Roach is still here, posting away on a semi-regular basis, admins have not been able to conclude that his conduct has crossed a high enough threshold for banning, but there does seem to be sufficient argument and evidence that his conduct has rises to a high enough level to receive a flag (especially within an acceptable range of reasonableness in the discretion of some other members - some of whom have chosen to support this particular flag).  

Of course, the posting behaviors of roach - not just his opinion -  actually interfere with the ability of threads to stay substantively focused.  So, contrary to your assertion, Tecshare, I doubt that this particular flag is merely based on a disagreement of Roach's opinion, and I think V8 and substantive discussion in this thread provides reasonably sufficient evidence that the flag is not merely because of an opposition to Roach's opinion as you are attempting to frame the matter.

If what you claim is correct, then all of those issues fall under forum rules. Anyone interfering with thread focus is a matter for moderation, not the trust system. As you have already stated the moderators have not deemed his conduct sufficiently disruptive enough to take action against him, which is exactly why this step is being taken against him. Since the moderators won't do what you want and silence this person, you all are attempting to penalize him for his opinions via abuse of the trust system. This is not "many forums", this is one of the only places left on the internet where people are still allowed to speak freely, and I would think you people would understand the value of that over trying to punitively punish some one by abusing a system designed to protect people from fraud when making exchanges.

You do a semantic dance to put lipstick on this pig all you want, this is base authoritarian behavior, and it is destructive to the cohesion of the trust system on top of it. The levels of freedom of speech allowed on this forum and the fidelity of the trust system are exponentially more important than your collective butt hurt over some "troll" as you define it. Also lets all put aside that another definition of troll is some one who has opinions that agitate you. Good thing you have this nifty system to abuse to sooth your collective butt hurt and make yourself feel like you have some power over him right? You redefine his opinions 100 different ways, it has nothing to do with trading or risk of trades, it is just a pathetic attempt to punish him over his opinion.

The cost of everyone being able to speak freely here is occasionally some one agitates or offends you. Deal with it. If you can't deal with it put him on ignore. Stop using the trust system as a crutch to deal with your inability do control your own emotional state. This flag is pathetic, and so is everyone supporting it.

[JayJuanGee]

At this time, I am not going to support this particular flag, but I am not going to oppose it either.

I, personally, believe that this particular Roach flag and the support for the flag goes beyond opposing roach for his opinion, or at least there is more than ample reason and evidence (provided by V8, others and Roach himself) to oppose roach for his actual trolling and shill style - which is a form of disrespect of the forum, disrespect of others, which are reasons that a lot of trolls/shills are banned from many forums.  

Likely, since Roach is still here, posting away on a semi-regular basis, admins have not been able to conclude that his conduct has crossed a high enough threshold for banning, but there does seem to be sufficient argument and evidence that his conduct has rises to a high enough level to receive a flag (especially within an acceptable range of reasonableness in the discretion of some other members - some of whom have chosen to support this particular flag).  

Of course, the posting behaviors of roach - not just his opinion -  actually interfere with the ability of threads to stay substantively focused.  So, contrary to your assertion, Tecshare, I doubt that this particular flag is merely based on a disagreement of Roach's opinion, and I think V8 and substantive discussion in this thread provides reasonably sufficient evidence that the flag is not merely because of an opposition to Roach's opinion as you are attempting to frame the matter.

If what you claim is correct, then all of those issues fall under forum rules. Anyone interfering with thread focus is a matter for moderation, not the trust system. As you have already stated the moderators have not deemed his conduct sufficiently disruptive enough to take action against him, which is exactly why this step is being taken against him. Since the moderators won't do what you want and silence this person, you all are attempting to penalize him for his opinions via abuse of the trust system. This is not "many forums", this is one of the only places left on the internet where people are still allowed to speak freely, and I would think you people would understand the value of that over trying to punitively punish some one by abusing a system designed to protect people from fraud when making exchanges.

You do a semantic dance to put lipstick on this pig all you want, this is base authoritarian behavior, and it is destructive to the cohesion of the trust system on top of it. The levels of freedom of speech allowed on this forum and the fidelity of the trust system are exponentially more important than your collective butt hurt over some "troll" as you define it. Also lets all put aside that another definition of troll is some one who has opinions that agitate you. Good thing you have this nifty system to abuse to sooth your collective butt hurt and make yourself feel like you have some power over him right? You redefine his opinions 100 different ways, it has nothing to do with trading or risk of trades, it is just a pathetic attempt to punish him over his opinion.

The cost of everyone being able to speak freely here is occasionally some one agitates or offends you. Deal with it. If you can't deal with it put him on ignore. Stop using the trust system as a crutch to deal with your inability do control your own emotional state. This flag is pathetic, and so is everyone supporting it.

The essence seems to be that there is difference of opinion regarding reasonable use of these new things, labelled trust flags, and some folks have concluded that they believe it is reasonable to use such trust flags to draw negative attention to persons, such as roach, about whom the forum is not willing to ban or to otherwise close down, so in that regard, Roach's free speech is not stopped, it is just accompanied by a label that might warn others that his conduct has gone to such a level that some members of the community believe it warrants a flag - even though admin has not concluded to ban.... ...

And, hey, you never know, if there is enough support for various flags against certain members, those flags could be used as part of additional evidence (that might not have otherwise been available) to suspend or ban some members, such as roach.  Whether roach is going to be banned or suspended based on these flags (which I personally doubt) is another question.. like the price of bitcoin, difficult to predict the future with any kind of meaningful precision.

[El duderino_]

Still if one is here speaking free mind of bombing and terrorism etc that would be a NO GO imo, (to be extreme) if one was talking people into that sh*t and almost recruiting to do so, that would be eliminated imo

So r0ach is imo also a bit extreme when he talks like jews need to be gone, (said in in many different manners) ....
Then I suggest people reading him taking care as he already lost a lot of credibility with his free speaking in the forum, why are you so difficult and can't you see that its a warning flag to take care with this dude, cause what you read could harm especially when people are less good minded or bit simpel....
Also F*** man its a soft flag, we talk with this dude for over a few 1000 pages, I guess the F*** we know what we are saying and I don't think the OP is making outrageous flags or anything, V8 is a highly recommended member and I would support him with a lot as trust him with BTC!
I will not do that with that F***ed up being of a r0ach.

[bones261]

So r0ach is imo also a bit extreme when he talks like jews need to be gone, (said in in many different manners) ....

   Yes, r0ach keeps blowing those dog whistles. He always states it in a way that doesn't overtly call for genocide. However, anyone with half a brain can gather what he means when he states that jews need to be expelled from every nation on Earth. I doubt that he means putting them in some ghettos on seasteads or putting them on a colony on the moon. (Although he could mean just sterilizing them and making their "cult" illegal. Who knows.) Also, he talks frequently about preparing for some kind of war against them.
    Unfortunately, the OP has made it clear that the flag isn't about r0ach's extreme views on many things. Otherwise, I would be more tempted to support it. After all, I doubt any jew would be perfectly safe having any dealings with him, much less financial dealings. Furthermore, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want to have any dealings with him either. After all, what woman wants to do deals with a guy who basically believes all woman are gold digging whores?
     Also, I have to admit that I actually listened to some of his financial advise and bought a small amount of silver with BTC in mid 2017. Needless to say, that appears to be a bad trade considering the current price of silver and BTC. However, I don't think we should set a precedent by yellow tagging people that give bad investment advise. Also, I haven't sold my silver yet. So who knows, maybe it will skyrocket to the moon, like it did in the early 80s.