[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content

[suchmoon]

The real problem is the person who has this user included. He just entered DT1 again.
His name starts with T and ends with ECSHARE 

Yeah but he's never ever wrong and I'm sure he'll be around shortly to tell us that

BTW the person quoted in the OP doesn't belong in a sane person's trust list for many many reasons even if you think that homophobic comments wouldn't affect their judgement. Looks like some kind of affirmative action on TECSHARE's part to support shit-stirring scammers.

[1714139378]

1714139378

[1714139378]

1714139378

[1714139378]

1714139378

[bob123]

Oh nice, TECSHARE made it back into DT1, what a time to be alive

According to the latest trust data dump:


TECSHARE is included by 10 DT1's:

Code:

OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
qwk
Ticked
Rmcdermott927
teeGUMES
WhiteManWhite
Kalemder
bobita
Matthias9515

TECSHARE is excluded by 10 DT1's

Code:

Vod
Foxpup
Flying Hellfish
TMAN
TheNewAnon135246
mindrust
suchmoon
owlcatz
nutildah
The Pharmacist

Unfortunately i am not keeping the history of data dumps.
I only always work with the latest data, so i can't say what exactly changed here.

[LoyceMobile]

Unfortunately i am not keeping the history of data dumps.

I do, see http://loyce.club/trust/

[bob123]

Unfortunately i am not keeping the history of data dumps.

I do, see http://loyce.club/trust/

Oh.. how could i forget our Data-scraping-AI-machine 

Thanks 


Based on last week:

TECSHARE is included by 9 DT1's:

Code:

OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
qwk
Ticked
Rmcdermott927
teeGUMES
WhiteManWhite
bobita
Matthias9515

TECSHARE is excluded by 10 DT1's

Code:

Vod
Foxpup
Flying Hellfish
TMAN
TheNewAnon135246
mindrust
suchmoon
owlcatz
nutildah
The Pharmacist

Seems like Kalemder included him.

[suchmoon]

Seems like Kalemder included him.

As stompix helpfully pointed out on page 1

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182672.msg52390033#msg52390033

[marlboroza]

His name starts with T and ends with ECSHARE  

T ?

Yeah but he's never ever wrong and I'm sure he'll be around shortly to tell us that

BTW the person quoted in the OP doesn't belong in a sane person's trust list for many many reasons even if you think that homophobic comments wouldn't affect their judgement. Looks like some kind of affirmative action on TECSHARE's part to support shit-stirring scammers.

Maybe T will place something like this on their trust page:



Something like...

"openly supports beating the hell out of people for free who don't share their sexual orientation"

Lets see how will T do his DT thingy this time.

[DaveF]

Back in June when I posted this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5154576
I was hoping that DT1  / DT2 drama would calm down a bit.

Guess I was wrong.

The issue is IMO and continues to be we are trying to take several complex issues and shrink them down to merit & trust & feedback.
There are several members of this board (one of whom is on my trust list) that I can't fucking stand and think they are an ass.
But I trust them not to rip you off. I would not want to go out for a beer with them. I would not want to hang out with them.
Here on the board, I can post and comment with them and say with 99.999% confidence that they will not rip you off.
I have bought from them, I have sold to them. 0 issues.

This is because we have a limited way of doing this so we work with what we have.

It's also why after creating my trust list I have slowed down adding people because it requires more thought.

That is also why there are some people NOT on my trust list. Going back though years of posts, they are VERY VERY helpful, and polite, and VERY VERY useful to the forum.
They fight scams and protect newbies. BUT...they have not bought or sold a thing.
How can you trust them? They should have a lot of merit (which they do), but they also have a lot of positive trust and feedback (which are linked).
Trust? You have had 0 money dealings on the forum So while I trust you to fight scams, we have no idea if you are an honest trader.
They should have a lot of good feedback comments about them, but trust. Sorry no.

Which is why, going back to the post I referenced above, I think we NEED more data points.

Yeah, I know a lot of you disagree with what I am saying. But I think many of you don't notice how much trading goes on here and how desperate we are to know if we can trust the other people.

-Dave

[Harlot]

Without knowing the name of the poster I would stay know. If he has a personal biased towards one kind of gender from our members then you know the outcome of any kind of conversation in any topic would be really know good. Saying those words in the forum alone shows his attitude towards one kind of gender, it would be more toxic rather than do any good in the forum.

[ChiBitCTy]

A statement like this is morally and ethically wrong, and shows that the creator has mental instability and a lack of common sense to boot. These are all things that make its author 100% absolutely not fit for DT.

On a personal note you should be fucking disgusted with what kind of human being you became. Sickens me this shit is still so prevalent in 2019.

Well the person who posted that is likely very young by the posting style, likely just mouthing off and wouldn't do anything at all to any homosexuals. That does not invalidate your point that it is morally and ethically wrong and demonstrates poor judgement and attitude.  However as you yourself are not above a bit of morally and ethically wrong doing for direct financial gain in terms of the fact you are a campaign scammer. So will bend your ethics and morals for financial gain.

Coupled with the fact that you include on your DT list other persons that have undeniably done things morally and ethically wrong for direct financial gain.

This you can not deny.

So I say again that since the trust system is there specifically NOT there to protect people from homosexual negative rants but  IS THERE to protect people from financial wrong doing and scamming. Then all your indignation at this person being on the trust system is perhaps misplaced and members should be MORE directed to yours and your scamming pals observable wrong doing that is independently verifiable.

For that reason we say again clearly that this person is probably unsuitable for a TRUST position but he is MORE suitable than ANY person that has demonstrated a propensity for financially motivated wrong doing.

It is quite clear.

Can you and steamtyme pull up your DT includes?? and all the others that are CERTAIN that you can not have people that do and say things that are morally and ethically wrong?  then we can see how your reasoning clearly works.

You guys seems slightly confused about the TRUST systems intended purpose. Which is to protect traders and other members from being the victims of financial wrong doing. Not protect them from homophobia in the case of the OP NOR the racism or ethnic negativity spewed by the pharmacist under the HugeBlackWoman account (which seemingly does not seem so upsetting for you) which was done sneakily and deviously for payment on another account.

I mean if you are all homosexuals and this touches a personal nerve MORE than racism and ethnic/religious negativity that is understandable. However, really morals and ethics should apply to protect ALL members not just some and these are not ALL relevant to protecting people from clear financially motivated wrongdoing. In this progressive time then people should be free to live who they wish as long as they are not harming others and all involved consent (within reasonable limits)

To be clear though we would not personally add any people clearly demonstrating any of the above traits to our trust list including the person in the OP. We would certainly though be MORE likely to exclude many of the people you all have on your includes due to the reasons already stated above. The trust system is for financial protection of members only.

I don't see this point being debunked at all so therefore we can conclude you are all willing to allow morals and ethics to be bent and broken with regard direct financial wrong doing from " your friends and yourselves" but  morals and ethics from "others" are held to higher and tighter controls and standards even if not directly related to the purpose of the TRUST system.  That is both wrong and dangerous for the optimal functioning of the TRUST system.

Great thread. Glad you started it moronbozo. I think such scrutiny should be performed on ALL DT1 inclusions. There should be tick boxes so they can't weasel out of it pretending they don't want to examine the evidence or don't want to be involved LOL or say they are NOT INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH. Where observable behaviors are listed and each DT1 must tick a box either == behavior demonstrates suitable for trust position  Y or N.  We would help listing observable behaviors right away. Always willing to help. If they refuse to tick either box they are blacklisted.

TL DR - so far the debate and concerns by DT members seems slightly bogus if you take their actual behaviors concerning their DT inclusions into consideration. So we conclude virtue signaling with real purpose to prevent of cast doubt on TS being added to DT1. They seem to have no real issue with racism, religion and ethnicity being cast in a highly negative light, no problem with ethical and moral codes being broken for direct financial gain. The only possible other explanation is they are all homosexual and this is  very personal to them. If so then that is fine but recognize the trust system is to protect people from financial wrong doing not protect you from the macho boastful 14yr old tough guys who talk tough on the internets. We are trying to give our answer to the OP and our reasoning behind the answer. The reader will always be fully furnished with the information for them to benefit and make the optimal decision themselves.

Cryptohunter .. a few things

First, I copy pasted maybe 3 posts one single day. I didn’t try taking it as my own and I got lazy and didn’t reference the author. I was wrong, absolutely. However you demented feeble minded moron, how many times do I have to repeat that every single satoshi I ever earned in sig campaigns was donated to charity. Every single satoshi and then some.

I hardly think this one mistake defines who I am. Theymos let me back for a reason. Admins , DT members, and many other outstanding members of the community showed support and fought for me to come back (which I’m beyond grateful for). None of these people would show one ounce of support for yourself. The admins would LOVE for you to slip up just once so they could nuke your account!

Get off it already. I paid for my mistake and have continued to try and make up for it.

A quote from you on my situation that you clearly seem to forget writing. (Sorry to everyone else having to see any of this nonsense, I will never respond to this moron again).

Just sig ban him for a couple of years.

If he is a good member and just made some sloppy mistakes and got lazy on referencing then not really worth losing a good member (if he is one i don't know him myself). We need all the REAL enthusiasts we can get for this movement.

Only financially motivated shit posters should be banned perm. Even then if you just take away their sigs for a few years it will likely have the same outcome.

I would rather see Yogg banned (from DT and merit source) for trust abuse and collusion with other known bad eggs on DT.

I'm not in favour of perm banning any person that really is true fan of building an end to end trustless decentralised arena unless they really do not care at all about damaging this board for their own personal and selfish financial gain.

[suchmoon]

~

Trading experience (when available) is great for evaluating someone's trustworthiness, but in order to add someone to (or to exclude someone from) your trust list you should also evaluate their fairness/judgement. DireWolfM14 posted a great essay on the topic today so I'll just take the lazy route here and suggest to read it:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182903.0

[The-One-Above-All]

@chibitcity

3x in one day you say? whilst being in a sig campaign? There are legends banned for far less that are still banned.

So you are telling us you only use sig campaigns to fund charity? that is always what you have done or that is what you did when you got busted to try and make it look a little better?  that sounds a bit like you're friends story that they were attempting a sting operation whilst it looks like they were trying to extort people.

The central point here is that you AND those you support strongly mostly ALL have clear observable instances of financially motivated wrongdoing in their histories that are UNDENIABLE. What is more, some have admitted in black and white to using the trust system to punish other members for presenting observable instances of these financially motivated wrong doing. This is undeniable and again the  WORSE JUDGEMENT that you can possible dream up for those in a TRUST position.

What is BRILLANT on this thread is that it complete demonstrates how corrupt and colluding some DT1 members are.

Notice the date below totally corroborates the claim in this thread here

That those DIRTY TURDS with clear observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing don't just cycle merit, don't just include "each other on DT" but indeed the collude together to hold out those they view as a clear threat to their RACKET.

Match those excluding Tecshare  with those on the dirty turds poll.

Unfortunately i am not keeping the history of data dumps.

I do, see http://loyce.club/trust/

Oh.. how could i forget our Data-scraping-AI-machine 

Thanks 


Based on last week:

TECSHARE is included by 9 DT1's:

Code:

OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
qwk
Ticked
Rmcdermott927
teeGUMES
WhiteManWhite
bobita
Matthias9515

TECSHARE is excluded by 10 DT1's

Code:

Vod
Foxpup
Flying Hellfish
TMAN
TheNewAnon135246
mindrust
suchmoon
owlcatz
nutildah
The Pharmacist

Seems like Kalemder included him.

match these excluding against the Dirty turds list.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170789.0

How can this same bunch (many of which are on this thread ) sit there crying that it is so financially dangerous to include some kid claiming he is tougher than homosexuals in light of the undenible evidence of financially motivated wrong doing by them and their friends and the OPEN AND OBVIOUS COLLUSION between those that have already demonstrated they are high risk operating alone. LOL

Their claims are bogus when taken in the full context of their observable behaviors.

They are terrified of some HONEST and UPRIGHT people with no observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing getting on DT1.  The want to fully control who gets on DT via their merits they cycle to each other.

We believe they are worrying to much about TS anyway. When people get into positions of power they usual "adapt" in order to remain there. Worry more when some people that want to see corruption stamped out at ALL COSTS get to DT1.

So we do not buy the excuses and flawed logic of those on this thread. We still maintain this person mentioned in the OP is more DT material than themselves and their friends. There is no PROOF that he is financially high risk or will employ flawed judgement on financially sensitive matters. You can see DT1  colluders will willingly scam, facilitate scams or protect those that do and abuse the trust of whistle blowers.  That is terrifying since they control the trust and merit system. LOL

More than does not mean we would include him though as we have said the board must be able to muster 20 honest  members with zero instances of clear financial wrong doing who do not make irrational claims about all homosexuals.

Bring on the those that claim to be tougher than ALL homosexuals to the TRUST system that protects you financially rather than proven scammers and their supporters. Just say those gimp masks and 18" dildos, sybian saddles (and get a new space hopper)  you guys are buying on the sales/market forum here  are for your girlfriend and not for bones and the foxhole dungeon parties,  haha and you will  all be fine. Oh yeah don't use that blue oyster bar delivery address any more that is a dead giveaway (JOKE before more virtue signaling ).

If you guys are that scared of him, we'll have a word with him and tell him to leave you babes alone.

[TECSHARE]

This couldn't be retribution for calling you out in this thread could it OP? Interesting timing. I especially like the part where you are mining for intelligence. I expect you to hit molten magma before you find any. Serves me right for trying to help people solve their issues amiright?

The intent of this three ring circus is clear. This is a collection of OCD ass hat wanna be tyrants who have all at one point or another been confronted by me for their own PERSONAL behavior or ideas, and since then they have been collecting together and have been desperately thirsty for retribution, but finding nothing to grasp on to have had to resort to proxies and guilt via association. I have the user in question on my trust list for one single reason.

Punishing people for their speech, no matter how abhorrent you find it, is ALWAYS the tool of totalitarians. I am a free speech absolutist. This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public. I don't have to agree with his ideas to object to him being punished for having a mind of his own. This is a problem that is not just on this forum but growing across the internet. It will result in everyone losing their freedoms, and I object to it on principle.

This is just a sad excuse for a collection of former despots taking revenge. None of these people here making all kinds of accusations of racism, homophobia, etc give a fuck about any of these things, they are here because they think they can use it to "get me". Its pathetic and transparent.

Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not. I do however exclude people such as most of the people here in this thread pointing fingers who exclude me because all their buddies said so, I once hurt their feelings, I once called out a wrong they did, or I argued against their ideology that time and they find this a good excuse to sooth that cognitive dissonance with some good old fashion petty retribution.

[owlcatz]

Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not. I do however exclude people such as most of the people here in this thread pointing fingers who exclude me because all their buddies said so, I once hurt their feelings, I once called out a wrong they did, or I argued against their ideology that time and they find this a good excuse to sooth that cognitive dissonance with some good old fashion petty retribution.

Me either. Personally, I just don't like you, as you are a dickhead. Cheers. 

[suchmoon]

This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public.

You do realize that anyone can look at BitcoinSupremo's rap sheet and see that you're lying?

Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not.

Also contradicted by publicly available information.

[TECSHARE]

Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not. I do however exclude people such as most of the people here in this thread pointing fingers who exclude me because all their buddies said so, I once hurt their feelings, I once called out a wrong they did, or I argued against their ideology that time and they find this a good excuse to sooth that cognitive dissonance with some good old fashion petty retribution.

Me either. Personally, I just don't like you, as you are a dickhead. Cheers.  

Thanks for the public admission you value your whims more than the constitution of the trust system and overall well being of the community. What you are describing is called a popularity contest, not a trust system.

This user was excluded not for making a threat, not for even advocating violence, but for having an objectionable opinion in public.

You do realize that anyone can look at BitcoinSupremo's rap sheet and see that you're lying?

Also, on a side note, I don't add and remove people to my trust list based on their reciprocation or not.

Also contradicted by publicly available information.

This whole thread is focused around his words and claims it is a call to violence, homophobia, etc, but you are really claiming he was excluded because he is a legitimate threat of fraud? Funny how everyone is talking 100% about his words and not one bit about the supposed fraud he is responsible for, and which I don't see in any of those ratings.

That is just a log of DT changes. All that that is, is a log of when it happened, not why it happened. You are free to make baseless insinuations, but that doesn't make it factual or even meaningful. I included and excluded people as new information became available, not based on if they included me or not. I also have proof of the contrary, and it is far more convincing than your insinuation.

[suchmoon]

This whole thread is focused around his words and claims it is a call to violence, homophobia, etc, but you are really claiming he was excluded because he is a legitimate threat of fraud?

Am I? Sounds suspiciously like one of those things that you make up when you get caught lying.

The whole thread is focused on what is the topic of the thread. That doesn't mean BitcoinSupremo's scammy sockpuppeting history suddenly ceased to exist.

[TECSHARE]

This whole thread is focused around his words and claims it is a call to violence, homophobia, etc, but you are really claiming he was excluded because he is a legitimate threat of fraud?

Am I? Sounds suspiciously like one of those things that you make up when you get caught lying.

The whole thread is focused on what is the topic of the thread. That doesn't mean BitcoinSupremo's scammy sockpuppeting history suddenly ceased to exist.

Tell me, exactly what am I lying about? Use quotes and references.

The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay.

[suchmoon]

The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay.

Repeat the straw man argument again, check. A couple more times and you can declare yourself a winner in this debate, congratulations.

[TECSHARE]

The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay.

Repeat the straw man argument again, check. A couple more times and you can declare yourself a winner in this debate, congratulations.

Is it? Is it really though? One could argue the title of a thread tends to denote the subject at hand, and the subject at hand in the title has nothing to do with fraud. Run along now and formulate another failing sophist semantic attack strategy and pop your head in again as usual when you think up something that sounds convincing.

[suchmoon]

The title of the thread is "[NSFW] - phisical violence in DT - "not safe for work" content" but it is about fraud. Mmmkay.

Repeat the straw man argument again, check. A couple more times and you can declare yourself a winner in this debate, congratulations.

Is it? Is it really though? One could argue the title of a thread tends to denote the subject at hand, and the subject at hand in the title has nothing to do with fraud. Run along now and formulate another failing sophist semantic attack strategy and pop your head in again as usual when you think up something that sounds convincing.

I know better than waste my time trying to make sense of your ramblings. I'm reasonably certain though that I didn't say anything about fraud nor is fraud the only reason to exclude someone so knock yourself out arguing that non-existent claim.