some reasonable points.
No need for embarrassment it is possible that you are the only person that will dare attempt a real debate with us. That is more worthy of merit than most posts that have been slathered up in merit.
It is good that we are drilling down to the crux of the matter and the real items of contention that we should thrash out.
1/ Well, some minor, and maybe some not so minor things done in the past by some members have been forgiven by the general community and I do agree with some of these instances of forgiveness.. So you are not just going to get everyone out that has ever done anything wrong in their past ever.. It's just not going to happen..
You don't have to like all of them but you will need to get onboard with a little forgiveness especially if you expect any to be returned to you..
Some can probably be removed for some things, but not all of them for every little thing..
I would likely be more concerned about current and future poor behavior rather than past behavior..
Watch for current and new things.. The past is mostly settled already wither you agree with what the outcome was or not.. It is EXACTLY the transparent and fair definition of minor or major / not really financially dangerous / crosses the threshold that meets the SCAMMING or ATTEMPTING to scam in a directly financial sense that needs to be defined. The current double standards are quite terrible.
So for instance - telling lies to deliberately mislead investors into a monstrously premined and centralized scheme because you hold bags of it is to me a serious matter. It is scamming investors into believing the distribution is wide and therefore much less high risk that a tiny few people who can manipulate and dump at any time. This is a VERY SERIOUS instance of scamming/ deception for direct personal financial gain. It could have cost the board $ 2 000 000 000. That taken on its own is bad. When you start to notice this person is also implicated in an extortion attempt, shady escrow, and then abusing members trust who present links to those instances. Then we notice his VERY close supporters are escrow scammers, implicated in the same extortion and then abusing by their own admission members for presenting those instances again.
Then we can safely say that if these types of people do NOT meet the threshold of HIGH RISK FINANCIALLY to this board. You can forget about ANY person reaching that threshold.
If this happened in the past or it happened yesterday the fact that they have not been punished and no other DT members consider them worthy of punishment demonstrates clearly these DT members are NOT fit for their positions.
That is undeniable. These are the BITCOINTALK JUDGES. You do not put people that have proven they will scam or will facilitate scamming in a trust position EVER. Time and forgiveness does NOT come into this.
There are several reasons for this.
1. Their punishment of other members for lesser crimes will never seem fair and therefore never be tolerated.
2. You have no good reason to TRY and trust people that have scammed when you only need 30 people from 100s' of 1000's of members. It is insulting to the rest of the members.
3. You can not say for sure people that were once willing to scam and have crossed that threshold. Some several times ... will not choose to cross it again.
We must at some point discuss specifics which is the point at which we are assuming you will not be willing to continue because it makes you are target.
Perhaps even more dangerous than these types who don't even recognize they have done anything wrong themselves (although clear scammers and deceivers for financial reward) is a person who is for MONTHS running around the forum screaming that ANYONE selling their account is FACILITATING SCAMS and they claim this is EVIL behavior. That then decides they WILL FACILITATE SCAMMERS for payment and act in an EVIL manner. I mean if you are willing to become what you consider is EVIL for money then it would seem there is nothing they will not do for the correct amount of btc dust.
You see "minor" and being "forgiven" by a "tiny tiny tiny " subset of pals on this forum. Is not like the entire forum saying we "forgive you, you should be on our trust system, you should be paid at the highest rates for posting" I mean you could post a poll on all sections asking if these actions are "forgiven" and if they should NOT be punished and be allowed on DT whilst others perhaps say promoting an ALT that some DT members consider "MAY" turn into a scam need to be punished with red trust.
Be careful not to conflate forgiveness from their DT pals and some on meta board with forgiveness and willingness to accept double standards from the entire board.
We did say CLEAR instances of financially motivated wrong doing. Not something semi minor like for instance sneaky racist trolling under a sock puppet for the max greedy rates he can get on his 2nd secret account before getting caught. Although demonstrates greedy, sneaky and double standards (for lecturing others on paid shitposting) is not essentially meeting the threshold of CLEAR financial danger to others. Perhaps though if this was combined with his own stated willingness to support a possible escrow scammer out of loyalty, who is also a proven scammer, supporting an auction scammer, supporting a scam facilitator etc etc ...this would start to push up toward the threshold and possibly beyond.
We need to make sure MINOR and MAJOR are the same for all members in a sensible manner.
I mean really it is insulting to the entire board that we even feel the need for ANYONE with ANY kind of financially motivated wrong doing on the trust system when we have apparently millions of members and only need 20-30 trustworthy people that are free of that type of wrong doing.
This would need be thrashed out person by person on DT.
Is knowingly supporting a proven scammer a bad thing? We think it obviously is.
2. As for theymos's part of it, he doesn't always make the 100% best actions/decisions but he did eventually blacklist lauda from DT1 right?This is interesting really. Because after months of being presented with observable instances of lauda trust abusing punishing whistle blowers, and his prior scamming and shady shit, theymos says lauda has acted sometimes in a "sub optimal" manner but then has done some good things LOL, he does not accept the observable instances on many matters and CH is boring and acting insane, and works out with OG vod etc that lauda has his red trust removed. I mean let us not forget lauda, tman etc were OUT of DT before theymos NEW design where they all shot back in. Let's not forget theymos made tman a merit source etc. However sure once lauda just could not stop abusing the trust of "special members" that theymos does take some care about then he was "black listed"
But what really happened? nothing? laudas red trust abuse will remain and apparently is MORE entrenched in DT than ever before. Lauda still has a green trust sheet, lauda is still being paid at the highest rates? lauda seems fine??
theymos has time to code out a new merit = volume button for all members but can't work out that blacklisting him from DT1 did nothing so blacklisting needs to be DT all levels ? apparently he is more entrenched in DT now than ever before. Then theymos grandfathered in to the trust system the very trust abuse that brought about need of the new flagging system. Which can be abused but only to a lemons level. Still that is enough to mitigate any new strengths of the new flagging system with regard to abusing for financial reward.
theymos may have good intentions but if his systems are making things 10x worse then that makes it just as bad for the NON gang members. He does not listen nor debate. Just tried experiments on a live board? imagine devs just trying out new "ideas" on a live project. That's what test nets are for. Whoops whats that you all lost your coins?
3.The problem is posting the same set of information, however correct or not, over and over again..That is the very best way to get your point across. The point is in 2 parts.
1. we will not be rage quitting. It will never stop.
2. The truth where is it on topic and relevant must be heard and repeated until people accept there is no room for double standards.
We DO think you have a good point ... that we can quote or reference post where we have presented the same truths before. That would save us time and work and allow us to post on more threads.
4.I may very well be wrong but the first time I saw you here in a confrontation with "them" in meta was a thread about how all the Legendaries without any earned merit were all spammers and you were upset at being grouped in with the spammers because you didn't have any merit either.The first contact between DT and Cryptohunter was regarding the unfair bullying of another member by DT members. Before that CH had no interest in merit, DT or even really took any real note of that kind of thing. It was after after this contact when he noticed 2 prior scam supporters were on this DT that can give weird little red marks that he started to look into this which then lead to a thread about merits.
You are possibly talking about a thread where Suchmoon made some strange and outrageous statements and refused to go back on them.
1. That ALL pre merit legends are spammers.
2. That it was WRONG and IDIOTIC to suggest that some of the 99.87 % of the board were capable of making posts as good as some of the posts made by the 0.13% of the board (which were the top 100 or 200 merit holders)
I don't recall exactly the figures but something like that.
Where she was claiming merit was such a brilliant and reliable metric when it suited her agenda... later to debunk all of that by openly stating "good poster" and " bad poster" are MEANINGLESS TERMS without definition and criteria to measure against. This is obviously correct and undeniable. Making her look INSANE or untrustworthy or very very confused.
5.I didn't really like the high merit threshold for DT votes either because of the way merit is so "top 1% ish", poor equality of distribution, and that I would also like to see lots and lots of votes for DT and a very large distributed DT network..
I would also like to see more distributed smerit distribution, like a small monthly airdrop to just about everyone, for better decentralization and less power concentration.
It's not perfect but not the worst that could have possibly happened, and who knows, my ideas could make everything worse, I'm no expert..
There is value here in what you have said. However it is the WORST thing that could have happened in that context. It bound merit to trust. So now you have 2 control systems bound together as 1. Far easier to collude and game control of both now.
That is one solution perhaps airdropped only to heros and legends since there will be enough to lose (their account)(if there is clear merit abuse to prevent them attempting it), however we far prefer to push for merit to be be attributed only to those that output posts with objective value in terms of pushing for the optimal outcome or solution to each thread. Another issue with merit currently is someone can post something that "seems" very convincing and valuable. ONLY when it gets debunked fully at a later stage is it revealed to be misleading nonsense before that happens it gets a ton of merits. The problem seems that there is obviously a lot of back slapping and gaming and politically motivated meriting BUT ALSO there is a lot of what we consider Lemming meriting (not lemon that is the political issue) people see someone they know or like has given merits and then they think hey yeah we will give some merits too. Perhaps the merits you give should be invisible to others for 48hr or perhaps longer to allow cooling off. If people read a post and believe it deserves merit they should do so without needing confirmation from their pals.
Perhaps a limit on the merits you can give another person for 6 months say 10 merits so if you see someone with a huge merit score you don't find out it all came from the same 10-15 people and that they are all the top fans and recipients of each others merits. That 100's of people total unconnected have given merits because those posts matched the criteria of a valuable post.
Maybe merits should be merit 1 or no merit 0. I mean it is either a valuable effort or does not meet the threshold of being valuable. Perhaps 1-3 max range. With a 3 being an original and brilliant new insight that nobody has previously mentioned on that thread. Not some reworded agreement/disagreement already voiced 20x on the thread from a political POV.
I mean just ANY criteria a post should match to get merit could be useful, not just if you think it is a good post. How is that any kind of guideline. May as well say " hey if you get loads of these points you get to control the board including rev streams, who wants to give the points out
oh you 20 always hanging out here in meta wanting to control things and have been willing to scam people for money in the past.., okay here you go, now only give them to others you think make good posts" bye kids be good. ahaha
6.I agree.. That just escalates..This part is incorrect in a way. It does not escalate. Not that escalating is wrong in all cases. Those one liner meaningless off topic and derailing do not escalate. They derail. You can't read a post presenting the truth corroborated with observable instances, not even attempt to debunk them but just scream " who made this cunt bleed" or " you are a used tampon" and say that is escalating really. That is fully on thread hijacking and derailing. There is no attempt to making a counter argument. You can call people names but you need to tackle their central points.
A debate in some forms is a battle of opinions that people need to validate and corroborate with independently verifiable evidence. This may get heated in that people may present their views in a less and less polite manner as they become more frustrated the other party can not see they are correct even given the evidence or that they are angry they are getting pushed back with this evidence and they start to realize they were WRONG. Eventually in most cases especially those based directly on observable instances historically recorded on this forum there can only be ONE correct or ONE dominant side to a debate. Or it will become a grey area where it is so near the threshold of supporting one side over the other that the clarity is only there for those that have the capacity to interpret the information 100% accurately and measure its weight correctly. In very complex matters or where huge amounts of variables must be considered then there is perhaps only "opinions" for those with anything other than the highest capacity and specific training. In some areas there can only be educated speculations.
If a pupil says to the teacher. Can you explain why you allow lauda and his friends to steal our lunch money and try to beat us up if we dare to report it. Then lauda and his friends scream fuck off you used tampon, don't feed the troll, who made this cunt bleed. This is not escalation this is a deliberate attempt to prevent people asking legitimate questions and finding out the reasons why this abuse is allowed to continue.
Then if the pupil gets told by the teacher , shut up you boring bastard, and he makes them prefects and hands them some weapons , and the pupil asks again teacher how come you are giving these mother fucking scum bags the means to abuse in with greater effect can you explain your reasons... then lauda and his pals scream " he is the biggest troll here" " ban him" " should be expelled from this school" " then again this is not escalation this is compounding their earlier abuse and the teacher is making judgement errors.
When 2 sets of ideas conflict and tension escalates it is okay if the war of words each time brings some new argument and counter argument corroborated by observable events or solid evidence. When one side has reached the point of the argument where they have support enough to debunk the opposing points and the other side has NO WAY to push them back or debunk their dominating points. There there is also
no need for the clearly dominant or winning side to supply A NEW argument at all. They have
WON the debate until new information is presented that can debunk their points. There is no point in the losing side to escalate tension after that point. It is futile and changes nothing in terms of the debate and brings ZERO VALUE. The optimal solution or outcome at that point in time is reached.
Passion and drive are good things if people all stick to the same sensible rules.
Our central points are never trolling. How can on topic relevant truth be conflated with trolling as per the board definition. The board has quite a sensible definition of trolling that is beneficial. If you present debunked, obviously false information repeatedly you are spreading misinformation intentionally. This may not fit with "trolling" in the general sense but since that is IMPOSSIBLE to define correctly in every situation then the boards definition of trolling is very sensible.
Under that definition there are many trolls in DT.
Anyway great debate we are enjoying a sensible exchange of ideas. We believe you will be a good addition to DT. At least offering a civil back and forth of points of view.
Not that we in any way wish to say your post does not deserve the merits. We are pleased you have received them. You should also be far more valuable on DT than the vast majority of DT1 members. We don't know if already you are there.
However it is important for the reader to recognize clearly that although we have answered and offered counters to your points to the level we believe of debunking many of them (the ones we disagreed with not many of your points that are sensible and valid) or at least pointing out they are not fully representative of the reality of the situation. Our posts have ZERO MERIT.
If you do not agree with this eddie and you believe it is unfair of us to say that. Then please point out which point of yours (the ones we underlined or even ones you think we have not addressed yet) and we will take another look and discuss this with you here. You may say that we only believe they are debunked when our argument is actually bogus. But since you have not countered we assume you are accepting our counters as valid.
That in no way means we do not believe you deserve the merits at all, you deserve them far more than 99% of people on meta. It is just an illustration of how one sided and broken the merit system is. The truth is not valued here. It is inconvenient and shunned. Merit is the tool that will be used to silence inconvenient truths or turn down the volume soon so that you can just about hear them from page 90. You are either politically desirable or not depending on the level you support the status quo.
The reader can also witness that we are very very civil to any person that will be civil with us and not try to abuse our account or the account of our friends. Fair is fair.
