THEYMOS - we want open debate on how YOU are on the wrong path here.

[Viper1]

is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.

I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.

Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.

Perhaps he wanted an exact replica of the central banking system? kind of strange he bothered making bitcoin.

We are going to assume (perhaps incorrectly so) that satoshi would prefer a trustless decentralized end to end arena where each member is ensured equal and fair treatment as far as possible.

It is true there is no knowing for sure satoshi's actual purpose so if that upsets satoshi he is free to come to this thread and state we are incorrect.

I mean why go for trustless and decentralized if you want centralized control?

You can make all the assumptions you want, but then all of this becomes nothing more then you trying to mold the forum to how you think it should be.

Satoshi was clearly only interested in bitcoin. He believed that other e-cash had failed purely because they were centralized and bitcoin would be the first to try and succeed by being decentralized. He was involved with the forum. He was involved with the open source software and all the contributors. If he had ideals of decentralization etc being extended to those areas, there would have been some indication of it. But there is none. I also have a problem with one of the last things he said "It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone" If he was concerned about more than just decentralization of e-cash, then why would he have basically had Gavin in charge as opposed to trying to setup something clearly decentralized. Sorry. But as far as I can see, his only concern was with regard to bitcoin itself and nothing more than that. I think people like you have projected your own desires onto Satoshi in order to turn him into some sort of ideological "savior" or something.

That's fine. That's your opinion. Since only he knows his REAL intentions and principles then we can't say for sure. If it seems reasonable to you that he seeks only decentralization of "ecash" but prefers easily, gamed and incentivized abused centralized control in other areas resulting in a two tier system that closely represents the central banking system on the main bitcoin forum and has no desire to see the trustless decentralized end to end arena we believe he WOULD LIKE to see then that is fine. Every time we say satoshi principles you can reference this part of this thread and people can make up their own minds.

If it helps you get back on topic, then you can simply read satoshis principles as  transparent and clear rules and standards than ensure the equal and fair treatment of all members. If you think satoshi is against this then that is okay, we are not saying you are provably INCORRECT, we are simply saying that with believe you are wrong.

Perhaps you also believe the vast majority of members do no want transparent clear rules and standards that ensure they are all treated equally and fairly and rather they would prefer a tiny minority has all the control and advantage they allocate to themselves?  that is fine too. Perhaps you believe this provably fair and equal treatment ideology is actually unfair and morally bankrupt? that is fine too.

If it upsets you less, just remove that from your mind, and think of that post as if it says.. a set of clear and transparent rules that ensure each members is treated fairly and equally.

If that is not what you want to see here then just say that and give your reasons.

I'm sorry, but trying to goad me into your opinion that he had any concern outside of what is clear from his interactions here and via his emails, simply isn't going to work. You're attempt is weak at best but more along the lines of pathetic. How about I read into this that it's nothing more than your desire that the forum be run in your vision of some utopia. That's the reality. You sound like anonymint. hmmm.. Where is he I wonder and what ever happened to that bitcointalk killer forum he was going to create for exactly the same reasons you're spewing here. I guess like everything else he was nothing more than just talk. No bitcoin killer. Not forum killer. Talk talk talk and no action.

As far as being treated fairly and equal. Sure. Would be nice. But we're talking about human beings and at the end of the day, human beings only care about themselves. And they all have their own opinion as to what is fair and equal. What you would like, can never be achieved cause if you get 10 people in the room you're going to have 20 different opinions depending on their mood in the moment. Even more so at this point of time where everyone is outraged and feeling like they're being oppressed over the smallest things.

Bottom line. you don't own this forum. So it doesn't matter what you want. You want a utopia, go start your own forum and run it how you wish. I for one would love to see if what you say you want, can actually be achieved. I believe it can't be.

[1715010438]

1715010438

[1715010438]

1715010438

[The-One-Above-All]

is contrary to the principles of satoshi and this movement.

Perhaps you should go and read all of his emails and posts. They are all technical. Programming. There is no indication in any of them of what his "principles" were regarding anything else other than creating decentralized e-cash via open source software. Nor is there any indication that he viewed this as a "movement" or even wanted it to be a "movement". So right here, it's clear you're talking about some other "principles and movement" that you've created in your own mind thus making everything else you've said invalid.

I will however support you in that the merit system sucks big balls. I come and go here often and it was "fun" knowing that one day by participating I would get up to "legendary" status. But when the new system came out I knew it would never happen cause I'm not one to play the game. I don't participate in the areas of the forum where my better posts would get noticed by those that are apt to hand out the merit. The system rewards those that play the game, actively seeking it out etc. For that reason alone it's a ridiculous system. But whatever, Theymos owns the site, he can do what he wants and if we don't like it we're free to go start our own.

Sort of funny. It used to be people constantly bitched about the trust system. Now they bitch about the merit system. There's always something to whine about.

Perhaps he wanted an exact replica of the central banking system? kind of strange he bothered making bitcoin.

We are going to assume (perhaps incorrectly so) that satoshi would prefer a trustless decentralized end to end arena where each member is ensured equal and fair treatment as far as possible.

It is true there is no knowing for sure satoshi's actual purpose so if that upsets satoshi he is free to come to this thread and state we are incorrect.

I mean why go for trustless and decentralized if you want centralized control?

You can make all the assumptions you want, but then all of this becomes nothing more then you trying to mold the forum to how you think it should be.

Satoshi was clearly only interested in bitcoin. He believed that other e-cash had failed purely because they were centralized and bitcoin would be the first to try and succeed by being decentralized. He was involved with the forum. He was involved with the open source software and all the contributors. If he had ideals of decentralization etc being extended to those areas, there would have been some indication of it. But there is none. I also have a problem with one of the last things he said "It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone" If he was concerned about more than just decentralization of e-cash, then why would he have basically had Gavin in charge as opposed to trying to setup something clearly decentralized. Sorry. But as far as I can see, his only concern was with regard to bitcoin itself and nothing more than that. I think people like you have projected your own desires onto Satoshi in order to turn him into some sort of ideological "savior" or something.

That's fine. That's your opinion. Since only he knows his REAL intentions and principles then we can't say for sure. If it seems reasonable to you that he seeks only decentralization of "ecash" but prefers easily, gamed and incentivized abused centralized control in other areas resulting in a two tier system that closely represents the central banking system on the main bitcoin forum and has no desire to see the trustless decentralized end to end arena we believe he WOULD LIKE to see then that is fine. Every time we say satoshi principles you can reference this part of this thread and people can make up their own minds.

If it helps you get back on topic, then you can simply read satoshis principles as  transparent and clear rules and standards than ensure the equal and fair treatment of all members. If you think satoshi is against this then that is okay, we are not saying you are provably INCORRECT, we are simply saying that with believe you are wrong.

Perhaps you also believe the vast majority of members do no want transparent clear rules and standards that ensure they are all treated equally and fairly and rather they would prefer a tiny minority has all the control and advantage they allocate to themselves?  that is fine too. Perhaps you believe this provably fair and equal treatment ideology is actually unfair and morally bankrupt? that is fine too.

If it upsets you less, just remove that from your mind, and think of that post as if it says.. a set of clear and transparent rules that ensure each members is treated fairly and equally.

If that is not what you want to see here then just say that and give your reasons.

I'm sorry, but trying to goad me into your opinion that he had any concern outside of what is clear from his interactions here and via his emails, simply isn't going to work. You're attempt is weak at best but more along the lines of pathetic. How about I read into this that it's nothing more than your desire that the forum be run in your vision of some utopia. That's the reality. You sound like anonymint. hmmm.. Where is he I wonder and what ever happened to that bitcointalk killer forum he was going to create for exactly the same reasons you're spewing here. I guess like everything else he was nothing more than just talk. No bitcoin killer. Not forum killer. Talk talk talk and no action.

As far as being treated fairly and equal. Sure. Would be nice. But we're talking about human beings and at the end of the day, human beings only care about themselves. And they all have their own opinion as to what is fair and equal. What you would like, can never be achieved cause if you get 10 people in the room you're going to have 20 different opinions depending on their mood in the moment. Even more so at this point of time where everyone is outraged and feeling like they're being oppressed over the smallest things.

Bottom line. you don't own this forum. So it doesn't matter what you want. You want a utopia, go start your own forum and run it how you wish. I for one would love to see if what you say you want, can actually be achieved. I believe it can't be.

There see. You can do it. No need for reading into anything other than what we are posting here. Just ask.

No goading.

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE jump from what we have outlined in the initial post IS HAPPENING NOW and 100% fair and equal treatment of all members.

You don't believe then that it is worth moving from an extreme at one end of the scale toward a MORE fair and equal treatment of all members?

This a pathetic attempt to goad you into speculation on satoshis real principles you say? for some selfish reason?

There is no need to get angry and upset. Just give your opinions, we will debate them and we're off....

Just because perfection is NOT POSSIBLE in your estimation in terms ensuring fair and equal treatment of all members in terms of their "ecash" satoshi should not have bothered you say?
Of course many will say bitcoin is not fair, but could you say it is a vast improvement over the central banking system?

I don't think we should talk ill of other excellent members either in their absence. Sometimes development of such systems takes time. Is that better than rushing out experimental untested designs like for instance the merit system?  perhaps it is. We believe the true value of anonymints posts can only fairly be appraised by those that have the capacity and the training in the specific areas he primarily posted about. That is like 0.001% of this board or less. We don't seek to claim we can say either way. However, when he would be debating and arguing on less technical matters it seemed that his central points were again rarely if ever debunked. Simply because his posting style inflamed some that does not at all mean he was not strongly net positive for this forum. People still mention him even now, that is interesting is it not.

[Viper1]

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE jump from what we have outlined in the initial post IS HAPPENING NOW and 100% fair and equal treatment of all members.

You don't believe then that it is worth moving from an extreme at one end of the scale toward a MORE fair and equal treatment of all members?

The current trust system. The merit system. They are both flawed and failures because they are based on input from human beings who are always selfish and self serving. Prone to form tribes and act in a manner that favors their tribe. Any system that uses humans to try and be "fair" etc is doomed to fail. So unless you can come up with a way to deal with the issues the current systems try and fix, that doesn't require humans, then any other system will also be flawed. Could the current ones be made better? Most likely. How about you tell all of us what  your superior system(s) would be. The reality is that no one likes to hear complaint after complaint. You want to be proactive, present options/improvements. Offer up some solutions.

Just because perfection is NOT POSSIBLE in your estimation in terms ensuring fair and equal treatment of all members in terms of their "ecash" satoshi should not have bothered you say?

What are you talking about? The forum, or bitcoin? Satoshi had nothing to do with the forum in terms of how it is or should be run.

Of course many will say bitcoin is not fair, but could you say it is a vast improvement over the central banking system?

The concept of decentralized e-cash is better. Whether or not bitcoin will achieve that we won't know for many years to come. We haven't even reached the point yet where miners have to rely purely on fees to pay their bills. That could completely change a lot of things for bitcoin. It's also not hard to come up with many ways the governments could shut down all crypto if they really wanted to. With all the KYC and stuff already permeating this space, it's a slow march towards it becoming just an extension of the current financial system. But none of that has to do with the topic of this thread.

We believe the true value of anonymints posts can only fairly be appraised by those that have the capacity and the training in the specific areas he primarily posted about. That is like 0.001% of this board or less.

He was really good at making those that don't know better, think he always knew what he was talking about and that he was right. He would overwhelm people with walls of text and he would jump around from one thing to another making it impossible for anyone to effectively debate him and then actually reach any sort of real conclusion as to who was right. It's a common tactic by those that only seek to "win"...   "Claiming" you were right does not mean you are. Posting one sided threads saying you're right or you came up with something etc, does not make it so. Most people just couldn't be bothers pointing out where he was right or wrong. Which means he could not really be believed a lot of the time. Having said that, I did value some of his technical discussions up to the point he would start to "go off the deep end" so to speak at which point there was no longer any value in what he would have to say.

However, when he would be debating and arguing on less technical matters it seemed that his central points were again rarely if ever debunked.

You would be completely wrong there but I'm not going to bother digging up instances to this, some of them I was involved with in the past which is why I know this to be true.

This thread is supposed to be about the forum is it not?

[The-One-Above-All]

@Viper

A good post with some elements of high value for sure. Sorry we are out later this evening and had a few things to finish up before ..hence the delay in reply.

Let us leave our differing opinions on anonymint. We feel he brought a lot of value in many ways to the forum. Many we know shared this opinion including cryptohunter. Also leaving aside the future outcome of bitcoin itself based on current design.

Let us rather as you say get back to the discussion more related to the initial post.


This part of your post

The current trust system. The merit system. They are both flawed and failures because they are based on input from human beings who are always selfish and self serving. Prone to form tribes and act in a manner that favors their tribe. Any system that uses humans to try and be "fair" etc is doomed to fail. So unless you can come up with a way to deal with the issues the current systems try and fix, that doesn't require humans, then any other system will also be flawed. Could the current ones be made better? Most likely. How about you tell all of us what  your superior system(s) would be. The reality is that no one likes to hear complaint after complaint. You want to be proactive, present options/improvements. Offer up some solutions.


Is very interesting and  is not only inline with our own view, it is observable true. Of course one must naturally assume each person will act as selfishly as possible within the permitted range.

We get that whilst there is ANY human decision making required that  100% fair and 100 equal is difficult target to hit.  However, as you NARROW the range/room for subjectivity (abuse) you IMPROVE the fairness and equal treatment of all members. As you REDUCE the incentive and reward for ABUSE and increase the Punishment and shame of abusing then again you are going to see and increase in the fairness and equal treatment of all members.

We have made MANY suggestions for improvements to both the trust system and merit system. These "improvements" are EXACTLY those we wanted to debate with theymos openly.

These alterations should be debated in public and analysed then implemented if the pro's clearly and reasonably out weigh the negatives.

Not to be rude to you, but the fact that you seem to believe we have simply been complaining and not offering up clear suggestions to mitigate some of the clear issues that are observably there means you have not been reading our posts. Hence why you seem to be suggesting we are not "good guys". We feel if you had read all of our posts ( that is a tall request we appreciate) you would start to realize we are the good guys.

Let us run though just a few common sense "improvements" that would clearly reduce the opportunity to abuse the systems and the financial incentive to do so.

1. DT1 and DT2 should have an immediate blacklisting policy for ANY member that has ANY clear observable financially motivated wrong doing in their history here.
2. Merit (distributed by merit sources) should have some strict criteria that needs to be met for a post to qualify for merit. Their max merit allocation per post should be in the 1-3 range and there should be a maximum amount to another member of 20 in one year. 50 merit allocations for " zzzzzzz" or other garbage skew things hugely. A post does not meet the criteria for merit or it does. We would prefer a max merit of 1 but 3 for good, outstanding, or Brilliant.
3. Merit sources that distribute merit to posts that do NOT meet that criteria are removed.
4. Merit sources should also be blacklisted on the same grounds as mentioned in (1)
5. Merit should NOT be so heavily weighted with regard TRUST, there should be strong activity link to ensure a min time to power up alts and friends and heavily punish blacklisting in regeneration time.
6. Sig campaign managers must NOT rely on trust and merit scores alone (at this stage) they must be able to offer explanation (that stands up to scrutiny) for their selection process.
7. Moderators clearly abusing their position must be removed at once. Abuse as in clear double standards in post deletion and other areas.
8. There can be many other tweaks to merit to prevent lemming meriting and other kinds of influences over merit allocation that should not really be there.

The most important part is merit since everything else seems to be being built upon the merit scores now. It would not be difficult to create a set of criteria that must be met in order for merit to be given out by merit sources. In our opinion cryptohunter was the only person that was opening up discussion on how to quantify post value and also thrash out permitted flow. Creating set of criteria and definitions that should be followed by merit sources.

Yes there will always be room for human subjectivity which can be gamed for selfish gain. However reducing this margin to its absolute minimum makes absolute sense.

It is like opening a bank. You don't just get every ones money chuck in a big room and tell people just take out what is yours when you need it and walk off.  You set up measures to ensure they can only extract what is theirs. Sure at some points humans are making decisions and those points are points of failure. It is simply a case of ensuring those measures you put in place reduces the opportunities and increases the punishments for trying to take more than your own money out or enabling others to do so.

We should be discussing the ways to improve it and make things fairer for all not fighting to maintain the very broken status quo.

We believe when cryptohunter started to analyse the link between the abuse of the systems of control, those abusing them and the implications financially for the successful and rampant abuse then he noticed a very strong similarity to those gaming and abusing the initial distribution of alt coins and the subsequent manipulation and gaming of the markets of those projects.   The latest merit volume control be implemented is actually the most worrying yet. That should be scrapped/adapted immediately. Activity with a far smaller merit weighting would be far more appropriate. Though really if again "merit" was actually hard to game and was even near to representing REAL MERIT then it would not be so bad. Theymos seems to be learning slowly since he gave any activity weighting at all.

the above 7 points may seem confusing since some are assuming merit in its current form, not merit as it could be if earlier points on that list were already implemented.

The key is ensuring  merit resembles REAL MERIT. The rest then almost starts to make more sense rather than being a total and utter cluster fuck and in our view ANTI satoshi.

The foundation must be solid or near solid before building upon it.

ALSO WE NOTICE

that one of your posts viper was deleted?? we did not report it nor believe it should be deleted.

We are not sure why that happened? but we do find it interesting.

Who did report and delete it we wonder?

[Viper1]

Years ago I used to run chat rooms. I have a low tolerance for a lot of things when it comes to those that are put in a position of power. I hold anyone to a higher standard and if they can't live up to that, then they're gone. I had time limits for how long anyone could remain in that position because human nature it to become cynical and "corrupt" in their own way. Leaving people in positions where they seemed to create more controversy for me was simply not worth it in the end.

1. DT1 and DT2 should have an immediate blacklisting policy for ANY member that has ANY clear observable financially motivated wrong doing in their history here.

No one that has any "power" or "perceived" power should have more than 1 and any potential favoritism should be removed/minimized. i.e. a mod should not be able to garner merit. They should not have any involvement with trust either. This would cut out a ton of crap right there. The trust system should only be used for actual business related things as opposed to what we currently see a lot of time where people get into some forum spat and it's used by tribes to black ball someone. No one should have any "power" if their use of the forum can in any way, be a conflict of interest or be perceived as a conflict of interest. Those are just a few of the changes off the top of my head I would start to make if this was my forum.

2. Merit ......

The entire merit system is fundamentally flawed as I stated before. It's a reward and people will abuse it. It cannot be "fixed". The current merit system is basically a "like". Twitter has recognized how "like" has created so much of the crap they experience on their site, the toxic atmosphere etc, and they're seriously looking to remove it all together.

What is the problem that merit was put in place to solve by replacing the previous system of ranks etc? That's where the solution lies, in solving that problem as opposed to trying to make the merit system "work". It is fundamentally flawed and will never work well. As a stop gap, I suppose one could prevent anyone from giving more than one. Add in negative merit so the board (yt has both thumbs up and down for a reason) does a little bit of self regulation and let the chaos reign until people realize that abusing the system, on both sides, is counter productive. That would be fun to watch for awhile. Bottom line though, the actual underlying problem is what needs to be fixed, not what's been taped over top of it and so most of your list if worthless.

6. Sig campaign managers must NOT rely on trust and merit scores alone (at this stage) they must be able to offer explanation (that stands up to scrutiny) for their selection process.

Ok? Until the other problems are resolved it just doesn't matter. It's the only thing they can use right now so I'm indifferent. Having said that, if sig campaigns are at the root of why merit was implemented, and it's now involving trust in order to qualify to be in a campaign, then I would probably approach it from a completely different angle. i.e., if they're the problem, make them come up with a solution. Make them come up with their own completely separate system of qualifying people that does not include those forum systems. How that could all work I have no idea off the top of my head but sometimes you need to divorce yourself from the problem and let those that create it solve it for you. It's in their best interest to not be a problem for the board cause at the end of the day, the final solution it to just ban all sig campaigns outright.

7. Moderators clearly abusing their position must be removed at once. Abuse as in clear double standards in post deletion and other areas.

That should be a given.

Hence why you seem to be suggesting we are not "good guys".

How one communicates is as, if not more important than what you communicate. You're method of communicating is, more often than not, full of personal attacks, inuendo, misleading information and more that only serves to make people tune out from the message. If you "guys" approached things in a more rational and constructive manner maybe I'd see things in a different light.


Two of my posts were deleted. Don't see why they should have been but whatever.

[The-One-Above-All]

@viper

Again we are in agreement on several points. We differ mostly because although we believe you are correct regarding fixing merit entirely is impossible, we think that theymos has based so much upon this garbage now he will never actually remove it. So improvements are the only possible option. We do believe it could be semi useful if the abuse and incentive to abuse was greatly reduced. We believe those points we outlined would certainly help with that and could move merit scores to represent something more closely related to REAL MERIT. This still does not = TRUST as you have correctly mentioned. Making merit = trust was MORE idiocy on theymos part. The very notion that those that cycle the most merit to each other get to also determine who goes into DT1 is the most random and weird thing we have seen here.

When you start to examine the systems of control very carefully you will see that campaign managers deferring responsibility to DT and merit sources to determine THEIR OWN ELIGIBILITY to these highly paid sig campaigns in pure idiocy on theymos part. They are only accountable to themselves. Can you imagine how insane that kind of set up is. That is without even considering the other 10 points merit sources/ DT's pretty much control.

The points of your post we do not agree with are.

1. we are not randomly rude to people as you seem to be suggesting. If you can find one person that we have been rude to before they have either attacked us or been rude to us then feel free to present it.

2. We do not present ANY misleading information. Again if you believe something is misleading that we have presented then you can bring it for analysis because that certainly is not something we believe has taken place. We have challenged MANY times for ANY person to demonstrate our central points are incorrect. No person has ever presented even on instance of that.

3. We believe it DOES MATTER why your posts were deleted. We as the thread starter did not report them, so who did report them? why  did they report them and why were they deleted. In light of the fact that we the thread starter report off topic deliberately derailing garbage with zero value and they are marked bad by mods and they do not delete them, we report random 1 liner insults that just blurt out " who made this cunt bleed" " shut up you used tampon" or " don't feed the troll " and these are NOT deleted and marked bad.
We only noticed 1 of your posts was deleted. I would be interested in seeing which other posts from this thread were deleted. Please PM me the deletes. I would like to examine them.
The topic of corrupt moderation needs to be tackled first. Since it is the easiest to fix.


We are guessing because you mentioned something about cryptohunter they were NOT happy about. This demonstrates what kind of corruption we are dealing with here.

It does matter if mods are corrupt and pushing agendas here. It is wrong moderators are part of the merit and trust system and also benefit directly from the same sig campaigns that dominate meta and sponsor the self elected DT members.

Perhaps time to weed out these kinds of corrupt individuals. Start looking into it. It is one big racket here. This is precisely why cryptohunter became VERY INTERESTED in the corruption and scamming at the top here of this board.

What better way for the most corrupt and largest bunch of scammers and manipulators to " look like good guys" by busting MINI scams. These people have NEVER tackled the HUGE well entrenched scams like real legends like cryptohunter did. These people find some micro 2 bit scammers ( that could be their pals or alts in some cases) and bust them?  WOW that makes a big difference. It is like playing whack a mole. The entire bunch of DT1 scam busting obsessive members are non achieving self serving scum bags. Their entire scam busting does ZERO when looking at the big picture. They don't even ATTEMPT to tackle big scams and MANY OF THEM are prior supporters on the BIGGEST scams.

This is not at all misleading. We can bring evidence to corroborate anything that we state.

Do the research, you will soon start to realize the entire systems of control are NET NEGATIVE and do far more harm than good. Only theymos is perhaps NOT in on it. Just enabling it by playing with systems he obviously does not understand and does not care to debate on.

Would be maybe okay to experiment if you put some training wheels on it. Like for instance " what you are a proven scammer? off DT and blacklisted"  " what you are red trusting people for whistle blowing, off DT and blacklisted"  " what you are a mod and marking one liner insults like ..who made this cunt bleed .. BAD, whilst deleting on topic relevant posts" bye bye mod position blacklisted from DT,  " what you are giving merit to already debunked insults and garbage"  bye bye merit source

Then people "may" start to get the message. Hey we better use these systems as they are intended to be used or we will get kicked the fuck out. You only need to have a firm hand for a while before people understand hey this guy is not a pussy we can take the piss out of whilst stripping the boards rev streams from under his very nose by gaming his wide open systems...

I mean what is the worst that can happen to a multiple scammer, extortionist, trust abuser here? after telling theymos to his face fuck off I will even abuse your new systems straight away??
NOTHING AT ALL... blacklisted from DT1?? LOL
So you still get to put red marks on people and your abuse stands, you still get to be part of the highest paid sig campaigns and NOTHING happens at all.

What happens if you stand up to these people?? theymos says... well looking at my corrupt mods gamed deletion racket with suchmoon, pharmacist, morobozo etc it seems you will need to be banned soon??? LOL

Err hang on theymos though, I am  (says cryptohunter) probably the largest scam fighter here EVER, and have brought to attention MANY OF the largest REAL  scams, fought them to offering a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation to the entire board, against the people that are trust abusing my account now with proven scammer friends. Never have ANY instances of financially motivated wrong doing. Have pushed for fair release protocol for all members that were mining POW coins on wave 1 alts. For fair and transparent distribution on MANY large projects for months against gangs of selfish scum bags. Given tips to investors and made many millionaires just for the fun of it and to help others people have created threads to thank me. So now you are siding with scammers and corrupt scum and claiming I will be banned on some obviously gamed metric.

Yes, sorry to many deleted posts where you are presenting inconvenient truths that no person could debunk. Soon a ban for you. Plus you are insane because you get angry when scammers trust abuse you and I allow it for months. Also you told lies.

Err what lies Theymos? can you present these lies. Sorry says theymos , going to delete your thread where you ask I present the lies because... err I have probably spent all of 1 nano second and noticed there are NO LIES now, I was just duped by a bunch of scumbags into believing there were some lies.

Wake up theymos you are being duped here. This bunch of rag tag scum are not protecting your board from scammers, they are the self serving scammers and their supporters creaming off the rev streams for themselves ..best sig spots, campaign managing, escrowing, all rev streams actually... determining who gets to trade, or offer services....controlling now which projects get attention with the new merit = volume - upgrade...LOL are you sure about this theymos haha...yeah lets let the proven scammers and scammer supporters, trust abusers control it all. It seems like a perfect system to ensure only the most sneaky and devious scammers and their pals get to concentrate in one colluding mass and then put the entire board at their mercy.

Wakey Wakey, cock a doodle doo.....

The merit volume control = another big mistake.

So let's get back firmly to the initial post.

Where are you theymos?? all we want is a sensible open debate. Surely you have some brilliant explanation of why your systems of control are handing every conceivable advantage to those that are either scammers, or scammer supporters, or employ openly double standards, or worse?  We only wish to understand the masterplan at work. Is this like some honey pot trap ? where you then ban every member on DT1 and DT2 and all the largest merit cyclers in one foul swoop after a little longer to ensure you take out the most dangerous members all in one hit?

That would indeed be brilliant? Just PM us to let us know and we will stop speculating in public about it?