Should DT1 members be editing their histories to mask their prior wrong doing???

[The-One-Above-All]

If a DT1 member starts EDITING the titles of their threads and posts histories to mask and obscure their prior financially motivated wrong doing should this be ALLOWED??

Does this look shady or PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE???

Editing a posts from several years back just recently AFTER it has been brought to light is incredibly shady.

WHY EDIT IT AT ALL IF YOU ARE NOT HIDING ANYTHING. PUT IT BACK EXACTLY AS IT WAS BEFORE.


Who thinks this is totally acceptable behavior?? We can't wait to see all the explanations given as to WHY IT IS TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE haha. Bring them here.

It should remain as it were before you were made ashamed of it as a reminder to other members of who you really are.

LoyceV do you not have this entire forum backed up and can find the ORIGINAL unedited posts ?

I mean the excuse for changing it ( in place of the original text) is quite amusing.

[1713931548]

1713931548

[1713931548]

1713931548

[1713931548]

1713931548

[philipma1957]

Well the first four years no one cared about selling accounts it was pretty much a non issue.

So if someone mention selling or wanting to buy an account or buying an account in the early years I could see people wanting to hide it.

For the record I never purchased or sold an account.  But if you look at every post I did you would find some where I mentioned I was offered 0.25 btc to sell this account.

I did not mention  the person that offered me the coin and I don’t remember if it was in 2014 or 2015.

I could see someone digging up that post and say why didn’t I tell the name of the person that offered me the coin.  Well back then it was not a big deal.


Point is stuff that was okay at the time is not okay now.  People go back and use stuff against you so I can see long time members going back to save grief.

[The-One-Above-All]

Well the first four years no one cared about selling accounts it was pretty much a non issue.

So if someone mention selling or wanting to buy an account or buying an account in the early years I could see people wanting to hide it.

For the record I never purchased or sold an account.  But if you look at every post I did you would find some where I mentioned I was offered 0.25 btc to sell this account.

I did not mention  the person that offered me the coin and I don’t remember if it was in 2014 or 2015.

I could see someone digging up that post and say why didn’t I tell the name of the person that offered me the coin.  Well back then it was not a big deal.


Point is stuff that was okay at the time is not okay now.  People go back and use stuff against you so I can see long time members going back to save grief.

Well let's not make this specific.. This is ...SHOULD ANY DT1 member or any other members be editing the evidence that demonstrates THEY were clearly guilty of financially motivated wrong doing. There is NO DOUBT on the issue of whether it was financially motivated wrong doing or NOT. There was no doubt in their mind they were guilty of facilitating scams for a price.

Let us stay on topic.

HOWEVER please research a LITTLE MORE. What you have posted is not at all relevant to what we are asking AND it certainly was not CLASSED AS OKAY BY ONE CERTAIN MEMBER WHO SAID YOU WERE EVIL AND FACILITATING SCAMS IF YOU SOLD YOUR ACCOUNT and they they were starting their own dedicated thread to ensure they (account sellers and buyers) were all brought to justice. These are NOT the words of someone who thinks that is okay. are they??

So strike the above post. This is not what we are talking about. We are saying if there is CLEAR INTENTION TO SCAM OR FACILITATE SCAMMING (not do something that is good, or okay).

Intending to scam or facilitate scamming or other clear financially motivated wrong doing. Not to be confused with intention to do something that you are positive was okay or you think may be okay. YOU CLEARLY WERE CERTAIN YOU WERE EVIL AND FACILITATING SCAMMERS BUT FOR A PRICE YOU ARE GOING TO DO SO ANYWAY.

Let's not get into specifics. This is a broad rule for consideration.

Scammers and clear financially motivated wrong doing - when the evidence is presented to the board and it is highlighted (perhaps years after the event) does it look shady to go and edit this incriminating post ??  and place there an excuse and try to change the perception of the original deed? masking several important details or deleting them altogether, points and details that honest members should be privy to??

[squatter]

Well let's not make this specific.. This is ...SHOULD ANY DT1 member or any other members be editing the evidence that demonstrates THEY were clearly guilty of financially motivated wrong doing. There is NO DOUBT on the issue of whether it was financially motivated wrong doing or NOT. There was no doubt in their mind they were guilty of facilitating scams for a price.

It's obvious you have someone/something specific in mind. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean?

Let's not get into specifics. This is a broad rule for consideration.

Scammers and clear financially motivated wrong doing - when the evidence is presented to the board and it is highlighted (perhaps years after the event) does it look shady to go and edit this incriminating post ??

Probably, but context is important, and your post is completely devoid of it.

What rules are you talking about anyway? Last I checked, trust is not moderated. If you want to try to smear someone's reputation, there's a board for that: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0

[The-One-Above-All]

Well let's not make this specific.. This is ...SHOULD ANY DT1 member or any other members be editing the evidence that demonstrates THEY were clearly guilty of financially motivated wrong doing. There is NO DOUBT on the issue of whether it was financially motivated wrong doing or NOT. There was no doubt in their mind they were guilty of facilitating scams for a price.

It's obvious you have someone/something specific in mind. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean?

Let's not get into specifics. This is a broad rule for consideration.

Scammers and clear financially motivated wrong doing - when the evidence is presented to the board and it is highlighted (perhaps years after the event) does it look shady to go and edit this incriminating post ??

Probably, but context is important, and your post is completely devoid of it.

What rules are you talking about anyway? Last I checked, trust is not moderated. If you want to try to smear someone's reputation, there's a board for that: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0

What more context can one need.

Evidence of scamming or undeniable intent to enabling scamming for a price. Once the post with the incriminating proof is found and highlighted, then does it look shady for them to go and edit it and delete various relevant details that the honest members should have access to?

Rules ? I think you mentioned rules, and trust moderation. Let's keep to the initial post and not get derailed.

Does it look shady or not? is it acceptable behavior of a DT1? let's hear some opinions. But let's keep to the initial post.

I mean surely the simple answer is

If a post is highlighted as evidence of financially motivated wrong doing and this is undeniable, then the person guilty of said wrong doing going and editing the post that contained the details of said evidence is clearly SHADY and sneaky. 

That is why people archive scammers incriminating posts, and reference the archived link, because they know scammers would just go and edit it when they are busted and the reference link would lead to a bunch of excuses and lack of the detailed evidence that was there previously.

Altering your incriminating post after being busted is clearly shady.

[mikeywith]

Please make up your mind , is this topic meta or reputation related ?

Anyhow, I can't answer on behalf of everyone, but if I posted something in the past and later on I realized it was stupid, I see no reason why I shouldn't edit it, we all do things we regret and we wish we can "edit them" only if everything else was as simple as editing a post on forum.

For those who don't know, it's pretty obvious you are talking about Nutildah, you have brought this up a couple of times, I am not sure why do you keep expecting the results to be different, let's evaluate the reasons why he got away with whatever you think he deserves to be tagged/banned for.

1- At that time it was okay to trade accounts.
2-He is a protected member of the "gang" / impunity.
3-Nobody gives a fuck.

Whatever the real reason is, why do you care so much?? and please don't get me wrong, I dislike Nutildah as much as I like you , but leave the man alone and move on with your life.

[The-One-Above-All]

Please make up your mind , is this topic meta or reputation related ?

Anyhow, I can't answer on behalf of everyone, but if I posted something in the past and later on I realized it was stupid, I see no reason why I shouldn't edit it, we all do things we regret and we wish we can "edit them" only if everything else was as simple as editing a post on forum.

For those who don't know, it's pretty obvious you are talking about Nutildah, you have brought this up a couple of times, I am not sure why do you keep expecting the results to be different, let's evaluate the reasons why he got away with whatever you think he deserves to be tagged/banned for.

1- At that time it was okay to trade accounts.
2-He is a protected member of the "gang" / impunity.
3-Nobody gives a fuck.

Whatever the real reason is, why do you care so much?? and please don't get me wrong, I dislike Nutildah as much as I like you , but leave the man alone and move on with your life.

Mikey mikey mikey,

If we make it specifically about nutildah then it is a reputation matter.
If we use a similar scenario as an example as applicable to ALL members and want to gage if it should be acceptable practice in general for the forum, it is a meta board issue.

Do  you understand now?

Again you seem incapable of staying on topic. We did not say if you did something stupid did we? have another read. Are you saying when you do stupid things you just start wanting to facilitate scamming for a price? is that what you mean? and then when it was highlighted and other people caught on and started referencing this you would go and change it?? that does not sound good mikey?

DELIBERATELY TRYING TO FACILITATE SCAMMING OF OTHER MEMBERS AND BECOME WHAT YOU YOURSELF CLAIM IS ACTUALLY EVIL FOR SOME BTC  is not silly or stupid. It is scamming.

You see the problem is mikey you don't seem to have the capacity to get the central point as with many of your specious arguments they may be well intended but they are net negative.You are better off just keeping your head down. We see you added chipmixer now so we recognize it will be hard to dare stand up for the right thing since you are in such bad company there.

Sorry but you don't seem to have this correct either... I mean if a person clearly demonstrates he is willling to facilitate scamming, and turn evil for 0.3 btc in the past and then when he is busted he feels it is okay to go and edit that evidence then LEAVE THE GUY ALONE attitude is clearly not applicable.  You don't get to pick and choose ABOUT GIVING A FUCK selectively depending on who you view is a danger to your sig rev or standing on DT.  

Perhaps you are don;t have the capacity to get the point or you just need to do more research.

There must be set standards for all members here. No we don't give a fuck about you but we do give a fuck about others will not wash any longer.

No more derailing and making your own DIFFERENT questions up.  This is about people that are willing to facilitate scams for a fee.  Are you willing to facilitate scams for a fee mikey?

Are you saying if you done something you considered WRONG and DANGEROUS FOR OTHER MEMBERS FOR SELFISH FINANCIAL REASONS or admitted you would be willing to facilitate scams for a fee and you got busted, and people had linked to that post (IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM) as evidence, that you would then go and removed the original post and thread title and deliberately remove details that the honest members here should be privy too?

Is that what you mean? or are you just trying to drag this off topic and present ANOTHER faux rebuttal? don't become net negative mikey. Stick to posting about matters you have a firm grasp of.

Now no more trying to apply this to just one member and derail it. Go to the other thread if you believe you have something of value to contribute on nutildahs behalf. We will your specious arguments apart on there.

The next person trying to apply this to a single member and turn it into a rep matter will be reported.  This is a broad examinations of peoples opinions of this kind of behavior in general. Not all about that willing scam facilitator.

Why would we leave a scam facilitator for pay alone? especially in light of the fact he keeps abusing our account even recently. Sorry but no. We will keep presenting the truth as and when we see it is on topic relevant and valuable for other members to read it.

[mikeywith]

Go to the other thread if you believe you have something of value to contribute on nutildahs behalf.

I don't really give a shit about Nutilda or anyone else for that matter, you claim that I don't understand the subject when it's clearly you who have a problem  with understanding how the forum operates, you are discussing a trust/scam/reputation stuff in Meta which is pretty useless, your topic should be in reputation directed exactly to those who tag account sellers but chose not to tag the member in question, which you had before and I think you have gotten different answers for why he wasn't tagged, everyone had their own justification regardless of whether it made sense or not.

You know what almost everyone is going to tell you ? Theymos made the edit button for a reason, and as long as they are not editing someone else's posts, members are free to do whatever they want their old posts, period

The problem is that you think the forum is 100% fair and that everyone is treated equally, history has proven to you that this is not the case, it's not a perfect world, you must understand that there is no place on earth where everyone is treated or judged the same, this is how human beings are created for God's sake.

I am not sure why are you so aggressive, I am trying to help you, you really have some serious problem and online account sales should be the least of your concern.  I really wish you a speedy recovery and good luck.

[The-One-Above-All]

Go to the other thread if you believe you have something of value to contribute on nutildahs behalf.

I don't really give a shit about Nutilda or anyone else for that matter, you claim that I don't understand the subject when it's clearly you who have a problem  with understanding how the forum operates, you are discussing a trust/scam/reputation stuff in Meta which is pretty useless, your topic should be in reputation directed exactly to those who tag account sellers but chose not to tag the member in question, which you had before and I think you have gotten different answers for why he wasn't tagged, everyone had their own justification regardless of whether it made sense or not.

You know what almost everyone is going to tell you ? Theymos made the edit button for a reason, and as long as they are not editing someone else's posts, members are free to do whatever they want their old posts, period

The problem is that you think the forum is 100% fair and that everyone is treated equally, history has proven to you that this is not the case, it's not a perfect world, you must understand that there is no place on earth where everyone is treated or judged the same, this is how human beings are created for God's sake.

I am not sure why are you so aggressive, I am trying to help you, you really have some serious problem and online account sales should be the least of your concern.  I really wish you a speedy recovery and good luck.

Wrong again. Just telling you that you are wrong and do not understand is not aggressive. It is simply how it is. Speculating on why you keep presenting these specious arguments often resulting in you suggesting we don't present the truth for examination relating to undeniable financially motivated wrong doing of fellow dts is perhaps for another thread.

Meta = system wide actions that have system wide implications. Trust matters, what meets the threshold of a scam debates, debates on anything that may have system wide implications really, and those can have in part have implications for reputation too. Sometimes meta is far more appropriate to determine objective opinions if you do not introduce personal and political factors such as pals , fellow dts, etc.

This thread is clearly not only asking about account selling, or one person, those were added by other members including you. If they wish to make examples of what they recognize as behaviors  by individual members that is their decision. We prefer to keep the discussion as relevant for meta.

We note your council to leave him alone is a one way street, we don't notice you doing shit to prevent him constantly abusing our trust and that of others.

Now as we keep telling you, stay out of things you either do not understand fully or that you may understand but want to support shady scum to maintain your position.

That is friendly advice to you mikey, not aggressive at all. We understand your position, but best not present specious arguments as some kind of valid rebuttal. We will be forced to pick you apart. We get no pleasure from it at all. So stop it and stay objective and push for fair and transparent rules that ensure the fair treatment for all members. No point saying things have always been unfair so we will just allow grossly unfair control systems to rule here.

NO.