IS GIVING RED-TRUST THAT NON-EXPLANATORY ?

[The-One-Above-All]

I was tagged once because I have sent merit to post, it is not cool. Good thing is that person who sent me negative removed it.

Why would you merit post where Tec's hare calls lauda scammer and you defend OG when other users call him out and you don't send them merit?

Makes no sense, double standards.

LOL


Firstly Moronbozo you need to keep away from complex concepts like double standards. You clearly do not have the capacity to grasp the REAL meaning of such things.

Lauda is a PROVEN trust abuser. Giving red trust to a person on the basis they are meriting a high value post that is NOT conclusively proven false or misleading (actually it looks to be of high value) is obviously trust abuse.

You (we believe) were tagged for giving merit to a post that DOXED the forum treasurer which is kind of like condoning this rule breaking dangerous (financially clearly since he was then holding millions of USD for the forum)  behavior. This is not equivalent to the behavior of  hacker AT ALL.

Also Lauda is a PROVEN scammer and scam pusher. He is also strongly implicated in MANY shady examples of financially motivated wrong doing. So again this is NOT equivalent to OG where there is no conclusive proof.

So it is clear that Lauda is once again abusing trust, and the double standards are just a figment of your moronic broken mind.

The board needs to start also noting down those that will support ANY action of trust abuse or CLEAR financially motivated wrong doing that is undeniably placing other honest members at higher risk. Direwolf, moronbozo, nutildah micgoosens and plenty more now including JJG these ALWAYS seem to be on the side of trust abusers or scammers.

Bottom line is this is clearly again the trust system being used for PERSONAL gain /retribution that has nothing AT ALL to do with protecting the honest members here from scammers and those with undeniable observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing (lauda et al).

Clearly though as with merit "feedback" will always be abused since there is no criteria and can be weaponized for personal gain. Poor design = poor results.

Lauda has a long documented history of using red trust to silence others presenting observable instances from his own dirty history here TRUST ABUSE. Problem is nobody gives one shit until he does this to them. LOL

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I don't mind following the rules, but if the rules are ambiguous, unwritten, and arbitrarily enforced, then even if you want to operate within the system it is quite impossible. This inevitably leads to more chaos and conflict than approaching absolutely everything on a case by case basis.

I happen to agree with you here on all points, a rarity, eh? 

This drama about negs being given for petty reasons could be obviated if only we had some strong guidance from up top.  I really don't like it when DT members have to fight it out like this--it isn't that we all have to agree with one another, but it would be so fucking nice to be all on the same page about a few things.

I trust most of Lauda's feedbacks.  The one I countered, I didn't agree with and I rarely give a counter positive.  I just did not think it was appropriate to neg a member because of a difference either in perspective of the facts or opinions.  I'm pretty sure Lauda has a strong spine and can take a lot of BS that's thrown his/her way, so it was surprising when I saw that neg.

I don't want any more part of this drama than what I've already inserted myself into.  And just because I countered a single feedback by Lauda doesn't mean I no longer trust Lauda as a scam buster and a member who generally stands up for forum issues.  Since most of Lauda's feedbacks are spot on IMO, I'm keeping Lauda on my trust list.  We tend to think alike on some of the negs we've left.

[Lauda]

I trust most of Lauda's feedbacks.  The one I countered, I didn't agree with and I rarely give a counter positive.  I just did not think it was appropriate to neg a member because of a difference either in perspective of the facts or opinions.  I'm pretty sure Lauda has a strong spine and can take a lot of BS that's thrown his/her way, so it was surprising when I saw that neg.

I don't want any more part of this drama than what I've already inserted myself into.  And just because I countered a single feedback by Lauda doesn't mean I no longer trust Lauda as a scam buster and a member who generally stands up for forum issues.  Since most of Lauda's feedbacks are spot on IMO, I'm keeping Lauda on my trust list.  We tend to think alike on some of the negs we've left.

Sorry that certain individuals always cause collateral damage like this to others because of me. The day that I realized that people shuffle each other on trust lists because of singular cases of ratings[1] with which they don't agree with or are out of line is the day I stopped participating as much. Now you have to be very careful what you say (especially what you do) out of fear of others undoing a lot of work, quite a change of pace!
[1] Not talking about myself[2] before these people get a hard on; I've stopped participating that much a long time ago.
[2] I am controversy royalty.

[eddie13]

This drama about negs being given for petty reasons could be obviated if only we had some strong guidance from up top. 

I highly doubt it..

I couldn't give a shit about neither community nor theymos guidelines

Do you really think that I care what theymos said

This user has obviously and openly gone rogue against the systems guidelines..

I just did not think it was appropriate to neg a member because of a difference either in perspective of the facts or opinions. 

I have a hunch that this is about to get more prevalent and their is being a push to normalize it, seeing as their is currently an attempt to set precedent on it and all..

I'm pretty sure Lauda has a strong spine and can take a lot of BS that's thrown his/her way

They think they are untouchable and will get away with absolutely refusing to follow the guidelines...
We will see..

[Lauda]

This user has obviously and openly gone rogue against the systems guidelines..

This was true from the very beginning, I just wasn't testing these "freedom-of-speech" limits before. Is fun, for me and a couple of other blokes at least.

They think they are untouchable and will get away with absolutely refusing to follow the guidelines...
We will see..

See, you're completely wrong about me and yet you keep at it[1]. Whatever happens it's a win for both me and everyone else around here. You need to look at the bigger picture (and possible outcomes) when one tries to force players to play their hands.
[1] I believe this is due to the rating which you claim has no effect on you whatsoever, but since then you seem highly biased against me (in a very unnecessary and negative way). I'm two clicks away from being removed from the forum (which is the real threat) is something surely somebody who thinks they're untouchable would say.
Have a glass of wine or two, or whatever you like. This incident between us is not even worth the time you spend posting about it. Save the time and enjoy your life!

[hacker1001101001]

I don't want any more part of this drama than what I've already inserted myself into.  And just because I countered a single feedback by Lauda doesn't mean I no longer trust Lauda as a scam buster and a member who generally stands up for forum issues.  Since most of Lauda's feedbacks are spot on IMO, I'm keeping Lauda on my trust list.  We tend to think alike on some of the negs we've left.

I am sad that someone like you had to involve yourself here to fight for the abuse on me, as I never expected such still I respect you from the past.

But, the extent of such abuse is to were you are referring to the good deeds of there scam busting, but on other hands, they don't even think twice to tear apart the repo of another scam buster like me. One can surely see these goods deeds really doesn't outweigh the damage caused on another side.

(I don't intend to involve you in any type of drama, you could just stay away and still act right).

[Lauda]

I don't want any more part of this drama than what I've already inserted myself into.  And just because I countered a single feedback by Lauda doesn't mean I no longer trust Lauda as a scam buster and a member who generally stands up for forum issues.  Since most of Lauda's feedbacks are spot on IMO, I'm keeping Lauda on my trust list.  We tend to think alike on some of the negs we've left.

I am sad that someone like you had to involve yourself here to fight for the abuse on me, as I never expected such still I respect you from the past.

But, the extent of such abuse is to were you are referring to the good deeds of there scam busting, but on other hands, they don't even think twice to tear apart the repo of another scam buster like me.

This thing you claim as "abuse" has been removed. There is nothing that you could even remotely consider abusive feedback on you anymore, aside from maybe the user sergey1980 but that's your own issue.

One can surely see these goods deeds really doesn't outweigh the damage caused on another side.

Are you talking about this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238? If yes then indeed the good deeds don't even remotely outweigh your bad deeds. Estimating the damage caused by ICO bumping is next to impossible due to many factors.

[eddie13]

Is fun, for me and a couple of other blokes at least.
when one tries to force players to play their hands.

It is quite entertaining, especially the climax of the game when it's time for everyone to put their cards on the table..

since then you seem highly biased against me

Right, like I haven't spoke against your attempted authoritarianism for years, and haven't been being randomly attacked by you for years here.. Lol..
Surely this is something new..

It has been increasing lately because 1. you are going off the rails, leaving many abusive ratings and blatently refusing to follow guidelines while showing utter disrespect for theymos and his efforts..
2. It's time to show the cards right? You ready? My chips are obviously on the table as far as whose side of this I think will come out on top in the end..

Have a glass of wine or two, or whatever you like.

Then I can be drunk and know things like TMAN

This incident between us is not even worth the time you spend posting about it. Save the time and enjoy your life!

Why is it worth your time? You would just love it if I shut up wouldn't you...

[Lauda]

Is fun, for me and a couple of other blokes at least.
when one tries to force players to play their hands.

It is quite entertaining, especially the climax of the game when it's time for everyone to put their cards on the table..

See, you have it all wrong! The climax is over, it was when theymos went after me and I clashed right back at him this summer earning myself a ton of distrust. Statistically I lost there, but I understand why lotta people around here would never side against theymos but that's for a different topic. This is more like a Falling action before the catastrophe.

It has been increasing lately because 1. you are going off the rails, leaving many abusive ratings and blatently refusing to follow guidelines while showing utter disrespect for theymos and his efforts..

Respect theymos because he's an authority here, or because he 'tries'? I'm much more right to disrespect him if/when and how I want than >99% of the users here are having "worked alongside" him and the mod. team for years.

Then I can be drunk and know things like TMAN

The goal is to be sober and still be like TMAN at his finest.

This incident between us is not even worth the time you spend posting about it. Save the time and enjoy your life!

Why is it worth your time? You would just love it if I shut up wouldn't you...

Again, you write because of bias. It's not worth my time, I just post a lot like I always have. Sometimes spamming, sometimes swearing, almost always very grumpy and always having a laugh at the same time. If our dance indulges you as much as it does me, then please do spend your time engaging with me. I do admit though, I've lost way too much time here since December (especially today).
"Tyrannical authoritarian" now that one gave me quite the laugh, it's been a while.  

[DireWolfM14]

Call in the clowns. Don't forget your red nose DireWolfM14.

Any chance of having a constructive discussion without stooping to CH level ad hominem attacks?  I would actually like to resolve all the DT1 infighting, but this type of discourse isn't helpful.

The accusation you are referring to here is first of all made by Nutilduhh who has a very long standing gripe stemming from their interactions with me not only involving the trust system but from discussions in Politics & Society.

Whether nutildah's post predated my conclusions or not is irrelevant.  I know it doesn't suit your argument, but I am capable of critical thought despite the influence of others.  Regardless of the chronology it's my opinion that nutildah has made a valid point.  You are manipulating and using the Turkish member to further your DT1 agenda and expand your influence.

Coincidentally, I have no issues with nutildah, and as far as I know he has none with me, despite the two of us being on opposite sides of the political spectrum.  Maybe your issues with nutildah aren't so much your politics, but how you debate them?  But I digress.

I am trying to help build a culture of restorative not punitive justice

This is a philosophy that I can totally stand behind when it comes to limiting governing power.  As a conservative minded person, the last thing I want to see is a Minority Report type of punitive system in place.  But this isn't Philadelphia in the late 1700's, and we're not the Constitutional Congress.  This is an internet forum with many successfully anonymous members, some of whom are scammers.  

There isn't going to be any real justice if a guy shows up and makes wild claims of exorbitant ROIs if you invest in his cloud mining ponzi.  There is no "Justice System" in place here that can recoup the losses of the victims of such scammers.  How can there be a "restorative" system in these cases?  There's the old adage; an ounce of prevention...  That's the best we can do on this forum.

I'd like to believe I'm restrained when handing out negative reviews, and I hope all who are in the DT system also demonstrate thoughtful and cautious restraint.  There have been instances where the evidence was incomplete, yet I felt a warning to the community was warranted.  Those situations have been few.  If someone within the system doesn't show restraint I'll make a voting decision based on the value vs. detriment of allowing that person to remain on DT.  It's a difficult decision to make, and shouldn't be taken lightly.

To address the "punitive" part of your statement, what can possibly be done to someone on the internet that would be considered "punitive?"  There's no forum jail, or court system.  Most criminal scams that happen here aren't going to garner much attention from real-life law enforcement.  No one is going to jail for promoting LiveCoin, Yobit, or any other scammy exchange or ICO.  The only thing that's going to happen is a little red number shows up next to the scammer's (or "scammer's") name.  If you consider that punitive, well then, okay, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[eddie13]

earning myself a ton of distrus

More and more almost daily..

Respect theymos because he's an authority here, or because he 'tries'?

Because he does what he can to keep the forum true to its roots, despite those who are not here for the reasons Bitcoin and this forum were created..

Again, you write because of bias.

Bias towards theymos because he will continue to keep the forum free while you would rather turn it into a police state..

It's really that simple..

[TECSHARE]

Call in the clowns. Don't forget your red nose DireWolfM14.

Any chance of having a constructive discussion without stooping to CH level ad hominem attacks?  I would actually like to resolve all the DT1 infighting, but this type of discourse isn't helpful.

The accusation you are referring to here is first of all made by Nutilduhh who has a very long standing gripe stemming from their interactions with me not only involving the trust system but from discussions in Politics & Society.

Whether nutildah's post predated my conclusions or not is irrelevant.  I know it doesn't suit your argument, but I am capable of critical thought despite the influence of others.  Regardless of the chronology it's my opinion that nutildah has made a valid point.  You are manipulating and using the Turkish member to further your DT1 agenda and expand your influence.

Coincidentally, I have no issues with nutildah, and as far as I know he has none with me, despite the two of us being on opposite sides of the political spectrum.  Maybe your issues with nutildah aren't so much your politics, but how you debate them?  But I digress.

I am trying to help build a culture of restorative not punitive justice

This is a philosophy that I can totally stand behind when it comes to limiting governing power.  As a conservative minded person, the last thing I want to see is a Minority Report type of punitive system in place.  But this isn't Philadelphia in the late 1700's, and we're not the Constitutional Congress.  This is an internet forum with many successfully anonymous members, some of whom are scammers.  

There isn't going to be any real justice if a guy shows up and makes wild claims of exorbitant ROIs if you invest in his cloud mining ponzi.  There is no "Justice System" in place here that can recoup the losses of the victims of such scammers.  How can there be a "restorative" system in these cases?  There's the old adage; an ounce of prevention...  That's the best we can do on this forum.

I'd like to believe I'm restrained when handing out negative reviews, and I hope all who are in the DT system also demonstrate thoughtful and cautious restraint.  There have been instances where the evidence was incomplete, yet I felt a warning to the community was warranted.  Those situations have been few.  If someone within the system doesn't show restraint I'll make a voting decision based on the value vs. detriment of allowing that person to remain on DT.  It's a difficult decision to make, and shouldn't be taken lightly.

To address the "punitive" part of your statement, what can possibly be done to someone on the internet that would be considered "punitive?"  There's no forum jail, or court system.  Most criminal scams that happen here aren't going to garner much attention from real-life law enforcement.  No one is going to jail for promoting LiveCoin, Yobit, or any other scammy exchange or ICO.  The only thing that's going to happen is a little red number shows up next to the scammer's (or "scammer's") name.  If you consider that punitive, well then, okay, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You never answered my question. If I am to perform what is arguably a public service of dispute mediation, exactly what do I need to meet your fine and arbitrary standards so that I can some how prove what is happening in my mind and this public service is not being done in some strange reverse Machiavellian plan where I do good and useful things to help people, just to take over everything. Then of course step 3: profit.

No I think I will keep referring to you as a clown as I prostitute your goat to Nutilduhh for quarters. You are impugning my character and based on your interpretations of what you believe I intend for that matter rather than facts. You can go fuck yourself with your civil discourse because you don't operate by the rules of logic when it doesn't suit you, therefore logic alone is never going to make a difference in a discussion with you. This is all about an image you have been sold by a collection of turds being flushed down a toilet bowl around here as they go down the drain. You are confirming your bias and arranging interpretations around me rather than looking at facts and then coming to conclusions.

As far as the rest of your jibbering, the point is not oh the poor scammers. The point is the poor regular users who get caught up in this horse shit that allows certain users around here to run around like geeked up control freaks lording over people as they put on their little internet cop hat and clown noses. That has a negative affect on the user base and I have seen it drive a lot of great users who would have otherwise stayed away. At the end of the day the scammers are back in minutes on a bought account. The legit users burned in retribution for certain speech or the arbitrary/unclear/unwritten rules often just leave for good. Most of these accusations are more about the accuser boosting their own image by creating a reputation as a "Scam buster" by sheer arbitrary volume. This kind of behavior is destructive to any community online or not and should not be tolerated. People should be able to go about their business unless otherwise victimizing some one. Violations of forum rules should be reported to staff. The end.

[DireWolfM14]

Want to know how I can tell that your arguments are breaking down?  It's easy; you start to sound a lot like cryptohunter. 

You never answered my question. If I am to perform what is arguably a public service of dispute mediation, exactly what do I need to meet your fine and arbitrary standards

I acknowledge that my standards are mine and mine alone, they do not necessarily reflect the position of the forum, forum administration, forum staff, moderators, any other DT1 members.  Hell, they don't reflect the thoughts of anyone but me.  Got it?  Good.

1. Don't be a dick.
2. Don't pad your trust list to boost your own trust score.
3. Don't expect trust list reciprocation.
4. Don't use the trust list for retaliation.

And finally; the only one that really matters:
5. Demonstrate good judgement, good character, and restraint.

[The-One-Above-All]

Want to know how I can tell that your arguments are breaking down?  It's easy; you start to sound a lot like cryptohunter.  

You never answered my question. If I am to perform what is arguably a public service of dispute mediation, exactly what do I need to meet your fine and arbitrary standards

I acknowledge that my standards are mine and mine alone, they do not necessarily reflect the position of the forum, forum administration, forum staff, moderators, any other DT1 members.  Hell, they don't reflect the thoughts of anyone but me.  Got it?  Good.

1. Don't be a dick.
2. Don't pad your trust list to boost your own trust score.
3. Don't expect trust list reciprocation.
4. Don't use the trust list for retaliation.

And finally; the only one that really matters:
5. Demonstrate good judgement, good character, and restraint.

LOL but cryptohunter caved your retarded skull in every single time that you tried to rebut any of his points " mr opposite of facts" lol

What is the point of making these kind of statements that demonstrate absolutely nothing except your deranged view of reality ??
Have you not recognized that you direposter are just some broke ass noob with no skin in this game at all? stfu because you have achieved nothing (except trying to rip off people even less well of than yourself with crazy rates of interest) keep spamming your sig for dust and trying to sound smart so we can keep laughing at you whilst we enjoy our lavish lifestyle.

These are pretty much your groundless opinions, the rest are observable double standards that you should be spouting in the direction of your master lauda.

Lauda is a trust abuser. This is undeniable. Lauda is a scamer this is undeniable. You are found supporting him and other scumbags this is undeniable

Direposting burger flipper is one of his most ardent supporters. He should be removed along with lauda tman and nutildah. Those 3 are clear scammers and scam facilitators but those that support their actions regardless of how flagrantly they endanger honest members.

Direposter is some worthless peasant that now tries to loan shark others even worse off with ludicrous rates of interest for the dust he lends out. Scumbag.

Lauda will be a pariah, and you will be a pariah. It is only a matter of time. Meantime I will just deride and stuff your double standards back down your throat whenever I like.

LOL at don't use the trust list for retaliation, don't use red tags as retaliation. Just sit there and take it up the ass like a good little pussy.

Tag Lauda for trust abuse and the LONG list of scamming, extorting and other undeniable shady shit, same for tman and any other of these ass licking dregs that suck up to them like direwolf et al.  Stop with the neutrals and mild complaints.

Cut away the core group from beneath. Slap them with some red then we pull their sigs off. Watch them start crying. Pharmacist will squeal if his chipmixer is  removed.  Support scammers and trust abusers, you get red.

Lauda has multiple instances of undeniable trust abuse and scamming. How is there only 1 red tag from DT?? fucking bunch of crybaby wretches. What is wrong with you eddie and techshare, get this cunt lauda glowing red and tman, nutildah and any other scammer supporter or trust abuser. Then we get their sigs removed or we bust their projects for scamming and double standards.  Neutrals in return for reds?? what's the point.

Err no retaliation LOLOLOLOL so if you trust abuse someone first then they can never give you red because " no retaliation"??  ahahah

Trust abuse in many cases = scamming. It is deception (claiming untrustworthy when not) for their own person/financial gain. Red tag this scumbag core. Get me on DT I will red tag each and every one of these scammers and their supporters.  Lauda is only there doing this with others support him and include him on DT. Anyone including lauda on DT is untrustworthy clearly.

Lauda is claiming THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRUST ABUSE. If the scamming rat is not punished other than us slathering the board up with his past scamming deeds and hounding the cunt then perhaps he will turn out to be correct. Start crushing him in all possible ways and his  rev streams or he will just keep scamming and trust abusing.

[eddie13]

What is wrong with you eddie and techshare, get this cunt lauda glowing red
get their sigs removed

What would that accomplish other than a brief satisfaction of a limited set of users?
I think attacks and "retaliation" like that are generally used when an opponent runs out of, or has a lack of, pertinent information and logic to back their case as ad hominem charactor assassination attempts usually..

"ad hominem"=directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I'm after the position, not any person..

It may look like a short term win, or successful hit, but in the long term truth and logic are much more effective, and I believe sending redtags would just degrade the image and credibility of intelligence presented..

I don't care about removing Lauda's or anyone's signatures.. I am not looking to personally destroy anyone like that.. They can shitpost for sig pay all they want for all I care..

It's about the credibility of DT and influence over the direction of DT.. Not some users profiles..

[The-One-Above-All]

What is wrong with you eddie and techshare, get this cunt lauda glowing red
get their sigs removed

What would that accomplish other than a brief satisfaction of a limited set of users?
I think attacks and "retaliation" like that are generally used when an opponent runs out of, or has a lack of, pertinent information and logic to back their case as ad hominem charactor assassination attempts usually..

"ad hominem"=directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I'm after the position, not any person..

It may look like a short term win, or successful hit, but in the long term truth and logic are much more effective, and I believe sending redtags would just degrade the image and credibility of intelligence presented..

I don't care about removing Lauda's or anyone's signatures.. I am not looking to personally destroy anyone like that.. They can shitpost for sig pay all they want for all I care..

It's about the credibility of DT and influence over the direction of DT.. Not some users profiles..

These points have "some" small merit. However most are words of someone that does not understand this forum and certainly NOT the mechanisms upon which the systems of control are based.

1. lauda is a confirmed scammer. He is a confirmed trust abuser (scamming). He is a highly probable extortionist. He has run a very shady looking escrow. He supports other proven scammers.  Reduce the credibility of the TRUST system HOW exactly? NOT giving red trust to these types of dangerous scum bags is REDUCING the value of the trust system.  How can you even claim that giving someone as blatantly untrustworthy and dangerous as lauda would DEVALUE the trust system. That is pure crazy talk.

This ALONE is 100% reason he should be glowing red. You are meant to be warning other honest members right about those that have demonstrated they are willing to lie, trust abuse, extort and use shady escrow for their person financial gain??

Ad hominem?  calling  a confirmed scammer a scammer is NOT ad hominem. When you are using the context of the TRUST system.

2. True that short of changing a broken system of control you will not PREVENT a recurrence of the same for 100% certain. Lauda and his cronies are but a symptom of the system. However since you are NOT  controlling the mechanisms on which the system works then you will need to understand that the SYSTEM itself DEMANDS retribution and friction to function. By removing them SHORT TERM it will send a message that scammers and those willingly and knowingly supporting scammers and their trust abuse will be REMOVED if they behave in that way.

3. You Fail to understand the trust system is ECONOMIC punishment for 99% of members. Do really believe that if there was no ECONOMIC consequences that anyone would give a shit about any of this LOL.  Your ONLY hope of removing trust abusers and scammers that are in DT and willing to continue trust abusing and doing whatever they can to hold on to their LUCRATIVE positions is chopping their support away. a/ chop into their projects for hiring these types, b/ refusing to produce transparent and open rules for campaign acceptance/denial  c/ using the gamed metrics of merit and trust that the SAME PEOPLE CONTROL THAT TAKE ALL THE TOP SPOTS.  Chop away at those supporting them and those projects funding them. That is your ONLY hope.

Like the school bullies that slap you around and you are only willing to wipe some of your tears on them in retaliation, NO UPPERCUT the bitches right in the fucking face so their is something to deter them or just keep getting abused. Head teacher is not going to help and neither are the bullies pals.

Talking back is  better than most are willing to do so we salute that but you will need to unite, organize and take action. They system RELIES ON THIS. DT is no place for those that dare not use the system as DESIGNED. The design is poor enough to have gifted a bunch of scum a huge entrenched advantage but they know to collude and take action whilst most just sit there moaning and crying. If we were on DT they would all be glowing red and stripped of their sigs until they start understanding you don't use the trust system to hide your past scamming deeds and punish whistle blowers. You don't actually get to be a scammer and be on DT and take the best sig spots. Scammers get tagged, innocent honest members do not. Honest member that are great contributors get the BEST SIG SPOTs.

Sensible transparent clear rules that apply equally to all members.

Trust abuse will not magically stop by moaning about it.

I see that by  sounding very reasonable and mild mannered you "think" that you will garner support some day from the out circle that entrench the core. I do NOT think that is possible.

For those like us that do not need or care about sigs your points MAY have more validity (not the refusal to tag scammers and extortionists and flagrant trust abusers) but you are talking about less than 1% of the board. They are recruiting from the 99% you are and already out number you and are entrenched will self cycled merits. Those odds are ...well I'm sure you see.

lauda primarily trust abuses when

a/ you mention observable scammy or shady instances in his past
b/ you mention observable scammy or shady instances in his supporters pasts
c/ you defend those that have PREVIOUSLY themselves highlighted his scammy, extorting and trust abusing ways.

He does this to prevent other members finding out he is dirty and indeed financially super high risk.  Allowing this to continue without tagging him red as a warning is certainly high risk.

Man up and fight back with all the tools the broken systems have given you , since you will not fix the systems themselves. Only theymos can do that and he seems intent of GIVING more advantage to those that collude and control merit not less. If the 250 threshold is ever increased (without fixing merit) you can only conclude theymos is crazy, stupid or complicit.
We draw close to our 1000 post . Then we will likely decide to leave for another task. If we return in one year and it is still the same core of scammy trust abusers and their supporters then they board is pretty much dead in terms of free speech on certain subjects (not hate speech)

Allowing people to shit post for pay at the highest rates whilst having scammed and facilitated scams, whilst other honest members who don't shit post can not post and be rewarded is the OPPOSITE of a meritocracy. That is like the worst possible environment for a forum. Some would call that sub optimal. We say it is a fucking cluster fuck.

We like you eddie but for DT to have a chance and this forum to have an optimal free and fair meritocracy where all members are given equal chance and opportunity, you need people in DT that will take affirmative action when it is clearly required. Bullies are only kept in check by those that are willing to ensure that their gains are = or less than their losses for abuse.  If their net gain is still more than their loss or punishment they will never stop.

[eddie13]

Me tagging Lauda would be unlikely to make them unqualified for their signature deal..
Lauda loosing their signature deal probably wouldn't change anything anyway.. You think they will just leave if they can't get paid for a signature?
Red-tagging has nothing to do with being "removed" either..

I also do not necessarily think that Lauda is all that high risk to trade with..
I highly doubt Lauda would scam on any simple trades or deals up to quite a high value, say up to around $10k, though I don't think they are a very good choice for an escrow or to be given very large exit scam opportunities anymore, but very few are up to that mark..


I highly doubt Lauda actually thinks that I myself am a high risk to trade with either.. Do you @Lauda?
Lauda do you think I would really scam over $100 or even $1k?


Where I do not trust Lauda is to be in charge/in influence of making the "laws", setting community standards/precedents, and wielding power over others..
As a matter of fact actually, I would trust Lauda to do just about exactly what they say they would do, which consists of banning/tagging/shutting up/exiling anyone that disagrees with them and greatly limiting the freedom of users in general, based on my interpretation of their statements and actions against users..

[SockyMcSockFace]

Ad hominem?  calling  a confirmed scammer a scammer is NOT ad hominem. When you are using the context of the TRUST system.

No, but your relentless use of playground-level, derogatory nicknames is. As is the continual banging on the "sig spamming for bitcoin dust" drum. Just because a user has something in their sig space for which they may be receiving compensation, it does not automatically make the contents of their post or their opinion invalid, just as the reverse is true.

Are we going to get anything new for 2020? "New Year, New You" perchance? Or is it just going to be the same old, same old repeated ad nauseam?

[The-One-Above-All]

Me tagging Lauda would be unlikely to make them unqualified for their signature deal..
Lauda loosing their signature deal probably wouldn't change anything anyway.. You think they will just leave if they can't get paid for a signature?
Red-tagging has nothing to do with being "removed" either..

I also do not necessarily think that Lauda is all that high risk to trade with..
I highly doubt Lauda would scam on any simple trades or deals up to quite a high value, say up to around $10k, though I don't think they are a very good choice for an escrow or to be given very large exit scam opportunities anymore, but very few are up to that mark..


I highly doubt Lauda actually thinks that I myself am a high risk to trade with either.. Do you @Lauda?
Lauda do you think I would really scam over $100 or even $1k?


Where I do not trust Lauda is to be in charge/in influence of making the "laws", setting community standards/precedents, and wielding power over others..
As a matter of fact actually, I would trust Lauda to do just about exactly what they say they would do, which consists of banning/tagging/shutting up/exiling anyone that disagrees with them and greatly limiting the freedom of users in general, based on my interpretation of their statements and actions against users..

Please read my post again and understand lauda losing his own sig is of little importance. Laudas removal however can be leveraged by the removal of his supporters sig or threat there of. This SIG business is but 1 tiny part of the arsenal one will need to adopt to have such scammers removed.  Just because lauda would not scam a person in a trade ( this is in doubt with large amounts) matters not. His prior history has MORE than enough to ensure he should be kept well away from the trust system. Are we that desperate we NEED those that have scammed, supported other scammers, worked with other scammers on a highly probable extortion, shady ecrowing, trust abuse?? ffs we only need 100 people here out of 100's of 1000s lol. There is NO reason for him NOT to be tagged red. Fortune jack are employing SCAMMERS this can and should be leveraged.

Why ask lauda a question in public, a liar and scammer/extortionist will simply say whatever suits them best. Do you really need to feel validated and trusted by a scammer. That is like an anti reference?

We don't need to have opinions, lauda has scammed and has so much dirt there in black and white there is no sensible reason not to red tag him. I mean if he does not meet the threshold for a tag LOL who the fuck does haha..  He won't pull of a small scam. I see so that fact there is irrefutable proof of scamming and STRONG evidence to suggest he was going for a nice big extortion or  huge escrow scam is OKAY??

All the other manipulations and collusions and DT entrenchment ON TOP is not even needed to know he should be banned let alone red tagged.

Anyway eddie we don't want to appear hostile to you (because we are not) but you will not see these scammers and trust abusers kicked out or even brought in line by talk alone. Organised action is your only hope. We will revisit when we come back in a years time after reaching our 1000 post. They will still be here and the forum will be more of a warzone and more of an echo chamber.

Economic pressure is a large leverage here. Most of these bums are broke so their chipmixer sigs dust are life blood to them. I mean they have been here years some of them and still broke down bums. This is the kind of people you are dealing with. Do not reason as if they had btc like yourself behind them and economic concerns are NOT PRIMARY. They are to them.

Transparent objective rules enforced equally on all members is the only satisfactory goal. No 2 tier system.

There is a temptation for some I know to try to win back favor of these controlling bunch. That is a shame (not you eddie but some others). I think theymos is part to blame 1/ merit cancer/ 2 leaving the old feedback system, 3/ not punishing trust abusers and scammers harder. This gives a bad signal to members they fear standing against the core bunch of scum AS BOTH VOD AND LFC BITCOIN have admitted in public. Fear of this group must be smashed.

Anyway I have given you my opinion, if you still believe it is a poor path to follow then continue your own way.  Trust abuse will be stopped through deterrent of retribution or theymos. FOrget theymos he is not going to help or would have done so by now. It is true the core group may collapse alone through greed and disagreement but they no their power depends on collusion so that is NOT going to happen imho.

I will only reply if you query anything I have said here. If not fine, try your own way. So long as you goal is to kick double standards and punish only scammers and financially dangerous it is good you are trying anything. So we salute that. As we say we do not mean to oppose you personally eddie

[TECSHARE]

Want to know how I can tell that your arguments are breaking down?  It's easy; you start to sound a lot like cryptohunter. 

You never answered my question. If I am to perform what is arguably a public service of dispute mediation, exactly what do I need to meet your fine and arbitrary standards

I acknowledge that my standards are mine and mine alone, they do not necessarily reflect the position of the forum, forum administration, forum staff, moderators, any other DT1 members.  Hell, they don't reflect the thoughts of anyone but me.  Got it?  Good.

1. Don't be a dick.
2. Don't pad your trust list to boost your own trust score.
3. Don't expect trust list reciprocation.
4. Don't use the trust list for retaliation.

And finally; the only one that really matters:
5. Demonstrate good judgement, good character, and restraint.

1. It is my God given American right to be a dick and fuck you for suggesting otherwise.

2. Pad my trust how exactly? By using it in exactly the way it was intended to be used, and the way it is used by practically every one else here?

3. Again, you should use your special powers to know what goes on inside my mind for more useful purposes. Even if this were true (it is not) how the fuck does some one's expectations influence others?

4. I don't use the trust list for retaliation. I am using it in the way I see fit as we are all permitted to. You see, when people such as yourself exclude me for stupid shit, I see that as a lack of ability to make sound decisions and the inability to put personal feelings aside when using the system. This system was designed this way to make sure that if some one is excluded it is done for good reasons otherwise the excluding party gets excluded themselves. That is the whole point of constructing the system this way.

5. I have been doing this for years, long before you showed up. The only instances of abuse of the trust system you can name are ones where you rely on your own interpretations, fantasies, and beliefs of what my intent is. The fact is in spite of having many interpersonal conflicts with users here I have shown exceptional restraint when using the trust system even when it is abused against me. Me telling you to go fuck yourself is not a lack of restraint. Me not shitting all over your trust ratings to spite you is restraint.

You have long been defending the actions of people who make a habit of this, but because you can imagine in your own mind things going on in my mind, well that is all the evidence you need to condemn my actions now isn't it? So again, you have no answer to my question, your reply is a ad-hominim attack comparing me to cryptohunter, and you don't need to base your actions on logic or facts because they are your opinions. Good show. Don't forget your clown shoes tool boy.