Spineless cowards making posts

[eddie13]

I would rather see a problem/question posted from an alt account than not at all..

I remember reading the same statement from theymos a long time ago. I tried to find back that post once, but failed, so is someone can find it, I'd appreciate it.

I try to learn from the best
IIRC it was in the context of why alt accounts should be allowed as one of the main reasons..

[1714663677]

1714663677

[1714663677]

1714663677

[1714663677]

1714663677

[ChuckBuck]

I have doxxed myself many times over the years thru physical trades here, and i just cant risk my family by rocking the boat with people/groups here, so i dont.
My own fault for not being anon i guess, but who would have thought this place would get like it is now?

I understand what you are describing, but there is a little difference here, and right in this case, It is just a question, anyone can ask about it, it's everyone's freedom, as long as you don't accuse someone, you're okay, you're not hostile to anyone. This is just to say that everyone has the right to ask questions without worrying about hostility.

I remember reading the same statement from theymos a long time ago. I tried to find back that post once, but failed, so is someone can find it, I'd appreciate it.

if I'm not mistaken, it is this statement:

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

But in the case of Yahoo62278, it's not something that is controversial, it's just a question and anyone can ask, don't be scared. If you are participating in a signature campaign and you do not receive payment, you have the right to request it. Because it is your right, you have worked and you should be paid, there is nothing excessive here 

Bitcointalk can be quite intimidating when it comes to (negative) feedback.

Maybe I should be worried because one fine day in the future, I wake up and see my account has a negative trust. And it would be something similar: This user makes negative comments that harm the community, avoid trust, ...bla bla 

[eddie13]

if I'm not mistaken, it is this statement:

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

Yeah, that... Good job..
A "post as a guest" feature would be cool too.. I think their used to be one..

[FIFA worldcup]

if I'm not mistaken, it is this statement:

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

Yeah, that... Good job..
A "post as a guest" feature would be cool too.. I think their used to be one..

So you mean anyone can post as a guest without having to make an account, if this feature is implemented. This will make more life easier for the trollers to express their opinion  with just a click of a button.

[TECSHARE]

if I'm not mistaken, it is this statement:

I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.

Yeah, that... Good job..
A "post as a guest" feature would be cool too.. I think their used to be one..

Nope, that is just what shows when they used to ban a user but didn't nuke all their posts, or something like that.

[AB de Royse777]

Users get attacked all the time for speaking out, get their entire post histories dug for anything to tag them for or ban them for.. All the time..

Ashamed and us to be blamed here. We were not able to create an open platform to speak up loud for everyone I guess. There are few exceptions as always though.

I can see the argument both ways and it's a total bullshit situation. Veteran forum users also need to stop being bitches as well.

Well here comes free speech LOL
Some of the Baboons family use bitching as a tool to seek approval of their Alpha characteristics where in reality they smell their teen girl's blood wet Tampon and feels it on their own d**khead.

Anyway, if I read it correctly in other thread then I think Hhampuz took the responsibility on his shoulder and declared to pay it from his own pocket. Although he was not obliged to make such statements but I think it's another example of his strong leadership character.

[suchmoon]

~

Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate".

[TECSHARE]

~

Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate".

It absolutely can work. As I have said 1000 times before ratings and flags need to be left to observable instances of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. Theymos had an opportunity to make a break with the old system with the introduction of flags by implementing this standard.

Instead he intentionally chose to leave in arbitrary language which left loop holes so big you could drive a bus through them to abuse the system. I warned him this would result in failure of his new system, and here we are. He seems to maintain this idealistic delusion that large groups of human beings will self regulate outside of a very specific regulatory structure, and is using us all for his little social experiment. It isn't fair to the user base, and it causes the forum to hemorrhage good people that never return.

[figmentofmyass]

~

Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate".

who cares if a newbie makes an unproven accusation? DT members constantly make unproven accusations around here, yet only one of the two groups has the power to ruin the other's reputation.

you're not addressing the actual problem: people can't post from their real account without fear of retaliation from DT members. therefore, expecting people to post critical views from their real accounts is flat out ridiculous. that was my point to the OP, who i doubt will post here again.

you are making it out like newbies have all the power and DT members have none. totally backwards!

[TECSHARE]

~

Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate".

who cares if a newbie makes an unproven accusation? DT members constantly make unproven accusations around here, yet only one of the two groups has the power to ruin the other's reputation.

you're not addressing the actual problem: people can't post from their real account without fear of retaliation from DT members. therefore, expecting people to post critical views from their real accounts is flat out ridiculous. that was my point to the OP, who i doubt will post here again.

you are making it out like newbies have all the power and DT members have none. totally backwards!

Projection is usually a tool manipulative abusers favor. D.A.R.V.O. tactics.

[suchmoon]

you're not addressing the actual problem

I'm addressing the topic of the thread and your pretzel-shaped justification of sockpuppeting. How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum, versus just some random drama bullshit? It has become a ridiculous circular argument - a newbie accuser pops up so it must mean DT is so bad that the poor schmuck can't use his real account... nonsense.

If shit's not worth saying with your main account then saying it with a newbie account is not going to make it less shit.

[figmentofmyass]

you're not addressing the actual problem

I'm addressing the topic of the thread

you're specifically not doing that. the topic is whether regular members can post criticism without fear of DT retaliation. you are completely sidestepping that question by claiming that every instance of such criticism is automatically meritless.

your claim is obviously unprovable, and it does not address the original question in any way. like TECSHARE implied, you're trying to flip the issue on its head to take attention away from DT trust abuse and project it on powerless newbies instead.

this narrative you are trying to paint where newbies have all the power and DT members are powerless is laughable. anybody with a brain can see right through that bullshit.

How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum, versus just some random drama bullshit?

this entire board is a waste of space. it's mostly DT members throwing around baseless accusations and engaging in flame wars against people they don't like. why are you fixating on newbies when highly respected DT members are constantly perpetuating this behavior?

[yahoo62278]

~

Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate".

who cares if a newbie makes an unproven accusation? DT members constantly make unproven accusations around here, yet only one of the two groups has the power to ruin the other's reputation.

you're not addressing the actual problem: people can't post from their real account without fear of retaliation from DT members. therefore, expecting people to post critical views from their real accounts is flat out ridiculous. that was my point to the OP, who i doubt will post here again.

you are making it out like newbies have all the power and DT members have none. totally backwards!

You are wrong if you think I will not post here again. You make a fair point, but think about your response. If users are asking legitimate questions, without being pricks, why would they be tagged?

I am not saying it hasn't happened. There have been many questionable tags given to users, but at the same time there have been many acceptable tags.

For example, since I used the Hhampuz thread in the op, this user had a legitimate concern. Had he asked his question with a respectful tone, and created a discussion, he would not or should not have had to fear a tag.

As suchmoon says, users use a throwaway account and toss shit at the wall and see if it sticks. Those are the posts we as a community should avoid. Defamation, rude, ulterior motivated posts meant only to stir up drama and cause chaos shouldn't be given the time of day.

@Royse777 the term bitches was correct in its use.  When we tag someone just because, that's being a bitch. Multiple users, probably including myself, are guilty of this and it needs to stop.

Coming in here trying to sound cool doesn't make you cool man. Everyone thinks DT are at fault, but in reality its everyone's fault. It's also everyone's responsibility to fix it.

Step up and do your part guys/gals. Think about your tags before you give them. Think about your responses. Treat everyone with a little respect until they show they don't deserve it.

[suchmoon]

you're specifically not doing that. the topic is whether regular members can post criticism without fear of DT retaliation. you are completely sidestepping that question by claiming that every instance of such criticism is automatically meritless.

I didn't say that. Please refrain from making shit up.

your claim is obviously unprovable, and it does not address the original question in any way. like TECSHARE implied, you're trying to flip the issue on its head to take attention away from DT trust abuse and project it on powerless newbies instead.

this narrative you are trying to paint where newbies have all the power and DT members are powerless is laughable. anybody with a brain can see right through that bullshit.

I didn't say that either. You sure you're responding to me and not to one of your straw people?

How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum, versus just some random drama bullshit?

this entire board is a waste of space. it's mostly DT members throwing around baseless accusations and engaging in flame wars against people they don't like. why are you fixating on newbies when highly respected DT members are constantly perpetuating this behavior?

That's because the thread is about newbies making such posts. If you want to discuss DT members - there's plenty of other threads about that.

Sockpuppeting is not going to solve DT problems. FWIW I respect e.g. TECSHARE for using his main account to rant about the "system" even if I disagree with his rants. However that doesn't make him any less of a hypocrite when he refuses to take the very same actions he expects from others. That's a major problem. We can all talk the talk (newbies or legendaries) but most are too chickenshit to walk the walk.

Let's stop encouraging sockpuppeting and start encouraging some loudmouths here to grow a backbone, or just exclude the loudmouths and build sane trust networks.

[OgNasty]

The most basic responsibility of a signature campaign manager is to make sure that they have funds to make the promised payouts to those working for them. I find it disgusting that those who were robbed of their payouts are being blamed for speaking out.

Beware of any campaign manager who thinks it is ok to promise payouts and then not make them. I get that everyone wants free money with no risk, but washing your hands with risk and leaving those who worked for you with empty pockets while you collect a payment for failing at your most basic responsibility is nothing short of scammy behavior.

Many people won’t speak up about this because they don’t want to jeopardize potential future revenue, but it is clear that the spineless cowards are those who promise payouts with no money in their hands and then blame those who actually did meet their responsibilities.

[TECSHARE]

~

Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate".

who cares if a newbie makes an unproven accusation? DT members constantly make unproven accusations around here, yet only one of the two groups has the power to ruin the other's reputation.

you're not addressing the actual problem: people can't post from their real account without fear of retaliation from DT members. therefore, expecting people to post critical views from their real accounts is flat out ridiculous. that was my point to the OP, who i doubt will post here again.

you are making it out like newbies have all the power and DT members have none. totally backwards!

You are wrong if you think I will not post here again. You make a fair point, but think about your response. If users are asking legitimate questions, without being pricks, why would they be tagged?

I am not saying it hasn't happened. There have been many questionable tags given to users, but at the same time there have been many acceptable tags.

For example, since I used the Hhampuz thread in the op, this user had a legitimate concern. Had he asked his question with a respectful tone, and created a discussion, he would not or should not have had to fear a tag.

As suchmoon says, users use a throwaway account and toss shit at the wall and see if it sticks. Those are the posts we as a community should avoid. Defamation, rude, ulterior motivated posts meant only to stir up drama and cause chaos shouldn't be given the time of day.

@Royse777 the term bitches was correct in its use.  When we tag someone just because, that's being a bitch. Multiple users, probably including myself, are guilty of this and it needs to stop.

Coming in here trying to sound cool doesn't make you cool man. Everyone thinks DT are at fault, but in reality its everyone's fault. It's also everyone's responsibility to fix it.

Step up and do your part guys/gals. Think about your tags before you give them. Think about your responses. Treat everyone with a little respect until they show they don't deserve it.

So in short, unless the user first makes the appropriate tithing to their default trust Gods by first stroking them off, or not talking to them in a tone you dictate, they have no right to raise legitimate complaints? Plenty of legitimate claims are made and dismissed based on the simple fact the accused and their supporters are upset that a legitimate complaint was made. Then people like you make excuses for it by being the tone police. Of course, the tone is the most important thing, and not the fact that there is a legitimate complaint right? I mean after all, who are these filthy plebeians who think they may approach one of the chosen and expect to be paid for their services right?

you're specifically not doing that. the topic is whether regular members can post criticism without fear of DT retaliation. you are completely sidestepping that question by claiming that every instance of such criticism is automatically meritless.

I didn't say that. Please refrain from making shit up.

your claim is obviously unprovable, and it does not address the original question in any way. like TECSHARE implied, you're trying to flip the issue on its head to take attention away from DT trust abuse and project it on powerless newbies instead.

this narrative you are trying to paint where newbies have all the power and DT members are powerless is laughable. anybody with a brain can see right through that bullshit.

I didn't say that either. You sure you're responding to me and not to one of your straw people?

How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum, versus just some random drama bullshit?

this entire board is a waste of space. it's mostly DT members throwing around baseless accusations and engaging in flame wars against people they don't like. why are you fixating on newbies when highly respected DT members are constantly perpetuating this behavior?

That's because the thread is about newbies making such posts. If you want to discuss DT members - there's plenty of other threads about that.

Sockpuppeting is not going to solve DT problems. FWIW I respect e.g. TECSHARE for using his main account to rant about the "system" even if I disagree with his rants. However that doesn't make him any less of a hypocrite when he refuses to take the very same actions he expects from others. That's a major problem. We can all talk the talk (newbies or legendaries) but most are too chickenshit to walk the walk.

Let's stop encouraging sockpuppeting and start encouraging some loudmouths here to grow a backbone, or just exclude the loudmouths and build sane trust networks.

Really? Of this whole forum, I am the problem am I? I have exhibited EXORBITANT amounts of restraint in my use of the trust system. Your accusations of hypocrisy are again nothing more than projection to deflect from the behavior you excuse from your friends. You say you respect me for speaking out under my "main" (only) account, but yet you refuse to exclude those who use the trust system as a tool to punish me for doing so. Then in the same breath you accuse me of manipulating the trust system. No, you and your friends and their systematic abuse aren't the worst problem, it is me and my nebulous and undefined "hypocrisy".

[figmentofmyass]

You make a fair point, but think about your response. If users are asking legitimate questions, without being pricks, why would they be tagged?

are you implying people should be tagged for "being pricks"?

to answer your question, they might be tagged for retaliatory purposes. this has been known to happen. let's not insult each other's intelligence by denying that.

I am not saying it hasn't happened. There have been many questionable tags given to users, but at the same time there have been many acceptable tags.

sort of like saying "many innocent people have ended up in prison, but at the same time there have been many criminals imprisoned as well". is that really the standard you want---many innocent people getting punished?

As suchmoon says, users use a throwaway account and toss shit at the wall and see if it sticks.

DT members do that with their real accounts all the time, but they don't get tagged for it. regular members, however, are usually expendable. nobody defends them against red tags because no one wants to antagonize DT members. that's the difference.

Those are the posts we as a community should avoid. Defamation, rude, ulterior motivated posts meant only to stir up drama and cause chaos shouldn't be given the time of day.

DT1 members need to look in the mirror. set a good example about consistent standards in the trust system, and maybe we can get somewhere. refusal to exclude abusive DT2 members who engage in the above behavior is a huge part of the problem.

for example, you still include Vod in your trust list, which suggests that frivolous and retaliatory ratings are perfectly acceptable. what example are you setting?

Coming in here trying to sound cool doesn't make you cool man. Everyone thinks DT are at fault, but in reality its everyone's fault.

i'm not trying to "sound cool". if i wanted to do that, i would parrot the DT members because they hold the majority opinion.

saying it's "everyone's fault" is a blatant cop-out. the only people with power to change anything are DT1 members. they have the power to exclude those who don't use the trust system fairly or consistently. they have the power to use feedback in a responsible way.

regular members have zero control over what DT1 members do. it's insulting that you are trying to claim we (or newbies?!) have the power to change anything. we can change precisely nothing.

you're specifically not doing that. the topic is whether regular members can post criticism without fear of DT retaliation. you are completely sidestepping that question by claiming that every instance of such criticism is automatically meritless.

I didn't say that. Please refrain from making shit up.

here you go:

How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum, versus just some random drama bullshit? It has become a ridiculous circular argument - a newbie accuser pops up so it must mean DT is so bad that the poor schmuck can't use his real account... nonsense.

this narrative you are trying to paint where newbies have all the power and DT members are powerless is laughable. anybody with a brain can see right through that bullshit.

I didn't say that either. You sure you're responding to me and not to one of your straw people?

then why have you ignored everything i've said about DT trust abuse, while projecting all blame onto newbies? btw, here you go:

this doesn't mean shit coming from DT1 members, who perpetually reinforce and turn a blind eye to trust abuse. until you guys actually take a stand against improper use of the trust system, nothing will change.

Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate".

That's because the thread is about newbies making such posts. If you want to discuss DT members - there's plenty of other threads about that.

so the thread is about newbies making such posts, but not about why they do? interesting claim......

Sockpuppeting is not going to solve DT problems.

nobody said sockpuppeting would solve anything. what i've said repeatedly is that many DT members are retaliatory and abusive, so sockpuppeting is reasonable and to be expected.

anybody expecting otherwise is just being dimwitted.

[PrimeNumber7]

There have been many questionable tags given to users,

I think you answered your own question as to why the person referenced in your OP created a new account to voice his concern.

If you don't want to see this type of thing happening, you must push back against every tag that is questionable, and other people need to do the same. This will continue until it has been a long time since that have been any tags you describe as "questionable".

I have noticed your aversion to participating in forum drama, and I don't find this unreasonable. There are plenty of reasons to want to avoid participating in drama....it is exhausting, it is often childish, this is not the reason why most of us have come to participate in the forum, and applicable to the liberals, it means someone disagrees with you.

How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum,

I think it is probably safe to say Hhampuz appreciates a "fake newbie" (I don't believe that person ever claimed to be a new user) bringing up the subject. Based on his response, it is safe to say that Hhampuz felt obligated to repay the campaign participants.

Taking this presumption, it is much more reasonable to delay paying participants two weeks today than it would be if someone else complained six months from now.

versus just some random drama bullshit?

Don't you think this is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

[AB de Royse777]

grow a backbone,

What plan do you suggest to acheive it?

Sockpuppeting will not exist if we starts to practice giving a valid reason (please read valid reason) for every negative feedback we leave. If no valid reason has presented and the feedback still stands then exclude him from everyone's trust list. We need to stop going political and say X has right to leave a feedback hence he can leave one for Y.

or just exclude the loudmouths and build sane trust networks.

This sounds very wrong. Out of frustration?

Many people won’t speak up about this because they don’t want to jeopardize potential future revenue, but it is clear that the spineless cowards are those who promise payouts with no money in their hands and then blame those who actually did meet their responsibilities.

Hhampuz dealt it with top class responsibility. If I read his statement right then he said he will pay from is own pocket if the dev does not show up. So if this was meant for Hhampuz then I don't think it's appropriate. However I think campaign managers should be the one who ensure the payment to every participant in a campaign.

[suchmoon]

~

All this shows that you're reading entirely between the lines instead of what I actually said. I can't help you with that.

Really? Of this whole forum, I am the problem am I? I have exhibited EXORBITANT amounts of restraint in my use of the trust system. Your accusations of hypocrisy are again nothing more than projection to deflect from the behavior you excuse from your friends. You say you respect me for speaking out under my "main" (only) account, but yet you refuse to exclude those who use the trust system as a tool to punish me for doing so. Then in the same breath you accuse me of manipulating the trust system. No, you and your friends and their systematic abuse aren't the worst problem, it is me and my nebulous and undefined "hypocrisy".

I didn't say you're the sole or even the worst problem, but you're certainly a good example of hypocrisy. I did exclude some users in no small part due to how they treated you but you've shown that you wouldn't do that for someone who disagrees with you - nothing nebulous about it. Quite ironic when you consider that I'm not raving about "standards" and sure as shit I don't pretend to be some forum justice warrior slash martyr. I do what I think is right, I'm certain I make mistakes along the way, and I expect other users will hold me accountable.

Don't you think this is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

I take it you're talking about yourself. When I have something to say I say it without hiding behind sockpuppets, Mr. Kettle.

grow a backbone,

What plan do you suggest to acheive it?

No need for elaborate plans. Do what your conscience tells you to do and let the chips fall where they may.

or just exclude the loudmouths and build sane trust networks.

This sounds very wrong. Out of frustration?

Excluding hypocritical loud assholes is not wrong. I wish this - along with "Ignore" - was used far more often instead of endless bickering and trying to impose opinions on each other and using red trust for differences of opinion.