Lucius is signature spammer by dkbit98 ?

[Lucius]

I avoid this part of the forum as much as possible because I am not a person who enjoys endless discussions about someone’s reputation or similar things. I try to follow the rules of the forum and be as correct as possible towards other users, which I do not always succeed in, but I think that most people perceive me as a positive person on the forum (exceptions, of course, always exist).

What particularly bothers me is that someone calls me a signature spammer, because I have never been one and I have zero tolerance for such people. Although I do not pay much attention to such things, I have been in a similar situation many times as today, so I think I should react and point out the somewhat strange behavior of a user who indirectly called me a signature spammer. He of course shares the opinion of some other members of my local community who also used the same terminology when I was concerned.

I would ask members to visit this topic : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5265233.20 (https://archive.vn/lehNQ) and to tell me what they think of the member dkbit98 and his opinion that I am a signature spammer or his attitude in general when we speak of some solid facts?

Interestingly, the person in question shares an identical opinion with his colleague from the local board :

Atleast you filled your signature quote mr.Right

Drago mi je da ti pomaze u tvojoj CM tjednoj kvoti

Translated : "Glad it helps you in your CM weekly quota"

I know that there is great envy and contempt for those who are members of the CM campaign, and dkbit98 is applied in same campaign few times (unsuccessful) just like his pal btcltcdigger - but that does not give them the right to call other signatures spammers.

Question I want to ask the members of this forum: In your opinion, is Lucius a person who only meets his signature quota, which would mean that he is a signature spammer, or are user comments like dkbit98 completely unfounded and inappropriate?

Local rule : dkbit98&btcltcdigger are not allowed to post here - their opinion is already quite familiar to me.

[1713953157]

1713953157

[bob123]

dkbit98 behaved quite irrational in that linked topic.
My guess would be that he is somehow affiliated with the cheap 1960's style hardware wallet. Therefore he sounded a little bit harsh whenever someone was criticizing it.

Just check the spreadsheet containing all participants. People are removed quite frequently when they don't meet the quality standards anymore.
As long as you are not removed, you can be assured that your posts are not considered spam.

I disagree with you in some topics (i.e. when debating about windows 7), but wouldn't consider it being spam.

So to answer your question: No. IMO dkbit98 simply is not fully in control of his emotions. Don't take it personal.

[JeromeTash]

Nah, you are not a signature spammer. You are actually some one knowledge and helpful as I have read most of your responses to different topics around the forum.
Why would someone take it so personal just because you disagreed with them on a few topics. The signature quota jibe was below the belt and wasn't really necessary

[Little Mouse]

If I can remember correctly, I have seen you helping people on the forum a few times. This simply proves that you are not a signature spammer in my opinion.
One more thing is that I know how Darkstar_ manage campaign here. If he finds anyone as signature spammer, I am sure that he will remove the participant. Everyone should know that CM is not that easy to get or easy to keep up unless participant is a decent one.
Maybe dkbit98 has something wrong with you. May be you have hurt him before.
One thing I understand in this forum that if you raise your voice, you are making a lot of enemies here, I have been a victim of such case. Anyway, I think you should sort out the matter with dkbit98 through PM.

[mocacinno]

As far as i'm concerned, i've always liked the way you post. I can't recall any instances in which I perceived any of your posts a being spammy.

I don't want to dig into this particular occurence, but i can say i've been called a sigspammer a couple of times, usually when having a discussion with somebody that was losing said discussion (at least from my point of view). I've always seen these shout-outs as a hail-mary pass.
I guess the general idear is: "I don't agree with this user, but i cannot win this discussion, so i'll point out this user is wearing a signature instead and hope other people will change their point of view towards my opponent and also brand him a sigspammer. Thus avoiding the valid points he/she is making in this discussion. This way I can distract other people from the fact i'm losing and save face ".

Once again: i don't know if this was the case here, it's just something that has happened to me a couple of times before. And i've seen similar instances involving other people aswell.

[hacker1001101001]

You are not a signature spammer in anyway, dkbit98 don't even seem to be a friendly person overall.

[suchmoon]

Creating a thread about someone and not letting them respond is quite nasty. I did that once to Quickseller (I think) and I still feel bad about it.

dkbit98's advice in your trust feedback is spot on. Grow a thicker skin. Pretty much everyone with a paid signature gets called a sig spammer at some point. Creating a thread about it just proves their point.

This thread title though... made me think you're dkbit98's alt.

[Rikafip]

I know that there is great envy and contempt for those who are members of the CM campaign, and dkbit98 is applied in same campaign few times (unsuccessful) just like his pal btcltcdigger - but that does not give them the right to call other signatures spammer

I honestly don't think that's the case here. Maybe it's just me, but his comment looked more like a tease than claiming you are just a signature spammer. People say that to each other quite often here, especially when they have different opinion about something and if I am you I wouldn't give it a second thought, let alone make topic about such an irrelevant remark.

[Lucius]

Creating a thread about someone and not letting them respond is quite nasty. I did that once to Quickseller (I think) and I still feel bad about it.

dkbit98's advice in your trust feedback is spot on. Grow a thicker skin. Pretty much everyone with a paid signature gets called a sig spammer at some point. Creating a thread about it just proves their point.

This thread title though... made me think you're dkbit98's alt.

He has already said everything he had, why he would have to express his opinions here? I was interested in what others thought, and I'm glad that some members wrote their honest opinion without fear of getting such silly feedback as that little genius left me. Now after your post I believe others will be much more careful with their posts.

As for feedback, do you think something needs to be written literally to be said? What he was implying was that I literally spammed his thread with my signature to collect a couple of posts, but no one will say that I was just correcting his inaccurate statements which is why he reacted that way.

dkbit98 behaved quite irrational in that linked topic.
My guess would be that he is somehow affiliated with the cheap 1960's style hardware wallet. Therefore he sounded a little bit harsh whenever someone was criticizing it.
~snip~
So to answer your question: No. IMO dkbit98 simply is not fully in control of his emotions. Don't take it personal.

Thanks for the answer, anyone who wants to be objective can see the situation exactly as it is - I do not take things personally, but this is not the first time I experience the same from the same person, so I decided to react.


JeromeTash , Little Mouse, mocacinno , hacker1001101001 thanks for your posts.


Rikafip, I did not expect that you or any other member from Croatian local board will come here and support me against dkbit98 in any way, but I think I have the right, like any other member, to open a thread about anything - even if it seemed completely irrelevant to you.

[Little Mouse]

He has already said everything he had, why he would have to express his opinions here?

While you are correct that he has already said what he thinks about you but still it would be pretty good to see why he thinks that you are a signature spammer, simply making correction of his post would never make a man feel someone is signature spammer. I would always appreciate anyone who correct me when I am wrong. I doubt that was the case here. You would rather allow him to post here and express what's the inner actually.

[hacker1001101001]

dkbit98's advice in your trust feedback is spot on.

That's just called not being respectful to others, and spamming on there trust wall. Looks like you are saying trust feedbacks are a nice place to send advice. ( coming from someone in DT )

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Nah, you are not a signature spammer. You are actually some one knowledge and helpful as I have read most of your responses to different topics around the forum.

I agree, and I also posted in that thread.  Upon revisiting it just now, it looks like two members got defensive and it escalated way past the point that it should have.  

You and dkbit98 are both helpful posters as far as I'm concerned, and I don't see any real issues you two should have with each other, though I understand you took offense to him alluding to you satisfying your "signature quote" (lol).  I get the feeling dkbit98 thinks there's an extreme bias in the HW section toward Ledger products, and he was feeling just a little bit grouchy about that while making replies.  

My suggestion:  both of you bury the hatchet.  You're both valuable members of the forum.  And even if dkbit98 doesn't want to bury said hatchet, at least take the high road yourself and let it go.  No harm, no foul.  And the consensus seems to be that what he wrote about you isn't true.

Edit: Just noticed dkbit98 gave you a merit, so perhaps that's his form of an olive branch....?

[suchmoon]

dkbit98's advice in your trust feedback is spot on.

That's just called not being respectful to others, and spamming on there trust wall. Looks like you are saying trust feedbacks are a nice place to send advice. ( coming from someone in DT )

There is an accusation being made in this thread but the accused is not allowed to respond here. Neutral feedback is appropriate. Negative (or positive) would not be. Ideally both these users should ignore each other and go their separate ways but that almost never happens here on Bitcointalk.

Now excuse me, I'm off to create a thread complaining about hacker1001101001 using a mild ad hominem against me in a discussion. The audacity! Unacceptable.

Edit: Just noticed dkbit98 gave you a merit, so perhaps that's his form of an olive branch....?

More of a "fuck you" merit probably for being unable to respond directly

But yes, let's call it an olive branch, hit ignore and lock and go back to our regularly scheduled programming of other inconsequential dramas.

[LoyceV]

i can say i've been called a sigspammer a couple of times

Let me start by saying: "me too!". Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Creating a thread about someone and not letting them respond is quite nasty. I did that once to Quickseller (I think) and I still feel bad about it.

Agreed!

Local rule : dkbit98&btcltcdigger are not allowed to post here - their opinion is already quite familiar to me.

Can I persuade you into changing this local rule? It looks better on you to allow the accused to defend themselves.

For what it's worth: I like how you guys are using the correct Neutral feedback to express your opinion on each other:

Neutral (shown as =1)

• Use Neutral feedback for anything that doesn't mean someone can or can't be trusted. This can be good feedback, for instance when someone helped you out.
• I think Neutral Feedback is currently undervalued on Bitcointalk. It's a great tool to de-escalate without drastic consequences. Please use it when appropriate.

Don't worry too much about it. Neutral feedback is meant for opinions.

dkbit98 behaved quite irrational in that linked topic.

The kids are too wild to thoroughly read everything, but I noticed this:

I won't go more offtopic but

Atleast you filled your signature quote mr.Right  
Adios

It would be so much better to just report off-topic posts, especially on a serious board like Hardware wallets.

Don't take it personal.

That's good advice for virtually anything you see on the internet.

You and dkbit98 are both helpful posters as far as I'm concerned

My suggestion:  both of you bury the hatchet.  You're both valuable members of the forum.

So much I can agree on in one post

Ideally both these users should ignore each other and go their separate ways but that almost never happens here on Bitcointalk.

I really don't get why people would read posts if they already know they don't like what they're going to read. Adding a few users per year makes the forum nicer to read.

[Daniel91]

Rikafip, I did not expect that you or any other member from Croatian local board will come here and support me against dkbit98 in any way, but I think I have the right, like any other member, to open a thread about anything - even if it seemed completely irrelevant to you.

I very seldom take part in discussions like this because they are mostly a waste of both time and energy and everything usually ends up in endless discussions without the right conclusion.
However, this time I will make an exception because of this statement that you made, which is not true.
In a way, you are accusing the entire Croatian local community of being against you, and that does not correspond to the facts.
The best proof of this can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231377.msg53991317#msg53991317
So, it was dkbit98 who proposed you for the future moderator of the Croatian section of the forum, and that proposal was supported by other members of our Croatian community, including me.
It is your choice how active you want to be in the local part of the forum, but you can't claim that Croatian members are against you and support someone else because that doesn't correspond to reality.
I think you have already heard enough opinions on this topic and I suggest you lock this topic because everything has already been said and the future discussion will not bring anything new or bring something positive.

[LTU_btc]

@Lucius, I know you for a long time already and can't say any bad word about you. You're definitely not signature spammer. From what I saw in all these years here, you're helpful user who make good posts, I'm not really sure why dkbit98 called you spammer.
I don't know him very well, but I don't think he is bad guy. I follow that topic and got involved in discussion too. He have completely different opinion than most users there and he defends his possion in very passionate way. It's ok - that's the point of discussion forum. But it's not a reason to call someone signature spammer just because you don't agree with him. And if you don't agree with him - you're part of Ledger cult .

[actmyname]

I was fully prepared to bash Lucius when I went through the thread. In fact, that was my original intention: to present a devil's advocate in the presence of many consenting opinions.There is nothing more to say about how Lucius handled the situation. It was the exact pace that I would have considered from someone that 'aims to curb spam' and it was the minimal number of posts required to stop the conversation.

Analysis:

The first post that starts stepping into this topic from dkbit98's end is #27 and the relevant sections are quoted:

You can try as much as you want but you can't find small smartphone anymore, they are all big and larger than Nokia phone shown before.
So I don't understand people want to have miniature hardware wallet and big smart phones

Tautologically, we can say that dkbit is claiming, "there are no smartphones that are smaller than the Nokia phone," which was answered by Lucius in his response:

They may not be as small as before, but there are some that are quite small (twice the size of today's standard sizes).
PalmPhone - 3.3-inch display or even smaller Unihertz Atom - 2.45-inch display

It sufficiently answers the question, but dkbit98 is unaware of the measurements causing Lucius to answer again.

Then, we're met with this reply:

Who the fuck knows about Unihertz Atom?
Only you probably, as I never heard about it like most people.
What phone do you have? Is it Unihertz Atom?? 

It is the epitome of defending a bad take.

Lucius's final post ends the discussion, which means that all the posts required for resolving it were posted - there haven't been any extra posts that seemed unnecessary.


And then, ironically...

Nobody has owned a phone which looks like the Passport for 15+ years.

Wrong.
I still use phone like that and there is nothing wrong it. Working great.
If you like to be tracked everywhere with stupid smart phones go ahead

[suchmoon]

I was fully prepared to bash Lucius when I went through the thread. In fact, that was my original intention: to present a devil's advocate in the presence of many consenting opinions.There is nothing more to say about how Lucius handled the situation. It was the exact pace that I would have considered from someone that 'aims to curb spam' and it was the minimal number of posts required to stop the conversation.

Perfect. Why this thread then?

But now that we're here, shall we address the irony of Lucius abusing the trust system by negging deisik for being a signature spammer? And now flipping out about someone implying he's a sig spammer himself? Kids these days.

[Stedsm]

What made me laugh (or should I say - made my day) was the fact that the person in question (dkbit I'm talking about) was the one who merited your post. Maybe he understood already that this way of trying to mud up someone's reputation by just saying this simple-yet-complicated statement that s/he is a signature spammer won't work anymore hehe.
Look, there was a race organized between dogs and a cheetah to see who runs fast! All the dogs ran after the gunshot, but cheetah was just laying down there and watching those dogs running. Cheetah didn't run. Moral is - you need not to prove others your worth because sometimes, it's an insult to prove that you're the best.

[The Cryptovator]

Nah, I can't call you a spammer by the way. But to be honest, the post wasn't necessary. Whoever wearing paid signature, most of them I think encounter spammer title. Also, dkbit98 hadn't called you a spammer as I can see on the quote. Simply speaking "you filled your signature quota" isn't the same thing as call a spammer. But yes, if you say it's a criticism, then I would agree. I am making this post, will not it fill my signature quota? So if you call me a spammer for that, I wouldn't mind at all. As others said, build your skin more thicker.

Local rule : dkbit98&btcltcdigger are not allowed to post here - their opinion is already quite familiar to me.

Not agree, you should allow them since even you mentioned the name on the topic title. This thread-like your reputation thread, so reputation thread shouldn't self-moderated.