Should Ratimov aka Symmetrick be in DT1?

[GazetaBitcoin]

I can't be arsed to dig through archives, but Ratimov had a post here in this thread that I was replying to and he removed it. Something about reconciliation. Anyway, it sounded like an extortion attempt, like remove negative things you said about me and I'll remove my red trust.

Yes, this is exactly what he does all the time. But he calls these extortion attempts as being "generous offers for peace".

Actually, his joke-of-an-attempt-for-peace still exists in the AOBT thread:

As for resolving the conflict, there is only one solution, this is to roll back the system to September 24, 2023, 05:39:45 PM, that is, how everything was at that time. Clean up after yourself in the exact order in which you littered. No discussions, discussions in separate reputation topics, no substitutions for neutral colors and other nonsense. This is the only way this conflict can be resolved; otherwise it can only be resolved in the wet fantasies of various dreamers. Thanks to all.

You see these? LMAO! So there is the extortion attempt but, besides, there is also his fear of having users' eyes on him, if the situation would escalate to Reputation board (which is precisely what happened). He is scared when others see his abuses, for not losing his powers, so he tries to keep all these abuses at lowest possible profile.

Also he removed and reposted his red trust on GazetaBitcoin, which I think shows that any such "deal offers" don't mean shit.

This only shows that he deleted his feedbacks not because they were inappropriate (although this should have been the main and only reason), but only for having me removing the proof from his Trust page that he is a plagiarist, a "copy-pastist", an impersonator of other authors and a Trust abuser. And seeing his attempt to extort me did not work, he posted again some feedbacks full of lies. Guess what? This time with reference links. LOL! So he learned that an abusive feedback is even baseless if it has no ref link, thus time time he wrote same abusive feedbacks, but with ref link -- which, in his oppinion, would make them legitimate. Those ref links he provided as as useful as if he posted there links from Know Your Meme or another site.

FWIW I suggested that GazetaBitcoin should remove their red rating on Ratimov and not engage in tit-for-tat. I do believe however that weaponizing the trust system the way Ratimov does is not acceptable but because of the spineless nature of DT1 there is basically no recourse.

Indeed you told me that. Yet I did not follow your advice. I did it being very well aware of the consequences -- meaning being red painted by this Trust abuser. I just could not stand anymore and watch how he abuses people for 5 years and nobody dares to confront him (or those who do it they do it under alternative accounts). I did it from my only account. And I hoped (and still hope) I can serve as example for others which believe that this abuser does not belong to DT.

"Oh but his other ratings are ok"... well tough shit, Lauda had a bunch of good ratings and was 100x more valuable to the forum than Ratimov ever will be, and got excluded.

This is so true. Sad but true. And yet we have this clown, threatening people with his toy-gun and people get scared enough by him enough for allowing him do all his abuses and act like a street thug. I really wish Lauda (and TMAN too!) were here, to see how they would react in front of this imposter.

Let me check your trust feedbacks.😉

You won't find much there, because Ratimov managed in time to arrange various deals (only from his "generosity", of course), in order to have others remove their feedbacks where they stated that he plagiarized, abused Trust, impersonated authors etc. The deal was always the same: he tagged those people with various negative feedbacks (consisting, usually, only in terms like "degenerate", "two faced", "hypocrite" etc.) -- so feedbacks which had nothing to do with any financial deal, yet they were negative ones, creating severe prejudices to those which dared to state the trust about him; then he retracted his abusive tags if those users retracted their statements as well. Similar to the "peace" he offered to me as well. But I don't kiss where I spit. (Romanian saying)

So if you want to see some evidence regarding abusive feedbacks you won't find them in his feedbacks list. You can find it in the links I mentioned in OP. So only in old topics, written by others, which he could not hide or beg mods to delete them, like he did with the topic from which I posted screenshots in OP.

Anyway, I wanted to point out an incorrect thing Gazeta says in the text

I asked mprep about this, in order to see if it is allowed or not. If it is allowed, my bad. It would mean that Ratimov did not break rule 27, he only stole others' work without breaking rule 27.

Apparently, this case was already answered by theymos:

EDIT: In regards to automated translations from non-English to English, I've PMed theymos about it, specifically with the following questions:

• What is the exact policy on automated translations (both English -> local, as well as local -> English)?
• When is it [read: automated translations] prohibited?
• When is it allowed (e.g. possible scenarios or situations)?
• When is it arguable and up to the moderator's discretion?

Here's what he had to say (publishing this with his permission, of course):

...
In the English sections, the policy should generally be to ignore whether or not it's autotranslated, and evaluate the post on its merit. Bad grammar is obviously not disallowed, but if it's so bad (due to autotranslation or otherwise) that the post is basically incomprehensible, then it's a useless post and should be deleted. If it's translated from elsewhere, then you should generally act the same as if the source was originally in English, asking questions like:
 - Is the quote useful/on-topic in the post's context (especially after being mangled a bit through translation)?
 - Is the user just finding stuff to copy in order to bulk up his posts?
- Is the user passing this off as his own when it's actually not?

Based on Ratimov's obvious intentions of passing other authors' work as being his, it is now clear that he also broke rule 27.

Ratimov, may I ask why the new feedback while on the previous [removed] post you said you tried to do everything you could to resolve this conflict by removing the tag? Was it because the deal is off the table, because Gazeta refuses to remove his tag? Thus, what Gazeta said somewhat contain some degree of truth in it, that what you tried to do was to deal yourself out of a stuation?

I hope you already know the answers to your questions, right?

[1714235860]

1714235860

[1714235860]

1714235860

[1714235860]

1714235860

[1714235860]

1714235860

[digaran]

This is normal when 2 people negotiate about a compromise, each one offers a solution and both agree on a final decision, but if you tagged him for plagiarizing, this should be up to staff whether they interact with such cases or not, maybe they have decided to let this slide, now why would you want to execute the prisoner when the king has forgiven him?  What he is doing is not extortion, this is typical where international politics are at work.😉

[GazetaBitcoin]

if you tagged him for plagiarizing, this should be up to staff whether they interact with such cases or not

As I explained in OP,

This topic will not be one about Ratimov's plagiarism, although this subject will be touched, as it is conclusive for the topic content as a whole

This topic is only about his constant abuses of Trust system which, similar to TimeLord's case, should eliminate him from DT, as he uses Trust system only as a weapon.

I am writing this topic as I strongly believe that Ratimov has no place in DT1 group. I made this opinion during years and, as time went by, his actions only strengthened my thoughts. I will present below my arguments for this statement and I will try to be as objective as possible. [...]

I hope that if this topic will be thoroughly read by DT (and also non-DT) users, they will observe that I presented everything objectively and that I presented evidence / proof / arguments for all my statements.

[digaran]

I know this is not just about the plagiarizing part, but your feedback is about that, which resulted in retaliation, so as I said before, since both of you are on DT, negotiation is the way to go, According to screenshots, he seems to be mature enough to apologize and move past this situation while you are not. You know the only way you can become a great person is by accepting your mistakes and correcting them, it could happen many times until you learn not to make the same mistakes, that's when you move to the next level of maturity which is to become a great person.

Talking about abuse, don't stick to one abuser, call them all out.
Btw, was there an issue about your email address? I say this because you have changed it recently. Just curious, maybe it was due to security concerns.

[PytagoraZ]

I am writing this topic as I strongly believe that Ratimov has no place in DT1 group. I made this opinion during years and, as time went by, his actions only strengthened my thoughts. I will present below my arguments for this statement and I will try to be as objective as possible. Please bear with me, as this will be a long reading.

Ah, the post is too long. I'm too lazy to read it. But perhaps from the title and tags I read from the OP and Ratimov, it is most likely that this thread was created to question someone's reputation. But I don't care about that, because neg tags don't affect famous members.

If it's a matter of plagiarism, just report it, let the moderator assess whether the plagiarism is a violation or is excusable. I want to ask, what does the plagiarism ban actually mean here? Is it to avoid copyright claims or because plagiarism is prohibited for any purpose?

Every idea or article has a meaning and purpose behind it, so OP definitely has a goal by creating this thread. in the end this is just drama and nonsense not much different from shitposting.

[nutildah]

I can only salute your decision to distrust him. Similar, I salute the decision of NeuroticFish for doing the same and the decisions of sheenshane and 1miau and Nestade for deleting him from their Trust lists.

And this is as far as it should go -- the behavior(s) described shouldn't warrant negative trust.

@Ratimov you were on the right path with deleting your feedback for GazetaBitcoin... It seems like your buttons were pushed and you left new ones, which is unfortunate.

The both of you are firmly entrenched in your DT positions. You should consider sucking it up and deleting each others feedbacks unconditionally; try not to let the incident forever mar your Bitcointalk experience.

"Oh but his other ratings are ok"... well tough shit, Lauda had a bunch of good ratings and was 100x more valuable to the forum than Ratimov ever will be, and got excluded. One can be a valuable forum member outside of DT.

Lauda had a bunch of bad ratings as well, was extremely vindictive and used (his/her/their) power to basically bully people into submission... its almost like they got off on it. I haven't witnessed Ratimov do that but perhaps I just haven't been in those threads.

Waiting for someone like Cøbra to say something like this about Ratimov:

Lauda needs to be permanently banned just to improve the community. Never seen a more horrible person on a forum before.

Also, a lot of non-scammers breathed a sigh of relief when Lauda finally left.

because of the spineless nature of DT1 there is basically no recourse.

Hey I resemble that remark

[GazetaBitcoin]

Ratimov, may I ask why the new feedback while on the previous [removed] post you said you tried to do everything you could to resolve this conflict by removing the tag? Was it because the deal is off the table, because Gazeta refuses to remove his tag? Thus, what Gazeta said somewhat contain some degree of truth in it, that what you tried to do was to deal yourself out of a stuation?

I hope you already know the answers to your questions, right?

In case you did not notice, Ratimov deleted also all his posts where he insulted Learn Bitcoin, during his futile attempt to derail the thread and distract readers' attention from him, as he usually does. After I exposed him for doing that (once again), he deleted all those posts. Not just for being caught again while trying to distract readers' attention, but also for covering again the evidence incriminating him of insulting people on the forum on for the reason of confronting him. So once again, those which have no idea about ninjastic.space will not see how he calls Learn Bitcoin as "two-faced", "two-faced hypocrite with double standards" and so on. So the insults are deleted, Ratimov is once again a user which talks very politely, all good.

@holydarkness (this is also addressed to all other users interested about this topic), here's a list of other rhetorical questions you can ask (and be sure that Ratimov will never answer to them):

1. Why did he delete all his posts (together with OP's content) from the topic where he was hunting airfinex (after airfinex exposed his plagiarism)? Furthermore, why did he do it only after (1) The Pharmacist threatened him that he will distrust him and others will do the same; (2) DireWolf called him out for his miserable attacks toward anyone daring to state the truth about him; (3) LoyceV dotted the I once again, stating that if someone says a truth about Ratimov, then Ratimov gives him a negative feedback?

2. Why did he try to hide this topic in Archival board for years?

3. Why, after hiding this thread in Archival board for years, last week he managed to convince a mod to delete he thread? (For those unaware, I created a topic in Archival board containing all Ratimov's insults just after the mess he did inside AOBT thread. The date of that topic was September 28th. Is it only a coincidence the fact that Ratimov managed to have his tracks deleted just after I created that topic in Archival board? Lol! Or did he anticipate that I'll create this topic and I'll be thorough enough to find also all his hidden evidence incriminating him, thus he started begging mods to delete that thread from Archival board?)

4. Why do you think that he never justified how, in his opinion, the feedbacks he leaves while he is in rage / dementia state respect the correct use of Trust system? Example of such feedbacks (most are negative - attention! - not neutral and without ref link):

Stupid degenerate, liar and shitposter.

annoying cretin who will write all sorts of nonsense [...] absolutely incompetent moron [...]

Liar and provocateur [...] creates conflicts out of nowhere  [...] Shitposter and collector of various rumors [...]

^Does the above feedback remind you of TimeLord's feedbacks?

Let's go on with the examples:

My personal dog

Useless dumb hysterical bitch

A fuckhead with a broken head. After being raped by all the WEX employees, taking all his mother's money [...]

So yeah, I wonder what is the connection between such feedbacks and financial deals (the purpose of Marketplace Trust system). Don't you? Especially the rape part.

5. Why did he delete all those feedbacks and / or replaced them (with some which contain less insults but are still insulting) after DT's eyes were on him?

6. Why, based on his "rational" mind, was it needed to give me not just 1 negative feedback, but 2 (!!!), just one after the other, plus a neutral one immediately after, all without ref link and all stating words like "degenerate", "cretin" etc.?

7. Why did he delete all his posts from AOBT thread + the ones from this thread (+ probably hundreds of other similar posts) where he insulted all those people? (Could it be only for looking like a hypocrite nice guy, which always talks politely? -- wink wink).

8. Why did he stop using his miserable introduction ("In this article I would like to touch upon such a theme [...]") after he was exposed for plagiarism? If he was not banned then it meant he did not plagiarize anything, right? So why did he stop using that sentence through which he stole other authors' work and presented it like it was his? Again, wink wink.

9. Why does he always accuse someone of same things that are exposed from his miserable character? Example: BitcoinGirl.Club leaves him a feedback reminding of his plagiarism and immediately after Ratimov leaves a retaliatory feedback to BircoinGirl.Club stating that BitcoinGirl.Club is a plagiarist (LOL!) -- again, without presenting any evidence for this claim. Example 2: inside AOBT thread I remind him of his ol' good plagiarism & copy-pasting era, which brought him zillions of merits for stealing someone else's work and then he immediately calls me "GazetaCopyPasteWhoreBitShitcoin", accusing me of "eternal copy-paste of other people's works". Excepting that such reactions look like the ones of a 3 years old child, the question still stands.

Should I continue?

So, in case you want to ask some more questions while you already know the answers, feel free to ask the above ones. If needed, I can come up with more questions like these.

as I said before, since both of you are on DT, negotiation is the way to go

I have nothing to negotiate with a thief. He, instead, had something to negotiate (in a manner which can be easily seen as extortion attempt).

According to screenshots, he seems to be mature enough to apologize and move past this situation while you are not.

Of course he can move past his theft. Any thief can do it. But I can't go past his theft.

Talking about abuse, don't stick to one abuser, call them all out.

I did it with various occasions (see my earlier post -- the part where I replied to yahoo by quoting LV).

Btw, was there an issue about your email address? I say this because you have changed it recently. Just curious, maybe it was due to security concerns.

It was no issue, just a personal decision.

Ah, the post is too long. I'm too lazy to read it. But perhaps from the title and tags I read from the OP and Ratimov, it is most likely that this thread was created to question someone's reputation

Actually, it's not about reputation. And, if you'd read the OP, you'd understand.

If it's a matter of plagiarism, just report it

It's not a matter of plagiarism either.

Every idea or article has a meaning and purpose behind it, so OP definitely has a goal by creating this thread

Yes, the goal is preserving DT at a fair and decent level + protecting users from Ratimov's constant abuses.

[PytagoraZ]

Every idea or article has a meaning and purpose behind it, so OP definitely has a goal by creating this thread

Yes, the goal is preserving DT at a fair and decent level + protecting users from Ratimov's constant abuses.

If that's the case, just give theymos a suggestion to remove the DT system. So there will be no more abuse of the trust system. The problem will be resolved. In the end, you will most likely reconcile with ratimov and remove the negative tags you placed on each other's profiles.

I'm disappointed that as a non-DT member, DT is increasingly losing credibility with their respective bullshit and reputation fights. If you are the custodian of a trust system, then please create a reputation that you have wisdom, I hate drama and bullshit. In the end, neither of you is right, you both are just abusing the trust system by sticking negative tags on each other's profiles. Nonsense

[GazetaBitcoin]

If that's the case, just give theymos a suggestion to remove the DT system. So there will be no more abuse of the trust system.

If you have a wound at a leg which hurts you, do you cut off your leg, to not feel any leg pain anymore? Or do you take some painkillers?

The problem will be resolved. In the end, you will most likely reconcile with ratimov and remove the negative tags you placed on each other's profiles.

This will not happen. Not from my side. I can not reconcile with a thief.

In the end, neither of you is right, you both are just abusing the trust system by sticking negative tags on each other's profiles.

...says the one which did not even bother to read the OP, in order to understand the purpose of this discussion.

[PytagoraZ]

If that's the case, just give theymos a suggestion to remove the DT system. So there will be no more abuse of the trust system.

If you have a wound at a leg which hurts you, do you cut off your leg, to not feel any leg pain anymore? Or do you take some painkillers?

Good answer. Of course that's not necessary

The problem will be resolved. In the end, you will most likely reconcile with ratimov and remove the negative tags you placed on each other's profiles.

This will not happen. Not from my side. I can not reconcile with a thief.

I will take your word for it. I like it when you have strong self-confidence. There is no reason for me to shake your confidence

In the end, neither of you is right, you both are just abusing the trust system by sticking negative tags on each other's profiles.

...says the one which did not even bother to read the OP, in order to understand the purpose of this discussion.

LOL  ... ok, ok,... maybe next time I'll spend more time for reading your posts. However, at this time I am not interested in getting involved further... Continue your struggle mate  

[LoyceV]

For what it's worth: I haven't excluded Ratimov, but I don't see his feedback by default. The other users on my Trust list take care of it already.

For consistency purposes, to say the least, perhaps you could act now like in TL's case?

I try to be very conservative with negative feedback and trust exclusions. I think this is part of what got my my "Switzerland" nickname.
Timelord's feedback had been off for years.
In this case, I still hope both of you will see you're doing it wrong. That includes your latest negative feedback: I think that one should also be neutral.

My reviews will soon be added to your profile and will hang there until you provide evidence that I deceived someone, stole something and what my frauds were. Without providing this evidence, you are 100% a trust abuser who is using negative trust to make false accusations that are not supported by evidence.

Again: I think this should still be neutral. Ignore each other and move on with your life.

Both of you are still doing the exact opposite of what you should be doing:

I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

because of the spineless nature of DT1 there is basically no recourse.

Suggestion: ask theymos to undo your own DT1-exclusion and make your Trust list mean something for voting again

it is now clear that he also broke rule 27.

Great. Report it. Let the Mods decide. Move on.

I'm disappointed that as a non-DT member, DT is increasingly losing credibility with their respective bullshit and reputation fights.

That's easy to solve: remove DefaultTrust from your Trust list, and only rely on your personal selection.

If I'd be into playing games, I could come up with something like: "The first one who makes the negative neutral gets on my Trust inclusions list, and the other gets excluded. But, that by itself would be Trust abuse, so I'm not doing that. Either way, this whole thing is still getting out of hand.

Which one of you is going to be the bigger man?

Be the bigger man!
With great power comes great responsibility (source unknown). Especially when you're on DefaultTrust (or if you want to be on DefaultTrust in the future), you shouldn't (ab)use that power by leaving (negative) feedback when someone does something you don't like. Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement.
If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

[mindrust]

I don’t think Lauda left the forum because she got caught. She made lots of enemies during her time in the forum and before she left the forum she was trying to make peace with everybody. She sent me a PM too because somehow she was angry with me for some stupid reason. I think she left the forum because she was threatened. She was waging war with almost everybody and while I think she was right most of the time, sometimes she wasn’t. Even if she was right all the time, it is impossible to take every cheater fuckface head on.

Some of us made some mistakes during our first days/years in this forum but nobody noticed or cared about it till these accounts became big shots. Once this happens, the enemies of these accounts start doing the detective work. They search every old post of yours and look for an opening and sometimes they find it.

-

Some people also think this forum is a game. They simply game it till they win and we all know some gamers cheat.

If you can create long ass topics full information you’ll get merit points, the more merits you get the more friends you’ll have. If you consistently post in a topic where people make jokes and post memes, it will create a similar effect. Then you will become a regular. You are the boss of that thread. Nobody can fuck with you there.

A wise man once said:

“A man without friends is a man without power.”

Sometimes they don’t even put any effort to create good content or post memes. They create an army of sockpuppets and feed each other with merits. Even on this day I can see these people sometimes but I don’t care anymore because once you catch them doing something stupid, they won’t give up. They will become smarter and try the same cheat again but using a more complicated way this time.

Wait.. ratimov? Who is he? I don’t know anything about him. :/

[GazetaBitcoin]

I try to be very conservative with negative feedback and trust exclusions. I think this is part of what got my my "Switzerland" nickname.

I know...

Timelord's feedback had been off for years.

Isn't this also the case of Ratimov? I precisely presented recent examples, but also ones from years ago, in order to provide evidence that he does it continuously, just like TL.

In this case, I still hope both of you will see you're doing it wrong. That includes your latest negative feedback: I think that one should also be neutral.

Due to my high respect to you, I will think about that. But it's hard to convince myself, at least at the moment, that theft -- intellectual theft, in this case -- does not fall under the cases when negative feedback can be used. As you probably noticed, I always emphasized about correct use of Trust system and the fact that positive and negative feedbacks should be used for successful deals or, respectively, for prejudices determined by bad deals. So I know the guidelines of the system. And, in this case, I tend to believe that Ratimov did intellectual theft in a continuous form, did it knowing precisely what he's doing and did it only for luring forum users of what a good contributor he is while, in fact, he only stole work of others and presented it as being his. Indeed, he did not sneak his hand in someone's pocket for stealing money; instead, he sneaked in someone's workshop and stole that person's work. At least this is how I see it...

However, the main question from this topic is if Ratimov's behavior is constant abuse of Trust or not -- therefore should he be part of DT or not?

because of the spineless nature of DT1 there is basically no recourse.

Suggestion: ask theymos to undo your own DT1-exclusion and make your Trust list mean something for voting again

I also vouch strongly for that. (Maybe since there are two of us suchmoon will let herself be convinced?  )

it is now clear that he also broke rule 27.

Great. Report it. Let the Mods decide. Move on.

Sadly, it would be no point in reporting those posts, because they are older than 6 months and reports will get (almost) automatically marked as Bad. there are 99% chances for this to happen. Otherwise I would report them.

[lovesmayfamilis]

I can't read that many walls of text, but I'll repeat myself since my post was shown as an opinion.
Yes, strong people and people who consider themselves right will never spit slop. The words expressed in anger by Ratimov, concerning    GazetaBitcoin's mother, and the nation, look terrifying to me personally. Not being able to control yourself so much, not being able to understand that for someone this is tantamount to an insult, for which offline would be punished very severely. I think Ratimov would never say something like that to a Chechen or a person of Caucasian nationality. But on the Internet we are brave, and this is very sad. Most often this happens to people who have absolutely no value in the offline.
I would suggest taking down reviews from each other that was posted in anger and using all possible methods to avoid seeing posts and not communicating. Every person has people whom they call “friends” or “strangers”. Just remove yourself from each other's lives.

[LoyceV]

it's hard to convince myself, at least at the moment, that theft -- intellectual theft, in this case -- does not fall under the cases when negative feedback can be used.

I'm more pragmatic: plagiarism is dealt with by forum rules, and if something is handled by forum rules, it shouldn't be handled by the Trust system.

Sadly, it would be no point in reporting those posts, because they are older than 6 months and reports will get (almost) automatically marked as Bad.

I've reported old posts, and as long as it's for the right reasons (so not "We generally do not moderate posts this old for on-topicness, substantiveness, multi-posting, and other "cleanliness" issues."), it gets handled.
Why care about Bad reports anyway? I think of Bad reports as "proof" I don't only report the obvious cases, but also report the edge cases where the Mod can decide.

[PytagoraZ]

it's hard to convince myself, at least at the moment, that theft -- intellectual theft, in this case -- does not fall under the cases when negative feedback can be used.

I'm more pragmatic: plagiarism is dealt with by forum rules, and if something is handled by forum rules, it shouldn't be handled by the Trust system.

Strongly agree

Sadly, it would be no point in reporting those posts, because they are older than 6 months and reports will get (almost) automatically marked as Bad.

I've reported old posts, and as long as it's for the right reasons (so not "We generally do not moderate posts this old for on-topicness, substantiveness, multi-posting, and other "cleanliness" issues."), it gets handled.
Why care about Bad reports anyway? I think Bad reports as "proof" I don't only report the obvious cases, but also report the edge cases where the Mod can decide.

Maybe because he no longer believes in mods and feels better than him. Very selfish, huh? Luckily Thyemos is very wise, otherwise everything would be lost... LOL

[holydarkness]

Ratimov, may I ask why the new feedback while on the previous [removed] post you said you tried to do everything you could to resolve this conflict by removing the tag? Was it because the deal is off the table, because Gazeta refuses to remove his tag? Thus, what Gazeta said somewhat contain some degree of truth in it, that what you tried to do was to deal yourself out of a stuation?

I hope you already know the answers to your questions, right?

[...]
@holydarkness (this is also addressed to all other users interested about this topic), here's a list of other rhetorical questions you can ask (and be sure that Ratimov will never answer to them):
[...]

I'm actually giving him a room to air his laundry and/or to say something to explain the reason behind his decision, I believe you know that's how I operates. I can't help but wonder why he isn't yet, he posted on several other boards, but seemingly ignoring this thread.

[...]
Maybe because he no longer believes in mods and feels better than him. Very selfish, huh? Luckily Thyemos is very wise, otherwise everything would be lost... LOL

Umm... IIRC, Gazeta reported a lot, a lot of posts. And by a lot, I mean tens of thousands.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

it's hard to convince myself, at least at the moment, that theft -- intellectual theft, in this case -- does not fall under the cases when negative feedback can be used.

I'm more pragmatic: plagiarism is dealt with by forum rules, and if something is handled by forum rules, it shouldn't be handled by the Trust system.

Many things are handled by trust system that shouldn't be handled.

Someone is pissed, they will leave a neutral note with insults on the trust feedback
Someone thinks the other one is not writing up to the standard posts, they will write these or that guy is a spammer.

Problem in this community, when something do not affect you personally, members are silent and writing things that are politically correct and don't make others their target but when the same thing effect you directly then you feel it's not right.

The trust system would work much better if we were not selfish and had the genuine interest to speak when it's needed for the forum, not when it's needed for personal benefit.

What GazetaBitcoin is doing are inspired by his personal reasons.

I was always proactive against Ratimov and JollyGood. Ratimov was able to burn his wrongs in the grave yard, not sure if he is continuing the same but JollyGood is still actively using you all. However, after all these days I am done though. I said, I" was always ..."

[LoyceV]

Many things are handled by trust system that shouldn't be handled.

True. But that doesn't mean I can't advocate the correct use of the Trust system.

Someone is pissed, they will leave a neutral note with insults on the trust feedback
Someone thinks the other one is not writing up to the standard posts, they will write these or that guy is a spammer.

I don't mind the neutral tags much. But negative (and positive) lose their value if they're often used incorrectly.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Many things are handled by trust system that shouldn't be handled.

True. But that doesn't mean I can't advocate the correct use of the Trust system.

Yeah keep advocating, good luck.

I don't mind the neutral tags much. But negative (and positive) lose their value if they're often used incorrectly.

Let's read some neutral feedback.

Liar and rumor monger. He believes that everything he does on the forum should not be criticized. He attacks anyone who criticizes him through distrust and negative trust.

   Misuses Trust system while being DT1 user. Liar, troll, making ridiculous fake accusations for which he presents no evidence. Very untrustworthy user, which deliberately spreads lies. Avoid.

Used to be, in my eyes, a respected and reputable member of Bitcointalk but in recent times they've turned incredibly vindictive while virtue signaling to the extreme. Sad to see.

BEWARE: BitcoinGirl.Club cannot be trusted. Made baseless accusations against me as part of a revenge ploy to post lies then keep repeating them. Do not trust a compulsive liar as BitcoinGirl.Club

BitcoinGirl.Club seems mentally unwell, suffers from serious anger problems and from delusions of grandeur because of an overinflated ego (revised to neutral)

"BenCodie" made remarkable statements he was trying to get selected on Whirlwind signature campaign when he was convinced it was a scam. He opted to not warn others who applied believing it was a genuine business.

Reluctantly I am leaving neutral feedback rather than red because he semi-retracted the claim later.

BEWARE: "unibitcoinist" cannot be trusted. With his 6 posts in the previous 3 years and 3 months, this alt-account is being used occasionally by the duplicitous operator.

As the previous feedback states, "unibitcoinist" is a general nuisance trying pass himself off as concerned member. The real forum account of the puppeteer is not known.

Looking on the color you call them neutral, but when you read the sentence do you feel it was neutral? If any of these were applied to your feedback page, I am sure you would not mind at all.

Neutral feeedback should be neutral, like literally it should be neutral.
Some examples:

Arsenal fails to win [which they will] the season title, Mouse gives me 1mbtc or I give 2.5mbtc. Side bet.

Open side bet in EPL Pool. I will finish the season ahead of this CLS63 f**ker LOL.

Negative revised to neutral. Account was maybe hacked and returned to owner.