Till when should we keep up with abusive behaviour?

[yahoo62278]

Well I wasn't mentioned but I am a DT member and your tag is not correct. Neither are a lot of his, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. Neutral is fine and definitely ignore if you don't like what he says. That goes for the rest of the forum as well.

I did my best advising the user and it is up to them whether they want to listen or continue down the same path. Basically, if you don't like reading his/her posts scroll past them. If you had them on ignore you wouldn't see them anyways.

I explained the reasons why I deem a negative feedback as okay, because after his allegations, I do believe that dealing with him is a risk. However, I'm willing to discuss with more experienced members who may think that my feedback does not align with the forum's guidelines. My opinion is my opinion, it doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but I'm not going to insult anyone for having a different one. If you and other DT members claim that negative feedback is too much, I can change it back. This is the difference, I'm willing to discuss and not call everyone an idiot like he does. This isn't an isolated incident, he just insults everyone

I also had an argument with a reputable member and he got offensive, he was put in the ignore list and it ended there. No one sent any feedback to eachother, and it was an isolated incident, I'm not going to criticise someone for one incident who might be simply having a bad day. The case with Satofan here is different.

The case is the case. Your trust rating is not the proper way to use the trust system. He is an asshole to some users, you think he is the 1st 1? Look, this forum allows users to speak their minds and in this case I agree he has said some pretty harsh things, but that does not mean you can just incorrectly tag him and it's ok. You're doing the same thing he is by doing so.

You don't like they person, fine ignore them. Others don't like his verbal abuse, fine they can ignore him. Eventually they will be talking to themselves. If you don't like his tags ~ them and move on. There are enough users that have done so, so making DT will be very challenging for them.

[Ultegra134]

The case is the case. Your trust rating is not the proper way to use the trust system. He is an asshole to some users, you think he is the 1st 1? Look, this forum allows users to speak their minds and in this case I agree he has said some pretty harsh things, but that does not mean you can just incorrectly tag him and it's ok. You're doing the same thing he is by doing so.

You don't like they person, fine ignore them. Others don't like his verbal abuse, fine they can ignore him. Eventually they will be talking to themselves. If you don't like his tags ~ them and move on. There are enough users that have done so, so making DT will be very challenging for them.

This is the first I've seen in my years being that aggressively hostile to others, I've seen others every now and then, but nothing like this. I changed my feedback back to the neutral I originally gave him.

[Lida93]

~Snipped~

That's certainly for sure. I wouldn't mind if it was a minor insult every one in 50 of his posts. What I posted is a mere example of his first page, without even me going through all 20 of his posts. That's excessive; there should be freedom of speech, but where do we draw the line? That's extremely malicious behaviour, throwing insults and racism towards other users.

The user Satofan44 has a problem accommodating other forum members opinion that doesn't align with his in any thread discussion. Assuming he has something to call to your attention about your opinion which should build meaningful discussion from there on a thread he would rather insult your person with hateful and racist words and there go on to spice it with a tag. Most disturbing is that this is a community with people from different parts of the world. I find it difficult to believe that there are still people in this civilised time who think themselves too highly intelligent that others who don't align with their level of knowledge are termed retarded and therefore deserves racist utterance.

If this how the forum has being operating in the pass years I don't think it would have been a place where people across the world would feel free to come learn more about bitcoin from those who already have a grounded knowledge of it if they have to be given hate speech and instead.

[LoyceV]

Since when is it acceptable to call other people idiots, complete retards, make racist comments that hold no background, in the forum?

If by "acceptable" you mean "allowed", I'd say it's been allowed for as long as I can remember.

Allow me to quote myself quoting myself on free speech. I posted this in an earlier topic about Satofan44:

I find these statements deeply offensive

That's okay. You're free to feel offended whenever you choose to do so.

and contrary to the values that this forum is built on.

That's not at all what this forum is about:

the forum's mission to be as free as possible

This is not the first time I see people advocate for less freedom and more rules. Not only here, many people do the same in real life. But they don't realize those freedoms are lost forever once they're gone.

If this type of behavior is allowed in this forum, then here will be turned into another racism breading ground.

I've seen these discussions long before you joined, and the longer I'm here, the more I appreciate theymos' stance on the subject: freedom of speech above censorship.

To quote myself on the subject:

Use the Ignore button, problem solved. You can't possible expect everyone on the internet to be nice to you.
This forum gives users the freedom to be as rude as they want, just like it gives anyone else the freedom to be as nice as they want. Enjoy the freedom to choose your style, but let others enjoy the same freedom.

I have no problem with anyone's style as long as it's not pointing me.

Well, then that's your problem. It's simple as that. I would have started this sentence with "I'm sorry to say, ....", but then I realized that would go against the point I'm trying to make. Hurting someone's feelings is allowed. Grow a thicker skin, and stop caring. It's really that simple.
Who cares, you don't know the person, you don't have to meet him, and yet, you choose to read his posts while you can easily ignore them at the click of a button! Why make yourself suffer for something that can only get worse if you give it more attention?

I'm usually quite polite on Bitcointalk, up to the point where the Cat and now others started calling me Switzerland. But I highly appreciate the freedom to not be polite if someone wants to. Your hurt feelings don't take away someone else's right to say what he wants.

Bitcointalk offers more freedom than any other forum I know. You can choose to be an asshole or you can be a nice person. It's entirely up to you how you want to come across. If you're a snowflake, you might get offended. That's okay.

So what?

The only right answer

Discrimination and racism is all part of freedom of speech. You can't have freedom of speech without someone else having the same freedom, and as I once read: freedom of speech is especially necessary for controversial subjects! You don't need freedom of speech to say bunnies are fluffy.
So if someone wants to discriminate: let them! Use ignore if you want, discuss with them, try to change their mind (as if that's ever worked on the internet) or just move on with your day. Who cares what an anonymous person on the internet says? See my personal text to see how much I care.

Besides, as long as hell doesn't freeze over, you can have any race, nationality or gender you want on Bitcointalk. There's an attack helicopter as Global Moderator, that's all fine

How about if the admin filter some keywords(foul words), such that when you use them, you will be handed ban.

It's always amazing how people volunteer to give up the freedoms they've been given. It's truely scary, not only online but also in real life.
Bitcointalk is the only forum I know that allows freedom of speech. If you don't like it, go to SJW forum.

What the f*ck, do you think censoring *BEEP* is going to make the forum any better? I miss TMAN, go read Poetry, by TMAN.

If I'm offended by someone online, it means I am doing something wrong by being offended by someone or I did something wrong to attract an attack on me?

If you choose to be offended by something an anonymous person says on the big mean internet, you're doing something wrong. Why would you choose to give someone such power over you?

What is your understanding of freedom of speech? Do you know that there is an unofficial rule that says "No trolling?". If freedom of speech is what you think it is, why will such a rule apply?

Calling an idiot an idiot is not trolling. A bit more context:

However, trolling isn't allowed. If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense ("obviously false nonsense" to an outsider, NOT to someone who follows or is involved in the discussion) just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. Such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report though (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post).

To quote myself on the subject:

Just recently, I saw several posts saying: "I hope I'm not offending anyone", and it's been on my mind for a while now.

I only recently realized why this is so common in English. In Dutch, "offended" and "insulted" are the same word ("beledigd"). But lately, it seems like people treat the word "offending" as if it's "insulting".
I'd say insulting isn't needed and makes you look bad, but being offended is a choice of the receiver, and honestly I'm offended by people who want to limit their own freedom of speech out of fear that someone might get his feelings hurt on the internet! Oh noes!

It's okay to offended people! Offensive jokes are often funny. Don't let SJW decide what you're allowed to say or even think!

Trying to be nice doesn't hurt you, but don't let someone's made up feelings stop you from speaking your mind.

I can't agree with you. You can also gently criticize a person. To insult is only to insult, nothing more. And it is not right to talk about freedom of expression while insulting a person.

I am insulted by the very fact that you think you can have freedom of speech without being allowed to insult someone. So by your own definition you're not allowed to say that!
Luckily for you, you actually have the right to say pretty much anything you want on this forum. And as a Thick-Skinned Gang Leader, I can handle anything you throw at me.

For example, I insulted you and you did it to me. What's the matter here? What did the forum gain from this? When viewed from the outside, the forum is seen as a place where racism, neopotism and swearing are falling.

It's the internet, I couldn't care less about your race. You can claim to be a Smurf if you want too. It can't be checked anyway, so why do you even care?
I think I'm usually pretty friendly, and I usually don't try very hard to insult people. But I can understand why others do that, and I highly value their right to do so. If someone, especially in an anonymous environment, treats others badly, it tells you a lot about them. But how you handle it says a lot about you.

Don't you really see these kinds of statements make the forum look bad?

No. It's what makes this forum great and unique! If you don't like it, you may want to go to a heavily censored SJW forum where your fragile feelings are protected. Bitcoin is about freedom, and you can't have freedom to say what you want without other people having the same freedom to say what they want. Grow a thicker skin or choose to have a fragile ego hurt.
I'm pretty sure there are already texts that you don't like embedded in the Bitcoin blockchain. It's okay. You don't have to read it. Why would you even bother to read things on a website if it insults you?

How about if the admin filter some keywords(foul words), such that when you use them, you will be handed ban. Such as 7days ban, few days signature ban, read only mode etc. This will promote peaceful co-existence and curtail to the barest minimum any form of bullying, unfriendliness, acrimony or as the case may be.

I'm offended by your suggestion. Now you deserve a 7 day ban

You should spend 2.5 minutes to listen to this guy: the only proper response to someone who says: "I'm offended!" is: "I don't care!".

Here's another 9 minutes worth of your time: Rowan Atkinson on free speech.

For me, the best way to increase society's resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed. We need to build our immunity to taking offence, so that we can deal with the issues that perfectly justified criticism can raise. Our priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger.

Did you notice how I completely ignored anything Satofan44 said? That's intentional: it's completely irrelevant to the discussion on freedom of speech.

Remember:

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire*

@OP: What's your stance on Mia Chloe's feedback on Satofan44?

This is the biggest asshole I've seen on this forum moving around making stupid allegations. Avoid this retard.

Not only is it rude and abusive (which I'm okay with but you seem to mind), it's also Trust abuse and if this stays red I'll exclude Mia Chloe from my Trust list.

Now that I'm on the subject: Kavelj22's feedback shouldn't be red either:

Accuse me and others irrelevant accusations. Has no clue how to use the trust system.

To be clear: Satofan44's sent feedback is obvious large-scale Trust abuse, but he's so far excluded from DT that nobody cares anymore.
He's called me "LauraV" at least 3 times, including on my feedback page. His trolling is a waste of his technical knowledge, his contribution to the forum would have been much better without the drama.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

He is just what I call a smartard. Very clever in one area but completely retarded in others, as in this case with the use of the trust system. I put him on ignore some time ago, as I don't waste my time on nonsense. Nor do I think I should waste any time countering his shitty feedback.

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

I'm surprised you are quoting me to say this. First let's start with how many times he has mentioned me in discussions that I don't need be mentioned in just to make allegations he can't prove he's been trolling me but I let it slide. If he has a problem with insults I could care less but mentioning me and accusing me on the most frowned thing in this forum is something I will not agree to slide by.

The moment you begin to take a chill from what he wrote then you'll begin to give others the benefit of doubt that you may be part of an alt farm.
To add to this I have a general question to ask everyone advocating that there be no need for a negative tag;

Would you trade with satofan44? Would you trust him for any deals or least urge someone to trust him?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Would you trade with satofan44? Would you trust him for any deals or least urge someone to trust him?

Well, I think this question is relevant because when you don't trust someone in general you also don't trust him to make deals, so a red tag would be justified from that point of view.

I personally don't trust him at all. I am not going to paint him a red tag but I don't see a red tag from that point of view a bad use of the trust system necessarily.

But specifically as for your feedback, if you want to mantain the red, I would rephrase it. As such it doesn't look good.

[lovesmayfamilis]

The case is the case. Your trust rating is not the proper way to use the trust system. He is an asshole to some users, you think he is the 1st 1? Look, this forum allows users to speak their minds and in this case I agree he has said some pretty harsh things, but that does not mean you can just incorrectly tag him and it's ok. You're doing the same thing he is by doing so.

You don't like they person, fine ignore them. Others don't like his verbal abuse, fine they can ignore him. Eventually they will be talking to themselves. If you don't like his tags ~ them and move on. There are enough users that have done so, so making DT will be very challenging for them.

This is the first I've seen in my years being that aggressively hostile to others, I've seen others every now and then, but nothing like this. I changed my feedback back to the neutral I originally gave him.

I agree with your decision; ultimately, we shouldn't resort to the same methods. Satofan44 also asked me whether behavior like leaving tags by DT members is fair to the trust system. Nevertheless, he should listen to others and accept the forum's rules. Otherwise, he should open his own forum and invite a select few.  Perhaps your example will encourage him to cool his ardor toward those around him. I see so many helpful posts from him; in fact, I decided not to even add him to my distrust list, removing the tilde this week. I'd like to believe that we won't become enemies but rather teach by example how to be more considerate of others, and instead of reproaches and insults, ask him to teach things that others, for obvious reasons, may not know. For me, LoyceV is simply a wonderful example of how to behave online. If it is very difficult to understand each other, you can simply pass by.

[Satofan44]

There are a few smart, cool heads that try to be objective and fair. Thanks @yahoo62278, @LoyceV, @lovesmayfamilis. Even if we don't agree on many things, bias is never warranted -- objectivity always is. Rudeness triggers the weaker minds to throw away objectivity, they get easily tricked by their own anger into false rationalizations and justifications as is seen here. That should not happen.

Would you trade with satofan44? Would you trust him for any deals or least urge someone to trust him?

Well, I think this question is relevant because when you don't trust someone in general you also don't trust him to make deals, so a red tag would be justified from that point of view.

No it is not, otherwise all my red tags are not abuse and are spot on. I would not trade with any single misinformation spreader here or a shitposter (including the both of you and OP), but that does not justify the negative tags according to senior DT members. I have tried this line of argumentation before myself, and it was dismissed. Therefore such a frivolous manipulation of the situation in order to make a false claim of a justified red tag on me does not work. You guys really need to take a look in the mirror, some of you are complete hypocrites and completely abusive of the seniority that you have here.  

He's called me "LauraV" at least 3 times, including on my feedback page. His trolling is a waste of his technical knowledge, his contribution to the forum would have been much better without the drama.

Miss Laura, life can't all be about conducting research. Keep the technical section cleaner and it will be less boring.  

I agree with your decision; ultimately, we shouldn't resort to the same methods.

DT members must be held to a much higher standard than whatever is being asked from everyone else, only then can people actually believe that many users here are not corrupt and that they are not defending all kinds of shady shit for malicious reasons. Practice what you preach -- I believe is the relevant principle here. Even many of the neutrals on me are extremely biased. They leave me a feedback but then they refuse to do the same to other alleged trust abusers.

If this how the forum has being operating in the pass years I don't think it would have been a place where people across the world would feel free to come learn more about bitcoin from those who already have a grounded knowledge of it if they have to be given hate speech and instead.

Bitcoin does not need parasites that pretend to care about Bitcoin. How many of this parasitic bunch I have banned from other Bitcoin avenues I have long lost count.  

[babo]

I want to remind you that, as theymos said, trusts should be left if there could be some sort of problem for the trades
At the moment I don't think there are any dangers in trading with Satofan

for questions of trust, not of transfer, there is the default trust, that is what you have to use if you don't trust his judgment
This is the correct way to use the trust system, at least as I understand it.

[Satofan44]

I want to remind you that, as theymos said, trusts should be left if there could be some sort of problem for the trades
At the moment I don't think there are any dangers in trading with Satofan

for questions of trust, not of transfer, there is the default trust, that is what you have to use if you don't trust his judgment
This is the correct way to use the trust system, at least as I understand it.

Yeah. This is a problem when people in positions of power, who shouldn't be in them, get vindictive feelings -- as you can see with OP and the other shitpost facilitator. They soon realize that there is actually nothing that they can do to act on such feelings other than to abuse their position.

I will never trade here, I will never take out any loans or do any other trading-related behavior. Therefore they will never have any correct basis on which to punish me for my words, at least not according to any trust system guidelines. This frustration is often too much to handle for small minds such as Ultegra134 and Mia Chloe, which often leads to situations like this. They quickly spiral to engage in the same or worse abuse that they accuse someone else of. This is actually quite common, but you have to be able to see the underlying pattern between situations that will differ in details.

[LoyceV]

This isn't an isolated incident, he just insults everyone

That's not true, he hasn't insulted me He won't be able to, because being insulted is a choice, and I choose not to be insulted. Some call it growing a thicker skin, I just like not worrying about online blabla.

I'm surprised you are quoting me to say this.

I quite literally wrote "the book" on what not to do with negative feedback, so this shouldn't have been a surprise.
Apart from the fact that it's negative instead of neutral, your feedback sounds very emotional: "the biggest asshole", "making stupid allegations", "retard". I'd prefer more level-headed people on DT.

First let's start with how many times he has mentioned me in discussions that I don't need be mentioned in just to make allegations he can't prove he's been trolling me but I let it slide. If he has a problem with insults I could care less but mentioning me and accusing me on the most frowned thing in this forum is something I will not agree to slide by.

Your negative is not how the feedback system is supposed to be used. I didn't say anything about what he wrote about you, as that's irrelevant for the feedback you left:

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

The moment you begin to take a chill from what he wrote then you'll begin to give others the benefit of doubt that you may be part of an alt farm.

Lol. So you're saying I should tag him for calling me LaudaV because others will now believe that's me? Nope.

Would you trade with satofan44? Would you trust him for any deals or least urge someone to trust him?

That question is irrelevant: I wouldn't trust you more than I trust him. I'm not in Bitcoin to trust people, and there are only very few people on this forum who I'd trust with money. I like it that way.
If I would trade with Satofan44, or with you, or with 99.99% of the users who were active this month, I'd ask them to go first. But that doesn't mean 99.99% of the users deserve a negative tag.

Well, I think this question is relevant because when you don't trust someone in general you also don't trust him to make deals, so a red tag would be justified from that point of view.

By that logic I could tag you and millions of other accounts. That seems like a waste of time
If you start tagging people for their opinion, negative feedback loses it's meaning as a warning for real scammers.

[Satofan44]

This isn't an isolated incident, he just insults everyone

That's not true, he hasn't insulted me He won't be able to, because being insulted is a choice, and I choose not to be insulted. Some call it growing a thicker skin, I just like not worrying about online blabla.

Are you experiencing feelings of being left out? I apologize for not insulting you .  Or more accurately, for not being able to insult you.  

Well, I think this question is relevant because when you don't trust someone in general you also don't trust him to make deals, so a red tag would be justified from that point of view.

By that logic I could tag you and millions of other accounts. That seems like a waste of time
If you start tagging people for their opinion, negative feedback loses it's meaning as a warning for real scammers.

I expect such senior members to know these things by now, and as such I see this as just a very desperate attempt at twisting the situation to try to silence me. He has been here 8 times longer than me, he should definitely know that if I know it. Coincidentally, it seems to be often the people that I see as shitposting facilitators that get agitated by me. I guess if one believes in coincidences it is fine, there is nothing to see here at all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[God Of Thunder]

@OP: What's your stance on Mia Chloe's feedback on Satofan44?

This is the biggest asshole I've seen on this forum moving around making stupid allegations. Avoid this retard.

Not only is it rude and abusive (which I'm okay with but you seem to mind), it's also Trust abuse and if this stays red I'll exclude Mia Chloe from my Trust list.

I see double standards here.
Have you excluded Satofan44 from your trust list yet?
Did you check the other feedback left by Mia Chloe on other forum members' profiles? Do you think most of the feedback left by Mia Chloe is incorrect? Do you believe his trust list is bad? I see you instantly concluded after seeing one of his feedback on satofan44's profile. I think leaving controversial negative feedback always been accepted here and DT members barely care about one single feedback. If most feedbacks left by you are correct and one is incorrect, I don't care about that one feedback.

[Satofan44]

I see double standards here.
Have you excluded Satofan44 from your trust list yet?

I am deeply excluded, there is no reason to add more exclusions. I am not a DT member, so the double standard comes from you unsurprisingly.

Did you check the other feedback left by Mia Chloe on other forum members' profiles? Do you think most of the feedback left by Mia Chloe is incorrect? Do you believe his trust list is bad? I see you instantly concluded after seeing one of his feedback on satofan44's profile. I think leaving controversial negative feedback always been accepted here and DT members barely care about one single feedback. If most feedbacks left by you are correct and one is incorrect, I don't care about that one feedback.

I was excluded for 1 wrong feedback, so this is incorrect. You, an user who has been proven to be part of a farming network by JollyGood, came to defend these guys?   Perhaps you are threatened that another guy that does campaigns for $50, who definitely reads all the posts and definitely does not farm accounts, will lose some feedback?  

[LoyceV]

I see double standards here.

I don't.

Have you excluded Satofan44 from your trust list yet?

No, why would I? He's not on DT.

To be clear: Satofan44's sent feedback is obvious large-scale Trust abuse, but he's so far excluded from DT that nobody cares anymore.

Did you check the other feedback left by Mia Chloe on other forum members' profiles?

It's only a few postive feedbacks.

Do you think most of the feedback left by Mia Chloe is incorrect?

Let's see:
"Helped this user" doesn't mean the user is unlikely to scam anyone.
"Done a few designs for" doesn't mean the user is unlikely to scam anyone.
"Done a couple of photograph edits and design jobs ~ even offering to pay before hand" doesn't clearly say if any funds were risked.
"Had a small deal with this user ~ I am giving a trust because he was easy to communicate and deal with", for $15 which wasn't even risked.
"Worked with ~ for some time now and he is a nice campaign manager" sounds acceptable, the campaign manager could have not paid thus funds were probably risked. But I can't be sure without a Reference link proving it.
"willingly borrowed me a large amount of funds without a collateral" doesn't mean the user could have scammed, it's the other way around.

Do you believe his trust list is bad?

See the list: it's pretty safe, mostly selecting users who are on DT1 already.

I see you instantly concluded after seeing one of his feedback on satofan44's profile. I think leaving controversial negative feedback always been accepted here and DT members barely care about one single feedback. If most feedbacks left by you are correct and one is incorrect, I don't care about that one feedback.

Of course Trust inclusions or exclusions are based on "an average" of all feedback. I usually don't agree with all feedback someone left. But you're comparing 1 (in my opinion abusive) negative feedback from Mia Chloe to DT-members with many good negatives and one abuse one. My Trust exclusions are well documented, and I don't easily exclude users. That's why I posted my opinion hoping for improvement. But after seeing those positive feedbacks, combined with the emotional negative feedback, I don't think this user belongs on DT.

[Satofan44]

I see you instantly concluded after seeing one of his feedback on satofan44's profile. I think leaving controversial negative feedback always been accepted here and DT members barely care about one single feedback. If most feedbacks left by you are correct and one is incorrect, I don't care about that one feedback.

Of course Trust inclusions or exclusions are based on "an average" of all feedback. I usually don't agree with all feedback someone left. But you're comparing 1 (in my opinion abusive) negative feedback from Mia Chloe to DT-members with many good negatives and one abuse one. My Trust exclusions are well documented, and I don't easily exclude users. That's why I posted my opinion hoping for improvement. But after seeing those positive feedbacks, combined with the emotional negative feedback, I don't think this user belongs on DT.

He just knowingly engaged in trust abuse because I called him out for being part of a spam network according to other DT members. These 3rd world pajeets are really something with their funny behavior. Yes, some managers do accept campaigns as low as $50 per week but many of you don't know that, that's why mentioning it has upset him. I ask you to exclude God Of Thunder too on the same grounds of trust abuse.

[DireWolfM14]

Giving someone negative feedback for saying mean things on the internet is as petty as petty gets.  If you don't like the guy, put him on ignore, stop interacting with him, and don't feed his trolling.  If you're complaining about the trust feedback he's leaving for others, then engage in the same as retaliation, that makes you a hypocrite.

I don't see Satofan44 making his way to DT, so his trust feedback is of little consequence.  When DT members engage in abusive trust feedback, it's a sign that they shouldn't be on DT in the first place.  Even if his actions are bit over the top, his intentions are clearly to keep the forum clean, which is much more appreciated than the actions of many DT members these days.

Anyway, this thread is kind of awesome, and not boring at all, lol...  Reminiscent of the days of Lauda.  

[Satofan44]

Anyway, this thread is kind of awesome, and not boring at all, lol...  Reminiscent of the days of Lauda.  

I am glad you are having fun, at least compared to about 99% of the threads that are full of generic posts -- many by users hired by pajeets and proven account-farmers like God Of Thunder -- this is a real thread with real posts. In a way, it feels refreshing for a change.

This is the first time that I encounter you sir/ma'am. We both have a 4 in our usernames and you agree with my criticism, are you sure you are not my main account? Not long ago the theory was that I was d5000, but perhaps they will come up with something new this time.

[God Of Thunder]

Have you excluded Satofan44 from your trust list yet?

No, why would I? He's not on DT.

Does that mean you do not exclude people who are not in DT?
Does that mean "People" who excluded him from their trust list did it wrong?
Should they remove his name from their trust list exclusion?

Do you think most of the feedback left by Mia Chloe is incorrect?

Let's see:
"Helped this user" doesn't mean the user is unlikely to scam anyone.
"Done a few designs for" doesn't mean the user is unlikely to scam anyone.
"Done a couple of photograph edits and design jobs ~ even offering to pay before hand" doesn't clearly say if any funds were risked.
"Had a small deal with this user ~ I am giving a trust because he was easy to communicate and deal with", for $15 which wasn't even risked.
"Worked with ~ for some time now and he is a nice campaign manager" sounds acceptable, the campaign manager could have not paid thus funds were probably risked. But I can't be sure without a Reference link proving it.
"willingly borrowed me a large amount of funds without a collateral" doesn't mean the user could have scammed, it's the other way around.

Do you believe his trust list is bad?

See the list: it's pretty safe, mostly selecting users who are on DT1 already.

I see you instantly concluded after seeing one of his feedback on satofan44's profile. I think leaving controversial negative feedback always been accepted here and DT members barely care about one single feedback. If most feedbacks left by you are correct and one is incorrect, I don't care about that one feedback.

Of course Trust inclusions or exclusions are based on "an average" of all feedback. I usually don't agree with all feedback someone left. But you're comparing 1 (in my opinion abusive) negative feedback from Mia Chloe to DT-members with many good negatives and one abuse one. My Trust exclusions are well documented, and I don't easily exclude users. That's why I posted my opinion hoping for improvement. But after seeing those positive feedbacks, combined with the emotional negative feedback, I don't think this user belongs on DT.

Thank you for taking a look and sharing your opinion about it. Should I expect you to take some time and check other forum members' feedback as well, and post your opinion on who belongs on DT? I would love to invite you to go through some members' feedback, including mine, and tell if they belong on DT  

If you're complaining about the trust feedback he's leaving for others, then engage in the same as retaliation, that makes you a hypocrite.

Exactly.

DireWolfM14

2025-12-10

Reference

Not a shit poster pissing off shit posters.