Till when should we keep up with abusive behaviour?

[KingsDen]

We have seen a few exceptional users grace the forum. It doesn't happen often. Satofan44 is still a full member but he already smashed pass 600 merits. I have witnessed the kinds of N0unce and PowerGlove in this category but Satofan44 seems to behave differently.
I am always pained when I see a beautiful profile as yours being painted red for frivolous reasons. You aren't a scammer and you aren't cheating the forum, adjust your behaviour and everything will be fine. It's not late yet to redeem your account. I know everyone who left you a red tag will be willing to revise it only if you reconsider your behaviour.

You can enjoy this forum if you operate in moderation, avoid unnecessary dramas, report low quality posts and allow moderators do their work, use the trust system the way it ought to be used and not the way you like. Cheers!

[Satofan44]

This forum is one of the last places on the internet where people can express themselves freely (to some degree ofc) and imho, getting insulted every once in a while is a small price to pray for that.

If there are no insults, something is wrong with the place. Those that have been on the internet since the first days know.

We have seen a few exceptional users grace the forum. It doesn't happen often. Satofan44 is still a full member but he already smashed pass 600 merits.

I would have many more if people were not biased and protecting their own farms, friends who farm and whatnot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you may or may have not noticed, farmers are the ones who are very quiet or very friendly to everyone else.

I know everyone who left you a red tag will be willing to revise it only if you reconsider your behaviour.

Others are going to withdraw their trust abuse if I retract my own tags, tags which come from someone who is not DT member? This is the logic proposed here?

[Ultegra134]

~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.

I don't have a financial reason to make this kind of effort unlike many others here.  

Although, you're in a signature campaign and spread hate towards others for being in one?

Which 2? There are 4 users in this thread at the time of writing. Did you count yourself amongst those 2? I wonder why.

You were accusing me and @Mia Chloe for multi-accounting, what's even your point? Then you're wondering why you got negative trust and how it's abuse when you're still throwing allegations.

These two members may be somebody to you, but they are nobody to me. Respect is not deserved, it is earned. I have no idea who they are except that they are spammers or that they support spamming. They started this thread, yes?

They engaged in "trust abuse" as you claim it afterwards, yes? Did you exclude them or otherwise annoy them about this "trust abuse"? If not, why are you annoying me about my "trust abuse"?

And who do you think you are?

It is irrelevant to the point. Either you agree that this kind of trust rating is correct or you believe that it is not. You can't have it both ways, depending on who
All they need to do is stop being stupid and I become very nice. I've been pretty nice to any non-stupid person I have encountered. You should read some of those discussions, they are not boring.  

So everything is about everyone else but not about you?

[Satofan44]

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.

All my posts conform to the forum rules. Ask theymos to change them if you want it to be different.

I don't have a financial reason to make this kind of effort unlike many others here.  

Although, you're in a signature campaign and spread hate towards others for being in one?

My post quantity goes several times over the requirements and I am risking myself by going against the status quo or behaving in disruptive ways, so yeah there is no incentive compared to those that milk this system. Play nice, farm accounts and don't get into the spotlight in a negative way. That is the way that people with an incentive operate.

It is irrelevant to the point. Either you agree that this kind of trust rating is correct or you believe that it is not. You can't have it both ways, depending on who
All they need to do is stop being stupid and I become very nice. I've been pretty nice to any non-stupid person I have encountered. You should read some of those discussions, they are not boring.  

So everything is about everyone else but not about you?

What is about me? Be consistent and not a hypocrite:
1. If my feedback is inappropriate and I am excluded, then anyone who laves similar feedback should be excluded.
2. If my feedback is appropriate, then neither I nor others should be excluded for them.

You retaliated for my feedback of calling out your misinformation by engaging in the same trust abuse that you accuse me of.

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

Which is it? Just make up your mind for once and stop being a hypocrite that sucks up to the status quo on a daily basis.  

[Ultegra134]

You retaliated for my feedback of calling out your misinformation by engaging in the same trust abuse that you accuse me of.

I gave you a neutral tag, which cannot be called abuse by any means, for your behavior and your misinformation, as it was completely irrelevant to "bitcoin and technical discussions". I changed it to negative when you started throwing allegations about farmed accounts.

[Satofan44]

You retaliated for my feedback of calling out your misinformation by engaging in the same trust abuse that you accuse me of.

I gave you a neutral tag, which cannot be called abuse by any means, for your behavior and your misinformation, as it was completely irrelevant to "bitcoin and technical discussions". I changed it to negative when you started throwing allegations about farmed accounts.

You mean the same allegations that you have made about me?

You know what they say, The pot calling the kettle black, you calling out everyone else are probably guilty of the same thing... Just my two cents

That confirms your abuse and hypocrisy, it does not defend it.

[yahoo62278]

I replied to a pm from satofan44 and hopefully they take the time to read it. I don't agree with quite a few people on the forum, but that doesn't mean I need to tag all of them or call the retards. The 3rd world stuff and what seems like racial slurs needs to come to a stop as well. People cannot choose where they are from in the world and everyone from a piss poor location is not a certain way. Every society in the world has retards, morons, idiots, murderers, thieves, rapists, molesters, or whatever. That doesn't mean the whole population is the same.

As far as trust lists, I think the users needs to better learn how to use a trust list. They feel they are more intelligent than most on here, so show us you are better than an insult slinger.

[Satofan44]

The 3rd world stuff and what seems like racial slurs needs to come to a stop as well.

If it is not breaking the forum rules and if it is unrelated to the trust system, why? Where can I read about why it needs to stop?

People cannot choose where they are from in the world and everyone from a piss poor location is not a certain way.

Perhaps, but the people that I am responding to in that way definitely are. If you look at the behavior of most signature campaign participants, you can't deny that they are parasitic to Bitcoin. They don't care about Bitcoin at all, they are just farming money here and converting it to fiat. That is the literal definition of a parasite. The "3rd world" part is just a description of their location.

They feel they are more intelligent than most on here, so show us you are better than an insult slinger.

I'm sorry that that I am not capable of poetry like TMAN.  

@franky1

As I've told you @yahoo62278, there is no consistency here whatsoever. The user mentions franky1, but meanwhile franky1 has negative feedback from 4 different default trust members: Carlton Banks, gmaxwell, achow101, BlackHatCoiner,. Why would mine be a problem and theirs not? The feedback is even a copy from one of the other members.

[goldkingcoiner]

Regardless of what people think of him or how he acts, I do not think hurt feelings
or bad behavior should constitute a red trust unless he somehow puts others in financial danger.

We are moving away from what the trust system was meant to be because of people using it as a profile dislike button.

Trust is not being taken as serious anymore.

[Satofan44]

Regardless of what people think of him or how he acts, I do not think hurt feelings
or bad behavior should constitute a red trust unless he somehow puts others in financial danger.

We are moving away from what the trust system was meant to be because of people using it as a profile dislike button.

Trust is not being taken as serious anymore.

That's exactly one of my points. Plenty of these members pretend to be nice and call for an adherence to the rules. However, when push comes to shove, they start abusing those same rules themselves. The recent cases of such allegedly frivolous feedback on me include: AB de Royse777, Mia Chloe, Ultegra134. All of them were or are DT members, thus this alleged necessity of adherence to the rules should play an important role but it often doesn't. Asking a non DT member to be held to a higher standard than actual DT members makes no sense at all. 

On the other side, you have many who are extremely biased. They will leave a negative or neutral on an user for one thing, and then refuse to do the same to another user even when they do the same exact thing. Sometimes there is a financial incentive for which they refuse to do this, but this is not always the case. What is very clear is that the whole system is a complete mess. DT members are at times behaving worse than those that are not trusted at all, or sometimes they display extreme apathy to the whole system as well.

[goldkingcoiner]

Regardless of what people think of him or how he acts, I do not think hurt feelings
or bad behavior should constitute a red trust unless he somehow puts others in financial danger.

We are moving away from what the trust system was meant to be because of people using it as a profile dislike button.

Trust is not being taken as serious anymore.

That's exactly one of my points. Plenty of these members pretend to be nice and call for an adherence to the rules. However, when push comes to shove, they start abusing those same rules themselves. The recent cases of such allegedly frivolous feedback on me include: AB de Royse777, Mia Chloe, Ultegra134. All of them were or are DT members, thus this alleged necessity of adherence to the rules should play an important role but it often doesn't. Asking a non DT member to be held to a higher standard than actual DT members makes no sense at all.  

On the other side, you have many who are extremely biased. They will leave a negative or neutral on an user for one thing, and then refuse to do the same to another user even when they do the same exact thing. Sometimes there is a financial incentive for which they refuse to do this, but this is not always the case. What is very clear is that the whole system is a complete mess. DT members are at times behaving worse than those that are not trusted at all, or sometimes they display extreme apathy to the whole system as well.

Do not mistake my post as my agreeing with you.
I was simply making a statement on how some posters (including you) misunderstand how trust feedback should be given.

Insults and racism do not constitute a red trust HOWEVER such things as baseless accusations, libel and revenge red-tagging can put someone in financial harm.

From your trust feedback I see you make accusations without providing evidence as well as use the trust system as a revenge tool for anyone who red-trusts you.
In fact, I would rate such behavior as dangerous because you are basically spreading libel, which in turn hurts the businesses and trustworthiness of those whom you defame.

And I think your attitude is childish and ignore-worthy. You should rethink the things you post before someone decides to take you to court for defamation. Especially if you  hurt their business.

[Satofan44]

I was simply making a statement on how some posters here misunderstand how trust feedback should be given (including you). [/i]

Yes, and I am saying that one should not be a hypocrite and call out some people while not calling out others who are doing the same. Case in point, the accusers are doing the same thing here and you don't care about it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

From your trust feedback I can see you make accusations without providing evidence as well as use the trust system as a revenge tool for anyone who red-trusts you.

I make no accusations, and I have red-trusted all those users first. Therefore both claims are wrong. The revenge tool argument is extremely subjective and not worth discussing in depth. Some people simply come to my attention by their stupidity in threads that I am in, otherwise I would have not noticed them yet. If they come into my crosshair, I am not allowed to do anything because of the circumstances in which it happened? Definitely.

revenge red-tagging can put someone in financial harm.

Red tags by untrusted members are allowed, and red tags by DT members have to be justified and accurate -- that is the consensus here. Therefore neither this is true.

In fact, I would rate such behavior as dangerous because you are basically spreading libel, which in turn hurts the businesses and trustworthiness of those whom you defame.

Yes and posting lies about Bitcoin does not hurt anybody financially. Genius and biased misinterpretation of the trust system, oriented towards making a bad guy out of me over alleged accusations of "account farming" whereas many users are posting financially dangerous information with direct consequences. Try harder wannabe OG. At least make the argumentation line more challenging while you are desperately looking for another signature deal.

And I think your attitude is childish and ignore-worthy. You should rethink the things you post before someone decides to take you to court for defamation. Especially if it hurts their business.

Which business, account farming and shitposting? Go ahead and try to take me to court, 99% of the people here don't declare any income from these activities and they most certainly don't even have money for a lawyer.

[goldkingcoiner]

Go ahead and try to take me to court, 99% of the people here don't declare any income from these activities and they most certainly don't even have money for a lawyer.

This isn't 4chan in 2003.

It's obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you have no real-life experience whatsoever.
 
I just hope you're ready for the outcome when you do eventually poke the wrong person (and you will) and they decide to give you a dose of reality.
Take my sincere advice instead of trying to prove you're the edgiest person here.

Anyway, on my ignore list you go.

[Satofan44]

Anyway, on my ignore list you go.

Another trust system abuser bites the dust when exposed.

Little Mouse   2025-12-09   Reference   Very professional and fair campaign manager. I have worked with him for over 33 weeks. The pay was always on time and in full.

I know what he does, and your motives are clear from this. To make the irony even better, you have a tag for when you allegedly engaged in defamation but meanwhile you yap here about supposed libel.

At least make the argumentation line more challenging while you are desperately looking for another signature deal.

Does anyone else wants to expose themselves, their hypocrisy, trust abuse, account farming or whatever else you got going on? I don't even have any power here at all, I literally can't do anything to you. I see how you cover when the user in question is a campaign manager or DT member, there is no reason to act this way now.  

At least people like AB de Royse777 can hire you in a campaign until his next client does an exit scam, there is no such benefit of being nice to me. The popcorn is ready for the next round.

[lovesmayfamilis]

It seems the longer this discussion goes on, you, Satofan44, become even more ardent in your fight for your "truth," and as someone said above, you're heading toward "suicide" by your very presence here.

You call many people idiots, so why don't you add those who, by your standards, write nonsense to your ignore list? You understand perfectly well that your red tags are no longer perceived by people as something worth listening to. Take the opposite approach. After all, you previously mentioned several people with whom your worldview completely aligns. Try ignoring all the "bad guys."

On the other hand, reacting to someone online for calling someone an idiot and then trying to prove them wrong, does that make sense? It's just one person, not society. One person's opinion can be wrong and will likely backfire on them. And we're all seeing this.
The ignore button is the best tool on this forum for hot heads.

[Btcdeybodi]

Regardless of what people think of him or how he acts, I do not think hurt feelings
or bad behavior should constitute a red trust unless he somehow puts others in financial danger.

We are moving away from what the trust system was meant to be because of people using it as a profile dislike button.

Trust is not being taken as serious anymore.

You are right to some extent because ''defamation" is damaging to one's reputation even though the trust system was not basically established for situations like that.

However, since a negative feedback is mostly used as a caution against trade risks, I think a neutral feedback will be appropriate for situations other than that. Therefore, an IGNORE+DISTRUST should be appropriate

[TypoTonic]

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

It's not, and I don't agree with his hateful remarks. But it's his choice if he wants to be rude, and he has the freedom to do so. There's always the ignore button though.

If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

If we look at the intended use of the trust system, I don't think a negative tag is appropriate for this. A neutral with reference to this thread should be enough.

Negative (shown as -1)

• If you believe someone is a scammer, or someone is likely to scam, that deserves negative feedback. Please provide evidence.
• If you really hate someone and he's a terrible troll, that does not deserve negative feedback.

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.

[Ultegra134]

~Snipped~

I agree with you, I would put him in my ignore list if his beef was solely with me, but he's against the whole forum, newbies and legendaries included, it doesn't matter who they are. The reason for the negative trust is because not only he's malicious, but he's throwing false allegations about other users, with zero evidence, which as @goldkingcoiner already mentioned, can put someone in financial risk. I was red-trusted for not aligning with with his views on the economical board, even though he's not in DT, it's still wrong and doesn't make sense. In return, I gave him a neutral feedback for his "revenge" tag, not a negative, which I changed when he started calling me account farmer, without a single evidence of that. This behaviour, in my opinion, accounts for a negative feedback, because he evidently shows that you cannot trust to deal with this user.

If another DT member, such as @goldkingcoiner, @lovemayfamilis, etc. etc. thinks it's an abuse of the trust system, I'll change it back to neutral. I explained however why my original neutral feedback was changed into negative.

[yahoo62278]

~Snipped~

I agree with you, I would put him in my ignore list if his beef was solely with me, but he's against the whole forum, newbies and legendaries included, it doesn't matter who they are. The reason for the negative trust is because not only he's malicious, but he's throwing false allegations about other users, with zero evidence, which as @goldkingcoiner already mentioned, can put someone in financial risk. I was red-trusted for not aligning with with his views on the economical board, even though he's not in DT, it's still wrong and doesn't make sense. In return, I gave him a neutral feedback for his "revenge" tag, not a negative, which I changed when he started calling me account farmer, without a single evidence of that. This behaviour, in my opinion, accounts for a negative feedback, because he evidently shows that you cannot trust to deal with this user.

If another DT member, such as @goldkingcoiner, @lovemayfamilis, etc. etc. thinks it's an abuse of the trust system, I'll change it back to neutral. I explained however why my original neutral feedback was changed into negative.

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.

[Ultegra134]

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.