Till when should we keep up with abusive behaviour?

[DireWolfM14]

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.

I wish I had time to post as much as you do, but unfortunately I'm far to busy these days.  Let's not forget eddy13, that's another possibility. 

[LoyceV]

Giving someone negative feedback for saying mean things on the internet is as petty as petty gets.

For what it's worth: I trust your judgement more than God Of Thunder (who changed his username 6 weeks after Learn Bitcoin got called out by JollyGood), Ultegra134, Mia Chloe and Kavelj22 combined.

Even though I can't agree with your feedback, it made me chuckle:

Not a shit poster pissing off shit posters.

Does that mean you do not exclude people who are not in DT?

Feel free to open a topic about this, or discuss it in my Reputation thread, or probably better: on Meta, in one of the threads about the currect feedback system.

I would love to invite you to go through some members' feedback, including mine, and tell if they belong on DT  

You're asking this right after you added an abusive negative feedback?

Trading with Satofan44 is risky due to his history of aggressive and abusive forum behavior, including frequent insults, derogatory remarks (e.g., racist comments), and retaliatory negative trust feedback for non-scam issues.

His poor interpersonal style increases the likelihood that disputes will escalate during trades.

[mrust_mobile]

Everybody eventually has his turn in the Reputation Arena.

This week it is satofan vs mia&ultegra

Satofan is an angry merit beast, magnets merits with his extensive cryptography knowledge.

Ultegra and Mia are politically correct warriors fighting to protect the freedom of speech and human rights.

This is much more exciting than the other week’s game (me vs memehunter & a bunch of noobs)

Likewise, I wish lauda was here too.

Strength and honor.

[LoyceV]

Ultegra and Mia are politically correct warriors fighting to protect the freedom of speech

What makes you say that?

[God Of Thunder]

For what it's worth: I trust your judgement more than God Of Thunder (who changed his username 6 weeks after Learn Bitcoin got called out by JollyGood), Ultegra134, Mia Chloe and Kavelj22 combined.

Wasn't this reason good enough to change the username?
I barely care about what JollyGood says. He was in my ignore list for a while. I think I unignored him a few weeks ago.

This is not the only reason. I have other reasons for changing my username, and I wrote them on a different thread. I get too many mentions daily from topics I never posted because of my username. People use this keyword and wallla.

Would you believe that my locals started copying my username?

I find that hard to believe

LOL. I have seen two of them, and those are from my local thread. I didn't know many accounts were created with the keyword "Learn". I was planning to request theymos to change my username, though.

"Trick".

This new nickname fits nicely

Do you think so?
I guess that was pointed out by someone already, and I thought it fit better.

In the past week, at least 4 users got a name change.

I haven't seen any application thread for a name change. Did they send a PM to theymos for that? Look at my username. I get unnecessary daily mentions of useless topics like Helping kids learn Bitcoin, teaching kids about Bitcoin is not in vain, etc. Whenever people use this word, I get notified via Telegram with TryNinja's bot.

What is the good reason for changing a username? Is my reason good enough to consider?

You're asking this right after you added an abusive negative feedback?

Trading with Satofan44 is risky due to his history of aggressive and abusive forum behavior, including frequent insults, derogatory remarks (e.g., racist comments), and retaliatory negative trust feedback for non-scam issues.

His poor interpersonal style increases the likelihood that disputes will escalate during trades.

Help me understand which part reads as abusive and which part is not correct.
Unlike others, I have explained why I think trading with him is high-risk.

Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. You might also be able to add a flag.

[mrust_mobile]

Ultegra and Mia are politically correct warriors fighting to protect the freedom of speech

What makes you say that?

Not sure, for a moment I find myself living inside the spartacus universe doctoréV.

No need to take it too seriously

[LoyceV]

Help me understand which part reads as abusive and which part is not correct.

You're saying trading is high risk because you don't like his posts.
Again:

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

Did you just add AB de Royse777 to DT2 so his negative feedback on Satofan44 shows up?

[DireWolfM14]

Exactly.

Indubitably.

Even though I can't agree with your feedback, it made me chuckle:

I can speculate the reason you trust my feedback is because I almost never leave these types of reviews.  There are rare occasions where I use them to offset the abuse of others.

[God Of Thunder]

Help me understand which part reads as abusive and which part is not correct.

You're saying trading is high risk because you don't like his posts.

I think I explained everything already.

Trading with Satofan44 is risky due to his history of aggressive and abusive forum behavior, including frequent insults, derogatory remarks (e.g., racist comments), and retaliatory negative trust feedback for non-scam issues.

His poor interpersonal style increases the likelihood that disputes will escalate during trades.

Did you just add AB de Royse777 to DT2 so his negative feedback on Satofan44 shows up?

I did, but not for the reason you mentioned. AB de Royse777 was already on the DT network, and he left many accurate pieces of feedback, while also providing some controversial ones. But just one day ago, Etranger and inspace excluded him to kick him out of the DT network, which is why I noticed that his feedback isn't showing anymore. If I am not mistaken, these two exclusions stem from personal issues, and I can sense it. I maintain good relationships with all the campaign managers and consider them friends. It doesn't matter what is between them, but using friends to kick someone out of the DT network doesn't look good. I just believe he has left some accurate feedbacks and deserve to be on the DT network frequently. 

[goldkingcoiner]

~Snipped~

~Snipped~

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.

I am not a DT member.
At least not since 1miau decided to leave Bitcointalk and abandon his DT1.

And even when I was, I would have never thought of the trust from a DT member or any other "VIP" members to be more or less important than from non DT.
I call people out on their BS and I do not care whether they are a DT1, campaign manager, newbie, OG, mod or theymos himself.

And I only give out green trust if I have had a history of positive financial experiences with them or a red trust if I believe them to be too dangerous to entrust with any financial matters.

That is the extent of my trust-giving. No more and no less.
And why? Because not only do I wish to protect myself, but also I want to protect others from getting scammed.

And if more people keep using trust in a childish manner, eventually nobody will take these warnings seriously.

[yahoo62278]

Help me understand which part reads as abusive and which part is not correct.

You're saying trading is high risk because you don't like his posts.

I think I explained everything already.

Trading with Satofan44 is risky due to his history of aggressive and abusive forum behavior, including frequent insults, derogatory remarks (e.g., racist comments), and retaliatory negative trust feedback for non-scam issues.

His poor interpersonal style increases the likelihood that disputes will escalate during trades.

Did you just add AB de Royse777 to DT2 so his negative feedback on Satofan44 shows up?

I did, but not for the reason you mentioned. AB de Royse777 was already on the DT network, and he left many accurate pieces of feedback, while also providing some controversial ones. But just one day ago, Etranger and inspace excluded him to kick him out of the DT network, which is why I noticed that his feedback isn't showing anymore. If I am not mistaken, these two exclusions stem from personal issues, and I can sense it. I maintain good relationships with all the campaign managers and consider them friends. It doesn't matter what is between them, but using friends to kick someone out of the DT network doesn't look good. I just believe he has left some accurate feedbacks and deserve to be on the DT network frequently.  

Honestly the more you reply the more you show reasons why you might not be good for DT.

You gave a red tag to a user for not liking his words basically. His words have nothing to do with trading and being high risk. Then you added a user to counteract others exclusions. I have seen this done in the past but it's rare that it's done.

We (everyone) are not perfect, I realize this and so should everyone else, but the trust system cannot work if people use it incorrectly. I really dislike the DT lottery and how it's supposed to be better for the forum as a whole, but so many are clueless that it's not having the intended effect IMO.

[Satofan44]

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.

I wish I had time to post as much as you do, but unfortunately I'm far to busy these days.  Let's not forget eddy13, that's another possibility.  

Aren't you retired yet or bored at times like I am? Eddy13? I have to do more research on these individuals, but from what I have read so far I can neither confirm nor deny any of this.   Real content is always better than generic and dishonest junk, in any case so there must have been periods when things were much better here.

Did you just add AB de Royse777 to DT2 so his negative feedback on Satofan44 shows up?

Yes he did. Someone who facilitates exit scams regularly, even with disclaimers, and abuses trust is somehow fit according to him to be in DT. Another hypocrite and abuser, as I keep showing the examples here. There are many users that are like this in DT right now, but a lot of them are inactive so you won't necessarily see it unless they are cornered in some way but I know plenty for my short time here.

We (everyone) are not perfect, I realize this and so should everyone else, but the trust system cannot work if people use it incorrectly. I really dislike the DT lottery and how it's supposed to be better for the forum as a whole, but so many are clueless that it's not having the intended effect IMO.

The lottery does not work because as with the merit system, the bad guys of all kinds have enough people inside to include each other. You need pro-active members from others to remove them, and with the common apathy here that requires much more effort than an abusive scheme of long-term inclusion does.

Honestly the more you reply the more you show reasons why you might not be good for DT.

Exactly one of my points. If my rudeness can get anyone to break these rules, then they are not a fit for DT. I am not fit for it at all, but many that are inside are even worse than me. They just have a financial incentive to play nice and preserve the status quo.

You are too much on your phone.

[mrust_mobile]

Exactly one of my points. If my rudeness can get anyone to break these rules, then they are not a fit for DT. I am not fit for it at all, but many that are inside are even worse than me. They just have a financial incentive to play nice and preserve the status quo.

Trust rating system is all about financial risk so having a financial incentive to stay in dt is exactly how it is supposed to work imo.

We are talking about munney here.

People’s finances are at risk.

One misrating from dt, boom the person’s whole financial career as a sig camper goes out of the window.

Trust system is not about: “this guy was mean to me he is no good for financial transactions”

And dt members have a financial incentive to be there, because they are the ones who gate keep people’s financial actions in the forum. (And yes, that includes sig camp participations)

[Satofan44]

Exactly one of my points. If my rudeness can get anyone to break these rules, then they are not a fit for DT. I am not fit for it at all, but many that are inside are even worse than me. They just have a financial incentive to play nice and preserve the status quo.

Trust rating system is all about financial risk so having a financial incentive to stay in dt is exactly how it is supposed to work imo.

We are talking about munney here.

People’s finances are at risk.

One misrating from dt, boom the person’s whole financial career as a sig camper goes out of the window.

Trust system is not about: “this guy was mean to me he is no good for financial transactions”

And dt members have a financial incentive to be there, because they are the ones who gate keep people’s financial actions in the forum. (And yes, that includes sig camp participations)

Well what I mean to say is that many of them are unfit, have ego and power-tripping issues, but they try really hard to hide it because of those financial incentives. They are not adhering to the rules because they have principles and believe in them, they are doing it for the wrong reasons. This is still better than actually breaking the rules, but you get my point. As corruption grows in a system, over time, it starts collapsing.

Therefore, there are many kinds of people in DT right now. Some good, others bad.

[Lucius]

I understand the need to react when someone feels threatened/attacked in some way, but I also learned a long time ago that these kinds of discussions literally lead nowhere. The sooner everyone accepts that we are online and that this is a forum where you can literally say whatever you want to anyone (including calling someone names) the better for everyone.

As for the OP, I can only say that he is definitely not a bad person and is one of the best AI spammers hunters. And as for @Satofan44, our paths crossed a couple of times in some topics where he reminded me of some old members with his writing style.

I know that some people have, so to speak, a very rough vocabulary (which I don't particularly like either), but perhaps in some situations they could refrain if they see that it bothers someone. Yes, there are a lot of sig spammers on this forum and many are only there for profit, but this should be addressed on an individual basis and preferably through PM to the sig managers - public criticism will not bring any benefit.

[Satofan44]

As for the OP, I can only say that he is definitely not a bad person and is one of the best AI spammers hunters.

Well, that doesn't change the fact that he is not fit for DT and that he sometimes posts junk. As you see users come in many flavors, but some good aspects don't justify the other bad ones. Thereby I am not DT material either, even though my Bitcoin knowledge spans thousands of OPs combined.

And as for @Satofan44, our paths crossed a couple of times in some topics where he reminded me of some old members with his writing style.

A rational person with a theory, this could be entertaining. Share it here or in PM if you don't want to involve yourself in drama.   Today was more entertaining, popcorn is pretty expensive these days for so much action.

[Ultegra134]

I was at work, and the two previous posts were written there and in a little hurry. Sorry @goldkingcoiner I was in a hurry, I quoted a few people that I value on their forum and are reputable members of this forum in general.

@LoyceV
For Chloe's feedback, as I said myself, I do believe that dealing with him is a risk judging by his behaviour, not because he has shown direct signs, such as offers to a ponzi scheme in PMs, but because he considers everyone else around him a retard, thus, it's safe to assume that he might as well believe that someone who gets scammed is one. By this definition, the negative feedback is justified, but doesn't stand on solid grounds (concrete evidence) that he's truly a trading risk. Calling him an asshole is understandable after receiving many insults, like Chloe mentioned, but you're making yourself as bad as he is, which to me is no use and I haven't resorted to such measure, because I don't want to go down that level.

The reason you can't be insulted is because you're a legendary member, and I do not mean it by rank. Your posts and your presence online has been great. There's no denying that.

@lovesmayfamilis
I respect and value your opinion, along with @LoyceV and @yahoo62278, which is why I changed my negative tag, although I believe he's a major risk when he's behaving like that, it doesn't have solid grounds to show that he's a trading risk and doesn't line up with the forum's guidelines. I never disagreed that his posts have great knowledge in them, but being an ass about it and calling everyone retarded is insulting. I didn't open this thread because I'm petty, nor offended, I couldn't care less about his opinion, but to me, it doesn't line up with how you should talk to people and how any member should be treated, newbie or legendary.

@DireWolfM14
I always respected your character, even though we haven't interacted much, but I disagree with you. I'm not making a topic to bitch about calling me an idiot etc. I don't care, but me, Chloe and other members aren't their "sole victims". He's like that to anyone who doesn't line with his views and knowledge. The point of this topic is that even though there's freedom of speech here, there should be a line of when it's too much. Your positive trust, also in the way @LoyceV has provided examples also doesn't line up with how trust works, I'm mentioning it because you said about trust abuse. My views don't have to align with yours, and that's perfectly okay; maybe I'm biased because I'm one of the users who he believes are "shitposters", but I had seen his interactions with others a long time before we even interacted, and was still frustrated by the way he talked to other users.

[Satofan44]

but because he considers everyone else around him a retard, thus, it's safe to assume that he might as well believe that someone who gets scammed is one. By this definition, the negative feedback is justified, but doesn't stand on solid grounds (concrete evidence) that he's truly a trading risk.

@lovesmayfamilis
although I believe he's a major risk when he's behaving like that, i

My background is completely irrelevant and I won't bring it up here to create a naive defense. However, you need to stop trying to manipulate the public with lies and just accept that you are an idiot and that you are wrong. I have already explained why.

I will never trade here, I will never take out any loans or do any other trading-related behavior.

Because of this, it is impossible for me to be a trade risk to anyone. Therefore, no amount of attempts at justifying your mistaken views will change anything about that. Actually because of this, you are always going to be a higher trade-risk than me. Should they tag you and everyone else who engages in any kind of trading?

[Ultegra134]

My background is completely irrelevant and I won't bring it up here to create a naive defense. However, you need to stop trying to manipulate the public with lies and just accept that you are an idiot and that you are wrong. I have already explained why.

Not trying to manipulate anyone, and there's no right or wrong, it's my opinion versus someone else's. This is what you can't understand, that people may have a different opinion from you, yet, you still resort to your own methods of expression.

The issue with ignore is that you can still see and keep replying to my posts.

[Satofan44]

My background is completely irrelevant and I won't bring it up here to create a naive defense. However, you need to stop trying to manipulate the public with lies and just accept that you are an idiot and that you are wrong. I have already explained why.

Not trying to manipulate anyone, and there's no right or wrong, it's my opinion versus someone else's. This is what you can't understand, that people may have a different opinion from you, yet, you still resort to your own methods of expression.

Opinions can be made up of lies, misinformation and false knowledge. In those cases, there is no need to accept idiocy. It is usually those that don't know better or those that have a severely deficient education that utilize that "it's all subjective" bullshit as an excuse. 

I will never trade here, I will never take out any loans or do any other trading-related behavior.

It is impossible for me to be of any trade risk to anyone, therefore your opinion is wrong for whatever reason I don't care -- you are still an idiot.

The point of this topic is that even though there's freedom of speech here, there should be a line of when it's too much.

Which has nothing to do with the Reputation section, nor the trust system, idiot. Talk to theymos, good luck convincing him. He's the chief of the shitposting platform after all, he should be offended by my remarks the most.