How do DT come up with accepting toxic behavior?

[alani123]

That's some good advocacy. Sorry for my oversight

[Hhampuz]

That's some good advocacy. Sorry for my oversight

Not a personal jab at you alani123, it's all good and I get that these things happen and most of the time it just amuses me! 

[Satofan44]

Many of these are not acting on provable scammers and abusers, but they find the time to complain about my useless tags or to distrust me.

Trust exclusions require attention. You're drawing a lot of attention to yourself.

At the beginning yes, now no. Yet they continue wasting time on this, while they stand idly by when malicious behavior occurs. As long as they don't tag those that pay the campaigns I guess.  

I don't see a point of more exclusions, but his list keeps growing:

Isn't it a bit paradoxical that he is wrongly using the DT system to point out some things that he thinks are wrong?
Although he has been told several times, he continues to do the same thing, which means that he is not interested in someone's suggestion or opinion. At the same time, he probably expects that someone will be interested in what he has to say.

I am not in the DT system, therefore I can not be "wrongly using" it. I am acting according to the "right" use of the "untrusted" part of the trust system. Instead of wasting time on me, how about giving a tag to God Of Thunder also known as naim027 or giving one to the serial scammer AB de Royse777?  

This is the only reason why I always advocate for keeping open and transparent sheets, can't be arsed with all the drama, lol.

You have actually work to do unlike scammers such as God of Thunder, AB de Royse777 and a few others who pretend to be "managers" but who I am not allowed to name without proof for lest the retaliate. But it is clear here that those who associate with each other tend to be quite similar in nature.

[Hazink]

That's some good advocacy. Sorry for my oversight

Not a personal jab at you alani123, it's all good and I get that these things happen and most of the time it just amuses me! 

Funny how I have seen more than 5 different wake-up accounts, some with a tag and some without, which are wearing the rainbet signature, and are not anywhere on the sheet. Why do they choose just to wear the code and avatar is what also amazes me? Their intentions are still unknown, maybe to deceive others that they have been here old enough to be in a campaign.

There might be a need in future to push for rules which will prevent non-participants from wearing a signature code without permission. It might be free promotion, but their spamming nature will be viewed differently.

[Satofan44]

That's some good advocacy. Sorry for my oversight

Not a personal jab at you alani123, it's all good and I get that these things happen and most of the time it just amuses me!  

Funny how I have seen more than 5 different wake-up accounts, some with a tag and some without, which are wearing the rainbet signature, and are not anywhere on the sheet. Why do they choose just to wear the code and avatar is what also amazes me? Their intentions are still unknown, maybe to deceive others that they have been here old enough to be in a campaign.

This is a bit off topic and these accounts are being handled in the Reputation section. I have reported many of them to people privately.

There might be a need in future to push for rules which will prevent non-participants from wearing a signature code without permission. It might be free promotion, but their spamming nature will be viewed differently.

That would be extremely restrictive and hard to implement. I highly doubt that there is any realistic chance for something like that to be included in forum rules and get a working implementation. Signature campaign managers could make these rules, but unless DT members enforce them by acting on such cheating then it will not accomplish anything. Examples like lornadane didn't accomplish anything besides ruin their accounts, nobody really cares about their spam.

[KingsDen]

I frequently read a post of some DT before that just “grow a thick skin”. Wtf, why will the community will adjust to someone bad behavior.

But that is the best thing to do. This is not a community created to train manners or change character. Here is for discussing bitcoin, so you don't try to change anymore. If someone is rude to you, you have the option to maintain cool or decide to be an idiot and give the person back their own pills.

This user deserves negative feedback because it promotes negativity instead of posting in a positive way.

The user in question has had many negative feedbacks, some reversed theirs while some maintained the neg tag. Amidst the controversy, the user now has positive feedbacks which is a prove that everyone is entitled to their opinions and should be allowed so. Freedom should be absolute.

User like this earning a money by mocking or belittling others which I doubt the brand he is promoting will be happy if they knew user like this promoting their brand in a negative way.

Don't make mistakes. Satofan44 is not promoting any brand. It is the brand that wants exposure through his signature slot. So, participating in a signature campaign doesn't mean you should post to please the brand that hired your space.

[alani123]

That's some good advocacy. Sorry for my oversight

Not a personal jab at you alani123, it's all good and I get that these things happen and most of the time it just amuses me!  

Funny how I have seen more than 5 different wake-up accounts, some with a tag and some without, which are wearing the rainbet signature, and are not anywhere on the sheet. Why do they choose just to wear the code and avatar is what also amazes me? Their intentions are still unknown, maybe to deceive others that they have been here old enough to be in a campaign.

This is a bit off topic and these accounts are being handled in the Reputation section. I have reported many of them to people privately.

Since you're doing the same y not report yourself?

[SmartGold01]

I do not see anything to worry about anyone posting whatever they want, at first you have to stick by forum rules and regulation and whenever this rules are maintained I don't see any reason why someone will have to tag you or tagging someone. People are made DT so that they could handle bad behavior and possible warned people about users to stay away from them or from those who are already being tag, and again, tags aren't just given to people if what they did are not justifiable. Meaning if what they post or their offences are that bad such scamming people or plagiarism they could tag such users, for plagiarism their offenses are usually heavy either temporal ban, and if such is still repeated and they warned several times then such person will be ban permanently for plagiarism.

[Xiestar]

Blah blah blah

Another typical LoyceV shit behaving like Satofan44 thinking that his opinion only matters when it comes to trust.

The user you are defending is handling negative tags to back up his toxic behavior. You are advocating a proper use of trust system yet you are ignoring a user like this just because he has good knowledge on Bitcoin. This is why I always view you as a double standard guy because you don’t have balls to deal with this guy that clearly not using the trust system.

DT with an opinion this kind of behavior is okay for the sake of freedom of speech probably have same behavior to this user deep inside.

I don’t see the point why does removing a bad behavior will be bad to the community. This is the most dumb ass thinking to apply freedom of speech. I will tolerate some profanity but a direct attack to the user as a regular behavior is a psychopath behavior.

And Boohoo! This pajeet will not wear a signature code without being paid. It’s hypocrisy.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Not trusting someone's judgement doesn't make him stupid.

It's hard to believe you're using that argument. What makes him stupid isn't that. What makes him stupid is lecturing people on how the trust system should work and not having started building a trust list himself, which is empty. But it's understandable because between his big ego and his claim that most DTs aren't fit, it's clear that he thinks the DT system should be just him (and maybe the only two or three people he likes)

That's just one of the things that makes him stupid.

I don't see a point of more exclusions, but his list keeps growing:

Well, if you don't see the point and people continue to exclude him, maybe you're the one who's wrong.

[LoyceV]

Another typical LoyceV shit
~
I don’t see the point why does removing a bad behavior will be bad to the community.

By your own logic, you should remove yourself from the community.

For those who haven't seen it, here's a graphic image of how stupid the person who says this is:
~

Not trusting someone's judgement doesn't make him stupid.

It's hard to believe you're using that argument.

It's not that hard, you even removed your own quote in which you made this argument, which I only debunked. I've added it again inside this quote.

maybe you're the one who's wrong.

You seem to have lost your logic since you attacked me ^{(0 Merit)} (without reading) ^{(1 Merit)} for not liking chatbot output ^{(Merited by 5 users)}.

[Xiestar]

Another typical LoyceV shit
~
I don’t see the point why does removing a bad behavior will be bad to the community.

By your own logic, you should remove yourself from the community.

I’m advocating to remove bad behavior then this is your reply? Maybe you should remove too by suggesting this with your own logic.

You can’t even directly answer my question if Satofan44 is abusing the trust system which means you consider it as within your guideline that you keep bringing up when there’s a conflict related to trust.

I have high respect to you in terms of contribution in the forum, but your obvious taking a blind eye on a real issue related to trust system is something that makes me talk like this. I keep replying to you because you should be the most logical person here to know that Satofan44 is a psychopath no bias.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It's not that hard, you even removed your own quote in which you made this argument, which I only debunked. I've added it again inside this quote.

No, sorry, you're the one who deleted the most relevant part of the image. Here's a screenshot of your previous quote, where you've now deleted it by putting a ~. This is what you have deleted:

You seem to have lost your logic since you attacked me

LoyceV, supposedly thick-skinned but not for AI. You wouldn't say "attacked me" for a post like that regarding any other matter.

^{(0 Merit)} (without reading)

False. Misreading "BCT" as "BTC" is an easy misread.

^{(1 Merit)} for not liking chatbot output ^{(Merited by 5 users)}.

And what's with the merits? In this forum, merit is given for statements that are obviously false as long as they fit with the preconceptions of the person giving the merit. I've seen it happen repeatedly, and not just in relation to AI. That thread is based on false premises, and all the thin-skinned people like you jumped in to say “chatbot diarrhea, chatbot diarrhea” and to give a bunch of merits based on that false premise.