Maybe someone should reach out to Theymos on behalf of Holy as Holy previously suggested he would/could/should. Holy wish’s not to be under a microscope while also stating DT1 is a burden and asks to be eliminated from the DT pool.

I have a strong sense he never bothered to send Theymos the message.

Convenient.

---

Well, you’re living proof even a broken clock is right twice a day. Let’s see if what you say and what you do are the same. An actionable measure.—I doubt it.

I’ll make it easy, just copy & paste.

~holydarkness

---

Sidenote:

You out of all people should be eliminated from DT1 more than anyone (side-by-side anonymousminer).

~DireWolfM14
~anonymousminer

Just because you’re right in your words surrounding this case doesn’t mean you’re worthy of ever wearing DT1. Truly, you are apart of the problem.

The only thing that would change my mind is you removing the shameful lies you’ve spread all over countless and unrelated threads about me.

It’s just principle.

If either of you two plan on having a positive future here (you are heading in the wrong direction IMO) you should not insult the community by falling for the ponzi sweet talk.  I've been accused of dozens of crimes by OgNasty  and when the truth prevails he will not apologize, he will double down.  Let me give you a recent example from his weekend's drinking:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5581180.msg66656662#msg66656662

Almost ten years ago OgNasty was trying to integrate BPIP with his nastyfans scam.  He offered me merit if I could get the big banner out of his face.  When I did it, he cut my words mid sentence and accused me of demanding merit.   So just be careful, PRIVATE things you write to OgNasty now can come back years later out of context.    He will not apologize to the community for lying - he just keeps posting for Grok.


You are just as lacking for facts in your defense as you are for details on your lie.

The only thing left here seems to be feuds between groups or personal vendettas. People who try to bring others together have good hearts. It’s too bad that opportunity was used to destroy rather than fix things.

My tendency to agree with OgNasty had nothing to do with the dispute between you two. It had everything to do with my own perspective and personal experience on this forum. It seems OgNasty has experienced similar issues by his own admission (Maybe it does tie in with you but I wouldn’t be able to make a claim on his behalf). I’ll wait for the official legal judgment before weighing in with either of you publicly regarding the matter. I truly don’t know enough to make a solid judgement on it yet. I feel bad for anyone who gets involved on either side—even as a mediator.

I will say, your off putting statement and attitude makes me leaning (be it true or not). It’s almost threatening. That I do not care for, I’ve had enough. My opinion on the matter won’t be the one that matters. The courts will.

That said, I’ve in the past given you sympathy regarding the situation.—My boundary is to stop dragging me into it.

No. Trust isn't moderated. But you're barking up the wrong tree: you should argue that user doesn't belong on DT2, and his feedback shouldn't be visible by default.

As the writer of my guidelines, I think this is wrong. You can't seriously think that "This guy need some mental help, retarded at all point" without Reference link to back this up with medical evidence is good use of the feedback system, right? And even if it would be accurate (which it isn't), I'd say it should be neutral, not negative.
I don't think this rollinsweet fits the forum's description on Trust settings:
He doesn't have a custom Trust list, and only sent feedback once, without Reference link. That's not someone who should be on DT2.
@holydarkness: if you remove rollinsweet from your Trust list you save me the trouble of excluding him from mine

That's why it's better if he's removed from holydarkness' Trust list, so other DT1-members don't exclude him now.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'll comment anyway: I haven't read enough about it yet to be able to tell if it's justified or not. Some cases tend to drag into multiple long topics, making it very hard to quickly get to the point. And I really don't like drama enough to spend a lot of time reading it. This topic alone is filled with posts that aren't directly related to the case.

I care less about non-DT feedback There's a troll leaving negatives on me too, it's not even worth excluding

You can only request to be removed from DT1, but you'll still be on DT2 as long as you have a "net-inclusion" from DT1.
I'd argue the people who call DT1 a burden are the right ones to be on it, so stay in, don't request to be blacklisted

---

---

I've argued before that it should take 2 inclusions from DT1 to reach DT2, to avoid such cases. It's not the first time: about half the users on DT2 are only there only because of one person. Unfortunately, this suggested improvement was never implemented.

You should definitely still be removed from DT1 so LoyceV doesn’t have to keep you on a short leash, considering he’s your master, despite everyone else here having first and essentially said the same thing. Contrary to what he thinks, I don’t think you should be DT1 because you view it as a burden or a microscope, which prevents you from doing whatever you want like normal members, as you suggested. I feel the majority is drinking a major cocktail of BS. I’ve had it all the way up to my ears. I respect LoyceV, but the complicity and sore knees on this platform is disturbing.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback in the thread. A couple of things that I would like to add. When looking for the truth, looking at the motive is very important. Why someone did this or said that, tells a better story than what was written.

It's blatantly obvious why holy bumped rollinsweet. It's mind-boggling that he doesn't know better. holy does a similar thing in scam accusations. He takes a side and then looks for some type of confirmation bias to support his cause. The problem is that he takes the sportsbooks side and then looks for a reason.