anonymousminer should be reviewed for removal from DT1 status

[Kazkaz27]

This DT1 has consistently been one of the most disruptive members in the Bitcoin Collectibles section.

I encourage all members to review anonymousminer’s posting history.

There are numerous documented examples of behavior that negatively affects the community. Here are a few key threads:
• Negatively impacting the Bitcoin Collectible Space
• References and examples of anonymousminer’s problematic behavior



The pattern includes repeated off-topic attacks in sales and auction threads, unsubstantiated accusations, and attempts to damage the reputations of other members. He frequently posts under anonymity while criticizing those who have publicly identify themselves.

This type of conduct undermines trust in the marketplace and discourages participation. Given the ongoing disruption, I believe anonymousminer should be reviewed for removal from DT1 status.

I have tried to address this privately and cordially publicly for nearly two years. Mitchell has also previously asked the community to stop this exact kind of behavior: Mitchell’s request.

It is in the community’s best interest to carefully evaluate anonymousminer when updating trust/distrust lists.

[examplens]

This type of conduct undermines trust in the marketplace and discourages participation. Given the ongoing disruption, I believe anonymousminer should be reviewed for removal from DT1 status.

It seems that you didn't fully understand how the DT system works here.
This just confirms my theory that most of you, members of collectible boards, are not using the trust system properly.

Regardless, as far as I can see, you have 7 strong red tags, while anonymousminer has 45 green feedback. Maybe it's better to deal with yourself and your actions, instead of trying to discredit someone.

[Kazkaz27]

This type of conduct undermines trust in the marketplace and discourages participation. Given the ongoing disruption, I believe anonymousminer should be reviewed for removal from DT1 status.

It seems that you didn't fully understand how the DT system works here.
This just confirms my theory that most of you, members of collectible boards, are not using the trust system properly.

Regardless, as far as I can see, you have 7 strong red tags, while anonymousminer has 45 green feedback. Maybe it's better to deal with yourself and your actions, instead of trying to discredit someone.

My Spidey sense is telling me you may be an Alt or Practice Cronyism.

Discredit? No — only facts were presented. It is anonymousminer who has been attempting to discredit other members.

I am simply delivering the facts. If you see that as something else, you should step back.

I encourage the community to carefully review anonymousminer and consider adding him to their trust or distrust lists based on the evidence presented.

You’re right that the trust system is abused beyond recognition. It’s Widely Acknowledged that it can’t really be fixed, and there are No Real Consequences for Abusing it. So what does that leave us with?

[Vod]

My Spidey sense is telling me you may be an Alt or Practice Cronyism.

I'm flattered how you use my exact words.  

You’re right that the trust system is abused beyond recognition. It’s  Widely Acknowledged that it can’t really be fixed, and there are No Real Consequences for Abusing it.  What does that leave us with?

If you can't beat them, and you don't want to join them, be a better example for them.   I certainly pressure consequence on novel types of trust abuse (like today) but I'm bored of the farmers.  They may be new to you, but they are old to me.

(No one should twist my words into any attack on anonymousminer - not my intention)

[Kazkaz27]

you don't want to join them, be a better example for them.  

Good advice.

I’m doing my best to stay above the fray and be the bigger person here, but it’s genuinely difficult. Watching anonymousminer repeatedly attack innocent members’ work and reputations with unsubstantiated claims — while still being treated as a credible voice — is exhausting. It’s a reminder of how much discipline it takes to protect the community’s standards instead of mirroring the negativity.

It’s tempting to fight fire with fire, but it can do more harm than good.

One of many reasons I enjoy AI is that it helps de-escalate situations and more clearly present a case without being overly emotional. I usually write something and ask it to identify biases or harsher sentences. I do this to be more formal, logical, and factual vs. the latter. (Some use my utilization of AI in Bad Faith as an excuse to distract from or discredit the actual situation or truth, which is a shame.)

[Vod]

I’m doing my best to stay above the fray and be the bigger person here, but it’s genuinely difficult. Watching anonymousminer repeatedly attack innocent members’ work and reputations with unsubstantiated claims — while still being treated as a credible voice — is exhausting. It’s a reminder of how much discipline it takes to protect the community’s standards instead of mirroring the negativity.

I can relate with you perfectly.  I had to sue and it still hasn't stopped.   

[anonymousminer]

You are such a clown Kaz... You and howie talked all kinds of shit about me not showing up to the conference when it was the 2 of you who did not show up.  15-20 of us from collectibles spent time together at the conference, dinners, and even a playoff hockey game.  I met some of them for the first time face to face even though we have been doing business for years.  You can TRY your best to trash my reputation but it just won't happen because the items I help others sell always get to the user that buys them.  You posting threads like this just make you look worse than you already do.  We all know that you and howie are collecting addresses.  It's blatantly obvious.  I put a fair warning on that thread to those who are not paying attention... and thank you so much for keeping it alive after howie deleted it.  Again, your stupidity is ONLY trumped by your insignificance!  

[Kazkaz27]

~Snip

What we didn’t do was harass you in your auctions or sales threads. We didn’t go into unrelated threads to trash your reputation or follow you around. What we did do was call you out appropriately when necessary. We also responded to your comments about us in unrelated threads—something we probably should have ignored to avoid bringing drama into them. As a DT1, I would have expected better etiquette from you.

Despite your enjoyable time at the conference, I had other, more important matters to attend to. Although I was in Vegas around that time, I have no problem meeting you or anyone else in person. I’m not the one hiding behind anonymity.

I’m also not trying to ‘trash’ your reputation beyond simply sharing your past actions. I would hope you’d show some respect for the forum community by using the proper channels instead of directing your frustration at innocent members in their sales threads and unrelated topics.

[owlcatz]

Please, just fuckin' stop for the love of fucking god already.

Lock your threads, move on. You are fucked in the head, and this is NOT how it works here.

Go build your own forum if you wanna make or change the rules. You don't even understand them, FFS.

[Kazkaz27]

Please, just fuckin' stop for the love of fucking god already.

Lock your threads, move on. You are fucked in the head, and this is NOT how it works here.

Go build your own forum if you wanna make or change the rules. You don't even understand them, FFS.

Oh, you’re right. I’m not aware of how it works here.

I guess you can help me then.

When has making a reputation post regarding concerning behavior ever been considered harassment?

Also, is it not wrong to harrass members in unrelated topics such as sales or auction threads vs. voice concern in designated threads?

Should I start following anonymousminer around and post in his auction threads in regards to his past actions or concerning behaviors?

Lastly, it’s the Meta board I should go to then to “make or change rules”, right? — that would mean I am in the right spot, right? — considering I never suggested a rule change in this thread, right?

I’m just so confused.

Please clarify.

[howardsentell]

I think the community should thank Kaz, also known as Defender, for always helping out. Kaz really deserves to be a DT1 and an Administrator on the forum. Let’s give Kaz a big shout-out!

[alandelon]

This DT1 has consistently been one of the most disruptive members in the Bitcoin Collectibles section.

I encourage all members to review anonymousminer’s posting history.

There are numerous documented examples of behavior that negatively affects the community. Here are a few key threads:
• Negatively impacting the Bitcoin Collectible Space
• References and examples of anonymousminer’s problematic behavior



The pattern includes repeated off-topic attacks in sales and auction threads, unsubstantiated accusations, and attempts to damage the reputations of other members. He frequently posts under anonymity while criticizing those who have publicly identify themselves.

This type of conduct undermines trust in the marketplace and discourages participation. Given the ongoing disruption, I believe anonymousminer should be reviewed for removal from DT1 status.

I have tried to address this privately and cordially publicly for nearly two years. Mitchell has also previously asked the community to stop this exact kind of behavior: Mitchell’s request.

It is in the community’s best interest to carefully evaluate anonymousminer when updating trust/distrust lists.

I do not agree. The times this user came forward to comment were to help. In my case, he helped me win an auction that they did not want me to win, because they wanted to give it to someone else even though I had legitimately won. I have proof here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573676.0

I can personally vouch for this user’s actions. As for any conflicts he may have with other users, I do not know the situation, but in my own experience he was good to me and fair in everything.

[Vod]

I have never had a deal with anonymousminer so I've never contributed to his +50 trust, but he has been in my trust list since the start.    Most miners were, since I ran a guild.

[Kazkaz27]

This DT1 has consistently been one of the most disruptive members in the Bitcoin Collectibles section.

I encourage all members to review anonymousminer’s posting history.

There are numerous documented examples of behavior that negatively affects the community. Here are a few key threads:
• Negatively impacting the Bitcoin Collectible Space
• References and examples of anonymousminer’s problematic behavior



The pattern includes repeated off-topic attacks in sales and auction threads, unsubstantiated accusations, and attempts to damage the reputations of other members. He frequently posts under anonymity while criticizing those who have publicly identify themselves.

This type of conduct undermines trust in the marketplace and discourages participation. Given the ongoing disruption, I believe anonymousminer should be reviewed for removal from DT1 status.

I have tried to address this privately and cordially publicly for nearly two years. Mitchell has also previously asked the community to stop this exact kind of behavior: Mitchell’s request.

It is in the community’s best interest to carefully evaluate anonymousminer when updating trust/distrust lists.

I do not agree. The times this user came forward to comment were to help. In my case, he helped me win an auction that they did not want me to win, because they wanted to give it to someone else even though I had legitimately won. I have proof here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5573676.0

I can personally vouch for this user’s actions. As for any conflicts he may have with other users, I do not know the situation, but in my own experience he was good to me and fair in everything.

Happy, you had a positive experience. Although, that shouldn’t grant anonymousminer complete immunity from criticism, accountability, or the same standards everyone else is held to. A good interaction doesn’t erase patterns of behavior, past issues, or the need for basic consistency.

Just because a member has a bunch of green trust doesn’t mean you should assume they’re unequivocally trustworthy. A great example of this is Yogg.

Although, that shouldn’t grant anonymousminer complete immunity from criticism, accountability, or the same standards everyone else is held to.

You are the only person claiming it does.  

That wasn’t a claim. It was certainly a statement perhaps even a suggestion.

Nonpartisan confirmation:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ_d5f7a309-80d3-4729-83c9-d5f752fba757

I really don’t like when I’m so clearly misunderstood when I in fact can’t be any more clear.

[alandelon]

With all due respect, I always see posts from you commenting about that user… no offense, but that says a lot about you. Like I said, I constantly see more posts from you talking about him.

[Kazkaz27]

With all due respect, I always see posts from you commenting about that user… no offense, but that says a lot about you. Like I said, I constantly see more posts from you talking about him.

Can you acknowledge that this thread was created in defense of another user’s sales thread, in which anonymousminer attempted to harass, discredit, and derail it? Didn’t you also see the plea Mitchell made to stop that type of behavior? Can you understand my concern, grievance, and reason for speaking about him?

This is by no means the first time. He has done this to countless trustworthy members.

Do you think I’d care about speaking of him if he didn’t actively persist in being disruptive—especially to those who are in fact innocent and against whom there is absolutely no hard evidence?

Don’t be foolish. If you became friends with me, Howard, or a few others on anonymousminer’s “hitlist,” you would get the same treatment despite having no prior issues. You’d be reprimanded and called a scammer, idiot, retard, or clown—no evidence whatsoever, just bias-based lies and assumptions.

Not only that but he is a DT1 on this platform and out of respect to everyone he should be held to the highest of standards.

I hope this thread and my comments across this forum do say a lot about me. It’s my intention. How you perceive it is really not up to me.

[nutildah]

Although, that shouldn’t grant anonymousminer complete immunity from criticism, accountability, or the same standards everyone else is held to.

You are the only person claiming it does.  

That wasn’t a claim. It was certainly a statement perhaps even a suggestion.

...

I really don’t like when I’m so clearly misunderstood when I in fact can’t be any more clear.

I just want to point out that this is a nonsense equivocation being made, maybe to create distance from having said something clearly false; a situation in which one would have been better off not saying anything at all. This is the full context of what was said:

I can personally vouch for this user’s actions. As for any conflicts he may have with other users, I do not know the situation, but in my own experience he was good to me and fair in everything.

Happy, you had a positive experience. Although, that shouldn’t grant anonymousminer complete immunity from criticism, accountability, or the same standards everyone else is held to. A good interaction doesn’t erase patterns of behavior, past issues, or the need for basic consistency.

You're implying this has ever been the case for any DT member in the last 6-8 years. The last DT members to get away with remarkably un-DT behavior left the forum years ago (or left DT anyway). I don't want to name names, but I prefer when people try to set positive examples rather than negative. Not saying I'm capable of doing that myself all the time.

Regardless, there's obvious evidence he doesn't have "immunity". He currently has -1 DT trust and is distrusted by 26 accounts, including 1 DT account. That's not "immunity." Its the system working exactly as intended.

[Kazkaz27]

I just want to point out what you just said is a claim that verges on an assumption:

I just want to point out that this is a nonsense equivocation being made, maybe to create distance from having said something clearly false; a situation in which one would have been better off not saying anything at all. This is the full context of what was said:

How did I imply all of this?:

You're implying this has ever been the case for any DT member in the last 6-8 years. The last DT members to get away with remarkably un-DT behavior left the forum years ago (or left DT anyway). I don't want to name names, but I prefer when people try to set positive examples rather than negative. Not saying I'm capable of doing that myself all the time.”

Something makes me think you just implied it. ^

Regardless, there's obvious evidence he doesn't have "immunity". He currently has -1 DT trust and is distrusted by 26 accounts, including 1 DT account. That's not "immunity." Its the system working exactly as intended.

That’s good, I’ll be here to advocate for it. ^