For me, Og wasn't just about the private name calling and 8th grade insults. I did end up blocking his PMs because I'd rather him say it publicly, but I'm a big boy and I can handle it. The bigger problem is the way he twists things publicly about situations I know he is lying or changing the story on. The only real way to prove these things is extremely long descriptive posts and/or releasing PMs, which as LoyceV pointed out, is frowned upon.
The moneypot signature is a clear example. In 2016, I asked for his thoughts on a feedback related to Dogedigital/Moneypot being run by
scammers. There were only a handful of DT1s back then and I thought he was trustworthy, at the time. Instead of responding, ~2 weeks later he dropped his Nastyfans signature and started getting paid "$10,000/month" to wear Moneypot's signature, I let him know my feelings and stopped supporting Nastyfans.
Years later in 2018, after I posted about this issue publicly for the first time, he privately apologized and claimed he has realized his mistake and didn't understand the timeline of events, and promised me he would have never worn it if he knew. I gave him the benefit of doubt (
as you can see I edit'd this post after his apology).
More years go by and I discussed my issues publicly with his Nasty* scheme, and he suddenly
started publicly spinning this situation, in multiple posts, to make it appear I was mad because I lost money with a signature advertiser. Even in this same linked post, he is spinning my issue with Nasty* as being about some silver coin appreciating, no mention of shares/seats, lol... again spun.
He even went as far as to say
he removed the signature "for me" before his agreement with them ended, which is interesting considering he only acknowledged I was right
2 years after the initial PMs, but now he wants to go back in time and change the entire situation to hurt my reputation, which is what he has done with
a lot of situations. He really enjoys making up shit about people who aren't here to defend themselves anymore.
Note: I
never used Moneypot. My issue was with his conduct, with Nasty*, and with how BTC return expectations were later re-framed into USD ROI arguments. Anyone "supremely bullish in Bitcoin" wants more bitcoin, he certainly did at the time, and so did I. I couldn't continue mining myself and thought he was going to build the organization up, instead he coasted with a small amounts of miners, removed the majority (eventually
all of them), over the span of several years, then claimed ROI because BTC's USD value went up. Now he says more people need to join/"donate" to increase distributions.. sound familiar?
This is the same pattern over and over, make up a version that helps his narrative, repeat it publicly ad nauseam, and dodge the actual issue.
His recently deleted counter suit comment to a
reasonable question of mine is more of the same... distort, threaten, and avoid the facts.
~Feel free to keep chiming in, there is room for more names in my counter suit.
Narcissism ultimately hurts communities. I mentioned this privately to an admin here a long time ago, well before AI, but today I was curious what AI would say to the question: "Does narcissism help or hurt communities", and I found the answer rather interesting.
They can do both, but over time narcissistic patterns usually hurt communities more than help them, especially if the person gains influence.
A narcissistic person may help a community when their need for admiration lines up with visible public good. For example, they might organize events, donate money, lead projects, recruit people, create energy, or defend the group loudly because it makes them look important. Some can be charismatic, confident, and effective at rallying people.
But the same traits often damage the community when ego becomes more important than the group. Common harms include:
turning disagreements into loyalty tests
taking credit for others’ work
punishing criticism or dissent
creating drama, factions, or “us vs. them” groups
using generosity as leverage
manipulating rules to stay in control
making the community revolve around their image instead of its purpose
So the real question is not “did they ever help?” but whether the help came with control, chaos, fear, favoritism, or long-term damage.
A useful distinction:
Healthy contributor: “I helped because the community matters.”
Narcissistic contributor: “I helped, so the community owes me status, loyalty, protection, or silence.”
In community settings, narcissistic people often appear valuable early on because they are loud, confident, active, and visible. The damage usually shows later, when accountability threatens their image. Then the community may start protecting the person instead of protecting the community.
