Quote from: nutildah on June 24, 2019, 05:55:26 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 24, 2019, 04:00:49 AM

Because broad generalizations are a logical fallacy

Not always. Besides, you are confusing V8's opinion with roach's opinion. We're talking about two separate things.

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 24, 2019, 04:00:49 AM

"Last of the V8s alleges: Due largely to the factors mentioned in this topic, I believe that anyone dealing with realr0ach is at a high risk of losing money, and guests would be well-advised to avoid doing so. This determination is based on concrete red flags which any knowledgeable & reasonable forum user should agree with, and it is not based on the user's opinions."

Again, for literally the 4th time the rating was left for his abusive and doxing behavior, something Theymos himself said was reasonable.

Your trust for Vod wasn't just for doxing Og, you included a bunch of other language that is thoroughly your opinion and not based on Vod's trade history. Seems like you just want everyone else to adhere to a standard while you yourself remain free to do whatever you want.

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 24, 2019, 04:00:49 AM

You know this, but what is important is you dig up any tiny morsel of a fault possible to project on my part to justify your abuse. Judging ones opinions also falls firmly under the description of "judging the content of those words". All you are doing is semantic gymnastics to try to make this ok when everyone knows damn well what your motivation is, and it is not protecting the user base or the integrity of the trust system. We have a chance here to form new standards different than the previous clusterfuck of abuse under the old system, and people such as yourselves rush immediately to turn the new system into the old system so you can get your little control freak red tinged dopamine click hit.

This is projection-based stupid talk and not worthy of a response lengthier than this.

Yes, always. generalizations are not always wrong, broad generalizations by their nature include erroneous conclusions by the very nature of their over inclusiveness. I am not confusing anything, this is just you vomiting up more word salad to try to confuse the situation since you are running out of arguments.

I am glad you can tell me what my intent was, ever think of working for Mrs. Cleo? No one on this forum really believes Vod was not out of line with what he did, your false equivocation and selective interpretation of my rating to try to sell further abuse is convincing no one. You have some nerve talking about double standards when you yourself pretend your attempt to sell your account is ok while you condemn others for the same act. You are not one to point fingers.

Rather convenient you can dismiss completely arguments you have no retort for isn't it? The history of the issues over the trust system in the past speak for themselves.

Quote from: El duderino_ on June 24, 2019, 09:44:51 AM

Just one question to those that oppose... Isn't it a bit reasonable for someone to @least create that flag and think its a good thing rather than a bad thing?
You can't seriously say that this is a flag being made to do harm to the forum and to the people that wanna learn from the forum about BTC, than it is to protect those and do good for them....?

It is not at all reasonable, because every piece of evidence presented was based solely upon his opinion, not any risky actions which may cause a risk during trade. I don't think the flag is intended to harm the forum, I think it is intended to harm realr0ach, but with a very clear side effect that directly harms the integrity of the trust system as well as the preservation of free speech on the forum. Essentially the flag backers are putting their spite and need to fulfill their emotional compulsions above the best interests of the forum.