Quote from: eddie13 on September 13, 2019, 04:46:51 PM

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on September 13, 2019, 02:41:27 PM

-snip-

some sensible points, many incorrect statements

Congratulations on hitting legendary.
We are pleased you gained a nice bunch of merits. The post is more deserving than most here. However, we must still demonstrate vast swathes of it are incorrect or very misleading. This is not personal.

It is good to actually meet a member that is not afraid to debate in public. Even if we believe you are not presenting a picture that is really representative of the reality here. However that is what debates are for. So we look forward to it's continuation. So far it has served you well.

We believe you are being honest. However please review all the information and verify it for yourself. Then query any points you disagree with.

1.A lot of these "scammers", or whatever you call them, in DT and sources are not as bad as you think they are.. Sure they have their imperfections but you have an inflated view of their negativity due to your specific personal dealings with them

We would need specific examples of those we refer to correctly as scammers. We say correctly since they have observable instances of scamming in their histories. Others have other financially motivated wrong doing or clearly support those that do. Many DT members (suchmoon for sure) claim that if you are supporting even a possible scam then you can be viewed as a scammer. In most of DT's cases they are supporting known and documented scammers or those willing to facilitate scamming for a price.

Bring your examples of where we are being over harsh. I think you will find calling scammers " scammers" or scammer supporters " scam supporters" will be acceptable practice from and objective standpoint. Some have MULTIPLE instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their pasts.

2. Flying off the handle and going looney

If you examine carefully the time line of CH. The "looney" or getting annoyed is fully warranted if you examine the depth and severity of the injustice. Just a quick recap.

1. lauda lying and scamming accusing CH of being a liar and there was no premine/instamine because lauda was on the launch and could say that for sure. (and held bags of that specific coin.)
2. Lauda's lies debunked by CH and others who supported CH's claims.
3. CH pushes with others for devs to offer a $ 2 000 000 000 compensation offer for the entire board, that lauda sought to prevent.
4. Years later CH catches lauda being very negative about that premined project claiming it is (centralized - go figure when they premine all the minting), lauda says " yeah sorry I was new and foolish. CH graciously says.. okay never too late to come to the light.
5. Lauda appears years later accusing CH of being liar on a separate issue. CH challenges him to present the lies. Lauda refuses but continues to make false allegations.
6. CH says if you make those claims again without presenting evidence he will encourage others to review laudas post history for themselves.
7. Lauda gives a scam tag to CH for saying that.
8. CH presents observable events from laudas history. Tman (also an auction scammer and implicated working with lauda on an extortion plot) gives CH another red tag.
9. CH says to tman you can not give red tags for presenting facts. Tman says " I can, I will and I just have".
10. CH says remove the red tag or else I will make sure everyone knows the truth about this trust abuse.
11. Yogg (also involved with lauda and tman previously) gives CH a red tag. Claiming that if " you say you will inform others of why you got the trust abuse if it is not removed that means you need a scam tag.
12. CH presents this to several DT members. He gets replies like. " I am not interested in reviewing this" " I don't want to get involved" " I am not interested in the truth" " It is a good thing when innocent people get red trust because it makes everyone more wary"
13. Theymos says - your posts are annoying long winded low value garbage. Lauda has done some good things before. I don't accept your explanation. NO debate.
14. People use Theymos reply as validation that CH is the problem not the systems of control and the fact DT will not act against each other and collude.
15. Ch presents a brilliant thread that is never debunked detailing the undeniable flaws of the sytems of control and their dire implications and makes some good suggestions with the key one to keep merit and trust as separated as possible. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0
16. Theymos merits the faux rebuttal that CH debunked and then goes and binds merit and trust together essentially making "merit into trust"
17. Theymos then makes a deal with OG and lauda to remove Laudas scam tags so that he can be seen as one of the most trustworthy people on the board.
18. Theymos says ..."ch you may have had a point about your trust abuse but because for some UNKNOWN reason completely unfathomable after compounded abuse of your account by the same scammers and his friends that tried to scam the board out of a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer over months, my own reluctance to help (but I will help the scammer get his red trust removed) DT's all colluding and telling you it is good innocent members get red, and the truth is not of interest. Then just for that you get all angry and agressive. The only explanation could be you are clearly insane.
19. After suchmoon tries to spin that fighting for a 2 000 000 000 USD compensation claim and winning it against her scammer pal is net negative because ch didn't a few times reference the post which provided CH with the first clear analysis and details of how the premine went down. Although many times of the 10's of times it was quoted he did that winning a 2 000 000 000 usd compensation offer against her scammer pal means CH should be perm banned.
20. Then more weaponizing of gamed metrics like deleted post count. Theymos says CH you will be banned soon because you have a lot of deleted posts.
21 What happens next? someone goes and reports every single short post 2 words or whatever in CH entire history LOL
22. Voted the biggest TROLL on this board. According to the board rules. Trolling is the continued posting of clearly debunked and false information. The people voting can not present 1 instance where this took place? strange isn't it.

So eddie you say CH is a hot head? unreasonable and seemingly gets angry above and beyond normal range for these small injustices at the hands of previously defeated scammers and their colluding supporters? now entrenching themselves deeply in power and ensure they are paid at the highest rates due to Theymos brilliant designs?

We CH/ us and other truth presenters are too negative you say? these people are just the types you want in positions of trust you say? We just need to get to know them a little more and make friends?

3.You shouldn't have been so pissed about not having merits and just understood that the merit system just sucked for you

Merit was never the original reason for our arrival on meta board. It is also untrue that in its current form we desire merit since we want the entire system deleted or confined to its original purpose that had no conceivable use for us.

This is kind of a strange statement. It is clear merit sucks for the myriad of reasons we have demonstrated it sucks for. This has implications for the entire board.

We don't give one shit about this merit dirt if it was left to hold out bots ONLY as it was designed. However when it empowers, sanctions, and financially REWARDS abuse like the above ...none of which is accountable to any member except themselves. Then Yes we are more interested in seeing it adapted so this does not happen to ANY member. Our only point is that it is the prime tool for creating a 2 tier system, which closely represents the central banking system and is nothing like the principles satoshi envisioned.
The implications for free speech on equal terms just got a whole lot clearer with the new merit = volume of your voice tweak.

Please review our post history and this thread (which was pre merit=trust) to understand merit is grossly net negative. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0
Since then things have gotten an whole lot more dark in many key areas that satoshi would have fought to protect. It is simply a case of understanding the implications of these control systems.

4. What are you going to do now? What is the next step from here?
Their really aren't many ways left that you can reword your points and arguments you have posted hundreds of times. We have all read them and know what you have to say including theymos.. You aren't really helping yourself with your ranting extremely long posts about the same thing over and over again. You aren't helping yourself by calling them "scammers" and all sorts of names and completely burning every bridge to nothing but dust. (I know they call you names but be the bigger man and don't return the jab, namecalling makes everyone look foolish imo)

There is no requirement to reword the truth. When the truth is on topic and relevant then the truth shall be presented. It shall not be repackaged.

Scammers will be called scammers. There is no need to mislead people regarding their potential and already observed behaviors. Name calling is fine if the names can be sensibly tied to the observable behaviors of the person. So calling someone a filthy scamming scum bag is reasonable and then to tie the relevance of this and their prior actions to the opening post is useful to the reader. We have no issue with names in our direction if the supporting argument is there to justify it.

So for instance.

" who made this cunt bleed" is just silly and derailing low value garbage. That was marked BAD when we reported it.

rather

" You are a cunt, I hate you. You continuously bring up my scamming past to demonstrate that I have double standards for being negative about other members for lesser crimes, I would like to make your nose bleed you fucking stalking bitch"

There you see we would not object. Although the scammers frustration has caused them to claim they would like make our nose bleed. We would say to ourselves. He has explained and validated his outburts and name calling. The reader can now see that the scammer is trying to pull double standards and punish another member for things he himself has done. We will keep this in mind when forming our own conclusions in the full context of this situation.

There is a correct term that describes the persons behaviors that is just called describing correctly. There is swearing and attributing negative terms to a person and justifying your reasons with corroborating evidence in the context of the OP. That is fine too. Just screaming accusations like " trolling don't feed them" or " who made this cunt bleed" " or shut up you used tampon" " who made this cunts butt sore" these kind of things are very low value and need to be validated and credible and also relate to the OP directly.

5.Give in just a bit and think about what you would accept as far as a mutual disagreement. What would be acceptable to you to establish atleast a wee bit of mutual respect.
Calm down, come back and put your cards on the table, and work towards some sort of peace agreement?

This would not be possible really without some serious adjustments. However to out line them as a kind of rough idea.

1. ALL members with ANY clear financially motivated wrong doing removed from positions of trust at ANY time now or the future.
2. Those supporting or not excluding members that match that description ALSO REMOVED.
2. All trust abuse removed from our account and any other person clearly being abused who has ZERO instances of financially motivated wrong doing in their histories.

That would certainly help put us towards much much less frequent truth presentation regarding matters of TRUST, scamming, etc. That side of things would be of little interest after that point.

We would also like help develop a sensible and logical set of criteria that helps all members measure the objective value of a post (and many other measures to turn merit into something that resembles merit) and a set of sensible and logical criteria, examples etc of permitted flow. This need not be negative and would only be viewed as such by those that want to maintain the status quo and abuse of the merit system. Those that want FAIR and TRANSPARENT allocation of merit will be more than happy to assist a system that pushes for that.

Thanks for this opportunity to have a sensible, cordial and civil debate.

@ hilarious you post is OBSERVABLY incorrect garbage and totally misleading to what we have said. Please review it, review our posts and amend else we will need to crush your claims as deliberately misleading and false rubbish.

@trannydung

Great dung post.

@mprep

as previously explained. PM's are not suitable for a transparent debate on issues that have implications for the entire board. Also even posting PM's is frowned on so that would not be at all useful in terms of relaying theymos words to the forum at any stage.

@the rest

not time for the bottom of the barrel right now.