Quote from: nutildah on January 10, 2020, 02:26:32 PM

Don't know why I'm bothering, but you are incorrect here:

Quote from: The-One-Above-All on January 10, 2020, 02:01:26 PM

His main problem seems to be in terms of alleged trust abuse (which at this time matters not since trust system is fucked AND nobody supported his flags) that he chose type 2 flags not the lemons flag. Which is just open season for anything like red tags to some members here.

He left 66 flags of all types across 2 days. They are all erroneous. They all have zero support.

For example,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1166
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1169
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1203

The trust abuse isn't just "alleged." It is. He's also left positive trust to every single account I've ever negative trusted, except for scam thread bumpers and you, for some strange reason. If that isn't trust abuse, I don't know what is.

He's already been banned and exists purely to be disruptive to the forum.

I've officially put too much time into thinking about this so I won't be responding any further.

Hmm, well okay I will listen to a proven and undenible scam facilitator for pay who would delete the evidence when busted. Not sure why I will but still...

They do not meet the threshold for type2 flags. He is probably just mistaken and should be opening up lemons level flags?? then each one would need to be carefully evaluated against the " he likes lemons, therefore is dangerous" threshold. I think you will find not all 66 will fail to meet that. Or the he is dangerous because we think he is someone else who has never engaged in any financially motivated wrong doing either LOL.... so he should simply change them to lemons type 1 flags right?? and all will be fine. I mean mental gymnastics and your opinion on deception (selectively) means open season for anyone on this forum for a type 1 flag. We already noted nullius is being deceptive claiming his is 2 years old on his account profile?? with some mental gymnastics on the lemons level that is certainly high risk and highly deceptive.

Or others saying their location is is mars? are they being deceptive? Lauda says he is NOT being deceptive claiming he was on the xcoin launch and confirm there was NO instamine and premine, a great project fair launch and has plenty of bags of it himself. TMAN claimed in his auction scam, he wanted to buy his own items from himself (his pal auctioning his items for him) it would be such a great deal at this silly lowest price.., only thing preventing him buying it from himself for that cheap is he had too many already in his AUCTION deception for clear financial gain where he was busted by OG red handed. Lauda tman says he was not extorting REALLY he was just ...undercover agents, no shady escrow, no trust abuse...haha bring it all here let me tear it all up in public all over again and demonstrate if BSV should be nuked THEY should be nuked along with him.

Anything You think is untrustworthy or a deception can be cause for the lemons flag. I don't think he will have much problem meeting that actually for many of those he left flags for.

Opposing your flags ( on the basis of what you have self confessed to be willing to do or become for 300bucks or there abouts or those who you support on dt or on threads or deleting evidence) ......may just be a precautionary measure and he will then work through them to make sure. Better safe than sorry and if that is his opinion who are YOU to say otherwise.

I mean if all of that ( including the real crime of not objecting to your trust abuse on our account) is MORE dangerous than your own scam facilitating for pay or even admitting you will turn evil for 300 bucks , and deleting the evidence.....then we can try and debate on a sensible level of punishment for you both. I am up for it.

Now you have notice he is not all good (neglecting our plight) we are willing to indulge you in your assertion that he should be nuked and you should be a glowing green with a nicely paid sig on DT.

Let's get to the bottom of this do not run away. Bring your pals lauda and tman and we can get some good 4some action going in public.

Right now I am guessing if nutildah, lauda, tman are brought in on the full context (which they of course should) so we can evaluate the CORRECT level of punishment for BSV..... then we may need to add another option to the poll.

Be added to DT, chipmixer and merit source with glowing green trust. Can you add that option please timelord.

I mean sure when you demonstrate he is more DIRECTLY DANGEROUS to other members financially that either of these scumbags we can remove that option for punishment/reward again. Also I question TOTALLY that his actions with the trust system are as NET NEGATIVE as nutildahs, laudas, and tmans. Since they have little to zero support of consequence.

Again ready for open debate with anyone here on the topic of suitable and consistently credible punishment for BSVS actions and direct implications of those actions AKA the actual negative influence of them on members here currently. Seems the system that YOU guys control is already taking care of his POTENTIAL danger, whilst ENABLING your REAL DIRECT DANGER to other members.

BSV seems to have brought to light a LOT of important observable instances and created a nice warning for honest members to stumble across in various threads. This must be factored into the debate regarding his punishment also.

Is there HARD conclusive proof this person is the banned member you CLAIM? if so then why not banned?? and why was he banned previously?

Yes though, it looks bad BSV did not oppose the abuse you have left on our own account, so I will not vote for the DT, chipmixer, glowing green option just yet. Well sadly though nobody likes us here even those we support Sad

we do our best to cope with that whilst we endure living a lavish lifestyle outside of this forum haha

Read , take it all in and start to digest it. Then when you can debunk it clearly with observable instances and reason that we can not pull apart with ease. Then reply.

We are always happy to change our opinions and adapt and improve when we are clearly demonstrated to be incorrect. We we imagine we would feel happy. We will let you know if it happens at some time here.

Let's bring in all the bad guys here, put it all down on paper, work out who is more dangerous and then work out which punishments THEY should all have. If they should all be banned and nuked let's get on it. Not just focus on those that pose NO DANGER to ourselves and we can turn a blind eye to their wrong doing and not suggest they are nuked or banned.

BSV = no further action at this point, although certainly argument for DT and a nice paying sig if we want to be totally fair to him and lauda, tman and nutildah at the same time. Although as we say NO EVIDENCE of clear financially motivated wrong doing by BSV, so throw in a mod position hey for good measure, perhaps global.

Debunk it and we will have a rethink. These suggestions are NOT SET IN STONE. Only putting them out there so we can all reach a measured credible and sensible punishment weighed in against how dangerous they are to this forum REALLY.

Let us give equal reward and equal punishment to ALL members based on their behaviors. ELSE any action is abuse and double standards. = scamming them.

Remember these things when deciding on BSV punishment for leaving red trust or flags.

1. lauda says you can have red trust for saying you will encourage others to review his post history

2. Tman says you can have red trust for presenting observable instances from laudas post history.

3. yogg says you can have red trust for telling tman you will tell others that he admitted "he can , he will and he just has given red trust for presenting observable instances.

4. Nullius says you can have red trust for saying " okay ban them if you must for copy and paste, but it is in bad taste and not in the spirit of this forum to ridicule them for saying they are poor and did it for money for their families" Nullius says if you suggest it is in bad taste to ridicule poor hungry people who perhaps really are honestly hungry with hungry families" then you are depriving members of their rights to poke fun at them , they deserve it and also he was once a starving peasant and he never did copy and paste so fuck them. Also is laudas new feltching pal that will be on DT SOON so his red will soon go live likely.

5. You can have red trust for liking the taste of lemons - the fact you know lemons can kill some people and you say you like it means you are dangerous and untrustworthy to some.

6. If you were to make a joke that tmans mum is rank and she was begging you for sex in PM. That is not a joke that is a clear LIE and you are a financial danger to the forum. However they can say your parents fucked you as a child and claim anything they like and that is obviously just a JOKE.

7. If you are rude to another member, you are potty mouthed and you are spreading lies about how nice they are really. Again more red. But then they will hate on that same member later and say pretty much the same things about them.

8. You are spreading defamation and lies, if you ask is a project knowingly hiring scammers, or scammer supporters, and then provide evidence to substantiate that question that they do not refute at all LOL

9 You can have red trust for asking people to stay on topic when they come in screaming sexual deviance at you and you say stay on topic or fuck off.

10. You can have red trust for imposing your own local rules on a thread that says you will be deleted if you bring opinions with no corroborating evidence or observable instances, then follow through with that.

11. You can have red trust for telling someone that is shouting accusations against another member without presenting evidence 2 x already on your thread, that they must present evidence or they can not repeat this accusation. You delete their 3rd same accusation and they say you are misleading people while it was still on the thread the first 2 x already and they were not removed LOL

12. You can get red trust for not knowing what scare quote are. If someone quotes 3 things you did say in a row and then puts a 4th thing right next to them in "scare quotes" and you say fuck off you liar I never said the 4th thing at all. They say...false accusation of lying = red trust instead of saying scare quotes means you did not say that one.

THIS was all I BELIEVE done under the OLD system mostly where it was SUPPOSED TO BE SCAMMING OR CERTAINLY ABOUT TO SCAM ONLY LOL

So now the threshold is lowered then it is obvious there is no such thing as trust abuse, there is no such thing as lemons flag abuse either since it is now the same as trust (preemptive striking against possible thought crimes based on whatever you feel qualifies as signs of this)

So if BSV moves them all to type 1 there is really no gripes to be had by anyone. Unless you want to clearly demontrate we are wrong.

READ , UNDERSTAND, ACCEPT.

or debunk.

The poll is bogus really unless it is made transparent (same for all polls here)