I can't be arsed to dig through archives, but Ratimov had a post here in this thread that I was replying to and he removed it. Something about reconciliation. Anyway, it sounded like an extortion attempt, like remove negative things you said about me and I'll remove my red trust.
Yes, this is exactly what he does all the time. But he calls these extortion attempts as being "generous offers for peace".
Actually, his joke-of-an-attempt-for-peace still exists in the AOBT thread:
As for resolving the conflict, there is only one solution, this is to roll back the system to September 24, 2023, 05:39:45 PM, that is, how everything was at that time. Clean up after yourself in the exact order in which you littered. No discussions, discussions in separate reputation topics, no substitutions for neutral colors and other nonsense. This is the only way this conflict can be resolved; otherwise it can only be resolved in the wet fantasies of various dreamers. Thanks to all.
You see these? LMAO! So there is the extortion attempt but, besides, there is also his fear of having users' eyes on him, if the situation would escalate to Reputation board (which is precisely what happened). He is scared when others see his abuses, for not losing his powers, so he tries to keep all these abuses at lowest possible profile.
Also he removed and reposted his red trust on GazetaBitcoin, which I think shows that any such "deal offers" don't mean shit.
This only shows that he deleted his feedbacks not because they were inappropriate (although this should have been the main and only reason), but only for having me removing the proof from his Trust page that he is a plagiarist, a "copy-pastist", an impersonator of other authors and a Trust abuser. And seeing his attempt to extort me did not work, he posted again some feedbacks full of lies. Guess what? This time with reference links. LOL! So he learned that an abusive feedback is even baseless if it has no ref link, thus time time he wrote same abusive feedbacks, but with ref link -- which, in his oppinion, would make them legitimate. Those ref links he provided as as useful as if he posted there links from Know Your Meme or another site.
FWIW I suggested that GazetaBitcoin should remove their red rating on Ratimov and not engage in tit-for-tat. I do believe however that weaponizing the trust system the way Ratimov does is not acceptable but because of the spineless nature of DT1 there is basically no recourse.
Indeed you told me that. Yet I did not follow your advice. I did it being very well aware of the consequences -- meaning being red painted by this Trust abuser. I just could not stand anymore and watch how he abuses people for 5 years and nobody dares to confront him (or those who do it they do it under alternative accounts). I did it from my only account. And I hoped (and still hope) I can serve as example for others which believe that this abuser does not belong to DT.
"Oh but his other ratings are ok"... well tough shit, Lauda had a bunch of good ratings and was 100x more valuable to the forum than Ratimov ever will be, and got excluded.
This is so true. Sad but true. And yet we have this clown, threatening people with his toy-gun and people get scared enough by him enough for allowing him do all his abuses and act like a street thug. I really wish Lauda (and TMAN too!) were here, to see how they would react in front of this imposter.
Let me check your trust feedbacks.😉
You won't find much there, because Ratimov managed in time to arrange various deals (only from his "generosity", of course), in order to have others remove their feedbacks where they stated that he plagiarized, abused Trust, impersonated authors etc. The deal was always the same: he tagged those people with various negative feedbacks (consisting, usually, only in terms like "degenerate", "to faced", "hypocrite" etc.) -- so feedbacks which had nothing to do with any financial deal, yet they were negative ones, creating severe prejudices to those which dared to state the trust about him; then he retracted his abusive tages if those users retracted their statements as well. Similar to the "peace" he offered to me as well. But I don't kiss where I spit. (Romanian saying)
So if you want to see some evidence regarding abusive feedbacks you won't find them in his feedbacks list. You can find it in the links I mentioned in OP. So only in old topics, written by others, which he could not hide or beg mods to delete them, like he did with the topic from which I posted screenshots in OP.
Anyway, I wanted to point out an incorrect thing Gazeta says in the text
I asked mprep about this, in order to see if it is allowed or not. If it is allowed, my bad. It would mean that Ratimov did not break rule 27, he only stole others' work without breaking rule 27.Apparently, this case was already answered by theymos:
EDIT: In regards to automated translations from non-English to English, I've PMed theymos about it, specifically with the following questions:
Here's what he had to say (publishing this with his permission, of course):
- What is the exact policy on automated translations (both English -> local, as well as local -> English)?
- When is it [read: automated translations] prohibited?
- When is it allowed (e.g. possible scenarios or situations)?
- When is it arguable and up to the moderator's discretion?
Here's what he had to say (publishing this with his permission, of course):
...
In the English sections, the policy should generally be to ignore whether or not it's autotranslated, and evaluate the post on its merit. Bad grammar is obviously not disallowed, but if it's so bad (due to autotranslation or otherwise) that the post is basically incomprehensible, then it's a useless post and should be deleted. If it's translated from elsewhere, then you should generally act the same as if the source was originally in English, asking questions like:
- Is the quote useful/on-topic in the post's context (especially after being mangled a bit through translation)?
- Is the user just finding stuff to copy in order to bulk up his posts?
- Is the user passing this off as his own when it's actually not?
In the English sections, the policy should generally be to ignore whether or not it's autotranslated, and evaluate the post on its merit. Bad grammar is obviously not disallowed, but if it's so bad (due to autotranslation or otherwise) that the post is basically incomprehensible, then it's a useless post and should be deleted. If it's translated from elsewhere, then you should generally act the same as if the source was originally in English, asking questions like:
- Is the quote useful/on-topic in the post's context (especially after being mangled a bit through translation)?
- Is the user just finding stuff to copy in order to bulk up his posts?
- Is the user passing this off as his own when it's actually not?
Based on Ratimov's obvious intentions of passing other authors' work as being his, it is now clear that he also broke rule 27.
Ratimov, may I ask why the new feedback while on the previous [removed] post you said you tried to do everything you could to resolve this conflict by removing the tag? Was it because the deal is off the table, because Gazeta refuses to remove his tag? Thus, what Gazeta said somewhat contain some degree of truth in it, that what you tried to do was to deal yourself out of a stuation?
I hope you realize the answers to your questions, right?
