Are you the King of Poll, or the Prince of Troll?
Instead of discussing more sensible ideas you're just starting every post of yours with HATE to someone you'd like to, I guess that's define trolling.
Consider yourself as one base on your recent post history.

Add to the poll.


Let us always remember the rules and know that trust is not moderated. Easy as that.

Does that sound anywhere like yourself to you? 

Oh interesting.

I mean if they are presenting facts that should be known to the board then is that trolling to you?

What about people responding in an immature way to others that have trolled them or tried to abuse systems of control to their detriment...are they trolls even when presenting facts?

Can you show me one of these assumed substantial posts that are not substantial?

I am interested in your specific subjective interpretation of a troll and and to understand via examples and step by step what helps you This is a substantial post because many people are having their reputations ruined with red trust over another very subjective opinion from many different people.

Are you in any way refering to me in your post. Let's be clear. If so please explain this to me.

Would you trust someone who expressed a liking for lemons or not? should then be given red trust?

these are serious questions and not a troll.

What is your opinion of lauda and his past history here. Has he ever trolled people?  has he ever protected and enabled scams? has he misused other peoples money for personal gain, has he ever tried to extort people?

Should lauda be a DT member??

Have you recently deleted my posts on this board? if so can you explain why? I would like to discuss it in public because I want to understand the reasoning behind it.

Please answer all points even the lemons - that is not trolling this comes directly from a DT member that lemons loving or dislike is grounds for Red trust.

True or untrue is not for debate. If there is evidence in black and white that people said or done things in their post history why would there be need of opinion if you can observe clearly they did or said something.

Also strong corroborating events to an argument or view must be analysed and if they make a reasonable case they must not be dismissed.

Unstable how? what defines unstable.... do they stop presenting facts and start stating unsubstantiated claims with no corroborating evidence or events at alll? or just talk total nonsense that has no support people can review? or unstable how?

Acting like a fool depends on what you mean. If they can provide observable fact for their claims and they are important then the manner of presentation is funny or even if it is extreme (still fact based) due to prior behaviour toward them by to others then no of course I would not think they will scam me. Why would I?

If you can just re read and answer clearly on my prior important questions that would be very helpful. That broad answer does not really provide any insight to what your opinions are.

I am not trying to pick any fights with you I want to understand your opinions and grounding for them only.

Everything needs defining and drilling down as much as possible if you are trying to automate or decentralise power/control mechanisms else they just get abused and broken and provide zero or negative influences.

You want fair, you want transparent, you want systems that encourage optimal results in terms of optimal solutions and answers to problems you need enforceable mandates and criteria that are defined or it all become a mud slinging match like it is now with the truth being drowned out by dilution and people that don't even understand the issues.

People seem to think the earth being flat or not is up for a debate regardless of the objective truth. Surely it's also up for debate on whether someone is an idiot or a troll or not?


Are you actually going to ask me to define every single word? How many times do I need to use the word subjective (or does that need defining now). Do you actually expect me to list every possible instance or scenario there might possibly be of somebody falling under the banner of being unstable?


Then that's your opinion. Others may agree or disagree. You can present facts whilst still acting like a fool. If someone is stating facts but kicking and screaming and swearing whilst they're doing it then you can still choose not to trust them due to their erratic behaviour. You could be the most factual person on the planet but if you can't share or explain facts in a suitable manner then people are probably going to lose respect for you.



Can you define 'clearly' and 'important'?   Regardless of what I tell you I don't think you'll accept anything I say so it's probably pointless even continuing the debate.

i cant define trolling.
and i am sure that trolling is not scamming.

Thanks for support.

They gave me red trust for presenting facts and highly probable events based on observable events and evidence ONLY. Not one statement was lacking substantial grounding or absolute fact.

I have never actually made a statement on this entire meta board that is not either backed by FACTS or strong corroborating evidence/events.

If a person can show me even one statement I have made and I can not provide observable facts that either prove it true or provide reasonable and a high probability it is true then I will accept I have done something wrong.

I agree.

There is the truth and there is lies. There is no let's meet in the middle and make a middle ground.

Some things are beyond absolute proof but if there is highly powerful corroborating evidence then that is enough that must still be taken very seriously.

Of course always civil discussion if they will allow it but no point just keep being nice to people that do everything they can to be openly hostile to you first.

You don't have any arguments scammer

LOL here is suchmoons friend lauda on DT now pumping and lying about the now famous captive instamine that is PROVEN to have taken place.


apparently he says he was there and there was no instamine.... oh really???

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/560138.msg7535561#msg7535561



https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/560138.msg6748208#msg6748208

this is cryptohuner's problem, the moment you do/say something he/she dislike you become a potential enemy, I think if cryptohunter tackled the issue with a better approach he would have gotten better support from both DT and non-DT-members. i don't know TMAN and Lauda but i think if cryptohunter comes with a better behavior whatever issues they have can be solved easier.