Bitcoin Forum

I didn't think the trust system was a feedback system. Am I wrong? I just thought you stated whether you trusted someone or not.

What happened:  Staff member using his position to abuse the feedback system.

Staff member using his position to abuse the feedback system.

Amount Scammed: .20+ (Collateral Value)

This is only one of the three accounts you tagged for no reason and 2 of them were no for sale by anyone yet, so why were they tagged???

If they did not have value, there would be no price estimator for the accounts.

As far as your Newbie account selling it, I call BS because when you did it, I contacted you from my one and only account, this SR.

Account and your still blew it off as I was crying.  

I have counted another 25 accounts currently up for auction from newbies, did you tag them????  No you did not.

Look at all the feedback you left lately, you are abusing the system.  If you were not and you were concerned with this forum, like you say, you would have been tagging for the past years, not just this month.  I CALL YOUR BS buddy.

As far as not taking accounts for collateral, there is nothing wrong with that because they have a value.  If they did not have value, there would be no price estimator for the accounts.

Take that away and have it against the rules to do this and I will stop. Just because you are not making nothing from it does not mean nothing.

I have counted another 25 accounts currently up for auction from newbies, did you tag them? No you did not.

Look at all the feedback you left lately, you are abusing the system.

If you were not and you were concerned with this forum, like you say, you would have been tagging for the past years, not just this month.

I CALL YOUR BS buddy.

In my opinion, the only reason the accounts have value is because of the signature campaigns.  If someone purchases an account so they can earn more in a signature campaign, it would be a good investment, which is the only reason I would think one would want to purchase an account.  Lets work together and prevent the accounts from being sold for scamming purposes by all loaners agreeing to neutral tag every account the day it is sold as being sold on this day.  This tag would ideally have something stating in it that the account was sold and that no previous trust should be considered.  To give it purpose, I suggest that all ligament tags should have a reference back to the collateral loan where the account was lost.  I understand how account sales give scammers the opportunity to get over on people, but this would warn people which accounts have been purchased and which accounts were not.   

What most are not understanding, no offence high ranking members; however, anything can have a value to someone else.  It does not matter if it has a value to you or if it does not, if someone else has a purpose for it, then it has a value.   How many people throw away their plastic milk jugs after they are done being used?  Better yet, how many people send them to recycling?  Why do you do it?  Most people will answer because it is garbage.  Now if someone told you how you could come across 100,000 of those a day with very little effort and each one of them are worth $.012 USD, would throw them all away?  Most people would answer no.  The same goes with the accounts, they will always have value as long as someone else has a use for them. 

Why are they valid?  Just because you do not condone it?  So if you do not condone wearing t-shirts on Wednesdays, we should all stop wearing t-shirts?

I am not sure exactly how you stumbled across this account.  If it was one account, I would say coincidences, but you have 4 of my collateral held accounts tagged with less than 30 (-) comments and under 40 bad loans with accounts as collateral in the last 2-3 months.

can not figure out how to properly research before you leave feedback, the loan reference is here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1480336.msg16312515#msg16312515 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1480336.msg16312515#msg16312515)

What methods do you seem to use??  I see no pattern in anything you did with the feedback you left in the month of November, other than abuse the DT rating you had.  Some of the accounts you tagged have not been active for over 2 months.  

My first message to you was asking what happened and what I needed to do to fix it, yet your response was?? (I bonded it in purple to refresh your memory) How was that "willing to work this out"?  

You were willing to work this out???

I don't agree with account selling and never will. However it has been confirmed on many occasions by other staff members that it is allowed and there are many sellers in the digital services trading section that get away with it daily. Selectively punishing people who take it as collateral is like kicking a man when he is down - pretty dirty. Just ban it altogether and far fewer accounts will be traded in this way.

Selectively punishing people who take it as collateral is like kicking a man when he is down - pretty dirty. Just ban it altogether and far fewer accounts will be traded in this way.

Don't accept accounts as collateral, simple fix.

personal matter between the two persons (knightkon & lauda)

What I could say in this case is that the accounts served as collateral do not belong to scammer or spammer but to Knightkon Who paid them with his own money And who have changed ownership with a signed message; So the feedback sent to these accounts was not received by the people who deserved it But by this innocent person who is Knightkon With whom I have no relationship from far or near.

All my respect for you @Lauda but you should review this situation because it is the busenesse of an innocent pesone who is at risk.

And I apologize if I am wrong.

Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea.

Lenders beware - if you accept an account as collateral, it might get neg feedback due to the actions of a previous owner.

Did you read what was written in this thread? I had no idea that these accounts were collateral at the time, ergo it is not selectively punishing anyone.

Indeed.

wow , just wow .

From what has been said here, this would be a dangerous precedent that would result in an implied restriction and discouragement to the lenders not to accept Bitcointalk accounts as collateral.

Because leaving a red trust really destroys an account and makes it worthless. No one wants to trust an account with red trust; that's the truth. But getting a red trust from doing something which has been heavily debated as legal and valid in this forum, now that is unfair.

Don't accept accounts as collateral, simple fix.

What are you trying to imply here? That it's a surprise that I agree with KWH or that their stance on the matter is as stated?

Did you even read anything written by me? The account was not tagged because it was collateral. I did not even know about this loan at the time of the negative rating, nor at the time of the PM (OP did not provide the link at that time).

Yet you took in an account with 3 previous negative trust ratings as collateral. Interesting.

I predicted this was going to be brought up. In retrospect, I would say accepting that account was a newbie mistake on my part, and I have taken that one as a loss on my part.

It is the future transactions that lenders will do, is what I fear will be prejudiced if we can no longer dispose of the accounts we held as collateral.
So in light of these question, what do you guys propose us lenders do with an account left with us as guarantees for loans we give out? Or would you propose us lenders not to take accounts as collateral anymore?

Accounts is the best collateral on this forum, we can't denied it especially when the account rank is high.

It is the future transactions that lenders will do, is what I fear will be prejudiced if we can no longer dispose of the accounts we held as collateral.

So in light of these question, what do you guys propose us lenders do with an account left with us as guarantees for loans we give out? Or would you propose us lenders not to take accounts as collateral anymore?

If this is implemented by loan providers, individuals that have collateral like stable altcoins (oxymoron for 90%+ of them) are your market, along with smaller loan requests.

Alt coin as a collateral is a good idea, but there is also risk on it especially when the loan has long time period, The value of the coin might deflate, because the term stable on alt coin trading is impossible. Because even bitcoin that well known as established coin faced a big price dump also. And if that happens, I think the borrower might decide to default the collateral.

I predicted this was going to be brought up. In retrospect, I would say accepting that account was a newbie mistake on my part, and I have taken that one as a loss on my part.

It is the future transactions that lenders will do, is what I fear will be prejudiced if we can no longer dispose of the accounts we held as collateral.

So in light of these question, what do you guys propose us lenders do with an account left with us as guarantees for loans we give out? Or would you propose us lenders not to take accounts as collateral anymore?

Keep in mind that we're considering maybe 1-4 week long loans

There can also be conditional statements, for example: if the altcoin's value reaches a point where selling the collateral will return only 110% of the loan request, then the collateral will be sold immediately.

These failsafes may possibly stop potential threats (though it should be stated that there can be mass dumpings). Again, discretion.

IMHO you guys are on the error by accepting such accounts in the first place. There is zero guarantee that the account will not receive negative trust between the loan begin and time of ending/default (the same applies for forum bans, e.g. if you accept a sig. spamming account). This is a risk factor that has been seemingly overlooked.

This is not the case of someone scamming then selling their account via taking out a loan with their account as collateral. This is a case of the OP accepting accounts as collateral the borrower defaulting on the loan then Lauda leaving negative trust for said accounts. There was no scam nor scam attempt.

If someone has an account, and needs money, why shouldn't they be able to sell their account? (Which is what giving it up as collateral is doing). What do you think will happen if someone in need of money is unable to sell their account and is desperate?

I think KWH's policy is the most fair, although it does cause some issues.

however since the rules have this loophole regarding accounts, then let's just move to ban it.

Edit: What's the point of discouraging something if people are condemning to the point of just damaging the account to make it worthless? Just make it illegal.

Wrong!
If you ban account sales on THIS forum it will become even worse. Accounts would be sold/bought somewhere else (bitify, darknet, shitforums) and then used here without any (almost) control. I see their point: the only way to stop accounts trades is to make them useless with red/neutral tags...
~Gun

They can't stop every single transaction of accounts. They cannot tag every single one of them too. That's another truth.

Oh...say they can tag only 80%...does it make it better for you to accept accounts as collateral with the purpose to sell it?

You're a lender as well. What do you do if you got accounts as collateral and they default? You use them yourself or you sell them or just say "oh well good bye money"?

I didnt want to get involved in this thread as well but at this point, since i'm a lender, there is something i'm interested about

I have some points:

• My very personal opinion is that Lauda is right and OP is wrong: he didnt tag those accounts because collateral ready to be sold, but for other reasons and i'm sorry OP but it is the risk of our business and you should be aware of it. When you take an account as collateral you do it with a public signed message so: how would you ever think to hide it and be able to sell it without expecting a tag soon or later? Shield docet...
• As i said many times, i run my business as a "mature" person: when you decide to lend out your money you must know the risks. One of the risks to take accounts as collateral is being tagged as account farmer/encouraging accounts trading. This is a fact. So the "maturity" of my business is the attempt to use an account as collateral only from people that would not ruin their reputation for a few bucks we are para-lending here. The final goal of a lending business is to have positive earnings > defaulted loans.
  More explained here:
  
  Quote from: Gunthar on November 16, 2016, 02:05:58 PM
  Do as i do: dont sell the accounts. Put a signature of your service in defaulted loans accounts: you will get more customers by that advertising and will stop supporting account farmers.
  Think on long terms about your business...
  References:
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818586#msg16818586
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818509#msg16818509
  ~Gun
  

So my question (based on the list above):
Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea if you are going to feed the account market selling all yoru defaults. If you look at it like i said, yiou dont need to sell those accounts for multiple reasons:

• As long as you gain experience in that, you will get less defaulters in your business
• You can use those few defaulted accounts with your signature advertising your service and so spreading the voice about yoru business

I'd like to underline the concept once more: if i was a DT and i would see you run yoru lending busines with the only purpose to acquire collateral accounts and then sell them, i woudnt only tag your "bought" accounts: i would tag you as well.
~Gun

Edit: What's the point of discouraging something if people are condemning to the point of just damaging the account to make it worthless? Just make it illegal.

So, you're saying use them and forget about your money lost? If this was the case why require useless collateral? Just do no collateral loans. So, in the end, we just lend money to trusted people on the forum. Oh right, they don't even number in the hundreds and most of them are rich enough to live without loans.

So, you're saying use them and forget about your money lost? If this was the case why require useless collateral? Just do no collateral loans. So, in the end, we just lend money to trusted people on the forum. Oh right, they don't even number in the hundreds and most of them are rich enough to live without loans.

With that said, no member, especially default trust members, should be allowed to tag the accounts because they were lost in collateral or because they are being sold.  

Allowing members like him to act on their own for the whole community brings down the value of the community.  

Here is an idea, prohibit signature campaigns!!  That is the easiest fix.  

So I call any high staff member, default trust member or above to give me a legit reason on here why another member can tag an account that is being sold or an account that is being used for collateral, when there are no rules or regulations against it??

I am trying to get across here that THERE ARE NO RULES AGAINST SELLING/TRANSFERRING ACCOUNTS and THERE ARE NO RULES AGAINST USING ACCOUNTS AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN.  Because there are no rules as such, default trust members should not be allowed to abuse their level to pick and choose which accounts to mark and which ones not to mark that have been used for collateral or have been sold/transferred.  It is simple fair play.  Follow the rules and if you do not like the rules, petition to have them changed.  You should not be allowed to use your level to make the change yourself.  

Sorry, it has been a few since I have cared to get on.  I do understand Lauda and where his position is, but the facts are that there is no rules against selling these accounts in here.  There are also no rules against taking them for collateral.   With that said, no member, especially default trust members, should be allowed to tag the accounts because they were lost in collateral or because they are being sold.  For those who are using sold accounts to scam, they are not buying them here to begin with.  The real scammers are avoiding the whole system and buying elsewhere.  The #1 reason to buy an account is to make more money in a signature campaign.  if they place rules against it, then it will stop, but there are no rules prohibiting this; what that said, who is he to decide to stop someone from joining a signature campaign by making his remarks.

Allowing members like him to act on their own for the whole community brings down the value of the community.  Here is an idea, prohibit signature campaigns!!  That is the easiest fix.  Then these accounts would not be worth nothing to any other members and the prices would go down next to nothing.  80% of the lending would stop because the only collateral would be something like Altcoins, which most people will not bother borrowing when they can just exchange the coin.  So if the people who own and run the site wanted to prevent and help stop the scamming, they would just close the lending thread and prohibit signature campaigns.  Simple as that, however that will never happen.  I have a few websites in which users can apply for membership.  On all of those sites, it prevents people frmo making farmed accounts and such based a number of factors.  This protective measure would also help prevent farmed accounts and such.  It is plain as day, you can not mark a cross walk on a road, equipped with a button to push to allow you a turn to walk across and then punish the button pusher.  

So I call any high staff member, default trust member or above to give me a legit reason on here why another member can tag an account that is being sold or an account that is being used for collateral, when there are no rules or regulations against it??

I can understand agree that there is no rules on here where a member should be able to leave trust as they see fit; however, default trust members should be held to a higher standard.  because what they say makes a difference when someone is doing business with another member, the feedback they leave should be more regulated.  They should have to leave a reference to whatever trust they leave, not just a blanket trust which can not be proven, except by opinion.  There are plenty of great members on here who do just that without being asked.  I have lent over 20 BTC to members on this forum in the past 6 months.  I do not ask for or encourage them to leave trust for me.  It does not matter if they do, I know I am a good person and I do good things. 

Simply put, you should have a plan before you accept anything from a person for collateral. Suppose I decided to take credit cards as collateral (hypothetical example). Should I be blamed when I try to sell them, or can I blame the person who is preventing me from selling the cards? Although accounts are not necessarily like that, it should still be noted that both of these examples negatively impact the market. Account sales lead to spamming or scamming. There are but a few examples of times that they are not like that, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of account sales lead to either one or the other. Are you willing to contribute to that?

I'm done with this thread until a single reasonable argument is provided.

How about the fact that no one has taken anything of value against the will of of item's owner, nor has anyone attempted to do this -- in other words there has been no scam, nor a scam attempt.

2.  I have not logged into nothing and started leaving you negative feedback.

So I off loaded the account to someone who is using it learn more about bitcoin.  Do you have an issue with this?  I loaned out .09 or so on this account and off loaded it for less.  Where is your concern.  I just explained to him what you did.  he was happy to leave that for you.  I thought it was funny.  
 
THE BIG QUESTION IS LAUDA
Why do you keep avoiding explaining your feedback and actions?  You are a Staff member in this forum.  Someone others are supposed to look up to and go to for assistance.  Someone who is supposed to help support the integrity of this forum.  Yet you keep bouncing around and not answering the main issue!  Please explain your feedback with no references and provide reference or proof that such feedback is true.   Why are you wasting all your time trying to put me down and make accusations you can not prove, and instead defend your actions as a respected member of this forum??   I have already done my homework and I have already stated if I am wrong and I put my foot in my mouth, I will say so and appologize.  I will change this thread and take back all my wrong statements.  So why are you so anxious to fight when you can just prove you are the trusted member for the position you are in, and be done with this all???  Now that smells fishy.

See Lauda, I do not care about this account.  As proven a number of times, if this account is banned or left red negative, I can just vacate it and move on.  I won't, because I do not really care; but I do care when it comes to calling out BS, and I smell a large pile of it coming from your lack of response when it comes to the actual accusations you are accused of.
http://https:/SNIPSBECAUSEITSCRAP/img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-07/30/16/enhanced/webdr14/enhanced-26782-1438287753-8.jpg

Please explain your feedback with no references and provide reference or proof that such feedback is true.

Reported.

Your claim of calumny would be correct if you could prove that my statements were false.  Because you have yet to even try to prove my claims were false, your claim of calumny has no standing anywhere.

After some additional digging, I see that one of the feedback you left was on an account you inquired about purchasing from another member but were turned down for a low offer.  Smells fishy to me!  I can not prove this, so it is just hearsay at this time.  I have messaged the member to give me proof so we can dig deeper into you.  

..showing you have spent countless minutes bashing me and wining about it all on here..

..instead of taking 5 minutes to show proof your feedback is accurate or that you have good reason to leave it.  I think you will not show proof because you have no proof to show.  

Other trusted members are even agreeing with me, check your feedback.  

If you actually read through my posts, you would see that I have provided reasonable proof that my claims are reasonable.
-snip-

Next these accounts were not used for account sales, they were being sold.  Just like your false feedback, you do not know how to properly state true facts, do you.

I may be incorrect about this, for I don't understand the levels of trust.  You are correct that all of the feedback are from un-trusted members.  

However, I am seeing that BG4 is a level 3 Default trust member, if I am seeing this correctly and this is the feedback he left you:
-snip-

f you are not even sure of this information, how can anyone trust your opinion and statements?  Every other default member can tell me about the feedback they left a member when I question the feedback before giving a loan.  Why can't you??  But the community is supposed to trust your statements.

What difference does it matter which accounts were mine.  
-snip-

Trust can be left for anything or for nothing at all, Positive, Neutral or Negative. If it is inaccurate, it will dilute the leavers credibility and if not corrected will render this persons credibility as useless.
This being said, nothing is/will come of this "tit for tat" as both party's think they are right. I would advise locking this thread and moving on. Once things cool off, maybe an agreement can be reached in PM.

Put this thought in your head.  Lauda has left 64 negative trusts in the last 23 days of being registered.  The 1 & 1/2 years before that he left 1 negative trust.  He has left more trust in the last 23 days than he has positive and negative together in the pass years he has been a member.  Now put this swing on this.  He is a trusted default member placing feedback for others that are unfounded.  What if he starts placing positive feedback for members of which he owns the accounts?  Unless he made a mistake and it is posted somewhere on this forum, no one will know.  Others may trust his positive feedback because he is a default trust member, allowing him to scam with his other account(s) and dip out.  It is that simple.  If his negative feedback can not be proven, what is saying his positive ones are not just there for the purpose of setting up a scam???

because there is no order in this forum when a default trust member can abuse the system.

Those accounts did not engage in selling accounts, because they were not selling themselves, I was selling them through a third party.

You also stated that you do not know why they were left.  

Signature Spammer & Farmed account + defaulted on a loan.

You say this, yet you put in the initial feedback - Signature Spammer & Farmed account + defaulted on a loan.

I want you out of the Default Trust position.  You are a proven liar and all liars have a great chance to become a scammer.

People like you disgust me.

I mean, is it not obvious that accounts such as myself, Lutpin, Vod and others are all just pawns in Lauda's master plan to take over the forum and scam for hundreds of BTC?

Could you please tell me how to find those who has Lauda in their DT?  I am sorry, I still do not know everything and I use this forum to learn.  I just do not want to see it be un-trusted because people like Lauda are permitted to do what they do.  

We need to bring more bitcoin users in, not let people like him scare them away.  Thank you for the help in advance.

<snip>
No one here is getting this.  I Closed my loan service.  I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH ACCOUNTS AS COLLATERAL.  I am concerned with a default trust member who is abusing the system.  I am concerned with a default trust member who lies on trust, proven in this thread a number of times, from his own statements.  I am concerned with a default trust member who openly get caught in their own lies and are still considered default trust.  I am concerned with a proven liar being a staff member in one of the most used, if not the most used bitcoin forum, a forum where new bitcoin users come to learn about bitcoin.  I am concerned that we have a staff member with default trust rating who has the ability to perpetrate a fraud because he is a proven liar and has the power and trust to get people to believe.  If this does not concern you and other members, there is something seriously wrong, which will contribute to the fall of Bitcoin should it ever go down.  What kind of trust does this show new forum members??

Could you please tell me how to find those who has Lauda in their DT?  I am sorry, I still do not know everything and I use this forum to learn.  I just do not want to see it be un-trusted because people like Lauda are permitted to do what they do.  We need to bring more bitcoin users in, not let people like him scare them away.  Thank you for the help in advance.

In the one feedback you left rating stating signature spammer, yet, no signature campaign.  Your reference shows feedback left for you after you left the feedback in the first place.  That does not show nothing other than your feedback is BS because THERE WAS NO SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN IN THE ACCOUNT to be spamming.  Tell us another one.

Username: feryjhie
Bitcoin Address: 1FERyQMm4aPnmbzEmd3xb4FZnQyGkkYv4b
Member Type: sr member
Date Joined: 8 June

I want to enroll for this month

Name:   feryjhie
Posts:   1209
Activity:   252
Position:   Sr. Member
Addy same as before

Loan paid back - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1098303.msg11717179#msg11717179 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1098303.msg11717179#msg11717179) (IN THE SAME THREAD AS YOU JUST QUOTED.....  There is something wrong with you.
Again shows you do not do your research and your feedback can not be trusted.

You stated one thing and then stated another.  Read your feedback, you quoted signature spammer in a number of feedback with no signature and no activity in some time.  That is just one of the many examples I have stated.  The liar is telling us he is not a liar.  Do not hate me if we do not trust your word.

They also did not wait until put in default trust to care about this forum and leave 64 times the negative feedback they left in the first 3 years of being a member, in the last 24 days.

How did you determine he was accepted into the signature campaign?  That is right you did not.

Everyone has been added.

Again, account clearly change hands.  New owner, no reason to believe a scammer.

Again, there were no defaulted loans if you would have done your research.  Shame on you for not doing your research.

Sorry for the loan defaulted

Now you leave as much as you can for your power trip.

June & February of 2015, over a year ago, Good Job finding that!!  How did you determine he was accepted into the signature campaign?  That is right you did not.

Confirmed to both but please change your Personal Text immediately. Thank you all for joining!

That is a good argument. Nobody was scammed, nor am I tagging collateral accounts (hence the act of calumny).

Maybe you should address my concern then.

Maybe you should address my concern then.

If a statement is false due to a technicality, and had the false statement been corrected, and the accurate statement would have damaged your reputation similarly would have been damaged, then the said statement is not slander. Additionally, in order for a statement to be slander, you must not only prove that it is false, but also that said statement actually harmed your reputation. I have seen no attempt of you even attempting either.

The account was held for over a year with no scams or nothing like that and the only way Lauda found the account was from the thread that it was for sale.  

The fact is that the account had no signature campaign when the feedback was left and it was tagged as a signature spammer.  If that was the case over a year ago, which it does not look like it was, based on the post comments, then it is OK that he tagged from that long ago?? You are also telling me that he looked that far back?  Come on, this smells all the way to the bank.

When I return, I will be posting my public petition to have you removed as default trust. 

    theymos (1)
    HostFat (1)
    dooglus (1)
    Maged (1)
    dserrano5 (1)
    OgNasty (1)
    Tomatocage (1)
    SaltySpitoon (1)
    DeaDTerra (1)
    BadBear (1)
    philipma1957 (1)
    Cyrus (1)
    Blazed (1)
    OldScammerTag (1)

Just in general, your posts do cross me as a signature spammer for some time now.  Just for reference in my saying that, I am using your reasoning against you and your post are as common and relevant where you post as the Hero account you flagged for activity from over a year ago; so based on your methods and reasoning that means you are in the same boat and should be tagged.

I can not complain about your moderator status, for I see nowhere where you have abused this position, but I will "do my research" as you say, just to be save I did not miss something in my public posting.

Lauda is on Blazed trust list, so to have her removed, all you have to do is get blazed to remove her (probably won't happen).

I would advise locking this thread and moving on. Once things cool off, maybe an agreement can be reached in PM.

Lauda , Lutpin and yahoo are weird guys.

They will misuse their trust ratings and will destroy your trust ratings.

They are the real criminals.

Their trust ratings should also be spoiled.

guys? girls? apache helicopters?

Even yahoo who isn't in any relevant DT level currently?

For realz? By what laws? Might wanna think about crowd-funding a lawsuit against us in that case.
Real criminals belong into jail or at least sentenced.

I get the pitchforks, you bring the torches, ok...wait, what?

1. Nope , no apache, Antonov
2. You do not sure about what you are saying.
3. Yeah you all should be hanged till death.
4. Yeah seems a good idea, lets go for it.

Mod - Please remove this thread.  After some research, though I do not agree with some of the actions of the moderator, I do see this moderator is doing  more good on the thread and my personal opinions are just that opinions.  Please delete this thread.  I have corrected all posts.  Thank you in advance.

In other words, Lauda removed his negative rating in exchange for you withdrawing your criticism agains him :D

Of course. Lauda's feedback on the OP was referencing calumny/libel. If the OP withdrew this, there is no basis for a negative feedback to be there anymore. While I wouldn't, it is completely fair to remove the feedback all together.