Bitcoin Forum

The usual mob of perpetrators is at it again, this time taking retribution for daring to defend one of their targeted individuals. The referenced event happened some time ago, but the trust rating was only left now. I wonder why that is! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2834153.msg53376744#msg53376744) Apparently putting people on my trust list Lauda doesn't approve of makes me dishonest.

This is a blatantly obvious pattern of abuse of anyone who dares to question this targeted abusive behavior. These people belong no where near having any kind of influence in a trust system, because to them it is simply a tool to use to punish people they don't agree with. They couldn't give a fuck less about the community, the community is just a tool they use to jerk off their egos.

Lauda   2019-12-18   Reference (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837)   "Dishonest. Wouldn't trust."

That's not the reason. It's because you are being dishonest in your defense and unwilling to consider evidence in a rational fashion. You have a renowned habit of doing this. Please ask me to point to specific examples.


Its not that Lauda doesn't approve of those people (is there any proof they disapprove of them?). Its because of the apparent rationale behind why you added them to your trust list. Again, you have a habit of including and excluding people from your trust list for less than honorable reasons. I think its a travesty that you're on DT1 now given your past behavior when it comes to DT-related issues.


FWIW I've had Lauda excluded for some time now, so... you were saying? Why haven't I been targeted? There's ways of conducting yourself in a civil and decent manner, but you are always in such a hurry to attack everybody. You can't be surprised when this eventually catches up with you.

Reserved.

Found it:

Lauda creating flags against random people linked to threads not related. [Link (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161689.0)]

---

See also this link (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181603.msg52354259#msg52354259) (mostly down the bottom of the first post - in the last paragraph after LaudaM/Lauda)

Blant BS, look at the mirror ! You do the same. ;D



Probably because he has started liking you as your agends suite him somehow. Even he has put your clumsy post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837) of attacking TECSHARE as a reference to his absolutely agendic trust rating.

---

I'm not even involved in the thread that you're distracting away, nor involved with anyone that is objectively trying to figure out the history of it all, thus any points that you have against me in relation to that case are instantly invalidated. You should actually be thanking me for not flagging you, because there is more than enough grounds for it (given a reasonable thread summarizing it). You're not worth my time to do this, but maybe you are to someone else or they just feel generous.

I appreciate this, will be quoted in the near-future.

Techy - don't abuse trust and maybe others won't either?   :-\

Hypocrite.

This thread isn't about me, its about Tecshare and Lauda. Please keep your obsession with me out of it.


Its just one instance of many that demonstrates the less-than-honest behavior of Techshare when it comes to DT-related issues. There's only space for 1 link in the Reference section of a trust rating, after all.

I have read this topic while it was in meta and I had some feeling that lauda tagged you for the same reason I removed counter which I placed right after Vod's feedback. Now, I have read lauda's post and yep, I was right.

This thread gave me the opportunity to do this without having to waste my own or anyone's time. I thank OP to that. The rating links my post (in this thread, not the original one) and also links to the previous reference link.

We all know he's the reason why this place is a mess,he'll do whatever it takes to get his stupid position here,like Vod being an idiot.Lauda's abuses should be taking care by theymos itself..If people will oppose to these abusers they will just wake up with red tags.

That is the reason more people haven't tagged OG.  They'll wake up tagged by OG AND Techy.  :/

I wouldn't worry about it too much TS..
Personal vendetta tags by lauda are just a badge of honor..

Time passes, but Lauda is still forum Sauron (or Soros  ;D) in the eyes of some people. Good to see that on forum something remains the same  :)

I don't understand why OP so worried about one feedback. It doesn't matter is it abuse or not. As i see, you have a lot good feedbacks about your reliability in financial terms. I doubt that one feedback will ruin all past achievements.

Oh you aren't involved? Interesting, I suppose the fact that you left this rating for me today for something that happened months ago as I have become active drawing attention to the lack of evidence to support the accusations against OGNasty is just a coincidence is it? Is that just like the coincidence that your referenced link of accusations against me (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837) claiming to know my state of mind and motivations just so happened to be made right after I helped resolve a dispute (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181723.msg52379325#msg52379325) with the members of the Turkish community and regained my place on the default trust list? It seems odd so many coincidences are being stacked atop of one another and being used to justify each other.

It is almost like a pattern of abusive behavior is being established in the form of baseless accusations, much like in the case of the accusations against OGNasty. I suppose it is just another coincidence that all the same people making accusations there are making accusations against OGNasty, and once again here against myself. You certainly are above abusing the trust system to protect the positions of your pals on the default trust now aren't you? Oh wait, I forgot you were blacklisted from the default trust list, but I am the real abuser right?


You are dead last on the list of people who should be making accusations of trust system abuse. I would ask you to clarify exactly what I did that was abusive but you will just make an accusation and then fail to substantiate it as you always do as you use it as an opportunity to topic slide.


Again, would love to see some substantiation of this claim of retaliatory negative ratings but we both know they don't exist. Your retaliatory ratings however come by the dozen.


Oh I am not at all worried. I am just establishing this pattern of behavior in public so that every time they lose control and lash out like this they take a hit to their own reputations.


And you get to decide what an "honest" defense is do you? What could go wrong negative rating people for submitting a defense you don't approve of? That certainly wouldn't create a chilling effect on people trying to defend themselves and others from baseless accusations now would it? After all, you get to decide who is guilty, and who gets to have a defense, and if people oppose your conclusions, well then they are guilty too! Of course the rating left supposedly has nothing to do with the OGNasty accusation thread according to the references, but you like to have your cake and eat it too as you claim it is for a deceptive defense but then on the other hand not retribution for exposing the lack of basis for such an accusation in that thread.

Apparent rationale, according to who, you and your all encompassing psychic skills? As covered above your accusations were little more than yet another act of retribution for defending targets of trust system abuse, and a transparent attempt to make sure I was removed from the default trust. You don't have any basis for these accusations, just lots of speculation, just like all these other accusations I am refuting. I am standing in the way of your ability to impugn the character of people here without basis, and for that I have become an object of obsession with these abusers. You don't want a system that requires proof for accusations, because that makes it much harder for you to simply invent a story that sounds believable but in reality has no basis in fact in order to target those you are perusing vendettas against. All I am doing is demanding proof to back up accusations, if you perceive that as an attack, then you are the one with the problem, not me.

The best way to judge peoples honesty and trustworthiness is if they practice what they preach, but you on the other hand just teach others what you don't even bother to do. I am just pointing this to the people who thinks your words are like a ethical person and believe you, even to once who shower some merit sperms on you.

The thread topic isn't about you, but the one of the strong reason it has arised is because of your constantly attacking TECSHARE on multiple occasions, some of your steps here have surely boosted this situation in the OP. Anyways TECSHARE's main reason behind this thread is to make this abusive pattern public, and I am helping him in doing so.


I could not stop laughing on it loud, was it really less than honest ?

He solved a issue between two users in a very mutual and friendly manner. Asked both of them politely to remove each other's rational ratings. Many people around the forum ( not much globals as the gang can attack them) were convinced and happy with his balanced minded act of handling the situation and this made him get that non random but fruitful and on-the-point inclusions. A person having IQ less than number of his balls can understand the reason behind it was not abusive but situational.

Yes, there is only one reference link but it should be fill with some informative links ( atleast by DT's ) rather than someone's totally vendetta based posts. But here the whole rating is a big game play and abuse in official words.

But is wasn't proof of anything as Philipma1957 and Eddie13 so eloquently put it:


Of course you are the great and powerful Nutulduhhhh and you get to declare anyone who challenges your baseless conclusions as "dishonest" and "less than honorable", and your baseless conclusions as facts, then justify the use of the trust system in retribution for challenging this conclusion.

To me, all you are doing is declaring "facts" to be "baseless conclusions". That in itself is dishonest. I don't need your approval to hold an opinion on the matter. Neither does anybody.

You are free to your opinion, but my "opinion" is invalid and is deserving of a negative trust rating is it? Sounds rational to me.

You're not being red trusted for holding an opinion. This is what the referenced link says:


You were doing quite a bit of attacking in that thread. Maybe if you would have presented your opinion in a more neutral tone, it wouldn't have been seen as an attack designed to distract attention from the main issue, and possibly silence others.

It all really depends on whether the majority of the community agrees more often with you or with Lauda.

You'll really have to make a better case for yourself if you want your rating removed. I would honestly suggest being more humble and open-minded - and less hostile - going into the future.

Right, the fact that it was left now for an event that happened months ago is just a total coincidence is it? By "attacking" you mean pointing out the accusers have no evidence of theft and a history of making baseless accusations against OGNasty? Now my tone needs to be approved by you?

Silencing others? How exactly, by disagreeing with them and receiving unjustified negative ratings? Are you fucking kidding me? If you did any more projecting you would need to get a part time job at a movie theater. I would honestly suggest you go fuck yourself with your feigned moderation.

I was honestly just trying to help, but you obviously don't want it, so I'll butt out.

Have a terrific day!

Sure you were cupcake, sure you were.

If that was the case, why do you hand out negative feedback for your opinions?   Are you a doctor?

(oops, I did an OG cherry pick quote)

Opinion is:

"Yes, I have read everything important from transcript and I am not sure that pirate is telling the true, I mean, there is no evidence to back up his words"

Or

"Yes, I have read everything important from transcript and I think pirate is telling the true, OG what happened to funds?"


Not opinion:

"Nutildah you are idiot and moron and part of circle or the same gang who has been attacking me therefore you are just attacking others"

Or:

"I didn't read transcript, I don't have to read it to see that the same people are doing this over and over again"

Or:

"yeah, look how he abused me for a years, now he is doing this again"



You are pretty much doing latter.

Man, debate is easy when you just make up quotes!

It sure is Techy.  Maybe there should be a forum badge for you and Nasty?

Cool off topic post bro. What quote did I make up? Oh right none of your accusations have any substantiation, you just make as many accusations as possible and hope people just blindly believe them.

What accusation did I make up, pervert?   ::)

Stop with the obvious deflections and stick to the topic.

I suggested a forum badge for you - wouldn't that make you feel more special?

So your response to a question asking you to substantiate your claims against me, is to ask me the same question? Makes sense... if you are an unhinged lunatic desperately struggling to cling to reality. Speaking of the topic, maybe to you can explain the part where any of your batshit jibbering has anything to do with the topic.

If you are going to accuse me of something, why not tell me what it is when I ask? 

Now show us the trust abuse from Lauda, pervert.

Your eyes could be converted to nuts after a long debate with TECSHARE here, but this is the abuse..


You are fighting for a purely wrong action, I think most of the people here opposing TECSHARE already know that. ???

Your abilities to be delusional are boundless and you are never able to substantiate any of your accusations as demonstrated in excruciating detail here. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.0)

Now, Vod ask yourself the same question.

"If you are going to accuse me of something, why not tell me what it is when I ask?"

This inherently insane comment does a great job of demonstrating how you have given up on using any kind of logical basis long ago. If I am accusing you of something, isn't that by the nature of an accusation, me telling you what I am accusing you of? It literally hurts to try to break my brain enough to try to analyze this level of retardation.

By the way Vod, your posts here are doing a wonderful job demonstrating that I am in fact being attacked for exposing the fact there is no actual evidence against OGNasty, so I guess I should at least thank you for that much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Your reply didn't address anything from my post but replying to it in such way you addressed everything relevant for it and, you proved my point.

I don't feel the need to defend words you created then presented as my own. There is nothing to address in the figments of your own imagination. Even if they were real quotes, none of this is anywhere near being on topic. Your move goat fucker.

Sure scare quotes are on topic, take a look at this post again:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.msg53378525#msg53378525

There are no moves rabbit fucker, it is all in your head. I figured out that topic title is misleading, and you are presenting yourself as a "political victim", but it is your actions and delusions which are causing you trouble in the first place:

Subject: More trust system abuse by Lauda


Your actions:
And then you said this:
You are one delusional prick.

You know what, everyone can click on your trust page and follow links, read threads, your posts and make their own conclusion. For me, you are a troll Mr. Tec's hare, a big one. I said what I wanted to say here so I am out. Going to ignore you for few days, until my brain cells recover from your mental gymnastic.

This doesn't explain anything or relate to the topic, this is just a string of selectively edited quotes you threw together that you think looks persuasive. None of it explains why Lauda's rating is not abusive. Also I see you are taking a page out of Twitchy Seal's book and editing my quote to serve your narrative. Here is what I actually said:


As you can see I was creating a summary of another user's posts, but you presented the edited quote in such a way as to make it look as if it were a straight forward statement I made in my own voice. The fact that you need to edit my quotes to try to convince people says volumes.

https://meem.link/i/a/rTCgO4.jpg
Edited 2020-11-30 to fix a broken image

tl;dr: your opinion about another user's post is not a "summary". To put it another way, it's about as much of a summary as Lauda's feedback (which BTW I think is inappropriate but don't let that stop you from attacking me) is a summary of your behavior here on the forum.

Care to elaborate? It has clean text, a proper reference and is based on actual events rather than opinions. Additionally, it seems to be even more in line of how the system should be used ever since the trust guidelines were lessened after the introduction of the flag-system.

Can always PM me if you want to elaborate to avoid OP's shenanigans, but I leave that up to you.  :)

I think it's red trust for opinion, however unpopular, distasteful, or malevolent it might me. I'd say the same about most trolls like TECSHARE, cryptohunter, etc, unless their trolling translates into actual scamming or some other tangible threat like doxing.

Quickseller is roughly where I'd draw the line of troll vs scammer. Quickseller is a scammer and a genuinely dangerous troll. TECSHARE is a pitiful egocentric troll.

That's just my opinion.

You call it whatever you like. Your completely semantic distinction doesn't change the fact my quote was edited to make it appear as if it was a straight forward statement in my own voice when it was nothing of the sort.


At least you have enough integrity in this instance to not let your personal opinions of me change your standards for what is and is not acceptable to negative rate people over. You are free to think I am a cunt, I won't even argue with you over that, just don't abuse the systems designed to prevent fraud to fight your petty interpersonal battles. That is where I draw the line.

Me too.   :D

...and yet you just put me on distrust - Irony.

I almost pissed myself. Thanks for the laugh.


As did you, for criticizing you no less. I was happy to just ignore you for a long time but you insisted on involving yourself with me. Me distrusting your judgement is in no way abuse, and judging by the collection of exclusions you have, I am not the only one who thinks so.

So you're admitting you're just a lemming jumping off someone else's cliff because they did it? More Irony.

Let's look at this:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/16/blobcfd5de58f3992b37.jpeg

Lemming.

Quoting to preserve and document the continuing loss of your bladder control.

Correlation does not equal causation. Wow. You referenced yourself. Very convincing. Care to explain what any of this has to do with the op or are you just here because your jimmies are rustled in general?

I think Theymos should create a whole new separate board entitled...
"ALL THREADS FOR CRYING, WHINGING, MOANING AND GROANING ABOUT ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH DT ABUSE"

That way all the repeating hissy fit boo-hoo dt abuse threads can all be consolidated, so when one needs a good chuckle, one can go straight there and browse them all....

And *Wow* back at you - very convincing explanation for the distrust you have there. Lemming.

Perhaps if you refrained from lashing out at others (such as your outburst towards Vod) you might be able to think for yourself.

(The title of the thread is "More trust system abuse by Lauda" you by extension are part of that trust abuse - don't start a thread if you can't handle the responses you receive)

I would be happy to laugh at you once you face the same abuse in future and come back CRYING, WHINGING, MOANING and GROANING here with a thread. Don't make it a joke, many of such similar abuses are seriously damaging to individuals.

You got me Timelord, you are just too much for me to handle! You mean like you handle responses you receive (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181723.msg52379325#msg52379325)?

I quoted me, now you're quoting me...

Now that you have me on distrust, perhaps you should read your own words in that post about the trust system then ask yourself if it  really hurts the way you hope it would?

I'll give you a hint (http://istimelord2067ondtyet.tk/).   Eleven is just a number same as ten is...

Well fancy that...I just got a good chuckle....

Wow dude
I don't have English, what's going on in the closets? I don't even know!
It is a bit difficult for me to learn English, all of you learn Turkish and communicate more easily :D ;D

Note: I am surprised to see you use this concept other than me :o


I know there are various groups here. power demonstration.

merit, in the hands of the minority ...

Feedback, free for someone

forum is no longer a forum. Like anything else, the game ...

Independent members less, everyone in a group to approach the problem.

long live freedom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrxR_pzu094  8) night goes well............................................

Many are calling it up on them selfs by not being if one is trustworthy and don't scam or treat anyone wrong then they will be left alone, if one isn't honest or whatever then they just have to deal with the consequences its as easy as that, nobody has fun or amusement of wrongfully saying somebody is a scammer while he didn't do anything wrong....

Nobody called me a scammer on the forum as Ii never was dishonest to anyone as well....
That go's for all the members I write and talk with, non of them have been negatively treated ... WHY, cause they don't scam another person..... But when a person isn't honest and been red tagged then please just carry the tag whiteout complaining...
 
Didn't read who this is actually about, just talking in general :)

You don't get targeted because you sit on the sidelines and don't have strong opinions on anything. The trust system is often abused as a tool to coerce people into silence. Of course as a spectator you enjoy not having to deal with it. Become a participant and count the days.

If I have a strong opinion for people choosing BSV above BTC for being mentally ill and difunctional ...

If I have a strong opinion for saying the r0ach is an internet troll who I will chose not to trust with send and receive anything, though I never saw him scamming anybody so I will not tag him for such thing, I would tag to take care with reading his content, he could bring some bad ideas into naive people ::)

If I have a strong opinion for knowing nobody can send me PM's for trust him or him and I would follow (if someone would suggest something that I could read and chose what I do NP of-course, but I will never be able of being controlled to do something)

If I have a strong opinion for that what I do I'll be standing behind my decision always

I do more BTC-talking and stuff as I don't do much trading or generating income on the forum so for that matter I will obviously be less involved in such things, the only thing I did was buying a lot of stuff where I always have send money/BTC first and receive items later, I have always been treated prompt and A+++ wise, so obviously I have given those people some good trust as the ones I had some RL deals/dealing with.

I have participated in given and receiving some trust ratings, which days must I count??

Are any of these positions at all controversial or really under dispute? No. Good for you you can join bandwagons. Just do me a favor and stop pretending like everything is peachy when you are picking flowers while others are plowing the fields.

@micgoossens, I know you feel pretty cosy around here and even in the Wall Observer thread, but the overall trust abuse on the forum is pretty much dustructive to many users. You would not tag someone if you feel he would not scam anyone right ?..I don't think anyone here geniuly feels TECSHARE is a scammer or he would scam anyone with funds.

Better than rounding it to general and going keyboard ninja, read the thread and understand the situation, hope your reaction would not be the same.

What do you know about what other people think? I wouldn't trust mr. TECSHARE with a toenail, thus genuinely believe he can't be trusted. So fuck off and wank your little tool elsewhere. There are prettier beings that you can suck off other than OP.

I don't know, I think this due to his 50+ positive feedbacks (on default trust) about successful trades.


Does it really look like that? I thought I was giving him some respect.. :(

Pajeet trades for pajeet users. Next?

Here is another tile for you mosiac..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206862

Just make up whatever you like and pretend it is the truth... look at all these Pajeets in my trust ratings...

BayAreaCoins, Hhampuz, subSTRATA, AT101ET, teeGUMES, Steamtyme, Blazed, Lesbian Cow, chronicsky, dazedfool, minerjones, DaveF, ezeminer, notserp, wheelz1200, OgNasty, Gyfts, monbux, DiamondCardz, monkeynuts...

Sorry if I left any pajeets out. Lets also brush aside over 8 years of trade history, amounts trusted to me in the thousands of dollars on many occasions, and I managed a project with a market cap of over 10 million dollars. What is more trust worthy is pretending to be a cop on the internet and harassing people right? Don't you have some BCH stolen via escrow to get back to?

Point and thread - state your opinion and you'll get trust abuse from Techy.  :(

This thread is about Lauda's trust system abuse.

Literally almost all of them are pajeets. You are outdated with your information about this list of individuals with which you thought you had a point, but you failed royally.  :)

More lies and more reasons to give you more updated negatives, which I just did. Are you going to create a new reason for me each day?

You are a pajeet. Man, that was way easy to declare you irrelevant, I should have done it years ago. Just unilaterally declaring you irrelevant is way easier than using logic. All the evidence of you being involved in using your position as escrow to embezzle funds is detailed here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4895354.0). That kind of seems way worse than anything I have even ever been accused of.

I am offering a bounty of 5 merit to anyone who can find the quote from Theymos where he explicitly states deleting and adding negative ratings over and over again in order to manipulate the trust system is considered by him to be abuse of the trust system. I looked but I can't remember when or where I read it, I just know he said it at one point.

Do you really think that I care what theymos said about the old system? He is wrong, and when one is I do not stand down just because the user in question is an administrator. That would be a very pathetic display of existence, but you know very well how that feels. I care as much as he cares what I tell him in private, and it won't go beyond that. He's no authority and neither am I. He's free to wave the centralizing wand and do as he wishes though. :-*

---

I offer an extra 10 merit if the post is relevant to the current trust system or what I'm doing or whoever decent finds it first. 5 is too pajeet.

Sucking up to an army of pajeets.

https://i.imgur.com/QblbJ0F.png

Read it, and I do agree the trust system is not to use just for people you dislike or not agree with on opinions etc
I will not put someone on my distrust list just cause not liking him or not cause I disagree on some points or whatever....

I think when someone scammed, lies, being dishonest or whatever isn't trustworthy, I also rather distrust members that uses Alt's to not show there selfs this is a very tilting move imo ::) 

---

I actually disagree, I had some PM's for a gold coin and if he adjusted the price a bit at that time, then I would not have hesitate and bought that gold coin....

I think never to have seen TECSHARE being dishonest in selling stuff.

 

---

Damn, I have to say, most of them have the highest trust and most respect from me as members can get on this forum......

Had some online dealings with many and some IRL dealing as well (not a to small one) <--- where the other guy really had to trust me as well etc

Did I say anywhere that there aren't users who trust him? I was purely mentioning my distrust, and that mr. hackerman shouldn't generalize with his bullshit and should rather focus on what he does, suck up by wanking off others.

Quite a few of them a very decent people, that doesn't make them non-pajeets though (almost all are, or at least are crypto-pajeets). OP doesn't have up to date information on the individuals that he chose to make his argument. Tap into the surveillance state and you can get whatever you need on whoever very quickly. Make 'Murica great again! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's not very nice..

I'm a cunt, and so are most of those people (besides also being pajeets). :-*

No, you are just upset that I wouldn’t give you special privileges regarding not repeating your name, that you had both posted and quoted multiple times, which makes posting your name within the bounds of the forum rules.

It is really not a good thing to be lying and being dishonest left and right when you have a baby on the way. The last time I mentioned this, you also got mad, but that’s not my problem.

I don't like to think of the world or human nature like that, but maybe it is just me?

I do accept that we need all kinds of perspectives, too, so I can appreciate someone who is more skeptical than me regarding the various negative aspects of human nature, too.

I know I have said it before but we need to split trust and feedback.

Merit = Are they good posters? Help out people? Useful to the board? This does not matter much in terms of trading BTC or hardware or collectibles you *can* help out a lot but still be a crook.

Trust = Can you trust them with money / items / etc. However, there are a lot of people with trust that have never really bought or sold things.

Feedback = Do you really want to deal with them. Because even if the 1st 2 are good you might still want to avoid.

I trust TECSHARE I trust Lauda neither of them have done me harm, stolen from me or to my knowledge stolen from anyone I deal with.
I probably have given merit to and received from both of them. Would have to check.
Feedback, is a different issue. As I posted some time ago....


Maybe I agree with Techshares politics, maybe I think he is a radical right nutjob, maybe I am more to the right then he is and I think he is a liberal looser. Not a trust issue, it's a feedback issue Which we don't have here. so people are using the trust info for it. Which despite a lot of people in the forums who buy / sell / trade keep fighting against keeps happening. theymos for whatever reason does not want to change it, so we are stuck with it.

I have gotten to the point of ignoring it, only came to this thread because my name was mentioned and I got an alert.

It's a new year in a few days, can we all get together and agree to calm down a bit?

-Dave

Said the doxxer.

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/09/10/mgE5b.png

Another victim..  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213377.0

For topic following purposes..

Hey, you childish guys, better than wanking and rambling about it with walls of text, do some action. You are too an part of community ! Yes, you don't like involving in the drama and shit but you can still do the right thing by excluding the user in question from your trust list and that is the most simple and right step to do.

Many here already know this is harsh and unacceptable use of trust system, better than repeating it again and again some political ditrusting actions would be a wise decision to all.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said?  You conclude that I am "childish," "wanking" and "rambling" based on my above post, and perhaps based on some of my other posting history including what I have so far decided to do regarding my trust list?

I might have mischaracterized what Lauda had said, and I was merely attempting to assert that I generally consider  human nature as good, but I also understand that on the interwebs, we do not always know whether the person on the other end might be a cat.  So there can be issues with dealing with interweb personas in terms of if they are who they claim to be. 

Hey, maybe the use of "cat" is not really a great analogy here, especially since Lauda does tend to self-refer in terms of catology (if that is a word), but hopefully you can still understand what I am attempting to assert in this regard.

I tend to view human nature as generally good, even if self-interested, and surely everyone has their circumstances to deal with; however, the interwebs and even crypto (I hate that word) has a tendency to attract scammers and scum, and swindlers and bots.  These can create battles and emotions, too, and sometimes posters get emotional, say too much and/or things might NOT come across too well in the form of postings and text.  So, yeah, we cannot always have enough information regarding if we are dealing with someone who is genuinely attempting to contribute in a positive way or if that person is more trouble than they are worth in terms of scamming and scumminess.  In that regard, any of us can consider and reconsider how much to engage in these kinds of battles or whether we spend more time participating in crypto threads (again, I hate that "crypto" word, and likely that is probably why I spend most of my time in bitcoin threads rather than "crypto" threads)....

Isn't there an expression?  "came to bitcoin for [blank 1] and stayed for [blank 2]"?  Surely, I don't want my "blank 2" to end up being "interpersonal battles."  From my perspective, that would decrease whatever quality of life I happen to currently have..... hahahahahahhaha  Now, I am going to get back to telling nocoiners, bitcoin naysayers, and alt coin "pumpeners" to fuck off... that's my current preferred specialty.  Oh, I do have one other quasi-non-crypto (did I say that I hate that word?) post that I would like to get to first, but that's another story.. that may or may not play out in my determination of what to do next.... because I have another non-forum research project that I am multi-taskingly working on too... so there is that... plus I have a tiny bit of real world physical labor that I have to carry out (procrastinating a bit), so there is that, too.

And this type of human nature does more harm to the community than good. In real world you would just ignore this peoples rather than dealing with there nature.


I think you have some very good talanes in you and even in real life you seems to be rocking. So why are you afraid of standing on the right side ?. Your "[blank 2]" is nothing to be damaged by acting right on right things which is really how the system works. I find want you are saying as " if you see abuses just shut up and let it happen to save your own ass". But on the other hand you could just post your own views and react by ditrusting wrong peoples if you experience, simple as that.

In the real wold these types of people would catch a beating, which is why they come to the internet to act this way.

You seem to be presuming quite a bit if you believe that fear is motivating me regarding whatever actions or inactions that I choose.



I have some time that I already dedicate to various "interpersonal squabbles" in the forum.  Whether I dive into more or not could be a product of time, timing or interest, and I tend NOT to be too persuaded by others suggesting what I should do or how I should act, even if I might account for those kinds of suggestions from time to time, depending on the topic and the circumstances.


That seems to be on you to be wanting to read a bit much into my so far statements on this topic, or whatever other information you are using to arrive at your conclusion(s).


Hey any of us can come to our various conclusions in life based on accurate or inaccurate information and/or revise our choices.  I believe that I retain that discretion, and I doubt that I have any major blinders in that regard, but there is only so much time in the day to go down certain rabbit holes, even if such rabbit holes are pointed out to me.


Actually, that is possible too.. depending on the circumstances.  Certainly, the interwebs bring different dynamics than the real world, even though the interwebs have become a current part of our real world in several ways.. and "my how times have changed?" for both good and bad... seemingly.

As we are talking about human nature here,

People with nature like JayJuanGee would just ignore them.

But people like you and me would surely react in a pretty bad way and majority of other would too. Sad they could not be virtually caught in beating somehow.

Well, Lauda was fired from their staff position by theymos for engaging in a very likely extortion attempt..
Since the new engagement of the new trust system/flag system, Lauda has completely refused to comply with theymos's guidelines on the use of the trust system, and theymos has therefore blacklisted Lauda from DT1..
Now Lauda is getting belligerent with their use of the trust system and using it to abuse senior members, opposite to the guidelines of theymos ofcourse, for reasons such as Lauda believes I myself should not have freedom of speech..
Lauda is still on DT2 because users, such as yourself, are either too afraid of Lauda, or are betting that Lauda will prevail despite their blatant disrespect of the forum as stated above and just want to maintain their "in" in the end no matter the outcome..

This isn't about busting petty spammers and saving idiots.. This is about the political direction of this forum..
You either want this place to become facebook lorded over by Lauda who wishes to remove the freedom of speech of users who disagree with them, like me, to state my opinions, and wants to ban me for my words, or you want this forum to maintain the original ideals of it's founder Satoshi Nakamoto of liberty and freedom from authoritarian control by those such as Lauda..  

theymos has also ~Lauda

theymos Distrusts these users' judgement:
3. ~Vod (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=30747)  +29 / =2 / -5) (1351 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/30747.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-12-28_Sat_06.13h/30747.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Vod))
17. ~Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872)  +34 / =4 / -1) (1233 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/101872.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-12-28_Sat_06.13h/101872.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lauda))

JayJuanGee Trusts these users' judgement:
1. theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35)  +32 / =2 / -0) (DT1! (56) 6380 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/35.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-12-28_Sat_06.13h/35.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=theymos))
4. Vod (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=30747)  +29 / =2 / -5) (1351 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/30747.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-12-28_Sat_06.13h/30747.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Vod))
14. Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) (Trust: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=101872)  +34 / =4 / -1) (1233 Merit earned (http://loyce.club/Merit/history/101872.html)) (Trust list (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-12-28_Sat_06.13h/101872.html)) (BPIP (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=Lauda))
Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.0).

It seems you are either confused or betting the middle.. IDK..

So which way do you want this forum to go?
Do you want it to ultimately be a safe place for idiots to be free of petty scammers, and users to be free of criticism, offence, and opposing ideals?
Or would you rather have it hold onto the founding principles Bitcoin is based on by it's creator and earliest supporters that made all of this possible?

A wise man once said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


I am into Bitcoin for its principles of freedom and anti-authoritarianism.. These are the most important battles in the world to me and not just on this forum..
You have your fun with your pump and dump threads and I'll have my fun opposing any and all who wish to spite the very reasons Cryptocurrency and this forum came into existence..

I know why I'm in crypto, for the betterment of all humanity, possibly the greatest tool for peoples to gain freedom from oppression, and I will stand up against attempts of oppression as I am here..

I don't know why you are in crypto.. Likely not the same reasons as me it seems..
Maybe you are best off to play the seemingly safe centrist bet, if principles don't have anything to do with it for you.. IDK..


I'll take 1,000 petty scammers over a tyrannical dictator any day..

Are you trying to sell me something?  I am not theymos.  Theymos can make his own decisions about what to do, what not to do and how he wants to go about conducting himself in life or in this forum.


I am fine with the forum.  Is something broken?  You seem to be asserting that something is broken and in need of my actions to assist in fixing that something?  You have rights to exercise your judgement and to express your opinions, don't you?

This is what it boils down to at the end of the day. Using some basic common sense and due diligence one can protect themselves from these petty scammers. There is no way to escape the damage tyrannical dictators do to the community.

I doubt that it is becoming to be seeming to be advocating violence.

Surely there are a variety of ways to deal with people in the real world, and some of those ways are more helpful than others, depending on circumstances, and sometimes you might end up getting locked up too, if you are an adult who is engaging in violent behaviors in the real world...

Of course, depending on circumstances, you might also end up getting surprised if you had not noticed what you are dealing with, too... so there is that. 

Not free from the harassment of power abuse obviously, and must be fought for at every step against those who seek to destroy such concepts..


Nah.. It can and will be done with or without you..

I just looked at your trust, and causes me to wonder if you were just recently motivated into this perspective or you have always felt motivated regarding your perception of restrictions on your freedoms?


Fair enough.

I do not expect you to take my word for it, but it is the result of my motivations on this perception and not the cause..

It has been years, but for a easy example this fine quote preceded the abuse..

And if you read that thread.. I was attacked for... ... .. .. .

Wait for it .. .. .. .. .. . .


Too lazy to properly quote a locked thread right now but clicky here... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201132.msg53072497#msg53072497
Better yet read the whole thread where Lauda threatens to flag me...
"
And I call the bluff and put 0.25BTC on it..

Which Lauda refused..
Too bad because I was really hoping to get that quarter bitcoin..

Which all happened before the abuse you see in my profile..

Just read it.. It's only 2.5 pages before lock..

But LoyceV took it to their rep thread about their website dedicated to monitoring Lauda's DT status so the conversation does expand a bit..  


It's possible even LoyceV thinks someone is getting out of hand here, but Switzerland and all, and I don't want to directly speak for this person either..


The tale of the "virtue signaler" reference you see in the abuse of power..  :D


Title of that thread.. .. = "Freedom of speech"
lol


K I finds it..
LoyceV's thread title= "Is Lauda still on DT? (taking requests for other users too!)"
But sadly..



Whatever.. IDK..
You don't seem to be very "in the know" about what is going on on this side of the forum.. (I do the same thing in the WO thread from time to time)
I don't fault you for that but this comes to mind..

No one is advocating violence, but I think you know that. In real life there is a line everyone knows not to cross because there may be a severe cost for doing so. On the internet this line is not clearly defined. The point being is that if this were in real life, most of these people would not dare to behave this way.

I still need to figure out how to serve different domain names from one VPS, so unfortunately this one is temporarily out of order.
You can however view Trust settings as DT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dt) to see that Lauda currently has 5 Trust inclusions left.
My isLaudastillonDT.log was last updated on December 20, 15:10h (Amsterdam time), at which moment it showed this:
So the recent "Lauda topics" took away 6 inclusions.

Switzerland is broken (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg53430285#msg53430285), but indeed, Trust has been getting out of hand for quite a while. Feedback from DT used to mean something, but nowadays anyone can be on DT and anyone can be tagged for anything.
I've partially read the topics recent on Lauda, but the number of topics is getting out of hand too, and apart from working on getting loyce.club back online, it's also Christmas time and if I do respond, I want it to based on complete information (this post doesn't count, as I haven't read everything yet). However, I'm thinking of creating a slightly related Meta-topic. Update: see Trust Feature idea: give DT1 the ability to remove specific feedbacks from DT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213717.0).

I've spent quite a lot of time describing what I consider correct use of the Trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0), and judging by the 10 translations on local boards, many users agree.
I strongly believe in this:

As a non-native English speaker, I have no idea what it means, and "a pejorative neologism for the conspicuous expression of moral values. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling)" just adds more words I don't know.

Virtue signalling is basically bragging about your superior ethics and morals for no other reason than to get the satisfaction and popular support for speaking of it, but having no actual motivation to follow through with the moral values you so vocally espouse. It would be like some one who chastises some one and talks about how important being vegan is, then goes home to their leather couch and enjoys a nice steak.

OMG I covered my last post with this one on accident.. Whew OK, I found it in drafts and fixed it..

[1] I must not be completely crazy then.. Rolling for new monthly DT soon right?
The last roll..
I believe the odds of that happening again are negative..

[2] I'm sorry I'm partly responsible for this, but seeing DT go to shit Grrrrrrrs me..
"good outweighs the bad" doesn't seem like the greatest standards to me..

Yes, also like Bernie Sanders advocating socialism, while owning 3 mansions, being filthy rich, and paying a lower tax rate than... Someone else..
Rules for thee but not for me, sort of thing..
One who does not "practice what you preach"

Found an almost year old example thinking about an unrelated topic.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102198.20
If you still care about this question...

Further on in the wikipedia article...


Personally, I also tend to agree with some of the criticisms that are mentioned in that article...

But then... that's just virtue signalling on my part ::) :P

No-one would describe themselves as a "virtue signaller (https://aeon.co/ideas/is-virtue-signalling-a-perversion-of-morality)", it's only used in a dismissively critical way (perjorative) and it's a new thing (neologism).
What is a person accused of it actually doing, to attract this description?
According to the critic, they are guilty of employing an expressed concern for moral values as a device to show themselves off as morally concerned, rather than just making a moral point, so it shares some of the characteristics of an "ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)"..
In practice, it seems to be used by right at left politically, a bit like "snowflake".
Like all insults/dismissals, it says as much about the user as the target.


That's just plain old hypocrisy, I'd have thought.

Edit: and so's this, just pure hypocrisy.


Using the term "virtue signal" is a bit more nuanced than that, imo. Although what it also does is devalue the "virtue" word by using it in a negative context.

 

Of course there are common decency lines that might get crossed on the interwebs that might not get crossed when in the meat space.  Furthermore, if people do not get along in the physical space, they may avoid socializing with one another, but of course, there may be circumstances, such as relatives  and there may be some compromising that has to be done in order to minimize drama, and most people are going to figure out those boundaries.  We also might know brothers or sisters who disclaim each other, too, and they cannot bring themselves to associate with one another.. so there is that, too.


Of course, the line is different on the interwebs, and some people are still going to want to participate in threads or in conversations.. and they don't even mind stirring shit... or they might begin to specialize in stirring shit.  The dynamics are different, but does not mean that people have to act as if they were in the physical space when they are not.


It is still a BIG ASS hypothetical, because that is not where we find each other.  Whether you and I would get along in the physical space is difficult to know.  Same thing with me and Lauda.. I don't know.  But it does not matter too much either, because I have no real plans to meet people from the forum in the physical space.  If such a thing were to happen by coincidence or something, then will cross that bridge depending on the circumstances.

I am thinking that you are directing your comment at me, eddie13, right?

I doubt that the quote from Satoshi is fitting to this situation.  Seems to me that you have been trying to motivate me to take some kind of action, and to me, it is like a kind of unsolicited advice.  I did not ask for your advice, but then you are trying to put some kind of burden on me to study for something that I am not trying to prove or show.  The only thing that I said, to initiate my participation, was to suggest that I believe that most people are good, but then upon further comments from other posters, I modified some of my statements of opinion in response to those various responses..  

I am not seeking advice like was the case in the Satoshi statement, but you are trying to use satoshi's statement which really seems to pertain to someone who was attempting to ask stupid questions (wasn't it dan larimore?), but failing to do a sufficient amount of research about basics or whatever.  Doesn't seem to apply to my participation here.


Fair enough.

OK I'll stop..

Hahahaahahha

No wonder you receive red trust.  ahahahahahha 

Do really believe that you are representing the ideas of my post fairly?    Of course, I have a tendency to ramble a bit with explanations and even stream of consciousness, sometimes, but your summary is truly quite a bit less than genuine, amiNOTrite?

Ultimately, you can do whatever you want in terms of your posting behavior(s) or pestering anyone (including me) on any given topic, because I don't easily get flustered, even when members seem to be attempting to purposefully misrepresent the gist of my earlier points... like you seem to have just done.  Go figure?

I was just trying to explain situations to you (you even asked), and you don't want it, so I'll stop..
Simple..

That was not intended to misrepresent your post, it was intended to convey my feelings about our discussion, which was basically going nowhere..
It's not like someone is going to read that and believe it is exactly what you wrote.. Notice the ... ... cuts even.. Do you think?

I don't want to motivate you against your will or force feed you unsolicited advice either..
That was not my intention either.. I was just trying to share information with you (that you asked) and you were seeming to take offence to it as if I was trying to make you study something you didn't want to, so it's time to stop right?

Ouch man..

It would be a less than genuine summary 100%, but was not supposed to be a summary.. I thought it was an obvious chop-job..

I like you man.. Don't get all mad..

If you don't want to dive deep into this rabbithole that's fine..



I mean.. I wrote that huge post for you (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.msg53481932#msg53481932) directly answering a difficult and legitimate question you asked me, dropped a source link in another post for you further answering your question, and you came back with "unsolicited advice" and "putting a burdon on you to study"... ???
You can probably understand that that was a bit frustrating and disheartening in our conversation for me, so I figure it was time to stop, and I'm sorry if I came back in a frustrated way..


I thought this was an honest question from you...


So I gave you a quite detailed answer..

Was it a rhetorical question? Was it merely a jab at me questioning my motives?
Was I not supposed to answer it?

I think I was right about your rambling, if you like walls of text go enjoy with TOAA.

You are not just a spectator here as you are claming in every post of yours, you are a part of the problem because of this !!!


Eddie13 is talking 100% genuine and on topic, it is you who deny to take responsibility with literally no reason than fear to loose your "[blank 2]".

Or just say, you would include someone in your trust list even if they are an harm to the system.

O.k..  No problem.


Fair enough, I suppose.  But, I already said what my interpretation was.


I suppose that the cuts help, but I have been around the block for a decently long period of time, and I always try to represent accurately the statements of others and even give them the benefit of the doubt if I am not sure if I understand their argument, and even sometimes steel manning their arguments in order to attempt to address the stronger of the variations of arguments that can be read from their comments.   Just seems to be a better practice to attempt to give fair readings to people, even when disagreeing (maybe even especially when disagreeing), in my experience.


That's good.  I had already mentioned that I frequently will get a bit stubborn if I believe that someone is trying to get me to do something that I did NOT decide to do on my own.



Fair enough.


I already am familiar with a lot of that information. It is not like I just realized the various points that you made and how you so amazingly tied various points together.  You weren't really telling me anything that I did not already know - not that I arrived at the same conclusions as you or even believe that the evidence and the arguments that you were making were persuasive in terms of getting me to consider the evidence in a different light.  I am NOT totally closed to ideas of juggling my trust lists around, and I actually have some ideas that I have been considering, but I am not going to necessarily discuss my trust consideration ideas publicly, even though there are some possibilities that I might consult with one or two members before finalizing my changes... NOT necessarily that I would consult, but there are possibilities.  There are also possibilities that I might research into my considered changes a bit before I make them, but none of these considerations are really urgent on my mind at the moment, just some possible adjustment to which I had/have been giving some cursory thinking.



I don't take assignments very well, just like I was in grade school, I did not take them too well.

I did grow up though, and I found that there were certain ways in which I could receive assignments, but consider them to be ones that I had chosen to get involved in, rather than receiving them from someone else.


There is no ouch because you have not really said anything that resonates with me in terms of some kind of thing that I need to do or consider.  So, I am not sure how there could be any "ouch."  I have enjoyed some of the back and forth today, even though maybe I ended up spending a bit more time on it than I would have preferred, and there is one project that I was NOT able to make very much progress on today.  Actually there was another project that interfered, also, with my ability to get to one of my earlier intended projects, so it was NOT just you that caused me a bit of extra time away from that other earlier intended personal project that I had set for myself for earlier today.


That is how I read it, but sure, I could see some other possible plausible explanations.  They are not very persuasive, but I can appreciate that it is possible that you meant the ellipses to have communicated a message different from the message that I read.  Again, that does not seem to be a very plausible theory, but I can see that it is a kind of stretch of a possible intention.


hahahahaha

If that is how you treat your friends, I would surely hate to see what it would be like to be your enemy.    :D :D:D :D :D  

By the way, reminds me of a story.

 I had this friend, several years ago, and I was trying to get close to that friend in a kind of dating way.. and I might as well call her a girlfriend that I would have wanted to have.  This is well over 20 years ago.  

That wannabe girlfriend kept pushing me off onto her younger sister (by a few years).  Her sister was a bit annoying and even a bit immature, but also a bit fun in some kind of full of energy kinds of ways, too, especially because we were all kind of young and adventurous... relatively speaking, so I hung out with the younger sister on a frequent basis, and, for a few years, during that time of my life, I got to know other members of that family too.  

When I ended up moving away from that area, I had kind of fond memories for the various members of that family including that younger sister who I had spent a lot of time with, and when I got back in touch with the annoying younger sister (nearly 15 years after having moved to a separate place and different activities in my life), I had kind of wondered how we had fallen out of touch, so I was a bit excited when it came time to reunite with the younger annoying sister.  

After I spent some back and forth communications and then a few days reuniting with that younger annoying sister, my memory was refreshed regarding why I had fallen out of touch, and why she was so damned annoying.      

hahahahahhaha... so yeah, your comment reminded of a situation in which I had a friend (that younger sister) that was quite a burden of a friend, but surely much more tolerable in terms of annoyance 15 years earlier when I had more energy, and it can be really difficult to maintain friendships like that, and even more difficult when older (at least for me).


Yes.  I prefer to stay above ground.  Thanks for offering a graceful exit, for me.   ;) ;)


Edit:  I thought that we were done, and then I see that you added some more.  I am not going to go back and edit any of my earlier part to the extent any of that might have changed on your end... but anyhow, I will respond to the rest of your post.




Something like that.  Yes.



Maybe we are all made up, already?  Perhaps?


Hey, you chose how to respond, whether detailed or otherwise.  That's your choice.


Well, we were going back and forth, and it seemed to me that you were kind of heavy on the "Lauda hate", so when I looked at the red trust in your profile from Lauda, I thought that red trust might have had been partially motivating the way that you chose to respond to me in your various earlier posts.  You largely seem to have addressed my assertion(s).  You did not need to address it... that was up to you.



Up to you.  Of course, it was fair game because I raised it, but of course, you could have just ignored what I said, too.  Seems weird to reconsider the matter after you have already decided and you have already posted your list or the response that you had considered to be appropriate.

We have already gone back and forth a few times... TOAA and me.


You are free to make whatever determination that you deem appropriate, and I will let my words speak for themselves in terms of whatever I was purportedly claiming in terms of my spectatorship perspective or not. 


Yeah.. right... .. You seem to just want to stir shit, and attempt to go over points that have already been covered. 


I am not trusting anyone that I consider to be a harm to the system - although in my earlier post, I mentioned that I was considering making some adjustments, but at this time, I have no intention to discuss my trust considerations in public threads nor in response to any kind of assertion that I am somehow not doing it right....  I think that I already largely and sufficiently addressed this whole point at least once and maybe even more than once... and perhaps even more than I had needed to explain....     

Fine. I would be happy to see your adjustments, my respect for you would increase for sure. Hope it happens soon before more people loose there hope in DT.

Btw, I liked your above story about your well said "younger sister girlfriend" ! :D

My contemplation of adjustments to my trust list do not involve Lauda.... so don't attempt to suggest that.

I am going to start keeping a record of Lauda deleting and replacing their frivolous negative rating in an attempt to further manipulate and abuse the trust system. This is the 3rd time the rating has been deleted and replaced.


Lauda   2020-01-02   Reference   Dishonest. Wouldn't trust. See also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837.
Continues to post lies out of spite, see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.msg53466749#msg53466749. Missing dot.

That shouldn't have ended in there. Replaced a fourth time to correct this mistake. Thanks for the heads up.

Maybe you should replace it once an hour? Perhaps that would keep you from harassing slightly fewer people if you are busy doing that.

There's no effect on any user when I replace a rating, let alone it constituting "harassing". I can't undo the butthurt of a dumb 'Murican with my magic wand, sadly.

---

I do know what your problem is. You've failed to accomplish a useless pajeet-level deal with me as you have with others, thus it hurts being unable to further facilitate your trust farming.  ::)

Finally found it.

Your such a pajeet. How can you reference a 2015 post when the system has changed so much, only a Sexually transmitted disease like you would stoop so low.

Keyboard fucker

JJG the low functioning dreg waffling turd, keeps on supporting clear trust abuse. Not just in this case with lauda but in other instances also. How has this scumbag avoided red tags so far?? man up DT good guys.

Those supporting clear trust abuse are clearly untrustworthy. DT members should tag them red. This is what the system is for.

Lauda abuses trust usually to

a/ punish those that present observable instances of his prior scamming and shady deeds
b/ Punish those that present observable instances of his pals that entrench him with support prior scamming and shady deeds
c/ those that speak up to defend those he is abusing.

yogg, jjg, mosprognoz, owlcatz, tman, mornobozo, thenew anon, ultraelite, xtraelv tourettes poet, all of these are every bit as bad as lauda for trust abuse because they enable and support his trust abuse. ALL should be red tagged to warn others they condone his scamming and extorting and shady escrowing and trust abuse (to conceal those instances) if that is not untrustworthy then what is??

note them all down and work towards making sure these are all cut away from positions of trust.

laudas trust abuse is too blatant now, they know that accounts days are numbered don't focus to much only on lauda.

Also start pushing behind this reset idea i see some members supporting, this would be an excellent first step to prevent this kind of trust abuse lauda enjoys being able to dole out.

Be my guest, there you go : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=140827

I consider starting to collect these neg feedbacks. :)
Kinda feels like pokemon, gotta catch'em all :P

Another removal and replacement in a sad and transparent abuse of the trust system.

Lauda   2020-01-24   Reference (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.msg53378525#msg53378525)   Dishonest. Wouldn't trust. See also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837.
Continues to post lies out of spite, see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.msg53466749#msg53466749. And: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214377.0

Amazing coincidence these ratings always appear when I am critical of their friends.

Take it from me, it's not always glitz and glamour...

Sometimes ya gotta stop for autographs and photos...

So Lauda, when am I going to get to see some of your new found reasonable approach to your frivolous negative trust ratings?

These red tags on your account are clearly not related to scamming or attempting to scam. Rather than begging for your abusers to be more reasonable, it would be best to go directly to theymos and have them punished for increasing the risk of members being scammed. They do so by devaluing the trust score to personal disagreements and attempting to silence your dissenting views. This is incredibly damaging to this forum in the two most serious possible ways.

Those tags are clear examples of trust being used to silence.

They accuse you of trust list manipulation, then themselves openly engage in red tag bartering.

This forum has to be cleansed of such behavior. Personal disputes must be left out of the trust system. 

Reading back on nullius prior to his innactivity it is sensible to approach that account as purchased. It looks to be laudas alt now. Theymos should be investgating that account as per password change / reset and email and all other possible checks.

I suggest that you message theymos directly and have him act on your behalf. It is a clearly attack on this forum to have such a member with long history of successful trade lacking any form of evidence of scamming or financial risk cast in to doubt.

By allowing those with clear evidence of financially dangerous behaviors in their histories to red tag yourself they are devaluing the entire system. Something other than asking for leniency from their abuse must be done.

There is no point getting into abuse / not abuse long term.
There is no way to define abuse when it has been opened up to subjectivity as red tags have been in recent years.

When searching recently for the requisites for flags it seems theymos adopted very same words that you have suggested to him in thread shortly after you discussed it with him. Perhaps he'll listen carefully to your problem.

It is disappointing that other default trust members fear to
rebuke and reverse this clear abuse.

Most of this abuse is just flicked off by theymos under making the system more decentralized and Him not willing to act as an central authority around. Still I think it's BS overall, by looking at the number of users fearing to speak out or even operat a service here without being in an fear of being abused under diffrence in opinions.

I have been warning all of this would happen for years. Theymos isn't going to do anything. He finds it much simpler to throw me under a bus rather than have to eat crow and admit I was right from day one, and he went overboard. Also, to act on my behalf would be to admit he moderates trust, which is something he never EVER does of course (any more). Frankly I agree with that part, it is just too bad he had to come to that conclusion after he burned my reputation leaving me with a posse of permanent detractors abusing the trust against me and an uphill battle to restore my reputation. I was happy to be uninvolved with forum politics until I was forced into it in this way. All because of one con artist troll with some crocodile tears pulled a fast one. Now you are all stuck with me :)

I am encouraged at least so see him take steps in a positive direction with the trust system, but they are half measures that are left so vague as to be functionally useless. If he had simply unilaterally declared there has to be some kind of observable documented evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving negative trust ratings or flags, it would simplify a lot of this bullshit, because the debate over guilt would be one of a matter of fact, not a matter of who is most popular or convincing. Instead we are left with this confusing mishmash of arbitrarily enforced half rules. He had an opportunity to make a clear break with the old system with these last updates and build a new culture around the trust system. Instead what he did was build a world class nuclear submarine, then installed a screen door on it.

He chose to use very vague language with loopholes for abuse so big you could drive a bus through. It is kind of ironic some one who is clearly very focused on individual freedoms and is more libertarian minded would end up setting up a system that is effectively mob rule. This is why republics work, because without them, the majority just votes away the rights of the minority right or wrong. Then it just becomes one big popularity contest and everyone is stripped of their rights piecemeal. Requiring evidence to use the trust system to make an accusation would essentially play that role that a republic does, one of preserving the rights of an individual within a democracy.

Unfortunately Theymos has this concept in his mind that having hard rules will mean this place will start becoming authoritarian. Unfortunately this place is already largely authoritarian, just in the vacuum left trying to avoid doing it centrally, now it is done by the mob instead. I have said all of this a thousand times, but people are too focused on how much they dislike me rather than the validity of my words. The truth is usually quite unpopular.

I agree with you almost entirely.

I don't follow how the requisite of objective evidence would result in an authoritarian situation. The only authority would be the requirement to present the evidence. This would apply to all members therefore ensuring that no group could attain an authoritarian position over others. Subjectivity on the other hand guarantees this will indeed happen within the current system.

I don't believe a member should avoid conflict for self preservation if they witness tyranny or persecution. You are doing good work. Long-term you will be rewarded. Your stack of positive history affords a shield and demonstrates who you really are.

We will see. I am going to keep hammering at this like I always do no matter how many BTUs of butthurt it generates. People often attack me for being so vocal about this and blather on about a "persecution complex" and the like to try to minimize my words and observations. As you mentioned my exemplary trade history here leaves me in a very unique position to not just be summarily dismissed, much like they are attempting to do with you by calling you CH, which is not a valid argument even if it was true (I don't think it is). Their only other option to silence me is to try to destroy my reputation, which they are currently attempting to engage in. The good news is, my efforts are working, otherwise they would not be trying so hard to attack me.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Winston Churchill


You are a credit to this forum. I would not venture to say that to many here. Those that will stand silent whilst others are abused and vilified unduly are not the types of members bitcointalk needs.

I have been told presently there are PM's circulating that instruct members to place my account on ignore. They mentioned a moderator was endorsing this action. Therefore the roots may run deep.

With perseverance this tyranny and abuse can be thwarted. Those that shy from debate cowering behind groundless personal attacks, are lambs awaiting public slaughter.

Petty squabbling is a waste of time. Strong argument to abolish any and all subjectivity within the trust system is my prime target. Individual abusers and their past deeds serve only to illustrate the urgency.

Fighting for others is admirable above even fighting for your own fair treatment. Many respect your previous efforts. You should not regret that such selfless actions have resulted in your own persecution. If theymos is willing to throw you under a bus, he throws under a bus all those honest members that will not stand idle and watch injustice and corruption that erodes the free and open speech this community deserves.  

I don't regret anything regardless of the results. The ones who stand by idly and protect their own asses (I like to call them jellyfish) are the ones that will have to live loathing themselves for not speaking up when they know they should have. That is the kind of behavior that fills your soul with shit and takes a lot of sacrifice to repair your own self worth. I would rather risk annoying some random internet assholes than take a dump all over my principles for cash any day. Anyone who has a problem with that can suck it.

Lauda   2020-02-26   Reference (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228550.new#new)   "Dishonest. Hypocritical. Malicious. Shows no remorse for any misdeeds. This rating has nothing to do with anybody's opinions. Consistent deceptive behavior. See reference links for summary."


I heard this community removed people from the default trust when it is abused to silence others and it is used as a retaliatory tool. So when exactly is that going to happen? I guess as long as you say "This rating has nothing to do with anyboy's opinions" you can leave ratings for peoples opinions and it makes it ok. How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this? Until its gone?


FYI, this is the 6th time Lauda has removed and replaced a negative rating for me to manipulate the trust system to make sure it is the first thing anyone sees when they view my trust history.

I'm curious why you continue to quote Theymos from five years ago.

How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this?

#hypocrite

LOL. TS's comments in this thread and that one are 10 minutes apart.

He waited exactly 10 minutes to engage in hypocrisy. I think that's a new record.

I'm going to have a hard time taking him seriously about anything in the future; so should everybody.

I know facts are irrelevant to both of you when you have some one to attack, but I am referring to protocol for use of the trust system Theymos has commented on, in this thread, and discussing the use of Theymos's opinion from years ago, which has demonstrably changed, as is being used for justification for trust system abuse. Of course this would be clear if the quote were not selectively edited so you can manufacture your preferred story and cover up for abuse both of you are perpetrating.



I wonder why Vod edited all of that out!

The system has changed since then - re-posting red-trust doesn't change the trust score anymore, doesn't so that comment is outdated. You have a point that re-posting puts it at the top and might make it potentially more visible, but quoting that comment to support your argument is disingenuous at best.

Speaking of being disingenuous, I know you are working overtime to topic slide from anything resembling a logical argument, but tell me, what makes this rating at all justifiable or substantive? There is no nefarious trading activity to speak of. This is all just a huge stack of hyperbole and pure bullshit used to reinterpret my opinions as crimes so that Lauda can pretend these ratings have any basis whatsoever when they are clearly retaliatory in nature and designed to silence and discredit opposing viewpoints by using the trust system as a tool of retribution.

I never said it's "justifiable or substantive" so I can't really tell you that. You might need to ask Lauda.

Yet you are perfectly willing to dedicate your time to deflect from this fact by sliding the topic to inconsequential side topics, or anything you can use to attack. That is a slick way to word it.

You like the fact that I am being attacked, but you don't want to explicitly support the abuse because it might harm your own reputation, so you refuse to take any position on the matter.  Now why would anyone call you disingenuous?

No, I don't like the fact that you're being red-trusted for what is essentially your opinion, and I have already made that clear numerous times. I have excluded Lauda from my trust list due to this and other ratings that I disagree with. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with you or even call you a lunatic if I choose to.

Nice try making it sound like I want to support trust abuse but that's false. And your attempt to use an outdated quote to make a point is still pointless.

@Techshare

What are you whining about phony feedback???

Years ago you left me phony trust accusing me of
"This user is one of the biggest trolls/extortionists/market manipulators out there."

If you don't like being red-trusted for you opinions, then STFU.

But since you've been crying about this for years on end, I doubt you will.

 ;D ;D ;D

~BCX~

You mean the neural rating? Your market manipulation, altcoin hacking, FUD, and threats are well documented on this forum.





Yet you don't do much protesting when it happens do you? You spend an exceptional amount of time attempting to slide the topic on any related thread pointing out these issues. You do in fact support trust abuse, not only by actively covering for it, but by refusing to exclude those that abuse their DT position. Are you suggesting that Vod's negative ratings for me have basis? He has a long history of leaving baseless ratings and refuses to substantiate them. Why is he still on your trust list then? That sure looks like supporting abuse to me.

I take issue with the profiteering accusation.
That's completely false.


~BCX~

Oh wow, not enough protesting is the problem now. Feel free to fuck right off with that kind of "logic".


Why are you sliding this topic now? Don't you have a bunch of Vod threads to bump?

Notice how nothing I said was actually addressed in favor of more deflection. Not just lack of protest, active deflection from these issues and literally giving abusers power to abuse. Thanks for proving my point.

If you really want to resolve your issues with Vod, start showing signs of compromise regarding your own red trust on him. Does that sufficiently address your tangent?

So, now you are suggesting it is legitimate to use negative ratings to extort other users into removing valid negative ratings left. That is about as abusive as it gets.

LOL, sure, keep making shit up, that'll fix all issues. If I wanted to say something - I would. I don't need you to be my interpreter.

What is to interpret? You just said I should reconsider my rating for Vod, one that Theymos himself said would be a valid use of the trust system to rate over, because Vod decided to use the trust system in a clear attempt to extort me into removing it. You are very clearly implying I share responsibility for Vod's abuse of the trust system against me, and I should remove a valid rating in order to barter for removal of his abusive ratings.

Is the rating I left for Vod valid or not? Are the ratings he left for me valid or not? Set deflectors to maximum.

No and no. Stop using theymos as a crutch when it suits you. He also said "it'd be best to forgive".

Until you, Og, and Vod start seriously working towards deescalation I can't be bothered to care about it anymore. Five minutes of being adults is all it takes. Look at Lauda+Quicksy = ♡. You can do it too, I believe in you, don't let me down.

If your actions create more references and behavior that I must document, then I will indeed do this however many times I need to. Unless of course you prefer the alternative: Having 6 (at the time being) individual negatives from me and more if you create reasons for newer ratings. I think a single new rating is always better, but I am willing to let you choose which way you want it out of kindness. Let me know.  :)

Stupid life is, is it not? Not being able to show any remorse is a major character flaw..  :-\

There is a difference between using the fact that Theymos excluded me 5 years ago to justify other negative ratings (makes no sense), and the fact that Theymos gave a specific directive on how the trust system should be used.



That rating I left for Vod was the FIRST AND ONLY negative rating I have EVER left for him. You know how many times he left me false and abusive negative ratings and was forced to remove them years before that? At least 3 times, as many as 5. So you are suggesting that doxing a forum member and reporting him to the IRS because of an interpersonal conflict should be excused? Usually that is an instant ban let alone grounds for a negative rating, but Vod never has to follow any rules now does he? Rules are only for people like me. He is free to tag thousands of people for whatever he likes, but he is still free to break all the rules and still be above reproach.


Of course you can't be bothered now that I asked you explicitly. Lets try again.

Is not my rating for Vod valid? Are Vod's negative ratings for me not invalid? Convenient you suddenly can't be bothered when a direct question is asked.




Remorse for what exactly? What did I do wrong. Be specific.

I already answered in the shortest and most direct way possible, literally in the post you just quoted. I can't help you with your compulsive lying issue, sorry.

You didn't answer my question. You responded to it, but you didn't actually answer it. Oh I am a compulsive liar now? Refractory projection much? Are you taking lessons out of Vod's book now?

I did. Try reading it again. You not liking the answer doesn't make it magically disappear.


Not just "now", you've been like that as long as I can remember. It goes really well with the "never wrong" shtick to reject any responsibility for the bullshit you spout.

Interesting you never called me a "compulsive liar" until now. Sounds a lot like you are just taking what I said about Vod and being refractory. FYI, just because you disagree with me doesn't make me a liar, not that you care to make the distinction.




Since you answered this question, please quote your answer for clarity, that is unless you are going to take another page from Vod's book and just keep claiming you did while never actually doing it.

It seems pretty clear you didn't answer my question at all and instead chose to respond to it in a way that intentionally avoids taking a stance that will expose your own excusing of Vod's trust system abuse, as well as avoids supporting the fact that the rating I left for Vod is perfectly valid. Of course for you, deflection is more of the norm than the exception isn't it?

Quit lying, the answer is right there, you just disagree with the "no".

My agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. You in fact did not answer my questions. You replied, but you didn't answer them. That is not the same thing.

You asked two questions with "yes" or "no" answers. Suchmoon replied "no" to both. Those are definitively answers. I honestly don't understand how you expect to be taken seriously. Your plight for fairness and objective standards is harmed by your inability to accept an answer as an answer.


If you don't consider those to be "answers", you're simply trolling at this point.

More clear attempts to silence criticism using the trust system as a tool of abuse from Lauda.

Lauda   2020-02-28   Reference (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228504.msg53927419#msg53927419)   Continues to defame me out of spite. Will merge with other ratings later.

TECSHARE: Am I always right?
suchmoon: No.
TECSHARE: You replied, but you didn't answer the question.

What a fucking clown. Oh wait, I can't call you that because using words that you have used would be "refractory". Oops, I did it again.

Next time when you ask a question please provide multiple choices so I can just tick a box to make you happy.

http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5393/53931739.html

^^ Dude.... do you just blindly type shit without reading and processing anything? ::)

EDIT: adding in post this reply was meant for.  ;)

TECSHARE (or colluding conspiring moderators) deleted the post so it now looks like you two are calling me a blind moron...

Unless this was your intent, in which case I apologize, well done ;D

Yep, can't have anyone asking valid questions. That needs to be censored, for the good of the forum of course, and most certainly not to serve personal interests. Feel free to finally answer here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg53938213#msg53938213

I expect you not to though because you prefer deflection rather than answering a simple question. After all, if you answered the question clearly and directly, people might see the conflict in your logic in supporting trust system abusers now might they?

Fix the link, it points to a wall of quotes that seems to be mistakenly posted in a Vod thread instead of one of those moderator conspiracy threads.

Nope, it leads directly to two very simple questions you refuse to answer and continuously deflect from in order to avoid admitting your support of trust system abusers via inclusion in your trust list.

I can't wait to find out how you're gonna spin this one.

Thank you for finally answering my questions directly. I will reply in the appropriate thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=915823.msg53938213#msg53938213).

Actually the response was incomplete and ambiguous. "No" as in I refuse to answer? No as in your rating is not valid? No as in his rating is not valid? That was not an answer. There is no "gotcha" games, simply asking Suchmoon to clearly define their position, and pointing out that they are in fact supporting a trust system abuser based on their own words.

I do trades with people all the time, and I make sure each of my customers is happy, and always make sure I meet all of the obligations I agreed to. In between the abusive trust system ratings in attempt to silence criticism, you will find multiple pages of happy traders, but I am sure your little character impugning attacks are more convincing. Keep tryharding Nutilduuuuh. Maybe you can make up some more stories for tomorrow.

I know you have trouble with reading comprehension, but my explanation above is very self explanatory why the answer was ambiguous.

Because it is a testament to your intellectual dishonesty and generally inability to be honest, let's review what you just said. First of all, these were the questions being posed:


Your claim is that these may be answers to _another question_ that existed only in your own head, and not the ones you specifically asked. You asked two "yes" or "no" questions, you received 2 "no" answers. To perceive these as being answers to any other question than the ones you specifically asked is simply illogical.

Whether you have a severe impairment in logic or are acting out of dishonesty is up for debate, though I tend to lean toward believing the latter in this instance.

Of course if you edit the quote down, it is a lot less ambiguous. If you include the entire unedited quote it is not exactly clear. "no and no" is just as easily interpreted as a refusal to respond followed by more of a diatribe. Seems kind of like you are working overtime to find any excuse to point fingers Nutilduhhhh. Almost like you are motivated by your personal feelings for me rather than facts, but that's not you right Nutilduuuh?

You mean editing the post down to show the answers to your questions? If you include the entire unedited quote it is still quite clear to everybody who has an understanding of the English language and is capable of being honest. The answers were the very first part of the response, which you purposefully overlooked. You didn't like them, so you chose to play a stupid game, for which you won a stupid prize. And sorry to break your heart, but I don't have "personal feelings for you."

How did this whole "You didn't answer my question! Yes I did!" stuff start? ???

As far as I can tell, the full original (unedited) post from Suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.msg53920410#msg53920410) displays as
https://i.imgur.com/pyBX4bT.png

Suchmoon simply quoted your questions and then gave a direct "no and no" answer.

From the perspective of a 'popcorn munching observer', it was fairly obvious that Suchmoon believes both your rating and Vod's ratings are "not valid". (And that yourself, Vod and Og need to try being adults for 5 minutes). There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity that I can see.

I'll go sit in the corner quietly now. As you were.

There was no ambiguity at any point. If I wanted to say that I refuse to answer I would have said so, or not answered the questions or whatever. If I wanted to say that one is valid and the other is not, I would have said something to that effect. My position was clear well before you started your question game. Now you're continuing it in the other thread with more questions, including ones that I had already answered in the answer that you didn't accept as an answer. You're not interested in any answers or opinions, you just want to spin this into some sort of justification for your own misuse and abuse of the trust system.

Anything to distract from the trust system abuse of your friends, Lauda and Vod.

I disagree, I think you should cease those distractions. It's quite weird how you engage in all these tangential lies about something as trivial as a "no" as if you don't really care about trust abuse, just about your own ego.

I would be happy to have a point by point discussion of any of these multiple instance of trust system abuse, but as you know one of your favorite past times is deflecting from the main issue of the topic with the very intent to create these diversions, which is exactly why I insisted on a very clear and unambiguous response. That is in fact me focusing on the facts of the matter and attempting to chase you down to do the same.

Oh, you were chasing me down by pretending you can't read, that's what it was... silly me, I though you were just being your usual obstinate troll.

Now would be a good time to stop making a fool of yourself and enjoy your DT1 position - all that hard trust-farming work finally paid off for you. Maybe we'll some of those mythical standards in action.

You and your friends have demonstrated there is only more punitive action taken when I cede to ANY of your demands. Why so obstinate?

So now 9 years of work building a positive reputation = "trust farming"? Sounds more like you are annoyed you can't dictate to every single person who they should be adding to their trust list. Speaking of trust lists and standards, I noticed now that I demonstrated Vod had comitted a criminal act, you vaporized from that thread. I wonder why. Again, what is important is you don't like me, not that Vod, marlboroza, or Lauda are abusing the use of negative ratings as a form of retribution for speaking critically of them. Retribution only matters to you when it goes the way you don't like.

I let the trust ratings slip because whores gonna be whores, but the flag she opened against me is completly fake, she just pasted the flag on a thread and people drops support from time to time.

No, including various shitheads just because they include you is what I meant by "farming". I'm not dictating anything, do whatever you want, just don't expect to be taken seriously with your "standards" and other BS when you included users like that.


As opposed to what - me managing my trust lists exactly the way you like it?

Your theatrics would make more sense if e.g. you had been red-trusting for doxing or exposing account sellers in the past and not just when it suited you in your attacks against Vod and nutildah. On the other hand, you have a history of retaliatory and "non-standard" red trust in your personal squabbles like "You should focus on your own affairs instead of harassing others" and "I believe this user to be mentally ill". If it quacks like a duck and posts bullshit ratings like a duck, it shouldn't be in DT.

No idea why you keep blaming for anything Lauda-related but I'm sure there is an exciting conspiracy theory behind it - bring it on.

Is suchmoons inclusions list full of confirmed scammers, probable extortionists, and those that admit to abusing the trust system ?

I don't think suchmoon has even dared ever do anything but support lauda and tmans scamming and trust abuse.

Either directly or just trying to derail and cast doubt upon their whistleblowers or those that complian about their trust abuse.

How dare anyone suggest he should not be supporting scammers and trust abusers.

Remember how suchmoon attacked Theymos for suggesting the scammer extortionist and shady escrow trust abuser lauda should be excluded.

Sorry suchmoon for suspecting you are complicit with these scammers and dirt bags.

Join The guild and demonstrate you want to see transparent objective standards or be correctly excluded and remain supporting the scamming dirt bags Until it is too late to redeem yourself.

Get rid of that chipmixer Sig it looks dreadful at your stage of membership here. Not another early dash supporter that's still destitute ?

Lauds is a trust abuser as are many on your includes list, top 20 fans and recipients of merit no doubt.

Come back from the dark side suchmoon.

I encourage all people to "vaporize" from threads where blind accusations are made without proof.

If I have "comitted" a criminal act, join OG in a lawsuit, liar.

As I update my thread tracking Lauda's Fake Flags (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161689.0) I will, from now on, be naming those who are supporting Lauda's fake flags:

---

---

Might need to turn the -<Echo chamber>- down a little bit before you start offering cookies.

The incontrovertible truth is probably the type of echo one should not complain about. There are no cookies for. those who support scammers or try to inhibit their removal from the trust system. There is only a chance not to be a pariah once the scamming trust abusing core are removed.

[quote author=truth or dare link=topic=5210651.msg53952087#msg53952087 date=1583190714]
The incontrovertible truth is probably the type of echo one should not complain about. There are no cookies for. those who support scammers or try to inhibit their removal from the trust system. There is only a chance not to be a pariah once the scamming trust abusing core are removed.
[/quote]

Possibly, but when users such as Lauda (or, to answer your comment) suchmoon go on a distrust spree:


you should be asking why you are encouraging them with your -<echo chamber>-?

---

---

At least a couple of these UID's are from the same geographical location (see if you can figure out where they are from by their profile names).

One "Gang" trying to pick off another "gang"

The fact that you doxed OGNasty with the intent to harass him, putting his safety at risk is not even under dispute. It is a well documented fact. It is also a fact this kind of action is something users are usually instantly and permanently banned for, in addition to it being a federal crime. Why would I join a lawsuit I am not a party to? Just more mindless gibbering.



And you know my state of mind and reasoning for including people do you? Of course your baseless assumptions are above reproach. Actually I see you constantly trying to dictate to users who they should and shouldn't be including in their trust lists, unfortunately noobs usually just take you at face value and clear their lists because they don't know any better. I do however, and my refusal to capitulate is used as justification for impugning my character with all of your baseless assumptions.

Unlike you, I have no desire to be a forum cop, thus I don't spend my time patrolling the "mean streets" of Bitcointalk looking for reasons to tag people. As a result I tend to use my very limited use of negative ratings almost exclusively to tag people I have direct interactions with. Of course again, this is used as some kind of supposed evidence I am up to no good.

Did I leave Nutilduhh a rating? Are you suggesting I shouldn't even criticize them? Also what Vod did was not only a felony that put OGNasty's safety at risk, it is something other users get a permanent instaban for.

I asked you already once, if I removed the reference to Vods clearly observable obsessive compulsive disorder and replace it with one purely about his harassment and doxing of OGNasty, would you then consider that rating valid? You get blame because you endlessly attempt to deflect and cover for these people, even when you admit their behavior is abusive. You only ever even criticized Lauda recently as their behavior became too obviously inexcusable for you to maintain deniability in the matter. Also in the case of Vod you are explicitly giving him the authority to abuse the trust system by including him.

No it wasn't/I didn't, fool.  Even OG announced his life was more secure than ever.   (His constant encouragement of my actions against him and denial I affected him in any way was one of the reasons he could not sue me.)

 8)

You keep repeating it as a fact but I don't recall you ever giving examples of users getting banned for posting dox in Investigations. Feel free to do that any time.

I think he just ignored your point, then suggested that you ignore points.  :/

I was thinking where is the right place for me to explain a bit about this support, and I choose this one.
Well, I know the jamalaezaz, I can say he's one of the worst managers I know from that time up till now. He is so greedy that he manages a large of projects at the same time, it is beyond his ability and leaves lots of connection accounts in bonus campaigns, not only that, he also works for many fake projects, they cheat investors and ultimately do not pay advertisers. A series of allegations surrounding him at the time. Personally, this guy is never reliable, so if there's any other flag to oppose this guy, I'll support it, not just Lauda.

So you just made it up?

Most of your other "points" is just an army of straw people that's been debated ad nauseam. Of course I'm going to notice new stuff that you bring up.

Moor coordinated attacks using the trust system as a weapon to silence others:

Lauda   2020-03-11   Reference (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53919541#msg53919541)   Intentionally spreading false information.

I am sure this has nothing to do with this:

Wait...vod posted the dox in investigations?  The sub forum created specifically as a place to post personal information?

Yes. However:

Fair.

Was vod motivated by any of Ogs ponzi schemes?  I feel like that would easily meet the bar of 'remotely plausible'.

I guess if it was just about not paying taxes on his own ponzi it would be a grey area?

Og's dox wasn't a huge secret anyway so whoever felt screwed by his schemes didn't need it published if they wanted to find him. Doxing him served no positive purpose.

Lauda   2020-04-06   Reference (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4736673.msg54169273#msg54169273)   "Continues to defame me out of spite. Avoid dealing this user and do not trust a word that he writes. "

So what is this, the 8th time Lauda has removed and replaced their negative ratings for me? You keep claiming you are updating new information... but it you are literally just repeating yourself and replacing the ratings to manipulate the trust system to make sure your negative is perpetually at the top of my trust ratings page.

Ideally, tell us something we don't know next time. This tactic is old news. All this tells us is that Lauda likes to be on top. Interpret as you will.
On a side note, I was watching a documentary (https://www.channel4.com/programmes/sex-in-lockdown-keep-sgging-and-carry-on) recently about how many are more sexually frustrated in these lockdown times. I wonder if there is a correlation here.

Just a curiosity, what motivates you to touch old topics on a regular basis? Previously, I saw you touching on Yolodice's signature campaign topic, now this topic. There is no really interesting information given, you just touch here and say some bullshit. What is its effect? It would be better if you provide any other evidence of Lauda's abuse. But nothing, you send a link to a irrelevant videos. Do you get money to promote that video here? Just curious  ::) Also want to know if I am wrong anywhere when posting this

Fair point, I hadn't noticed that the topic was old to be honest otherwise wouldn't of posted (same with Yolodice). But the latter was slightly different as there is false advertising going on, hence not being the only one (check the feedback of the OP). Not even sure what led me though, a late night by looks of it ??? Then again, an opinion is still an opinion, even two months too late.
[sarcasm]
I'll keep C4 shilling on fresh threads from now on, don't worry. Do you like naked attraction though? Just curious. Haha, you're funny  :D
[/sarcasm]