Bitcoin Forum

Today I got a navigate trust rating for sending merits to a post I found informative...yes read again sending merits, and it was by someone who has lots of inclusions from well-known members here.




Mine is not the only example, many users are just buried under this type of trust abuse.


I would like to get the community opinions on "if such type of usage of red trust should be acceptable and is it being that non-explanatory for the sender useful for the community overall".

There is a lot of controversy around trust.

Trust feedbacks are not moderated and are at the appreciation of every user.
Some use them to express their opinions / views about some user, and some will not.

Different high-ranked users came up with guides such as "In which case it is appropriate to leave a negative feedback" for other users.

I don't have an opinion about if it is a good or a bad way to handle this.
It is how it is and I can live with that as I carefully think about every move I pull. (and it's consequences)

However for the case of breach of contract, the flag system exists.

Lauda is the only one that is able to do something about the negative feedback you have received.

I guess you could joint the "union" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0) ?

My advice to you would be, keep doing what you do and if at some point the pros outweight the cons, then ask Lauda to maybe revise their feedback ?

Imma just leave this here.

This is definitely well outside what trust is intended to do. I wouldn't hold my breath for this to be changed, so your only other recourse is to PM anyone who has them on their trusted list that you think will objectively look at whether or not they still do more harm than good, when DT.

That may be but there are still guidelines in place whether people like it or not. Ignoring when someone blatantly disregards them degrades the entire system especially if it's only because they have a high profile/ high ranked account.                 

Changed my mind later after the flag-system was introduced. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Too bad that you're not my alt.

Guidelines =/= rules. You can break guidelines, rules you shouldn't. I don't support malicious liars, nor those that support them. It's just a matter of time before I'm right about this one again (like countless many examples of "you shouldn't tag for X and yet in the end they end up to be one of the vilest creatures we've encountered around here").

---

Anyhow, why is everyone in here a whining cunt? Just ~Lauda and fuck off if you don't agree with it. There's literally no reason to discuss anything and it's a waste of everyone's time. The only way OP gets his rating removed (other than apologising and stopping his continual unwarranted attacks) is if theymos removes the rating itself from the database. I will not even change it for OP (given his past, and current actions) even if ordered by mr. thermos. Not a fan of central authorities of power. ::)

You're right. When I'm right, I can add only more ratings and not remove them under trust, political or any kind of other pressure. I can't say the same for most of you though.

I have to say, leaving negative feedback for sending a single merit for something a person likes is a bit much not? Lauda?
Like it involved some very good members and stuff.... I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...

I would go up to flag ban them, but since liberals make the flag-rules here this is the compromise solution for liars.

My next words will not have anything with Tecshare/Lauda case (and other english board drama) or this case. I see often that under term of "difference opinion"/"this is my view"/"unpopular opinion" mostly covers trolls and liars.

And other people, telling something like "Oh man, you can't tag him for his different opinion, c-mon!"

Objective lies are not "just differences in opinion", they are lies. But fuck explaining that to liberalist degenerates. They do agree with it, however, when it works in their favour (just covertly). ::)

That's true, but giving someone merits for a post here is next to meaningless compared to any lies that might be told.  I don't agree with this feedback, and I'm going to counter it.  Aside from anything else in TECSHARE's post that OP merited, I thought it was amusing because of the pajeet comment and it was well-written, both of which might cause someone to merit it even if they didn't agree with anything else.  Hell, I've merited a handful of posts by members I either don't agree with or can't stand. 

There's no need to neg OP for just giving TECSHARE some merits for a post IMO.

Sure, and you will regret it soon in the future once you find out who OP is. As I've told Steamtyme a couple days ago, users who counter are responsible for any direct and collateral damage that the supposed user that they're counter for ends up doing.

So have I.

You're still learning to recognize, identify and stop evil in its tracks. The pajeet will reveal their true identity soon enough, or will be forced to by powers greater than us. Give this case a bit more time. These are the cases where the backward decision to make counters worthless can be appreciated even though I strongly disagree with it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

I'll make sure to write a much nicer trust rating and inform you privately to counter it moments after if/when I do  :)

This topic is not about if my red trust is justified or not, it is surely a stupid rating in any sense to any decent minded user here, but it is more about if such usage of trust should be banned by administration not only in DT1 but even in DT2. I don't know if it is programming difficulty or something for theymos to ban from both DT1 and DT2, but it is pretty important now as the damaged caused due to this is largely influential to major community using default trust lists.

Hence, I put this topic in meta, instade of reputation as it's more about an overall forum issue and not targeted to the Lauda's trust rating on me, I don't find anything more this forum is powered by than the community here and your opinions matters.

It's trivial for theymos to ban you on all levels assuming he wants to play the role of a central authority. This behaviour isn't banned on any level of DT.

Your behaviour is already banned on DT1 level, but still that doesn't change the feedback to be appearing under default trust and that half banning action doesn't serves it's purpose.

It's not banned on DT1. I asked theymos to blacklist me several months back[1]. What I am doing today, I could have been doing a couple months back. There are guidelines that I'm stumbling against, not rules. The guidelines are shit and cause harm, so fuck them. How many times do I have to clarify on your lies and ask you to not perpetuate them? P.S. Your second identity is already compromised, but keep writing so we can keep feeding the machine more data. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

[1] He actually didn't even understand my request, so I had to ask twice. But that's a fun story for another day.  :D

Yeah Christmas came up and that seemed as good a time as any to just drop it, but here we are again. I'm not huge on counters personally I see it as a choice. The persons feedback is worth it or not. Some do have a hard time just letting you go, not me. ~ and you come and go on my list often. It will stay like that until you decide to consistently create valid feedback. This is a great example of you claiming to have some greater knowledge than the rest of us that will be revealed in the future to validate the feedback. Just lead with your best foot forward, this isn't some learning experience on setting up a wallet or signing a message. Put forth the evidence you expect us to take at face value exists, or accept that your ratings only further hurt your credibility in these matters.

It's not you who's the problem but everyone else who doesn't take your ratings as fact and confirmation of something far more nefarious behind every character. It will be convenient if even 1 of these users turns out to be the monster under the bed you claim as you "obviously and clearly" warn us with what you consider valid feedback; the whole while not actually painting the whole picture which might reveal a true scammer. So I hope you will accept you didn't do everything to warn people of their true nature when someone gets scammed; as you clearly aren't willing to place truthful and well referenced feedback for these cases.

No I disagree. It is up to the user base not the Admins to make this system work. If nothing else Lauda does push that part of the system effectively and demonstrates how many well respected and trusted users drop the ball in the area of policing our own DT community. Sure there are cases where the wagons rally when it's an obscure member or someone who can easily act as a lightning rod for members to get behind exclusions. It just falls short in cases like this.

No, I don't expect you to take my word for it. I expect you to analyze the data of previous cases of this very familiar situation. Do tell me the percentage ratio difference between the times I was wrong and the times I was right. Indulge yourself with that discovery and you might change your mind. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Almost all of them were monsters to some degree so far, but yes it will be very convenient because I would be very right (quite a very familiar situation, yet again).

I wrote as accurately as I could and did everything that I was allowed to do. You, on the other hand, can remedy the situation quite nicely by doing research. But no, DT member's will look the other way because say "OH NO the reference link is wrong! Counter, counter, counter". All mighty God would throw us in hell if we protected users from somebody with wrong reference links. Biggest sin of them all. This is very fun, keep indulging me. :D

Excellent. This is what people should be doing, and not crying like their mommy just forbade them from playing outside. These libtard cunts need to fucking grow up already.

---

You probably have realized, based off of your posts that I've read, that I couldn't give a shit about neither community nor theymos guidelines as long as you fight evil and as long as your methods don't involve stupid shit like Lauda (yes, Lauda, I, or moronbozo's alt or viceversa) did in the past (some lines you should not cross ;)).

Come on, this thread is about if community thinks this type of ratings should be that non-explanatory or not. Keep your personal attacks out, yours is just an example from many as I said in the OP.

That's not an attack, it's a factual statement. You are an alt, who even plagiarised a couple months back. I found wisdom in this post, and apparently this is on-topic.

I do wonder if some alt like say "scam-buster" or someone else is going to make the grand reveal. Consider it a present for 2020 whenever it happens.

By your own standard here you are objectively a liar and we should all red trust you over it. Of course in many cases you leave ratings for people "lying" there is no objective evidence, just lots of disagreement in opinion and dislike that certain individuals are getting support that you would like to stop.

Merited OP
Merited the TS post
Countered
~Lauda added

Lauda is clearly flying off the handle with abusive negative feedback most recently including abusive trust against TS.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.0
And abusive trust against me.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206862.0
And now this..

It's well past time to ~Lauda people..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
Do it..


You are all just "pajeets" to Lauda..


Lauda has no respect for the guidelines given by theymos and is running around belligerently abusing their DT2 position..

It's time to end it..
We should not accept such runaway authoritarians here staying on DT..

Good outweighs the bad my ass.. DT should be held to a MUCH higher standard than that..

And my favorite..

Right.

I'm not DT nor authoritarians. You on the other hand, pushing your bullshit magic-wand guidelines on me, are both. I quit DT precisely to avoid these flush standards while members look away when their buddies steal here and there. Yet you keep trying to push these standards even when I quit DT. Will you fucking get a life already and do what you do best?

~ or not, I will absolutely make no changes to these ratings. Therefore, do everyone a favour and stop being so butthurt about your rating get it over with already: ~Lauda and fucking shut up. I'm not the old cunt that produced you and therefore not here to comfort you when you're crying.

You claim you changed your mind, I say you are a liar. Of course there is no problem with using this logic to negative rate people right?

If you think so, go ahead and rate. I will not be screaming, nor shouting nor crying like yall folk are. This is easy if you aren't a sensitive bitch, innit? :)

How far removed from reality can you possibly be?
You are both DT and a tyrannical authoritarian..

I think the only reason you are on DT is that users are afraid to stand up against you..
"Good outweighs the bad" is a piss poor excuse to keep letting this go on..

I finally did, and I'll shut up when I please (never)..

You are the one wasting everyone's time with this BS..

I am nut "butthurt" about my rating, lol..
I'm "butthurt" about you constantly intimidating other good users threatening to do to them what you have done to us..
Your power of intimidation needs to be removed from you.. Then you can go tagging/flagging whatever you want at your heart's content for all I care.. 

Its easy if you have no stake in the system and are willing to trash it out of spite from being rejected by it. I just think its great you are stuck in a position to argue against yourself using your own words in order to justify your actions. This is what inevitably happens to real liars. Much like the people you choose to abuse, you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don't.




I think Lauda is arguing that they are not multiple authoritarians, just one. Of course this might change with a psychological break.

You decide..
Who are you with?
theymos or Lauda?

At the end of the day, Lauda is horribly corrupt and he should be condemned in the strongest way possible. He has a very long history of giving negative trust to people critical of him for trivial and/or questionable reasons. He has a history of using his position of power/authority to personally profit (that would not otherwise be available if not for the position of authority/power).

Lauda should be blacklisted from being on anyone’s trust list unless they explicitly add him to their trust list, and ditto for any of his alts. The same should be done for any other person who similarly gives trust.  

Lauda has done some good things for the forum before and has blindly supported the bitcoin core team for a long time. Neither of these are a sufficient reason to excuse his behavior at other times.

I disagree. The second we go all blacklisty on things it's no longer a community controlled system. People just need to continue to show how the system should be used, and point out when it is clearly being used outside of what is acceptable. Then informed of their options. ~ should be used as opposed to blacklisting. I also don't think we should be deciding who people can and can't add to their list, it's their choice if that's the sort of rating system they think has value.

Well the thing is that once a person has a strong grip on being on DT, as Lauda does, it is very difficult to get them off, even if they are scamming or doing something very unethical or illegal.

Lauda should have been excluded from DT when he tried to extort zeroaxl, and anyone who kept Lauda on their trust lists should have been excluded themselves. Lauda basically avoided this by denying he did anything wrong, even though the facts were undisputed and by using strong language that removing him from DT was amounting to helping scammers.

The same is true when he was part of an escrow team and over a million dollars worth of various coins were unaccounted for and none of the escrow agents would answer any questions. Again Lauda denied doing anything wrong and said there wasn’t anything requiring him to give an accounting of what happened to all the money he collected.

If you can come away unscathed and still be on DT after being entrusted with a million dollars that goes missing without even giving an explanation or answering any meaningful questions, there isn’t anything that will cause Lauda to be removed from DT.

Complete decentralization is a pipe dream. Total decentralization assumes everyone is operating within the community set standards and is not abusing the mechanisms available within it for self serving and or fraudulent purposes. Expecting humans to not do this is quite naive. The most robust systems have both aspects of centralization and decentralization. There is a good book about it if you want to read more (https://www.amazon.com/Starfish-Spider-Unstoppable-Leaderless-Organizations-ebook/dp/B000S1LU3M).

Even if you don't agree with this argument, the fact is this forum is an inherently centralized entity. You can want it to be decentralized all you like, that doesn't change the fact it runs on a centralized server, is administrated by a centralized group of people, and requires a centralized set of rules to govern it. This whole game where we pretend the forum is can be completely decentralized is childish and more destructive to this community than helpful.

Theymos, being the centralized administrator of this forum has put forth a set of standards we are all supposed to operate within. He really hasn't set the bar that high. All he is requiring is that we operate within a set format, he doesn't dictate the content of the system, only its organizational structure. We don't have to agree with those standards, but if we are intentionally and willfully disregarding those standards, then it is pretty clear exclusion from this system is warranted.

This is exactly why I have been advocating for some more clearly defined rules and standards around here for some time. I don't mind following the rules, but if the rules are ambiguous, unwritten, and arbitrarily enforced, then even if you want to operate within the system it is quite impossible. This inevitably leads to more chaos and conflict than approaching absolutely everything on a case by case basis.

Even without making subjective, case by case judgements, if you control what the algorithm is, you control the outcome. If you control the inputs of the algorithm (such as by controlling who the merit sources are), you have even greater control over the outcome. Making the algorithm public reduces control somewhat but it makes it somewhat subject to manipulation.

I still have faith in the community to do the right thing in setting and applying good standards..

The more and more such cases pile up the harder and harder it will be for them to pretend to ignore it and still feel good about themselves in their actions..
Also, the more people that stand up to it the less intimidated the rest will be..

Edit-

I agree that merit, and therefore voting power, are poorly distributed.. Especially at first but it is improving I think..

Another factor is that those who were at odds with and rejecting the old trust system at the time, creating their own trust lists before the new trust system happened, got a huge jump start into DT, and a huge jump start into acquiring merits for voting power..

I think mostly the "scambuster" crowd, who have/had loyalty to Lauda, and I find tend to be more authoritarian and power-seeking in nature, those gunning to become DT and to create their reputations, who got the head start..
It has and will take time for us libertarian minded folk to balance that out, but will happen..

But it has sense been slowly balancing and the initial head start is loosing its advantage.. Very slowly.. Maybe another year..

Exactly. I realize many people find my incessant and perpetual need to beat my skull against these types of people quite agitating, many seeing it as pointless and disruptive, but I do it for a good reason. The reason is to set an example and show other people they don't have to just put up with it. There are more people that oppose this type of behavior than support it, just most of them aren't willing to be the first ones to speak up about it. You too can prevent forest fires. A single droplet is meaningless, one drop dripping over and over again is torture, but enough of them together is a flood.

I totally understand why we have more guidelines than rules here ... and the concept is great, but some times the definitions of good/bad, correct/WTF , logic/"in my opinion" is way too subjective.

In my own personal opinion trust ratings should be for actions, not words.

I would add one more column to the rank requirements.

Rank	Required activity	Required merit	Extra requirements
Brand new	0	0	none
Newbie	1	0	none
Jr Member	30	1	none
Member	60	10	none
Full Member	120	100	Custom trust list min 10 users[1]
Sr. Member	240	250	Custom trust list min 25 users[1]
Hero Member	480	500	Custom trust list min 40 users[1]
Legendary	Random in the range 775-1030	1000	Custom trust list min 75 users[1]

[1] - Total number of users added to your custom trust list including ~ and non~ users (numbers are subject to change). Also defaultTrust is automatically ~ed and cannot be changed

Searched and could not find in the first few tried something similar so there. Might be a step in the right direction IMHO.  :) I doubt the DT concept was thought as a long term solution even from the beginning

What a surprise, another ~Lauda thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213587.0).


Unlucky for you, I only really post in Speculation that doesn't show trust, so I couldn't give a fuck.


Not true. DT1 could stop trusting (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-12-28_Sat_06.13h/101872.html) this member for starters, so that ~Lauda is no longer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213587.msg53477387#msg53477387) a flag-abusing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5161689.0) DT2 member ::)


More people (like you) should take Lauda's advise way more often, this isn't the first recommendation:



Lauda's one liners are best, period.

I see this topic getting hotter to be discussed between Lauda vs hacker1001101001.

What i see.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1021758

Honestly I am not on the side of Lauda and hacker1001101001, the solution, middle, very touching someone's heart.

It would be nice if Lauda considered what @LoyceV said,
If Lauda doesn't believe what @LoyceV says, it means that no one else reconciles Lauda with hacker1001101001.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0

@hacker1001101001

I usually stay away from the dramas in the forum but I see you created a trap to create the mess between members and they failed in it. You're trying to get as many people on your side as you can to defend yourself. This text is pathetic because it's done to provoke the hate between members.

I didn't know this topic before, but after reading it I find amusing, knowing what I know. I believe people need to know your double standard concerning what could be good or bad for a community.

edit
@TECSHARE

I didn't say what is acceptable or not, I said "people need to know your double standard concerning what could be good or bad for a community. "

and I will post it!

So you are really arguing that it is an acceptable use of the trust system to negative rate people for giving merits to opinions they don't agree with? You aren't making any sense.

I don't know but for Lauda is still a person that catches a lot of spammers and did helped the forum on many ways, with continuously searching spammers/scammers and whatsoever then of-course you will be a hated person by a lot of members as well and many will try to stop that person and....
So I think he/she earned a lot of credit by helping out, I do remember having a question and being answered prompt (don't remember the matter instantly, but it was fast) Then again if the red-feedback was only on that merit post that was saying something over highly respected members then I would say thats over the line.... Imo I would say its fair to remove the red and maybe make a neutral in which you say something but red-feedback isn't at its place (for me).
   

While your opinion appears valid to others, your recommendations are clearly not welcome:

^
Indeed, the main thing I don't understand on whole of the forum is why people curse this much ... like truly everyone, IRL the more one yells, or say bad things, the more they are wrong, in here everyone does  ::) So thats hard as well to find some truth in it, though on forum stuff I slightly follow some members as I always read good and well reasoned stuff from the.

You sound like an abused house wife telling us how much her man has changed for the better as she holds an ice pack to her eye.

It's your own theory claming it to be double standards or a trap. I have tried to generalized the topic as much as I can, and even clearly mentioned I need opinions.

You can post anything you like, but your views on the issue would reflect your nature. I would rather claim this as your double standards concerning without even reading the OP properly.

---

I see you finding truth in this type ratings being bogus, but rolling the ditrusting part in slippy words.

Better said here.

I don’t know how to say this sir and I would pick my words carefully but there just are no other words like you are a d*ck that behaves himself under very much circumstances as a total d*ck!

I wouldn’t distrust you for a trade or whatsoever but I do dislike your approach to many other members.....

With words I know I doesn’t have to cross swords with you cause that a losing situation for even when I would be right it’s still exhausting and would end in a loss probably though I just know on behavior toward another member, other persons I will outclass you any day.

you don't have to be derogatory to everyone at any time.... you are a Legendary old timer, behave as one.... It will lead you to better places.

Even Lauda didn’t agree with me telling you had a point, though he didn’t disrespect my sayings as you always do for who know which reasons.

Look like you were thinking I agree with Lauda but I don't. But since you say it is my double standard, it doesn't matter a lot.

.......

Yes you act like if you seem to care about the forum community and ask people opinion, but why didn't you ask it too in the OP if

Do you think it's good for the community to propose your service to manage multiple Bitcointalk accounts to participate in signature campaigns https://www.reddit.com/user/hacker1001101001/comments/7l0pv6/hirefor_managing_bitcointalk_accounts/

Do you think it's good for the forum community to have multiple accounts here?
https://web.archive.org/web/20180627125302/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2454436.msg25181383
https://twitter.com/1001101001hack
https://web.archive.org/web/20191229174919/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1329605
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1727627

Do you think it's good for the community to offer ICOs bumping service?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5029913.msg45768373#msg45768373

Now I would like to read from other members what I'm supposed to think about this, is it helping the forum community?

.......................
I forgot to ask...
Who is managing this account today? What was your previous account before you register this one?

.....................
Look like I have some things to add but I need to use @LoyceV and @DdmrDdmr tools and it bothers me because I don't like to jump into the fights here. But if what I think is right, the issue is bigger than that

^
I have to say.... thats not cool as not good for the community.... writing in others name just to earn coin could be addressed as just spamming....

I am a dick. Other people might describe me as blunt and direct. I am well aware I rub some people the wrong way, and I frankly am not that concerned about it. What I am more concerned about is people not abusing the systems here to pursue vendettas against others for doing little more than rubbing them the wrong way.

My comment was not intended to be derogatory but rather elucidating to the pattern you are exhibiting as it is indeed a common one. If this offends you that is unfortunate, but dancing around the truth often allows it to be obfuscated. You seem to be the type of person who would tolerate long term abuse if you could avoid conflict, I am not. I would rather have an all out conflict and get it over with and have long term peace. This forum has a pathological obsession with conflict avoidance. Conflict often serves many positive purposes, the trick is figuring out the difference between the purposeful and the futile. There is no point to class if it means sacrificing your values. Violating your own principles for the sake of avoiding conflict is not classy at all.

Main thing here is i'm saying the point of that specific NEG-feedback for that reason of that merit on that post was inappropriate... Here i'm saying that imo Lauda is wrong then why being a d*ck towards me, here i'm just showing i'm a guy that isn't on no ones side or whatsoever and in some cases members as you can be right, on other Lauda could have a point...
Thats not unreasonable I think, but on other things I could sometimes better read the OP carefully before saying some things that isn't based on the full story, for that I know I have been wrong for some people...

Maybe read what I said again. I have no control over whether you get offended or not, only you do. I am not going to mute my words because you take offense to them, sorry. You can either find a way to deal with it or keep complaining about it, either way I won't be catering to your demands to fix something you have complete control over.

Fair enough, i'm not offended, maybe misread or read a bit fast as i'm multi amusing myself at this moment ... ::)

You are right..
I use foul words sometimes when I shouldn't but I'm not sure if you could ever find me using them to insult anyone..
I try not to use insults in general..


Well that sucks, even though it is a bit beside the point, it doesn't lend itself well to the point..
Not many of us survive the extreme scrutinization after being outspoken, but some of us do.. It hurts the point though..

its accepted if you asked lauda and his colleagues,they wont admit these are power abuses using the trust system.

That is not even my reddit account, it has just one post which has my telegram ID, that doesn't prove I have posted that message.



Yes, I think it's acceptable and many reputed members already do have alts here. It's not even banned by forum rules.


I agree this is my twitter account, which I don't even use often but yaa it's mine. WTF is wrong with it ?


Yes, it is my account I created 2 years back, but not logged in from an year or so ! WTF is worng with it ?


airtman (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1727627) is not my account, this is were your deactive work got deflected. He just used my telegram ID once, I even asked him on telegram immediately to remove my ID from the posts as I was unaware what he was offering properly. I even have proof of telling him that don't involve me here (https://imgur.com/rUo7JMD), but he was unable to edit the thread.



One last time, this is MY own account, I AM the operator of this account right from the date of creation.

---

Now please stay on topic here, pull up all your personal attacks somewhere else. You are looking pretty bad.

Wait a minute, sorry to go off topic here but there's something I'd like clarified:  Some random redditor (coincidentally using the exact same pseudonym that you use here) mistakenly posted your actual Telegram username on reddit?  What are the odds of that happening?

And then some random newbie offering the same service as the reddit post also mistakenly posted your Telegram username in a post here on the forum?

In that screen shot (https://ibb.co/9c4MNwc) you posted the user to whom you were talking complained about getting red-tagged, to which you responded "yes, you mentioned that we offer paid posting."  Care to shed more light on how all of this happened?  

Very less, I know, but it was not posted mistakenly but intendedly. I was rather engaged in ICOs and there marketing at that time and many users offering such services come into contact for promotion. I don't know who posted it under my pseudoynym, but it happened without my notice.



The user I am talking to is airtman (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1727627) or @Gifthoy ( the person posting that (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5029913.0) thread ). My statement that "yes, you mentioned that we offer paid posting." was as I was unaware he was offering bumping and even involving me in it, I got in contact with him due to my involvements in ICOs back then. Even later I asked him to lock the thread as I was not willing to engage in any such activities here. Proof (https://imgur.com/YRHP7bA).

---

Thanks for being civil and saying sorry to go off-topic but better PM me with your concern, I would be happy to address. The topic in the OP is bit more severe.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that keeps you on my excluded list. This has nothing to do with the topic or the rating he received. If you want to scrutinize the target of abuse until you feel you have reached a point of false equivalence start your own topic on the matter if it is so critically important.

I would also appreciate that members stay on topic here, especially high-ranking ones who should know better to be honest.


To be clear: the legitimacy of any accusations against hacker1001101001 are irrelevant here, as it's maliciously off-topic, hence distracts from the topic. If anything, the legitimacy of these claims have been reduced considerably by default, due to the unconventional and controversial manner in which they were raised. I hope that other members reading this can see the obvious deflection tactics being used.

---

To return to the topic, this is the sort of person and mentality that is being discussed at the moment, yet again:


As a reminder, this user does not care about the opinions, concerns or recommendations of others, despite being trusted by many DT1 members (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213587.msg53477387#msg53477387):


This obviously reflects badly upon those who trust this user's judgement, as opposed to the user in question, who openly doesn't care:


Lauda isn't the problem here.

Right, the problem is the community not reacting to such type of abuse in an expected manner which is even suggested by theymos himself (the creator of this political system).

I was tagged once because I have sent merit to post, it is not cool. Good thing is that person who sent me negative removed it.

Why would you merit post where Tec's hare calls lauda scammer and you defend OG when other users call him out and you don't send them merit?

Makes no sense, double standards.

I am not the only one who thinks the posts is constructive and deserves merit. I think this is the most right thing to say.



Rather, here I don't even intended to target any specific user, the thread is created for the sole reason of discussion of the general views around such types of red trusting issues and what changes could be made by the community to avoid such. Please don't boil this under double standards.

Thanks for the response.



We both know the only reason I'm on your distrust list is because I put you on mine.



That's why I apologized for going off topic in the first place.  That's why I asked for clarification on something (unrelated) that struck me as odd.



I'm not here to scrutinize the victim, I have no desire to do so.  I'm not looking for any excuses or false equivalencies.  But, being the victim of abuse does not shield one from the ramifications of also being abusive.  Just because this topic was started to point out one type of abuse doesn't mean I should ignore the potential existence of another.

Did I say it was why I put you on my excluded list or why you stay there? You are a dope who buys the whipped up horse shit of the DT mob clowns and excluded me when I didn't do anything wrong. Of course that is why I excluded you, because you either have no common sense or you are on your knees in front of them. Either way I don't want you on my list.

You apologized... in the same post, then posted it anyway. Why actually post it if you were sorry and knew it was off topic? Excuse me if I think you are full of shit with your disingenuous apology here. Yeah, right, you are not here to scrutinize the victim, just be the one to dredge up unrelated bullshit completely off topic which conveniently not only misdirects the actual topic of discussion but then shifts blame to the accuser. How convenient you get curious about such a thing right now in the middle of this topic.

This is why I don't trust you, because you pretend to be moderate and nice but really you are full of shit and it is covered by a thin veneer of please and thank you. You are the new front line for the DT mob playing the role of the moderate so you can inject your bullshit for them to follow up and do the real hammering. You played the same role with me. Either you are too dumb and naive to recognize this dynamic or you are just plain old full of shit.

I was curious by your comment the other day, so after scraping a little data together, it seems there's a good chance (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213587.msg53477361#msg53477361) next year indeed the flippening might occur; sometime between Spring and Autumn would be the forecast DT1 wise. Of course anything could happen in the meantime, but if these power & logarithmic curves are anything to go, while the rate of behavior/attitude maintains itself, then someone is losing their power - only statistically speaking of course. Yup, I went there.

Being a plagiarizing sockpuppeting weasel is still not a good reason to get red trust, let alone sending A FUCKING MERIT. IMO.

It is not a good reason to hamper someones ability to trade smoothly here, this is an open forum, discussed many times before and why is it that difficult for this type of users to use trust ratings to indicate scammer only? The rating I am talking about are on the people who have not scammed any funds, with no real victims. You know, it's even hard for some people around to accept apologise !

Hold your horses. Trust ratings can and should be used for a lot of stuff that isn't outright scamming, stop trying to define it how it suits you. If you want to go that route, just exclude Lauda and proceed on your merry way - you got your own trust system in your custom trust list.

But if you're talking about "ability to trade smoothly" then you're probably talking about DT and I doubt that even with scam-friendly weasels like TECSHARE in it we'll stoop down to the "do any shady shit just don't steal money" standard.

Just because I don't think your wide net shotgunning strategy in a futile attempt to catch minor scammers justifies the means doesn't make me "scam friendly". As I stated before, with a little common sense and some due diligence the vast majority of the people you claim to be protecting us from can be avoided. Power tripping control freak dictators can not be escaped and everyone suffers from them. I know you enjoy injecting yourself into peoples business as much as possible, but I as well as many others here enjoy an atmosphere of being left the fuck alone unless otherwise victimizing others. Your internet cop strategy is just simply antithetical to that goal. If you want to wipe bum bums, child proof everything, and kiss ouchies have some kids.

What a vivid imagination. Fits well with your trust farming and retaliatory bullshit that you want to be left alone at.

I excluded you for one reason and one reason only; I don't like the philosophy you use to build your trust list.  I don't think that adding everyone with whom you've had a successful trade is a good strategy.  Regardless of our personal differences, if you applied a trust-list philosophy that more closely aligned with mine, you would be on my inclusion list, not exclusions.  I leave my personal differences out of the decision.

However, recently I've perceived something else that I find damaging; I think you've been trying to manipulate the system.  You've been including people with the hope that they include you.  You've been adding folks from specific local boards who have running disagreements with other DT1 members, again in the hope that they add you.  Of course there's no way to prove this, but it's my belief that you are operating this way.  

This reciprocal/retaliatory approach to the trust system is damaging, and goes against everything you claim to be fighting for.



By no means was I trying to conflate the two, or suggest that the OP's behavior justified the negative review left by Lauda.  I completely disagree with this and a few other reviews recently left by Lauda, so I did what I feel is right; I exclude Lauda from my trust settings shortly after I read the OP of this thread.

After 8 years of being active here, my "trust farming" strategy is certainly taking the slow approach isn't it? Almost like what you describe as  "trust farming" is indistinguishable from being an active and trusted member here for many years. What retaliatory bullshit? Please do cite specific examples.



As I suspected, you are a naive dope sucking down stories from people with a grudge feeding you fairy tales. I absolutely do not add everyone I have had a successful trade with to my trust list. If I did that my trust list would include several HUNDREDS of people. This accusation is just pure horse shit.

Lets for the sake of argument assume you leave personal differences out of the decision, you aren't very good at gauging that in others and simply take the words of those with long standing vendettas at face value. The accusation you are referring to here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837) is first of all made by Nutilduhh who has a very long standing gripe stemming from their interactions with me not only involving the trust system but from discussions in Politics & Society. This of course all happened the same time this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181723.0;all) thread occurred where I successfully mediated a dispute between some members of the Turkish section and Timelord2067. At this point some of them included me on their trust list putting me back on default trust triggering a string of accusations and attacks from the same group of people I have been calling out for their behavior for some time.

I am trying to help build a culture of restorative not punitive justice here and the goobers following me around like little harpies for calling them out about their own punitive behavior get dopes like you to join in their chorus and do their bidding because you don't know any better. You are being used as a tool. Are you arguing that I shouldn't be trying to help resolve disputes because some one MIGHT include me after? GOD FORBID people start doing things to reduce disputes and build trust because of it right? I mean that would be horrible! Can you tell me exactly how I can continue to do this and avoid these accusations of manipulation in the future? I would love to hear your solution.

First of all lets address your "beliefs". You are claiming now you know what goes on inside my head and should be judged based on what you IMAGINE my goals are? How could that possibly be damaging to apply this methodology to the community right? I mean why base ratings and exclusions on observable instances of theft, violation of contractual agreements, or violation of applicable laws when you can just IMAGINE some one did something wrong? Just so it is clearly and openly stated, this has never been my goal, and the aspersions cast in the original thread accusing of this are yet again a long string of speculations that could literally be applied to ANY user here who is active using the trust system.

In the case of the Turkish members, I got involved because they are a group OUTSIDE of the current one controlling the default trust, which is I suspect why they were being targeted because they would dilute control the current group at the time had on it. This is also exactly why I was targeted for helping them understand and better approach the situation instead of just getting themselves all excluded and making them irrelevant. My goal was never inclusion, but to break the iron grip the current default trust group has on the system, making it more difficult for them to act with impunity. Of course around here, no good deed goes unpunished. Call in the clowns. Don't forget your red nose DireWolfM14.

LOL

Please do create your own thread about your amnesia issues. By no means ever try to provide specific examples of shit you're accusing others of because where's the fun in that, you sleazy hypocrite.

ooo suchmoon you started late, again, humiliation or something, one-word auditions, superiority, and the supporters are sending merit. :D :-*

Don't worry, son, no one can take this place from you. ;)

I am defending it here without any personally indulge benifits.It is more targeted to the betterment of the use of red trust in an more organized and explanatory maner. Don't try to bend it towards me alone, there are many others who are facing such type of abuse and there is an list of examples I tried to avoid mentioning in the OP as I myself was an recent example.



Shady shit in relation to trust ratings is limited to really scamming with funds or trying to scam with funds, rest of things are just opinions about if they would scam or not observed just from there views towards the system which is wrong, even that could be indicated with the use of a neutral rating. TECSHARE is nowhere near an harm to the DT network not even to the forum overall.

---

Thank you for acting right, it's really not that difficult to judge an act right but only things that are avoiding people to do so boils down to 1. Hidden agendas. or 2. Fear. It would be dam effective even if the second group starts acting on it.

let me do like suchmoon
shit, your welcome bro :D

I don't just throw accusations around, I use specific references and keep public records of all of this abuse as you can see above. You however practice the Vod school of accusation. You project crimes on to people, then when asked to substantiate them you never seem to have an answer and just pretend it is obvious and slide the topic until everyone forgets you never actually substantiated anything.

https://i.imgur.com/e0vHz2x.gif

---

Removed the 'bogus rating', updated with a "law-abiding" one. Good luck with all the mud-slinging and side-fights. That's enough for this thread from me.

Your rating was just an example. You could round me up to anything scam realted which I am nowhere involved in and didn't even cause any financial damages to any real victims and use the trust system as you see fit. This thread was never about you alone anyways.

I'm very disappointed to be honest. I'm now more concerned that this erratic "change of heart opinion" will slow down the rate of distrust that's been building positive momentum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213587.0) over the past year. I had a lot more respect for this uncompromising & antagonistic nihilist, that openly doesn't care about the community or DT, as by consequence they were helping to bring awareness of "trust issues" within DT1 for the longer-term benefit. This was invaluable imo. It held more importance than removing an irrelevant negative trust (that already been countered, thus had become more or less worthless), but instead they threw this valuable case of DT accountability away, instead opting for self-accountability after the assurance this wouldn't happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for hacker1001101001 that his neg trust was removed, but disappointed for the community given the progress (http://islaudastillondt.tk/) that was being made.

Sequence of events (for historical documentation purposes):






¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You may be describing another Lauda, Laudas, cat, cats, user, users, entity, as the above is not characteristic of me.

A couple of you semi-shady folk are taking all of this very seriously, while I am just having my fun with y'all whilst doing good at the same time. That's the key difference. Many back-rooms of both sides (and yes, I am inside both "factions'" Slack channels and whatnot) do get their share of laughs from all of this. Every now and then I truly wonder how some users could possibly take all of this as seriously as they do, as if the forum and its systems of injustice law and policing right here are the crux of their whole life. Maybe they really are. Talk is cheap and for fun, just actions are what matters.

Here's to another undoing of my words. Almost scammed myself, too bad you can't rate for almost. ::)

LOL


Firstly Moronbozo you need to keep away from complex concepts like double standards. You clearly do not have the capacity to grasp the REAL meaning of such things.

Lauda is a PROVEN trust abuser. Giving red trust to a person on the basis they are meriting a high value post that is NOT conclusively proven false or misleading (actually it looks to be of high value) is obviously trust abuse.

You (we believe) were tagged for giving merit to a post that DOXED the forum treasurer which is kind of like condoning this rule breaking dangerous (financially clearly since he was then holding millions of USD for the forum)  behavior. This is not equivalent to the behavior of  hacker AT ALL.

Also Lauda is a PROVEN scammer and scam pusher. He is also strongly implicated in MANY shady examples of financially motivated wrong doing. So again this is NOT equivalent to OG where there is no conclusive proof.

So it is clear that Lauda is once again abusing trust, and the double standards are just a figment of your moronic broken mind.

The board needs to start also noting down those that will support ANY action of trust abuse or CLEAR financially motivated wrong doing that is undeniably placing other honest members at higher risk. Direwolf, moronbozo, nutildah micgoosens and plenty more now including JJG these ALWAYS seem to be on the side of trust abusers or scammers.

Bottom line is this is clearly again the trust system being used for PERSONAL gain /retribution that has nothing AT ALL to do with protecting the honest members here from scammers and those with undeniable observable instances of financially motivated wrong doing (lauda et al).

Clearly though as with merit "feedback" will always be abused since there is no criteria and can be weaponized for personal gain. Poor design = poor results.

Lauda has a long documented history of using red trust to silence others presenting observable instances from his own dirty history here TRUST ABUSE. Problem is nobody gives one shit until he does this to them. LOL

I happen to agree with you here on all points, a rarity, eh? 

This drama about negs being given for petty reasons could be obviated if only we had some strong guidance from up top.  I really don't like it when DT members have to fight it out like this--it isn't that we all have to agree with one another, but it would be so fucking nice to be all on the same page about a few things.

I trust most of Lauda's feedbacks.  The one I countered, I didn't agree with and I rarely give a counter positive.  I just did not think it was appropriate to neg a member because of a difference either in perspective of the facts or opinions.  I'm pretty sure Lauda has a strong spine and can take a lot of BS that's thrown his/her way, so it was surprising when I saw that neg.

I don't want any more part of this drama than what I've already inserted myself into.  And just because I countered a single feedback by Lauda doesn't mean I no longer trust Lauda as a scam buster and a member who generally stands up for forum issues.  Since most of Lauda's feedbacks are spot on IMO, I'm keeping Lauda on my trust list.  We tend to think alike on some of the negs we've left.

Sorry that certain individuals always cause collateral damage like this to others because of me. The day that I realized that people shuffle each other on trust lists because of singular cases of ratings[1] with which they don't agree with or are out of line is the day I stopped participating as much. Now you have to be very careful what you say (especially what you do) out of fear of others undoing a lot of work, quite a change of pace!

---

[1] Not talking about myself[2] before these people get a hard on; I've stopped participating that much a long time ago.
[2] I am controversy royalty.

I highly doubt it..


This user has obviously and openly gone rogue against the systems guidelines..

I have a hunch that this is about to get more prevalent and their is being a push to normalize it, seeing as their is currently an attempt to set precedent on it and all..

They think they are untouchable and will get away with absolutely refusing to follow the guidelines...
We will see..

This was true from the very beginning, I just wasn't testing these "freedom-of-speech" limits before. Is fun, for me and a couple of other blokes at least.

See, you're completely wrong about me and yet you keep at it[1]. Whatever happens it's a win for both me and everyone else around here. You need to look at the bigger picture (and possible outcomes) when one tries to force players to play their hands.

---

[1] I believe this is due to the rating which you claim has no effect on you whatsoever, but since then you seem highly biased against me (in a very unnecessary and negative way). I'm two clicks away from being removed from the forum (which is the real threat) is something surely somebody who thinks they're untouchable would say.
Have a glass of wine or two, or whatever you like. This incident between us is not even worth the time you spend posting about it. Save the time and enjoy your life! :)

I am sad that someone like you had to involve yourself here to fight for the abuse on me, as I never expected such still I respect you from the past.

But, the extent of such abuse is to were you are referring to the good deeds of there scam busting, but on other hands, they don't even think twice to tear apart the repo of another scam buster like me. One can surely see these goods deeds really doesn't outweigh the damage caused on another side.

(I don't intend to involve you in any type of drama, you could just stay away and still act right).

This thing you claim as "abuse" has been removed. There is nothing that you could even remotely consider abusive feedback on you anymore, aside from maybe the user sergey1980 but that's your own issue.

Are you talking about this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53502238#msg53502238? If yes then indeed the good deeds don't even remotely outweigh your bad deeds. Estimating the damage caused by ICO bumping is next to impossible due to many factors.

It is quite entertaining, especially the climax of the game when it's time for everyone to put their cards on the table..

Right, like I haven't spoke against your attempted authoritarianism for years, and haven't been being randomly attacked by you for years here.. Lol..
Surely this is something new..

It has been increasing lately because 1. you are going off the rails, leaving many abusive ratings and blatently refusing to follow guidelines while showing utter disrespect for theymos and his efforts..
2. It's time to show the cards right? You ready? My chips are obviously on the table as far as whose side of this I think will come out on top in the end..

Then I can be drunk and know things like TMAN :)

Why is it worth your time? You would just love it if I shut up wouldn't you...

See, you have it all wrong! The climax is over, it was when theymos went after me and I clashed right back at him this summer earning myself a ton of distrust. Statistically I lost there, but I understand why lotta people around here would never side against theymos but that's for a different topic. This is more like a Falling action before the catastrophe.

Respect theymos because he's an authority here, or because he 'tries'? I'm much more right to disrespect him if/when and how I want than >99% of the users here are having "worked alongside" him and the mod. team for years.

The goal is to be sober and still be like TMAN at his finest.

Again, you write because of bias. It's not worth my time, I just post a lot like I always have. Sometimes spamming, sometimes swearing, almost always very grumpy and always having a laugh at the same time. If our dance indulges you as much as it does me, then please do spend your time engaging with me. I do admit though, I've lost way too much time here since December (especially today).

---

"Tyrannical authoritarian" now that one gave me quite the laugh, it's been a while.  :D

Any chance of having a constructive discussion without stooping to CH level ad hominem attacks?  I would actually like to resolve all the DT1 infighting, but this type of discourse isn't helpful.



Whether nutildah's post predated my conclusions or not is irrelevant.  I know it doesn't suit your argument, but I am capable of critical thought despite the influence of others.  Regardless of the chronology it's my opinion that nutildah has made a valid point.  You are manipulating and using the Turkish member to further your DT1 agenda and expand your influence.

Coincidentally, I have no issues with nutildah, and as far as I know he has none with me, despite the two of us being on opposite sides of the political spectrum.  Maybe your issues with nutildah aren't so much your politics, but how you debate them?  But I digress.



This is a philosophy that I can totally stand behind when it comes to limiting governing power.  As a conservative minded person, the last thing I want to see is a Minority Report type of punitive system in place.  But this isn't Philadelphia in the late 1700's, and we're not the Constitutional Congress.  This is an internet forum with many successfully anonymous members, some of whom are scammers.  

There isn't going to be any real justice if a guy shows up and makes wild claims of exorbitant ROIs if you invest in his cloud mining ponzi.  There is no "Justice System" in place here that can recoup the losses of the victims of such scammers.  How can there be a "restorative" system in these cases?  There's the old adage; an ounce of prevention...  That's the best we can do on this forum.

I'd like to believe I'm restrained when handing out negative reviews, and I hope all who are in the DT system also demonstrate thoughtful and cautious restraint.  There have been instances where the evidence was incomplete, yet I felt a warning to the community was warranted.  Those situations have been few.  If someone within the system doesn't show restraint I'll make a voting decision based on the value vs. detriment of allowing that person to remain on DT.  It's a difficult decision to make, and shouldn't be taken lightly.

To address the "punitive" part of your statement, what can possibly be done to someone on the internet that would be considered "punitive?"  There's no forum jail, or court system.  Most criminal scams that happen here aren't going to garner much attention from real-life law enforcement.  No one is going to jail for promoting LiveCoin, Yobit, or any other scammy exchange or ICO.  The only thing that's going to happen is a little red number shows up next to the scammer's (or "scammer's") name.  If you consider that punitive, well then, okay, we'll have to agree to disagree.

More and more almost daily..

Because he does what he can to keep the forum true to its roots, despite those who are not here for the reasons Bitcoin and this forum were created..

Bias towards theymos because he will continue to keep the forum free while you would rather turn it into a police state..

It's really that simple..

You never answered my question. If I am to perform what is arguably a public service of dispute mediation, exactly what do I need to meet your fine and arbitrary standards so that I can some how prove what is happening in my mind and this public service is not being done in some strange reverse Machiavellian plan where I do good and useful things to help people, just to take over everything. Then of course step 3: profit.

No I think I will keep referring to you as a clown as I prostitute your goat to Nutilduhh for quarters. You are impugning my character and based on your interpretations of what you believe I intend for that matter rather than facts. You can go fuck yourself with your civil discourse because you don't operate by the rules of logic when it doesn't suit you, therefore logic alone is never going to make a difference in a discussion with you. This is all about an image you have been sold by a collection of turds being flushed down a toilet bowl around here as they go down the drain. You are confirming your bias and arranging interpretations around me rather than looking at facts and then coming to conclusions.

As far as the rest of your jibbering, the point is not oh the poor scammers. The point is the poor regular users who get caught up in this horse shit that allows certain users around here to run around like geeked up control freaks lording over people as they put on their little internet cop hat and clown noses. That has a negative affect on the user base and I have seen it drive a lot of great users who would have otherwise stayed away. At the end of the day the scammers are back in minutes on a bought account. The legit users burned in retribution for certain speech or the arbitrary/unclear/unwritten rules often just leave for good. Most of these accusations are more about the accuser boosting their own image by creating a reputation as a "Scam buster" by sheer arbitrary volume. This kind of behavior is destructive to any community online or not and should not be tolerated. People should be able to go about their business unless otherwise victimizing some one. Violations of forum rules should be reported to staff. The end.

Want to know how I can tell that your arguments are breaking down?  It's easy; you start to sound a lot like cryptohunter. 


I acknowledge that my standards are mine and mine alone, they do not necessarily reflect the position of the forum, forum administration, forum staff, moderators, any other DT1 members.  Hell, they don't reflect the thoughts of anyone but me.  Got it?  Good.

1. Don't be a dick.
2. Don't pad your trust list to boost your own trust score.
3. Don't expect trust list reciprocation.
4. Don't use the trust list for retaliation.

And finally; the only one that really matters:
5. Demonstrate good judgement, good character, and restraint.

LOL but cryptohunter caved your retarded skull in every single time that you tried to rebut any of his points " mr opposite of facts" lol

What is the point of making these kind of statements that demonstrate absolutely nothing except your deranged view of reality ??
Have you not recognized that you direposter are just some broke ass noob with no skin in this game at all? stfu because you have achieved nothing (except trying to rip off people even less well of than yourself with crazy rates of interest) keep spamming your sig for dust and trying to sound smart so we can keep laughing at you whilst we enjoy our lavish lifestyle.

These are pretty much your groundless opinions, the rest are observable double standards that you should be spouting in the direction of your master lauda.

Lauda is a trust abuser. This is undeniable. Lauda is a scamer this is undeniable. You are found supporting him and other scumbags this is undeniable

Direposting burger flipper is one of his most ardent supporters. He should be removed along with lauda tman and nutildah. Those 3 are clear scammers and scam facilitators but those that support their actions regardless of how flagrantly they endanger honest members.

Direposter is some worthless peasant that now tries to loan shark others even worse off with ludicrous rates of interest for the dust he lends out. Scumbag.

Lauda will be a pariah, and you will be a pariah. It is only a matter of time. Meantime I will just deride and stuff your double standards back down your throat whenever I like.

LOL at don't use the trust list for retaliation, don't use red tags as retaliation. Just sit there and take it up the ass like a good little pussy.

Tag Lauda for trust abuse and the LONG list of scamming, extorting and other undeniable shady shit, same for tman and any other of these ass licking dregs that suck up to them like direwolf et al.  Stop with the neutrals and mild complaints.

Cut away the core group from beneath. Slap them with some red then we pull their sigs off. Watch them start crying. Pharmacist will squeal if his chipmixer is  removed.  Support scammers and trust abusers, you get red.

Lauda has multiple instances of undeniable trust abuse and scamming. How is there only 1 red tag from DT?? fucking bunch of crybaby wretches. What is wrong with you eddie and techshare, get this cunt lauda glowing red and tman, nutildah and any other scammer supporter or trust abuser. Then we get their sigs removed or we bust their projects for scamming and double standards.  Neutrals in return for reds?? what's the point.

Err no retaliation LOLOLOLOL so if you trust abuse someone first then they can never give you red because " no retaliation"??  ahahah

Trust abuse in many cases = scamming. It is deception (claiming untrustworthy when not) for their own person/financial gain. Red tag this scumbag core. Get me on DT I will red tag each and every one of these scammers and their supporters.  Lauda is only there doing this with others support him and include him on DT. Anyone including lauda on DT is untrustworthy clearly.

Lauda is claiming THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRUST ABUSE. If the scamming rat is not punished other than us slathering the board up with his past scamming deeds and hounding the cunt then perhaps he will turn out to be correct. Start crushing him in all possible ways and his  rev streams or he will just keep scamming and trust abusing.

What would that accomplish other than a brief satisfaction of a limited set of users?
I think attacks and "retaliation" like that are generally used when an opponent runs out of, or has a lack of, pertinent information and logic to back their case as ad hominem charactor assassination attempts usually..

"ad hominem"=directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I'm after the position, not any person..

It may look like a short term win, or successful hit, but in the long term truth and logic are much more effective, and I believe sending redtags would just degrade the image and credibility of intelligence presented..

I don't care about removing Lauda's or anyone's signatures.. I am not looking to personally destroy anyone like that.. They can shitpost for sig pay all they want for all I care..

It's about the credibility of DT and influence over the direction of DT.. Not some users profiles..

These points have "some" small merit. However most are words of someone that does not understand this forum and certainly NOT the mechanisms upon which the systems of control are based.

1. lauda is a confirmed scammer. He is a confirmed trust abuser (scamming). He is a highly probable extortionist. He has run a very shady looking escrow. He supports other proven scammers.  Reduce the credibility of the TRUST system HOW exactly? NOT giving red trust to these types of dangerous scum bags is REDUCING the value of the trust system.  How can you even claim that giving someone as blatantly untrustworthy and dangerous as lauda would DEVALUE the trust system. That is pure crazy talk.

This ALONE is 100% reason he should be glowing red. You are meant to be warning other honest members right about those that have demonstrated they are willing to lie, trust abuse, extort and use shady escrow for their person financial gain??

Ad hominem?  calling  a confirmed scammer a scammer is NOT ad hominem. When you are using the context of the TRUST system.

2. True that short of changing a broken system of control you will not PREVENT a recurrence of the same for 100% certain. Lauda and his cronies are but a symptom of the system. However since you are NOT  controlling the mechanisms on which the system works then you will need to understand that the SYSTEM itself DEMANDS retribution and friction to function. By removing them SHORT TERM it will send a message that scammers and those willingly and knowingly supporting scammers and their trust abuse will be REMOVED if they behave in that way.

3. You Fail to understand the trust system is ECONOMIC punishment for 99% of members. Do really believe that if there was no ECONOMIC consequences that anyone would give a shit about any of this LOL.  Your ONLY hope of removing trust abusers and scammers that are in DT and willing to continue trust abusing and doing whatever they can to hold on to their LUCRATIVE positions is chopping their support away. a/ chop into their projects for hiring these types, b/ refusing to produce transparent and open rules for campaign acceptance/denial  c/ using the gamed metrics of merit and trust that the SAME PEOPLE CONTROL THAT TAKE ALL THE TOP SPOTS.  Chop away at those supporting them and those projects funding them. That is your ONLY hope.

Like the school bullies that slap you around and you are only willing to wipe some of your tears on them in retaliation, NO UPPERCUT the bitches right in the fucking face so their is something to deter them or just keep getting abused. Head teacher is not going to help and neither are the bullies pals.

Talking back is  better than most are willing to do so we salute that but you will need to unite, organize and take action. They system RELIES ON THIS. DT is no place for those that dare not use the system as DESIGNED. The design is poor enough to have gifted a bunch of scum a huge entrenched advantage but they know to collude and take action whilst most just sit there moaning and crying. If we were on DT they would all be glowing red and stripped of their sigs until they start understanding you don't use the trust system to hide your past scamming deeds and punish whistle blowers. You don't actually get to be a scammer and be on DT and take the best sig spots. Scammers get tagged, innocent honest members do not. Honest member that are great contributors get the BEST SIG SPOTs.

Sensible transparent clear rules that apply equally to all members.

Trust abuse will not magically stop by moaning about it.

I see that by  sounding very reasonable and mild mannered you "think" that you will garner support some day from the out circle that entrench the core. I do NOT think that is possible.

For those like us that do not need or care about sigs your points MAY have more validity (not the refusal to tag scammers and extortionists and flagrant trust abusers) but you are talking about less than 1% of the board. They are recruiting from the 99% you are and already out number you and are entrenched will self cycled merits. Those odds are ...well I'm sure you see.

lauda primarily trust abuses when

a/ you mention observable scammy or shady instances in his past
b/ you mention observable scammy or shady instances in his supporters pasts
c/ you defend those that have PREVIOUSLY themselves highlighted his scammy, extorting and trust abusing ways.

He does this to prevent other members finding out he is dirty and indeed financially super high risk.  Allowing this to continue without tagging him red as a warning is certainly high risk.

Man up and fight back with all the tools the broken systems have given you , since you will not fix the systems themselves. Only theymos can do that and he seems intent of GIVING more advantage to those that collude and control merit not less. If the 250 threshold is ever increased (without fixing merit) you can only conclude theymos is crazy, stupid or complicit.
We draw close to our 1000 post . Then we will likely decide to leave for another task. If we return in one year and it is still the same core of scammy trust abusers and their supporters then they board is pretty much dead in terms of free speech on certain subjects (not hate speech)

Allowing people to shit post for pay at the highest rates whilst having scammed and facilitated scams, whilst other honest members who don't shit post can not post and be rewarded is the OPPOSITE of a meritocracy. That is like the worst possible environment for a forum. Some would call that sub optimal. We say it is a fucking cluster fuck.

We like you eddie but for DT to have a chance and this forum to have an optimal free and fair meritocracy where all members are given equal chance and opportunity, you need people in DT that will take affirmative action when it is clearly required. Bullies are only kept in check by those that are willing to ensure that their gains are = or less than their losses for abuse.  If their net gain is still more than their loss or punishment they will never stop.

Me tagging Lauda would be unlikely to make them unqualified for their signature deal..
Lauda loosing their signature deal probably wouldn't change anything anyway.. You think they will just leave if they can't get paid for a signature?
Red-tagging has nothing to do with being "removed" either..

I also do not necessarily think that Lauda is all that high risk to trade with..
I highly doubt Lauda would scam on any simple trades or deals up to quite a high value, say up to around $10k, though I don't think they are a very good choice for an escrow or to be given very large exit scam opportunities anymore, but very few are up to that mark..


I highly doubt Lauda actually thinks that I myself am a high risk to trade with either.. Do you @Lauda?
Lauda do you think I would really scam over $100 or even $1k?


Where I do not trust Lauda is to be in charge/in influence of making the "laws", setting community standards/precedents, and wielding power over others..
As a matter of fact actually, I would trust Lauda to do just about exactly what they say they would do, which consists of banning/tagging/shutting up/exiling anyone that disagrees with them and greatly limiting the freedom of users in general, based on my interpretation of their statements and actions against users..

No, but your relentless use of playground-level, derogatory nicknames is. As is the continual banging on the "sig spamming for bitcoin dust" drum. Just because a user has something in their sig space for which they may be receiving compensation, it does not automatically make the contents of their post or their opinion invalid, just as the reverse is true.

Are we going to get anything new for 2020? "New Year, New You" perchance? Or is it just going to be the same old, same old repeated ad nauseam? ???

Please read my post again and understand lauda losing his own sig is of little importance. Laudas removal however can be leveraged by the removal of his supporters sig or threat there of. This SIG business is but 1 tiny part of the arsenal one will need to adopt to have such scammers removed.  Just because lauda would not scam a person in a trade ( this is in doubt with large amounts) matters not. His prior history has MORE than enough to ensure he should be kept well away from the trust system. Are we that desperate we NEED those that have scammed, supported other scammers, worked with other scammers on a highly probable extortion, shady ecrowing, trust abuse?? ffs we only need 100 people here out of 100's of 1000s lol. There is NO reason for him NOT to be tagged red. Fortune jack are employing SCAMMERS this can and should be leveraged.

Why ask lauda a question in public, a liar and scammer/extortionist will simply say whatever suits them best. Do you really need to feel validated and trusted by a scammer. That is like an anti reference?

We don't need to have opinions, lauda has scammed and has so much dirt there in black and white there is no sensible reason not to red tag him. I mean if he does not meet the threshold for a tag LOL who the fuck does haha..  He won't pull of a small scam. I see so that fact there is irrefutable proof of scamming and STRONG evidence to suggest he was going for a nice big extortion or  huge escrow scam is OKAY??

All the other manipulations and collusions and DT entrenchment ON TOP is not even needed to know he should be banned let alone red tagged.

Anyway eddie we don't want to appear hostile to you (because we are not) but you will not see these scammers and trust abusers kicked out or even brought in line by talk alone. Organised action is your only hope. We will revisit when we come back in a years time after reaching our 1000 post. They will still be here and the forum will be more of a warzone and more of an echo chamber.

Economic pressure is a large leverage here. Most of these bums are broke so their chipmixer sigs dust are life blood to them. I mean they have been here years some of them and still broke down bums. This is the kind of people you are dealing with. Do not reason as if they had btc like yourself behind them and economic concerns are NOT PRIMARY. They are to them.

Transparent objective rules enforced equally on all members is the only satisfactory goal. No 2 tier system.

There is a temptation for some I know to try to win back favor of these controlling bunch. That is a shame (not you eddie but some others). I think theymos is part to blame 1/ merit cancer/ 2 leaving the old feedback system, 3/ not punishing trust abusers and scammers harder. This gives a bad signal to members they fear standing against the core bunch of scum AS BOTH VOD AND LFC BITCOIN have admitted in public. Fear of this group must be smashed.

Anyway I have given you my opinion, if you still believe it is a poor path to follow then continue your own way.  Trust abuse will be stopped through deterrent of retribution or theymos. FOrget theymos he is not going to help or would have done so by now. It is true the core group may collapse alone through greed and disagreement but they no their power depends on collusion so that is NOT going to happen imho.

I will only reply if you query anything I have said here. If not fine, try your own way. So long as you goal is to kick double standards and punish only scammers and financially dangerous it is good you are trying anything. So we salute that. As we say we do not mean to oppose you personally eddie

1. It is my God given American right to be a dick and fuck you for suggesting otherwise.

2. Pad my trust how exactly? By using it in exactly the way it was intended to be used, and the way it is used by practically every one else here?

3. Again, you should use your special powers to know what goes on inside my mind for more useful purposes. Even if this were true (it is not) how the fuck does some one's expectations influence others?

4. I don't use the trust list for retaliation. I am using it in the way I see fit as we are all permitted to. You see, when people such as yourself exclude me for stupid shit, I see that as a lack of ability to make sound decisions and the inability to put personal feelings aside when using the system. This system was designed this way to make sure that if some one is excluded it is done for good reasons otherwise the excluding party gets excluded themselves. That is the whole point of constructing the system this way.

5. I have been doing this for years, long before you showed up. The only instances of abuse of the trust system you can name are ones where you rely on your own interpretations, fantasies, and beliefs of what my intent is. The fact is in spite of having many interpersonal conflicts with users here I have shown exceptional restraint when using the trust system even when it is abused against me. Me telling you to go fuck yourself is not a lack of restraint. Me not shitting all over your trust ratings to spite you is restraint.

You have long been defending the actions of people who make a habit of this, but because you can imagine in your own mind things going on in my mind, well that is all the evidence you need to condemn my actions now isn't it? So again, you have no answer to my question, your reply is a ad-hominim attack comparing me to cryptohunter, and you don't need to base your actions on logic or facts because they are your opinions. Good show. Don't forget your clown shoes tool boy.

See if I can drag some honesty of the situation out of them..

Why don't you go leave you own little notes with supporting references on all those you consider deserving? 
None of that copy/paste shit either.. Detail specifically and thoroughly for each one with good references..

dragging honesty from a scammer/extortionist/shady escrow and flagrant trust abuser is a tricky task, tread with caution.

the dirty turds thread has it all documented, NOBODY has refuted even 1 of the observable instances there. I mean if red tags for for things that don't even make a lemons flag there is enough there to light them all up...actually a lot of that is full on scamming and scammer supporting if people take the time to investigate it all.

Of course like vod and LFC bitcoin have publicaly confessed when they cried out in admission they have to do what the inner core of scammers say because if not they will be picked out for punishment. That is ANOTHER problem with the systems of control they don't just allow collusion they DEMAND AND ENFORCE collusion and work to prevent DT doing the right thing even if they WANT TO. The economic punishment is too great. (that does not apply to you eddie since you seem to have been singled out and punished already)

Of course as someone said to me in private just today, I am totally overlooking that too early of a willingness to hammer down red correctly on deserving DT will likely result in your expulsion from DT and therefore render this approach lacking.... so that is yet another design flaw. You can not even do the right thing until you are full entrenched (years of supporting scammers and scammer supporters) by that time you are so hated by honestly abused members it makes it even harder to leave the only group that do not already hate you and have been hating on you for some time..haha

The only option to stop trust abuser or render the abuse mute is a reset as is being suggested by some members and a redesign on objective verifiable metrics, this will mean culling a lot of campaign managers that are in league with these dirty dogs or shaming them out from projects by pressuring those projects into hiring managers that will use transparent objective rules for their selection/denial process. Of course our own clever and as yet not debunked improvements would be better still, but of course they garnered little interest or support in meta ...lol surprise surprise.

Its all economic considerations here eddie. Don't ever think more than 0.1% here give one fuck about contributing to the adoption and progress of an end to end decentralized trustless arena. They want bitcoins to return to fiat to lambos , coke and hookers. That is the end of their ambitions. Not to state those lofty goals are not commendable and enjoyable, but there is no wider scope for many. There is no do the right thing. There is only do the right thing for me to have lambos coke and hookers. They do not realize those are not mutually exclusive.

Trust abuse is required to retain the status quo. Can't have people suggesting changes to the status quo, or defending those that suggest such changes, or that the prime beneficiaries are scammers and scammer supporters can we. Those must be silenced with trust abuse or  a ban. Until the status quo is broken there will be a lot more trust abuse and a lot more fighting and bitterness here. Thank merit for that primarily it is undeniable that before that most of the very most dangerous scammers were removed from dt and glowing red as they fucking should be now. Scammers will always find a way to game things that can be gamed for their own self interest ... merit and dt are like a honey pot for that generally speaking. The most sneaky are those that are supporting scammers and trust abusers whilst APPEARING to be neutral or on the fence or too dumb to see the scamming and abuse. Those are likely MORE dangerous to the board in the full context than perhaps even the flagrant ones ....food for thought.

Anyway eddie we leave it here. They were suggestions only. Perhaps there are problems with those after discussing with others, who's opinions we do value. More people on dt like eddie would be sensible. Even if they do not agree with us then at least they have no financially motivated wrong doing in their past, no sig spamming, no trust abuse, not afraid to speak up against even those lfc bitcoin and vod are terrified to disobey LOL  where are more people like this?? I am going to have a look at the trust list thing and at least add and exclude before we leave this board for a long period. The odd contribution just so there is no fretting we are gone for good may be possible though. I worry for you all in my absence but it is unavoidable.

The sad thing is there is no longer trust abuse (what requirement is there less than a lemons flag ffs lol) , like there is no merit abuse, the carrot and stick have the same economic power but no accountability or responsibility. How fun.

The red tag in your profile currently shows:

Lying, malicious attempt at perpetuating slander, account farming, trading, ICO bumping, where does it end with this user?
Do not trust this user with anything financially, nor anything that is written by this user as he clearly writes whatever the payee pays to be written


Among various things I read allegations of:

- you having alt-accounts
- you being a paid shill willing to post anything for anyone
- you being involved with account farming
- you pumping ICOs
- you being a liar
- you being untrustworthy


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1021758
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53487964#msg53487964

Which of those allegations are you actually contesting?

None from me..
This thread was originally contesting a red flag for simply sending merit to TECShare... Successfully contested because it was wrong..

While that red tag didn't fly in the eyes of the community it brought attention upon hacker where dirt was then dug on their account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0 and the admission from hacker of past paid ICO bumping..

Resulting in the new tag you see now which is mainly uncontested..


After all, it seems that hacker has a pretty rough history of shitposting, plagiarizing, and bumping etc. but from what I see hacker has been turning their posting quality around since their early actions as a newbie and has been mostly honest about their past mistakes, so I am hopeful that after a good amount of time from here on out as a quality poster and being a good asset of the forum, hacker may be able to redeem himself.

Are we reading the same thread? Hacker was everything but not honest, he posted one lie after another, yes, he "maybe" start telling the true, but it happened AFTER investigation start going deeper and deeper...and as you can see (if you can see) from that thread, investigation wasn't fully completed. It was just a scratch, if you are going to believe hacker's words that someone accidentally posted his info on reddit and some other things then you are more naive than I thought you are. Unless he bought this account, but he denied it, he signed message.

Except hacker wasn't a newbie, if you can please read that thread again OMG eddie13, what are you are writing here?

It seems?  ??? ??? ???  He took money to bump ICOs and some scams and write fake reviews and lied about it when he was asked..."today"!

What the fuck happened with this place?

---

I don't see anything wrong with this feedback


"Liar merits a lie", unless you can tell why this isn't a lie?
"No one should trust word they say" - unless you can beat my facts in that thread?

You just can't admit lauda was right.

He admitted to me the paid bumping stuff and that was enough for me to see lauda's new tag as correct..
As I said.. No contest on the new tag from me.. Lauda is right on the new tag but the tag for merits wasn't imo..

Maybe I should go back and reread that thread.. I wasn't that thorough in his past investigations admittedly as I basically got all the information I needed for the tag from the ICO bumping..

If he is still lying "today" about whatever then that is very disappointing to me as I had hoped he was turning things around..
I don't exactly follow his posts though and you obviously do a much better job of keeping an eye on him than I..

I was disappointed to find these things out about him halfway through this thread..
I and others didn't think it was right to tag someone for sending a merit but it turns out their were other concerns brought up that he should be tagged for..

I saw that your evidence against him was old 2017-18 stuff and thought that he had turned his shitposting around since was able to get his permanent ban from plagiarism overturned, which is usually only done if the user has sense become valuable correct?
If he hasn't/isn't becoming valuable and stopping whatever bad actions you see then that's a shame..


marlboroza you seem well researched and very sure of this subject so maybe you should reinforce lauda's tag for the main reasons of your tags having more credit at face value and your tags show up as trusted to more users, and maybe include some of the more current pertinent information..

Maybe I fucked up here not knowing everything about everything but I just can't do that..
I have been gone for a few days just now also so I probably missed things..

@marlboroza

From what I can see the negative trust was removed just recently (minutes ago) but regardless of that you correctly pointed out there was a valid case for it to stay. I have checked some posts and threads and tend to agree with you because after engaging with the OP on and off the past few weeks I have concluded he is not to be trusted at all. There will of course be those that will find him trustworthy and that is a great thing to have varying views across the board.

I would go so far as to say if there was any doubt the original contested feedback being considered harsh/wrong then the second feedback which was uncontested was probably highly accurate going by evidence available. I am unsure as to why the updated tag was removed but I think the responsible way forward would be to add an appropriate tag ensuring a caveat that it will be removed in future as long as no more issues arise.

I mean, does anybody actually know how many alt-accounts he was using before and if he is using any right now?

Does anybody know the names of his present or previous alt-accounts?

In my opinion if a relevant tag was added and the OP continues to post intermittently about scams and add to that there are no complaints mentioned about his campaign management for EARNBET (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217830.0) then the tag would probably be removed sooner rather than later but to leave no tag at this stage would probably be a mistake. That is my opinion.

The original tag quoted was this:


It was then replaced by this before it was removed:





@eddie13

Much respect to you for your comments and background explanation about the issue in both posts.

You are absolutely correct, tagging anybody on the basis of leaving merit for another user is wrong. Personally I would only consider tagging a user for leaving merit if there was case of merit abuse. From what I can see (and as you mentioned) nobody contested the updated tag but that has been removed.

Your suggestion for marlboroza to re-enforce or re-instate the tag seems a great idea but if there is consensus another user could add it but in my opinion it would be far more conducive to take precautions and add a relevant tag rather than not add it.

As for not keeping up with everything, to be fair there are always things going on around the forum and nobody can be expected to keep up with everything. Some threads and issues will always go under the radar. I lose track of what is going on frequently then try to catch up when I get a chance but it is not always easy.

It is still there.. Check the untrusted feedback section on his profile..
Like I said about more users seeing marlboroza's trust as default..

I am wrong from time to time and it sucks, but I do my best not to stay wrong when I get new/more intel..

 ;D

You are right

I purposely placed word today under scare quotes, what I wanted to say is "lied in that thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0)", but...
If you ever do, go back and forward few times, I guess you just have to go there and decide for yourself whether you trust him now because his posting quality has improved or he is just another liar who tried to lie his way out and is still lying and/or lied about some other things in that thread. try to find something like this there:

"I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements." - hacker1001101001

"OK, I agree it looks like bumping but I had no incentive from that posts more than increasing my weekly post counts back then" - hacker1001101001

"I am not turning the story but rather willing to agree on my mistakes back then" - hacker1001101001

"I agreed being paid, please read the above info." - hacker1001101001


About that tag thingy, if you want to see more negative on someone's profile, don't ask others to do it, either do it or don't. Or do it and then ask others to do it.

---

I believe OP got answer to his question, so perhaps to lock this not-about-lauda thread?

I have never necessarily trusted him and since the time he has been brought inside of my attention span that situation has not exactly been improving..


If I see someone having such a strong opinion on a topic I don't see much of a problem in prodding them to put their money/tags where their mouth is, so to speak..

Come on bud, do you really think I am someone untrustworthy overall, if yes it makes your sense of judgement very weak and I even don't trust your judgement from it.

It's clearly seen as your attempt to put more oil in the drama, nice move.

I admitted I don't have unknown alts here.

I am not willing to post anything for anyone with money, that's just one of the misleading statement in the feedback by Lauda.

I am not involved in account farming, it's hard to maintain one account around here.

Yes, the ICO pumping seems right, but as I said in the other thread, it was my early days mistake on the forum, even apologized for it and never did it again.

I am not a lier. Yes I lied first about not getting incentive to post but agreed later on the same thread.

I am not untrustworthy and never scammed anyone, again it is like buliding your own story and misleading in itself.

So now, if you are satisfied with your grudge, stop trying to witch hunt me because, one of my view doesn't match yours about the feedback here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5212036.msg53643112#msg53643112). I was out of that thread already.

---

I was newbie while getting engaged in this, I have said and explained this around dozens of times in the thread and even in PMs to many.

Anyways, if some users are never upon accepting apology around here, I don't think we are buliding a constrictive place overall. Yes, I could publicly and loudly say I find it hard to see people forgiving around here.

---

I am not lying about it, I agreed to you in the same thread about I being involved in it. Nowhere else, I have tried to lie about it around.

Don't you think what you are claming as worthy of tag is also non-repeatable mistake from my side.

---

I don't know what made you conclude that am not to be trusted, I am totally against your judgement if you don't have any specific cases of me scamming funds from someone. This show's the flawed judgment of yours about me.

---

Locking this thread for now.

---

If someone wants to rant about me, create a new thread.