We are on topic. No need to try and escape a full debate.

Are you claiming then that example does not demonstrate clearly what I stated it does?

You are trying to be sneaky AGAIN.

We can observe in the full context of that thread that the initial poster is attacked 3 x with FALSE allegations or Groundless ATTACKS before they respond with FACTUAL accounts of previous behaviors they have in their post histories.




So let's stay on topic here and establish you can not even be honest in your own thread about finding impartial and objective solutions.

Abusive behavior to o_e_l_e_o is telling the truth it seems.

So to remain on topic. Yes, there should not be any personal attacks (except where vital background information is required for optimal analysis by impartial readers. compelling evidence should be present), but since those calling for an end to the personal attacks, are the same ones attacking peoples trust scores, and their threads when they feel like it (with 0 evidence) then I am not that hopeful.

How about helping by being honest and admitting you use sock puppets like ScumBuster? I don't have video evidence, so it fails the moronbozo threshold of proof, like he is not zorroback. Sock puppets seem to be hot topics when dt members are not controlling them all..... or are you?

You are incorrect. The initial poster had explained during that thread that they had tried before stating the persons must not make it personal or they must bring evidence to support their opinions. I have checked this as you can check on their previous threads. The continued ignoring their of their requests then they  likely had no other choice but to prevent them from derailing and making it personal. I found their previous local rules to be very reasonable, in that anyone could post as long as they substantiated their claims and opinions with evidence of or a compelling case based on observable events.

I very much doubt eliminating 10 persons from the entire forum means they are creating an echo chamber.

I have witnessed members specifically list in their local rules that the discussions in their threads should remain hypothetical, and no member is permitted to make things personal.
The same people in this very thread, complaining about personal attacks and vendettas, were the ones or closely affiliated with those immediately launching into personal attacks.
Meta board is one long troll.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5128027.0

even mods

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5123752.0

Video evidence under the moronbozo is not zorroback is on its way?

This observable demonstration of wild speculation, demonstrates an observably clear desire, to derail and drag off topic, this observably important thread. Snitchmoon is observably obsessed with our inspirational true legend cryptohunter. The very same members of the gang observably appear, on every thread, about their observably scamming friend/alt lauda to defend his observably dirty and untrustworthy deeds. Suchmoron has tried using sock puppets like scumbuster before to get the true legend banned. You can ban an account but a legends true voice can never be silenced.

Back on topic. We, the observably honest and trustworthy members of this board, showing  0 observable untrustworthy events in our past here should unite, and have a single goal: To ensure the freedom of speech of all honest members on this board. Who will remain free to point out the observable scamming and lying actions of all members even the scamming and lying DT members that have gamed the merit system and infiltrated the trust system.

As more high profile members like ognasty  start to become targets of the observably untrustworthy individuals on DT, it observably demonstrates a great need for change.

Oh, it is you. Okay, we will be a little more patient. We have read over the vicious blackmailing actions of Alice, and her annoying droning on relating to her phone being kindly liberated from her abusive custodianship by the victim and hero bob.


Read the OP. Campaign managers and sponsors, have to be careful, that their reputation is not tainted, by unknowingly employing or sponsoring liars, scammers, those implicated in extortion, and other shady looking behavior. We wish to save Hhampuz, and fortune jack, from multiple threads on this matter.

Keep to the topic, and you will be okay. We are interested in the truth, nothing more. You are free to discuss the evidence. You have speculated on our motives. We will allow them to stay. That is not the focus. We will not be derailed.

If you claim the truth does not interest you. Or if you claim innocent persons receiving red trust is a good thing. Then you will be deleted. We have no interest in changing your mind. You are free to post your ideas in other threads.

This is a broad discussion, to establish some clear rules on suspected hacked or sold accounts in relation to positions of TRUST.

Would it be considered appropriate or even high risk to allow persons on DT who have possibly bought their account( account was offered for sale) and recently begging for tiny loans 0.02btc?
I feel this sort of account should be kept away from DT?

We notice  a vip was given red trust. That account was not reported hacked or sold. There was no proof it was ever sold, or hacked, but was given red trust. It was argued, it was dangerous to allow a vip member to go without red trust, that MAY have been sold or hacked.

It was mentioned on that thread that he had voice STRONG VIEWS on some DT members and the trust system. It was those members that saw fit to apply the red trust, coincidentally.

We noticed tman added red trust to the intial poster here to silence his complaints.

We notice tman added the red trust on the basis of account sales. Yet his friend nutildah is guilty of buying or selling his account for 0.3btc  and has recently been begging for 0.02btc loans. A very a dangerous addition to DT.

This clearly demonstrates what the intial poster is claiming is true and there is great cause for concern. The entire board is going to shit with these shady euro trash at the helm. I would not hesitate to remove them on the basis of just the previous probable extortion attempts, the lies and trust abuse.

The nutildah account should be frozen.

Have another look and have a think about it in the full context of the initial post. You can not be this stupid. We are providing evidence that is required by the intial post. We have covered the extortion, the lying, the scamming, we will move to the final items after enough time has passed that we deem suitable. How would one conclude hhampuz and fortune jack are sponsoring these types of individuals without supplying the evidence above? For our red trust to be removed we must demonstrate what we are proposing as a possibility  is true or probable.

Yes we already mentioned it was cryptohunter than initially presented this evidence, of lying and scamming several times. It was useful you were able to take note of that.

Take care that your next reply contains something of value, or we will delete it.

It is clear that the probable extortionists are not willing to come and set the record straight. They have time to use their red trust to try to silence me asking questions about it though?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

When reviewing the above thread, it serves as compelling evidence for the extortion questions that we opened with in the initial post. We draw from this and their lack of defense here while having time to apply red trust to this account on the basis " we are drawing attention to shady behavior in their past" that it is highly probable these people tried to extort another member of this forum.

Let us move to Lauda being a scammer.  Scamming is lying or deceiving for financial gain or unfair advantage.  This is clearly what scammers do.  We can observe from Laudas past that he firmly meets the definition of a scammer. This evidence was presented many times before by Cryptohunter  A TRUE LEGEND


We copy and pasted this from a post by our dear friend and inspiration cryptohunter

This is regarding a project that announced a fair pow launch (no premine/instamine)

It then did this

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg7535561#msg7535561

lauda made these comments on many occasions over many months we had quite a few arguments over it

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=560138.msg6748208#msg6748208

Now this is clearly a financially motivated lie. Scammers are financially motivated liars.



It is observable that lauda is therefore a liar and a scammer.

These incidents alone are grounds for red trust, but together they culminate in providing evidence that Lauda is a continuous threat to the board.

The trust abuse will be covered next.

I was on the fence over this one.
 
I would like to voice my legitimate feedback or opposition on the basis of 4 key points. I may retract them if things change in the future.

1. Many of the presented exemplary posts apparently deserving merit are verging on shit posts. The latter ones are garbage and have minimal if not zero value. If those are the best you could select from the entire board then you are not fit as merit source.
2. You are far too desperate, pushy and self congratulatory. I have noticed this thread and his last one bumped and spammed far too often. Believes that legends are his inferiors?
3. Observably an ass kisser and beneficiary of merits that come from the meta cycling club.
4. I could not trust any person that supports Lauda or tmans use of red trust to silence: whistle blowing and presenting observable events demonstrating their previous untrustworthy actions on this board.

The support from Tman pushed me over the edge into opposing openly the application. It suggests to me that the merit will just find themselves circle jerking around to entrench the untrustworthy and devious members that in in DT even more deeply.

Additional merit sources are needed. They should be selected from a group that is in no way so closely affiliated with the current meta board/ DT merit cycling club.

As ever, the smarmacist is first to protect the euro trash scumbags. Lauda and his bunch of alts or friends, have given red trust to any person that attracts attention to their previous lies, scamming and probable extortion and escrow schemes. Theymos has no idea if lauda is good or bad? but his actions suggest that he and his dirty friends can remain on  DT and label anyone a scammer for any reason they choose. So long as they have the backing of their cronies.

When you hear DT members claim. I can, I will and I just have given you red trust for presenting facts about my friends untrustworthy deeds. Then you know when other DT members allow this with no answer at all the entire bunch of DT are mass of putrid scum.

Do I feel sorry for Ognasty? yes. Does he deserve red trust NO.  Is the entire boards free speech under threat right now. YES it is.

Sock puppets are good, and should be given merit when they do the dirty work of DT members. New members, or sock puppets, that speak out against trust abuse, or highlight observable lies, scamming or other dirty deeds from DT members histories are bad.

When members present evidence that demonstrate they were given red trust for simply saying they will encourage others to review a DT members post history in response to that  DT  making  many false accusations against that member, then that shows DT is dangerous and being misused. It should be the admins responsibility to remove such persons, then black list them. Given the vast amount of incriminating evidence against such persons in DT, in combination with DT using red trust to silence whistle blowers, it could well be viewed as  irresponsible , if something terrible should happen, that they could have, and should have, prevented.

The only solution to DT is to remove it, or to enforce sensible guidelines. Merit could be tweaked but will remain low value due to most people here being unable to discern a post of value from a pile of misleading horse shit. It is impossible for the systems to be seen as net positive when they leave free speech so vulnerable, whilst providing financial incentive to gag or destroy advertising/trading competitors, and defame and discredit those that present observable evidence that DT members to remain hidden.

You are advocating appealing to corrupt colluding members. They are the core components of a broken, dangerous system. This appeal process has been tested, and found to be a fruitless exercise even for the most flagrant and SELF CONFESSED trust abuse. when a DT has stated in public "yes they have red trusted persons for presenting facts about their friends untrustworthy deeds" then WHAT FUCKING MORE CAN BE SAID ABOUT THAT?? there can be no greater abuse than that.

There is no appeal process that is not a total sham, there is only making it very personal, until justice is served.

Sure we can all get along, when we are all treated equally and all held to the same standards.

 

I think cøbra knows, like theymos knows, that lauda et al are scammers and liars. He (lauda) uses red trust in an attempt to prevent any kind of analysis of his history here. You will notice Tman, owlcatz and yogg are always there to pile on additional red trust, if you start digging into their past. Yogg I am particularly looking at. He is certainly connected to them or is perhaps an alt.
Theymos is actually treading on very thin ice. If those persons he was warned about in public several times and shown evidence of their untrustworthy past behavior. there is going to be some serious blow back on him if it was argued they leveraged their positions as DT to gain trust of any victims whilst using their position as DT to red trust and shutdown those that attempted to alert the community. Why? having knowledge of this did he allow them to remain?
It is difficult to know, what hold if any, lauda has on theymos to prevent him from blacklisting the entire group of scum. It would seem Lauda has no such hold on cøbra. we are hoping for some intervention from above. I believe that theymos is aiming to reduce his own involvement and accountability. which is smart, but lacks the courage to take affirmative action against obvious scammers and liars. This is could be a huge mistake.  I personally hope that theymos snaps out of it, before that happens,  has for years provided a base for crypto to thrive. he should not be taken down with those others.
Lauda with eventually become a pariah to anyone that works with him. His extensive list of attempted scams, schemes and lies are too well known to fade away.He is done here.

Thankyou for the bump. You've come to discuss the possible extortion attempt, that YOU are implicated in? That's great. What's a Quickscammer? Is he the whilstleblower that caught you guys trying to extort another member? how did you obtain the victims dox?why involve someones parents?That's not nice,I see your own dox is available, I hope that never happens to you.

We'd only like to get to the truth.
Accusing us of spreading false information? which information is false? we'll get that deleted right away.


A quote for the future

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

We should focus on the 1st item of evidence. More will follow. The questions asked in the initial post, must be addressed.  We want a thorough, sensible and complete investigation. We seek only the truth.

You seem intent on dragging my thread off topic with insults and crude language. Please refrain from this or else I will report your posts, and  open an examination of what is permitted as on topic if they are not removed. You are not above the rules are you?  You have not contributed in a way I feel conducive to answering my question in the initial post at all.

It appears you are not suited to this type of position. I request you are removed at once . I feel you do the forum a disservice having staff in your account profile. I see no reason for such a great forum to be tainted by such a crude and disturbing person, obviously attached to other shady members. You are spoiling the good name of the fair and objective staff members here. Please do the forum a real service and delete your own account.

Please  stay on topic, and remain civil with one another. If people refuse to answer simple questions without becoming hostile, and cursing at new members, then we have to discuss how to change this. It  looks as several persons here at all levels, have plenty to hide, and fear public examination?  

-ve trust can not be used as a weapon to silence,discredit, defame whistle blowers, or those that wish to  open up a discussion or investigation. Honest members would welcome an investigation so that they may experience full vindication and go forward with pride.

Trying to brand honest members as puppets, or trolls, are smear tactics. They are usually employed by the guilty and untrustworthy.

Please stop accusing me of being thule. I am not he.

We are not attacking anyone. We are helping projects make sure they are not unknowingly sponsoring observably untrustworthy individuals and possible scammers.

Hhampuz, if you have not directly enlisted the people that we will bring for public examination, then you can be excused from this. We will go directly to the sponsor for their comment on the evidence we shall present. Then we shall bring for public debate whether a project should choose to give these types of individuals private, exclusive and lucrative deals to represent them. What that implies about the legitimacy of these sponsors, and the security of people using these services.

We shall continue to seek debate on it, for as long as it takes to ensure red trust is removed from all of those that have not scammed any person, or attempted to scam any person.

Our intention is to get to the truth, and nothing more.

Campaign managers must also make sure they are not showing favor to these types of persons, or any persons. They must do their very best to make sure all persons are fairly treated and not turned away, so they assist their friends get all the highest paying slots. Not that we are claiming you do that.


Let us start with the possible failed extortion ( or did it fail) attempt by  Lauda TMAN owlcatz.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0

Note that 2 of those persons have applied red trust to this account before they were named?

Read the thread  then we can discuss it. I have noticed senior and highly trusted members of this community insist the believe it was a real extortion attempt.

Senior members of the community, and trusted members with zero shady events in their own histories, said they had spoken to the victim and it was  a real extortion attempt.  Could it be feasible that since lauda, tman, and owlcatz had leverage over him so they were in a position to force him to say anything they liked to get them off the hook?  This will be the first examination of just one of the possible incidents we wish to examine in public. All questions we asked in the initial post will be validated and covered as we proceed.

We seek only the truth on these important matters of trust.

We invite the senior and trusted members of the community that we mentioned  believed it to be a real extortion attempt to come forward first, to give us their insight.

You seem very upset about this matter? Is there some closer connection to this issue than simply sharing a similar posting style and the same sponsor as persons that may be about to be investigated in public?  Why so upset?

Fortune jack seems to attract the less savory characters it would seem.

Your false accusations and defamatory comments are just clear double standards.  I think you should realize that swearing renders  you insane according to your other alt tman.

I am asking questions, and have stated, that we will bring the evidence, you are making false accusations, verging on lies.

To pretend that you are unaware of the probable extortion, lies, and shady escrow dealings, well, we find that unbecoming of a member of staff. If that is what you are? If we can just make claims with no proof as to the ID of persons here then I will accuse you of being Tman or Lauda. I feel your behavior is inconsistent with that of a staff member and I find your actions cast a dark shadow over the staff of this board.

It seems unusual for a staff member of such a large community to feel they can scream sexual slurs, and crude language, at new members, for asking questions.

Perhaps I can read, but find it implausible that a legitimate staff member would launch into  cursing and being  very crude and sexually insulting to a new member simply for asking for guidance on the trust system?

I would request that your account is investigated and your entire background for any possible alt connections with lauda and tman. I ask you to speak to me with respect and refrain from swearing at me in future.

You are free to answer the question I posed in the initial post, and contribute to my thread as a sensible reasonable human being.