*Less than or equal to the block reward.

Business...

I am not sure if you are being serious or are trolling. I think you should review the number of people who have excluded lauda from their trust list and reevaluate your conclusion that community consensus is that lauda is doing a "good job"

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect either Lauda to be held accountable for his trust ratings, nor for you to be held accountable for those you have on your trust list. Nor should it be unreasonable for people to discuss with you the ratings your trust list directly results in showing up by default.

From a technical perspective, yes it is possible aTriz opened those threads not as a member/partner of ALU, but as an individual campaign manager, however realistically this was not the case.

Further evidence that aTriz was not removed from ALU is the fact that he was not removed from any of the ALU related materials, such as the website (now taken down), and the thread (now locked), as well as that fact that none of the other ALU "partners" have made statements that they are taking over the campaign management of any of the campaigns aTriz was previously running (unless you are going to argue that aTriz was/is running all of the bounty campaigns in the threads he opened, which would be a ridiculous argument). 


I would also point out that Lauda said upthread that the person who opened campaign threads (which in almost every case was aTriz) was not necessarily the person who was running the campaign. This was clearly done to 'muddy the waters' to distort who was ultimately responsible for each campaign.

Another interesting fact is that aTriz opened several bounty campaign threads for what was arguably obvious ICO scams while he also opened a scam accusation against an ICO who attempted to use ALU's services whose shadiness was uncovered during some kind of due diligence that aTriz claimed to have been performing. This might imply that someone other than aTriz was the one who made the decision to allow the what I would consider obvious scam campaigns to continue unabated. This is far from proof that lauda was the one who made this decision, however the intentional muddied waters should give (additional) doubt to lauda's integrity (assuming of court you are turning a blind eye to his prior extortion attempt).   

The fact that aTriz started bounty threads after lauda made this statement disagrees with this claim.

I am not so sure about his new account being in the default trust network currently but I am fairly confident he has moved on.

I am fairly sure that Vod is rejected by women when it is 365 days from the last Christmas (eg he doesn’t get rejected on Christmas Eve, on leap years, when some women are feeling extra *charitable*).

Surely this is the fault of Jesus.

Welcome to the club flying hellfish

It looks like the aTriz account was most likely abondonded and he has moved onto his new account

So you are saying you have sufficient accounts to reverse this figure?

It would be most appropriate to remove the "not disputed" tag in the title of the thread, as this is not accurate.

Realistically, it would be appropriate to add a [resolved] tag as this has been shown to be unsubstantiated and false. 

As of the last trust dump, roughly twice the number of people have excluded lauda from their trust lists as have included him in their trust lists. The exclusions are somewhat concentrated in members who have been around longer, and can filter the BS.

Also, there is fairly substantial evidence that lauda went into business with a sold account (that ended up being a scammer) while lauda was very actively engaging in leaving negative trust to sold account, and the said sold account had a fairly large number of red flags that should have indicated ownership of the account being sold.

I would like for Blazed, saltyspitton and hilariousandco to make a statement regarding the above. All of the above have lauda on their trust lists.

You should contact blazed, hilariousandco and saltyspitton about your concerns of your rating.

I would personally recommend achow101 to be a  Bitcoin expert. His knowledge, experience and contributions to Bitcoin, and the dev/tech sections should speak for themselves. 

I would suggest contacting Blazed, hilariousandco and saltyspitton about this issue. They are why lauda is in the default trust network.

I have no idea why any of them would want to be associated with someone like lauda.

Moderators will be patrollers when they are first hired and will eventually have a section to moderate, at which time they can moderate posts in their section by anyone and posts by newbies in any section.

Some people will be hired for the purpose of moderating a specific section, such as a local section.

It will go into a queue of reports available to global moderators and admins to handle. If you repot a post made by a newbie, patrollers can handle it.

There are actually some instances in which theymos will allow someone to resume participating in the forum under a new account. Just because he was requesting his account unbanned that was not granted, it doesn't mean he is necessarily evading his ban.

Even if someone is permabanned and no prior permission is given to resume participating, continuing to enforce the permaban to newly created accounts is up to the desecration of theymos/the administration.

If you think someone should be banned for ban evasion, you should post your request in meta, and the administration will handle as they deem appropriate. This is not a trust issue.

Lol, that is really there.

For the record, I had nothing to do with that. But it looks like someone might have hacked Vod's website

He actually has unlimited sMerit.