I dislike appeasing those that want negative feedback for the wrong reasons, but I've done what I felt was right, and tried to be as objective as I could in the process.
I appreciate your objectivity. You could have answered to my response, but the thread got quickly derailed as soon as people joined for the wrong reasons. Nevertheless, I might have some private questions (not that case specific anyways). |
|
|
|
- Accepting a misleading information and then pretend to be ok with it.
As I said, it's not what he did do but what he didn't do. He should have stopped the whole thing right there and I'm sure everyone else would have advised him to do the same had anyone known what was going on. Anyway, the point is, aTriz is just a Hero member and I see you are a DT member. I also see you are his/her business partner.
There is a reason for awarding you a DT member. Being his/her business partner does not mean that you back them up even when they are doing things that are wrong wrong.
I don't back people up just because I work with them, the same way that I don't leave them positive ratings just because I work with them. It would be a huge of interest. If I had a service like ALU and if I were doing the same as aTriz then would you stay silent?
As mentioned in the previous thread, I was not aware of this until it was pointed out. I am not sure who elses are with ALU but I am sure that you are backing aTriz in public.
Yes, and no. The "backing" in that thread is a deterrent to the mallicious attack on ALU as a whole, and the other members, who had nothing to do with this and are in no way responsible for aTriz's actions. I've pointed out the people with valid, objective, points. Please admit it that aTriz does not qualify to be a campaign manager. Your reputation is on stake because of the user aTriz.
It's not a black and white issue. Did he make a mistake? Yes. Does this mistake have consequences? Yes. Does this mean he isn't capable of managing campaigns? I can't come to this conclusion out of such premises. Despite the mistakes he made, he has shown to be very capable in managing them[1] despite his recent errors in judgement. Honestly speaking if I were you and if I were a 100% morally honest person then I would kick out aTriz using my name and badge. It would look for someone else for my business.
There's plenty of wrong with this statement, and I'll let you know why. If I was able to just simply kick someone out of a 3-entity group, that would mean that I effectively own it which is not the case here. Obviously, getting to consensus on this matter with the remaining entity shouldn't be too difficult. However, remember the last time I acted quickly without thinking? Oh yeah, I'm still being harassed for it to this day. Some people complain that I act quickly, and then when I don't, they complain that I don't. You can't have it both ways (I'm not talking about you in this particular example). I need time and more objective input on the matter; the *consequences* or whatever you want to call it from our side (Untold and me) will come. Again, Your reputation is on stake because of the user aTriz.
I disagree. I'm not responsible for someone else's actions, especially not when I had no knowledge of them. PS: alia thought I am scam_detector, actually I am not.
It doesn't matter to me as, from what I've seen, you seem to make sense and are not biased on *any* particular case.
[1] Weren't people complimenting this quite frequently, before aTriz caught my eye and before ALU even existed?
Some fixes and you haven't answered this: They are doing whatever they want with the official/unofficial power or whatever you call it but no one is doing nothing against it.
Exactly what kind of power does the, non-staff, non-DT, youngling called aTriz have? Indulge me. |
|
|
|
Enough whining here every person acts at his own risk[1] and no one forces him to do it
Voila. However, that doesn't apply when the agenda is to attack people who disagree with you (this is yet another example of it). 
[1] Which aTriz did, and not in the exaggerated sense that *some* are trying to push here. He messed up, nobody else. |
|
|
|
He's been tagged even though he can't be responsible for the actions of the project (just like any other manager can't). What exactly are you complaining about now[1]? They are doing whatever they want with the official/unofficial power or whatever you call it but no one is doing nothing against it.
Exactly what kind of power does the, non-staff, non-DT, youngling called aTriz have? Indulge me. PS: I'm having a feeling that after posting this comment some of the eyes will be on me.
Don't disagree with the Quickcartel and you will be fine.
[1] Now I see it. A small group of DT members and moderators endorsed fraudulent Icos managed by Atriz...
This is just a pathetic lie. You could have at least made the lie better by listing some names. |
|
|
|
I am also curious what you meant by, "I don't need people visiting the hospital." Who is aware of this secret meaning?
"Every bad situation is a blues song waiting to happen." Shrl. necesse est.  I don't see how any reasonable person could see this to be anything but a threat of physical harm.
Pathetic attempt at spinning it as something that it isn't. Keep trying Quickscammer. I saw you retaliate against someone for criticizing you very recently.
-snip-
That is not retaliation but a delayed, and well-deserved rating. I commend OG for having the balls to stand up to Lauda.
He is not and there is nothing to stand up for. We are only here because of his dispute with TMAN which he can't get over.
Nothing really worth addressing anymore as we enter the 4th month of continual harassment, lies and attacks by the cartel. The thread was derailed to the point that it has next to nothing to do with the user in question. |
|
|
|
...Lauda's crew for fear of retaliation..
There is no such thing and there was never any retaliation on anyone. Ironically, the latter is why you don't have negative trust ratings from DT2 (not related to me/my position anyhow, as I already received preemptive retaliation). Answer the question dude. It is exactly what I've observed from your actions.
I have not made a decision yet, thus can't answer the question "dude". Your guess is as good as mine what the "secret meaning" is. I took it as a threat to disguise an act of desperation.
I took all your statements on this thread as harassment and threats. Baseless victimization like that won't work. Try something new. And clarifying for the second time, even though you know very well that it isn't a threat, it's not a threat.
The can of worms has been opened. I'll leave the two lovebirds and their alt to their lies and their cheap smear tactics (misrepresentation, exaggeration, name calling, victimization and whatnot) be for now. |
|
|
|
So if a member of ALU promotes an ICO and it turns out to be a 100% scam where they had advanced knowledge, you as a member of ALU have no accountability, will not negatively rate the member who helped pull the scam, and will simply wash your hands with the scam and move on to the next money maker? Is that correct?
I have not stated nor implied such a thing. I want to make sure I have a clear understanding.
As I've clearly told ibminer, before you derailed the thread with lies and blame shifting, it is too early and next-to-impossible to make an objective statement/move on this. I'd rather take my time before I do something, this time. I'm still butthurt because my account trading business is seriously damaged.
FTFY. Yes, the former is true. Just don't go back to your old habits, I don't need people visiting the hospital.  I'm trying to follow along with my popcorn in hand. What did you mean by this, Lauda? It has a secret meaning; have fun with your imagination though. No, it is not a threat of any kind as insinuated before by mr. Nasty, and to which I have responded here: Is this some sort of threat? Pathetic.
Nope. Next time use words.
I see the angle that you tried to make there ("Lauda the witch threatening to put OgNasty in a hospital"). Sorry, won't work. I don't resort to physical violence, unlike *some*. |
|
|
|
I tried to avoid you and threads relating to you, yet here we are (again, because of you). No, you are here because an organization you are a large part of just got caught trying to fraudulently scam investors. Realize that. No. I have nothing to do with this, neither does Untold nor does ALU have any part in the action of the people behind Bitblisscoin. Desperate lies again. |
|
|
|
It seems you guys have been given some bad information and are trying to harass me on a daily basis with this incorrect insult.
OgNasty in 1 picture: 
I tried to avoid you and threads relating to you, yet here we are (again, because of you). |
|
|
|
Are you ready to play? 
You should probably specify the time (or estimated-time) at which a round closes. |
|
|
|
Especially him telling himself to grow up.  I don't think you understand what a line break does. Just don't go badgering again. Was this how it was spelled again? I must have mixed up something
Quickscammer, your dear friend, opened a can of worms attempting to DOX owlcatz[1]. Nevermind, you find it acceptable since he disagrees with you (nor is an actual issue that you should be concerned with, of any concern to you). The more you continue with your desperate games, the less you matter (something doesn't sound right here). [1] I'd consider this an attempt at direct-harm. |
|
|
|
Not surprised, more deflective nonsense from the ALU chief.
You mean, stuff like this: Which claims "This guy named Atriz from bitcointalk with other member Lauda endorsed the project called chrysos coin and after investment they freezed the account with money in it. &k usd of mine is now lost.", although it being yet another thing I have nothing to do with. Yes, very deflective nonsense indeed. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king. In other words, Lauda/aTriz have no accountability for their actions and will do anything for BTC while hiding behind labels, which are unnecessary except to deflect any personal accountability.
The day that you stop rehashing lies and trying to blame me for things that I am not even remotely at fault, is the day that I will stop posting this: I won't even bring up the messaging users urging them to add me to their trust exclusion settings. I feel like I'm watching someone drown in slow motion.
I won't even bring up messaging FJ urging them to remove/deny users. Both sad and pathetic, some of the reasons for which she left you. 
Grow up already. |
|
|
|
I asked why FJ was seemingly paying someone like TMAN to represent them. I was then told that TMAN was wearing their signature without their consent and not being paid and will not be a member of their campaign due to his reputation.
Hmm. Who should I let respond to this? Girls take up a lot of time, well, real girls, not Aria.
The real question is, who is Aria? Now how about indulging me and telling me why you feel a forum member who admitted to attempting to scam users on this forum with a fraudulent ICO announcement doesn't deserve your negative trust, but anyone without perfect English does? It's obvious abuse of conflicts of interest like this why your opinion is worthless and you don't deserve to be in any sort of position to evaluate trust or anything else.
Desperate and pathetic, you are. Looks like you picked up the book of cheap smear tactics from Quicksie; well, at least you've started to actually read something. I won't even bring up the messaging users urging them to add me to their trust exclusion settings. I feel like I'm watching someone drown in slow motion.
I won't even bring up messaging FJ urging them to remove/deny users. Both sad and pathetic, some of the reasons for which she left you. Oopsie. |
|
|
|
So anyone who rates you as the extortionist you are is now supporting QS? Desperate, desperate, desperate. I'm grabbing the popcorn to see how you try to weasel yourself out of this one. Hope you've got something other than deflection in that bag of tricks.
I don't need anything other than this: I won't even bring up the messaging users urging them to add me to their trust exclusion settings. I feel like I'm watching someone drown in slow motion.
I won't even bring up messaging FJ urging them to remove/deny users. Both sad and pathetic, some of the reasons for which she left you. Indulge me. While I need not get out of anything as I am not related to this case, I do know someone who had to get themselves out of a nice *organizational relationship* though.
I made it a bit more clear. Excuse the small font size. Maybe it is time to get over it? |
|
|
|
I destroyed all your nonsense almost trivially. Move along and go back to supporting Quicksie the scammer. FTFM.
How do I support Quicksie? You aren't helping yourself by posting more lies, although I guess your goal is to bury the recent posts as quickly as you can. Seems to be your MO. I updated the post after it has been made (the writing was unclear); updated the quote as well. You support him with your recent rating and jumping on any nonsensical bandwagon of his.
Let me not forget this part, leftover. I won't even bring up the messaging users urging them to add me to their trust exclusion settings. I feel like I'm watching someone drown in slow motion.
I won't even bring up messaging FJ urging them to remove/deny users. Both sad and pathetic, some of the reasons for which she left you.
 * Lauda goes back to the non-ALU residence funded by non-ALU funds as I await a non-malicious response (no Quickseller, OgNasty or alts of the former). |
|
|
|
Labels are unnecessary.
Says the guy who has tried to label more people on this forum than any other user. That has nothing to do with the putting a label/definition on ALU, literally nothing. Is this some sort of threat? Pathetic.
Nope. Next time use words.
I destroyed all your nonsense almost trivially. Move along and go back to supporting Quicksie the scammer. FTFM. |
|
|
|
|
You should check his translation with the Google translate one using a plagiarism checking tool and then add those results as well. That makes it easier to review this.
|
|
|
|
Quoting and debunking for ridiculousness. ALU is nothing.
Labels are unnecessary. Has no accountability.
Lacking context. Has no funds.
It does not, and never did nor did anyone state otherwise. Shares nothing between it's members.
Lacking context. Basically, if ALU is pushing an ICO it means that it could be a scam and Lauda is perfectly fine with that so long as it doesn't effect him negatively in any way.
ALU is not pushing anything, and: For the reference: I had no information about any kind of "marketing strategy" (prior to this thread/post), nor did I ever really look into that project as I haven't managed any aspect of it.
This evidenced from the fact that a fellow ALU member has now openly admitted to taking part in a scam to steal investor funds through fraud and still maintains a positive trust rating from Lauda.
It looks like your maliciousness and stupidity got to you. Where exactly is the rating from Lauda? Bonus: Nobody was taking part in any scam. You aren't participating in a crime that you don't report. Ya, you know me. Broke as a joke barely getting by in my shanty. Clearly my motivations must be financial and not trying to make this place better by getting rid of the trash that is flooding this forum with ICOs and turning away newbies from Bitcoin by giving them an awful first experience investing in scams.
Yes, the former is true. Just don't go back to your old habits, I don't need people visiting the hospital.
Very easy, then again you aren't known for your intellect and neither is Quickscammer. |
|
|
|
ALU is a private organization run by you and it's members are hand selected by you to represent your for profit services.
No. Yes. No. It is not run by me. So what is ALU then? Just a forum thread with no organization whatsoever?
Why would I want to disclose our inner workings to you exactly? You need an actually profitable endeavor to copy? Must be nice to think you can advertise services for scammers, and then have no liability whatsoever.
Managers don't advertise, and this is not related to me. Wrong, he did act on it. He continued with his charade knowing full well it was a lie. I don't care what he didn't do, I care what he did do. In this case, he did go along with a lie in order to scam users out of their funds with the excuse that the scam was a marketing strategy.
No, it is not his charade. In order for it to be his charade, he'd either have to: a) Make the statement himself. b) Back it up. c) Be part of the team who made it. None of these apply. What he did wrong was not stopping both threads as soon as that statement was made. Any exaggeration beyond this is just malicious on anyone's end. Then why make the information public? I would think ALU exists to give it's members a united front that the organization is backed by more than one person, giving it the illusion of having more accountability if one of them goes rogue, yet you have now openly stated that ALU is in no way responsible for the actions of it's members, which in my opinion makes it worthless and you should be open about this.
There you have your answer. You would think. ALU can never be responsible for the actions of individuals. You seem to state that nobody needs to know who it's members are and if some of them are scammers it's nobody's business. I disagree, a lot.
Former, correct. Latter, incorrect. Quite the number of *managers* don't disclose any members (some notable names have people working with them, but these people are usually just in the background), yet you don't seem to take interest in who is working with who unless it revolves around me. |
|
|
|
I think an economic or fiduciary relationship is more close-knit than a fan group, so in my opinion, it does reflect on other associates, unless they categorically disown and disassociate themselves.
So you are telling me that when, e.g., someone is caught doing something wrong in a company, it reflects on the other employees? Yes, that makes perfect sense. For what? Sorry, I don't remember. Was just strolling by.
Go shitpost somewhere else. ALU is a private organization run by you and it's members are hand selected by you to represent your for profit services.
No. ALU is funded by apparently lying to investors to scam them out of their funds.
There are no ALU funds nor is there ever a case of funding of this "private organization", thus this statement is false. You feel it doesn't come back on you at all?
No. You think it is ok that you still "trust" this member who fraudulently acted to destroy the name of ALU and cast doubt upon whether or not you are in charge of an organization that's purpose appears to be to help scam users out of their money with fraudulent claims?
Wrong. It is not that he acted, it is that he did not act on it. The latter part of the statement just shows how biased and full of nonsense you are. Fits your record. Time to get back to the badgering, eh? You think it is ok that a member who has been caught trying to scam investors with an ICO is a part of ALU?
It is none of your business who is and who isn't a member[1], nor what my opinion on that is. Atriz is 1/3 or so of ALU and I assume you all get a share from campaign proceeds? If this is the case you are all culpable. Throwing atriz under the bus means nothing.
See, another shameless assumption as previously stated. There are no "ALU funds" and there are no split proceeds. It seems to be company policy to promote scams, and Atriz just admitted it.
There is no company.
You need to make up better FUD, this is just child's play. Try using something that is commonly used by liberals. [1] The relevant party can be switched out with someone else if need be. The letters don't even need to be changed. Lucky I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
