I don't see any of those examples being valid for this case. In all those three examples, none of the participating parties are not alt accounts and to our knowledge they haven't attempted to sell/buy merit. However, in the case of OP we are talking about multiple accounts per entity (assuming the alt account connection is valid; I have not checked the details of the report) abusing both bounties and merit. Thanks for chiming in, Vod. I specifically asked for your opinion here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3202458
, and now I have it. I'm going to revisit any feedback I've left specifically for merit abuse, and I'll probably end up deleting it. I hate doing that, but I tend to agree with you on the merit issue. I missed that one; I'll also comment if I find some time. |
|
|
|
This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me. Weird, you had a very different view on whistleblower accounts only a few days ago: and @ lauda how do I know the op is not you? or anyone else
You don't, and you can't. That's the point of OP using an alt account, so nobody from that list can get revenge on them for pointing this out (assuming they wanted to). Maybe it is true that when you can't attack the message, and can't attack the messenger, you make a baseless claim, that is impossible to have any evidence of, and smear the messenger based on the baseless claim. No. Whistle-blowers are great when they actually do their job, i.e. provide constructive analysis and statements, and not when they go for a SJW-style attack on an individual, subset of a group or whatever. Had this been a proper exposure, you would have analyzed every DT1 member and their *young-lings* for the activity that you are complaining about. Oops, that should say "merit". I will correct it shortly. Feel free to address my (corrected) concern.
Most things are wrong, which is why this thread is tiring to me and probably to others. The GDPR thing has nothing to do with the account connection, the merit statement is wrong again. He says he will send merit for any reason he wants
A statement like that, taken out of context sounds wrong, no? Anyone in their right mind knows what I meant with it. You know as well, yet you still chose to go this road. while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish
You see red trust as punishment? ..he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with..
At this point it is just a lost cause. What is the lie?
"Without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past" - There is no proof of this, thus the statement is malicious nonsense. We are not discussing something that is socially accepted/not accepted. We are talking about Red Tagging people who are scammers.
Things that people get trust ratings for are exactly things that are either socially accepted or not. You are looking at this from a backwards perspective. It's the intrinsic forum Etiquette. E.g., it doesn't say anywhere tag someone for running a ponzi, but we do it because that is socially frowned upon (here).
This could have been a nice thread, like the one that the other guy did. However, you let a disgusting amount of bias, exaggeration and misrepresentation get in the way. This thread is mostly based on emotion[1], not reason. It really seems like the classic charade, and not a constructive assessment of the issues that we have here. You do not try to understand the other side, but see DT as some kind of status and power (notably with the word 'punish'). Have you ever thought about how many countless hours these people have spent trying to protect others in this place? Trying to reduce theft (which most alt abuse essentially is), or just helping in general? Have you thought about how it is to do such a thankless "job" for years? You have not, and obviously you do not care.
[1] The same goes for my use of the wording 'disgusting' in the prior sentence. P.S. Agendas can also be fun. |
|
|
|
This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me. As I've recently said in another thread: The thing is, some notable members that used to deal or attempt to deal in accounts in the past have not been tagged and won't be tagged.
This is in no way limited to Blazed's trust list, and you would know that if you were actually analyzing DT1 for the right reasons. The group that was linked back then was much bigger; someone could find it if they wanted to. We are talking about different times here. The general consensus a few years ago and now is much different. User Lauda is by far the most controversial user in DT.... He says he will send trust for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. That is absolutely not what the post says. The linked post says nothing even remotely related to this statement "leaving trust for any reason I want". There is no point. I can leave merit to whomever I want[1], wherever I want and in whatever amount I want. If you don't like it, then ask theymos to change the rules.
...
[1] This works when you don't have an army of alts (see Quickseller et. al.).
He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity.
Another lie backed up by the classic 'ol book. Have you been inspired by Quickseller?
Furthermore, keeping up the attacks while painting everyone as bad as you can without going overboard doesn't work anymore. You're just wasting time. Do I need to remind you that I was banned twice for spamming? Oh, the conflict of interest!  I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times.
There were a lot of things that were commonly accepted in the past, but no longer are (e.g. slavery). If you want something non-illegal, then racism would also be an example of this (before socially accepted, now it is not). |
|
|
|
...
as 5/11 = 45% which still makes my list the worst one. So frankly I do consider it to be a direct attack on me and I don't even know the op's name.
...
Doesn't matter; you improved on it even thought you could have ignored it like some did. That's what matters. I don't see this as a direct attack on anyone, yet. and @ lauda how do I know the op is not you? or anyone else
You don't, and you can't. That's the point of OP using an alt account, so nobody from that list can get revenge on them for pointing this out (assuming they wanted to). |
|
|
|
Now I simply say this for all default trust people the op accused more then one of us for manipulating our numbers.
-snip-
@ theymos after reviewing this thread I think I want off the list.
-snip-
I will reconsider my involvement with DT1 in a week or 2. The op's accusations clearly have created a basis for me to think very long and hard about this as I live in a very litigious part of the USA : New Jersey.
Why are you taking this thread, which isn't even solely directed at you, so personally? |
|
|
|
As I was initiated into a cryptic cult with rites of the goddess Hecate, the renowned paranormal researcher William Blake caught this photograph of Lauda shapeshifted to the form of a flying catbat:  The witch LAUDAIdentified Flying Object (IFO)
(Better than a UFO. Much better than an ICO.)Is any more actual proof needed to sustain a charge of witchcraft?  I think I just got doxxed.  HELP!
LAUDA MUST BE STOPPED!
I could throw you a half-broken anchor chain if that might help. *evil witch grin* |
|
|
|
|
By paying someone to do a service (in this case, translation), the ownership of that work does not necessarily automatically get transferred to you unless that was also covered by the agreement.
|
|
|
|
My bad, you're right. I did bring it up after I saw cabsav was ignored. I assumed TP would read it, since that whole thread was about him, but perhaps he didn't. TP was removed from DT shortly after, so I forgot about it until now. Well, I took part in that thread and I don't remember reading your post either. Usually I find it better to directly (via PM) inform them before doing so publicly. Cabsav both PMed TP about it and made that post, yet was ignored on both fronts.
It was most likely a whiny PM, which I don't answer anymore either. People bother me with useless nonsense quite often. I've learned that the simplest form of replying is to put them on the ignore list. A lack of consistency in old ratings is completely understandable, but I think we both agree that these inconsistencies should be fixed. The thing is, when most people bring this up, they are dismissed as salty shitposting account farmers. While this is generally the correct reaction, I think there are a number of instances similar to the one I referenced where the issue is not so black and white.
If I was in cabsav's shoes and saw that there were (future) staff members doing the same thing in the same thread who got away with it, I'd be pretty upset too. All I'm saying is TP needs to address the selectivity of some of his ratings, when someone has a legitimate complaint he shouldn't completely ignore them.
Well, solving this is easier said than done. The thing is, some notable members that used to deal or attempt to deal in accounts in the past have not been tagged and won't be tagged (neither Cabsav nor OP are examples of notable members). The potential solutions are: 1) Tag the remaining users. 2) Remove the tags from the other users. Both cause more questions (if you consider people with positive trust and/or people who are staff members notable members) and difficult edge-cases. Before you ask me what those might be, spend a minute or two thinking about the implications of going via either route. I'm sure you will figure out a few. |
|
|
|
Stop being melodramatic, if you care so much you should just buy a fresh account. One thing I will say is I wish TP was consistent in his approach to account dealing. If you're going to tag people for it, I don't think it is really fair to be selective about it.
An example of this can be found where? Is this another case of "You're doing something wrong. Even though I haven't pointed out exactly what it is, I'll still complain about it."? Do I really seem like the type of person to make accusations like this without any proof? Here is an excellent example of it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1492296.0 I didn't imply that; re-read my statement again. I was wondering whether you've pointed this out to him before you've complained here and what his response was. TP gave negative trust to everyone who bid in that thread (as per their rating's reference link)... except for the staff member and the guy who had positive trust at the time. They all did exactly the same thing, shouldn't they all be equally untrustworthy?
Yes and no. Depends on the exact details of the case. If it were him giving negative ratings now for that thread, then I'd argue that letting them *slide* was understandable. However, these ratings were left a few days after the thread was created. I don't know why he would avoid tagging those two randoms (OmegaStarScream was not a staff member at the time so that is irrelevant). I could argue two things: a) They were non DT ratings, thus consistency and reliability isn't as necessary as with DT ratings. b) These were one of his earlier ratings (within the first 100 sent I believe). I'd expect him to know better now.
Anyhow, the best time to fix it is now. |
|
|
|
Why would you believe someone, who refuses to provide proof to third parties for verification, i.e. the very same someone who is willing to kill their own people to pass some "anti terrorism" laws and whatnot? Absolutely not. Classic government orchestrated attack. I don't think they want to start a war with Russia. I think they want to see Russia removed from the UN SC, so that they can invade Syria, and kill Assad.
Sounds likely. At least the relationship between China and Russia is gaining strength due to these obvious attacks.
Pro tip: You don't want to go to the US/UK nor live there. I think Skripal's and Glushkov's deaths were Russian hit jobs. The used nerve gas, according to the newspapers I read, is of soviet origin. So either they used it themselves, which is bad, or they let it get taken from them, which is worse in a way. In any case, I don't think Russia has much to lose.
Wrong. Several other countries had access to the nerve agent.  |
|
|
|
I promise to kill The Pharmacistif in forum. see who will finally laugh
QFR. What exactly do you mean by "kill"? |
|
|
|
Stop being melodramatic, if you care so much you should just buy a fresh account. One thing I will say is I wish TP was consistent in his approach to account dealing. If you're going to tag people for it, I don't think it is really fair to be selective about it.
An example of this can be found where? Is this another case of "You're doing something wrong. Even though I haven't pointed out exactly what it is, I'll still complain about it."? |
|
|
|
Why does he given a second chance to prove himself a responsible Default trust member ?
Given how quickly he was sabotaged, this is actually his first chance at proving himself. |
|
|
|
second, I'm a bit confused.. I did not understand how it works for these two weeks
but I'm trust in you Lauda, for me thumb up
I think it would be easier for everyone to not waste time thinking about it, and just behave like you usually would. Let it play out and you shall see. This time, 'In cats we trust'.  |
|
|
|
|
5 days later, I have 0 merit. Unmerited by everyone that I neg. rated. Sounds like a great idea.
/thread.
|
|
|
|
Hi. My ID 117 in the signature spreadsheet.. I more than two weeks in the campaign, fulfilled all the conditions and make few posts almost every day but rejected, can you explain why? Thanks!
I can't accept you based on the apparent quality of your posts, especially given that they are all in a local board and one-liners (or one-liners with a small extra). |
|
|
|
So I guess we're going to start again on the 27th? As on the spreadsheet, it makes sense as it seems to be that people are going to be checked on the 3rd for their 30 posts.
Is that right Lauda?
No. We are continuing as if nothing had happened. However, if some users end up requiring an extension we might change our end-day to Thursday (thus, the current round would technically be 16 days long). |
|
|
|
The campaign has been topped up. We shalt continue! ...
(sorry could not resist the celebration!)
I hereby declare the Trout Master Searing. -snip-
Awaiting approval. This is undoubtedly one of the best campaigns and it'd be a privilege to join. Thanks!
You shall be added soon. |
|
|
|
User: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1603002. is bitcoin helpful to the economy? for me Over the past few years, Bitcoins have been gaining significant importance around the world. Indeed, it is the world’s leading crypto-currency and the year’s best-performing currency. It has gained a staggering 35 percent across last year. Achieving this recognition has not been easy. Its association with crime, that is, the money laundering and narcotics through the infamous online black markets like Silk Road & Alphabay, and the alarming amount of price volatility left regular financial-market participants wary due to its potential risks. as i have read in some articles As of now, many central banks are closely observing developments in the growth of bitcoin. Many others, however, have already responded by sending out proposals for the issuance of a digital version of their fiat currencies. The central banks of Canada and Ecuador are a few among the first to explore such opportunities.
Source: https://blog.unocoin.com/how-has-bitcoin-changed-the-global-economy-e33fac2e2316Over the past few years, Bitcoins have been gaining significant importance around the world. Indeed, it is the world’s leading crypto-currency and the year’s best-performing currency. It has gained a staggering 35 percent across last year. Achieving this recognition has not been easy. Its association with crime, that is, the money laundering and narcotics through the infamous online black markets like Silk Road & Alphabay, and the alarming amount of price volatility left regular financial-market participants wary due to its potential risks.....
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see why he shouldn't be in DT. Do you have valid criticism for some of his ratings? Then send that to him. He shall address this[1], and learn. Simple as that. Excluding someone without providing feedback is one of the worst ways you could handle DefaultTrust placement.
[1] If he doesn't, you make it public and then he will either do it for sure or get booted. However, I don't see him going down this road anyways. I wanted to point out what would happen though.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
