I'm not even talking about live notifications. Search Tab -> Enter your name as a keyword -> Sort by recent Done.
If you had searched for "notification" "quote" in Meta you would probably find my posts about how to do this exact method. The search tool is a very nice function  |
|
|
|
You do realize that sarcastically saying is not the same as seriously saying something, right? Second sentence was not referring to the first. People have voiced their disapproval of Lauda's actions. The problem is in the demographic of most of them being a bunch of kakapos. |
|
|
|
|
Not really. Things change over time. What was acceptable then is no longer acceptable now.
|
|
|
|
I buy stolen stuff, just dont say 0/10 it was great. I dont need satoshis actually, the sap story was a laugh to log out and create a new account to test my new proxy i have bought. (buying proxies lol) So, when do you graduate from middle school? |
|
|
|
Robbing banks were illegal.
Robbing banks were illegal.
Robbing banks is still illegal.
People who were caught several years after crime has been committed were put in jail.
Account sales were negative rated even back in 2013, nothing has changed - read REASON 4! Sure. You had one incident of someone being rated negatively due to account sales. I'm not sure how strongly the first two users felt about account sales but the latest feedback talked about hacked accounts. Maybe that played a role in the trust, I don't know. Lauda and Xanis were in 2 signature campaigns at the same time back in 2014. So why giving negative trust for accounts which are enrolled in his signature campaign without breaking forum rules or cheating his campaigns: Proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904885.msg18902983#msg18902983 how is that justified? Negative without any proof. Here is the list just from last week (OP is slightly better than this list): kikeda, Format.C^, loges, yueno. I don't know why, but I have noticed a pattern which I'm not going to publicly elaborate as I may lose my advantage in combating it. There seems to be an influx of one-liner/short-posting & post-bursting in an attempt to get 1 maximum payout from Bitmixer before the account is permanently blacklisted and/or neg. rated.
Giving negative for "pattern" is not justified and it is not solid proof - lauda said it many times in "known alts of everyone" thread. I don't remember quoting your post in reason 2. Speaking about patterns - yours is the same as lauda's. Do you see how ridiculous is to give someone negative just because pattern? You fucked up the quoting, so your first sentence is irrelevant. This type of quoting ≠ Spamming. If a user consistently posts one-liners within minutes of one another, can you really justify it? Are they seriously being constructive? Especially when they post in the 30+ page spam megathreads with their garbage general/vague replies? [Not talking about extortion.] Not if you are doing the same fucking thing, it is not justified. What happened to those 10 accounts lauda was about to buy? Has he bought them, farm signatures with them or sold them? Once again, pull your head out of lauda's ass and stop talking to me and explaining things to me like I am 5 year old child. It was rated negatively in 2013 by those accounts. Doesn't mean that people had the same opinions back in those days. In fact, when I sold the accounts I do remember there being quite a few escrows willing to do the job. |
|
|
|
Reason 1:If someone committed a crime in 2013 it is crime in 2017. actmyname should be negative rated from lauda - why he is not negative rated? Why did Lauda ignored this: Even when I had a lending service, I sold accounts. Then I stopped. Because it leads to shit. He admitted selling accounts before, it is like saying "hey, i robbed few banks back in 2013. but i figured that it is wrong and i am not doing it now and it is OK because it is 2017" Timeline of Alcohol Prohibition: Alcohol was legal. Prohibition began. Alcohol became illegal. Sale of alcohol led to incarceration. People who had sold alcohol before prohibition were not punished. Track the analogy.
Lauda and Xanis were in 2 signature campaigns at the same time back in 2014. So why giving negative trust for accounts which are enrolled in his signature campaign without breaking forum rules or cheating his campaigns: Proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1904885.msg18902983#msg18902983 how is that justified? Negative without any proof. Here is the list just from last week (OP is slightly better than this list): kikeda, Format.C^, loges, yueno. I don't know why, but I have noticed a pattern which I'm not going to publicly elaborate as I may lose my advantage in combating it. There seems to be an influx of one-liner/short-posting & post-bursting in an attempt to get 1 maximum payout from Bitmixer before the account is permanently blacklisted and/or neg. rated.
Giving negative for "pattern" is not justified and it is not solid proof - lauda said it many times in "known alts of everyone" thread. I send out negative trust towards those that are spammers. One-liners and burst-posting is usually indicative of spam. Lauda and Xanis were at the same time in signature campaigns - primedice and cloudbet, lauda hates account farming, we all know that Read above. Lauda ≠ Welsh ≠ tysat. Trust is at a user's discretion. Lauda is giving negative ratings to all sold accounts but it is OK when he did it back in 2013: Read above. Read Lauda's reference. Especially the highlighted part. Common theme. |
|
|
|
people are so scared to speak against you Lauda is hitler! All hail Bitcoin Cash! /sYou don't really believe that people can't voice their disagreement towards Lauda, do you? BTW the multiple trust ratings you gave me today show why Did not happen in one day. |
|
|
|
Good afternoon Lauda. I just wanna ask, If I will improve my post is there any chance for me to be out on your SMAS list? I will do my best to improve my post and I am willing to wait for 60 days to be evaluated again. Obviously, the answer is yes. Or rather was yes. If you're asking whether your account can be removed from the blacklist then you are obviously asking for a review. 3. How can I get unbanned?
Send me a PM (do not post in this thread) only after 60 days have passed since your ban. If you apply before 60 days have passed, you will be instantly denied. I will try to respond to these requests within 7 days. And this is not even in a PM. You're just posting for peanuts like all the shitposters that create pointless replies just to crank up that count. If I were Lauda, I would extend the duration of your blacklist ban. |
|
|
|
-snip- Linkage is true. Implication is not that important. Buying accounts in 2013 ≠ Buying accounts in 2017. I think we all know the difference. Most people used to freely engage in account sales before the influx of spam. Even when I had a lending service, I sold accounts. Then I stopped. Because it leads to shit. People are allowed to stop, you know. We're not all part of the cesspool.
There is a non-zero chance that Lauda has used (and continues to use) his Default Trust status to facilitate these account trading and signature spamming practices. There's a non-zero chance that everyone in DT has used the status to do X. Why point out obvious facts?
I don't have the time or energy to look further into this now, but Xanis had thousands of posts in the Altcoin sections. I believe that both accounts were being used to scam giveaways. Find it. Presumptions lead to nothing. |
|
|
|
I'm wondering if I posted a link to an image as a Newbie, and then become a Jr. Member, will it magically turn into a visible image once I reach the rank, or will I need to go in and edit the image? (Sorry to get so esoteric!) It'll turn visible. The BBCode is the same. The permissions are not. Same thing with everything else that has limitations. |
|
|
|
If a DT (Lauda) gives you a negative trust, that's that, you can not do anything about it, just obey or have negative trust for ever. There is no one above DT. There are no rules for DT. All of this leads to abusive negative trust for normal user like myself. Time and time again, you have shown that you do not understand the system. You are wrong. Lauda is DT2. There are DT1 users. They are above Lauda. They can exclude Lauda from the DefaultTrust list. There are rules for DefaultTrust. You have to be trusted by one a user in DT(n-1) to be included in DT(n). You can be excluded with two DT(n-1) exclusions. Theymos chooses DT1 users. If you have a problem with Lauda, take it up with DT1 users. |
|
|
|
Wait, isn't hilariousetc on DT2 so adding accounts on hilaiousetc would make them DT3? He controls the account hilariousandco, though. |
|
|
|
The Pharmacist. He was actually one I was considering and I had already asked him if he would like to be included, but wanted to make sure he was prepared for all the drama that will inevitably ensue from all the shitposters and account farmers he's tagged. +1 for this from me. Obviously he may have to correct a few ratings, but IMO most of his are very good ratings. I think it would be good to have someone that felted a lot of people who are involved in shady practices with accounts. It would serve as a reminder and a deterrent to prospective traders. |
|
|
|
When we'll trade something please give me a trust + or -, but until then it's abusive to give someone negative trust But Lauda deserved it and it deserve much more! (for me Lauda is a "it" not a he/she) You don't see a problem with these two quotes?
Oh, I see. It's only abusive when it's not you. |
|
|
|
User's discretion, yes CORRECT! Lauda is not a normal user! He/she is DT! And a DT has to respect some rules, especially if we never traded or communicated before in any way. Since when did they have to trade to send out trust ratings? How would you deal with scammers, then? If you can't see anything wrong doing by Lauda, because he/she gave negative trust not only to me, but to all others who participated in promoting Alttradex, I don't think that I can tell you more so I could convince you in any way. BTW Lauda gave negative trust to all those who wanted to promote Alttradex, not just to those with signature, to all of them, facebook, twitter... If you promote something that plagiarizes content, you are supporting it. When I used to post for Betcoin.ag and discovered the fact that they were shady as fuck, I ditched the signature and left. Now, I don't know if you would have continued to be in their campaign for the money (because at the time it was the highest-paying campaign) but if you did, then you would be supporting a scam. The same way that by participating in a ponzi, you're stealing money from other people; participating in a campaign of which the product/service steals content means that you support that kind of conduct. |
|
|
|
When we'll trade something please give me a trust + or -, but until then it's abusive to give someone negative trust  OH MY GOD ELPEDRAS STOP!!! YOU'RE ABUSING THEM!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A BULLY!!!!!!1111oneone  |
|
|
|
You are abusing the trust system!!! By using it? Trust is given at the user's discretion, I think we've gone over this a couple times before. Is it not getting through to your noggin, you turdwhistle?
You are a abusive person that has to have something to gain from all of this!!! I don't know what, and I really don't care!!! In other words, you are creating an unfounded accusation purely because of cognitive dissonance. There has to be something wrong with Lauda. Otherwise, why would you get negative trust? It's not your fault... is it? |
|
|
|
|
176N1Rz3DhrbBFRxDQEDyienEnDV5MW6fW
Note that the ActBTC address should be considered void: it was used to send out some BCH transactions.
|
|
|
|
Lauda, this type of behavior is inadmissible! What type of behavior? YOU ARE ABUSING YOUR POWER!!! YOU ARE DESTROYING A BUSYNESS AND OTHER MEMBERS CREDIBILITY JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T GET PAID! lol. As if Lauda would all of the sudden jump up and say, "yep, this Alttradex guy seems pretty legitimate now." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
^^^)
