I tell you; even when rock hard proof is provided in this thread that Lauda was scamming, other DT members will still refuse to stop supporting him. It happened before.
It happened here and happened before? Rock hard proof? Could you please gather and link sources for this? Thanks.
This is at best some merit system misuse. Can you show some proof of scamming, or even link to evidence supporting such claims?
Not all scams are direct monetary scams. Of course my example can be called also 'merit system misuse'. But the fact that all other cases of merit misuse are punished by DT members with red trust, but not that of Lauda, justifies my estimation that DT members will not stop supporting Lauda when financial scams are proven. Simply read how The Pharmacist above tries to justify Lauda's merit misuse. Do you think he would use the same arguments for any random other member? No way; he would tag that member immediately negative. Which also shows that the trust system is abused by DT members, lead by the biggest trust abuser; Lauda. And he gets away with all that abuse because a certain group around him will defend him no matter what he will do, even when he will conduct a monetary scam. |
|
|
|
Dear fellows, Who of you thought that the merit system was designed for quality posting? It was designed for only one thing: To keep the small members small. Together with the trust system eliminating the inconvenient higher ranked members the olichargy was established and maintained. Exactly as Theymos apparently wanted it to be. Hail the movement of decentralisation.  |
|
|
|
He will never answer correctly, in the past Lauda told that he don't belong to ALU services, now he seriously tell I don't own Escrow Services.
I havent seen Theymos who never take care of these forums.
Enough proofs have been provided in the past that Lauda scams or at least practises thing for which all normal users are tagged with negative trust. Unfortunately there are a bunch of high placed members who seem to profit from Lauda's scams and they keep backing him (making themselved fellow scammers). I have asked Theymos for attention regarding this situation but got ignored. The only thing I read him post is that he was irritated about how DT trust was centralized. However he does not interfere. I also pointed out how this forum is not being ruled by clear principles but by patchwork here and there. I guess it'll be a money thing or otherwise a lack of philosophical insight. But the normal and honest users are being victimized on this forum by this principleless government with its olichargic bunch of scammers, led by Lauda. I tell you; even when rock hard proof is provided in this thread that Lauda was scamming, other DT members will still refuse to stop supporting him. It happened before. That's why Theymos actually should interfere. |
|
|
|
|
I would have used different words, but I know, and agree with, what you mean. And I'm not quite the only one.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not about me but rather about the general abuse of trust power, and also about my surprise to see forum sections without showing trust scores, although I know I should not be surprised to see lack of principality on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny. I just noticed the trust scores are not showing in meta either. I love it! Can we expand it please?
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
Question: why are no trust scores showing at the Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Economics > sections?
Request: Can we have this arranged in all sections of the forum?
|
|
|
|
What do you mean DT? DT stands for Default Trust members. They are a selective group of people who are in the Default Trust list of every user. Long standing of this forum has shown that they are trustworthy in forum deals and thus the name. Anyone can put a feedback on your profile and as long you have a negative trust there some opportunity here that you can't join because they don't care where your negative feedback came from. First of all any person can post feedback on your profile. That does not mean that the feedback needs to be accurate. People who still have some common sense will actually try to investigate any reason behind the feedback and if there is none they would ignore it. Those feedback remain under "Untrusted feedback" and wont show up unless clicked on. On the other hand feedback from a DT member will be fairly correct and will show up as "trusted feedback" on your trust wall. Although this is subjective still they wont give you a negative trust unless you do something seriously bad to the forum like cheating campaigns with alt accounts, scam someone, buy/sell forum accounts. I believe you are coming to this opinion from getting rejected from some bounty campaign, which in that case you just have to accept and move on. Such bounty managers are not doing their work properly if they are not looking in the reference of the feedback. But do care to link it here?
P.S This thread belongs to "Reputation" not "Meta" Laughable post. DT members not members with more trust ethics but members with more trust power. That's all. For the rest they are often more corrupt than the innocent members that are victimized by them for their own agenda. |
|
|
|
The problem I've seen lately is that negative trust, even if it's given by DT members and thus should stand out in high relief, gets ignored.
DT members, Lauda in the first place, have created this situation by giving false negative trust for their own greedy agenda. In time members have learned that the trust valuation of DT members cannot be trusted. |
|
|
|
|
The Well CEO goes to a pub. "Tap me a pint for $4" he says. The bartender taps him the pint. The CEO drinks it all and says: "Here's $1, the rest was meant for future pints".
|
|
|
|
|
It's like the following: The Well CEO goes to a pub. "Tap me a pint for $4" he says. The bartender taps him the pint. The CEO drinks it all and says: "Here's $1, the rest was meant for future pints".
|
|
|
|
The topic opener is right but he provided not much proof indeed. Bounty opening thread: http://archive.is/xeiPa: 4 M Well tokens allocated. Team member announcing in Telegram to pay only 1 M Well tokens:  There's a lot more drama connected to Well. They ran an earlier bounty campaign but sacked the bounty manager, started anew, and they almost lost the present bounty manager too. In short: they promised 4 M WELL bounty allocation and after the bounty is finished they're going to pay only 1 M. I'm not sure if they are ever going to pay the participants of the fist bounty campaign. |
|
|
|
|
I have been following the project for months with interest and it seemed sound and honest. Untill they decided to scam bounty workers for 75% of their pay. Imagine a project deciding to pay only 25% of the tokens to money investors. The project would immediately be put away as a scam, and rightly so. But bounty workers are investors too. They don't invest directly with money, but they invest with their time and effort, which has a monetary value too. When you agree a carpenter to pay him $400 for his work you cannot after finishing the work pay him only $100 and get away with it. It's fraude. It's scam. Money investors and some bounty investors may not be happy that the Well project is qualified like that, affraid that it will affect the token price, but it is sadly the truth.
|
|
|
|
Still no bounty tokens received..... did someone already received them? I fear they scammed me.
The tokens have not been distributed yet. They are still distributing the tokens for money investors (already for a month), and after that the bounty distribution will follow. However they DID scam you! In the bounty thread they promised a bounty allocation of at least 4 M tokens. However now the bounty is over they have decided to pay out only 1 M tokens for this bounty campaign. So they scammed the bounty hunters for 75%. |
|
|
|
Interesting idea. So you think that the team members want to scoop their own coins because they know good news is coming, right? Then perhaps they are also the ones paying Sebastian787 for creating all that CREDITS FUD.
Here we see a new approach from paid shillers to explain the credits price decrease. I can see a sad cloud all over the place trying to figure out what is going and they came out with the explanation that credits is doing this on purpose. You guys are geniuses.. You think I get paid for that post? That's an interesting idea too. CREDITS team; get in touch as soon as possible.  |
|
|
|
It's not FUD if it is real.  Also shillers are paid usually, if you are not a bagholder then you should ask for a raise in salary. The spread of FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) may have both unrealistic and realistic grounds. Just like marketing. FUD actually is some sort of anti-marketing. |
|
|
|
|
Great joke. Now rid us of the trust and merit systems, please.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
