Q: Should Lauda *really* be a moderator of bitcointalk A: no

[defcon23]

and yes.... that's not cool ....but just  not more than what Lauda have done in this case...

And what was that exactly?  He was impatient about buying something from you?  He refused to get involved in some dispute between you and Vod?  I don't understand.

dispute between me and vod was one year ago... recently i have ask to Lauda if he could hep to solve it , waht he refused.
untli that no problem.

the rest is more interesting: i have bought a coin , which he want: i have refused to trade it at his conditions ( 25$) so, he first menace to left a bad feedback, then he left me a bad ranking , using this old story between me and vod .. ( power abuse , extortion , blackmail... call it as you want..,  in anyway : BAD

[1714914937]

1714914937

[1714914937]

1714914937

[1714914937]

1714914937

[tspacepilot]

and yes.... that's not cool ....but just  not more than what Lauda have done in this case...

And what was that exactly?  He was impatient about buying something from you?  He refused to get involved in some dispute between you and Vod?  I don't understand.

dispute between me and vod was one year ago... recently i have ask to Lauda if he could hep to solve it , waht he refused.
untli that no problem.

That seems well within his prerogative and not shady at all.  I wouldn't want to get involved in disputes that don't involve me.

the rest is more interesting: i have bought a coin , which he want: i have refused to trade it at his conditions ( 25$) so, he first menace to left a bad feedback,

I sorta thought that part was a joke.

then he left me a bad ranking , using this old story between me and vod .. ( power abuse , extortion , blackmail... call it as you want..,  in anyway : BAD

Well, if it is the case that he at first refused to intervene, and the dispute was over 1 year old, then he later intervened with a negative directly after you refused to trade with him, that seems like poor judgment.  I don't know what Lauda will say, but in the end, trust isn't moderated and we've long had known scammers on default trust.  I assume this is your issue, that Lauda is somewhere in the default trust network and that his feedback is damaging your rep.

[Vod]

VOD , an user who left me a neg ranking in the past for absolutely no valid reason

I don't leave negative feedback for absolutely no valid reason.  Try again.

[defcon23]

VOD , an user who left me a neg ranking in the past for absolutely no valid reason

I don't leave negative feedback for absolutely no valid reason.  Try again.

proof ? lol go home pupyy .... read better my ranking ... once again i have tons of trade for so many bitcoins... why would i risk destoying my own rep for wining .... let' s say around 1$ or 1.5$ in an fucking account sale ( acting as escrow)  F... off.

[Vod]

VOD , an user who left me a neg ranking in the past for absolutely no valid reason

I don't leave negative feedback for absolutely no valid reason.  Try again.

proof ? lol go home pupyy .... read better my ranking ... once again i have tons of trade for so many bitcoins... why would i risk destoying my own rep for wining .... let' s say around 1$ or 1.5$ in an fucking account sale ( acting as escrow)  F... off.

I have read your feedback against me.  You called me a scammer when I have never scammed anyone, and you called QS innocent when it was proven he scammed by self escrow.  That alone makes you untrustworthy.

I and my ratings are not going anywhere you scammer.   

[defcon23]

YO ! go jackoff with all this shit.. people who have already have trade with me knows well who i am ... i never have a trade with you ( and never will do  it..) and i have soooo many better thing to do than fighting with trolls in this poor thread..  play with that ... i have better things to do

poor guy...  

[Lauda]

@Lauda- are the screenshots of those messages an accurate representation of what you said to defcon23 at one point? If not then what is inaccurate?

They are (they're easily faked, although I didn't go through each individual message), but I consider them random gibberish. I tend to have 'fun' with people in that chat-room (compare that to the direct messages). The representation of the story is inaccurate, and I disagree with posting screenshot of private conversations without permission. All of this is off-topic to this thread.

If the screenshots are real then it looks like Lauda wanted to buy some item or another and was feeling impatient, then it looks like he refused to get involved in a personal dispute between Vod and defcon.  what's the accusation here?

Correct, I refused to get involved into that dispute. From what I understand the accusation is somewhere in the lines of: I'm abusing my position (I assume moderator?) by leaving false feedback or something which is ridiculous as those aren't interconnected (regardless of the feedback being correct or not).

the rest is more interesting: i have bought a coin , which he want: i have refused to trade it at his conditions ( 25$) so, he first menace to left a bad feedback,

I sorta thought that part was a joke.

Why would it be? Although "my conditions" was just a suggestion based on the amount of money required by others. The first screenshot shows that, although cuts off at "let me know who gets it, so I can leave negative rating" to make it seem like I was serious. If that were true, why am I not seeing the negative rating from myself on the "person who got it"?

Well, if it is the case that he at first refused to intervene, and the dispute was over 1 year old, then he later intervened with a negative directly after you refused to trade with him, that seems like poor judgment.  

This has nothing to do with the personal dispute which happened some time ago. This person (currently ignored) is acting like a special snowflake. I've left several ratings recently as I've caught up on that (still a long list to go). The reasoning: "We had a dispute X time ago, and you aren't allowed to leave a negative rating ever" is bullshit. Don't get me started on unjustified retaliatory feedback, which should make one less trustworthy by default.

I have read your feedback against me.  You called me a scammer when I have never scammed anyone, and you called QS innocent when it was proven he scammed by self escrow.  That alone makes you untrustworthy.

That's what my rating reflects. Untrustworthy regardless of initial accusations due to retaliatory unjustified negative feedback.

[Vod]

YO ! go jack off with all this shit.. people who have already trade with me knows who i am ... i never have a trade with you and i have soooo many better thing to do than fighting with trolls in this poor thread..  play with that ... i have better things to do

poor guy... 

Good.  Then I expect not to read my name anymore in your masturbatory fantasies.  Thanks. 

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

I see Lauda has temporarily done away with the loud'n'flashy sig ad for a more demure... ad for a more lucrative sig ad.

If that's not ultra-meta, and a sign of a true gentlescholar, I don't know what is.

Always endeavoring to improve the conversational quality and SNR in these here fora, that Lauda.

[ABitNut]

Well, if it is the case that he at first refused to intervene, and the dispute was over 1 year old, then he later intervened with a negative directly after you refused to trade with him, that seems like poor judgment.  

This has nothing to do with the personal dispute which happened some time ago. This person (currently ignored) is acting like a special snowflake. I've left several ratings recently as I've caught up on that (still a long list to go). The reasoning: "We had a dispute X time ago, and you aren't allowed to leave a negative rating ever" is bullshit. Don't get me started on unjustified retaliatory feedback, which should make one less trustworthy by default.

Seriously, you're 1 year behind on providing feedback? And you're feedback for defcon is negative, but your feedback for QS is neutral? I appreciate your contributions to the forum, but I find the feedback you're leaving questionable and therefore worthless to me.

[BitcoinEXpress]

So Lauda has associated with some shady people...

So he "Aggressively Post" and just so happens to have a Sig


Who the eff cares in regards to being a Moderator?

Like it or not Lauda is going to eventually be a Global Mod.

In my five plus years of being here, I have never been wrong in naming mods.

Lauda will eventually become a Global.



So if he is as shady and backstabbing as you guys claim

Better watch dafuq out ROFL.


 


~BCX~



@Theymos

Lauda passed the BCX extreme tolerance test 

[Lauda]

Seriously, you're 1 year behind on providing feedback?

That is correct. There are several trades that happened more than 6 months ago that have yet to be attended.

And you're feedback for defcon is negative, but your feedback for QS is neutral? I appreciate your contributions to the forum, but I find the feedback you're leaving questionable and therefore worthless to me.

That rating was left some time ago, I'll catch up on that as well. I haven't left any questionable feedback (unless you disagree with the negative ones, which is a different story). Besides, this is still not relevant to meta but reputation.

Lauda passed the BCX extreme tolerance test  

You can be entertaining at times.

[Quickseller]

@Lauda- are the screenshots of those messages an accurate representation of what you said to defcon23 at one point? If not then what is inaccurate?

They are, but I consider them random gibberish.

I have left you appropriate feedback, and I encourage others to leave similar negative feedback.

The representation of the story is inaccurate,

What exactly is inaccurate?

From what I gather from the screenshots alone (which you admitted are generally accurate, so there is no reason to need to trust the person who posted the screenshots to not have forged the logs), the following happened:

-you offer to buy a coin from defcon23 for ~11% of what the coin eventually sells for (and what I presume similar coin(s) have sold for in the past) - via direct message
-you follow up with this offer in the public chat
-you say that you will leave negative feedback if defcon23 does not sell the coin to you for your 11% price
-you say that it will be impossible to link IRC-lauda to btctlk-lauda
-you say that IRC logs are not evidence
-you leave negative trust for defcon23 the very same day that he sells the coin to someone else via an auction over an issue that you knew about well in advance

I don't see how this can be seen as anything except extortion.

and I disagree with posting screenshot of private conversations without permission.

I don't see any indication that any of the conversations were intended to be private. Also most scammers/extortionists do not want their scam attempts/extortion attempts to be made public

All of this is off-topic to this thread.

I don't think it is appropriate to have extortionists as moderators.

I have read your feedback against me.  You called me a scammer when I have never scammed anyone, and you called QS innocent when it was proven he scammed by self escrow.  That alone makes you untrustworthy.

It sounds to me like you are leaving negative ratings over personal feelings

[Vod]

I have read your feedback against me.  You called me a scammer when I have never scammed anyone, and you called QS innocent when it was proven he scammed by self escrow.  That alone makes you untrustworthy.

It sounds to me like you are leaving negative ratings over personal feelings

What do I sound like in your little world?   

[Lauda]

I have left you appropriate feedback, and I encourage others to leave similar negative feedback.

I have left you appropriate negative feedback for falsely accusing me of wrongdoing(s).

-you offer to buy a coin from defcon23 for ~11% of what the coin eventually sells for (and what I presume similar coin(s) have sold for in the past) - via direct message

False. Don't make assumptions when you have no knowledge on this matter. I offered $25 which is more than the average of the last three sales ($20, $25 & $25). He said he's going to keep, so I left it at that and had a little fun with him in that chatroom (easily indentified by saying I'd leave miffman negative rating).

-you say that you will leave negative feedback if defcon23 does not sell the coin to you for your 11% price

It clearly says:"let me know who gets it so I can leave negative rating", not 'who sells it'. I don't see any invalid negative ratings on anyone from my profile.

-you say that it will be impossible to link IRC-lauda to btctlk-lauda

Just another example that I'm not serious in that chatroom, I tend to say that I'm in the matrix very often (very serious indeed). There was even talk of a potential meetup between Mitchell, defcon and myself afterwards (day or two after). So much for "extortion".

-you leave negative trust for defcon23 the very same day that he sells the coin to someone else via an auction over an issue that you knew about well in advance

The discussion with him happened over 10 days ago and I have not contacted him afterwards in an attempt to buy the coin again.

I don't see any indication that any of the conversations were intended to be private. Also most scammers/extortionists do not want their scam attempts/extortion attempts to be made public

False. I'm saying that I don't agree with it, i.e. I agree with miffman. I don't mind this being public, it's just a chatroom.

I don't think it is appropriate to have extortionists as moderators.

You think that it is not appropriate to have people who breath as moderators, as long as they are called Lauda.

[defcon23]

The discussion with him happened over 10 days ago and I have not contacted him afterwards in an attempt to buy the coin again.

FALSE ! FALSE and FALSE again.   you're just  acting like a kid..  LOL    lamentable...


moderator ?? you ?? let me laught ...   

[Lauda]

The discussion with him happened over 10 days ago and I have not contacted him afterwards in an attempt to buy the coin again.

FALSE ! FALSE and FALSE again.   you're just  acting like a kid..  LOL    lamentable...

Last message (IRC - laptop logs):


Definitely false.

[defcon23]

The discussion with him happened over 10 days ago and I have not contacted him afterwards in an attempt to buy the coin again.

FALSE ! FALSE and FALSE again.   you're just  acting like a kid..  LOL    lamentable...

Last message (IRC - laptop logs):


Definitely false.

realy..... ??  




as you can see about this one , the auction for genesis #1 wasnt  closed .... so how you said ? 10 days ago ?? ...... i let to everyone do the counts   

[Lauda]

realy..... ??  

The discussion with him happened over 10 days ago and I have not contacted him afterwards in an attempt to buy the coin again.

Please read the full sentence one more time. I have even sent you a suggestion asking you not to leave false retaliatory feedback to other people (on IRC), but that was ignored. I don't even want to go into the part where I was told to remove the negative rating or my bids would be invalidated.

[cryptodevil]

realy..... ?? 

Not sure why you think posting this puts you and a good light and Lauda not. You're the one being a threatening asshole in the above conversation.