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

[defcon23]

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.

go home neotox ! i will keep your case after  this ... forum sheriff ?? lol  (
cryptodevil = neotox   )



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   Cheesy

YO!! enought shit for today !     have a nice day

i think i will unfollow this thread ....  nothing to see..

[1715020845]

1715020845

[1715020845]

1715020845

[cryptodevil]

i will keep your case after  this

I don't even know what that means.

Fancy another swing at it?

[Lauda]

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   Cheesy

Just to clarify the false information so that it does not get used against me again, defcon23 contacted me first via Slack (not the other way around):

[defcon23]

another nice attempt..



missing down part :

[chronicsky]

I understand that there is some talk going on about some stuff here but really everything aside personally i have had many deals with Defcon and has paid him in advance for many coins that i bought from him and never had a problem , he is a very nice person to talk to as well
Overall he's a great guy and i trust him

[CanaryInTheMine]

I've had no issue either. All good here.
Lauda, how old are you?

[Lauda]

I've contacted him in an attempt to make peace, he continues by writing a long wall of text and posts a screenshot here before I could even read it (not to mention reply to it).

-snip-

Is it time to rename the thread to "People from defcon's trust list praising defcon"? I don't see how this is relevant to me, the thread sidetracked anyways. That text is suited for a reputation thread. In the meantime (since the thread was created by neotox) he has left 3 retaliatory feedback (called Vod a scammer, called cryptodevil an alt of neotox and called neotox a "total scammer"), all of which are unjustified.

I've had no issue either. All good here.

I've had a trade with him as well, however that doesn't justify his past actions.

Lauda, how old are you?

Old enough to treat everyone equally, and old enough not to let people extort me into removing ratings (I was told to remove my rating in order to bid on the auction).

I feel like the timing of the accusation is biased due to other activities surrounding this event.

Even if I had left it 1 month from now, it would have been "due to not selling genesis on his terms" so I figured I might as well do it right now (which is 10 days after any discussions of a potential sale). The reasoning "You can't leave a negative rating if we had a strong argument" is nonsense. Keep in mind that my feedback is focused on the retaliatory unjustified feedback by him (one is 4 months old, and the latest one is 1 day old), not the fact that he used to run a bogus escrow scam. Quote:"and is thus untrustworthy regardless of the initial accusation."

[defcon23]

I've contacted him in an attempt to make peace, he continues by writing a long wall of text and posts a screenshot here before I could even read it (not to mention reply to it).

-snip-

Is it time to rename the thread to "People from defcon's trust list praising defcon"? I don't see how this is relevant to me, the thread sidetracked anyways. That text is suited for a reputation thread. In the meantime (since the thread was created by neotox) he has left 3 retaliatory feedback (called Vod a scammer, called cryptodevil an alt of neotox and called neotox a "total scammer"), all of which are unjustified.

I've had no issue either. All good here.

I've had a trade with him as well, however that doesn't justify his past actions.

Lauda, how old are you?

Old enough to treat everyone equally, and old enough not to let people extort me into removing ratings (I was told to remove my rating in order to bid on the auction).

I feel like the timing of the accusation is biased due to other activities surrounding this event.

Even if I had left it 1 month from now, it would have been "due to not selling genesis on his terms" so I figured I might as well do it right now (which is 10 days after any discussions of a potential sale). The reasoning "You can't leave a negative rating if we had a strong argument" is nonsense. Keep in mind that my feedback is focused on the retaliatory unjustified feedback by him (one is 4 months old, and the latest one is 1 day old), not the fact that he used to run a bogus escrow scam. Quote:"and is thus untrustworthy regardless of the initial accusation."

hum;... i'm surprised i dont see any mentions on the untrustworthy feedbacks left against me :
1: by neotox one year ago
2: by the troll forum sheriff ( vod)  1 year ago too..
3: by the troll who comes in this discussion yesterday in shouting " burn the witch !!! "  lol  


and by the way: if what you said is true , dear super moderator: why have you leave your feedback only yesterday ?  as the "story" was one year old ??  RE LOL  

[Lauda]

and by the way: if what you said is true , dear super moderator: why have you leave your feedback only yesterday ?  

Don't act like a special snowflake, I've left over 15 ratings in the past 3 days. More will come.

as the "story" was one year old ??  RE LOL  

The retaliatory feedback on Vod's profile was left on March this year. Again, my feedback does not focus on the bogus escrow incident, but the unjustified retaliatory feedback with which I most definitely disagree with.
Is there a time-limit that I'm not aware of for feedback?
Update:
If you were to remove the unjustified retaliatory feedback, I would remove mine as well, as there is no reason for it once you did.

[defcon23]

and by the way: if what you said is true , dear super moderator: why have you leave your feedback only yesterday ?  

Don't act like a special snowflake, I've left over 15 ratings in the past 3 days. More will come.

as the "story" was one year old ??  RE LOL  

The retaliatory feedback on Vod's profile was left on March this year. Again, my feedback does not focus on the bogus escrow incident, but the unjustified retaliatory feedback with which I most definitely disagree with.
Is there a time-limit that I'm not aware of for feedback?

OK ... then if you tell the true: why havent you left them a bad feedback for "unjustified retaliatory feedback" too  ?? ( vod ,neotox..)   as these old feedbacks are completly unprooved ( as they are fake )


my feeback are not more or less "unjustified retaliatory feedback" than their ones ...  at least YOU have proof ??
thank you to expose those then  !  


anyway , everydody has already understand ... you loose your time in justifications dude..

[Lauda]

OK ... then if you tell the true: why havent you left them a bad feedback for "unjustified retaliatory feedback" too  ?? ( vod ,neotox..)  

Simple: I was not aware of it. I was always 'behind' on anything that concerns the reputation system. I focus on moderating and posting.

my feeback are not more or less "unjustified retaliatory feedback" than their ones ...  at least YOU have proof ??

My feedback is neither unjustified, nor retaliatory.

anyway , everydody has already understand ... you loose your time in justifications dude..

Nope. I did nothing wrong and I stand by it.
Update: Reposted this as an update. We have come to a peaceful resolution for now (first step). There's more to do, but that is not relevant to this thread.

[Quickseller]

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).

Lol, I think it is pretty clear that your feedback is retaliatory and the purpose of which is to try to get me to prevent me from further saying that you tried (and failed to) extort a coin from

-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 knew very well what that coin is worth, I don't follow sales of those similar coins, however the coin in question sold for .25BTC, and had bids as high as .3BTC, but were rejected due to time. You stated that you knew another seller would ask for more then what you were offering. Coins with a low serial number tend to sell for a preimum, as they are more desirable, which is why you wanted a set of coins with a "1" serial number.

You threatened to leave negative trust if that coin was not sold to you at ~11% of it's value, and you ended up leaving negative trust over a year old issue that you had long been aware of the day the auction was over. That is not joking around, that is making good on your extortion threat.

-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.

I read that as you threatening to leave a negative rating against defcon23, not the buyer. Regardless it wasn't the buyer who did anything to you, it was defcon23 who declined to give you the coin for a ~90% discount.

-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".

Bullshit. You were giving reasons why you would not get caught when you made good on your extortion threat as an attempt to get deacon23 to give you the coin.

-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.

So you waited until the coin was sold to leave the negative trust. The lack of additional attempts to buy the coin is irrelevant.

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.

You must not understand how confidentiality works.

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.

Nope, it is not appropriate to have people with a history of attempting to extort people as moderators. It is an issue of public trust. How can anyone trust that the forum will be moderated fairly and impartially if one of the moderators has a history of attempting to extort others?

[Quickseller]

Lauda, how old are you?

Old enough to treat everyone equally, and old enough not to let people extort me into removing ratings (I was told to remove my rating in order to bid on the auction)

I don't think you understand what extortion means. You should probably look it up. There is no reason why your ability to bid on his auction is worth anything and it is within anyone's right to decline to do business with anyone else for any reason or no reason at all.

I think you should clarify your age. I don't think you are mature enough to act impartiality.

[suchmoon]

and by the way: if what you said is true , dear super moderator: why have you leave your feedback only yesterday ?  

Don't act like a special snowflake, I've left over 15 ratings in the past 3 days. More will come.

as the "story" was one year old ??  RE LOL  

The retaliatory feedback on Vod's profile was left on March this year. Again, my feedback does not focus on the bogus escrow incident, but the unjustified retaliatory feedback with which I most definitely disagree with.
Is there a time-limit that I'm not aware of for feedback?

OK ... then if you tell the true: why havent you left them a bad feedback for "unjustified retaliatory feedback" too  ?? ( vod ,neotox..)   as these old feedbacks are completly unprooved ( as they are fake )


my feeback are not more or less "unjustified retaliatory feedback" than their ones ...  at least YOU have proof ??
thank you to expose those then  !  


anyway , everydody has already understand ... you loose your time in justifications dude..

As someone who whines so much about unjustified feedback you might want to take a look in the mirror (and your sent feedback). Someone who happens to disagree with you gets labelled as "sherif" [sp] and "alt of Neotox". Perhaps you should consider another approach, such as not using the trust system to settle your pillow fights. You seem to have a good trade going on but being an utter asshole is getting in the way.

Now back on topic - can someone give me a tl;dr of what Lauda did to piss off the quickpuppets?

[CanaryInTheMine]

Would both of you give me a chance to mediate with you both please?

First, both remove negative feedback for each other, then abstain from further comments for 48 hrs.

Let's cool off and I'd be happy to mediate between both after cool off period.

Deal?

[tspacepilot]

Now back on topic - can someone give me a tl;dr of what Lauda did to piss off the quickpuppets?

From what I can tell, Lauda offered defcon a low price for a physical coin in an IRC.  Defcon refused to sell.  Lauda fucked around with him in the chatroom.  That's what I've been able to gather so far.

[Quickseller]

Now back on topic - can someone give me a tl;dr of what Lauda did to piss off the quickpuppets?

From what I can tell, Lauda offered defcon a low price for a physical coin in an IRC.  Defcon refused to sell.  Lauda fucked around with him in the chatroom.  That's what I've been able to gather so far.

You failed to mention that as part of that "fucking around" that Lauda said she would leave negative trust if defcon23 sold the coin to someone else, and thrn subsequently left negative trust when defcon23 sold the coin to someone else.

[tspacepilot]

Now back on topic - can someone give me a tl;dr of what Lauda did to piss off the quickpuppets?

From what I can tell, Lauda offered defcon a low price for a physical coin in an IRC.  Defcon refused to sell.  Lauda fucked around with him in the chatroom.  That's what I've been able to gather so far.

You failed to mention that as part of that "fucking around" that Lauda said she would leave negative trust if defcon23 sold the coin to someone else, and thrn subsequently left negative trust when defcon23 sold the coin to someone else.

That part seems sketchy to me.  But apparently the negative feedback was actually related to some previous incident with defcon23?  I said above that it seems like bad judgment to me.

[defcon23]

Would both of you give me a chance to mediate with you both please?

First, both remove negative feedback for each other, then abstain from further comments for 48 hrs.

Let's cool off and I'd be happy to mediate between both after cool off period.

Deal?

this make sense .. ( good sense.) .. i  just hate war ...    
so,  i'm OK.. :  Peace process ..
 this pocess seem having already started , by the way..

[CanaryInTheMine]

Good! Lauda, would you give me a chance too plz?