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

[Quickseller]

It looks like Lauda is now leaving both negative and positive trust for political reasons, in an effort to further his viewpoint.

For example:

MemoryDealers

"Roger Ver finds it "difficult to support segwit" because he is "more concerned about morals of the people who came up it", than the technology itself." Falsely advertises the safety of alternative *solutions* in addition to exaggerating the negative aspects of existing solutions (e.g. Segwit). I can not condone this type of behavior.

franky1

Constantly keeps trolling Bitcoin Core, Blockstream and spreading FUD & misinformation. Untrustworthy.

Carlton Banks

I disagree with the rating left on Carlton. While I may not always agree with their approach, they are fighting for what they believe in and are actively trying to clear up misconceptions and misinformation.

Sir Alpha_goy

This is an account that is used to constantly FUD Bitcoin and anything regrading it. Do not trust anything that is written by it.

Hyena

Falsely labels Segwit (the most peer reviewed and tested change in Bitcoin) as a "secret bankster takeover". People deliberately spreading such FUD in order to incite toxicity and division in the community should not be trusted at all.

It is one thing to have a competing viewpoint (even if you look like a fool trying to defend said viewpoint), however it is much different to attempt to silence and discredit those with a competing viewpoint via the trust system. Allowing someone who engages in this kind of behavior to remain a moderator goes against the freedom of speech principles that the forum is based on.

I have disagreed with some of the moderation policies implemented by the forum in the past, I could at least honestly say that said policies were made with the intention of doing what is best for Bitcoin, while framing said policies in a way that preserves freedom of speech. However active attempts of discrediting dissenting views is the very definition of censorship. The only way that I can see this being remediated is by removing Lauda from being a moderator.

[1714160546]

1714160546

[1714160546]

1714160546

[Lauda]

Hi. I am reasonably new here and I made an accusation against Lauda. I dont want to discuss the accusation but afterwards I have dealt with the mentioned user and had a normal experience. So I take my claims back. Let it be noted. Thanks.

Thanks, I'm glad that we got that resolved in a peaceful and mature matter.

It looks like Lauda is now leaving both negative and positive trust for political reasons, in an effort to further his viewpoint.

Sorry, but that is not the case. I have only tagged some users that were either constantly trolling, FUDing Bitcoin or both (e.g. Sir Alpha_goy). FYI I find such people highly untrustworthy and so should you!

franky1
-snip-
Hyena

Both ratings were internally resolved. Thank you for letting me know that I forgot to remove the neutral on franky.

However active attempts of discrediting dissenting views is the very definition of censorship. The only way that I can see this being remediated is by removing Lauda from being a moderator.

Yes, leaving trust ratings <--> moderation.
Did you forget to log in the alt again and bumped this up via the main account?

[iCEBREAKER]

Lauda

 

the very definition of sensor ships

 



  The only way that I can see this being remediated is by removing Lauda from being a moderator. 

Oh god not this sh*t again.

'member last time bloat-blockers threw tantrums and got REKT by GMAX's laconic wit?

the attack is actually much less effective against the network itself than it is against the forums.

[minifrij]

The only way that I can see this being remediated is by removing Lauda from being a moderator.

Of course. If only there were some way to remove them from the DT system, a system completely unrelated to moderation, in order to remove any rogue feedback there may possible be. Theymos should really implement that for situations just like this one.

Also, QS, you still haven't answered my questions from the last page. I've been awaiting your answers with bated breath.

[gorgon666]

Lauda is now moderating threads that have to do with him. Moderators should not be making decisions that affect themselves directly, moderators can leave those decisions up to another neutral moderator.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1697760.0

[Lauda]

Lauda is now moderating threads that have to do with him. Moderators should not be making decisions that affect themselves directly, moderators can leave those decisions up to another neutral moderator.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1697760.0

[22:23::11/29/16] <Lauda> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1697356.0
[22:28::11/29/16] <Lauda> Doesn't this go to reputation btw?
[22:29::11/29/16] <DeepSpace> Yes
[22:31::11/29/16] <DeepSpace> I ACK the move

Keep trying QS.
I'm far beyond the point where I'd make such a ludicrous error as to handle threads about myself. The underlying cognitive bias can not be beaten by any kind of objectivity, thus should be avoided/consulted with others.

[gorgon666]

Lauda is now moderating threads that have to do with him. Moderators should not be making decisions that affect themselves directly, moderators can leave those decisions up to another neutral moderator.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1697760.0

[22:23::11/29/16] <Lauda> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1697356.0
[22:28::11/29/16] <Lauda> Doesn't this go to reputation btw?
[22:29::11/29/16] <DeepSpace> Yes
[22:31::11/29/16] <DeepSpace> I ACK the move

Keep trying QS.
I'm far beyond the point where I'd make such a ludicrous error as to handle threads about myself. The underlying cognitive bias can not be beaten by any kind of objectivity, thus should be avoided/consulted with others.

Chat logs are worthless and can be doctored.

You did handle the thread yourself regardless of if "DeepSpace" told you it belongs somewhere else.

[Lauda]

Chat logs are worthless and can be doctored.

Yes, I'm most certainly trying to falsify what Mitchell said.

You did handle the thread yourself regardless of if "DeepSpace" told you it belongs somewhere else.

Point being? The only difference is who pressed a few buttons, the decision was by a neutral moderator. Grasping at straws again Quickseller.

[gorgon666]

Chat logs are worthless and can be doctored.

Yes, I'm most certainly trying to falsify what Mitchell said.

You did handle the thread yourself regardless of if "DeepSpace" told you it belongs somewhere else.

Point being? The only difference is who pressed a few buttons, the decision was by a neutral moderator. Grasping at straws again Quickseller.

There is not a single DAX 30 or a FTSE 100 company that will let someone "press a few buttons" regarding a transaction/decision involving themselves.

The majority of the time, the person will not even participate in the discussion regarding this kind of discussion, therefore the mere suggestion that a thread about you should be moderated is inappropriate. 

There is no solid evidence that the alleged discussion took place before to the moderation action. 

[minifrij]

There is not a single DAX 30 or a FTSE 100 company that will let someone "press a few buttons" regarding a transaction/decision involving themselves.

The majority of the time, the person will not even participate in the discussion regarding this kind of discussion, therefore the mere suggestion that a thread about you should be moderated is inappropriate.  

There is no solid evidence that the alleged discussion took place before to the moderation action.  

Remind me why this is relevant whatsoever? All Lauda did was move the topic to where it belonged, something that would have been done by another moderator had Lauda not. They didn't remove or censor the topic, not even obstructing it from view (as there is a trail that can be followed to find it's new location).
Your obvious bias is making you look like nothing other than a school kid, and no amount of irrelevant comparisons or pseudo-knowledge will change that.

[whothefuckareyou]

Lauda is not fit to be moderator and should not be in default trust. It is a conflict of interest. He is using his power as moderator and his default trust power to bully other signature campaign posters and managers. He is forcing advertisers to use ACE. All his actions is to promote ACE and to monopolize and pacifies other signature campaigns. This guy is corrupt and should not hold this positions.

[izanagi narukami]

Lauda is not fit to be moderator and should not be in default trust. It is a conflict of interest. He is using his power as moderator and his default trust power to bully and other signature campaign poster and manager. All his actions is to promote ACE and to monopolize and pacifies other signature campaigns.

Here's the situation :

People especially who exist from 2011s on this forum , yelling about bct post quality post ( for example : Danny Hamilton )
so for the solution, staff forum make their own initiative so fight spam and improved post quality forum so Lauda and team build their SMAS and ACE project

In one side : Lauda team consider as monopolize all campaign
but in other side : Forum post quality get better ( compare if ACE and SMAS never exist )

[Decoded]

Lauda is not fit to be moderator and should not be in default trust. It is a conflict of interest. He is using his power as moderator and his default trust power to bully and other signature campaign posters and managers. He is forcing advertisers to use ACE. All his actions is to promote ACE and to monopolize and pacifies other signature campaigns. This guy is corrupt and should not hold this positions.

Repost that on your main, why dont you?

There's no conflict of interest. Lauda is acting upon the better interests of the community, disregarding all the low quality signature spammers that you so dutifully support.

Lauda promoting ACE does not mean anything. If theymos were to wear a bitmixer signature, would you say this whole forum is run by bitmixer employees? Again, Lauda is supporting the obliteration of spam.

Please don't tell me that you think moderator intervention is bad... Bitmixer is much better off with Lauda managing it, just like YoBit is with Hilariousandco doing the same.

[whothefuckareyou]

Lauda is not fit to be moderator and should not be in default trust. It is a conflict of interest. He is using his power as moderator and his default trust power to bully and other signature campaign poster and manager. All his actions is to promote ACE and to monopolize and pacifies other signature campaigns.

Here's the situation :

People especially who exist from 2011s on this forum , yelling about bct post quality post ( for example : Danny Hamilton )
so for the solution, staff forum make their own initiative so fight spam and improved post quality forum so Lauda and team build their SMAS and ACE project

In one side : Lauda team consider as monopolize all campaign
but in other side : Forum post quality get better ( compare if ACE and SMAS never exist )

I'm an advocate of free market system. I'm in favor of fighting spam but not this way. Lauda is not doing this to fight spam only idiots would believe that. Lauda is only doing this to earn more bitcoins from monopolizing signature campaigns.

ACE - Only benefits Lauda and his buddies and alts.

SMAS - It is only purpose is to bully/force advertisers and to use SMAS members as managers.

[Lauda]

There is not a single DAX 30 or a FTSE 100 company..

False equivalency.

In one side : Lauda team consider as monopolize all campaign

What is "Lauda team" and how exactly does it monopolize campaigns?

Lauda is only doing this to earn more bitcoins from monopolizing signature campaigns.

And the baseless accusations continue.

ACE - Only benefits Lauda and buddies and alts.

ACE predates my involvement in campaigns as a manager, and my involvement with SMAS. The idea behind ACE has no relevance to this. Every single (active) ACE member is verifiably a real person (i.e. coin collector), which can't be said for any other campaign.

SMAS - It is only purpose is to bully/force advertisers and to use SMAS members as managers.

We can't neither force nor bully someone to hire people participating in SMAS.

Repost that on your main, why dont you?

They probably have so many accounts that figuring out which one is the 'main' is a tough process.

[Mitchell]

Chat logs are worthless and can be doctored.

But I really did tell Lauda that.

You did handle the thread yourself regardless of if "DeepSpace" told you it belongs somewhere else.

I told Lauda move it to `Reputation` because that is where it belongs. I didn't have time myself as I have plenty of other things to do and now they are being attacked because of that? That's not very nice.

If someone does not agree with the move feel free to say so and be sure to back it up with proof. It does not belong in `Scam Accustations` because it's about trust ratings, which is a reputation matter and thus belongs in `Reputation`.

[whothefuckareyou]

There is not a single DAX 30 or a FTSE 100 company..

False equivalency.

In one side : Lauda team consider as monopolize all campaign

What is "Lauda team" and how exactly does it monopolize campaigns?

Lauda is only doing this to earn more bitcoins from monopolizing signature campaigns.

And the baseless accusations continue.

ACE - Only benefits Lauda and buddies and alts.

ACE predates my involvement in campaigns as a manager, and my involvement with SMAS. The idea behind ACE has no relevance to this. Every single (active) ACE member is verifiably a real person (i.e. coin collector), which can't be said for any other campaign.

SMAS - It is only purpose is to bully/force advertisers and to use SMAS members as managers.

We can't neither force nor bully someone to hire people participating in SMAS.

Repost that on your main, why dont you?

They probably have so many accounts that figuring out which one is the 'main' is a tough process.

You can deny all you want. But your actions speaks for itself. Your actions is only further your own interest. If you are a true spam advocate, I dare you to remove yourself from ACE and SMAS. That's the only way for us to believe you are a true spam advocate and not an impostor.

[Jemzx00]

~Snipped~

You can deny all you want. But your actions speaks for itself. Your actions is only further your own interest. If you are a true spam advocate, I dare you to remove yourself from ACE and SMAS. That's the only way for us to believe you are a true spam advocate and not an impostor.

I don't know how leaving on SMAS or ACE will clarify things on what Lauda's doing. Somehow Lauda being on those groups makes her a true spam advocate. She even help these groups to find spammer by being campaign manager. By the way, I'm actually on the spam list of Lauda on SMAS and that pissed me off but instead of contradicting her decision, why not try to prove that you really are not a spammer. Somehow I respect her position and her trust rating here on this forum.

[Quickseller]

~Snipped~

You can deny all you want. But your actions speaks for itself. Your actions is only further your own interest. If you are a true spam advocate, I dare you to remove yourself from ACE and SMAS. That's the only way for us to believe you are a true spam advocate and not an impostor.

I don't know how leaving on SMAS or ACE will clarify things on what Lauda's doing. Somehow Lauda being on those groups makes her a true spam advocate. She even help these groups to find spammer by being campaign manager. By the way, I'm actually on the spam list of Lauda on SMAS and that pissed me off but instead of contradicting her decision, why not try to prove that you really are not a spammer. Somehow I respect her position and her trust rating here on this forum.

Lauda is selling her signature space at elevated rates. Lauda is also leaving negative ratings for accounts most likely to wish to join signature campaigns under the guise of leaving negative ratings for spammers (not scammers), and alts of scammers without properly vetting the information. By leaving negative ratings for accounts likely to wish to sell their signature, she is reducing the number of potential sellers of signature space, increasing the value of her signature space.

Lauda is also selling her services as a signature campaign manager and has similar conflicts.

[Lutpin]

so for the solution, staff forum make their own initiative so fight spam and improved post quality forum so Lauda and team build their SMAS and ACE project

SMAS is not an initiative coming from staff. SMAS was initiated by yahoo and a few other campaign managers.
Lauda only recently became a part of SMAS.

ACE btw isn't related to staff aswell. It's a project running seperately from Achows and Laudas positions as moderators.

In one side : Lauda team consider as monopolize all campaign

Not sure when SMAS became the "lauda team", but let me answer to this aswell.
We cooperate in the aspect of fighting spam, and that's it.
Every user of SMAS is making their own decisions besides that. We work independently, and we are for hire independently.
If an advertiser choses to hire a smas-manager or a non smas-manager is their decision. Further, which of us they hire, if they go for smas, is aswell.

SMAS - It is only purpose is to bully/force advertisers and to use SMAS members as managers.

Where exactly do we force anyone to hire one of us?