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

[subSTRATA]

Also, I know believe Lauda is a girl and shall continue this belief.

nope

[1714117865]

1714117865

[1714117865]

1714117865

[1714117865]

1714117865

[1714117865]

1714117865

[1714117865]

1714117865

[takagari]

Also, I know believe Lauda is a girl and shall continue this belief.

nope

I reads it on the internets, so it must be true, your silly logic won't change that fact!

[Jet Cash]

Also, I know believe Lauda is a girl and shall continue this belief.

Does it matter?

[takagari]

Some of you forum guys need to pull the sticks from your rear and figure out where a joke is at play. Wow

[Jet Cash]

I thought cum lauda was the feminine of cum laude.

[OgNasty]

This thread seems to be more about Lauda and less about forum moderator requirements.  Perhaps it's time that it be moved to the reputation section?

[tspacepilot]

His analysis is useless and inaccurate. He is trying to distract from the fact that Lauda is an unqualified, inept (and more) moderator that does not have any business being anywhere near authority. 

Pretty sure you're trying to distract from the fact that you're using so many alts in these threads ...

Good luck!

Here's the thing, once you get caught doing this, no one is going to take any threads where QS argues seriously because we all know that most of the opinions in that thread are just you posting under alts.  Maybe go back to that thing where you said you were going to take a long break and stop harrassing us on this forum?

[Heutenamos]

Also, I know believe Lauda is a girl and shall continue this belief.

Does it matter?

Yes.

[myparentsdisownedme]

He hasnt really done anything SUPER bad



Unless anyone else has to say something about his history but idk

[BitcoinEXpress]

This thread seems to be more about Lauda and less about forum moderator requirements.  Perhaps it's time that it be moved to the reputation section?

Let me set this back on track.

So no need to move it.

I think Lauda would be a great mod because of the fairness and honesty I have seen in his moderation around the board.

Should be promoted to Global Moderator.


~BCX~

[VforVictory]

This thread seems to be more about Lauda and less about forum moderator requirements.  Perhaps it's time that it be moved to the reputation section?

Let me set this back on track.

So no need to move it.

I think Lauda would be a great mod because of the fairness and honesty I have seen in his moderation around the board.

Should be promoted to Global Moderator.


~BCX~

I dont think the Global Moderator isn't a Lauda thing. As you can see on her recent trust page about Memorydealer. Her own decision making got her negative from a VIP user here. She gives negative trust to Memorydealer . And after getting a neg trust back from Memorydealer, she changed her trust to him and make it neutral.
Why changed your trust after getting a negative trust?

[Quickseller]

This thread seems to be more about Lauda and less about forum moderator requirements.  Perhaps it's time that it be moved to the reputation section?

Let me set this back on track.

So no need to move it.

I think Lauda would be a great mod because of the fairness and honesty I have seen in his moderation around the board.

Should be promoted to Global Moderator.


~BCX~

I dont think the Global Moderator isn't a Lauda thing. As you can see on her recent trust page about Memorydealer. Her own decision making got her negative from a VIP user here. She gives negative trust to Memorydealer . And after getting a neg trust back from Memorydealer, she changed her trust to him and make it neutral.
Why changed your trust after getting a negative trust?

Something similar happened with BG4. They exchanged negative ratings (the one Lauda sent was questionable at best), then some time later both have been removed.

There was another instance in which someone was publicly criticizing Lauda who Lauda had given a negative rating to, then as soon as Lauda removed the negative the person rescinded the criticism and locked the thread.

It appears that Lauda has been using the strong weight of his negative ratings to prevent others from being critical of him.

[VforVictory]

I dont think the Global Moderator isn't a Lauda thing. As you can see on her recent trust page about Memorydealer. Her own decision making got her negative from a VIP user here. She gives negative trust to Memorydealer . And after getting a neg trust back from Memorydealer, she changed her trust to him and make it neutral.
Why changed your trust after getting a negative trust?

Something similar happened with BG4. They exchanged negative ratings (the one Lauda sent was questionable at best), then some time later both have been removed.

There was another instance in which someone was publicly criticizing Lauda who Lauda had given a negative rating to, then as soon as Lauda removed the negative the person rescinded the criticism and locked the thread.

It appears that Lauda has been using the strong weight of his negative ratings to prevent others from being critical of him.

So she is evading all negative feedback back by changing her trust report to others. And she will not change her other trust report to other that will not affect her trust.

[Quickseller]

Lauda will sometimes remove negative ratings that result in the other person stopping being critical of him. It is not always people that can affect his trust score, however it is probably people that are making good points. It is fairly clearly a quid pro quo.

[BitcoinEXpress]

Lauda will sometimes remove negative ratings that result in the other person stopping being critical of him. It is not always people that can affect his trust score, however it is probably people that are making good points. It is fairly clearly a quid pro quo.

Why is this a problem?


~BCX~

[minifrij]

Why is this a problem?
~BCX~

Because in QS land only certain people are allowed to resolve trust issues through communication - as they are meant to be. Others must keep them there permanently else they are obviously attempting to censor those critical of them.
Unfortunately for them, Lauda falls into the second group.

[Quickseller]

Lauda will sometimes remove negative ratings that result in the other person stopping being critical of him. It is not always people that can affect his trust score, however it is probably people that are making good points. It is fairly clearly a quid pro quo.

Why is this a problem?


~BCX~

This is essentially using his position in the Default Trust network to prevent others from criticizing him. It allows Lauda to act questionably and not be questioned about said shady/dishonest practices.

Why is this a problem?
~BCX~

Because in QS land only certain people are allowed to resolve trust issues through communication - as they are meant to be. 

Often times the criticisms about Lauda are unrelated to sent trust. This also prevents an open discussion about Lauda's actions.

[minifrij]

Often times the criticisms about Lauda are unrelated to sent trust. This also prevents an open discussion about Lauda's actions.

They are? Prior to them being added to the DT network and leaving trust ratings there was little criticism about them IIRC, the majority only coming from yourself and alt accounts with a strangely similar writing style to you.
It may be my memory, though could you provide some examples as to when there was a dispute with Lauda not about trust feedback that was solved by sent feedback from Lauda being removed?

[Vod]

Lauda will sometimes remove negative ratings that result in the other person stopping being critical of him. It is not always people that can affect his trust score, however it is probably people that are making good points. It is fairly clearly a quid pro quo.

Why is this a problem?

Seems to me that Lauda is a good trader.  He must do well in bitcoin.

Personally, I don't care how others trust me when I am calculating my trust towards them.  I've removed someone's negative trust while they have negative trust against me.  If they remove their trust later, I don't know, because I don't keep track.  Blackmailing me with negative trust leads nowhere.

[Quickseller]

Often times the criticisms about Lauda are unrelated to sent trust. This also prevents an open discussion about Lauda's actions.

They are? Prior to them being added to the DT network and leaving trust ratings there was little criticism about them IIRC, the majority only coming from yourself and alt accounts with a strangely similar writing style to you.
It may be my memory, though could you provide some examples as to when there was a dispute with Lauda not about trust feedback that was solved by sent feedback from Lauda being removed?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1390664.msg14127828#msg14127828

Lauda called someone retarded in March 2016, then when I called lauda out about how this is not appropriate behavior of a moderator, I received a negative rating from Lauda regarding an unrelated issue that had allegedly happened then-6 months ago.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.0;all

Someone was being critical of Lauda regarding when Lauda decides to leave negative ratings that was withdrawn when Lauda removed the negative rating against that person. The change of heart about Lauda was so strong that the person went as far as to say that Lauda was doing more good than harm.

Lauda had traded negative ratings with, I believe was BG4, the rating against BG4 was something along the lines of claiming that BG4 was "immature". Eventually both ratings were seemingly removed at around the same time.

The rating defcon23 received from Lauda seems to have been removed and reapplied multiple times after defcon23 has taken different stances on Lauda's behavior