WITHDRAWN

[Gunthar]

2.  I have not logged into nothing and started leaving you negative feedback.

Is that so? Rating from user feryjhie:



Rating that you've left on the said user:


Something smells in here and it is not just the fish that I'm having for dinner.

So I off loaded the account to someone who is using it learn more about bitcoin.  Do you have an issue with this?  I loaned out .09 or so on this account and off loaded it for less.  Where is your concern.  I just explained to him what you did.  he was happy to leave that for you.  I thought it was funny.  
 
THE BIG QUESTION IS LAUDA
Why do you keep avoiding explaining your feedback and actions?  You are a Staff member in this forum.  Someone others are supposed to look up to and go to for assistance.  Someone who is supposed to help support the integrity of this forum.  Yet you keep bouncing around and not answering the main issue!  Please explain your feedback with no references and provide reference or proof that such feedback is true.   Why are you wasting all your time trying to put me down and make accusations you can not prove, and instead defend your actions as a respected member of this forum??   I have already done my homework and I have already stated if I am wrong and I put my foot in my mouth, I will say so and appologize.  I will change this thread and take back all my wrong statements.  So why are you so anxious to fight when you can just prove you are the trusted member for the position you are in, and be done with this all???  Now that smells fishy.

See Lauda, I do not care about this account.  As proven a number of times, if this account is banned or left red negative, I can just vacate it and move on.  I won't, because I do not really care; but I do care when it comes to calling out BS, and I smell a large pile of it coming from your lack of response when it comes to the actual accusations you are accused of.

Reported.

[Lauda]

Please explain your feedback with no references and provide reference or proof that such feedback is true.

It is obvious that you do not understand the trust system and should read up on it. You do not have to leave any kind of references if you do not want to (e.g. "I do not trust X because of Y" is sufficient). I have updated those ratings now, as the accounts engage in trust abuse.
After consulting with others, I have left you a negative rating due to the act of calumny which is illegal (I've given you more than enough time). If you choose to rewrite it in a way which is not misleading, I will remove it.

Reported.

They have edited the post in the meanwhile.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

Your claim of calumny would be correct if you could prove that my statements were false.  Because you have yet to even try to prove my claims were false, your claim of calumny has no standing anywhere.

No. It is you, who has to prove your alleged claims (something which you did not do).

After some additional digging, I see that one of the feedback you left was on an account you inquired about purchasing from another member but were turned down for a low offer.  Smells fishy to me!  I can not prove this, so it is just hearsay at this time.  I have messaged the member to give me proof so we can dig deeper into you.  

Another member committing felonies via defamatory statements? I can't wait to get more *details* about these fantasies.

..showing you have spent countless minutes bashing me and wining about it all on here..

I did no such thing.

..instead of taking 5 minutes to show proof your feedback is accurate or that you have good reason to leave it.  I think you will not show proof because you have no proof to show.  

I do not have to prove anything as the proof is in the post history on said accounts. Besides, even if they were not used for spamming, they are still used for account sales (diff. reason, same consequence).

Other trusted members are even agreeing with me, check your feedback.  

What other "trusted members"? All the negative ratings on me are from untrusted members which have been exposed in one way or another.
At this point I'm not even sure:
1) Which accounts are/were yours.
2) Where the loans took place.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[KWH]

Trust can be left for anything or for nothing at all, Positive, Neutral or Negative. If it is inaccurate, it will dilute the leavers credibility and if not corrected will render this persons credibility as useless.
This being said, nothing is/will come of this "tit for tat" as both party's think they are right. I would advise locking this thread and moving on. Once things cool off, maybe an agreement can be reached in PM.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[TwitchySeal]

My Responses in Red Bold

Your claim of calumny would be correct if you could prove that my statements were false.  Because you have yet to even try to prove my claims were false, your claim of calumny has no standing anywhere.

No. It is you, who has to prove your alleged claims (something which you did not do).
If you actually read through my posts, you would see that I have provided reasonable proof that my claims are reasonable.  Your complete refusal to address my claims, only make prove my statements are probably correct.  Just so you can see, here are the threads where I have given reasonable proof that these statements are true and correct (I have highlighted the areas in purple, bold, and underlined with my proof):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.msg16889589#msg16889589
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.msg16899630#msg16899630
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.msg16915075#msg16915075
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.msg16980916#msg16980916
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.msg16981063#msg16981063
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.msg16988857#msg16988857

After some additional digging, I see that one of the feedback you left was on an account you inquired about purchasing from another member but were turned down for a low offer.  Smells fishy to me!  I can not prove this, so it is just hearsay at this time.  I have messaged the member to give me proof so we can dig deeper into you.  

Another member committing felonies via defamatory statements? I can't wait to get more *details* about these fantasies.
Again, if you read my statement correctly, it clearly states "I can not prove this, so it is just hearsay at this time.", and there is no felonies here you ignorant fool.  If you think I was being vulgar in calling you that, please look up the definitions of the words; describes you to a tea.  Let me show you how:  Libel (you incorrectly identify it as calumny) is considered a civil violation, not criminal, thus carrying no criminal rating such as "felonies".  Learn your law before you state it. 
 

..showing you have spent countless minutes bashing me and wining about it all on here..

I did no such thing.
Just because you take part of my sentence and comment on it does not make your comment valid to the purpost of the statement I have made.  You must be a politician.  This would explain why you have not addressed my accusations.

..instead of taking 5 minutes to show proof your feedback is accurate or that you have good reason to leave it.  I think you will not show proof because you have no proof to show.  

I do not have to prove anything as the proof is in the post history on said accounts. Besides, even if they were not used for spamming, they are still used for account sales (diff. reason, same consequence).
In order to claim my statements and title in my thread are trus, you do need to prove.  Next these accounts were not used for account sales, they were being sold.  Just like your false feedback, you do not know how to properly state true facts, do you.

Other trusted members are even agreeing with me, check your feedback.  

What other "trusted members"? All the negative ratings on me are from untrusted members which have been exposed in one way or another.
I may be incorrect about this, for I don't understand the levels of trust.  You are correct that all of the feedback are from un-trusted members.  But in reality, if the trust system allows people like you in there to make some of the incorrect comments you have made, is the trust system really accurate and dependable??  However, I am seeing that BG4 is a level 3 Default trust member, if I am seeing this correctly and this is the feedback he left you:
Lauda is clearly immature and is abusing the trust system and replacing his trust after any other trust I have received to hurt my Rep. Lauda is unstable and has no business being on any moderator list to be able to do this to someone be cause of a disagreement,,,

This is clearly moderator trust abuse...
At this point I'm not even sure:
1) Which accounts are/were yours.
What difference does it matter which accounts were mine.  If you think I am wasting my time to help my accounts, you are wrong.  I am in this to make sure the bitcointalk trust network, (not the joke of a trust system) does not fall to stupidity.  There are to many people out there who will not trust Bitcoin because of the number of people who are using it for illegal activity.  Having someone like  you in a Staff Position and in a Default trust level, making statements that you will not back up, does not help the trust others have about Bitcoin.  All it does it hurt the system even more.  Why would someone want to get on here and buy or sell something when you have Staff members in a Default trust level attempting to extort another member. (Image clip below)  Though this does not prove this is you trying to extort the other member, seemed funny you referring to yourself in the message in first person and just some added physiology for you Lauda, it has been founded in many studies when an individual is trying hide who they are online, they will make the mistake of claiming they are not someone else when it is brought to attention.  First you tried to exclude the validity of the evidence .by trying to scare the other member that it is not evidence.  If you were not the Lauda in this screen shot, you would have let the other member in this screenshot believe you were and ruin that Lauda's reputation, you would not have tried to protect it by claiming you may be a Doppler  Shame on you because he did not want to sell something you wanted.  You are not fit to be a Staff member on this forum nor are you fit to be trusted as a default trust member. This is my opinion, but I am going to call you out in another thread and ask for your removal of both.  Your actions bring down the integrity of this forum.  (To prevent Lauda's next claim of Libel or Calumny, this is my opinion which is protected under the first amendment) 
free adult image hosting

2) Where the loans took place.
If you are not even sure of this information, how can anyone trust your opinion and statements?  Every other default member can tell me about the feedback they left a member when I question the feedback before giving a loan.  Why can't you??  But the community is supposed to trust your statements. 

If you dont trust her then remove her from your trust network and/or leave neg feedback.

You're looking at it like users should be considered innocent until proven guilty.  This isn't a law and order system, there is no criminal justice system.  It's just an online community with mostly anonymous users. 

Everyone should really consider everyone else guilty until proven innocent.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

If you actually read through my posts, you would see that I have provided reasonable proof that my claims are reasonable.
-snip-

All you did was provide walls of useless text. As I have stated previously:
1) I do not know what accounts you interacted with.
2) I do not target accounts that are collateral.
3) The primary targets are spammers, account farmers, alts (abusers) and account traders.

Next these accounts were not used for account sales, they were being sold.  Just like your false feedback, you do not know how to properly state true facts, do you.

So selling accounts = not engaging in account sales

I may be incorrect about this, for I don't understand the levels of trust.  You are correct that all of the feedback are from un-trusted members.  

DT1 members are trusted by theymos, and DT2 members are those that are in the trust list of DT1 members. DT1 and DT2 are trusted by default.

However, I am seeing that BG4 is a level 3 Default trust member, if I am seeing this correctly and this is the feedback he left you:
-snip-

DT3 and further is deemed as untrusted, hence not visible by default. The BG4 situation is a whole other personal issue of a manufacturer unable to control their tantrum, with no relevance to this. Also the situation with defcon, and the chatlogs from a private chat is called poisoning the well fallacy. All those personal disputes were resolved, and I was not wrong in either one of them. This seems to be turning into a 'sling mud at Lauda' thread.

f you are not even sure of this information, how can anyone trust your opinion and statements?  Every other default member can tell me about the feedback they left a member when I question the feedback before giving a loan.  Why can't you??  But the community is supposed to trust your statements.

Do you have some comprehension problems? I have not left those accounts ratings due to any loans.

What difference does it matter which accounts were mine.  
-snip-

How about you stop writing useless walls of text, and get to the point in 2-3 sentences? What is it that you want from this thread now? I have clearly stated several times that the ratings were not left because they are collateral.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[KWH]

Again:

Trust can be left for anything or for nothing at all, Positive, Neutral or Negative. If it is inaccurate, it will dilute the leavers credibility and if not corrected will render this persons credibility as useless.
This being said, nothing is/will come of this "tit for tat" as both party's think they are right. I would advise locking this thread and moving on. Once things cool off, maybe an agreement can be reached in PM.

Trust is not moderated except in cases of extreme abuse.

The options you have are:
1. Accept it and stop accepting accounts as collateral.
2. Keep accepting accounts as collateral but keep it to yourself when they default. ( If found, they will still be marked.)
3. Keep posting useless threads about it
4. Petition those that have Lauda in their WOT to remove him.

Many here see sold/bought accounts as a scourge to the community and see no problem identifying them as such. Although it is allowed, that does not mean the community will accept it.
I have also marked defaulted collateralized accounts with a Negative and will not remove them as I believe the community has a right to know with whom they are trading with. I did not do this to harm the lender but to protect those who would deal with them.
Keep in mind: You have no right to make a living here and you myself and others trade at Theymos whim. He could pull the plug at any time.

[minifrij]

Put this thought in your head.  Lauda has left 64 negative trusts in the last 23 days of being registered.  The 1 & 1/2 years before that he left 1 negative trust.  He has left more trust in the last 23 days than he has positive and negative together in the pass years he has been a member.  Now put this swing on this.  He is a trusted default member placing feedback for others that are unfounded.  What if he starts placing positive feedback for members of which he owns the accounts?  Unless he made a mistake and it is posted somewhere on this forum, no one will know.  Others may trust his positive feedback because he is a default trust member, allowing him to scam with his other account(s) and dip out.  It is that simple.  If his negative feedback can not be proven, what is saying his positive ones are not just there for the purpose of setting up a scam???

Ah yeah, you're right. It makes absolutely no sense that someone would start giving out more trust feedbacks once they become trusted by default, meaning that people actually see and care about said feedback.
You're also right about Lauda only leaving positive trust to their alts. I mean, is it not obvious that accounts such as myself, Lutpin, Vod and others are all just pawns in Lauda's master plan to take over the forum and scam for hundreds of BTC? I'm amazed that you're the first one to notice. I mean, there is even blockchain evidence of obvious bribery going on!

because there is no order in this forum when a default trust member can abuse the system.

Lauda sees account sales as untrustworthy, which they are. You partake in account sales, therefore they see you as untrustworthy and mark you as such. Doing so is not abuse, it is using the trust system as it is intended.
If you don't want this to happen there is a simple solution - stop doing account sales. Ask for collateral in your loans which won't make you look untrustworthy to accept. If not for that reason, then simply because accepting accounts as collateral is stupid anyway. The way that anyone can (rightfully) make the collateral worthless in a few clicks surely makes it obvious that it is a stupid thing to accept in the case of a defaulted loan.

Those accounts did not engage in selling accounts, because they were not selling themselves, I was selling them through a third party.

Were the accounts being sold? Yes? Therefore, it is account selling. It's not difficult to understand.

[Lauda]

You also stated that you do not know why they were left.  

You seem really confused here, let me clarify some stuff. First of, I know why I left the rating, and it is clearly stated in the feedback:

Signature Spammer & Farmed account + defaulted on a loan.

Also mentioned by you:

You say this, yet you put in the initial feedback - Signature Spammer & Farmed account + defaulted on a loan.

This is not about YOUR loan, but a loan that the account defaulted back in 2015. Besides, that was not even the main reason behind the rating as it's clearly stated with "+ defaulted on a loan". I updated the trust rating and added proper reference in case that you're still confused.

I want you out of the Default Trust position.  You are a proven liar and all liars have a great chance to become a scammer.

No, I am not. If anything, you are proven to be either very confused or delusional.

People like you disgust me.

How kind of you.
Again, I ask you to try to get your point out in a few sentences. Those walls of text are redundant and won't make you seem like you have a good argument.

I mean, is it not obvious that accounts such as myself, Lutpin, Vod and others are all just pawns in Lauda's master plan to take over the forum and scam for hundreds of BTC?

Shh my perfect plan is coming all together slowly.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

Could you please tell me how to find those who has Lauda in their DT?  I am sorry, I still do not know everything and I use this forum to learn.  I just do not want to see it be un-trusted because people like Lauda are permitted to do what they do.  

I'll help you out here: Blazed, the same person that I asked to review this thread before I tagged you. I also thank you for correcting me regarding the legality, changed the rating to libel.

We need to bring more bitcoin users in, not let people like him scare them away.  Thank you for the help in advance.

If you mean scare away shady individuals and scammers, then you're right.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

<snip>
No one here is getting this.  I Closed my loan service.  I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH ACCOUNTS AS COLLATERAL.  I am concerned with a default trust member who is abusing the system.  I am concerned with a default trust member who lies on trust, proven in this thread a number of times, from his own statements.  I am concerned with a default trust member who openly get caught in their own lies and are still considered default trust.  I am concerned with a proven liar being a staff member in one of the most used, if not the most used bitcoin forum, a forum where new bitcoin users come to learn about bitcoin.  I am concerned that we have a staff member with default trust rating who has the ability to perpetrate a fraud because he is a proven liar and has the power and trust to get people to believe.  If this does not concern you and other members, there is something seriously wrong, which will contribute to the fall of Bitcoin should it ever go down.  What kind of trust does this show new forum members??

Could you please tell me how to find those who has Lauda in their DT?  I am sorry, I still do not know everything and I use this forum to learn.  I just do not want to see it be un-trusted because people like Lauda are permitted to do what they do.  We need to bring more bitcoin users in, not let people like him scare them away.  Thank you for the help in advance.

I didn't realize you closed your loan service.  You probably said this, but my attention span doesn't allow for reading big, long, tombstone walls of textola.  Good for you, so you no longer have to take accounts as collateral and won't ever have to worry about being labeled a scunt by offloading said accounts onto scammers, spammers, account farmers, assorted cunts, and other account sellers.

Normally I would have flew into my normal internet rage and labelled you as an account-dealing SCUNT, but I happen to think you're trustworthy otherwise and used a modicum of restraint.  Not that it would matter much anyway, my trust feedbacks do not carry any more weight than those fools who, with mouths a-blazing, retardiated their venom all over my own trust page.  Sucks to be painted by DT but life will go on for all of us.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

In the one feedback you left rating stating signature spammer, yet, no signature campaign.  Your reference shows feedback left for you after you left the feedback in the first place.  That does not show nothing other than your feedback is BS because THERE WAS NO SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN IN THE ACCOUNT to be spamming.  Tell us another one.

Oh really? Look at what we have here:

Username: feryjhie
Bitcoin Address: 1FERyQMm4aPnmbzEmd3xb4FZnQyGkkYv4b
Member Type: sr member
Date Joined: 8 June

I want to enroll for this month

Name:   feryjhie
Posts:   1209
Activity:   252
Position:   Sr. Member
Addy same as before

Loan paid back - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1098303.msg11717179#msg11717179 (IN THE SAME THREAD AS YOU JUST QUOTED.....  There is something wrong with you.
Again shows you do not do your research and your feedback can not be trusted.

I'm well aware that they repaid the loan. However, they only did so when a scam accusation was raised against them which makes them untrustworthy.

You stated one thing and then stated another.  Read your feedback, you quoted signature spammer in a number of feedback with no signature and no activity in some time.  That is just one of the many examples I have stated.  The liar is telling us he is not a liar.  Do not hate me if we do not trust your word.

No. You are mistaken since I was saying that I was not aware of any loans (your loans), and you thought the 'defaulted on a loan' was regarding your own loan (which it is not).

They also did not wait until put in default trust to care about this forum and leave 64 times the negative feedback they left in the first 3 years of being a member, in the last 24 days.

Correct. DT3 ratings are mostly useless, thus leaving them would have been a pointless waste of time.