WITHDRAWN

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Lauda]

How did you determine he was accepted into the signature campaign?  That is right you did not.

Yeah, I totally did not determine that via this post:

Everyone has been added.

Again, account clearly change hands.  New owner, no reason to believe a scammer.

So if an account of a known scammer gets sold, all the previous ratings should be removed as the *new owner* is not a scammer? This would set a very dangerous precedence.

Again, there were no defaulted loans if you would have done your research.  Shame on you for not doing your research.

Seems like you are the one not doing any research here. Here is the user admitting that they have defaulted:

Sorry for the loan defaulted

They did repay after being called out later, but that does not undo the default.

Now you leave as much as you can for your power trip.

Others have come up with better accusations, e.g. I'm an alt of Lutpin, I'm getting paid by TF, I'm conspiring via SMAS. This is just not creative at all.

[Lutpin]

June & February of 2015, over a year ago, Good Job finding that!!  How did you determine he was accepted into the signature campaign?  That is right you did not.

So you're telling me the user wasn't? And they still paid him for the fun of it?
eceff766d3e349adce9e62d1bc0be771980ef9b7479cce34d198043aefe171d8

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

Confirmed to both but please change your Personal Text immediately. Thank you all for joining!

Public Note: CloudThink.IO Signature Campaign Payout - June 15

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[Quickseller]

How about the fact that no one has taken anything of value against the will of of item's owner, nor has anyone attempted to do this -- in other words there has been no scam, nor a scam attempt.

That is a good argument. Nobody was scammed, nor am I tagging collateral accounts (hence the act of calumny).

Maybe you should address my concern then.

BTW, if you have done something to damage the value of his property that was unjustified and not within your rights, then you have in fact committed a tort, and the result of litigation would likely be that you owe said owner of property money. Unless you have already paid said owner of property the amount of lost value, then said owner calling you a scammer would not be outside the bounds of what a reasonable person would consider a 'scammer'.

If a statement is false due to a technicality, and had the false statement been corrected, and the accurate statement would have damaged your reputation similarly would have been damaged, then the said statement is not slander. Additionally, in order for a statement to be slander, you must not only prove that it is false, but also that said statement actually harmed your reputation. I have seen no attempt of you even attempting either.

[Vod]

Maybe you should address my concern then.

The concern of a scammer?

You keep posting "in my opinion" but what makes you think anyone cares about the opinion of a scammer?

Are you so dense you don't see you have fifty negative trust points?

The OP is trying to build a better forum - kudos to him - he doesn't need advice from scammers.

Get over yourself.   

[Lauda]

Maybe you should address my concern then.

What concern?

If a statement is false due to a technicality, and had the false statement been corrected, and the accurate statement would have damaged your reputation similarly would have been damaged, then the said statement is not slander. Additionally, in order for a statement to be slander, you must not only prove that it is false, but also that said statement actually harmed your reputation. I have seen no attempt of you even attempting either.

Have you been reading anything? I have:
1) Shown that the rating was not left because the account was a collateral account in OP's loans.
2) Justified the rating as I have linked to all the activities, including (but not limited to): signature spam, loan default and account sales (which is obvious).
3) Updated those ratings to better reflect on the intent behind them.

The account was held for over a year with no scams or nothing like that and the only way Lauda found the account was from the thread that it was for sale.  

Correct. Even if we disregard everything else, this warrants a negative IMO. You should not be engaging in account sales as nothing good can come out of it!

The fact is that the account had no signature campaign when the feedback was left and it was tagged as a signature spammer.  If that was the case over a year ago, which it does not look like it was, based on the post comments, then it is OK that he tagged from that long ago?? You are also telling me that he looked that far back?  Come on, this smells all the way to the bank.

It most certainly was the case if you asses the post history. If you are too lazy to look that far back, that does not mean that I am too. It's only a few pages of post history.

[knightkon]

Claim withdrawn.

[DarkStar_]

When I return, I will be posting my public petition to have you removed as default trust. 

Don't bother. Lauda is on Blazed trust list, so to have her removed, all you have to do is get blazed to remove her (probably won't happen). You could also lobby the other DT1 members, but you would need 2 to side with you to have her removed. That list is these people:

    theymos (1)
    HostFat (1)
    dooglus (1)
    Maged (1)
    dserrano5 (1)
    OgNasty (1)
    Tomatocage (1)
    SaltySpitoon (1)
    DeaDTerra (1)
    BadBear (1)
    philipma1957 (1)
    Cyrus (1)
    Blazed (1)
    OldScammerTag (1)

I can't think of 2 people on that list that would be likely to agree with you, but good luck.

[Lauda]

Just in general, your posts do cross me as a signature spammer for some time now.  Just for reference in my saying that, I am using your reasoning against you and your post are as common and relevant where you post as the Hero account you flagged for activity from over a year ago; so based on your methods and reasoning that means you are in the same boat and should be tagged.

I have already served out punishment for my past activity, so that ends up being rather pointless. This isn't really an argument of any kind, but rather a red herring. You are directly diverting from the points that I've raised, and my rebuttal of claims such as 'no signature campaign'.

I can not complain about your moderator status, for I see nowhere where you have abused this position, but I will "do my research" as you say, just to be save I did not miss something in my public posting.

At least this is a reasonable stance. If you do find moderating errors, make sure to let me know. I'll be very thankful to be given a chance to improve!

Lauda is on Blazed trust list, so to have her removed, all you have to do is get blazed to remove her (probably won't happen).

Have we settled this question yet?
OP, I think this is the only reasonable way out of the complex situation that we find ourselves in:

I would advise locking this thread and moving on. Once things cool off, maybe an agreement can be reached in PM.

A witch hunt attempt won't remedy the situation at all, but then again that is solely up to you. I'm fine with both.

[abhishek.g]

Lauda , Lutpin and yahoo are weird guys. They will misuse their trust ratings and will destroy your trust ratings. They are the real criminals. Their trust ratings should also be spoiled.

[Lutpin]

Lauda , Lutpin and yahoo are weird guys.

guys? girls? apache helicopters?

They will misuse their trust ratings and will destroy your trust ratings.

Even yahoo who isn't in any relevant DT level currently?

They are the real criminals.

For realz? By what laws? Might wanna think about crowd-funding a lawsuit against us in that case.
Real criminals belong into jail or at least sentenced.

Their trust ratings should also be spoiled.

I get the pitchforks, you bring the torches, ok...wait, what?

[abhishek.g]

Lauda , Lutpin and yahoo are weird guys.

guys? girls? apache helicopters?

They will misuse their trust ratings and will destroy your trust ratings.

Even yahoo who isn't in any relevant DT level currently?

They are the real criminals.

For realz? By what laws? Might wanna think about crowd-funding a lawsuit against us in that case.
Real criminals belong into jail or at least sentenced.

Their trust ratings should also be spoiled.

I get the pitchforks, you bring the torches, ok...wait, what?

1. Nope , no apache, Antonov
2. You are not sure about what you are saying.
3. Yeah you all should be hanged till death.
4. Yeah seems a good idea, lets go for it.

[TwitchySeal]

Lauda , Lutpin and yahoo are weird guys.

guys? girls? apache helicopters?

They will misuse their trust ratings and will destroy your trust ratings.

Even yahoo who isn't in any relevant DT level currently?

They are the real criminals.

For realz? By what laws? Might wanna think about crowd-funding a lawsuit against us in that case.
Real criminals belong into jail or at least sentenced.

Their trust ratings should also be spoiled.

I get the pitchforks, you bring the torches, ok...wait, what?

1. Nope , no apache, Antonov
2. You do not sure about what you are saying.
3. Yeah you all should be hanged till death.
4. Yeah seems a good idea, lets go for it.

5. Cable, shade jealous want shy,
6. Abiding soup, prefer hyper potato.

[knightkon]

Mod - Please remove this thread.  After some research, though I do not agree with some of the actions of the moderator, I do see this moderator is doing  more good on the thread and my personal opinions are just that opinions.  Please delete this thread.  I have corrected all posts.  Thank you in advance.

[Quickseller]

Mod - Please remove this thread.  After some research, though I do not agree with some of the actions of the moderator, I do see this moderator is doing  more good on the thread and my personal opinions are just that opinions.  Please delete this thread.  I have corrected all posts.  Thank you in advance.

In other words, Lauda removed his negative rating in exchange for you withdrawing your criticism agains him

[minifrij]

In other words, Lauda removed his negative rating in exchange for you withdrawing your criticism agains him

Of course. Lauda's feedback on the OP was referencing calumny/libel. If the OP withdrew this, there is no basis for a negative feedback to be there anymore. While I wouldn't, it is completely fair to remove the feedback all together.

In addition, the feedback on feryjhie (IIRC the account this thread was made over) is still there as it is still arguably valid (though should perhaps be updated if the feedback left on OP has been). What is your point?

[Quickseller]

In other words, Lauda removed his negative rating in exchange for you withdrawing your criticism agains him

Of course. Lauda's feedback on the OP was referencing calumny/libel. If the OP withdrew this, there is no basis for a negative feedback to be there anymore. While I wouldn't, it is completely fair to remove the feedback all together.

It is weird how the OP received negative trust for calumny/libel (which is a BS reason for a rating BTW) for the calumny/libel in this thread, but he opened this thread because he had negative trust from Lauda.

[knightkon]

Just to confirm, I removed this post because Lauda made valid points for the feedback left on the accounts.  Even if I do not agree with the comments, I do agree that this forum gives him that right.  Even though it is not a rule that accounts are not allowed to be sold or used for collateral, it is a border to tread lightly on and like said in this thread, there is no rules on others leaving feedback based on their opinions.  With that said, the use of accounts as collateral does hurt the forum when the wrong people but the accounts for a scamming purpose.  I do think there needs to be a rule against this, but I do not run the forum.  Always remember that the purpose of this forum is to assist others with learning about bitcoin and exchanging ideas.  When there are arguments like I started, it undermines the purpose of this forum.  With that I lock this thread and ask it be deleted.