Lauda/TMAN extortion attempt

[shorena]

I knew I should have written a statement yesterday, but well, it was late. I know you all are busy so Ill try to keep this short.

#1 TMAN, as I said in PM I will reconsider your rating at the end of february (~1 month from now). Please remind me via PM.
#2 Lauda, I am may be willing to reconsider your rating further in the future.
#3 I left no rating to minifrij because the connection is not strong enough for it. The timing is odd and Im wary, but its not enough for a rating IMHO.

The reason I am willing to reconsider at all is that you both seem to think you have done something that is allowed (TMAN) or at least justified by its ends (Lauda).

I strongly disagree. Extortion is evil[1][2] and should be punished. If everyone else can let this slide, I cant. In regards to the Enland and Wales law, an extortion or blackmail is no proper means and the demand was money which has no reasonable grounds in this case. I think this was put into place to allow e.g. "blackmailing" someone into self-indictment with the threat of a report to police.

Im less lenient with Lauda because we discussed how the end does (or does not in my view) justifies the means for quite some time now and because I think my rating will have less impact on them due to their connections and past ratings.

[1] In a similar sense as is torture, a lesser one though. See e.g. the remarks by Terry Karney here -> http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002951.html
[2] QS also send me a well constructed argument as to why no information gained this way can be reliable. Maybe they are willing to repost this here for everyone to read.

[1713859155]

1713859155

[1713859155]

1713859155

[1713859155]

1713859155

[1713859155]

1713859155

[1713859155]

1713859155

[stereotype]

According to that thread I have already said that all taxes will be paid, and have done it. My bitcoins come from a legal source and all taxes for them has been paid.
I have proven my wealth source (at least parts of it) to the following members:
Lauda, TMAN, Zepher and minifrij
It is impossible to evade taxes with the source of my bitcoins, the above members can confirm that.

So, do you have an opinion why Lauda et al, attempted what they did, OR, is the answer can-we-just-leave-it-there-thanks?

[Sweeet]

The account of Lauda might have been sold recently

Trust summary for Lauda

This user's email address was changed recently.

This user changed his/her password recently.

It's interesting he hasn't said a word about this or coming down from staff member.

[K~Ehleyr]

The account of Lauda might have been sold recently

Trust summary for Lauda

This user's email address was changed recently.

This user changed his/her password recently.

It's interesting he hasn't said a word about this or coming down from staff member.

Why would s/he when there's clearly still a lynch mob waiting?  Sometimes silence can be an indicator of guilt, but in this instance, given the circumstances, I think it's more an indicator of self-preservation, avoidance of the feasting on his/her bones that would inevitably follow any public comment Lauda made right now, and maybe a little bit of "you can all fuck the fuck off then".  I wouldn't be making a public statement right now either.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

there was no blackmail - have you read the PGP message? if you had you wouldn't be in here. this is an assault from QS a proven scammer against Lauda I happened to of been involved as I was the one who bought the suspicious activity to light.

no extortion was taking place - it was an intel gathering exercise that backfired.

that is of little consequence now as all the evidence is in Place - I am awaiting return contact from moderators to discuss

How is QS a scammer? Can you provide links to any scamming he as done? Because the last time I checked, I thought he only escrowed his own trades,

Hello?  You don't see anything wrong with that?  Do you want to pay for an escrow and have him be the counterparty on the trade you're doing?  That's the scam he pulled.  Escrow is an independent 3rd party, not the shit that QS pulled.  And that's what got him kicked off DT and got him all those negs.

Please stay on topic.

Edit:  Sorry, sorry, sorry. 

[shorena]

The account of Lauda might have been sold recently

No.

-snip-
How is QS a scammer?
-snip-

Please stay on topic.

[Quickseller]

I strongly disagree. Extortion is evil[1][2] and should be punished.
[...]

[2] QS also send me a well constructed argument as to why no information gained this way can be reliable. Maybe they are willing to repost this here for everyone to read.

>Basics of extortion -
>In order to attempt to extort a victim, a criminal will need to at least claim
>to have information that the victim will not want to be released, (or  could
>threaten to do an act [that is usually illegal] that the victim does not want
>the criminal to do). The extortionist does not need to actually possess such
>information (or have the ability to do the threatened act).

>The criminal can threaten to release information that ranges from something
>very vague, something very specific that is untrue that the victim does not
>want released, something very specific that is true that the victim does not
>want released, something specific (true or untrue) that the victim does not
>care if it gets released, among other things.

>Theoretical success of extortion attempts -
>I would speculate that an extortion attempt that threatens to expose criminal
>activity would be the most effective. The logic behind this theory is that
>exposing criminal activity would likely have a very broad ranging effect on a
>person’s life; for example, serious criminal charges would likely affect a
>person financially as they would need to pay to mount a defense (and/or
>attempt a plea bargain), and potentially pay fines/court costs, would affect
>a person’s future ability to earn money as they may both lose their job as a
>result of even a criminal charge, and a criminal conviction may affect their
>ability to get a new job, would affect their relationships with
>friends/family, as these people may not want to associate with someone with
>a criminal past, and could obviously affect the victims freedom as they
>might be at risk of jail time.

>If you compare this to something like an extortionist telling a victim’s wife
>that the victim is having an affair, or telling the victim’s boss that the
>victim is drinking on the job, the scope of the potential damage is much
>more limited.

>Making good on an extortion threat -
>A criminal might threaten to release some information if some amount of money
>is not paid. Neither the information to be released nor the amount of money
>needs to be specific when making the extortion threat. The criminal may or
>may not communicate a specific deadline. If the victim has not paid a
>satisfactory extortion payment by the (stated or unstated) deadline, then
>the criminal may release the information they have on the victim, however
>if the criminal does this then the victim no longer has any incentive to pay.
>A criminal may get around this problem by releasing only a portion of the
>victim’s information. The classic example of this in pop culture is a
>criminal threatening to kill the victim’s wife if he does not disclose the
>location of the ‘treasure’ and when the victim does not initially give up
>this information, the criminal will seriously hurt (but not kill) the
>victim’s wife in order to give the victim additional time to change his mind.

>Paying an extortion payment -
>The fact that someone makes an extortion payment does not necessarily mean
>that the information claimed to be in possession of by the criminal is true.
>I had posted a couple of reasons why a victim may pay an extortion payment
>when untrue information is being threatened to be released. Another reason
>why someone may pay an extortion payment is that they are on parole, and a
>person’s parole office receiving a report of criminal activity by the victim
>may result in the victim going back to jail while this claim can be
>investigated. As a result of this,
...
>I would not consider the fact that
>someone paid an extortion payment an admission that the information used
>to extort the victim is true.


>Using extortion as an investigative tool -
>As discussed above, evidence of an extortion payment is not evidence of
>guilt. Furthermore, someone that an investigator believes is guilty, but
>needs the (invalid) evidence of a suspect making an extortion payment is
>still very innocent by any reasonable measure - this is not a situation
>where evidence of guilt has not yet been presented to a court (otherwise
>this evidence would not be necessary), this is a situation where the
>investigator is not in possession of conclusive evidence of guilt - as a
>result of this, if an investigator were to use extortion as an
>investigative tool, they would be potentially extorting an innocent person,
>which will violate the suspect’s due process rights. In conclusion, using
>extortion as an investigative tool will potentially yield flimsy evidence at
>best, and will potentially harm an innocent victim, while violating the
>victim’s due process rights along the way.

>Making a sworn encrypted statement confirming proceeds of extortion will
>not profit self -
>As discussed above, I believe threatening to release information about a
>person’s criminal activity is the most likely to result in an extortion
>payment being paid, and as a result of this, I would speculate that
>extortion threatening to expose criminal behavior is the most common form
>of extortion. If any random citizen could make a sworn statement that the
>proceeds of an extortion attempt would not result in a profit for the
>extortionist, then this would be a loophole in the law. Notaries do not
>retain copies of documents they notarize and almost always will not even
>look at the document they are notarizing beyond the fact that the person
>signing is in fact the person they are saying signed the document. A
>criminal make this sworn statement, attempt to extort several people who
>they think might be a criminal, then use that statement as a “get out of
>jail free card” when one of the extortionist’s victims go to the police.
>There is no mechanism in place to enforce this sworn statement, nor is there
>a mechanism in place to prevent the criminal from destroying the document
>containing the sworn statement if the extortion is successful (and at which
>point the victim is unlikely to complaint to the police). Additionally,
>there is no way for anyone to decrypt the encrypted message, so there would
>never be anyone looking for proof that the extortionist did not profit from
>the extortion attempt if it was successful. In conclusion, I see this kind
>of statement to be little more than something that the extortionist plans
>on using to protect themselves in the event that the extortion attempt is
>unsuccessful.

>Lauda’s self admission of trolling those that are vulnerable -
>There are chat logs
>(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1397579.msg16071901#msg16071901)
>that capture Lauda bragging about trolling those that he feels are vulnerable.
>Someone engaged in criminal activity that is “hidden” would likely be
>vulnerable by Lauda’s definition, and attempting to extort someone would
>fit this MO.

>What I think happened -
>I think that Lauda, et al., were speaking to zeroaxl on slack, telling him
>that they had evidence of criminal activity (zeroaxl told me that they
>claimed they had evidence that he hacked bitfinex, MtGox, ran ponzis, ran
>botnet(s), among other things). At one point in the conversation, zeroaxl is
>asked to admit to his criminal activity, which he declines to do, and Lauda,
>et al., reiterate the information they have against him, and tell him they
>are considering to contact the police about his criminal behavior. Lauda
>then sends zeroaxl an encrypted message asking for a “cut” of the proceeds
>of zeroaxl’s criminal proceeds. Lauda, et al., inform zeroaxl via slack of
>the potential consequences of his activity that include being unable to
>trade on bitcointalk and HackForums. minifrig (this is intentionally not
>Lauda) first opens a thread claiming that zeroaxl is evading a ban, and
>should get banned - this is used to install fear that zeroaxl will not be
>able to continue to trade on bitcointalk. zeroaxl reads Lauda’s message and
>opens a scam accusation against Lauda, but not before TMAN starts writing a
>new scam accusation against zeroaxl. TMAN finishes writing the scam
>accusation against zeroxal, and creates the thread not knowing about the
>scam accusation against Lauda. TMAN makes additional posts claiming to have
>zeroxal’s dox, and claiming to have even more damaging information than
>mentioned in Lauda’s original message - this is to install additional fear
>about the potential consequences of the police being contacted. (note that
>TMAN explicately did not release zeroaxl’s dox, preventing anyone else from
>potentially contacting the police about this “criminal activity”). An
>unknown party opens a negative thread about zeroaxl on hackforums (zeroaxl
>claimed that a thread was opened about him in HF but that he had a good
>enough reputation there for that not to matter). Lauda, minifrig and TMAN
>(probably among others) were conspiring to try to get zeroaxl to pay an
>extortion payment. 

>I believe that the fact that TMAN made a thread summarizing evidence against
>zeroaxl and made many posts claiming to have his dox at around the same time
>lauda made the extortion demand is sufficiently clear evidence that TMAN was
>conspiring with Lauda to attempt to extort zeroaxl. This is further supported
>by the fact that all three threads were edited to a blank OP, and locked at
>almost the same time, and that all three threads were moved to archival (and
>well out of sight) at almost the exact same time. The timing of minfrig’s
>thread also makes it appear that he was part of the conspiracy, although
>the lack of claiming to have explicit negative information about zeroaxl
>weakens this link.

>I acknowledge that the link for TMAN and minfrig is not rock solid, however
>it is very unusual for someone who has not actively scammed someone, and who
>has not recently made a mistake in exposing himself in some way to have
>multiple threads (plus an extortion attempt) made about him in the span of a
>few hours. The only times that I have seen multiple threads being opened at
>the same time in that short of a timespan is when someone has very recently
>scammed multiple people or when someone has given out many inaccurate
>negative trust ratings - at least thinking back to the last 18 months or so.

Regarding minifrij's involvement:
Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1761133.msg17604583#msg17604583) minifrij confirms that he did as he was asked (in reference to deleting his first thread). Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1761133.msg17598908#msg17598908) minifrij says that he was aware of the evidence that was used as part of the extortion. It doesn’t look like he admitted to knowing about the extortion at the time he made the first thread, but I get the impression that he did (to give him the benefit of the doubt, we can say that he did not). According to this (https://bitcointalk.org/gettopics.php?user=138940) minifrij has not created any threads reporting someone to be evading a ban in the past.

To summarize the above:
-The first time minifrij ever opened a thread about someone evading a ban was to report zeroaxl evading a ban
-Lauda/TMAN/others attempted to extort zeroaxl
-Both zeroaxl and TMAN open threads accusing each other of scamming
-zeroaxl asks that all threads be taken down so that he can “negotiate” with Lauda/TMAN
-minifrij removes his thread
-minifrij reopens his thread

If some of the specifics of the facts are changed, but the principal remains the same, then it would read as follows:
-Corrupt FBI agent A asks citizen X for money, or else he will bring up bogus charges against citizen X’s daughter
-FBI agent A opens a grand jury investigation on citizen X’s daughter, starts to present bogus evidence against her and makes citizen X aware of this
-FBI agent B pulls over citizen X’s daughter for speeding, who also does not have a driver’s license on her
-FBI agents A and B are peers, and neither has any authority over the other
-FBI agent B does not normally pull people over for speeding
-citizen X, being aware of both the bogus grand jury investigation and the pending arrest of his daughter for driving without a license, asks FBI agent A to stop everything regarding his daughter so he can “negotiate”
-FBI agent B, at FBI agent A’s request, lets citizen X’s daughter go without a ticket
-two days later, FBI agent B arrests citizen X’s daughter for driving without a license when he originally pulled her over (she was not driving at the time of the arrest)
-What is FBI agent B’s involvement?

[minifrij]

According to this (https://bitcointalk.org/gettopics.php?user=138940) minifrij has not created any threads reporting someone to be evading a ban in the past.

While this is the case, it can be seen from my post history that I understand and (at least try to) enforce the forum rules and that I do not particularly like those that evade bans. It is more of a case that I didn't previously have the evidence for getting someone banned prior to someone else posting it.

If some of the specifics of the facts are changed, but the principal remains the same, then it would read as follows:
-Corrupt FBI agent A asks citizen X for money, or else he will bring up bogus charges against citizen X’s daughter [1]
-FBI agent A opens a grand jury investigation on citizen X’s daughter, starts to present bogus evidence against her and makes citizen X aware of this
-FBI agent B pulls over citizen X’s daughter for speeding, who also does not have a driver’s license on her
-FBI agents A and B are peers, and neither has any authority over the other
-FBI agent B does not normally pull people over for speeding [2]
-citizen X, being aware of both the bogus grand jury investigation and the pending arrest of his daughter for driving without a license, asks FBI agent A to stop everything regarding his daughter so he can “negotiate”
-FBI agent B, at FBI agent A’s request, lets citizen X’s daughter go without a ticket [3]
-two days later, FBI agent B arrests citizen X’s daughter for driving without a license when he originally pulled her over (she was not driving at the time of the arrest) [4]
-What is FBI agent B’s involvement?

This also doesn't properly depict the situation.

[1] - The evidence that I brought up in my thread is absolutely factual, to which Zeroxal will (and has previously) agreed. By the fact that theymos has publicly said that any past rule-breaking has been cleared, it can be assumed that he also agrees (I'm not talking about any evidence brought up by anyone else as I haven't personally verified it).
[2] - This would make more sense if it were 'FBI agent B has always been against those who speed, however has never seen a case himself prior to another officer handling it'.
[3] - I didn't, and never have, said to Zeroxal or anyone else that I would let him go without approval of an admin. I have always been clear that I was going to pursue the case regardless of any other outcome, which I did.
[4] - This implies that Zeroxal wasn't ban evading when I reposted the thread, which is false. He was ban evading and there was no public evidence of an admin forgiving it, therefore the allegations were still legitimate.

[Timelord2067]

I haven't finished reading this thread, but for "the record" this is the neutral trust I left for Lauda u=101872

Lauda / LaudaM asked me for any information I might have concerning Zeroxal - S/he failed to mention they were then going to use that information in a "sting" to extort money from Zeroxal instead of taking action on Zeroxal's ban evasion via their alts josef2000 / josef.2000 who are banned. http://archive.is/0SxTB

Now then; any questions?

[erikalui]

^^You don't find it anything wrong if one member is an alt of a user who has been banned from this forum? You don't find it wrong to try to extort money from another user (may it be for a good intention or not)?


Even Shorena leaves a negative trust on Lauda's and TMAN's accounts as extortion is not some thing that should be ignored. It should atleast make the person feel that they have made a mistake/failed attempt of an extortion. Though I know their intention was not to actually extort money but still an attempt was made.

[Quickseller]

According to this (https://bitcointalk.org/gettopics.php?user=138940) minifrij has not created any threads reporting someone to be evading a ban in the past.

While this is the case, it can be seen from my post history that I understand and (at least try to) enforce the forum rules and that I do not particularly like those that evade bans. It is more of a case that I didn't previously have the evidence for getting someone banned prior to someone else posting it.

If some of the specifics of the facts are changed, but the principal remains the same, then it would read as follows:
[...]-FBI agent B does not normally pull people over for speeding [2]
[...]
-What is FBI agent B’s involvement?

This also doesn't properly depict the situation.

[...]
[2] - This would make more sense if it were 'FBI agent B has always been against those who speed, however has never seen a case himself prior to another officer handling it'.
[...]

While I did not think you have been especially vocal about those who evade bans and break forum rules in the past, I was not sure of just how vocal you have been above those who were evading bans and breaking rules. So I decided to gather some statistics about the last ~3 months of your posting history.

Ending as of when you made your first thread about zeroaxl and starting on the last day of October 2015, you have made 149 posts, of which, 79 have been in Meta. Your posts in Meta can be broken down as follows:

• 16 Defending Lauda
• 11 Trust System
• 3 Activity
• 4 Signature Campaigns
• 3 Rule Breaker
• 2 Centralization of Forum
• 5 Clarification of rules
• 1 Units of Evil System
• 2 Broad Discussion of the Forum
• 2 May 2015 Hack
• 1 New Sub
• 2 Banned Rank
• 1 Timing of New Forum Software
• 2 Number of accounts some people have
• 2 Locking Threads/Deleting Posts
• 2 Account Recovery
• 4 Troubleshooting
• 2 Self-Admitted Off Topic Post
• 1 Avatar
• 2 Ranks (existing)
• 1 Revealing Email to Mods When Reporting a Post
• 2 New Global Mod
• 1 Number of Reports
• 1 Stake New Bitcoin Address
• 1 Time Spent on Forum
• 3 Spam Bots

I also checked all the threads in Meta whose last post was on or after October 31, 2016. Out of 382 threads, there are 31 threads that involve a ban appeal and/or a ban request and/or a specific ban. Of those 31 threads, you posted in 5 of them. Your posts in these 5 threads can be broken down as follows (ignoring all posts you made after you created your first zeroaxl thread):

• Girlbtc.com related threads - 3
• Did not discuss the ban - 1
• Did not support the ban request - 1

With as many posts as you are making defending/supporting Lauda (20 in the last 3 months in Meta, 24 in Meta/Reputation), it is easy to understand why you were creating a thread that would have helped Lauda's extortion attempt.

In conclusion, I see very little evidence that you have been strongly against those who evade bans, and only a small amount of evidence that you are against those who break the forum rules. Over the last 3 months, the only person you really tried to get for ban evasion was girlbtc.com. If you were to ask me, I would say that the evidence does not support that you are strongly against those who evade their bans.

Showing my workPage breakdown on topics you discussed in the relevant timeframe. You made one post while I was looking at page 5 of your post history, and deducted one post from page 6 which I also looked at on page 5 to avoid counting the same post twice. Each post is only given one topic.

Code:

Page 2 - 10 posts - 5 in meta - 3 Defending Lauda, 1 trust system, 1 activity, 

Page 3 - 20 posts - 11 in meta - 2 discussing signature campaigns, 5 discussing trust system, 1 discussing activity, 2 defending Lauda, 1 rule breaker, 

Page 4 - 20 posts - 10 in meta - 2 centralization of forum, 1 helping comply with rules, 1 units of evil system, 1 trust system, 5 Defending Lauda, 

Page 5 - 20 posts - 14 in meta - 1 broad discussion of forum, 1 May 2015 hack, 1 new sub, 1 banned rank, 1 timing of new software, 2 number of accounts some people have, 1 rule breakers, 2 defending Lauda, 1 forum rules, 1 locking threads/deleting posts

Page 6 - 19 posts - 7 in meta - 1 locking threads/deleting posts, 1 account recovery, 2 troubleshooting, 1 broad discussion of forum, 1 clarification on rules, 1 self-admitted off topic

page 7 - 20 posts - 8 in meta - 3 defending Lauda, 1 signature campaigns, 1 activity, 1 avatar, 1 ranks, 1 trust system, 

Page 8 - 20 posts - 13 in meta - 2 trust system, 1 defending Lauda, 1 banned ranking, 1 troubleshooting, 1 revealing email when reporting post, 1 clarification of rules, 2 new global mod, 1 number of reports, 1 stake new address, 1 recover account, 1 trust system, 

Page 9 - 20 posts - 11 in meta - 1 May 2015 Hack, 1 self-admitted off topic, 1 time spent on forum, 3 spam bots, 1 signature campaigns, 2 clarification on rules, 1 ranks, 1 troubleshooting

Breakdown of threads in Meta discussing a specific ban:

Code:

Page 1 - 35 threads - 5 ban discussions

Page 2 - 39 threads - 5 ban discussions

Page 3 - 40 threads - 4 ban discussions

Page 4 - 39 threads - 3 ban discussion

Page 5 - 38 threads - 2 ban discussion

Page 6 - 36 threads - 1 ban discussion

page 7 - 38 threads - 1 ban discussion 

Page 8 - 39 threads - 4 ban discussions

Page 9 - 38 threads - 0 ban discussions

Page 10 - 40 threads - 1 ban discussion

List of threads discussing a specific ban. Those with an "*" are those that you posted in

Code:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1763271.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1762942.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1762676.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1759436.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1718579.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1050321.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1728278.0 * - girlbtc.com
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1751687.0 * - was not supporting a ban
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1728077.0;all * - girlbtc.com
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1741502.0 * - did not discuss the ban
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1745087.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1743391.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1729986.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1728988.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1723803.0;all 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1722830.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1726362.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1706976.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1695319.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1685003.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1685033.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1668304.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1692391.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1665898.0 * - girlbtc.com

[chixka000]

Lol i am missing a lot of things here. And wait lauda is now out in moderating , I will be watching anyways


edit: I didn't expect that shorena would be doing some actions regarding with this

[Gunthar]

^^You don't find it anything wrong if one member is an alt of a user who has been banned from this forum? You don't find it wrong to try to extort money from another user (may it be for a good intention or not)?


Even Shorena leaves a negative trust on Lauda's and TMAN's accounts as extortion is not some thing that should be ignored. It should atleast make the person feel that they have made a mistake/failed attempt of an extortion. Though I know their intention was not to actually extort money but still an attempt was made.

I have a question here and anyone wanting to clarify this would be much appreciated. I have read this entire matter over and over before to take a clear stance. To my opinion, Lauda was and is someone with a good level of contribution to this forum, but it is my opinion.

There are a few questionable points, and there are some that are not (again IMO):
1.- Was it an "extortion" attempt or a "sting operation" attempt?

As far as I can understand, it was a failed sting operation which is, in many law enforcement jurisdictions, allowed, legal and ethical. Here in Italy where I live, for example, there are even some interesting TV shows recording "sting operations" (failed or succeed depending on the luck) and people simply approve those sting operations eating popcorns while they watch at criminal being caught. See i.e. "Striscia la Notizia" or "Le Iene" movies which are very popular and both broadcasted on national TVs. Here you can see sting operations against any crimes: tax evaders, drug dealers, money laundering and counterfeit, prostitution and so on. I don't think Italy is so far away from other forum member's jurisdictions, isn't it? It would never happen, indeed, that people would believe or mix up the real criminal with the sting operation team (sorry Zeroxal I'm talking in general as I don't know you, nor I have facts that would bring me to understand you committed any crime, nor I'm interested in). How is it possible to turn the sting operation team into the actual criminals if they fail? Again: was it an extortion attempt or a sting operation attempt? (Have I asked it enough already?)

I know, though, there are some countries sting operations are not legal, not allowed. Reading from Wikipedia Sweden should be one of them.

The only exception a sting operation would become a crime is the case the "victim" would not have committed any crime without being solicited: I am not a drug dealer, but if you offer me 10M dollars I might become...

I am open to any discussion about this point, and I'm not trying to defend Lauda at any cost. Also: I'm putting all my efforts to ignore the fact that out of the latest ten threads open in the last week on this matter, ten were open by Qs (feel free to correct me if these stats are wrong). I'd just appreciate a transparent, fair and honest discussion over this point, without personal grunges.

Shorena is the one that apparently took a stance on this so, an answer from him would be an appreciated priority: "Part of a failed/faked extortion in order to gather information about a possible scammer."
What is exactly in your opinion a "failed/faked extortion in order to gather information about a possible scammer":
1.- An extortion
2.- An attempt to spot a possible scammer

I am confused by this rating because people like me rely on you DT members to ponder about our stance on many matters on this forum: if you think it was an extortion in the attempt to gather money from Zeroxal, please provide me evidence of this and I will change my rating on Lauda too. If it was an attempt to spot a possible scammer, why you consider that a neg rep worth?

As I said there are some other not questionable points on the matter which have been handled by whom it concerned IMO:
1.- Any sting operation made by a Staff/Moderator with/without forum admins permissions (guess it was solved internally with Theymos)
2.- Gathering information from users (points at Timelord) without explaining the use they would have done with these information (guess Timelord's rating solved the issue)

Thanks!
~Gun

[minifrij]

While I did not think you have been especially vocal about those who evade bans and break forum rules in the past, I was not sure of just how vocal you have been above those who were evading bans and breaking rules. So I decided to gather some statistics about the last ~3 months of your posting history.
...

While I can appreciate the effort it must have taken to gather this information, I don't believe it best represents my opinions on either of those matters.

To begin, I would say that analyzing a 3 month period is a fairly small sample for someone who has been involved with issues regarding the forum from about September 2015. While I don't expect you to go that far back, it is something to keep in mind.

In addition, a few of the sections in the break down can be bundled together and perhaps be combined to create one section about general information regarding the rules of the forum. Things such as 'Rule Breakers', 'Clarification of rules' and 'Locking threads/deleting posts' could be put into this section.

Also, despite what I said, my post history shouldn't be made to make a definite conclusion on how involved I am with understanding and enforcing the rules. I expect that my report statistics, while not fantastic, can help back this up: "You have reported 463 posts with 97% accuracy"

Regarding my previous involvement with Ban Evasion, I do not understand how the amount of posts made in threads relating to bans give any sort of conclusive evidence. I believe my post on a thread by girlbtc gives an idea of my feelings towards ban evaders, that they should 'follow the rules of (their) ban and stay away'. There is little for me to do once a report has been made other than to wait for a moderator/admin to take care of it; posting "yeah you should be banned" or some variant in every thread would be spamming.

With as many posts as you are making defending/supporting Lauda (20 in the last 3 months in Meta, 24 in Meta/Reputation), it is easy to understand why you were creating a thread that would have helped Lauda's extortion attempt.

If things such as this are being taken into account, then I don't believe you are the best person to be making the judgement as to whether or not I am involved. Considering your (very vocal) dislike for Lauda there is a clear conflict of interest between the two of us. I believe a statement made by a third party (such as the one by Shorena) would be best suited to give a conclusion on my involvement.

[shorena]

-snip-

Even if you could show that its the first time they ever cared about the forum or ban evaders, it still could be explained by happenstance and Im not going to neg rep them for it.

^^You don't find it anything wrong if one member is an alt of a user who has been banned from this forum?

Not in terms of trust not. Its for mods/admins to decide how to handle this. I actually know at least one user that came back after a perma ban and did solid contributions to the forum. AFAICT it was at least known to one global mod. I dont want to derail this any further as I currently have little time to keep up with all PMs and read up on the needed threads. All Im saying is: it wouldnt be the first time that admins are lenient with someone perma-banned in the past. It all depends how they behave I guess.

I have a question here and anyone wanting to clarify this would be much appreciated. I have read this entire matter over and over before to take a clear stance. To my opinion, Lauda was and is someone with a good level of contribution to this forum, but it is my opinion.

I agree.

There are a few questionable points, and there are some that are not (again IMO):
1.- Was it an "extortion" attempt or a "sting operation" attempt?

I dont see a difference between the two, in terms of wrongness. Esp. considering extortion and 'gathering information'. See the lengthy post by QS above as to why the information gained is unlikely to be reliable.

As far as I can understand, it was a failed sting operation which is, in many law enforcement jurisdictions, allowed, legal and ethical. Here in Italy where I live, for example, there are even some interesting TV shows recording "sting operations" (failed or succeed depending on the luck) and people simply approve those sting operations eating popcorns while they watch at criminal being caught. See i.e. "Striscia la Notizia" or "Le Iene" movies which are very popular and both broadcasted on national TVs. Here you can see sting operations against any crimes: tax evaders, drug dealers, money laundering and counterfeit, prostitution and so on. I don't think Italy is so far away from other forum member's jurisdictions, isn't it?

Its illegal in germany and it can even lead to lower sentence for the criminal. Police may try to convince someone to do a crime though under certain circumstances.

It would never happen, indeed, that people would believe or mix up the real criminal with the sting operation team (sorry Zeroxal I'm talking in general as I don't know you, nor I have facts that would bring me to understand you committed any crime, nor I'm interested in). How is it possible to turn the sting operation team into the actual criminals if they fail?

I dont think of Lauda nor TMAN as criminals, but they still did something wrong. In fact its a level of wrong that deserves a punishment, hence the rating. Based on the good intention Im willing to change it to neutral after some time has passed. Without me knowing Lauda good enough to understand why they did it there would be little discussion at all, as anyone else in their situation could use their 'get out of jail'-pgp message or not if successful.

Again: was it an extortion attempt or a sting operation attempt? (Have I asked it enough already?)

I know, though, there are some countries sting operations are not legal, not allowed. Reading from Wikipedia Sweden should be one of them.

The only exception a sting operation would become a crime is the case the "victim" would not have committed any crime without being solicited: I am not a drug dealer, but if you offer me 10M dollars I might become...

I am open to any discussion about this point, and I'm not trying to defend Lauda at any cost. Also: I'm putting all my efforts to ignore the fact that out of the latest ten threads open in the last week on this matter, ten were open by Qs (feel free to correct me if these stats are wrong). I'd just appreciate a transparent, fair and honest discussion over this point, without personal grunges.

Shorena is the one that apparently took a stance on this so, an answer from him would be an appreciated priority: "Part of a failed/faked extortion in order to gather information about a possible scammer."
What is exactly in your opinion a "failed/faked extortion in order to gather information about a possible scammer":
1.- An extortion
2.- An attempt to spot a possible scammer

I am confused by this rating because people like me rely on you DT members to ponder about our stance on many matters on this forum: if you think it was an extortion in the attempt to gather money from Zeroxal, please provide me evidence of this and I will change my rating on Lauda too. If it was an attempt to spot a possible scammer, why you consider that a neg rep worth?

I dont think Lauda wanted money, no. It was still an extortion though. I could probably improve the wording of the rating, but I also dont want to change it to keep track of the time. If you are unsure about a DT rating, follow the reference and see if it makes sense to you. These lead here and its the thread I will discuss this in, for exactly that reason.

Whether or not zeroxal is a scammer is yet to be seen, I have not seen any convincing evidence yet. They did run a ponzi, yes, but they also used escrow and covered all loses. My stance vs. ponzis is probably well known, but I think its a stretch to leave a neg for this. All the 'hacker' accusations to me sounds like a teenager, beeing a teenager. DDoS your own school, sure thats illegal, but Im not going to make a big fuss about it. Similar to the tax evasion, thats nothing I condone, but I also have no way to tell whether its actually true or whether they are just asking a hypothetical question. We probably get one thread a month about how to use bitcoin to evade paying taxes in germany. Most just mock the questioner. Whenever I ask for more convincing evidence I get no answers, so unless this changes I cant leave a neg for zeroxal. From what I read, zeroxal showed proof to several people that they didnt evade taxes and their dox is known to the same people. If they had anything solid, they could just contact police.

[erikalui]

1.- Was it an "extortion" attempt or a "sting operation" attempt?

As far as I can understand, it was a failed sting operation which is, in many law enforcement jurisdictions, allowed, legal and ethical. Here in Italy where I live, for example, there are even some interesting TV shows recording "sting operations" (failed or succeed depending on the luck) and people simply approve those sting operations eating popcorns while they watch at criminal being caught. See i.e. "Striscia la Notizia" or "Le Iene" movies which are very popular and both broadcasted on national TVs. Here you can see sting operations against any crimes: tax evaders, drug dealers, money laundering and counterfeit, prostitution and so on. I don't think Italy is so far away from other forum member's jurisdictions, isn't it? It would never happen, indeed, that people would believe or mix up the real criminal with the sting operation team (sorry Zeroxal I'm talking in general as I don't know you, nor I have facts that would bring me to understand you committed any crime, nor I'm interested in). How is it possible to turn the sting operation team into the actual criminals if they fail? Again: was it an extortion attempt or a sting operation attempt? (Have I asked it enough already?)

For your reference:

For our purposes, a sting operation is defined as any effort by the authorities to encourage wrongdoing, with the intention of punishing the offenses that result. Normally a sting operation is carried out by agents acting undercover, that is, concealing the fact that they work for the authorities. An agent might be a full-time police officer disguised as a private citizen.

http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3652&context=mlr

Extortion definition: http://prntscr.com/e2599b

Both are different attempts where the former one is to catch the person red-handed, the later is to try to extract information while the person is aware of it.

Zeroxal was aware of what he was being asked and hence it's an extortion attempt and as TMAN earlier said, it was a failed one. I don't know if the user being accused of the crimes was actually a criminal. I do respect Lauda as he is a reputed user and don't accuse him of extracting money or anything but it was extracting information or trying to get Zeroxal to admit instead.


@Shorena: Thanks for the explanation on permaban.

[Vod]

Extortion definition: http://prntscr.com/e2599b

Isn't the OP himself guilty of extortion then?

He tried to get several DT members to offer services (change their trust level on me) and made threats to coerce them to do so.

This is just another example of Quickseller being a hypocrite - do as I say, not as I do.   

[Quickseller]

While I did not think you have been especially vocal about those who evade bans and break forum rules in the past, I was not sure of just how vocal you have been above those who were evading bans and breaking rules. So I decided to gather some statistics about the last ~3 months of your posting history.
...

While I can appreciate the effort it must have taken to gather this information, I don't believe it best represents my opinions on either of those matters.

To begin, I would say that analyzing a 3 month period is a fairly small sample for someone who has been involved with issues regarding the forum from about September 2015. While I don't expect you to go that far back, it is something to keep in mind.

In addition, a few of the sections in the break down can be bundled together and perhaps be combined to create one section about general information regarding the rules of the forum. Things such as 'Rule Breakers', 'Clarification of rules' and 'Locking threads/deleting posts' could be put into this section.

Also, despite what I said, my post history shouldn't be made to make a definite conclusion on how involved I am with understanding and enforcing the rules. I expect that my report statistics, while not fantastic, can help back this up: "You have reported 463 posts with 97% accuracy"

Regarding my previous involvement with Ban Evasion, I do not understand how the amount of posts made in threads relating to bans give any sort of conclusive evidence. I believe my post on a thread by girlbtc gives an idea of my feelings towards ban evaders, that they should 'follow the rules of (their) ban and stay away'. There is little for me to do once a report has been made other than to wait for a moderator/admin to take care of it; posting "yeah you should be banned" or some variant in every thread would be spamming.

If you want to put together an analysis with a longer scope to capture more posts, then I will look at those results after you post them, and if my mind is changed I will remove your name from this thread. Or, if you want to present other measurable evidence of your stance on enforcement of bans and/or enforcement of forum rules (with a heaver emphasis on the former), that convinces me of your reasonable innocence, then I will remove your name from this thread.

I would also be willing to review the unabridged IRC logs from when it was agreed upon to extort zeroaxl up until when your second thread about zeroaxl was created, that can be authenticated by someone who I believe in this case to be telling the truth (if the only people that can confirm it's authenticity are those who have admitted to being involved, then I will by default not trust that it has not been doctored). If I believe it is reasonable that you were not involved after reviewing the IRC logs, then I will remove your name from this thread.

With as many posts as you are making defending/supporting Lauda (20 in the last 3 months in Meta, 24 in Meta/Reputation), it is easy to understand why you were creating a thread that would have helped Lauda's extortion attempt.

If things such as this are being taken into account, then I don't believe you are the best person to be making the judgement as to whether or not I am involved. Considering your (very vocal) dislike for Lauda there is a clear conflict of interest between the two of us. I believe a statement made by a third party (such as the one by Shorena) would be best suited to give a conclusion on my involvement.

Including your name here, if anything, weakens my case against Lauda/TMAN. I am a critic of Lauda because of how I have observed him act towards others, and because of his ethical principals (eg lack of ethics), not for anything personal. Additionally, while reviewing your post history, I noticed that you were responding to Shorena multiple times of Shorena being critical of Lauda, so you could say that same thing about Shorena.

Shorena has essentially said that he more or less wants a confession to believe that you are involved, which is not something I agree with. I think the available facts allow a reasonable person to reasonably conclude your involvement, even when giving you the maximum benefit of the doubt. I took the time to attempt to prove myself wrong (after I had considered what I believed to be reasonable explanations prior to naming you).

[shorena]

-snip-
This is just another example of Quickseller being a hypocrite - do as I say, not as I do.  

Please stay on topic. Id very much like to know what you think of Laudas actions though.

[BlockEye]

-snip-
This is just another example of Quickseller being a hypocrite - do as I say, not as I do.  

Please stay on topic. Id very much like to know what you think of Laudas actions though.

We all know that extertion is a crime sir. But IMHO we all know that he don't need money and just do that for purpose of gathering evidence, that's why he decided to get some witness before starting that plan. The only mistakes he committed was, he used the wrong way of gathering information, And i think it deserves a punishment because it is obviously a crime no matter how good the purpose is. But a negative trust is too much for his act, just saying sir. He is still a trustful person for me.