Can a default trust member (Lauda) arbitrary destroy other people's reputation??

[somacoin]

Any user can post anything, it is not a solicitation from anyone, anyone can express his opinion.

Why is 'the dev' deleting all kinds of basic and important questions from his thread? What is it he's hiding?

You can literally not ask about the premine or the staking of the premine because if you do your mouth is shut by censorship immediately. Awkward, and naturally negative trust follows soon after.

[1713954834]

1713954834

[1713954834]

1713954834

[actmyname]

Any user can post anything, it is not a solicitation from anyone, anyone can express his opinion. As long as it is not from dev, you can't blame him. In fact, most of the community felt that he was treated unfairly, thus volunteer to post positive trust for him, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Don't try to get a post from millions and say that it is proof. This is the way communist does the thing, and it is rejected by most of the world.  

Then what the FUCK is this?

https://archive.fo/jaRN0#selection-2195.0-2195.57

Can any Default Trust member positive trade can fix this?

The altcoin owner is literally asking for a DT member to give them positive trust in order to counter the negative from Lauda.

That is trust farming if I've ever seen it. Asking for positive trust usually doesn't end well.

it's basically one man's attack. Unfortunately he's from the def trust group, that's why you see his negatives and see many of us positive trust on the dev. The trust system is fraud.

Cognitive dissonance and projection. Funny.

[boost523]

Any user can post anything, it is not a solicitation from anyone, anyone can express his opinion.

Why is 'the dev' deleting all kinds of basic and important questions from his thread? What is it he's hiding?

You can literally not ask about the premine or the staking of the premine because if you do your mouth is shut by censorship immediately. Awkward.

It is a moderated thread, dev has the rights to control his thread. You can create new threads and post your opinions. In fact I saw at least 5-6 threads attacking the coin. There's nothing to complain. Play with the rules and we have a democratic society here.

[www.www]

The delirium that this dog carries is terrific.
Create a separate thread and I'll go there in the enjoyment  
As for Lauda, yes, this is a clinical case.
An exalted person with an exorbitant ego who is based on impunity.
Do not touch Satoshi  

[boost523]

Any user can post anything, it is not a solicitation from anyone, anyone can express his opinion. As long as it is not from dev, you can't blame him. In fact, most of the community felt that he was treated unfairly, thus volunteer to post positive trust for him, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Don't try to get a post from millions and say that it is proof. This is the way communist does the thing, and it is rejected by most of the world.  

Then what the FUCK is this?

https://archive.fo/jaRN0#selection-2195.0-2195.57

Can any Default Trust member positive trade can fix this?

The altcoin owner is literally asking for a DT member to give them positive trust in order to counter the negative from Lauda.

That is trust farming if I've ever seen it. Asking for positive trust usually doesn't end well.

it's basically one man's attack. Unfortunately he's from the def trust group, that's why you see his negatives and see many of us positive trust on the dev. The trust system is fraud.

Cognitive dissonance and projection. Funny.

Doesn't he has the right to do so?? what is wrong? he may be surprised by one man's action can change his own rating.

Can't people express their opinion? Are these the "proof" they do trust farming?? give me a break. Do you know how democracy works?

[somacoin]

The delirium that this dog carries is terrific.
Create a separate thread and I'll go there in the enjoyment  
As for Lauda, yes, this is a clinical case.
An exalted person with an exorbitant ego who is based on impunity.
Do not touch Satoshi  

You have nothing but ad hominem attacks to offer?

It is a moderated thread, dev has the rights to control his thread. You can create new threads and post your opinions. In fact I saw at least 5-6 threads attacking the coin. There's nothing to complain. Play with the rules and we have a democratic society here.

This is not about the thread's moderation per se, this is about the fact that crypto-rainbow is trying to hide what he's doing. Those who point out the issues are called 'Gangsters'. This is an attack. There hasn't been any rational answer to the accusations posted. Negative trust is 100% justified. Particularly because of the trust farming scenario. Stop it now or you can only make it worse. You don't understand the way the trust system works if you think that you can ask the community to balance negative DT trust for no reason other than to get that trust rating removed. This is not allowed. That trust rating has been put there for a solid reason, and not arbitrarily. Call this arbitrarily, and you too risk negative trust rating.

[actmyname]

Doesn't he has the right to do so?? what is wrong? he may be surprised by one man's action can change his own rating.

What's wrong is that this is trust farming. There were many precedents before this event that reached the outcome of a negative trust due to it.

Asking for positive trust from neutral in order to gain reputation is equivalent to asking for positive trust from negative in order to counteract the negative trust rating.

Can't people express their opinion? Are these the "proof" they do trust farming?? give me a break.

We are expressing our opinions. That what you're all doing is bullshit.

Do you know how democracy works?

Democracy is good except when it isn't.Notice how all the members that are supporting crypto-rainbow have been doing so before this thread was created. I would like to see some opinions from other members, not those that have preconceived notions of how the situation should go down.

[thang long]

Notice how all the members that are supporting crypto-rainbow have been doing so before this thread was created. I would like to see some opinions from other members, not those that have preconceived notions of how the situation should go down.

Are you calling my input biased?
Whooptidoo

[somacoin]

Notice how all the members that are supporting crypto-rainbow have been doing so before this thread was created. I would like to see some opinions from other members, not those that have preconceived notions of how the situation should go down.

Are you calling my input biased?
Whooptidoo

Unfortunately you're completely biased because you're blinded at the moment. You don't realize that you're being used.

The views I express here are my own.

[actmyname]

Notice how all the members that are supporting crypto-rainbow have been doing so before this thread was created. I would like to see some opinions from other members, not those that have preconceived notions of how the situation should go down.

Are you calling my input biased?
Whooptidoo

Absolutely. I come to a situation with an objective look at things. This is trust abuse and I of my own volition have deemed it thus.

Before you say anything about an affiliation to Lauda, let me get that past us: yes, we all know about the extortion. No, I do not agree with the actions taken place and a removal from the Staff position was justified. Yes, a lot of threads were opened up about Lauda. No, a majority of those were from butthurt scammers that got tagged and now are thrashing out against the source.

Frankly, I'm much stricter than Lauda in terms of how I view things. Note all the account sale related tags

[Grrizz]

I wanted to wait and see how things shook out with regards to DeepOnion which is why I havn't posted anything for or against it yet and view this topic as seperate to the coin itself. I also have had no relationship with or even past knowledge of the dealings of the people inviolved other than the small amount I have read recently in these posts so with that out of the way...

IMO what I see here basically invalidates the trust rating in my eyes, even if there was something a bit more solid to support Laudas feedback 3 negative feedbacks in 5 days is just an attack, I dont know how the default trust network is determined but if this were my forum and I had control over it Lauda would be imediately removed from said network.

My 2c.

[youngwebs]

Maybe Laura is somewhere right, but check my registration date and history. Ì have seen so much clear scams and devs really doing bad things. It took forever for them to receive one negative trust. Now in three days someone who hasn't begged for a penny received 3 negative trusts from one and the same person.

One might happen and we can argue if it was correct or mot
Two is suspicious behaviour
Three us total BS

Taking into account the used language I consider this as a personal attack which is not senior or trust member worthy.

That's what most people in the deeponion thread and above are angry about  and the main reason  for all the buzz about this trust issue.

[actmyname]

Absolutely. I come to a situation with an objective look at things.

One problem with that objective statement , actmyname & vod are the same person.
You always support vod & lauda in every post you make, your post history proves it.


╥Aztek

Right, and Lauda = Vod = Zepher = theymos, right?

I'm not sure I've ever supported Vod publicly in any post. In fact, even though he and Spoetnik have some big history with each other I tolerate both of their opinions and have no comment regarding either one of them.If you want me to highlight some problems I have with DT members then I would be glad to do so. The problem with your analysis of my post history is that most of the time my opinions coincide with Lauda (and to a lesser extent, Vod). There's also been many a time that Lauda has supported me in my escapades. Is that really a linkage between the two of us?If you support a politician constantly, are you that politician? Fuck no.

I glazed over your post history.

Are you kiklo?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Absolutely. I come to a situation with an objective look at things.

One problem with that objective statement , actmyname & vod are the same person.
You always support vod & lauda in every post you make, your post history proves it.


╥Aztek

I generally do as well--but I'm not Vod, Lauda, or actmyname.  They're just solid scam/spam busters whose opinions coincide with my own a lot of the time.   I don't know if Lauda is right on this one, since I have to plead ignorance on the technical aspects of crypto.  So I don't quite understand if the premine was proven or even if it's relevant.   Don't crucify me for that.  But I believe most of these new coins are scams and I don't see why most of them exist other than to fleece new investors.

Lauda is entitled to an opinion, and his/her intentions are good so far as I can see--that ill-advised sting operation aside.  The way I see it, the more retaliatory negs and threads you generate, the better you're doing fighting scammers & spammers.  There doesn't seem to be any conflict of interest here.  It's just Lauda's honest opinion

[Lauda]

Taking into account the used language I consider this as a personal attack which is not senior or trust member worthy.

Stop with this bullshit. Is someone paying you to lie and claim this is a "personal attack"?

That's what most people in the deeponion thread and above are angry about  and the main reason  for all the buzz about this trust issue.

No. The people from the deeponion thread are greedy idiots, which is why they're spewing nonsense in a section that they've got nothing to do with. To make matters worse, some of them are even actively supporting the trust farming that has been going on.

...
╥Aztek

Kiklo and his gang, cutre.

[digaran2]

The dev announced very clear,90% premined,

for the 90% mined coins:
- 70% WILL BE DISTRIBUTED DURING 40 WEEKS OF AIRDROP
- 20% FOR BOUNTIES : same anaysis as previously
-10% FOR THE DEVS:
 if you do not agree with this ,u can not join the coin's campaign，but u cannot to say it is not trustable!

this is just a airdrop coin,many devs of ICO coins left 20%~50% coins for devs,there no one say somthing!!

[www.www]

IMO what I see here basically invalidates the trust rating in my eyes, even if there was something a bit more solid to support Laudas feedback 3 negative feedbacks in 5 days is just an attack, I dont know how the default trust network is determined but if this were my forum and I had control over it Lauda would be imediately removed from said network.

This is the only reasonable explanation 

[Lauda]

IMO what I see here basically invalidates the trust rating in my eyes, even if there was something a bit more solid to support Laudas feedback 3 negative feedbacks in 5 days is just an attack, I dont know how the default trust network is determined but if this were my forum and I had control over it Lauda would be imediately removed from said network.

1) This thread has nothing to do with the trust ratings that I've left on the user nor could any of my posts *invalidate* those ratings.
2) There is no attack. For it to be an attack, the coin/developer would have to be important enough for someone to have an reason to attack them. This shitcoin is worth zero, and I would not have acted differently towards any developer of any other coin (provided that the course of actions was exactly the same).
3) You don't know how the trust network works, yet you make claims on what should or should not be? Definitely smart.

if you do not agree with this ,u can not join the coin's campaign，but u cannot to say it is not trustable!

Campaign != airdrop.

this is just a airdrop coin,many devs of ICO coins left 20%~50% coins for devs,there no one say somthing!!

Relevance?

This is the only reasonable explanation  

There is only 1 reasonable course of action: The developer needs to get more negative ratings, from more DT members.

[Grrizz]

IMO what I see here basically invalidates the trust rating in my eyes, even if there was something a bit more solid to support Laudas feedback 3 negative feedbacks in 5 days is just an attack, I dont know how the default trust network is determined but if this were my forum and I had control over it Lauda would be imediately removed from said network.

1) This thread has nothing to do with the trust ratings that I've left on the user nor could any of my posts *invalidate* those ratings.
2) There is no attack. For it to be an attack, the coin/developer would have to be important enough for someone to have an reason to attack them. This shitcoin is worth zero, and I would not have acted differently towards any developer of any other coin (provided that the course of actions was exactly the same).
3) You don't know how the trust network works, yet you make claims on what should or should not be? Definitely smart.

1) I dont know what you're reading but this thread is litterally about those trust ratings and their implications. The fact IMO they cannot be trusted invalidates them in my eyes. I.e. I used to see the red numbers next to a persons profile and steer clear now I will just ignore them because I know they cant be trusted.

2) Why not just leave one negative trust rating if you feel so strongly that this is a scam, spamming the trust rating seems like an attack to me and further feeds into why I would no longer trust the trust system here, to me this seems like an abuse of the system. If it were just the one, even though I wouldnt necessarily agree with it, I wouldn't have bothered posting here.

3) Even though I dont know how the default trust network works I know how the trust system in general works and IMO if the people at the "top" of the trust system cant be trusted in my view the whole system cant be trusted.

IMO both sides have some questionable things, crypto-rainbow using the context of an airdrop for a campain and yourself for attacking him with the trust system, there is the miss step of him asking for positive feedback but I see that as an honest mistake trying to ask for help with a broken system when he should have posted here or contacted a mod. It all just seems like something that could have been resolved with an open discourse before jumping stright in with scam accusations and neagtive trust ratings.

At the end of the day this is just my opinion and I cant do anything more than express it in the hopes it will improve things in the future as a trust system that isnt abused could be a great feature but as it stands I feel it can do just as much harm as good.

I hate to say it but to me it seems like children playing games instead of adults trying to build a safe community.

[RitaDiOro]

The dev announced very clear,90% premined,

for the 90% mined coins:
- 70% WILL BE DISTRIBUTED DURING 40 WEEKS OF AIRDROP
- 20% FOR BOUNTIES : same anaysis as previously
-10% FOR THE DEVS:
 if you do not agree with this ,u can not join the coin's campaign，but u cannot to say it is not trustable!

this is just a airdrop coin,many devs of ICO coins left 20%~50% coins for devs,there no one say somthing!!

20+10% part is very very questionable. If you check many other projects you will agree with me.