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

[gorgon666]

hilariousandco should not be a moderator because of his stance on extortionists. He currently has an extortionist on his trust list (Lauda), who has admitted to the extortion, not once, but twice.

If hilariousandco is the reason why an extortionist is on Default Trust, then what is the basis for trusting him to impartially moderate the forum?

For as long as lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I believe it be appropriate to both remove hilariousandco from being a Global Moderator, and remove him from Default Trust.

I move to have hilariousandco removed from being a moderator and being on Default Trust effective immediately.  

For as long as both hilariousandco remains a moderator and on Default Trust, and lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I understand theymos agrees this behavior is acceptable.

[1715471141]

1715471141

[1715471141]

1715471141

[1715471141]

1715471141

[Vod]

hilariousandco should not be a moderator because of his stance on extortionists. He currently has an extortionist on his trust list (Lauda), who has admitted to the extortion, not once, but twice.

If hilariousandco is the reason why an extortionist is on Default Trust, then what is the basis for trusting him to impartially moderate the forum?

For as long as lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I believe it be appropriate to both remove hilariousandco from being a Global Moderator, and remove him from Default Trust.

I move to have hilariousandco removed from being a moderator and being on Default Trust effective immediately. 

This is Quickseller.

hilariousandco is a trusted member of this forum.  Quickseller is not.

/end

[gorgon666]

hilariousandco should not be a moderator because of his stance on extortionists. He currently has an extortionist on his trust list (Lauda), who has admitted to the extortion, not once, but twice.

If hilariousandco is the reason why an extortionist is on Default Trust, then what is the basis for trusting him to impartially moderate the forum?

For as long as lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I believe it be appropriate to both remove hilariousandco from being a Global Moderator, and remove him from Default Trust.

I move to have hilariousandco removed from being a moderator and being on Default Trust effective immediately. 

This is Quickseller.

hilariousandco is a trusted member of this forum.  Quickseller is not.

/end

ignoring the fact your post is inaccurate, you are posting nothing more than an ad hominem attack and fail to address the issues behind my post.

You are clearly either unable or unwilling to argue points intelligently. Until you are willing to argue the topic based on merits and not based on emotion and not based on ad hominem attacks, please refrain from posting in this thread.

[Vod]

You are clearly either unable or unwilling to argue points intelligently. Until you are willing to argue the topic based on merits and not based on emotion and not based on ad hominem attacks, please refrain from posting in this thread.

At least I have the courage to stand behind my words and post with my one account.  

This is Quickseller - he is not trusted.    hilariousandco is.

[gorgon666]

You are clearly either unable or unwilling to argue points intelligently. Until you are willing to argue the topic based on merits and not based on emotion and not based on ad hominem attacks, please refrain from posting in this thread.

At least I have the courage to stand behind my words and post with my one account.  

This is Quickseller - he is not trusted.    hilariousandco is.

Please stop derailing this thread, as you have derailed many threads in the past.

As I previously stated, please refrain from posting in this thread if you are not capable of arguing the merits of my request. Thank you.

[Vod]

As I previously stated, please refrain from posting in this thread if you are not capable of arguing the merits of my request. Thank you.

Please stop posting from fake accounts trying to boost your credibility.  You are not trusted.  hilariousandco is.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

hilariousandco should not be a moderator because of his stance on extortionists. He currently has an extortionist on his trust list (Lauda), who has admitted to the extortion, not once, but twice.

If hilariousandco is the reason why an extortionist is on Default Trust, then what is the basis for trusting him to impartially moderate the forum?

For as long as lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I believe it be appropriate to both remove hilariousandco from being a Global Moderator, and remove him from Default Trust.

I move to have hilariousandco removed from being a moderator and being on Default Trust effective immediately.  

This is Quickseller.

hilariousandco is a trusted member of this forum.  Quickseller is not.

/end

ignoring the fact your post is inaccurate, you are posting nothing more than an ad hominem attack and fail to address the issues behind my post.

You are clearly either unable or unwilling to argue points intelligently. Until you are willing to argue the topic based on merits and not based on emotion and not based on ad hominem attacks, please refrain from posting in this thread.

It's not emotional. You're a scammer and have no business engaging in a discussion about ethics or who should be in DT.  You've proven yourself unable to comprehend what it means to be trustworthy.  Your view of right and wrong is severely distorted.   I would also add that the last dozen threads about lauda and hilariousandco failed to garner support,  as will the next 10,000 threads you or your alts start.  No one gives a shit about your personal butthurt vendettas.

[botany]

hilariousandco should not be a moderator because of his stance on extortionists. He currently has an extortionist on his trust list (Lauda), who has admitted to the extortion, not once, but twice.

If hilariousandco is the reason why an extortionist is on Default Trust, then what is the basis for trusting him to impartially moderate the forum?

For as long as lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I believe it be appropriate to both remove hilariousandco from being a Global Moderator, and remove him from Default Trust.

I move to have hilariousandco removed from being a moderator and being on Default Trust effective immediately.  

For as long as both hilariousandco remains a moderator and on Default Trust, and lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I understand theymos agrees this behavior is acceptable.

Hilariousandco is one of the last few effective moderators.
His trust list has no relation to his functioning as a moderator.

[shorena]

I dont agree that this has influence on hilariousandco's moderation work, but Im in support of an open discussion regarding the trusted status of Lauda.

[gorgon666]

I dont agree that this has influence on hilariousandco's moderation work, but Im in support of an open discussion regarding the trusted status of Lauda.

If hilariousandco is putting an extortionist in a position of power and authority publicly, then how can we trust him to take moderation actions that are, by definition anonymous?

Hilariousandco is one of the last few effective moderators.
His trust list has no relation to his functioning as a moderator.

This relates to his ability to be trusted. As a global moderator, hilariousandco is trusted to make judgement calls anonymously every day. If many bad judgment calls are made, then it will probably stick out and theymos will see, however if a judgment call is made as a result of less than above-board reasons, then any dispute will be nothing more than he-said, she-said speculation. 

[Vod]

This relates to his ability to be trusted. As a global moderator, hilariousandco is trusted to make judgement calls anonymously every day. If many bad judgment calls are made, then it will probably stick out and theymos will see, however if a judgment call is made as a result of less than above-board reasons, then any dispute will be nothing more than he-said, she-said speculation.  

He makes those decisions everyday and people stand behind him.  People trust him.  

Everything you post is a "what if" scenario.  hilariousandco needs to make ONE bad judgement before (even a scammer like you) can accuse him of having many.

[shorena]

I dont agree that this has influence on hilariousandco's moderation work, but Im in support of an open discussion regarding the trusted status of Lauda.

If hilariousandco is putting an extortionist in a position of power and authority publicly, then how can we trust him to take moderation actions that are, by definition anonymous?

Believing that Lauda behaves like this for the sake of the community does not makes the person believing it a complete morron by default that is no longer able to do what they have been done well for a long time. If you argue like this, no one should read anything you said, because you made the mistake of escrowing for yourself in the past.

[botany]

Hilariousandco is one of the last few effective moderators.
His trust list has no relation to his functioning as a moderator.

This relates to his ability to be trusted. As a global moderator, hilariousandco is trusted to make judgement calls anonymously every day. If many bad judgment calls are made, then it will probably stick out and theymos will see, however if a judgment call is made as a result of less than above-board reasons, then any dispute will be nothing more than he-said, she-said speculation. 

There is no evidence of any judgement call being made as a result of less than above-board reasons. So I think this campaign of yours will not have any effect. If you desperately want Launda out of DT2 trust, you are better off convincing other DT1 members to exclude him.

[Vod]

There is no evidence of any judgement call being made as a result of less than above-board reasons. So I think this campaign of yours will not have any effect. If you desperately want Launda out of DT2 trust, you are better off convincing other DT1 members to exclude him.

Quickseller's method of convincing them is to extort them.   

[hilariousandco]

Theymos can remove me from default trust for all I care. More hassle than it's worth. I will probably rarely add people to it anyway.

I trust Lauda's ratings here regardless of what he did and think he is of benefit to the community being on default trust, but if I felt he was abusing his position on there for personal vendettas or to extort people then I would have no issue in removing him.

[Lauda]

I understand theymos agrees this behavior is acceptable.

That behavior is not acceptable (the case of the latter; the former link is bullshit) and everyone reasonable at this point knows that it was ill-devised / not thought through. This is turning into ad nauseum / harassment.

..to extort people then I would have no issue in removing him.

No more sting operations of that kind, or any kind for that matter.
For crying out loud, man up and post with your main account Quickseller.

[Vod]

Theymos can remove me from default trust for all I care. More hassle than it's worth. I will probably rarely add people to it anyway.

I too have the hassle of being in default trust.  With great power comes great responsibility.  You will always be hounded on your decisions.

You are respected here.  Don't let one coward tell you differently.  

Leave DT on your volition - don't let the scammers chase you out.  I've been called the worst name imaginable (pedophile), yet I persevere.   You are better than me.

[deadley]

Theymos can remove me from default trust for all I care. More hassle than it's worth. I will probably rarely add people to it anyway.

You earned this with your hard work, you deserve to be in default list. Just ignore other till there is enough proof and forum gave others many chances but when they got power they misused it and lost it.

[Blazed]

Theymos can remove me from default trust for all I care. More hassle than it's worth. I will probably rarely add people to it anyway.

I trust Lauda's ratings here regardless of what he did and think he is of benefit to the community being on default trust, but if I felt he was abusing his position on there for personal vendettas or to extort people then I would have no issue in removing him.

I agree with what Hilarious says here about Lauda and DT being a pain. I assume I will be dragged into this next so here is my answer...no need for a special Blazed thread 

[hilariousandco]

I assume I will be dragged into this next so here is my answer...no need for a special Blazed thread 

You assume correct:

A thread regarding Blazed is forthcoming is Lauda is not removed from his trust list. 

[Blazed]

I assume I will be dragged into this next so here is my answer...no need for a special Blazed thread  

You assume correct:

A thread regarding Blazed is forthcoming is Lauda is not removed from his trust list.  

The thread will be pretty boring. I think he will be pretty hard pressed to find any person I have ever screwed/scammed/wronged/etc... in this space. If the point of the thread is simply about having Lauda in my list then do not bother as I have stated he helps a lot more than hurts the community. I never gave QS a negative for the same reasons when he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[Joel_Jantsen]

If hilariousandco is the reason why an extortionist is on Default Trust, then what is the basis for trusting him to impartially moderate the forum?

Because forum moderation has nothing to do with adding people to the trust list ? I don't see no correlation between trusting someone and deleting shitty posts ? 

For as long as lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I believe it be appropriate to both remove hilariousandco from being a Global Moderator, and remove him from Default Trust.

I don't see no point in that.Plus hilariousandco is the only moderator who responds to a lot of mod related queries on the forum.

I move to have hilariousandco removed from being a moderator and being on Default Trust effective immediately.  

For as long as both hilariousandco remains a moderator and on Default Trust, and lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I understand theymos agrees this behavior is acceptable.

You need to understand Default Trust Lists has nothing to do with the moderation.

[Quickseller]

I think h&c has done a lot for the forum and community over the years and is normally someone I would place a lot of trust in.

Lauda admits upthread his extortion attempt and the facts lauda has admitted to would allow any reasonable person with an understanding of the law to conclude lauda attempted to extort zeroaxel. The fact that no specific amount was asked for is not relevant. The fact that lauda did not receive any money only means his attempt was unsuccessful (his crime is attempted extortion instead of extortion).

Ignoring the above, lauda has a history of trolling those who question him and refuses to have a public discussion about any of his ratings. Even if his ratings were factually accurate (I believe many of them are not), many of his negative ratings are for things that no reasonable person would consider to be a scam. This alone is reason enough to question the integrity of anyone who puts lauda in a position of trust, and/or authority. I can post examples of this however I don't think this fact is really unknown to both of laudas default trust sponsors. If necessary I will post examples of this so neither of them can claim ignorance, however anything I post in this regard should be news to either hc or blazed.

There are other additional reasons why I believe lauda should not be in the default trust network, nor in any position of trust or authority, however this is not what this thread is about.

This might be an oversight or a bad judgment call that is forgivable on hc's part, provided it is quickly addressed. However I don't think anyone who puts someone that fits the above description in a position of trust or power should himself be in a position of trust, power or the authority to exercise his good judgment.

[Lauda]

...

Again, delusional rambling that couldn't be further from the reality. I think that all the escrow scamming and shilling is getting to your head.
Then again, considering the amount of farmed accounts that were abusing campaigns, sold accounts and scammers that I've tagged, my removal would certainly be beneficial for you and your gang.

[Quickseller]

...

Again, delusional rambling that couldn't be further from the reality. I think that all the escrow scamming and shilling is getting to your head.
Then again, considering the amount of farmed accounts that were abusing campaigns, sold accounts and scammers that I've tagged, my removal would certainly be beneficial for you and your gang.

Let me make one thing very clear, you have not left negative trust against any of my unknown alts now or previous as of when I owned them. Furthermore, the amount of money you have cost me in any way is exactly zero. I do not stand to profit in anyway from your removal from the default trust network other than the fact that the trust system and marketplace would have more credibility.

[minifrij]

Let me make one thing very clear, you have not left negative trust against any of my unknown alts now or previous as of when I owned them. Furthermore, the amount of money you have cost me in any way is exactly zero. I do not stand to profit in anyway from your removal from the default trust network other than the fact that the trust system and marketplace would have more credibility.

It is hard to believe anything that you say when you have lied so freely in the past.

[LTU_btc]

Here we go again... I don't know who made this topic, but are you still not tired to fight against respected bitcointalk members? Ok, hilariousandco have Lauda on his trust list, but can you tell, how it can affect moderation of forum? My personal opinion that he is doing his job not bad (can't say perfect, because there is too much spam, but at least he is trying to take actions to reduce it).
I don't see any reasons why h&c shouldn't be mod of bitcointalk.

[audaciousbeing]

Ever since i have been exposed to the issue of quickseller versus others, it has always been one issue after the other and up till now, it does not seems to come to an end. I think there is need to separate issues whether the moderator has default in his responsibility is what should be the deciding factor in determining whether he should continue or not and this is what every who has commented freely have agreed. The moment he start failing in that or the trust issues start affecting the main function, we can then start this discussion.

[shorena]

I assume I will be dragged into this next so here is my answer...no need for a special Blazed thread 

You assume correct:

A thread regarding Blazed is forthcoming is Lauda is not removed from his trust list. 

Thanks for posting what I knew you would though. I probably should just accept that you will not see this differently.

[Lauda]

Let me make one thing very clear, you have not left negative trust against any of my unknown alts now or previous as of when I owned them. Furthermore, the amount of money you have cost me in any way is exactly zero. I do not stand to profit in anyway from your removal from the default trust network other than the fact that the trust system and marketplace would have more credibility.

[BitcoinEXpress]

This is Quickseller.

hilariousandco is a trusted member of this forum.  Quickseller is not.

/end

Are you talking about the very same Quickseller that was kicked off DT because he was caught red-handed running an escrow scam?

Not that QS?



~BCX~

[Quickseller]

Ignoring the above, lauda has a history of trolling those who question him and refuses to have a public discussion about any of his ratings. Even if his ratings were factually accurate (I believe many of them are not), many of his negative ratings are for things that no reasonable person would consider to be a scam. This alone is reason enough to question the integrity of anyone who puts lauda in a position of trust, and/or authority. I can post examples of this however I don't think this fact is really unknown to both of laudas default trust sponsors. If necessary I will post examples of this so neither of them can claim ignorance, however anything I post in this regard should be news to either hc or blazed.

Trolling with a meme (excluding the Michael Jackson Meme):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2129181.msg21352690#msg21352690
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2101968.msg21012792#msg21012792
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2066778.msg20888931#msg20888931
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2078528.msg20773141#msg20773141
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2066778.msg20641605#msg20641605
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2066778.msg20636133#msg20636133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2066778.msg20634366#msg20634366
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2043715.msg20390616#msg20390616




Using the word “snowflake”:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.msg21289657#msg21289657
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.msg21284120#msg21284120
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2087580.msg21217968#msg21217968



Michael Jackson Popcorn meme:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2119760.msg21195900#msg21195900
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1984169.msg20512859#msg20512859


Openly being proud of the fact that people hate him:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.msg20927343#msg20927343

Most importantly, after a review of the last ~45 days of Lauda's post history, I was able to find exactly zero posts in which Lauda attempted to address any concerns about his ratings.

[Quickseller]

There is also the below IRC comment by Lauda


Lauda literally has zero respect for others, and this kind of behavior does nothing good for the community.


As mentioned previously, I cannot trust the integrity of anyone that puts someone who acts this way in a position of power.

[Lauda]

Most importantly, after a review of the last ~45 days of Lauda's post history, I was able to find exactly zero posts in which Lauda attempted to address any concerns about his ratings.

There were no public concerns that need be addressed, there is only concern trolling from known scammers such as yourself.

-snip-
Lauda literally has zero respect for others, and this kind of behavior does nothing good for the community.

And the puppet continues to lie. Maybe selling an account or two to a scammer, again, would make you feel better?
Hmm, what do we have here?

Lol, I find it hilarious how easy it is for some people to troll zepher:D

You continue to bully other projects, but of course, I don't expect mr. shorena to act equally and neg. rate you. I wonder why that is.

[Vod]

As mentioned previously, I cannot trust the integrity of anyone that puts someone who acts this way in a position of power.

Remember your escrow scam?

I cannot trust the integrity of anyone who acts that way in a position of power.

This is why Quickseller is a hypocrite.  Does one thing, says another.

[Lauda]

This is why Quickseller is a hypocrite.  Does one thing, says another.

Take a look at his continued bullying / defamation (of course neither *teams* care about this / are already informed / his post will likely be removed):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1370307.msg21366477#msg21366477
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1715214.msg21366560#msg21366560

Attacking projects, run by others, which have / had nothing to do with any of that is utmost pathetic to say the least.

You continue to bully other projects, but of course, I don't expect mr. shorena to act equally and neg. rate you. I wonder why that is.

PM sent just in case.

[Vod]

Take a look at his continued bullying / defamation (of course neither *teams* care about this / are already informed / his post will likely be removed):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1370307.msg21366477#msg21366477
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1715214.msg21366560#msg21366560

His account is destroyed.  Nothing he can do now can make it any worse, so he'll make up any story he can.

Sorry you have to go through this, but people can see his trust rating and make their own decisions.

[Lauda]

His account is destroyed.  Nothing he can do now can make it any worse, so he'll make up any story he can.

Indeed. I haven't seen someone around here who is this much out of touch with reality; then again, I don't visit really weird threads often.

Sorry you have to go through this, but people can see his trust rating and make their own decisions.

Thanks; I'm ok / used to, let's say, *malicious things* such as this. It is others, who are completely Innocent, that are suffering with statements like those.

[Vod]

Indeed. I haven't seen someone around here who is this much out of touch with reality; then again, I don't visit really weird threads often.

Quickseller is just immoral.   There are weirder people out there:

The little child with bone cancer is imperfect. The bone cancer shows it. Since he is imperfect, he is a sinner, even though it was foisted on him by his parents.

Thank God that He has found a way to allow us imperfect people to continue to live for a while. Thank Him even more that He has given us Jesus, His Son, so that we can even have eternal life when we believe.

lol

[klaaas]

Your personal vendetta again QuickSeller.

QS with trusts issues   

I cannot trust

Name:   Quickseller
Trust:   -241: -8 / +15
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

I dont trust you... your a scammer Scam Accusations (Moderator: Cyrus) > Quickseller escrowing for himself

Most importantly, after a review of the last ~45 days of Lauda's post history, I was able to find exactly zero posts in which Lauda attempted to address any concerns about his ratings.

Your history shows your obsessed by Lauda.

[gorgon666]

I dont agree that this has influence on hilariousandco's moderation work, but Im in support of an open discussion regarding the trusted status of Lauda.

If hilariousandco is putting an extortionist in a position of power and authority publicly, then how can we trust him to take moderation actions that are, by definition anonymous?

Believing that Lauda behaves like this for the sake of the community does not makes the person believing it a complete morron by default that is no longer able to do what they have been done well for a long time. If you argue like this, no one should read anything you said, because you made the mistake of escrowing for yourself in the past.

You are making assumptions that are unfounded and/or untrue.

Individual members should make their own conclusions as to if someone should be trusted. If evidence cannot and is not posted on a regular basis, then the person making accusations should not be trusted.


Lauda regularly refuses to provide evidence of allegations he makes when leaving negative ratings, making it impossible to dispute what lauda alleges. This ignores the fact that if alligations are correct, that the receiver of negative ratings would not be a scammer by any measure.

I trust Lauda's ratings here regardless of what he did

So you believe what Lauda says regardless of his past transgressions? You do realize that lauda's history of extorting people means any rating (including lack thereof) could be the result of extortion, right? It is fairly standard to (at least attempt to) hide the fact that a specific person is extorting someone, but rather to prove knowledge of specific negative information.

and think he is of benefit to the community being on default trust, but if I felt he was abusing his position on there for personal vendettas or to extort people then I would have no issue in removing him.

There will almost never be evidence of extortion in these situations. Lauda will use alternate accounts to extort users. There is no benefit to using a credible/primary account to carry out an extortion scheme as long as you can show your victim that you have the knowledge of information the victim does not want made public.

[Lauda]

Lauda will use alternate accounts to extort users.

Pathetic irony; grow up QS.

Lauda regularly refuses to provide evidence of allegations he makes when leaving negative ratings, making it impossible to dispute what lauda alleges.

* Lauda waits for your evidence of my "alternate accounts".

[ctubex]

hilariousandco should not be a moderator because of his stance on extortionists. He currently has an extortionist on his trust list (Lauda), who has admitted to the extortion, not once, but twice.

If hilariousandco is the reason why an extortionist is on Default Trust, then what is the basis for trusting him to impartially moderate the forum?

For as long as lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I believe it be appropriate to both remove hilariousandco from being a Global Moderator, and remove him from Default Trust.

I move to have hilariousandco removed from being a moderator and being on Default Trust effective immediately.  

For as long as both hilariousandco remains a moderator and on Default Trust, and lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I understand theymos agrees this behavior is acceptable.

I think they should all be fired

https://imgur.com/a/6EIiU

[LFC_Bitcoin]

There is nothing wrong with hilarious being a mod, I think he/she is perfectly capable of carrying out the duties required. I've found hilarious to be nothing other than trustworthy & a good person tbh.

[gorgon666]

There is nothing wrong with hilarious being a mod, I think he/she is perfectly capable of carrying out the duties required. I've found hilarious to be nothing other than trustworthy & a good person tbh.

hilariousandco is explicitly endorsing the actions of an extortionist. This alone outweighs any and all other contributions to the community via moderating and otherwise.


If he is willing to endorse an extortionist, why would you believe he will not engage in extortion himself? Most extortion attempts are done with anon identities to protect one-self against the consequences of attempting extortion.

[Quickseller]

It looks like hilariousandco didn't like the decision of an admin and left trust against loan shark as a result:

User was previously permabanned for copy and pasting posts but let off by an admin due to his loaning service. Cheating campaigns and activity by copy and pasting is pretty scammy in itself but the loans are probably only being given to easily build up feedback. The two trusted feedbacks he currently has are merely for using an escrow service and an email forwarding service that he probably only purchased to acquire a cheap positive feedback. Was also infected with bitcoin stealing malware at one point from downloading pirated/cracked software: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1780068.0 so I would take all those factors into consideration when dealing with this user.

[reference in rating]

I am not sure it is right to be leaving negative ratings to get around authority limits as a moderator.

[criptix]

It looks like hilariousandco didn't like the decision of an admin and left trust against loan shark as a result:

User was previously permabanned for copy and pasting posts but let off by an admin due to his loaning service. Cheating campaigns and activity by copy and pasting is pretty scammy in itself but the loans are probably only being given to easily build up feedback. The two trusted feedbacks he currently has are merely for using an escrow service and an email forwarding service that he probably only purchased to acquire a cheap positive feedback. Was also infected with bitcoin stealing malware at one point from downloading pirated/cracked software: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1780068.0 so I would take all those factors into consideration when dealing with this user.

[reference in rating]

I am not sure it is right to be leaving negative ratings to get around authority limits as a moderator.

I think what hilariousandco did was absolutely fine.
This green trust color has just way too much power on this forum.

Btw. theymos is definietly not the last word regarding trust... i believe the idea in the beginning has always been for members to remove default trust and to create their own trust list or alternatively to just use default trust as some sort of direction guide for people whom you could trust.

[hilariousandco]

I'm not sure how me leaving a negative feedback is getting around my authority limits. I don't trust Loan Shark for numerous reasons so the feedback is valid. Copy and pasting is scammy and untrustworthy behaviour and plenty of people rightly leave feedback for it but most don't bother and just report it instead because they know it's a permabannable offense. I told Loan Shark to contact an admin about the situation because I wouldn't be unbanning him. I respect cyrus decision to give him another chance if he so chooses but I think it sets a really bad precedent because every copy and paster will now want unbanning and we should have zero tolerance for it, but if Loan Shark is allowed to continue to post here his previous behaviour and my suspicions of him trying to farm feedback should be made known.

Quickseller, I used to like you a lot and I think you used to like me too and you certainly didn't have any issue with me right up until I added Lauda onto my trust list and then boom, what's left of your badly bruised ego gets enraged and now I'm on your shit list all because of that. Your own mother could give lauda a compliment and you'd probably disown her at this point. I've bit my tongue on commenting on your  behaviour here for far too long and was hoping for your own mental health you would eventually just fade away into the abyss and find something more productive to do with your time instead of just trolling and lingering around like a bad smell and maybe even just start over again on a fresh account, but I need to tell you your behaviour here over the past couple of years has been absolutely pitifully pathetic and you should be utterly ashamed of your vindictive childishness. If you could detach yourself from what's left of your ego and take a look at yourself you would see this. It was your own ego that caused your downfall in the first place getting into tit for tat  arguments over the smallest of things and using ALTs to try smear others which led to those people wanting to get one over on you and looking into your behaviour and boom your dealings were unearthed and your empire crumbled as did your ego. Now you want to try take me down and anyone else who has done something that merely inadvertently pokes at your wounds again and it's pathetic.

Seriously, I genuinely wish you the best of health and hope you can find some happiness and peace but you should do yourself and the community a big favour and just fuck off because you contribute absolutely nothing here now and nobody likes you.

[Jet Cash]

There is a simple answer to all this - don't trust anybody.

[Lauda]

I'm not sure how me leaving a negative feedback is getting around my authority limits. I don't trust Loan Shark for numerous reasons so the feedback is valid.

Obviously you did nothing wrong. Furthermore, whomever you question regarding that situation you're very likely going to get this very same answer from them.

Your own mother could give lauda a compliment and you'd probably disown her at this point.

Nicely put. IMO he is no longer mentally stable.

Seriously, I genuinely wish you the best of health and hope you can find some happiness and peace but you should do yourself and the community a big favour and just fuck off because you contribute absolutely nothing here now and nobody likes you.

I would be very surprised if the army of shills that was going after me, doesn't go after you very soon.

[ibminer]

It looks like hilariousandco didn't like the decision of an admin and left trust against loan shark as a result:

User was previously permabanned for copy and pasting posts but let off by an admin due to his loaning service. Cheating campaigns and activity by copy and pasting is pretty scammy in itself but the loans are probably only being given to easily build up feedback. The two trusted feedbacks he currently has are merely for using an escrow service and an email forwarding service that he probably only purchased to acquire a cheap positive feedback. Was also infected with bitcoin stealing malware at one point from downloading pirated/cracked software: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1780068.0 so I would take all those factors into consideration when dealing with this user.

[reference in rating]

I am not sure it is right to be leaving negative ratings to get around authority limits as a moderator.

Officially, I don't think it would be relevant that hilariousandco is a moderator leaving feedback, he's just a DT member leaving feedback and would have every right to do so. Trust is not moderated, as I believe we've all heard plenty of times.

Whether it violates some sort of moral or ethical concern, shows insubordination, or causes some sort of conflict of interest may be the argument here but given hilariousandco's explanation of why the feedback was left, his thought process makes sense to me and I'd say the feedback is warranted. I'd probably say he's even warranted in leaving Cyrus a feedback questioning his judgement to unban someone due to a loan service they provide, if this is the sole reason... but that would be too much drama and probably not conducive to maintaining a somewhat professional demeanor amongst mods & admins.

[Quickseller]

It looks like hilariousandco didn't like the decision of an admin and left trust against loan shark as a result:

User was previously permabanned for copy and pasting posts but let off by an admin due to his loaning service. Cheating campaigns and activity by copy and pasting is pretty scammy in itself but the loans are probably only being given to easily build up feedback. The two trusted feedbacks he currently has are merely for using an escrow service and an email forwarding service that he probably only purchased to acquire a cheap positive feedback. Was also infected with bitcoin stealing malware at one point from downloading pirated/cracked software: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1780068.0 so I would take all those factors into consideration when dealing with this user.

[reference in rating]

I am not sure it is right to be leaving negative ratings to get around authority limits as a moderator.

Officially, I don't think it would be relevant that hilariousandco is a moderator leaving feedback, he's just a DT member leaving feedback and would have every right to do so. Trust is not moderated, as I believe we've all heard plenty of times.

Whether it violates some sort of moral or ethical concern, shows insubordination, or causes some sort of conflict of interest may be the argument here but given hilariousandco's explanation of why the feedback was left, his thought process makes sense to me and I'd say the feedback is warranted. I'd probably say he's even warranted in leaving Cyrus a feedback questioning his judgement to unban someone due to a loan service they provide, if this is the sole reason... but that would be too much drama and probably not conducive to maintaining a somewhat professional demeanor amongst mods & admins.

I think the point is more that the feedback was left for reasons that are a moderation issue, not a 'is this person a scammer' issue. The way the rating comes across to me as Hilariousandco being vindictive because he was overruled on the decision to unban that guy. The only part of the rating that has anything to do with scamming is the copy/paste issue in that doing so was "cheating" his signature campaign -- I would compare what he did to leaving 5 minutes early but writing down that he left at 4:00 PM on his timecard, this is not something I would personally do, is something I would advise against doing, is something that if I was made aware of would tell the person to cut it out, but isn't something I would push for corrective action over, and if corrective action/termination resulted from a single instance of leaving 5 minutes early, I would opine that someone wanted the person out for some other reason.   

I don't think it is so much that hilariousandco is a moderator, but rather that he is a moderator who advocated for certain action to be taken over an issue, was overruled, and left feedback over that same issue.

Trust ratings are not moderated, but that does not mean trust ratings can be given out for any reason without consequence. If feedback is being left for questionable reasons, and/or under questionable circumstances, then others will be reluctant to trust his opinions and other trust ratings. I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.

[...]Lauda[...]

I think adding lauda to your trust list is a major lapse of judgment, however that has not stopped me from supporting you in this thread with the caveat that you need to address the lauda issue. When you add someone to your trust list, you are staking your reputation on them (anyone that trusts you will also trust that person), so as long as you have an extortionist and/or someone as shady as Lauda, you will be viewed in a negative light in my eyes. If you don't want your own reputation to be associated with Lauda's history of extortion and other shadiness, then you should remove him from your trust list, simple as that.

In re loan shark, I posted above why I disagree with the rating, as I mentioned above, I think someone who leaves a negative rating for a single instance of copy/past posting is looking for a reason to leave a negative rating, and the rating is not about warning others about his behavior. I would find it unlikely that a business would withhold payment over a single post.

Just because we got along in the past doesn't mean that I will blindly support everything you do. If I see something that I don't think is right, I will say something, and this is an instance of when I see something I don't think is right. I think you should do the right thing and address both the lauda and loan shark issues.

[Lauda]

The way the rating comes across to me as Hilariousandco being vindictive because he was overruled on the decision to unban that guy.

If hilariousandco removes his, and I add a new rating, would that fix it? Oh right.

I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.

You think wrong, and are likely not going to find anyone who agrees with your bullshit.

I think you should do the right thing and address both the lauda and loan shark issues.

The "lauda issue" has been already addressed by not listening to your biased complaints that have almost nothing to do with reality, and so has the "loan shark issue" with the negative rating.
I wonder how you related to mr. Loan Shark and what your ulterior motive here is (other than the title of this thread).

[ibminer]

Trust ratings are not moderated, but that does not mean trust ratings can be given out for any reason without consequence. If feedback is being left for questionable reasons, and/or under questionable circumstances, then others will be reluctant to trust his opinions and other trust ratings. I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.

I'm not sure what the questionable reasons and/or questionable circumstances in this case would be. It sounds like he had banned an account due to copy-pasting, which violates a rule that was put in place for a reason. Because he has the power to ban, this would be the first step, as it was, and shows that he has concerns with the account because he is banning it. An admin overruled the ban, but hilariousandco still doesn't trust the account, his next option as a DT member is to warn others about the shady activities of the account. Whether there is some sort of vindictiveness or ego behind the decision is speculation, the statement he gave as the reasoning implies to me that he was trying to help others by warning them of the account's activities since it had been unbanned, which I think is a legitimate use of the trust system.

I don't think it is so much that hilariousandco is a moderator, but rather that he is a moderator who advocated for certain action to be taken over an issue, was overruled, and left feedback over that same issue.

He didn't go back and re-ban the account, so his action as a moderator was overruled and accepted. I have no problem with someone expressing their opinion as a DT member after that. If a moderator cannot act as a DT member, why are they on DT?  If he had left feedback first, and then banned the account, would you have a different opinion here? 
 
I guess my thought on the situation is that hilariousandco, if he was NOT a moderator, would have left feedback as a DT member stating the account was copying/pasting. Because he was a moderator, he banned because he has that authority, and Cyrus has the authority to overrule it... but hilariousandco still has the right as a DT member to leave feedback because of his personal concerns.

[hilariousetc]

I'd probably say he's even warranted in leaving Cyrus a feedback questioning his judgement to unban someone due to a loan service they provide, if this is the sole reason... but that would be too much drama and probably not conducive to maintaining a somewhat professional demeanor amongst mods & admins.

That isn't necessary and the issue isn't really with cyrus here and I understand cyrus' decision why he chose to do it and he's obviously a more considerate and forgiving person than me, but at the same time cyrus probably spends next to zero time having to ban dozens of copy and pasters a day so I'm less forgiving (and like I said I think it sets a bad precedent) and I have a zero tolerance policy for it as did BadBear. Maybe cyrus can forgive infractions in certain instances and fair enough. I didn't overrule his decision; I just let my opinion be known and people can make up their own mind whether they want to trust loan shark or not. Loan Shark's copy and pasting happened a while back so cyrus probably took that into consideration and fair enough, but Bill Cosby shouldn't be let off just because he hasn't raped anyone in 20 years. He still did the crime and that should be on his record and reputation just like this should and even if a judge or jury forgave him or let him off that doesn't mean that I or the public should as well. If it was made a rule that copy and pasting was allowed, I would still leave negative because it's scammy and dishonest. Maybe Loan shark is a different person now and made a silly mistake and fair enough, but my feedback isn't the be all and end all and it hasn't even marked him as a scammer fully and will probably get neutralised over time anyway but I think it should still be noted (people could even leave positive feedback on loan shark if they disagree with my decision). There's a couple of other things I just don't like about Loan Shark though, like the fact that he very likely bought thebutterzone's email forwarding service just to get the trusted feedback as did these other users here. He also claims to be a lawyer here which I don't really believe (pretty sure being a unlicensed loaner ie loan shark is illegal in most countries even the Philippines).

I think the point is more that the feedback was left for reasons that are a moderation issue, not a 'is this person a scammer' issue. The way the rating comes across to me as Hilariousandco being vindictive because he was overruled on the decision to unban that guy.

That's just your opinion, one that is incredibly biased to suit your own agenda of me being removed from default trust or trying to bully me into removing lauda from it myself (which isn't going to happen unless he screws up in some other fashion with his ratings). I even suggested to Loan Shark that he contact an admin and state his case about being unbanned because I wouldn't be removing the feedback:

Sorry. As above, if I unban you then everyone else who was banned will make the same excuse. You can try contact theymos or cyrus and make your case to them to see if they will unban you.

The only part of the rating that has anything to do with scamming is the copy/paste issue in that doing so was "cheating" his signature campaign --

And that's good enough, but he was also in my opinion essentially buying trusted feedback and downloading pirated software that infected him (arguably not really scammy but behaviour that could have cost him and others money and is worth noting).  

I would compare what he did to leaving 5 minutes early but writing down that he left at 4:00 PM on his timecard, this is not something I would personally do, is something I would advise against doing, is something that if I was made aware of would tell the person to cut it out, but isn't something I would push for corrective action over, and if corrective action/termination resulted from a single instance of leaving 5 minutes early, I would opine that someone wanted the person out for some other reason.  

What do you compare escrowing for yourself and taking fees to do so with? A lot of people personally think self-escrowing for yourself is scammy and using alts to continually attack someone is pretty dishonest and pathetic, but that's also a matter of opinion I guess and nobody really cares about yours any more due to your behaviour.

Trust ratings are not moderated, but that does not mean trust ratings can be given out for any reason without consequence. If feedback is being left for questionable reasons, and/or under questionable circumstances, then others will be reluctant to trust his opinions and other trust ratings. I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.

And everyone else apart from you and Loan Shark has said the rating and logic is fine but you can feel I have poor judgement if you wish. I don't really care for your opinion or respect because you sadly lost mine years ago due to your behaviour after your escrow shenanigans downfall, but your bias is still incredibly obvious here.

I think adding lauda to your trust list is a major lapse of judgment, however that has not stopped me from supporting you in this thread with the caveat that you need to address the lauda issue. When you add someone to your trust list, you are staking your reputation on them (anyone that trusts you will also trust that person), so as long as you have an extortionist and/or someone as shady as Lauda, you will be viewed in a negative light in my eyes. If you don't want your own reputation to be associated with Lauda's history of extortion and other shadiness, then you should remove him from your trust list, simple as that.

I've already addressed it. I trust lauda's feedbacks here regardless of his mistake in the extortion attempt and I don't care how you view me. I would have still trusted your feedbacks even after your self-escrowing mishap but you fucked up with how you handled it like a petulant child. You should have owned up, apologised and moved on and you likely could have rebuilt your rep but instead you ruined it beyond repair by ruthlessly attacking anyone who exposed you (which was your own fault in the first place for attacking them). And that's fine about not trusting my judgement. I think you've had multiple lapses in judgement and behaviour and your ego is so fragile and broken you wont ever admit to your mistakes whilst you turn even friends and allies into enemies. You haven't supported me at all either. You created this thread with a known alt in order to try get me kicked off staff and to play good cop bad cop with yourself just so you can get one over on lauda again in this pathetic tit for tat battle you have with him. You obviously hate him with such a passion that you will attempt to bully and take down anyone else who gets in your way of retribution and this is really sad, especially from a person I used to like, trust and respect.

QS, can you answer me this: Do you think you should still be on default trust? Do you think I should add you? Would you lose respect or gain respect for me if I added you? Would be interesting to know.

Just because we got along in the past doesn't mean that I will blindly support everything you do. If I see something that I don't think is right, I will say something, and this is an instance of when I see something I don't think is right. I think you should do the right thing and address both the lauda and loan shark issues.

You can continue to have that opinion, but you only think I've done something wrong because it's personally annoyed you on your quest for revenge, but let me be clear: I likely won't be removing either the feedback on Loan Shark or lauda from default trust any time soon no matter how much you decide to hound or troll me about it on whatever accounts, but if I do ever remove either instances it won't be because of anything you've done because I'm not going to give in to your childish and petty bullying. Please just move on from this issue because you're just wasting both our time now because you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours, and you know what Einstein's definition of insanity is don't you? Well, I can assure you I'm not the crazy one here. Again, move on.

I wonder how you related to mr. Loan Shark and what your ulterior motive here is (other than the title of this thread).

He's just looking for any petty thing he can do to attack me and he's certainly scraping the barrel with this. Wouldn't surprise me if he's complained to theymos about me telling him to fuck off. "Theymos, is this really the sort of language staff/default trust members should be using wah wah wah". "Theymos, should staff/default trust members really be making jokes about you being a gender terrorist? Please taker swift action on this matter". "Theymos, y u no respond".    

Trust ratings are not moderated, but that does not mean trust ratings can be given out for any reason without consequence. If feedback is being left for questionable reasons, and/or under questionable circumstances, then others will be reluctant to trust his opinions and other trust ratings. I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.

I'm not sure what the questionable reasons and/or questionable circumstances in this case would be. It sounds like he had banned an account due to copy-pasting, which violates a rule that was put in place for a reason. Because he has the power to ban, this would be the first step, as it was, and shows that he has concerns with the account because he is banning it. An admin overruled the ban, but hilariousandco still doesn't trust the account, his next option as a DT member is to warn others about the shady activities of the account. Whether there is some sort of vindictiveness or ego behind the decision is speculation, the statement he gave as the reasoning implies to me that he was trying to help others by warning them of the account's activities since it had been unbanned, which I think is a legitimate use of the trust system.

I don't think it is so much that hilariousandco is a moderator, but rather that he is a moderator who advocated for certain action to be taken over an issue, was overruled, and left feedback over that same issue.

He didn't go back and re-ban the account, so his action as a moderator was overruled and accepted. I have no problem with someone expressing their opinion as a DT member after that. If a moderator cannot act as a DT member, why are they on DT?  If he had left feedback first, and then banned the account, would you have a different opinion here?  
 
I guess my thought on the situation is that hilariousandco, if he was NOT a moderator, would have left feedback as a DT member stating the account was copying/pasting. Because he was a moderator, he banned because he has that authority, and Cyrus has the authority to overrule it... but hilariousandco still has the right as a DT member to leave feedback because of his personal concerns.

Thank you for being able to look at this intelligently and from a completely impartial and rational perspective. Sadly, QS is unable to think rationally and logically regarding such matters because all he cares about right now is getting lauda kicked off default trust and to do that he has to either persuade me to do it or try get me kicked off DT in any way he can.

[gorgon666]

In light of recent additional information revealed about Lauda, I would like to know:
Does hilariousandco believe Lauda when she says she was only trying to "pad posts" when he tried to buy forum accounts?
Does hilariousandco believe Lauda when she says she only owned/controlled two accounts ever?
Does hilariousandco believe that Lauda has never bought nor sold any bitcointalk.org accounts?
Does hilariousandco have any information to suggest that any of the above may not be true?


The answers (or lack thereof) may very well be an indication of the judgment of hilariousandco.

[Lauda]

Post from your main account pest. Your actions are so predictable.

I'm waiting for your alt Gorgonzolla to complain about this.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Post from your main account pest. Your actions are so predictable.

I'm waiting for your alt Gorgonzolla to complain about this.

Wouldn't matter what account he posted from, the person behind it is too dense to understand that no one but him cares about this nonissue; that he really is a pest; and that the lack of response only indicates that no one cares about this but him.  

Quickseller and his legion of alt accounts are the only ones who can't understand that fairness doesn't mean treating every action the same and that life is inherently unfair anyway.   No response is the only correct response.

A sane, non-autistic, non-sociopathic person would have sucked it up and moved on a long time ago.

[hilariousetc]

In light of recent additional information revealed about Lauda, I would like to know:
Does hilariousandco believe Lauda when she says she was only trying to "pad posts" when he tried to buy forum accounts?
Does hilariousandco believe Lauda when she says she only owned/controlled two accounts ever?
Does hilariousandco believe that Lauda has never bought nor sold any bitcointalk.org accounts?
Does hilariousandco have any information to suggest that any of the above may not be true?


The answers (or lack thereof) may very well be an indication of the judgment of hilariousandco.

Can you answer me this:

QS, can you answer me this: Do you think you should still be on default trust? Do you think I should add you? Would you lose respect or gain respect for me if I added you? Would be interesting to know.

The answers (or lack thereof) may very well be an indication of the judgment of Quickseller.

Post from your main account pest. Your actions are so predictable.

I'm waiting for your alt Gorgonzolla to complain about this.

I love how he carries on like he thinks nobody knows who this account belongs to for sure and insists on this good cop bad cop thing. It's almost like e-schizophrenia.

[Quickseller]

Can you answer me this:

QS, can you answer me this: Do you think you should still be on default trust? Do you think I should add you? Would you lose respect or gain respect for me if I added you? Would be interesting to know.

I think you messed up your above quote.

If you want to add me to your trust list, fee free to do so. If you are wanting to add "me" to your trust list, you are going to have to add my QS account and am unable to provide an alt account to add to your trust list (as a couple of people have asked for).

Sure charing an "escrow fee" may have been less than 100% transparent, however these charges were refunded, and ignoring refunds, customers received an advantage, as they would have paid an amount greater than what they paid plus the escrow fee if they dealt with "QS" directly on any hypothetical trade, so ignoring any refunds, my customers received an advantage using me as escrow. Also, both said they would have been willing to send to me first if they were trading with me directly.

Adding me to your trust list would not change the level of respect I have for you. I leave very little trust (if any) for the few trades that I do engage in here, and spend significantly less time here than I have in the past to investigate (potential) scams. If you prefer, you can review my sent ratings and add your own ratings as you see fit.

Adding me would also not change my expectation that you will do the right thing (especially regardling Lauda).

[hilariousetc]

I think you messed up your quote  :

Can you answer me this:

QS, can you answer me this: Do you think you should still be on default trust? Do you think I should add you? Would you lose respect or gain respect for me if I added you? Would be interesting to know.

I think you messed up your above quote.

If you want to add me to your trust list, fee free to do so. If you are wanting to add "me" to your trust list, you are going to have to add my QS account and am unable to provide an alt account to add to your trust list (as a couple of people have asked for).

Sure charing an "escrow fee" may have been less than 100% transparent, however these charges were refunded, and ignoring refunds, customers received an advantage, as they would have paid an amount greater than what they paid plus the escrow fee if they dealt with "QS" directly on any hypothetical trade, so ignoring any refunds, my customers received an advantage using me as escrow. Also, both said they would have been willing to send to me first if they were trading with me directly.

Adding me to your trust list would not change the level of respect I have for you. I leave very little trust (if any) for the few trades that I do engage in here, and spend significantly less time here than I have in the past to investigate (potential) scams. If you prefer, you can review my sent ratings and add your own ratings as you see fit.

Adding me would also not change my expectation that you will do the right thing (especially regardling Lauda).

I think a better question I should have asked was do you think you deserve to be on default trust? You and lauda were both in very similar situations I think. Both were respected users and both had silly/slight hiccups and both felt the dire consequences of their actions, and I think neither of you had truly nefarious or immoral intentions (though I guess I could be wrong about either of you and maybe we'll never know). However, the difference here is one of the parties handled themselves like a man -  sorry, woman   - with dignity and accepted his - sorry, her - fate, the other lost his mind and turned into a disruptive childish troll on a vendetta with nothing to lose except his reputation, dignity and respect (which you have successfully achieved - congrats). Had you have behaved like lauda and lauda behaved like you it would probably be him asking why I've added you to my trust list and trying to troll/harrass me into changing my mind. I actually agree with you that escrowing wasn't exactly the crime of the century as did BadBear and it certainly wasn't unforgivable and I'm sure it could and would have been forgiven had you of just taken it on the chin and carried on like the user you used to be, but because you made so many enemies by cowardly attacking others on alts (like you are still doing now) and behaved like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum wherever you could it got blown out or proportion. Now you look like this:



Whilst Lauda looks like this:

.


I would have trusted you and probably even added you to my trust list even after your little mishap after it had all blown over because I trusted your ratings and contributions which were valuable to the community, but I certainly wouldn't now with the way you have conducted yourself. Now I trust lauda's judgement and contributions over yours and he gained my respect whilst you lost it. It's a shame. None of this needed to have happened but you were destroyed by your own ego and I don't think you'll ever accept that sadly whilst lauda just dusted himself off and carried on as if nothing happened. Anyway, like I said before, I wish you the very best and hope one day you can just move on from this mess but I'm probably just going to ignore anything from you and your alts now because there's no point just feeding trolls and it's going to get us both nowhere. Peace.

[Lauda]

However, the difference here is one of the parties handled themselves like a man -  sorry, woman   - with dignity and accepted his - sorry, her - fate, the other lost his mind and turned into a disruptive childish troll on a vendetta with nothing to lose except his reputation, dignity and respect (which you have successfully achieved - congrats)...

"Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment". Live and learn, what else can one do..

[Quickseller]

 However, the difference here is one of the parties handled themselves like a man -  sorry, woman  - with dignity and accepted his - sorry, her - fate,

Um, I am not sure if you are being serious when you say this:

There was no extortion

No legal action was taken as there is no basis to do so.

1) Nothing illegal has happened.

[Quickseller]

QS has probably been badgering the people who have just excluded Lauda for quite some time until they acquiesced to his demands.

I would invite hilariousandco to present evidence of this. Or perhaps, those that have been badgered can come forward with quotes of these PMs.

If he is unable or unwilling to do this, then hilariousandco should admit he was wrong, and apologize.

If he is unwilling to do any of this, then I would question if he uses these same standards when making moderation decisions. Does hilariousandco need to see a rule being broken (or even evidence thereof) before taking a negative moderation action against someone? Or does he merely need that person to say something he does not like?

[Quickseller]

Still waiting for the above to be addressed.

I am not going to let this be ignored.