overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act

[Quickseller]

Now that lauda has been excluded from the Default Trust network due to three people trusted directly by DefaultTrust have excluded Lauda from their trust lists, I am calling on Blazed and hilariousandco to also remove Lauda from their trust lists.

Lauda is not someone who should be trusted by the community, between the trolling those who dispute his ratings, the extortion, the apparent pill addiction (that he has not denied) and other shady dealings, he is not someone who should have any kind of authority.

Some have argued that despite his overall very shadiness, Lauda is a net benefit to the community (which is a flawed reasoning), however many very reputable people in the community clearly disagree.

I would argue that if either Blazed or hilariousandco does not remove Lauda from their trust list in light of the above, they should be removed from being trusted directly by DefaultTrust.

edit:

Why don’t you give one example of a public serious conversation about one of your trust ratings from the past month?

There wasn't a single serious complaint, thus a serious conversation couldn't have occurred.

I think this statement proves my point pretty well.

I would like to hear both blazed and hilariousandco say they condone this kind of attitude and behavior because that is what they are doing by keeping lauda on their trust lists.

Do blazed and hilariousandco agree with the above attitude?

edit2: as of the last trust dump, nearly 100 people have excluded lauda from their trust lists. It is clearly the will of the community for laudas ratings to not show up by default. Will blazed, hilariousandco and salty follow the will of the community?

edit3: it appears as if at least 6 purchased accounts have added to lauda to their trust list, all owned by the same person.

[pugman]

Oh come on..
You have got to be kidding me. First,The Pharmacist and now Lauda?
Who's next?
Also who is the third member after OgNasty and Tomatocage?Theymos?
But seriously why remove the most active DT member who is always on the verge to tag untrustworthy members from DT? Am I the only who finds it really fishy? Yeah Lauda might have done some *shady* things in the past but helping the community has beat all those things in the past?

[Lauda]

Let's see.. number of valid exclusions: N/A. Tomatocage just copied (most of) OgNasty's exclusions:

TMAN
Lauda
aTriz
minifrij
owlcatz
Zepher
The Pharmacist

Long live the scammers paradise now, I guess.

[Quickseller]

Also who is the third member after OgNasty and Tomatocage?Theymos?

HostFat

But seriously why remove the most active DT member who is always on the verge to tag untrustworthy members from DT?

He is very shady, is not transparent in his ratings, ignores requests to appeal negative ratings, has questionable judgement....the list goes on.

He also does not leave negative trust against untrustworthy people (although some may be untrustworthy), he leaves negative trust for arbitrary reasons.

[Lauda]

HostFat

HostFat excluded me because of my statements, and later ratings on bcash scammers (ratings which theymos said were valid to leave). [1]

He is very shady, is not transparent in his ratings, ignores requests to appeal negative ratings, has questionable judgement....the list goes on.

He also does not leave negative trust against untrustworthy people (although some may be untrustworthy), he leaves negative trust for arbitrary reasons.

All of those are petty lies. Grow up already.
[1] A rather nice example of the inherent flaws of the current DT1 setup. If I were to remove those ratings, it is not unlikely that my exclusion would be lifted (as it was on-and-off in the past). No thanks though.

[pugman]

HostFat

How do you see who has excluded who in their trust lists? I am a noob in this.

He is very shady, is not transparent in his ratings, ignores requests to appeal negative ratings, has questionable judgement....the list goes on.

From what I have seen:
1) He ignores only those users who constantly message and bug him for *removing* the negative trusts they deserve. Yes,there are exceptions to anything and everything(my own theory ) but most of them do deserve it.
2) Transparent in his rating? He clearly justifies why he has given a rating if there are no references.
3) Every body's judgement at one point or the other becomes questionable,but the community can help that judgement to be effective much.
4)

He also does not leave negative trust against untrustworthy people (although some may be untrustworthy), he leaves negative trust for arbitrary reasons.

I am not sure if I am going to agree on this,I am no expert in knowing everything,so I won't arrive on biased conclusions. But from what I have seen ,none of them seem to be true. And do explain which arbitrary reasons has Lauda left the feedback for.

[aTriz_alt]

Let's see.. number of valid exclusions: N/A. Tomatocage just copied (most of) OgNasty's exclusions:

TMAN
Lauda
aTriz
minifrij
owlcatz
Zepher
The Pharmacist

Long live the scammers paradise now, I guess.

The fact owlcatz (who is a person who stays out of drama) shows how bs these actions are.

Also who is the third member after OgNasty and Tomatocage?Theymos?

HostFat

But seriously why remove the most active DT member who is always on the verge to tag untrustworthy members from DT?

He is very shady, is not transparent in his ratings, ignores requests to appeal negative ratings, has questionable judgement....the list goes on.

He also does not leave negative trust against untrustworthy people (although some may be untrustworthy), he leaves negative trust for arbitrary reasons.

stfu virgin

[actmyname]

How do you see who has excluded who in their trust lists? I am in noob in this.

Jump into hierarchal view in your trust settings and you can check exclusions by DT{0, 1, ..., n-1} members (where n = depth).Hm... Should I now take a look at the valid negative ratings in order to prevent scammers from resurfacing now?

[Lauda]

Hm... Should I now take a look at the valid negative ratings in order to prevent scammers from resurfacing now?

With over (I believe) 1500 ratings left, good luck with that. You'd be playing whack-a-mole unless you tag almost all of them.

[actmyname]

With over (I believe) 1500 ratings left, good luck with that. You'd be playing whack-a-mole unless you tag almost all of them.

Assuming it takes 4 minutes per rating to investigate the validity of the reference and tag, that's 100 hours of work. On just the ratings. :/It's a huge timesink even with some rating overflow from other DT users.

[pugman]

How do you see who has excluded who in their trust lists? I am in noob in this.

Jump into hierarchal view in your trust settings and you can check exclusions by DT{0, 1, ..., n-1} members (where n = depth).

Hmm.. It should take a few hours(excluding the time spent offline) but thanks.

With over (I believe) 1500 ratings left, good luck with that. You'd be playing whack-a-mole unless you tag almost all of them.

Assuming it takes 4 minutes per rating to investigate the validity of the reference and tag, that's 100 hours of work. On just the ratings. :/It's a huge timesink even with some rating overflow from other DT users.

Or you could delegate or ask some other DT member like say ibminer to split the task. 

[Lauda]

With over (I believe) 1500 ratings left, good luck with that. You'd be playing whack-a-mole unless you tag almost all of them.

Assuming it takes 4 minutes per rating to investigate the validity of the reference and tag, that's 100 hours of work. On just the ratings. :/It's a huge timesink even with some rating overflow from other DT users.

Indeed it is. Though it is easier for you to reproduce (time wise) than it was for me to initially get to some rating (e.g. reading the whole thread if exists, writing the ratings and whatnot). However, before you spend your time on this you better make sure that you don't get suddenly excluded yourself for no-valid-reason-whatsoever, else your efforts are going to be wasted.
I wouldn't even recommend that you go through that list unless theymos makes changes to DT1, which is not likely either.

[Parodium]

One of the issues with negging so many people is that it forces them to create a new account, with the knowledge of what to avoid doing in future to avoid another neg.

What if negs by DT members were not visible to the user themselves, but only to other logged in members? Obviously there are some flaws to this idea, but I believe it could slow down the rate at which accounts are created and ditched.

[actmyname]

One of the issues with negging so many people is that it forces them to create a new account, with the knowledge of what to avoid doing in future to avoid another neg.

What if negs by DT members were not visible to the user themselves, but only to other logged in members? Obviously there are some flaws to this idea, but I believe it could slow down the rate at which accounts are created and ditched.

They usually notice when they're kicked out of their signature campaigns or are told by other users that they wish to trade with, "you have red trust".

Doesn't do much. And also, isn't making people avoid getting tagged a good thing? They'll stop scamming. They will avoid ponzi schemes. Etc.The only problem is discreet account selling... which you can't avoid regardless.

I see no benefit in making red trust unnoticeable to the user that is tagged. It would use some extra server resources and overall have little to no point.

[Cobalt9317]

All I see is a long list of username couldn't decipher how that works.

Could someone explain it to me like I'm little child so I could comprehend what's going on here

[FFrankie]

Well if all the people that leave tons of negatives are now no longer DT, who is going to make people red

[minifrij]

How beneficial to the forum. Whatever.

Let's see.. number of valid exclusions: N/A. Tomatocage just copied (most of) OgNasty's exclusions:

I think it's quite funny that TC previously left me a positive rating for a deal that never happened, but now I'm less active than ever I'm suddenly not to be trusted.

I would argue that if either Blazed or hilariousandco does not remove Lauda from their trust list in light of the above, they should be removed from being trusted directly by DefaultTrust.

You're wrong. Whether you disagree with it or not, the system is working as intended. No one should be punished for using it as such.

[cheater detector]

Oh damn, who will negged all scammers/cheaters then?

I have revealed 88 cheater accounts on here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.0

Now these account (which already got negged by Lauda) back to neutral trust again after s/he got removed from DT2 and these cheater will start to cheat again.

[Husires]

Oh come on..
You have got to be kidding me. First,The Pharmacist and now Lauda?
Who's next?

actmyname (After a step) and ibminer "anyone tagging scammers"

All I see is a long list of username couldn't decipher how that works.

Could someone explain it to me like I'm little child so I could comprehend what's going on here

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

I wouldn't even recommend that you go through that list unless theymos makes changes to DT1, which is not likely either.

That's what will happen

[Lauda]

Now these account (which already got negged by Lauda) back to neutral trust again after s/he got removed from DT2 and these cheater will start to cheat again.

That's what OP wants. He is/was the mastermind of farming and account sales after all.

actmyname (After a step) and ibminer "anyone tagging scammers"

This:

However, before you spend your time on this you better make sure that you don't get suddenly excluded yourself for no-valid-reason-whatsoever, else your efforts are going to be wasted.
I wouldn't even recommend that you go through that list unless theymos makes changes to DT1, which is not likely either.

Given the collusion, it is not unlikely that actmyname is going to receive 1 more exclusion. ibminer is *safer*.