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

[Vod]

Can I receive one more point of clarification, since the topic seems timely... ?  Since SaltySpitoon just added Lauda to his trust network, does that mean that Lauda is back on DT2?   In other words, how many DT1 trust lists does Lauda have to be on in order to qualify for DT2?  just one?

While I have never claimed to be knowledgeable about DT this and that (cause I don't care), my trust rating has gone back up the ten points it dropped when she was excluded... so I would say YES she is back on DT2.   One other DT1 member's exclusion will be needed to remove her ( I think).

I checked, and yes, Lauda is back on DT2. I don't know shit about how many exclusions etc though.

Ouch!  Poor QS and this entire thread...

[1714106091]

1714106091

[1714106091]

1714106091

[1714106091]

1714106091

[1714106091]

1714106091

[1714106091]

1714106091

[Avirunes]

Ouch!  Poor QS and this entire thread...

Will this thread ever be locked or we are going to have a continuation to drama here again? 

[Vod]

Ouch!  Poor QS and this entire thread...

Will this thread ever be locked or we are going to have a continuation to drama here again? 

Quickseller started it, so it will not be locked until he gets his way... so... No.

[owlcatz]

Ouch!  Poor QS and this entire thread...

Will this thread ever be locked or we are going to have a continuation to drama here again? 

Quickseller started it, so it will not be locked until he gets his way... so... No.

Hahahaha... it's good to see at least some justice. I guess I will live with 2 negs from DT1, but fuck it. Most people know they are just Bullshit.

Congrats to Ognasty and Quickscammer for trying to take complete a forum trust takeover and basically failing, I don't care. I will keep haunting you both though... just for fun because you are fucking douchecanoes of the highest order, forum-wise.

[bill gator]

I checked, and yes, Lauda is back on DT2. I don't know shit about how many exclusions etc though.

If I'm not mistaken Lauda has been bouncing between on and off DT all-day.
 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

I think once their number is <0 (one more exception, as of right now) their ratings will not be actively counted as DT ratings.

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

The exceptions/additions can be found here, where users with strike-through text have been excluded from that particular user's trust settings and where their name is present are the additions.

I think as of right now HostFat, OGNasty and Tomatocage are excluding Lauda from DT; While SaltySpitoon, Blazed and hilariousandco have added Lauda to their trust settings

Pretty sure a user's number is just +1 for an addition and -1 for an exclusion.

I guess I will live with 2 negs from DT1

You only have 1-negative DT rating counting against you currently; each negative rating will only count towards your total if it is unique. It is determined by the amount of unique users have given you negatives, so your 2nd negative from OG does no harm if I'm not mistaken.

[EcuaMobi]

Can I receive one more point of clarification, since the topic seems timely... ?  Since SaltySpitoon just added Lauda to his trust network, does that mean that Lauda is back on DT2?   In other words, how many DT1 trust lists does Lauda have to be on in order to qualify for DT2?  just one?

While I have never claimed to be knowledgeable about DT this and that (cause I don't care), my trust rating has gone back up the ten points it dropped when she was excluded... so I would say YES she is back on DT2.   One other DT1 member's exclusion will be needed to remove her ( I think).

I checked, and yes, Lauda is back on DT2. I don't know shit about how many exclusions etc though.

Just to confirm: any user is on DT2 if included by at least one DT1 and if DT1 inclusions >= DT1 exclusions. So a total of 0 is enough (that's why I'm on DT2 even though excluded by OgNasty).
Now Lauda is included by SaltySpitoon, Blazed and hilariousandco; and excluded by HostFat, OgNasty and Tomatocage. The total is 0 and therefore she's on DT2. One single more exclusion from DT1 would remove her from DT2.


Edit:

You only have 1-negative DT rating counting against you currently; each negative rating will only count towards your total if it is unique. It is determined by the amount of unique users have given you negatives, so your 2nd negative from OG does no harm if I'm not mistaken.

Right. Except positive feedback left after the last negative one has much more value than positive feedback left before it. Adding a new negative feedback (arguably for the same "fight") is almost equivalent to removing the positive feedback left after the previous negative (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1066857.0).

[Blazed]

Can I receive one more point of clarification, since the topic seems timely... ?  Since SaltySpitoon just added Lauda to his trust network, does that mean that Lauda is back on DT2?   In other words, how many DT1 trust lists does Lauda have to be on in order to qualify for DT2?  just one?

While I have never claimed to be knowledgeable about DT this and that (cause I don't care), my trust rating has gone back up the ten points it dropped when she was excluded... so I would say YES she is back on DT2.   One other DT1 member's exclusion will be needed to remove her ( I think).

I checked, and yes, Lauda is back on DT2. I don't know shit about how many exclusions etc though.

Just to confirm: any user is on DT2 if included by at least one DT1 and if DT1 inclusions >= DT1 exclusions. So a total of 0 is enough (that's why I'm on DT2 even though excluded by OgNasty).
Now Lauda is included by SaltySpitoon, Blazed and hilariousandco; and excluded by HostFat, OgNasty and Tomatocage. The total is 0 and therefore she's on DT2. One single more exclusion from DT1 would remove her from DT2.

Looking like cats do have 9 lives after all. I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

[bill gator]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

[Blazed]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.

[bill gator]

The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just saying your criteria may have been carelessly worded. I know Lauda presents a clear benefit to the community, but I also can see why people are concerned for them to remain in a position of responsibility. They give people multiple chances and operate fairly from what I can tell; some are offended by their callousness, but this is not something I am concerned about.

I don't have enough information about Lauda specifically to have a stance, but I was simply saying that your criteria was weak and unsatisfying, in the manner it was presented/explained.

[FirEaSeA]

Some may be against but I really believe that Lauda became abusive and  unfair.

[OgNasty]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.

No, more members of DT1 disagree with you than agree.  I also don't think he's ever stopped a scam.  He tried to pull an extortion scam, sure, that's documented.  What scam has he ever stopped?  When a majority of the forum is showing red trust, all it does is water down what that means.  Nobody is trusting newbies with crap posts on trades without escrow and signature campaign managers can do their own research if they have a shred of competence.  What Lauda is doing is bad for Bitcoin adoption, bad for bitcointalk, and bad for anyone trying to engage in peaceful discussion with likeminded individuals using this forum.  

Please, tell me what scam you avoided as a result of Lauda's trust ratings which you praise so highly.

[Erelas]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

Ahh, the wisdom that is Chapelle!

I'm neutral on trust, but I feel that it is a flawed system, if for no other reason in that humans are involved and none of us walk on water.  I lurked around this forum for a long time, off and on probably for years, like a lot of others, and then when I got involved in my very first signature campaign here (I had retired and had the time) the very first issue I had was Lauda and I going back and forth over them neg-trusting the campaigns manager.  There has been very little consideration given to those few people who have been slandered.  It seemed to me, that over time the DT system had become a means of a few dictating who and what the users of BTCTalk should see, ostensibly "for their own good".

The trust system has been a very centralized mess in a community that generally touts the buzzword of "decentralized".  Awarding anyone negative trust without first having been in an actual interchange with them, those neg ratings with "I feel" in them, for instance, should be automatically removed and, probably in a perfect world, anyone that uses "I feel" as an evidenciary basis for pruning accounts they don't like seeing in the forum should be removed from Default Trust.

[OgNasty]

I lurked around this forum for a long time, off and on probably for years, like a lot of others, and then when I got involved in my very first signature campaign here (I had retired and had the time) the very first issue I had was Lauda and I going back and forth over them neg-trusting the campaigns manager.  There has been very little consideration given to those few people who have been slandered.  It seemed to me, that over time the DT system had become a means of a few dictating who and what the users of BTCTalk should see, ostensibly "for their own good".

I've heard your same, "the very first issue I had was Lauda" so many times from so many different users...  Bitcointalk deserves a better welcome for new members.

[Lipe490]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.

Thanks for leaving Lauda in your trust list. You are the reason why the forum is chasing away good members. Good to know that moderators and DT members accept extortionist in their trust list.

[DarkStar_]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.

Thanks for leaving Lauda in your trust list. You are the reason why the forum is chasing away good members. Good to know that moderators and DT members accept extortionist in their trust list.

Good members help spam announcement threads so that they are bumped up? 

[Lipe490]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.

Thanks for leaving Lauda in your trust list. You are the reason why the forum is chasing away good members. Good to know that moderators and DT members accept extortionist in their trust list.

Good members help spam announcement threads so that they are bumped up? 

Of course not! Who did that? You?

[aTriz]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.

Thanks for leaving Lauda in your trust list. You are the reason why the forum is chasing away good members. Good to know that moderators and DT members accept extortionist in their trust list.

Good members help spam announcement threads so that they are bumped up? 

Of course not! Who did that? You?

"Offering "ICO bumping" services, also known as paid shill bumping. This is a highly shady offer which helps generate fake buzz for various projects."

hmm... Please don't act dumb.

[Blazed]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.

No, more members of DT1 disagree with you than agree.  I also don't think he's ever stopped a scam.  He tried to pull an extortion scam, sure, that's documented.  What scam has he ever stopped?  When a majority of the forum is showing red trust, all it does is water down what that means.  Nobody is trusting newbies with crap posts on trades without escrow and signature campaign managers can do their own research if they have a shred of competence.  What Lauda is doing is bad for Bitcoin adoption, bad for bitcointalk, and bad for anyone trying to engage in peaceful discussion with likeminded individuals using this forum.  

Please, tell me what scam you avoided as a result of Lauda's trust ratings which you praise so highly.

From what I can tell it is an even split with 3 being for him (myself, hilarious, and salty) and 3 being against (you, HostFat, and TC). I have looked through his ratings multiple times and agree with most of his feedbacks regarding account sales, scams, shit posting, account farming, alt accounts, people who have defaulted on loans, etc... It is impossible to say what he has prevented because with his feedback those people are not trusted to pull there crap again. We need these types of users stopped and he is willing to spend the time to go after them. I have watched this forum go downhill for years due to the above crap with no other fixes in sight... Do you prefer people to farm, spam, scam, etc... with hardly any repercussions? If you have a better method for helping to clean things up by all means tell me.

[Lipe490]

I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.

I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.

There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.

You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.

This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"  

The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.

Thanks for leaving Lauda in your trust list. You are the reason why the forum is chasing away good members. Good to know that moderators and DT members accept extortionist in their trust list.

Good members help spam announcement threads so that they are bumped up?  

Of course not! Who did that? You?

"Offering "ICO bumping" services, also known as paid shill bumping. This is a highly shady offer which helps generate fake buzz for various projects."

hmm... Please don't act dumb.

Ahhh you are talking about me? I didn't know. Thanks captain obvious. No I don't do this services. But the God Lauda said I do. I almost forgot that there is no reasonable conversation with you guys.

Edit1: FYI I tried to expose a Bump Service but I was ignored. Here it is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2864567.0