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

[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.

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.

Looking at his feedback I am not seeing good members being chased off...please give me some examples of his feedback towards good members that should be changed?

[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.

Looking at his feedback I am not seeing good members being chased off...please give me some examples of his feedback towards good members that should be changed?

I do agree with scammers and account selling (with proof) being tagged.But Blazed, just see the reputation topic. Everyday there is a new thread about Lauda's abuse. I am ok if there was just a few like it is with Vod and other DT members, but the most of people tagged can't even argue with Lauda. There are people trying to get rid of negative rate for years... Please, this has to end. Put some other people in your trust list. It's time to change.

Edit: Why are you ok with Extortion attempt from Lauda one year ago? Why should you trust her?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

hmm... Please don't act dumb.

I'm not sure there's any acting involved with his post.  It boggles my mind that anyone's position would be that Lauda is harassing newcomers on bitcointalk, or that I am for that matter.   Has OgNasty seen some of the members we've tagged?   If those are the types of users you want to protect by DT exclusions, your thinking is fucked. 

This has nothing to do with race, nationality, or anything of the sort, though I will admit that in my frustration I've called out 3rd world shitposters specifically,  and everything to do with making bitcointalk a hell for honest members.  Lauda should be on DT1, and it is unfortunate indeed that theymos has some of the members on it that he does. I am grateful for the merit system, but there need to be active members on DT tagging scammers and account sellers, at the very least.

[MrLitex]

I'll just put in 5 cents in this thread:
Lauda is one of those who really cleans this forum, putting negative trust in scammers, bounty abusers and others who want to fuck the community.

[Maum]

"Clean this forum" from what? From "3rd world monkeys"?

No, that is not the intended spirit of Satoshi, who founded this forum.

He certainly did not intent for 3rd world monkeys to shitpost left and right. They ruined this forum, and are the reason that almost all *Bitcoin experts* have stopped posting here (or are not posting as often as they used to).

[Quickseller]

I've just added Lauda to my trust network. Lets see how this do.

This is disappointing to say the least.

I have a very different opinion of how the trust system works than Lauda. Lauda has annoyed the hell out of me on a number of occasions about trust related settings,

Has lauda asked you to add him to your trust list?

That said, I do think they fill a valuable role on DT. My biggest problem with Lauda's trust ratings are their inclusion of merit related issues resulting in negative feedback, however, at least Lauda always leaves a good description of why they have received their negative feedback, people can ignore those if they are inclined the same way as me.

It is not possible to exclude only certain types of ratings when calculating a trust score. Further, lauda is involved with many shady dealings, such as attempting to extort someone, screwing up an escrow deal and forcing the people he was supposed to be protecting to cover the losses, clearly being dishonest about if he is denying a pill addiction, very clearly lying about past account buying activity, among many others.

I also reviewed Lauda's sent trust over the past month, and identified ratings against 9 members in which the comment on the rating indicates that it was given because they publicly criticized. This makes it clear to anyone who is scammed by lauda, including anyone who doesn't fully agree with the outcome of a trade that they cannot voice their criticisms. It also makes it clear to anyone that disagrees with any of lauda's ratings that they should not speak publicly about this, removing any serious pressure for lauda to respond to any threads about his ratings with anything other than cat memes. These ratings are below:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1091017
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=703078
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=150593
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355462
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1115662
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=843166
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1316028
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1717650
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1250969

In addition, I have every belief that once the merit system and whats acceptable about its use calms down, Lauda will abide by the community's decision on whats acceptable to leave negative feedback for.

Have you seen any examples of Lauda changing his behavior in reaction to feedback from the community? I have no examples of this, nor do I have examples of Lauda removing a single rating in response to community feedback.

I am curious to know if you have any examples of Lauda engaging in serious public discussion about any of his ratings, ever. I cannot think of any such examples.

I don't think its worth losing the most active feedback giver over that.

As OgNasty pointed out, Lauda doesn't seem to be stopping a lot of scams. He does leave a lot of feedback, although a lot of it is for very questionable reasons. As pointed out previously, lauda refuses to even discuss any of his ratings, and by your own admission (and as per a statement from theymos), many of lauda's ratings are not appropriate.

The rate at which lauda leaves negative ratings is much higher than (exponentially) what the entire Default Trust network has done in the past. How do you account for this? Were scams so prevalent previously that people were getting scammed left and right? Have scams gone down so much that virtually no one gets scammed anymore? Have we had a massive influx of people (this is likely somewhat true, however not sufficiently true to account for the higher volume of negative ratings)? I think the reason is most likely to be that many people are receiving negative ratings that should not be.

Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right.

I would suggest that you review this quote of Lauda before making that statement. Lauda made it very clear that he has no interest in even reviewing his sent ratings, let alone making them right when he messes up.

I think Lauda owes QS a small thank you. Were it not for the attention brought on by this thread, I doubt Salty would've added Lauda to his trust list. How ironic.

This is unlikely. Lauda likes to deal with people privately via PM (in which he is often dishonest, and makes significant misrepresentations). I think it is more likely that lauda was petitioning multiple people trusted directly by DefaultTrust to be added to their trust lists.

[Quickseller]

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

You lose pretty much all of your credibility when you start making things up that have no basis in truth.

I don't suppose you have any evidence and/or information to back this up, do you?

I'm all for people disputing any feedback received

If you are someone who supports the ability to dispute trust received, I would suggest you review this quote from Lauda.

I would also ask a similar question that I asked salty, do you have any examples of Lauda engaging in a serious public discussion about his sent ratings? I know that I do not have any such examples. I do have a lot of examples in which lauda has responded to disputes about his ratings with cat memes. I also have 9 examples of Lauda leaving negative trust, in which his comment indicates it was for being critical of him after only reviewing the past month of his sent ratings.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You lose pretty much all of your credibility when you start making things up that have no basis in truth.

I don't suppose you have any evidence and/or information to back this up, do you?

I would like to refer you to this thread.

Pot. Meet kettle.

[OgNasty]

What about Tomatocage's trust list? Don't you think it's odd that both Myself and Zepher pissed off both QS and Ognasty just yesterday, and now suddenly TC's trustlist has a copy/paste of Og's?.... Coincidence?

Could be fraud, could be coincidence or could just be a lazy moment when they agreed with what they saw.   Every now and then I just copy/paste someone's trust rating because I feel the same way but am too busy or tired to rewrite the exact same sentiment.  I've seen many members do this - both on DT and not.

So you're letting some idiot with literally no activity but 2 posts in  like a year control the trust list and you don't care? WTF, vod, whose side are you on now? QS's?

owlcatz, this is a great example of why I don't trust you.  It isn't about whose side someone is on, it's about what is best for Bitcoin.

Also, Tomatocage has earned far more respect than you on this forum.  You shouldn't call him an idiot. 

[FFrankie]

I thought they lauda preferred non gender specific pronouns

[TMAN]

owlcatz, this is a great example of why I don't trust you.  It isn't about whose side someone is on, it's about what is best for Bitcoin.

Also, Tomatocage has earned far more respect than you on this forum.  You shouldn't call him an idiot. 

Go to sleep now princess - your dastardly evil plan has failed... you and QS should find some other hobbies.. how about making nastyfans a profitable venture for starters.. raising funds in BTC then quoting everything in USD doesn't really make you a great authority on Bitcoin. Oh and don't get me started on your bad business practices of going all in on BFL that caused people who trusted you to lose out on hundreds of BTC.. I don't know how you sleep at night princess

[Quickseller]

You lose pretty much all of your credibility when you start making things up that have no basis in truth.

I don't suppose you have any evidence and/or information to back this up, do you?

I would like to refer you to this thread.

Pot. Meet kettle.

I do have evidence for what is being said in that thread. It is just not being publicly published. That thread has exposed another example of the dishonesty of lauda though.

[aTriz]

You lose pretty much all of your credibility when you start making things up that have no basis in truth.

I don't suppose you have any evidence and/or information to back this up, do you?

I would like to refer you to this thread.

Pot. Meet kettle.

I do have evidence for what is being said in that thread. It is just not being publicly published. That thread has exposed another example of the dishonesty of lauda though.

When someone has proof and doesn't show it, how are we supposed to believe something 🤔. Especially from a good ol trusty escrow scammer as yourself.

Be honest. You don't give a shit about anyone's safety when you have a change to bust lauda. If you had proof of ANY kind, it would already be out.

Don't try and bullshit everyone with your good guy act and not trying to expose your 'source'. It's quite obvious a very small part of the forum would be willing to deal with you, let alone help you expose someone.

GTFO back to your basement and stay there.

[Joel_Jantsen]

So you're letting some idiot with literally no activity but 2 posts in  like a year control the trust list and you don't care? WTF, vod, whose side are you on now? QS's?

Was this dude really on the DT ? You're talking about sides,is that how you took decisions while leaving negative ratings for someone ? Damn,I wonder what criteria DT-1 considers before adding such people on their list.

Awesome move, what about the other guys that QS/OG/TC excluded? not myself, I personally would not want to be DT but some of the other guys did not deserve exclusions.

I don't understand why Blazed added them on the DT list in the first place.Can't blazed rather encourage them to do productive things for the forum such as Finding Alt accounts,reporting spammers and or contributing in the 100 other constructive ways instead of taking the short-cut that is leaving a negative feedback.

Yes I agree Lauda deserves to be there but not anyone else, I don't see anyone going an extra mile to do something good for the forum apart from leaving a negative feedback (which doesn't really help)

[o_e_l_e_o]

You lose pretty much all of your credibility when you start making things up that have no basis in truth.

I don't suppose you have any evidence and/or information to back this up, do you?

I would like to refer you to this thread.

Pot. Meet kettle.

I do have evidence for what is being said in that thread. It is just not being publicly published. That thread has exposed another example of the dishonesty of lauda though.

You either have to present the evidence or accept that by your own standards you have zero credibility.

[Lauda]

"Clean this forum" from what? From "3rd world monkeys"?

No, that is not the intended spirit of Satoshi, who founded this forum.

He certainly did not intent for 3rd world monkeys to shitpost left and right. They ruined this forum, and are the reason that almost all *Bitcoin experts* have stopped posting here (or are not posting as often as they used to).

Yes, but that is not the role of the system/position that is being discussed.

Has lauda asked you to add him to your trust list?

I have not. We just fundamentally disagree on what the trust system is/should be at certain points, which is fine.

Further, lauda is involved with many shady dealings, such as attempting to extort someone,

Yeah, no. All the affected parties have long moved on, along with everyone else. Why don't you dig up the past of the people you are colluding with? Doesn't fit the agenda, does it?

screwing up an escrow deal and forcing the people he was supposed to be protecting to cover the losses,

Lie. Everyone who claimed their money was refunded.

clearly being dishonest about if he is denying a pill addiction,

No.

very clearly lying about past account buying activity, among many others.

Nope.

I also reviewed Lauda's sent trust over the past month, and identified ratings against 9 members in which the comment on the rating indicates that it was given because they publicly criticized. This makes it clear to anyone who is scammed by lauda, including anyone who doesn't fully agree with the outcome of a trade that they cannot voice their criticisms. It also makes it clear to anyone that disagrees with any of lauda's ratings that they should not speak publicly about this, removing any serious pressure for lauda to respond to any threads about his ratings with anything other than cat memes.
-snip-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1717650

All of those accounts deserved their negative trust. Creating a new account to spread the lie that I'm a pedophile is not criticism.

Have you seen any examples of Lauda changing his behavior in reaction to feedback from the community? I have no examples of this, nor do I have examples of Lauda removing a single rating in response to community feedback.

Easily debunked. Here's one user that got their rating removed just a few days ago.

As OgNasty pointed out, Lauda doesn't seem to be stopping a lot of scams. He does leave a lot of feedback, although a lot of it is for very questionable reasons. As pointed out previously, lauda refuses to even discuss any of his ratings, and by your own admission (and as per a statement from theymos), many of lauda's ratings are not appropriate.

OgNasty is inherently biased, has provided no data whatsoever and is therefore wrong. If theymos felt so strongly about the case, he would have either contacted me about the ratings or [1]excluded me already.

Lauda made it very clear that he has no interest in even reviewing his sent ratings, let alone making them right when he messes up.

Again, a lie. See above.

I think it is more likely that lauda was petitioning multiple people trusted directly by DefaultTrust to be added to their trust lists.

Yeah, no. I have contacted no DT1 member even though the disgusting collusion was very obvious.
I couldn't address more posts in here at once, as I had to address the cheap smear tactics used by Quickseller.
I do expect that SS is going to receive a flurry of raging PMs by Quickseller and their alts now.

[Altered Bitcoin]

Being new here, I have just finished my first extra-large bucket of popcorn and now I am left scratching my head as to whether Lauda is unemployed, has a severe pill addiction and is in dire financial straits, because he has neither denied nor confirmed these rumours. One might wonder - is Lauda's lifeline dependent on Bitcointalk and, most importantly, theymos' pity? Is he fit to practice his duties being on the Default Trust again, or his questionable mental faculties will cloud his fickle judgment till he is booted from the Big Boys' list once more? The stakes are high, the suspense is astonishingly palpable. People's incomes are on the line. I am reaching for another extra-large bucket of popcorn. Obviously, I don't need to add any salt at all given the saltiness in this wonderful thread. My finger is ready to press the Refresh button, my imagination running wild with what could be hiding just around the corner on the next page of 'Conversation Street' à la Bitcointalk Edition. I pull out my unabridged Oxford Dictionary of English from the nightstand, ready to find the most obscure words that ever existed in order to defend myself against the full-blown and dreadful assault of the slobbery,neckbeard-wearing, fedora hat-tipping, micro-penis-endowed human waste that frequents the Meta and Reputation forums. I dust off the huge book and run my finger affectionately over the content of its immense power. I don my crusader armor and prepare for the battle that will shape the history of the Bitcointalk forum.

[Gozie51]

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.

"he leaves negative trust for arbitrary reasons."

Even where it is obvious that you could be honest in your plea. Lauda never looks back in decision taken , never listens to convincing arguments, closes channel for appeal and will never revisit decision on his own. That has not been fair to certain cases of red neg by 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.

You are not in that shoe bro. Some of the red neg by lauda are not deserving. They are irrational acts especially where the mistake is pardonable and where the origin of the mistake is not from the accused or honestly ignorant of it. All ya should check this out and make your judgement if I shouldn't let go of the red neg by lauda after three months and counting.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2376140.msg24275694#msg24275694

I PM Str1x account after 80 days ,response after some time because I understand he is busy - PM lauda.

I PM hilariousandco , no response.

PM lauda after three months plus for the first time after the open thread appeal, no response.

I mean, I'm I on a permanent ban?

What is then the place of retribution and pardon?

[minifrij]

Was this dude really on the DT ?

No, owlcatz was never on DT. I don't understand why people think they were.

Can't blazed rather encourage them to do productive things for the forum such as Finding Alt accounts,reporting spammers and or contributing in the 100 other constructive ways instead of taking the short-cut that is leaving a negative feedback.

Such as...

owlcatz, this is a great example of why I don't trust you.  It isn't about whose side someone is on, it's about what is best for Bitcoin.

Bitcointalk isn't Bitcoin. If Bitcointalk imploded, I can't imagine it would make most of a difference.
The majority of activity here is in the alts section anyway.

I do have evidence for what is being said in that thread. It is just not being publicly published.

And therefore, until you post it, your evidence is invalid (not to mention that is likely the case regardless). That whole thread reminds me of the Craig Wright scenario.

[Lauda]

Being new here, I have just finished my first extra-large bucket of popcorn and now I am left scratching my head as to whether Lauda is unemployed, has a severe pill addiction and is in dire financial straits, because he has neither denied nor confirmed these rumours.

If you are looking for someone in dire financial straits, you should take a look at OP who was scamming for pennies per escrow deal or the other one living in a shack.

Is he fit to practice his duties being on the Default Trust again, or his questionable mental faculties will cloud his fickle judgment till he is booted from the Big Boys' list once more?

My mental faculties are very fine, and far beyond those of the colluders. Thank you for asking.

Lauda never looks back in decision taken , never listens to convincing arguments, closes channel for appeal and will never revisit decision on his own. That has not been fair to certain cases of red neg by Lauda.

Wrong[1]. You are only stating these due to inherent bias from your own negative rating.
[1] I literally posted an example of a very old negative that I pulled a few days ago. Naturally, you didn't read this / chose to ignore it and spread lies.