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

[Zepher]

Well, I understand. But why did you get excluded from DT list?

I got excluded from Tomatocage's trust list within hours of posting this. Read my post history for more info.
I have been excluded from Og's trust list for months.
The exclusion from Tomatocage (QuickScammer) is what booted me from DT.

What a clusterfuck. I'll review your ratings over the weekend and if I'm still in DT by then - I'll try to repost as many as I can.

Thanks. Appreciate it.

[OgNasty]

I realize that not everyone has rights to see everything that happens on this forum, so they might not understand why Lauda forming a crew to spread negative trust to users is the direct opposite of the forum's wishes.  I was once like Lauda and thought we should be proactively fighting against scammers instead of positively lifting up those that don't scam.  Lauda, welcome to 2015.  Nice to see you're only 2-3 years behind me in trying to better this place, only I accepted the forum's stance, and you've unleashed a sea of tears like an entitled child.  This is the response I received from a Global Moderator when I tried to recommend we engage in exactly what Lauda is now doing.  This is pretty black/white, right?

Q: Why haven't you banned <insert scammer username here> who is an obvious scammer?
A: Possible (or real, not for me to decide) scams are not moderated to prevent moderator abuse. If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.

If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.

picking out which ones we call "scammers"

picking out

[tmfp]

Presumably they were trustworthy and valued at some point in time, before the wind changed?

OP is an account trader and farmer. Ergo, why he started this thread and all threads ever about me (or similar). From his perspective, it is in his best interest that all those ratings get nullified.

Yeah I get that, my post was to do with the general principle, prompted by Zepher

After considering things, I honestly couldn't care less about being excluded from DT. I no longer wish to be part of this flawed system, a system that worked for a long time, but is  now infiltrated by scammers and people who use it to benefit their own personal agendas.

The only thing that truly pisses me off is the fact that all of my ratings are now defunct. I may not have been completely active recently, but the users who know me understand I have had my reasons for that. I would say that the majority of all the ratings I have ever left are completely valid. The trustworthy users I have given positive trust to, for often very large deals, means nothing now.
All the untrustworthy users I have tagged over the years, to warn other users to avoid that person - means nothing now.

It ALL means nothing. Congrats.

What a clusterfuck. I'll review your ratings over the weekend and if I'm still in DT by then - I'll try to repost as many as I can.

[Lauda]

Yeah I get that, my post was to do with the general principle, prompted by Zepher

Zepher left TMAN positive trust for valid, rather large, deals. TMAN has a dispute with OgNasty. You connect the dots.
No-abuse-at-all. /s
It's just how the system always has worked, but it has never been abused (I think) at this scale. If you get kicked, all your ratings are no longer visible by default (thus nullified in a way).

[OgNasty]

Yeah I get that, my post was to do with the general principle, prompted by Zepher

Zepher left TMAN positive trust for valid, rather large, deals. TMAN has a dispute with OgNasty. You connect the dots.
No-abuse-at-all. /s
It's just how the system always has worked, but it was never abused (I think) at this scale. If you get kicked, all your ratings are no longer visible by default (thus nullified in a way).

Zepher has spread lies and made so many false statements about me, not even he would agree with your line of thinking here.  Obviously Zepher knows I don't trust him, and it has absolutely nothing to do with TMAN whatsoever.  TMAN is insignificant.  I've been ignoring him for quite a while now as he desperately seeks my attention.

You can continue to keep spreading lies to try and damage my reputation, but it doesn't have the effect you think it will.  You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

[Lauda]

You can continue to keep spreading lies to try and damage my reputation, but it doesn't have the effect you think it will.  You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.". You are the one who has been doing what you accuse me of ever since your ill-attempted dispute with Lutpin. There's a reason for which people leave you[1].
[1] ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[pugman]

I realize that not everyone has rights to see everything that happens on this forum, so they might not understand why Lauda forming a crew to spread negative trust to users is the direct opposite of the forum's wishes.  I was once like Lauda and thought we should be proactively fighting against scammers instead of positively lifting up those that don't scam.  Lauda, welcome to 2015.  Nice to see you're only 2-3 years behind me in trying to better this place, only I accepted the forum's stance, and you've unleashed a sea of tears like an entitled child.  This is the response I received from a Global Moderator when I tried to recommend we engage in exactly what Lauda is now doing.  This is pretty black/white, right?

Q: Why haven't you banned <insert scammer username here> who is an obvious scammer?
A: Possible (or real, not for me to decide) scams are not moderated to prevent moderator abuse. If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.

If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.

picking out which ones we call "scammers"

picking out

So what you're saying is that no one should go against scammers as it's of no use? Also the response from the global mod is that even if the whole community knows that <insert the you know who scammer name here > is an obvious scammer who'll keep doing the same thing over and over again (ie scamming innocent users) , the opinion is biased?  Then why in the fuck's world does this trust system exist.What in the Frick's world has this forum turned into. This is a place to discuss about bitcoin and look how successfully people(including me) are discussing about bitcoin. I think shitposters are *discussing* more about bitcoin than people posting in this thread. Can atleast a global mod /staff member lock this thread? This has gone way too far and nothing is properly discussed here rather than arguments for nothing but shit.

[Lipe490]

I don't see any complaints for others DT members including Ognasty around this forum like I see for Lauda. I have to say, I always got pretty scared to post in Meta, Reputation and Scam threads because of Lauda's abuses. Many of the members are afraid to post a new accusation because they have the fear to get the account ruined like this guy https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282.msg29413703#msg29413703

You said you can give merit anytime for anyone you wish, but you tagged hoop for the same reason. Blazed wanted a proof of abuse, here it is.

[tmfp]

I realize that not everyone has rights to see everything that happens on this forum, so they might not understand why Lauda forming a crew to spread negative trust to users is the direct opposite of the forum's wishes.  I was once like Lauda and thought we should be proactively fighting against scammers instead of positively lifting up those that don't scam.  Lauda, welcome to 2015.  Nice to see you're only 2-3 years behind me in trying to better this place, only I accepted the forum's stance, and you've unleashed a sea of tears like an entitled child.  This is the response I received from a Global Moderator when I tried to recommend we engage in exactly what Lauda is now doing.  This is pretty black/white, right?

Q: Why haven't you banned <insert scammer username here> who is an obvious scammer?
A: Possible (or real, not for me to decide) scams are not moderated to prevent moderator abuse. If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.

If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.

picking out which ones we call "scammers"

picking out

You've posted that somewhere else too, and I thought it missed the point when I first read it, even if it's not a deliberate strawman.
No-one's asking the System, via moderators, to ban suspected scammers for the reasons applicable above.
But that's a Country Mile from the System discouraging/censoring the leaving of trust ratings by individual forum members, even if it's not 100% spot on.
I "pick out" and leave negatives for suspected scammers in the hope that it might stop some newbie getting scammed, but because few of them probably understand things like Depth settings, then I doubt it ever gets read, but I still leave it. Is this not what we are supposed to do?

[Lauda]

I don't see any complaints for others DT members including Ognasty around this forum like I see for Lauda.

If you are friends with account farmers (see OP) and don't tag them, they won't complain about it.

I have to say, I always got pretty scared to post in Meta, Reputation and Scam threads because of Lauda's abuses.

More butthurt smear attempts. Yawn.

Many of the members are afraid to post a new accusation because they have the fear to get the account ruined like this guy https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282.msg29413703#msg29413703

The lying troll got an acceptable rating. It is very much acceptable to tag someone with a chronic history of lying, especially new accounts (see statement on Bcash liars).

You said you can give merit anytime for anyone you wish, but you tagged hoop for the same reason. Blazed wanted a proof of abuse, here it is.

I am Lauda and hoop is hoop. Has nothing to do with abuse.

[Zepher]

Yeah I get that, my post was to do with the general principle, prompted by Zepher

Zepher left TMAN positive trust for valid, rather large, deals. TMAN has a dispute with OgNasty. You connect the dots.
No-abuse-at-all. /s
It's just how the system always has worked, but it was never abused (I think) at this scale. If you get kicked, all your ratings are no longer visible by default (thus nullified in a way).

Zepher has spread lies and made so many false statements about me, not even he would agree with your line of thinking here.  Obviously Zepher knows I don't trust him, and it has absolutely nothing to do with TMAN whatsoever.  TMAN is insignificant.  I've been ignoring him for quite a while now as he desperately seeks my attention.

You can continue to keep spreading lies to try and damage my reputation, but it doesn't have the effect you think it will.  You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

There's a difference between "spreading lies" and questioning whether NastyFans is an outright scam or not.
Whatever, I'm not going to argue with you. I blocked you and your delusional messages months ago when you accused me of being in cahoots with TMAN, when I had been inactive on the forum the entire time you had accused me of.
And I certainly don't trust you either. Mind you, you have genuine reasons for that. I however have never ripped off a single person on this forum.

Have fun now You're slowly but surely destroying yourself.

[Altered Bitcoin]

Being new here, I wanted to inform the community that I haven't got the slightest idea who the members named CuckSmeller, Pod or pussius are or why they are so important. Please carry on.

[suchmoon]

Being new here, I wanted to inform the community that I haven't got the slightest idea who the members named CuckSmeller, Pod or pussius are or why they are so important. Please carry on.

Geez... Hours since you accidentally posted with the wrong account and that's all you can come up with?

[ibminer]

Well, this is all very interesting... I must apologize in advance for the length of this post, a lot of thoughts.  

I do not customize my trust list because I like to experience the same perspective that new members and the majority of this forum experience. I would, however, encourage the use of customized trust lists because that's obviously the way the system was intended to work. I don't think this is as easy for average users to understand though, the trust system gets a little more complicated when you get into customizing trust lists and including/excluding other users, depths, and maintaining the list... so I feel like there is still a need or a reason for DefaultTrust.

I've been seriously thinking about reopening the idea of enforcing user-defined trust lists via suggestions, etc., deprecating DefaultTrust.

It's certainly a more decentralized option than what exists now but I feel like it has more potential for abuse and less potential for anyone finding and/or tracking potential abusers. Maybe my vision is short-sighted here... decentralized is good but I'm having a tough time accepting that this type of trust system, at this forum, would go well.

Not "a lot", most of them were tagged by other DT members(like ibminer).As for the others, I am sure Quickseller will come up with a good solution to filter them out.

Starting from alt-accounts thread to ICO pumping accounts,I usually see comments from Lauda who investigates the matter and tags the account involved.I don't think ibminer does it on a scale as that of Lauda.

I'm certainly not as active as Lauda and am more reserved in my approach with feedback. I unfortunately do not have the time necessary to devote to reach this level of activity. I have agreed with a good chunk of Lauda's feedback in the past... but it is a lot to go through, and I really didn't leave feedback on each because the accounts were already flagged. I was going to put myself through the task of going into Lauda's list of left feedback (after the exclusion) but it doesn't look like it is as urgent anymore. I need to get into a better habit of leaving feedback even if feedback has already been left...

--snip--

I agree with most of what you said here but, pardon my confusion, are you adding Lauda back because the valuable role s/he has on DT is to help fight scammers?  If so, this is hard for me to accept with statements like:

--snip--
I've done successful deals with scammers before, I just made sure to use escrow.

... unless I am misunderstanding your comment, it seems like you are more welcoming to scammers than I (or Lauda?) would care to be and do not seem to have an issue with scammers actively trading here so I'm not sure I fully understand where your motivation came from with the decision?

Most of the arguing going on is between people who have more "skin in the game" than I do so maybe I shouldn't even respond but I'm going to try and give my honest opinion here since my name has been brought up a couple of times, I do this fully accepting the risk of myself being excluded from DT2. I've said some of this in the past and I'm not sure if *all* of this is relevant here but I wanted to give my opinion of those involved.

Og/NastyFans
I was fully aware when I purchased a coin (and seats) that I was buying something which was, IMO, highly overpriced for what I was receiving. When questioning Og on why, he was open and upfront with me and I got the answers I needed to hear, which was essentially that my coins, after expenses, were going towards supporting a group who had Bitcoin's best interests in mind.

I'm not yet quite sure if my overall vision back then was flawed or not but Bitcoin is why I came here, because I agreed with the original philosophies and ideology behind it, and from a technology/mathematics perspective, it was impressive. I wanted to learn more and offer support... lacking time, but having coins, NastyFans offered something physical (coin), a stake in potential future distributions, and a way to get involved with a group of Bitcoin enthusiasts - which was the most enticing piece for me back then, not to mention I'd have a fun coin to show people   so I went for it, even later adding in the no pay signature of NastyFans to try and offer additional support.

At some point I had a run-in with DogeDigital (MoneyPot) and wanted Og's opinion on the situation - I relayed my concerns, which were not responded to. 2 weeks later he took off his NastyFans signature and started advertising for MoneyPot. While OgNasty certainly has a right to do whatever he wants with his signature, the timing and selection of signatures didn't sit right with me and I was a bit surprised, considering the message I had sent.

I expressed my feelings - and was then responded to with an answer I didn't agree with and it really didn't address my original concerns or feedback relating to DogeDigital/Moneypot at all. Since then, I have a hard time bringing myself to openly support NastyFans, however, I do still own 5 seats & a coin. I don't consider Og a scammer, he is certainly still here and hasn't disappeared like many others, but his business ethics are outside of my comfort zone or, at least, not in line with how I would act... then again, maybe this makes me a bad candidate to run an organization like NastyFans
EDIT: What is stated in this post is factual, the prior 2 paragraphs relate to an event which happened a while back (mid2016) which was the last main interaction I really had with Og. However, given new insight relating to the prior 2 paragraphs, I do not believe Og intentionally ignored my concerns with DogeDigital/MP and believe my 2nd message to him was responded to as hate mail/trolling, which gives me reason to believe the concerns were unintentionally overlooked. I had to give Og a little benefit of doubt here, which wasn't too hard for me, because he has a good reputation and has had plenty of successful trades/escrows/holds forum funds/etc. Outside of this situation, I've never really had any other large issue with him.

QuickSeller
My opinion is QuickSeller has a lot of hidden "skin in the game". QuickSeller certainly has a history of playing with alts (as he's done on this thread), which I've stated plenty of times is shady in and of itself, and the self-escrowing went hand-in-hand with this. However, to my knowledge, I never saw anyone actually get scammed by QS - not that I can guarantee he would not have ended up there, and this doesn't mean I would trust him personally. He certainly makes highly questionable (and shady) decisions - like selling a DT account, which certainly does not resemble someone trying to fight or stop scammers on this forum, but rather someone willing to help them out.

He has also had, for quite some time, an interest in getting Lauda off this forum or at least as far away from DT & Staff as possible. Some of this may be anger (or jelousy?) that he believes Lauda is doing a similar thing he was, but getting away with it. Some of it may just be revenge for alts that Lauda may have flagged. I used to think QS had a little more authenticity than this, in the sense that he was trying to restore his credibility, but the recent baseless allegation against Lauda and the lack of providing any type of evidence has dampened my perception. I'm still providing some time for QS or his "source" (mentioned in another thread) to produce something to substantiate those claims.

Lauda
Lauda and I have had our issues in the past. The extortion attempt was a huge issue for me, including another concern relating to chat logs where Lauda was using "trust" as some sort of joke in a coin trade. I've stated my feelings in the past.

What is getting to me recently is the defense used by Lauda when being called out are generally off-putting to me and usually lack substance. "I cannot confirm nor deny", name calling, "go away scammer", etc., which may be a reason why QS gets more traction from others than maybe he deserves, because it makes it look like Lauda is dodging or hiding stuff.

That said, Lauda is certainly more active, but is more "trigger-happy" than I will probably ever be, mainly in the sense that s/he sometimes goes with a gut feeling too quickly and doesn't see a need for substantial proof in some circumstances, which is Lauda's right, and s/he could be correct or incorrect in some of those gut feelings, a lot of times there isn't evidence to prove one way or the other whether the feedback was justified or not. Other times it is obviously good feedback.

When it comes to DT, I believe Lauda lives in a grey area that can rub people the wrong way for many various reasons, so the exclusion/inclusion back and forth doesn't surprise me, it is actually a little exciting to see DT1 members using their rights and being active in the trust area. I do not like seeing an active fighter of scammers be removed from DT, and Lauda has certainly touched a few potential scammers, but I'm generally against DT leaving feedback for content-related reasons and am strongly leaning towards being against any "merit abuse" feedback unless other ways develop to provide additional merit to the abuse claim - no pun intended.    

The drop is clearly due to the fact that Bitcoin is backed by drama, and there has been a shortage of drama lately.

... probably not the type of drama theymos was looking for? ... or was it?    

[Lauda]

What is getting to me recently is the defense used by Lauda when being called out are generally off-putting to me and usually lack substance. "I cannot confirm nor deny", name calling, "go away scammer", etc., which may be a reason why QS gets more traction from others than maybe he deserves, because it makes it look like Lauda is dodging or hiding stuff.

This is actually quite appropriate defense when said "criticism" is of the following type:

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

If you actually intent to spend time properly addressing any concern-trolling-aka-smear-attempt, then they are easily going to drain your energy[1]. Either you are out, or you are drained to the point where you are barely able to do anything. Either way, the other side wins.
[1] This is a classic tactic from the book of fraudsters, very often used by Bcash scammers to smear Core developers with whatever (the same has happened in this thread, just directed at me). I expect you to know this, but I've stated it anyways.

...it is actually a little exciting to see DT1 members using their rights and being active in the trust area..

Excluding me based on my statements on the Bcash scam and tags on bcash scammers (which I asked theymos about before actually neg. rating several people), is indeed a *exciting use of their right*.

[SaltySpitoon]

--snip--

I agree with most of what you said here but, pardon my confusion, are you adding Lauda back because the valuable role s/he has on DT is to help fight scammers?  If so, this is hard for me to accept with statements like:

--snip--
I've done successful deals with scammers before, I just made sure to use escrow.

... unless I am misunderstanding your comment, it seems like you are more welcoming to scammers than I (or Lauda?) would care to be and do not seem to have an issue with scammers actively trading here so I'm not sure I fully understand where your motivation came from with the decision?

So this is likely the last reply on the matter I'll make. I've got a pretty good handle on all of the situations of how this could play out and what actions I'll take. I don't really need people's feedback on the matter, I've already talked to those who's opinions I value, so people spamming me can stop.

I'm adding Lauda because they represent the will of a large portion of the forum's users (myself not included). I disagree with a bit of what they do, but DT isn't really that necessary of a tool for well established members, its more for people who are just starting out and don't know how to create their own trust lists. By the time you've been here for a couple of years, you know to escrow when in doubt, and trust no one that doesn't have more to lose than they have to gain by scamming you. You can configure your own trust lists, so without any green or red numbers at all, you should be able to read the quantity and quality of an individual's feedback, and accurately make most judgement calls.

Lauda is on the absolute opposite side of the fence, and while I don't personally agree, I also can't say I am a good representation of newer members. Therefore, I think its important to have someone represent both sides. I think the vast majority of the people who don't like Lauda's judgement calls are people who can easily customize their own trust lists and forget about them, while those that rely on Lauda cannot do so as easily. With Lauda on DT, all basis are covered. Its just a matter of filtering out which you don't personally subscribe to.

Of course I don't like scammers, but the reason I bring this up is because we all have different definitions of what a scammer is. People are given red paint for trading accounts, as is pretty widely agreed upon by the community. I don't necessarily find that to be a offense worthy of negatives in all cases. My point being, if someone is given negative feedback, the warning states, "Trade with extreme caution" in other words, you can trade with them all you'd like, just make sure you aren't in a position to lose any money to them. Each person can decide for themselves what disqualifies a person as trustworthy with any given sum of money, and make appropriate steps to protect themselves. I used to trade with Dank on occasion, even though he defaulted on a loan. I judged personal stupid mistake differently than malicious scammer.

[BitcoinEXpress]

I used to trade with Dank on occasion, even though he defaulted on a loan.

It's time.

Free Dank!




~BCX~

[Lauda]

I used to trade with Dank on occasion, even though he defaulted on a loan.

It's time.

Free Dank!


~BCX~

Can we substitute OP for Dank? I'm sure most wouldn't mind.

[Erelas]

If you think that guy is me, then you are wrong. You have to admit he is funny.

Do I have to actually post I have him on ignore?

It seems if I don't, you'll start a thread like "Vod admits New Account is funny! - *not disputed by vod*"

I explicitly deny/dispute anything anyone may post about me.  

Vod is handsome, to the point of his beauty denying the flowers that dare bloom near him the benefit of the sun.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Even though I have been an active poster on the forum for about 4 years, my main hang out has been the WO thread, and essentially wearing folks out in that thread with my participation.  

 I did not delve into Meta very much until recently when trying to figure out about the new merits system, and largely, this is my first time giving very much thought to BTCtalk's Trust system and attempting to follow some of this latest drama around Lauda....

How you getting anything done Lauda?  I am sure part of the distraction of Lauda being able to focus on substantive Bitcoin or abusive thread matters comes from the receipt of ongoing personal attacks....  

In the past couple of years, I have found Lauda to be quite helpful in a lot of ways in clarifying bitcoin technical matters for me, and helping me to get access to my account back, on two occasions, and, especially helpful in the past year with dealing with some of the BIG blocker trash discussions that were infiltrating bitcoin threads, and surely there has been a lot of battles in the past couple of years on the forum in bitcoin threads regarding BIG blockers and Bcash shills, so those kinds of distractions seem fair topics to address through RED trust.  Nonetheless, I question how much utility comes from any DT1 or DT2 giving RED trust regarding practices in the newly deployed merit system - at least in the early stages of the deployment, unless the merit abuse was really obvious and egregious.

So there had been some RED trust taggers who were possibly tagging for reasons that were a bit too broad, by Lauda and others, yet I understand that battles around Lauda are a bit more complex than merely suggesting that she should NOT tag on certain subjects, because the rationale for RED tagging likely overlaps with the use of alt accounts, and perhaps overlapping and ongoing exaggerated personal attacks directed towards Lauda.