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

[SM23031997]

I am always so insulted that I am never accused of having an alt account. Can someone please accuse me of that...thanks!

Blazed = Dezalb

Lemme do that.

Stop posting from your real account, go get an alt and smear.

[1714040237]

1714040237

[1714040237]

1714040237

[1714040237]

1714040237

[1714040237]

1714040237

[nullius]

I am always so insulted that I am never accused of having an alt account. Can someone please accuse me of that...thanks!

Blazed = ????

???? is an alt of Blazed etc...

Ok.  Blazed = nullius (on the basis of no evidence—just because).  By the transitive property, that also means that Blazed = Lauda, and Blazed = Satoshi.  Also by the transitive property from Lauda, Blazed = aTriz, Blazed = actmyname, Blazed = The Pharmacist, and many others.

You/I/we have so many sockpuppets for the price of one!  Best of all, you/I/we invented Bitcoin.  Happy, now?

Time permitting, this post may be edited to add amusing links.

[suchmoon]

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.

I have reposted your red ratings that were not red anymore (i.e. did not have negatives from current DT members). Could be a short-lived fix given how things are going. I found your ratings to be descriptive, factual, all with reference links. I think it's a disgrace that all this work has been discarded by those dickheads making a mockery of DT.

Full list:

DARKHOLDER
N-D-A
Rux
GoldMineToken
SwingFirst
Bitzure
CrackDown
Italone100
SkrillexLegit
PowerBet.io
mr101
Seattle420
jagrapolite5
RoooooR
Boathouse
Omit
cyclops
Kizaki

[TMAN]

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.

I have reposted your red ratings that were not red anymore (i.e. did not have negatives from current DT members). Could be a short-lived fix given how things are going. I found your ratings to be descriptive, factual, all with reference links. I think it's a disgrace that all this work has been discarded by those dickheads making a mockery of DT.

Full list:

DARKHOLDER
N-D-A
Rux
GoldMineToken
SwingFirst
Bitzure
CrackDown
Italone100
SkrillexLegit
PowerBet.io
mr101
Seattle420
jagrapolite5
RoooooR
Boathouse
Omit
cyclops
Kizaki

So if OG got his own way those scammers would of got away Scott free?? It would be great if theymos grew a pair and just replaced OG and tomatoface

[o_e_l_e_o]

I am always so insulted that I am never accused of having an alt account. Can someone please accuse me of that...thanks!

Blazed = ?

? is an alt of Blazed etc...

Ok.  Blazed = nullius (on the basis of no evidence—just because).  By the transitive property, that also means that Blazed = Lauda, and Blazed = Satoshi.  Also by the transitive property from Lauda, Blazed = aTriz, Blazed = actmyname, Blazed = The Pharmacist, and many others.

You/I/we have so many sockpuppets for the price of one!  Best of all, you/I/we invented Bitcoin.  Happy, now?

Time permitting, this post may be edited to add amusing links.

I am reminded of the short story "The Egg", by Andy Weir: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html - a fantastic way to spend 5 minutes.

[nullius]

Very interesting and relevant quote in another thread in reputation:

Good job, have a cookie. Copy this to as many Lauda threads as you can. This is definitely making you look a lot less butthurt.

“Quicksy can’t let it go cuz”:

Live Photo of Witchcraft Interrogation

Sinister: Quickseller; Right: Lauda

Source: Quickseller’s psychotic fantasies.

Edit—thanks to Tyrantt, I can now properly express what this whole thread is for the forum’s feline Joan of Arc:

[nullius]

Edit:  Apologies for the apparent double-post.  (There was another post here, by OgNasty, which seems to have disappeared.)

and why can't Lauda just deny it?

Forcing somebody into a position to deny baseless accusations is a classic smear tactic.  Quickseller’s seeks to destroy Lauda’s reputation with rumours; and his rapidfire promulgation of such smears creates a witchcraft trial atmosphere.  For Lauda to answer to him in the face of no evidence whatsoever would be an error which plays right into his hands.  By way of a subtle analogy, consider that to be like trying to use the “unsubscribe” link in a spam e-mail.

...and why can't Lauda just deny it? ...

When there is no evidence, why would I? To please the very sick obsession that OP has with me? My explicit denial of anything is not enough for OP anyways, thus it's pointless unless there is evidence for any accusation (in that case, I'd need to regardless who brought the tampered evidence up).

Exactly.

True. However, when the busted baboons jump on the bandwagon along with OP's shills, then it might seem *unusually convincing* for the reader who doesn't know him and/or the others. Classic smear tactic. Spread a bad rumor here, spread another bad rumor there and hope something spreads into the likes of "a friend of a friend of a friend reliable unidentified source" told me Lauda does [insertWhateverLie].

This is a not insignificant problem, as a practical matter.  Newbies and casual readers can be easily misled.  Few people are savvy enough to recognize smear tactics on the face of things; and fewer still will take the time to dig a bit through forum archives (as I did) before passing judgment, and worse, repeating rumours as hearsay.


By the way, this thread is chock-full of cheap smear tactics.  For an instructive example of a smear directed not at Lauda, but rather at an uninvolved person just because of her being (more than) friendly with me, namely Alia:

About every week she opens a new thread. Either she wants to sell something (herself (no reproach!)) or she wants to buy drugs, or she wants to borrow money (in my opinion, for the strangest reasons  ) and so on. Honestly she seems very suspicious to me.

Listing “she wants to buy drugs” between online transactions is a gross misrepresentation:  It insinuates that she wanted to buy drugs online.  A link to the pertinent thread is conveniently omitted, such that readers can’t easily assess for themselves.

In the thread where she asked about drugs, the second sentence of Alia’s OP starts, “Never tried them” (drugs).  She said that she intends to travel somewhere that the drugs in question are legal, so as to try them for the first time (and planning to try only once) for the “experience”.  There is explicit discussion between her and others of “tourist destinations”; Amsterdam is mentioned.

So, on the face of the matter, we’re talking about a 19-year-old who has never tried drugs and is curious about them.  That’s it.  (How many 19-year-olds have never tried drugs, including marijuana?)

I myself am strictly against drugs.  I’d never have anything to do with an addict or regular user.  I popped into her thread, and explained in brief why I think it’s a bad idea—even if the intention is to try only once.  She seems open-minded and thoughtful about the matter.  I guess she’ll think it over and decide what she wants.

Strictly speaking, this is off-topic; I therefore will not bother to dissect several other material misrepresentations in the same post.  But it is necessary that a really horrible smear be debunked:  How many people read that, and inferred that Alia was buying drugs online?  I would have, if I had not already known what that thread actually said.  This also serves as a neatly illustrative example of how smears can work; and smears are not only on-topic, but the whole topic of this thread.

[blah, blah]

Thus spake the Master Ethical Mature Expert who believes that a signature containing a sarcasm tag, a forum rules link, and a scam notice can be somehow paid in a roundabout way.  You have no credibility for intellect, let alone for integrity; you don’t even get three “blahs” from me.  Shoo.

Popcorn stocks raised by 15% because of this thread  

I admit, I am being paid under the table by the popcorn cartel—and so must be Quickseller.  Wait a minute.  Does that mean I may be a Quickseller alt?  Please excuse me whilst I bathe in bleach.

[alia]

Wait a minute.  Does that mean I may be a Quickseller alt?  Please excuse me whilst I bathe in bleach.

 

[amishmanish]

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

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, to the point where I've considered adding them as the first and only person to my PM ignore list. I find them overly nosy and a bit abrasive.

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. 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.

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

I need to learn more about how trust works. Wouldn't have wasted those 2 merits on that post if I knew the inclusion had already corrected the situation. i.e. Bringing Lauda back to DT-2.

The issue got resolved on page 9 then but its continuing till 23. I have no idea what drama happened in between. We should have some way of placing milestones of discussion on these >20 page threads.

For what its worth, I think Lauda comes across as the typical no nonsense disciplinarian. They did a lot of the dirty work when the forum was drowning in spam. Its easy to accuse her of high-handedness and take the side of the "poor, begging" users. Her one-liners reprimanding the "Lauda Sir, Please I am trying to feed my family"  results in a lot of bad blood against her and long discussions on "compassion/ empathy".

The discord against her and other active reviewers can easily be channeled to make an alts army using these dissed users.

Maybe there could be a policy of reviewing accounts negged by her or other members like pharmacist. Its not possible for one person to review them all. Other members could chip in to review them. I amwilling to volunteer if considered trustworthy. I am sure a lot of others too would. This would serve to invalidate those accusations of "reviewers not engaging with those they neg" and being high-handed.

[TMAN]

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

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, to the point where I've considered adding them as the first and only person to my PM ignore list. I find them overly nosy and a bit abrasive.

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. 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.

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

I need to learn more about how trust works. Wouldn't have wasted those 2 merits on that post if I knew the inclusion had already corrected the situation. i.e. Bringing Lauda back to DT-2.

The issue got resolved on page 9 then but its continuing till 23. I have no idea what drama happened in between. We should have some way of placing milestones of discussion on these >20 page threads.

For what its worth, I think Lauda comes across as the typical no nonsense disciplinarian. They did a lot of the dirty work when the forum was drowning in spam. Its easy to accuse her of high-handedness and take the side of the "poor, begging" users. Her one-liners reprimanding the "Lauda Sir, Please I am trying to feed my family"  results in a lot of bad blood against her and long discussions on "compassion/ empathy".

The discord against her and other active reviewers can easily be channeled to make an alts army using these dissed users.

Maybe there could be a policy of reviewing accounts negged by her or other members like pharmacist. Its not possible for one person to review them all. Other members could chip in to review them. I amwilling to volunteer if considered trustworthy. I am sure a lot of others too would. This would serve to invalidate those accusations of "reviewers not engaging with those they neg" and being high-handed.

if you are against TC & OG's actions then exclude them from your own trust list just add ~ before there names and poof! they are gone..

[suchmoon]

I gotta admit, Quickseller's fact-bending off-topic spam is getting as close to a work of art as forum trolling could possibly be. He brings an irrelevant rant into this thread making it sound as if it's about Lauda, and brings Lauda into unrelated threads trying to reinforce his narrative in a passive voice:

Unfortunately the forum administration has adopted a 100% hands off policy on the trust system. This has made the trust system become a complete joke. You can contact the person who put TBZ on his trust list, however I would not hold by breath this would result in any action -- SaltySpitton recently disavowed lauda's actions while simultaneously adding lauda to his trust list under the guise of following the 'will of the community' which was quickly debunked.   

"Quicksy didn't like [Salty's opinion]" isn't the same as "[Salty's opinion] was quickly debunked", despite both containing "quick".

[jackg]

I gotta admit, Quickseller's fact-bending off-topic spam is getting as close to a work of art as forum trolling could possibly be. He brings an irrelevant rant into this thread making it sound as if it's about Lauda, and brings Lauda into unrelated threads trying to reinforce his narrative in a passive voice:

I can honestly say I was starting to miss the lack of quickseller on this forum. I've not spotted his threads in a while. They're normally so extreme it becomes gripping and it currently always seems to be Lauda(?) currently.

@QS, if he's off DT any other accomplishment you make is wasteful as he can't really go further off DT without going negative and that's not really going to do very much difference...

[suchmoon]

I gotta admit, Quickseller's fact-bending off-topic spam is getting as close to a work of art as forum trolling could possibly be. He brings an irrelevant rant into this thread making it sound as if it's about Lauda, and brings Lauda into unrelated threads trying to reinforce his narrative in a passive voice:

I can honestly say I was starting to miss the lack of quickseller on this forum. I've not spotted his threads in a while. They're normally so extreme it becomes gripping and it currently always seems to be Lauda(?) currently.

@QS, if he's off DT any other accomplishment you make is wasteful as he can't really go further off DT without going negative and that's not really going to do very much difference...

Lauda is BACK on DT courtesy of SaltySpitoon, which kinda makes this thread fake news but QS won't let facts get in his way.

[OgNasty]

I gotta admit, Quickseller's fact-bending off-topic spam is getting as close to a work of art as forum trolling could possibly be. He brings an irrelevant rant into this thread making it sound as if it's about Lauda, and brings Lauda into unrelated threads trying to reinforce his narrative in a passive voice:

I can honestly say I was starting to miss the lack of quickseller on this forum. I've not spotted his threads in a while. They're normally so extreme it becomes gripping and it currently always seems to be Lauda(?) currently.

@QS, if he's off DT any other accomplishment you make is wasteful as he can't really go further off DT without going negative and that's not really going to do very much difference...

Lauda is BACK on DT courtesy of SaltySpitoon, which kinda makes this thread fake news but QS won't let facts get in his way.

Yes, this thread should be locked or have the subject changed.   The system is setup so that DT1 users can override each other with the benefit of the doubt going to the end user.  I actually agree with that policy, and if 3 DT1 users believe Lauda should be able to leave trusted feedback, then this is yet another example of the trust system working. 

[Quickseller]

I gotta admit, Quickseller's fact-bending off-topic spam is getting as close to a work of art as forum trolling could possibly be. He brings an irrelevant rant into this thread making it sound as if it's about Lauda, and brings Lauda into unrelated threads trying to reinforce his narrative in a passive voice:

I can honestly say I was starting to miss the lack of quickseller on this forum. I've not spotted his threads in a while. They're normally so extreme it becomes gripping and it currently always seems to be Lauda(?) currently.

@QS, if he's off DT any other accomplishment you make is wasteful as he can't really go further off DT without going negative and that's not really going to do very much difference...

Lauda is BACK on DT courtesy of SaltySpitoon, which kinda makes this thread fake news but QS won't let facts get in his way.

Yes, this thread should be locked or have the subject changed.   The system is setup so that DT1 users can override each other with the benefit of the doubt going to the end user.  I actually agree with that policy, and if 3 DT1 users believe Lauda should be able to leave trusted feedback, then this is yet another example of the trust system working. 

blazed, hilariousandco, and now saltyspitton should still be removed from being "DT1" if they refuse to remove lauda from their trust lists...

[JayJuanGee]

I gotta admit, Quickseller's fact-bending off-topic spam is getting as close to a work of art as forum trolling could possibly be. He brings an irrelevant rant into this thread making it sound as if it's about Lauda, and brings Lauda into unrelated threads trying to reinforce his narrative in a passive voice:

I can honestly say I was starting to miss the lack of quickseller on this forum. I've not spotted his threads in a while. They're normally so extreme it becomes gripping and it currently always seems to be Lauda(?) currently.

@QS, if he's off DT any other accomplishment you make is wasteful as he can't really go further off DT without going negative and that's not really going to do very much difference...

Lauda is BACK on DT courtesy of SaltySpitoon, which kinda makes this thread fake news but QS won't let facts get in his way.

Yes, this thread should be locked or have the subject changed.   The system is setup so that DT1 users can override each other with the benefit of the doubt going to the end user.  I actually agree with that policy, and if 3 DT1 users believe Lauda should be able to leave trusted feedback, then this is yet another example of the trust system working. 

blazed, hilariousandco, and now saltyspitton should still be removed from being "DT1" if they refuse to remove lauda from their trust lists...

Oh my....  You have some kind of inability to let anything go, QS?  And  you seem to want to take the discussion to one additional level of extreme absurdity, even further than the absurdity already achieved?

[Quickseller]

I gotta admit, Quickseller's fact-bending off-topic spam is getting as close to a work of art as forum trolling could possibly be. He brings an irrelevant rant into this thread making it sound as if it's about Lauda, and brings Lauda into unrelated threads trying to reinforce his narrative in a passive voice:

I can honestly say I was starting to miss the lack of quickseller on this forum. I've not spotted his threads in a while. They're normally so extreme it becomes gripping and it currently always seems to be Lauda(?) currently.

@QS, if he's off DT any other accomplishment you make is wasteful as he can't really go further off DT without going negative and that's not really going to do very much difference...

Lauda is BACK on DT courtesy of SaltySpitoon, which kinda makes this thread fake news but QS won't let facts get in his way.

Yes, this thread should be locked or have the subject changed.   The system is setup so that DT1 users can override each other with the benefit of the doubt going to the end user.  I actually agree with that policy, and if 3 DT1 users believe Lauda should be able to leave trusted feedback, then this is yet another example of the trust system working.  

blazed, hilariousandco, and now saltyspitton should still be removed from being "DT1" if they refuse to remove lauda from their trust lists...

Oh my....  You have some kind of inability to let anything go, QS?  And  you seem to want to take the discussion to one additional level of extreme absurdity, even further than the absurdity already achieved?

This is exactly what I was asking for in the OP....

Perhaps you failed to read the OP before posting.

[suchmoon]

blazed, hilariousandco, and now saltyspitton should still be removed from being "DT1" if they refuse to remove lauda from their trust lists...

Use the "~" to satisfy your itch and lock the thread. It looks like it backfired due to your desire to brag about orchestrating this scheme. Better luck next time.

[JayJuanGee]

I gotta admit, Quickseller's fact-bending off-topic spam is getting as close to a work of art as forum trolling could possibly be. He brings an irrelevant rant into this thread making it sound as if it's about Lauda, and brings Lauda into unrelated threads trying to reinforce his narrative in a passive voice:

I can honestly say I was starting to miss the lack of quickseller on this forum. I've not spotted his threads in a while. They're normally so extreme it becomes gripping and it currently always seems to be Lauda(?) currently.

@QS, if he's off DT any other accomplishment you make is wasteful as he can't really go further off DT without going negative and that's not really going to do very much difference...

Lauda is BACK on DT courtesy of SaltySpitoon, which kinda makes this thread fake news but QS won't let facts get in his way.

Yes, this thread should be locked or have the subject changed.   The system is setup so that DT1 users can override each other with the benefit of the doubt going to the end user.  I actually agree with that policy, and if 3 DT1 users believe Lauda should be able to leave trusted feedback, then this is yet another example of the trust system working.  

blazed, hilariousandco, and now saltyspitton should still be removed from being "DT1" if they refuse to remove lauda from their trust lists...

Oh my....  You have some kind of inability to let anything go, QS?  And  you seem to want to take the discussion to one additional level of extreme absurdity, even further than the absurdity already achieved?

This is exactly what I was asking for in the OP....

Perhaps you failed to read the OP before posting.

In other words, you want to either make this a question about 1) whether I read the OP adequately?

or alternatively,

2) you want to keep the thread alive by changing it's title?  

I recall reading several recent posts in this 23 page thread referring to how the subject of the thread is either no longer an issue or that the thread should be closed.  So, isn't that fair that you should figure out what you are going to do in the event that you choose not to close this thread?

Edit:  I did reread your initial propositions  that either blazed and hilariousandco should be removed from DT 1 or that they should remove lauda from their Trust lists, and you are subsequently suggesting that saltyspitoon is removed from DT1.  Those seem to be quite out there propositions for a trust system that seems to allow for decentralized discretionary judgements regarding who is on each of their DT lists.  Accordingly, it seems logical and appropriate that any member can choose who to put on their own DT list, even if others do not agree with that judgement and their determinations or reason(s) for their trust list choices(s).

[ibminer]

--snip--
This does not rely upon any confidential sources, so I can share what I have provided confidentiality is promised.

--snip--
I'd love to see the evidence and certainly would provide confidentiality. Keep in mind, I seek truth.

Is it safe to assume I will not be seeing any evidence of the Lauda alts?