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

[Lauda]

--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?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

[1701170236]

1701170236

[1701170236]

1701170236

[1701170236]

1701170236

[1701170236]

1701170236

[jackg]

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

Hilariousandco probably won't be removed from DT by theymos while he's a moderator on this forum (and he does a fairly good job). So you can pretty much forget about that one unless you were hoping that everyone else who put him on DT removed him?

[minifrij]

Hilariousandco probably won't be removed from DT by theymos while he's a moderator on this forum (and he does a fairly good job). So you can pretty much forget about that one unless you were hoping that everyone else who put him on DT removed him?

These people are on DT1, and so (to my knowledge) the only person that could remove them is theymos.
Luckily I very much doubt that will happen.

[Lieldoryn]

This is the right decision. I have nothing against laud. But I am sure that any member of the forum has no right to claim the right of a judge. I agree that all accounts listed in the list have signs of collusion. We have witnessed a coup attempt at the forum.

[Quickseller]

--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?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

Lauda likes to imply that he has denied things that he very clearly did not deny. This is extremely dishonest, and likely plays a part as to why nearly 100 people have specifically excluded lauda from their trust lists.

[Hhampuz]

--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?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

Lauda likes to imply that he has denied things that he very clearly did not deny. This is extremely dishonest, and likely plays a part as to why nearly 100 people have specifically excluded lauda from their trust lists.

Nice trust!

[Gimpeline]

--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?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

Lauda likes to imply that he has denied things that he very clearly did not deny. This is extremely dishonest, and likely plays a part as to why nearly 100 people have specifically excluded lauda from their trust lists.

It's even more dishonest to make accusations without backing it up and then pretend that it is proven
It's even more dishonest to post with several accounts to make it look like more people agree with you.
There is no reason to deny things that is taken out of thin air

[Lauda]

It's even more dishonest to make accusations without backing it up and then pretend that it is proven
It's even more dishonest to post with several accounts to make it look like more people agree with you.
There is no reason to deny things that is taken out of thin air

Voila. There is no reason to count the users that I've tagged as valid exclusions, but here we are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[killyou73]

It's even more dishonest to make accusations without backing it up and then pretend that it is proven
It's even more dishonest to post with several accounts to make it look like more people agree with you.
There is no reason to deny things that is taken out of thin air

Voila. There is no reason to count the users that I've tagged as valid exclusions, but here we are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

One might call that a witch hunt

[suchmoon]

--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?

Get in line LOL

[...] I can share what I have provided confidentiality is promised.

[...] Please share. I promise confidentiality.

I see QS has updated the title of the thread: "... 100 people excluded lauda", which brings all sorts of philosophical questions, e.g. are forum sockpuppets "people"?

[jackg]

~
I see QS has updated the title of the thread: "... 100 people excluded lauda", which brings all sorts of philosophical questions, e.g. are forum sockpuppets "people"?

The majority of those are probably just random newbie scammers Lauda has marked and they have reciprocated for no other standpoint.

--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?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

Lauda likes to imply that he has denied things that he very clearly did not deny. This is extremely dishonest, and likely plays a part as to why nearly 100 people have specifically excluded lauda from their trust lists.

Nice trust!

Mine says -241, not the -9999 (just saying)

[Lauda]

Mine says -241, not the -9999 (just saying)

Fix your trust list to one that isn't played due to greed and whatnot. Here you go:

~HostFat
gmaxwell
~OgNasty
qwk
Vod
~Tomatocage
DiamondCardz
KWH
ibminer
~defcon23
Mitchell
~cyclops
Blazed
hilariousandco
~shorena
~jonald_fyookball
~CryptoImperator
~chronicsky
~Quickseller
Zepher
actmyname
The Pharmacist
Lutpin
Gunthar
SaltySpitoon

I see QS has updated the title of the thread: "... 100 people excluded lauda", which brings all sorts of philosophical questions, e.g. are forum sockpuppets "people"?

Predicted answer (context wise) by the forum's Iago: If they exclude Lauda, yes. Otherwise, no.

[jackg]

Mine says -241, not the -9999 (just saying)

Fix your trust list to one that isn't played due to greed and whatnot. Here you go:

~HostFat
gmaxwell
~OgNasty
qwk
Vod
~Tomatocage
DiamondCardz
KWH
ibminer
~defcon23
Mitchell
~cyclops
Blazed
hilariousandco
~shorena
~jonald_fyookball
~CryptoImperator
~chronicsky
~Quickseller
Zepher
actmyname
The Pharmacist
Lutpin
Gunthar
SaltySpitoon

I see QS has updated the title of the thread: "... 100 people excluded lauda", which brings all sorts of philosophical questions, e.g. are forum sockpuppets "people"?

Predicted answer (context wise) by the forum's Iago: If they exclude Lauda, yes. Otherwise, no.

I don't go off overall ratings anyway if I do a trade I go through everyone's history. Technically I should remove everyone from my trust list (as DT1&2 are added by default) although sometimes it's a good interim warning.

What's the '~' for in that list? Trusted or untrusted? If so then what's up with jonald and shorena?

[InvoKing]

-snip-
What's the '~' for in that list? Trusted or untrusted? If so then what's up with jonald and shorena?

Code:

Prefix a user's name with a tilde (~) if you want to exclude them from your trust network.

Read Lauda or shorena/jonald trust comments and/or references for more details.

[Quickseller]

--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?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

Lauda likes to imply that he has denied things that he very clearly did not deny. This is extremely dishonest, and likely plays a part as to why nearly 100 people have specifically excluded lauda from their trust lists.

It's even more dishonest to make accusations without backing it up and then pretend that it is proven
It's even more dishonest to post with several accounts to make it look like more people agree with you.

Its too bad none of that is true.

Further there are very clearly others promoting their own interests, including one person entirely unrelated to the dispute that is the subject of this thread.

There is no reason to deny things that is taken out of thin air

When you respond to allegations with a request for proof, you give up your right to ignore the accusations.

[nullius]

[gasp, choke, sputter]

It would be funny to watch him struggle to keep this going, if the joke hadn’t been old as of a few days ago.  It is still amusing to see this level of desperation from Quicksy.

There is no reason to deny things that is taken out of thin air

When you respond to allegations with a request for proof, you give up your right to ignore the accusations.

As Grand Poobah of your basement, you may find your peremptory edicts to hold some weight there.  Out here in the real world, actual evidence must be at hand before the subject of an accusation can be called to answer.  N.b., the word “actual” implies “neither dredged from the fantasies of fellow scammers who got red-handed, nor magicked out of thin air with a wave of your hands”.

* nullius yawns.

[suchmoon]

When you respond to allegations with a request for proof, you give up your right to ignore the accusations.

So let's see:

1) You post an allegation against someone, let's call her "Cat".
2) Cat requests proof.
3) You don't provide proof.
4) What exactly do you expect to happen here?

Stop digging your hole and show us some proof. Can't be that hard unless you don't have it.

[Gimpeline]

--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?

Isn't it obvious and expected that he does not? As usual, he made the whole thing up.

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public.

He claims he has evidence. I do not see evidence after you've explicitly denied this.

Lauda likes to imply that he has denied things that he very clearly did not deny. This is extremely dishonest, and likely plays a part as to why nearly 100 people have specifically excluded lauda from their trust lists.

It's even more dishonest to make accusations without backing it up and then pretend that it is proven
It's even more dishonest to post with several accounts to make it look like more people agree with you.

Its too bad none of that is true.

Further there are very clearly others promoting their own interests, including one person entirely unrelated to the dispute that is the subject of this thread.

There is no reason to deny things that is taken out of thin air

When you respond to allegations with a request for proof, you give up your right to ignore the accusations.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2945878.msg30398505#msg30398505

I have posted with exactly two accounts in this thread, the other account was really just screwing around, and I don't think was backing my arguments.

Who is dishonest now 

[Vod]

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

Any chance you could add a "Last Post" info on each profile?   

[Quickseller]

Lauda has claimed to have sent negative trust to >1000 "scammers" however as noted here, lauda has failed to leave negative trust to 6 clearly purchased accounts, all owned by the same person who all have lauda on their trust lists, as well as an account seller who clearly sold one of the accounts in question.


This amounts to over 11% of those who have lauda on their trust lists, and this only accounts that I have uncovered after a quick review.

Lauda has failed to respond to questions regarding if he has used sockpuppets to add himself to his sockpuppets trust lists, and has failed to respond to questions regarding if he has lobbied anyone to add him to their trust list.

How do Blazed, hilariousandco and salty feel about this? Is it appropriate to be selective in when negative trust should be sent? Lauda is well known to have sent hundreds of negative ratings to those who he claims to be sold accounts.

Salty previously claimed to have added lauda to his trust list because of the 'will of the people'. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say this is closer to the will of one person. Or maybe it is best accurately described as being the will of lauda.