Why does a purchased account farm all have Lauda on their trust list? lauda alts

[Quickseller]

While reviewing those who have the extrotionist lauda on their trust list as of the last trust dump (from I believe Feb 17, 2018), and I came across something very concerning.

A total of 53 people have Lauda on this trust list (which is roughly 1/2 of the number of people who have excluded Lauda from their trust list).

What is most concerning is that of the 53 accounts who have Lauda on their trust list, 6 accounts are part of a farm of purchased accounts that are owned by the same person. I am wanting to know why over 11% of those who have lauda on their trust list are all owned by the same person.

These accounts were purchased on or around (very broadly) January 2016, yet none of them have negative trust from Lauda (as of early morning Feb 22, 2018). I also came across an account seller while reviewing these very clearly sold accounts that also does not have negative trust from Lauda.

I would also like to know why neither any of these 6 accounts nor the account seller have any kind of negative trust from Lauda.

One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.

edit:
Lauda has neglected to answer questions regarding if he has added himself to his sockpuppets trust lists, and has neglected to answer questions regarding if he has lobbied or given incentives for people to add him to their trust lists.

So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.

I don't even know what accounts you are talking about[1]. Thus I can absolutely not be clear about anything.
[1] Relatively easy to create a trap this way; somewhat predictable.

Maybe I should rephrase my question, have you ever lobbied (or otherwise incentivized) anyone to add you to their trust list? This would include lobbying anyone with a farm of accounts to add you to their trust list.

Or maybe I should ask another question.....do any of your alts, past and/or present, have you on your trust list?

edit2:
Lauda himself was able to "figure out" which accounts I am referring to, however has refused to leave negative trust against any of them despite him making a name for himself as someone who leaves negative trust against "all" sold accounts.

[1715137732]

1715137732

[1715137732]

1715137732

[1715137732]

1715137732

[endlasuresh]

While reviewing those who have the extrotionist lauda on their trust list as of the last trust dump (from I believe Feb 17, 2018), and I came across something very concerning.

A total of 53 people have Lauda on this trust list (which is roughly 1/2 of the number of people who have excluded Lauda from their trust list).

What is most concerning is that of the 53 accounts who have Lauda on their trust list, 6 accounts are part of a farm of purchased accounts that are owned by the same person. I am wanting to know why over 11% of those who have lauda on their trust list are all owned by the same person.

These accounts were purchased on or around (very broadly) January 2016, yet none of them have negative trust from Lauda (as of early morning Feb 22, 2018). I also came across an account seller while reviewing these very clearly sold accounts that also does not have negative trust from Lauda.

I would also like to know why neither any of these 6 accounts nor the account seller have any kind of negative trust from Lauda.

One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.

If this is true statement, then someone should Tag all those accounts and the one who are trust farming should be removed from Trust list.
I hope someone from DT! should take a look into this matter and take necessary steps.

[Lauda]

Over 50% of the accounts that excluded me are farmed/tagged accounts, thus no argument can be made from a mere 11%. I don't look at the trust dump (aside from when you brought it up very recently), and frankly do not care who does what there. Go complain to shorena or something snowflake.
Dance Iago, dance.

[Quickseller]

Over 50% of the accounts that excluded me are farmed/tagged accounts,

Actually significantly less than 50% of those who excluded you have a "warning: Trade with extreme caution" tag on their profile because of you.

The purpose of this thread is to question why a certain number of purchased accounts all clearly owned by the same person all have you on their trust list.

[Lauda]

Actually significantly less than 50% of those who excluded you have a "warning: Trade with extreme caution" tag on their profile because of you.

Actually you have no idea what you are talking about. A prime example would be DeepOnion shills, where both of accounts of their *trust master* got tagged. Thus, the army went to exclude me not that that actually did anything.

The purpose of this thread is to question why a certain number of purchased accounts all clearly owned by the same person all have you on their trust list.

To the best of my knowledge, I can only reply with the following:

Dance Iago, dance.

[Quickseller]

So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.

[Lauda]

So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.

I don't even know what accounts you are talking about[1]. Thus I can absolutely not be clear about anything.
[1] Relatively easy to create a trap this way; somewhat predictable.

[Quickseller]

So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.

I don't even know what accounts you are talking about[1]. Thus I can absolutely not be clear about anything.
[1] Relatively easy to create a trap this way; somewhat predictable.

Maybe I should rephrase my question, have you ever lobbied (or otherwise incentivized) anyone to add you to their trust list? This would include lobbying anyone with a farm of accounts to add you to their trust list.

Or maybe I should ask another question.....do any of your alts, past and/or present, have you on your trust list?

[Quickseller]

I don't look at the trust dump (aside from when you brought it up very recently),

DeepOnion shills, where both of accounts of their *trust master* got tagged. Thus, the army went to exclude me not that that actually did anything.

Hmmm, these statements seem to contradict each-other

[Lauda]

Good question. Or is it?

I don't look at the trust dump (aside from when you brought it up very recently),

DeepOnion shills, where both of accounts of their *trust master* got tagged. Thus, the army went to exclude me not that that actually did anything.

Hmmm, these statements seem to contradict each-other

I'm starting to think you are not just acting stupid, but are in fact quite stupid. You don't even understand what you're quoting. It literally says I looked at it when you brought it up (i.e. at exclusions) as an exception to the first part of the sentence.

[Quickseller]

Good question. Or is it?

I want to be clear if you have any intention of answering my questions about you using sockpuppets to add yourself to your sockpuppets trust lists, and question about lobbying people to add you to their trust lists.

[ParallelSquid]

The drama is back. I have missed this. LOL 

I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.

[Lauda]

I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.

What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.

[Quickseller]

Good question. Or is it?

I want to be clear if you have any intention of answering my questions about you using sockpuppets to add yourself to your sockpuppets trust lists, and question about lobbying people to add you to their trust lists.

I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.

What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.

I am going to take your post as a refusal to answer my questions...

It is very interesting to see you not answer questions about asking people and/or giving incentives to people to add you to their trust lists.

[ParallelSquid]

I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.

What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.

Haha. I wonder where this leads to. I hope the supposed evidence will be released soon, I would love to see it. For now, just gonna follow the thread.  

[ParallelSquid]

Good question. Or is it?

I want to be clear if you have any intention of answering my questions about you using sockpuppets to add yourself to your sockpuppets trust lists, and question about lobbying people to add you to their trust lists.

I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.

What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.

I am going to take your post as a refusal to answer my questions...

It is very interesting to see you not answer questions about asking people and/or giving incentives to people to add you to their trust lists.

Sorry QS, I hadn't minded what the question was. I was too happy to see that the drama was back. Don't know if this was the evidence you're referring to from the last thread. It would be nicer if it's more detailed.

I am just a fan, here. Don't mind me. 

[Quickseller]

I thought the fire has ceased a few days back, now its back again. Love to watch this thread.

What did you expect? OP has a very unhealthy obsession with me.

Haha. I wonder where this leads to. I hope the supposed evidence will be released soon, I would love to see it. For now, just gonna follow the thread. 

I want to confirm lauda's response first.

It should not be difficult to find evidence yourself though. Just pick one person who has added lauda to their trust list; there is a ~1 in 9 chance of it being a clearly purchased account, and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.

[Viper1]

I recently read a post by someone that said they had bought an account. And yet I think that same person is one that gives to negative trust for others doing it. At the very least, I suspect those that do hand out negative trust for that sort of thing didn't give them any since that person is one of the "in" crowd. Didn't care enough to really look into more but it wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. The hypocrisy amongst some people on this forum is astounding. Guess it shouldn't surprise me since it's just a forum and people seem to think it doesn't really matter.

[TMAN]

SO QS farmed some more accounts and has tried to stitch up lauda? bravo retard...

[Quickseller]

I also received the below PM from someone asking to buy accounts from me:

you have accs for sale ?

This guy has received trust regarding claimed successful accounts deals.

It is interesting to see these kinds of messages so soon after opening this thread

[nullius]

While reviewing those who have the extrotionist lauda

What a fair and even-handed beginning.  Shows good faith (and good orthography).  And surely, the judiciousness of this post will only improve.

A total of 53 people have Lauda on this trust list (which is roughly 1/2 of the number of people who have excluded Lauda from their trust list).

My trust list currently contains (exactly) the following two entries.  Do you wish to suggest that gmaxwell could potentially hold some responsibility for my putting him there?  (Other than by demonstrating great evidence of trustworthiness, that is to say.)

Code:

gmaxwell
~OgNasty

What is most concerning is that of the 53 accounts who have Lauda on their trust list, 6 accounts are part of a farm of purchased accounts that are owned by the same person. I am wanting to know why over 11% of those who have lauda on their trust list are all owned by the same person.

Considering this in the hypothetical, that would be a most excellent means for somebody with a long-term vendetta to try to set Lauda up in public as having done something fishy.

I say “considering this in the hypothetical”, because you don’t seem to have bothered with identifying these alleged accounts—much less with providing evidence that they be alts.

I would also like to know why neither any of these 6 accounts nor the account seller have any kind of negative trust from Lauda.

Again, taking this hypothetically:  Perhaps nobody brought those accounts plus appropriate evidence to Lauda’s attention.

I see you have done nothing to correct this deficiency.

One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.

So?

So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.

I don't even know what accounts you are talking about[1]. Thus I can absolutely not be clear about anything.
[1] Relatively easy to create a trap this way; somewhat predictable.

It’s what he does.  It’s all he does.

Dance Iago, dance.

A most appropriate response to the allegation:  “Somewhere in this trust dump are some accounts I claim are alts, without saying which or why.  Obviously, you are responsible for this.  Do you deny it?”

[Lauda]

Dance Iago, dance.

A most appropriate response to the allegation:  “Somewhere in this trust dump are some accounts I claim are alts, without saying which or why.  Obviously, you are responsible for this.  Do you deny it?”

Definitely busted. /s

[nullius]

Dance Iago, dance.

A most appropriate response to the allegation:  “Somewhere in this trust dump are some accounts I claim are alts, without saying which or why.  Obviously, you are responsible for this.  Do you deny it?”

Definitely busted. /s

Now that you have confessed to putting the alt voices in Quickseller’s head, it is time for you to BURN.

I emphasize:  So, a known account dealer with expertise in alt accounts has conveniently alleged that some mysterious alt accounts added Lauda to their trust lists.  ’Tis a mystery how that happened, if it happened at all.

[actmyname]

Objectively, I have always tried to follow this when linking any suspicious account-to-account activity:

If A does something that links it to B (in any way whatsoever) then this is an A-->B linkage. This means that B-/->A but A-->B. Any negative reputation associated with B can be transferrable to A but not vice versa.Only when we have the same linkage originating from B can we safely say there is an A<-->B linkage.

This has been my protocol for the Known alts thread (as I have advocated in the past), though I know that some do not tend to dabble with this. Enacting this procedure would, however, prevent any foul play and false positives (though can miss the mark for some alts).After all, if 5 accounts all used someone's address—for example, theymos—for some giveaway, you wouldn't link theymos to those accounts, would you? On the other hand, if 5 accounts all used a scammer's address for a giveaway, then it becomes suspicious and you would trust those accounts less. However, you would still not link the scammer to those accounts.

[suchmoon]

Oh look, another allegation with two pages of no proof.

I wonder who is the esteemed detective... never mind.

[Quickseller]

Objectively, I have always tried to follow this when linking any suspicious account-to-account activity:

If A does something that links it to B (in any way whatsoever) then this is an A-->B linkage. This means that B-/->A but A-->B. Any negative reputation associated with B can be transferrable to A but not vice versa.Only when we have the same linkage originating from B can we safely say there is an A<-->B linkage.

This has been my protocol for the Known alts thread (as I have advocated in the past), though I know that some do not tend to dabble with this. Enacting this procedure would, however, prevent any foul play and false positives (though can miss the mark for some alts).After all, if 5 accounts all used someone's address—for example, theymos—for some giveaway, you wouldn't link theymos to those accounts, would you? On the other hand, if 5 accounts all used a scammer's address for a giveaway, then it becomes suspicious and you would trust those accounts less. However, you would still not link the scammer to those accounts.

There is more solid proof that they belong to the same person than what you are referring to.

[actmyname]

There is more solid proof that they belong to the same person than what you are referring to.

Please, feel free to exhibit the aforementioned proof.

[Red Painter]

Slightly unrelated question (to the current argument). What's the benefit of having random sock puppets adding you to your trust list? Like I cant see much "benefit" unless I'm missing out on something

[TMAN]

Slightly unrelated question (to the current argument). What's the benefit of having random sock puppets adding you to your trust list? Like I cant see much "benefit" unless I'm missing out on something

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

[Red Painter]

Slightly unrelated question (to the current argument). What's the benefit of having random sock puppets adding you to your trust list? Like I cant see much "benefit" unless I'm missing out on something

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

Nah I meant, not accusing either party. In  hypothetical scenario, say Lauda (or anyone) makes 6-7 accounts or purchases them. Adds themself to the trust list. How does it affect anyone else. Like if it was a trust rating they gave then it would be trust farming but is just that Lauda's rating are shown as trusted to those sock puppets. Now if the purchased accounts were say DT accounts then maybe yeah it would matter

[TMAN]

Slightly unrelated question (to the current argument). What's the benefit of having random sock puppets adding you to your trust list? Like I cant see much "benefit" unless I'm missing out on something

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

Nah I meant, not accusing either party. In  hypothetical scenario, say Lauda (or anyone) makes 6-7 accounts or purchases them. Adds themself to the trust list. How does it affect anyone else. Like if it was a trust rating they gave then it would be trust farming but is just that Lauda's rating are shown as trusted to those sock puppets. Now if the purchased accounts were say DT accounts then maybe yeah it would matter

As I said it is just QS playing games. It means nothing bud

[Viper1]

Slightly unrelated question (to the current argument). What's the benefit of having random sock puppets adding you to your trust list? Like I cant see much "benefit" unless I'm missing out on something

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

Nah I meant, not accusing either party. In  hypothetical scenario, say Lauda (or anyone) makes 6-7 accounts or purchases them. Adds themself to the trust list. How does it affect anyone else. Like if it was a trust rating they gave then it would be trust farming but is just that Lauda's rating are shown as trusted to those sock puppets. Now if the purchased accounts were say DT accounts then maybe yeah it would matter

If 1000 people have me in their trust list but only 10 have you, then to just a casual observe I would appear more trustworthy.. That's about the only thing I can come up with.

[nullius]

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

I have a question about an accusation of mysterious identities; and I am looking for a totally random sockpuppet accusation thread in which I can post it.  This will do.

In response to this:

[...]

Hmmm... are you sure you're not Lauda?  

He is not. However he does have a vested interest in seeing that lauda maintains a positive reputation.

Instead of seeing that lauda acts with integrity, he tries to get others to overlook laudas unethical actions.

nullius is lauda. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.

Thus spake Quicksy:

I don't think you are lauda anymore, which should be clear by the post you quoted. I do still think you are a very dishonest person who has a long history of dishonesty. This is not something new to you, considering how long people have been calling you dishonest around here....I am pretty sure there are threads from 2011 in which people were calling you dishonest.

My question is:  Who the hell am I?  Seriously.  If I am discussed in threads from 2011, I most certainly want to know about that!

Or at least, thanks for closing your eyes so you no longer see that I am very clearly Lauda.

I think you are Lauda though, or maybe I just want you to be Lauda. I am not really sure anymore.

Purr.  ← PROOF that I am Lauda!

[UpsilonTrooper]

Slightly unrelated question (to the current argument). What's the benefit of having random sock puppets adding you to your trust list? Like I cant see much "benefit" unless I'm missing out on something

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

Nah I meant, not accusing either party. In  hypothetical scenario, say Lauda (or anyone) makes 6-7 accounts or purchases them. Adds themself to the trust list. How does it affect anyone else. Like if it was a trust rating they gave then it would be trust farming but is just that Lauda's rating are shown as trusted to those sock puppets. Now if the purchased accounts were say DT accounts then maybe yeah it would matter

If 1000 people have me in their trust list but only 10 have you, then to just a casual observe I would appear more trustworthy.. That's about the only thing I can come up with.

But is that data publicly accessible easily though? I can see trust on the left side in most of the board. But messing around with the trust settings is a pain and if I'm not mistaking something QS seems to have checked the trust dump (which I'm assuming is a data dump which would require you to actually take some effort to analyse and clearly beyond what the average joe would bother with)

[suchmoon]

But is that data publicly accessible easily though? I can see trust on the left side in most of the board. But messing around with the trust settings is a pain and if I'm not mistaking something QS seems to have checked the trust dump (which I'm assuming is a data dump which would require you to actually take some effort to analyse and clearly beyond what the average joe would bother with)

I think in theory you could set a large trust depth number on your settings page and see the lower levels of trust links. But in reality nobody's gonna do that for any practical purpose, so yes, it would be quite useless to use sockpuppets this way.

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

No no no no, Quicksy was very adamant when he was answering a question nobody would ask:

One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.

Translation: "I didn't do it, honest".

[Quickseller]

Slightly unrelated question (to the current argument). What's the benefit of having random sock puppets adding you to your trust list? Like I cant see much "benefit" unless I'm missing out on something

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

Nah I meant, not accusing either party. In  hypothetical scenario, say Lauda (or anyone) makes 6-7 accounts or purchases them. Adds themself to the trust list. How does it affect anyone else. Like if it was a trust rating they gave then it would be trust farming but is just that Lauda's rating are shown as trusted to those sock puppets. Now if the purchased accounts were say DT accounts then maybe yeah it would matter

It is a very subtle way of making yourself look more influential than you are in reality in a number of ways.

First, if anyone has the sockpuppet accounts on level 0 (directly on their trust list), or on level 1 (trusted by those on your trust list), then your ratings will show up by default.

Secondly, and more importantly, it helps certain stats that make it easier to account for a "DT1" member keeping you on their trust list (and would booster the argument for a "DT1" member to add you to your trust list -- or booster the argument for others to add you to your trust list). If you look at the trust dump alone, you will see that more people have lauda on their trust than is truly accurate to say. The accounts were created over a fairly large time period, and it would be fairly difficult to spot without the cumbersome, time consuming process of looking at each of the accounts manually (it would be difficult to spot the fact these accounts are all sold via automation). 

[actmyname]

There is more solid proof that they belong to the same person than what you are referring to.

Please, feel free to exhibit the aforementioned proof.

[nullius]

Slightly unrelated question (to the current argument). What's the benefit of having random sock puppets adding you to your trust list? Like I cant see much "benefit" unless I'm missing out on something

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

Nah I meant, not accusing either party. In  hypothetical scenario, say Lauda (or anyone) makes 6-7 accounts or purchases them. Adds themself to the trust list. How does it affect anyone else. Like if it was a trust rating they gave then it would be trust farming but is just that Lauda's rating are shown as trusted to those sock puppets. Now if the purchased accounts were say DT accounts then maybe yeah it would matter

It is a very subtle way of making yourself look more influential than you are in reality in a number of ways.

“Very subtle”.  So very subtle as to be nonexistent in practice!  ’Tis both amusing and revealing, how Quicksy conflates actual power with the external trappings of power.

Mr. Quickseller, please wake up your second brain cell so you may cognize the bare fact that among other things, Lauda has:

• A corps of supporters who enjoy laughing at you.  Many of them are themselves of high status in this forum.
• Positive trust ratings from several highly respected personages who are known to be sparing in their praise and conservative in their vouches.  Most influential to me was Lauda’s positive feedback from Core superstar gmaxwell:  “Polite thoughtful communication. Seems to keep their head under fire.”
• The actual power to inflict serious pain on basement-dwelling scammers such as yourself.

Why would someone who has all that need to manufacture fake supporters in some way so small and “very subtle” that few people would even notice?  I mean, really:  How many people analyze the trust database?  Most people just look to the feedback.  A trust list entry only holds significance for more than one person when the lister is DT.  What, exactly, would be achieved by adding some nobody alt entries?

The absurdity of this charge, of this whole thread, is demonstrative of Quickseller’s thought process:  Manufacturing spurious trust list entries for himself to “look more influential” is precisely the kind of thing Quickseller would do.  Most people are unable to view the world through any eyes but their own:  Quickseller would (futilely) fabricate the external trappings of power in an attempt to inflate himself; ergo, to Quickseller, it seems a plausible accusation against Lauda.

Pathetic.  Like accusing a wealthy tycoon of counterfeiting Monopoly money so as to “look more rich”.

Actual power, Quicksy.  That’s what Lauda has, and you never will.  You are incapable of even understanding it.

* nullius chuckles wryly.

First, if anyone has the sockpuppet accounts on level 0 (directly on their trust list), or on level 1 (trusted by those on your trust list), then your ratings will show up by default.

Having been backed into a corner by Red Painter’s eminently logical question, Quickseller misfires.  Hey, Quicksy:  Have you hereto accused Lauda of having DT sockpuppets add her to their trust lists?  Or do you wish to do so now?

Or are you worried about all the people who meticulously search for obscure alt accounts to add to their own trust lists, so they can accidentally trust Lauda without even knowing it?  How very thoughtful of you, to show such empathy for psychotic retards who somehow have the ability to trawl the trust database.  Quickseller, the valiant champion of the insane idiot-savants, defends them against Lauda’s evil plan to swindle them for their trust!  Lauda is foiled!

Secondly, and more importantly, it helps certain stats that make it easier to account for a "DT1" member keeping you on their trust list (and would booster the argument for a "DT1" member to add you to your trust list -- or booster the argument for others to add you to your trust list). If you look at the trust dump alone, you will see that more people have lauda on their trust than is truly accurate to say. The accounts were created over a fairly large time period, and it would be fairly difficult to spot without the cumbersome, time consuming process of looking at each of the accounts manually (it would be difficult to spot the fact these accounts are all sold via automation).

Wait, do you here suggest that DT1 members be morons?  Well, some of them are; but they already exclude Lauda.  I should hope the remainder are too savvy to use the above-described Quickseller method of blindly looking at arbitrary numbers as a major factor in choosing whom to add to their own trust lists.

QS did it to try to stitch Lauda up.. it failed as he is a retarded sewer rat.

No no no no, Quicksy was very adamant when he was answering a question nobody would ask:

One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.

Translation: "I didn't do it, honest".

Red Painter nailed it from one side, thus revealing Quicksy’s thought process about what might make a plausible accusation:  A habituated counterfeiter would be one to accuse a millionaire of counterfeiting Monopoly money, yes.  Then, suchmoon hammers it home from the other side:  What is the logical end of this Quicksy-thinking as misapplied to Lauda, when Quickseller applies it back to himself?  Hmmm.  Known dealer in alt accounts who has previously sold a DT account to a scammer pops up with “evidence” (i.e. wild accusations) that some alts have trustlisted Lauda.  What might a reasonable person suspect from that?

Now if the purchased accounts were say DT accounts then maybe yeah it would matter

First, if anyone has the sockpuppet accounts on level 0 (directly on their trust list), or on level 1 (trusted by those on your trust list), then your ratings will show up by default.

Red Painter, quit whining.  Mr. Quickseller is fresh out of DT accounts, at this particular moment (or so we hope).

Any further questions?

There is more solid proof that they belong to the same person than what you are referring to.

Please, feel free to exhibit the aforementioned proof.

I guess that means, “No.”

[suchmoon]

It is a very subtle way of making yourself look more influential than you are in reality in a number of ways.

First, if anyone has the sockpuppet accounts on level 0 (directly on their trust list), or on level 1 (trusted by those on your trust list), then your ratings will show up by default.

Secondly, and more importantly, it helps certain stats that make it easier to account for a "DT1" member keeping you on their trust list (and would booster the argument for a "DT1" member to add you to your trust list -- or booster the argument for others to add you to your trust list). If you look at the trust dump alone, you will see that more people have lauda on their trust than is truly accurate to say. The accounts were created over a fairly large time period, and it would be fairly difficult to spot without the cumbersome, time consuming process of looking at each of the accounts manually (it would be difficult to spot the fact these accounts are all sold via automation). 

Great stuff. Is that how you operated when you were in DT2? Do you still do that?

You haven't denied it therefore proven to be true.

[Quickseller]

There is more solid proof that they belong to the same person than what you are referring to.

Please, feel free to exhibit the aforementioned proof.

Lauda did a pretty good job of figuring out who these purchased accounts are here.....on his 1st guess

You can review the sent trust of Operatr, and you will see the connection is admitted via trust ratings.

I would also point out that none of these purchased accounts have a negative rating from lauda, even after seeing they are all purchased. Most (all?) of the accounts have neutral ratings from others indicating the accounts have been sold with references/proof.

[Lauda]

I would also point out that none of these purchased accounts have a negative rating from lauda, even after seeing they are all purchased. Most (all?) of the accounts have neutral ratings from others indicating the accounts have been sold with references/proof.

I will not tag anything on your request given that you have zero credibility, and are a known liar and scammer. You can forget about it. I suggest asking Shorena to do your bidding. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[nullius]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I suppose that leaves one question:  What the heck was your dastardly scheme supposed to achieve for you?

Would somebody please enlighten us poor fools who lack the Brainpower to understand this plan for Lauda to TAKE OVER THE WORLD by adding herself to the trust lists of obscure alleged alt accounts?

Pathetic.  Like accusing a wealthy tycoon of counterfeiting Monopoly money so as to “look more rich”.

[Lauda]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I suppose that leaves one question:  What the heck was your dastardly scheme supposed to achieve for you?

Would somebody please enlighten us poor fools who lack the Brainpower to understand this plan for Lauda to TAKE OVER THE WORLD by adding herself to the trust lists of obscure alleged alt accounts?

I've been thinking about it, and I need enlightening too. I couldn't come up with any (not even a small) benefit in adding yourself to the trust list of random (apparently) purchased alt accounts.
Maybe I just forgot because of the alleged pills, which were previously proven by the undeniable words of a friend of a friend reliable unidentified source.

-snip-

Nice picture. I remember that.

[nullius]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I suppose that leaves one question:  What the heck was your dastardly scheme supposed to achieve for you?

Would somebody please enlighten us poor fools who lack the Brainpower to understand this plan for Lauda to TAKE OVER THE WORLD by adding herself to the trust lists of obscure alleged alt accounts?

I've been thinking about it, and I need enlightening too. I couldn't come up with any (not even a small) benefit in adding yourself to the trust list of random (apparently) purchased alt accounts.
Maybe I just forgot because of the alleged pills, which were previously proven by the undeniable words of a friend of a friend reliable unidentified source.

Well, it’s just the quality of evil-mastermind plan which Quicksy himself would use to TAKE OVER THE WORLD.  Which is why he hasn’t.  Also why he subconsciously assumes that it would make a plausible accusation against you.

-snip-

Nice picture. I remember that.

I was afraid a “Pinky & the Brain” image would get your claws out.  But evidently, you are having too much fun playing cat-and-mouse with Quickseller.


/.

0. Add self to trust lists of obscure alleged alt accounts.
1. ? ? ?
2. Profit!

[Quickseller]

I would also point out that none of these purchased accounts have a negative rating from lauda, even after seeing they are all purchased. Most (all?) of the accounts have neutral ratings from others indicating the accounts have been sold with references/proof.

I will not tag anything on your request given that you have zero credibility, and are a known liar and scammer. You can forget about it. I suggest asking Shorena to do your bidding. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It shouldn't be difficult to verify this information yourself.....unless of course there is another reason why you don't want to leave these accounts negative trust

[Lauda]

It shouldn't be difficult to verify this information yourself.....unless of course there is another reason why you don't want to leave these accounts negative trust

I am going to do pro bono work for you because ...? Cute little rodent.

0. Add self to trust lists of obscure alleged alt accounts.
1. ? ? ?
2. Profit!

Sounds plausible.

[Quickseller]

So in other words, lauda makes a name for himself for leaving negative trust for what he says are sold accounts, and not listening to arguments of those that say he is wrong. But when the sold accounts have lauda on their trust list, lauda refuses to leave negative ratings.

I believe a reasonable, neutral person would see this as fairly clear evidence that lauda is leaving negative trust only on certain "sold accounts" in order to help his own account selling business.

[Lauda]

...and not listening to arguments of those that say he is wrong.

Que

I believe a reasonable, neutral person would see this as fairly clear evidence that lauda is leaving negative trust only on certain "sold accounts" in order to help his own account selling business.

In preponderance of evidence, and some other-unrelated stuff, Lauda is guilty of this. Yeah, yeah we know your trolling drill already. Once a pest, always a pest.

[TMAN]

So in other words, lauda makes a name for himself for leaving negative trust for what he says are sold accounts, and not listening to arguments of those that say he is wrong. But when the sold accounts have lauda on their trust list, lauda refuses to leave negative ratings.

I believe a reasonable, neutral person would see this as fairly clear evidence that lauda is leaving negative trust only on certain "sold accounts" in order to help his own account selling business.

If someone other than you proves these are farmed accounts I bet Lauda would tag them.

Don't you see that Lauda thinks you are lower on the food chain than a cancerous cockroach

[Quickseller]

Is anyone able to give an explanation as to why lauda is unable to give negative trust to so many clearly purchased accounts besides that these are his sockpuppets?

[TMAN]

Is anyone able to give an explanation as to why lauda is unable to give negative trust to so many clearly purchased accounts besides that these are his sockpuppets?

Hey quickspazzer.. I would imagine it is because you bought it to everyone's attention.. that and you are a cunt

[Quickseller]

Is anyone able to give an explanation as to why lauda is unable to give negative trust to so many clearly purchased accounts besides that these are his sockpuppets?

Hey quickspazzer.. I would imagine it is because you bought it to everyone's attention.. that and you are a cunt

That would not explain why lauda has failed to leave negative trust against these accounts.

The only explanation I can give is that these belong to lauda....

[TMAN]

Is anyone able to give an explanation as to why lauda is unable to give negative trust to so many clearly purchased accounts besides that these are his sockpuppets?

Hey quickspazzer.. I would imagine it is because you bought it to everyone's attention.. that and you are a cunt

That would not explain why lauda has failed to leave negative trust against these accounts.

The only explanation I can give is that these belong to lauda....

It's a perfect explanation. If I were Lauda and I had 301 things to do and 1 thing was associated with you princess.. guess what would be done last. Yep that's right the thing that is tainted by quickspazzer

[nullius]

That would not explain why lauda has failed to leave negative trust against these accounts.

The only explanation I can give is that these belong to lauda....

Perhaps that may be because you fail to understand the explanation that no intelligent person would bother with repetitious back-and-forth over charges so nonsensical on their face as to be cartoonish.

But put that aside.  Didn’t you see the news?  Lauda has confessed guilt on the substantial essence of all your charges!

Guilty;

Feel better, now?  Is your craving thus satisfied?

[criptix]

What if...

Lauda = Quickseller??

 

Im 200 iq.

[nullius]

What if...

Lauda = Quickseller??

 

Im 200 iq.

You were so close to the truth:

There are only two users on this forum: Quickseller and Lauda. Everyone else is a sockpuppet of one of those two.

(And the two cases of sockpuppet can be clearly differentiated based on intelligence.)

[criptix]

What if...

Lauda = Quickseller??

 

Im 200 iq.

You were so close to the truth:

There are only two users on this forum: Quickseller and Lauda. Everyone else is a sockpuppet of one of those two.

(And the two cases of sockpuppet can be clearly differentiated based on intelligence.)

 

[Quickseller]

Perhaps that may be because you fail to understand the explanation that no intelligent person would bother with repetitious back-and-forth over charges so nonsensical on their face as to be cartoonish.

But put that aside.  Didn’t you see the news?  Lauda has confessed guilt on the substantial essence of all your charges!

Guilty;

Feel better, now?  Is your craving thus satisfied?

Actually you are quoting a nonsense post by lauda

[nullius]

Perhaps that may be because you fail to understand the explanation that no intelligent person would bother with repetitious back-and-forth over charges so nonsensical on their face as to be cartoonish.

But put that aside.  Didn’t you see the news?  Lauda has confessed guilt on the substantial essence of all your charges!

Guilty;

Feel better, now?  Is your craving thus satisfied?

Actually you are quoting a nonsense post by lauda

Where’s the sarcasm shill with that fancy paid /s signature ad?  I fear that I myself may be incapable of explaining this to Mr. Quickseller.

But let me try:  My quote provided exactly the answer your accusations are worth.  It should also satisfy you, given how determined you evidently are to find Lauda guilty of something—no matter how nonsensical.  Well, I suppose that Lauda must be guilty of something—behold the confession!  Happy now?  Everybody wins.  Don’t thank me; I’m just happy to help.

[Quickseller]

Perhaps that may be because you fail to understand the explanation that no intelligent person would bother with repetitious back-and-forth over charges so nonsensical on their face as to be cartoonish.

But put that aside.  Didn’t you see the news?  Lauda has confessed guilt on the substantial essence of all your charges!

Guilty;

Feel better, now?  Is your craving thus satisfied?

Actually you are quoting a nonsense post by lauda

Where’s the sarcasm shill with that fancy paid /s signature ad?  I fear that I myself may be incapable of explaining this to Mr. Quickseller.

But let me try:  My quote provided exactly the answer your accusations are worth.  It should also satisfy you, given how determined you evidently are to find Lauda guilty of something—no matter how nonsensical.  Well, I suppose that Lauda must be guilty of something—behold the confession!  Happy now?  Everybody wins.  Don’t thank me; I’m just happy to help.

I have already shown lauda to be guilty of extortion....

[TMAN]

Hey quickspazzer you have repeatedly shown what a window licker you are

[suchmoon]

geez what a fmoron

Can you please post actual proof of Lauda being an account-farming pill addict and be done with it. This "she didn't deny it" insinuation is getting boring. Of course Lauda isn't gonna dance to your music, mainly because you're an idiot, and also I can't imagine a cat obeying anybody or anything. So just go ahead and stop wasting everyone's time.

[vlom]

i hope you all dont mind that i ask this question here. but i really would like to understand what is going on.

what started the battle: Quickseller vs Lauda?

[nullius]

i hope you all dont mind that i ask this question here. but i really would like to understand what is going on.

what started the battle: Quickseller vs Lauda?

Quicksy has pursued grudges against a wide range of different people, from tspacepilot to dooglus to Zepher, generally for outing him in some form of wrongdoing.  He even went after Vod—and after everybody who declined to condemn Vod, viz., Quickseller vs. The World:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180309172034/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1614573.0;all

The below list of people are those that I believe condone threats of violence. It is my opinion that everyone should avoid doing any kind of business with the below people:

Cyrus - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78147 (staff member)
dooglus - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420
QuestionAuthority - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=72795
Amitabh S - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=72118
KWH - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=70535
GIANNAT - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=73619
kcud_dab - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=85550 (staff member)
Gws24 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101842
mentalpanda - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=160727
cakir - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=205338
Aggressor66 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=224500
whywefight - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=289686
micky123 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=327665
mexxer-2 - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=341982
Steamingoff - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=511296
mr.relax - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=522205

Ready to red-tag all those heinous scoundrels?

Whereas Lauda has a special place as his psychotic obsession.  I am jealous of Lauda...

I infer that Quickseller is secretly a genius who is performing research for his upcoming book, How to Win make Enemies and Not Influence People.

P.S., I think Quickseller really should kill himself.  Again:  I really wish the guy would kill himself already.  HTH.

[Vod]

I have already shown lauda to be guilty of extortion....

You are the furthest thing possible from a fair and impartial judge, bozo.

You've accused Lauda of extortion.  You need to prove it in court.

[owlcatz]

I have already shown lauda to be guilty of extortion....

You are the furthest thing possible from a fair and impartial judge, bozo.

You've accused Lauda of extortion.  You need to prove it in court.

The asshat is now leaving shitposts in my auctions (actually, one is for another trusted member, so that is really assholeish of him) about the "alleged" extortion bs, which actually really had nothing to do with me, I was giving him a hard time about another matter someone had told me about, which was operating ponzi's). Once he cleared that up, I left him alone and others went on the extortion bit.

Anyhow, fuck QScammer. He doesn't care about actual facts, he just his little weenie jollies off fucking up other's people shit, specifically anyone who is "Friends" () or has lauda on their trustlists.