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.”
