DefaultTrust changes

[Thule]

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

Very bad example. His stuff is very fresh.

What are you even talking about? I've read this one before but how is it related to a scam? A user blackmailed bbc.reporter, got an emotional reaction from jeremypwr, but then he regretted it and added him back into the campaign. bbc.reporter (the blackmailed) and jeremypwr are on good terms now, so I seriously fail to see how is this even worthy of mention???

Because of business competition.
He is not in the cult.

Easy answer .Funny you still didn't noticed it


What is Lauda and its cult mainly doing ?Oh sorry campaign management.

[1714193243]

1714193243

[1714193243]

1714193243

[1714193243]

1714193243

[Lauda]

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

Very bad example. His stuff is very fresh.

What are you even talking about? I've read this one before but how is it related to a scam? A user blackmailed bbc.reporter, got an emotional reaction from jeremypwr, but then he regretted it and added him back into the campaign. bbc.reporter (the blackmailed) and jeremypwr are on good terms now, so I seriously fail to see how is this even worthy of mention???

Because of business competition.
He is not in the cult.

Easy answer .Funny you still didn't noticed it
What is Lauda and its cult mainly doing ?Oh sorry campaign management.

That is a lie, and yet you wonder why your rating is that low. Theymos really needs to add an edit button to lower the practice of having to replace ratings.

[Thule]

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

Very bad example. His stuff is very fresh.

What are you even talking about? I've read this one before but how is it related to a scam? A user blackmailed bbc.reporter, got an emotional reaction from jeremypwr, but then he regretted it and added him back into the campaign. bbc.reporter (the blackmailed) and jeremypwr are on good terms now, so I seriously fail to see how is this even worthy of mention???

Because of business competition.
He is not in the cult.

Easy answer .Funny you still didn't noticed it
What is Lauda and its cult mainly doing ?Oh sorry campaign management.

That is a lie, and yet you wonder why your rating is that low. Theymos really needs to add an edit button to lower the practice of having to replace ratings.

What is a lie ?That your cult is focusing on campaign management ?
You want me to call me out on this ?

Or maybe my old statements that your cult wanted to force all project owners to accept your own made campaign rules and to only accept your members or else they will get defamed as scammers ?
Which one you wanna call me out ?

[KingZee]

What are you even talking about? I've read this one before but how is it related to a scam? A user blackmailed bbc.reporter, got an emotional reaction from jeremypwr, but then he regretted it and added him back into the campaign. bbc.reporter (the blackmailed) and jeremypwr are on good terms now, so I seriously fail to see how is this even worthy of mention???

Because a good and trustworthy campaign manager kicks you out for calling him a "a little child". Right, not worth mentioning at all. Stick to managers that are actually good e.g. Yahoo and Hhampuz; the forum doesn't need ponzi children.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

If his trust rating is red because of ponzi promotion, and it's very unlikely for him to dabble into that after 5 years, then in my opinion it's undeserved at the moment, and should be re-considered.

But whatever buddy, way I see it you're acting exactly the same way as him. First because it came from me, so you're being stubborn. And second, because generally speaking getting you to remove a trust rating hurts your ego, because it makes you look like you were wrong.

The more interactions I have with you, the more I see that you act a lot more based on emotions rather than reason. It's not necessarily bad, because you can still be a "good" person judging people subjectively. But it becomes bad once you get on the bad side of someone, and your judgement becomes clouded by your personal opinions. a.k.a me, OgNasty, and -I don't follow enough drama to cite any more people, but they do exist-.

[Lauda]

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

Very bad example. His stuff is very fresh.

What are you even talking about? I've read this one before but how is it related to a scam? A user blackmailed bbc.reporter, got an emotional reaction from jeremypwr, but then he regretted it and added him back into the campaign. bbc.reporter (the blackmailed) and jeremypwr are on good terms now, so I seriously fail to see how is this even worthy of mention???

Because of business competition.
He is not in the cult.

Easy answer .Funny you still didn't noticed it
What is Lauda and its cult mainly doing ?Oh sorry campaign management.

That is a lie, and yet you wonder why your rating is that low. Theymos really needs to add an edit button to lower the practice of having to replace ratings.

What is a lie ?That your cult is focusing on campaign management ?
You want me to call me out on this ?

Exactly; that is a complete and utter lie. Maybe if you hand picked 1-2 people out of 20+ to be the only cult members then you could actually claim that the cult focuses on campaign management.
Yahoo is not a cult member and I do advocate for his management. Or maybe he secretely is? Hmm.

But whatever buddy, way I see it you're acting exactly the same way as him. First because it came from me, so you're being stubborn. And second, because generally speaking getting you to remove a trust rating hurts your ego, because it makes you look like you were wrong.

Here we go, another reputation attack with lies. I'm sure that's gonna work out just nicely - not that I'm allowed to do anything about anything other than speak up; the dark-arts master thermos has me in chains now.

[Thule]

Yahoo is not a cult member and I do advocate for his management. Or maybe he secretely is? Hmm.

Isn't he always defending you and making false accusations to discredit people who are attacking you?

[Lauda]

Yahoo is not a cult member and I do advocate for his management. Or maybe he secretely is? Hmm.

Isn't he always defending you and making false accusations to discredit people who are attacking you?

You mean where he says we should maybe give out neutrals for account sales? Yeah right.

[Thule]

Yahoo is not a cult member and I do advocate for his management. Or maybe he secretely is? Hmm.

Isn't he always defending you and making false accusations to discredit people who are attacking you?

You mean where he says we should maybe give out neutrals for account sales? Yeah right.

No i mean people calling you an abuser and him always defending your action

[Lauda]

Yahoo is not a cult member and I do advocate for his management. Or maybe he secretely is? Hmm.

Isn't he always defending you and making false accusations to discredit people who are attacking you?

You mean where he says we should maybe give out neutrals for account sales? Yeah right.

No i mean people calling you an abuser and him always defending your action

Maybe I am almost[1] always right, and maybe most non-shady members side with me because I am right. Maybe.
[1] I should have not used this word so that pathetic idiots like Quicksie can complain about it.

[Thule]

Yahoo is not a cult member and I do advocate for his management. Or maybe he secretely is? Hmm.

Isn't he always defending you and making false accusations to discredit people who are attacking you?

You mean where he says we should maybe give out neutrals for account sales? Yeah right.

No i mean people calling you an abuser and him always defending your action

Maybe I am almost[1] always right, and maybe most non-shady members side with me because I am right. Maybe.
[1] I should have not used this word so that pathetic idiots like Quicksie can complain about it.

Its a small high ranked group.Don't call them non shady members as they support you only in their own favour.
You have been already kicked out as Mod and DT1 and are only back because of these.
Everyone knows it and acting like you don't know what i'm talking about i just want to remind you how upset you got
once i got activ on your campaigns just posting links to other threads with your involvement.



Maybe after all the years you can show me finally where i

encourage scams, spam, and account farming.

At least thats what i got tagged from you.Would love to see where i encourage scams and spams and account farming.

[Lauda]

Its a small high ranked group. Don't call them non shady members as they support you only in their own favour.

I don't believe any of them have any personal benefit in trusting me. Actually, their lives would be much easier if they just ignored me as they wouldn't be subject to constant attacks by liars and ego maniacs. Some of them got excluded solely for making pro-Lauda comments before. There was no collusion/abuse in the old system, right?

You have been already kicked out as Mod and DT1 and are only back because of these.

Correct; theymos threw me out from staff which was exactly what was to be expected given what I have done - although I would have preferred BadBear kicking me out. I was never in DT1 and I was only removed from DT2 due to collusion (which no longer works) and abuse (HostFat).

Everyone knows it and acting like you don't know what i'm talking about i just want to remind you how upset you got

I despise spammers (among other things) as well as those that leave fake retaliatory ratings. Upset? No. Would I remain quiet/treat you the same way? Hell no.

Maybe after all the years you can show me finally where i

encourage scams, spam, and account farming.

At least thats what i got tagged from you.Would love to see where i encourage scams and spams and account farming.

I need not do anything; my ratings have mostly QED themselves.

[Thule]

Everyone knows it and acting like you don't know what i'm talking about i just want to remind you how upset you got

I despise spammers (among other things) as well as those that leave fake retaliatory ratings. Upset? No. Would I remain quiet/treat you the same way? Hell no.

Maybe after all the years you can show me finally where i

encourage scams, spam, and account farming.

At least thats what i got tagged from you.Would love to see where i encourage scams and spams and account farming.

I need not do anything; my ratings have mostly QED themselves.

As always not being able to show a single proof of your claims but calling my negative tagg for false feedback retaliatory.
It would be so easy to discredit me when proofing your negative tagg were legit.

Instead you prefer your neverending argumentation.

[cryptohunter]

Everyone knows it and acting like you don't know what i'm talking about i just want to remind you how upset you got

I despise spammers (among other things) as well as those that leave fake retaliatory ratings. Upset? No. Would I remain quiet/treat you the same way? Hell no.

Maybe after all the years you can show me finally where i

encourage scams, spam, and account farming.

At least thats what i got tagged from you.Would love to see where i encourage scams and spams and account farming.

I need not do anything; my ratings have mostly QED themselves.

As always not being able to show a single proof of your claims but calling my negative tagg for false feedback retaliatory.
It would be so easy to discredit me when proofing your negative tagg were legit.

Instead you prefer your neverending argumentation.

You need to bitch slap it with the facts demonstrating it is a proven liar. Once you do that you will never hear from it again. Not to mention the lie is directly related to financial gain.

The fact he has given you that feed back and refuses to prove his statements is once again abuse of the trust system.

I mean he is a proven liar and trust abuser but is allowed to give feedback and ruin accounts that he can provide zero evidence of?

The person is completely out of control as are quite a few others on DT.

[Timelord2067]

I'd rather read a poster that's posted just one thousand quality post versus ten thousand unbalanced posts such as your hero "Bruno".

What does that have to do with the fact that you're wrong about Cryptohunter being Bruno?

You do understand that trust was *neutral* ??  It wasn't even negative.

[nutildah]

I'd rather read a poster that's posted just one thousand quality post versus ten thousand unbalanced posts such as your hero "Bruno".

What does that have to do with the fact that you're wrong about Cryptohunter being Bruno?

You do understand that trust was *neutral* ??  It wasn't even negative.

I'm just trying to tell you that's not him. Not only did he flat out say its not him, their writing styles are too different.

[suchmoon]

On the merit system, I have seen few controversial posts with large amounts of effort put into them that have merit, especially from merit sources. Conversely, I have seen many reasonably low-effort posts that make a "popular" statement with merit from multiple people.

It's not a participation trophy. "Effort" means nothing if you're babbling nonsense, which is what most of your walls of text are. I'll take a good meme over your sanctimonious posturing any day.

On the other hand, this "good posts go unmerited" BS is getting old. AFAIK you have not reported posts here or in my sig, nor have you applied to be a merit source, so if you don't want to be part of the solution maybe just stop whining in unrelated threads.

Let me quote this for attention:

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

It seems to me the opposite is happening since the DT-changes.

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

Pretty much the opposite of a good example. I have interacted with jeremypwr via PMs and given his "I didn't do anything wrong" attitude I wouldn't say that he's "unlikely to do it again". I'm quite certain he would shill any scam if the price is right and he's got toddler's temper, which doesn't help.

[ac2eugenio]

since when its not allowed to have alts?

It's perfectly allowed for untrustworthy users to have alts; that's why I only gave them negative trust instead of reporting the tell-tale PMs and getting them both banned.

Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

So why did he get tagged  ?
If you tagg him you should also tagg the accounts of suchmoon such as glem or tagg any other known alt.

Also who are you to decide if somebody is untrustworthy or not ?Based on what evidence are you making these taggs ?

Cause currently i can only see that you are abusing the trust system which has been confirmed by theymos.

because he only wants to silence the critics of the cult that hes in he's a pussy not tagging his colleague's account.Dont worry his time will come to an end together with his cult.

[Gunthar]

Looks like someone got to Gunthar and had him remove me from his inclusion list so I'd be off again.  The desperation grows...  

Ahem.....I gave my stance already in this post:

1.- i am not Lauda proxy and still I am in Lauda list. I dont change my opinion on you or others based on Lauda opinion: this is your assumption and I invite you to honestly review the way you think about it. Read my trust list and read Lauda list, you will find people in my trust list (like OG) that are excluded in Lauda list. You will find people excluded in my trust list that are excluded in Lauda list (like QS). Both examples above come from my personal interaction with mentioned users and I (as I'm sure 100% of DT members do) compile this list based on our personal opinions, thoughts and experience. I have Lauda on my list because I'm 100% sure if I let him handle my personal money, It would be cared like it was myself doing it. I have OG in my list because I am 100% sure I can do the same with him, based on my past and present interaction with him. Still Lauda tildes OG and viceversa.

Their childish fight instead is something annoying to me, they should take that in a motel room not on the forum.

[OgNasty]

Check out the latest trust rating Lauda has left me. 



The reference thread takes you to a complaint from minifrij where he was upset that I pointed out he removes/replaces feedback when he doesn't get his way.  Today I also pointed out that Lauda has engaged in this same behavior against user rmcdermott927 on this forum.  Anybody know how me pointing out that minifrij is attempting to bully me into removing my feedback by misusing the trust network equates to me being a scammer?  How does this fit into a reasonable DefaultTrust network rating?

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

I've got a popular escrow service on this site, am the OP of a longstanding community organization as well as a proof of concept Green Energy Project, sell lots of different products, & regularly try to help newbies with their issues here.  Is it right that guests should no longer be able to view my posts because I stood up to the bullying of Lauda & friends?


EVIDENCE OF LAUDA BULLYING RMCDERMOTT927
Are we seeing a pattern yet with these users?


8/23/18: Lauda left this retaliatory trust rating:


10/06/18: Lauda noticed that rmcdermott927 was no longer showing a red trust rating so he once again removed/replaced his rating:


01/15/19: Lauda noticed that rmcdermott927 was no longer showing a red trust rating so he once again removed/replaced his rating:

Lauda is clearly abusing the system to attack anyone who exposes his constant involvement in scams. Something tells me this isn’t what theymos had in mind.

[Lauda]

-snip-
Lauda is clearly abusing the system to attack anyone who exposes his constant involvement in scams. Something tells me this isn’t what theymos had in mind.

#BlacklistTheCat because thermos didn't include an edit future.