@theymos is it true that you forced OG to remove Laudas tagg ?

[Vod]

Where is theymos to tell us the truth? All this sneaking and snaking around.

Who is asking?   Someone sneaking and snaking around?

 

[1714784522]

1714784522

[1714784522]

1714784522

[theymos]

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded:

If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't remove the rating, but then it wouldn't be fair for me to pressure Lauda to remove ratings against you. Personally, I find Lauda's history gray, not red. And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation. But if you really believe that Lauda isn't safe to deal with, then you should leave the rating.

Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating.

The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.

[Thule]

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded:

If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't remove the rating, but then it wouldn't be fair for me to pressure Lauda to remove ratings against you. Personally, I find Lauda's history gray, not red. And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation. But if you really believe that Lauda isn't safe to deal with, then you should leave the rating.

Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating.

The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.

I don't won't deny that action as something good but i really would like to know your opinion if you really think Lauda who has been accused for extortion,confiscation as escrow etc deserves more to get the red tag taken away than people who obeyed the forum rules and tried or bought an account where there is completly no proof they wanted to use it to scam someone ?

It seems and feels like low ranked members doesn't get your attention.
You posted yourserlf that tagging for trying to support own DT members is a clear abuse in your eyes.Still many accounts got destroyed because of that and these DT members giving sorry for the word a shit about removing these tags.
Did someone scammed trying to support his own DT members to get in their opinion abusive DT members out ?

I would love to see some support from you in that direction.

Currently the only possibility you left to defend myself is going the offical way via court to make the DT members with their abusiv claims liable for their actions which i personly do not want to go but you need also to understand i will never accept to get called a scammer where i never even tried to scam someone which the abusive DT members even confirmed that they know that i'm not a scammer.

[marlboroza]

If you really want to have your mind blown... theymos actually told me NOT to remove the negative feedback rating I left for Lauda.  

Ouch.
@Thule, there is lots of shenanigans going on with bought accounts (scamming companies, scamming forum members, scamming investors, hacked accounts trades etc) so some DT members are tagging whoever is involved in such activity.

I am sure you are good person deep inside and you don't mean half these things you are posting but this has to stop. If you start behaving like a good forum member I believe DT members will remove some of these feedbacks and some feedbacks might become neutral.

Just look at how all this began and turned out for you. You have been tagged because account trades, then you retaliated which resulted in more negative feedback, then you start threatening people around, then you got more negative, then you start asking for documents, then this, then that and now it seems that whenever you create thread you get another negative feedback.

Take my friendly advice. Or don't, choice is yours.

[Quickseller]

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded:

If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't remove the rating, but then it wouldn't be fair for me to pressure Lauda to remove ratings against you. Personally, I find Lauda's history gray, not red. And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation. But if you really believe that Lauda isn't safe to deal with, then you should leave the rating.

Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating.

The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.

Lauda doesn’t usually lose his cool, he usually just tags his critics and trolls them when they complain.

I don’t think OgN has any reasonable trust concerns about him by the “reasonable person” standard. OTOH, there are concerns about Laura’s history that you acknowledge (you describe them as grey as opposed to red — it should not be unreasonable for someone to have a different opinion than you).

It seems to me that Laudas rating against OgN was to silence a critic while OgN’s rating against lauda was to warn others about what he reasonably believes to be untrustworthy behavior. It is for this reason that it would be fair to pressure lauda to remove his rating against OgN if OgN kept his rating in tact.

I would repeat what I previously stated regarding the matter:

would not have removed my rating against lauda under any circumstances that doesn’t involve substantial evidence of his evidence.

One can reasonably compare lauda to TradeFortress. If my memory serves me correctly regarding what I have read about the inputs scam, TF refunded the majority of money deposited into inputs, refunded the entire deposit amount of large depositors (investors), and only a small percentage (0%?) of small deposits under a certain threshold. I also believe that there were claims TF was using the trust system to silence people critical of him until he was ultimately removed from being on DT1.

In the escrow transaction that lauda was involved in (that was non-transparent), a mixture of bitcoin and various altcoins were deposited into escrow that was strongly implied to be 2-of-3 multisig with 3 escrows each holding one of the private keys. The altcoins were converted into bitcoin via exchanges, however the amount sent back to escrow was well below what would be expected, based on the *low* of exchange rates in the several time periods after the various alts were deposited into exchanges. The discrepancy was in excess of a million dollars based on exchange rates at the time. I also strongly believe that the private keys required to sign the various transactions to spend the money in escrow were controlled by one person.

The project ended up failing and those who invested were due refunds. IIRC refunds were given based on how many tokens were purchased. After the ICO sale, and after the altcoins were converted into bitcoin, nearly all altcoin values declined substantially, so the ICO investors likely ended up in a better position than if they owned the tokens and if they had owned their various altcoins they used to invest in the project, both even after accounting for the discrepancy. As such, less people complained than would otherwise be expected. However it still appears money was stolen. The majority of money was returned to investors.

When there are million dollar discrepancies in transactions, a promise for a similar situation not to happen again is insufficient. It is necessary to leave a negative rating warning others about the incident. Period. If TF promised not to offer deposit services that gets “hacked” again, it would be wholly inappropriate to remove his negative ratings. If Mark Kaapolis (or however his name is spelled— the person in charge of Gox) returned saying that he promises not to “lose” a billion dollars worth of customer money, it would be inappropriate to remove the ratings warning others against depositing money with him. Lauda and friends currently use the trust system to silence their critics.

The primary difference between lauda and TF (and Gox) is that TF admitted he didn’t return all the money owed to depositors. Lauda on the other hand refused to admit not all money was returned and refused to answer any questions about what happened to the money. Perhaps this is a lesson to scammers that if you refuse to answer questions about any missing money, you won’t be held accountable for any missing money.

I would rather be labeled a scammer (incorrectly) and excluded up the wazoo than be prohibited from warning others about his previous scammy behavior.

[EcuaMobi]

I'm sure most would agree that suggests that theymos told him not to remove laudas negative feedback.  

Indeed. This clearly suggests theymos told him something like "please don't remove the negative trust you left on Lauda's profile" or even "I agree with you Lauda deserves negative trust as he either scammed or tried to scam".

OgNasty wrote that in a way there's a technicality to avoid explicitly accusing him to lie but, after reading the actual quote and explanation posted by theymos, I now know quotes posted by OgNasty can't be trusted unless I have access to the whole story and have read the whole conversation.

I very much doubt OG would try to mislead the reader to that degree.  

I thought that too but I was clearly mistaken. He can mislead to that degree as long as he finds a way to avoid bringing accused of lying.

[Vod]

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded:

If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't remove the rating, but then it wouldn't be fair for me to pressure Lauda to remove ratings against you. Personally, I find Lauda's history gray, not red. And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation. But if you really believe that Lauda isn't safe to deal with, then you should leave the rating.

So in the end, OG no longer has trust issues with Lauda, or he lied to get his red removed.

Peace in our time. 

[The-One-Above-All]

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded:

If this is what you believe, then you shouldn't remove the rating, but then it wouldn't be fair for me to pressure Lauda to remove ratings against you. Personally, I find Lauda's history gray, not red. And the trust system is only going to work if there's some level of forgiveness and de-escalation. But if you really believe that Lauda isn't safe to deal with, then you should leave the rating.

Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating.

The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.

This answer is good in that it brings some clarity to what actually took place. That is where the good news ends.

Let's break it down and really think about it though. Perhaps theymos is not thinking it through clearly.

1. There seems to be a false equivalence. That ognasty removing laudas red is equal to lauda removing ognastys red?
Not all red trust is equal. The nature of laudas scamming, lying, probable extorting, shady escrow and trust abuse compared to what Ognasty can be demonstrated to be guilty of is like comparing a criminal that has extorted, mugged, defrauded,  committed armed robbery against someone who filled their car with fuel and drove away without paying once, likely by accident. It is like suggesting they both deserve the same punishment. Or that giving one of them another chance would be unfair without giving both another chance. This is simply not true and a strange mistake to make.

Theymos here missed a KEY OPPORTUNITY to test the system.  He should have said

Either remove the red trust or present the strongest case you have for keeping the rest trust on. If you have left red trust on and your strongest case FAILS to convince me it meets the threshold for red you are blacklisted. This should all be transparent.

2. Lauda is gray not red you say?

what now can we take from this it requires to be worthy of a red tag, your behavior must be WORSE than..

a/ lie for financial gain ( scamming)
b/ a very serious looking probable extortion attempt
c/ shady looking non transparent escrow
d/ clearly using red trust to punish persons for presenting observable instances from their past.

This raises the bar for red trust far too high. This leaves the board highly vulnerable

3/ Even if we could believe Lauda is gray ( we do not) then why should we have gray "possibly shady" people on DT? it makes no sense? this is a trust sytem? why put the board at risk like this?

4/ Theymos should you not be more concerned for the board members safety than how great the DT members appear to be getting along? I mean being pleased that a "gray" (possible scammer and certainly untrustworthy) is getting to flash with 300 GREEN trust? why does leaving the board in this vulnerable state seem a pleasing outcome? it makes no sense? we put the entire board at risk so that one "grey" quite possibly untrustworthy member remains on DT?

None of it adds up at all.  put every member at an increased risk for this one individual?


So in summary, it seems theymos believes red trust can only be left for those that do MORE than

a/ lie for financial gain ( scamming)
b/ a very serious looking probable extortion attempt
c/ shady looking non transparent escrow
d/ clearly using red trust to punish persons for presenting observable instances from their past.

Og just realized that was how it was here now.

We can see a LOT of people that previously were "scammers" now going gray. No more red.

Good outcome for DT friction. Poor outcome for the safety of the board.

Be nice if this post is not vaporized like any other post that raises valid points for discussion that do not essentially fit with some strange agenda being pushed in meta by less than 0.01% of the board.  We thought the trust system was for the good of the entire board, we didn't know it was some club whos members needs are greater and more important than the safety of all the other members here.

We would love to hear theymos thoughts on these points.

[Quickseller]

I'm sure most would agree that suggests that theymos told him not to remove laudas negative feedback. 

Indeed. This clearly suggests theymos told him something like "please don't remove the negative trust you left on Lauda's profile" or even "I agree with you Lauda deserves negative trust as he either scammed or tried to scam".

OgNasty wrote that in a way there's a technicality to avoid explicitly accusing him to lie but, after reading the actual quote and explanation posted by theymos, I now know quotes posted by OgNasty can't be trusted unless I have access to the whole story and have read the whole conversation.

I very much doubt OG would try to mislead the reader to that degree. 

I thought that too but I was clearly mistaken. He can mislead to that degree as long as he finds a way to avoid bringing accused of lying.

It seems that everyone involved is being very misleading at best. They are probably not doing what would get them convicted of perjury if they were under oath, but I would ask additional probing questions before trusting the substance of what anyone involved says in the future.

I think everyone involved should agree with or dispute that theymos told the *whole* truth as to what happened

Assuming theymos is telling the whole truth, it looks like OgN removed his trust against lauda in order to improve his trust score based on his above statement in addition to what theymos said. For this, I believe he is in the wrong. I also think theymos is in the wrong as explained in my above post. Lauda hasn’t really addressed the issue, but IMO, he was using his position in DT to silence his critic (along with his friends positions in DT).

Lauda seems to have learned a lesson from my fiasco years ago — to not make any public statements when involved in controversy (as he has done many times— or to keep the public statements to be few and vague). In corporate America, not cooperating with an investigation is grounds to get fired, regardless of your innocence.

[TMAN]

....

Lauda is a female user, not male, so you likely use wrong word.

Lauda’s gender doesn’t matter, more concerning is the fact that Lauda is a fucking cat that lives on mars.

Glad all this shit is cleared between OG, Lauda and co- how about we all move on now?

[FFrankie]

....

Lauda is a female user, not male, so you likely use wrong word.

Lauda’s gender doesn’t matter, more concerning is the fact that Lauda is a fucking cat that lives on mars.

Glad all this shit is cleared between OG, Lauda and co- how about we all move on now?

Lauda uses they/them pronouns right? I think I have always danced around using pronouns when talking about them

[TMAN]

Lauda uses they/them pronouns right? I think I have always danced around using pronouns when talking about them

that is because lauda doesn't like you, lauda likes to watch monkeys dance

[TheNewAnon135246]

@Thule, can you please lock this topic? Theymos has answered your question and I think it's safe to say that you have created plenty of topics revolving around the same topic(s).

[TECSHARE]

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other.

So are you finally admitting you moderate trust ratings instead of trying to pretend you don't while working privately behind closed doors to manipulate and pressure people using your authority here to achieve the outcome which serves you personally by making administration simpler for you rather than being fair and equitable? It is almost like you are ignoring the real causes of these problems and they have happened before... No matter, there is no need for objective standards, you are Theymos, you ARE the law. Go anarchy.

[Vod]

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other.

So are you finally admitting you moderate trust ratings instead of trying to pretend you don't while working privately behind closed doors to manipulate and pressure people using your authority here to achieve the outcome which serves you personally by making administration simpler for you rather than being fair and equitable? It is almost like you are ignoring the real causes of these problems and they have happened before... No matter, there is no need for objective standards, you are Theymos, you ARE the law. Go anarchy.

Theymos is working towards a decentralized system.   Right now he is still in control of the "semi-decentralized" trust system, but someone has to be.   As long as we can see is making progress, I see no issues in what he did.

Why are you still on this forum?  To be willingly stalked?  lol

[FFrankie]

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other.

So are you finally admitting you moderate trust ratings instead of trying to pretend you don't while working privately behind closed doors to manipulate and pressure people using your authority here to achieve the outcome which serves you personally by making administration simpler for you rather than being fair and equitable? It is almost like you are ignoring the real causes of these problems and they have happened before... No matter, there is no need for objective standards, you are Theymos, you ARE the law. Go anarchy.

Its kind of like how neopets.com said in one of their editorials that they would never charge for anything, and than as the years went by, it changed to they would never sell items for USD, and now it is just a shit show. But the point I am trying to make is that as times change, you need to adapt. Theymos said waaay before he does not moderate trust, and I still believe it holds true, if he DID moderate it, he would have just deleted the ratings himself. He voiced his opinions 

[Quickseller]

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other.

So are you finally admitting you moderate trust ratings instead of trying to pretend you don't while working privately behind closed doors to manipulate and pressure people using your authority here to achieve the outcome which serves you personally by making administration simpler for you rather than being fair and equitable? It is almost like you are ignoring the real causes of these problems and they have happened before... No matter, there is no need for objective standards, you are Theymos, you ARE the law. Go anarchy.

I don’t think any kind of standards could be enforced if anarchy was implemented in the trust system. If anything, the current implementation of the trust system is very close to anarchy, with very few exceptions, and this is not going very well.

[Vod]

I don’t think any kind of standards could be enforced if anarchy was implemented in the trust system. If anything, the current implementation of the trust system is very close to anarchy, with very few exceptions, and this is not going very well.

There is ample evidence that people not on DT will complain about it.  No shock here.

If these people eventually get on DT, they stop complaining. 

Why don't you try to improve your trust here, instead of complaining?

[Cøbra]

It would be better to rename trust to "trading feedback" since "trust" implies some sort of personal and mostly subjective experience.

I think we want to eliminate subjectivity entirely from this system and have it be as objective as people. If someone has bad feedback, it should be backed up with solid proof of their wrongdoing (screenshots, transaction IDs, chat logs, etc). You shouldn't be able to mess with someone's profile just because of some vague feeling of shadiness. Renaming to trading feedback shifts the focus more to one's commercial relations with a user. Accounts with no feedback can have a small and not as dramatic warning like "This user has no feedback" associated with their threads.

[Vod]

It would be better to rename trust to "trading feedback" since "trust" implies some sort of personal and mostly subjective experience.

Agreed.

BPIP has already started renaming trust to "feedback" on our reports.