More trust system abuse by Lauda

[truth or dare]

So Lauda, when am I going to get to see some of your new found reasonable approach to your frivolous negative trust ratings?

These red tags on your account are clearly not related to scamming or attempting to scam. Rather than begging for your abusers to be more reasonable, it would be best to go directly to theymos and have them punished for increasing the risk of members being scammed. They do so by devaluing the trust score to personal disagreements and attempting to silence your dissenting views. This is incredibly damaging to this forum in the two most serious possible ways.

Those tags are clear examples of trust being used to silence.

They accuse you of trust list manipulation, then themselves openly engage in red tag bartering.

This forum has to be cleansed of such behavior. Personal disputes must be left out of the trust system. 

Reading back on nullius prior to his innactivity it is sensible to approach that account as purchased. It looks to be laudas alt now. Theymos should be investgating that account as per password change / reset and email and all other possible checks.

I suggest that you message theymos directly and have him act on your behalf. It is a clearly attack on this forum to have such a member with long history of successful trade lacking any form of evidence of scamming or financial risk cast in to doubt.

By allowing those with clear evidence of financially dangerous behaviors in their histories to red tag yourself they are devaluing the entire system. Something other than asking for leniency from their abuse must be done.

There is no point getting into abuse / not abuse long term.
There is no way to define abuse when it has been opened up to subjectivity as red tags have been in recent years.

When searching recently for the requisites for flags it seems theymos adopted very same words that you have suggested to him in thread shortly after you discussed it with him. Perhaps he'll listen carefully to your problem.

It is disappointing that other default trust members fear to
rebuke and reverse this clear abuse.

I have been warning all of this would happen for years. Theymos isn't going to do anything. He finds it much simpler to throw me under a bus rather than have to eat crow and admit I was right from day one, and he went overboard. Also, to act on my behalf would be to admit he moderates trust, which is something he never EVER does of course (any more). Frankly I agree with that part, it is just too bad he had to come to that conclusion after he burned my reputation leaving me with a posse of permanent detractors abusing the trust against me and an uphill battle to restore my reputation. I was happy to be uninvolved with forum politics until I was forced into it in this way. All because of one con artist troll with some crocodile tears pulled a fast one. Now you are all stuck with me

I am encouraged at least so see him take steps in a positive direction with the trust system, but they are half measures that are left so vague as to be functionally useless. If he had simply unilaterally declared there has to be some kind of observable documented evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving negative trust ratings or flags, it would simplify a lot of this bullshit, because the debate over guilt would be one of a matter of fact, not a matter of who is most popular or convincing. Instead we are left with this confusing mishmash of arbitrarily enforced half rules. He had an opportunity to make a clear break with the old system with these last updates and build a new culture around the trust system. Instead what he did was build a world class nuclear submarine, then installed a screen door on it.

He chose to use very vague language with loopholes for abuse so big you could drive a bus through. It is kind of ironic some one who is clearly very focused on individual freedoms and is more libertarian minded would end up setting up a system that is effectively mob rule. This is why republics work, because without them, the majority just votes away the rights of the minority right or wrong. Then it just becomes one big popularity contest and everyone is stripped of their rights piecemeal. Requiring evidence to use the trust system to make an accusation would essentially play that role that a republic does, one of preserving the rights of an individual within a democracy.

Unfortunately Theymos has this concept in his mind that having hard rules will mean this place will start becoming authoritarian. Unfortunately this place is already largely authoritarian, just in the vacuum left trying to avoid doing it centrally, now it is done by the mob instead. I have said all of this a thousand times, but people are too focused on how much they dislike me rather than the validity of my words. The truth is usually quite unpopular.

I agree with you almost entirely.

I don't follow how the requisite of objective evidence would result in an authoritarian situation. The only authority would be the requirement to present the evidence. This would apply to all members therefore ensuring that no group could attain an authoritarian position over others. Subjectivity on the other hand guarantees this will indeed happen within the current system.

I don't believe a member should avoid conflict for self preservation if they witness tyranny or persecution. You are doing good work. Long-term you will be rewarded. Your stack of positive history affords a shield and demonstrates who you really are.

[1714185896]

1714185896

[1714185896]

1714185896

[1714185896]

1714185896

[1714185896]

1714185896

[TECSHARE]

I agree with you almost entirely.

I don't follow how the requisite of objective evidence would result in an authoritarian situation. The only authority would be the requirement to present the evidence. This would apply to all members therefore ensuring that no group could attain an authoritarian position over others. Subjectivity on the other hand guarantees this will indeed happen within the current system.

I don't believe a member should avoid conflict for self preservation if they witness tyranny or persecution. You are doing good work. Long-term you will be rewarded. Your stack of positive history affords a shield and demonstrates who you really are.

We will see. I am going to keep hammering at this like I always do no matter how many BTUs of butthurt it generates. People often attack me for being so vocal about this and blather on about a "persecution complex" and the like to try to minimize my words and observations. As you mentioned my exemplary trade history here leaves me in a very unique position to not just be summarily dismissed, much like they are attempting to do with you by calling you CH, which is not a valid argument even if it was true (I don't think it is). Their only other option to silence me is to try to destroy my reputation, which they are currently attempting to engage in. The good news is, my efforts are working, otherwise they would not be trying so hard to attack me.

[truth or dare]

I agree with you almost entirely.

I don't follow how the requisite of objective evidence would result in an authoritarian situation. The only authority would be the requirement to present the evidence. This would apply to all members therefore ensuring that no group could attain an authoritarian position over others. Subjectivity on the other hand guarantees this will indeed happen within the current system.

I don't believe a member should avoid conflict for self preservation if they witness tyranny or persecution. You are doing good work. Long-term you will be rewarded. Your stack of positive history affords a shield and demonstrates who you really are.

We will see. I am going to keep hammering at this like I always do no matter how many BTUs of butthurt it generates. People often attack me for being so vocal about this and blather on about a "persecution complex" and the like to try to minimize my words and observations. As you mentioned my exemplary trade history here leaves me in a very unique position to not just be summarily dismissed, much like they are attempting to do with you by calling you CH, which is not a valid argument even if it was true (I don't think it is). Their only other option to silence me is to try to destroy my reputation, which they are currently attempting to engage in. The good news is, my efforts are working, otherwise they would not be trying so hard to attack me.

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Winston Churchill


You are a credit to this forum. I would not venture to say that to many here. Those that will stand silent whilst others are abused and vilified unduly are not the types of members bitcointalk needs.

I have been told presently there are PM's circulating that instruct members to place my account on ignore. They mentioned a moderator was endorsing this action. Therefore the roots may run deep.

With perseverance this tyranny and abuse can be thwarted. Those that shy from debate cowering behind groundless personal attacks, are lambs awaiting public slaughter.

Petty squabbling is a waste of time. Strong argument to abolish any and all subjectivity within the trust system is my prime target. Individual abusers and their past deeds serve only to illustrate the urgency.

Fighting for others is admirable above even fighting for your own fair treatment. Many respect your previous efforts. You should not regret that such selfless actions have resulted in your own persecution. If theymos is willing to throw you under a bus, he throws under a bus all those honest members that will not stand idle and watch injustice and corruption that erodes the free and open speech this community deserves.  

[TECSHARE]

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Winston Churchill


You are a credit to this forum. I would not venture to say that to many here. Those that will stand silent whilst others are abused and vilified unduly are not the types of members bitcointalk needs.

I have been told presently there are PM's circulating that instruct members to place my account on ignore. They mentioned a moderator was endorsing this action. Therefore the roots may run deep.

With perseverance this tyranny and abuse can be thwarted. Those that shy from debate cowering behind groundless personal attacks, are lambs awaiting public slaughter.

Petty squabbling is a waste of time. Strong argument to abolish any and all subjectivity within the trust system is my prime target. Individual abusers and their past deeds serve only to illustrate the urgency.

Fighting for others is admirable above even fighting for your own fair treatment. Many respect your previous efforts. You should not regret that such selfless actions have resulted in your own persecution. If theymos is willing to throw you under a bus, he throws under a bus all those honest members that will not stand idle and watch injustice and corruption that erodes the free and open speech this community deserves.  

I don't regret anything regardless of the results. The ones who stand by idly and protect their own asses (I like to call them jellyfish) are the ones that will have to live loathing themselves for not speaking up when they know they should have. That is the kind of behavior that fills your soul with shit and takes a lot of sacrifice to repair your own self worth. I would rather risk annoying some random internet assholes than take a dump all over my principles for cash any day. Anyone who has a problem with that can suck it.

[TECSHARE]

Lauda   2020-02-26   Reference   "Dishonest. Hypocritical. Malicious. Shows no remorse for any misdeeds. This rating has nothing to do with anybody's opinions. Consistent deceptive behavior. See reference links for summary."


I heard this community removed people from the default trust when it is abused to silence others and it is used as a retaliatory tool. So when exactly is that going to happen? I guess as long as you say "This rating has nothing to do with anyboy's opinions" you can leave ratings for peoples opinions and it makes it ok. How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this? Until its gone?


FYI, this is the 6th time Lauda has removed and replaced a negative rating for me to manipulate the trust system to make sure it is the first thing anyone sees when they view my trust history.

No, that's intentional.

- If a person has mostly negatives, then they should clearly have a negative score.
- If a person has only positives, then they should clearly have a non-negative score.
- If someone who previously had lots of positives gets a negative, this is interpreted by the system as "This person could very well be a con man! I can't be sure, though, since it's just one rating. Better show ??? just in case".
- If they then get several more negatives after the first negative, the ??? will turn into a negative score, as it should.
- If they get positives after the first negative, then this is interpreted as "Oh, it looks like that negative is probably wrong. I guess I can now mostly ignore it."

See the full algorithm here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1066857.0

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.

[Vod]

I am curious why you aren't expecting Vod to defend his position whatsoever and just defaulting to what Theymos said 5 years ago. A lot has changed in 5 years.

I'm curious why you continue to quote Theymos from five years ago.

How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this?

#hypocrite

[nutildah]

I am curious why you aren't expecting Vod to defend his position whatsoever and just defaulting to what Theymos said 5 years ago. A lot has changed in 5 years.

I'm curious why you continue to quote Theymos from five years ago.

How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this?

#hypocrite

LOL. TS's comments in this thread and that one are 10 minutes apart.

He waited exactly 10 minutes to engage in hypocrisy. I think that's a new record.

I'm going to have a hard time taking him seriously about anything in the future; so should everybody.

[TECSHARE]

I am curious why you aren't expecting Vod to defend his position whatsoever and just defaulting to what Theymos said 5 years ago. A lot has changed in 5 years.

I'm curious why you continue to quote Theymos from five years ago.

How much longer is this community going to tolerate being ripped apart by people like this?

#hypocrite

LOL. TS's comments in this thread and that one are 10 minutes apart.

He waited exactly 10 minutes to engage in hypocrisy. I think that's a new record.

I'm going to have a hard time taking him seriously about anything in the future; so should everybody.

I know facts are irrelevant to both of you when you have some one to attack, but I am referring to protocol for use of the trust system Theymos has commented on, in this thread, and discussing the use of Theymos's opinion from years ago, which has demonstrably changed, as is being used for justification for trust system abuse. Of course this would be clear if the quote were not selectively edited so you can manufacture your preferred story and cover up for abuse both of you are perpetrating.

I thought I already addressed this but I will try again. Theymos had excluded me in the past. Theymos no longer excludes me. Theymos currently excludes Vod. Theymos has made it clear he wants the users to be the ones to collectively decide who is on default trust, so it is not appropriate to just say "Well Theymos said" that one time, and it is forever scripture.

Even IF you want to take that position, it is worth noting, as I said Theymos currently excludes Vod, but does not exclude me. That is an explicit statement Theymos does not think Vod should be on the default trust, and at worst he is neutral on the position of me being on the default trust currently. Regardless of what Theymos thinks, it does not validate Vod's behavior or use of the trust system. Theymos has made it clear he does not want to be the sole arbiter of who is on the default trust, which is why he enabled voting on it. His vote counts just as much as anyone else's...

I wonder why Vod edited all of that out!

[suchmoon]

I am referring to protocol for use of the trust system Theymos has commented on

The system has changed since then - re-posting red-trust doesn't change the trust score anymore, doesn't

put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode

so that comment is outdated. You have a point that re-posting puts it at the top and might make it potentially more visible, but quoting that comment to support your argument is disingenuous at best.

[TECSHARE]

I am referring to protocol for use of the trust system Theymos has commented on

The system has changed since then - re-posting red-trust doesn't change the trust score anymore, doesn't

put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode

so that comment is outdated. You have a point that re-posting puts it at the top and might make it potentially more visible, but quoting that comment to support your argument is disingenuous at best.

Speaking of being disingenuous, I know you are working overtime to topic slide from anything resembling a logical argument, but tell me, what makes this rating at all justifiable or substantive? There is no nefarious trading activity to speak of. This is all just a huge stack of hyperbole and pure bullshit used to reinterpret my opinions as crimes so that Lauda can pretend these ratings have any basis whatsoever when they are clearly retaliatory in nature and designed to silence and discredit opposing viewpoints by using the trust system as a tool of retribution.

[suchmoon]

tell me, what makes this rating at all justifiable or substantive

I never said it's "justifiable or substantive" so I can't really tell you that. You might need to ask Lauda.

[TECSHARE]

tell me, what makes this rating at all justifiable or substantive

I never said it's "justifiable or substantive" so I can't really tell you that. You might need to ask Lauda.

Yet you are perfectly willing to dedicate your time to deflect from this fact by sliding the topic to inconsequential side topics, or anything you can use to attack. That is a slick way to word it.

You like the fact that I am being attacked, but you don't want to explicitly support the abuse because it might harm your own reputation, so you refuse to take any position on the matter.  Now why would anyone call you disingenuous?

[suchmoon]

You like the fact that I am being attacked, but you don't want to explicitly support the abuse because it might harm your own reputation, so you refuse to take any position on the matter.  Now why would anyone call you disingenuous?

No, I don't like the fact that you're being red-trusted for what is essentially your opinion, and I have already made that clear numerous times. I have excluded Lauda from my trust list due to this and other ratings that I disagree with. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with you or even call you a lunatic if I choose to.

Nice try making it sound like I want to support trust abuse but that's false. And your attempt to use an outdated quote to make a point is still pointless.

[BitcoinEXpress]

@Techshare

What are you whining about phony feedback???

Years ago you left me phony trust accusing me of
"This user is one of the biggest trolls/extortionists/market manipulators out there."

If you don't like being red-trusted for you opinions, then STFU.

But since you've been crying about this for years on end, I doubt you will.

 

~BCX~

[TECSHARE]

@Techshare

What are you whining about phony feedback???

Years ago you left me phony trust accusing me of
"This user is one of the biggest trolls/extortionists/market manipulators out there."

If you don't like being red-trusted for you opinions, then STFU.

But since you've been crying about this for years on end, I doubt you will.

 

~BCX~

You mean the neural rating? Your market manipulation, altcoin hacking, FUD, and threats are well documented on this forum.

You like the fact that I am being attacked, but you don't want to explicitly support the abuse because it might harm your own reputation, so you refuse to take any position on the matter.  Now why would anyone call you disingenuous?

No, I don't like the fact that you're being red-trusted for what is essentially your opinion, and I have already made that clear numerous times. I have excluded Lauda from my trust list due to this and other ratings that I disagree with. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with you or even call you a lunatic if I choose to.

Nice try making it sound like I want to support trust abuse but that's false. And your attempt to use an outdated quote to make a point is still pointless.

Yet you don't do much protesting when it happens do you? You spend an exceptional amount of time attempting to slide the topic on any related thread pointing out these issues. You do in fact support trust abuse, not only by actively covering for it, but by refusing to exclude those that abuse their DT position. Are you suggesting that Vod's negative ratings for me have basis? He has a long history of leaving baseless ratings and refuses to substantiate them. Why is he still on your trust list then? That sure looks like supporting abuse to me.

[BitcoinEXpress]

@Techshare

What are you whining about phony feedback???

Years ago you left me phony trust accusing me of
"This user is one of the biggest trolls/extortionists/market manipulators out there."

If you don't like being red-trusted for you opinions, then STFU.

But since you've been crying about this for years on end, I doubt you will.

 

~BCX~

You mean the neural rating? Your market manipulation, altcoin hacking, FUD, and threats are well documented on this forum

I take issue with the profiteering accusation.
That's completely false.


~BCX~

[suchmoon]

Yet you don't do much protesting when it happens do you?

Oh wow, not enough protesting is the problem now. Feel free to fuck right off with that kind of "logic".

You spend an exceptional amount of time attempting to slide the topic on any related thread pointing out these issues. You do in fact support trust abuse, not only by actively covering for it, but by refusing to exclude those that abuse their DT position. Are you suggesting that Vod's negative ratings for me have basis? He has a long history of leaving baseless ratings and refuses to substantiate them. Why is he still on your trust list then? That sure looks like supporting abuse to me.

Why are you sliding this topic now? Don't you have a bunch of Vod threads to bump?

[TECSHARE]

Yet you don't do much protesting when it happens do you?

Oh wow, not enough protesting is the problem now. Feel free to fuck right off with that kind of "logic".

You spend an exceptional amount of time attempting to slide the topic on any related thread pointing out these issues. You do in fact support trust abuse, not only by actively covering for it, but by refusing to exclude those that abuse their DT position. Are you suggesting that Vod's negative ratings for me have basis? He has a long history of leaving baseless ratings and refuses to substantiate them. Why is he still on your trust list then? That sure looks like supporting abuse to me.

Why are you sliding this topic now? Don't you have a bunch of Vod threads to bump?

Notice how nothing I said was actually addressed in favor of more deflection. Not just lack of protest, active deflection from these issues and literally giving abusers power to abuse. Thanks for proving my point.

[suchmoon]

Notice how nothing I said was actually addressed in favor of more deflection. Not just lack of protest, active deflection from these issues and literally giving abusers power to abuse. Thanks for proving my point.

If you really want to resolve your issues with Vod, start showing signs of compromise regarding your own red trust on him. Does that sufficiently address your tangent?

[TECSHARE]

Notice how nothing I said was actually addressed in favor of more deflection. Not just lack of protest, active deflection from these issues and literally giving abusers power to abuse. Thanks for proving my point.

If you really want to resolve your issues with Vod, start showing signs of compromise regarding your own red trust on him. Does that sufficiently address your tangent?

So, now you are suggesting it is legitimate to use negative ratings to extort other users into removing valid negative ratings left. That is about as abusive as it gets.