Ree @hacker1001101001 ICO bump account

[Lauda]

Without OgNasty's opinion we can't really know if what hacker1001101001/poochpocket did was against the rules of the campaign or not. It's not that I'm "keen on exact wording", it's just that poor wording in this case doesn't really make the intent as clear as you claimed.

Then you or somebody else should ask him IMHO. For me (emphasis) the intent is clear and I have acted accordingly.

Replace hacker1001101001/poochpocket with another set of alts in this scenario - would you still make the same claim?

I would hope so.

Remove all the other transgressions hacker1001101001/poochpocket is accused of from consideration - would you still red-trust/flag him for this signature application? If the answer is "no" then it probably doesn't matter much if at all.

Flag type 1? I am not sure there is consensus for this (given the non-clarity of the rule to others, and it being an attempted - yet failed(?) infiltration). So answer is no. [1]
Negative trust? Absolutely. [2]
[1] However, it would be simple in cases where the rule was clear and a full violation occurred (then I believe the campaign manager could use flag type 2 or maybe even type 3?).
[2] Negative trust was not weakened so that I would need stronger reasons to tag people after all.

[1714303086]

1714303086

[suchmoon]

Negative trust? Absolutely. [2]
[2] Negative trust was not weakened so that I would need stronger reasons to tag people after all.

Not sure what that [2] means?

So if someone attempts to enroll one account, gets rejected, then attempts to enroll another account - that calls for negative trust? Assuming the campaign doesn't allow alt accounts.

[Lauda]

Negative trust? Absolutely. [2]
[2] Negative trust was not weakened so that I would need stronger reasons to tag people after all.

Not sure what that [2] means?

The requirements for negative ratings are much weaker since the last changes theymos made. If somebody was tagged for some deceptive behavior before, then they can be tagged now for the same deceptive behavior on a smaller scale / lesser deception.

So if someone attempts to enroll one account, gets rejected, then attempts to enroll another account - that calls for negative trust? Assuming the campaign doesn't allow alt accounts.

Most likely, yes. This is very deceptive behavior. The person behind the account is being rejected, not his imaginary identities nor tens nor hundreds of identities. If one, despite the rejection, tries to infiltrate the service provider again with another mask then they are actively trying to get around the rejection - thus deception, thus untrustworthy. Does this make sense? This is from my perspective as an (ex) campaign manager not as a DT member.

[suchmoon]

Most likely, yes. This is very deceptive behavior. The person behind the account is being rejected, not his imaginary identities nor tens nor hundreds of identities. If one, despite the rejection, tries to infiltrate the service provider again with another mask then they are actively trying to get around the rejection - thus deception, thus untrustworthy. Does this make sense?

Yes. I mean I can follow your reasoning. I wouldn't tag for it if they were never in the campaign at the same time and even then I'd still defer to the campaign manager to determine if they were deceived. For all I know managers can make any exceptions to the rules.

[Lauda]

Most likely, yes. This is very deceptive behavior. The person behind the account is being rejected, not his imaginary identities nor tens nor hundreds of identities. If one, despite the rejection, tries to infiltrate the service provider again with another mask then they are actively trying to get around the rejection - thus deception, thus untrustworthy. Does this make sense?

Yes. I mean I can follow your reasoning. I wouldn't tag for it if they were never in the campaign at the same time and even then I'd still defer to the campaign manager to determine if they were deceived. For all I know managers can make any exceptions to the rules.

That makes perfect sense yes, this is why I added in my update (which must have been between the time you were responding and actually responded):

This is from my perspective as an (ex) campaign manager not as a DT member.

I was always very strongly against this kind of thing.

[eddie13]

Such important work being done here to protect everyone from that evil hacker guy 

[TECSHARE]

Such important work being done here to protect everyone from that evil hacker guy 

Yep, he is clearly a scourge on the forum, and this peanut hunting expedition has absolutely nothing to do with his opinions on Lauda or the trust system. How do we know this? Lauda said so. Case closed.

[eddie13]

Lauda said so.

Ah, well... Seems to be under control then..
Ta ta..

[DireWolfM14]

So if someone attempts to enroll one account, gets rejected, then attempts to enroll another account - that calls for negative trust? Assuming the campaign doesn't allow alt accounts.

Most likely, yes. This is very deceptive behavior. The person behind the account is being rejected, not his imaginary identities nor tens nor hundreds of identities. If one, despite the rejection, tries to infiltrate the service provider again with another mask then they are actively trying to get around the rejection - thus deception, thus untrustworthy. Does this make sense? This is from my perspective as an (ex) campaign manager not as a DT member.

There's nothing deceptive about his campaign applications.  He never attempted to enroll both accounts at the same time, and hasn't tried to enroll a second since being accepted with one.  Regardless of the campaign rule's ambiguity, he never broke the rule because he never had two accounts enrolled.  So, sorry to disagree with you Luada, but that's not justification for the red trust or a flag.  Realistically, it's a non-issue.

But what really has me curious is this:

I gave you another chance here:

Lauda even after my multiple apologies to her

It does not work like that. You can apologize a million times to me, it does not matter. I do not need nor want your apologies. You can not expect forgiveness when you are involved in absolute bullshit like TECSHARE's Guild of Stupidity, send me apologies - yet seize every single opportunity to disagree with me (even when the disagreeing side has an opinion that is worse than the anti-vax club), seize every opportunity to to sneak in something bad about me or about people who share my views or support my flags. This is not remorse, this is not being sorry, this is worse - active deception under pretenses of being remorseful.

You claim to be giving Hacker another chance, but I don't see any chances being offered in this thread, and certainly not in the quote of yourself that you provided.  In fact that quote only highlights what's wrong with this whole thread; i.e. that hacker disagrees with you and saddled up with the latest posse of folks who disagree with you.  None of that is justification for tags and flags.

So far, I don't see where he's broken any rules, or tried to scam anyone.  His behavior maybe tactless, and crude, but that's not a crime.  Please stop all the pointless tags and flags based on opinions and disagreements.  They have no place in the trust system.

[Lauda]

So, sorry to disagree with you Luada, but that's not justification for the red trust or a flag.  Realistically, it's a non-issue.

Flag no, red trust, yes - I have said this.This was not used as a justification for either - I have said this. If you do not plan on fully reading nor comprehending this thread, then how about you do not comment at all

So far, I don't see where he's broken any rules, or tried to scam anyone.  His behavior maybe tactless, and crude, but that's not a crime.  Please stop all the pointless tags and flags based on opinions and disagreements.  They have no place in the trust system.

Look up definition of deceptive behavior, then look up the definition of trustworthiness. Then reconsider what you are claiming as it is wrong per the very definitions of these words. Rating is on point, and flag is more than warranted.

It is instructive and revealing to consider in the hypothetical how I would be treated, and who my defenders would (or wouldn't) be, if hacker and I had our positions reversed here. If I had been the one who was exposed with all these infractions from ICO bumping to multi-accounting (with which I tried to evade my rejection), defamation (do not label this as difference of opinion or one is dishonest themselves for doing so) and so forth, I would be burned alive on a stake - probably a couple of times. Forget that, if I was found just found to be ICO bumping 55 years ago I would be burned on the stake here.

Therefore, please none of that "rules for thee and no rules for me" progressive liberal nonsense that labels same actions differently depending on the author or target. You know this is true and is happening on this forum, and so do I. Stating otherwise would be lying and dishonesty towards the self and everyone else. Otherwise, prove it and change my mind. Thanks.

Updates and fixes!

[hacker1001101001]

So, sorry to disagree with you Luada, but that's not justification for the red trust or a flag.  Realistically, it's a non-issue.

Flag no, red trust, yes - I have said this.This was not used as a justification for either - I have said this. If you do not plan on fully reading nor comprehending this thread, then how about you do not comment at all

So far, I don't see where he's broken any rules, or tried to scam anyone.  His behavior maybe tactless, and crude, but that's not a crime.  Please stop all the pointless tags and flags based on opinions and disagreements.  They have no place in the trust system.

Look up definition of deceptive behavior, then look up the definition of trustworthiness. Then reconsider what you are claiming as it is wrong per the very definitions of these words. Rating is on point, and flag is more than warranted.

It is instructive and revealing to consider in the hypothetical how I would be treated, and who my defenders would (or wouldn't) be, if hacker and I had our positions reversed here. If I had been the one who was exposed with all these infractions from ICO bumping to multi-accounting (with which I tried to evade my rejection), defamation (do not label this as difference of opinion or one is dishonest themselves for doing so) and so forth, I would be burned alive on a stake - probably a couple of times. Forget that, if I was found just found to be ICO bumping 55 years ago I would be burned on the stake here.

Therefore, please none of that "rules for thee and no rules for me" progressive liberal nonsense that labels same actions differently depending on the author or target. You know this is true and is happening on this forum, and so do I. Stating otherwise would be lying and dishonesty towards the self and everyone else. Otherwise, prove it and change my mind. Thanks.

Updates and fixes!

I don't think anyone else other than you would go that low to threaten to publish the Doxx over it, and still just got be in the fear of getting some exclusions nothing else. You use your power for deceptive purposes and that is well documented all over THIS forum and in this thread itself.

You claming others of same is a big misjudgement on your part. In years I had none of an intention to scam anyone, I even apologized for my mistakes in this thread respectfully, its just yet me speaking out about your wrong ways of operating and harrsing users here which made you research about me as far as getting your hands on my personal information and trying to publish it for no solid reasons of harm. Hell, there are lot of highly risky scams around on the forum still operating with not much awareness and research done.

You are drived by your hunger of power and use it to silence peoples here under it. A genuine person judging me would see me being changed from my past mistakes.

[Lauda]

I don't think anyone else other than you would go that low to threaten to publish the Doxx over it, and still just got be in the fear of getting some exclusions nothing else. You use your power for deceptive purposes and that is well documented all over THIS forum and in this thread itself.

You can try spinning it as a threat - murder even for all I care (QFR). If I wanted to publish your DOXX it would be irrevocably published all over the internet within about 30 - 60 seconds give or take based on latency. I am not interested in your DOXX and no longer hold any information about you.[1] I would not be surprised if somebody "anonymously" published it now though (investigation section, pastebins and more). These people would think they are smarter than the forum participants and try to blame it on me.

You are drived by your hunger of power and use it to silence peoples here under it. A genuine person judging me would see me being changed from my past mistakes.

How dare I not forgive you, I must be evil. Sigh.

[1] As much as you would like to think otherwise, you are unimportant and I plan not to waste my time securing the storage of your information.

The actual fence is much higher,
and it works both ways.

That is a statute of the most famous ancient Greek ἑταίρᾱν, the cultural equivalent of a classical gaṇikā.  (I will be pleased if anybody can correct my inconsistent declensions here.)

But it is irrelevant to Lauda.

[hacker1001101001]

I don't think anyone else other than you would go that low to threaten to publish the Doxx over it, and still just got be in the fear of getting some exclusions nothing else. You use your power for deceptive purposes and that is well documented all over THIS forum and in this thread itself.

You can try spinning it as a threat - murder even for all I care (QFR). If I wanted to publish your DOXX it would be irrevocably published all over the internet within about 30 - 60 seconds give or take based on latency. I am not interested in your DOXX and no longer hold any information about you. I would not be surprised if somebody "anonymously" published it now though (investigation section, pastebins and more). These people would think they are smarter than the forum participants and try to blame it on me.

You are drived by your hunger of power and use it to silence peoples here under it. A genuine person judging me would see me being changed from my past mistakes.

How dare I not forgive you, I must be evil. Sigh.

Again a turn of deceptive beheviour from your part.

You had the info some hours back and now you don't have it. Obviously it would be an origination from your part if my information is published on internet anywhere as you were the only person claiming and intended to do so publicly here.

Just even check the deception level, yours one is way higher to the degree that some people could take it as truth.

[Lauda]

Again a turn of deceptive beheviour from your part.

You had the info some hours back and now you don't have it. Obviously it would be an origination from your part if my information is published on internet anywhere as you were the only person claiming and intended to do so publicly here.

Just even check the deception level, yours one is way higher to the degree that some people could take it as truth.

Nope, I have nothing. If we want to be 100% technically, cryptographically correct: I never had anything to begin with at the time of flag creation (most of the users and participants in this thread will not understand how this is possible either). Do not blame me because you are too stupid to be able to indulge in the art of opsec. Maybe you should spend some of that time you did on ICO bumping on reading books and getting educated. Just a thought.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[hacker1001101001]

Again a turn of deceptive beheviour from your part.

You had the info some hours back and now you don't have it. Obviously it would be an origination from your part if my information is published on internet anywhere as you were the only person claiming and intended to do so publicly here.

Just even check the deception level, yours one is way higher to the degree that some people could take it as truth.

Nope, I have nothing. If we want to be 100% technically, cryptographically correct: I never had anything to begin with at the time of flag creation (most of the users and participants in this thread will not understand how this is possible either). Do not blame me because you are too stupid to be able to indulge in the art of opsec. Maybe you should spend some of that time you did on ICO bumping on reading books and getting educated. Just a thought.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I already read books and am already getting educated. But you are decepting users with your made up theory of claming to be using your art of OPSEC on me. You tried to threaten me and you have even done so in the past with many. You have an history of exorting users and it was always your intention to witch hunt me which lead your hands on this info.

You can make up any technical shit after you already know that the accusation is real, as I have already admitted it. I am not an harm to the community, I could be an harm to your abusive bheviour here though. You were purely motivated to crush my opinions here, which made you not wanting to forgive and threatening me with whatever you can.

[Lauda]

I already read books and am already getting educated. But you are decepting users with your made up theory of claming to be using your art of OPSEC on me. You tried to threaten me and you have even done so in the past with many. You have an history of exorting users and it was always your intention to witch hunt me which lead your hands on this info.

I have never done anything of the stated. You pulled out the extortion card, the most petty and pathetic attack that I am very accustomed to. Do you have anything else or is this it?

You can make up any technical shit after you already know that the accusation is real, as I have already admitted it. I am not an harm to the community, I could be an harm to your abusive bheviour here though. You were purely motivated to crush my opinions here, which made you not wanting to forgive and threatening me with whatever you can.

You are a danger to the community and you have harmed it many times (and are trying to harm me in this very thread). I will document any future malicious behavior individually with separate ratings.

[marlboroza]

Hacker, did you buy this account?

Asking this third time already but I don't think you have answer it or at least I missed it. I need this info to update topic and I just don't want to update it with wrong information.

You said something like "you don't control other accounts" in January so logically, you control other account for a month or two.

[TECSHARE]

You can not expect forgiveness when you are involved in absolute bullshit like TECSHARE's Guild of Stupidity, send me apologies - yet seize every single opportunity to disagree with me (even when the disagreeing side has an opinion that is worse than the anti-vax club), seize every opportunity to to sneak in something bad about me or about people who share my views or support my flags. This is not remorse, this is not being sorry, this is worse - active deception under pretenses of being remorseful.

As we can see here, Lauda openly admits that it is his criticism of them that is motivating their actions.

~Lauda


How many examples of their abuse do we need?

[JollyGood]

@hacker is this bought account?

This is news to me because I thought he allegedly owned up to all his wrong doings and had nothing else to hide.

it was when I was a newbie here

He was the person who is the part of the process who dragged me to Bitcointalk explicitly.

But you see, account hacker1001101001 was registered on June 05, 2017 and account poochpocket on March 29, 2014 and you also said...

I don't control any other account than this on the forum now

..and today you said...

Yes, the account is in control of me.

..did you buy this account? Since when is this account under your control?

This is the first I heard of anything related to buying accounts but is the buying or selling of accounts formally barred by forum rules? Regardless of the merits in this particular case - I thought it was tolerated as an undesirable thing to do (buying/selling accounts) but was reluctantly accepted therefore the only option available to users would be to tag those buying and selling accounts.

Hacker, did you buy this account?

Asking this third time already but I don't think you have answer it or at least I missed it. I need this info to update topic and I just don't want to update it with wrong information.

You said something like "you don't control other accounts" in January so logically, you control other account for a month or two.

I saw no such direct reply to the question you asked at least 3 times either. However unlikely there is a small chance he maybe he missed the posts.

[marlboroza]

This is the first I heard of anything related to buying accounts but is the buying or selling of accounts formally barred by forum rules?

Nah, account sales are allowed, pretty much as scamming other people. Lauda mentioned somewhere that theymos said "it is ok to flag account trades", I will probably update post when I find it.

Hacker, did you buy this account?

Asking this third time already but I don't think you have answer it or at least I missed it. I need this info to update topic and I just don't want to update it with wrong information.

You said something like "you don't control other accounts" in January so logically, you control other account for a month or two.

I saw no such direct reply to the question you asked at least 3 times either. However unlikely there is a small chance he maybe he missed the posts.

I am pretty sure he didn't missed it. Well, if he doesn't want to answer it then I have no other option than to go trough seclogs for last 2 months and to see when account changed password and email. More work for me, but it is ok, he doesn't need to say shit here anyway. Account is registered in 2014. so I didn't ruled out possibility that account was previously hacked.