IS GIVING RED-TRUST THAT NON-EXPLANATORY ?

[eddie13]

Why ask lauda a question in public ?

See if I can drag some honesty of the situation out of them..

If we were on DT they would all be glowing red

Why don't you go leave you own little notes with supporting references on all those you consider deserving? 
None of that copy/paste shit either.. Detail specifically and thoroughly for each one with good references..

[1715461290]

1715461290

[1715461290]

1715461290

[1715461290]

1715461290

[1715461290]

1715461290

[The-One-Above-All]

Why ask lauda a question in public ?

See if I can drag some honesty of the situation out of them..

If we were on DT they would all be glowing red

Why don't you go leave you own little notes with supporting references on all those you consider deserving?  
None of that copy/paste shit either.. Detail specifically and thoroughly for each one with good references..

dragging honesty from a scammer/extortionist/shady escrow and flagrant trust abuser is a tricky task, tread with caution.

the dirty turds thread has it all documented, NOBODY has refuted even 1 of the observable instances there. I mean if red tags for for things that don't even make a lemons flag there is enough there to light them all up...actually a lot of that is full on scamming and scammer supporting if people take the time to investigate it all.

Of course like vod and LFC bitcoin have publicaly confessed when they cried out in admission they have to do what the inner core of scammers say because if not they will be picked out for punishment. That is ANOTHER problem with the systems of control they don't just allow collusion they DEMAND AND ENFORCE collusion and work to prevent DT doing the right thing even if they WANT TO. The economic punishment is too great. (that does not apply to you eddie since you seem to have been singled out and punished already)

Of course as someone said to me in private just today, I am totally overlooking that too early of a willingness to hammer down red correctly on deserving DT will likely result in your expulsion from DT and therefore render this approach lacking.... so that is yet another design flaw. You can not even do the right thing until you are full entrenched (years of supporting scammers and scammer supporters) by that time you are so hated by honestly abused members it makes it even harder to leave the only group that do not already hate you and have been hating on you for some time..haha

The only option to stop trust abuser or render the abuse mute is a reset as is being suggested by some members and a redesign on objective verifiable metrics, this will mean culling a lot of campaign managers that are in league with these dirty dogs or shaming them out from projects by pressuring those projects into hiring managers that will use transparent objective rules for their selection/denial process. Of course our own clever and as yet not debunked improvements would be better still, but of course they garnered little interest or support in meta ...lol surprise surprise.

Its all economic considerations here eddie. Don't ever think more than 0.1% here give one fuck about contributing to the adoption and progress of an end to end decentralized trustless arena. They want bitcoins to return to fiat to lambos , coke and hookers. That is the end of their ambitions. Not to state those lofty goals are not commendable and enjoyable, but there is no wider scope for many. There is no do the right thing. There is only do the right thing for me to have lambos coke and hookers. They do not realize those are not mutually exclusive.

Trust abuse is required to retain the status quo. Can't have people suggesting changes to the status quo, or defending those that suggest such changes, or that the prime beneficiaries are scammers and scammer supporters can we. Those must be silenced with trust abuse or  a ban. Until the status quo is broken there will be a lot more trust abuse and a lot more fighting and bitterness here. Thank merit for that primarily it is undeniable that before that most of the very most dangerous scammers were removed from dt and glowing red as they fucking should be now. Scammers will always find a way to game things that can be gamed for their own self interest ... merit and dt are like a honey pot for that generally speaking. The most sneaky are those that are supporting scammers and trust abusers whilst APPEARING to be neutral or on the fence or too dumb to see the scamming and abuse. Those are likely MORE dangerous to the board in the full context than perhaps even the flagrant ones ....food for thought.

Anyway eddie we leave it here. They were suggestions only. Perhaps there are problems with those after discussing with others, who's opinions we do value. More people on dt like eddie would be sensible. Even if they do not agree with us then at least they have no financially motivated wrong doing in their past, no sig spamming, no trust abuse, not afraid to speak up against even those lfc bitcoin and vod are terrified to disobey LOL  where are more people like this?? I am going to have a look at the trust list thing and at least add and exclude before we leave this board for a long period. The odd contribution just so there is no fretting we are gone for good may be possible though. I worry for you all in my absence but it is unavoidable.

The sad thing is there is no longer trust abuse (what requirement is there less than a lemons flag ffs lol) , like there is no merit abuse, the carrot and stick have the same economic power but no accountability or responsibility. How fun.

[JollyGood]

Today I got a navigate trust rating for sending merits to a post I found informative...yes read again sending merits, and it was by someone who has lots of inclusions from well-known members here.

Lauda   2019-12-29   Reference   Maliciously merits what he/she knows to be a lie in order to propagate it and cause harm to me. Wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, now should anyone trust a word they say.

Mine is not the only example, many users are just buried under this type of trust abuse.


I would like to get the community opinions on "if such type of usage of red trust should be acceptable and is it being that non-explanatory for the sender useful for the community overall".

The red tag in your profile currently shows:

Lying, malicious attempt at perpetuating slander, account farming, trading, ICO bumping, where does it end with this user?
Do not trust this user with anything financially, nor anything that is written by this user as he clearly writes whatever the payee pays to be written


Among various things I read allegations of:

- you having alt-accounts
- you being a paid shill willing to post anything for anyone
- you being involved with account farming
- you pumping ICOs
- you being a liar
- you being untrustworthy


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1021758
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53487964#msg53487964

Which of those allegations are you actually contesting?

[eddie13]

Which of those allegations are you actually contesting?

None from me..
This thread was originally contesting a red flag for simply sending merit to TECShare... Successfully contested because it was wrong..

While that red tag didn't fly in the eyes of the community it brought attention upon hacker where dirt was then dug on their account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0 and the admission from hacker of past paid ICO bumping..

Resulting in the new tag you see now which is mainly uncontested..


After all, it seems that hacker has a pretty rough history of shitposting, plagiarizing, and bumping etc. but from what I see hacker has been turning their posting quality around since their early actions as a newbie and has been mostly honest about their past mistakes, so I am hopeful that after a good amount of time from here on out as a quality poster and being a good asset of the forum, hacker may be able to redeem himself.

[marlboroza]

and has been mostly honest about their past mistakes

Are we reading the same thread? Hacker was everything but not honest, he posted one lie after another, yes, he "maybe" start telling the true, but it happened AFTER investigation start going deeper and deeper...and as you can see (if you can see) from that thread, investigation wasn't fully completed. It was just a scratch, if you are going to believe hacker's words that someone accidentally posted his info on reddit and some other things then you are more naive than I thought you are. Unless he bought this account, but he denied it, he signed message.

After all, it seems that hacker has a pretty rough history of shitposting, plagiarizing, and bumping etc. but from what I see hacker has been turning their posting quality around since their early actions as a newbie

Except hacker wasn't a newbie, if you can please read that thread again OMG eddie13, what are you are writing here?

It seems?    He took money to bump ICOs and some scams and write fake reviews and lied about it when he was asked..."today"!

What the fuck happened with this place?
I don't see anything wrong with this feedback

Maliciously merits what he/she knows to be a lie in order to propagate it and cause harm to me. Wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, now should anyone trust a word they say.

"Liar merits a lie", unless you can tell why this isn't a lie?
"No one should trust word they say" - unless you can beat my facts in that thread?

You just can't admit lauda was right.

[eddie13]

snips

He admitted to me the paid bumping stuff and that was enough for me to see lauda's new tag as correct..
As I said.. No contest on the new tag from me.. Lauda is right on the new tag but the tag for merits wasn't imo..

Maybe I should go back and reread that thread.. I wasn't that thorough in his past investigations admittedly as I basically got all the information I needed for the tag from the ICO bumping..

If he is still lying "today" about whatever then that is very disappointing to me as I had hoped he was turning things around..
I don't exactly follow his posts though and you obviously do a much better job of keeping an eye on him than I..

I was disappointed to find these things out about him halfway through this thread..
I and others didn't think it was right to tag someone for sending a merit but it turns out their were other concerns brought up that he should be tagged for..

I saw that your evidence against him was old 2017-18 stuff and thought that he had turned his shitposting around since was able to get his permanent ban from plagiarism overturned, which is usually only done if the user has sense become valuable correct?
If he hasn't/isn't becoming valuable and stopping whatever bad actions you see then that's a shame..


marlboroza you seem well researched and very sure of this subject so maybe you should reinforce lauda's tag for the main reasons of your tags having more credit at face value and your tags show up as trusted to more users, and maybe include some of the more current pertinent information..

Maybe I fucked up here not knowing everything about everything but I just can't do that..
I have been gone for a few days just now also so I probably missed things..

[JollyGood]

@marlboroza

From what I can see the negative trust was removed just recently (minutes ago) but regardless of that you correctly pointed out there was a valid case for it to stay. I have checked some posts and threads and tend to agree with you because after engaging with the OP on and off the past few weeks I have concluded he is not to be trusted at all. There will of course be those that will find him trustworthy and that is a great thing to have varying views across the board.

I would go so far as to say if there was any doubt the original contested feedback being considered harsh/wrong then the second feedback which was uncontested was probably highly accurate going by evidence available. I am unsure as to why the updated tag was removed but I think the responsible way forward would be to add an appropriate tag ensuring a caveat that it will be removed in future as long as no more issues arise.

I mean, does anybody actually know how many alt-accounts he was using before and if he is using any right now?

Does anybody know the names of his present or previous alt-accounts?

In my opinion if a relevant tag was added and the OP continues to post intermittently about scams and add to that there are no complaints mentioned about his campaign management for EARNBET (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217830.0) then the tag would probably be removed sooner rather than later but to leave no tag at this stage would probably be a mistake. That is my opinion.

The original tag quoted was this:

Lauda   2019-12-29   Reference   Maliciously merits what he/she knows to be a lie in order to propagate it and cause harm to me. Wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, now should anyone trust a word they say.

It was then replaced by this before it was removed:

Lauda                                        Lying, malicious attempt at perpetuating slander, account farming, trading, ICO bumping, where does it end with this user?
Do not trust this user with anything financially, nor anything that is written by this user as he clearly writes whatever the payee pays to be written

@eddie13

Much respect to you for your comments and background explanation about the issue in both posts.

You are absolutely correct, tagging anybody on the basis of leaving merit for another user is wrong. Personally I would only consider tagging a user for leaving merit if there was case of merit abuse. From what I can see (and as you mentioned) nobody contested the updated tag but that has been removed.

Your suggestion for marlboroza to re-enforce or re-instate the tag seems a great idea but if there is consensus another user could add it but in my opinion it would be far more conducive to take precautions and add a relevant tag rather than not add it.

As for not keeping up with everything, to be fair there are always things going on around the forum and nobody can be expected to keep up with everything. Some threads and issues will always go under the radar. I lose track of what is going on frequently then try to catch up when I get a chance but it is not always easy.

[eddie13]

has been removed.

It is still there.. Check the untrusted feedback section on his profile..
Like I said about more users seeing marlboroza's trust as default..

I am wrong from time to time and it sucks, but I do my best not to stay wrong when I get new/more intel..

[JollyGood]

has been removed.

It is still there.. Check the untrusted feedback section on his profile..
Like I said about more users seeing marlboroza's trust as default..

I am wrong from time to time and it sucks, but I do my best not to stay wrong when I get new/more intel..

 

You are right

[marlboroza]

If he is still lying "today" about whatever then that is very disappointing to me as I had hoped he was turning things around..

I purposely placed word today under scare quotes, what I wanted to say is "lied in that thread", but...

Maybe I should go back and reread that thread

If you ever do, go back and forward few times, I guess you just have to go there and decide for yourself whether you trust him now because his posting quality has improved or he is just another liar who tried to lie his way out and is still lying and/or lied about some other things in that thread. try to find something like this there:

"I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements." - hacker1001101001

"OK, I agree it looks like bumping but I had no incentive from that posts more than increasing my weekly post counts back then" - hacker1001101001

"I am not turning the story but rather willing to agree on my mistakes back then" - hacker1001101001

"I agreed being paid, please read the above info." - hacker1001101001


About that tag thingy, if you want to see more negative on someone's profile, don't ask others to do it, either do it or don't. Or do it and then ask others to do it.
I believe OP got answer to his question, so perhaps to lock this not-about-lauda thread?

[eddie13]

decide for yourself whether you trust him now

I have never necessarily trusted him and since the time he has been brought inside of my attention span that situation has not exactly been improving..

About that tag thingy, if you want to see more negative on someone's profile, don't ask others to do it, either do it or don't. Or do it and then ask others to do it.

If I see someone having such a strong opinion on a topic I don't see much of a problem in prodding them to put their money/tags where their mouth is, so to speak..

[hacker1001101001]

Among various things I read allegations of:

- you having alt-accounts
- you being a paid shill willing to post anything for anyone
- you being involved with account farming
- you pumping ICOs
- you being a liar
- you being untrustworthy


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1021758
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53487964#msg53487964

Which of those allegations are you actually contesting?

Come on bud, do you really think I am someone untrustworthy overall, if yes it makes your sense of judgement very weak and I even don't trust your judgement from it.

It's clearly seen as your attempt to put more oil in the drama, nice move.

I admitted I don't have unknown alts here.

I am not willing to post anything for anyone with money, that's just one of the misleading statement in the feedback by Lauda.

I am not involved in account farming, it's hard to maintain one account around here.

Yes, the ICO pumping seems right, but as I said in the other thread, it was my early days mistake on the forum, even apologized for it and never did it again.

I am not a lier. Yes I lied first about not getting incentive to post but agreed later on the same thread.

I am not untrustworthy and never scammed anyone, again it is like buliding your own story and misleading in itself.

So now, if you are satisfied with your grudge, stop trying to witch hunt me because, one of my view doesn't match yours about the feedback here. I was out of that thread already.

Except hacker wasn't a newbie, if you can please read that thread again OMG eddie13, what are you are writing here?

It seems?    He took money to bump ICOs and some scams and write fake reviews and lied about it when he was asked..."today"!

What the fuck happened with this place?

I was newbie while getting engaged in this, I have said and explained this around dozens of times in the thread and even in PMs to many.

Anyways, if some users are never upon accepting apology around here, I don't think we are buliding a constrictive place overall. Yes, I could publicly and loudly say I find it hard to see people forgiving around here.

If he is still lying "today" about whatever then that is very disappointing to me as I had hoped he was turning things around..
I don't exactly follow his posts though and you obviously do a much better job of keeping an eye on him than I..

I was disappointed to find these things out about him halfway through this thread..
I and others didn't think it was right to tag someone for sending a merit but it turns out their were other concerns brought up that he should be tagged for..

I am not lying about it, I agreed to you in the same thread about I being involved in it. Nowhere else, I have tried to lie about it around.

Don't you think what you are claming as worthy of tag is also non-repeatable mistake from my side.

after engaging with the OP on and off the past few weeks I have concluded he is not to be trusted at all. There will of course be those that will find him trustworthy and that is a great thing to have varying views across the board.

I don't know what made you conclude that am not to be trusted, I am totally against your judgement if you don't have any specific cases of me scamming funds from someone. This show's the flawed judgment of yours about me.

I believe OP got answer to his question, so perhaps to lock this not-about-lauda thread?

Locking this thread for now.

If someone wants to rant about me, create a new thread.