|
allahabadi (OP)
|
 |
February 26, 2020, 04:34:01 AM
Last edit: February 26, 2020, 01:32:36 PM by allahabadi Merited by dragonvslinux (1) |
|
This is to point out that I have been negged by a DT member of the forum in what is explicitly a blatant disregard for any conventional wisdom on the concerned issue.
Apparently, holding a view grounded in facts borne out by actions contrary to that of a Paid Signature Holder of the stature of DT makes one a Trust Abuser and anyone dealing with him/her will have damaging consequences.  1. The issue is that I had negged FJ for this following reason flagging it as Shady, Slow and Irresponsible IMO. 2. The Trust Abusing DT member then proceeded to neutral tag me without a reference with nearly the same accusations as they are now. Since it was a neutral I ignored it and was advised by others to not pay heed to it as well. (suchmoon, ibminer) (As a pun I even put a different version in my Sign space.  ) 3. FJ recently has apparently again dealt in a shady manner and this is also implicitly agreed to by various august members of this forum community too in this case for which I have attached the link. Various members have also expressed there opinion on this in the Gambling section thread too. 4. After I UPDATED my neg to reflect the latest FJ fiasco after a spat with Hhampuz. Lauda decided to UPGRADE my tag to red trust here.  which prior to this was this  This neutral had been again updated recently although the same thing has been there since the earlier issues stated in point 1. 5. Not only that but apparently to prevent any red trust appearing on FJ the DT member did put me in the excluded list (as if I am ever becoming a DT member, but the thought of it amuses me  ).
I now proceed to ask members of this forum to point out if I am deserving of the TAG and how then is it justified.
Since this is un-self-moderated opinions from everyone will be welcomed and paid heed to without any malice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
allahabadi (OP)
|
 |
February 26, 2020, 05:52:04 AM
Last edit: February 26, 2020, 01:28:47 PM by allahabadi |
|
EDIT1: -
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.
WOW! Never knew this was standard trust abuse practice by the DT Abuser. |
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
|
February 26, 2020, 08:04:13 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hacker1001101001
|
|
February 26, 2020, 11:16:45 AM |
|
DTs tagging users for speaking out about there signature gold mine company. Clearly an financially motivated wrongdoing and use of power.
Welcome to the club though.
|
|
|
|
|
Side chain
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 6
|
|
February 26, 2020, 11:56:04 AM |
|
Welcome to the club though.
TECSHARE and hacker1001101001 what club you are talking about? How long we will do this my club and your club things, how long we will do this Lauda gang and anti-lauda gang? It seems we all have a personal agenda and we are working to protect it. What was the cause for this forum when it started? We really do not care much about it. @allahabadi, it's sad to see that you got tagged for expressing opinion and this is not the correct use of trust system. I have seen Lauda to create inappropriate flags too and the explanations she give are some kind of game of using her words. I will blame those people who added her in their trust list. They are equally taking the responsibility of this kind of wrong feedback leaving by Lauda. I would like to see how many users from above response here since they has been mentioned now.You are to be blamed too! I am sure Lauda is not in your trust list now? When everyone of you will have this end then you will realize who to add and who not to add in your trust list. I think most of the DT do not want to distrust Lauda is because they think distrusting her will allow a lot of scammers to get their account becoming a regular account since Lauda has thousands of tags left for scammers. There are some good tags but that does not mean Lauda will keep doing the wrong things and for the sake of those good tags you all will keep trusting her? |
|
|
|
|
|
allahabadi (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2020, 01:23:22 PM |
|
@TECSHARE and @hacker1001101001 Thanks for the concern, although I am very much in favour of objective standards, but I guess it wud derail the topic at hand. -
You are to be blamed too! I am sure Lauda is not in your trust list now? When everyone of you will have this end then you will realize who to add and who not to add in your trust list.
-
It wud hv been better had u commented from your main account. Obviously you are scared or have some sinister motive, also I had a curated trust list prior to being red trusted, so it's not like Lauda isn't in my Trust List NOW. P.S. Shud I be surprised at the wariness shown by other DTs to not infuriate the so very VINDICTIVE Abuser  |
|
|
|
|
Side chain
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 30
Merit: 6
|
|
February 26, 2020, 01:35:59 PM |
|
It wud hv been better had u commented from your main account. Obviously you are scared or have some sinister motive
If I have the access of my main account then I would of course ( the coward things was a sarcasm by the way, there are no blacklisting or such thing.). I can assure you that there are no sinister motive. I am talking because I feel like it's need to be talked and anyone can take my move from any dimension. I have no financial interest here but anything to care about the forum affairs which looks wrong. |
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
|
February 26, 2020, 02:05:52 PM |
|
@TECSHARE and @hacker1001101001 Thanks for the concern, although I am very much in favour of objective standards, but I guess it wud derail the topic at hand. -
You are to be blamed too! I am sure Lauda is not in your trust list now? When everyone of you will have this end then you will realize who to add and who not to add in your trust list.
-
It wud hv been better had u commented from your main account. Obviously you are scared or have some sinister motive, also I had a curated trust list prior to being red trusted, so it's not like Lauda isn't in my Trust List NOW. P.S. Shud I be surprised at the wariness shown by other DTs to not infuriate the so very VINDICTIVE Abuser One would assume you would be for objective standards for leaving negative ratings given your current circumstance, but apparently not. |
|
|
|
|
|
allahabadi (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2020, 02:15:54 PM
Last edit: February 26, 2020, 03:16:29 PM by allahabadi |
|
@TECSHARE and @hacker1001101001 Thanks for the concern, although I am very much in favour of objective standards, but I guess it wud derail the topic at hand. -
You are to be blamed too! I am sure Lauda is not in your trust list now? When everyone of you will have this end then you will realize who to add and who not to add in your trust list.
-
It wud hv been better had u commented from your main account. Obviously you are scared or have some sinister motive, also I had a curated trust list prior to being red trusted, so it's not like Lauda isn't in my Trust List NOW. P.S. Shud I be surprised at the wariness shown by other DTs to not infuriate the so very VINDICTIVE Abuser One would assume you would be for objective standards for leaving negative ratings given your current circumstance, but apparently not. I don't want to derail the current topic; but now since you have questioned me on this topic; let me make my stand clear. No human can claim to be objective, value-neutrality is an illusion and I very much agree with Paul Feyerabend (Epistemological Anarchism) and Max Weber on this issue. So to claim that rules devised will be objective would be a misnomer IMO, because to have objective assessments we need to use our subjective faculties. To claim that my current situation should push me to join any such venture would again be an opportunist assumption; I would have gladly partaken in such a venture even if I wasn't red trusted; had I believed that such a step will lead to objectivity. I have always been clear with my intentions on this forum; even if the current situation continues to be so and none other deem it worthwhile to respond on this situation, I would still not be willing to claim objectivity. Even in my posts here I have maintained a sense of subjectivity and to compensate have given them the benefit of doubt within my margin of error (now see even that's subjective). P.S. I do respect you for trying to start something better; but let's not turn vindictive for the sake of countering vindictiveness. EDIT: -
Some DT members behave such a way that it seems they feel satisfaction red painting an account. It's better to raise voice under an alt account.
Then it is the collective failure of BTCTalk DT members that they continue to accommodate Trust system Abusers within their ranks and if theymos has acknowledged the failure of the system implicitly, then it is better to do away with it altogether. |
|
|
|
|
unibitcoinist
Member
Offline
Activity: 122
Merit: 40
|
It wud hv been better had u commented from your main account. Obviously you are scared or have some sinister motive,
There's nothing wrong with posting from an alt, in fact theymos has encouraged users to create alt if they feel necessary. I don't have a problem with alt accounts as long as they're not used for evading bans. If you're hesitant to say something controversial because you don't want it to be associated with your name, please create an alt account and say it.
Some DT members behave such a way that it seems they feel satisfaction red painting an account. It's better to raise voice under an alt account. |
|
|
|
|
AB de Royse777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 4140
Campaign Manager. My Telegram @Royse777
|
|
February 26, 2020, 05:03:57 PM |
|
Several times Lauda asked them to ~Lauda them if anyone do not agree with their feedback and it's pretty simple to do for anyone. If you see anyone is not using the trust system in an appropriate manner then just distrust them.
|
| ..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄
██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄
██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████
██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀
██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██
██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██
██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████
██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀
██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██
██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██
▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
█ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄
█ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌
█ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █
█ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌
█ ██████████ █ ▐ █
█ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌
█ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █
█ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌
█ █▐ █
█ █▐▐▌
█ █▐█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄
██ ▐█▌ ██
████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████
████████▄███████████▄████████
███▀ █████████████ ▀███
██ ███████████ ██
▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀
▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀
▀███████ ███████▀
▀█████▄ ▄█████▀
▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
|
allahabadi (OP)
|
|
February 26, 2020, 05:14:33 PM |
|
Several times Lauda asked them to ~Lauda them if anyone do not agree with their feedback and it's pretty simple to do for anyone. If you see anyone is not using the trust system in an appropriate manner then just distrust them.
Bhai It's not about individually curating one's Trust List, but the DT system that is enabling this abuse, if anyone wants to engage in any economic activity; a new user wud definitely stay away from a red trust user. Infact even an experienced campaign handler like you will probably refuse admission on basis of DT Red trust. |
|
|
|
|
AB de Royse777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 4140
Campaign Manager. My Telegram @Royse777
|
|
February 26, 2020, 05:26:26 PM |
|
Bhai
I do not think I understood it, assuming some kind of addressing? Pardon my ignorance. Anyway, you are saying that DT system is to be blamed for this? I disagree. Yes we do not have a perfect system but I do not see anything better than this too. Do you have any proposal? This is a system where everyone is free to contribute with their inclusion and exclusion, everyone is aware that their wrong doing will cause them harm so they will be more willing to learn good things and practice good things. Infact even an experienced campaign handler like you will probably refuse admission on basis of DT Red trust. I did not understand this part too. Are you saying if I am a campaign manager then I will refuse red trust users? This will be another subject to talk though. |
| ..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄
██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄
██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████
██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀
██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██
██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██
██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████
██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀
██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██
██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██
▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
█ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄
█ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌
█ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █
█ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌
█ ██████████ █ ▐ █
█ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌
█ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █
█ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌
█ █▐ █
█ █▐▐▌
█ █▐█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄
██ ▐█▌ ██
████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████
████████▄███████████▄████████
███▀ █████████████ ▀███
██ ███████████ ██
▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀
▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀
▀███████ ███████▀
▀█████▄ ▄█████▀
▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
|
February 26, 2020, 09:39:55 PM |
|
I don't want to derail the current topic; but now since you have questioned me on this topic; let me make my stand clear. No human can claim to be objective, value-neutrality is an illusion and I very much agree with Paul Feyerabend (Epistemological Anarchism) and Max Weber on this issue. So to claim that rules devised will be objective would be a misnomer IMO, because to have objective assessments we need to use our subjective faculties. To claim that my current situation should push me to join any such venture would again be an opportunist assumption; I would have gladly partaken in such a venture even if I wasn't red trusted; had I believed that such a step will lead to objectivity. I have always been clear with my intentions on this forum; even if the current situation continues to be so and none other deem it worthwhile to respond on this situation, I would still not be willing to claim objectivity. Even in my posts here I have maintained a sense of subjectivity and to compensate have given them the benefit of doubt within my margin of error (now see even that's subjective). P.S. I do respect you for trying to start something better; but let's not turn vindictive for the sake of countering vindictiveness. EDIT: -
Some DT members behave such a way that it seems they feel satisfaction red painting an account. It's better to raise voice under an alt account.
Then it is the collective failure of BTCTalk DT members that they continue to accommodate Trust system Abusers within their ranks and if theymos has acknowledged the failure of the system implicitly, then it is better to do away with it altogether. Exactly how is advocating for people presenting evidence before negative rating vindictive? Could you possibly project any more? You complain about the abuse of this user, but you make accusations against the only people resisting it, and have the person who abused you on your trust list. I can only conclude you are not the brightest bulb in the box. |
|
|
|
|
truth or dare
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 15
|
|
February 27, 2020, 02:22:23 PM |
|
The entire system is broken. The root cause is merit ( cycled and abused with each of these DT1 slathering each other's posts with merit as confirmed by their top 20 fans and recipients lists) they the all club together to include each other on dt1, since they are primarily the only ones meeting the 250 earned merit threshold DT1 requires to nominate. one another. These coincidentally are also mostly occupying the top paying dig spots run by their pals hhampuz and Yahoo.
Any threat to the status quo will be silenced or punished with merit and tagging. Merits for supporting their agenda / merit starvation for speaking against. Red tags are a threat or actually applied for unfavorable opinions
Sadly most people are too scared, or too stupid to notice how it all works here until they are given a real taste.
If you want to blame anyone then talk to theymos who either lacks understanding or intends it this way.
The system is broken. You want a vast improvement then join the guild. Or just continue being abused and claiming it is impossible to objectively define 10 is a larger number than 3 because of prior life experiences.
Is is possible for anyone to objectively define your treatment as abusive? or retaliatory? if not then let's not worry about it.
Don't let's get philosophical let's be practical and apply solutions that are optimal given what there is to work with.
Pleading for help may even result in your own " subjectivity" defined abuse being overturned case. That will not remove the merit and tagging jack boot from the throat of free speech here.
Presenting a valuable and credible case for defining this as abusive or clearly suboptimal behavior will result in nothing. Most DT1 benefit from the silencing of anyone that says anything that could call into question the status quo.
Pleading for change is not going to work.
|
|
|
|
|
The Sceptical Chymist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3514
Merit: 6986
Top Crypto Casino
|
|
February 27, 2020, 08:44:42 PM |
|
I think most of the DT do not want to distrust Lauda is because they think distrusting her will allow a lot of scammers to get their account becoming a regular account since Lauda has thousands of tags left for scammers. There are some good tags but that does not mean Lauda will keep doing the wrong things and for the sake of those good tags you all will keep trusting her?
I get your point, and that probably is one reason why Lauda hasn't been excluded from people's trust lists more than has already happened. I took a look at OP's trust page, and this looks like another example of leaving a neg for what essentially comes down to a difference of opinion or interpretation of facts. I don't think anybody is at risk of anything based on what OP wrote in the reference thread, and I think neutral observers would probably agree with that. So this is another one of Lauda's feedbacks I don't agree with--but I can't do anything about it that wouldn't be all out of proportion to the situation. I'm not going to exclude Lauda from my trust list unless these kinds of feedbacks get out of hand, and even then an exclusion from me wouldn't do much of anything. And I'm not into countering feedbacks. It would be nice if more DT members weighed in on this. |
|
|
|
truth or dare
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 15
|
|
February 27, 2020, 10:30:17 PM |
|
I think most of the DT do not want to distrust Lauda is because they think distrusting her will allow a lot of scammers to get their account becoming a regular account since Lauda has thousands of tags left for scammers. There are some good tags but that does not mean Lauda will keep doing the wrong things and for the sake of those good tags you all will keep trusting her?
I get your point, and that probably is one reason why Lauda hasn't been excluded from people's trust lists more than has already happened. I took a look at OP's trust page, and this looks like another example of leaving a neg for what essentially comes down to a difference of opinion or interpretation of facts. I don't think anybody is at risk of anything based on what OP wrote in the reference thread, and I think neutral observers would probably agree with that. So this is another one of Lauda's feedbacks I don't agree with--but I can't do anything about it that wouldn't be all out of proportion to the situation. I'm not going to exclude Lauda from my trust list unless these kinds of feedbacks get out of hand, and even then an exclusion from me wouldn't do much of anything. And I'm not into countering feedbacks. It would be nice if more DT members weighed in on this. Fantastic post clearly demostrating further issues with red tags and the DT system. Well done pharmacist. Not that your inaction helps the OP very much. |
|
|
|
|
nutildah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3164
Merit: 8565
Happy 10th Birthday to Dogeparty!
|
|
February 28, 2020, 05:23:48 AM |
|
OP removed his negative trust from FortuneJack, which renders the "trust abuse" portion of Lauda's negative trust no longer relevant. They are a decent quality poster and don't deserve to have this negative.
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
February 28, 2020, 06:34:13 AM |
|
I took a look at OP's trust page, and this looks like another example of leaving a neg for what essentially comes down to a difference of opinion or interpretation of facts.
Libel / defamation / slander =/= "difference of opinion" or any "difference in interpretation of facts". We do not live in the forking UK, do we? It is harming innocent people out of envy, spite, and similar. OP removed his negative trust from FortuneJack, which renders the "trust abuse" portion of Lauda's negative trust no longer relevant. They are a decent quality poster and don't deserve to have this negative.
Silently removing after making a thread which I am not involved in and not notifying me is convenient. Removed that part and rating is on-point again. Is there anything else? I believe if you break down all the sentences each is trivially proven true. |
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion) |
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
|
February 28, 2020, 07:06:07 AM |
|
I'm not going to exclude Lauda from my trust list unless these kinds of feedbacks get out of hand, and even then an exclusion from me wouldn't do much of anything. The idea that Lauda's abusive ratings are not out of hand is nothing more than an illusion to sell yourself on justifying your excusing of this behavior by not excluding them. There is no shortage of forum cops, many with much better track records. The sky will not fall with Lauda gone. There is a long history of Lauda abusing the trust systems here to the point of Theymos blacklisting them from DT1. You know this, you are simply equivocating to justify inaction. |
|
|
|
|
|
