Another Lauda topic : Can we review the feedback she lefts?

[Side chain]

Lauda left 5050¹ feedback for forum users and most of them are Reds. Someone left 5k+ feedback defiantly deserves appreciation. This gives immense respect towards a user.

No problem with the respect she earns but should we leave all these feedback left by Lauda only? Can't we have more DT members tagging those users? I get it that it's a huge job but this is also truth that if Lauda is out from DT then the real scammers get the tickets because the feedback will not reflect in their trust page.

Besides Lauda also get this monopoly unannounced power that for her work people will keep her in their trust list and she will feel so satisfied that she will not notice her mistakes which will eventually lead her to leave wrong feedback. Too much power is not good. It make things centralized.

In fact we are seeing some² controversial feedback coming from her. In some cases she even do not care to start false argument with other users. An example:

No surprise about your vast intellect given that you use urban dictionary as your source knowledge.

It was about if the word "pajeet" is racist or not. Lauda has to deny it that it's not resist or her support for some users who she favors will be weaken. There are many more examples can be given where Lauda blatantly changing the direction of a topic just to deny that she is wrong. But still we see a lot of DT trust her judgement.  

Do we have this in mind that distrusting her will give open ticket to some of the scammers?

Let's have a look on some of the recent feedback she lefts for users^3/4.

Intentionally spreading false information.

For TECSHARE reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226886.msg53919541#msg53919541 Wrong use of trust feedback system Feedback system is not here to stop people to talk.

Continues his dishonest, malicious and dangerous behaviour. Avoid this user.

For andulolika reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231508.msg53994888#msg53994888 Wrong use of trust feedback system Tagging people because they leave open opinion which she does not like.

Running a scam casino.

For KawBet reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230966.msg53977918#msg53977918 Tagged in a gray area.
 

Bitcoin Cash shill spreading fake propaganda in order to deceive newcomers. Do not trust a single word written by this user.
Sometimes hope for betterment is wasted.

For user jbreher reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2399315.msg24699396#msg24699396 Wrong use of trust feedback system Tagged because the user has different view about Bcash/BSV.

Alt account created solely for defamation and attacks. High-risk and untrustworthy.

For user savetheFORUM reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230557.msg53967974#msg53967974 One can have alt account. Tagging them for defamation and attacks (even if they do), is not valid use of trust of course.

Tried to bait me into doing something illegal. Possibly an agency employee. Danger.

For user l19765 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5230268.msg53960824#msg53960824 I may not tag a user because of sending me PM but I will not see it's wrong to tag as well. Possibly it's a good feedback considering the user is newbie.

Alts enrolling in the same campaign.
The other connected account is > kolonel_x (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=942058).

For user kolonel_x reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229738.msg53946506#msg53946506 A valid feedback. Connection looks good.

Alts enrolling in the same campaign.
The other connected account is > kolonel_x (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=942058).

For user watergold reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229738.msg53946506#msg53946506 A valid feedback. Connection looks good.

Flag created for mich reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1417
Flag created for domsch reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1416
I am not sure about the cases as I did not see them deep so I will ignore these two.

Malicious individual that is trying to spin my kindness, i.e. not posting evidence of his wrongdoings and alt connections, that may unnecessarily hurt him as threats. Quite an characteristic of evil.

For user hacker1001101001 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg53934003#msg53934003 very funny reason. Does not look a good use of trust system. It's an attempt to stop those who speak against her.

Alt account created solely for defamation and attacks. High-risk and untrustworthy.

For user bonesjonesreturns reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5229023.msg53931673#msg53931673 She thinks like that hence she tagged but this should not be the good use of trust system.

Defaulted on a 0.05 loan - which can not be repaid as lihuajkl is inactive.

For user joksim299 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=926825.msg12889870#msg12889870 I will agree since the lender is not around.

Tried to scam ChiBitCTy.

For user Leonard2016 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3282826.msg34229263#msg34229263 considering the shady practice I will agree with this tag

Flag for poochpocket reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1413
Flag for hacker1001101001 reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1412
Even if they are connected still leaving red does not look good. These flags are more like the personal conflict between two users.

Continues to defame me out of spite. Will merge with other ratings later.

Another tag for TECSHARE reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228504.msg53927419#msg53927419 result of personal conflict between these two users.

RapTarX and Little Mouse
Accounts connected: Little Mouse (UUID = 2344286), RapTarX (UUID = 2530429).
Deception. Multi-accounting. One of two accounts is either farmed up or the result of account trading.
Reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228825.msg53921446#msg53921446
Even if they are connected but still very much harsh to tag these accounts.

Do not trust this user due to their obvious biased malicious nature. Frivolous libel against established reputable company. Dealing with them will have damaging consequences to the individual and/or service provider. Recommendation: Do not trust and avoid.

For user allahabadi reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5227531.msg53907095#msg53907095 She tagged the user because she did not like the way the user talked to her (it seems)

Flag and tag for Bitcoin.Gold
Tag reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228799
Flag reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=1408
I will keep gray area in this project

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.

Another tag for TECSHARE reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5228550.new#new this seems she likes to tag TECSHARE for anything he talks against her. Totally idiotic move from Lauda.

Known DT manipulator (see reference link) who has been more recently involved in chicanery currently the subject of investigation.

For user Kalemder reference = https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5182530.msg52385837#msg52385837 Even if they do which goes with distrusting them but we can not leave tag for it.

There are 25 entries which are taken in considerations and out of 25 I have:
16 wrong tag
04 right tag
03 gray area which means I can not agree or disagree
02 Out of my scope. Need more research.

This means 16 out of 25 tags are very questionable and that's 64% of the feedback she left are questionable. In other words, it's wrong/harsh/personal conflict. And still a lot of us have her in our entrust list. Shouldn't we reconsider our reasons of entrusting her?

Let's be fair. I will invite few DT members or somehow reputed members to review the above 25 feedback and
a) If your discovery are same as me, meaning more feedback are controversial than proper use of the system then do ~Lauda
b) If you find majority of her feedback are good then do entrust her.

We can do the review, can't we? Let's take some responsibility in our shoulder instead of letting her to do most of the things (Tagging users).

Otherwise it will be sad to see the response like The Pharmacist made which is below:

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.

Giving an opinion like this does not do anything for the community.

¹ Please do some +/- it's not a big deal to have the accurate number  
² May be not some but more and more
³ I tried to archive using LoyceV's tool but not sure if I have done it correctly. I will use an screenshot for backup. This screenshot has her latest 50 sent feedback.
⁴ We are considering top 25 feedback to find a conclusion. It's not possible to review all the feedback in this topic but it's a start after all.

[1714605951]

1714605951

[1714605951]

1714605951

[Timelord2067]

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
	What is the point of this thread?  Are you an alt of Lauda, or of Cryptohunter / TOAA / Thule / (insert lame name here). Most if not all of Lauda's negatives are in breach of @theymos' directives concerning retaliatory trust feedback and at the moment he is once again removed from DT2 so his negatives are (quite rightly) meaningless.

[actmyname]

Where's that old topic when Lauda got removed from DT and numerous users did their due diligence and reviewed the feedback?Ah...

[LoyceV]

Can't we have more DT members tagging those users? I get it that it's a huge job

I've seen Lauda tag ~600 users on one day, and I have no desire to thoroughly check that many ratings to leave my own rating. I think Lauda was the main reason theymos had to add pagination to feedback pages, to prevent them from timing out.
I think the entire Trust system would be much better if many different users leave valid tags when they find a scammer. Users shouldn't wait until they reach DT (and ideally it should work the other way around: people with valid ratings should be included).
I've expected Lauda's removal from DT to be inevitable for a long time now. You can't make that many enemies and tag that many people without collecting more and more exclusions, and the semi-decentralized DT1 system gives more and more users the power to vote.

[Timelord2067]

Where's that old topic when Lauda got removed from DT and numerous users did their due diligence and reviewed the feedback?Ah...

Yeh and then they worked feverishly for weeks to transcribe verbatim all of Lauda's negative trust feedback to ensure those who'd been on the receiving end remained showing negative trust by the DT1's.

Very few seem to have done due diligence and actually verified any of the instances of Red Paint he'd splashed around, however, now that you've re-found the topic I've managed to Archive [1a], [1b] the various participants for future reference before the denials begin.

[actmyname]

Users shouldn't wait until they reach DT (and ideally it should work the other way around: people with valid ratings should be included).

This is what I've advocated. Logically, if you found out that someone was worthy of distrust, then you would want to note that for yourself. Since users are placed in DT0 by default, it shouldn't matter that other users don't see the feedback - the system in general is used to safeguard oneself from scammers and the like.

Yeh and then they worked feverishly for weeks to transcribe verbatim all of Lauda's negative trust feedback to ensure those who'd been on the receiving end remained showing negative trust by the DT1's.

Very few seem to have done due diligence and actually verified any of the instances of Red Paint he'd splashed around, however, now that you've re-found the topic I've managed to Archive [1a], [1b] the various participants for future reference before the denials begin.

Cheers. I was a prominent member of The Retaggening so if you find that any of my feedback is misplaced, feel free to let me know so I can alter them.

I do not recall the series of events in full but I do remember examining each block of references for the various users (alt chains that linked to the same references were merely checked for username consistency after initial verification)

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I've seen Lauda tag ~600 users on one day

Yeah, I remember that.  I think at that point I had the most negs left for members and Lauda didn't want to be outdone--and that was fine by me. 

When Lauda was removed from DT on one previous occasion, there were DT members reviewing a lot of his/her feedbacks (as mentioned), but that was some time ago.  I'm sure there have been a ton of negs left since then, but seeing as how Lauda is apparently not on DT anymore (which I didn't know), it really doesn't make too much difference for members who might have been unjustly tagged.  Lauda did tag a lot of scammers and scumbags correctly IMO, and that's the real problem if they haven't been tagged by multiple DT members. 

I was a prominent member of The Retaggening so if you find that any of my feedback is misplaced, feel free to let me know so I can alter them.

Yep, you were.  I had no patience or desire to be a part of that, but I also knew that Lauda and I had often tagged the same members for the same things, so it would have been a lot of wasted time on my part, which I didn't have to spare.  Props to you and the others who picked through all those feedbacks.

[dragonvslinux]

Most if not all of Lauda's negatives are in breach of @theymos' directives concerning retaliatory trust feedback and at the moment he is once again removed from DT2 so his their negatives are (quite rightly) meaningless.

To reiterate what the OP said, this review would also be for the benefit of DT and all users here, as well as Lauda, to have scammers tagged that are now "free from the neg chains". To me this appears to be a sincere and relevant proposal - whether you agree with Lauda's feedback is actually the focal point of the proposal ironically, but is intended as a review, not as a passing comment;

I get it that it's a huge job but this is also truth that if Lauda is out from DT then the real scammers get the tickets because the feedback will not reflect in their trust page.

Also meaningless for now, but for how long? I would be surprised not to see Lauda back as DT2 in the coming weeks personally, given that their rate of behavior changes dramatically based on dt strength. For Lauda's benefit alone, it looks like another time to review something (not necessarily everything) to get another boost of DT strength, as has been seen previously. Maybe this is why you disapprove or think it's pointless? 

Lauda's exclusion from DT will also likely need "testing" statistically speaking. If they don't end up back on board with another DT update that is, even if it was predicted that they would be excluded by Spring/Summer time in a sustainable manner based on last year's trust data samples. If you think the days of Lauda being DT are over, I think you're being naive and you're wrong, it's only been 24 hours, and could be determined sensibly by the suggested review.

Where's that old topic when Lauda got removed from DT and numerous users did their due diligence and reviewed the feedback?Ah...

Thanks for referencing, it's good to see users did this in October 2018 as confirmation that it'd be a good time to do another review. Do we know how many negs how been left since the previous review? Reviewing prior to this seems pointless, if it's already been addressed and discussed, not that the OP was suggesting this I don't think (the suggested 25 feedbacks are all recent if I'm not mistaken).

Let's be fair. I will invite few DT members or somehow reputed members to review the above 25 feedback and
a) If your discovery are same as me, meaning more feedback are controversial than proper use of the system then do ~Lauda
b) If you find majority of her feedback are good then do entrust her.

Bare in mind though side chain, people will have different standards for distrusting a user as well as trusting. Personally I'd need to see a lot more than 50% accurate feedback in order to trust another user's judgment. Similarly, I don't need a majority of inaccurate feedback to distrust a user either, in the past I've distrusted user's judgments based on "single judgement's", though I've changed my tune on this recently, but a small minority of poor judgement is enough for me to distrust a user.

Different people = different standards is the point, as people's trust lists can be created in the way they please - for example some users can chose to include certain users in order for someone's trust feedback to be seen, because they find it relevant for example, as opposed to actually trusting their judgement. I don't believe this is the correct use of trust lists, but ultimately users are free to include/exclude as they please. I otherwise agree with the sentiment of the thread, and believe it to be very sincere and clearly beneficial to everyone here, as well as those anthropological students that can't get enough of this topic. 

[Timelord2067]

Make no mistake Lauda went out of his way to recklessly destroy others with fake red trust feedbacks as evidenced by post five of the Known Alts ^{MK III} thread:

I'm not participating given that it is a unmoderated thread. I'll just be tagging more often, and more faster.

Have fun.
D.

[Side chain]

snip	What is the point of this thread?  Are you an alt of Lauda, or of Cryptohunter / TOAA / Thule / (insert lame name here).

You are all wrong in your guesses. Did you miss some more?  

Anyway, actmyname and LoyceV already gave some fine response here. These days were gone when we used to wait for someone to be on DT and then starts talking about their feedback ratings especially from the users who received the reds. The new dynamic DT system allows anyone to be on the DT with just one inclusion by a DT1 and every month we are seeing DT1 users are rotating randomly.

Lauda's feedback really needs some attention since she still has a lot of people who have her in their trust lists (Both entrust and distrust). And I have this feeling that most of the inclusion and exclusions are based on her past good time and long term users in the forum. Some people think, including Lauda in their trust system will save the forum from the scammers who she tagged.

snip	Most if not all of Lauda's negatives are in breach of @theymos' directives concerning retaliatory trust feedback and at the moment he is /]once again removed from DT2 so his negatives are (quite rightly) meaningless.

She seems to have her own theory when she leaves the feedback. Now should we all have different theories to tag the people who we do not like? This is going to create a mess.

[Timelord2067]

...

It's probably best if you refrain from glueing various snippets of my previous posts in this and other threads given you can't then cobble together a coherent response out of them.

[blue Snow]

Another Lauda topic : Can we review the feedback she lefts?

How you know Lauda is female?
I guess niki Lauda is a man

[Harlot]

She isn't a DT user here in the forum so why bother? The negative tag she is giving to the users won't show up as a red paint for other users to see and it simply has no weight into it. Reviewing each and every negative tag she gave is really unnecessary considering that the time and effort will need to do that, I don't think she will remove all of it or even any of it when other members disagree to her feedback. Other than that according to her LoyceV's trust page she is distrusted by 245 members (including 22 DT1) as compared to 120 members (19 DT1) trusting her. I wouldn't really make this a big concern anymore especially when it involves how a member just tag people which you just disagree with.

[Stedsm]

@Side Chain,
What exactly do you want? Why are you not purely decisive in your own words?
Do you want Lauda to stop giving (any sort of) trust ratings to people and stop thinking that it's solely her responsibility to keep the forum clean?
Do you want DTs (who trust Lauda and her tags) to come ahead, take time to review her rating/s and tag that user based on what they find or just because Lauda tagged them?
Do you want DTs to tag Lauda for wrongly tagging people? But then, you are also trying to woo her by saying that scammers would get away easily if her work (those tags) is to be ignored. I'm confused about what you are trying to convey.

[dragonvslinux]

@Side Chain,
What exactly do you want? Why are you not purely decisive in your own words?

Probably because they aren't DT, so they aren't being decisive about the trust ratings them self, which totally makes sense.

Do you want Lauda to stop giving (any sort of) trust ratings to people and stop thinking that it's solely her responsibility to keep the forum clean?
Do you want DTs (who trust Lauda and her tags) to come ahead, take time to review her rating/s and tag that user based on what they find or just because Lauda tagged them?
Do you want DTs to tag Lauda for wrongly tagging people? But then, you are also trying to woo her by saying that scammers would get away easily if her work (those tags) is to be ignored. I'm confused about what you are trying to convey.

Unless your asking these questions rhetorically, all your questions have been answered in the OP. It would be a waste of time to quote you and the OP to answer them  
Just read the OP properly to answer your own questions and save everyone else the bother of speculating over them

She isn't a DT user here in the forum so why bother?

Likewise, read the OP properly please.

[mikeywith]

When it comes to Lauda I don't even know how to describe that member, almost 2 years ago I was scammed for the first time on this forum, I was a newbie and the scammer was a Legendary member, I checked his feedback and there was only one negative feedback from Lauda, I checked Lauda's own feedback and found one or a few negative feedbacks on her profile, one negative was from a member who I highly trusted (still trust), the feedback she left wasn't really backed by any evidence of scam history, so I 'conveniently' convinced myself that Lauda's feedback was meaningless, and the next thing I knew was me getting scammed by that "Legendary" member (he showed up later with some excuses and paid me my money back, but that doesn't really matter).

When that happened to me, I decided to dig deep in this trust system, was trying to find scammers and warn others about them, I created a dozen of flags and tagged a good number of scammers, I happened to see a lot of negatives from Lauda, I would disagree to many of them, but later on, I would realize Lauda was right AGAIN in many cases.

I think of Lauda as the bad cop, like Melissa McCarthy in The Heat Movie, a cop that knows a criminal when they see them, but instead of following the protocol which in some cases fails to convict criminals and set them free, the bad cop will bunch them in the face to get confessions  .

I can write a hundred lines on how is that a good thing for the community, I can also write the same number of lines explaining the contrary, It's up to every individual to think of that as a bad or a good thing, I personally trust most of Laud's feedback, but if I agree to her way of doing things then I have to accept everyone else who does the same, and having so many bad cops in one place might cause more harm than good. with that being said, even without including Lauda in my trust-list (for the previous reason) I know I can trust most of her feedback.

I also don't think this thread will make any difference, Lauda is not a new member who needs to be evaluated, the answers to your questions can be found in her trust list on loyce's website.

[Lauda]

If I am no longer in DT and I do not know what happened, why this thread?

I can write a hundred lines on how is that a good thing for the community, I can also write the same number of lines explaining the contrary, It's up to every individual to think of that as a bad or a good thing, I personally trust most of Laud's feedback, but if I agree to her way of doing things then I have to accept everyone else who does the same, and having so many bad cops in one place might cause more harm than good. with that being said, even without including Lauda in my trust-list (for the previous reason) I know I can trust most of her feedback.

I occasionally mess up, but who does not? That is why others are there for, to point out the mistakes. 

[TECSHARE]

[shits out 5000 negative trust ratings]

"occasionally I mess up"

[andulolika]

That is still a big worry for me, perhaps a community owned account that tags proven accounts would be a good idea.
It is sure heshe done a decent job and maybe the accounts tagged will never be accessed again as i seen in cases tagged by myself.

In the past used to tag bounties and shitcoin scams and I only perhaps got a couple of users bitching back after promoting the scams, one of them got me banned and negative rated after a proven scam.
But again the problem itself doesn't reside in lauda which might be a account used by more than a entity thing is that its quite a group there.

[StonerStanley]

[shits out 5000 negative trust ratings]

"occasionally I mess up"

Don't talk about others when you are one of those manipulators and lier who put me on the untrust list for nothing.