LaudaM, are a proven extortionist criminal.
Nope. That's a continued lie [...]
Wrong. You are lying again.
Above all, there is a large difference between a sting operation and an extortionist. Explain this to me: Why would Lauda spend so much time finding scammers and negging them if she/ he could in fact join them and make money behind closed doors (secretly is what I mean). Also, why does Lauda often bust/ help bust scam ICOs with cryptodevil if, once again, he or she could join in on the ICO and make money off them by not exposing them, essentially blackmailing them.
None of that matters, nor does the shill care about anyone actually engaging in any scammy/shady actions or similar. That's what happens when you end up on the wrong end of negative ratings. 
I don't see that happening, and I do believe Lauda's 'extortion attempt'
was a sting operation. You either believe it or you don't. Lauda's good works
outweigh that little lapse of good judgement.
I think that it is fair to say that a number of people trust me on a much higher level than ever before.However, regarding the logic of the above statement. Quickseller spent a lot of
time scam busting....and then he pulled his escrow scam on a bunch of unwitting
victims who thought they were purchasing an escrow service with an independent
third party. You know, a real escrow. As in, a 3-sided transaction. So just
because someone tries to bust scammers doesn't mean that person is not or would
not become one. You never know.
Quickseller is a prime example of someone who deceived the public and who showed his true colors after his crimes were exposed.As seen here once again it's typical behavior of Lauda not to directly reply to the substance at all and trying to deceive by attacking others.
On another note it does not matter whether 'a number of people trust you (sic) on a much higher level than ever before', as criminals too have friends and partners who may trust them. This argument, again, is completely worthless.
Let's repeat it over and over again until you get it:
Gibberish quoted. Let us know when you are back to the substance. You cannot escape.
Again, attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself:you're a butthurt troll
Reminder:
Allowing stuff like this is just damaging for everyone [...] and ultimately the forum (which is already in a bad state)
-->
Tell us: extortionists/criminals do NOT hurt the forum? What right does a criminal have to play the police here? Make sure to post a valid reply.[/size]
You are a proven criminal and a brazen hypocrite for trying to play the forum police. So far you have not been able to make a single valid argument justifying your position.
Answer the above bolded question. For your instance it's a simple no/yes question and does not demand any further gibberish.
