Topic: IS GIVING RED-TRUST THAT NON-EXPLANATORY ? (Read 2901 times)

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Locking this thread for now.

---

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

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..


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..

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

 

You are right

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..

@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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ended-earnbet-signature-campaign-senior-hero-legendary-member-5217830) 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:


It was then replaced by this before it was removed:





@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.

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..

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.

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


"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.

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ree-hacker1001101001-ico-bump-account-5213922 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.

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://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53487964

Which of those allegations are you actually contesting?

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.

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

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..

1. It is my God given American right to be a dick and fuck you for suggesting otherwise.

2. Pad my trust how exactly? By using it in exactly the way it was intended to be used, and the way it is used by practically every one else here?

3. Again, you should use your special powers to know what goes on inside my mind for more useful purposes. Even if this were true (it is not) how the fuck does some one's expectations influence others?

4. I don't use the trust list for retaliation. I am using it in the way I see fit as we are all permitted to. You see, when people such as yourself exclude me for stupid shit, I see that as a lack of ability to make sound decisions and the inability to put personal feelings aside when using the system. This system was designed this way to make sure that if some one is excluded it is done for good reasons otherwise the excluding party gets excluded themselves. That is the whole point of constructing the system this way.

5. I have been doing this for years, long before you showed up. The only instances of abuse of the trust system you can name are ones where you rely on your own interpretations, fantasies, and beliefs of what my intent is. The fact is in spite of having many interpersonal conflicts with users here I have shown exceptional restraint when using the trust system even when it is abused against me. Me telling you to go fuck yourself is not a lack of restraint. Me not shitting all over your trust ratings to spite you is restraint.

You have long been defending the actions of people who make a habit of this, but because you can imagine in your own mind things going on in my mind, well that is all the evidence you need to condemn my actions now isn't it? So again, you have no answer to my question, your reply is a ad-hominim attack comparing me to cryptohunter, and you don't need to base your actions on logic or facts because they are your opinions. Good show. Don't forget your clown shoes tool boy.

Please read my post again and understand lauda losing his own sig is of little importance. Laudas removal however can be leveraged by the removal of his supporters sig or threat there of. This SIG business is but 1 tiny part of the arsenal one will need to adopt to have such scammers removed.  Just because lauda would not scam a person in a trade ( this is in doubt with large amounts) matters not. His prior history has MORE than enough to ensure he should be kept well away from the trust system. Are we that desperate we NEED those that have scammed, supported other scammers, worked with other scammers on a highly probable extortion, shady ecrowing, trust abuse?? ffs we only need 100 people here out of 100's of 1000s lol. There is NO reason for him NOT to be tagged red. Fortune jack are employing SCAMMERS this can and should be leveraged.

Why ask lauda a question in public, a liar and scammer/extortionist will simply say whatever suits them best. Do you really need to feel validated and trusted by a scammer. That is like an anti reference?

We don't need to have opinions, lauda has scammed and has so much dirt there in black and white there is no sensible reason not to red tag him. I mean if he does not meet the threshold for a tag LOL who the fuck does haha..  He won't pull of a small scam. I see so that fact there is irrefutable proof of scamming and STRONG evidence to suggest he was going for a nice big extortion or  huge escrow scam is OKAY??

All the other manipulations and collusions and DT entrenchment ON TOP is not even needed to know he should be banned let alone red tagged.

Anyway eddie we don't want to appear hostile to you (because we are not) but you will not see these scammers and trust abusers kicked out or even brought in line by talk alone. Organised action is your only hope. We will revisit when we come back in a years time after reaching our 1000 post. They will still be here and the forum will be more of a warzone and more of an echo chamber.

Economic pressure is a large leverage here. Most of these bums are broke so their chipmixer sigs dust are life blood to them. I mean they have been here years some of them and still broke down bums. This is the kind of people you are dealing with. Do not reason as if they had btc like yourself behind them and economic concerns are NOT PRIMARY. They are to them.

Transparent objective rules enforced equally on all members is the only satisfactory goal. No 2 tier system.

There is a temptation for some I know to try to win back favor of these controlling bunch. That is a shame (not you eddie but some others). I think theymos is part to blame 1/ merit cancer/ 2 leaving the old feedback system, 3/ not punishing trust abusers and scammers harder. This gives a bad signal to members they fear standing against the core bunch of scum AS BOTH VOD AND LFC BITCOIN have admitted in public. Fear of this group must be smashed.

Anyway I have given you my opinion, if you still believe it is a poor path to follow then continue your own way.  Trust abuse will be stopped through deterrent of retribution or theymos. FOrget theymos he is not going to help or would have done so by now. It is true the core group may collapse alone through greed and disagreement but they no their power depends on collusion so that is NOT going to happen imho.

I will only reply if you query anything I have said here. If not fine, try your own way. So long as you goal is to kick double standards and punish only scammers and financially dangerous it is good you are trying anything. So we salute that. As we say we do not mean to oppose you personally eddie

No, but your relentless use of playground-level, derogatory nicknames is. As is the continual banging on the "sig spamming for bitcoin dust" drum. Just because a user has something in their sig space for which they may be receiving compensation, it does not automatically make the contents of their post or their opinion invalid, just as the reverse is true.

Are we going to get anything new for 2020? "New Year, New You" perchance? Or is it just going to be the same old, same old repeated ad nauseam?

Me tagging Lauda would be unlikely to make them unqualified for their signature deal..
Lauda loosing their signature deal probably wouldn't change anything anyway.. You think they will just leave if they can't get paid for a signature?
Red-tagging has nothing to do with being "removed" either..

I also do not necessarily think that Lauda is all that high risk to trade with..
I highly doubt Lauda would scam on any simple trades or deals up to quite a high value, say up to around $10k, though I don't think they are a very good choice for an escrow or to be given very large exit scam opportunities anymore, but very few are up to that mark..


I highly doubt Lauda actually thinks that I myself am a high risk to trade with either.. Do you @Lauda?
Lauda do you think I would really scam over $100 or even $1k?


Where I do not trust Lauda is to be in charge/in influence of making the "laws", setting community standards/precedents, and wielding power over others..
As a matter of fact actually, I would trust Lauda to do just about exactly what they say they would do, which consists of banning/tagging/shutting up/exiling anyone that disagrees with them and greatly limiting the freedom of users in general, based on my interpretation of their statements and actions against users..

These points have "some" small merit. However most are words of someone that does not understand this forum and certainly NOT the mechanisms upon which the systems of control are based.

1. lauda is a confirmed scammer. He is a confirmed trust abuser (scamming). He is a highly probable extortionist. He has run a very shady looking escrow. He supports other proven scammers.  Reduce the credibility of the TRUST system HOW exactly? NOT giving red trust to these types of dangerous scum bags is REDUCING the value of the trust system.  How can you even claim that giving someone as blatantly untrustworthy and dangerous as lauda would DEVALUE the trust system. That is pure crazy talk.

This ALONE is 100% reason he should be glowing red. You are meant to be warning other honest members right about those that have demonstrated they are willing to lie, trust abuse, extort and use shady escrow for their person financial gain??

Ad hominem?  calling  a confirmed scammer a scammer is NOT ad hominem. When you are using the context of the TRUST system.

2. True that short of changing a broken system of control you will not PREVENT a recurrence of the same for 100% certain. Lauda and his cronies are but a symptom of the system. However since you are NOT  controlling the mechanisms on which the system works then you will need to understand that the SYSTEM itself DEMANDS retribution and friction to function. By removing them SHORT TERM it will send a message that scammers and those willingly and knowingly supporting scammers and their trust abuse will be REMOVED if they behave in that way.

3. You Fail to understand the trust system is ECONOMIC punishment for 99% of members. Do really believe that if there was no ECONOMIC consequences that anyone would give a shit about any of this LOL.  Your ONLY hope of removing trust abusers and scammers that are in DT and willing to continue trust abusing and doing whatever they can to hold on to their LUCRATIVE positions is chopping their support away. a/ chop into their projects for hiring these types, b/ refusing to produce transparent and open rules for campaign acceptance/denial  c/ using the gamed metrics of merit and trust that the SAME PEOPLE CONTROL THAT TAKE ALL THE TOP SPOTS.  Chop away at those supporting them and those projects funding them. That is your ONLY hope.

Like the school bullies that slap you around and you are only willing to wipe some of your tears on them in retaliation, NO UPPERCUT the bitches right in the fucking face so their is something to deter them or just keep getting abused. Head teacher is not going to help and neither are the bullies pals.

Talking back is  better than most are willing to do so we salute that but you will need to unite, organize and take action. They system RELIES ON THIS. DT is no place for those that dare not use the system as DESIGNED. The design is poor enough to have gifted a bunch of scum a huge entrenched advantage but they know to collude and take action whilst most just sit there moaning and crying. If we were on DT they would all be glowing red and stripped of their sigs until they start understanding you don't use the trust system to hide your past scamming deeds and punish whistle blowers. You don't actually get to be a scammer and be on DT and take the best sig spots. Scammers get tagged, innocent honest members do not. Honest member that are great contributors get the BEST SIG SPOTs.

Sensible transparent clear rules that apply equally to all members.

Trust abuse will not magically stop by moaning about it.

I see that by  sounding very reasonable and mild mannered you "think" that you will garner support some day from the out circle that entrench the core. I do NOT think that is possible.

For those like us that do not need or care about sigs your points MAY have more validity (not the refusal to tag scammers and extortionists and flagrant trust abusers) but you are talking about less than 1% of the board. They are recruiting from the 99% you are and already out number you and are entrenched will self cycled merits. Those odds are ...well I'm sure you see.

lauda primarily trust abuses when

a/ you mention observable scammy or shady instances in his past
b/ you mention observable scammy or shady instances in his supporters pasts
c/ you defend those that have PREVIOUSLY themselves highlighted his scammy, extorting and trust abusing ways.

He does this to prevent other members finding out he is dirty and indeed financially super high risk.  Allowing this to continue without tagging him red as a warning is certainly high risk.

Man up and fight back with all the tools the broken systems have given you , since you will not fix the systems themselves. Only theymos can do that and he seems intent of GIVING more advantage to those that collude and control merit not less. If the 250 threshold is ever increased (without fixing merit) you can only conclude theymos is crazy, stupid or complicit.
We draw close to our 1000 post . Then we will likely decide to leave for another task. If we return in one year and it is still the same core of scammy trust abusers and their supporters then they board is pretty much dead in terms of free speech on certain subjects (not hate speech)

Allowing people to shit post for pay at the highest rates whilst having scammed and facilitated scams, whilst other honest members who don't shit post can not post and be rewarded is the OPPOSITE of a meritocracy. That is like the worst possible environment for a forum. Some would call that sub optimal. We say it is a fucking cluster fuck.

We like you eddie but for DT to have a chance and this forum to have an optimal free and fair meritocracy where all members are given equal chance and opportunity, you need people in DT that will take affirmative action when it is clearly required. Bullies are only kept in check by those that are willing to ensure that their gains are = or less than their losses for abuse.  If their net gain is still more than their loss or punishment they will never stop.

What would that accomplish other than a brief satisfaction of a limited set of users?
I think attacks and "retaliation" like that are generally used when an opponent runs out of, or has a lack of, pertinent information and logic to back their case as ad hominem charactor assassination attempts usually..

"ad hominem"=directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I'm after the position, not any person..

It may look like a short term win, or successful hit, but in the long term truth and logic are much more effective, and I believe sending redtags would just degrade the image and credibility of intelligence presented..

I don't care about removing Lauda's or anyone's signatures.. I am not looking to personally destroy anyone like that.. They can shitpost for sig pay all they want for all I care..

It's about the credibility of DT and influence over the direction of DT.. Not some users profiles..

LOL but cryptohunter caved your retarded skull in every single time that you tried to rebut any of his points " mr opposite of facts" lol

What is the point of making these kind of statements that demonstrate absolutely nothing except your deranged view of reality ??
Have you not recognized that you direposter are just some broke ass noob with no skin in this game at all? stfu because you have achieved nothing (except trying to rip off people even less well of than yourself with crazy rates of interest) keep spamming your sig for dust and trying to sound smart so we can keep laughing at you whilst we enjoy our lavish lifestyle.

These are pretty much your groundless opinions, the rest are observable double standards that you should be spouting in the direction of your master lauda.

Lauda is a trust abuser. This is undeniable. Lauda is a scamer this is undeniable. You are found supporting him and other scumbags this is undeniable

Direposting burger flipper is one of his most ardent supporters. He should be removed along with lauda tman and nutildah. Those 3 are clear scammers and scam facilitators but those that support their actions regardless of how flagrantly they endanger honest members.

Direposter is some worthless peasant that now tries to loan shark others even worse off with ludicrous rates of interest for the dust he lends out. Scumbag.

Lauda will be a pariah, and you will be a pariah. It is only a matter of time. Meantime I will just deride and stuff your double standards back down your throat whenever I like.

LOL at don't use the trust list for retaliation, don't use red tags as retaliation. Just sit there and take it up the ass like a good little pussy.

Tag Lauda for trust abuse and the LONG list of scamming, extorting and other undeniable shady shit, same for tman and any other of these ass licking dregs that suck up to them like direwolf et al.  Stop with the neutrals and mild complaints.

Cut away the core group from beneath. Slap them with some red then we pull their sigs off. Watch them start crying. Pharmacist will squeal if his chipmixer is  removed.  Support scammers and trust abusers, you get red.

Lauda has multiple instances of undeniable trust abuse and scamming. How is there only 1 red tag from DT?? fucking bunch of crybaby wretches. What is wrong with you eddie and techshare, get this cunt lauda glowing red and tman, nutildah and any other scammer supporter or trust abuser. Then we get their sigs removed or we bust their projects for scamming and double standards.  Neutrals in return for reds?? what's the point.

Err no retaliation LOLOLOLOL so if you trust abuse someone first then they can never give you red because " no retaliation"??  ahahah

Trust abuse in many cases = scamming. It is deception (claiming untrustworthy when not) for their own person/financial gain. Red tag this scumbag core. Get me on DT I will red tag each and every one of these scammers and their supporters.  Lauda is only there doing this with others support him and include him on DT. Anyone including lauda on DT is untrustworthy clearly.

Lauda is claiming THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRUST ABUSE. If the scamming rat is not punished other than us slathering the board up with his past scamming deeds and hounding the cunt then perhaps he will turn out to be correct. Start crushing him in all possible ways and his  rev streams or he will just keep scamming and trust abusing.

Want to know how I can tell that your arguments are breaking down?  It's easy; you start to sound a lot like cryptohunter. 


I acknowledge that my standards are mine and mine alone, they do not necessarily reflect the position of the forum, forum administration, forum staff, moderators, any other DT1 members.  Hell, they don't reflect the thoughts of anyone but me.  Got it?  Good.

1. Don't be a dick.
2. Don't pad your trust list to boost your own trust score.
3. Don't expect trust list reciprocation.
4. Don't use the trust list for retaliation.

And finally; the only one that really matters:
5. Demonstrate good judgement, good character, and restraint.