Topic: overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act - page 13. (Read 11873 times)

I need to learn more about how trust works. Wouldn't have wasted those 2 merits on that post if I knew the inclusion had already corrected the situation. i.e. Bringing Lauda back to DT-2.

The issue got resolved on page 9 then but its continuing till 23. I have no idea what drama happened in between. We should have some way of placing milestones of discussion on these >20 page threads.

For what its worth, I think Lauda comes across as the typical no nonsense disciplinarian. They did a lot of the dirty work when the forum was drowning in spam. Its easy to accuse her of high-handedness and take the side of the "poor, begging" users. Her one-liners reprimanding the "Lauda Sir, Please I am trying to feed my family"  results in a lot of bad blood against her and long discussions on "compassion/ empathy".

The discord against her and other active reviewers can easily be channeled to make an alts army using these dissed users.

Maybe there could be a policy of reviewing accounts negged by her or other members like pharmacist. Its not possible for one person to review them all. Other members could chip in to review them. I amwilling to volunteer if considered trustworthy. I am sure a lot of others too would. This would serve to invalidate those accusations of "reviewers not engaging with those they neg" and being high-handed.

 

Edit:  Apologies for the apparent double-post.  (There was another post here, by OgNasty, which seems to have disappeared.)


Forcing somebody into a position to deny baseless accusations is a classic smear tactic.  Quickseller’s seeks to destroy Lauda’s reputation with rumours; and his rapidfire promulgation of such smears creates a witchcraft trial atmosphere.  For Lauda to answer to him in the face of no evidence whatsoever would be an error which plays right into his hands.  By way of a subtle analogy, consider that to be like trying to use the “unsubscribe” link in a spam e-mail.

---

Exactly.

---

This is a not insignificant problem, as a practical matter.  Newbies and casual readers can be easily misled.  Few people are savvy enough to recognize smear tactics on the face of things; and fewer still will take the time to dig a bit through forum archives (as I did) before passing judgment, and worse, repeating rumours as hearsay.

---

By the way, this thread is chock-full of cheap smear tactics.  For an instructive example of a smear directed not at Lauda, but rather at an uninvolved person just because of her being (more than) friendly with me, namely Alia:


Listing “she wants to buy drugs” between online transactions is a gross misrepresentation:  It insinuates that she wanted to buy drugs online.  A link to the pertinent thread is conveniently omitted, such that readers can’t easily assess for themselves.

In the thread where she asked about drugs, the second sentence of Alia’s OP starts, “Never tried them” (drugs).  She said that she intends to travel somewhere that the drugs in question are legal, so as to try them for the first time (and planning to try only once) for the “experience”.  There is explicit discussion between her and others of “tourist destinations”; Amsterdam is mentioned.

So, on the face of the matter, we’re talking about a 19-year-old who has never tried drugs and is curious about them.  That’s it.  (How many 19-year-olds have never tried drugs, including marijuana?)

I myself am strictly against drugs.  I’d never have anything to do with an addict or regular user.  I popped into her thread, and explained in brief why I think it’s a bad idea—even if the intention is to try only once.  She seems open-minded and thoughtful about the matter.  I guess she’ll think it over and decide what she wants.

Strictly speaking, this is off-topic; I therefore will not bother to dissect several other material misrepresentations in the same post.  But it is necessary that a really horrible smear be debunked:  How many people read that, and inferred that Alia was buying drugs online?  I would have, if I had not already known what that thread actually said.  This also serves as a neatly illustrative example of how smears can work; and smears are not only on-topic, but the whole topic of this thread.

---

Thus spake the Master Ethical Mature Expert who believes that a signature containing a sarcasm tag, a forum rules link, and a scam notice can be somehow paid in a roundabout way.  You have no credibility for intellect, let alone for integrity; you don’t even get three “blahs” from me.  Shoo.

---

I admit, I am being paid under the table by the popcorn cartel—and so must be Quickseller.  Wait a minute.  Does that mean I may be a Quickseller alt?  Please excuse me whilst I bathe in bleach.

“Quicksy can’t let it go cuz”:

---

Edit—thanks to Tyrantt, I can now properly express what this whole thread is for the forum’s feline Joan of Arc:

I am reminded of the short story "The Egg", by Andy Weir: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html - a fantastic way to spend 5 minutes.

So if OG got his own way those scammers would of got away Scott free?? It would be great if theymos grew a pair and just replaced OG and tomatoface

I have reposted your red ratings that were not red anymore (i.e. did not have negatives from current DT members). Could be a short-lived fix given how things are going. I found your ratings to be descriptive, factual, all with reference links. I think it's a disgrace that all this work has been discarded by those dickheads making a mockery of DT.

Full list:

DARKHOLDER
N-D-A
Rux
GoldMineToken
SwingFirst
Bitzure
CrackDown
Italone100
SkrillexLegit
PowerBet.io
mr101
Seattle420
jagrapolite5
RoooooR
Boathouse
Omit
cyclops
Kizaki

Ok.  Blazed = nullius (on the basis of no evidence—just because).  By the transitive property, that also means that Blazed = Lauda, and Blazed = Satoshi.  Also by the transitive property from Lauda, Blazed = aTriz, Blazed = actmyname, Blazed = The Pharmacist, and many others.

You/I/we have so many sockpuppets for the price of one!  Best of all, you/I/we invented Bitcoin.  Happy, now?

---

Time permitting, this post may be edited to add amusing links.

Lemme do that.

Stop posting from your real account, go get an alt and smear.

---

I am always so insulted that I am never accused of having an alt account. Can someone please accuse me of that...thanks!

Blazed = ?

? is an alt of Blazed etc...

I dont know why but i really read through all 22 pages rofl


Good job boys and girls  

Popcorn stocks raised by 15% because of this thread   

Come on. All that red paint isn't about proof. In many cases there's proof of innocence and nothing is restored. In many cases there's proof of guilt and nothing is done. The red paint is about eleminating competition. About greed at the expense of honesty.

That's not even related to me. The guy is butthurt that actmyname tagged him.

When there is no evidence, why would I? To please the very sick obsession that OP has with me? My explicit denial of anything is not enough for OP anyways, thus it's pointless unless there is evidence for any accusation (in that case, I'd need to regardless who brought the tampered evidence up).

True. However, when the busted baboons jump on the bandwagon along with OP's shills, then it might seem *unusually convincing* for the reader who doesn't know him and/or the others. Classic smear tactic. Spread a bad rumor here, spread another bad rumor there and hope something spreads into the likes of "a friend of a friend of a friend reliable unidentified source" told me Lauda does [insertWhateverLie]. But hey, all is good after all:


That may very well be, but that's still not close to where we need to be (with various policies; also non trust system related) if this place is to *work decently* again. However, with very little input from theymos and no input from almost any DT1 member there's only so much that can be done.

Most people require proof before accepting anything... again, why does Lauda have to deny something for you to give the evidence?... and why can't Lauda just deny it?  round and round we go  I'd love to see the evidence and certainly would provide confidentiality. Keep in mind, I seek truth.


I get all of that. I'm not saying you have to defend yourself to every account that comes along, I'm just looking at it from the perception of other members that may not know anything about QS's history who may just see you as dodging or side-stepping the claims. In your situation, I almost see it as better to not respond at all unless valid evidence were presented upfront.

I did say a little exciting. You have pushed boundaries I don't think I've seen pushed before, in relation to what is acceptable and unacceptable use of the trust system, so the conflict is not surprising to me, just good to see the activity I guess... I neither confirm nor deny whether I agree with said activities.  

Thanks for the explanation. Initially the statement seemed to offer scammers a false sense of acceptance, but I believe I at least understand your point of view now. There are certainly different levels of scammers, and I do occasionally miss dank   ... but I don't think I'd have any reason or desire to trade with him, then or now ... to each his own I guess.  

I like you suchmoon..  QS really should take up golf or work hour how to utilise his micropeen

Good job, have a cookie. Copy this to as many Lauda threads as you can. This is definitely making you look a lot less butthurt.

Very interesting and relevant quote in another thread in reputation:

write ratings and more). However, before spending your time, you should make sure that you do not suddenly get rid of yourself for an unauthorized reason-altogether, otherwise your efforts will be in vain.Roll Eyes
I would not even recommend that you go through that list unless they make changes to DT1, which is also unlikely.

One of the problems with eliminating so many people is forcing them to create new accounts, with knowledge of what to avoid in the future to avoid another.
What if the negs by DT members are not visible to the user itself, but only to other login members? There are obviously some drawbacks to this idea, but I believe this can slow down the pace of created and discarded accounts.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/19f-nsfw-a-bitcoin-cam-girl-looking-to-have-some-fun-2965868

Here is her new thread. About every week she opens a new thread. Either she wants to sell something (herself (no reproach!)) or she wants to buy drugs, or she wants to borrow money (in my opinion, for the strangest reasons  ) and so on. Honestly she seems very suspicious to me.

Well, proves my point even worse than I expected:  Mr. Nasty will go pick on a woman, because he’s too much of a snivelling poltroon to take a shot at me.  Disgusting.

This is the level of impotent prick who gets the tar beaten out of him by a strip club bouncer after trying to stiff one of the ladies—for either plausible definition of the word “stiff”.

Given that sort of character, it’s no wonder that women must dislike him so much that he feels an urgent need to go around posturing with the stink of desperation to pretend he’s a Real Man.  Protip:  Real Men never do that—except when they’re mocking and quasi-satirizing a wannabe such as Mr. Nasty.

For those who don’t know who Alia is, she’s a 19-year-old camgirl (/u/GirlsGoneBitcoin verified by theymos) who so happens to like me.  (Or per my trust page...)  My first-ever contact with her occured just yesterday, in public.  She has no direct involvement in this matter.  For Mr. Nasty to take a shot at her in lieu of me is the single most contemptible thing I’ve seen today in a thread which is a creepy horror-show of contemptible things.  Though I’d still call him Quickseller’s soul-brother, I’m no longer sure which of them is worse.