I've just added Lauda to my trust network. Lets see how this do.
snip
snip
Awesome move, what about the other guys that QS/OG/TC excluded? not myself, I personally would not want to be DT but some of the other guys did not deserve exclusions.
Topic: overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act - page 26. (Read 11909 times)
February 15, 2018, 02:53:17 AM
Awesome move, what about the other guys that QS/OG/TC excluded? not myself, I personally would not want to be DT but some of the other guys did not deserve exclusions.
February 15, 2018, 02:59:38 AM
What about Tomatocage's trust list? Don't you think it's odd that both Myself and Zepher pissed off both QS and Ognasty just yesterday, and now suddenly TC's trustlist has a copy/paste of Og's?.... Coincidence?
Could be fraud, could be coincidence or could just be a lazy moment when they agreed with what they saw. Every now and then I just copy/paste someone's trust rating because I feel the same way but am too busy or tired to rewrite the exact same sentiment. I've seen many members do this - both on DT and not.
So you're letting some idiot with literally no activity but 2 posts in like a year control the trust list and you don't care? WTF, vod, whose side are you on now? QS's?
owlcatz, this is a great example of why I don't trust you. It isn't about whose side someone is on, it's about what is best for Bitcoin.
Also, Tomatocage has earned far more respect than you on this forum. You shouldn't call him an idiot.
February 15, 2018, 02:46:06 AM
You lose pretty much all of your credibility when you start making things up that have no basis in truth.
I don't suppose you have any evidence and/or information to back this up, do you?
I don't suppose you have any evidence and/or information to back this up, do you?
I would like to refer you to this thread.
Pot. Meet kettle.
February 15, 2018, 02:26:43 AM
QS has probably been badgering the people who have just excluded Lauda for quite some time until they acquiesced to his demands.
You lose pretty much all of your credibility when you start making things up that have no basis in truth. I don't suppose you have any evidence and/or information to back this up, do you?
I'm all for people disputing any feedback received
If you are someone who supports the ability to dispute trust received, I would suggest you review this quote from Lauda. I would also ask a similar question that I asked salty, do you have any examples of Lauda engaging in a serious public discussion about his sent ratings? I know that I do not have any such examples. I do have a lot of examples in which lauda has responded to disputes about his ratings with cat memes. I also have 9 examples of Lauda leaving negative trust, in which his comment indicates it was for being critical of him after only reviewing the past month of his sent ratings.
February 15, 2018, 02:13:47 AM
I've just added Lauda to my trust network. Lets see how this do.
This is disappointing to say the least. I have a very different opinion of how the trust system works than Lauda. Lauda has annoyed the hell out of me on a number of occasions about trust related settings,
Has lauda asked you to add him to your trust list? That said, I do think they fill a valuable role on DT. My biggest problem with Lauda's trust ratings are their inclusion of merit related issues resulting in negative feedback, however, at least Lauda always leaves a good description of why they have received their negative feedback, people can ignore those if they are inclined the same way as me.
It is not possible to exclude only certain types of ratings when calculating a trust score. Further, lauda is involved with many shady dealings, such as attempting to extort someone, screwing up an escrow deal and forcing the people he was supposed to be protecting to cover the losses, clearly being dishonest about if he is denying a pill addiction, very clearly lying about past account buying activity, among many others. I also reviewed Lauda's sent trust over the past month, and identified ratings against 9 members in which the comment on the rating indicates that it was given because they publicly criticized. This makes it clear to anyone who is scammed by lauda, including anyone who doesn't fully agree with the outcome of a trade that they cannot voice their criticisms. It also makes it clear to anyone that disagrees with any of lauda's ratings that they should not speak publicly about this, removing any serious pressure for lauda to respond to any threads about his ratings with anything other than cat memes. These ratings are below:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/udppro-1091017
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/unyil-703078
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/valley365-150593
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/thule-355462
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/802529er-1115662
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/lipe490-843166
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/deena-1316028
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bluepointer123-1717650
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/laundasucks-1250969
In addition, I have every belief that once the merit system and whats acceptable about its use calms down, Lauda will abide by the community's decision on whats acceptable to leave negative feedback for.
Have you seen any examples of Lauda changing his behavior in reaction to feedback from the community? I have no examples of this, nor do I have examples of Lauda removing a single rating in response to community feedback. I am curious to know if you have any examples of Lauda engaging in serious public discussion about any of his ratings, ever. I cannot think of any such examples.
I don't think its worth losing the most active feedback giver over that.
As OgNasty pointed out, Lauda doesn't seem to be stopping a lot of scams. He does leave a lot of feedback, although a lot of it is for very questionable reasons. As pointed out previously, lauda refuses to even discuss any of his ratings, and by your own admission (and as per a statement from theymos), many of lauda's ratings are not appropriate. The rate at which lauda leaves negative ratings is much higher than (exponentially) what the entire Default Trust network has done in the past. How do you account for this? Were scams so prevalent previously that people were getting scammed left and right? Have scams gone down so much that virtually no one gets scammed anymore? Have we had a massive influx of people (this is likely somewhat true, however not sufficiently true to account for the higher volume of negative ratings)? I think the reason is most likely to be that many people are receiving negative ratings that should not be.
Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right.
I would suggest that you review this quote of Lauda before making that statement. Lauda made it very clear that he has no interest in even reviewing his sent ratings, let alone making them right when he messes up. I think Lauda owes QS a small thank you. Were it not for the attention brought on by this thread, I doubt Salty would've added Lauda to his trust list. How ironic.
This is unlikely. Lauda likes to deal with people privately via PM (in which he is often dishonest, and makes significant misrepresentations). I think it is more likely that lauda was petitioning multiple people trusted directly by DefaultTrust to be added to their trust lists. February 15, 2018, 01:12:49 AM
"Clean this forum" from what? From "3rd world monkeys"?
No, that is not the intended spirit of Satoshi, who founded this forum.
He certainly did not intent for 3rd world monkeys to shitpost left and right. They ruined this forum, and are the reason that almost all *Bitcoin experts* have stopped posting here (or are not posting as often as they used to). 
February 15, 2018, 12:59:14 AM
I'll just put in 5 cents in this thread:
Lauda is one of those who really cleans this forum, putting negative trust in scammers, bounty abusers and others who want to fuck the community.
Lauda is one of those who really cleans this forum, putting negative trust in scammers, bounty abusers and others who want to fuck the community.
February 15, 2018, 12:03:18 AM
hmm... Please don't act dumb.
I'm not sure there's any acting involved with his post. It boggles my mind that anyone's position would be that Lauda is harassing newcomers on bitcointalk, or that I am for that matter. Has OgNasty seen some of the members we've tagged? If those are the types of users you want to protect by DT exclusions, your thinking is fucked. This has nothing to do with race, nationality, or anything of the sort, though I will admit that in my frustration I've called out 3rd world shitposters specifically, and everything to do with making bitcointalk a hell for honest members. Lauda should be on DT1, and it is unfortunate indeed that theymos has some of the members on it that he does. I am grateful for the merit system, but there need to be active members on DT tagging scammers and account sellers, at the very least.
February 15, 2018, 12:00:17 AM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.
Looking at his feedback I am not seeing good members being chased off...please give me some examples of his feedback towards good members that should be changed?
Edit: Why are you ok with Extortion attempt from Lauda one year ago? Why should you trust her?
February 14, 2018, 11:55:17 PM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.
Looking at his feedback I am not seeing good members being chased off...please give me some examples of his feedback towards good members that should be changed?
February 14, 2018, 11:54:31 PM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.
Good members help spam announcement threads so that they are bumped up?
hmm... Please don't act dumb.
Edit1: FYI I tried to expose a Bump Service but I was ignored. Here it is: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/thread-using-bump-services-2864567
February 14, 2018, 11:53:38 PM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.
No, more members of DT1 disagree with you than agree. I also don't think he's ever stopped a scam. He tried to pull an extortion scam, sure, that's documented. What scam has he ever stopped? When a majority of the forum is showing red trust, all it does is water down what that means. Nobody is trusting newbies with crap posts on trades without escrow and signature campaign managers can do their own research if they have a shred of competence. What Lauda is doing is bad for Bitcoin adoption, bad for bitcointalk, and bad for anyone trying to engage in peaceful discussion with likeminded individuals using this forum.
Please, tell me what scam you avoided as a result of Lauda's trust ratings which you praise so highly.
From what I can tell it is an even split with 3 being for him (myself, hilarious, and salty) and 3 being against (you, HostFat, and TC). I have looked through his ratings multiple times and agree with most of his feedbacks regarding account sales, scams, shit posting, account farming, alt accounts, people who have defaulted on loans, etc... It is impossible to say what he has prevented because with his feedback those people are not trusted to pull there crap again. We need these types of users stopped and he is willing to spend the time to go after them. I have watched this forum go downhill for years due to the above crap with no other fixes in sight... Do you prefer people to farm, spam, scam, etc... with hardly any repercussions? If you have a better method for helping to clean things up by all means tell me.
February 14, 2018, 11:49:28 PM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.
Good members help spam announcement threads so that they are bumped up?
hmm... Please don't act dumb.
February 14, 2018, 11:38:40 PM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.
Good members help spam announcement threads so that they are bumped up?
February 14, 2018, 11:35:58 PM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.
Good members help spam announcement threads so that they are bumped up?
February 14, 2018, 11:29:03 PM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.
February 14, 2018, 11:26:14 PM
I lurked around this forum for a long time, off and on probably for years, like a lot of others, and then when I got involved in my very first signature campaign here (I had retired and had the time) the very first issue I had was Lauda and I going back and forth over them neg-trusting the campaigns manager. There has been very little consideration given to those few people who have been slandered. It seemed to me, that over time the DT system had become a means of a few dictating who and what the users of BTCTalk should see, ostensibly "for their own good".
I've heard your same, "the very first issue I had was Lauda" so many times from so many different users... Bitcointalk deserves a better welcome for new members.
February 14, 2018, 10:59:03 PM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
Ahh, the wisdom that is Chapelle!
I'm neutral on trust, but I feel that it is a flawed system, if for no other reason in that humans are involved and none of us walk on water. I lurked around this forum for a long time, off and on probably for years, like a lot of others, and then when I got involved in my very first signature campaign here (I had retired and had the time) the very first issue I had was Lauda and I going back and forth over them neg-trusting the campaigns manager. There has been very little consideration given to those few people who have been slandered. It seemed to me, that over time the DT system had become a means of a few dictating who and what the users of BTCTalk should see, ostensibly "for their own good".
The trust system has been a very centralized mess in a community that generally touts the buzzword of "decentralized". Awarding anyone negative trust without first having been in an actual interchange with them, those neg ratings with "I feel" in them, for instance, should be automatically removed and, probably in a perfect world, anyone that uses "I feel" as an evidenciary basis for pruning accounts they don't like seeing in the forum should be removed from Default Trust.
February 14, 2018, 10:54:09 PM
I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.
No, more members of DT1 disagree with you than agree. I also don't think he's ever stopped a scam. He tried to pull an extortion scam, sure, that's documented. What scam has he ever stopped? When a majority of the forum is showing red trust, all it does is water down what that means. Nobody is trusting newbies with crap posts on trades without escrow and signature campaign managers can do their own research if they have a shred of competence. What Lauda is doing is bad for Bitcoin adoption, bad for bitcointalk, and bad for anyone trying to engage in peaceful discussion with likeminded individuals using this forum.
Please, tell me what scam you avoided as a result of Lauda's trust ratings which you praise so highly.
February 14, 2018, 10:51:05 PM
Some may be against but I really believe that Lauda became abusive and unfair.
Jump to: