Topic: overwhelming consensus excludes Lauda, remains in DT2, went in2 buz w sold act - page 30. (Read 11950 times)

No. There's a reason why it's FTFY. Would be fun if you were Quickscammer though.

Nope. I tagged next to zero honest members that didn't deserve tagging. The ol' repeat the lie hoping it spreads smear tactic. Classic.

Disquoting is a form of dishonesty also. Falseness really comes natural to you, doesn't it?

That said; both are true. You tagged many dishonest and honest members. The latter is what makes you false.

FTFY.

I'm happy that at least Lauda's trigger-happiness was noticed. Many honest forum members suffered from it. Equally happy I am that the centralization of the trust system was noticed too. When power is centralized it needs to be objective, and when power is subjective it must be decentralized (through there are some philosophical problem with which I'm not going to burden the cryptocommunity).

I'm sure that today feels like D-day for many normal, fair Bitcointalk members who fell victim to Lauda's abuse. The gang is plotting already, but for now it feels like spring has arrived.

I amn't going to read all those silly posts....
But what I want to say is that this man tagged a lot of people for reasons, hope someone will "copy" lauda's sent trusts.
Btw why is QuickSeller so happy? I understand you may hate someone but is that hate so much? This man is like a hungry hunter. Nothing personal against you QS but situation between Lauda and you is somehow curious.
QS become the Mr Valentin for Lauda today
Well, Lauda deserves DT for hunting on spammers. At least if anyone remembers bad from this person, don't forget his good actions too.

Sounds like a good idea for the Reputation section, in addition to listing a small tl;dr for each inclusion/exclusion. If the system doesn't work for its users[1], the it is best for the users to work around the system.

I complained about some things and some people ages ago. In a way, I knew what was going on and what was going to happen. Now it should be obvious to most people who didn't want to believe for whatever reason.

---

Why does this remind me of quite a few governments nowadays.

Lauda, I think your trust list is a good suggestion, and not just because I'm on it.  Perhaps you should start a new thread to get the attention of more viewers.   Just a suggestion, but I think it'd be a good idea.  There are too many problems with the current DT setup--that's become glaringly apparent as of late and I know there are a lot of people here who support kind of the same views as the members in your list who might not necessarily have noticed it.

This is probably a snippet that you might want to read (or re-read):

For a more saner, and safer approach you can use this as your starting trust list.

You are welcome; we tried.

I hear yah, and  I can't blame anyone for not wanting to comb the site for little thanks or any.

In my mind untrusted feedback is no different than reading reviews online some are spam/fake/and accurate, that just comes down to due diligence and whether or not people want to put in the effort. It is more time consuming but between that and doing a review of their past posts it's a good way to see what their game is.

Either way, thanks to all who have tried to keep things safe and tidy.

I very much doubt that people are going to accept their efforts being wasted. Most DT members abandoned ship partially due to this. The majority of users do not view untrusted feedback.

Why should I not trust my own kind?

I agree with everything you say Lauda, except your trust in cats.

Seems to me that dogs are much safer because if a cat has a opportunity, it is going to eat you.    If trained properly, a dog will just be sad.  You cannot train a cat not to eat you.  

There is nuance, no?

Seems that getting kicked off of trust is not the same as negative.  Sure you can do both, but if a regular hammer works to pound in a small nail, it seems to be a bit overkill, and perhaps unnecessary to use a sledgehammer to attempt to accomplish the same.

Another example.  Let's hypothesize that we had a demerit system that supplements our current merit system.  There would be three levels that are each different. I could consider that you post deserves merit or I could refrain from giving merit or I could give a hypothetical demerit.  Just because I chose to not merit such post does not necessarily mean that it rises to the level of justifying employment of a demerit.  Probably not the best examples, but I attempted to answer your suggestion that removal from DT would necessarily rise to the level of negative trust.

I don't really follow meta or the inner workings of the forum;  but a telegram group had a few people applauding all these DT members being busted down.

Honestly sorry to see some of you go, like with any system there were people who might have been caught in the crossfire; but for the most part I think you had nailed it.
I didn't really have nay dealings with most DT members but do still look through all trust left to someone before making a trade, your ratings just had more merit before I decided on how to proceed.

@Pharmacist I don't necessarily agree with the wording of some of your neg trust, as some came off as racist, you were not in a position of power at the time and I did notice a change in tone after that. I also noticed you giving people the option to appeal after a few weeks to show they could be of value to the community with their posts.


For me trust only came into play for trading; for most of the people bitching about being negged it had to do with sig campaigns, because they wanted to come here contribute very little and earn an income.

Either way as is apparent in this thread there is way more history here than I've been around for; and it shows that the system wasn't and still isn't (merit system is far from perfect) ready for the huge increase in activity this forum has received from the recent boom in Crypto.

Long story short I hope you all still continue to leave people trust accordingly because some of us actually review the entire feedback left section and not just the rating under their profile.

So the picture was from the right house; indeed a shack. Poor thing; where she ran from.

---

The lies were easily debunked though.

Here's a video of my "shack" for your viewing pleasure.  Tell me again why your opinion has value?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKisxNn1ueQ

It may not be perfect, but it is paid off and I'm quite happy with it.

No, I don't believe he was. I don't remember BG4 ever being part of DT2.

That's just your slow learning when it comes to the forum talking.

Wrong. BG4 was not DT2 then, the same way that he isn't now. Wouldn't be surprised if you quickly added him to make it seem that I'm wrong.

Wrong. Quitting =/= rage quitting.

You saying something doesn't make it true. Nobody in their right mind would believe that.

When did say I want to understand the *underlying workings* of your whatever system? It has not contributed to Bitcoin in any way, thus is uninteresting.

Another false insinuation. Assuming the picture that someone posted (somewhere around here) of that little hut shack is real, you're the one who needs help with their financial situation. You're staring to resemble Quickseller in writing.

Nope. Maybe it is time to look at some court documents. Quite sad, although it fits the personality.

---

There we go:
The petty collusion of d. abusers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You saying something doesn't make it true.  If you didn't see him as DT2 at the time, it's because your trust list is messed up.  He was in fact DT2 at the time, and I did save your negative default rating at the time. 



Agreed, you did get kicked out and rage quit several times.  I'm referring to one of the times you were kicked out.  I also agree that nobody asked me to do this.  I did it because I'm a nice person and didn't want you to feel excluded from a chatroom.



What better thing could I have given you to understand how NastyFans works than a free seat so you get access to the system?  Maybe by help you meant with your financial situation?  I imagine your claims and actions will become more and more desperate as time passes, so I'm glad to see that tomatocage has been watching and is staying in front of it.



Very predictable indeed.  You tried to extort someone.  I'm surprised you weren't banned to be honest.

Let's see.

Lie. At the time BG4 was not anywhere near DT2 while I was. My rating ruined his reputation while his rating was just burred among other untrusted negative ratings that I've received.

Um, alright? While I do not know about which time you are exactly talking about (several quits/kicks/whatever), nobody asked you to do this nor did you do me a favor by doing this.

Lie. I was never hurting for income. While it is in fact true that the original idea spun out of a discussion, it's much more than what the original described.

Relevance? Could have sent me something more useful if you actually wanted to help.

Yawn, that was very predictable. Since you are digging in my past, how about we dig into yours? Don't be a hypocrite, either apply the same principle to yourself or don't apply it to me either.

You were silenced by the exclusion[1], thus the only thing left is to receive a negative. Watch out.

Again, you are very delusional. It proves the exact opposite. Two examples that visualize this correctly: A busted account trader making a complaint is not a serious conversation. Ibminer making a complaint is a serious conversation.
You making a complaint -> we need to call a rodent exterminator. Vod making a complaint -> serious conversation. Get it now?

---

[1] #ThrowBack: Quickseller complaining about silencing via the usage of the trust system (2016 or 2017; not sure anymore). Quickseller does not complain about this now as it fits his narrative and is done by others.

I think this statement proves my point pretty well.

I would like to hear both blazed and hilariousandco say they condone this kind of attitude and behavior because that is what they are doing by keeping lauda on their trust lists.