Topic: Q: Should hilariousandco *really* be a moderator of bitcointalk A: no (Read 2851 times)

Still waiting for the above to be addressed.

I am not going to let this be ignored.

I would invite hilariousandco to present evidence of this. Or perhaps, those that have been badgered can come forward with quotes of these PMs.

If he is unable or unwilling to do this, then hilariousandco should admit he was wrong, and apologize.

If he is unwilling to do any of this, then I would question if he uses these same standards when making moderation decisions. Does hilariousandco need to see a rule being broken (or even evidence thereof) before taking a negative moderation action against someone? Or does he merely need that person to say something he does not like?

Um, I am not sure if you are being serious when you say this:

"Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment". Live and learn, what else can one do..

I think you messed up your quote  :




I think a better question I should have asked was do you think you deserve to be on default trust? You and lauda were both in very similar situations I think. Both were respected users and both had silly/slight hiccups and both felt the dire consequences of their actions, and I think neither of you had truly nefarious or immoral intentions (though I guess I could be wrong about either of you and maybe we'll never know). However, the difference here is one of the parties handled themselves like a man -  sorry, woman   - with dignity and accepted his - sorry, her - fate, the other lost his mind and turned into a disruptive childish troll on a vendetta with nothing to lose except his reputation, dignity and respect (which you have successfully achieved - congrats). Had you have behaved like lauda and lauda behaved like you it would probably be him asking why I've added you to my trust list and trying to troll/harrass me into changing my mind. I actually agree with you that escrowing wasn't exactly the crime of the century as did BadBear and it certainly wasn't unforgivable and I'm sure it could and would have been forgiven had you of just taken it on the chin and carried on like the user you used to be, but because you made so many enemies by cowardly attacking others on alts (like you are still doing now) and behaved like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum wherever you could it got blown out or proportion. Now you look like this:



Whilst Lauda looks like this:

.


I would have trusted you and probably even added you to my trust list even after your little mishap after it had all blown over because I trusted your ratings and contributions which were valuable to the community, but I certainly wouldn't now with the way you have conducted yourself. Now I trust lauda's judgement and contributions over yours and he gained my respect whilst you lost it. It's a shame. None of this needed to have happened but you were destroyed by your own ego and I don't think you'll ever accept that sadly whilst lauda just dusted himself off and carried on as if nothing happened. Anyway, like I said before, I wish you the very best and hope one day you can just move on from this mess but I'm probably just going to ignore anything from you and your alts now because there's no point just feeding trolls and it's going to get us both nowhere. Peace.

I think you messed up your above quote.

If you want to add me to your trust list, fee free to do so. If you are wanting to add "me" to your trust list, you are going to have to add my QS account and am unable to provide an alt account to add to your trust list (as a couple of people have asked for).

Sure charing an "escrow fee" may have been less than 100% transparent, however these charges were refunded, and ignoring refunds, customers received an advantage, as they would have paid an amount greater than what they paid plus the escrow fee if they dealt with "QS" directly on any hypothetical trade, so ignoring any refunds, my customers received an advantage using me as escrow. Also, both said they would have been willing to send to me first if they were trading with me directly.

Adding me to your trust list would not change the level of respect I have for you. I leave very little trust (if any) for the few trades that I do engage in here, and spend significantly less time here than I have in the past to investigate (potential) scams. If you prefer, you can review my sent ratings and add your own ratings as you see fit.

Adding me would also not change my expectation that you will do the right thing (especially regardling Lauda).

Can you answer me this:


The answers (or lack thereof) may very well be an indication of the judgment of Quickseller.


I love how he carries on like he thinks nobody knows who this account belongs to for sure and insists on this good cop bad cop thing. It's almost like e-schizophrenia.

Wouldn't matter what account he posted from, the person behind it is too dense to understand that no one but him cares about this nonissue; that he really is a pest; and that the lack of response only indicates that no one cares about this but him.  

Quickseller and his legion of alt accounts are the only ones who can't understand that fairness doesn't mean treating every action the same and that life is inherently unfair anyway.   No response is the only correct response.

A sane, non-autistic, non-sociopathic person would have sucked it up and moved on a long time ago.

Post from your main account pest. Your actions are so predictable.

In light of recent additional information revealed about Lauda, I would like to know:
Does hilariousandco believe Lauda when she says she was only trying to "pad posts" when he tried to buy forum accounts?
Does hilariousandco believe Lauda when she says she only owned/controlled two accounts ever?
Does hilariousandco believe that Lauda has never bought nor sold any bitcointalk.org accounts?
Does hilariousandco have any information to suggest that any of the above may not be true?


The answers (or lack thereof) may very well be an indication of the judgment of hilariousandco.

That isn't necessary and the issue isn't really with cyrus here and I understand cyrus' decision why he chose to do it and he's obviously a more considerate and forgiving person than me, but at the same time cyrus probably spends next to zero time having to ban dozens of copy and pasters a day so I'm less forgiving (and like I said I think it sets a bad precedent) and I have a zero tolerance policy for it as did BadBear. Maybe cyrus can forgive infractions in certain instances and fair enough. I didn't overrule his decision; I just let my opinion be known and people can make up their own mind whether they want to trust loan shark or not. Loan Shark's copy and pasting happened a while back so cyrus probably took that into consideration and fair enough, but Bill Cosby shouldn't be let off just because he hasn't raped anyone in 20 years. He still did the crime and that should be on his record and reputation just like this should and even if a judge or jury forgave him or let him off that doesn't mean that I or the public should as well. If it was made a rule that copy and pasting was allowed, I would still leave negative because it's scammy and dishonest. Maybe Loan shark is a different person now and made a silly mistake and fair enough, but my feedback isn't the be all and end all and it hasn't even marked him as a scammer fully and will probably get neutralised over time anyway but I think it should still be noted (people could even leave positive feedback on loan shark if they disagree with my decision). There's a couple of other things I just don't like about Loan Shark though, like the fact that he very likely bought thebutterzone's email forwarding service just to get the trusted feedback as did these other users here. He also claims to be a lawyer here which I don't really believe (pretty sure being a unlicensed loaner ie loan shark is illegal in most countries even the Philippines).


That's just your opinion, one that is incredibly biased to suit your own agenda of me being removed from default trust or trying to bully me into removing lauda from it myself (which isn't going to happen unless he screws up in some other fashion with his ratings). I even suggested to Loan Shark that he contact an admin and state his case about being unbanned because I wouldn't be removing the feedback:




And that's good enough, but he was also in my opinion essentially buying trusted feedback and downloading pirated software that infected him (arguably not really scammy but behaviour that could have cost him and others money and is worth noting).  



What do you compare escrowing for yourself and taking fees to do so with? A lot of people personally think self-escrowing for yourself is scammy and using alts to continually attack someone is pretty dishonest and pathetic, but that's also a matter of opinion I guess and nobody really cares about yours any more due to your behaviour.


And everyone else apart from you and Loan Shark has said the rating and logic is fine but you can feel I have poor judgement if you wish. I don't really care for your opinion or respect because you sadly lost mine years ago due to your behaviour after your escrow shenanigans downfall, but your bias is still incredibly obvious here.


I've already addressed it. I trust lauda's feedbacks here regardless of his mistake in the extortion attempt and I don't care how you view me. I would have still trusted your feedbacks even after your self-escrowing mishap but you fucked up with how you handled it like a petulant child. You should have owned up, apologised and moved on and you likely could have rebuilt your rep but instead you ruined it beyond repair by ruthlessly attacking anyone who exposed you (which was your own fault in the first place for attacking them). And that's fine about not trusting my judgement. I think you've had multiple lapses in judgement and behaviour and your ego is so fragile and broken you wont ever admit to your mistakes whilst you turn even friends and allies into enemies. You haven't supported me at all either. You created this thread with a known alt in order to try get me kicked off staff and to play good cop bad cop with yourself just so you can get one over on lauda again in this pathetic tit for tat battle you have with him. You obviously hate him with such a passion that you will attempt to bully and take down anyone else who gets in your way of retribution and this is really sad, especially from a person I used to like, trust and respect.

QS, can you answer me this: Do you think you should still be on default trust? Do you think I should add you? Would you lose respect or gain respect for me if I added you? Would be interesting to know.


You can continue to have that opinion, but you only think I've done something wrong because it's personally annoyed you on your quest for revenge, but let me be clear: I likely won't be removing either the feedback on Loan Shark or lauda from default trust any time soon no matter how much you decide to hound or troll me about it on whatever accounts, but if I do ever remove either instances it won't be because of anything you've done because I'm not going to give in to your childish and petty bullying. Please just move on from this issue because you're just wasting both our time now because you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours, and you know what Einstein's definition of insanity is don't you? Well, I can assure you I'm not the crazy one here. Again, move on.


He's just looking for any petty thing he can do to attack me and he's certainly scraping the barrel with this. Wouldn't surprise me if he's complained to theymos about me telling him to fuck off. "Theymos, is this really the sort of language staff/default trust members should be using wah wah wah". "Theymos, should staff/default trust members really be making jokes about you being a gender terrorist? Please taker swift action on this matter". "Theymos, y u no respond".    


Thank you for being able to look at this intelligently and from a completely impartial and rational perspective. Sadly, QS is unable to think rationally and logically regarding such matters because all he cares about right now is getting lauda kicked off default trust and to do that he has to either persuade me to do it or try get me kicked off DT in any way he can.

I'm not sure what the questionable reasons and/or questionable circumstances in this case would be. It sounds like he had banned an account due to copy-pasting, which violates a rule that was put in place for a reason. Because he has the power to ban, this would be the first step, as it was, and shows that he has concerns with the account because he is banning it. An admin overruled the ban, but hilariousandco still doesn't trust the account, his next option as a DT member is to warn others about the shady activities of the account. Whether there is some sort of vindictiveness or ego behind the decision is speculation, the statement he gave as the reasoning implies to me that he was trying to help others by warning them of the account's activities since it had been unbanned, which I think is a legitimate use of the trust system.





He didn't go back and re-ban the account, so his action as a moderator was overruled and accepted. I have no problem with someone expressing their opinion as a DT member after that. If a moderator cannot act as a DT member, why are they on DT?  If he had left feedback first, and then banned the account, would you have a different opinion here? 
 
I guess my thought on the situation is that hilariousandco, if he was NOT a moderator, would have left feedback as a DT member stating the account was copying/pasting. Because he was a moderator, he banned because he has that authority, and Cyrus has the authority to overrule it... but hilariousandco still has the right as a DT member to leave feedback because of his personal concerns.

If hilariousandco removes his, and I add a new rating, would that fix it? Oh right.

You think wrong, and are likely not going to find anyone who agrees with your bullshit.

The "lauda issue" has been already addressed by not listening to your biased complaints that have almost nothing to do with reality, and so has the "loan shark issue" with the negative rating.

---

I wonder how you related to mr. Loan Shark and what your ulterior motive here is (other than the title of this thread).

I think the point is more that the feedback was left for reasons that are a moderation issue, not a 'is this person a scammer' issue. The way the rating comes across to me as Hilariousandco being vindictive because he was overruled on the decision to unban that guy. The only part of the rating that has anything to do with scamming is the copy/paste issue in that doing so was "cheating" his signature campaign -- I would compare what he did to leaving 5 minutes early but writing down that he left at 4:00 PM on his timecard, this is not something I would personally do, is something I would advise against doing, is something that if I was made aware of would tell the person to cut it out, but isn't something I would push for corrective action over, and if corrective action/termination resulted from a single instance of leaving 5 minutes early, I would opine that someone wanted the person out for some other reason.   

I don't think it is so much that hilariousandco is a moderator, but rather that he is a moderator who advocated for certain action to be taken over an issue, was overruled, and left feedback over that same issue.

Trust ratings are not moderated, but that does not mean trust ratings can be given out for any reason without consequence. If feedback is being left for questionable reasons, and/or under questionable circumstances, then others will be reluctant to trust his opinions and other trust ratings. I disagree with the rating, and think it shows poor judgment, and I am posting that opinion.


I think adding lauda to your trust list is a major lapse of judgment, however that has not stopped me from supporting you in this thread with the caveat that you need to address the lauda issue. When you add someone to your trust list, you are staking your reputation on them (anyone that trusts you will also trust that person), so as long as you have an extortionist and/or someone as shady as Lauda, you will be viewed in a negative light in my eyes. If you don't want your own reputation to be associated with Lauda's history of extortion and other shadiness, then you should remove him from your trust list, simple as that.

In re loan shark, I posted above why I disagree with the rating, as I mentioned above, I think someone who leaves a negative rating for a single instance of copy/past posting is looking for a reason to leave a negative rating, and the rating is not about warning others about his behavior. I would find it unlikely that a business would withhold payment over a single post.

Just because we got along in the past doesn't mean that I will blindly support everything you do. If I see something that I don't think is right, I will say something, and this is an instance of when I see something I don't think is right. I think you should do the right thing and address both the lauda and loan shark issues.

Officially, I don't think it would be relevant that hilariousandco is a moderator leaving feedback, he's just a DT member leaving feedback and would have every right to do so. Trust is not moderated, as I believe we've all heard plenty of times.

Whether it violates some sort of moral or ethical concern, shows insubordination, or causes some sort of conflict of interest may be the argument here but given hilariousandco's explanation of why the feedback was left, his thought process makes sense to me and I'd say the feedback is warranted. I'd probably say he's even warranted in leaving Cyrus a feedback questioning his judgement to unban someone due to a loan service they provide, if this is the sole reason... but that would be too much drama and probably not conducive to maintaining a somewhat professional demeanor amongst mods & admins.

Obviously you did nothing wrong. Furthermore, whomever you question regarding that situation you're very likely going to get this very same answer from them.

Nicely put. IMO he is no longer mentally stable.

I would be very surprised if the army of shills that was going after me, doesn't go after you very soon.

There is a simple answer to all this - don't trust anybody.

I'm not sure how me leaving a negative feedback is getting around my authority limits. I don't trust Loan Shark for numerous reasons so the feedback is valid. Copy and pasting is scammy and untrustworthy behaviour and plenty of people rightly leave feedback for it but most don't bother and just report it instead because they know it's a permabannable offense. I told Loan Shark to contact an admin about the situation because I wouldn't be unbanning him. I respect cyrus decision to give him another chance if he so chooses but I think it sets a really bad precedent because every copy and paster will now want unbanning and we should have zero tolerance for it, but if Loan Shark is allowed to continue to post here his previous behaviour and my suspicions of him trying to farm feedback should be made known.

Quickseller, I used to like you a lot and I think you used to like me too and you certainly didn't have any issue with me right up until I added Lauda onto my trust list and then boom, what's left of your badly bruised ego gets enraged and now I'm on your shit list all because of that. Your own mother could give lauda a compliment and you'd probably disown her at this point. I've bit my tongue on commenting on your  behaviour here for far too long and was hoping for your own mental health you would eventually just fade away into the abyss and find something more productive to do with your time instead of just trolling and lingering around like a bad smell and maybe even just start over again on a fresh account, but I need to tell you your behaviour here over the past couple of years has been absolutely pitifully pathetic and you should be utterly ashamed of your vindictive childishness. If you could detach yourself from what's left of your ego and take a look at yourself you would see this. It was your own ego that caused your downfall in the first place getting into tit for tat  arguments over the smallest of things and using ALTs to try smear others which led to those people wanting to get one over on you and looking into your behaviour and boom your dealings were unearthed and your empire crumbled as did your ego. Now you want to try take me down and anyone else who has done something that merely inadvertently pokes at your wounds again and it's pathetic.

Seriously, I genuinely wish you the best of health and hope you can find some happiness and peace but you should do yourself and the community a big favour and just fuck off because you contribute absolutely nothing here now and nobody likes you.

I think what hilariousandco did was absolutely fine.
This green trust color has just way too much power on this forum.

Btw. theymos is definietly not the last word regarding trust... i believe the idea in the beginning has always been for members to remove default trust and to create their own trust list or alternatively to just use default trust as some sort of direction guide for people whom you could trust.

It looks like hilariousandco didn't like the decision of an admin and left trust against loan shark as a result:

I am not sure it is right to be leaving negative ratings to get around authority limits as a moderator.