Topic: Q: Should Lauda *really* be a moderator of bitcointalk A: no - page 10. (Read 43417 times)

Publically, I can only provide anecdotal evidence.  Basically, you have to look at QS typical attack pattern.  He's done it now to several people on this forum.  When he gets obsessed with someone and decides to go after them, he first attacks with an alt.  He used to use his more higher rank alts "Panthers52" and "ACCTSeller", but these were outed.  So in the last few iterations (his attack threads against dooglus, for example), he uses a newbie account.  You'll see this newbie will open up a thread of accusations, usually with an outlandish tone and little discussion.  Somewhere on the first page, QS will show up with his main account and and more or less take over the thread.  He usually switches back to the newbie alt at various times in the thread in order to keep it bumped.  So, basically, this pair of Lauda attack threads by "gorgon666" fits QS MO perfectly.

Privately, some folks have noticed a certain "signature" that's in the posts of QS and all of his alts.  We haven't found any non QS accounts that have this feature.  We first noticed it when he was attacking me with ACCTSeller, Funfunnyfan, Panthers52 and Quickseller.  The thing is this, because QS still does this kinda stuff, using armies of sockpuppet accounts to try to smear someone, it's more valuable to me to keep this telltale sign a secret, since it keeps proving useful in finding his new attack alts.  If you weren't aware, Newtons1 and gorgon666 seem to be his latest attack accounts.  I'm sure he has others though.

Is this thread really still going on? Lol.

No, and no. Take a look at his post history and you will see his obsession with me, and you will see how much of a troll he is. Feel free to put him on your ignore list.

Is this true ? Can you point us to something that would support such a conclusion ?

Maybe nearly as good, the OP and Quickseller are the same guy, so he's literally just discussing with himself on most of the first few pages.

I think you're the one who needs to look it up. Argumentum ad hominem is fallacious only inasmuch as the personal attack is irrelevant to the argument in question, that is, it is a logical non sequitur. But the argument that "scammers are not to be trusted, you are a scammer, therefore you are not to be trusted" is perfectly valid logic, so if you want to refute it, you'll have to disprove the premises.

Regardless of your "analysis", your intent was to keep the money one way or another. This is based on the fact that you explicitly said in IRC that you do not care about how your taking TF's BTC looks from the outside.

Of course it does. How you act outside the forum will reflect on your reputation here. Your reputation needs to be maintained in order for members to have faith in the moderation.

Either way, I was not referring to how you act outside the forum. I was referring to how you act when you are asked tough questions within the forum, and when your personal ethics are called into question.

Of course ethics are relevant in the decision if someone should be a moderator or not. Why should anyone trust you to abstain from handling a report that might involve you in you have questionable ethics? You already trashcanned a thread that was hostile to a friend of yours very recently, so you are not ignoring reports that you might be biased about.


I think you need to look up what ad-hominem means. This is you attacking the person delivering the message instead of the argument itself. You are saying that I am a scammer (which is libel), and therefore whatever I say should be ignored, despite the fact that my arguments are easily independently verified.

LOL

First thanks for politeness, it seems that original poster is criticizing you and wants you do not be a moderator anymore, however I am saying the idea that members can comment about who can be a moderator and they vote for selecting moderators admin can be interesting and also dangerous since it may lead that some inappropriate members be selected.  In the second part, I say I like admins that are open to mistakes and elaborate the actions that others do.


Ohhh!! It is the worst news I have heard in my life that you considered me on your ignore list, I am not sure you realize what Markov text generator does, I saw some guys got what I said so if you think my words are similar to a random word generator then you are either a person with low IQ or you are a person with low knowledge in English.

Don't bother. He's on my ignore list not (just) for being a notorious sig spammer, but because he somehow makes less sense than a Markov text generator.

This is a waste of time, but I do have to/should defend myself?

I truly failed to understand the meaning of this post (I've even asked other people for interpretation). Care to elaborate?

He did raise several questions in addition to several attempts of manipulation (e.g. misrepresenting the story, making me seem like a liar, etc.). I've yet to see 1 issue that was factually true. I'm open to discuss any potential errors in moderation/possible improvements.

Correct. If anything, people should be surprised by the high level of impartial separation that I'm able to achieve between personal interactions (in my free time, e.g. IRL, chatroom, etc.) and my interactions on the forum. Just because I am usually not nice (I'm a realist), or I sometimes reject criticism from random people somewhere on the internet, that does not reflect the way that I handle my moderator position.

---

Update:
Understood. The post does seem awkwardly written.

Him lying doesn't make some of his raised questions any less valid, only his motives maybe,which is besides the point.
While i agree with him on some points, in regards to Lauda, i don't. As someone nicely said above, "ethics aren't needed to follow and enforce a set of rules."

waww !!! you made my day !    yes!!
seriously man ..

I do not know who Lauda is exactly and what she or he did but it can be an interesting and also dangerous to ask forum members about distributing responsibilities of the forum admins, moderators. I prefer admins who are not strict pedagogue.

☞Lauda, does her/his job well.

I've notice most of the response in a timely manner where from this person

Thanks
Bitcseo

The best part of the discussion is. Both of them are literally getting paid to fight/argue.

You also said you weren't an escrow scammer turned out you lied
You also said you were banned turned out you lied
You also said numerous times you were never coming back turned out you lied
You claimed to not be the OP gorgon666 turned out you lied
You claimed you are not attempting to take any kind of revenge against Lauda, turned out you lied

Is there a pattern here?


~BCX~

Of course not.

No. After doing my own analysis, I have concluded that it is not stolen. You're correct on the secondary part: It is not anyone's business (excluding some institutions) what I do with my money, especially not the business of escrow scammers.

How I interact with people outside of the forum is also none of your concern nor has it any relevance to the forum nor moderation.

Ethics are irrelevant in this context due to the nature of how I treat the set of given rules. Additionally, I stay away from almost every decision if there's even a remote possibility that I would be influenced by subjective bias (i.e. I wouldn't be impartial). An example would be the recent thread by gorgon regarding Mitchell and me; we both ignored a report regarding it. As far as I understand it, theymos does review our work from time to time (mprep stated this somewhere IIRC).

When one calls them out on this, they claim it's ad hominem even though we are purely talking about facts.

I'll ask this question again - WHO ARE YOU TO CALL ANOTHER PERSON A LIAR?

You've lied on this forum numerous times - most notably when you said you banned when you weren't, and when you said you'd leave when you didn't.

It looks like Quickseller cannot respond to criticism nor answer tough questions without trolling the person asking.   

I am not attempting to take any kind of revenge against Lauda, nor do I have any personal issue with Lauda.

I believe that Lauda is an extortionist, and a liar. More recently, it looks like that lauda cannot respond to criticism nor answer tough questions without trolling the person asking. Also, more recently, it appears that Lauda does not care about how his actions look to those on the outside:

I would have to disagree with you here. Moderators are given discretion on how they handle things, and even going beyond discretion, they have the ability to mark a report as "bad" that is not necessarily a bad report, potentially allowing something to stay that should not stay.

There is also the issue of confidentiality, there is a lot of information in the staff subforum that is suppose to remain confidential, and generally speaking the identity of who reported a particular post should remain confidential. If someone with questionable ethics has access to this information/abilities, then why should it be expected for this information to be kept confidential?

Also, regarding the BTC that Lauda received, I don't think the issue is so much that the BTC might be stolen, but is more the issue of how Lauda reacted when he determined it might be stolen. The overall impression that I got from Lauda was that he does not care if the BTC is stolen or not, and that it is none of anyone's business what he does with it.

Good thing this is irrelevant in regards to moderating a forum; ethics aren't needed to follow and enforce a set of rules.

This has no relevance to their moderation capabilities or their ability to fulfill a responsibility.

Referencing the bolded text, it is because no one has any clue the original source of the money sent. Almost the entire 'stolen money' argument is based off of one post by Malevolent in 2013. I do not see this as sufficient proof to accuse someone of something, especially something that can affect their reputation negatively.