Pages:
Author

Topic: Q: Should Lauda *really* be a moderator of bitcointalk A: no - page 17. (Read 43396 times)

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Maybe Quickseller can go ahead and lock this thread, at least temporarily, while these guys cool off and discuss privately.
I think pretty much everyone involved is aware of that right now.

So Lauda does what he says.
~BCX~
I'm also BCX endorsed?  Lips sealed

What Lauda did is highly immoral, and shows that he should absolutely not be in any kind of position of trust.  
Leaving negative rating due to unjustified retaliatory feedback is highly immoral indeed. Stop flogging a dead horse.

It also appears that Lauda is attempting to farm trust from a number of people she has traded with in the past (or so he claims), as he has both sent and received multiple trust ratings since I have left him negative trust. This alone is shady in it's own regard.
Leaving trust to the people that I've traded with during 2016 is very shady indeed. I should also state that I consider users that breath air after they are born shady. Roll Eyes

Awesome!  48 hrs cool off then.
The ratings have been removed (at the moment) in case that anyone is wondering.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
]You failed to mention that as part of that "fucking around" that Lauda said she would leave negative trust if defcon23 sold the coin to someone else, and thrn subsequently left negative trust when defcon23 sold the coin to someone else.


So Lauda does what he says.

Sounds like great Global Mod material to me.

Lauda is QS endorsed!


~BCX~
I am not sure how you draw the conclusion that I am endorsing lauda.

What Lauda did is highly immoral, and shows that he should absolutely not be in any kind of position of trust.  

It also appears that Lauda is attempting to farm trust from a number of people she has traded with in the past (or so he claims), as he has both sent and received multiple trust ratings since I have left him negative trust. This alone is shady in it's own regard.
legendary
Activity: 1210
Merit: 1024
]You failed to mention that as part of that "fucking around" that Lauda said she would leave negative trust if defcon23 sold the coin to someone else, and thrn subsequently left negative trust when defcon23 sold the coin to someone else.


So Lauda does what he says.

Sounds like great Global Mod material to me.

Lauda is QS endorsed!


~BCX~
donator
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1060
between a rock and a block!
Awesome!  48 hrs cool off then.  If you could, plz ignore any posts from others too, who may try taunting or egging you on to continue responding back and forth.  I'll PM both of you soon as well.

Thanks!!

Maybe Quickseller can go ahead and lock this thread, at least temporarily, while these guys cool off and discuss privately.
That would be cool.
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
Awesome!  48 hrs cool off then.  If you could, plz ignore any posts from others too, who may try taunting or egging you on to continue responding back and forth.  I'll PM both of you soon as well.

Thanks!!

Maybe Quickseller can go ahead and lock this thread, at least temporarily, while these guys cool off and discuss privately.
copper member
Activity: 686
Merit: 603
Electricity is really just organized lightning
Damn, I missed a lot in this thread. I'm not willing to get involved either, but I will say that defcon23 has been a competent person to deal with. I'm actually waiting on a couple of things from him, but I have no doubt they'll arrive shortly. Anyway glad to see that some peace has been reached.
donator
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1060
between a rock and a block!
Awesome!  48 hrs cool off then.  If you could, plz ignore any posts from others too, who may try taunting or egging you on to continue responding back and forth.  I'll PM both of you soon as well.

Thanks!!
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Lol, I think it is pretty clear that your feedback is retaliatory and the purpose of which is to try to get me to prevent me from further saying that you tried (and failed to) extort a coin from
Nope. Your claims against me are false and thus deserve negative rating.

You knew very well what that coin is worth, I don't follow sales of those similar coins, however the coin in question sold for .25BTC, and had bids as high as .3BTC, but were rejected due to time. You stated that you knew another seller would ask for more then what you were offering. Coins with a low serial number tend to sell for a preimum, as they are more desirable, which is why you wanted a set of coins with a "1" serial number.
Bullshit. Stop talking about cryptocurrency-coins when you have no knowledge regarding them and you aren't involved in that scene. I successfully bought three #1's at the prices previously listed. The average price was under $25, thus the offer was valid. I highly doubt that anyone (any collector) thought the coin would be worth 0.25/0.3 at the time.

I read that as you threatening to leave a negative rating against defcon23, not the buyer. Regardless it wasn't the buyer who did anything to you, it was defcon23 who declined to give you the coin for a ~90% discount.
Don't push your comprehension issues towards me. And stop with the "discount bullshit" there was no previous sale of any #1 that had reached a price higher than $25.

Bullshit. You were giving reasons why you would not get caught when you made good on your extortion threat as an attempt to get deacon23 to give you the coin.
Nope. There was talk about a meetup and the logs prove it.

So you waited until the coin was sold to leave the negative trust. The lack of additional attempts to buy the coin is irrelevant.
False. The coin was not sold at the time of the negative rating. The coin was on an auction, ergo "on sale".

Nope, it is not appropriate to have people with a history of attempting to extort people as moderators. It is an issue of public trust. How can anyone trust that the forum will be moderated fairly and impartially if one of the moderators has a history of attempting to extort others?
There was no extortion or any wrongdoing from my side. The feedback has nothing to do with the genesis coin and very little to do with the bogus escrow situation. I have never and will never treat someone unfairly as far as moderation is concerned. You can't seriously expect a person to be impartial about every single thing in their life.

Now back on topic - can someone give me a tl;dr of what Lauda did to piss off the quickpuppets?
Every single thread about me resulted in:"Shouldn't be mod. because X". I have no idea what I did. Here goes QS with his biased opinions even though defcon23 and myself have made some peace for starters.

this pocess seem having already started , by the way..

From what I can tell, Lauda offered defcon a low price for a physical coin in an IRC.  Defcon refused to sell.  Lauda fucked around with him in the chatroom.  That's what I've been able to gather so far.
Correct. I have fun with people occasionally.

You failed to mention that as part of that "fucking around" that Lauda said she would leave negative trust if defcon23 sold the coin to someone else, and thrn subsequently left negative trust when defcon23 sold the coin to someone else.
Nope. I have not stated I'd give him negative rating, nor have I given him the negative rating for such.

Good! Lauda, would you give me a chance too plz?
Sure, I'm fine with that.
donator
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1060
between a rock and a block!
Good! Lauda, would you give me a chance too plz?
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1002
Would both of you give me a chance to mediate with you both please?

First, both remove negative feedback for each other, then abstain from further comments for 48 hrs.

Let's cool off and I'd be happy to mediate between both after cool off period.

Deal?

this make sense .. ( good sense.) .. i  just hate war ...    
so,  i'm OK.. :  Peace process .. Wink
 this pocess seem having already started , by the way..
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
Now back on topic - can someone give me a tl;dr of what Lauda did to piss off the quickpuppets?

From what I can tell, Lauda offered defcon a low price for a physical coin in an IRC.  Defcon refused to sell.  Lauda fucked around with him in the chatroom.  That's what I've been able to gather so far.
You failed to mention that as part of that "fucking around" that Lauda said she would leave negative trust if defcon23 sold the coin to someone else, and thrn subsequently left negative trust when defcon23 sold the coin to someone else.

That part seems sketchy to me.  But apparently the negative feedback was actually related to some previous incident with defcon23?  I said above that it seems like bad judgment to me.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
Now back on topic - can someone give me a tl;dr of what Lauda did to piss off the quickpuppets?

From what I can tell, Lauda offered defcon a low price for a physical coin in an IRC.  Defcon refused to sell.  Lauda fucked around with him in the chatroom.  That's what I've been able to gather so far.
You failed to mention that as part of that "fucking around" that Lauda said she would leave negative trust if defcon23 sold the coin to someone else, and thrn subsequently left negative trust when defcon23 sold the coin to someone else.
legendary
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1081
I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.
Now back on topic - can someone give me a tl;dr of what Lauda did to piss off the quickpuppets?

From what I can tell, Lauda offered defcon a low price for a physical coin in an IRC.  Defcon refused to sell.  Lauda fucked around with him in the chatroom.  That's what I've been able to gather so far.
donator
Activity: 2352
Merit: 1060
between a rock and a block!
Would both of you give me a chance to mediate with you both please?

First, both remove negative feedback for each other, then abstain from further comments for 48 hrs.

Let's cool off and I'd be happy to mediate between both after cool off period.

Deal?
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
and by the way: if what you said is true , dear super moderator: why have you leave your feedback only yesterday ?  
Don't act like a special snowflake, I've left over 15 ratings in the past 3 days. More will come.

as the "story" was one year old ??  RE LOL  Grin
The retaliatory feedback on Vod's profile was left on March this year. Again, my feedback does not focus on the bogus escrow incident, but the unjustified retaliatory feedback with which I most definitely disagree with.
Is there a time-limit that I'm not aware of for feedback?

OK ... then if you tell the true: why havent you left them a bad feedback for "unjustified retaliatory feedback" too  ?? ( vod ,neotox..)   as these old feedbacks are completly unprooved ( as they are fake )


my feeback are not more or less "unjustified retaliatory feedback" than their ones ...  at least YOU have proof ??
thank you to expose those then  !   Wink


anyway , everydody has already understand ... you loose your time in justifications dude..

As someone who whines so much about unjustified feedback you might want to take a look in the mirror (and your sent feedback). Someone who happens to disagree with you gets labelled as "sherif" [sp] and "alt of Neotox". Perhaps you should consider another approach, such as not using the trust system to settle your pillow fights. You seem to have a good trade going on but being an utter asshole is getting in the way.

Now back on topic - can someone give me a tl;dr of what Lauda did to piss off the quickpuppets?
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371

Lauda, how old are you?
Old enough to treat everyone equally, and old enough not to let people extort me into removing ratings (I was told to remove my rating in order to bid on the auction)
I don't think you understand what extortion means. You should probably look it up. There is no reason why your ability to bid on his auction is worth anything and it is within anyone's right to decline to do business with anyone else for any reason or no reason at all.

I think you should clarify your age. I don't think you are mature enough to act impartiality.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
I have left you appropriate feedback, and I encourage others to leave similar negative feedback.
I have left you appropriate negative feedback for falsely accusing me of wrongdoing(s).
Lol, I think it is pretty clear that your feedback is retaliatory and the purpose of which is to try to get me to prevent me from further saying that you tried (and failed to) extort a coin from
-you offer to buy a coin from defcon23 for ~11% of what the coin eventually sells for (and what I presume similar coin(s) have sold for in the past) - via direct message
False. Don't make assumptions when you have no knowledge on this matter. I offered $25 which is more than the average of the last three sales ($20, $25 & $25). He said he's going to keep, so I left it at that and had a little fun with him in that chatroom (easily indentified by saying I'd leave miffman negative rating).
You knew very well what that coin is worth, I don't follow sales of those similar coins, however the coin in question sold for .25BTC, and had bids as high as .3BTC, but were rejected due to time. You stated that you knew another seller would ask for more then what you were offering. Coins with a low serial number tend to sell for a preimum, as they are more desirable, which is why you wanted a set of coins with a "1" serial number.

You threatened to leave negative trust if that coin was not sold to you at ~11% of it's value, and you ended up leaving negative trust over a year old issue that you had long been aware of the day the auction was over. That is not joking around, that is making good on your extortion threat.

-you say that you will leave negative feedback if defcon23 does not sell the coin to you for your 11% price
It clearly says:"let me know who gets it so I can leave negative rating", not 'who sells it'. I don't see any invalid negative ratings on anyone from my profile.
I read that as you threatening to leave a negative rating against defcon23, not the buyer. Regardless it wasn't the buyer who did anything to you, it was defcon23 who declined to give you the coin for a ~90% discount.

-you say that it will be impossible to link IRC-lauda to btctlk-lauda
Just another example that I'm not serious in that chatroom, I tend to say that I'm in the matrix very often (very serious indeed). There was even talk of a potential meetup between Mitchell, defcon and myself afterwards (day or two after). So much for "extortion".
Bullshit. You were giving reasons why you would not get caught when you made good on your extortion threat as an attempt to get deacon23 to give you the coin.

-you leave negative trust for defcon23 the very same day that he sells the coin to someone else via an auction over an issue that you knew about well in advance
The discussion with him happened over 10 days ago and I have not contacted him afterwards in an attempt to buy the coin again.
So you waited until the coin was sold to leave the negative trust. The lack of additional attempts to buy the coin is irrelevant.

I don't see any indication that any of the conversations were intended to be private. Also most scammers/extortionists do not want their scam attempts/extortion attempts to be made public Cheesy
False. I'm saying that I don't agree with it, i.e. I agree with miffman. I don't mind this being public, it's just a chatroom.
You must not understand how confidentiality works.

I don't think it is appropriate to have extortionists as moderators.
You think that it is not appropriate to have people who breath as moderators, as long as they are called Lauda.
Nope, it is not appropriate to have people with a history of attempting to extort people as moderators. It is an issue of public trust. How can anyone trust that the forum will be moderated fairly and impartially if one of the moderators has a history of attempting to extort others?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
OK ... then if you tell the true: why havent you left them a bad feedback for "unjustified retaliatory feedback" too  ?? ( vod ,neotox..)  
Simple: I was not aware of it. I was always 'behind' on anything that concerns the reputation system. I focus on moderating and posting.

my feeback are not more or less "unjustified retaliatory feedback" than their ones ...  at least YOU have proof ??
My feedback is neither unjustified, nor retaliatory.

anyway , everydody has already understand ... you loose your time in justifications dude..
Nope. I did nothing wrong and I stand by it.

Update: Reposted this as an update. We have come to a peaceful resolution for now (first step). There's more to do, but that is not relevant to this thread.
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1002
and by the way: if what you said is true , dear super moderator: why have you leave your feedback only yesterday ?  
Don't act like a special snowflake, I've left over 15 ratings in the past 3 days. More will come.

as the "story" was one year old ??  RE LOL  Grin
The retaliatory feedback on Vod's profile was left on March this year. Again, my feedback does not focus on the bogus escrow incident, but the unjustified retaliatory feedback with which I most definitely disagree with.
Is there a time-limit that I'm not aware of for feedback?

OK ... then if you tell the true: why havent you left them a bad feedback for "unjustified retaliatory feedback" too  ?? ( vod ,neotox..)   as these old feedbacks are completly unprooved ( as they are fake )


my feeback are not more or less "unjustified retaliatory feedback" than their ones ...  at least YOU have proof ??
thank you to expose those then  !   Wink


anyway , everydody has already understand ... you loose your time in justifications dude..
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
and by the way: if what you said is true , dear super moderator: why have you leave your feedback only yesterday ?  
Don't act like a special snowflake, I've left over 15 ratings in the past 3 days. More will come.

as the "story" was one year old ??  RE LOL  Grin
The retaliatory feedback on Vod's profile was left on March this year. Again, my feedback does not focus on the bogus escrow incident, but the unjustified retaliatory feedback with which I most definitely disagree with.
Is there a time-limit that I'm not aware of for feedback?

Update:
If you were to remove the unjustified retaliatory feedback, I would remove mine as well, as there is no reason for it once you did.
Pages:
Jump to: