Topic: Q: Should Lauda *really* be a moderator of bitcointalk A: no - page 18. (Read 43417 times)

hum;... i'm surprised i dont see any mentions on the untrustworthy feedbacks left against me :
1: by neotox one year ago
2: by the troll forum sheriff ( vod)  1 year ago too..
3: by the troll who comes in this discussion yesterday in shouting " burn the witch !!! "  lol  


and by the way: if what you said is true , dear super moderator: why have you leave your feedback only yesterday ?  as the "story" was one year old ??  RE LOL  

I've contacted him in an attempt to make peace, he continues by writing a long wall of text and posts a screenshot here before I could even read it (not to mention reply to it).

Is it time to rename the thread to "People from defcon's trust list praising defcon"? I don't see how this is relevant to me, the thread sidetracked anyways. That text is suited for a reputation thread. In the meantime (since the thread was created by neotox) he has left 3 retaliatory feedback (called Vod a scammer, called cryptodevil an alt of neotox and called neotox a "total scammer"), all of which are unjustified.

I've had a trade with him as well, however that doesn't justify his past actions.

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).

Even if I had left it 1 month from now, it would have been "due to not selling genesis on his terms" so I figured I might as well do it right now (which is 10 days after any discussions of a potential sale). The reasoning "You can't leave a negative rating if we had a strong argument" is nonsense. Keep in mind that my feedback is focused on the retaliatory unjustified feedback by him (one is 4 months old, and the latest one is 1 day old), not the fact that he used to run a bogus escrow scam. Quote:"and is thus untrustworthy regardless of the initial accusation."

I've had no issue either. All good here.
Lauda, how old are you?

I understand that there is some talk going on about some stuff here but really everything aside personally i have had many deals with Defcon and has paid him in advance for many coins that i bought from him and never had a problem , he is a very nice person to talk to as well
Overall he's a great guy and i trust him

another nice attempt..



missing down part :

Just to clarify the false information so that it does not get used against me again, defcon23 contacted me first via Slack (not the other way around):

I don't even know what that means.

Fancy another swing at it?

go home neotox ! i will keep your case after  this ... forum sheriff ?? lol  (
cryptodevil = neotox   )



as you can see about this one , the auction for genesis #1 wasnt  closed .... so how you said ? 10 days ago ?? ...... i let to everyone do the counts   Cheesy

YO!! enought shit for today !     have a nice day

i think i will unfollow this thread ....  nothing to see..

Not sure why you think posting this puts you and a good light and Lauda not. You're the one being a threatening asshole in the above conversation.

Please read the full sentence one more time. I have even sent you a suggestion asking you not to leave false retaliatory feedback to other people (on IRC), but that was ignored. I don't even want to go into the part where I was told to remove the negative rating or my bids would be invalidated.

realy..... ??  




as you can see about this one , the auction for genesis #1 wasnt  closed .... so how you said ? 10 days ago ?? ...... i let to everyone do the counts   

Last message (IRC - laptop logs):


Definitely false.

FALSE ! FALSE and FALSE again.   you're just  acting like a kid..  LOL    lamentable...


moderator ?? you ?? let me laught ...   

I have left you appropriate negative feedback for falsely accusing me of wrongdoing(s).

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).

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.

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".

The discussion with him happened over 10 days ago and I have not contacted him afterwards in an attempt to buy the coin again.

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 think that it is not appropriate to have people who breath as moderators, as long as they are called Lauda.

What do I sound like in your little world?   

I have left you appropriate feedback, and I encourage others to leave similar negative feedback.


What exactly is inaccurate?

From what I gather from the screenshots alone (which you admitted are generally accurate, so there is no reason to need to trust the person who posted the screenshots to not have forged the logs), the following happened:

-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
-you follow up with this offer in the public chat
-you say that you will leave negative feedback if defcon23 does not sell the coin to you for your 11% price
-you say that it will be impossible to link IRC-lauda to btctlk-lauda
-you say that IRC logs are not evidence
-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

I don't see how this can be seen as anything except extortion.

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

I don't think it is appropriate to have extortionists as moderators.




It sounds to me like you are leaving negative ratings over personal feelings

That is correct. There are several trades that happened more than 6 months ago that have yet to be attended.

That rating was left some time ago, I'll catch up on that as well. I haven't left any questionable feedback (unless you disagree with the negative ones, which is a different story). Besides, this is still not relevant to meta but reputation.

You can be entertaining at times.

So Lauda has associated with some shady people...

So he "Aggressively Post" and just so happens to have a Sig


Who the eff cares in regards to being a Moderator?

Like it or not Lauda is going to eventually be a Global Mod.

In my five plus years of being here, I have never been wrong in naming mods.

Lauda will eventually become a Global.



So if he is as shady and backstabbing as you guys claim

Better watch dafuq out ROFL.


 


~BCX~



@Theymos

Lauda passed the BCX extreme tolerance test 

Seriously, you're 1 year behind on providing feedback? And you're feedback for defcon is negative, but your feedback for QS is neutral? I appreciate your contributions to the forum, but I find the feedback you're leaving questionable and therefore worthless to me.

I see Lauda has temporarily done away with the loud'n'flashy sig ad for a more demure... ad for a more lucrative sig ad.

If that's not ultra-meta, and a sign of a true gentlescholar, I don't know what is.

Always endeavoring to improve the conversational quality and SNR in these here fora, that Lauda.