Q: Should Lauda *really* be a moderator of bitcointalk A: no - page 3.

Gunthar

hero member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 614

Liable for what i say, not for what you understand

Quote from: FFrankie on January 15, 2017, 05:46:05 PM

Why is Lauda being the only one called into question? Because they are one of the most active mods on this forum? I think its pretty ridiculous that this got to 23 pages and this feels like a huge circle-jerk and 8th grade drama.

Because, IMO, this is just a personal fight that quickseller is doing with his alt gorgon666 against Lauda, why do i say they are alts? Because their writing style is pretty the same and because lately people using same symbols on their posts (~, --, etc) are easily tagged as alts:

Quote from: Quickseller on December 21, 2016, 10:34:33 PM

~snip

(eg you never click on "receive" -- or whatever it is called)

~snip

Quote from: Quickseller on January 11, 2017, 03:29:08 AM

~snip

0.001 BTC/post generally -- nearly $1/post).

~snip

Quote from: gorgon666 on January 15, 2017, 05:03:53 PM

~snip

this are clear -- they want greater profit for themselves and less for others.

~snip

~Gun

The Sceptical Chymist

legendary

Activity: 3556

Merit: 7011

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: FFrankie on January 15, 2017, 05:46:05 PM

Why is Lauda being the only one called into question? Because they are one of the most active mods on this forum? I think its pretty ridiculous that this got to 23 pages and this feels like a huge circle-jerk and 8th grade drama.

It does indeed. I'm going to just stay out of it--I weighed in on the other thread about Yahoo.

Man, I kinda miss the 777 signature campaign. That avatar is so much better than the bitdouble one.

People like to attack DT members for petty reasons. DT members have been kicked off, but neither Lauda nor Yahoo62278 have done anything here to warrant that.

FFrankie

hero member

Activity: 2268

Merit: 960

100% Deposit Match UP TO €5000!

Why is Lauda being the only one called into question? Because they are one of the most active mods on this forum? I think its pretty ridiculous that this got to 23 pages and this feels like a huge circle-jerk and 8th grade drama.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Lauda on January 04, 2017, 04:00:38 AM

Quote from: VforVictory on December 29, 2016, 12:41:10 PM

Why changed your trust after getting a negative trust?

Simple: Other DT members suggested that this is the appropriate step to make as the rating was borderline acceptable.

By borderline acceptable, you mean unacceptable, right?

Quote from: Lauda on January 04, 2017, 04:00:38 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 01:11:48 AM

Lauda called someone retarded in March 2016, then when I called lauda out about how this is not appropriate behavior of a moderator, I received a negative rating from Lauda regarding an unrelated issue that had allegedly happened then-6 months ago.

Correct. I was out of line, and I've learned better thanks to you pointing that out. Your rating has nothing to do with that.

It seems that this was not the last time you left a negative rating after a very long time the reason for the rating has been very public information, you gave defcon23 a negative rating over a year after the alleged indiscretion. There are some other indiscretions that you have not left negative ratings for after being public for a very long time, but I am fairly certain that you don't want to talk about that either.

Quote from: Lauda on January 04, 2017, 04:00:38 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 01:11:48 AM

The rating defcon23..

I don't even want to comment on this person.

I am sure you don't. Your maturity, or lack thereof was well documented in your dealings with him....

Gunthar

hero member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 614

Liable for what i say, not for what you understand

Quote from: gorgon666 on January 15, 2017, 05:03:53 PM

Lauda seems to be blindly supporting yahoo62278, another immature child.

I suggest you add "IMO" as IMO this is a total FUD. I been dealing with yahoo and had no issues at all. Looking the way he works as sig camp manager he is far away from being a kid

Quote from: gorgon666 on January 15, 2017, 05:03:53 PM

It looks like Lauda and her friends are using their position as a moderator and their position on DT to corner the signature campaign market.

DT is not an organized entity: it is a list of trusted people. There is no way, also, that Lauda or any other mod on the forum could use their "mod rights" to corner anyone. Again FUD IMO.

Quote from: gorgon666 on January 15, 2017, 05:03:53 PM

It also looks like Lauda is trying to make it more difficult to tell when accounts are sold

Do you have any evidence on this please?

~Gun

gorgon666

member

Activity: 92

Merit: 10

Lauda seems to be blindly supporting yahoo62278, another immature child.

It looks like Lauda and her friends are using their position as a moderator and their position on DT to corner the signature campaign market. The reasons for this are clear -- they want greater profit for themselves and less for others.

It also looks like Lauda is trying to make it more difficult to tell when accounts are sold -- I wonder why this might be? Maybe for the same reasons why she was advertising LegondsOfTomoorow

minifrij

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1268

In Memory of Zepher

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 01:11:48 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.0;all
Someone was being critical of Lauda regarding when Lauda decides to leave negative ratings that was withdrawn when Lauda removed the negative rating against that person. The change of heart about Lauda was so strong that the person went as far as to say that Lauda was doing more good than harm.

The topic was started because Lauda left negative trust on an account in that user's possession. Therefore, to begin with this does not fit the criteria that I asked for.

Quote from: minifrij on January 03, 2017, 09:59:44 PM

...when there was a dispute with Lauda not about trust feedback...

In addition, I believe that your timeline is incorrect. The topic was changed to 'WITHDRAWN' which then resulted in Lauda removing their feedback, as there was nothing there to base it on.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 01:11:48 AM

Lauda had traded negative ratings with, I believe was BG4, the rating against BG4 was something along the lines of claiming that BG4 was "immature". Eventually both ratings were seemingly removed at around the same time.

Once again, this doesn't fit the criteria. It also seems that this was sorted similarly to their first dealing with defcon, by an external party coming in and mediating. Is this not the way that trust disputes are meant to be solved, or is it just because Lauda is Lauda?

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 01:11:48 AM

The rating defcon23 received from Lauda seems to have been removed and reapplied multiple times after defcon23 has taken different stances on Lauda's behavior

defcon and Lauda have had disputes several times over several different things, which would explain the trust ratings being changed multiple times. However, as far as I remember the majority of these disputes (including the first and latest) were to do with trust feedback left by Lauda, making it once again invalid to the criteria I asked for.

So you have managed to provide one instance where a dispute with Lauda wasn't about trust feedback sent by them (despite me asking for instances where this wasn't the case), said instance being already resolved by Lauda admitting they were in the wrong. Do you have anything else?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: VforVictory on December 29, 2016, 12:41:10 PM

Why changed your trust after getting a negative trust?

Simple: Other DT members suggested that this is the appropriate step to make as the rating was borderline acceptable.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 01:11:48 AM

Lauda called someone retarded in March 2016, then when I called lauda out about how this is not appropriate behavior of a moderator, I received a negative rating from Lauda regarding an unrelated issue that had allegedly happened then-6 months ago.

Correct. I was out of line, and I've learned better thanks to you pointing that out. Your rating has nothing to do with that.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 01:11:48 AM

Someone was being critical of Lauda regarding when Lauda decides to leave negative ratings that was withdrawn when Lauda removed the negative rating against that person. The change of heart about Lauda was so strong that the person went as far as to say that Lauda was doing more good than harm.

Wrong. My rating was only removed after the misleading title was withdrawn (which is why it was left in the first place). I couldn't care less about the thread. The change of heart was the OP's doing after they came back from their 'vacation'.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 01:11:48 AM

Lauda had traded negative ratings with, I believe was BG4, the rating against BG4 was something along the lines of claiming that BG4 was "immature". Eventually both ratings were seemingly removed at around the same time.

Those ratings were exchanged because I harshly criticized BG4 (among other things), not the other way around. The situation was later (randomly) remedied by a third party.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 01:11:48 AM

The rating defcon23..

I don't even want to comment on this person.

Maybe I should apologize for not keeping eternal grudges.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: minifrij on January 03, 2017, 09:59:44 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 03, 2017, 09:53:49 PM

Often times the criticisms about Lauda are unrelated to sent trust. This also prevents an open discussion about Lauda's actions.

They are? Prior to them being added to the DT network and leaving trust ratings there was little criticism about them IIRC, the majority only coming from yourself and alt accounts with a strangely similar writing style to you.
It may be my memory, though could you provide some examples as to when there was a dispute with Lauda not about trust feedback that was solved by sent feedback from Lauda being removed?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14127828

Lauda called someone retarded in March 2016, then when I called lauda out about how this is not appropriate behavior of a moderator, I received a negative rating from Lauda regarding an unrelated issue that had allegedly happened then-6 months ago.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.0;all

Someone was being critical of Lauda regarding when Lauda decides to leave negative ratings that was withdrawn when Lauda removed the negative rating against that person. The change of heart about Lauda was so strong that the person went as far as to say that Lauda was doing more good than harm.

Lauda had traded negative ratings with, I believe was BG4, the rating against BG4 was something along the lines of claiming that BG4 was "immature". Eventually both ratings were seemingly removed at around the same time.

The rating defcon23 received from Lauda seems to have been removed and reapplied multiple times after defcon23 has taken different stances on Lauda's behavior

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on January 03, 2017, 09:48:38 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on December 29, 2016, 01:16:57 PM

Lauda will sometimes remove negative ratings that result in the other person stopping being critical of him. It is not always people that can affect his trust score, however it is probably people that are making good points. It is fairly clearly a quid pro quo.

Why is this a problem?

Seems to me that Lauda is a good trader. He must do well in bitcoin.

Personally, I don't care how others trust me when I am calculating my trust towards them. I've removed someone's negative trust while they have negative trust against me. If they remove their trust later, I don't know, because I don't keep track. Blackmailing me with negative trust leads nowhere.

minifrij

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1268

In Memory of Zepher

Quote from: Quickseller on January 03, 2017, 09:53:49 PM

Often times the criticisms about Lauda are unrelated to sent trust. This also prevents an open discussion about Lauda's actions.

They are? Prior to them being added to the DT network and leaving trust ratings there was little criticism about them IIRC, the majority only coming from yourself and alt accounts with a strangely similar writing style to you.
It may be my memory, though could you provide some examples as to when there was a dispute with Lauda not about trust feedback that was solved by sent feedback from Lauda being removed?

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on January 03, 2017, 09:48:38 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on December 29, 2016, 01:16:57 PM

Lauda will sometimes remove negative ratings that result in the other person stopping being critical of him. It is not always people that can affect his trust score, however it is probably people that are making good points. It is fairly clearly a quid pro quo.

Why is this a problem?

~BCX~

This is essentially using his position in the Default Trust network to prevent others from criticizing him. It allows Lauda to act questionably and not be questioned about said shady/dishonest practices.

Quote from: minifrij on January 03, 2017, 09:52:43 PM

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on January 03, 2017, 09:48:38 PM

Why is this a problem?
~BCX~

Because in QS land only certain people are allowed to resolve trust issues through communication - as they are meant to be.

Often times the criticisms about Lauda are unrelated to sent trust. This also prevents an open discussion about Lauda's actions.

minifrij

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1268

In Memory of Zepher

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on January 03, 2017, 09:48:38 PM

Why is this a problem?
~BCX~

Because in QS land only certain people are allowed to resolve trust issues through communication - as they are meant to be. Others must keep them there permanently else they are obviously attempting to censor those critical of them.
Unfortunately for them, Lauda falls into the second group.

BitcoinEXpress

legendary

Activity: 1210

Merit: 1024

Quote from: Quickseller on December 29, 2016, 01:16:57 PM

Lauda will sometimes remove negative ratings that result in the other person stopping being critical of him. It is not always people that can affect his trust score, however it is probably people that are making good points. It is fairly clearly a quid pro quo.

Why is this a problem?

~BCX~

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Lauda will sometimes remove negative ratings that result in the other person stopping being critical of him. It is not always people that can affect his trust score, however it is probably people that are making good points. It is fairly clearly a quid pro quo.

VforVictory

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

V for Victory or Rather JustV8

Quote from: Quickseller on December 29, 2016, 12:50:35 PM

Quote from: VforVictory on December 29, 2016, 12:41:10 PM

I dont think the Global Moderator isn't a Lauda thing. As you can see on her recent trust page about Memorydealer. Her own decision making got her negative from a VIP user here. She gives negative trust to Memorydealer . And after getting a neg trust back from Memorydealer, she changed her trust to him and make it neutral.
Why changed your trust after getting a negative trust?

Something similar happened with BG4. They exchanged negative ratings (the one Lauda sent was questionable at best), then some time later both have been removed.

There was another instance in which someone was publicly criticizing Lauda who Lauda had given a negative rating to, then as soon as Lauda removed the negative the person rescinded the criticism and locked the thread.

It appears that Lauda has been using the strong weight of his negative ratings to prevent others from being critical of him.

So she is evading all negative feedback back by changing her trust report to others. And she will not change her other trust report to other that will not affect her trust.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: VforVictory on December 29, 2016, 12:41:10 PM

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on December 29, 2016, 12:35:25 AM

Quote from: OgNasty on December 19, 2016, 04:10:33 PM

This thread seems to be more about Lauda and less about forum moderator requirements. Perhaps it's time that it be moved to the reputation section?

Let me set this back on track.

So no need to move it.

I think Lauda would be a great mod because of the fairness and honesty I have seen in his moderation around the board.

Should be promoted to Global Moderator.

~BCX~

I dont think the Global Moderator isn't a Lauda thing. As you can see on her recent trust page about Memorydealer. Her own decision making got her negative from a VIP user here. She gives negative trust to Memorydealer . And after getting a neg trust back from Memorydealer, she changed her trust to him and make it neutral.
Why changed your trust after getting a negative trust?

Something similar happened with BG4. They exchanged negative ratings (the one Lauda sent was questionable at best), then some time later both have been removed.

There was another instance in which someone was publicly criticizing Lauda who Lauda had given a negative rating to, then as soon as Lauda removed the negative the person rescinded the criticism and locked the thread.

It appears that Lauda has been using the strong weight of his negative ratings to prevent others from being critical of him.

VforVictory

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

V for Victory or Rather JustV8

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on December 29, 2016, 12:35:25 AM

Quote from: OgNasty on December 19, 2016, 04:10:33 PM

This thread seems to be more about Lauda and less about forum moderator requirements. Perhaps it's time that it be moved to the reputation section?

Let me set this back on track.

So no need to move it.

I think Lauda would be a great mod because of the fairness and honesty I have seen in his moderation around the board.

Should be promoted to Global Moderator.

~BCX~

I dont think the Global Moderator isn't a Lauda thing. As you can see on her recent trust page about Memorydealer. Her own decision making got her negative from a VIP user here. She gives negative trust to Memorydealer . And after getting a neg trust back from Memorydealer, she changed her trust to him and make it neutral.
Why changed your trust after getting a negative trust?

BitcoinEXpress

legendary

Activity: 1210

Merit: 1024

Quote from: OgNasty on December 19, 2016, 04:10:33 PM

This thread seems to be more about Lauda and less about forum moderator requirements. Perhaps it's time that it be moved to the reputation section?

Let me set this back on track.

So no need to move it.

I think Lauda would be a great mod because of the fairness and honesty I have seen in his moderation around the board.

Should be promoted to Global Moderator.

~BCX~

myparentsdisownedme

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

He hasnt really done anything SUPER bad

Unless anyone else has to say something about his history but idk

Topic: Q: Should Lauda *really* be a moderator of bitcointalk A: no - page 3. (Read 43417 times)

Topic: Q: Should Lauda really be a moderator of bitcointalk A: no - page 3. (Read 43417 times)