Topic: ▄▀▄▀▄ Remove Corruption From DT - Union Trust List ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀&#9604 - page 9. (Read 8058 times)

If there’s no cult, and Lauda isn’t trying to intimidate users with a threat of being “negged by the Lauda gang”, then why try to present it as such?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-cult-of-lauda-a-concerned-neighbourhood-cats-trust-list-5098579

If there’s no cult, and Lauda isn’t trying to intimidate users with a threat of being “negged by the Lauda gang”, then why try to present it as such?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-cult-of-lauda-a-concerned-neighbourhood-cats-trust-list-5098579

It kind of goes both ways when you think about it. Why is Lauda allowed to manipulate trust by advocating inclusion or exclusion of specific members, while if someone else advocates for HER exclusoon, it's neg-trust. That's some double standards for you guys.

There's no frigging cult, and it's not a gang.  You're bitching about Lauda and Lauda alone.

...

Once again, I wish you'd stop spreading this BS that members are going to get negged by the Lauda gang.  Either way, take me off the list.

There's no frigging cult, and it's not a gang.  You're bitching about Lauda and Lauda alone.  Who else are you afraid is going to leave a neg for personal grudges?  Who else in what you perceive as a gang does that consistently?  I sure as hell don't, and yet I keep getting lumped in with the so-called "cult".  I think Vod is in there as well, but it's never exactly clear who you're talking about.

Once again, I wish you'd stop spreading this BS that members are going to get negged by the Lauda gang.  Either way, take me off the list.

There's no frigging cult, and it's not a gang.  You're bitching about Lauda and Lauda alone.  Who else are you afraid is going to leave a neg for personal grudges?  Who else in what you perceive as a gang does that consistently?  I sure as hell don't, and yet I keep getting lumped in with the so-called "cult".  I think Vod is in there as well, but it's never exactly clear who you're talking about.

Once again, I wish you'd stop spreading this BS that members are going to get negged by the Lauda gang.  Either way, take me off the list.

Proof of scam please.
Blatant lies are not acceptable.
It is so strange that lauda continues to accuse people of lying although he is a proven liar. Huge Black Woman aka the pharmacist continues to lecture on financially motivated shit posting although he got busted hard for sneaky greedy racist troll spamming under a sock puppet?

Are these people really fucked up or do they think people are going to stand for this hypocrisy and double standards?

Most of DT sadly need to be removed. If you see wrongdoing and are in a position to do something about it but choose not to - - then you have no place on DT.

DT members are actually refusing to look at evidence and proof  that demonstrate wrong doing of other DT members. They are in public refusing to even look at the evidence because they say they choose not to get involved.

Red tags are for issues directly related to trading and scams. Not to be used to silence people and try to crush freedom of speech on this board.

They don't give a shit about Lauda or anyone. They just want to get rid of their red trust so that they could go on scamming.

They don't give a shit about Lauda or anyone. They just want to get rid of their red trust so that they could go on scamming.

You copy/pasted your trust on rmcdermott927. You didn’t rewrite anything. You are the liar, not rmcdermott927. Anyone who reads your statement and looks at my post can see that.

10/06/18: Lauda noticed that rmcdermott927 was no longer showing a red trust rating so he once again removed/replaced his rating:


01/15/19: Lauda noticed that rmcdermott927 was no longer showing a red trust rating so he once again removed/replaced his rating:

They don't give a shit about Lauda or anyone. They just want to get rid of their red trust so that they could go on scamming.

Check out the latest trust rating Lauda has left me.  



The reference thread takes you to a complaint from minifrij where he was upset that I pointed out he removes/replaces feedback when he doesn't get his way.  Today I also pointed out that Lauda has engaged in this same behavior against user rmcdermott927 on this forum.  Anybody know how me pointing out that minifrij is attempting to bully me into removing my feedback by misusing the trust network equates to me being a scammer?  How does this fit into a reasonable DefaultTrust network rating?


I've got a popular escrow service on this site, am the OP of a longstanding community organization as well as a proof of concept Green Energy Project, sell lots of different products, & regularly try to help newbies with their issues here.  Is it right that guests should no longer be able to view my posts because I stood up to the bullying of Lauda & friends?

---

EVIDENCE OF LAUDA BULLYING RMCDERMOTT927
Are we seeing a pattern yet with these users?


8/23/18: Lauda left this retaliatory trust rating:


10/06/18: Lauda noticed that rmcdermott927 was no longer showing a red trust rating so he once again removed/replaced his rating:


01/15/19: Lauda noticed that rmcdermott927 was no longer showing a red trust rating so he once again removed/replaced his rating:

Just have a look here 77 merits for his action or do you call this a quality post
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/actual-footage-of-whats-happening-in-reputation-section-must-watch-5105303

2 more videos supporting the cult and this 1 month old account will be in DT1

But i guess that will be well deserved?

So now the overlord is interfering with his own setup systems because they don't do what he likes? [sarcasm]What a decentralized and democratic forum this is indeed. [/sarcasm]

Come on, do you really think that Bitcointalk staff is conspiring against you?

Nah, that was theymos giving the dogs a bone.

The moderators already started to (anonymously) de-merit us.

Not anymore. That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality. Only because he was a source, I effectively undid those merit sends. If he had not been a merit source, I still would've blacklisted anyone who got into DT1 through that type of shenanigans.

I hadn't read into the thread deeply enough to see that stuff. Those are better arguments against the trustworthiness of H8bussesNbicycles & co., but note that the current negative-trust-ratings were sent long before that. Before February, the thread looks like politics to me.

About meriting, surely, it wouldn't be considered manipulation if awarded to good posts, regardless of whether the poster is an "undesirable"? In this case a thread like this would suffice: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/self-moderated-report-unmerited-good-posts-to-merit-source-5093271 - where posters can report good unmerited post and anybody can merit them if they choose to.

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.

BTW, are signatures allowed for this type of thing? I will gladly pay for a set if folks will wear them without fear. Hopefully, they can help spread the word about this thread and the vile chancers ruining this forum.

Any interested and competent signature designers reading this can pm me with their samples and price. Don't mind the fake ratings on my trust, but if it bothers you, I'll go 1st if you're "trusted" or we use an escrow.

Check out the latest trust rating Lauda has left me.



The reference thread takes you to a complaint from minifrij where he was upset that I pointed out he removes/replaces feedback when he doesn't get his way.  Today I also pointed out that Lauda has engaged in this same behavior against user rmcdermott927 on this forum.  Anybody know how me pointing out that minifrij is attempting to bully me by misusing the trust network equates to me being a scammer?  How does this fit into a reasonable DefaultTrust network rating? 

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.