Topic: Statement by theymos regarding extortionists - endorsed by theymos? (Read 531 times)

Yes of course, what else would it mean....



Pretty good summary, Doctor:

Shouldn't the real question be - does Lauda do a good job in helping to police this forum?

I've been a forum moderator in the past, and it's a thankless task, and it gets you into constant trouble with people who don't like being moderated. I'll never be a moderator again unless I own the Forum.

Does the lack of response by theymos mean he endorses extortionists?

Quickseller, you can keep bringing this issue up with as many accounts as you can create, but no one here cares except you and your alts--and the shitposters and scammers that Lauda has rightly tagged.

As someone suggested in another thread, stop beating a dead horse.  This is a tired issue that isn't going to be resolved to your satisfaction.

To be honest you seem to have some allegations against you as well, so I wouldn't trust you on this matter. I would rather see some of the trusted members confirm this, but it seems like they are on his side.

Besides, you keep bringing law into this. No one will care about that here, this is about the forum's trust system, not about the law. This is a forum for people all around the world and laws on extortion differ from country to country. Don't try to bring the outside influence into this community like that has any relevance here, if you only rely on the government then Bitcoin and this place is not for you. That is just my opinion.

Partially correct. Lauda tried to extort someone who he believed had broken the law. It is common for extortionists to threaten to expose illegal activity if an extortion payment is not paid as a means to collect the extortion payment. Lauda later claimed he was conducting a "sting operation" however paying an extortion bounty would not establish guilt in any reasonable court of law, rather it would establish the victim was trying to avoid attention by law enforcement.


There is no one to make an agreement with. Lauda telling his friends about his plans to break the law (extort someone) in the near future does not give him a free pass to break the law, rather it most likely makes his friends co-conspirators depending on the exact details.

The fact the encrypted message was submitted to a number of pastebin-type sites somewhat proves Lauda told his friends about the planned extortion attempt ahead of time, to the extent you trust the timestamps on those sites. However this presents many problems, mainly the fact that if the extortion attempt was successful, that no one would ever have found out about it because the message was encrypted to Lauda's GPG key only. Another issue is that telling his friends about his plans, makes his friends co-conspirators, and does not give Lauda a free pass to break the law.

---

The point remains that lauda remains as someone with authority within the forum, which has been explicitly allowed by theymos by way of keeping both blazed and hilariousandco trusted by the "default trust" account despite their keeping Lauda in the default trust network. As mentioned previously, theymos has previously explicitly directed that certain users not be included in the default trust network after leaving controversial ratings, and has declined to engage in this activity in this instance.

By way of the above, theymos is explicitly allowing an extortionist to remain in a position of authority.

You dont like the rules OP or Lauda being around ?
Dont hold your breath, both wont change.

You can use the ignore button for LAuda or dont use the forum.

---

Remind me again how many scammy accounts of yours I have tagged? That's right, that's what this is really about.

I spent some time trying to get that evidence of extortion and as much as I gathered, Lauda admitted to trying to extort in order to get a confession or some further info about that person and his alleged scamming. Now I don't see any evidence that an agreement was made before the attempt of extortion, apparently there might be a pgp encrypted message, but gpg asks me for a secret key for that, but even then, you can't really prove it happened before the extortion unless they put a hash of that agreement in the extortion message and shared both of them after the fact. So something shady could be happening and if I had evidence that extortion happened, I would believe that Lauda should be treated as responsible, since he didn't provide proof that it wasn't for personal gain, but since I couldn't get that evidence either (I don't know what the encrypted message that was shared is) I can't really make that claim.

It is very well known that Lauda is an extortionist (in case there is any question, here is a post with Lauda admitting to attempt to extort someone). However, unfortunately he remains on Default Trust, resulting in his sent trust ratings automatically showing up by default.

There are a number of people who decide who is in the Default Trust network by way of adding these people to their trust list. However theymos ultimately governs the Default Trust network by way of deciding which users get to decide who is in the default trust network, by way of having the "DefaultTrust" account trust certain other accounts. Furthermore, there are multiple historical examples of theymos deciding a certain person should not be in the DefaultTrust network.

As of now, two people are causing/allowing Lauda to remain in the Default Trust network, Blazed, and hilariousandco. The later of which is currently a Global Moderator.

I would like theymos to make a statement regarding his stance on extortionists, his stance on extortionists being in the DefaultTrust network, and his stance on his moderators actively supporting extortionists. Should extortionists be allowed to continue to be in the DefaultTrust network after violating the trust of the community by extorting someone? If theymos is made aware of an extortionist, will he take action to warn others about this extortionist, by way of leaving a negative trust rating, or otherwise, especially when this person otherwise appears trustworthy when solely looking at trust ratings?