Topic: @theymos is it true that you forced OG to remove Laudas tagg ? (Read 1827 times)

Damn, Vod had registered one of the best IP addresses. How many bitcoins you paid for such static address???
I bet you registered the localhost as well, right?
You better change your nick to Rich, instead of Vod

Nice return time.   Are you an alt of me?  :/

Thule, I gave you Vod's IP about 6 months ago. Haven't you done anything with it yet? Your lawyers would be most interested in it, I'm sure.

I want to be included!!!   "the word please".  <--I actually said that out loud as you asked.

Anything else I need to do so I don't get bumped again on a technicality? 

That's some high quality lawyering right here. Do you want me to confirm my Geocities page?

I want to know how the lying pajeet is going to sue me in the UK when I live in BG and that fool lives In pajeet land, a pajeet who trades accounts yet happens to be in Canada and Bulgaria regularly.. imaginary friends imaginary private jet, imaginary wife.,

It’s all in his pajeet head,

Most people who live in the real world understand that you can't take someone to court unless you're in court too. That's not exactly going to change depending on whom you sue.

Most people also don't consider non-frivoulous cases to be "a waste of time", but be sure to let the judge know how little you think of your own case.

You are a big mouth Vod.
I didn't come after you for several reasons.One of them being the defention for negative trust feedbacks not clear.
Theymos changed that fact.Another one was because the chamber claimed i need to be present which was a waste of time.

But if you want to be included say the word please and i will do it quickly now since i will be in Toronto in June anyways.


And i would like to ask to confirm your facebook profil to have proof that you are you which you denied last time.

HEY - Why does suchmoon get to jump the line?   You were suing me first, remember?

Point me to the post where i stated that i worked with a lawyer during holidays .Would be a way easier proof than trying to manipulate by asking questions.

Do you not even remember your own fucking posts? less talk and more pajeet action please. 15 members of DT have tagged you so far - looking forward to seeing that grow.

Pajeet gonna Pajeet with Pajeet lawsuit and Pajeet talk from Pajeet land.

night night my little pajeet flower - come at me bro

Why do you claim they worked in a holiday weekend ?You started to put these arguments to me without having any claim from me about it.The Chamber was choosen way before holidays and it was them recommending me to post that offical thread and save the evidence that suchmoon have seen it.

You can write as much as you want but i don't wanna hear bitching about me when suchmoon is going to be hold responsible and that i didn't gave her a fair chance and warning to remove that abuse.

You are choosing the way it goes.I'm only reacting based on your actions.

Less talk, more action Pajeet.

your lawyers worked on a holiday weekend in your pretend land, but I still see no OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. Everything you post is a waste of internet space, it could be used for porn or cat pictures instead you know

Why are you asking me to close that topic ?

Didn't you posted a feedback which is


You ask an extortionist to close the topic ?



and here suchmoon


Queen of manipulation.
Dangerously untrustworthy ......yeah because of what ?
Threatedned to sue forum users .....Why don't you describe it in full announcing to sue forum users who abused trust feedback against him ? Woudln't sound scammy anymore to majority right ?
False scam allegations ?Which ones ?The ones i offered Theymos to check himself ?


Where did i ever threatened with doxing someone @suchmoon ?

You just proofed again that you are the queen of manipulation and i'm happy i chosed you as first to feel legal actions.

Keep posting more of these kind of lies.I'm already collecting everything which you will have an opportunity to proof.


Also TheNewAnon and his defenition of extortion


So holding someone accountable for his abuse via lawsuite is extortion.
I guess everyone who is opening a lawsuite must be an extortionist in your defenition.


Nice to have the evidence that suchmoon even made the call to defame me which leaded instantly to more negative trust.

Have a nice one.

Why is this thread still open? OP's question has been answered and the ongoing conversation is turning into the same circlejerk as always.

The anarchy comment was facetious. I don't think anarchy is viable for anything except small groups with high levels of trust. I was alluding to the fact that Theymos persists with these delusions of maintaining some kind of anarchist policies around here when he is literally doing the exact opposite. Anarchy means without rulers, not without rules, and the rules are completely arbitrary and arbitrarily enforced, and he is essentially a dictator so... pretending anarchy is anywhere in this is a joke. If anything I would categorize the form of government Theymos is fostering on the forum as some where between and Oligopoly and Democracy aka mob rule, and then a Dictatorship when he deems it convenient.

We need OBJECTIVE standards for negative rating users, such as proof of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. The free for all itself is a security risk, as once some group or entity has control of a sufficient number of highly ranked accounts it can then use that leverage to force compliance with anything it chooses, including staying quiet about theft or other genuinely fraudulent activity. This is not just a bad system but a HUGE security hole.

>in my opinion

This is a spam, I'll leave you a bagillion negative trusts and petition UN to ban you and move you to a cave. How dare you?



Who cares why he did it and did he actually.

I Was going to reply to his b.s in another topic , but then i didn't want to be mean to him , but now that somebody mentioned it -  look at his posts, he made 10 useless posts in about an hour, he is a perfect example of a "Professional shitposter".

Sorry for the merit... like OG says "I agreed with your post".  

Go read the goddamned thread.

What's the point of saying "agreed".

If you AGREE then stop abusing red trust like you do.

You do NOT AGREE. You give out red trust for anything you like.

You kept repeating Ognasty is a liar without presenting any evidence at all. Also triple posting in my self moderated thread. I deleted your later 2 posts after you already accused him several times before, and i then  wrote no more accusations without firm evidence AND YOU GAVE ME RED TRUST for deleting your posts. You had already called him a liar several times without clear evidence so how could I be misleading people by removing your latter claims of the very same thing?

Theymos just confirmed Og did not lie anyway. He told him to remove the red, and then later told OG he should not if OG felt is was needed. I do not see Theymos mentioning anything about blacklisting OG if he did not remove laudas tags anywhere.

The ONLY people fighting against transparent fair standards for applying red trust are those that like having the power to abuse red trust.


So if you agree then repeat this VOD.

I vod will remove ALL red tags for persons that I can not present strong evidence of scamming for. I vod will never red trust a member in future unless I can present strong evidence of them being a scammer.

So do you agree or not VOD? because words are easy, what about the actions?

There is little point in saying you agree then doing the opposite of what you say is there?

Or do you only agree with the 2nd point cobra made? You disagree with DT members needing to be able to present a STRONG CLEAR case of scamming or intending to scam for leaving red?

Agreed.

BPIP has already started renaming trust to "feedback" on our reports. 

It would be better to rename trust to "trading feedback" since "trust" implies some sort of personal and mostly subjective experience.

I think we want to eliminate subjectivity entirely from this system and have it be as objective as people. If someone has bad feedback, it should be backed up with solid proof of their wrongdoing (screenshots, transaction IDs, chat logs, etc). You shouldn't be able to mess with someone's profile just because of some vague feeling of shadiness. Renaming to trading feedback shifts the focus more to one's commercial relations with a user. Accounts with no feedback can have a small and not as dramatic warning like "This user has no feedback" associated with their threads.

There is ample evidence that people not on DT will complain about it.  No shock here.

If these people eventually get on DT, they stop complaining. 

Why don't you try to improve your trust here, instead of complaining?

I don’t think any kind of standards could be enforced if anarchy was implemented in the trust system. If anything, the current implementation of the trust system is very close to anarchy, with very few exceptions, and this is not going very well.

Its kind of like how neopets.com said in one of their editorials that they would never charge for anything, and than as the years went by, it changed to they would never sell items for USD, and now it is just a shit show. But the point I am trying to make is that as times change, you need to adapt. Theymos said waaay before he does not moderate trust, and I still believe it holds true, if he DID moderate it, he would have just deleted the ratings himself. He voiced his opinions 

Theymos is working towards a decentralized system.   Right now he is still in control of the "semi-decentralized" trust system, but someone has to be.   As long as we can see is making progress, I see no issues in what he did.

Why are you still on this forum?  To be willingly stalked?  lol

So are you finally admitting you moderate trust ratings instead of trying to pretend you don't while working privately behind closed doors to manipulate and pressure people using your authority here to achieve the outcome which serves you personally by making administration simpler for you rather than being fair and equitable? It is almost like you are ignoring the real causes of these problems and they have happened before... No matter, there is no need for objective standards, you are Theymos, you ARE the law. Go anarchy.

@Thule, can you please lock this topic? Theymos has answered your question and I think it's safe to say that you have created plenty of topics revolving around the same topic(s).

that is because lauda doesn't like you, lauda likes to watch monkeys dance

Lauda uses they/them pronouns right? I think I have always danced around using pronouns when talking about them

Lauda’s gender doesn’t matter, more concerning is the fact that Lauda is a fucking cat that lives on mars.

Glad all this shit is cleared between OG, Lauda and co- how about we all move on now?

It seems that everyone involved is being very misleading at best. They are probably not doing what would get them convicted of perjury if they were under oath, but I would ask additional probing questions before trusting the substance of what anyone involved says in the future.

I think everyone involved should agree with or dispute that theymos told the *whole* truth as to what happened

Assuming theymos is telling the whole truth, it looks like OgN removed his trust against lauda in order to improve his trust score based on his above statement in addition to what theymos said. For this, I believe he is in the wrong. I also think theymos is in the wrong as explained in my above post. Lauda hasn’t really addressed the issue, but IMO, he was using his position in DT to silence his critic (along with his friends positions in DT).

Lauda seems to have learned a lesson from my fiasco years ago — to not make any public statements when involved in controversy (as he has done many times— or to keep the public statements to be few and vague). In corporate America, not cooperating with an investigation is grounds to get fired, regardless of your innocence.

This answer is good in that it brings some clarity to what actually took place. That is where the good news ends.

Let's break it down and really think about it though. Perhaps theymos is not thinking it through clearly.

1. There seems to be a false equivalence. That ognasty removing laudas red is equal to lauda removing ognastys red?
Not all red trust is equal. The nature of laudas scamming, lying, probable extorting, shady escrow and trust abuse compared to what Ognasty can be demonstrated to be guilty of is like comparing a criminal that has extorted, mugged, defrauded,  committed armed robbery against someone who filled their car with fuel and drove away without paying once, likely by accident. It is like suggesting they both deserve the same punishment. Or that giving one of them another chance would be unfair without giving both another chance. This is simply not true and a strange mistake to make.

Theymos here missed a KEY OPPORTUNITY to test the system.  He should have said

Either remove the red trust or present the strongest case you have for keeping the rest trust on. If you have left red trust on and your strongest case FAILS to convince me it meets the threshold for red you are blacklisted. This should all be transparent.

2. Lauda is gray not red you say?

what now can we take from this it requires to be worthy of a red tag, your behavior must be WORSE than..

a/ lie for financial gain ( scamming)
b/ a very serious looking probable extortion attempt
c/ shady looking non transparent escrow
d/ clearly using red trust to punish persons for presenting observable instances from their past.

This raises the bar for red trust far too high. This leaves the board highly vulnerable

3/ Even if we could believe Lauda is gray ( we do not) then why should we have gray "possibly shady" people on DT? it makes no sense? this is a trust sytem? why put the board at risk like this?

4/ Theymos should you not be more concerned for the board members safety than how great the DT members appear to be getting along? I mean being pleased that a "gray" (possible scammer and certainly untrustworthy) is getting to flash with 300 GREEN trust? why does leaving the board in this vulnerable state seem a pleasing outcome? it makes no sense? we put the entire board at risk so that one "grey" quite possibly untrustworthy member remains on DT?

None of it adds up at all.  put every member at an increased risk for this one individual?


So in summary, it seems theymos believes red trust can only be left for those that do MORE than

a/ lie for financial gain ( scamming)
b/ a very serious looking probable extortion attempt
c/ shady looking non transparent escrow
d/ clearly using red trust to punish persons for presenting observable instances from their past.

Og just realized that was how it was here now.

We can see a LOT of people that previously were "scammers" now going gray. No more red.

Good outcome for DT friction. Poor outcome for the safety of the board.

Be nice if this post is not vaporized like any other post that raises valid points for discussion that do not essentially fit with some strange agenda being pushed in meta by less than 0.01% of the board.  We thought the trust system was for the good of the entire board, we didn't know it was some club whos members needs are greater and more important than the safety of all the other members here.

We would love to hear theymos thoughts on these points.

So in the end, OG no longer has trust issues with Lauda, or he lied to get his red removed.

Peace in our time. 

Indeed. This clearly suggests theymos told him something like "please don't remove the negative trust you left on Lauda's profile" or even "I agree with you Lauda deserves negative trust as he either scammed or tried to scam".

OgNasty wrote that in a way there's a technicality to avoid explicitly accusing him to lie but, after reading the actual quote and explanation posted by theymos, I now know quotes posted by OgNasty can't be trusted unless I have access to the whole story and have read the whole conversation.

I thought that too but I was clearly mistaken. He can mislead to that degree as long as he finds a way to avoid bringing accused of lying.

Lauda doesn’t usually lose his cool, he usually just tags his critics and trolls them when they complain.

I don’t think OgN has any reasonable trust concerns about him by the “reasonable person” standard. OTOH, there are concerns about Laura’s history that you acknowledge (you describe them as grey as opposed to red — it should not be unreasonable for someone to have a different opinion than you).

It seems to me that Laudas rating against OgN was to silence a critic while OgN’s rating against lauda was to warn others about what he reasonably believes to be untrustworthy behavior. It is for this reason that it would be fair to pressure lauda to remove his rating against OgN if OgN kept his rating in tact.

I would repeat what I previously stated regarding the matter:

Ouch.

---

@Thule, there is lots of shenanigans going on with bought accounts (scamming companies, scamming forum members, scamming investors, hacked accounts trades etc) so some DT members are tagging whoever is involved in such activity.

I am sure you are good person deep inside and you don't mean half these things you are posting but this has to stop. If you start behaving like a good forum member I believe DT members will remove some of these feedbacks and some feedbacks might become neutral.

Just look at how all this began and turned out for you. You have been tagged because account trades, then you retaliated which resulted in more negative feedback, then you start threatening people around, then you got more negative, then you start asking for documents, then this, then that and now it seems that whenever you create thread you get another negative feedback.

Take my friendly advice. Or don't, choice is yours.

I don't won't deny that action as something good but i really would like to know your opinion if you really think Lauda who has been accused for extortion,confiscation as escrow etc deserves more to get the red tag taken away than people who obeyed the forum rules and tried or bought an account where there is completly no proof they wanted to use it to scam someone ?

It seems and feels like low ranked members doesn't get your attention.
You posted yourserlf that tagging for trying to support own DT members is a clear abuse in your eyes.Still many accounts got destroyed because of that and these DT members giving sorry for the word a shit about removing these tags.
Did someone scammed trying to support his own DT members to get in their opinion abusive DT members out ?

I would love to see some support from you in that direction.

Currently the only possibility you left to defend myself is going the offical way via court to make the DT members with their abusiv claims liable for their actions which i personly do not want to go but you need also to understand i will never accept to get called a scammer where i never even tried to scam someone which the abusive DT members even confirmed that they know that i'm not a scammer.

I pressured several people to remove inappropriate, unconstructive ratings amongst each other. When OgNasty replied telling me that he perceived real trust issues with Lauda, I responded:

Then there was an exchange between OgNasty and Lauda in which Lauda kept a laudably cool head, and OgNasty was able to reach a point where he could feel OK removing the rating.

The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.

Who is asking?   Someone sneaking and snaking around?

 

Where is theymos to tell us the truth? All this sneaking and snaking around. Transparency when we are dealing with scammers or the treatment of scammers is vital. Every persons fiances depend upon it.


I'm sure most would agree that suggests that theymos told him not to remove laudas negative feedback. I very much doubt OG would try to mislead the reader to that degree.  Can we not have some people on DT who are just not scammers and will red trust scammers when shown evidence of their  scamming. How difficult can it actually be?

You are a fool.

OG did not state Theymos told him to leave Lauda's red trust.  Don't think Theymos would appreciate that lie...

OG stated "IFyou [believe these filler words],THEN Theymos asked me to leave the trust.

Do you see the cherry picking?  lol

I'll state the fact one more time.   OGNasty was given a choice (not forced!) to remove his trust abuse or be blacklisted from DT.

theymos told him to leave laudas red trust there

and

theymos told him if he did not remove it, then he would be blacklisted from DT?


these 2 statements seem pretty different. There would certainly have to be some "cherry picking" to convert one to the other.

Perhaps vods and anducks terms were different. I have seen no evidence either of you are implicated or observed to be related in anyway to actual scamming directly. Other than perhaps supporting scammers. That is a bit different.

It could be argued though by NOT red trusting persons you know are scammers or place members at financial risk then you have no business on DT. It is part of your task to red trust scammers and those that place the board members at risk regardless of what happens to your account. People who can NOT risk their own accounts to do the right thing should request themselves to be blacklisted from DT.

LOL look at vod. None of you believe lauda is a scammer??Please, the observable instance of him lying for financial gain (scamming) is concrete. The extortion looks to have a strong case, the escrow looks bad, the trust abuse and silencing of whistle blowers is in black and white. Then it appears you can not believe ANYONE here is a scammer.

When other people lie for financial gain, or there is a strong case they tried to extort another member, or they use trust to silence those that mention observable instances in their past they want hidden, or their escrow looks highly shady then they can NOT get red trust. It is INAPPROPRIATE to give them red trust. LOL

Trust system is totally bogus. Delete it.

You will still get trust abuse in this system until theymos enforces this

1. No hard evidence of scamming people financially  = NO RED TRUST  or DT gets black listed
2. Refusal to red trust a member when shown hard evidence of scamming =  DT gets black listed.

this decentralized system with no strict enforced guidelines, and not only room to abuse but financial incentive to abuse is ridiculous. How could it ever work?  a couple of disobedient DT members getting black listed and they will all fall in line.

Thanks i hope theymos will enforce this also for non DT members.

Yes. To quote him exactly:


I agreed 100%, and have been removing inappropriate trust left for others.  So has Lauda and Anduck.

OG is the only one whose ego has had a problem with this.

@Vod

Any idea why theymos wanted Lauda's negative feedback being removed?

Theymos doesnt want Lauda and his associates to be on their positions,i guess the end game for these abusers is getting near.
well im going to wait what happens now to these DT abusers  

Where has OG ever been caught in a lie? I don't think someone holding the fourms liar would ever lie. Maybe cherry picking words, and not telling whole truths I do not consider lying. I consider it being a politician

And when OG get exposed as a liar again? 
Nothing will happen - he holds 500 btc of the forums money. 

So it’s VOD’s word V OG now.

@theymos @anduck @lauda

Who will bring OBSERVABLE PROOF?

"IF YOU...." You cherry pick words and lie.  

But he did.       OG likes to play games, because he was not forced.  He had the choice to remove the trust or be blacklisted from DT, same as Lauda, Anduck and me.  He is the only one lying about it, cause he is a liar. 

This is what we had thought. There is no way Theymos would act and request legitimate scam tags are removed from persons that have lied for direct financial gain.

Then is seems a very ill advised move. If we consider keeping the board "aware" of people that have previously scammed, been implicated in extortion, shady escrow dealings, and trust abuse.  It stands to reason you do not "forgive" scamming or forget scamming. It is straight forward, you try to scam or extort people out of money you are a scammer. It does not change over time, it does not matter who you are.

I think it in the boards interest to re apply the red tags and if you feel you need to apply additional red tags to be fair then get slapping those down on other people too.

Anyone whom has demonstrated clearly that they are dangerous in financial terms to other members they need a scam tag. Person on DT are not there to say : they are my pals, or we think they are okay now, or they may give us red trust back so we are scared to give red. Give red to scammers or get off DT.  It is no place for the weak or frail. Then entire board is left vulnerable if you fail in your responsibilities.

We are very pleased if what you say about theymos in this instance, is true ( we do trust the word of ognasty). We have been concerned that theymos had seemed to favor these types of dangerous persons over honest members who may kick up a fuss but for the right reasons.

Transparent and fair rules for all persons, so that all members are treated equally. Thats the only way to proceed with this movement.

Why not just tell us the whole story?

If theymos told you not to do it, than why did you?

This sounds like another reason why the trust system is so broken.

If you really want to have your mind blown... theymos actually told me NOT to remove the negative feedback rating I left for Lauda.  

I didn’t say anything about a conspiracy. I explained why theymos might do this (Lauda has received positive trust subsequent to scamming), and why I thought why this is an example as to why the trust system is not working properly (lauda is selectivity scamming and is supported by many who are conflicted [or are afraid to oppose lauda]). 

Just because theymos demand to take away negative feedback a scam won't change to a non scam.

or everyone could stop with the conspiracy shit and realise that Theymos cares more about the forum than a couple of old timers having a stupid row!!

If Theymos removes the feedback by himself, what is the point as the dispute stands, he wants to sort the issue between the disputing parties rather than fighting over and even if he asked both parties to remove the feedback by themselves  there is a point in his approach, to sort the issue.

Will Theymos accept even if there is a conversation is to be seen, only he could shut all these speculations.

If he was looking solely after OgN he could have given the ultimatum to lauda only. There isn’t any reason to make them both remove feedback if one of them is a scammer.

Well OG’s trust improved more than the cats.. could be said theymos was looking after OG.

The action, if true, was done in favor of lauda...

if this is true its good news,theymos is taking actions against abusive members it would be nice if not only lauda,but most of his abusive gang members.

@thule, you are a pleb - the 2 memebers in question are not. so what the fuck has it got to do with you if Theymos wants less issues on DT?