Topic: theymos why remove the red tag from Lauda? (Read 817 times)

"Ill have to make due " is this post from 1640? or are you ill?

Perhaps you mean: I'll have to make do ?

Sorry we have not time to tidy up our posts. We at times post 1000's of words per hour. We hammer it out and done. Read it dirty and still educate yourself for free. Stop complaining grammar nazi.

Can you present the specific examples of the illogical claims we have made ? We guarantee you will present nothing that stands up to scrutiny . Another snipe and hide coward. Please someone quote this so the fool can have an opportunity not to look like such a coward. We love making new friends.

If you or anyone can present a strong refutation to any of our points then present it. Don't hide behind....its all so illogical, its trolling, its poor grammar. That is a cowards way.

After reading this, and the other SM/QS/TEC/Lauda threads for good entertainment and some drama;

you sir; are definitely blocked from hereon out.

Such disgusting vocabulary and sentence structure.... I just can't anymore...  

Ill have to make due with the quotes of your illogical and emotional mutterings as i'm forced to see them while scrolling through threads.



To all the affected parties who have been discussing this:  I feel your pain;  from both sides of the spectrum.

I hope you guys can find a way to sort this out and be more productive towards/with each other soon.


My only random comment:  People with power don't always know they are abusing it; but many do.  Please try and curb the idiocracy be amicable....   I have had good dealings with most of you in the past... and hate seeing people needlessly flogging dead horses.

FYI: one one-above-all-god-complex-dude:  I can't see your reply.

*edit* LOL.... taking bets on if his reply below was directed at me xD

Point 1 = true but after a period of abuse at the hands of proven scammers it has a cathartic property that is hard to resist. Some times although unpleasant calling a proven scammer a scamming piece of shit is so much more satisfying. Agreed though it reduces a persons credibility even if it should not. Although once we enjoyed a thread you made in the political section where you were advocating not mincing words or ....hhhmm it escapes me now but it was that using tactful non aggressive sounding words to deliver aggressive messages was kind of a form of dishonesty. Excuse me if I just butchered what you were saying there previously.

Point 2 = only true if you can be sure they read all 4 threads though so kind of untrue

Point 3 =  we do our best not to bloat but our style of writing is not concise ??

Point 4  = That is their excuse to avoid tackling the content of the post. We ask them to present the example of trolling no person has ever presented anything. Demonstrating they KNOW it is not trolling.

So you agree it is not derailing? or you still say the permitted flow should follow the last post not the initial post? we feel permitted flow should have a strict guide so there can be a sensible format that ensure optimal information is presented to the reader. We have come to agree it should be related at least in part to the initial post even if you are responding to a direct false accusation.

Anyway to bring this post on topic and relevant we believe our post is in the readers best interest because it furnished the reader with additional information regarding laudas previous lying and scamming that on its own should be enough to ensure he is blacklisted. No person that has been proven a scammer has a place on any trust system. That is without all the other dirt one can observe and is verifiable.

The blacklisting should have been the simple way forward. No nice gradual exclusion next month. Just boom -- scammer out now. Scammer saying to theymos fuck off I make my own rules here --- of course out now.  That is our opinion.

Insults, ad-hominem attacks. Let's do away with that, first and foremost.

True. But a reader doesn't need to see the same kind of reply four times.

And each thread is catered to a specific discussion, which does not need to be bloated with excess information. A simple link suffices, if you have to.

I'm not saying you're trolling. I'm merely suggesting that your behavior is what causes others to dismiss you as a troll.

Please detail how the post is a derailment from the intial post? we honestly do not at all get your meaning.

You need to understand we believe that not all readers view all threads. A reader should be furnished with the full and optimal information in order to reach the optimal level of understanding and form the optimal opinion?

Each thread needs to stand on its own.

Why is he not black listed? lauda said HE WILL NOT work within the rules. He lied on the flag form and QS asked after this why should anyone believe what he says. We are furnishing the reader with futher vital and important information that lauda did NOT ONLY lie there but there are other more serious observable instances of his lying. This should warn the reader that if he will not only lie to abuse trust but will lie for his own direct financial gain then ......

We do not feel it is fair to the readers of this thread (only) to be deprived of such on topic and relevant information. Why take leave it to chance someone else will assist the reader if we can do it our selves.

Why not provide the reader with the best chance of reaching the optimal level of understanding? it seems both lazy and inconsiderate.

To even suggest this is related to trolling seems very strange. 

I mean what is laudas story here to avoid blacklisting

1. he claimed he will not work within the rules and will do what he wants and likely get blacklisted (this is what he said) THE MOST LIKELY
2. he lied on the flag submission form  RELATED TO 1
3. he didn't lie but didn't understand the submission form ? SEEMS LESS LIKELY

or now are we saying on bitcointalk permitted flow is nothing to do with the initial post you just follow the last post? seems the rules on permitted flow need some guidelines. We have had posts deleted on the basis they are not specifically related to the initial post??

This is the fourth derailment within an hour. If you want to be taken seriously, I would highly advise you to keep out of closed discussions and to avoid this kind of behavior. This is why users call you a troll: because you are redirecting discussion towards something else when the topic is focused elsewhere.

Relevant ideas need not be brought up constantly for they will come naturally.
Good ideas need not be brought up constantly since they can stand on their own.

By repeatedly stating the same things, you are giving off the appearance of a rambling theorist, regardless of the soundness of your ideas.

---

what like he has not been caught out lying and scamming before ??

how many chances does this lying scamming piece of shit get?? let's just get this dirt bag out.

We were presenting observable instances of his lying and scamming for months? how is it still permitted to be in a position of trust? this without the extortion and shady escrow business and trust abusing whistle blowers.

Some people have actually recovered their accounts without even signing from a bitcoin address. I have seen their testimonies but problem is it's hard to get one right now. Perhaps, the recoveries team even looks at the IP pattern changes too before and after the hack happened.
Just try to send a message from the email address you registered with reasons why you may not be able to sign a message.
You never know, Luck could be on your side 

Due to the BTC Core my accounts were Corrupted and could not siign a signature from them. Believe me i would have if i could. I have been here since 2013 I miss my main account.

I PM'd Vod to remove his support after I had seen it/realized the flag type was wrong. I explicitly told him that theymos would exclude him, but am not sure whether this happened before or after the exclusion.

theymos was this incident why you ~excluded Vod? The timing seems about right, and Vod supported this flag - at first.
Or is there some other reason?

Hey mate, why just let your account go to a waste?
Why not try out the new procedure of account recoveries: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/recovering-hackedlost-accounts-5089777

From what i have read, the process is now much faster if you provide enough evidence showing that you were the initial owner through an email.

Sorry to hear that.

Okay. Thanks for that. This doesn’t change the need to wait for the person behind the account (or business behind it), to scam to create this kind of flag.

I know this account is Noob acct my legendary was hacked last year otrkid70  

Which takes the following

to the next level. No contract = no victim = no scam. Are we turning this place into a scam utopia?

His exact words were "BSV is a scammy project created by two conmen".

That’s your right. You don’t really count in the voting though as you’re a noob account. Sadly for you your vote doesn’t mean anything for DT1 qualification.

Trust list

~Lauda

You should distrust Lauda from your trust list.

Theymos probably means that BSV is ~insane from a technical standpoint, but has not caused anyone harm by existing.

I assume one of the following two:
1) There's been a legal case where theymos was silently beaten - or he is afraid of this.
2) He's gone crazy-liberal and wants to see existing scammers walk as there is no way for all current DT members to go through all ratings that were ever given out in any reasonable time.

---

1. Is my bet.

This was the cause of this issue. Furthermore, he should be focusing on resolving open questions while scammers are free and not on going after some Queen-cat.

Lauda left retalitory feedback on theymos too and since removed it.

Some super weird shit is happening with theymos.

He asked me to remove lauda from my trust list, and not just that, told me to distrust her. He says BSV is scam but they need to break a contract to to be able identified as a scam.

I replied to him "If it is a scam, it doesn't need a broken contract. Please start to make sense dude. I am taking lauda to my trust list now."

Did he get hacked? What the fuck is happening?

I thought trust wasn't moderated, this is some weird deep shit. I regret being a DT1 member from day one fuck this.

Lauda made an affirmation that was untrue. Why would anyone believe what Lauda says in the future if he is willing to knowingly and intentionally affirm (promise to be true) some untrue?

Lauda wasn’t removed from DT1 in the sense of actively being removed. He was rotated out due to the monthly changes, suchmoon was too.

There are only 100 DT1 members permitted per month. People who qualify will rotate in & out occasionally.

Thank you for responding

I had to remove mine too then:
Maybe you ought to slowly-introduce a system next time, i.e. first deploy the rules and then make it go in effect. Several people followed into that flag, whilst misunderstanding the implications that it has. The flag can't be deleted or changed in any way, so I had to advise people to create a flag-type-1.

He withdrew the accusation.

I'm still pretty annoyed about it, though. I mean, he checked a box which said:
Which has several blatantly-false statements.

Lauda was removed from DT1 according to Bpip

https://bpip.org/default.aspx

Stay on topic it's a valid question....Bitch

This has literally nothing to do with you. You haven’t been contacted by anybody about it, stay in your lane, bitch.

Lauda completely lied and broke your own rule for falsely flagging so you RED negged him and then remove it???


Why? This user needs to be removed from DT