Pages:
Author

Topic: UPDATED [prison break] Full list of users who lost their DT red trust from Lauda - page 3. (Read 26596 times)

legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1517
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
Interesting how you excluded the "(ICO bumping)" part of the trust feedback...

~

Be honest, what do you think tagging people for ICO bumping is going to achieve? Their goal is to cause ICO threads to be on the first few pages of the ICO sub. These accounts are not used (to my knowledge) to trade. If anything, tagging these accounts gives legitimacy to someone trying to sell these kinds of services to someone using these services from a particular person.

I am strongly against any ICO bumping service, but this is something that needs to be dealt with by the administration.

No, they are not used for trading but the accounts may possibly sold as happened to a part of my list, here

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bumping-ico-bounty-service-allowed-69-accounts-involved-so-far-need-dt-or-mod-3063184

If you look at post history of some of those accounts they are now bounty spammers.
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
Quote from: to airtman
Looking for people to actively break forum rules ...
Administration issue, not a trust issue

Interesting how you excluded the "(ICO bumping)" part of the trust feedback...


Be honest, what do you think tagging people for ICO bumping is going to achieve? Their goal is to cause ICO threads to be on the first few pages of the ICO sub. These accounts are not used (to my knowledge) to trade. If anything, tagging these accounts gives legitimacy to someone trying to sell these kinds of services to someone using these services from a particular person.

I am strongly against any ICO bumping service, but this is something that needs to be dealt with by the administration.
legendary
Activity: 2772
Merit: 3284
Quote from: to airtman
Looking for people to actively break forum rules ...
Administration issue, not a trust issue

Interesting how you excluded the "(ICO bumping)" part of the trust feedback...
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2272
~
It wasn't really a question I needed answer  Roll Eyes
Bonus TIL: Cheating and chronic lying are not untrustworthy behavior. Roll Eyes
I don't get it either.
According to quacky we should trust cheaters, abusers, liars, plagiarists, rule breakers...
It has to be perfectly logical explanation why qs said this.

Perhaps this?
Quote
You're also a full-blown scammer-by-proxy through the fact that you sell forum accounts so others can deceive the community.
Yeah, it make sense.
legendary
Activity: 3290
Merit: 16489
Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021
Have you verified it? I could not see any trust rating on Lauda from HostFat & Tomatocage.
Yes it's verified. Click the link, it's not about trust ratings, it's about being put on DT2.
See subSTRATA's explanation.
copper member
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1302
Playbet.io - Crypto Casino and Sportsbook
Lauda was recently removed from DT2:
As per, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full, Lauda is...

Included by: Blazed & hilariousandco

Excluded by: HostFat, OgNasty & Tomatocage
Have you verified it? I could not see any trust rating on Lauda from HostFat & Tomatocage.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1655
Rêlêå§ê ¥ðµr MïñÐ
Can I list all of them? No, there are too many. Some examples of this are below:

Quote from: to Kaleridi
Merit abuse.
Pot, meet kettle.

Quote from: to dumbtool45
Plagiarism.
Needs to be dealt with by administration, not a trust issue

Kaleridi has been banned. [BPIP]

dumbtool45 is a bounty cheater, merit abuser, plagiarist. [Reference]
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
-snip-
This is far from a comprehensive list, and I just found some examples starting from the most recent ratings Lauda left.
Not a single rating on that list is invalid. You don't understand the trust system. Bonus TIL: Cheating and chronic lying are not untrustworthy behavior. Roll Eyes

Should anyone be surprised that a petty scammer has twisted views on this? Your frustration has led to some pretty sad behavior. Try harder.

copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2374
It might be a good idea to either post or review the text of the rating. On its face, many of the ratings lauda left are not for someone that is a scammer using any reasonable definition.
I am not sure what do you mean by "post or review the text of the rating". Do you think we should first look why someone was tagged, read reference and all that and then tag them  Huh 
I am saying that if you read the rating, you will see there is no point to reviewing the reference because there is no indication they are a scammer based on the text of the rating.

Quote
many of the ratings lauda left are not for someone that is a scammer using any reasonable definition
Can you please list all accounts with such rating? I don't want to tag wrong person. Thanks!  Smiley

Can I list all of them? No, there are too many. Some examples of this are below:

Quote from: to Rmcdermott927
Left me a false negative rating...[no indication this person is in any way untrustworthy]
Quote from: to tdeannova
Abusing bounties with alt accounts.
I refuse to recognize someone having >2 accounts participating in a signature campaign as being a "scammer" -- they will provide the same amount of advertising as they are getting paid to provide. You may argue these people have a high rate of low quality posts, however if this is true, leaving negative trust for this is only covering up inaction by the administration (at best).
Quote from: to Kaleridi
Merit abuse.
Pot, meet kettle.
Quote from: to dumbtool45
Plagiarism.
Needs to be dealt with by administration, not a trust issue
Quote from: to airtman
Looking for people to actively break forum rules ...
Administration issue, not a trust issue
Quote from: to lapongetiasuu
Extortion attempt.
This rating is legit, if the text of the rating can be substantiated, however I highlight this rating for the irony.
Quote from: to aolley
Bamboozled supporter of Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Cash & criminals such as Roger Ver, Jihan & co. I suggest staying away from this user and their products.
Quote from: to SuperBuG
Using automated translation tools to defraud campaigns.
If their work quality is subpar, they will ultimately not get hired
Quote from: to Saphire
Attempted to abuse the content campaign by fraudulently claiming that I made a mistake while the user actually updated the content after it has been reviewed.
Lying baboon; avoid like the plague.

This is far from a comprehensive list, and I just found some examples starting from the most recent ratings Lauda left.

 
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Not hearsay by part of the accusatory account, no. Perhaps I should clarify. It's hearsay from the user who sent it to the ICO-bumping buster account. Mysterious01.
Yeah, I had to edit my post a few times.

At least one of those users, (i.e. endlasuresh) has complained.
There's at least a dozen of reasons for which that user should be tagged for (chronic lying is a notable one); not the best example.

I won't argue it further. Have fun hunting down these people; I'm already seeing signs of celebrations in off-forum channels (scammers rejoice?). Roll Eyes
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
Screenshots are genuine:

I've logged into the account and verified the screenshots are not faked.
Not hearsay by part of the accusatory account, no. Perhaps I should clarify. It's hearsay from the user who sent it to the ICO-bumping buster account. Mysterious01.



If you looked into the posting patterns, and times when some users were last active (e.g. "ScAryme") you would come to the same conclusion. In addition to that, you should factor in the lack of complaints from the 'alleged team members'.
At least one of those users, (i.e. endlasuresh) has complained. It really shouldn't be a "tag first and ensure innocence later" method to dealing with hearsay evidence.

An absence of refutation doesn't show guilt.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
-snip-
If you are going through Lauda's list, please ignore these users. I believe that it is important to keep from a precedent which empowers scammers' ability to frame others.
You're going to ignore people offering ICO bumping services Huh
My opinion is that it isn't right to tag a user that is supposedly on some team of ICO bumpers.
As I have said, the users that I had posted in the code block were listed from a PM from a different user. There has been no definitive proof of linkage between them and the one that is promising ICO bumping. This is relying on hearsay at best.
Nevermind this part. Screenshots are genuine:

I've logged into the account and verified the screenshots are not faked.
If you looked into the posting patterns, and times when some users were last active (e.g. "ScAryme") you would come to the same conclusion. In addition to that, you should factor in the lack of complaints from the 'alleged team members'.
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
-snip-
If you are going through Lauda's list, please ignore these users. I believe that it is important to keep from a precedent which empowers scammers' ability to frame others.
You're going to ignore people offering ICO bumping services Huh
My opinion is that it isn't right to tag a user that is supposedly on some team of ICO bumpers.

As I have said, the users that I had posted in the code block were listed from a PM from a different user. There has been no definitive proof of linkage between them and the one that is promising ICO bumping. This is relying on hearsay at best.

You can feel free to start a discourse about this if you want to argue toward the side of tagging vs. not.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
-snip-
If you are going through Lauda's list, please ignore these users. I believe that it is important to keep from a precedent which empowers scammers' ability to frame others.
You're going to ignore people offering ICO bumping services Huh

This may have some negative repercussions on the forum, and I for one would like to know what changed in his eyes--though I suspect it's probably about the last scam accusation that was opened against Lauda about the escrow thing.
That would be absurd, as factually I couldn't have done anything on my own which stops the whole reputation attack in its tracks. There has to be something else.
legendary
Activity: 3528
Merit: 7005
Top Crypto Casino
if that is why any of them excluded lauda..
Not that he's required to do so, but it sure would be nice if there was some sort of explanation provided by SaltySpitoon.  This may have some negative repercussions on the forum, and I for one would like to know what changed in his eyes--though I suspect it's probably about the last scam accusation that was opened against Lauda about the escrow thing.

I don't like the idea of blindly copying all of lauda's tags.
I don't either, which is why I'm doing nothing for now.  Lauda has been pretty good on the whole about leaving feedbacks, but the fact is that I've never looked through them all and don't intend to do so.  And that's what I think a DT member (or team of same) would have to do if the red tags were to stay intact.  That's a monumental task.  I'm not even sure how long it'd take for me to check a dozen tags for accuracy, such that I'd stand by them with my own reputation, much less over a thousand.
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
I didn't thought Lauda will get removed from DT, but finally I am seeing this thread today.

I suggest you to put negative those have scammed instead of an eye. Scammers never learn a lesson instead of scamming others.
Your neg was literally based on hearsay evidence. It's inadmissible. I went ahead and checked just now.
In fact, none of those users from the single PM where one user mentioned a team should be given a negative without hard evidence.

Here's the list of names:

Code:
Mysterious01
llhibionada
adiksau0414
Sleepy18
UCHCHILD
ScAryme
CryptosapienZA
Phalo
zedkiel08
Mandy7575
dipok07
mariah.sadio
hadang
velosepur
miguel tiu
bamb
sammed
babsjoe
DARKANGEL6415
matico
endlasuresh
johnrickdalaygon
FDC1412
Bakukang
dinos69
estanislao1994
mpet5000
Webelong
jameyap32
themathiasmiller
arsenia
tinochan412
bonghip
creatine413
seriin
Text
rroyk
jituroych
Guzztsar
Rahadsr
seanpeabody
Soyab Khan
Coolwave
ABk195
jhenzdelacruz
Mehedi72
Chickenjoy
rishabhdtu1854

If you are going through Lauda's list, please ignore these users. I believe that it is important to keep from a precedent which empowers scammers' ability to frame others.
legendary
Activity: 2296
Merit: 2262
BTC or BUST
A few of the ratings I actually don't agree with. I let those accounts be.

I don't like the idea of blindly copying all of lauda's tags.
With all of lauda's exclusions and removal from DT, I think that many wise members do not blindly agree with them all either..
If you DTs just copy them all, they might exclude you too if that is why any of them excluded lauda..

I think it is great what actmyname did by reviewing the accounts and then applying their own personal morality to the situations.. Though I didn't look at any of them myself to agree on any specifically..

Soon, you will have to prove all of those accusations to the tagged accounts you echo'd when they come screaming, because "Because lauda did" is not good enough.. Be prepared to defend any tags you place..
full member
Activity: 756
Merit: 103
I didn't thought Lauda will get removed from DT, but finally I am seeing this thread today.

I suggest you to put negative those have scammed instead of an eye. Scammers never learn a lesson instead of scamming others.
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2272
Quote
many of the ratings lauda left are not for someone that is a scammer using any reasonable definition
Can you please list all accounts with such rating? I don't want to tag wrong person. Thanks!  Smiley
This is an overarching statement but I believe it's ill-advised to tag those that are on the SMAS list. There were a number of users that were tagged because of this and the reason given was something along the lines of "likelihood of having alts" rather than a concrete reason.

Simply being blacklisted is not something that should warrant a tag.
There were also a few opinionated negs that were sent out, to which I did not echo.
Ok, when you quote only second part it looks stupid  Roll Eyes

EDIT[3]: All 301 done.
I am at 100 at the moment. Not all are tagged, there are many threads and posts I have to take some time to read. Connected accounts are worst because I can't really tag 1 account and leave other accounts not tagged. Speaking off, you missed few accounts here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.30515128

I would tag them myself but that spreadsheet looks close, it says "access denied" and search button doesn't help, I can't find many addresses.
I have found 2 address which are connected to these accounts:

Hipster999 #260 Address : 0xCCE979a54Eb8000CBC516Dd9565b9552Da6c0C1d
Symphony_fr #239 Address : 0x8e564ff6Df82D74ca2dF61914E9fa48bfe182569

But search button went crazy! It showed me wrong result:
 
Bitcointalk username: horace08122
ETH address: 0xCCE979a54Eb8000CBC516Dd9565b9552Da6c0C1d
Bitcointalk username: Samadur
Waves or ETH address: 0x8e564ff6Df82D74ca2dF61914E9fa48bfe182569

Well that is very strange.

Hopefully, this will make my previous post more...understandable. Smiley
copper member
Activity: 2562
Merit: 2510
Spear the bees
Quote
many of the ratings lauda left are not for someone that is a scammer using any reasonable definition
Can you please list all accounts with such rating? I don't want to tag wrong person. Thanks!  Smiley
This is an overarching statement but I believe it's ill-advised to tag those that are on the SMAS list. There were a number of users that were tagged because of this and the reason given was something along the lines of "likelihood of having alts" rather than a concrete reason.

Simply being blacklisted is not something that should warrant a tag.
There were also a few opinionated negs that were sent out, to which I did not echo.
Pages:
Jump to: