Topic: Why are you guys tagging Lauda's account? - page 2. (Read 659 times)

It's not necessary to own the same account to impersonate the user.

Let me toss a few scenarios and see what sticks. There's always a way to fool someone:

1. 'Lａuda' registers on the forum, the username is not recognized as fake and the user links to the original account via a PM to other, ignorant users as an attempt to scam. Users see green trust, automatically trust.
2. Lauda impersonators on other platforms message Newbies, link to original account as proof, use whatever means of social engineering to trick user into believing they are the original Lauda.

---

You could simply leave some neutrals, but I think the idea of marking an account that is 100% inoperable with a red trust should be done at least once.

How many of you pay attention to the neutral trust of an account rather than the negative trust?

isn't lauda's account permanently banned by theymos? is there any possibility a parma banned account can be hacked and start posting and scamming people?
her bitcointalk account have no chance to be hacked and used for scam or impersonating.

I am more concerned about  her Telegram account. if that got compromised then that could be used for scamming as that is not banned.

Edit: She removed his telegram account too.

Ding ding!  OP, that's the best and most concise answer to your question and if I'm not mistaken Lauda either asked for the negs or anticipated them at least.  And, as been pointed out, negative trust isn't like excluding Lauda from your trust list.  Many of Lauda's feedbacks are accurate and should still stand, so there's no need for any DT members to now exclude him from their trust lists.  Giving a warning negative doesn't affect any of that.

And what we are trying to say is that those trusts look, but are not negative.  They are simply pointing out the account is dead.

Our feedback lets newbies know they should not trust the account should it reawaken, but they can still trust the feedback the account left.

theymos banned/locked lauda's account to prevent anyone from accessing his account in the future.
Tagging Lauda's account is really not going to protect anyone from anything, IMO

I think trusting/distrusting the account Lauda matters a bit. If you are trusting the account then you are supporting the tags she lefts for the scammers, also some controversial tags and if you are distrusting then of-course you are distrusting the judgement of the account.

But leaving positive/negative does not matter anymore. At this point even if real Lauda claims that she is back and sign a message with the compromised key then still there are no proof that it is real Lauda. So, I do not see any problem of sending negative trust.

The established truth here is that - we all know the user and we all already have an impression about the account good or bad, hate or love. Nothing matters now.

Assume we reset everything trust-wise from the Lauda debacle and that a few years pass. New members come and go and some users may be ignorant of the thread. If we have nothing but double-digit positive trust and a few neutrals (in the case of mentioning the thread), the likelihood of a Lauda impersonator socially engineering someone (doesn't necessarily have to be via Bitcointalk, though username impersonation comes to mind) is much higher.

The negative feedback brings so much more awareness to the account in the event that something did happen.

Account was banned like satoshi.

All I am trying to say is that she did nothing wrong to get these negative trusts, they seem like an abuse of trust. Scamming someone includes their agreement right. But I am talking about all the tagged accounts, also, she went off and it's not a good way to say good bye to such a legend.
Can you tag satoshi cuz he leaved?
Anybody can open his account and use it if they got access to the forum database right ? Can you tag satoshi just because he went off ?
All I am trying to say is that the announcement is enough.

Negative trust has no impact on sent feedback. You are thinking of trust exclusions. The only implication someone could gather from the trust rating of Lauda would be if they were too conceited to look up the comments of negatives and automatically assumed, "scammer rating = invalid rating".

And if someone is going to use the trust system improperly or not use it at all, thereby getting scammed because of it, isn't that what we expect? You can't prevent scams without the victim's compliance.

Well, if taking a close look at the age of that account you will find out that the ones who destroying the trust of Lauda saying "farewell" and stuffs like that could influence on the negative trust given to lots of cheaters turning them into neutral trust. That could let the members evade from these tags, you can wish her a bright future without harming her account right? Or am I wrong ?
About the edit of your post and the last two lines, it's right yes, but she won't open her account and she did an announcement that thousands have seen, it's enough I think. Giving her a negative trust is a abuse I think because it will reflect on the trust of scammers being tagged in the past which means that alot of cheaters around here would get access to their accounts tagged by Lauda, her negative trust will become neutral and hooray! They will come here again scamming, bumping threads, shilling and I am expecting alot of these accounts to get some positive fake feedbacks that will bring these accounts "back to life".
Lauda posted an announcement which I think is enough. And I am sure that the account pass and username are well secured and nobody would trust such a big account after that announcement.
Your words are logical, but in the other side, some of these neg trusts, I consider them as an abuse and I know that you got what I mean.

What are you talking about? The tags clearly make sense, as their credentials have been compromised. The account cannot be trusted from that point onward.

Imagine I decide to publish my private key as a renunciation of my identity, cryptographic or otherwise. The entity known as 'actmyname' on Bitcointalk would not be trustable.

Hey bitcoin talk,
I kept silent seeing some of you wish a Farewell for Laura after her thread announcing that she will never exist again or reopen her account.
Never mind Lauda, I've seen you fight crime and spam around here for years and I wish you a good future whenever or wherever you will exist, lol.
Now, back to the real deal, I am not against any of the members here at our beloved Bitcoin talk forums but listen up, is this a good way to wish a Farewell for a highly trusted member of the community just like Lauda? You just aim to destroy the trust of her account ?
I am asking Cyrus or any of the highly trusted members here to take a look about this matter, there's thousands of cheaters and ALTs right there trying to raise the trust of their accounts, I am writing these words after taking a look at Bitvest's signature campaign and especially the member "Joepen" if I am pronouncing his username right, he was evading a ban by using an alt and using it to join that signature, he was given a delay till today to fix his rank and then when today comes, boom I went to his account and foundout that some guys have tagged Lauda also to take her trust down and to make these little cheaters evade from the negative trust.
Well I am giving you guys just a simple example and I know that some of you might have some fights with Lauda but do you think that tagging her account because it is closed is a right choice? Are you with Bitcoin and decentralization or you are here to play and ruin the trust of people?
I can't stay silent watching all these scammers and cunts that bitcoin talk is full of evade from the negative trust. These guys who gave a negative trust to Lauda's account shall be ashamed of their selves, stop playing with the trust system here, it's against the rules.
I am letting this subject to the community,
Thanks for your time.