Quote from: actmyname on July 08, 2017, 10:15:02 PM

If you look at a lot of trust ratings, you'll find that in reality most are NOT rantings. Example: Lauda's sent feedbacks (since you seem to love complaining about them)
[img ]http://i.imgur.com/SV7ibW2.png[/img]
There are a few without references but the majority do have references and are legitimate feedback warnings.

Actually a number of Lauda's recently sent trust ratings are bogus. He left negative trust against WhatsBitcoin for being an alt of KingOfSports, however that account was given away to BlindMayorBitcorn over two years ago (also the accusation that WhatsBitcoin = KOS is two years old), and is available by looking at WhatsBitcoin's trust ratings. I would also point out that BlindMayorBitcorn was asking Lauda tough questions about his sketchy past that made Lauda look bad in the 'who will be the new moderator of the Wall Observer' thread, and the negative rating was no doubt retaliation for this.

Another bogus (recent) rating left by Lauda is that of Zeroxal who was actually extorted by lauda previously, and Lauda actually used the reference as a means to attempt to extort Zeroxal unsuccessfully. The reference here is just shy of being two years old.

If what Lauda says about Yudai is true, then Yudai would not be a scammer.

The rating against noire is attempting to enforce the TOS of the website that Lauda has been advertising for several months now, so there is a clear conflict of interest.

Without doing any serious amount of research, I was able to find serious concerns about 4 of 19 sent ratings, that is over 20% error rate.

Quote from: actmyname on July 08, 2017, 10:15:02 PM

If there is a known scammer, would you simply wait until you are scammed to send them a negative feedback? You wouldn't bother warn others about their scamming (or an accusation towards them that has yet to receive a reply?)

Lauda very frequently leaves negative trust against people for things that do not constitute a scam. He also leaves negative trust based on baseless speculation.

Quote from: kiklo on July 08, 2017, 10:01:43 PM

Are all of the DT members corrupt , of course not , but for evil to happen all of the few good members have to do is nothing, which sadly by not self policing their own members ratings is exactly what happens.

Already showed you the Ryland case.[/quote]There was actually no evidence presented in the Ryland case. The only evidence that Ryland was an alt of Mixan was the word of someone who is not trustworthy, this person was asked to take actions that would allow a more trustworthy person to verify his claims, and declined to do so. The only think we know with certainty about Ryland is that the account changed hands, which certainly does not make the person (currently) behind the account a scammer.