Quote from: ibminer on December 11, 2017, 01:15:33 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on December 11, 2017, 12:13:34 AM

--snip--
I would also like to say that I would be strongly suspicious of any campaign ever managed by Lauda, although a few accounts that I suspect to be his sockpuppets generally do not participate in his campaigns.

Thank you for the links and explanation! As for Lauda, what is the reason to be suspicious? I assume there is a theory here... I can imagine a few but I haven't seen evidence of anything at this point with any campaigns being run by Lauda. I'm all ears Grin

Well I admittedly don't have any evidence specific to any of the campaigns Luada runs. My statement is more around my overall distrust of Lauda. I think Lauda is someone who is willing to do anything (regardless of how unethical, immoral, or illegal said action is) to obtain a desired "good" result, including if that means enriching himself in the process.

There are a couple of examples of this, the extortion situation, that you are well aware of, as well as a time when Lauda acted as escrow and was in the process of imposing losses on those he was supposed to be protecting when it turned out his escrow setup was inadequate -- IIRC, there were not actually losses because someone on the escrow team was able to 'strong arm' the alleged scammer/thief into handing over ~$10k (IIRC) in cash to be used to buy BTC via coinbase to repay the investors (which in itself is borderline illegal, but may be worse depending on what exactly was communicated to the alleged scammer, and what exculpatory evidence existed - not just what was known at the time of the recovery).

I would also point out that this, and this (I would disagree this guy is catching people doing anything bad or harmful, but it still falls in lie with what a "sting operation" is) are examples of "sting" operations, while this is not.

Anyway, back on topic, I am not sure I would fully support what you are doing. I would point out that if someone is contributing to conversations (and not talking to himself) in all (most) of his posts, the number of accounts he uses to do this really does not matter, nor does the fact he is getting paid for his signature matter. Sure one could argue that multiple accounts in a campaign violates the "rules" of the campaign, however this rule ultimately harms the advertiser because he gets less "good quality" posts (advertisements) in his campaign, while the campaign manager will benefit because he has the potential to receive more trust ratings when more people participate in his campaigns.

You did indicate you will leave ratings on a case-by-case basis, and if you are leaving ratings because someone is making a lot of crap posts (one liners), I would support your project more, although this is generally something the moderators should ultimately handle (via bans).