Quote from: Quickseller on February 16, 2018, 10:04:43 AM

I have posted with exactly two accounts in this thread, the other account was really just screwing around, and I don't think was backing my arguments.

On that topic, I am fairly confident that lauda has used sockpuppets in this very thread to back his arguments. I believe one of these to be The Pharmacist, however lauda has not responded to this accusation yet, so I do not want to make the evidence I have of this public. In the US court system, the accused will first either plead guilty or not guilty before they are tried, and get to see evidence against them, and I do not see any other reason why I would be obligated to allow him to see evidence against him before he makes his position on this clear. This does not rely upon any confidential sources, so I can share what I have provided confidentiality is promised.

Most people require proof before accepting anything... again, why does Lauda have to deny something for you to give the evidence?... and why can't Lauda just deny it? round and round we go

I'd love to see the evidence and certainly would provide confidentiality. Keep in mind, I seek truth.

Quote from: Lauda on February 15, 2018, 10:50:07 PM

This is actually quite appropriate defense when said "criticism" is of the following type:

Quote from: Lauda on February 15, 2018, 08:01:58 AM

All of those accounts deserved their negative trust. Creating a new account to spread the lie that I'm a pedophile is not criticism.

If you actually intent to spend time properly addressing any concern-trolling-aka-smear-attempt, then they are easily going to drain your energy[1]. Either you are out, or you are drained to the point where you are barely able to do anything. Either way, the other side wins.

[1] This is a classic tactic from the book of fraudsters, very often used by Bcash scammers to smear Core developers with whatever (the same has happened in this thread, just directed at me). I expect you to know this, but I've stated it anyways.

I get all of that. I'm not saying you have to defend yourself to every account that comes along, I'm just looking at it from the perception of other members that may not know anything about QS's history who may just see you as dodging or side-stepping the claims. In your situation, I almost see it as better to not respond at all unless valid evidence were presented upfront.

Quote from: Lauda on February 15, 2018, 10:50:07 PM

Quote from: ibminer on February 15, 2018, 10:41:57 PM

...it is actually a little exciting to see DT1 members using their rights and being active in the trust area..

Excluding me based on my statements on the Bcash scam and tags on bcash scammers (which I asked theymos about before actually neg. rating several people), is indeed a *exciting use of their right*. Roll Eyes

I did say a little exciting. You have pushed boundaries I don't think I've seen pushed before, in relation to what is acceptable and unacceptable use of the trust system, so the conflict is not surprising to me, just good to see the activity I guess... I neither confirm nor deny whether I agree with said activities. Grin

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on February 15, 2018, 11:18:06 PM

--snip--

Thanks for the explanation. Initially the statement seemed to offer scammers a false sense of acceptance, but I believe I at least understand your point of view now. There are certainly different levels of scammers, and I do occasionally miss dank Embarrassed

... but I don't think I'd have any reason or desire to trade with him, then or now ... to each his own I guess.