Post
Topic
Board Meta
Re: IS GIVING RED-TRUST THAT NON-EXPLANATORY ?
by
Quickseller
on 29/12/2019, 20:34:48 UTC
Lauda should be blacklisted from being on anyone’s trust list unless they explicitly add him to their trust list, and ditto for any of his alts. The same should be done for any other person who similarly gives trust. 
I disagree. The second we go all blacklisty on things it's no longer a community controlled system. People just need to continue to show how the system should be used, and point out when it is clearly being used outside of what is acceptable. Then informed of their options. ~ should be used as opposed to blacklisting. I also don't think we should be deciding who people can and can't add to their list, it's their choice if that's the sort of rating system they think has value.
Well the thing is that once a person has a strong grip on being on DT, as Lauda does, it is very difficult to get them off, even if they are scamming or doing something very unethical or illegal.

Lauda should have been excluded from DT when he tried to extort zeroaxl, and anyone who kept Lauda on their trust lists should have been excluded themselves. Lauda basically avoided this by denying he did anything wrong, even though the facts were undisputed and by using strong language that removing him from DT was amounting to helping scammers.

The same is true when he was part of an escrow team and over a million dollars worth of various coins were unaccounted for and none of the escrow agents would answer any questions. Again Lauda denied doing anything wrong and said there wasn’t anything requiring him to give an accounting of what happened to all the money he collected.

If you can come away unscathed and still be on DT after being entrusted with a million dollars that goes missing without even giving an explanation or answering any meaningful questions, there isn’t anything that will cause Lauda to be removed from DT.