It is fairly well known by now that Lauda pulled a Hilary Clinton when he deleted over 3,000 posts from his xanis account.

After it was proven that xanis is one of Lauda's alts, Lauda refused to publish the connection in the "[User Generated] - Known alts of anyone" thread.

The fact that so many posts were deleted by a known extortionist who was fired from being a moderator is clear evidence that something is trying to be hidden by Lauda.

My question is, will theymos out the rest of Lauda's alternate accounts that Lauda has ever controlled in the past or present?

It is very well known that Lauda leaves negative trust for those that deal is forum accounts, while Lauda has very clearly dealt in the same in the past. This is a very clear indication of corruption on the part of Lauda (similar to that of Hilary Clinton).

Does the lack of response by theymos mean he endorses extortionists?

There is an unusually large number of sockpuppets posting in this thread. Maybe this means someone is unusually nervous. 

In light of recent additional information revealed about Lauda, I would like to know:
Does hilariousandco believe Lauda when she says she was only trying to "pad posts" when he tried to buy forum accounts?
Does hilariousandco believe Lauda when she says she only owned/controlled two accounts ever?
Does hilariousandco believe that Lauda has never bought nor sold any bitcointalk.org accounts?
Does hilariousandco have any information to suggest that any of the above may not be true?


The answers (or lack thereof) may very well be an indication of the judgment of hilariousandco.

You appear to be a petty person.

hilariousandco is explicitly endorsing the actions of an extortionist. This alone outweighs any and all other contributions to the community via moderating and otherwise.


If he is willing to endorse an extortionist, why would you believe he will not engage in extortion himself? Most extortion attempts are done with anon identities to protect one-self against the consequences of attempting extortion.

Partially correct. Lauda tried to extort someone who he believed had broken the law. It is common for extortionists to threaten to expose illegal activity if an extortion payment is not paid as a means to collect the extortion payment. Lauda later claimed he was conducting a "sting operation" however paying an extortion bounty would not establish guilt in any reasonable court of law, rather it would establish the victim was trying to avoid attention by law enforcement.


There is no one to make an agreement with. Lauda telling his friends about his plans to break the law (extort someone) in the near future does not give him a free pass to break the law, rather it most likely makes his friends co-conspirators depending on the exact details.

The fact the encrypted message was submitted to a number of pastebin-type sites somewhat proves Lauda told his friends about the planned extortion attempt ahead of time, to the extent you trust the timestamps on those sites. However this presents many problems, mainly the fact that if the extortion attempt was successful, that no one would ever have found out about it because the message was encrypted to Lauda's GPG key only. Another issue is that telling his friends about his plans, makes his friends co-conspirators, and does not give Lauda a free pass to break the law.

---

The point remains that lauda remains as someone with authority within the forum, which has been explicitly allowed by theymos by way of keeping both blazed and hilariousandco trusted by the "default trust" account despite their keeping Lauda in the default trust network. As mentioned previously, theymos has previously explicitly directed that certain users not be included in the default trust network after leaving controversial ratings, and has declined to engage in this activity in this instance.

By way of the above, theymos is explicitly allowing an extortionist to remain in a position of authority.

It is very well known that Lauda is an extortionist (in case there is any question, here is a post with Lauda admitting to attempt to extort someone). However, unfortunately he remains on Default Trust, resulting in his sent trust ratings automatically showing up by default.

There are a number of people who decide who is in the Default Trust network by way of adding these people to their trust list. However theymos ultimately governs the Default Trust network by way of deciding which users get to decide who is in the default trust network, by way of having the "DefaultTrust" account trust certain other accounts. Furthermore, there are multiple historical examples of theymos deciding a certain person should not be in the DefaultTrust network.

As of now, two people are causing/allowing Lauda to remain in the Default Trust network, Blazed, and hilariousandco. The later of which is currently a Global Moderator.

I would like theymos to make a statement regarding his stance on extortionists, his stance on extortionists being in the DefaultTrust network, and his stance on his moderators actively supporting extortionists. Should extortionists be allowed to continue to be in the DefaultTrust network after violating the trust of the community by extorting someone? If theymos is made aware of an extortionist, will he take action to warn others about this extortionist, by way of leaving a negative trust rating, or otherwise, especially when this person otherwise appears trustworthy when solely looking at trust ratings?

I would I would avoid doing any kind of business with the OP. He has been involved in extortion in the past.

You are a scumbag who will eventually rot in hell. Anyone who does business with you is asking to get screwed over.

You are making unfounded claims in order to distract from the central issue that you are an extortionist and should not be trusted under any circumstances. I would also decline to trust anyone who trusts what you have to say/your opinions by default.


You have a history of extortion, and I see no reason to believe extortion attempts have not continued 

You are making assumptions that are unfounded and/or untrue.

Individual members should make their own conclusions as to if someone should be trusted. If evidence cannot and is not posted on a regular basis, then the person making accusations should not be trusted.


Lauda regularly refuses to provide evidence of allegations he makes when leaving negative ratings, making it impossible to dispute what lauda alleges. This ignores the fact that if alligations are correct, that the receiver of negative ratings would not be a scammer by any measure.


So you believe what Lauda says regardless of his past transgressions? You do realize that lauda's history of extorting people means any rating (including lack thereof) could be the result of extortion, right? It is fairly standard to (at least attempt to) hide the fact that a specific person is extorting someone, but rather to prove knowledge of specific negative information.

There will almost never be evidence of extortion in these situations. Lauda will use alternate accounts to extort users. There is no benefit to using a credible/primary account to carry out an extortion scheme as long as you can show your victim that you have the knowledge of information the victim does not want made public.

You have admitted to extorting people in the past. The amount of time that has eclipsed since the last time it is clear you have extorted someone does not matter.


You have a standard response that anyone who questions you is someone you have "tagged in the past" and will always refrain from responding to any part of any concerns posted. 

theymos allows Lauda to be in the Default Trust network by way of explicitly trusting members (by way of having "DefaultTrust" trust those who trust Lauda) who trust lauda. As such he is directly allowing lauda to remain in the Default Trust network.


I believe this is directly associating theymos with extortionists. Lauda has semi-recently stated he will no longer participate in "sting operations" in response to posts by hilariousandco about Lauda's position in DT. I believe this is an explicit admission of participating in an extortion scheme.

This kind of behavior should not be tolerated, and at a minimum, Lauda should be treated similarly to any other serial scammer out there. 

If hilariousandco is putting an extortionist in a position of power and authority publicly, then how can we trust him to take moderation actions that are, by definition anonymous?


This relates to his ability to be trusted. As a global moderator, hilariousandco is trusted to make judgement calls anonymously every day. If many bad judgment calls are made, then it will probably stick out and theymos will see, however if a judgment call is made as a result of less than above-board reasons, then any dispute will be nothing more than he-said, she-said speculation. 

I have posted a thread to either have hilariousandco removed from being staff or he remove Lauda from his trust list.

A thread regarding Blazed is forthcoming is Lauda is not removed from his trust list. 

Please stop derailing this thread, as you have derailed many threads in the past.

As I previously stated, please refrain from posting in this thread if you are not capable of arguing the merits of my request. Thank you.

ignoring the fact your post is inaccurate, you are posting nothing more than an ad hominem attack and fail to address the issues behind my post.

You are clearly either unable or unwilling to argue points intelligently. Until you are willing to argue the topic based on merits and not based on emotion and not based on ad hominem attacks, please refrain from posting in this thread.

hilariousandco should not be a moderator because of his stance on extortionists. He currently has an extortionist on his trust list (Lauda), who has admitted to the extortion, not once, but twice.

If hilariousandco is the reason why an extortionist is on Default Trust, then what is the basis for trusting him to impartially moderate the forum?

For as long as lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I believe it be appropriate to both remove hilariousandco from being a Global Moderator, and remove him from Default Trust.

I move to have hilariousandco removed from being a moderator and being on Default Trust effective immediately.  

For as long as both hilariousandco remains a moderator and on Default Trust, and lauda remains on hilariousandco's trust list, I understand theymos agrees this behavior is acceptable.

I will just leave this here: