Also, regarding the BTC that Lauda received, I don't think the issue is so much that the BTC might be stolen, but is more the issue of how Lauda reacted when he determined it might be stolen. The overall impression that I got from Lauda was that he does not care if the BTC is stolen or not, and that it is none of anyone's business what he does with it.
No. After doing my own analysis, I have concluded that it is not stolen.
Regardless of your "analysis", your intent was to keep the money one way or another. This is based on the fact that you explicitly said in IRC that you do not care about how your taking TF's BTC looks from the outside.
More recently, it looks like that lauda cannot respond to criticism nor answer tough questions without trolling the person asking. Also, more recently, it appears that Lauda does not care about how his actions look to those on the outside:
How I interact with people outside of the forum is also [...] nor has it any relevance to the forum nor moderation.
Of course it does. How you act outside the forum will reflect on your reputation here. Your reputation needs to be maintained in order for members to have faith in the moderation.
Either way, I was not referring to how you act outside the forum. I was referring to how you act when you are asked tough questions within the forum, and when your personal ethics are called into question.
Moderators are given discretion on how they handle things, and even going beyond discretion, they have the ability to mark a report as "bad" that is not necessarily a bad report, potentially allowing something to stay that should not stay. If someone with questionable ethics has access to this information/abilities, then why should it be expected for this information to be kept confidential?
Ethics are irrelevant in this context due to the nature of how I treat the set of given rules.
Of course ethics are relevant in the decision if someone should be a moderator or not. Why should anyone trust you to abstain from handling a report that might involve you in you have questionable ethics? You already trashcanned a thread that was hostile to a friend of yours very recently, so you are not ignoring reports that you might be biased about.
You've lied on this forum numerous times - most notably when you said you banned when you weren't, and when you said you'd leave when you didn't. It looks like Quickseller cannot respond to criticism nor answer tough questions without trolling the person asking.
When one calls them out on this, they claim it's ad hominem even though we are purely talking about facts.
I think you need to look up what ad-hominem means. This is you attacking the person delivering the message instead of the argument itself. You are saying that I am a scammer (which is libel), and therefore whatever I say should be ignored, despite the fact that my arguments are easily independently verified.
The best part of the discussion is. Both of them are literally getting paid to fight/argue.
LOL
