Bitcoin Forum

Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

I need to know what negative trust ratings are for
To my knowledge, negative trust is left on the accounts of those who are scammers or those that the person leaving the trust think that are scammers but I have been seeing people leave negative trust for reasons that have nothing to do with scamming, just their opinion

When I look on the trust page, I see the following,

If a person leaves negative trust for none of the above reasons, is it not abuse of the system?

I need to know what negative trust ratings are for
To my knowledge, negative trust is left on the accounts of those who are scammers or those that the person leaving the trust think that are scammers but I have been seeing people leave negative trust for reasons that have nothing to do with scamming, just their opinion

When I look on the trust page, I see the following,

If a person leaves negative trust for none of the above reasons, is it not abuse of the system?

If you noticed,  I removed my neg on you for this reason.   It was done in anger and I reconsidered. 

I noticed but the act is still being practiced by other members, i just want a mod to come in and clearly say what negative trust should be used for so this thread can be used as a reference

There are no real rules as to this issue.
The Trust System is not regulated by the Mods.

There is nothing you can do about invalid negative trust,
other than request the person who gave it to you, to reconsider.

Chances are if you received negative trust, it falls under one of the following:
1. broke a forum rule,
2. attempting to scam,
3. have scammed,
4. begging,
5. being a troll
6. send pm solicitations,
7. spams with or without sig campaign
8. sold account
9. etc etc etc

There are may reasons why to give negative trust, outside of scamming members.
There are no rules, that I'm aware of.

There are no real rules as to this issue.
The Trust System is not regulated by the Mods.

There is nothing you can do about invalid negative trust,
other than request the person who gave it to you, to reconsider.

Chances are if you received negative trust, it falls under one of the following:
1. broke a forum rule,
2. attempting to scam,
3. have scammed,
4. begging,
5. being a troll
6. send pm solicitations,
7. spams with or without sig campaign
8. sold account
9. etc etc etc

There are may reasons why to give negative trust, outside of scamming members.
There are no rules, that I'm aware of.

Hello, this list is incorrect. Sorry, try again. That is not what red trust is meant for according to the official forum rules.

Being a troll or begging is clearly not what red trust is meant for so please sir do your research before attempting to give a proper reply.

Lol! You would get negative trust for being a troll.
There are no rules for giving trust.

Please provide link to "official forum rules" as to providing trust.

there actually are rules on the trust page, maybe you can go there and read it and come back

Ok so how's about neutral feedback for trolling or "low quality posts"?

Ok so how's about neutral feedback for trolling or "low quality posts"?

Tell me this, is + trust given for well-thought out economy posts or helpful free tools posted? No. You can have extremely high quality posts yet not get + trust. So it makes zero sense to give out - trust when not meeting the trust-givers standards.

i just want a mod to come in

Chances are if you received negative trust, it falls under one of the following:

1. broke a forum rule,

2. attempting to scam,

3. have scammed,

4. begging,

5. being a troll

6. send pm solicitations,

7. spams with or without sig campaign

8. sold account

9. etc etc etc

There are may reasons why to give negative trust, outside of scamming members

Tell me this, is + trust given for well-thought out economy posts or helpful free tools posted? No. You can have extremely high quality posts yet not get + trust. So it makes zero sense to give out - trust when not meeting the trust-givers standards.

THIS DUDE HAD SEX WITH MY SISTER AND DIDNT EVEN CALL HER AFTER THE FIRST DATE. DISRESPECTFUL, ARROGANT AND AN OBVIOUS FUTURE SCAMMER. DO NOT TRADE WITH!

Made an excellent tutorial on creating and verifying bitcoin signatures.

-snip-
That is not the intent behind the trust system.

no

two from DT 1 can effectivly remove someone else from DT 1

Just fixing a small misconception, two users from DT 1 can only remove a user from DT 2 and below(taking into consideration that only one DT 1 user has the individual under their trust list)

DT 1 individuals can only be removed by theymos, i.e by deleting their "entry" from the trust list of DefaultTrust(which , is actually an account)

I made three improvements to the Trust system:

Firstly, there is now a neutral rating type. Neutral ratings don't affect a person's trust score at all. On a person's trust page, positive ratings are bold, neutral ratings are italic, and negative ratings are red bold-italic.

Secondly, it is now possible to exclude users in your trust list (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust). Prefix a person's name with a tilde character (~) if you want to exclude them. If you exclude someone, then you will never see that person's ratings as trusted, even if the person is trusted by other people in your trust network.

Exclusions also travel through the trust network. If one person in your trust network trusts someone and another person excludes them, then whether or not they're seen as trusted for you is decided using these rules:
1. If someone at a lower depth (ie, closer to your trust list) disagrees with someone at a higher depth, then the person at the lowest depth wins. Due to this, no one can overrule anything you put in your trust list directly.
2. If multiple people at the same depth disagree, then the rating type that is most popular among these people wins. For example, say that you have three people in your trust list. If two of them trust someone and one of them excludes that person, then the person will not be excluded.
3. If an equal number of people at the same depth include and exclude a person, then the person will be included.

Finally, I added an easier-to-understand way of viewing your trust network to the trust settings page (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust). The number in parentheses is the number of people in the preceding (lower) depth level who trust the person minus the number of people at the preceding depth level who exclude that person. This view contains slightly less information than the hierarchical view -- there's a link to the old view at the bottom of the trust settings page.

Also, the maximum trust depth is now 4 instead of 3, though it's probably still not a good idea to go above 2.

I hate[1] it when you make me look up things.
-snip-

Erm hate to say it, but I'm right

Where do we see all these DT levels? I think users should really need to understand these stuff as well because leaving red trust seem acustom nowadays.  ;D how do you see which DT1 added DT2 user?

-> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full

Simply put, no matter what people say in this thread, people give them for whatever they think they need to give it.
Some are crusaders looking for scammers, others just dont like the other etc etc.
It is just abused.

Simply put, no matter what people say in this thread, people give them for whatever they think they need to give it.
Some are crusaders looking for scammers, others just dont like the other etc etc.
It is just abused.

Negative reps are here to publicly show how "(un)trusted" a user is. Trustable people get +reps, and and other people trust them. Scammers get -reps, and people don't trust them.

But you are lumping people that disagree as people that just hate the people, its the tactic that is the issue! Not gonna go at any other aspect, think you mean well.We are talking about abuse of ratings in paticular, title might have thrown you.

you even dont know what abuse is. just face the facts: you dont like certain ratings because you dont agree with them. doesnt mean someone got abused... get over it

Another assumption but thats a fact for you, right?

Have seen this happen on enough forums to know it ends bad for everyone.

I don't like people seeking it out like its the hip new thing. If its the same people all day long, maybe theres a reason.

The language used or snarky responses just proves its not about community and about image. Building trust to get more business, get more power.

More sinister, the long scam once the dominoes are in place. Scammers are all about building trust.

Its not about community, so its?

Forgot to add I do think it is unfair for users to be given negative trust for participating in a Ponzi thread - a neutral would be better - as the punishment  ::) for participating and for actually carrying out the Ponzi scam are the same.

Forgot to add I do think it is unfair for users to be given negative trust for participating in a Ponzi thread - a neutral would be better - as the punishment  ::) for participating and for actually carrying out the Ponzi scam are the same.

So the victims of the scam are punished twice, sometimes a third time as there has been occasions where a sig campaign has kicked them out for the unjust punishment of receiving a neg feedback.

Maybe the heavy handed self appointed Ponzi police should think a little of the ramifications of their actions.  :o

You were promoting the ponzi directly in your Personal text, and posting outside the Investors based games. Which is why the neg

Also, good thing you finally are managing your trust list but others can still see the neg from DT as trusted, as most users have DT in their trust ist by default

Mexxer, I've removed the neg by the way - it served it's purpose.

I see what you did there.

Giving an ISIS supporter who uses his avatar to subliminally promote violence is something that should be defended. So what if there is no way of stopping him from brandishing hate as long as he doesn't post anything promoting hate?

So everyone around him just has to shut the fuck up because he has the right to support an illegal terrorist organisation that many countries are currently at war with.

Fuck the people who died in Paris. Fuck the people who drown each day escaping the terrorists. Fuck the people who get their heads cut off because it's cheaper than raising money for advertising.

Let him brandish hate in peace.

But, wait.  If he is allowed to be involved with profiting from a currency project, won't he use that profit to fund terrorist activities? Go head, defend his fucking rights.

Yeah, I don't trust someone who is actively promoting taking over the world by means of violence.  Even if it is just a fucking avatar.  It stands for something and innocent people die each day for what that avatar stands for.

So get me fucking banned for giving a terrorist supporter negative trust.  That would be so ironic, but as long as it sits well with your moral compass.

Let's just finish that thought off with a question as to why r/btc exists?  Rules can be broken, but not when it comes to letting terrorist supporters spread their cancer among us.

I see what you did there.

Giving an ISIS supporter who uses his avatar to subliminally promote violence is something that should be defended. So what if there is no way of stopping him from brandishing hate as long as he doesn't post anything promoting hate?

So everyone around him just has to shut the fuck up because he has the right to support an illegal terrorist organisation that many countries are currently at war with.

Fuck the people who died in Paris. Fuck the people who drown each day escaping the terrorists. Fuck the people who get their heads cut off because it's cheaper than raising money for advertising.

Let him brandish hate in peace.

But, wait.  If he is allowed to be involved with profiting from a currency project, won't he use that profit to fund terrorist activities? Go head, defend his fucking rights.

Yeah, I don't trust someone who is actively promoting taking over the world by means of violence.  Even if it is just a fucking avatar.  It stands for something and innocent people die each day for what that avatar stands for.

So get me fucking banned for giving a terrorist supporter negative trust.  That would be so ironic, but as long as it sits well with your moral compass.

Let's just finish that thought off with a question as to why r/btc exists?  Rules can be broken, but not when it comes to letting terrorist supporters spread their cancer among us.

I've been told that plenty of people have taken him seriously and his precence has been an issue on a number of fronts and to a number of people.  There is evidence that was the case, not just interpretation or supposition.

My complete objection to his ability to promote hate by brandishing a hate image and tagline that states his support to take over is sufficient evidence that one or more people are affected by him.

It's easy to say he is harmless when you have zero evidence to the contrary.

I'm pissed because a core member of our dev team walked away from a years worth of work because of this harmless ISIS avatar.  So execuse me if i disagree with your view that it has no impact.  

I had him on ignore for months. But ignoring cancer doesn't work. Turning a blind eye lets the cancer grow.

Fuck his rights to quietly brandish hate and support the destruction of thousands of years of historical artefacts and world heritage sites because the sysmbols on those historic buildings showed images that they disagreed with.  They take images seriously, but we should not?

Yeah, fuck that.I don't trust him. Neg'd the fucker so others know he is a cancer and not to be trusted.