Bitcoin Forum

Take a look at the Trust summary for the user BADecker:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=149737 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=149737)


Before you reply, no, I am not his other account. I believe in LGBTQ rights and have been an advocate for them since the very beginning. However, I think it is an unjust abuse of the Trust System for someone to have a negative trust rating purely for their political/religious views.

Also, if you read the untrusted feedback, there are some people who left him positive feedback just because of the fact that he is Christian, which is also unacceptable. What can be done about this?

You are right.Trust ratings should not be based on religious,political or personal views and ideologies.They should solely be given for once assumed trust level. I think the said member should post his case in this section

If you don't like it you can ignore it. There is not a forum rule against those posts. While i also don't favor those kind of posts, there is nothing i can do about it.

Unfortunately, it is simply not as simple as ignoring it. It is going to affect the way one trades on Bitcointalk, most signature campaigns will not allow somebody with a negative trust rating, for instance. I am not defending BADecker's reprehensible comments about gay people at all. I am simply defending his rights to say such things, that's all.

So let him complain if he can't get into a sig campaign because of untrusted feedback.   Until then it's not only not your problem, it's not anyone's problem.  And this forum doesn't moderate trust or censor posts because of racism.  People are going to be intolerant assholes, so just get used to it.

That feedback was left 2 years ago. Perhaps it might be worth notifying them about it?

It's interesting you are the one telling me that, when you have "randomly" left me negative feedback despite the fact that I have not finalized the purchase of a single service while here on Bitcointalk. Furthermore, going to your profile, this is not a new habit, as you have spammed trust for hundreds of other users.

Ironic, eh.

It certainly is my problem, because I am an advocate for personal liberty.


You're right, I'll go ahead and do that.

I disagree.  I should have the right to distrust someone for any reason.

If your cult says theft is part of becoming a man, I am going to distrust you based on your religion.

I have had that idiot BADecker on ignore for far over a year now. 

We aren't talking about distrusting somebody, we are talking about the Trust System on Bitcointalk. Different things. Generally, a negative trust rating on here is associated with fraud. In that case you would think that all of the casino vendors and government employees would have negative ratings, yet it is very much the opposite.

As long as there is no specific guidance notes regarding Trust System presented, this whole discussion is invalid.
You can claim in your trust anything you like. Trust System it not longer tool to fight frauds - it is a weapon for personal use if you don't like someone.

You and others forget one simple thing: If you leave crap, unsubstantiated and non referenced Trust, you are actually making yourself irrelevant. People will simply ignore your ratings.

Yup, it's economics. Supply and demand. You can saturate your ratings by leaving a lot of crap in trust, but if people see giant red walls when they go to your profile, they won't take you seriously. Because there is an abundant supply.

Not really. Most can see crap for what it really is.

Is trust moderated in any way? It plays no part in my life whatsoever but it seems like a straightforward way to turn your grudge into something genuinely harmful.

This discussion is real time problem of the whole decentralisation and how humans deal with it. If people are bad and use trust system only for one purpose and that is to harm somebody, then please, switch it off. Some users here seem to mean that trust level is nothing important. If it is not important at all and if nobody uses it, shouldnt it be switched off? For me there is no difference in post in a forum and leaving some lies as comment for fake trust level (no matter if positive or negative), both is public accessable data on internet and it is not only harming some it even can be used for further damages.

If everybody agrees that this is just a weapon to attack somebody and write whatever you want because board owners do not edit it, who would be responsible if some trust comments do affect users IRL or in their freedom on this forum? Maybe I am wrong, but in court, board owners would be asked why do they allow such weapon of attack and why should it be there at all if board staff claims to follow "Free Speech" & "Free Religion" agenda. Both statements can be truth at the same time, they contradict each other.

I already see it coming that as explanation new board forum will be shown and then it would be waste of resources to waste time. In this case, you should edit them and if it is a waste of human resources, then it is easier to switch it off at all, especially if so many claim that it is not important and has nothing to do with trust which is BTW named wrongly, every single person would assume "TRUST" has to do with real trust. You are even unclear about rules and then there is something called "TRUST" system which is actually only weapon for attack because humans are bad?

Wow, I am really amazed.

Unfortunately the trust system has been used to fight things that some people do not agree with personally, and have nothing to do with fraud and/or scamming and/or attempting to scam.

With that being said, the trust system is still used to fight scams and scammers, although the above somewhat dilutes it's ability to do so.

It is usually fairly obvious when someone is trying to farm their trust in one way or another.

My post wasn't meant to be a critique of the Trust System, just the users that tend to abuse it by targetting people for their religious/political views.

Definitely. Trust should just be given to those you make transactions with and not because they hate each other or just becuase they like the post of someone. Its easily abused really and when screaming scam to a coins thats obviously a scam can get you a red trust which is something not right still.

Yes, BADecker is a complete idiot, but I don't think he deserve red thrust for being brainwashed.
As far as I know he have never scamed anyone

Politics should not even have any affiliation with Bitcointalk's trading subsections at all. All the regulars in that sub-forum are deeply uninterested in carrying out any trades or scams anyway.

Another case of such a treatement is user Abou Talha that received negative trusts for his avatar. Thought it's true that it is a bit explanatory about the guy, it is nowhere prohibited.

Just Googled it, I cannot believe it. I am already on all the watchlists, but this will create more opportunities for the NSA to spy on me for sure :(

It seems that the community has found the trust system to be a way to disapprove of unlikeable individuals.

Users of forum shouldn't get negative trust due to political or religious views except they are terrorists, nazi or something similar. Everyone can have their own opinion, no matter you like it or not - this is democracy. This is not reason to give negative trust. But there is any rule which forbade to give negative trust for nothing - this is annoying. This is why I'm trying to avoid political section - there are many members who doesn't care in arguments.