Bitcoin Forum

I see so many of the users of the forum who are having negative trusts getting accepted into bounty campaigns! Most of the campaigns do not allow users with negative trust to enroll in their campaign but there are some which do not follow this rule. Shouldn't the users with negative trusts be not allowed to set up signatures of any kind from the forum's end itself ?

To ensure that trust actually works and means something, shouldn't the campaigns which accept participants of negative trust be not allowed on this forum?

Ideally, managers that accept negative trust members should receive negative trust themselves.  :/

This is the post where trust system formally announced.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.0

Below are the guidelines for giving trust


So if you observe , most of the trust score given do not follow these guidelines.
Person who has given the trust is only capable of modifying it. No Administrator/Staff will able to modify it.

Even "Theymos" has negative trust . (Al tough person who has given him that trust did not followed any of the above guidelines, he just given negative trust because he is not agreeing with the views of Theymos)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35

So in short, this is most abused system and you have to determine yourself whether you can trust that person or not.

And how about managers with negative trust managing bounty?

Maybe there is some kind of exemption regarding to those who have negative trusts. Negative trust is also working because many of them are now on the blacklists of some particular active managers here like lauda, yahoo and the other sensitive people with that they cant participate to their campaigns.


For the reason they're still running some campaigns I think they can still be trusted although maybe there are some issues about them.

I think that no manager want to accept participants with negative trust. Maybe that they forgot to include it in their bounty rule.

Those managers who dont follow the rule of "Receive Negative trust from DT1 or 2 will get you kicked from campaign" are not worthy or becoming managers in the first place and no company should hire then to manage their campaign.
A lot of things should not be allowed in this forum. There are flaws in the system. But you will have to accept them and move on.

Generally speaking people will receive negative trust if they are found cheating signature/bounty campaigns with alt accounts and for many other reasons like loan default and potential scamming. However if the manager does not care about these scumbags enrolling in the campaign then they are shitmanagers enrolling shitposters and vomitposters.

There it is, manager accepts even members have negative trust because it was depend on the policy given by the company they have been promoted. Also it depends on the trust have the users and it was depends also the descretion of the manager.

Firstly, please provide links for the things you stated about the negative trust users who are currently enrolled in a signature campaigns, and before that do read the rules of that particular campaign before providing them, as there are some campaigns who allow USERS WITH NEGATIVE TRUST to participate in their campaigns as the companies who hires the campaign manger allows him to do so for promotional purposes.

I have never seen a manager accepting negative trusted accounts because as stated in the rules, negative trusted accounts are not allowed to participate. But if that is the case, then perhaps some managers either do not pay attention which is hard to believe or they do not care about the negative trust system which seems to be suspicious to me. Perhaps they are more focused on how many merit points you have.

Trusts are not all about stating that this person a scammers and evil maker in the forum, sometimes it shows what these people have done wrong and do it repeatedly, like begging merits, sending spam message, but it doesn't state or says they are banned from joining bounty, and some campaign still accept them because of their high-rank profile and the quality of their work.

Which campaigns and which managers?

Which campaigns exactly? This isn't really a forum issue either as there's no rules on what users campaigns can or cannot accept, but if they're a campaign that are just accepting anyone and an unlimited amount of users without checking the quality of their content they should face repercussions.

I do not have enough experience with the trust system here but it is not good to allow members with negative trust (especially those with 2 or above) to participate in these campaigns. I understand the one negative trust might be possible due to some misunderstanding or revenge being taken but if someone has multiple negative trusts, the profile is suspicious. Only a campaign manager can tell the exact reason for such members being allowed to participate. One reason I can think of is that they are not getting enough participants with neutral trust because of multiple campaigns running.

You seriously need to learn and read more about the trust system before making a comment like this.

Members with negative trust from DefaultTrust will show up in case your trust list in unedited from the time you signed up on the forum. Any other member whom you add to this trust list  - their trust rating will show up in "Trusted Feedback" as well. What we are talking about here are the trust ratings from DT1 and DT2 (mainly).

All other BS retaliatory feedbacks are generally not for DT and hence ignored. There is nothing wrong in ignoring those feedbacks from Neutral Trust members or those whom the manager does not have in his/her trust list. But ignoring DT trust ratings (except a few DT members) is not acceptable for the manager.

Well then. You can move forward and propose to ban all sig campaigns with spammy participants, the ones that encourage creating new accs and starting spam threads, or simply track the campaigns that accept shitposters. I believe that that will be the same campaighs that accept neg trusted members.
Imho the will to make this forum better is always good  but extra moderation is always a double edged sword that might make the forum less friendly. For now trust in general works like.... trust in real life, where if you know that the person is not trusted you are dealing with him at your own risk because he may brake his obligations. The same things is applied here (at least DT members are advertising the campaign in the negative way).
Imho the forum rules shouldn't be changed. At least untill we face some serious threat from DT members that I believe will never happen.

With random jerks added to the DT system,no one really takes those negative ratings seriously.You could see how people suck upto each other just to be there,usually,only handful of members on the DT are rational with their ratings,everybody else is just taking advantage of the power.It's totally fine for the managers to accept members in the campaign if their ratings are not justified and they have high posting quality.

Why ? If  DT members leave someone a feedback such as "Don't trust him he is an idiot" why would any campaign manager should take that feedback seriously unless he is paying upfront ?

Correct.

And for what charges? Trusting the not trusted? Trust is too vague for that.


What about them?


I assume that they are just not bothered about trust ratings. Most campaigns are up to advertising only. They want more people to know about their product/service/project so they don't pay much attention to an account's reputation.

For these charges - Giving potential scammers/account traders/alt account ring enjoy the privilages of being in this forum (which includes campaigns)

If some company hires such a manager then its a red mark for that company. Not that they would care much if they are not interested in the affairs of this forum.


Like I said above the company might not be interested in the forum affairs and how trust works. They would be interested in promoting their project. However a DT-red trusted member is likely an alt account/sold account/loan defaulter or simply a scammer. If they promote a project then its going to get raised eyebrows from the public who view their posts.

---

Ideally DT-marked red trust members should not be allowed to participate. However managers should work on understanding which rating is BS and which one is valid.

Professional campaign managers do not accept any members that has negative trust on their profile if you find someones campaign it means they lack knowledge of rules that must be attained for the costumer's sake or the company that pays them. Negative trust are for scammer and other schemers getting a red trust or negative trust doesn't mean you can't join a discussion

What about the wrongly accused I'm sure there is someone wrongly accused by some mistakes made by the Dt members I'm sure they make mistakes no ones perfect. Why are you focusing on campaigns and negative trust at the first place? It's for the costumers sake even if it means not accepting the rule abiding members so that the ico campaign's reputation would not be tarnished by negative users.

Being "potential" does not mean that it is true/accurate.

The so called "scammers/account traders/alt account" are not moderated in this forum. And AFAIK, there's no restrictions about these privileges (correct me if I am wrong here).


Perhaps.


I am not opposing because I am included to being a neg trusted and a campaign participant but I am just being logical here. The statement "DT-marked red trust members should not be allowed to participate [in a campaign]" must be backed with some kind of rules. And AFAIK, there's none.

I only saw some members getting accepted into some bounty campaigns in altcoin board but not in the service section.

But there are some members got accepted in some campaign even they have negative trusts if and only if the feedback is legit like scamming anyone and some illegal which is against in this forum and mostly if the feedback came from a DT1-DT2 member.

50 percent of the signature campaign accepts including negative trust members as well but people without negative trust of DT members. Till 3 percentage of the bounty campaigns only will not look about the negative trust member of elsewhere.
I do not think that bounties requires the people who involved in scam and scam are a trustful project. For example, zigger is the one in this forum looks to accepts all the people with negative trust too. They have runs the campaigning for spam here in the forum.

I've been noticing that trend also. There are so many forum members here that got accepted in a signature campaign even if they have negative trust. The system placed for trust here is working as intended, don't doubt about it. It's just people who manage campaigns should take a look at it closely especially when they are finding campaign participants. It mesmerizes me that many managers still accept participants with that status. They should take a look at it right away and decline the application.

Additionally, I'm trying to remember the names of those managers (who accept them) and try to avoid the campaign that they manage. Its because this just provides me an insight on how he will manage his campaigns.

Simply because people here are negatived for any reason (or no reason given at all, as some people here defend). Not only scammers are negatived, so it's not fair to reject someone from this "society" just because he is negatived. Each case should be analyzed individually and I believe campaigns managers are free to judge by themselves without fear of retaliations, since they aren't safeguarding scammers/thieves.

Most of the signature campaigns never accept negative trusted members only the altcoin campaigns are accepting participants with negative trusts.But negative trust has nothing to do with joining bounties because all they wanted is advertisement for their project so they don't care about the trust of peoples.But it is the manager's decison to accept or not and others nothing to do with that.
And now a days negative trust are given by the DT members without the appropriate evidence and for silly reasons that is the reason many managers don't care about that trust system.

It could be one of these reasons why users got in to a campaign while having a negative trust.

1. The user was accepted in the campaign without having negative trust and started making spammy posts during that time.

2. Abusing merits just to get in a signature campaign for a better payout then was caught red handed after posting an application.

If there was a bitcoin signature campaign that accepts users with negative they could be promoting a ponzi or something that is a scam.

The negative users usually are accepted in bounty campaigns paid in altcoins or tokens created from altcoins. I have rarely seen these users post in bitcoin discussion or alternative clients for example. They post mainly in the altcoin section which is full of spam because that is the nature of altcoins and tokens created from altcoins, they need a lot of views in order to be recognized. Lately even there many campaigns are not accepting negative trust users but many are also accepting. This was the case from many years in the forum and I do not see any change. Negative trust is working well in bitcoin signature campaigns as 99% of them do not accept such participants and the 1% that do is a scam.

Why shouldn't they be allowed? Just because a person has a negative trust it doesn't mean he is a scammer or a shit poster. They might be tagged for various other reasons or maybe due to butt hurting a DT member.  Seeing the current state of the DT and the members raising accusations to remove some other member I don't see any point in trusting the system.

Negative trust can be request to remove the feedback under your account. All you need to do write a new thread on meta or scam accusation section. If you understand these things then you can recover your account from the negative which are invalid.
More DT members are not a fool to touch the someone's trust and write there.
Once you clear then you can participate on signature or bounty campaigns. Newbies are not allowed to be a participants.

LOL the number of idiots in this forum who dont know a thing about how the forum works always keeps increasing. Negative trust from DT is given when they fell that person may be associated with attempting a scam or potential scammer. Again those who abuse campaigns and giveaways using alt accounts will receive negative trust.

Managers often maintain own trust list which maybe modified according to their need. I am sure more "sane" managers would like to look into the trust ratings and clarify if that rating is due to a personal dispute/butthurt feedback or not.

Also "Shitposter" is not a warrant for negative trust anymore - it was transient for sometime in the past few months. (Lets not talk about that incident)

If you look at the state of the forum then there is no regulation stating that when there are users who get negative trusts are not allowed to follow signcamp. I see there are only a few campaign managers that allow, but that usually only happens in altcoin and a project that does not have any interest. Overall I see the neg trust has great influence, the campaign managers who have a good reputation always apply the ban. Yes overal then all this works and runs very well.

The trust works and is a very important part of a users profile.
In these times and in this industry the amount of scamming is
massive so if you are going to deal with another user trust
is very important to be able to build a picture.

Even if they have negative trust it is easy to verify if that
negative trust is warranted or not and for what violation.

As others have said theymos has negative trust but we would
all trust him if we were to deal directly with him!

Any one can give the negative or positive feedback anyone but that should be legit first before we are adding to someone's profile. Then if we all add negative trust someone it will not reflected on his main profile but if you have added to that person you alone can find the negative trust while seeing via your account.
If any DT member write 2 lines of negative feedback it will be show like you have -2 negative with the red tag under your public profile. Some DT guys would not reply you back when you request to remove the feedback.

I was talking about this exact situation and why people need to given a chance. If that is changed as you are stating then there is no more validation required here.

And why is a scammer even allowed to a part of the forum even after getting a negative rating. Its the same as allowing a murderer to roam around the streets even after he is found guilty by law. I don't promote scamming but a scammer doesn't even deserve a negative rating and should be banned at once for his actions. This is followed a lot in other forums (Not naming any).

Yeah but mostly this only works for Signature campaigns that pays BTC in echange for their work. On the other hand like bounties this can also be implemented but only those who will participate on a signature campaign but mostly pays token,altcoin but for the social media campaigns like facebook,twitter,slack,telegram this can be pardoned since this campaign doesn't involve the forum incase we're talking about reputation.

I think negative trust are working because there are some bounty campaigns did not accept to those who have negative trust.It is depending on the campaign manager on his rules and regulation if he was accepting those members with negative trust.

People dont need to be given any chance. Being liberal is accepting a scammer for future as "not a scammer". The forum policies are very clear, make some attempt to cheat some campaigns and you will be marked with a red tag.

Also being a scammer to someone is relative, even if the DT rating are based on some legitimacy that the DT is trustworthy - but many have gone rogue in the past years and thus changes are needed. Again moderators/admins dont ban scammers, you have to be careful of them or in this case managers need to scrutinize those whom they recruit as campaigners.

Supposedly people with negative trust is not allowed to join in any of signature campaign but there are Campaign Manager that fails to do their job in keeping the rule and I wonder why there is no action about this activity. Those CM who accepts people with red trust should not get paid because they are not doing their job well in moderating the campaign.