|
Title: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 25, 2018, 09:53:55 PM **this post inspired by Annon001**
Conflict of interest must be avoided Hi Sirs, While looking through the forum Archives, I found a thread entitled Much of the DT controversy is concentrated in those on Blazed's trust list. Take yahoo62278 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355846) for instance. He has created threads such as:
So this guy is a trust farming, begging, account seller. He has a decent amount of trust, his score is 50: -0 / +5, with 4 of the 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He also runs many signature campaigns, can we be sure he is not enrolling his own accounts to milk the owners of these campaigns? Here is the kicker, he is now giving negative trust for "sold accounts". This looks a lot like a conflict of interest to me. It looks a lot like he is "red tagging" some of his competition. Another good example is Lutpin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=520313). He created a thread entitled:
This guy doesn't appear to sell accounts or farm trust, but he is another signature campaign manager. His history indicates he was a little immature in the past, but hey, everyone needs to learn at one point. He seems to have handled a decent amount of other's money, so maybe he is a little trustworthy, his score is 110: -0 / +11 , with 7 of his 11 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. A third point of controversy is The Pharmacist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487418). He is not the smartest person, claiming to not know how to take a screenshot (http://archive.is/mkuW5#selection-575.71-575.162). I don't see much evidence he is especially trustworthy, he seems to have done a handful of PayPal deals, each worth $25 or so. From what I can tell, he has done a total of about $1,000 worth of trades over about three years. His trust score is 32: -0 / +5 , with 4 of his 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He likes to leave negative trust for those that trade accounts, sometimes years after the fact, yet is inconsistant (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3186029.msg33076683#msg33076683) in what he will Red Tag users for, and will ignore requests to discuss concerns with ratings. User actmyname (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=465017) is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list: I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same. actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. Member mexxer-2 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=341982), apparently used to sell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=891368.0) forum accounts himself, however some people say mexxer-2 is actually a purchased account that was purchased after these types of threads was created. He allegedly failed to repay a loan from Lutpin, although no evidence to support this has been posted, he has negative ratings for this, however has no ratings for his prior activity selling accounts (or buying his account, depending on who you believe). User Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) is by far the most controversial user in DT. He enquired (http://archive.is/ftRFz#selection-2575.60-2575.125) about deleting all personal information hosted on the forum, not long before it was exposed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg24552892#msg24552892) that Lauda had attempted to buy forum accounts 10 at a time. He has been involved in at least one extortion attempt (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0). He says (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282.msg29215620#msg29215620) he will send merit for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity. Lauda's trust score has taken a little bit of a hit since his extortion scheme was exposed, falling to 2: -2 / +13 with two scam reports, with Lauda retaliating with a baseless Red Tag of his own, and smearing both those who left negative trust in relation to this. However if you exclude everyone on Blazed's trust list, his trust score falls to ???: -2 / +4. TL;DR: multiple people on Blazed's trust list have sold forum accounts in the past, including Blazed, yet none of them have Red Tagged anyone on Blazed's trust list for this reason, despite many leaving thousands of Red Tags for this reason, sometimes looking back many years to find this activity. Multiple people are on Blazed's trust list that manage signature/bounty campaigns, and many others use their DT status to "help" signature/bounty campaign managers by giving Red Trust to "cheaters". Lastly, and most importantly, many people on Blazed's trust list seem to all have positive trust from each other, none have negative trust from each other (with the exception of mexxer-2, for a loan default, which should be easy to prove, but hasn't been), despite many engaging in the very behavior that they leave Red Trust for. I guess I would ask Blazed, What is going on here? Thank you for reading. P.S. I am new here :D ;D Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 25, 2018, 10:10:54 PM Editors note: This was originally intended to be a thread about Blazed alone, but my research led me down a rabbit hole.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Steamtyme on March 25, 2018, 10:46:21 PM P.S. I am new here :D ;D This here is the only part for me that was worth quoting. Bullshit. I've notice a lot of these New accounts that have exceptional skills in tying things together concerning Moderators, and past history that escapes most of us "casuals"/ post 2016 BTC adopters. So my guess is you either got caught up in some account farming or something else of the sorts that caused you to get a red mark on your actual account. Maybe you are one of the people who just likes dragging these peoples names through the mud for some reason or another. Either way I can only speak to Yahoo as I have had no dealings with the others you have mentioned. His trust is well deserved. should be able to leave an end of story there but I'll go on a little. I have 0 doubt when I wear a SIG for him that he will pay. The ICO's that he works for trust him with a significant amount of BTC each time as well; but you don't see that as they don't come here and leave him feedback. I have seen a lot of things recently when I get bored, about accounts having been collateral in the past and how account sales have resulted in NEG trust, but I think it was situational and the "intent" behind that is what mattered; also DT trust is up to them there is no right or wrong just opinion. Side note as well, account sales are only discouraged via forum rules... ( I in no way condone them) . I'm sure everyone you have mentioned will be along to answer to their own allegations as well. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: LeGaulois on March 25, 2018, 10:51:38 PM Hi Sir
You certainly aren't new to the forum but oh well... There isn't a lot of DT1 members so it seems quite logical. You can not blame trusted users for making deals with others trusted users. Or do you expect to make a deal with people you don't trust, or with 10 posts of great project Sir? What I mean is: with time there is like a circle built. Old members know other old members, know where to spend time, and members that worth to make deals with. It is called networking, infinity, friendship etc (I am not including all people you listed there, as there is at least 1 listed I agree with your post) If Blazed was the only user in DT 1 then what would be your point? Some of your points don't make sense either. For example - the one about ThePharmacist "PayPal deals, each worth $25" What the amount has to do? If it's $25.10 are you ok bruh? I did 2 or maybe 3 deals with him, not any of $25. And it's one of the members you can deal with, without wasting your time tto search for an escrow, sending your money first with no worry. Even if he tells me 'I will send your money tomorrow because I need to go to bed" I wouldn't be worried much about - the one about Mexxer Back in 2014 Selling accounts was not something giving troubles as it is in 2018. It was "acceptable" maybe because people were not raping the system to death - the one about actinmyname "actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list." Is it a must to run a signature campaign? Is it important the number of trades completed? Because I see a problem with. There isn't a lot of members who worth to make a deal with. Running a campaign is surely a nightmare too! Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on March 25, 2018, 11:04:11 PM Hi Sir You certainly aren't new to the forum but oh well... There isn't a lot of DT1 members so it seems quite logical. You can not blame trusted users for making deals with others trusted users. Or do you expect to make a deal with people you don't trust, or with 10 posts of great project Sir? What I mean is: with time there is like a circle built. Old members know other old members, know where to spend time, and members that worth to make deals with. It is called networking, infinity, friendship etc (I am not including all people you listed there, as there is at least 1 listed I agree with your post) If Blazed was the only users in DT 1 then what would be your point? He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: LeGaulois on March 25, 2018, 11:12:36 PM Hi Sir You certainly aren't new to the forum but oh well... There isn't a lot of DT1 members so it seems quite logical. You can not blame trusted users for making deals with others trusted users. Or do you expect to make a deal with people you don't trust, or with 10 posts of great project Sir? What I mean is: with time there is like a circle built. Old members know other old members, know where to spend time, and members that worth to make deals with. It is called networking, infinity, friendship etc (I am not including all people you listed there, as there is at least 1 listed I agree with your post) If Blazed was the only users in DT 1 then what would be your point? He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided. Ah, the bravery on Bitcointalk.... Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on March 25, 2018, 11:13:35 PM He is not the smartest person, claiming to not know how to take a screenshot (http://archive.is/mkuW5#selection-575.71-575.162). Ouch!!Are we equating intelligence with being tech-savvy these days? Because I can tell you that I'm the first to admit I'm a complete dumbass with computers--and the above is true, I don't know how to take a screenshot and make it appear in a post--but I don't think I'm an idiot. Yes, my trust ratings remain, sometimes years after the fact. What I've found is that a lot of the people I've tagged in 2016 wind up scamming or doing some other sort of BS, so I see absolutely no reason to remove them because they've "aged". Most account dealers I don't trust. I say most, because there are the extremely rare examples of members here who have dabbled in this in the past but have since proven that they're not untrustworthy scumbags. So you will find that my hit rate isn't 100%. The world isn't perfectly efficient, nor am I. Blazed added me to his trust list, I think, because initially I was red-tagging shitposters and he, like myself, got sick of all the garbage posts here. I'm actually quite surprised that he kept me on his list after the merit system was put into place and after OGNasty and Tomatocage excluded me from theirs. I do appreciate that, Blazed. Please note, 1) I've never scammed anyone here, though I've had the opportunity to do so, and 2) I do care about the quality of the forum, and that includes shitposting, scamming, account dealing, and merit abuse. When I see those things, I will take the time to tag the users. Thus Blazed has two decent reasons for having me on his trust list; the former is because I've acted trustworthy so far here, and the latter is a practical reason (if my feedback carries weight, it'll make the scammers & shitposters squeal in agony). If anyone finds evidence that I've been dishonest, let them bring it forward, and Blazed and Hilariousandco will remove me as quick as lightning. But the fact is that there isn't evidence of that, because I'm not a scammer, and I haven't done anything with trust or merit that was for self-interest. I'm not angry, though you implied that I was a dullard. I think having a discussion like this is very healthy for the community. His trade history does not exactly make him the experienced businessman that I would expect to be in DT. I wouldn't really disagree with you there, but there aren't many shades of green trust here on bitcointalk, with darker shades for the experienced businessman. All I can say is that I don't have a history of jerking people around with deals and have no intention of doing that. I understand how important (and extremely fragile) reputation is in a world of irreversible money transactions. Mexxer-2 got negged by at least Lutpin if I'm not mistaken. I've always had suspicions about Mexxer-2, but have kept them mostly to myself, as I have no evidence of anything. It was strange when he and Lutpin got put on DT when they were relatively new on bitcointalk. I don't know all the details, so I'm not slinging any mud. The disappearance of Mexxer-2 and the negative given by Lutpin and/or Lauda with no details was strange. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 25, 2018, 11:16:28 PM You can not blame trusted users for making deals with others trusted users. Or do you expect to make a deal with people you don't trust, or with 10 posts of great project Sir? There are 167 users in DT, and Blazed has 20 users on his trust list. Blazed has just under 12% of DT on his trust list, while many people have 63%-100% of their trust ratings from this group of 12% of DT. - the one about ThePharmacist His trade history does not exactly make him the experienced businessman that I would expect to be in DT. "PayPal deals, each worth $25" What the amount has to do? If it's $25.10 are you ok bruh? I did 2 or maybe 3 deals with him, not any of $25. And it's one of the members you can deal with without wasting your time search for an escrow, sending your money first with no worry, - the one about Mexxer You should tell that to those I mentioned in the OP. Many of them have gone back multiple years in Red Tagging users. Back in 2014 Selling accounts was not something giving troubles as it is in 2018. It was "acceptable" maybe because people were not raping the system to death - the one about actinmyname He Red Tags people involved in certain businesses, but has failed to give a Red Tag to anyone in Blazed's trust "actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list." Is it a must to run a signature campaign? Is it important the number of trades completed? Because I see a problem with. There isn't a lot of members who worth to make a deal with. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 25, 2018, 11:24:57 PM He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. This is especially true for those on Blazed's trust list, and you are correct ::)Yes, my trust ratings remain, sometimes years after the fact. What I've found is that a lot of the people I've tagged in 2016 ... Maybe I was not clear (or maybe you did not read very closely). There are instances in which you leave trust for behavior that took place a long time previous to the time you left the Red Tag. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on March 25, 2018, 11:38:52 PM I removed all my negative ratings from people who posted in that particular thread that you linked to, out of respect for what Lauda and MadZ said. I'm not going to kill the forum by doing so, and there weren't that many negs that I left there.
Regarding that one, I don't like the fact that Omegastarscream was dealing in accounts, but I do take other factors into account before leaving someone a neg for account trading--and one of the main factors is other positive feedback. Who left it and when are also important. OSS had pretty much proven himself to not be a scammer by the time I visited that thread, so I did not think it was appropriate to leave him a neg. The other users didn't have those reinforcing positive feedbacks, so all I had to go by with them is the fact that they were looking to buy/sell an account. There are going to be inconsistencies, I don't know what to tell you. Point them out to me and eventually I'll correct them or otherwise respond to the accusations. Maybe I was not clear (or maybe you did not read very closely). There are instances in which you leave trust for behavior that took place a long time previous to the time you left the Red Tag. Probably a little bit of both.I don't go back into old threads, looking for account buyers/seller to neg. I think I did that in 2016 but haven't tagged someone for ancient history infractions in a while. I could be wrong and I could have done it by mistake if a thread got bumped and I wasn't looking closely at the date, but I don't actively seek out really old account sellers & buyers to neg them. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: LeGaulois on March 25, 2018, 11:53:37 PM Quote His trade history does not exactly make him the experienced businessman that I would expect to be in DT. You don't need to have a trade history nor to be a "businessman" It's how you behave in the community that matter, how you help it, how you contribute in. Quote You should tell that to those I mentioned in the OP. Many of them have gone back multiple years in Red Tagging users. It's a valid point, however, it's maybe a big message to say that it's not welcome anymore, to be sure everyone understands it (I'm not saying it's the right way)Quote He Red Tags people involved in certain businesses, but has failed to give a Red Tag to anyone in Blazed's trust list circle. The exclusion from theymos should also speak for itself. Perhaps because he knows it won't have any effect (don't know what people see, if a DT tag another DT) His point is to tag people to clean the forum since we all know a user tagged won't come anymore since he can't cheat the forum and his/her account is useless. You can red tag members like Blazed, Ognasty, etc they will still come here... And this kind of people are real users with interest in the community, in cryptos.The one disappearing once they get a red trust are here only for hunting the ICO, Airdrops, bounties, whatever you call it. Quote The exclusion from theymos should also speak for itself. No the decision by Theymos doesn't prove anything. Maybe actmyname have rushed too fast by tagging people but it may be because he was motivated to contribute in the community, it may be because he was frustrated to see the mess here (like a lot of members btw)A message from Theymos to Actmyname could have been enough to correct this behavior (maybe directives were not clear to him). Shit happens we are all humans, we learn from mistakes not really from success. But communication resolves the majority of problems Quote There are 167 users in DT, and Blazed has 20 users on his trust list. Blazed has just under 12% of DT on his trust list, while many people have 63%-100% of their trust ratings from this group of 12% of DT You can be DT1 or DT2 you are not forced to insert in your list each DT1 or DT2, because you are not forced to trust the user listTitle: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: DarkStar_ on March 26, 2018, 02:39:17 AM There are 167 users in DT, and Blazed has 20 users on his trust list. Blazed has just under 12% of DT on his trust list, while many people have 63%-100% of their trust ratings from this group of 12% of DT. I don't think that's a very reasonable link to show abuse. Many DT members rarely leave feedback, or almost never. If you were to look at all the positive trust feedback given, I'm guessing that a large proportion would come from a small group of them. Doesn't mean there's anything bad with that, it's simply because some are more active than others. I took a look at the DT2 list, and there's a lot of names I haven't heard of. Blazed is a fairly new addition to DT1, and therefore his trust list would be comprised of more newer active members, while the other DT1s might have added them a few years ago and just left them. - the one about actinmyname He Red Tags people involved in certain businesses, but has failed to give a Red Tag to anyone in Blazed's trust "actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list." Is it a must to run a signature campaign? Is it important the number of trades completed? Because I see a problem with. There isn't a lot of members who worth to make a deal with. IIRC actmyname went back and removed a bunch of his ratings after this, so that his ratings were more accurate. - the one about Mexxer You should tell that to those I mentioned in the OP. Many of them have gone back multiple years in Red Tagging users. Back in 2014 Selling accounts was not something giving troubles as it is in 2018. It was "acceptable" maybe because people were not raping the system to death Going back is somewhat unfair in my opinion, though from what I've seen, they've only tagged those who haven't contributed to the forum and those who didn't do anything better than spamming and/or account farming. I know many DT members (ie Vod) will remove their ratings depending on the severity if the user has contributed afterwards. I've sold accounts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343373.msg13698006#msg13698006) in the past, however I've stopped, and I think I've proved that I'm reasonable trustworthy. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 02:50:22 AM Regarding that one, I don't like the fact that Omegastarscream was dealing in accounts, but I do take other factors into account before leaving someone a neg for account trading--and one of the main factors is other positive feedback. Who left it and when are also important. OSS had pretty much proven himself to not be a scammer by the time I visited that thread, so I did not think it was appropriate to leave him a neg. The other users didn't have those reinforcing positive feedbacks, so all I had to go by with them is the fact that they were looking to buy/sell an account. This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here. Your response about being selective about who you Red Tag for dealing in forum accounts makes it sound like you don't want to debate your trust ratings on their merits, and avoid doing so by avoiding Red Tagging anyone who has a decent chance of having supporters, or anyone who has a decent chance of making a coherent argument against your Red Tag. Lets be honest, most of those that you Red Tag, especially those that you Red Tag for this reason have no one supporting them, and can probably not speak english well enough to make a coherent argument to support the Red Tag is inappropriate. You should be willing to defend every one of the ratings you leave, because every rating you leave has the backing of your reputation. If the exact same concerns come up multiple times, you can point to a previous discussion if you wish. Ignoring concerns is not okay. There are going to be inconsistencies, I don't know what to tell you. Point them out to me and eventually I'll correct them or otherwise respond to the accusations. OSS is not the only person that avoided a Red Tag in that thread, and he is not the only person you skipped over (in chronological order) that posted in that thread. There were others that did not appear to have any meaningful reputation at the time. Since you solicited the question, why have you not left Lauda, mexxer-2, or yahoo62278 a Red Tag? They all engaged in similar business activity that you are very actively Red Tagging for today, and in the case of one of them, made a post asking about the price for 10 forum accounts, which if you believe to be a serious request, would make him a very serious/major account dealer/farmer. I don't know if you have heard the expression "going after the big fish", but this means you want to go after the most serious offenders, and someone who is buying up 10 forum accounts at a time is someone who fits this description. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: DarkStar_ on March 26, 2018, 02:58:04 AM This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here. I disagree. Would a now Staff member who sold accounts be more or less trustworthy than some random who was selling accounts? Negative trust means that you do not trust the person, not necessarily that they scammed someone. Despite Blazed's "untrustworthy" actions (I personally believe that account sales do not warrant a negative trust), I would certainly trust him with all my coins. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 03:39:50 AM I know many DT members (ie Vod) will remove their ratings depending on the severity if the user has contributed afterwards. The ratings you describe apply primarily to scam loan requests by new users, whose purpose serves to warn against sending money to a brand new user. In the cases of a Red Tag removal, this threat no longer exists. Further, no one in this thread has a similar policy, some will actively ignore requests to remove Red Tags, and after misreading my concerns, The Pharmacist said he will keep his Red tags on indefinitely, so I don't think this is an apt comparison. (If a brand new user asks for a loan in their very first post, a reasonable person will think this person is a scammer, once this person activity participates for a few months without any scam attempts, then it might be reasonable to say this person is no longer a scammer). I've sold accounts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343373.msg13698006#msg13698006) in the past, however I've stopped, and I think I've proved that I'm reasonable trustworthy. http://archive.is/e70Gw This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here. I disagree. Would a now Staff member who sold accounts be more or less trustworthy than some random who was selling accounts? Negative trust means that you do not trust the person, not necessarily that they scammed someone. If you accept the premise described above, then existing trust does not matter. You are describing an environment in which someone who steals money after building up a lot of trust is given a pass because they have existing reputation....in other words, someone who pulls a long con is given a pass because they have reputation and are allowed to continue to scam. That logic is simply irrational. My OP is implying that Blazed is in the center of a trust farming ring that selectively Red Tags users that are not a part of the ring, including accounts controlled by those within the ring, and intended to be sold by the ring. Your argument is that Blazed's trust list is part of a good 'ole boys club, which would not be as bad, but would still not be good for the community. Maybe there needs to be a discussion if Red Tagging is appropriate in these situations if there are many instances in which users have engaged in this business activity, but have turned out to not be a scammer. I would welcome this discussion and might give my own input. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: MadZ on March 26, 2018, 04:23:20 AM Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is the conflict of interest? How exactly does Blazed benefit by adding people who share trust with one another? You raise some valid points, but I don't really see what he stands to gain from this.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on March 26, 2018, 04:42:49 AM This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here. That isn't true, not by a long shot. The gray area is the whole reason why scammers aren't banned and DT members have to take care of them with feedback.I have indeed removed feedback from users when they've proven themselves to be good members of bitcointalk. It's rare, but it's happened. I consider people who deal in bitcointalk accounts to be guilty until they prove themselves otherwise. My thought is that when you are buying an account, you're either going to use it for its reputation to scam, or you're going to use it for its rank to get into a campaign--probably to shitpost with. Either use is pretty sketchy. But people have earned positive trust and have proven themselves to NOT be shitposters eventually, and I am willing to give second chances in those instances. Ignoring concerns is not okay. You don't understand what we're dealing with here. My inbox is not filled with rational arguments for feedback removal, which I certainly would consider. It is filled with stuff like the following:Dear Sir, I m a poor person. I m suffering my life with the earning of btalk. After few days later my moms eye operation I need money either she will blind.Its only my earning way. Please boss forgive me if I did any wrong. And remove my red trust. Its only my one account I do not use any account more. Please sir help the poor god will help u. Dear Sir I know you are good person. I will die sir if my mother will blind. Plz help me sir I will follow what you say I never do mistake more. Plz boss save my life. I m bagging you!!! Dear manager ^^Note that I'm not a manager of anything.I hope you are doing good. It is my humble request again, please give me one more chance to improve my post and knowlwde and i'll try make quality post, please reconsider your decision of negative trust that you have given me and please give me a second chance.English is not my first language so i am not so good at english. please re consider your decision and give me one more chance to improve myself.. If you find me in future doing low quality post you can BAN my account but please give me a second chance. Regards: Shaour Zafar094 Tell me reason bledy fuck you stupid fellow you have sense tell me currect reason sir pls, im sorry :( Hi good eve. I would like to apologize what I've did, I'm just a new beginner and I dont know that it's not allowed to qoute legendary people. I'm begging, I want my account clear with no problem by others. Can i have you're trust again sir? Best regards, Jraf95 Hi sir, please can you remove the negative trust on me, that post was very long ago when i was a newbie. ^^Note that the "very long ago" part is referring to my feedback being left 2 months prior.Please give some little consideration. Thanks sir, can u review again why u give me redtrust.... and what do u mean about "3 world shitposters" ? hello sir, im newbie in bitcointalk ,please remove my red trust because this the only way i earn money, promise i did not do it again. . Hi sir, I'm sorry before. I will ask to you how to erase my DT-2 and negative trust? Can you help me, please. I hope you read this message and help. Thanks :) And on and on...hopefully you get the picture. What I'm getting is begging, and these people can barely do this coherently. If someone really has a strong argument that I've left feedback in error, they can start up a thread and some community feedback wouldn't hurt. But if I don't block them? They will flood my inbox with this gibberish, and there are just too many for me to allow that. And who is it you think I need to defend my position on each and every feedback to? If the people in the trust hierarchy think I'm getting it all wrong, they will cast their collective vote and I'll no longer be on DT--it happened before and it could well happen again. I accept that. But in the meantime, I think I'm doing a reasonably good job tagging the ones who need to be tagged. why have you not left Lauda, mexxer-2, or yahoo62278 a Red Tag? Because they haven't earned my distrust. Lauda & Yahoo62278 definitely have earned my trust, mexxer-2 much less so. I'd probably leave mexxer-2 a negative for scamming Lutpin if I thought it would make a difference, but it wouldn't. I'm leaving that entire matter to Lutpin and Lauda, who have already negged him and know far more about what happened or didn't happen than I do.Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 04:49:45 AM Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is the conflict of interest? How exactly does Blazed benefit by adding people who share trust with one another? You raise some valid points, but I don't really see what he stands to gain from this. If certain people are leaving Red Tags for certain business practices, but neglected to do so for Blazed, he benefits by way not avoiding the Red Tag, regardless of if these people are in DT or not. This cannot be disputed. If you believe those listed in the OP are still selling forum accounts (you cannot dispute they traded them in the past, or attempted to do so in the case of Lauda), then the ability to Red Tag others engaged in similar business would be indisputably beneficial to those listed in the OP, and as such, Blazed may be receiving a portion of the profits. In other words, Blazed may be selling the ability to Red Tag the competition. If you reject the above, it is very difficult to dispute that those within Blazed's trust list all have an abnormally high number of ratings from each other, so DT2 spots may be being sold, and purchased by those in a trust farming ring in an effort to make certain signature/bounty campaign managers appear more credible/trustworthy than they really are. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: actmyname on March 26, 2018, 05:00:10 AM Just going to respond to the point regarding me.
User actmyname (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=465017) is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list: Gotta love coming back to this. There may have been a disagreement between theymos and I regarding the merit farming tags (to which I changed some ratings) but it's a matter of perspective. Stating that any merit abuse would be a 'rounding error' is true but allowing it to pass shouldn't happen on principle, in my opinion. Might be a slippery slope fallacy, but I don't think it's good to allow that kind of scummy behavior since it begins to build the foundation of false thinking, leading to recursive scumminess.-thermos sealed- actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. Should I start? :)The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past. In terms of tagging the users that abuse bounty campaigns, it's simply breaking the rules. Users have no excuse. In regards to account trading, I believe that it is common knowledge (or with a little bit of thinking) that the act results in either scams (from the actual trade or post-trade via the account) or participation in a signature campaign. The former is obviously bad so we don't need to discuss this. However, it seems that in the local sections, users believe that account trading is fine, normal and is perfectly fine because it doesn't violate the rules. Many marketplace sections have built entire communities based on account sales and I don't think it should be this way. Firstly, if users are congregating in the Local sections to trade, they may not understand English well enough to create substantial posts that would be useful in the English main sections. In that sense, the account sales may produce unwanted spam. The other problem is that this creates a culture that accepts account sales and creates justification for the act (a precedent). "It's not against the rules so it's fine" is a common point that they may bring up which falls apart when you consider that scams are also not against the rules. I don't think this is great, especially when Newbies enter Local sections as they begin to believe that account sales are normal on the forum. It also begins to morph the forum not into a hub for discussion but rather a place to nab a half dozen accounts and farm bounty campaigns. Plenty of people have PM'd me stating, "I want the red trust removed so I can participate in bounties again" (paraphrased). That's not right. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. Those trust ratings are pre-DT addition. And Hhampuz was added by SaltySpitoon, not Blazed.As for the ratings post-DT (from me to others), I have rarely given out positive trust. It should be only a few members (IIRC I was added in January) that were given trust after the addition. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 05:28:20 AM Just going to respond to the point regarding me. Here is where you are wrong. theymos built the merit system so that "merit abuse" does not matter as one merit received equals roughly 0.97 merit that can be sent to sock puppets. The merit system will be unaffected by "abusers" as long as no merit source is involved. User actmyname (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=465017) is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list: Gotta love coming back to this. There may have been a disagreement between theymos and I regarding the merit farming tags (to which I changed some ratings) but it's a matter of perspective. Stating that any merit abuse would be a 'rounding error' is true but allowing it to pass shouldn't happen on principle, in my opinion. Might be a slippery slope fallacy, but I don't think it's good to allow that kind of scummy behavior since it begins to build the foundation of false thinking, leading to recursive scumminess.-thermos sealed- actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. Should I start? :)The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past. In terms of tagging the users that abuse bounty campaigns, it's simply breaking the rules. Users have no excuse. In regards to account trading, I believe that it is common knowledge (or with a little bit of thinking) that the act results in either scams (from the actual trade or post-trade via the account) or participation in a signature campaign. The former is obviously bad so we don't need to discuss this. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Wendigo on March 26, 2018, 05:33:53 AM To the OP: Good luck trying to piss against the wind here mate ::)
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 05:39:38 AM To the OP: Good luck trying to piss against the wind here mate ::) Thank you. I created this account out of fear of retribution, as many within Blazed's trust list receive a Red Tag when they speak out against anyone within his list Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: actmyname on March 26, 2018, 06:02:02 AM [...] Good, we don't have to discuss this. Now explain why you have not Red Tagged The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past. [...] I can say that the situation back then was different than the current one. Just as it's not justified to try people (at a later date) after a law has been put in place, the same theory should apply here. I don't have a specific time in which the forum shifted toward an anti-account sale community ideology, so I'll say any account sales in 2017 and later should be tagged. If I have any negative feedback that tags someone who sold pre-2017, then let me know and I'll change it. I'm not making any cases toward the "contribution" that any particular member has made to the forum. That is character evidence and should only be used in extreme cases. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 06:40:05 AM [...] Good, we don't have to discuss this. Now explain why you have not Red Tagged The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past. [...] I can say that the situation back then was different than the current one. Just as it's not justified to try people (at a later date) after a law has been put in place, the same theory should apply here. I don't have a specific time in which the forum shifted toward an anti-account sale community ideology, so I'll say any account sales in 2017 and later should be tagged. If a certain action or business practice makes you a scammer, then the time a certain action happened does not matter. If y action makes you a scammer, then this remains true going back to 2009, and extending to infinity. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: actmyname on March 26, 2018, 07:00:29 AM If a certain action or business practice makes you a scammer, then the time a certain action happened does not matter. Suppose it is an allowed practice, then. It was plenty tolerated back in 2016 and earlier (AFAICT): loans could be made and liquidated more easily with account sales. I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: digaran on March 26, 2018, 08:30:24 AM Please keep discussions about moderator actions in the staff section. Where is staff section? now that you have mentioned it, you should move this topic to reputation (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0) section. and provide your evidence for each case. if Yahoo is enrolling his alts in signature campaigns. if Blazed, Lauda, little angry pinoy a.k.a The pharmacist, actmyname are selling accounts and tagging their competitions. if nullius is still jumping alia. show us the evidence with your main account, if they tag you after that, you'd have them where you wanted. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Lauda on March 26, 2018, 10:34:40 AM This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me. As I've recently said in another thread:
The thing is, some notable members that used to deal or attempt to deal in accounts in the past have not been tagged and won't be tagged. This is in no way limited to Blazed's trust list, and you would know that if you were actually analyzing DT1 for the right reasons. The group that was linked back then was much bigger; someone could find it if they wanted to. We are talking about different times here. The general consensus a few years ago and now is much different.User Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) is by far the most controversial user in DT.... He says (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282.msg29215620#msg29215620) he will send trust for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. That is absolutely not what the post says. The linked post says nothing even remotely related to this statement "leaving trust for any reason I want". There is no point. I can leave merit to whomever I want[1], wherever I want and in whatever amount I want. If you don't like it, then ask theymos to change the rules. ... [1] This works when you don't have an army of alts (see Quickseller et. al.). He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity. Another lie backed up by the classic 'ol book. Have you been inspired by Quickseller?Furthermore, keeping up the attacks while painting everyone as bad as you can without going overboard doesn't work anymore. You're just wasting time. Do I need to remind you that I was banned twice for spamming? Oh, the conflict of interest! ::) I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times. There were a lot of things that were commonly accepted in the past, but no longer are (e.g. slavery). If you want something non-illegal, then racism would also be an example of this (before socially accepted, now it is not).Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: OgNasty on March 26, 2018, 06:03:56 PM When I entered the forum, account selling was the norm. Plenty of users, DT included, were trading accounts freely. Seems like a good time to point out that I have never bought or sold an account on this forum and personally consider such an action as fraud, regardless of what was "the norm" or at what point in time it occurred. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: philipma1957 on March 26, 2018, 10:42:18 PM When I entered the forum, account selling was the norm. Plenty of users, DT included, were trading accounts freely. Seems like a good time to point out that I have never bought or sold an account on this forum and personally consider such an action as fraud, regardless of what was "the norm" or at what point in time it occurred. Well I don't buy or sell accounts never did don't plan on selling them. I was offered coin for this account did not sell it. But I think I was in Hero status at that time. Don't remember if it was via email or pm. So a few years back. 2015 maybe Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Vod on March 26, 2018, 10:50:42 PM People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating.
Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust. :/ The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on March 26, 2018, 11:09:29 PM People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating. Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust. :/ The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way. This basically shows how flawed the trust system can be not to mention leaving trust ratings for people that bought stuff from you, they didn't have to risk anything and yet they still get a positive rating? [...] Good, we don't have to discuss this. Now explain why you have not Red Tagged The account farmers I've been tagging are more current-age than in the past. [...] I can say that the situation back then was different than the current one. Just as it's not justified to try people (at a later date) after a law has been put in place, the same theory should apply here. I don't have a specific time in which the forum shifted toward an anti-account sale community ideology, so I'll say any account sales in 2017 and later should be tagged. If I have any negative feedback that tags someone who sold pre-2017, then let me know and I'll change it. I'm not making any cases toward the "contribution" that any particular member has made to the forum. That is character evidence and should only be used in extreme cases. Not really, account selling was never seen as something positive but it has always been allowed and is still is. There is no reason not to tag those OP mentioned as they clearly sold and bought accounts, however I know they are not going to get red tagged. That's how it works here, just like everywhere else, groups of people take control, in this case DT1 and trusted members and you can't do much about it. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 27, 2018, 12:31:05 AM If a certain action or business practice makes you a scammer, then the time a certain action happened does not matter. Suppose it is an allowed practice, then. It was plenty tolerated back in 2016 and earlier (AFAICT): loans could be made and liquidated more easily with account sales. I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times. Please keep discussions about moderator actions in the staff section. Where is staff section? This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me. Weird, you had a very different view on whistleblower accounts only a few days ago:and @ lauda how do I know the op is not you? or anyone else You don't, and you can't. That's the point of OP using an alt account, so nobody from that list can get revenge on them for pointing this out (assuming they wanted to).The thing is, some notable members that used to deal or attempt to deal in accounts in the past have not been tagged and won't be tagged. This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here. Your response about being selective about who you Red Tag for dealing in forum accounts makes it sound like you don't want to debate your trust ratings on their merits, and avoid doing so by avoiding Red Tagging anyone who has a decent chance of having supporters, or anyone who has a decent chance of making a coherent argument against your Red Tag. Lets be honest, most of those that you Red Tag, especially those that you Red Tag for this reason have no one supporting them, and can probably not speak english well enough to make a coherent argument to support the Red Tag is inappropriate. You should be willing to defend every one of the ratings you leave, because every rating you leave has the backing of your reputation. If the exact same concerns come up multiple times, you can point to a previous discussion if you wish. Ignoring concerns is not okay. User Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) is by far the most controversial user in DT.... He says (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282.msg29215620#msg29215620) he will send trust for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. That is absolutely not what the post says. The linked post says nothing even remotely related to this statement "leaving trust for any reason I want". He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity. Another lie backed up by the classic 'ol book.I cannot think of a good analogy but I do not believe that social changes should retroactively punish users. And this is a social (community) change of ideas rather than a rule-based one. I'm not talking about any moderator actions in my previous post, rather the thought process behind tagging account traders in current times. There were a lot of things that were commonly accepted in the past, but no longer are (e.g. slavery). If you want something non-illegal, then racism would also be an example of this (before socially accepted, now it is not).Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: yojodojo21 on March 27, 2018, 02:07:55 AM OP Himself is also controversial haha, the OP is inspire by, and created by a newbie wannabe, people like OP is coward, why don't you just make a post with your original account? And let's see who wants dignity?
Newbie whom I think that he knows a lot about legit and trusted members haha, nice move whistleblower newbie. Nice disguise :D haha old school. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: botany on March 27, 2018, 05:22:50 AM People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating. Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust. :/ The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way. People on DT have control not just over their trust rating, they have control over everybody's trust rating. If you want to enforce a particular point of view, just add 3-4 others with the same point of view to DT2. Removing people from DT2 is not easy. OP Himself is also controversial haha, the OP is inspire by, and created by a newbie wannabe, people like OP is coward, why don't you just make a post with your original account? And let's see who wants dignity? Obviously, you wouldn't want to rub powerful people the wrong way. Posting controversial topics like this is one of the main reasons why alt accounts are allowed. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: philipma1957 on March 27, 2018, 12:59:26 PM People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating. Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust. :/ The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way. This basically shows how flawed the trust system can be not to mention leaving trust ratings for people that bought stuff from you, they didn't have to risk anything and yet they still get a positive rating? .... My policy as a seller is the customer is always correct ie I give a full refund zero questions asked. Thus anyone that buys from me can say gear is broken I want a refund. I also don't bother with returns on any gear under 100 bucks. So this means buyers can easily lie and steal from me. In all my sales done here over 100 of them I had to give only 3 refunds. I refunded a mobo shipped to canada a cost of 170 usd and told the guy don't bother to return it. So all my buyers benefitted from my policy. Since they were honest people treated respectfully by me. And zero returns that is correct no returns not one. Not a single S-9, S-7 , S-5 , Avalon , S-3, S-1 1 hi end Gpu was never accepted in europe thus it was technically not returned by the buyer. So because I encourage honesty from my buyers I actually get honesty from them. That is why I do it my way. But I no longer give trust to people just feedbacks if the deal was good and I am not putting anyone on my trust list for the next few months . Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on March 27, 2018, 02:27:16 PM People on DT1 have a lot of control over their own trust rating. Just add anyone that has left you positive trust to your network, making them DT2 and increasing your own trust. :/ The trust values on DT2 are a lot more realistic, since we can't boost our trust ratings this way. This basically shows how flawed the trust system can be not to mention leaving trust ratings for people that bought stuff from you, they didn't have to risk anything and yet they still get a positive rating? .... My policy as a seller is the customer is always correct ie I give a full refund zero questions asked. Thus anyone that buys from me can say gear is broken I want a refund. I also don't bother with returns on any gear under 100 bucks. So this means buyers can easily lie and steal from me. In all my sales done here over 100 of them I had to give only 3 refunds. I refunded a mobo shipped to canada a cost of 170 usd and told the guy don't bother to return it. So all my buyers benefitted from my policy. Since they were honest people treated respectfully by me. And zero returns that is correct no returns not one. Not a single S-9, S-7 , S-5 , Avalon , S-3, S-1 1 hi end Gpu was never accepted in europe thus it was technically not returned by the buyer. So because I encourage honesty from my buyers I actually get honesty from them. That is why I do it my way. But I no longer give trust to people just feedbacks if the deal was good and I am not putting anyone on my trust list for the next few months . Sure but I have seen many cases where the buyer cannot do anything to hurt the seller and they still usually get a feedback. For me it doesn't matter since I always look at each trust rating myself but newbies can be deceived quite easily. OP Himself is also controversial haha, the OP is inspire by, and created by a newbie wannabe, people like OP is coward, why don't you just make a post with your original account? And let's see who wants dignity? Newbie whom I think that he knows a lot about legit and trusted members haha, nice move whistleblower newbie. Nice disguise :D haha old school. What an useless post, it's obvious why he didn't use his main account plus why does it even matter if his concerns are legitimate? Did you even read anything? Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Lauda on March 27, 2018, 03:26:49 PM This was pointed out by a Quickscammer shill back in 2016 or 2017 in order to attack me. Weird, you had a very different view on whistleblower accounts only a few days ago:and @ lauda how do I know the op is not you? or anyone else You don't, and you can't. That's the point of OP using an alt account, so nobody from that list can get revenge on them for pointing this out (assuming they wanted to).Oops, that should say "merit". I will correct it shortly. Feel free to address my (corrected) concern. Most things are wrong, which is why this thread is tiring to me and probably to others. The GDPR thing has nothing to do with the account connection, the merit statement is wrong again.Quote He says he will send merit for any reason he wants A statement like that, taken out of context sounds wrong, no? Anyone in their right mind knows what I meant with it. You know as well, yet you still chose to go this road.Quote while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish You see red trust as punishment?Quote ..he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with.. At this point it is just a lost cause.What is the lie? "Without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past" - There is no proof of this, thus the statement is malicious nonsense.We are not discussing something that is socially accepted/not accepted. We are talking about Red Tagging people who are scammers. Things that people get trust ratings for are exactly things that are either socially accepted or not. You are looking at this from a backwards perspective. It's the intrinsic forum Etiquette. E.g., it doesn't say anywhere tag someone for running a ponzi, but we do it because that is socially frowned upon (here).This could have been a nice thread, like the one that the other guy did. However, you let a disgusting amount of bias, exaggeration and misrepresentation get in the way. This thread is mostly based on emotion[1], not reason. It really seems like the classic charade, and not a constructive assessment of the issues that we have here. You do not try to understand the other side, but see DT as some kind of status and power (notably with the word 'punish'). Have you ever thought about how many countless hours these people have spent trying to protect others in this place? Trying to reduce theft (which most alt abuse essentially is), or just helping in general? Have you thought about how it is to do such a thankless "job" for years? You have not, and obviously you do not care. [1] The same goes for my use of the wording 'disgusting' in the prior sentence. P.S. Agendas can also be fun. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Chinese909 on March 27, 2018, 03:55:31 PM **this post inspired by Annon001** Conflict of interest must be avoided Hi Sirs, While looking through the forum Archives, I found a thread entitled Much of the DT controversy is concentrated in those on Blazed's trust list. Take yahoo62278 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355846) for instance. He has created threads such as:
So this guy is a trust farming, begging, account seller. He has a decent amount of trust, his score is 50: -0 / +5, with 4 of the 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He also runs many signature campaigns, can we be sure he is not enrolling his own accounts to milk the owners of these campaigns? Here is the kicker, he is now giving negative trust for "sold accounts". This looks a lot like a conflict of interest to me. It looks a lot like he is "red tagging" some of his competition. Another good example is Lutpin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=520313). He created a thread entitled:
This guy doesn't appear to sell accounts or farm trust, but he is another signature campaign manager. His history indicates he was a little immature in the past, but hey, everyone needs to learn at one point. He seems to have handled a decent amount of other's money, so maybe he is a little trustworthy, his score is 110: -0 / +11 , with 7 of his 11 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. A third point of controversy is The Pharmacist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487418). He is not the smartest person, claiming to not know how to take a screenshot (http://archive.is/mkuW5#selection-575.71-575.162). I don't see much evidence he is especially trustworthy, he seems to have done a handful of PayPal deals, each worth $25 or so. From what I can tell, he has done a total of about $1,000 worth of trades over about three years. His trust score is 32: -0 / +5 , with 4 of his 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He likes to leave negative trust for those that trade accounts, sometimes years after the fact, yet is inconsistant (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3186029.msg33076683#msg33076683) in what he will Red Tag users for, and will ignore requests to discuss concerns with ratings. User actmyname (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=465017) is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list: I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same. actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. Member mexxer-2 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=341982), apparently used to sell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=891368.0) forum accounts himself, however some people say mexxer-2 is actually a purchased account that was purchased after these types of threads was created. He allegedly failed to repay a loan from Lutpin, although no evidence to support this has been posted, he has negative ratings for this, however has no ratings for his prior activity selling accounts (or buying his account, depending on who you believe). User Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) is by far the most controversial user in DT. He enquired (http://archive.is/ftRFz#selection-2575.60-2575.125) about deleting all personal information hosted on the forum, not long before it was exposed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg24552892#msg24552892) that Lauda had attempted to buy forum accounts 10 at a time. He has been involved in at least one extortion attempt (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0). He says (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282.msg29215620#msg29215620) he will send merit for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity. Lauda's trust score has taken a little bit of a hit since his extortion scheme was exposed, falling to 2: -2 / +13 with two scam reports, with Lauda retaliating with a baseless Red Tag of his own, and smearing both those who left negative trust in relation to this. However if you exclude everyone on Blazed's trust list, his trust score falls to ???: -2 / +4. TL;DR: multiple people on Blazed's trust list have sold forum accounts in the past, including Blazed, yet none of them have Red Tagged anyone on Blazed's trust list for this reason, despite many leaving thousands of Red Tags for this reason, sometimes looking back many years to find this activity. Multiple people are on Blazed's trust list that manage signature/bounty campaigns, and many others use their DT status to "help" signature/bounty campaign managers by giving Red Trust to "cheaters". Lastly, and most importantly, many people on Blazed's trust list seem to all have positive trust from each other, none have negative trust from each other (with the exception of mexxer-2, for a loan default, which should be easy to prove, but hasn't been), despite many engaging in the very behavior that they leave Red Trust for. I guess I would ask Blazed, What is going on here? Thank you for reading. P.S. I am new here :D ;D If Blazed sold accounts in the past to Scammers its not a surprise for me that his trust list is full with dumbass account sellers . Account dealers are not to be trusted ,in certain juridiction account dealers are considered as criminals cause you trade personal identity information for money. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: actmyname on March 27, 2018, 05:12:16 PM If Blazed sold accounts in the past to Scammers its not a surprise for me that his trust list is full with dumbass account sellers . Account dealers are not to be trusted ,in certain juridiction account dealers are considered as criminals cause you trade personal identity information for money. Don't quote massive posts like that just to make a one-liner.Account dealers aren't to be trusted: that's true. Which is why you don't see Blazed doing account trading right now. In comparison, a lot of DT members have tagged a plethora of users doing account trading in 2017 and 2018. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on March 27, 2018, 09:10:43 PM If Blazed sold accounts in the past to Scammers its not a surprise for me that his trust list is full with dumbass account sellers . Account dealers are not to be trusted ,in certain juridiction account dealers are considered as criminals cause you trade personal identity information for money. Don't quote massive posts like that just to make a one-liner.Account dealers aren't to be trusted: that's true. Which is why you don't see Blazed doing account trading right now. In comparison, a lot of DT members have tagged a plethora of users doing account trading in 2017 and 2018. Yeah, maybe not right now but he clearly did in the past https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013494.0 so, how come it was ok in the past but you get red tagged in the present? Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on March 28, 2018, 12:16:27 AM Yeah, maybe not right now but he clearly did in the past https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013494.0 so, how come it was ok in the past but you get red tagged in the present? I don't necessarily think it was OK "back then" in 2016 when I started tagging account sellers, but this was kind of a problem that was emerging. It became clear to me at least that people here were starting to deal in accounts, and that led to shitposting account farmers, and that people were buying green-trusted accounts in order to scam or to shitpost with. This crap was not immediately apparent to me when I joined in 2015 as far as I can recall.So I tag account dealers. There's a limit on how many deals I see going on, and how far back I'm going to go. At this point I'm not about to start searching years-old threads to tag account dealers. And I may miss some. That 'inconsistency' may grind on some people, but think about how many crimes occur that don't ever get prosecuted. We all learn to suck it up and move forward. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Maum on March 28, 2018, 04:32:18 AM Yeah, maybe not right now but he clearly did in the past https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013494.0 so, how come it was ok in the past but you get red tagged in the present? I don't necessarily think it was OK "back then" in 2016 when I started tagging account sellers, but this was kind of a problem that was emerging. It became clear to me at least that people here were starting to deal in accounts, and that led to shitposting account farmers, and that people were buying green-trusted accounts in order to scam or to shitpost with. This crap was not immediately apparent to me when I joined in 2015 as far as I can recall.So I tag account dealers. There's a limit on how many deals I see going on, and how far back I'm going to go. At this point I'm not about to start searching years-old threads to tag account dealers. And I may miss some. That 'inconsistency' may grind on some people, but think about how many crimes occur that don't ever get prosecuted. We all learn to suck it up and move forward. Anyway, the argument of some posters here, that "account selling was the norm" is weak, as it didn't change today, also forum rules are the same. It only shows, that not each account seller/buyer seems to be a scammer. So give all the same attention and chances, before tagging down or tag them all, what would be also ok. And as I remember right, spam was also posted in mass at that time, even by DT-members. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on March 28, 2018, 04:54:20 AM It only shows, that not each account seller/buyer seems to be a scammer. So give all the same attention and chances, before tagging down or tag them all, what would be also ok. I think there needs to be a deterrent. You seem to overlook the utility of leaving negs for account sellers--true, there's no scientific study showing that such an effect exists, but in my eyes it beats doing absolutely nothing on a forum where people are allowed to scam (and do), people are allowed to shitpost at will (and do), and where we're told to give the benefit of the doubt where users buy, sell and trade merits, even when it's obvious what they're doing.I just gave a neg to a guy who is obviously an account farmer for selling accounts of all shapes and sizes: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3089343.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3089343.0) I feel very warm and fuzzy doing this, though he probably won't care and apparently thinks that any negs left for him are from his competitors. This guy is facilitating scams, shitposting, and account farming, and is letting others gain access to rank (and perhaps trust, though this isn't a selling point here) that the buyer did not earn. Fuck 'em. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: amishmanish on March 28, 2018, 09:32:31 AM You have conveniently chosen to ignore the different circumstances that the forum has gone through in the years 2015-2018. You are trying to make their actions look questionable by differentiating between the actions they take in 2018 and compare it to actions they didn't take in 2015. This was the time when some of the Sig campaigns were just starting. Nobody would have guessed that this will become such a huge problem. Least of all people who were still just members back then, like Yahoo.
I tried looking at how the threads you quote ended as examples of yahoo's wrongoings really ended. Here it is.
"maybe this is a bad idea. sorry guys, not looking to be thought of as new scammer on the block. ill close the thread. im not in need of 4-8$ to be thought of as a scammer"
Again. selling an account back in 2015 and asking for an escrow. Trying to make a business out of it till it became kindda unacceptable. In my opinion, he was just more enterprising than others. That shows even now. He has taken some positive steps like paying more for members with merit scores. He has also called for improvements in campaign management. He even offers this signature campaign with his name on it. I'd say he isn't shying away from sharing his earnings to those in the forum. He is just being the old-blooded capitalist while also providing an opportunity for other members to earn through his own signature campaigns as well as those he manages. What is the problem here? Next you have tried to drag in actmyname and Lauda as usual. You just have to go through their post histories to see the kind of work they put in. People like you on the other hand are only creating distractions. You seem well-intentioned enough so I'd really prod you to read what Lauda said about the thread. The examples you gave above were all without basis and anybody who takes the time to go through them will understand that you are trying too hard to make a false case here. This could have been a nice thread, like the one that the other guy did. However, you let a disgusting amount of bias, exaggeration and misrepresentation get in the way. This thread is mostly based on emotion[1], not reason. It really seems like the classic charade, and not a constructive assessment of the issues that we have here. You do not try to understand the other side, but see DT as some kind of status and power (notably with the word 'punish'). Have you ever thought about how many countless hours these people have spent trying to protect others in this place? Trying to reduce theft (which most alt abuse essentially is), or just helping in general? Have you thought about how it is to do such a thankless "job" for years? You have not, and obviously you do not care. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 28, 2018, 12:38:02 PM
Again. selling an account back in 2015 and asking for an escrow. Trying to make a business out of it till it became kindda unacceptable. In my opinion, he was just more enterprising than others. Account dealers aren't to be trusted: that's true. Which is why you don't see Blazed doing account trading right now. In comparison, a lot of DT members have tagged a plethora of users doing account trading in 2017 and 2018. Based on your statement, you will be Red Tagging Blazed, yahoo62278 and lauda, yes? The timing does not matter. Oops, that should say "merit". I will correct it shortly. Feel free to address my (corrected) concern. Most things are wrong, which is why this thread is tiring to me and probably to others. The GDPR thing has nothing to do with the account connection, the merit statement is wrong again.Quote He says he will send merit for any reason he wants A statement like that, taken out of context sounds wrong, no? Anyone in their right mind knows what I meant with it. What is the lie? "Without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past" - There is no proof of this, This could have been a nice thread, like the one that the other guy did. No other DT1 member has this conflict of interest. There is no other major trust circles in DT. No other DT1 members have a trust list of people who are this inconsistent in their ratings. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 29, 2018, 01:12:02 AM I asked yahoo62278 to respond to this thread, and below is his response:
No response is needed from me. You're on a witch hunt and I refuse to participate in it due to you not getting the results for your agenda. You have had plenty of responses which you refuse to accept. It's obvious the community doesn't really care for the witch hunt. I find it interesting that yahoo62278 thinks trying to eliminate conflicts of interest is a "witch hunt". This does not sound like someone who wants to be held accountable. If anyone doubts the authenticity of this statement, it can be verified by an admin, the PMID is msg8205732 I also reached out to Blazed for a response, but he has not logged in since ~6 hours after I started this thread ::) Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: yahoo62278 on March 29, 2018, 01:23:35 AM I asked yahoo62278 to respond to this thread, and below is his response: Verifying I did in fact reply to this user with this statement. Interesting he waited 3 days to pm myself and apparently Blazed over the issue once his thread wasn't receiving the publicity and response he wanted.No response is needed from me. You're on a witch hunt and I refuse to participate in it due to you not getting the results for your agenda. You have had plenty of responses which you refuse to accept. It's obvious the community doesn't really care for the witch hunt. I find it interesting that yahoo62278 thinks trying to eliminate conflicts of interest is a "witch hunt". This does not sound like someone who wants to be held accountable. If anyone doubts the authenticity of this statement, it can be verified by an admin, the PMID is msg8205732 I also reached out to Blazed for a response, but he has not logged in since ~6 hours after I started this thread ::) You have conveniently chosen to ignore the different circumstances that the forum has gone through in the years 2015-2018. You are trying to make their actions look questionable by differentiating between the actions they take in 2018 and compare it to actions they didn't take in 2015. This was the time when some of the Sig campaigns were just starting. Nobody would have guessed that this will become such a huge problem. Least of all people who were still just members back then, like Yahoo. This is the best response for this thread, yet the OP refuses to accept it and move on. Apparently he has been tagged by multiple users on Blazed list so he is trying to get Blazed removed from DT. I have my suspicions as to whom this user is as well.I tried looking at how the threads you quote ended as examples of yahoo's wrongoings really ended. Here it is.
"maybe this is a bad idea. sorry guys, not looking to be thought of as new scammer on the block. ill close the thread. im not in need of 4-8$ to be thought of as a scammer"
Again. selling an account back in 2015 and asking for an escrow. Trying to make a business out of it till it became kindda unacceptable. In my opinion, he was just more enterprising than others. That shows even now. He has taken some positive steps like paying more for members with merit scores. He has also called for improvements in campaign management. He even offers this signature campaign with his name on it. I'd say he isn't shying away from sharing his earnings to those in the forum. He is just being the old-blooded capitalist while also providing an opportunity for other members to earn through his own signature campaigns as well as those he manages. What is the problem here? Next you have tried to drag in actmyname and Lauda as usual. You just have to go through their post histories to see the kind of work they put in. People like you on the other hand are only creating distractions. You seem well-intentioned enough so I'd really prod you to read what Lauda said about the thread. The examples you gave above were all without basis and anybody who takes the time to go through them will understand that you are trying too hard to make a false case here. This could have been a nice thread, like the one that the other guy did. However, you let a disgusting amount of bias, exaggeration and misrepresentation get in the way. This thread is mostly based on emotion[1], not reason. It really seems like the classic charade, and not a constructive assessment of the issues that we have here. You do not try to understand the other side, but see DT as some kind of status and power (notably with the word 'punish'). Have you ever thought about how many countless hours these people have spent trying to protect others in this place? Trying to reduce theft (which most alt abuse essentially is), or just helping in general? Have you thought about how it is to do such a thankless "job" for years? You have not, and obviously you do not care. When you post something showing I actually scammed someone I'll make an actual response here. Good luck because it has never happened. I also think if you're going to post a smut thread, you should do it from your personal account. Don't be a puss and hide behind an alt. If we tagged you because you asked legitimate questions, then we'd be idiots. You're not or shouldn't be tagged for legitimate concerns. Check my trust history, i'm not that vindictive Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on March 29, 2018, 01:36:58 AM I have my suspicions as to whom this user is as well. Oh, you mean like a famously disgraced member here who has a long history of playing out his vendettas with alt accounts and beating dead-horse issues that he seems convinced people will care about if only he makes enough noise? Yeah, I got that impression as well after reading his last few replies. Give it up, QS, it's obvious. I was initially fooled and responded to you even though I was pretty sure you were an alt of someone else, but now it's pretty obvious this is just another one of your alts employed to give an apparently fresh voice to your tired old gripes. I find it interesting that yahoo62278 thinks trying to eliminate conflicts of interest is a "witch hunt". You've got an obvious agenda, even if you weren't obviously Quickseller, and I don't blame him for not wanting to be a part of it. Take a break from this for a minute and give us your opinion on Quickseller's escrow scamming. Can you do that for me?Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: owlcatz on March 29, 2018, 01:40:48 AM The owner of this thread is... You guessed it... Quickscammer! ;D
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Vod on March 29, 2018, 01:45:11 AM The owner of this thread is... You guessed it... Quickscammer! ;D Hmm, the OP used "sir". When have you know Quickscammer to respect anybody? Except of course, pretending to respect what I say to get more attention (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1614573.0). Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: owlcatz on March 29, 2018, 02:15:37 AM Vod, you know it's him. LOL. :D
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Silent26 on March 29, 2018, 02:34:19 AM If this guy is Quickseller (Quickscammer). It seems like he's not giving up to drag down DT1 members since 2016 isn't? It seems like he really got some personal principles.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Chinese909 on March 29, 2018, 03:12:46 AM If Blazed sold accounts in the past to Scammers its not a surprise for me that his trust list is full with dumbass account sellers . Account dealers are not to be trusted ,in certain juridiction account dealers are considered as criminals cause you trade personal identity information for money. Don't quote massive posts like that just to make a one-liner.Account dealers aren't to be trusted: that's true. Which is why you don't see Blazed doing account trading right now. In comparison, a lot of DT members have tagged a plethora of users doing account trading in 2017 and 2018. Yeah, maybe not right now but he clearly did in the past https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013494.0 so, how come it was ok in the past but you get red tagged in the present? Since 2015 this group of DT Members created scammers Before 2017 the forum did not have a subforum to trade accounts now it has a subforum : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1785577.0 I still think Account delears should never be trusted . Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: amishmanish on March 29, 2018, 03:39:42 AM
"I see just some member account being over-enthusiastic and doing the reddit inspired "Help me out" guys."
Again. selling an account back in 2015 and asking for an escrow. Trying to make a business out of it till it became kindda unacceptable. In my opinion, he was just more enterprising than others. From your patronizing responses, (Trying to school me about "begging not allowed"; Implying that as one of the "2017" accounts, I shouldn't have any clue about bitcoin's/ forum's history) it is pretty much clear you are an alt-account with an agenda. You simply refuse to engage and just want to malign people who, I must now assume, are rivals who have possibly taken away/ damaged your business/ reputation. I too wouldn't agree with a lot of old members doing business here. Lot of the managers have enabled the ICO Spam that is giving cryptos a bad name and have enriched themselves on the way. But again, this is all pretty recent phenomena. If they were to become more responsible about whom they choose to support, It'll just be an evolutionary glitch. The issue is that it's quite difficult to implement a forum-wide policy when scammers are willing to pay quite a lot to pull off a scam. The managers can't be too judgmental only to lose their business to someone else willing to look the other way. Maybe those are the kind of tricky issues that need to be solved by people who have gained from this forum in the past. That may include people like you who are wasting their energies and everyone else's time in such mutually destructive debates. If you are an old account whose conscience hasn't been completely overtaken by the mathematics of "BTC/USD conversion rate" then please try to be positive and constructive. Stop playing these power games, look at the bigger picture where this forum has played an amazing role in moving things forward for the bitcoin ecosystem. Stop damaging it with these stupidities. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: amishmanish on March 29, 2018, 03:58:00 AM Since 2015 this group of DT Members created scammers Before 2017 the forum did not have a subforum to trade accounts now it has a subforum : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1785577.0 I still think Account delears should never be trusted . It's funny how people are attempting to form a sort of pressure group to keep pushing for: 1. Changes to the merit system 2. Taking away DT status from members like Lauda, actmyname, Pharmacist etc who give negative rating to spammers. Welcome to democracy and class-wars in the age of information. Where I want my pedestrian, uniformed "opinion" to hold as much weight as an expert's, well-researched advice. Because well, I too have twitter and facebook and can get 5000 like me to follow me. LOL.. :P Thoughts on Account Dealing: My identity on the forum is pretty much an open book. I joined to learn and see what this awesome place has to offer. I was fascinated that developers like Hal Finney, Maxwell, Gavin, Mike Hearn and the lot, even Satoshi himself posted here. the 10,000 BTC pizza started here. I didn't know enough to care much about anonymity. Now when i think of it, If i wanted to really do something to help people in BTC usage, I'd like to be anonymous. But if i start a business with a newbie account, can i hope to hit the ground running?? No. It'll take longer. In that case, i could think about looking for an anonymous, established identity here. I think those are the lines along which someone wanting to buy an account in 2015-16 would have thought. Anonymity has its own advantages if you want to be constructive but unfortunately, it is a double-edged sword, much like cryptography. Account dealers just saw the opportunity at that time but it morphed into something much more vicious when people started buying accounts to wield DT power or to simply turn them into Zombie accounts for Bounty stakes. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on March 29, 2018, 05:07:36 AM Interesting he waited 3 days to pm myself and apparently Blazed over the issue once his thread wasn't receiving the publicity and response he wanted. I sent a PM to Blazed 36 hours before sending a PM to you, if you want to change this, please send 0.00208333 BTC to 3BDMF7bFyVCrTpPe76tMGjywV7meWnEf4E (owned by theymos) which will grant me copper member status, and I will send you a PM every time I post in this thread. The delay in sending you a PM was also due to the assumption that you will see this thread about you and would respond accordingly. The way I see your refusal to respond to this thread, including after acknowledging you had been made aware of this thread privately, and only responding (if you call your post a response) after it was made public that you are aware of this thread, is that you wanted to pretend you were not aware of this thread to avoid addressing the uncomfortable concerns about your history and your business practices. When you post something showing I actually scammed someone I'll make an actual response here. Good luck because it has never happened. Who would have thought that a trust farming, begging, account seller would be a part of a trust circle? There is the serious accusation that you are participating in Red Tagging your competitors in the account trading business, among other things, such as trust farming. Why exactly have you failed to Red Tag several members in Blazed's trust list who have clearly traded forum accounts in the past, when you Red Tag others who do the very same thing? Are you trying to prevent forum accounts from being sold by others while allowing accounts be sold by those within your circle? If you claim to not currently sell accounts, when exactly did you stop? Why? I also think if you're going to post a smut thread, you should do it from your personal account. If you believe this, I would point you to this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3169656.msg33155250#msg33155250) by Lauda, and correct him in saying the OP of that thread should post from his main account. Or do you only have this opinion when someone is posting anonymously pointing out things that expose your not-so-squeaky-clean past? Check my trust history, i'm not that vindictive I think this guy might disagree with (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2184610.msg21916402#msg21916402) you. It seems you left him a Red Tag because he posted some concerns about you. Some people might say you have a pretty thin skin, and cannot handle criticism. I was initially fooled and responded to you even though I was pretty sure you were an alt of someone else, but now it's pretty obvious yahoo62278 literally provided no evidence, nor claimed to have any evidence of who I am posting on behalf of, yet you say you know exactly who is behind this thread, and are outraged. Color me suspicious. I think both yahoo62278 and yourself do not want to answer to the uncomfortable concerns raised in this thread. Even though I have posted clear and concise evidence that yahoo62278 and others in Blazed's trust list have traded accounts in the past, you refuse to Red Tag these people. Why is this? I think blazed is in the center of a trust farming ring, who protects account sellers within his ring. Your prior posts imply you are unwilling and/or unable to backup your Red Tags based on their merits, and rely on the weakness of those you have Red Tagged. If this guy is Quickseller (Quickscammer). It seems like he's not giving up to drag down DT1 members since 2016 isn't? It seems like he really got some personal principles. You claim to know what has happened in 2016 (including when something started), yet you created your account in mid-2017. You are the second account (amishmanish was the first) to have this very same discrepancy. Color me suspicious. One might even go as far as to say the sock puppets within the trust circle are out in full force protecting the trust circle. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: amishmanish on March 29, 2018, 08:34:27 AM You claim to know what has happened in 2016 (including when something started), yet you created your account in mid-2017. You are the second account (amishmanish was the first) to have this very same discrepancy. Color me suspicious. One might even go as far as to say the sock puppets within the trust circle are out in full force protecting the trust circle. LOL..!! So anyone who calls your bullshit is a part of the "Trust circle" now?? You are just slinging mud on everyone randomly and waiting to see what sticks. You are a perfect example of the proverbial pig in the mud (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/43033-never-wrestle-with-pigs-you-both-get-dirty-and-the). Done replying to you. Putting you on ignore. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: o_e_l_e_o on March 29, 2018, 01:03:40 PM You claim to know what has happened in 2016 (including when something started), yet you created your account in mid-2017. You are the second account (amishmanish was the first) to have this very same discrepancy. Color me suspicious. I forgot about the new forum rule that says you are only allowed to read posts from after your account was created. (/s) Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: 2girls on March 29, 2018, 05:08:22 PM **this post inspired by Annon001** Conflict of interest must be avoided Hi Sirs, While looking through the forum Archives, I found a thread entitled Much of the DT controversy is concentrated in those on Blazed's trust list. Take yahoo62278 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=355846) for instance. He has created threads such as:
So this guy is a trust farming, begging, account seller. He has a decent amount of trust, his score is 50: -0 / +5, with 4 of the 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He also runs many signature campaigns, can we be sure he is not enrolling his own accounts to milk the owners of these campaigns? Here is the kicker, he is now giving negative trust for "sold accounts". This looks a lot like a conflict of interest to me. It looks a lot like he is "red tagging" some of his competition. Another good example is Lutpin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=520313). He created a thread entitled:
This guy doesn't appear to sell accounts or farm trust, but he is another signature campaign manager. His history indicates he was a little immature in the past, but hey, everyone needs to learn at one point. He seems to have handled a decent amount of other's money, so maybe he is a little trustworthy, his score is 110: -0 / +11 , with 7 of his 11 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. A third point of controversy is The Pharmacist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=487418). He is not the smartest person, claiming to not know how to take a screenshot (http://archive.is/mkuW5#selection-575.71-575.162). I don't see much evidence he is especially trustworthy, he seems to have done a handful of PayPal deals, each worth $25 or so. From what I can tell, he has done a total of about $1,000 worth of trades over about three years. His trust score is 32: -0 / +5 , with 4 of his 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He likes to leave negative trust for those that trade accounts, sometimes years after the fact, yet is inconsistant (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3186029.msg33076683#msg33076683) in what he will Red Tag users for, and will ignore requests to discuss concerns with ratings. User actmyname (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=465017) is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list: I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same. actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. Member mexxer-2 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=341982), apparently used to sell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=891368.0) forum accounts himself, however some people say mexxer-2 is actually a purchased account that was purchased after these types of threads was created. He allegedly failed to repay a loan from Lutpin, although no evidence to support this has been posted, he has negative ratings for this, however has no ratings for his prior activity selling accounts (or buying his account, depending on who you believe). User Lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872) is by far the most controversial user in DT. He enquired (http://archive.is/ftRFz#selection-2575.60-2575.125) about deleting all personal information hosted on the forum, not long before it was exposed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg24552892#msg24552892) that Lauda had attempted to buy forum accounts 10 at a time. He has been involved in at least one extortion attempt (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764757.0). He says (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282.msg29215620#msg29215620) he will send merit for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity. Lauda's trust score has taken a little bit of a hit since his extortion scheme was exposed, falling to 2: -2 / +13 with two scam reports, with Lauda retaliating with a baseless Red Tag of his own, and smearing both those who left negative trust in relation to this. However if you exclude everyone on Blazed's trust list, his trust score falls to ???: -2 / +4. TL;DR: multiple people on Blazed's trust list have sold forum accounts in the past, including Blazed, yet none of them have Red Tagged anyone on Blazed's trust list for this reason, despite many leaving thousands of Red Tags for this reason, sometimes looking back many years to find this activity. Multiple people are on Blazed's trust list that manage signature/bounty campaigns, and many others use their DT status to "help" signature/bounty campaign managers by giving Red Trust to "cheaters". Lastly, and most importantly, many people on Blazed's trust list seem to all have positive trust from each other, none have negative trust from each other (with the exception of mexxer-2, for a loan default, which should be easy to prove, but hasn't been), despite many engaging in the very behavior that they leave Red Trust for. I guess I would ask Blazed, What is going on here? Thank you for reading. P.S. I am new here :D ;D Excellent Work & research Done. By reading All the below posts in this OP thread, its seems like all the thief's are trying to clarifying themselves that they are most noble ad respected person whom can even involved in all the wrong things like Accouns sellings etc and still no one can harm them. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: 2girls on March 29, 2018, 05:15:51 PM This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here. That isn't true, not by a long shot. The gray area is the whole reason why scammers aren't banned and DT members have to take care of them with feedback.I have indeed removed feedback from users when they've proven themselves to be good members of bitcointalk. It's rare, but it's happened. I consider people who deal in bitcointalk accounts to be guilty until they prove themselves otherwise. My thought is that when you are buying an account, you're either going to use it for its reputation to scam, or you're going to use it for its rank to get into a campaign--probably to shitpost with. Either use is pretty sketchy. But people have earned positive trust and have proven themselves to NOT be shitposters eventually, and I am willing to give second chances in those instances. Ignoring concerns is not okay. You don't understand what we're dealing with here. My inbox is not filled with rational arguments for feedback removal, which I certainly would consider. It is filled with stuff like the following:Dear Sir, I m a poor person. I m suffering my life with the earning of btalk. After few days later my moms eye operation I need money either she will blind.Its only my earning way. Please boss forgive me if I did any wrong. And remove my red trust. Its only my one account I do not use any account more. Please sir help the poor god will help u. Dear Sir I know you are good person. I will die sir if my mother will blind. Plz help me sir I will follow what you say I never do mistake more. Plz boss save my life. I m bagging you!!! Dear manager ^^Note that I'm not a manager of anything.I hope you are doing good. It is my humble request again, please give me one more chance to improve my post and knowlwde and i'll try make quality post, please reconsider your decision of negative trust that you have given me and please give me a second chance.English is not my first language so i am not so good at english. please re consider your decision and give me one more chance to improve myself.. If you find me in future doing low quality post you can BAN my account but please give me a second chance. Regards: Shaour Zafar094 Tell me reason bledy fuck you stupid fellow you have sense tell me currect reason sir pls, im sorry :( Hi good eve. I would like to apologize what I've did, I'm just a new beginner and I dont know that it's not allowed to qoute legendary people. I'm begging, I want my account clear with no problem by others. Can i have you're trust again sir? Best regards, Jraf95 Hi sir, please can you remove the negative trust on me, that post was very long ago when i was a newbie. ^^Note that the "very long ago" part is referring to my feedback being left 2 months prior.Please give some little consideration. Thanks sir, can u review again why u give me redtrust.... and what do u mean about "3 world shitposters" ? hello sir, im newbie in bitcointalk ,please remove my red trust because this the only way i earn money, promise i did not do it again. . Hi sir, I'm sorry before. I will ask to you how to erase my DT-2 and negative trust? Can you help me, please. I hope you read this message and help. Thanks :) And on and on...hopefully you get the picture. What I'm getting is begging, and these people can barely do this coherently. If someone really has a strong argument that I've left feedback in error, they can start up a thread and some community feedback wouldn't hurt. But if I don't block them? They will flood my inbox with this gibberish, and there are just too many for me to allow that. And who is it you think I need to defend my position on each and every feedback to? If the people in the trust hierarchy think I'm getting it all wrong, they will cast their collective vote and I'll no longer be on DT--it happened before and it could well happen again. I accept that. But in the meantime, I think I'm doing a reasonably good job tagging the ones who need to be tagged. why have you not left Lauda, mexxer-2, or yahoo62278 a Red Tag? Because they haven't earned my distrust. Lauda & Yahoo62278 definitely have earned my trust, mexxer-2 much less so. I'd probably leave mexxer-2 a negative for scamming Lutpin if I thought it would make a difference, but it wouldn't. I'm leaving that entire matter to Lutpin and Lauda, who have already negged him and know far more about what happened or didn't happen than I do.Are you crazy "The Pharmist" ? Do you think all these people are begging to you to that they will die if you wont remove negative trust ? Or they will stave to death ? or their near ones are in trouble ? You miss the whole point here. All of them are trying to warn you that you will face all these probelms in your life soon if you keep on doing the evil things with innocent people. Feeling so sad for you, Pharmist ;D Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: o_e_l_e_o on March 29, 2018, 05:27:38 PM You miss the whole point here. All of them are trying to warn you that you will face all these probelms in your life soon if you keep on doing the evil things with innocent people. ...yeah, that's not how it works. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: actmyname on March 29, 2018, 06:28:14 PM Are you crazy "The Pharmist" ? Do you think all these people are begging to you to that they will die if you wont remove negative trust ? They should work. Sob stories can be created by anyone and the use of emotional appeal is not something that should influence one's decision.Or they will stave to death ? or their near ones are in trouble ? You miss the whole point here. All of them are trying to warn you that you will face all these probelms in your life soon if you keep on doing the evil things with innocent people. The Pharmacist no longer tags shitposters, but regardless of if someone is in a third-world country or if their region has a low average income, shitposting should not be tolerated. You don't get a free pass because you rely on the forum for money. And you don't get a free pass because you don't know English well enough—that's just absurd. It would be like me trying to work as a mathematician and doing basic algebra, saying that I don't know anything advanced because I am disadvantaged. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on March 29, 2018, 06:47:59 PM 2. Taking away DT status from members like Lauda, actmyname, Pharmacist etc who give negative rating to spammers. As pointed out by actmyname, I don't do that anymore, nor am I going to give fresh negatives for merit abusers. That's per Theymos and the feedback I've gotten. Scammers and account sellers still deserve a negative, though.You shitposters don't seem to realize that this forum might not even exist other than as a spam forum if you guys keep up with your antics. I don't want to imagine what the forum would be like without the people I have in my trust list. It would not be the same, and it probably would not be a forum I'd want to visit. What should happen is that campaigns ought to pay for post in the local sections, where you can at least be understood and you might have more to say. The fact is that except for a few instances where users have actually posted their location in their profile or have specifically written where they're from, I don't know where anybody here is from. When I say "3rd world shitposter", I'm saying that more out of how these posts read than my knowledge of whence they originated. And somehow 100s of them end up sounding very, very similar on a daily basis. I don't literally want anyone starving to death, but nor do I want this forum to be ended because people are here just to post garbage--and I'm confident that the posts I've reported, the shitposters I've tagged in the past, and you fools I'm debating with are the problem. And I have a hard time believing that only bitcointalk can stand in the way of someone eating. Could happen, sure, but you'd think those people would be a lot more motivated to not be lazy. Or crafty enough not to get caught. I sleep with a clean conscience about this stuff. It would be like me trying to work as a mathematician and doing basic algebra, saying that I don't know anything advanced because I am disadvantaged. Right on. Or, as Vod has said, it's like these shitposters are at a job interview and after every question the interviewer asks--about qualifications, experience, etc., the shitposter says "Because I need the job".Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: 2girls on March 30, 2018, 01:53:42 AM Are you crazy "The Pharmist" ? Do you think all these people are begging to you to that they will die if you wont remove negative trust ? They should work. Sob stories can be created by anyone and the use of emotional appeal is not something that should influence one's decision.Or they will stave to death ? or their near ones are in trouble ? You miss the whole point here. All of them are trying to warn you that you will face all these probelms in your life soon if you keep on doing the evil things with innocent people. The Pharmacist no longer tags shitposters, but regardless of if someone is in a third-world country or if their region has a low average income, shitposting should not be tolerated. You don't get a free pass because you rely on the forum for money. And you don't get a free pass because you don't know English well enough—that's just absurd. It would be like me trying to work as a mathematician and doing basic algebra, saying that I don't know anything advanced because I am disadvantaged. Dear actmyname , So The pharmacist no longer tag shitposters but HE USED TO TAG. So he is given back DT status We wrote in Auction section to inquire about a sold account buy stuff, and now we dont do it. So why we are not giving a second chance like Pharmacist ? Shame on all your arguments..... Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: actmyname on March 30, 2018, 02:54:34 AM Dear actmyname , The Pharmacist was added back into DT as a result of hilariousandco's inclusion. Don't try to create a false equivalence here with "second chances". OgNasty, Blazed, Tomatocage and hilariousandco all have their own opinions on where The Pharmacist belongs. But don't consider it a "second chance" if the user who added him back into DT wasn't part of the initial inclusion.So The pharmacist no longer tag shitposters but HE USED TO TAG. So he is given back DT status We wrote in Auction section to inquire about a sold account buy stuff, and now we dont do it. So why we are not giving a second chance like Pharmacist ? Shame on all your arguments..... Don't equate neutral/positive trust to DT status. Completely separate things. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Blazed on March 30, 2018, 04:40:25 AM I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc... Long story short a friend of mine (in real life) wanted to earn coins via signature campaign. I told him how it worked and he posted maybe 20 times and said he wasn’t into it. If you feel that was terrible by all means drop me a negative. I did the entire thing publicly and have nothing to hide here. You can dig into me all you like, but that is probably the most “shady” thing you will ever find. I have always been very open and honest :-*
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: 2girls on March 30, 2018, 12:11:00 PM I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc... Long story short a friend of mine (in real life) wanted to earn coins via signature campaign. I told him how it worked and he posted maybe 20 times and said he wasn’t into it. If you feel that was terrible by all means drop me a negative. I did the entire thing publicly and have nothing to hide here. You can dig into me all you like, but that is probably the most “shady” thing you will ever find. I have always been very open and honest :-* We all know you Blazed. You are old here and one of the best DT. I am only talking about the "The Pharmacist" and his behavior. >:( Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: cabsav on March 30, 2018, 02:42:09 PM Actually i try to solve this on pm but he didnt reply me for more than 2 months than i want to write here. Pharmacist gave me negative trust on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1492296.0 topic 2 years ago for bidding on auction. Also as you can see OmegaStarScream first bidder and he didn't gave him negative trust also some of bidder didnt got trust too. So from pm i request from him to remove my negative trust as kindly after 2 years. and if not i request for a reply. He didnt reply also he blocked my pm's.
Is this how to use DT? giving negative trust on same topic to some people and be blind to known people? Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: 2girls on March 30, 2018, 03:40:43 PM Actually i try to solve this on pm but he didnt reply me for more than 2 months than i want to write here. Pharmacist gave me negative trust on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1492296.0 topic 2 years ago for bidding on auction. Also as you can see OmegaStarScream first bidder and he didn't gave him negative trust also some of bidder didnt got trust too. So from pm i request from him to remove my negative trust as kindly after 2 years. and if not i request for a reply. He didnt reply also he blocked my pm's. Is this how to use DT? giving negative trust on same topic to some people and be blind to known people? This has been said many times here and on different threads but its of no use. Pharmacist is a controversial personality and he dont deserve to be a DT. >:( Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: cabsav on March 30, 2018, 07:30:50 PM Actually i try to solve this on pm but he didnt reply me for more than 2 months than i want to write here. Pharmacist gave me negative trust on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1492296.0 topic 2 years ago for bidding on auction. Also as you can see OmegaStarScream first bidder and he didn't gave him negative trust also some of bidder didnt got trust too. So from pm i request from him to remove my negative trust as kindly after 2 years. and if not i request for a reply. He didnt reply also he blocked my pm's. Is this how to use DT? giving negative trust on same topic to some people and be blind to known people? This has been said many times here and on different threads but its of no use. Pharmacist is a controversial personality and he dont deserve to be a DT. >:( Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on March 30, 2018, 08:50:07 PM giving negative trust on same topic to some people and be blind to known people? He wasn't "known" (to me) at the time, nor a staff member. But the reason why I didn't give him a neg was because of all the other trust he'd earned. I didn't like the fact that he was attempting to deal in bitcointalk accounts, but he did not look like the typical account-dealing scumbag, plain and simple. And after reviewing your trust page, I see you earned some positives (though from members I don't know) and didn't earn any negatives in 2 years--so I removed the negative. I don't remember you asking me about this via PM, but it may well have gotten drowned by a hundred PMs about this sort of thing. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on April 01, 2018, 04:09:46 PM I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc... Long story short a friend of mine (in real life) wanted to earn coins via signature campaign. I told him how it worked and he posted maybe 20 times and said he wasn’t into it. If you feel that was terrible by all means drop me a negative. I did the entire thing publicly and have nothing to hide here. You can dig into me all you like, but that is probably the most “shady” thing you will ever find. I have always been very open and honest :-* Thank you for replying. Do you understand my concern that you have multiple people on your trust list who have given out thousands of Red Tags to other people for the exact same business activity that you engaged in, yet none of these people left you a Red Tag? Do you see the conflict here? You claim to know what has happened in 2016 (including when something started), yet you created your account in mid-2017. You are the second account (amishmanish was the first) to have this very same discrepancy. Color me suspicious. I forgot about the new forum rule that says you are only allowed to read posts from after your account was created. (/s) giving negative trust on same topic to some people and be blind to known people? He wasn't "known" (to me) at the time, nor a staff member. But the reason why I didn't give him a neg was because of all the other trust he'd earned. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on April 03, 2018, 05:41:47 AM Bumping this since this thread seems to have gotten lost among all the April fools day threads.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: LoyceV on April 03, 2018, 08:10:38 AM I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy Do you understand my concern that you have multiple people on your trust list who have given out thousands of Red Tags to other people for the exact same business activity that you engaged in, yet none of these people left you a Red Tag? Do you see the conflict here?I was surprised to see yahoo's trust farming thread from 2014. But it only took him 1 reply from Vod and 10 minutes to realize it's a bad idea, and lock the thread. Let's call it a rookie mistake. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: digaran on April 03, 2018, 02:10:35 PM I was surprised to see yahoo's trust farming thread from 2014. But it only took him 1 reply from Vod and 10 minutes to realize it's a bad idea, and lock the thread. Let's call it a rookie mistake. I believe these people are asking the same thing here, they want you to give them another chance, call their actions as a rookie mistake. I don't think if they publicly sell accounts and share 3/4 of their income with the forum you should tag them. if they are not garbage posting and spamming to farm these accounts. knowing them publicly would also help to prevent scamming. Would they do that? would DT members do that if they share their income and do everything publicly? what if Lauda and other DT2 members agree on removing their negative tags if garbage posters and account sellers agree on donating $50 to the forum for every account? they should also agree to a few terms, after removing red tag if they start posting garbage according to me and a few other neutral forum members, they will have their red tags back. They would never agree, there is not much of money in agreeing to my terms, they want DT1-2 members gone. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Vod on April 03, 2018, 02:14:08 PM I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc Well there ya go. If Blazed doesn't get negative trust for selling an account, and working with a scammer, then no one else should get negative trust for selling accounts either. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on April 03, 2018, 03:32:38 PM I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc Well there ya go. If Blazed doesn't get negative trust for selling an account, and working with a scammer, then no one else should get negative trust for selling accounts either. As I said there is a lot of hypocrisy going on around here and they are just going to use the same old excuse of ''those were other times''. The fact is that if someone is going to give negative trust for selling accounts, he should give it to anyone that does so. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Lauda on April 03, 2018, 03:42:09 PM I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc Well there ya go. If Blazed doesn't get negative trust for selling an account, and working with a scammer, then no one else should get negative trust for selling accounts either. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: digaran on April 03, 2018, 04:55:05 PM I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc Well there ya go. If Blazed doesn't get negative trust for selling an account, and working with a scammer, then no one else should get negative trust for selling accounts either. What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: o_e_l_e_o on April 03, 2018, 05:04:17 PM What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts. Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: OgNasty on April 03, 2018, 05:47:50 PM What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts. Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion. Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts. I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: digaran on April 03, 2018, 05:58:09 PM What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts. Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion. This is how it works every where, when you have done something against the rules (DT2 made up rules) you would pay a [1]fine. There is no written law to determine the amount here, I'm writing them now and it could be agreed upon by consensus voting. if Lauda has tagged any member of this forum for selling an account 3 years ago, should Lauda remove their tags if they agree to compensate for their wrong doings according to Lauda? if Blazed agrees to pay $200 and Lauda accepts that to be enough for community's retribution. anybody with negative trust for selling an account 3 years ago, has to pay $200. or any amount determined by Lauda and it should be paid to the forum. I don't know about any recent account selling, Blazed has only confessed about the one for 3 years ago. you want Lauda to give Blazed negative trust for something he did 3 years ago or you want Blazed gone? this is the solution. [1] Quote A fine or mulct is money that a court of law or other authority decides has to be paid as punishment for a crime or other offence. The amount of a fine can be determined case by case, but it is often announced in advance. The most usual use of the term is for financial punishments for the commission of crimes, especially minor crimes, or as the settlement of a claim. A synonym, typically used in civil law actions, is mulct. One common example of a fine is money paid for violations of traffic laws. Currently in English common law, relatively small fines are used either in place of or alongside community service orders for low-level criminal offences. Larger fines are also given independently or alongside shorter prison sentences when the judge or magistrate considers a considerable amount of retribution is necessary, but there is unlikely to be significant danger to the public. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_(penalty) Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts. I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest. And we should find alia (the real young girl on camera) for you as a bonus for your valuable inputs. you don't get to decide here, there is a conflict of interest, you would benefit from the result of your solution. should I call the forum's fella to explain this to you? ~B ~LM for beggar and the forum's law maker. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Lauda on April 03, 2018, 06:02:45 PM I don't know about any recent account selling, Blazed has only confessed about the one for 3 years ago. you want Lauda to give Blazed negative trust for something he did 3 years ago or you want Blazed gone? this is the solution. Quickscammer is likely to be OP; what else should one expect? A solution that actually makes sense? This thread is boring, like all the other ones started by this cartel. Just give them a few number 6's with a diet coke and they are going to be silent for a while. ::)The first rating I gave to someone regarding this was in Q4 2016 I believe. I don't like digging graves. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: o_e_l_e_o on April 03, 2018, 06:50:49 PM I don't know about any recent account selling, Blazed has only confessed about the one for 3 years ago. you want Lauda to give Blazed negative trust for something he did 3 years ago or you want Blazed gone? this is the solution. You misunderstand me. I was not insinuating that I think Blazed deserves negative trust. I was simply pointing out I do not agree with your proposed solution. If the community deems that a $200 fine is sufficient to warrant the removal of negative trust, so be it. I, however, think the exact opposite; paying to hide the fact you are untrustworthy is even more untrustworthy. There are, however, other ways to prove that you are trustworthy. Blazed has done just that, which you can see with even a brief glance at his trust page. He is not comparable to some shitposter trying to buy their way in to a signature campaign. Leaving negative trust for the latter and not for the former is a perfectly logical position to hold. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: figmentofmyass on April 03, 2018, 11:00:11 PM I was surprised to see yahoo's trust farming thread from 2014. But it only took him 1 reply from Vod and 10 minutes to realize it's a bad idea, and lock the thread. Let's call it a rookie mistake. when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods? i'm guessing not. i can see where the OP is coming from. it seems like some people (whether because of default trust connections or just good old forum circle jerking) apparently deserve second chances, warnings, consideration of mitigating circumstances......and some people apparently don't. this is, at the core, the problem with the centralized trust system. you can't expect DT members to use it completely objectively. to some degree (however small), people will always benefit themselves (or alts), help their friends/hurt their competition, or at least give one person consideration (or retribution) where they wouldn't give it to another. these are all conflicts of interest that derive from positions of authority. I did indeed sell 1 account 3 years ago for my buddy. I worked with Quickseller on how best to handle it and for pricing etc Well there ya go. If Blazed doesn't get negative trust for selling an account, and working with a scammer, then no one else should get negative trust for selling accounts either. not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest. otherwise, maybe the forum rules should be brought in line with the trust ratings. i don't particularly care either way, but the inconsistency does bother me for obvious reasons as laid out above. it seems typical for DT members to just hand-wave away the contradictions here. that's shitty. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 04, 2018, 04:18:53 AM He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided. His "normal" account is already red-tagged the wazoo, so no, this is just the opposite - trying to make it look like more users are joining Quicksy's vendettas. The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. Despite Blazed owning 12% of DT or whatever, the remaining 88% could easily tag those users if they choose to do so. So again, Quicksy is just throwing a fit like a 3-year old who didn't get his ice cream for breakfast. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Lauda on April 04, 2018, 07:13:30 AM not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest. If you think that is consistency, then there is something wrong with your brain. There is a reason for which, when laws or social norms change, we don't apply consequences to people who used to break them before the change.Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: digaran on April 04, 2018, 08:03:14 AM when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods? i'm guessing not. i can see where the OP is coming from. it seems like some people (whether because of default trust connections or just good old forum circle jerking) apparently deserve second chances, warnings, consideration of mitigating circumstances......and some people apparently don't. this is, at the core, the problem with the centralized trust system. you can't expect DT members to use it completely objectively. to some degree (however small), people will always benefit themselves (or alts), help their friends/hurt their competition, or at least give one person consideration (or retribution) where they wouldn't give it to another. these are all conflicts of interest that derive from positions of authority. not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest. otherwise, maybe the forum rules should be brought in line with the trust ratings. i don't particularly care either way, but the inconsistency does bother me for obvious reasons as laid out above. it seems typical for DT members to just hand-wave away the contradictions here. that's shitty. What you are doing is contradictory. you have the same post-activity counts. you are an alt account. only your friends have merited you. you have 1-3 posts in average when you are actually active. what kind of consistent interactions could you possibly have with this community to have the audacity to talk about consistent standards of DT members? you are not active enough to know about their good deeds, but you have a deep understanding about their friends, enough to conclude there is a conflict of interest. You caught the retribution from my post above. why don't you consider the circumstance? if Lauda has left negative feedback on somebody for selling one account 3 years ago. Lauda should do the same to Blazed. but if Blazed is willing to pay a fine and exonerate himself and if Lauda agrees on it, there is nothing you could do other than paying the same amount for the same wrong doing if you were tagged by Lauda for selling account 3 years ago. if there is any evidence of any wrong doings by DT members which has to have happened on the same day as Lauda leaving negative trust on somebody else for the same wrong doing, provide us with that evidence. OP is saying that Blazed did something in the past, Yahoo did something in the past and OP is asking Lauda to tag them because she has tagged others for the same reasons. I'm telling @OP, show us a negative trust by Lauda on the same dates and for the same reasons on other members. show me evidence of Blazed selling an account yesterday and a negative trust by Lauda on another member for selling an account yesterday. if there is such evidence and you couldn't get justice in this community would be an obvious abuse by the ones in power. I was not insinuating that I think Blazed deserves negative trust. I was simply pointing out I do not agree with your proposed solution. If the community deems that a $200 fine is sufficient to warrant the removal of negative trust, so be it. I didn't say that community should deem that amount to be sufficient or any amount. I said what if. I sold an account 3 years ago but just now Lauda tagged me for that. Lauda should tag Blazed too. that never happened. There are, however, other ways to prove that you are trustworthy. Blazed has done just that, which you can see with even a brief glance at his trust page. He is not comparable to some shitposter trying to buy their way in to a signature campaign. Leaving negative trust for the latter and not for the former is a perfectly logical position to hold. Wrong. if Blazed is doing something as selling accounts today, Lauda should tag him. do we have any evidence to prove that to be true? saying that Blazed has done so many good things for this community, let him sell accounts today and look the other way, that is what you are saying. or you are saying that Lauda should be the only judge to decide if somebody is posting garbage or not? isn't that the reason to have merit system, to stop garbage posters slowly and don't tag them just for posting garbage? The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: figmentofmyass on April 04, 2018, 10:20:12 AM when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods? i'm guessing not. i can see where the OP is coming from. it seems like some people (whether because of default trust connections or just good old forum circle jerking) apparently deserve second chances, warnings, consideration of mitigating circumstances......and some people apparently don't. this is, at the core, the problem with the centralized trust system. you can't expect DT members to use it completely objectively. to some degree (however small), people will always benefit themselves (or alts), help their friends/hurt their competition, or at least give one person consideration (or retribution) where they wouldn't give it to another. these are all conflicts of interest that derive from positions of authority. not sure if trolling, but i actually think that's fair enough. if DT members clearly don't adhere to consistent standards---their own standards---it suggests there are indeed conflicts of interest. otherwise, maybe the forum rules should be brought in line with the trust ratings. i don't particularly care either way, but the inconsistency does bother me for obvious reasons as laid out above. it seems typical for DT members to just hand-wave away the contradictions here. that's shitty. What you are doing is contradictory. what, exactly, was contradictory? you have the same post-activity counts. you are an alt account. wtf? so now shitposting everyday every week to outpace the "activity" count is a prerequisite for not being labelled an alt? you forum police are taking this shit too far. and how---exactly---is any of this contradicting anything i said? only your friends have merited you. oh joy, the merit police have arrived! dude, first of all, who gives a shit about merit? this is just pathetic. second of all, since you're the merit police, let's have a gander. i received 15 merit total from 13 people. no one person gave me more than 2 merit. in your case, 30 of the 72 merit you received came from one person. that person also has two recent negative trusts for scamming. your alt account, i guess? or maybe just a friend, as you say? see how fucking bullshit these baseless accusations are? you act like some tribunal member in some orwellian fiction. get over yourself. you have 1-3 posts in average when you are actually active. what kind of consistent interactions could you possibly have with this community to have the audacity to talk about consistent standards of DT members? you are not active enough to know about their good deeds, but you have a deep understanding about their friends, enough to conclude there is a conflict of interest. first of all, please learn how to apply the english definition of "standards": Quote something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : criterion Quote an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations. whether standards are consistently applied is a matter of objective fact. i don't need to have been around for years or have consistent interaction with the community (whatever the fuck that means? explain) to talk about matters of objective fact. if someone posts examples of DT members applying inconsistent standards, anyone with a brain is capable of assessing that. this requires logic and reason, not a certain quota of forum posts per day. it's completely ridiculous---no, embarrassing---that this needs to be said. second of all, i've been reading this forum for like 5+ years. who the fuck are you to say i'm audacious for expressing extremely general opinions about the shittiness of the centralized trust system? the fucked up trust system and the pro-doxxing (and surprisingly anti-libertarian) culture here is why i would never go near the marketplace with a 10-foot pole as a vendor. and third, i spoke very generally about how authority and conflicts work, and thus why the trust system is doomed to failure. wtf are you on about with "a deep understanding about their friends" and other bullshit like that? you're just making even more shit up now. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: LoyceV on April 04, 2018, 12:05:16 PM when newbies request loans without collateral, do they always get a warning before getting tagged? how about when someone offers bitcointalk accounts for sale in digital goods? I think the correct answer is: "sometimes". But I also think it's pretty clear the majority of Newbies use disposable accounts hoping to pull a quick scam. Once they receive red trust, they move on to the next account.Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on April 04, 2018, 02:00:35 PM He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided. His "normal" account is already red-tagged the wazoo, so no, this is just the opposite - trying to make it look like more users are joining Quicksy's vendettas. The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. Despite Blazed owning 12% of DT or whatever, the remaining 88% could easily tag those users if they choose to do so. So again, Quicksy is just throwing a fit like a 3-year old who didn't get his ice cream for breakfast. ''The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy.'' Why is that a big fallacy? You would be abusing your power if you only tagged people that you wanted to. If you agree that account sellers should be tagged then all of them should be tagged otherwise what's the point of trust ratings. If anyone can do whatever they want then we might as well not have a trust rating system. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Lauda on April 04, 2018, 02:03:02 PM He probably didn't want to get his normal account red tagged because as we all know, it usually happens when you try to attack DT1 or highly trusted members. That being said, some of the yahoo's old posts seem quite worrying to me. It is definitely hypocritical to tag sold accounts when he was selling and also trying to build up reputation. Then again, I doubt anything bad will happen to him with the info you provided. His "normal" account is already red-tagged the wazoo, so no, this is just the opposite - trying to make it look like more users are joining Quicksy's vendettas. The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. Despite Blazed owning 12% of DT or whatever, the remaining 88% could easily tag those users if they choose to do so. So again, Quicksy is just throwing a fit like a 3-year old who didn't get his ice cream for breakfast. If anyone can do whatever they want then we might as well not have a trust rating system. That's pretty much how it has been recently more or less (see recent collusion to exclude people you disagree with and whatnot); well, at least for those who abuse it. Theymos rarely steps in (next to never), which makes it even worse.Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 04, 2018, 02:40:18 PM The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy. It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever. If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world. Why is that a big fallacy? You would be abusing your power if you only tagged people that you wanted to. If you agree that account sellers should be tagged then all of them should be tagged otherwise what's the point of trust ratings. If anyone can do whatever they want then we might as well not have a trust rating system. Besides being physically impossible, this is just plain ridiculous. We have 100+ people in DT for a reason. If some turkey fucker (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3195230.0) is reluctant to tag someone then someone else can step up. If no one does then maybe the supposed offender doesn't need to be tagged. Yes, I'm tagging only people that I "want to", i.e. have the time to review their alleged offence and to make up my mind. Trying to make me tag someone I don't "want to" could amount to extortion, something the OP claims to know a lot about. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: figmentofmyass on April 04, 2018, 05:22:26 PM The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy. It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever. If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world. that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before. the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same. that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head. :P this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Blazed on April 04, 2018, 05:28:00 PM Back when I bought that account we did not have the current spam issues and no sold accounts were being tagged. The main reason I was fine with buying the account was my knowing the person who was posting with it (known him for 15+ years now). You can tell the thread was publicly posted as was the norm back then. Paying fines to remove trust is a really bad idea and will lead to all sorts of trouble.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 04, 2018, 05:51:34 PM The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy. It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever. If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world. that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before. the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same. that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head. :P this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist. No, it's not reasonable to assume there is a conflict merely from the fact of someone not being tagged, just as it's not reasonable to assume that a driver whom the cop let off with a warning is his drinking buddy. The fact of not tagging someone is not proof of anything. Prove actual collusion or at least a solid pattern of the cop favoring hot women. Again, there are 100+ members in DT1-2, are they ALL in cahoots with each other? What is preventing those other 88% upstanding DT members from tagging the evil 12%? Quicksy has been going on about all this "DT abuse" nonsense for years ever since being kicked out of it. This thread is just a ridiculous waste of bandwidth. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on April 04, 2018, 08:12:17 PM The whole idea that if you tag someone for something then you have to tag everyone who's done the same thing is one big fallacy. If you change the timing of both actions to be on the same day, it is not a fallacy. It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever. If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world. that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before. the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same. that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head. :P this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist. No, it's not reasonable to assume there is a conflict merely from the fact of someone not being tagged, just as it's not reasonable to assume that a driver whom the cop let off with a warning is his drinking buddy. The fact of not tagging someone is not proof of anything. Prove actual collusion or at least a solid pattern of the cop favoring hot women. Again, there are 100+ members in DT1-2, are they ALL in cahoots with each other? What is preventing those other 88% upstanding DT members from tagging the evil 12%? Quicksy has been going on about all this "DT abuse" nonsense for years ever since being kicked out of it. This thread is just a ridiculous waste of bandwidth. Well, lauda for instance has 2 negative ratings from shorena and Ognasty and yet he is still on DT2 isn't he? So they are actually tagging each other, it's just that it doesn't seem to matter, I mean is Lauda a scammer or not? Is Ognasty giving false ratings then? Is Lauda allowed to give shorena trust ratings in retaliation or viceversa? The whole thing seems to be a mess honestly. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 04, 2018, 08:37:39 PM Well, lauda for instance has 2 negative ratings from shorena and Ognasty and yet he is still on DT2 isn't he? So they are actually tagging each other, it's just that it doesn't seem to matter, I mean is Lauda a scammer or not? Is Ognasty giving false ratings then? Is Lauda allowed to give shorena trust ratings in retaliation or viceversa? The whole thing seems to be a mess honestly. Lauda was briefly kicked out of DT2 as well. Perhaps all this is the proper reflection of the non-monochrome nature of the issue. Lauda has the negs clearly visible to anyone who cares. Lauda also has tons of sent feedback that was deemed important enough by a DT1 member to re-include Lauda. This has been litigated publicly for so long that I doubt there is anything else that needs to be done here. Og seems to be douche-canoe of epic proportions but that's an entirely different topic. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: figmentofmyass on April 04, 2018, 09:59:35 PM It still is. It would be ridiculous to expect a DT member to tag every person who's done that "thing", same day, or the day before, or whenever. If you get a speeding ticket it doesn't mean that the same officer/trooper/deputy needs to ticket all other speeding drivers in the world. that's a straw man. no one expects that. the OP gave specific examples; there's no need to go digging for every untrustworthy action that has ever been done before. the question is what happens when a DT member (or someone close to DT members) gets outed for behavior that the community has deemed untrustworthy. if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. a conflict of interest can be as small as giving one person consideration (or retribution) where they otherwise wouldn't. eg hooking your friends up with the perks and favors from your government position while the public at large gets nothing. that's not the worst thing in the world, but let's just be honest about it. that's the definition of a conflict. that's how positions of authority work. anyone who works in government law or ethics will tell you the same. that means the cop in your example isn't supposed to get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law. or let hot women off with a warning when they're caught speeding while ticketing everyone else. but what do you think actually happens in practice? use your head. :P this thread was about conflicts of interest, not pontificating hypothetical situations where it's unreasonable to expect anything from DT members. if the latter is the position we're supposed to take, DT absolutely shouldn't exist. No, it's not reasonable to assume there is a conflict merely from the fact of someone not being tagged, just as it's not reasonable to assume that a driver whom the cop let off with a warning is his drinking buddy. i didn't say that. that's a straw man. the above said, "get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law." it didn't say, "anyone who got off the hook is the cop's drinking buddy." words matter. i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders. eg if a DT member posts in this thread, it's reasonable to assume they are aware of the cases being discussed. the question then becomes, what are their standards per their sent feedback? if their standards are inconsistent, can we at least form some community standards instead of just perpetual hand-waving? to outsiders, the message is "only those get tagged need to answer for anything; those who who do the tagging are always in the right." this is why i talk about authority. that's the same logic that people apply to cops who beat up, rape and murder people, then protect each other from prosecution. you apparently prefer to give cops, DT members and other authorities the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time. i don't. for example, if account selling was perfectly trustworthy on date x and scam tag-worthy on date y, can we establish a standard? how about trust farming---how far back is long enough to let bygones be bygones? if there is a time aspect, can users who got tagged get rehabilitated or let off for "rookie mistakes" after a certain period of time, or does this logic only get applied to a limited group of people (who might also now happen to occupy DT)? what about "lying" and "slander?" when does "lying" warrant negative trust? if you don't hold anyone to any standards, then these threads won't go away. and more bandwidth will be wasted yet. The fact of not tagging someone is not proof of anything. Prove actual collusion or at least a solid pattern of the cop favoring hot women. conflicts of interest don't require collusion. they just confer personal benefit. and there should be a general expectation that people in positions of authority are supposed to self-police. this is why government agencies have ethical codes that lay out precise standards and define what is and isn't a conflict of interest, with emphasis on preventing them. this isn't a court of law and rarely will anyone have all the facts. you're using that as a basis to say DT members don't use their position for personal benefit. i just disagree. Again, there are 100+ members in DT1-2, are they ALL in cahoots with each other? What is preventing those other 88% upstanding DT members from tagging the evil 12%? nobody is saying everyone is in cahoots. that's another a straw man: Quote i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders. you point out how few DT members there are. yet a comparison to "all speeding drivers in the world" is applicable? you're conflating well-known DT members with newbie throwaway accounts to bolster the idea that all conflicts of interest are just based on ignorance or nonchalance, because there's oh so many people in the world, can't tag them all! but actually, we're talking about a pretty small group of people. anyway, just talking about how social authority works in general. i've already said too much here---already got that bootlicking toady digaran lobbing ad hominem attacks and claiming merit abuse because i expressed a general opinion about the trust system. pfff and you guys wonder why people post in meta/reputation from alt accounts? lesson learned: i'll use an alt next time i post an opinion that isn't just parroting groupthink. already half-expecting my opinions to be construed as "lying" or generic "untrustworthy" behavior or "slander" and red tagged anyway. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on April 04, 2018, 10:11:40 PM this isn't a court of law and rarely will anyone have all the facts. Nor does anyone here have any real authority, except the ability to leave a feedback. Some are weighed more than others, but in the grand scheme of things a greater weight does not equate with the user whose feedbacks have the greater weight having "authority".DT members aren't the police. There certainly may be collusion amongst them (or among any number of members of bitcointalk), and if you don't like it...there's not much you can do about it except do what you're doing, which is writing long, screaming treatises about how unfair the forum is. This isn't a democracy, this isn't the job market, the department of labor, the Chinese government, or anything else. It's a discussion forum with a trust system that's obviously (to me) broken, and a bunch of human beings of varying intelligence and honesty. You can keep complaining about all of this, but eventually people will stop coming over to play once they realize the debate is failing to resolve anything. That's exactly what's going to happen. If you have evidence of specific people doing specific evil acts, bring forth the proof in the form of a scam accusation in that section of the forum. Until you do, life--and bitcointalk--will continue on its merry way, being cruel and unfair. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on April 04, 2018, 11:14:33 PM Well, lauda for instance has 2 negative ratings from shorena and Ognasty and yet he is still on DT2 isn't he? So they are actually tagging each other, it's just that it doesn't seem to matter, I mean is Lauda a scammer or not? Is Ognasty giving false ratings then? Is Lauda allowed to give shorena trust ratings in retaliation or viceversa? The whole thing seems to be a mess honestly. Lauda was briefly kicked out of DT2 as well. Perhaps all this is the proper reflection of the non-monochrome nature of the issue. Lauda has the negs clearly visible to anyone who cares. Lauda also has tons of sent feedback that was deemed important enough by a DT1 member to re-include Lauda. This has been litigated publicly for so long that I doubt there is anything else that needs to be done here. Og seems to be douche-canoe of epic proportions but that's an entirely different topic. Well you have a good point about all the sent feedback of lauda so how about keeping the ratings sent as default trust but exclude the person, otherwise it just seems counterproductive to re include someone as DT just because his sent feedback since the person is supposedly not to be trusted. Not talking about lauda in particular since I don't know what he has done or not, just in general. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: OgNasty on April 04, 2018, 11:31:07 PM Og seems to be douche-canoe of epic proportions but that's an entirely different topic. I don’t think me having never sold an account and advising that Blazed remove the conflicts of interest rather than pay a fine deserves a personal attack. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 04, 2018, 11:56:19 PM i didn't say that. that's a straw man. the above said, "get his drinking buddies off the hook when they break the law." it didn't say, "anyone who got off the hook is the cop's drinking buddy." words matter. Yet you claimed that if you regularly tag account sellers, but refuse in these cases, it's reasonable to assume there is a conflict. No, it's not reasonable to assume that at all. If you can prove the conflict of interest - go ahead. Merely not tagging is not proof of anything. i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders. I may know some case or another and still have no time to dig deep enough to warrant a tag. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by withholding my judgement. I think it would be wrong to pressure DT members to do it the way you seem to be implying. eg if a DT member posts in this thread, it's reasonable to assume they are aware of the cases being discussed. the question then becomes, what are their standards per their sent feedback? if their standards are inconsistent, can we at least form some community standards instead of just perpetual hand-waving? to outsiders, the message is "only those get tagged need to answer for anything; those who who do the tagging are always in the right." this is why i talk about authority. that's the same logic that people apply to cops who beat up, rape and murder people, then protect each other from prosecution. you apparently prefer to give cops, DT members and other authorities the benefit of the doubt 100% of the time. i don't. Not at all. I simply don't assume that ALL DT members, or cops, think and act exactly the same all the time. If one DT member doesn't tag someone tag-worthy, another can do it, and DT members generally don't rape or murder but I have to admit that your gang of straw-people looks mighty spiffy. If none of the 88% tag the presumed offender(s) then it's very likely that's a nothingburger. Having said that, I would like to see a more diverse set of DT members but recently there was another butthurt thread whining about too many DT members so there goes the "community standard"... for example, if account selling was perfectly trustworthy on date x and scam tag-worthy on date y, can we establish a standard? how about trust farming---how far back is long enough to let bygones be bygones? if there is a time aspect, can users who got tagged get rehabilitated or let off for "rookie mistakes" after a certain period of time, or does this logic only get applied to a limited group of people (who might also now happen to occupy DT)? what about "lying" and "slander?" when does "lying" warrant negative trust? Then we might as well put it into rules and let moderators deal with it. Trust network is more than just a rigid set of standards. There are guidelines and there are processes in place (e.g. exclusions) to deal with abusers. if you don't hold anyone to any standards, then these threads won't go away. and more bandwidth will be wasted yet. All or nothing isn't how life works. The fact of not tagging someone is not proof of anything. Prove actual collusion or at least a solid pattern of the cop favoring hot women. conflicts of interest don't require collusion. they just confer personal benefit. and there should be a general expectation that people in positions of authority are supposed to self-police. this is why government agencies have ethical codes that lay out precise standards and define what is and isn't a conflict of interest, with emphasis on preventing them. this isn't a court of law and rarely will anyone have all the facts. you're using that as a basis to say DT members don't use their position for personal benefit. i just disagree. I didn't say that at all. I said - post proof. Again, there are 100+ members in DT1-2, are they ALL in cahoots with each other? What is preventing those other 88% upstanding DT members from tagging the evil 12%? nobody is saying everyone is in cahoots. that's another a straw man: Quote i'm referring to cases where a DT member affirmatively knows about two cases of ostensibly tag-worthy behavior, yet only tags one of the offenders. you point out how few DT members there are. yet a comparison to "all speeding drivers in the world" is applicable? you're conflating well-known DT members with newbie throwaway accounts to bolster the idea that all conflicts of interest are just based on ignorance or nonchalance, because there's oh so many people in the world, can't tag them all! but actually, we're talking about a pretty small group of people. "All speeding drivers in the world" -> "all account traders on Bitcointalk" "one cop" -> "one DT member" That was the context for the analogy. Then, in a different context, I pointed out how unlikely it seems for everyone on DT to have conflicts of interest preventing them from policing each other. But if you can prove such - go ahead. Feel free to start a Scam Accusation against any user (DT or not) who you think should be tagged. anyway, just talking about how social authority works in general. i've already said too much here---already got that bootlicking toady digaran lobbing ad hominem attacks and claiming merit abuse because i expressed a general opinion about the trust system. pfff and you guys wonder why people post in meta/reputation from alt accounts? lesson learned: i'll use an alt next time i post an opinion that isn't just parroting groupthink. already half-expecting my opinions to be construed as "lying" or generic "untrustworthy" behavior or "slander" and red tagged anyway. What are you on about? ::) Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: bitcoin revo on April 05, 2018, 01:16:30 AM What I'm getting from this thread is this:
- A few years ago, account selling and other actions that we are quick to tag today were instead allowed and tolerated. That is true - I feel the forum as a whole hadn't become sick and tired of sc(/p)ammers at that point. - Of the people that conducted those activities, the members that didn't end up scamming and leaving are today's Legendary members - some of whom are DT2. - Now that those actions are heavily discriminated against, those members that stayed and were given a chance to change still have those shady backgrounds that the OP and others are somewhat justly pointing at. The thing is - since a few years ago scammers weren't as quickly tagged as they are now, we're nipping all the scammers (95%) and people who would have learned and changed (5%) in their buds straightaway. That's also justifiable - who wants scammers to be present in hordes? - At this point, I think we've gotten to the core of both sides. Some people are arguing at the irony that our current DT2 members are displaying when they're tagging people that were exactly them a few years ago, while others are looking at the present and positively changed DT2 and questioning the removal of trustworthy members (who were essentially given a second chance at the expense of scammers doing those same behaviors back then as well). If anything, I'm also looking at the current system with its elitism and I'm seeing one far from perfection. But I agree with this statement from The Pharmacist: It's a discussion forum with a trust system that's obviously (to me) broken, and a bunch of human beings of varying intelligence and honesty. You can keep complaining about all of this, but eventually people will stop coming over to play once they realize the debate is failing to resolve anything. I think a good number of the forum feels like there's room for improvement - there usually is, in all cases. This argument is simply solidifying that dissent, but nothing will be done until better systems can be thought up and discussed. That's what we're lacking right now. So I appreciate the research and all the thought on both sides, but attacking individual DT2 members that bring disputable shit with them on points that can be argued until the end of time might appease the people who just love the drama and feeding their egos off of it, but in reality it's not going to accomplish much. TL;DR: we're arguing over the past, but what the forum needs right now are discussions towards improvement. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: figmentofmyass on April 05, 2018, 02:44:15 AM this isn't a court of law and rarely will anyone have all the facts. Nor does anyone here have any real authority, except the ability to leave a feedback. Some are weighed more than othersthat's actually one of the definitions of authority. a tagged account---for many folks---will carry the same weight as a ban because you're probably better off creating a new account. the fact that theymos centrally dictates who has these powers (and who doesn't) makes the social relationships pretty clear. unequal power distribution is the basis of authority. positive and negative trust have a massive impact on anyone's ability to do business on the forum, so let's not act like the ability to leave feedback is meaningless. if it didn't matter, nobody would care. clearly, people care. DT members aren't the police. There certainly may be collusion amongst them (or among any number of members of bitcointalk), and if you don't like it...there's not much you can do about it except do what you're doing, which is writing long, screaming treatises about how unfair the forum is. This isn't a democracy, this isn't the job market, the department of labor, the Chinese government, or anything else. It's a discussion forum with a trust system that's obviously (to me) broken, and a bunch of human beings of varying intelligence and honesty. if you haven't noticed, i very much enjoy arguing. when i came in here, i was just laying out a generic negative opinion about how the system is used. i wasn't really all that interested until the personal attacks and contradictions and fallacies came forth in response. You can keep complaining about all of this, but eventually people will stop coming over to play once they realize the debate is failing to resolve anything. That's exactly what's going to happen. already happened many times before. what exactly do you think i'm trying to accomplish here? lol. i'm much more interested in getting one or two people to escape the groupthink than to accomplish any actual change. nothing's going to change. the debate won't ever get resolved. in fact, a debate can't resolve anything. theymos just needs to decide to make changes, or not. around the time i joined the forum, the trust system was his brand new invention. this is his show, we're just in the audience. i guess DT are like the ushers or some shit. dang, there goes suchmoon twisting words again. i might respond later after a few drinks. or not. ;) Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 05, 2018, 05:32:02 PM Dumb analogies aside, here is how I see it:
Quicksy is not interested in having all account sellers negged. He's fully aware of the gray areas and changes in how account trades are perceived, etc - what with being a major account farmer/trader himself - so he's just using this as another attempt to undermine the credibility of some DT2 members and either compel Blazed to dump them (seems unlikely) or compel other DT1 members to exclude them (had mixed success with that in the past) or compel theymos to dump Blazed (not sure how likely). Quicksy is not interested in improving DT. He'd rather let hundreds of scammers lose their red tags as long as he gets what he wants, whatever that is. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bazinga442 on April 05, 2018, 05:45:28 PM Lauda's stooge, have you done your worst? Lol! :D - You my friend are pathetic. Get a life. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 05, 2018, 06:01:08 PM Lauda's stooge, have you done your worst? Lol! :D - You my friend are pathetic. Get a life. You seem to be confused. I'm not your friend. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Chinese909 on April 06, 2018, 12:47:25 AM If Blazed sold accounts in the past to Scammers its not a surprise for me that his trust list is full with dumbass account sellers . Account dealers are not to be trusted ,in certain juridiction account dealers are considered as criminals cause you trade personal identity information for money. Don't quote massive posts like that just to make a one-liner.Account dealers aren't to be trusted: that's true. Which is why you don't see Blazed doing account trading right now. In comparison, a lot of DT members have tagged a plethora of users doing account trading in 2017 and 2018. Yeah, maybe not right now but he clearly did in the past https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013494.0 so, how come it was ok in the past but you get red tagged in the present? I thought DT network exist to fight with scammers , why this group never tagged a real scammer?. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 06, 2018, 02:33:43 AM Feel free to start a Scam Accusation against any user (DT or not) who you think should be tagged. Don't you know what happens when someone does shit like that?? But you already know that's what happens. Because you tagged Bazinga442 right after he criticized you in this thread. It was obvious retaliation. You're lying. Bazinga442 came here (probably following my post history) to whine AFTER he got tagged. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 06, 2018, 02:53:47 AM Feel free to start a Scam Accusation against any user (DT or not) who you think should be tagged. Don't you know what happens when someone does shit like that?? But you already know that's what happens. Because you tagged Bazinga442 right after he criticized you in this thread. It was obvious retaliation. You're lying. Bazinga442 came here (probably following my post history) to whine AFTER he got tagged. I guess we have to take your word for it since trust pages don't timestamp. Sort of like how we have to take the word of a police officer no matter what really happened. :) No, you lying dipshit. You only need a couple of clicks to verify the timestamps but why do that when you can make shit up, right? Bazinga's feedback reference: https://archive.fo/gyQDG#selection-47.0-47.27 Quote April 05, 2018, 05:39:01 PM Bazinga's whiny-ass post six minutes later: Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 06, 2018, 03:18:44 AM No, you lying dipshit. You only need a couple of clicks to verify the timestamps but why do that when you can make shit up, right? Bazinga's feedback reference: https://archive.fo/gyQDG#selection-47.0-47.27 Quote April 05, 2018, 05:39:01 PM Bazinga's whiny-ass post six minutes later: Chill out man. I already took your word for it and clearly didn't push the issue. Jesus. And I didn't lie. Like I said, trust pages don't timestamp. How the hell was I supposed to know that archive existed?? The fucking reference is there for a fucking reason, you fucktard. Except when you only care about crawling up Quicksy's ass, then yes, you're not supposed to know anything, because you're new here, right? https://meem.link/i/a/bdBUMw.jpg Edited 2020-11-29 to fix a broken image Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bazinga442 on April 06, 2018, 03:48:45 AM Edit: Am I crazy, because I still don't see where the feedback is timestamped. Trust isn't viewable in that archive. The times match up which make it obvious enough. But just for my sanity...? To be fair to the idiot, he tagged me before I followed his stupid ass here, since this is were he posted last before or after tagging my account. But since when is making a trade request for Paypal a crime here? It feels like he was desperately looking for a reason to tag the account after I called out his mates atriz/ALU. Never mind, I understand that idiots that can't look people in the eye IRL, get off on waving their virtual willies here.Thank God for the inter web. Hopefully this place keeps them and their frustrations occupied and off the streets were they can do real harm. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: LoyceV on April 06, 2018, 06:43:13 AM Because you tagged Bazinga442 right after he criticized you in this thread. It was obvious retaliation. You're lying. Bazinga442 came here (probably following my post history) to whine AFTER he got tagged.Sounds good, doesn't work :( I don't know how I messed up exactly, but I can't reproduce it anymore. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: actmyname on April 06, 2018, 07:25:58 AM Trust pages have time zones. If you change your Time Offset (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1310815;sa=theme) to -8, you can confirm for yourself suchmoon isn't lying. That's not true. Trust pages are absolute and are dated according to forum time. When I look at a trust page, regardless of my time offset, it will always show the date of entry by UTC time.Test this yourself by changing your settings. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: digaran on April 06, 2018, 08:39:40 AM But since when is making a trade request for Paypal a crime here? Since you don't have anything to lose other than a full member account of a value less than $250. It feels like he was desperately looking for a reason to tag the account after I called out his mates They are not here to make you feel something else, don't give them the reason by not asking somebody to trust you if you are not trusted. Your supposed justification is he wanted to do a Paypal/BTC trade worth $250, something that is regularly done on the forums, the feedback for which can be seen across many Default Trust member profiles. I guess it's reasonable for DT users to do low value Paypal trades, but not regular users? That is correct, regular users with no reputation should use escrow. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on April 06, 2018, 12:14:13 PM Feel free to start a Scam Accusation against any user (DT or not) who you think should be tagged. Don't you know what happens when someone does shit like that?? But you already know that's what happens. Because you tagged Bazinga442 right after he criticized you in this thread. It was obvious retaliation. You're lying. Bazinga442 came here (probably following my post history) to whine AFTER he got tagged. I guess we have to take your word for it since trust pages don't timestamp. Sort of like how we have to take the word of a police officer no matter what really happened. :) Anyway you glossed over the point. The post above about Lauda still stands. Retaliation happens here for sure, and it's a joke that Default Trust users say "just open a scam accusation herp derp!" "Just post from your main account herp derp!" Maybe if abuse weren't rampant, we would. So ofc I would never use my real account to call anyone on Default Trust out. "Oh you must be a quickscammer alt. Ofc we don't have to answer for anything!!" Rinse repeat....... Ognasty is a clear example of it, he tagged plenty of people just because they attacked him, some others do it too, I don't know about suchmoon specifically but yeah, it happens a lot. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 06, 2018, 01:41:33 PM suchmoon- Caught lying?? I checked the reference but thought it was just the original thread. I never lied. A lie is intentionally misleading. Please look the word up because you keep misusing it. I just stated an observation. I apparently observed wrong, you set the record straight, and I accepted that. No harm done. Chill out. Anyway, for the third time, could you stop distracting from the issue?? You either saw the timestamps and stated the opposite as a fact, or you stated something as a fact that you had absolutely no proof of. I can't possibly see how either of those could be not intentional, especially seeing how you built your whole argument of "DT abuse" based on that. But yeah let's call it an observation and whine about distractions ::) You're a poster child of why users hiding behind their alts have no standing in any discussions such as this. Log in with your main account or shut up. To be fair to the idiot, he tagged me before I followed his stupid ass here, since this is were he posted last before or after tagging my account. But since when is making a trade request for Paypal a crime here? It feels like he was desperately looking for a reason to tag the account after I called out his mates atriz/ALU. Never mind, I understand that idiots that can't look people in the eye IRL, get off on waving their virtual willies here.Thank God for the inter web. Hopefully this place keeps them and their frustrations occupied and off the streets were they can do real harm. It's not a crime (might be a violation of PayPal TOS but that's another story), you haven't been arrested, and if anyone still wants to trade with you - more power to them. But you are offering a reversible payment method and you're using typical scammy sleazy wording - you can send first (doesn't matter at all), you mention escrow (no sane escrow will touch PayPal), you're looking for a trusted person (LOL), you're telling scammers to stay away (LOL2). Your admission TWO POSTS LATER that it's a farmed account seals the deal. Don't worry about me IRL. I've had encounters with some folks on Craigslist offering me PayPal payments. "Fuck off scammer" is an appropriate response in that situation as well. If you still have any questions - let me know, preferably somewhere else though. We don't want to "distract" other butthurt sockpuppets here. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: OgNasty on April 06, 2018, 01:51:44 PM Ognasty is a clear example of it, he tagged plenty of people just because they attacked him, some others do it too, I don't know about suchmoon specifically but yeah, it happens a lot. I don’t tag people for attacking me. If I did, many of the people I’ve tagged recently would have been tagged years ago. I tag people that lie and act maliciously to hurt others. Period. My actions here are ALWAYS about what I honestly believe is best for the forum. If theymos or anyone in a position of respect had issue with any of my ratings, I would be more than happy to discuss them and make changes where appropriate. I’ve even solicited opinions about my ratings with no request for edits. I do what I believe is right for the forum knowing it will bring me harassment and cause my projects to be slandered, yet I do it anyway. If you can’t respect that your whole perspective is wack. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bazinga442 on April 06, 2018, 04:04:40 PM To be fair to the idiot, he tagged me before I followed his stupid ass here, since this is were he posted last before or after tagging my account. But since when is making a trade request for Paypal a crime here? It feels like he was desperately looking for a reason to tag the account after I called out his mates atriz/ALU. Never mind, I understand that idiots that can't look people in the eye IRL, get off on waving their virtual willies here.Thank God for the inter web. Hopefully this place keeps them and their frustrations occupied and off the streets were they can do real harm. It's not a crime (might be a violation of PayPal TOS but that's another story), you haven't been arrested, and if anyone still wants to trade with you - more power to them. But you are offering a reversible payment method and you're using typical scammy sleazy wording - you can send first (doesn't matter at all), you mention escrow (no sane escrow will touch PayPal), you're looking for a trusted person (LOL), you're telling scammers to stay away (LOL2). Your admission TWO POSTS LATER that it's a farmed account seals the deal. Don't worry about me IRL. I've had encounters with some folks on Craigslist offering me PayPal payments. "Fuck off scammer" is an appropriate response in that situation as well. If you still have any questions - let me know, preferably somewhere else though. We don't want to "distract" other butthurt sockpuppets here. Thanks for the offer, but no, I'll pass. I have better ways to spend my time than explaining myself to a pompous idiot, who thinks the negative feedback he left on a forum account I use somehow affects my life. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: sirazimuth on April 06, 2018, 10:01:07 PM No, you lying dipshit. You only need a couple of clicks to verify the timestamps but why do that when you can make shit up, right? Bazinga's feedback reference: https://archive.fo/gyQDG#selection-47.0-47.27 Quote April 05, 2018, 05:39:01 PM Bazinga's whiny-ass post six minutes later: Chill out man. I already took your word for it and clearly didn't push the issue. Jesus. And I didn't lie. Like I said, trust pages don't timestamp. How the hell was I supposed to know that archive existed?? The fucking reference is there for a fucking reason, you fucktard. Except when you only care about crawling up Quicksy's ass, then yes, you're not supposed to know anything, because you're new here, right? https://i.snag.gy/bdBUMw.jpg I always find the best scammy-ass busting threads following your brilliant last posts :D cheers and keep up the great work!! Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 06, 2018, 10:15:51 PM I always find the best scammy-ass busting threads following your brilliant last posts :D cheers and keep up the great work!! I'm sorry, but the credit for this thread must be attributed to Quicksy's Account Farm - the most freshest organically grown grass-fed oxygen-deprived sockpuppets in all of Bitcointalk. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on April 07, 2018, 12:17:52 AM I can't possibly see how either of those could be not intentional, especially seeing how you built your whole argument of "DT abuse" based on that. But yeah let's call it an observation and whine about distractions ::) How could you possibly prove intent there? Explain. Are you the thought police now too? And no I didn't base my whole argument on that. You were an afterthought. I spent far more time (and words) showing how Lauda recently retaliated with negative trust. I quickly conceded that I was incorrect regarding the claim about you. Yet for whatever reason you're still repeating yourself ad nauseam. It must be distracting, because I repeatedly referred to Lauda's behavior. Yet I "built my whole argument of DT abuse" based on you? Weird. Fair enough, half of the argument. Let's see the other half - VirosaGITS. I considered countering Lauda's feedback after ziku was busted but didn't do it because Virosa sounded quite dishonest in those chat logs. He said he can't use Og's escrow because Og has scammed someone. Didn't provide any proof as far as I know. Was trying to coerce the noob to ship items before paying. Two wrongs don't make it right. Ziku turning out to be a scammer doesn't excuse such behavior. The warning on Virosa's trust page sounds appropriate. You also seem to be wrong about timing, again. Lauda negged Virosa before the thread was started, otherwise the thread wouldn't have made sense. Feedback may have been reposted later but I'm quite confident that Virosa was not +4 on 2/4 and this wasn't retaliation the way you're making it sound. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Bardman on April 08, 2018, 10:53:37 PM Ognasty is a clear example of it, he tagged plenty of people just because they attacked him, some others do it too, I don't know about suchmoon specifically but yeah, it happens a lot. I don’t tag people for attacking me. If I did, many of the people I’ve tagged recently would have been tagged years ago. I tag people that lie and act maliciously to hurt others. Period. My actions here are ALWAYS about what I honestly believe is best for the forum. If theymos or anyone in a position of respect had issue with any of my ratings, I would be more than happy to discuss them and make changes where appropriate. I’ve even solicited opinions about my ratings with no request for edits. I do what I believe is right for the forum knowing it will bring me harassment and cause my projects to be slandered, yet I do it anyway. If you can’t respect that your whole perspective is wack. Look, I don't want to start an attack against you or anything and certainly I don't want a negative rating from you but : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2337754.60 Literally everyone agrees that your rating should be removed and it's not. As I said, there is clearly some abuse and some hypocrisy around DT members, not that I care since I personally always review any trust rating myself. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on April 08, 2018, 11:41:06 PM It looks like this thread has pushed the buttons of a few people :o
I will post responses to posts later today/tomorrow, time permitting. What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts. Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion. Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts. I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: donmiguello on April 09, 2018, 01:01:22 AM As I said, there is clearly some abuse and some hypocrisy around DT members, not that I care since I personally always review any trust rating myself. Dont say everyone , This is group of haters that keep atack OG even when Og is sleepy . Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Blazed on April 09, 2018, 02:15:54 AM It looks like this thread has pushed the buttons of a few people :o I will post responses to posts later today/tomorrow, time permitting. What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts. Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion. Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts. I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest. I have already replied about the 1 account trade I had (it was done in the open as are all of my trades). If anyone would like to drop me a negative by all means go for it. I have never dropped a negative for retaliation or due to trash talking me. I only negative if someone really earns it. Back in 2013/2014 account sales were not deemed bad/shady since the spam issue was non existent compared to today. For the record I was only DT2 back then not DT1. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on April 09, 2018, 02:30:31 AM I have already replied about the 1 account trade I had (it was done in the open as are all of my trades). If anyone would like to drop me a negative by all means go for it. I have never dropped a negative for retaliation or due to trash talking me. I only negative if someone really earns it. Back in 2013/2014 account sales were not deemed bad/shady since the spam issue was non existent compared to today. For the record I was only DT2 back then not DT1. You could remove those in your trust list who have participated in the Red Tagging of sold accounts I mentioned in the OP, who as of now, have failed to Red Tag you: Code: yahoo62278 Removing the above users would remove any real or perceived conflict of interest within your trust list. This would not preclude others on DT1 from adding any of the above onto their own trust list, if they believe they should be in DT2. You can publicly state anyone is free to drop you a negative all you want, however as long as these people remain on your trust list, it will appear you are being protected. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on April 09, 2018, 02:42:27 AM Code: yahoo62278 There are so many users that I haven't tagged, and I've given my reasons for not doing so; Blazed is just one of many. Tagging him was never even a consideration when I started tagging account sellers in 2016, and even if I were so inclined, I wouldn't tag him now for something he did in 2014 and notably hasn't done since. You'd love it if Blazed took us all off his trust list, because then it'd be a field day for scammers. All the scammy account sellers, the straight-up scammers, campaign cheaters, and everyone else wouldn't be tagged anymore. But do you honestly think Blazed is going to remove the users you've mentioned because they haven't tagged Blazed? Give me a break. The only conflict of interest is in Quickseller's highly-disturbed frontal cortex. Quickseller creates issues, problems, drama, when there is none to be found. That's his M.O., and it doesn't matter which account he uses to act out his little fantasy issues. They all sound alike. This would not preclude others on DT1 from adding any of the above onto their own trust list, if they believe they should be in DT2. But you know damn well, at least in my case, that Blazed taking me off his trust list would effectively remove me from DT2. And by him doing that, all those people I've tagged would have clean accounts once more. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: whistleblower2 on April 09, 2018, 02:48:01 AM Code: yahoo62278 There are so many users that I haven't tagged, and I've given my reasons for not doing so; Blazed is just one of many. Tagging him was never even a consideration when I started tagging account sellers in 2016, and even if I were so inclined, I wouldn't tag him now for something he did in 2014 and notably hasn't done since. You'd love it if Blazed took us all off his trust list, because then it'd be a field day for scammers. All the scammy account sellers, the straight-up scammers, campaign cheaters, and everyone else wouldn't be tagged anymore. But do you honestly think Blazed is going to remove the users you've mentioned because they haven't tagged Blazed? Give me a break. The only conflict of interest is in Quickseller's highly-disturbed frontal cortex. Quickseller creates issues, problems, drama, when there is none to be found. That's his M.O., and it doesn't matter which account he uses to act out his little fantasy issues. They all sound alike. This would not preclude others on DT1 from adding any of the above onto their own trust list, if they believe they should be in DT2. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: drogbaaa on April 09, 2018, 07:55:06 AM It looks like this thread has pushed the buttons of a few people :o I will post responses to posts later today/tomorrow, time permitting. What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts. Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion. Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts. I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest. I have already replied about the 1 account trade I had (it was done in the open as are all of my trades). If anyone would like to drop me a negative by all means go for it. I have never dropped a negative for retaliation or due to trash talking me. I only negative if someone really earns it. Back in 2013/2014 account sales were not deemed bad/shady since the spam issue was non existent compared to today. For the record I was only DT2 back then not DT1. If you ask theymos to remove you from DT1 then you will realy help this little community.Your list is not decentralized and it dominated by scammers and beggars. Noone in your trust list tagged scammers , they tagged only competitors .It look like you never take your time to see their actions. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Lauda on April 09, 2018, 07:56:30 AM Your list is not decentralized and it dominated by scammers and beggars. Who exactly are you calling a scammer? Please post their name(s).Noone in your trust list tagged scammers , they tagged only competitors . 1k+ competitors later.. ::)Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Blazed on April 09, 2018, 01:40:53 PM It looks like this thread has pushed the buttons of a few people :o I will post responses to posts later today/tomorrow, time permitting. What if Blazed donates $200 to the forum to get no negative trust? then everybody who has ever received negative trust for account selling should do the same. if Blazed donates $1000 to the forum. nobody would do the same. they don't sell accounts for such amounts. Buying your way out of negative trust would be even more untrustworthy in my opinion. Not to mention it would probably open Blazed up to a flood of extortion attempts. I think the right thing to do for Blazed would be to remove those who have engaged in this behavior from his trust list to clear up any perceived conflict of interest. I have already replied about the 1 account trade I had (it was done in the open as are all of my trades). If anyone would like to drop me a negative by all means go for it. I have never dropped a negative for retaliation or due to trash talking me. I only negative if someone really earns it. Back in 2013/2014 account sales were not deemed bad/shady since the spam issue was non existent compared to today. For the record I was only DT2 back then not DT1. If you ask theymos to remove you from DT1 then you will realy help this little community.Your list is not decentralized and it dominated by scammers and beggars. Noone in your trust list tagged scammers , they tagged only competitors .It look like you never take your time to see their actions. Feel free to msg him and see what his opinion on the matter is. Being DT1 gives me no benefits whatsoever and only causes me endless drama. The people I have added were put their to help clean up the forum and they do not benefit me personally since I have always followed the rules etc.. Obviously the DT network is not decentralized and neither is this forum. Decentralized things are not always the best solution, but if you have a better setup please tell us. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: mrcash02 on April 09, 2018, 10:17:16 PM The people I have added were put their to help clean up the forum and they do not benefit me personally since I have always followed the rules etc.. Obviously the DT network is not decentralized and neither is this forum. Decentralized things are not always the best solution, but if you have a better setup please tell us. Sorry, with all due respect, this forum's cleaning talk is a fallacy. On the internet, people are like chameleons, taking different personalities, names, addresses at any time, when desired or necessary. People are negatived/banned here, but they aren't neutralized, they will just come back with a new clean profile attacking again. In this forum's cleaning war, the only impaired are those who want to stand loyal to their accounts, that eventually becomes worthless from many perspectives, and the only benefited ones are those who are building their reputations hunting people exclusively in inferior positions (those who doesn't have anyone behind them), putting scammers, non-scammers, abusers, non-abusers in the same basket, just because they can. It doesn't even need to make sense. It's all about personal power, influence in a forum where money plays a big role. What people say here doesn't have much importance, unless their trust score is high. Opinions worth depending on who express it. If you really want to clean the forum, another measures, tought and fair ones, would be necessary to be taken. Any other palliative is just a "jerry-built". Between a severe general policy and the ridiculous currently methods employed at this moment to clean the forum, the first option doesn't sound a bad idea. At least the terms would be the same for everyone, instead of the currently one where, for example, if a policeman in particular likes or dislikes according to your face or your clothes, you will be fine or in trouble. At least we would have a police instead of the currently militias. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Timelord2067 on May 09, 2018, 07:31:50 AM I've only just had this thread pointed out to me, so I'll just point out a couple things that seem to have been overlooked so far.
I sent a note a week ago to The Pharmacist about shorena and as expected I received no reply. When I mentioned this to someone, they pointed me towards this thread. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: digaran on May 09, 2018, 07:58:23 AM I'm asking you DT1-2 members, please right whatever wrongs you have done, before you are kicked out of DT positions. your pride is your enemy.
Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on May 09, 2018, 08:09:36 AM I sent a note a week ago to The Pharmacist about shorena and as expected I received no reply. When I mentioned this to someone, they pointed me towards this thread. You sent me a PM saying since I tag account sellers, I might want to look at a couple of threads, which you gave me the links for:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=953262.0;all https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958097.0 All of this stuff is from 2015, and I found it somewhat confusing that you would all of a sudden dig this up and ask me to tag the people involved. I started tagging account buyers & sellers in 2016 and at present I'm tagging any new ones that I find. I'm certainly not going back 3 years to tag people, regardless of what it's for. Your PM made me feel like you were baiting me to get involved in something, for whatever reason--and now because I ignored your PM it's proof of...something. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Timelord2067 on May 09, 2018, 08:33:53 AM I sent a note a week ago to The Pharmacist about shorena and as expected I received no reply. When I mentioned this to someone, they pointed me towards this thread. You sent me a PM saying since I tag account sellers, I might want to look at a couple of threads, which you gave me the links for:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=953262.0;all https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958097.0 All of this stuff is from 2015, and I found it somewhat confusing that you would all of a sudden dig this up and ask me to tag the people involved. I started tagging account buyers & sellers in 2016 and at present I'm tagging any new ones that I find. I'm certainly not going back 3 years to tag people, regardless of what it's for. Your PM made me feel like you were baiting me to get involved in something, for whatever reason--and now because I ignored your PM it's proof of...something. Thanks for answering my message of a week ago - you'll go grey reading too much into what I said quoted above. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: suchmoon on May 09, 2018, 02:50:04 PM Blazed was actually called Blazedout419 up to and including the sale date (http://archive.is/3M2Hf) the 6th of April 2015 after which time s/he was refereed to as Blazed. You're making it sound as if Blazed was selling his own account but I don't think that's the case. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Timelord2067 on May 09, 2018, 03:16:11 PM Blazed was actually called Blazedout419 up to and including the sale date (http://archive.is/3M2Hf) the 6th of April 2015 after which time s/he was refereed to as Blazed. You're making it sound as if Blazed was selling his own account but I don't think that's the case. No. What I showed was that after buying the UID the name was changed. If you're confused by the "s/he" replace "s/he" with "the UID" Buying accounts is a short cut to Legendary status and higher fees paid for shit posting in Signature Campaigns. OK? Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on May 09, 2018, 04:59:58 PM No. What I showed was that after buying the UID the name was changed. If you're confused by the "s/he" replace "s/he" with "the UID" Wait, are you saying that because the name was changed that the account is necessarily a purchased one? Because I've seen a handful of people change their userid's since I've been a member, and there's no evidence that they were sold. Lauda and achow101 are two accounts that come to mind. And it wouldn't surprise me that staff or DT1 members could get such a thing done with no problem.Buying accounts is a short cut to Legendary status and higher fees paid for shit posting in Signature Campaigns. OK? Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: Timelord2067 on May 10, 2018, 04:49:21 AM No. What I showed was that after buying the UID the name was changed. If you're confused by the "s/he" replace "s/he" with "the UID" Wait, are you saying that because the name was changed that the account is necessarily a purchased one? Because I've seen a handful of people change their userid's since I've been a member, and there's no evidence that they were sold. Lauda and achow101 are two accounts that come to mind. And it wouldn't surprise me that staff or DT1 members could get such a thing done with no problem.Buying accounts is a short cut to Legendary status and higher fees paid for shit posting in Signature Campaigns. OK? I'm saying it would appear the account was sold on the basis the name changed on or after the date of the post referenced previously that the account had been sold. HOWEVER, looking at the trust page there are a solid number of trades pre "sale" date and post. You or I would have to comb through to see who - if anyone traded on both sides of the 6th of April 2015 "sale" date and weigh up whether it was for the same type of trades (physical items, crypto or services). Same traders with the same sale items would lean towards name change but not necessarily an account sale while differing trade items together with differing traders would lean towards the Blazed UID having been sold as represented in the post. *edit* Trusted: Code: OgNasty 2017-11-03 0.00000000 Sold coins to and have escrowed for Blazed. Never any issues. Untrusted: Code: A-10 2018-04-26 0.28506000 Reference Received coins, graded and as described. Great communication. A pleasure to trade with! Full trust in this member. Pre sale: Code: Quickseller 2015-03-04 0.35000000 We did a .35 transaction, I went first. Everything went smooth. post sale: Code: Quickseller 2015-05-15 1.50000000 Reference I purchased a physical coin from blazed. We paid/shipped at the same time. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: digaran on May 18, 2018, 09:13:58 PM Bump.
@DT1 members, you should care about your minions and their actions. otherwise you would look guilty for their misbehavior. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: ibminer on May 25, 2018, 04:50:10 PM Bump. @DT1 members, you should care about your minions and their actions. otherwise you would look guilty for their misbehavior. Avoiding guilty behavior by expecting or requiring every DT1 member to care about every other DT1 member and their actions does not seem sustainable nor feasible. Title: Re: Conflict of Interest on DT1 Post by: digaran on May 25, 2018, 05:53:23 PM Bump. @DT1 members, you should care about your minions and their actions. otherwise you would look guilty for their misbehavior. Avoiding guilty behavior by expecting or requiring every DT1 member to care about every other DT1 member and their actions does not seem sustainable nor feasible. What is more feasible is the fact that some of the DT1 members are letting their minions to do their dirty works. the whole trust system is in the hands of a few. DT members are leaving positive feedback with no reference and would expect us to trust them, when their DT2 members tag people red for any reason they wouldn't care if it's accurate or not, so why should we trust these people? |
