Bitcoin Forum

I have discovered that increasing number of DT-2 members are leaving +ve trust feedback on business profiles, if that business recruited them as their campaign manager. This is synonymous to indirectly buying trust. Does not it reflect unethical behaviour of the said DT-2 members?

Really depends. If the campaign manager in question has risked some amount of Bitcoin (as in he went first in the transaction) and the business that hired him didn't screw him over, there's (mostly; there's probably some edge cases where it might be questionable) nothing wrong with leaving positive Trust feedback for a business you had transacted with. The issue comes up whenever the campaign manager doesn't risk anything (gets paid upfront, has the bounty campaign budget escrowed or sent to him before the campaign starts) yet still leaves positive feedback, which, in part, could be viewed as selling positive Trust feedback (which one of the reasons why I don't leave 0 amount risked positive Trust feedback for any transactions I partake in anymore).

I'm curious: which users specifically are you referring to?

I haven’t witnessed this kind of behavior specifically, however I have seen neopotism in other ways among those in DT, namely giving positive trust to friends, and for things like “keeping the good fight”.

When leaving +ve trust, these people are commenting that they used the service and mentioning an arbitrary amount in 'Risked BTC amount'. But, as expected, they are not mentioning anything under 'Reference', because they never used their service in the first place. Now, you can't argue, because you don't have any proof either. So, what to do in such cases? Burden of proof relies on whom?

+ve trust never hold any weight it self, it doesn't mean you should trust him blindly. There is a comment why DT2 trust him. It might be campaign or trading something. I can trust you for any specific reason, it doesn't mean I am selling positive trust. Same as for DT2. If they leave positive feedback there is specific reason. But now a days DT forgot there is a neutral option to handle such as feedback although I will not consider it trust abuse but they should use neutral feedback occasionally.

However you should see the comment why a user got positive feedback before make any transaction or trading. All positive trusted people's couldn't trusted for you. That's depend on you.


Well, So can you explain briefly why you open this thread. And which DT you want to mention ?

This thread does not require your How to use DefaultTrust lecture. We already have had enough of them since DT was introduced. So, please keep your signature spam elsewhere.

Can you provide examples of such behavior?

The examples I know left the positive trust before they were on DT2, I assume that doesn't count.

I must've missed this thread.  

Vod left me trust like that a couple years ago, but that and others like it aren't cases of nepotism.  I don't know Vod personally now and never did, nor am I buddies with anyone on this forum who's left me trust.  My guess is that Vod isn't a personal friend (and certainly not a relative) of other members he's left the "fighting the good fight" feedback for.  There are just people here who share similar views sometimes.  

I've tried to be very careful about who I've left positive trust on since I got added to DT.  When I've erred, I usually got a polite wrist slap from Lauda, whom I respect--and I know you don't, QS.  But you've also accused me of being Lauda's alt account as well.  Too bad we never made that bet.

Edit:
I'm actually pretty ignorant about most of this, since I don't have a good grasp of who's left feedback for who.  I have a custom trust list and I don't spend time checking DT members' feedbacks--so you'd be surprised that it's true ignorance for some of us, and not feigned ignorance.  I'm just happy sitting toothless, watching the drama with a tub of popcorn that I can't eat.

DT-2 campaign managers are simply leaving green trust to campaign owner's profile for a long time. If confronted, they just say that they use those services. Its not new. That's how this game is played.

Why you DT members are trying to show as if you do not know anything? You guys know everything and want it continue. Otherwise, what's the point of being on DT? We all know that being on DT means business to most of you (except Vod, Suchmoon and few others). No point in pretending to be ignorant.

I was not thinking of Vod's rating for you when I made that statement, and I reviewed that rating, and I don't have an issue with it, as it also says "Seems to have a solid head and a good grasp of what is right and wrong" which indicates he has reason to believe you are trustworthy. What I had in mind was Lauda's positive rating for minifrij (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=138940) that says, in whole, "Keep up the good fight."

I am pretty sure I have said this previously, but I no longer believe you are an alt of lauda, and if I have not said so already, I apologize for that.

I don't think you should respect lauda though. He has a long history of acting unethically and has shown his primary purpose is to enrich himself.

No, I don't recall ever hearing that you no longer suspected us of being alts.  No offense taken.

There are very few issues on bitcointalk (or in life) that are completely black-and-white, and I'm not addressing you specifically here, QS.  Why do you think the justice system hands out different sentences for different people committing the same crimes?  That's just how it is--all factors have to (or should) be taken into account.  Some people are going to get tagged by DT members here, others are not. 

I am not alone in respecting Lauda, and I'm comfortable with that and I'm not alone in my position.  I'm personally having a harder time with the aTriz issue and am trying to analyze how biased I might be vs. how much trustworthiness aTriz has actually shown in the past and currently.  That one's got me twisted like a pretzel.

I'm not sure nepotism is the right word here. Nepotism is giving your friends or family jobs or special privileges. What you're describing sounds more like corruption, especially if someone is just giving positive feedback for nothing but a payment and no actual service was ever given in return. That would be dodgy/scummy behaviour. However, are you sure this is actually going on? Just because there's no reference on the feedback doesn't mean no deal went on and this would be very easy to find out. If you've got concerns about people and specific trades then either ask for proof or open a thread in Reputation. If they did a deal then they will likely have plenty of evidence of that. If they don't then something dodgy is probably going on.