Bitcoin Forum

 
 looking at the amount of complaints from users on both Meta and Reputation boards, you get to see that many people are not happy with how the trust system or specially how DT members use it.

 I have randomly checked a few examples of how DT members use the trust system and to be honest for the most part of it, the tag had a valid reason behind it "scam", but on the other side i see a few cases where DT members give a negative trust for someone for the silliest reasons.

 The issue here is mainly because we have no obvious and clear set of rules that regulates the use of trust system.

 also given the fact that a negative trust from a DT member means no more signature campaigns and most likely no more trading activities, so ti does carry a lot of weight.

while I totally do not agree with @cryptohunter that there is an organized "gang" that abuses the trust system for own personal benefits  " or at least this is what i understood from his multiple posts"  , I do not think that there is any sort of gang what so ever, but I think every  DT member uses the trust system they way they "see fit" which in many case could be the "wrong"  even to other DT members, and you can clearly see in a few cases where DT memebers disagree to one another decision and counter it by giving a positive feedback.

and of course the same thing goes for positive feedback, i see some DT members giving positive feedback also for "silly" reasons too, and no body will ever admit that they way they use the trust system is wrong.

I personally do not think it is right to give a negative feedback for someone that is not a scammer no matter how much of an a**hole they are, this goes also for giving a positive feedback for someone just because you like them or because they have been "helpful".

This is a very important matter as a feedback from a DT member could be a "life changer" for someone who spent years building a good reputation only to get tagged for disagreeing to some DT member's point of view.

although i disagree with the most part of cryptohunter theory, but he has a valid point here


while i doubt it is as bad as he describes it, but it remains  valid as long as the use of the trust system is simply defined by everyone's own view.


here is what i think the trust system is meant to be used for


------------------------------------------------------

so why don't we enforce some rules on the trust system to solve all this mess and live happily ever after ? ;D

My trust rating:

From hilariousandco

From marlboroza

In practical, in my forum life I never scammed anyone. No one can claim with valid evidence that I owe them a penny. Then how is this relevant?

Warning: Trade with extreme caution!
https://i.imgur.com/DN5GHiC.png

Other day I wanted to buy some BTC using my paypal and because of that red warning  I was bullied by members.  Some of them even gone extra mile...

Thanks to jackg that I was able to trade with him (using some special condition though).

I agree that an unofficial guideline could be drawn out to govern the trust system.
The issue I think arises from the text associated with trust feedbacks; Warning! Trade with extreme caution. It makes it seem like it only concerns trades. But I believe it roughly covers interactions with other users.

If a user is known for giving false facts about bitcoin, this is not an offense worthy of a ban. But it could be misleading to other members. And could be worthy of a red tag.

I agree it should not be used against users who disagree with your opinion or are expressing themselves, in however eccentric a manner.

Even though you do not wish to be. I am starting to see you more of supporter of what I would like to see happen...

I want free speech and equality for recognition of value for every single person on this board. That is all I want NOTHING MORE. Forget using me or the gang as examples that is not needed. We just want ....what I just said. If you can attain that then gangs are going to happen.

I am completely happy to leave myself and gangs out of this discussion.

I 100% agree with some criteria for RED trust from DT and removal if abused. Any system of control needs clear rules.

However, what you do not see right now...but I am hoping that you will after a while is.

Merit is more damaging and cancerous than trust. It actually a more powerful control tool than Trust even because you can not see negative merit and complain or mention abuse. You simply do not get merit given to you and since it is totally subjective there is no proof of abuse (unless gross giving 50 merits each to your alts)

Ignore my gang assertion.

Please tell me how you find fault with my example backed by observable events  that merit is a control tool. I feel it is impossible to deny. The only way to deny it is to say nobody here wants to be PAID2POST or cares about their rates of PAID2POST. I do not accept that is even plausible.

Also why would you not think my suggestions for merit improvements are ...well big improvements for stopping abuse and making things fairer for all?

If I could get rid of trust or merit I would get rid of merit or uncouple it from rank after full member.

Anyway sorry to derail you but you did mention me and my theories so I just wanted to say I support your post here 100% but I hope you can join me on helping develop fairer systems for all and not even allowing a system to control speech to remain here.

Forget my detest of those I felt were trying to attack me (if you do not want to believe me on that point then I can drop that entirely) and just work for what I really want - no oppression of free speech  and fair recognition for effort given from everyone.

There can never be a system that will be absolutely favorable to all and sundry,and that's applicable in this situation,most times you could disagree with a DT trust rating while some other users may not,the more reason why I'll have to agree with you that there be a specific reason for handing out negative trusts.

Since it's designed to brandish scammers, it's best to leave it that way,as I do not see any reason why I should trade with caution with an individual that's simply a troll and not a scammer,definitely I cannot come to bad over his or her useless trolls

Giving negative trusts for trivial issues such as that kinda makes its purpose laughable and one not to bad taken seriously,and if negative trusts are still given for matters such as trolls or simply cos you don't agree with such users,soon in the future users would go ahead and trade with red trusted scammers as they would not be quite sure what the red trust was for in the first place or if it was deserved

Enforce how? Moderators are not going to touch it, that's pretty much the founding principle of the trust system. Because if that happens then moderators are in control of the system, and if you think current complaints are bad - it would be orders of magnitude worse if trust gets moderated.

So that leaves users themselves in control of it... which can be done, and yes, even the counter-ratings that you mention are an essential part of it. You can't expect everyone to have the exact same opinion. There are other tools too, like exclusions.

That's not to say that the trust system couldn't benefit from some changes. I'd prefer more push for users to build their own trust lists. Keep in mind, complaints target mainly DT (Default Trust), which is just one branch of the trust system.

This aint a gang its called oligarchy,theymos said by himself he is not happy with the current trust system.
He is not a fool not to know these DT members are somehow abusing it,look at the positive feedbacks were given for some absurd reasons

Only those DT members are powerful here,even theymos words arent that much powerful.
Theymos said trust should not be given to pure spam,nor merit abuse because there are no such thing as merit abuse..why would he say distribute the merits to those posts which deserves it? there are different perspective with each people,different standards which is why trust system should be taken down or atleast re-arrange DT members.We need to vote or elect each one of them so that these trust abusers wont be in their positions for too long.

While the trust system is far from perfect, there isn't a significant amount of abuse on any level. Any system gets misused to some extent. As long as the amount of misuse is insignificant, it is acceptable.

Stuff like this is precisely why almost all threads complaining about the trust system are pure bullshit. Alts of busted people start pitching in in hopes that their accounts will return to non-negative levels.

- When I want to trade, the forum members are not considering their own trust list
- When I am trying to join a signature campaign, the bounty manager is looking for someone who do not have red trust from the DT

If everyone is here to build their own trust list then why do everyone takes DTs trust in consideration? A wrong red from DT can completely ruin an account. Who has time to read all those pages after pages against the red trusted member to see if s/he really was justified?

Even theymos is not happy with the current trust system,but this is what we have to save the fellow members from falling into scam.So we can't change the current trust list to be changed it may wakeup lot of scammers accounts to be legit.

Someone suggested to make the defualt trust list too often like in one month period but that will leave heavy work behind the admins,so I don't think it will be regulated now but in the new forum software theymos might have some other feature to find the scammers more easily.

That says the right one!
The other users red tagged due to guessing!
Just as you scream into the forest, so it comes back!

Did you mean staff like you is precisely why the trust system is fcked up big time?do you mean you are still in hope that you will get your position back?
sorry to be honest there are less people here cares about your opinion a hypocrite pretending like you arent one of those abusers,heh.no hard feelings i might receive a red from your friends.

  The idea behind the trust system is a very helpful one it can be used to alert others about a suspicious and faulting member of the forum well.

I think the forum has done well by establishing DT to dish out trust to members I don't have anything against the forum idea but the issue is that a DT should be a very neutral member that don't constantly get into and issue with other member with the immense power a DT has at there disposal it would be wrong that a DT fall on members that has high temper he/she might constantly abuse there power.

And again before any trust can be given to any member it should at least have the approval of more than one DT Thai would help in making decisions less bias

So you are saying my trust feedback was to shut me down (was planed) because I was investigating some merit abusing in the past?

Anyway, who cares about a non DT trust. When a non DT leaves a red or black - it does not reflect your trust score. We are talking about Default Trust system which reflects the trust rating. An irresponsible, a personally biased one can ruin an account. Tag me if I owe you a single Penney and I deny to give it back. Otherwise how it's relevant?

"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

DT misuse is not insignificant and not acceptable. Even if it was insignificant, it wouldn't be acceptable. DT should be removed.

I agree, there should be NO ROOM for abuse in a system that controls the behaviour of others.

Remove the opportunity to abuse or may huge efforts to do so or remove the system of control.

Yeah, mostly it's a bunch of blowhards who got tagged by some member of DT and you can't expect those members to be happy with the trust system--having said that, I've always said it was broken from the beginning and still do. 

Funny how people whine hard about the trust system and what they see as unfair trust by DT members who likely are doing their best to keep the forum clean, and yet they don't whine about the simple fact that Theymos allows scammers to use this forum however they like.  It's not against the rules to scam someone here, in case anyone here hasn't noticed.  If there wasn't a system whereby some trust feedbacks counted for more than others, how could anyone get a reliable warning about a scammer? 

As broken as it is, I have yet to hear anyone come up with a better alternative to the trust system we're stuck with except to create your own.  And just because incorrect feedbacks are sometimes wrongly given by DT members, that's no reason to scream that the DT system should be scrapped.  There have been miscarriages of justice all throughout history, but if there wasn't a justice system there would only be anarchy.

This is all up to Theymos, however.  He did mention that he's thinking about making some changes to the trust system, but I'm hoping what results from that doesn't resemble anything most of the whiners are suggesting.

And I'd also point out that if a DT member is thought to be abusing the trust system, he'll get removed from DT.  That's happened numerous times (you got removed, but there was never a reason given that I saw).  The DT list is not set in stone and I've already been removed once, then reinstated.  Other DT members have been removed for scamming as well.  I don't know if there are any members right now who are using their DT status for their own gain, despite accusations being made.  Mistakes?  Sure?  But everyone makes mistakes and mistakes don't mean a bad feedback is abuse.

Do these threads ever result in any tangible outcome? The merit system has been added in less than a year now and it already looks like its mechanics are set in stone. Do you think attacking the Trust system after so many years is going to yield any results after it's been here for almost as long as the forum has existed?

I'm not saying this to deny or disagree with you, I definitely saw a few times how the trust system was abused or how it defines some people as trustworthy whereas they might not be as much as people would think, but I can't help feel like you guys are beating on a dead rock.


Assuming we just brainstormed better alternatives right here and now, will they actually be implemented? This forum is genuinely just test grounds for the forum admins, users get little to no say, and our feedback is completely disregarded concerning any aspect of the forum features, that it makes me feel sad if the people who write these kinds of post do it for any other reason than to vent/rant.

How about opening a board opened to only DT members, or also staff members. And when a member is considering tagging a members (positive or negative), the issue is brought to the board and the entire active DT members can brainstorm and decide if it's what leaving a feedback.
This can be limited to only 'non scam' scenarios, to reduce the workload. If a user is proven to be involved in a scam or rip-off there is no issue to deliberate on.

There's no way of knowing, because it's up to Theymos.  I'm pretty sure he reads threads like these and knows what people are expressing, but if or how he's going to respond will remain a mystery right up until the time he changes something.

Back in January, actmyname and I were tagging shitposters because the problem had gotten so out of hand that it seemed like there was nothing else a DT member (or anyone else) could do--and no, it wasn't a good use of the trust system and I had to delete all those feedbacks eventually.  Then Theymos introduced the merit system essentially out of nowhere.  I certainly didn't see it coming.  So my guess is that Theymos has some ideas of his own in mind, and the changes that get made might be a fusion of those plus what everyone else has suggested.  But who knows? 

That would take too much time, coordination, and effort to get DT members to come to a consensus about something as simple as a feedback.  DT members don't get paid for tagging people, you know.  I think most DT2 members are either inactive accounts now or don't actively tag scammers.  There's only a handful of DT2 members who actually try to bust scams and various other forms of untrustworthiness, and there have been many disagreements among them.  Personally I don't have the time to waste on participating in a referendum for each feedback that's up for consideration.

If it is going to be "regulated" (which I doubt it is going to happen any time soon), any tag without a reference should be concidered as neutral even if it comes from a DT member or simply any tag must come with reference..

I'm more concern with green trust that with red trust.

Red trust means people might be avoiding a person just because of a person doesn't think somebody is trustable.
Green trust (even if it's years old) might trick persons into believing the owner of that account is trustable or their business is.
And while avoiding somebody doesn't lead to financial loses, trusting somebody might do and we all know how some trustable members of the community ended.

Right now the owner of an exchange still has a green tag while he has been arrested and his exchange is frozen solid with all the money locked there just because of a successful trade two years ago...just saying

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that DTs are not necessary. DTs ARE the asset of the forum who are responsible to keep the forum clean from the scammers. It's a voluntary job they are doing and the community should be grateful to them. Mods are responsible to keep the forum clean from the spammer but the difference is - they are paid (I guess).

My question was, if I have never scammed a single penny from anyone then:

- How is the display of my trust rating is relevant?

"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

- Why people get scared and bullied me when I wanted to trade only £111 paypal? I have lost 100 times larger amount in this forum when I had my lending topic.

- Why some member think red tagged members like me should not rank up hence they usually skip meriting my posts.

- Yes I made a mistake offering an escrow of over $100k (I did not even know what is a 2/3 multi-sig, I was noob) and for that reason DT tagged me saying a ponzi promoter can not be trusted who offers $100k escrow? DT could have left me a neutral feedback without destroying my account. This should serve as a warning. DT could give me a chance for a mistake which did not harm anyone. Did I harm anyone by my noob offer?

- I got tagged for promoting ponzi (Even though I never promoted a ponzi in the forum).

---

DTs basically sometimes forget that one red could ruin everything for a member. DTs need to be careful when they make a decision to tag someone, no matter it's a negative, positive or neutral because your rating reflates the weight of an account.

Don't just leave a negative feedback based on your¹ personal believe, if you brought up in a slam and other guy bought up in an elite family then life experience between you and other guy will be very different. Leave a neg once the crime is proven else leave a neutral which should serves as first time warning, may be 2nd and third too. Then go for a red.

¹ _{means in general.}

DT isn't even a voluntary "service".  There are just some DT members who actively tag untrustworthy members.  You'll notice a lot of DT2 members don't.  They're just members that either Theymos trusts (DT1) or that members of DT1 trust (DT2).

There are a lot of members who've been tagged just for making scammy offers.  Vod, for example, tags a lot of people who ask for loans with no collateral.  I tag account sellers primarily.  Neither of us have been directly scammed by the members we've tagged; it's a warning to others that the tagged member might not be trustworthy.  That's what happened in your case when you offered to escrow that insane amount and got tagged by hilariousandco, and it's not much different than what some DT members have been doing all along.  If you're going to be honest with yourself, you never complained about the trust system before you got tagged.  

In fact, IIRC you reported a lot of abuse/wrongdoings by other members that never affected you directly but which led to members getting red trust.

So given what I just pointed out, how is it you're now being "bullied"?

That's demonstrably untrue--look at how many merits you've gotten.  Hell, even though I don't agree with most of what you said in your post here, I gave you 2 merits for it since you obviously put some effort into it and wrote it clearly enough to understand.  And the fact is that I haven't seen you a lot around Meta lately, so if you're making fewer posts you're going to earn fewer merits (don't know if you're posting in any other section I might not visit).

Ponzis are designed to screw over gullible people. 

Do you think it's any less wrong if posted outside this forum?

This is one of the reasons why DT should be removed completely. Scammers will and have found their way on to the list. The fact that there have been scammers on DT proves that DT isn't to be trusted, and the perceived trust is largely an illusion. DT list should only be a "people unlikely to scam others" list, and being on the list should signal nothing else.

Anduck, that makes zero sense at all--not surprising since you think bidding on your own auctions is OK.  We've just agreed that DT members get removed if they prove to have bad judgement.  What you're arguing is basically like saying "there have been some dirty cops (and they've been fired); let's get rid of the entire police force because obviously it isn't working".

I do not understand why some people are now talking about an alternative method to the trust system? this is not the main point of my topic, the  forum is differently better with it "despite it's weakness" than without it.

what I am proposing here is a clear definition about the use case of the trust system.

as long as there is not a single rule that says  for an example " you can not tag someone because their username is funny" then if someone tags someone else for their funny username , then honestly they are not breaking any rules since non is stated in the first place !.

i also might have screwed up when i used the word "regulate" , excuse my mandarin  ;D . i am not saying the trust system should be controlled by the mods as this will most likely make it worse, i am saying we need a set of rules, so when someone is not satisfied with the tag he gets, he can then complain or appeal based on an existing rule. it will be much easier to judge the case if we have such rules.

* this only applies to DT members as their feedback appears on the profile.

I do not think that any DT member is  abusing the the trust system on purpose, and that most of them are actually trying to "help" the forum but sometimes they go to extremes where they tag people for silly reasons that are far from fair. so regardless of the good intention there still some type of harm.

We currently have something similar to this but not working at all,since we have DT1 and DT2 level members,if the DT2 members are abusing the system means they can eliminate the person who abused the system from DT1 trust list.But the problem is not enough active DT1 members to analyse about the people in their trust list.

this mainly because the DT1 members have no rules to based their judgment on, they will have to do a lot of reading and waste a lot of time to verify if it should be treated as abuse or not.

but if we have a list of rules, the complaint will be easy to read.

DT member XYZ broke rule 15 by giving me a negative trust after i posted a picture of my naked ass.

rules no 15 : you can not tag a person just for showing their ass on the forum.


DT memeber get's warned or unlisted or whatever the rules state.

but if we have to count on each person's own logic. do you think posting an image of someone's ass is offensive and requires a tag ? well AFAIK they could get a positive feedback  ::) for that and it will still be valid as long as the rules don't say the opposite.

now of course that is just an example, rules don't have to carry that much of details  ;D .

What I say makes sense. DT members do not get removed for all of their bad judgement, because there can't be universal "bad judgement", and DT is not decentralized control-wise. That's the problem of top-down authority.
Top-down authority is fine for moderation -- it's pretty much the only way. And that works exactly like that: "police department" doesn't cease to exist because of dirty cops.
DT list on the other hand is not meant to be any kind of moderation tool. Trust networks should not have any sort of central point whatsoever.

Btw Google up "vendor bidding" and educate yourself instead of staying incompetent regarding auctions. :)

The Pharmacist: I did the googling for you, as you won't do it as you haven't earlier. It's about time for you to learn about these vendor bids before talking about them more. So google up it yourself or see e.g. this (https://www.therealestateconversation.com.au/blog/justin-nickerson/the-skinny-vendor-bids/vendor-bidding-process/vendor-bid-system) or this (https://propertyupdate.com.au/vendors-bids-auctions-explained/) or this. (https://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/can-the-auctioneer-bid/)

Rules work only as far as you can enforce them. So who's gonna enforce the rules? Who's going to have the power to remove ratings or remove people from DT?

Honestly default trust imo is just a very outdated judge of a completely different forum. More than half the people on it are dead accounts, or people who rised to the DT status by the amount of time they spent on the forums.

But if there's one thing that doesn't make sense it's completely biased judgements that are in no way related to an exchange of goods.
Like, sure, I get that someone trusts another person and tags him accordingly, or that someone else doesn't trust another. But isn't trust supposed to show the financial honesty of a person? If someone can be charismatic enough to convince 5 other members to trust him that's great, but if another person with questionable opinions had over thousands of dollars in trades is less trusted than this charismatic person... It really skews the meaning of "Trust" on the forums.

who is enforcing all the other rules on the forum now ? who does the ban/unban any other types of things? rules will be enforced by the same people/person.  

if someone can get you banned then you shouldn't worry if they will abuse this one set of rules, for all we know theymos can ban the whole forum and he is not obligated to even explain why. so there has to be some sort of authority to handle the rules.

once those rules are set, DT members will have to follow the rules, and once they don't which will be rare then even theyoms can attend to that. it will not be an every minute job as we only have a handful of feedbacks that could be considered as a break of rules.

That's why you need to read the ratings and/or use custom trust lists.


So this would put the control in moderators' hands. I don't think that's an improvement at all.

Even assuming the enforcement can be super fair, it's still not a benefit to have the trust system conform to a rigid set of rules. The variety of opinions is part of what makes it usable. For example when The Pharmacist started tagging account traders I added him to my trust list because I wanted to see which users are account traders. That was before he was in DT. It looks like your suggestion would take away that flexibility if everyone is allowed to tag only for trades. It would also remove the ability to warn about ICO scams etc.

Of course you can not have a control system that is subjective.

That is exactly how abuse takes place.

Take away subjectivity and enforce object set of rules for everyone they bye bye abuse. At least abuse that is reported.

Anyone requesting subjectivity inside a control system is asking for the ability to apply different rules to different people. That is called unfair.

NO way.

DT trust needs strict set of guidelines.

So does merit.

Any system of control needs strict criteria or it is wide open for abuse. How can you you appeal in a subjective system unless there is such unreasonable behaviour that most people recognise it is unreasonable enough to speak out about and the person who was unfairly treated has enough energy to go through reporting it and presenting his case to convince others who will subjectively evaluate the situation. A total gauntlet. Or you just demonstrate how the red trust was outside of the criteria and that is reversed and DT member remove after x bad red trusts given.

Even worse when the people in the control system are of the same pool as the users competing for all the same things. Not to mention disagreements and personality clashes and well just bad moods whatever.

Subjectivity = no comeback for messing up or abusing

The excuse I want to add a new reason for giving red trust because I feel it is a good idea is not the point. It is not for lower level controls to decide to operate under different mandates. The central point of authority develops new rules and hands them down to the lower levels of control to enact upon everyone fairly.

If someone gets a red trust they need to know it is a fair decision, they have clear right of appeal if there is abuse and that anyone else who had done the same thing would have got red trust in the same context.  There will always be grey areas but they should be small and more details to broad rules can be drilled down as you go and as grey areas arise. These can be taken care of by moderators if needed.

 



 

the control is already in the moderators hand, if someone can ban accounts then it's not the best argument to say that putting them in control is not an improvement. since we can not have voting , elections or anything of that kind then moderators must have control. in fact someone with the power to ban accounts can ban a DT member right now for no reason so we are not actually giving the mods any sort of extra power. and even if we were to assume so, i personally rather see a moderated trust system than a random trust system, at that point the majority of the feedback will make sense to the majority of people.



"The variety of opinions" is the root of the problem. you can not have a "The variety of opinions" in a trust system. especially that DT member's tag is the THIN LINE between a usable account and a non-usable account[1].

[1] -almost every signature campaign states that if you have a negative trust  you can't join.
      -the majority of people  will not be willing to trade with someone who has negative trust from a DT member

I mean look at the contradiction of DT feedbacks on the same members, this would have not happen if the rules are there.
-------------


I do not agree with the merit part, it will be impossible to monitor , plus i totally disagree with your theory of that the top merited people got their merits from each other "at least this is what i understood" even if that was to be true, this can simply be due to the fact they actually deserved it? also if you look at most DT members merit score, is just an average, except for a few like suchmoon  whom i am totally against his/her way of describing the use of the trust system, i honestly think he/she deserves all the merit it due to the quality of his/her posts.

so please don't take this off-topic. merits are a whole different thing. we are talking only about trust system only here.

Here is what you can do: add moderators to your trust list. You have a moderated trust system, and I get to keep mine too.

Trusting moderators with enforcing rules on spam etc is not the same as trusting them on evaluating nuances of every scam. I would prefer those systems to stay separate.


I certainly don't subscribe to this hive mind thing so we'll have to disagree on this. Not everything is black and white. I prefer to have an occasional counter-rating or some other dispute than make the whole system rigid.

that does not solve the problem of how other members see my profile  "the main point of discussion".

assuming just to "explain my point" you were now going to give me a negative trust say for " The way i am debating with you", and then the signature campaign i am in " am not in any just assuming still" kick me out of that campaign. what will be the use of my OWN trust list?

the fact that you are by default on EVERYBODY's trust list is the reason why you need to have a few rules to follow, as your opinion reflects on everybody else eyes and not only yours.


* i am referring to "you" just for the simplicity of speech, but what i mean is DT members is general and not related to you as a person. ;D















 

That's a problem with signature campaigns, not with the trust system.

You seem to be (and your thread title definitely is) confusing trust system with DT, which is just one pseudo-user in the trust system that is put into users' trust lists by default. So if that's your problem you should try to change that instead of messing with the whole system. Petition theymos to remove DT altogether and/or make some sort of push towards widespread use of custom trust lists. Petition to remove DT members who you think abuse the system. Petition signature campaigns to have a different approach to trust ratings.

The system isn't the problem. It could work perfectly if unfair, bizarre or inconsistent feedbacks were nulled by the judgement of another DT members, it's possible in the currently system.

Or a little change would be useful too, for an example: to make a feedback valid, more than one DT member must sign it.

Of course the system (DT list) is the problem. There's no place for central authority in a trust network.

I will simply say if we can create the system  that DT feedback will be applicable only if it supported by 2 other DTs.

In this case at least we can stop/minimize the abuse in which people are tagged for saying "lemon".  I guess 3 people will not be having hatred for lemon simultaneously.

Same goes  for +ve feedback too, where people get +ve for doing a $10-20 trade, at least  you need to be trusted by at least by 3 people to get the +ve rating.

Since many of the DTs are inactive, we need to expand this network but at same time it need to be make sure that a single DT rating should not impact an individual.

This would give even more power to this DT structure. The goal is to encourage people to make their own trust lists and giving DT any more perceived legitimacy is not helping.

I can't see a lot of problem with the current trust system. We might have a little portion of invalid feedback from DT (I'm not sure if it exists in realityI'm not sure such kind of feedback exists, I have edited this sentence since people may think I have talked about DT existence, lol.). Despite this little amount of invalid feedback, we the normal member are getting a vast number of valid feedback which is vety helpful for us. I would prefer to stay with the current system with a little edition if theymos/community agrees.

1. You must have to provide a reference link, of course it will be from marketplace.
2. The person whom you are going to provide feedback must have to reply on that thread, it ensures a deal was happened. Applies for DT only.
3. If you are not in DT, both the person have to create a reply on that thread so that a 3rd party can't provide an invalid feedback.

I got this system in another forum and found it quite nice where invalid feedback can't be given.

If someone is talking about moderating feedback-
1. Everyday hundreds of new post will be created in meta.
2. Theymos have to trust a few moderators (a few can't cover it though) which seems impossible. If you look at the current recovery system, you will realize why theymos will not give the power to someone for moderating the trust system.

That will make the system even more inefficient to the point where I bet DT members would stop tagging anyone.  What am I supposed to do when I find an account seller and want to tag him--drop a PM to another DT member to request that he cosign my negative trust?  Wait for a response and if the answer is no, then move on to another DT member?  What if I get scammed myself?  Am I then not allowed to leave a neg unless I have approval from someone else on DT?

There are so many problems with that suggestion that for me it's a non-starter right from the get go.  DT members aren't paid staff.  The ones that do tag scammers do so on their own time, voluntarily.  The ones who've shown themselves to be untrustworthy or use bad judgement when leaving feedback (or for whatever other reason) get removed.  That's a fact, as evidenced by all the ones who've already been removed.  

The people I see railing the hardest against the system are the members who've been tagged by DT members for their untrustworthy behavior.  

And Anduck, you can argue that self-bidding in auctions is allowed by certain auctioneers, but it is not a commonly-accepted practice and I think you learned the hard way what the bitcointalk community thinks about it here.  The only thing you have going in your favor as far as that goes is that there wasn't a rule against it here, but Vod wasn't alone in thinking it was very shady of you to do it.  I do recall some sort of attempt at bargaining that Vod did about feedback removal (I don't know where that thread is now), and I do recall thinking that it wasn't something he should have engaged in and isn't the behavior he typically displays.  

Even if he was wrong in doing that, I think his feedback on you about the self-bidding is absolutely correct.  If I wasn't familiar with the situation, I would definitely want a visible warning that you might be bidding on your own auctions.

Edit:
Yes, sorry about that.

Fair enough, but I would like to add that I do think the trust system needs to be revamped and I've always said it was broken as well.  If Theymos were to make changes that affected the weight of my feedback, I'd be totally OK with that except for the fact that all the negs I've left wouldn't be much of a warning to anyone else.  I don't like the trust system the way it is, but there should be a mechanism by which members can be warned about scammers and so forth.  Unfortunately I don't have any great ideas on how to improve the system we have now, and the vast majority of suggestions I've heard so far either wouldn't help or would make things worse.

We do get incorrect feedback being left by DT members - they are only human. You can't expect 100% infallibility from anyone. However, when people open threads appealing their red trust, we also see lengthy and reasoned discussions amongst both DT members, non-DT members and the accused, which generally either results in the red trust being removed as the consensus is against the DT member in question, or the red trust being reinforced as the consensus is against the accused member. It isn't some grand conspiracy, and the people who suggest otherwise are invariably those who have had their red trust reinforced after an unsuccessful appeal.



1 - Who is going to verify that every link is accurate?
2 - So if a scammer just ignores that thread, they can't be tagged?

I'm afraid your suggestion would essentially remove the ability to pre-emptively tag a scammer before the scam takes place. If someone is offering a ROI of 50% a day or advertising a bitcoin doubler, you don't need a trade to take place to know they are a scammer.

Can we please not derail yet another thread in to Anduck's personal beef.

Great, I can finally get double the amount of "Lauda gang" complaint threads. ::)

Of course. The people affected by the wrongdoing are the loudest about it, naturally. See e.g. banks, politics or whatever subject. On the other hand, the people being most supportive of current DT list are the people on it.


Indeed. It is not a commonly accepted practice here but e.g. in my country it is. Nonetheless, it's a practice which is common in some communities/countries. In any case, arguing that vendor bidding is untrustworthy, unethical or scamming is simply ridiculous.

The bitcointalk auction standard is not defined anywhere, and is very vague and only learned by watching what others are doing. It simply didn't even cross my mind that vendor bid may be not cool, as it's common in my country. Of course after seeing how community reacted to it, I learned that it's not part of the auction standard here, and I've kept numerous successful auctions since, for 2-3 years already.


It doesn't surprise me one bit that people are incompetent regarding auctions. Auctions are not simple at all. There are loads of assumptions etc.

Vod told me that he doesn't see anything untrustworthy in what I did in that auction. Later on that same day his opinion changed 100% to the opposite, because I provoked him by telling him that I don't specifically trust him. He also threatened to red-rate me unless I removed my rating to him. I didn't remove my rating, so he proceeded in red-rating me. It's incredibly stupid for people to think that Vod rates me because of the auction, even after he himself told me that he will rate me (for completely other reason). Obviously he will not state e.g. "he pissed me off, this is me wrecking his account" in his rating. All the sources are public and verifiable, so go see yourself how it went. The PM conversation is the thing in there, and shows very poor conduct by Vod, conduct enabled by him being on DT.


It was a single case ~3 years ago. Why would I bid on my auctions here now that I know it's not part of the auction standard here? That's ludicrous.

1. impossible to monitor does not null what I have demonstrated clearly needs doing or needs scrapping
2. Disagreeing with observable raw data is up to you
3. Deserved it compared to what ? in a subjective system how can you deserve something objectively ? this is fine if it's just a bit of subjective fun but if you start trying to put value to those scores against other peoples scores it is ludicrous.
4. I can not ascribe high value to ludicrous statements and broken logic.


But sure continue with the trust system here. I am certain there is no room for different rules for different people in any system of control at a low or mid level. For grey areas and context only the highest level must have some freedom. This highest level is generally voted in or out my the populace depending on how fair or unfair they perceive them to be.

If sub layers of control (consisting of multiple people the more the worse for subjectivity) have freedom or even no guidelines the entire thing ends up a mess of different individuals getting different treatment depending on the collisions with different "system controllers and those "system controllers" views towards them and their actions at that given moment in time.

a subjective system for trust  is open to abuse.

While I don't agree with this for reasons similar to what TP stated above, this gave me another idea. Most of the complainants seem to be upset by the red "Warning" label. What if the score still turns negative/red on first neg trust but the warning label doesn't appear or has a softer wording (Warning: click to check user's feedback) or is not bright red if there is only one neg.

1. System will check whether both of them have replied in the respective thread. For example, I have created a thread in marketplace for buying something. You as a NON-DT member can only provide feedback if you have replied in that thread. Now, if some random person gave feedback, it will be same as of now. No one gonna care.
2. If a scammer don't create a thread even, or don't make a reply in any thread, how will we even know that he is scammer. Also, DT can provide feedback. And the link will verify the proof.
I just have mentioned that I have observed this system in another forum although there was no DT in that forum, lol.

Again, point 2 can handle this. If someone offers such kinda ROI with a thread, feedback can be given easily by DT.

This just wouldn't work unfortunately. The scammer could easily delete his posts, and then the system fails. Or post a scam thread and immediately lock it - then no one can post in the thread and therefore no one could leave feedback.



Many scammers try to avoid detection and tagging by sending their scams out in PMs only. Then there are no posts and no links for verification.

I don't mean to be discouraging here, but there are just too many holes in this system for it to work.

that signature campaign was an example of how USELESS the custom trust list is .the problem is indeed with the trust system.
and there is no confusion, as everyone seems to have understood the point and disusing it on point.

 it's not a good idea to remove the whole DT altogether as for the most part it is accurate and helpful for all other members, we are not discussing the existence of DT ,but the use case.

as someone who is a DT and their feedback appears by default to every member there has to be a set of rules, if the DT is not happy with the rule and wan't to use the trust system the way they want then they get removed from DT and can still tag people for saying "apple" if they want.

First: in general, most of the users who complain about the trust system, are the ones who got tagged. I agree with the large majority of all red DT-tags.
You're talking about the few that are debated. In general, I think the DT system serves a purpose, and some "collateral damage" can't be avoided.

This goes for all users, not only DT.

For a while I thought it's a bad thing that DT can't agree on tags, but then I realized it's actually a good thing. It proves DT is not a "gang", but it are individual users with an individual opinion.

There's another thing that got me thinking: the amount of DT-trust is largely based on being a "high profile" user, and not on the amount scammed.
Example: alia (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1764044) is at -2048, but BITMIXCOIN.IO (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1141881) is "only" at -64 after scamming more than 16 BTC.

I'd say it depends on the situation. I've received some positive trust for being helpful. I don't think that's "worse" than someone who receives positive trust  after a few small trades with DT-members. In fact, it took me many years to get this (and I appreciate the appreciation), while it's quite easy to gain trust by doing a few trades.

Although I agree with this, I can also see why some users tag them anyway.

I think this is too limited. If you have to wait for a DT-member to be scammed before a scammer can be tagged, many innocent Newbies will be scammed too, while doing a small deal to work on a long con doesn't mean someone can be trusted either.
As an example, look at the red trust I left. Before I was on DT, it was mainly for users who cheated my giveaways, or (the first one) a non-paying faucet). After I was put on DT (around March this year), I've tagged a couple dozen users, and none of them scammed me. Since scams aren't moderated, DT is the only protection this forum has.

---

If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.

---

I've tagged several spamming scammers while waiting for them to be nuked. Spam relies on large numbers, and without a quick warning, they will eventually make victims. Delaying those warnings doesn't do the community any good.

I've only received positive DT-trust without reference link, and about half my "untrusted" feedback doesn't have a link either. Basically, those are opinions, and it's up to the reader to decide whether or not he trusts the source.
I try to always (exception: the very first feedback I left) create a reference link.

I would agree, if this is only valid for high-ranking accounts. A Newbie scammer should be red at first tag because he can and probably will just create another account, a Legendary has much more to lose.

You must be in the list of the unluckiest guy here in bitcointalk.org though there are many users here like you that are being red tag due to a suspected activity that will probably lead to scam. Most of the members here had really matter about the trust rating even in bounty campaigns. We know that it is only a trust and should not be a part of the criteria for bounty hunting. So sad that a negative trust rating is always displays below your name when you make a post or a reply.

Maybe i failed to give a proper explanation. the point here is not that a DT member himself has to be scammed, the accusation it self has to be based on a scam action. so if a newbie gets scammed by xyz  and you tag that xyz member for scamming, it is a very valid tag. this goes for all trading related matters, call it scam/cheat/ponzi/rip-off it does not matter. as long as it's not " this guy is stupid/troll , so i gave him a negative trust because i can".


i discused this with suchmoon but i will explain it again,  the trust custom lists is only good for my own use, it does not reflect how other members view my profile. since you are a DT member then you are on everybody's list by default, if you were to tag me now, even if i would exclude you from my list, everyone else by default will see your tag on my profile.
so the trust custom list does not serve any propose on this matter.
--------------------------------------------------

even if we are never going to have any rules, i hope that the reasonable DT members will stand against those irrational tags when they see them. like that DT member who stood up for cryptohunter when he was given a red tag for being a "troll" and gave cryptohunter a positive one because he thought that being a troll does not qualify you for a negative trust of which i am sure that 99% of members would agree to that . i am by no means defending the "way" that cryptohunter went about the "gang" and all the exaggerations ,but it was sad to see only a few DTs disagreed to that and actually only 1 took an action while a few others supported that irrational feedback.



  

It's a good idea but a shame that so many people promote custom trust lists to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

If the majority agrees that DT is a select group of people that might not reflect the true list of actual most trusted people in the forum, then doesn't keeping DT as it is make it even more of a problem? Custom lists might look like they're solving the problem, but they're really not because the majority of the forum uses default trust. So in the end you're going to be living in your own echo chamber by removing default trust from your list, because you're completely oblivious to how everyone else actually sees you.


This can easily be fixed if the risked amount is also taken into account (Why is it there in the first place if it's not?). In my opinion, someone with a few trades is more trusted than someone who posts all day on the forums, because at the end of the day, someone who had money risked through their hands means that they're not tempted to scam at least that much. Of course, account rank also comes into play, because a legendary hero wouldn't scam someone off a few dozen bucks simply because their account is worth more through sig campaigns.

Actually, using just 3 variables :
1. Account rank
2. Account current trust
3. Amount risked

I can come up with a system that won't depend on a centralized default trust, and at the same time gets updated in real time depending on member's trust over time :

https://puu.sh/CnnNx/544a4df05c.png

If any of these 3 members get negative trust, then all their network is going to have less trust points because that person becomes shady.
If User 1 has biased vendetta against User 2, because there's a risked amount variable then baseless claims will have little effect.
This can't be spammed using multiple accounts because newbie ranks and risked amounts are too little to matter.

So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust.

This cliché of me pitching up ideas is getting rather old, is btctalk hiring? :D

This is still missing the point. I'll give an example: I tagged Boplewww (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2505725) for posting this (https://archive.is/CWBFg). As far as I know, nobody got scammed by this user. I don't think anybody would doubt this tag, it's just an example of what I consider more useful than waiting for an actual scam to happen.

Correct. And that's kinda the point: if a scammer gets tagged, he shouldn't have a say in who gets to see his tag.

The red tag was countered by actmyname. It was considered by others too, see this example:

Isn't it obvious DT won't always agree? There are clear red and clear green cases, but in between there's going to be differences of opinion at some level.

I'm still not following the logic here, sorry. There are already tools in place to remove people from DT. You can use those to remove specific members if you think they shouldn't be there.

Or if the existing tools are not good enough you can suggest improvements to theymos, who's already considering changes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080581.msg48500915#msg48500915) to how DT works.

Either or both of the above make much more sense to me than trying to force everyone into compliance with rigid rules, which would essentially create another hierarchy (mods able to override DT) and lots of new complaints. I mean I would be in favor of it if we could just add a rule "scams are not allowed" and have a feasible way to enforce it with zero-tolerance but we can't and we don't.


That's already happening and only 1 counter rating is needed (multiple would make the target have "+" trust, which is probably not a good thing). I don't recall any recent incident where a reasonable counter rating was not posted but if you have any examples please bring them up.

okay you have just summarized the whole issue in a very nice short statement which i couldn't do due to the lack of writing skills ;D.

i do not think anybody will debate over the "clear" red and green cases. but what's up with the gray ?

if you tag someone for being a scammer, not a single DT member will counter it and say " no allow this guy to scam others". it's  pretty obvious !

but what happens when a DT member goes out of his way and tag someone for saying "lemon"? what if no other DT member give a counter tag to the lemon tag?

who can accuse the lemon hater DT member of "abusing" the trust system when there is not a single rule that says "you can't tag someone for using the word lemon?

the tagged person will have his profile painted in red, he won't be able to make any deals with any sort of flexibility, he will be kicked out of any signature campaign even if he gets a counter rating "since most camp mangers clearly say that if you have a negative rating from a DT member you won't get paid".

who will protect say "me" from you giving me a random negative trust because i use this smiley  ;D way too often ?

for all i know no are not breaking any rules for doing so !.

If I create a brand new account and if my first post is to offer a $100k escrow service or even the 10th or 20th post is to offer a $100k deals then there is something wrong. Since Vod was used for example then I have noticed most of Vod's tags are for a brand new account asking for no collateral loan. I am always saying when the crime is obvious then tag the user.

Like I said before when the crime is not obvious and you can not prove it then leave a warning. Can hilariousandco prove it that I was going to walk away with the 20BTC? S/he can't because the event never happened. A user may make a mistake, give them a chance. Warn for the first time. S/he may not realize the dept of the wrongdoing/wrong-practice. Warn them! If needed then warn them for the 2nd and third too. Leave a neutral feedback as the prove of the warning. Do it for the 2nd and third time too. If they don't listen THAN go for action. If a single tag from DT can destroy someones accounts then DTs should be very careful before tagging an account. A harsh tag is injustice for the member.


- Read some of the reply from AdolfinWolf (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5082905.msg48603833#msg48603833) on the topic. It was like I wanted to trade paypal £ because I know paypal is reversible and I am determined that I will do that once I will get the BTC. It's like he is reading my mind and throwing out even made up shit like paypal still do charge back even after 180 days.

- Another trusted member wanted to sell btc and wanted to have paypal. When I left PM he said nothing personal and he will do deal with only trusted members. Later I found he dealt with few 'member' accounts.

- I used escrow service from one of the very highly trusted member (several times). He wanted to sell BTC for paypal. When I contacted with him he said he will wait for few more offers.

Non of these would not happen if I did not have the highlighted warning....
"Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

The warning means I stole or scammed more than a penny! Did I scam a penny from anyone here? I did not and I don't think I will ever.

I said some members think red tagged members should not ranked up. By the way, I do feel the impact. I used to receive merits from the boards which shows trust rating but after getting the red tag I am not receiving much from those boards.

I never did because I never realized the after effect until I had one. I was not wearing their shoes.

---

I did not promote any ponzi in and outside the forum while I am a member of the forum. I left promoting those business long before joining this forum because I was sick and tired of their terms.

---

I am saying the same thing like the other member that custom trust list is not solving the problem. Feedback from DTs are visible to everyone and forum member's count the DT feedback only.

Again since the DTs trusts are countable it's not only affecting to signature stuffs it's effecting when you are going to do any single trade. I never scammed anyone but I had hard time to trade my PP for btc because of the warning I have in my profile.

May be this is a good idea (not red though, red looks scary, may be some other color) when the tag is not for a proven crime like troll, offering shady service, account selling, asking for no collateral loan from a brand new account etc etc.

For a confirmed crime like loan default, not posting products you paid for, reversing paypal once got the BTC etc etc keep the current warning text "Warning: Trade with extreme caution!"

Adolf's post is factual. You don't like another user's post and you're trying to make it sound like it's a trust system issue. It's not.


A second DT rating would trigger the stronger message. My suggestion was just a small adjustment to the current positive/negative/red/green/orange/question mark scheme. I don't want to overcomplicate it with subjective details like what is a crime?

Maybe, but if a DT feedback's pattern becomes too evident (like several dubious rates applied by a same DT minor group), it will be easier to spot who is acting in cartel, the exposure is higher than supporting partner DT's feedbacks only with words. Higher exposure is good, because it's harder to be omitted and trivialized.

Anyway, even with high exposure, if no one complains and express their opinion, nothing will be done and the abuses will continue.

It's not a definitive solution, but an improvement...

::) Your reasoning is that of 12 year old... This forum isn't a kindergarten.. You're acting as if DT is getting paid for doing this. They're not. You really think they have the patience to give some 2/3/4 chances? I know i wouldn't..

I personally don't actually see any reason for them to justify their ratings to anyone up to a certain degree. If they're inherently wrong, someone else on DT will probably correct them on it.
 



It's not made up. If you do a transaction through your bank(but mostly CC)/credit card on lets say eBay, and you tell your bank/cc provider that you got hacked etc, with sufficient proof, it can infact issue a chargeback.

Depends on your CC provider/Bank, but it's definitely possible.



I again wouldn't be so quick to blame the red tag for all of your issues. If anyone else was making such a stigma about "leaving the forum", only to then come back to make a deal that doesn't really make sense, well, he probably would've received the same replies, even w/out a red trust.


And where does Followbitcoin.today fit in then? What's that? You don't classify that as a ponzi? -- Sidenote: You didn't answer his question...  :-\

---

Anyway, your entire character at this point is becoming an esoteric issue which i can no longer keep up with. Ah well.

It simply means someone does not trust you - no where does it say you scammed.

Not trusting you for promoting a ponzi is a valid reason to leave negative trust - regardless of when and where it happened.  Such actions show your trustworthiness the same as going out and taking money from a blind person.


I distrust you both for scamming in your auction and your continued bullshit. 

In these cases, the affected user opens a thread, and there is usually a lengthy discussion that either results in:

1 - removal of the red tag
2 - addition of more red tags
3 - countering of the red tag with a positive tag

If a DT member is found to be constantly leaving inappropriate feedback which the rest of the community disagree with, then they will likely be removed from DT before long. In cases like Anduck's and mdayonliner's, don't be fooled in to thinking that they are victims of some "rogue" DT member. Given their continued vocality the majority of DT members are well aware of their situations and have actively chosen to either reinforce the red tag or to not counter it.

theymos also agrees that the DT system is not perfect (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080581.msg48500915#msg48500915), and he is very interested in any ways to improve it. In the short term, I think there is a very strong argument to be made for a handful more DT1 members, and by extension many more DT2 members, to keep things as decentralized as possible.

Can we please not derail yet another thread in to Anduck's mdayonliner's personal beef.

I believe if a system allows to the unfair treatment of 1 individual it needs review and additional measures to fix that that it failed to protect previously.

Some people just take it and do not have the will, capacity or personality to face what it takes to get fair treatment.

Trust is to warn me about getting scammed out of money not about their preference for lemons. Bring the criteria or scrap.
Or maybe change the red message to say " click to find out peoples opinion of lemons"

Scammers get red trust. Others can just keep differences of opinion and petty arguments to themselves.

Haha. You said ("I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761)) that you don't see anything untrustworthy in how the auction went. Right after certain private messages on the same day, your opinion 'suddenly' changed. These are publicly verifiable facts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761), not bullshit. You seem upset that I don't simply forget your wrongdoing.

How about that quote which attribution you faked? How about that blackmailing attempt? You are a true scumbag.

I've not scammed anyone. You're trying to trash my reputation by relying on people not verifying what you claim.

Do not worry, whatever the system in place,people will always complain.

https://i.imgur.com/qhdsAcY.jpg

Image Source (https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/878982#trending-bar)


You are still free to leave -ve and I like LoyceV suggestion that not every account (at least high ranked account) should be destroyed by single -ve or some personal issues with DT member.
It is also ok to leave soft warning as suchmoon suggested but I think it will not solve the purpose because a -ve rating will still be negative, does not matter how it displayed but if first negative rating changed to " ? ? ? " then it might serve as warning and everybody should be cautioned.

My personal belief is that when you are trading with someone then you need to check every feedback (trusted + untrusted) to make up your mind but unfortunately people are just guided by trusted feedback only. DT are human and can err in some case but why everybody is putting a blind eye to that feedback and making a de facto  standard.This is the reason I suggested 3 people cannot be wrong at same time.

Anyways in my belief, when you trade , you are supposed to use escrow and protect yourself and the responsibility to protect you from scam does not lie at DT at all.



I believe the root cause of the problem is account value. Most of users in bitcointalk set some value of account in their mind based on the ranking of the account. That's why you see thread like if you are legendary/Hero or green trusted account I will go first (completely ignoring escrow) or will not deal with -ve trust account or below Member ranking. Moment you get -ve trust from DT the value of account change to zero and you lose many of the trade/earning opportunities exist in this forum.

You already have at least two lengthy threads on the subject. Derailing another one and hoping for a different result seems quite dumb.

I replied to Vod. Not going to sit silently when Vod (or anyone) continues to spread shit about me (or others), thank you.

These threads become worthless too fast with a lot of posts trying to change the focus of the conversation.

Better to make a document with valid points justifying the need for changes, with suggestions about what can be done, with the signature of unsatisfied people and forward to the forum's owner.

Well I have nothing to worry about it because I am not gone trading here and will not going to scam other users as well. I have seen that there are many scammers out here so probably the best thing to do is not to trust anyone even to those who act as escrow service might scam one users one day depending on the need of that user. It will come to a time that they will be tempted to do it also.