Bitcoin Forum

So recently my campaign manager kicked me out of the campaign because of the user  allyouracid's (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=138833) feedback on my profile which states


I have no idea where did this happen since there is no reference link. According to my trust settings, I don't see myself with a red tag. Can you guys who have the default trust settings see it? My campaign manager sees it and thinks the feedback is appropriate (without a reference) and expects me to apologize to him. I don't know if he's in the DT or not but this I feel is definitely miss-use of the power. Right, I didn't care about the feedback when he was not a DT because I'm used to scammers leaving feedback's on my profile but if I get kicked out of a campaign then it certainly becomes a concern.

Yeah, it shows up red (depending on who you've got in your trust list)--so allyouracid has got to be on DT2.  

Frankly I'm surprised you got booted out of your sig campaign because of that, but rules are rules.  You're not a scammer or shitposter, and allyouracid's feedback was obviously retaliatory in nature.  I'm sure there's going to be more of these situations as the DT2 list grows.  You have my sympathy, Joel_Jantsen.

Edit:  Did you have a red trust on him?  I don't see any right now, and he didn't leave a reference link AND wrote in 100BTC was at risk in the trust he left for you.  That's nutty.

All I can say is PM them. The haven't read to much into the new DT system but it is more dynamic, and as I understand it more members cycle in and out.

It's a feedback from over a year ago, hard to say if they remember it without a reference link. I believe it's been encouraged to try and resolve older potentially "non issues".

Add ;dt to any URL for default view: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=560412;dt

Yes, allyouracid (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=138833) is included in DT2 by phantastisch (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18312). I have no idea what he's talking about in that feedback, either.

Back at my desk :D I tried to find anything in your post history, but all I found is this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2990612.msg30756201#msg30756201) a year ago, in which you also have no idea why he left left you red trust.
Did you PM him already? It says he wants an apology, it would help if he tells you what for. It sounds to me as if he was collateral damage in a scam-hunt.

How the opinions quickly change based on the point of view ,right ?
I could give you an old answer which i received from the pharmacist.
Its his own opinion and he has a right to it so take it as it is and leave it.

But since i'm against this kind of BS i say send a PM and get it fixed.

On further investigation, it seems phantastisch only just became DT1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49601306#msg49601306), which is why this old feedback has come to the surface now.

I don't know what that quote is or what you mean by including it here.  There's no context to it, and I don't recall writing it but I'm sure I could have.

I'd rather hear from allyouracid himself before making any judgements.  However, I don't think it's appropriate for a member to leave 100BTC in the "risked amount" field if that's not true, and giving a neg without a reference link is not good practice either.  We'll see what happens.

I think there's misunderstandings left and right.

Joel_Jantsen asked me if he's still part of the campaign to which I replied...

"I'll give it thought but I'd hate to say you aren't."

By which what I meant was I'll think about it but I'd prefer not to kick him out because I know this isn't something he should be judged for.

I also think red trust when it comes to signature campaigns is more of a visual thing than what actually is behind that red trust which I should weigh also when considering my decision.

I'll also point out that I missed the fact this red trust wasn't recent. This is why I told Joel_Jantsen he should maybe get in touch with the person who gave the red trust because to me seems it was given over a petty thing and is now causing these issues. Maybe he still should...?

^
Kudos on the level headed approach.

It's tough from an advertising perspective to keep arguably good members around when they show up with a "Red Caution Sticker". Regardless though campaigns are a privilege not a right, and it falls to you and the company to decide how to deal, with it.

Luckily though I noticed it's now a non-issue. It would appear allyouracid is no longer a member of DT.

This is likely to come up more often now. Looks like the system is working as intended, I'm guessing - because I haven't taken the time to learn how to navigate the lists - that they have been removed from phantastisch's trust list or phantastisch has been excluded.

None of the above: allyouracid has been excluded by 2 DT1s:
This puts allyouracid at (-1) now.

Hey guys,

I think this was about some "research" where Joel falsely related one of my BTC addresses to the bitfinex hack. Long time ago.
Im not on my computer right now, but give me some time and I'm sure we can get this right.

I really don't intend to harm anyone here... give me an hour or two and I'll come back with links, so we're can get this right.

Btw, I removed the rating because im sure he's a good person... he just drew the wrong conclusions, which can happen.
As I said, give me some time and I'll provide links. I really don't wanna harm his reputation here.

Edit I think it was here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347367.5

So it was the Indian guy who tried to extort money.
As my ratings never meant anything, the one I gave him was probably not even that serious. Apologies, Joel. Hope we're good!

Loyce

Just saw your edit that helps - I was getting very confused.

One thing I noticed is that they must have just recently added them to their trust list.

I foolishly was checking the old dumps, as opposed to the most recent. So far looking at at 2019-02-03 and 2019-01-29, it doesn't look like they were trusted at that point.

---

allyouracid - good of you to come by and respond. I also like the attitude of being willing to sort out the issue; not enough of that going around.

Correct. Phantastisch was added to DT1 last Tuesday (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49600801#msg49600801), which added allyouracid to DT2. Based on Joel_Jantsen's color change, I think allyouracid's exclusion must have happened yesterday.

@Joel can you please give me the name of the campaign manager? If you're okay with that, I'd try to convince him to take you back.

Also, @Joel... I understand that you're upset, but I refuse to tolerate being called a scammer. Because it couldn't be further from the truth.
See, I'm trying to make it right. Give me a chance to do so, so we can resolve this peacefully. :)

I just recently read about the changes in the trust systems. So please bear with me. I don't intend to abuse any "power" or anything.
I will go through the ratings I sent and see if there might be any other which might not be 100% justified. As I said, I don't wanna cause any damage. Not even unintentionally.

He did and brought my awareness to this thread.

Thanks for being fair. To further clear things up: I was annoyed for being put in the same corner as that guy extorting others, while all I wanted to do is put an end to it and tell him to try doing something honest.
When introducing the trust system, theymos wrote that the amount value can be used to give it "weight". And as I was very annoyed, I gave it a high weight.

Also, I think you're right. It was not good practice to put that much weight on it without even providing a link. Sorry for that, I'll respect that in future ratings.

And as Joel said, it didn't matter for a long time. Now that it does / did, I see that I have to be careful with these kinds of things.
Hope you guys understand this and see that the last thing I want is to harm anybody.

His campaign manager has posted here


It's just above, it looks like a miscommunication, with a cooling off period to sort this out. In turn it's kind of been sorted as far as the trust part - for now you've been excluded from DT2 through the voting system. This may have been done if members felt your feedbacks are lacking in quality/reference; I think the new system went through a few days of people cleaning things up when it was implemented. I'm still trying to catch up on that.


All that is really left is for you two to sort out the personal matter of the feedback. Good luck working it out both of you.

---

Loyce I'm going to jump over to your trust viewer thread. I'll be referencing this scenario

I see. Thanks for the hint.

@BoXXoB, is it possible to get Joel back into the campaign? I'd hate if he was excluded because of that.

edit: sent him a PM.

edit2:

The post I sent him negative rep for was this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347367.msg13733052#msg13733052
As I said: he drew the wrong conclusions. How it really was:
- that guy the thread was about was trying to extort money out of someone
- I came into the thread, told him to stop this crap ("I'll send you the 0.02 BTC and you promise to leave this guy alone", something along those lines)
- later, a thread about this guy came up (the thread linked above)
- Joel saw that an address of mine sent him said 0.02 BTC and wrongly concluded that I was associated with that scammer.

If anyone feels it's necessary, I'll go through my posts to find the one where I sent him the money to stop annoying others.


edit3:

This post in the same thread already clears it up: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347367.msg13733081#msg13733081

So, I hope I could provide some transparency, now. And I hope we can put this issue to rest without anybody suffering any consequences.
Also, I hope it's clear that the trust rating wasn't totally out of thin air (nobody likes being called a scammer, especially if it's not even true). But as I already mentioned, I should have at least provided a link.

Edit 4:
Of course - while the rating I gave him was based on a false accusation (I think I even pmed him, but got no response... but I'm not 100% sure of this, I'd have to check once I'm back home), I'm sure his intentions were good. Errors just happen, and I think the best way to sort out issues is to talk to each other, which I'm more than happy to do.

Edit 5:

Loyce pointed me at it... for those wondering why I left that rating that long after Joel's post: this was simply because I only saw that post that late, when I either googled for my BTC address or used that one block explorer which also shows mentions of BTC addresses on the web.  :)

Edit 6 - hopefully the last:

I talked to BoXXoB: he only thought of removing Joel from the campaign but never actually did. So, at least Joel didn't incur financial damage because of that. :)

You need to be Lauda's ass kisser to be able to get your red removed,you excluded the CULT thats why a random account has painted  you.Look at my trust,theymos allowed voting but they have accused me of conspiring with people who kick these abusers.

You really might wanna read the last posts here.
What you wrote makes no sense in this context.

This thread isn't about you, or even Lauda (phantastisch actually distrusts Lauda, in case you didn't notice). If you want to complain about your red trust, create your own thread instead of hijacking other people's.

Ok. I searched through my PMs, and I found something:
https://mimblewimble.support/joel.png

While I can't really remember everything from back then, it seems we already talked about that. I really have no idea what lead me to post that rating especially since we've had a PM exchange.
From the timestamps, it seems though that the information I gave him in the PM lead Joel to falsely accuse me as a scammer.

However, I hope everything's good, now.

Edit: this is the thread from the scammer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1332256.msg13594272#msg13594272

So, for everybody reading this, it should be very clear that there's nothing of substance about all this.

To recap / sort of tl;dr on the whole situation, in chronological order:

- a wannabe blackmailer tried extorting someone on bitcointalk.org
- the blackmailed one went public, using this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1332256.msg13594272
- I saw that thread, told the blackmailer to leave people alone if I send him that lousy amount of 0.02 BTC
<nothing happened for some time>
- Joel somehow noticed that blackmailer in another event
- after some research, Joel found my BTC address being connected with it (because I sent the blackmailer the 0.02 BTC to gtfo), see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347367.msg13733052#msg13733052
- Joel asked me how my BTC address was involved with that (see screenshot of PM right above)
- I explained, even backed it up with links (see screenshot of PM right above)
- that somehow lead Joel to think I am the blackmailer (a quick check of the BTC address in question would quickly reveal that I don't* deal with such amounts, thus it makes no sense for me to blackmail people for 0.02 BTC)
- I was annoyed by that, left him the bad rating
- Joel didn't bother, because (as he said) he's used to getting negative feedback which isn't justified
<nothing happens for some time>
- trust settings get changed on bitcointalk.org
- suddenly, my rating caused Joel's trust to appear red (again, sorry!)
- Joel opened this thread, because he thought he was removed from a campaign (which BoXXoB cleared up: he luckily wasn't)
- allyouracid (me, heh) removes the red trust, explains everything, hoping to clear everything up


* not don't, didn't - at that time. See address: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1FuckUpmVUxwHZH1vkLNkEYB8dTvsS782E?offset=600&filter=6
Right now, this address has small amounts incoming because of masternode rewards etc

Joel_Jantsen's PM --> 15:53:03 (3:53 PM)
PM information --> January 31, 2016, 17:35:19 (5:35 PM)

Joel_Jantsen's "connection" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347367.msg13733052#msg13733052) --> January 31, 2016, 01:50:34 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, 1 PM comes before 5 PM?  :)

---

Anyway, everything is resolved so thread can be locked.

Oops, looks like I messed something up ;D

Yes, thread can be locked, however I'd still like to hear 1) from Joel that everything's good and he's okay with how everything got resolved and, if possible, 2) from suchmoon, because as I understood it, she put me on negative trust to compensate for Joel's formerly red trust. :)

Other than that: if there's any issue / questions like the one referenced earlier in this thread (where Joel already wondered why I left him a rating without reference): please just come and ask. Misunderstandings happen and they can be resolved.
If Joel agrees, can we fix that?

^
It is not good practice to ask people to remove exclusion and it is definitely not good practice to PM them to do so, so please stop doing this.

Noted - I did not know this. Just wanted to clean up on this whole thing, because I was quite surprised when I saw the PM from Joel this morning and the whole mess which unfolded without me even noticing. All good, I hope :)

Isn't it interesting that when adults discuss things civilly, the outcome is both accounts in question burying the hatchet, red trust being removed, and both accounts being left in the green (from a default trust point of view). Compare that to calling people names and spamming multiple threads. You might want to mention the difference in that self-moderated thread for the consideration of your friends. (I've tried, but my posts are always deleted.)

Also, general commendations to the users involved here for doing just that - approaching this like adults and being mature enough to sort things out politely. The forum needs more of this.

No you don't need to be anyone's "ass kisser" for your red trust to be removed, it's either you have proven your point in the reputation section or you have resolved the problem on where you have a red trust on. The only red trusts that can't be removed are the ones where you have broken a rule or where you have been found guilty of doing just like manipulating the DT system which you have a negative feedback for. Common misunderstandings like this one are very forgivable and usually DT members know when to remove their red tag.

I get the impression you don't know the difference between a trust list and trust feedback. If I'm right, you definitely shouldn't be on DT2, and in that case the exclusions are completely justified even after removing your red trust.

No worries, I know the difference very well. :)
My main concern was, though, to resolve the issue with Joel, which seems to have worked.

Maybe I phrased it badly (English is not my main language): suchmoon put me on ~ so my negative rating doesn't have an actual impact. Sort of, to exclude me until the case is resolved.
I just wanted everyone involved to agree that the situation is resolved.

Edit: because you mentioned it: I think with the changes theymos made to the trust system in January, it will not be avoidable that users occasionally land on DT2, but have no idea about the trust system. Guess we'll have to see how it develops over time. But as I understood it, the current algo isn't set in stone, yet, and open to changes if the system doesn't work as it should.

Hm, maybe here's a thing I don't fully understand about the trust system:
"Trust depth".

Default Depth is 2, which means that from DT2 members, usually only the Trust Feedback, but not their respective Trust Lists have any influence on newbies' Trust Scores, right?
Or am I off by 1, so that even DT2's Trust Lists propagate?

The people you add are your DT0, their list is your DT1 and the list of those members is your DT2. If you use DefaultTrust only then you see only DT1 and DT2. This is why it is kind-of recommended to set depth 1 if you use a fully custom list.

I respectfully disagree.  As long as his feedback is fair, there shouldn't be a problem if he doesn't completely understand the mechanics of the trust system--and I bet this thread is a pretty good education for him, anyway.  Cut him a little bit of slack for not completely comprehending this weird, intricate system that Theymos (I assume) created; he was fair with Joel_Jantsen's feedback and sort of proved he wasn't some power-tripping hothead bent on negging his way to fame and fortune on the forum.

Props for doing that.

This kind of sums it up. Well, I did know the difference between the trust list and trust feedback, but this whole situation has caused me to read up on it a bit more. And not only that: all of a sudden, a rating from years ago is able to cause actual damage. If that was even a remote option when I gave him the rating, I wouldn't have done it. Next thing I did was check my sent feedback, to make sure there's nothing similar (which there wasn't).

And I think the time I spent on this, today (time my family would have enjoyed spending with me), shows that I'm not taking this lightly. At all. :)

:)

That is correct.

If you are using Default Trust with a depth of 2 (the default settings), "Default Trust" as an entity is DT0, and you will see the trust feedback from both DT1 and DT2 members. DT1 members' trust lists select DT2, but DT2 members' trust lists (in this setup) are irrelevant to you.

If, however, you have your own custom trust list, then whoever you add to your trust list is Level 0. This means that with a depth of 2, the trust list of users you have on your own custom list will select your Level 1, and the trust list of those users (your Level 1) will select your Level 2. For this reason, as Lauda says, most people with a custom list will use a depth of 1, otherwise you are seeing feedback from someone who is trusted (Level 2) by someone who is trusted (Level 1) by someone you trust (Level 0 - your own list).

I was thinking the same thing as I was reading this thread.  Civil discourse could solve many problems on this forum.  People just have to remain calm enough to initiate the discussion in a civil manner when they feel they have been wronged.  Go into the discussion assuming that given the opportunity, most people will do the right thing.