Bitcoin Forum

I rarely look into my trust settings (more specifically, Ratings) as I'm not involved in merit exchange, buying and selling accounts, borrowing and lending anything, or any other potentially shady activity which you could receive a negative rating for. Today I was setting back my avatar and thus finally visited that part. Now I see that this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=533583) dude accused me of being a signature spammer and gave me a negative rating:

https://a.radikal.ru/a22/1902/d0/fae141a2454b.png

As I consider it an obvious example of trust abuse, I ask DT members to tag this user appropriately. I'm not going to retaliate personally as I don't see a lot of sense in that, but it doesn't mean I will let it go. And while we are at it, anyone who has any issues with my posts on the forum (whether it be their quality, number, arrangement, or whatever is on your mind) speak it out here

Anyone can have the freedom to give feedback about anyone but it only get weigh when they are in DT position,so you need to contact that person personally to solve this case because no one can do anything here.

But I saw that in the column of risked BTC,he/she has give 1000BTC which is inappropriate.

I don't see what Lucius is implying there (multiple posts in a row), nor is that a matter appropriate for the trust system. And the 1000 BTC amount risked is obviously fake. Please PM Lucius and/or get them to visit this thread to discuss that rating. Unfortunately we can't force anyone to remove a rating but you don't need to worry too much about it since it doesn't affect your default score.

Hey I understand your frustration. There are a few facts you can take comfort in.

They are not DT so this shows as untrusted feedback.
The feedback shows how poorly they use the system by using false risked amounts.
The reference shows a sig campaign spreadsheet, there's nothing wrong with that.

With feedback like this if they ever wound up on DT people would reach out to them to have it changed, or they would be excluded pretty quick.

In the meantime you can leave your own neutral, about the situation and your opinion of the feedback, reach out to them regarding it, or just let it go.

This is a case of trust abuse which should be dealt with accordingly

Apart from that, there is nothing really to discuss with that dude as I expect people to be responsible for what they do and thus they should be ready to accept the consequences of their actions. In short, it is not me who should do anything here other than reporting this case


You don't get it. Such things are destroying the trust system. Not that I'm quite happy with it at all (I made my point pretty clear about it long ago) but it was basically none of my business. Now it is

Unfortunately, his reference doesn't really say anything about the validity of his negative feedback.
I consider that (and his fake amount) "bad style", but nothing more.
His rating is irrelevant anyhow, because it's not visible under ";dt".

Wise decision, just ignore it.

I would agree with you in so far as Lucius is currently not on DT, but with all the changes being made and all the new additions, you never know if he's going to be on DT at some point in the future.  And I agree that it's not appropriate feedback, even if it's untrusted.  Everyone should be handing out feedbacks with basically the same idea of what does and doesn't warrant a neg.  Theymos pretty much established that leaving negs for shitposting isn't appropriate, and adding a ridiculous bitcoin amount to it only makes it worse--that could easily get a DT member booted if he/she did that.

Hopefully Lucius will drop in and comment, and even better would be if he at least changed it to a neutral and left the risked amount blank.

That's exactly how the trust system works, and yes, you should at least inform the user if you want to fix this.

Then Lucius can either revise the rating or let it stay and likely get excluded. That's how it's "dealt with accordingly" since there is no way to force anyone to change their rating.


Unlikely: http://loyce.club/trust/2019-02-25_Mon_21.39h/533583.html

But if the rating doesn't get revised I'll probably add a comment (neutral rating) just in case.

My post history is open for anyone to see with posts being as they were when submitted, apart from minor changes here and there, e.g. due to spelling errors or style corrections (as I do care about such things)


Okay then. It is mostly about making people responsible for their actions (and reactions)

I don't see any valid point to leave negative feedback. Although feedback is not visible by default but it's really not good practice especially risk amount. Since he isn't on DT so we don't need counter tag and we can't ask directly to remove his feedback. I believe he will remove feedback when you explain him and invite him to read this thread. Shit poster isn't belongs to trust system (IMO) and admin not much encourage to tag shit poster. Leave them for moderators. report to moderator is appropriate for shit poster.

This is a wrong feedback, if he wants to leave feedback for spamming, in my opinion, should be with 0 BTC risked and neutral.

If he one day will be on DT network it will be red for default to all forum, I think is too much red tag for low-quality posting. Just report to mods and they handle it.

You guys don't understand it

I didn't do anything which could even remotely justify the negative feedback. And now you ask me that I should explain something to somebody? So why should I really? The burden of proof lies with the person who is making the accusation, and I'm the one who is being accused here in case you didn't notice. And if this is left as it is, i.e. without being taken care of (whatever that "care" might come down to), it will be a source of future harm

I think admin is the only person who can delete the feedback if it was inappropriate so you may need to contact admins via PM as well,so he will drop a comment here about his opinion on these kind of trust feedback.And we also can get a reference what is the possible solution when a user gave feedback like this.

Admins can't and shouldn't interfere here

It is a task for DT members as they can actually make people think twice before throwing false accusations. Otherwise this system is useless (if it can't defend the innocent). That's why I'm asking a DT member to tag this user appropriately until he chooses to remove his feedback (or comes to live with being tagged as a trust abuser), and that's why I'm refraining from retaliating personally. There should be a consensus of sorts (and a way to enforce it)

We cannot make anybody do anything.
We are limited by the workings of the trust system.

That would be highly inappropriate and would most likely lead to that DT member being kicked off DT.

The only appropriate thing a DT member could do, would be to include Lucius in their trust list with a "~".
Which would basically render his feedback invisible.
There's no real need for this, though, because it is already invisible.

Also, the prudent thing for you to do is considered to be talking with Lucius.
I.e. "why did you leave negative feedback?".

I know the feedback sounds insulting to you but people get pissed at each other on the intertubes all the time. I hope this can be sorted out without escalation, as nobody lost money or anything else of value in this dispute. I have PMed Lucius since you don't want to.

Good deal, hopefully he drops by to say hello and explain himself--better yet, remove the feedback.

I forgot to add in my previous post that deisik isn't even a shitposter from what I've seen (although I'm well aware that everyone's standards are different), so this particular feedback is just wrong in all respects.

Bottom line is that no one should be leaving negs based on the quality of a person's posts.  It doesn't matter if you're on DT or not; it's not a good use of the trust system, and we basically stopped doing it when the merit system came along.

It is written in the OP

Look, I proceed from the fact that people are responsible for their actions. If they don't (which is obviously the case here), it simply doesn't make any sense to talk to them. It is like trying to talk sense into a disobedient child (and not your child at that). Your only rational choice in this case is to ignore them and their feedback altogether, but given the potential issues with the trust system, you can't

Anyway, I made this case known to the wider public here and now everyone (including DT members) should decide for themselves how to act and react


What sounds insulting? If you look into my sent feedback, I never gave anyone negative feedback, ever


I wasn't very active throughout 2018, and you can see that I have earned enough merits since the beginning of the year. Not that I care a lot but still (read, it is not just your standards)

It seems that how you think the trust system should work... and how it actually works are not the same.

It is quite well known that:

- Trust is NOT moderated
- The only person that can remove/adjust any trust rating, is the person that left it

Is the trust you have received incorrect? Yes, I would say that it was... but after making this public, you should have contacted Lucius directly. Your stubbornness in consistently refusing to do so is somewhat confusing? ???

In any case, it seems that suchmoon went ahead and contacted Lucius on your behalf.

I'm sure that if Lucius refuses to remove/alter the trust, then DT member will take appropriate action (as the new changes to the DT system were designed... theymos wanted there to be potential consequences for leaving false/inappropriate ratings)


He wasn't saying YOU sounded insulting... or accusing you of any wrongdoing... he was saying that it might sound insulting TO you. ;)

I'm wondering if there is something of a language barrier here that is causing some added confusion? ???

I think that if the posts are on-topic and of very good quality, then a person cannot be considered a spammer even if he/she does it in a row. What is this forum for? Information. And if that is being given to users, then I find nothing wrong in doing that given that the posts are of any added value to the debate and the pure intention was to help and not to increase post count alone. I'm not advocating deisik in this matter, but just putting my own views on how I see this.

I meant Lucius' feedback, the reason for this thread. I have edited my post to clarify that.

Let's just give Lucius some time to respond. Then we can decide what to do next.

Does posting 200 times per week make you inherently untrustworthy? No. Therefore Lucius' feedback is incorrect.

However, does tagging you for posting 200 times per week make Lucius inherently untrustworthy? Also no, and so your request for him to be tagged is also incorrect.

Neither of you have done anything untrustworthy here, and so neither of you deserve to be red tagged. If Lucius does not remove his red tag, he might find himself excluded from many users' trusts lists, but he is highly unlikely to find himself red tagged as "retribution".

From what I know, you were signature spamming by making over 200 posts for that Coinroll signature campaign (If I spelled it correctly). There was a discussion regarding this and people agreed you indeed were spamming. Having said that, I don't think you deserve inappropriate negative feedback. Especially if the risked amount is a garbage value. I wouldn't take that DT or his ratings seriously.

It means,he is not able to give the right feedback which clearly shows that he is not a suitable member to be in DT member and DT1 members were doing it correct.

He isn't in DT1, and if he was voted in by the community after leaving inappropriate feedback, he would be promptly voted out by other DT1 members.

Being unable to give accurate feedback is a criteria for being not included or even excluded from other users' trust lists. It does not warrant retaliatory red trust in this case.

What exactly might sound insulting to me?


You know it wrong

So stop spreading false information as no one agreed that I was spamming. This issue had been raised by just one person - the campaign manager (several times), and I don't even remember him calling me a spammer (he called me a posting nut, if my memory serves we right). Anyway, all my posts are open for everyone to see them, so instead of making unsubstantiated claims, go and try to find even a single example of me spamming in the last few years (just in case, we had all been posting garbage in 2013-2014)


Actually, yes, it does. I wouldn't trust anybody who is as irresponsible as deliberately giving people incorrect negative feedback. Would you trust that person yourself?

Anyway, what's to be done here?

Negative feedback should be used to alert other members about something abnormal, but unfortunately it is being used as a weapon. In your case, it was an exaggeration on the part of lucius


It is best to look for solutions that do not involve negative feedback

I'm really fascinated at how some people can't see the forest for the trees here

Here's an analogy. You were robbed and then I suggest you should go to the robber first and ask him why he decided to rob you. How do you like this idea? It is essentially the same here. If someone does something wrong to you (e.g. steals from you), you go to the police, not the offender


Whatever the solution, this case should be handled appropriately

I just get PM from one member about this thread.

Reason for give this negative trust is that deisik is part of stake.com signature campaign and posting up to 200 posts per week. To reach that amount of posts, he reply (quote) to many post individually instead to use multi-quote option. I write this very clear in my sent feedback, and I do not see any problem in that, maybe only amount risked is to big.

I see most of you think that I abuse trust in this case, did anyone actually read what I posted and check deisik post history?

Example 1 : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107721.20

deisik is quote&post :


Then he find another post from exstasie which is just few post above, and quote that in new post :


This is how he is increased the number of posts, just by checking his post history anyone can find many cases of such posting.

So why is wrong to tag such user as signature spammer? http://archive.li/YH7DJ

It is something should be handled by the mods if they are replying in multiple posts,DT don't have any business with these kind of things.But you also have freedom too to five feedback on anyone if you want but if it is something inappropriate feedback is given by you one someone it will make your reputation to be lower.

Your analogy is inherently flawed.
You were not robbed.
Someone on the internet said something mean about you.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
https://xkcd.com/386/

It doesn't even do you any harm, since it is outside the scope of the Default Trust network.
Quite a few of the users on bitcointalk have insulting and obviously "wrong" feedback on their profile, including me:
I can honestly quote former U.S. president Bill Clinton:
but I'm not in the least offended by this feedback, simply because it is wrong and doesn't show up in "trusted feedback".

That's really pathetic

These posts were made even on different dates. But you are welcome to post here more examples to show how ridiculous your accusations are. But don't forget to also include my posts where I combine replies to different posters in one post, like this one:


In simple terms, it is none of your business how I arrange my posts. If you still feel like there's something wrong with my posts (or their count or whatever), you are free to report them


There is nothing to handle as you can always find someone replying to someone else's posts and not just once. This is what a dialogue is about

When we are replying proper to someone's comment then this is can be a good discussion get going,I didn't said it is against the rule but if still there is something it should be dealt by Mods,since DTs are not here to fight with spams.

This has nothing to do with spam either

When I'm giving a thorough and detailed reply to someone I always try to make a separate post to keep things neat and tidy. And as you can see in the example above, when there is no need for such a reply and a one-liner would do just fine, I combine these replies in one post

Such accusations are really ridiculous. In fact, I won't be surprised if one day someone actually accuses me of following a certain pattern in arranging my posts like adding a short preface or conclusion (which I almost always do)


I was not robbed but a) I was wrongfully accused, and b) the accusation itself is a trust abuse. So I for one find my analogy quite fitting here (read, there is nothing to discuss with that dude)

Now I'm waiting for DT members' action (whatever that could be)

That's not what the trust system is for. Spam needs to be reported to moderators. If there is something in the gray area that doesn't quite violate the rules you might want to use neutral feedback and/or report to the campaign manager.

This is actually for your own benefit. You can't be prevented from posting any feedback you want but using negative feedback in this manner might disqualify you from getting into trust lists of other people, kinda defeating the purpose of the neg rating - the red score resulting from your rating is visible only to you and to people who directly include you.

deisik, you should send me PM, and ask what is the reason for that negative trust, and I'm pretty sure it would be resolved in mutual benefit. Instead, you're looking for DT members to red tag me because of my opinion that you abuse stake.com signature campaign in a way how you are posting, just for simple reason to increase number of posts.


As for this, I am not important user on this forum, and I bet I will never be on DT1&DT2 list, it is free to choose to who you will trust, and in anyone think I am untrusted users or that I abuse trust system act by the forum rules.


I reported him to his campaing manager, no response at all - and to report 100+ posts only from one user as spam would certainly be characterized as spamming the report button. Since most of his post are in Economy board (no moderator), I doubt reports would have too much effect.

There is no gray area here

As this is all complete bullshit. When things get hot, you can give like 3-4 replies to the same post in a matter of minutes and receive as many replies to your single post from the same fellow. Yeah, the thread gets clumsy (you likely saw such conversations yourself here and there), but that has nothing to do with spamming (as this is the opposite of it)

Note that it is not even remotely the case here as I was replying to different posts made on different dates, most likely, as I kept reading the thread (I honestly don't remember). You read the thread, you post replies. If your reply as you think requires a separate post, you submit a separate post. What's wrong with that?


You have already stated your reason here

If your true reason is different from what you said here (read, what you accused me of), then it would be a double abuse of the trust system. And as I already implied, you put yourself in a position when there is no reason whatsoever for me to ask you anything. Simply put, it is not up to me to deal with this issue

Basically, you are to face the consequences of your actions as this is what being responsible is about. You started it, not me. It is not like you first accuse someone of something and then negotiate your way out of it when things start looking grim for you. Things don't work that way

You don't have to report 100. Report a few and in the comments ask to look at the post history. And even if the moderators disagree it's still not a good use of the trust system to tag suspected spammers. "Ignore" would be a more appropriate option in this case.

Reports on the Economics board work just fine BTW. Global mods handle it.

I find it funny you use this saying, as i feel you've fallen into that trap. You are so focused on what you want people to do for you, as this is an issue you have with what someone has said about you. That you haven't paid attention to the forest of information,options or ways to resolve this yourself.

I refer you to my previous post about this. I will go so far as to say that if you are not willing to take any action such as leaving a neutral or engaging with lucius, i would not be willing to leave a neutral myself in your place, as others have considered.
 
Lucius i would really reconsider using negatives for behaviour/posting issues you have with people. That is a good place for neutral to use as a comment. In your case it will be seen the same to the rest of the world. With the added benefit that others may find your feedback useful

So report post to moderator and moderator will merge posts into one if it is necessary or remove second post and you should really change this feedback to neutral.

---

Just tell me something, why is it important for you to tag account deisik but it is not important for you to tag all these spam accounts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108597.msg49691649#msg49691649 ? Or any other spammer? Does it make any sense to you?

You are entitled to that opinion, ans Lucius is entitled to his.  I agree it seems frivolous, and maybe malicious, but that's a risk inherent in any public trust system.



Again, I agree.  The burden of proof is the accuser's, and in this case Lucius has left no proof.  Furthermore he claims to have risked 1000BTC which is unsupported by his allegation, and once again lacking credible evidence.  The whole community can see this as plain as day.  In my opinion the review reflects poorly on Lucius far more than you.

The only thing you can do is discuss this rationally with Lucius in an attempt to convince him to remove the review.  If he refuses he'll have to live with the ramifications as well.



Starting a rational discussion could easily have resolved this situation satisfactorily for both parties.

@deisik, If I were in your situation I would lock this thread and stat a civil discussion with Lucius about the issue you have with his feedback.  YMMV.

I did not ask you now to send me PM, but that the problem could be solved through PM without opening this thread. So read better, I do not want anything from you, and I do not try to make any way out of this situation.


Funny that you ask that, but I will answer to that question. Reason is simple, he was user with most post per week in that campaign, and he is using method for reply on posts, which I have already described. So it makes no sense for you to tag only one account, I should tag them all to make some sense?


I agree, but OP is not asking nothing but that DT members tag my account with red trust because of abusing trust system.

Then you are free to tag Lucius with a negative rating saying as much, but you cannot reasonably expect DT members to tag him on your behalf. Trust is not moderated, as you can see by the plethora if completely nonsense ratings on most DT members' trust pages. On the other hand, spam (perceived or real) is an issue to be dealt with by the moderators, not by using the trust system. In short, the rating is incorrect, but no one is going to remove it on your behalf.

Also, trusting someone to do a deal, hold money, or not try to scam you is different from trusting someone to leave accurate ratings on other users. The former is reflected by positive/negative trust ratings, the latter is reflected by inclusions/exclusions on trust lists.

1. I'm not spreading any information. Everything is just public here. Can you find that thread where this was being discussed? I'll appreciate that.
2. Your campaign manager was Yahoo, right? Before he took over you were managed by an inexperienced campaign manager if I remember.
3. Making over 200+ posts just to get a good income from the signature campaigns is called well-qualified shit-posting and not really contributing constructively. Like if you did, you'd have much higher merits than what you have now.

You'll appreciate what?

That's fucking hilarious if you ask me. You are spreading misinformation (read, outright lies) and now I should go find that thread? No, that's definitely not how it is gonna work out. You make a claim and it is up to you to substantiate it (read, if you don't prove it, you will go as a liar)


You evidently remember it wrong. I joined the Coinroll signature campaign when Yahoo was already the campaign manager (I just didn't know he was the one). Now think how much of what else you could remember is actually true (and how much of that is just your "unbiased" imagination)


You are stepping on a very thin ice here. Basically, you are walking right into a minefield as I'm neither the top poster here (in terms of total post count), nor the most active one (in terms of posts contributed daily). So tread carefully here as with such generalizations you may not end very well as you evidently don't know who is posting that much, if not more (this is not a threat, this is a warning). She is a real bitch (this is not an insult)

Anyway, this campaign lasted for 8 weeks. For me, it started with this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5092506.msg49024832#msg49024832) post and ended with this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320959.msg49960799#msg49960799) one. That makes a total of 1100 posts which produces less than 140 posts per week. So much for "making over 200+ posts", huh. Apart from that, you may actually want to visit my profile to see how many merits I earned during the last couple of months (read, a lot more than you). It seems like you desperately need a good reality check right now

As you can see, in all your three points, you are either severely distorting the facts or just outright lying. So what are you actually doing here? What is your agenda?


So you can't substantiate your claims. Okay then


That's not how it looks and feels. So much for "well-qualified shit-posting"

That attitude is exactly the reason why I believe you were/are considered as a spammer. I don't fuckin need to find any threads. If you think you're not a spammer, convince the dude that left you a negative trust and not me. I give two flying fucks about your existence on this forum because you clearly haven't contributed shit.

My agenda - Leave you the fuck alone and stop trying to post my opinions on why you don't deserve a negative tag.

Okay, I decided to tag them with a neutral rating with a link to this thread:

https://d.radikal.ru/d22/1903/b6/4ee2f378116a.png

If anyone is with me on that, you can do something to that tune


Well, that's not what I meant

If someone is irresponsible, you can't trust them as it is essentially synonymous with being untrustworthy (by and large). You can't trust such people (as in I would trust him with my life and with my wife) because you can't reliably expect them to make rational decisions and choices. It is like two sides of the same coin, where the one side is impossible without the other. If this is not what Trust is about, then I stand corrected

Often there is a difference between being trusted with money and being trusted to have good judgement, like e.g. a difference between a business person and a judge, or between wife trusting husband with $1000 and trusting his answer on how she looks in that dress ;).

I don't know if you or Lucius can be trusted with money. It's possible. But you both don't seem to have good judgement. Bitcointalk trust system has two different albeit somewhat related features for that - trust lists for people whose judgement you trust/distrust, and trust ratings for people whom you would trust (or not) with money. You both seem to be misusing the latter one.

If you can't resist leaving feedback in cases like this, then the "neutral tag" ignored by most members (including myself until I was notified) should be encourage to be used. Just as the below user stated on one of my previous thread


I believe leaving feedback for that offend isn't worth Red tagged but again the trust system isn't moderated so what can we say.

The trust sender should note,

What do you mean by me misusing the trust rating?

I gave them a neutral rating but that's primarily because I didn't feel it quite right asking other people to tag this user appropriately without myself actually doing anything to that end. If you mean something else, then what is the possible course of action that should be taken here?

It seems obvious (well, at least to me) that such cases of trust abuse should not be neglected by the community as they destroy or massively erode the idea behind the trust system. theymos made it quite clear but without a means to actually prevent people from abusing this system, it is no more than a wish

You want DT members to tag Lucius. Retaliatory ratings seem more like abuse than prevention of abuse. The right way to handle this would be to exclude users who post ratings incompatible with the purpose of the trust system. That's been pretty much the consensus of this thread. Since neither of you wants to budge you should probably lock the thread and move on.

So why you didn't tag manager? According to your logic you should tag first campaign manager who have encouraged for spam. Not is it ?

Is he promoting scam ? Handle shitpost is really job of moderators. You should report his spam post instead of leave feedback. Shitpost is not related with trust system.

What action are you expecting from DT's ? Leave retailonary feedback? You already did it. Since both of you are not part of default trust system, I don't think we need counter tag you or tag to deisik for his opinion. If someone want to exclude him then that's different case. We can't force anyone to remove feedback.

That's what I asked on my first post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49963875#msg49963875).

What do you mean by "budging" here (in respect to me)?

In other words, how do you actually imagine me budging? Further, if you think that the right way to handle this matter would be to exclude such users from the Trust lists (which may well be the case), how are the folks going to learn about this and similar cases if we were not to start such threads (which seems to be your point)? If anything, letting it go would only promote such behavior in the future, wouldn't it?


I'm not sure whom you refer to here. Anyway, having no means to handle this situation (i.e. effectively prevent users from abusing the trust system) means it basically failed in its purpose (as theymos himself seems to be about to accept)

I've been following this topic for a while, and want to add my 2 3 Satoshis:

In general:

• I don't think you should tag something that should be handled by Mods.
• Before leaving feedback, ask yourself if it makes the forum better.
• Try to make the feedback and tags you leave as accurate as possible. It's a reference for later on, and it's your "business card" as you present your judgement to the forum.

Lucius isn't included by anyone who matters for DT-voting:
Excluding Lucius would change nothing at this point, and that's probably why nobody did that after this topic was created.

Why is it funny?

Most other spammers (I am not saying OP is or isn't spammer) are also payed but they don't use "method" you mentioned. They simply spam, and what is most important, to repeat again, is that they are payed. I am pretty sure you noticed "couple" of them in last 3-4 years.

I didn't say that, read my post again and please response with appropriate answer (for example, "I tagged OP for spam but I didn't tag any other spammer because.....")

Besides, I suggested you what you should do, I mean, everyone told you what you should do (remove -ve or change it to neutral).

Thank you for showing all users of this forum how worthless/useless I really am on this forum, and accordingly to that my feedback worth less then 0.

That's not what I meant to say, I've rephrased my post a bit, please read it again.

If it is worth to mention, someone reads DT and not-DT feedbacks and can come to conclusion that they scammed someone for more or less 4 million dollars.
Intentionally putting wrong numbers there is simple wrong, so where exactly is line between trust abuse and not trust abuse? One fake risked amount? 2? 100?

I read this post only recently:
I'm not sure if this still applies at current Bitcoin prices.

It does not apply at all, i.e. the score is no longer affected by the amount risked.


You posted the thread. You made your point. There is nothing else to do here.


The situation has been handled. Users (including DT members) looked at it, the counterparty responded. The outcome not being what you wanted doesn't mean the system failed. It actually shows that the system works properly as opposed to bending to your will.

No it demonstrates that people don't give 1 fuck what theymos says here and just do what they want with red trust.
It demonstrates that you support giving red trust outside of what theymos said red trust was for. Hence you are abusing the trust system and presenting yet another net negative post.


1. is he a scammer?
2. is he strongly likely to scam?

NO?? so remove the red trust then because RED trust is for SCAMMERS and those STRONGLY likely to scam.

this is a neutral trust UNLESS the project is a scam and he is aware of this.

200 posts in one week is not spamming unless the content is low quality and crap.. even then that is worth a neutral and reporting to the  mods to take care of it.

If you had bothered to read the thread or at least looked at the trust pages of involved individuals you would know that I didn't post red trust for the OP so there is nothing for me to remove.

Quit shitposting your butthurt nonsense on every fucking thread and start working on your own positive contributions to the forum.

LOL if you bothered to read even one post I made hehe. Your posts often make me laugh ...you are always doing this.

I never said you did. Learn to read skank. You are simply endorsing actions that are not sanctioned by theymos. You support abuse you are an abuser. Remember how you said it goes??

There is no point saying the system is working great when it is obviously not giving the results theymos intended.

My achievements surpass anything you will ever dream of here.

@deisik
Suchmoon just illustrated the crux of the matter.  It's not beyond the realm of possibilities that Lucius will end up on DT2, but if he continues to leave frivolous reviews such as this the odds are getting smaller and smaller.  




I didn't go looking into your post history too deep, but for fuck's sake!  1100 posts in two months to promote a casino which has already been accused of promoting spam (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5111069.msg49791114#msg49791114)?  That seems like a lot to me, and it's actually twice your average posting habits.  The table below includes your posts made during the campaign.  

Date Registered: November 02, 2013
Total posts: 20857
Average Daily Posts: 10.15
Average Weekly Posts: 76.04
Average Monthly Posts: 324.15

Indeed the number seem to show that Lucius' claim was accurate for the time period in question.  You posted nearly twice your average during the campaign.  Again, I didn't dig deep enough to try and ascertain your posting habits, and see what are what aren't shit-posts, but certainly the numbers do tell a story of their own.

It seems to me that you are taking this situation as seriously as you are because maybe you're insulted by the allegation.  Perhaps you are as offended as you are because you know there's some truth to it.  You have other negative feedback, which on it's face would seem more concerning, but yet you are not bothered by it.

Take a closer look at yourself and assess why this is so important to you.  Lucius is not DT2 so his review is as meaningless as the other reviews you've been ignoring for years.  Lucius has already indicated that he would have discussed the issue with you in private.  The longer you keep bickering in public the more likely both of you will be insulted enough to develop a grudge that cannot be repaired.  

I definitely like your doublespeak


Let's make things simple

You come up with a couple of posts from my recent post history which you consider spam and then we continue talking. Until then all your insinuations like stake.com promoting spam, me making over 200 posts a week, numbers telling a story of their own, some truth being there, etc are just that (i.e. insinuations only)

Really, if it is mostly spam, or a significant part of it is spam (what you seem to be implying here), you won't actually have to dig a lot deeper as such posts won't be hard to find, right? Otherwise, your whole narrative starts looking like another unsubstantiated accusation itself (well, at least that's how it feels)

I think OP could lock the thread now. Seems both are not agree with DT's opinions eventually. Since both of you are not on DT network, other DT member can't help you expect leave own opinions. No one can force some other to remove feedback. But if both of you or anyone were DT network then other DT could help you by leave counter feedback's and by exclusion/inclusion. On the other hand DT members have received too much untrusted feedback's more than you and they can't open thread for every single feedback's. So don't worry about untrusted  feedback's, if it become trusted on future then may be other DT's could leave counter feedback's.

Yes, lets.  Quit whining, lock this thread, and talk to Lucius like an adult.

I consider this issue neither resolved nor handled as essentially nothing has changed apart from me leaving a neutral rating for the perp. Further, I've been accused of spamming even in this thread itself. And since I challenged these people to provide any real evidence of that (which they failed to do so far), I think they should be given some time before they can be officially declared slanderers and forum enemies as well as given negative rating too (just kidding, though who knows)

In this way, I will keep this thread open for the time being


So how's your quest for my spam posts going, found something?

I think you wrote everything essential in your post, and fact that deisik is only interested in how to convince DT members, and others to tag me it speaks for itself. 1100 post in two months is something quite natural for him, but only when signature campaign is asking that from them.

I am not the only one who thinks that he is signature spammer, it is proven fact from past and it is not false information as he write in my trust summary. In time when he is in Coinroll signature campaign posting 200-300 posts per week is also normal thing.

Just few quotes what respected campaign manager think about his posting :

What if you deleted your previous posts just like you did in this thread? You were not too quick in doing that. I wonder what made you change your mind to delete that post.

I've already spent more time on this subject than it deserves.  Best of luck to you.

I think I should in fact give you a neg rating after all


And while we are at it, I will pay 1 dollar in litecoins for every single week within which I made more than 250 (two hundred and fifty) posts since 2017 (2017 included, obviously) because I know it with almost 100% certainty that I never made that many posts in any given week in the last few years (let alone 275). But if I'm in fact mistaken about it, then whoever proves me wrong here will be able to earn dough, as simple as it gets. My post history is as it was before today (apart from new posts added, of course)

As the saying goes, when money talks, bullshit walks


Good riddance


What if the accusations of spamming are in fact ludicrous? And which post do you refer to? Maybe, this one:


I often merge my previous replies into one (like this one). Get used to it

I looked at your posts. Why did you negotiate the purchase of an account in 2014?
http://archive.li/FdM1t

This is what I write about. It was an attempt that was in May. You then twice, wrote about it in other topics.
in June https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114643.msg7220375#msg7220375
in July https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552602.msg7714515#msg7714515
The problem is that now it is not clear whether you bought in another place or not. I do not think that buying and selling accounts is a good practice for the forum.

Who cares if he bought in 2014 ?It was allowed at that time.
Your poor try to discredit OP just shows what an idiot you are.
You wanna discredit him for a possible account purchase in 2014 ?

Maybe you should start tagging nearly all DT and legendary members for it.

fucking idiot and merit whore

I did not negotiate the purchase of an account in 2014 as it hadn't been sold. I was negotiating but it ended with nothing:


Why did you omit that part? It was just a couple posts below. Anyway, someone bought this account later (like in 2016), though I'm not sure as I didn't follow it. But it wasn't me. As I said, I'm not involved in this kind of activities and back in the day it was more like entertainment because you could actually buy a Hero account and legitimately get away with it, which I specifically mentioned (you may want to translate that part for me)


The real problem is that I didn't buy any accounts in any place over here (to begin with)
 
And yes, I wrote about that particular case of the attempted account purchase in other topics, and so what? If you are trying to build a case against me or discredit me somehow (which tells more about yourself than me, just in case), you may want to start a new thread, really. But you are welcome, anyway. It will be fun to watch as you fail miserably


I actually support this view (other than it being a foul accusation, of course), and I'm happy that I didn't buy that account (or any other account, for the record) as it would now have turned into a toxic asset, a liability


The truth is that I never bought (or sold) any accounts here, neither in 2014 nor in any other year, whether it was allowed or not

Will you stop deleting and re-posting? It's against the rules and annoying AF.

Kinda feels like spamming your watch list, doesn't it?

Oops, did I use the word spam in relation to deisik?  Now I'm in for 4 pages of text-walls about how deisik isn't spammer.  ::)

Damn!  I don't know why deisik is getting hazed so hard in this thread, but man is this harsh.

Deisik, I wouldn't worry about the account sale attempt from 2014, as I don't think anyone is going to go back that far to tag someone for account buying or selling--nor do I think they should.  It was a different time back then, and the account dealing situation wasn't the massive problem that it would turn out to be.

As I said, I never considered deisik a shitposter.  He did crank out a huge number of posts in a short period of time, but as far as quality goes, I've seen much worse.  It is possible for someone to devote a tremendous amount of time to posting and in the process churn out 250 posts in a week and still manage to make most of them relatively decent.  I still don't think it's right to tag you for the amount of posts you made, but since it's  untrusted feedback, I would recommend just rolling with it and move on.  Retaliatory feedback is usually not justified, btw.  Be the bigger person and maybe Lucius will cool down and reconsider.  If not, it's not the end of the world.

I'm not sure which specific part of the rules it is against

As an aside, it is really pathetic when someone accuses you of using a "method" with which you allegedly boost your post count by not merging a few separated replies to different posts into a single one, and then someone else is not quite happy with you doing the exact opposite (i.e. merging your posts into one)


So it is now about spamming watch lists. Okay then, but I'm more interested in what you are still doing here, in this very thread. Haven't you already spent more time on this subject than it deserves?


That's okay really

It just reveals what people are up to as such accusations are telling not much about myself as about the ones making them. But I find it amusing (to say the least) to actually see someone spending so much time and effort reading all that bullshit we were writing 5 years ago (release your inner Sherlock, huh). The insane amount of posts we had been submitting could actually be considered spam by today's standards but even back in the day I was far from being the most malicious spammer on the block


It may in fact turn out to be a good thing in the end as it will show real intentions of some people here, and I could always use this thread for future reference once these pathetic attempts of throwing mud at me fail, which they will


It's an interesting topic in itself as it shows how primitive (and low) people really are

As an age-old wisdom goes, it is a sin to think bad of people but it is rarely a mistake. For example, quite a few people think that if someone makes 200 posts weekly, he is necessarily a spammer. But I can make 200 posts daily without a lot of effort if I'm in my element and find a worthy "drinking buddy", so to speak. If you are experienced in something and love your thing, you can talk about it all day long and likely attract a lot of listening ears (that's why I was barely making the required 15 posts in the Gambling section as I'm not much of a gambler). Imagine Satoshi Nakamoto comes back online and starts answering questions here 24/7

And technically, in the last few years it was only on a few rare occasions that I actually made like 200 posts a week and never made more than 250. I can easily prove that but as the burden of proof is on the one who accuses, I expected them to come up first with at least some evidence proving the opposite. Instead, they came up with the idea of me deleting my posts. But the irony is that I can just as easily present proof that it is no more than yet another unsubstantiated accusation. For example, I still have access to my Coinroll account where there is a log of my activity in the forum on a daily basis. My activity in the Stake.com signature campaign is pretty well documented too


I agree that retaliatory feedback is not the right thing to do, which I stated in the OP myself. But as I was asking DT members to give negative rating to the offender, it started to look like I had been trying to hide behind their backs which is not a good thing, obviously. And I gave that dude a neutral rating anyway, so it is not strictly a retaliatory feedback, though they definitely deserve red paint on their chest, at least until they accept being flat-out wrong in this case

As such behavior destroys the purpose of the trust system and thus cannot be ignored if it is to be taken seriously

Just have a look at their signature and you know why.These kind of posts are considered high quality thanks to some dumb DT members.Its basicly merit whoring and increase of post count.Nothing more

Bumping:

You should edit your existing post,  and add text there, instead of reposting it with an addition (example (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.msg50036217#msg50036217)).
I sometimes bend the posting rules a bit though, especially for very long posts. I don't think the rules are meant to be strict limitations, they're meant to stop spammers. If you look at the post above the example I showed, you'll see I'm slightly bending the 24 hour rules by bumping a bit early, and turning my bump into a bigger post.
From my records, I can see you "bumped" this thread 3 times in 60 minutes:

Well, that was not intended as bumping

As I was basically rearranging my post by adding new content (replies) to it (as I often do when I see it appropriate). And while we are at it, can you please check your records and see what posts in my post history have been deleted by me, say, within the last few days (other than in this thread)? If you have such information, I ask you to reveal it here. Take it as my official and unconditional agreement to release this information in public


Actually, I do something like that, but it doesn't look good or proper, especially when I merge my reply to a next post with my preceding reply (like here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49978115#msg49978115)). Otherwise, you see me accused of boosting post count by using "a method"

You opened this thread with only one intention, to try red tag my account with help of DT member/s, which would be trust abuse by your own standards. Now you change your mind regarding that, but in same time you still think that I deserve red paint on their chest.

For example, let's look at how many times you asked publicly that other members abuse trust system for you :





Other members have recognized your intentions :

---

I agree it is possible to make even 1000 posts per week, but is it normal to do that? OP is obviously changing his posting habits in relation to how much is possible to earn in signature campaign. Some will call such users "paid poster" and nothing else, other have other opinion.

Your advice that he should be the bigger person then me means exactly what? If deisik show even 1% of interest to solve this with me, it would be solved, so far he is just using this thread to show me as bad person and abuser.

I'm always ready for every reasonable way of cooperation with any member, removing trust feedback is the smallest problem.

I can't see who deleted a file, it can be you, a Mod, or the creator of a self-moderated thread.
Since Feb 27, 08:11h (Dutch time), you've posted these posts:
     1. Re: Bitcoin factors drop in 2019 and now. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113806.msg49939743#msg49939743)
     2. Re: Public Benefit Corporations (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5112096.msg49940278#msg49940278)
     3. Re: Ways to Raise Prices bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113920.msg49940400#msg49940400)
     4. Re: Bitcoin up to 4100$ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113701.msg49941517#msg49941517)
     5. Re: Bitcoin up to 4100$ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113701.msg49941634#msg49941634)
     6. Re: Ways to Raise Prices bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113920.msg49941950#msg49941950)
     7. Re: Win one bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114536.msg49942319#msg49942319)
     8. Re: Free betting contest and new platform kings.ag (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113651.msg49944115#msg49944115)
     9. Re: On value dilution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113173.msg49944268#msg49944268)
    10. Re: Ways to Raise Prices bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113920.msg49944799#msg49944799)
    11. Re: JPMorgan is launching its own cryptocurrency (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113039.msg49945907#msg49945907)
    12. Re: 🔥 Devilchain - first graphic crypto casino in Telegram (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114435.msg49946754#msg49946754)
    13. Re: Free betting contest and new platform kings.ag (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113651.msg49948229#msg49948229)
    14. Re: Ways to Raise Prices bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113920.msg49954633#msg49954633)
    15. Re: Bitcoin factors drop in 2019 and now. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113806.msg49954842#msg49954842)
    16. Re: Win one bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114536.msg49954991#msg49954991)
    17. Re: Bitcoin factors drop in 2019 and now. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113806.msg49955083#msg49955083)
    18. Re: Bitcoin factors drop in 2019 and now. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113806.msg49955175#msg49955175)
    19. Re: Blackjack.fun - PROVABLY FAIR Blackjack Accepts Dash/Bitcoin/Litecoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5106215.msg49955775#msg49955775)
    20. Re: Cryptocurrency lending business. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5104481.msg49957336#msg49957336)
    21. Re: POLL: Did we hit the bottom? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5104866.msg49957499#msg49957499)
    22. Re: I expect the market to be in green throughout this month. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108217.msg49957659#msg49957659)
    23. Re: ‘Crypto not meant for humans’ says Anthony Pompliano (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115209.msg49958288#msg49958288)
    24. Re: FreeBitco.in - Contest with $30,000 in GUARANTEED PRIZES now live! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320959.msg49960170#msg49960170)
    25. Re: Will people come back to gold (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110005.msg49960642#msg49960642)
    26. Re: FreeBitco.in - Contest with $30,000 in GUARANTEED PRIZES now live! (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320959.msg49960799#msg49960799)
    27. Re: Быстрые и качественные переводы English ⬄ Russian (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3017686.msg49962411#msg49962411)
    28. An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49962595#msg49962595)
    29. Re: ➤ Top-notch translation services: English ⬄ Russian (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2361336.msg49962675#msg49962675)
    30. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49962814#msg49962814)
    31. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49963014#msg49963014)
    32. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49964116#msg49964116)
    33. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49964328#msg49964328)
    34. Re: On value dilution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113173.msg49964670#msg49964670)
    35. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49964948#msg49964948)
    36. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49965052#msg49965052)
    37. Re: BITCLOAK BITCOIN MIXER [SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN] [OPEN][Merit ++] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2349397.msg49970328#msg49970328)
    38. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49970513#msg49970513)
    39. Re: ➤ Top-notch translation services: English ⬄ Russian (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2361336.msg49970757#msg49970757)
    40. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49971074#msg49971074)
    41. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49973746#msg49973746)
    42. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49973920#msg49973920)
    43. Re: BITCLOAK BITCOIN MIXER [SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN] [OPEN][Merit ++] (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2349397.msg49974105#msg49974105)
    44. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49974328#msg49974328)
    45. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49974438#msg49974438)
    46. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49978115#msg49978115)
    47. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49978603#msg49978603)
    48. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49978769#msg49978769)
    49. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49982745#msg49982745)
    50. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49983405#msg49983405)
    51. Re: On evolution of prices (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110897.msg49984071#msg49984071)
    52. Re: On evolution of prices (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110897.msg49984791#msg49984791)
    53. Re: How much Bitcoin to accumulate now to be financially set after the next boom? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107312.msg49985995#msg49985995)
    54. Re: Are You The INTELLIGENT Cryptocurrency Investor? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114345.msg49986332#msg49986332)
    55. Re: Are You The INTELLIGENT Cryptocurrency Investor? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5114345.msg49986578#msg49986578)
    56. Re: The point of no return (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100610.msg49986990#msg49986990)
    57. Re: The point of no return (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100610.msg49987413#msg49987413)
    58. Re: The point of no return (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100610.msg49992267#msg49992267)
    59. Re: Hodler, you motherfucker. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086645.msg49996754#msg49996754)
    60. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49997316#msg49997316)
    61. Re: On value dilution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113173.msg49998252#msg49998252)
    62. Re: On value dilution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113173.msg49999539#msg49999539)
    63. Re:  Stake.com (SteveStake) is encouraging spam.  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5111069.msg50001892#msg50001892)
    64. Re: On evolution of prices (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5110897.msg50012330#msg50012330)
    65. Re: On value dilution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113173.msg50012856#msg50012856)
    66. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50013714#msg50013714)
    67. Re: Do you think Institutions secretly HODL Bitcoin?  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5104633.msg50014449#msg50014449)
    68. Re: On value dilution (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113173.msg50015446#msg50015446)
    69. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50018117#msg50018117)
    70. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50021012#msg50021012)
    71. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50025945#msg50025945)
    72. Re: Hodler, you motherfucker. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086645.msg50027022#msg50027022)
    73. Re: Do you think Bitcoin matured as a currency?  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102715.msg50027904#msg50027904)
    74. Re: Why did Bitcoin hit $4,000? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5111995.msg50028653#msg50028653)
    75. Re: Lightning Network effect on Bitcoin's price  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5092664.msg50029197#msg50029197)
    76. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50035958#msg50035958)
    77. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50036322#msg50036322)
    78. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50036535#msg50036535)
    79. Re: Bitcoin vs. Gold, Fiat and Altcoins (Updated: Traits of Money) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084692.msg50039947#msg50039947)
    80. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50040505#msg50040505)
    81. Re: Bitcoin vs. Gold, Fiat and Altcoins (Updated: Traits of Money) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084692.msg50042369#msg50042369)
    82. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50042618#msg50042618)

I didn't check which posts are deleted.

That's none of your business


It's not what I'm asking

Basically, I'm asking what posts have been recently deleted by me irrespective of when exactly they were contributed (i.e. a month or a year ago). If it is possible to compile such a list, then it will be clear whether or not I recently deleted any posts from my post history (as some people here claim) and which posts specifically have been deleted (i.e. what has been deleted). Ironically, during my 8 week journey in the stake.com signature campaign only 1 (one) post has been actually deleted by a mod (despite a multitude of reports mods had seemingly received during that period):


Indeed, I disagree with its deletion but I agree that it was somewhat off-topic in that thread. It also shows how hard it was for me to post in that board (even though it was only 15 posts weekly)

But it did bump. So stop doing that.

Is deleting/reposting allowed? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1600020.msg16072095#msg16072095)

Sorry, I misread it. Users can't know this, unless they've scraped your post history already.

Its about thread bumping which i doubt was here the intention.

The edit function of posts allows one to add new content to it, as desired.

I assume, from the context, that the post thereof was also the most recent one. There should be no reason to delete and repost instead of editing.

In any case where someone has responded afterward, one can subsequently insert details into their following reply.

There's just one thing that I find worth mentioning. Lucius said that deisik should have sent a PM to resolve the matter before starting this thread and got angry at deisik for trying to get dt on his side instead of talking to him. Why didn't Lucius PM deisik about his annoying bumping before painting him red?

I don't know why this thread is being escalated so much if you are able to resolve it for mutual benefit. Maybe deisik will learn to use the edit button and the trust will get changed to neutral or deleted? Just an idea you'll do as you please ;)

This is not about annoying bumping

It is a minor issue and I'm not sure at all if it is actually as annoying as reported. But you make a totally legit point which I'm trying to convey in this topic myself. People are asking me to contact the offender and now even the offender himself seems to be asking exactly that but man this is preposterous if you ask me

It is not me who started this controversy to begin with and if someone screwed up here, it is his fault, not mine, and it is his unconditional duty and obligation to fix things and redeem himself. Really, why should I care about someone who didn't care about me at all in the fist place and whose intention was clearly to hurt me?

It usually works in reverse, that's why. Lucius is not in dt from what I can see, thus I see no issue here.

I don't really see what anyone can do in this situation to change the result.

I don't think Lucius deserves a negative. An exclusion at most, but they aren't in the DT system and will be largely unaffected by it.

---

I don't hunt down the scores of users that hound me with negative feedback. It's a waste of time. (Most of them being retaliatory, anyway)

Funny how everyone stands on the sideline until it is their own ass isn't it?

When I said that it was in reference to your request that I dig through 21K of your posts to pick out ones I thought are spam.  Again, I admit you're not the typical shitposter so it does sound like daunting task, one I do not care to spend any time doing.  However, prior to that I had given you some sane advice which you made very clear was not welcome.  So, no I won't be spending any more time trying to help you, but watching you implode under the weight of your own ego does lend some entertainment value to this thread. 

I've been always telling that this system does more harm than good


So you weren't actually going to prove anything in the first place, were you?

You wrote a lengthy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49989647#msg49989647) post (and even received some merits for it from the abuser), but now you basically admit that it was nothing more than an effort at slandering as your post is stocked with foul insinuations but it has never been your intention to prove them. And even in this post you are still continuing to insinuate ("you're not the typical shitposter"). Why am I not surprised at all?

Other than that, to prove me a spammer you don't need to go through all my 21k posts as the posts made in the last couple months should suffice (according to the negative rating I received). Simply put, with each post you make here, you are falling deeper and deeper into this rabbit hole, and I'm not sure if it is not your ego which is going to get hurt in the end. And now you can't even call it a day anymore

What, exactly, are you looking for in this situation? Lucius is not going to receive negative feedback for his. Even if he does, it won't rid of the feedback itself. Not directly, anyway.

No, you're not a typical shitposter, but now you're starting to resemble a typical troll.  Actually my first post in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg49975991#msg49975991) was more critical of Lucius than you.  I called his review frivolous, so no there was no intention to slander you.  It wasn't until you got belligerent with other contributors that I started calling you out for being overly butthurt.  I did just enough research to try show you why someone might have come to Lucius' conclusion.  It was an attempt at mitigation, but seeing the other side of the story wasn't in your interest.

Like actmyname, I don't know what you expect to achieve by continuing to beat this dead horse.

Stand on the sidelines of what?  Deisik got a neg from someone not on DT, which I think he shouldn't have received but nevertheless should just accept and move on.  If I got upset every time I got negged, I'd be in a straitjacket, locked in a room with padded walls. 

Deisik may post way more than the average member, but his grasp of English is above average and his posts aren't crappy like you typically see with sig spammers.  It is certainly possible to make as many posts as he has and still not be a shitposter--you just have to be able to write (which deisik can) and spend enough time (which deisik apparently does).  I don't think it's reasonable to call him a spammer based on post count alone.

Conveniently for you though your received negative ratings are meaningless because you conduct little to no trade here. Must be great to take no risks while handing out negs like candy. It is quite magnanimous of you to tell him to accept it and move on, again this having no cost to you personally.

You are the sidelines. The path of least resistance. The people who stand by and shrug when this abuse happens and tell them to move on. Then the problem gets out of control for everyone, but what do you have to worry about? You aren't taking any risks after all.

I've done trades on the forum. I have a large number of negative feedbacks sent to my profile. It has had an insignificant effect, or an effect that I have not yet perceived.

Perhaps I don't trade as much as I could, but I hardly think that the feedback given to me has affected me at all.

Looks like deisik doesn't do much trading here either, based on his feedback, so TECSHARE is making an agenda-driven mountain out of deisik's molehill.  I would suggest that deisik would have little trouble trying to do business with a neg that's untrusted and is not because he's a scammer--just like I've never had trouble.  And TECSHARE, I don't know how many trades I've done here, but I bet you didn't either when you wrote that nonsense.  Ask gameristo how many trades we've done, count up my feedback from deals and then get back to me, eh?

This side discussion is moot if we don't consider the end-goal.

What do you exactly want to be done?

---

Negative feedback can proliferate from any stream, be it a high-ranking member of a newly-created account. To someone who doesn't check the source, it's more-or-less equivalent (recognizable names may skew results).

If they do check the source, odds are that they will have read the comment and concluded that the feedback has little to do with the user's actual trustworthiness.

Just because this is the case for you does not mean it is the case for everyone. Again you are a more casual trader, some people depend heavily on their reputation. As some one who makes a point to try to trade with new users, they often don't know the difference between an invalid or a valid rating. When it comes to high value trades it doesn't take much to spook people. I have literally had users walk on large deals over a single retaliatory rating from an abandoned red marked account.

I tried to explain, but their mind was made up and they were already spooked. No one is going to send first to new users, and I don't use escrow for what should be pretty obvious reasons by now. That means I am regularly in a position to have completely new users to this forum and Bitcoin, and asking them to trust sending me large amounts of value based ONLY upon my trust ratings here. Yes, they do make a difference, I have personally witnessed it with so few in what is otherwise a stellar trust history.



Yes, the handful of documented trades in your ratings over the past 2 years are impressive. Especially the one for the coke points. You are a trust cop first, and for such a prolific trader as you claim to be your ratings seem to be mostly ass kissing over your trust policing. The point stands, the trust system doesn't effect you at all because you don't depend on it to function here like others who take it more seriously and conduct regular transactions.



But they usually don't check, or if they do they don't even look into any of the ratings. What I want is for this forums user base to snap out of the "its not my problem" mode next time you see people abusing their authority, along with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. Everyone just eats their popcorn and watches the struggles, until it is their ass, then suddenly they get it.

I've always agreed with the idea of a foundation for decisions in terms of trust ratings.

Where is the enforceability, though? Even in this case, for example.

You are looking at it. We are. If the standard of evidence was of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, the rating party could be informed of this standard and that their rating is not considered acceptable. If they refuse to modify it or present evidence according to the very basic standard, then they should, and will likely be excluded by anyone with any influence within the trust network. The rating will continue to exist, just hidden from most users and having minimal effect on the recipient.

The important part is all this bullshit argument over it being valid or not just gets to get skipped, and either evidence is presented or it is not. The entire point being to clarify what ratings are acceptable, reduce disputes over nonsense, and reduce signal noise of frivolous ratings making them once again mean something.

Well, this horse is quite alive and kicking


Basically, that's the reason why the current system should be dismantled altogether

Now we see that it's been patched here and there but without addressing its core issues, it will continue to do more harm than good, which it does. In fact, it doesn't work even in the best scenario as we all know quite a few examples from the forum history when highly-trusted members ended up stealing money from people here. And their high trust actually helped them in stealing more money than they would have stolen otherwise

I don't know what the new system should be and whether it should be at all but a) you can't solve a problem by relying on those who create it (read, the overhead of separating the wheat from the chaff is unacceptable as this thread clearly shows), and b) whatever the solution might be it should effectively address the shortcomings and pitfalls of the current system (read, it may well be a catch-22)

So what is your idea of a perfect system?
I see 3 possible ways.
The first one is the current unmoderated system, where I can write what I want on your trust page, even if it's a lie, and it will remain there until I decide to remove it.
The second is a moderated system, or an approval-based system, where someone is watching over (very time consuming).
The third one is no trust system at all.

Out of these three, the first one is still the best, at least in my view. It has its flaws, but you have to learn to adapt and work around it, and people are doing just that. For instance, if I saw you being called a spammer I'd ignore it, because I've read plenty of your posts. You should also ignore it, unless Lucius is someone you think highly of and his feedback is important to you.

If Lucius advances to dt, I'm sure you'll find someone who will give you a positive to counter his feedback.

That is the most correct statement I have ever read on this forum, I have always had respect for people who are active in Computer Hardware and related physical goods that have done a lot of trades physically like you but now that I see , you speak the truth and only the truth here, I gave you my last merits I had to give because this is how it should be, people should express their opinion freely. You are right that many DT members are giving trust to each other like "a good cop and I trust this person" and shit like that which cannot be compared to a feedback received from a real physical trade in different cities of a country or even between two user of different countries.

Well, nothing is every going to meet your standards because you're comparing everyone to yourself.  In your mind, you're the ideal DT member who's done tons of trades, blah blah blah....end of story.  Meanwhile, what I said still stands.  Deisik isn't being inhibited from doing trades; he doesn't do many, anyway; and the negative he got is essentially meaningless for trading purposes.  You go right ahead and tell yourself you won this argument, but this is why it's pointless arguing with you.  You just changed the goalposts and cherry picked one trade I did to minimize everything.  Nice job.

I need an answer: what do you want to have happen to Lucius?

If it's a matter of the system itself, that's up to theymos.

---

Remember neither negative trust nor exclusions will get rid of the feedback on your trust page.

Like I said:

Have you looked at his trust ratings? Most of them are people who sent second, so they risked nothing, but they gave him trust anyway.

The one which doesn't exist (read, there is no need for it)

I can tell exactly what the problem with the current system is. It is based on the assumption that people act in a responsible manner. But they act so only if they risk to suffer negative consequences for their irresponsible behavior. If there is no such risk, the total majority of people will soon start to behave badly and this is what happens in practice and real life. Whenever there is no more authority and law enforcement, humans quickly turn into animals. Simply put, you can't actually expect people to be responsible until and unless they are forced to be responsible. But then you won't need this system as you can enforce the rules directly (read, make people pay for their evil actions)

That's basically the key reason why any such system is set to fail and eventually turn into its opposite (remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions). Technically, the current system encourages its abuse as the abusers easily get away with their wrongdoings, while it doesn't protect those who fall victim to these criminals. Thus, the overall effect is net negative. Apart from that, I don't see any reason in "learning to adapt to it" (let alone "working around it") as I'm not doing anything wrong in the first place. And such attitude only confirms that the damage the current implementation produces by far outweighs the good it does (if there is any at all)


The answer to this question has already been given in the thread. In fact, it is given in the OP itself. Just in case, I will be satisfied if forum members leave them a neutral rating with a reference to this thread like what I already did


Someone asked and I replied

Which is you spreading false information. You are absolutely not harmed in any way from this case.

No.

He only wants one thing, that any of DT members tag my account with negative / neutral feedback, in retaliation for my negative feedback, which is in no case affect his status on this forum. If you read the whole thread you can see that some DT members and others gave a very clear answer regarding his request and ask him to lock this thread.

Continuous repetition of the same request clearly shows only one intent, and in the same time shows that he encourages others to abuse their positions of DT members for the purpose of his private issue.

Is the request to abuse DT system because of some private thing perhaps deserves that this user is get at least neutral tag?

No.

Rephrasing the same text over and over again might be against forum rules, and in that case you could report the posts to be deleted. But it's probably better if you just click "Ignore" and stop reading the posts you don't like.

They seem to have made into DT2


Okay, we are there. Now what?


It loos like circumstances have changed


Time for action?


Let's see how it goes in practice

Oh, you've been tagged in "old" system and you got yourself a "scammer sign" on top of your topics. Anyway, I countered this , please send PM to Lucius and let me know when he either removes it/change it to neutral/get excluded from DT.

I sent them a PM asking to remove the negative feedback. Will keep everyone posted

Here's the PM I sent them yesterday:

https://i.imgur.com/Y6Ntzp5.png

Since I didn't receive any reply and the negative feedback was not removed, I assume that there is no such intention. So we have a malicious trust abuser who is now a DT2 member. I'm not sure how it stands with other DT members, but it is definitely against the purposes of the trust system

Feels like a moment of truth to me

Many months ago, I remember that I asked from this forum user to not quote me again because most of his posts were pretty low quality/spammy and I was spending unnecessary effort while answering his non-sense but still,

I don't believe he deserved a red trust rating for that.

I ignored him and that was enough to solve the problem. (he also didn't quote me again since I warned him.)

If he is breaking the rules, just report his posts and the mods will decide what to do with them. (Either delete the posts, ban him or do nothing.)

It's really sorry to see that higher ranked users even mess with the forum feedback system and the forum rules. Tagging someone for shit posting is really kind of abuse and this should only be handled by moderators only. If deisik were shit posting, it would be a fiar decision to deisik if Lucius have reported the said spam.

You've reached DT2 2 months ago. According to BPIP (https://bpip.org/r/dt1changes.aspx), cabalism13 (who was on DT1 at that time) added you to his Trust list on the same day you left him this positive feedback:
Since you didn't risk anything, I'd say your feedback should be neutral instead of positive. Adding you to DT2 around the moment you left positive feedback looks like Trust selfscratching (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143841.0) to me. You're not the only one, Cabalism13 has put three (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-04-25_Sat_05.02h/950786.html) other (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-04-25_Sat_05.02h/1713155.html) users (https://loyce.club/trust/2020-04-25_Sat_05.02h/807453.html) who left him positive feedback on DT2 by himself.

I can add a link to my topic to my quote: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0)

In my opinion, the proper tag for Trust abuse is a neutral tag. See (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2726873) me (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=829024) doing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1003533) this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2628189) here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=845203). But you've left a neutral tag already for Lucius, so well done :)

---

---

@Lucius: May I suggest you change this tag to neutral? Your red feedback doesn't fit theymos' description:
You may also want to read this post from theymos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5221908.msg53741011#msg53741011) where he shares his intention for the feedback system.
@cabalism13: I'm surprised you're not mentioned in this topic yet, while you're the one who put Lucius on DT2. May I suggest to reconsider this?
@other DT1s: I don't like excluding users (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5098623.0) over small things, so in my opinion it would be best if Lucius/Cabalism13 resolve this. Too many pages have been filled for this already!

I sent them a PM too (this morning) asking to review the thread and reconsider their decision to add Lucius to DT2


I only noticed my negative trust yesterday (I mean the yellow -1 under avatar). I had DT2 disabled and opened one of my topics with another browser. I was rather surprised to see my account referred to as a scammer

I was already sleeping after my post on gambling LOL.
Edit:
My habit of adding users on my Network comes for a reason and not just because I wanted them to be on DT. I just had a smooth transaction by that time with him and considering he's generosity to my Charity, how can't I trust him...

There are just a few of you on my Network who I just trust based on my observations and for not having various transactions. In my case, I just wanted to see his feedback on my profile. As you can see whenever I got a smooth transaction I left them positive feedbacks.

---

Though I just hope removing him would be fine...

You can check how many of my posts have been deleted by mods on bpip.org (https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?id=156665)


So it is 36 deleted posts out of 23478 posts contributed. And most of these posts were deleted in threads after someone had necroposted in them (read, the posts were deleted not on their own merits or lack thereof). So much for shitposting and spamming. But let me explain to you what happened back in 2019. The trust abuser had probably reported on me like a dozen times, and after none of my posts had been deleted, he simply lost his mind and went totally nuts and bananas


I remember every brawl with every poster I had in the past here or elsewhere

You went completely unnoticed until you showed up with that ridiculous demand, unexpected and out of the blue. Technically, I can't even say that you were posting bullshit as your posts were most certainly just like that, perfectly unimpressive and mediocre. Just saying

I remember some users were called out because of this in the past, this is not good use of trust system...
You had me in your trust network (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-08-31_Sat_06.04h/1605387.html) and you trusted my judgement before I called you out for trying to help scam yobit advertise here/whatever and after I tagged you, you excluded (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-08-31_Sat_06.04h/1605387.html) me.

Prior to that, you trusted my judgement for at least 34 weeks (http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-25_Fri_22.33h/1605387.html)...

Observations  :D :D :D

---

Counter feedback is removed...

I was trying to share the main point, not accusing you of being a spammer, man.

Yeah, excluded you so I wouldn't see my red.
After that I did just remove you. And didn't trust your judgment again, it was all a mistake and some misunderstandings. BTW it's all in the past now :P

Like what I've said:
Means I did trust him.

---

Anyways, my last reply here, Hoping deisik would be satisfied from my action.

It was not intended that way either. I just saw an opportunity in case this issue comes up again as it had already happened in the past (the whole thread is def worth reading)


It is still a ticking bomb, though

If you trust him, which in your case you trusted him financially, you can leave him a positive feedback so that you can know whom you are dealing with and others can do business with him. On the other hand, trust with financially does not mean you should trust his feedback. Both are very different.

Your quote from Trust settings (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust) is incomplete:

It's confusing that the forum calls both Trust lists and feedback "Trust". On my Trust list viewer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5102296.0), I replaced "users you Trust" by "users who's judgement you Trust" to highlight the distinction.

Okay, guys, this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=533583) dude has again been promoted to some DT level

I have already written to LeGaulois (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=507856) to remove him from the trust list

---

Update: the trust abuser has been removed from DT2

https://i.imgur.com/Q4znfJ7.jpg

The fact is, I’m abuse system to leave you the negative feedback you definitely deserve, even though I can’t be in DT for it - but that’s the price I’m willing to pay. How low did this forum go that a troll and spammer like this could be part of any campaign at all, even if one of the most respectable members left such feedback.

Please no nonsense about negative and neutral feedback, we clarified that a long time ago.

Man, you definitely chose the wrong target. There is nothing that either you or your campaign manager can pit against me (apart from personal dislikes). So yes, your exclusion from the trust lists is well-deserved

It's not nonsense. Negative trust for spamming is not appropriate, you're just too stubborn to admit that you made a mistake and instead of having a chance to contribute to the forum as a DT2 member you're pissing it away for the sake of grandstanding against one of thousands of spammers.

Even though I've posted this months ago already (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg54631275#msg54631275), I'll give it one more try:
That's really all there is to it. You can choose to use the Trust system correctly (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0), be included, and your feedback will actually matter. Or you can choose to use it any way you want, no Admin is going to delete your feedback, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously.

Of course, it is not appropriate and I have admitted it many times. The system has been shown to work on my example, but why doesn't it work on the example of many other DT members who leave similar negative feedbacks and have no problems because of it? As in real life, rules exist but are applied differently to different people.


Since you are doing various forum analyzes and statistics, here is a challenge for you to check all DT1/2 members and their inappropriate feedbacks, due to which only a few were publicly named, but without any consequences.

There's a lot of those, partially because theymos changed the feedback descriptions when Flags were introduced and older feedback doesn't always fit the current description. And partially because many people leave feedback I don't agree with. I can't automate this, and I don't want to manually check tens of thousands of feedbacks. But if one pops up (like in your case), I share my opinion. Sometimes people change their mind, sometimes they don't.
Note that I haven't excluded (or included) you over this. I don't agree with all feedbacks for most people, so my Trust list is only based on the majority of their feedback.

That still doesn't make it right. If some users are doing questionable things here it doesn't mean you should to. Besides there are many examples of DT members and other users removing or revising inappropriate feedback, not to mention vast majority of them not using red trust against spammers to begin with. That would be the example to follow if you must.

There is a first time for everything, so some things are a challenge for you too - but maybe you better not open that pandora box because you could find very awkward things about how some DT1/2 members use their feedbacks. The rules exist, but they don’t apply to everyone - if I can’t be a DT member because of my feedback, how is it possible that dozens of others don’t have any problems because of it? The answer is simple, I am not a member of any gang ;)

The gang card! But the answer is much simpler than that, forum members don't trust your judgement.

---

You have 8 pages of people telling you that this is wrong use of trust system. If I were you, I would start reading this topic again ;)

I was wondering when you will appear and spill some of your wisdom - and for you as well as for others who enforce the laws of the forum by choosing to whom you will apply them or not I say once again to review at least all DT1 members and their negative feedbacks. At least you met your daily quota and got merit, two flies with one blow ;)

Quoted for reference.

First you play the "gang card", then you go for "sig spam"... while wearing a sig... well played! ::)

At the end of the day, how you want to use the trust ratings is up to you, just don't expect others to agree with you... and judging by the replies in this thread, it would appear that you are in the minority thinking that "spammers" deserve red trust.

To clarify my thoughts on this, red trust was designed as a trading/financial risk indicator... for spammers, the best tool is "report to moderator" on offending posts.

I would prequel this with "how low did this forum go" and then throw to the mix "it is not appropriate and I have admitted it many times". Feels a little schizophrenic if you ask me, but adds some spice


The irony is that the red trust has nothing to do with the so-called "spamming" or me "increasing post number by replying individually to each post" (which was also shown to be mostly incorrect anyway). For the time being, the inquiring minds could search around my posts about the date the red trust in question had been added (it's all there)

And I will post a link later

marlboroza, are you happy now? You finally got a reason to leave me feedback, I know I wish you had a reason it could have been negative, but I hope this neutral brightened your day too ;)

---

I was actually referring to belonging to one of these gangs -> Gangs of BitcoinTalk :) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226757.0) It was supposed to be a sarcastic post, like the one he post before - but if someone is looking for a reason to see negativity in something, they will always find a way to do it.

Bullshit by marlboroza and a nice show of how a gang works.


This world is full of ego !

( Note : I don't agree with the negative feedback on the OP )

It is nice to see that my neutral feedback opened your eyes and you just agreed that negative is unjustified and neutral is appropriate use of trust system  :)  :-*

Now do the right thing and change that negative feedback to neutral.

---

Look, not even fraudulent ICO bumping shitposting account agrees with you.

Should we expect one more topic called 'MMM is a signature spammer by LLL', or that right is only reserved for individuals with special needs? :)

Maybe theymos should add special DTL members, trusted by everyone even after everyone is telling them they are using trust system in a wrong way.
DTL member never change a feedback.
DTL member is always right.
DTL above everyone.

DTL
DT1
DT2
DT3

I have never claimed that the way I used feedback is correct, and I have repeatedly admitted that I am fully aware that that feedback should have been neutral. If deisik had responded appropriately and sent me only one PM I would have surely changed it - but he was just asking DT members to react and leave negative feedback to me. I still don’t think it’s normal for someone to make 200 posts a week and reach that number in a way that responds to each post individually instead of using the multi-quote option.

Since it's been a long time and I don't want any more discussion on this topic, I will not change the feedback from negative to neutral, but I will delete it completely - and I will just say that I completely agree with what DarkStar_ wrote as his feedback.

However, I believe that all people make mistakes sometimes, and that deisik can change and become a valuable member of the forum if he wants to.

---

You shouldn’t expect any new thread that someone is a signature spammer, I didn’t even leave feedback to marlboroza, and he is removed his feedback so all is resolved.  On the other hand, you did not show the slightest desire to resolve our dispute, but in a very ugly way you only decided to make the situation worse. I have been staying away from you ever since, but I see that you still have a need to attack me for some reason. For your information, I have known marlboroza since he was a Newbie on this forum, and despite the fact that we may not think the same in every situation, I respect him like all other forum members who have earned that respect over time.

Nobody ever attacked you and it was not me who started creating bogus fake lying & crying topics, and calling other people jealous and envious.

You clearly have some issues, and you want other members to respect you and beg you for something (including deisik that still have negative feedback and all croatian community) but you will not get that from me.

I also didn't ask you for reply, but I replied to Marlboroza post and asked him the question, not you :)

Anyway, peace, I don't want to fight with anyone here.

Nah, after the "gang" card and the "signature spam" card, Lucius pulled out "it was sarcasm" card so it is OK then. Besides, I need to call him "sig spammer", then he will create topic about me, it doesn't work the other way  :P

---

@deisik, as this is resolved, can you please lock topic? And, it wouldn't be so bad thing to remove that retaliatory feedback which you placed on Lucius's trust page.

More than 5 years on this forum and only issue I have is with deisik and you, so if that's a problem then I don't know what you would think of some other cases. I did not ask anyone for anything, nor do I ask for any special status on the forum, and I admit that I was wrong to react to your and another member's statement that my posts are just filling the quota of posts for the signature campaign. But on the other hand, it’s not nice at all to imply someone to write their posts just to meet a daily or weekly quota.

As for the Croatian community, only two members have a problem with me - the others are completely correct and I am not in any conflict with them.

Stop playing victim here

You broke the rules, admitted it, and still assume I should be contacting you? You certainly lack something in your understanding about life


Removed, locked