Bitcoin Forum

I think TheButterZone needs to be taken off the default trust list because I think he's a borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder. I've seen he enjoys having control over other people and is easily angered and wants to make people look stupid to make himself look smarter and I don't think that's someone who's opinion should carry as much weight as it does on the forum. I don't think it's fair that my forum reputation is ruined from a joke I made in a post after I've been a dedicated member for almost two years.  I sent him a message to work it out and never received a response because I think he enjoys being in a higher position than someone to make them look lesser. Theymos implemented the trust system shortly after I messaged him awhile back about the benefits it could have but I don't think giving a non staff member the ability to ruin someone's account because of their personal opinion is very beneficial for the site. I would agree on a few people who truly care about the site like Tomatocage and DannyHamilton and a handful of others, but for other people it allows them to ruin other people's reputations because of their opinions in which I doubt the motives to very often.


More information on the default trust settings on page two:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858730.msg9557990#msg9557990

Unless you have some kind of actual evidence of someone being a criminal then you should not post as such. I do think that it is an overreaction for him to give you negative trust over two posts (this is much less of a threshold then what TECSHARE) had when giving negative trust to armis).

I do think that his many self moderated threads are very sketchy as they prevent people from asking honest questions about what he is selling. 

I understand that and it was meant to be as a joke and I messaged him apologizing if I offended him and that I'd watch what I posted in the marketplace in the future but never received a response after waiting two days. I think he's overreacted given that he's misusing the trust system to ruin my standing by saying not to trust me (That I'm a criminal) and using the negative rep that's only supposed to be used for "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.". I've seen TBZ in OTC and read his posts on the forum and I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't strongly suspect it. Not only with TBZ but like you said with TECHSHARE, people will use their opinions to ruin other legitimate members reputation's for nothing at all and I don't think that helps the site. Obviously I thought I was joking and I didn't think anyone would take offense to my post or else I wouldn't of posted it because I have nothing against TBZ or J.Socal. I don't think it displays good judgment to ruin my reputation over something so small and then retaliate by editing his original post when I negative repped him for misusing the trust system. I think in order to have your account show up as negative you have to scam someone, show strong tendencies to scam, or just be a plain asshole around the forums like El Cabron. I think there should be a handful of people that carry that weight on the forum and you'd have to go through them and they will decide if it's warranted or not, because with all these people it's impossible to tell if it's warranted or not. I don't think allowing people to post to have their negative feedback removed is a good idea because it'd require a lot of work but I think if my account is going to show up as -6/-1 , I should have to do something a lot worse.

I initially left a neutral on Wardrick, but his/her persistence in "joking" that I was a murderer (libel) left me no choice but to escalate it to a negative trust. To say that distrusting a libeler, "a plain asshole" in other words, is "an overreaction"... /shakeshead This topic is just more evidence against him, and has been saved as PDF.

Wardrick seems to want us to believe simultaneously that he/she doesn't have a pattern of "joking" (libeling) about people other than me being criminals (when others could just be self-moderating or reporting to mods his/her libel away), but also that this isn't just laser-focused aggression against me (I guess I can give him a partial pass on J.Socal after discovering some previous trades they did).

Then, I received a PM from Graven, claiming to be Wardrick. Something was alleged in there, that if I were a medical professional, would be prohibited by HIPAA from disclosing. However, despite only having medical stuff as a hobby, I added Graven to my PM ignore list because it sounded like BS. Graven, will you allow me to quote the PM you sent me in this topic, for peer review?



Self-moderation does not prevent people from asking honest questions. There is no "pending approval" stage like you'd see on a Wordpress or Disqus comment section. Self-moderation does however allow people to interfere with business by libeling the OP, spamming, etc... until such time as the OP chooses to delete the abusive replies viewable by the public until then.

PS: I either forgot or was unaware I was on default trust. Not that there absolutely has to be a crosslinking, but theymos didn't rate me on http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=TheButterZone&sign=ANY&type=RECV - if it will stop Wardrick's libelous posting pattern, I have no attachment to being on DT.

Posting that I am "ripping off" people for selling an item AT COST, and posting insults repeatedly on the ONLY SPACE I am allowed to retail is not "honest questions", in fact it wasn't even a question, it was just him attempting to hijack my marketplace threads for no reason. If his only goal was to bring to light some supposed abuse, what were the repeated insulting posts for? You like everyone else just skimmed over that whole thread and just assumed because he is crying like he had been wronged that I did what I did for no reason. He had every opportunity to have it removed but instead chose to try to dictate to me what he wanted done after he began the whole thing. As a result he is now stuck with my trust rating permanently, when I offered to remove it if he would simply remove his multiple slanderous posts in about 5 different market place OPs of mine.

If people want to criticize me or anyone else they have the ENTIRE FORUM to do it in. You know where I get to trade things here? In a single OP. He comes into the only place I am allowed to trade and starts slandering me and claiming I am ripping off people because he could find it for less somewhere else. You could do that for about 90% of all the posts in the marketplace. Furthermore retailing for a profit is not immoral, a ripoff, or unfair. People have the free will to decide who they trade with and for what price. All Armis was doing was using the shell of a social warrior so he could vindicate his harassment. Pretending like he is bringing social justice to an individual trading at very small scales as if I was the establishment itself bringing down oppression on the people by asking for what I paid for in return for an item.

It is a rather transparent troll game, one I have seen here a lot on these forums. As long as you get your stolen gift cards below cost from unknown traders of COURSE any legitimate retailer will appear to be overpriced for selling AT COST. Of course why would anyone care if people like Armis makes it really hard for traders to trade here, he isn't harassing you. It is a far more popular decision to attack me for defending the very small space I am able to trade in here rather than the person who actual perpetrated these events to begin with and escalated this at every step of the way, because after all he said I lied about him, so it must be true. Democracy in action here - mob rule. Everyone wants some one they can trust to trade with but no one is willing to even allow me to defend myself from harassment. Meanwhile people like butterzone go around every day leaving trust for people who don't even have any direct involvement with them, but my use of trust to defend myself from harassment was wrong.  ::)

This thread is a perfect example of how this happens ALL THE TIME on thee forums and the mods and staff pick and choose who they want to coerce and harass and who they want to excuse, therefore dictating the content and context of trust to their liking.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.0

When the neutral trust option bubble was added a few days ago, I downgraded almost all my negs to neutrals as appropriate. I think all the negs I've left are now for the "I am a victim of this person, so nemo me impune lacessit" circumstances.

In order for something to be considered libel, it needs to be

• untrue
• cause you actual harm
• said/written in a way that others would reasonably believe it to be true

I don't know you, and really don't know one way or another if you actually have killed someone before, but I think it is fair to say that you have not (at least for purposes of this discussion). You could probably argue that you have never been convicted of killing someone before nor have you been suspected of killing someone (both of which I assume to be true).

I am not sure about the other two issues. Do you seriously think that an empty accusation of being a murder without any evidence would override the trust that you have within the community? I personally would doubt so.

I do think that the OP's actions may warrant a temporary ban if he has shown a true pattern of this kind of behavior (making empty accusations without evidence - however once evidence is presented the accusation is no longer 'empty') as what he is doing could be considered to be trolling; however the pattern would most likely need to be a lot longer then just two posts

To be clear this isn't meant as an attack on you Butterzone but rather a prime example of how this behavior is accepted around here, is common, and is selectively enforced. I think users should be free to choose why they leave feedback, because there is no reliable or fair way to moderate it. I argue that people who abuse the trust system will simply not hold as much weight with users because it is clear trust is left flippantly by that user. Trying to moderate trust is a disaster and opens up avenues for all types of abuse.

If I saw that you had left me a neutral feedback I wouldn't have joked around about it after I posted my last post on it. I had only made a post to your self-moderated thread and a post to J.Socal's thread jokingly not knowing it would be taken seriously which is why I feel this way. Being on your ignore list I had to create another account to message you so that's why I did that, and yes you can go ahead and post the message. I didn't intend to come off as an asshole but if I did I apologize which is the reason I sent you a message and the reason I posted this thread because I didn't receive a response.

I think that 3-prong test varies by jurisdiction/legal system. I was just going by the OED; libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

If that accusation came from someone with much less than a ~2 year history on BCT, it might not override. But, it didn't.

IMO, it's never acceptable/excusable to "joke" about someone being a murderer unless you have probable cause to suspect them of being a murderer or everyone can see public records they have been convicted of same.

Even if you have...

Butterzone, I think where we agree is that not all critical posts in the marketplace or other areas where people are engaged in professional activities here are accurate or warranted. People who engage in such activity should not be free to do so without repercussion. Being critical of a user for engaging in actual fraudulent or dishonest activity is one thing, and users are free to bring light to anyone engaged in these acts pretty much on the entire forum. For the rest of the dedicated users operating here professionally and obeying posting guidelines, allowing this kind of activity or furthermore punishing users for acting against it is a slap in the face. Letting some one control their own marketplace thread does not some how silence critics because they have the ENTIRE FORUM to be critical of users. Not letting some one take a crap all over your storefront is not equivalent to silencing free speech.

The first two was from my understanding of the libel laws in the US and the standard of proof that must be presented in order for someone to be 'liable' for libel.

The third bullet is my interpretation of US supreme court rulings on first amendment issues regarding satire of 'famous' people and libel.

I really cannot argue the moral issue of "joking" that someone is a murderer as this is not the appropriate venue for that and I do not have a strong enough of an opinion.  

I would say that if you truly think there is a connection between his two comments and his ability to be trusted then the negative trust is appropriate. If you cannot make a strong logical connection between someone making this empty claim and their ability to be trusted then the negative trust is not appropriate. Remember that negative trust should be given if "you were scammed or if you strongly believe this person is a scammer"

Unless you own the property that someone is making speaking on, then you do not have any right to "punish" them for what they say. You do not own the thread in which you are selling your goods, and therefore you do not have any right to punish anyone who says anything in your thread (provided they are not attempting to scam).

It is a valid question to ask why you are charging a certain price when others are charging a lower price. If you feel your price is appropriate then you should respond to then why they are appropriate and any potential customer can see both of your arguments in a transparent way.

TECSHARE: /nods


Well, as I cannot afford to bring a libel suit, my use of the word "libel" is only for OED (non-lawyers' common understanding) purposes, not Black's Law/statutes/case law.

If someone is willing to damage someone's reputation by lying about their commission of the ultimate individual crime of violence (second overall only to mass murder), that's far worse IMO than simply committing property crimes, aka scamming. Perhaps there should be a double negative rating that covers accusations and defenses of heinous violent crimes.

To make it absolutely clear...
Murder>Theft

I agree that murder is much worse then theft, however "trying" to damage one's reputation by claiming they have killed someone is not worse then actually stealing from someone. There are plenty of people who have gone on to be successful after being found not guilty of murder (and after being accused of murder by the government).

I would say that some "double negative" trust rating would be appropriate for people who have killed before, for example, altoid/ross/DPR

First of all, it was just a joke and it was posted in your moderated thread so I knew it was going to be deleted by you and it wasn't intended to hurt your reputation because I think everyone on the forum knows your not a murderer. Secondly, reading the negative rep you left me you're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing except you're not joking about it and you're using your forum status to your personal advantage and not for the well being of the site. "I wouldn't trust this user with a single grain of rice or anything more valuable." is what you left on my profile. I don't think things like this are benefiting the site at all especially since I haven't done anything besides make a joke. Negative repping someone is only suppose to be used for people who are scammers and show suspicions of scamming, and you can't use it for anything else or you're breaking the rules. I don't think this displays enough responsibility to have that kind of power. I've been here for almost two years and I've contributed a lot to the site and for my account to be ruined over something like this is ridiculous. I think if the "Trusted Feedback" were only able to be used for people who've proven they can use it responsibly it would solve a lot of the problems around the forum. My account is branded with negative rep for something that doesn't have anything to do with trading and I believe it will hurt my business around the forums and I don't think that's fair for a member who hasn't scammed or broken any of the rules.

My reputation has already been damaged by the libel; do you think I need to end up on death row, in prison or under legal defense bills typically exceeding commonly scammed amounts (>$100k vs <$10k) as the end result of the libel, for this to cross your moral line, MilesJohan?


As if you psychically knew that I would be able to delete the "joke" before anyone else but me could see it. Ex post facto BS! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If I can't trust you to not indefensibly "joke" about me being a murderer, then why would I trust you with anything less?

For me to become a murder suspect by the community, and your apparent attempts to induce PTSD in me too (1- first time "the people he murders" 2- double down "you act like a murderer" 3- "borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder"), those are no "joke".

Yeah that works great in fantasy land. In reality trolls don't give a crap about logical arguments, and regardless it doesn't stop the damage done. Also I love the misquoting of the actual words I used about the mods "punishing" me for the trust I left, and attributing it to me as if I claimed I want to "punish" others. Quite disingenuous.

 You want a fair trading environment but also want to let people operate on this forum as if it were 4chan. I am not claiming the thread itself is my property, I am claiming it SHOULD be, at least within the confines of the marketplace section. Even if every single marketplace posting was self moderated it would not stop others from calling out fraud or abuse elsewhere in the forum. Additionally it costs you nothing to allow people to harass me, therefore you have no interest in protecting me to begin with, and neither do the mods.

However there is plenty of incentive for people to drift from thread to thread and pretend like they are righting wrongs so they can look like social justice warriors and also entertain themselves with trolling in the process. People can cause harm with their words and by invading and hijacking otherwise productive threads. These people thrive off of destroying the work of others and due so under a guise of pointing out a wrong to put their victims on the defensive from the beginning of their perpetration of this harassment. This will continue to be exploited by disingenuous people until the moderators and staff correct their failed attempts at moderating trust in any way. As long as you comply to it, they will keep harassing then demanding the staff correct it for them. Neutral trust isn't going to fix anything, because the problem isn't the trust system, it is your attempts at moderating it. Staff/moderators your strategy is a failing one. Unfortunately you decided to punish me and others instead of accepting that fact.

Can anyone screenshot or otherwise link me to the Default Trust list? The closest I could find was under my user version of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full - scrolled to the bottom (TLOT is one of the 3 on my trust list) and saw:

TheLordOfTime
    serp
    DefaultTrust
        sirius
        theymos
        HostFat
        dooglus
        Maged
        OgNasty
        CanaryInTheMine
        Tomatocage
        SaltySpitoon
        BadBear
        escrow.ms
        OldScammerTag

Aren't all the names in bold the only ones on Default Trust?

I believe that is correct. Because the forum is set to default 2 levels of trust, anyone who trusts you that is on that list also makes you part of the default trust tree.

I don't think you should be able to use your forum status to make your personal opinions affect someone's account more than anyone elses. I think you can make as many threads on it as you want to, but to put negative feedback on my profile and use your forum reputation to discredit me in that way isn't what the system is for. I think you're the only one who took what I said seriously, and I stand by what I say in this thread but I'm not going to negative rep your profile because it doesn't affect your trustworthiness and you're not a threat to anybody.

As the rules state, negative trust is only used if "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." and any other use of it isn't being responsible with your privileges. If you will delete your negative you might be able to stay on the default trust list but I don't think with the way it's being used very many people will have that power anymore. I've seen it misused way to much and as it keeps happening there's not anyway to stop it unless the people who have those privileges stop abusing it or there's a punishment for misusing, but the latter would require to much work so if people keep abusing it the DefaultTrust list will either shrink or the weight someone's account carries will change.

Or people such as yourself might weigh their need for self gratification over the cost of having their own reputation harmed in the future. People on the default trust got there by demonstrating their ability to be fair and equitable. If they are not free to use it in a way that they feel is fair and equitable then it is useless. There is NO RELIABLE WAY to moderate the trust system. The staff/moderators have painted themselves into a corner with this one by complying to the demands of trolls.  

I just noticed the defaulttrust list varies from person to person and I'm talking about the people who's feedback carries a -6/-1 or -4/-1. I don't know what it's based on but I guess it's something about how many people have you in their default trust list.

Well, this topic was a massive waste of time and energy. I'm not on Default Trust (#19-20), nor am I/would I be attached to being on it (#4). Subjective systems are subjective. /unsubscribe

I must of mixed up the DefaultTrust and people who carry a -6/-1, -4/-1 feedback score, the second one is what I'm talking about.

So you agree that the weight TBZ's account carries for the feedback he left me is fair and equitable to one post I made on his thread?

I don't think anyone should be attempting to moderate the trust. I find it irrelevant WHY he left it. If people who trust him find him abusive they can always remove him. In my case SaltySpitoon was threatened with his own removal from default trust if he did not comply with demands to remove me in stead of letting him decide himself if I am reputable or not. The simple fact is moderation of the trust list from any central authority is a disaster and these types of things will become more common. If the staff/moderators don't admit the flaw in their reasoning here they will simply end up tearing the Bitcoin talk community apart with their own hands.

It does not matter if a troll is going to act logically or not. The troll can make their invalid argument then you can respond with logic to counter their argument. Unless they bring up an additional point there is no reason to respond further, if you do then you are only feeding the trolls. If the troll bumps their argument or continues to post trolling without you or anyone responding then you can report the post and it should be deleted and/or they will get banned. If you continue to respond to them then they are responding to you and their posts will likely not get deleted and will likely not get banned. It may not be easy to do this however if you ignore the troll they will eventually go away. Also if you leave a logical response to the troll then your potential customers will be able to see your response and can see that your trolls concerns are invalid (if this is actually the case).

There is no reason for your marketplace threads to be your property. You did not invest any money in the development of the forum nor did you invest anything to get the forum to be as popular.used as it is today. If you were to pay the forum for the right to list what you are selling in the marketplace then it would be a different story, but you do not and it is not. Although it is a good practice to check places like scam accusations prior to buying from someone, I do not think that most/many people do and as a result all that a potential buyer can see is what is on the selling thread. If someone's concerns are not there then a buyer will probably not see them.

You are on default trust. You are trusted by both theymos and badbear. If you do not have any custom trust list then you can see who is on default trust by going to your trust settings (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust). These are the people who are on default trust and who will impact anyone's trust in the eyes of anyone that has not customized their trust list; the positive numbers are the number of people who are on the root level of default trust have you on their trusted list:
Here are the people who are on the "root" default trust list and can effectively add/remove people from default trust:
It so happens that many people on this list happen to be moderators and may wear multiple hats when posting regarding trust in this section. They may be posting as a moderator or they may be posting as someone who is on the root level of default trust.

This is not quite correct. The above people must go into their trust settings and add/remove you in order to add/remove you from default trust. The above people can leave positive feedback for you without adding you to default trust

Why would I want to waste my day making logical arguments against trolls who don't care? You claim there is no reason to respond further, but the damage is already done at that point. I have reported this type of trolling and it goes ignored repeatedly. Just like you have no incentive to argue for my protection from harassment, neither do the mods. It is a waste of their time and they don't give enough of a shit to spend any time dealing with trolls. As far as people seeing the claim is invalid, not really. Often people here are so paranoid about being scammed all it takes is one empty accusation in the middle of a marketplace op to lose a person's interest.

So you think over 3 years and hundreds of completed trades as well as introducing hundreds of new users to this forum and showing them the ropes is not investing anything in the forum or helping it get popular huh? When I started trading here people still laughed at you for accepting Bitcoin. People such as myself and Butter-zone helped CREATE this community, and we help hold it together today. It is a buyers responsibility to do due diligence with their trading partner. Anyone who bothers to do a search of their username wont have a problem finding scam accusations. This is why there is an entire section dedicated to it as well as trust ratings.

No one is limiting anyone's ability to point out misdeeds. You can criticize people almost anywhere on the forum. People trading here are only allowed to trade in their own ops in a very limited area that people insist upon invading for their own personal gratification, at the expense of the OP. Vetting your trading partners is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Allowing everyone in the marketplace to be harassed so that people like you can entertain yourself and be too lazy to verify your trading partners is an asinine strategy counter to producing a reliable trading environment. You claim his right to speak is being infringed and yet you demand Butterzone's right to speak against him be limited in the same breath. As a retailer of other people's trust ratings I really don't think you have any moral authority in this situation. Maybe he should choose who he trolls more carefully in the future and things like this wont be a problem.




Actually this is exactly what I said, you specified the same thing only with more detail of how it is accomplished.

Thanks for clearing that up. People on the default trust list or however way you get the power to have a -6/-1 feedback rating need to use it responsibly and from what I've seen it's being used for the wrong reasons so the people who have it either need to start using it right or it needs to be deleted all together. Using your forum power because you're mad at somebody doesn't show the maturity level you need to hold that kind of position on the forum no matter how much you've helped the site out because it's ultimately hurting the site.

@TheButterZone, You can forgive Wardrick this time after watching the below videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPjGyJvefd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEcvPhP4tqc

There is no sensible way to moderate people's trust. What you are demanding is impossible to be delivered without there being other tremendous pitfalls being created by dictating to other people how to use their trust. You might think it is for the wrong reasons, clearly he thinks it was for the right reasons. Uninterested 3rd parties have no stake in making sure justice is done, only in making the drama go away as quickly as possible. Because of this strategy, all a troll has to do is kick ans scream and the mods and staff will come running in an endless self fueling cycle of troll-baiting of trusted members followed by claims of abuse. Trusted members operate IN THE OPEN. Trolls use endless disposable accounts. There is a cost to operating out in the open so that people know you can be trusted, and people who are reputable should be supported, because they are what makes this community work, not the trust system.

Being in the default trust is not an elected position. No one on it signed up to be a servant of the community even when it costs them personally. We got on that list for demonstrating we follow through on our agreements and operate in an open an honest manner. A long history of operating in a reputable way does not some how create an obligation on the part of the trusted party to serve you as if they had some kind of capacity of a public officer.  Basically what you are saying is you were joking with this user on a professional thread of his, he did not find it amusing and left you a negative trust. Now that you are faced with the consequences of your actions you demand that he uphold the good name of this forum at his expense, but you yourself hold no liability in this circumstance.

I am sorry but I am having a hard time having sympathy for you. Maybe if instead of making this big thread about it you simply apologized to him and asked for him to remove it he would respond, but of course not. What fun would that be? You would rather escalate this like all trolls do.

Did you read through this thread? I did message him apologizing if I offended him and received no answer after two days. I'm not a troll for making one post on a thread (Where someone else had already posted and it wasn't deleted) and then making a thread about it because I'm not satisfied with how the trust system is set up. I don't go around posting on threads discrediting people or calling people scammers. You even said you think the feedback is irrelevant. I'm not saying the trust system needs to be moderated. I never said that. I'm saying that it needs to be equalized out so people can't use their opinions on someone to hurt their reputation any more than another member can. The feedback system should be used same way as eBay and it shouldn't reflect someone's opinion of a member.

Seeing more new replies to my posts... his/her attempt to apologize was after the damage to my reputation was already irrevocably done, beyond the capacity of any apology to reverse it.

P.S. My craigslist posts started getting flagged down obsessively yesterday. Coincidence?

Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke.  How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?

I think this is part of the problem of the mentality of people asking for trust to be moderated. Trust is not supposed to be a fool proof system. It is supposed to be a simple to use superficial indicator of ones trust. Depending on trust scores alone to judge your trading partner is not very wise, and this attitude really shouldn't be catered to. Before there was trust people RESEARCHED THEIR TRADING PARTNERS. There is no substitute for vetting your trading partner.

Quit trolling and just remove my negative feedback please.


Unfortunately since your trust score is attached to your account it's easy for most new members to go off of it. The "untrusted feedback" you get is barely looked at because I don't think very many people know there's a button for it. I think this sub-forum to keep track of your trades (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0)  is just fine and the trust system should just be removed.

Or people like you could learn to mind your own business and research your trading partners. This seems like a much more rational solution to me.

At any rate you will never get Butterzone off of the trust list because he was put there by Badbear and Theymos trusting him, and if it is one of their cronies they get a pass from things like this. I was simply trusted by some one easily manipulated by the staff, and not a part of the boys club here so I was expendable. This is a perfect example of how policy is selectively enforced around here.

Manually researching your trading partners isn't an efficient method of trading unless you're not doing a lot of trades. If it was every other forum or place that is a trading platform would of adopted that method now instead of either using a feedback system (only for trading) or having a reputation sub forum where people post successful trades. In either situation escrow is mandatory or it's a popular option. Researching your trading partners is good for big trades but isn't needed for 90% of the trades that go on here (Even though it's always a good thing to do), so IMO that's not a rational solution nor should minding your own business contribute to the misuse of the trust system to people who have a higher ranking for it. The trust system right now is actually just an anonymous wall where people can post stuff about you on your own page and you can't do anything about.

Well considering it is your money to lose, it is your loss if you choose to be lax in verifying your trading partners. In reality its not that hard and only takes a few minutes in most cases. Furthermore escrow can't protect both parties in all situations. If I buy a $100 gift card from someone and use escrow, but the gift code was bought using a stolen credit card number for example, I lose that value regardless of escrow because I have no way to determine the legitimacy of the code itself, only the user. Any criticisms of the use of the trust system will be completely subjective and impossible to moderate in any fair manner that would prevent favoritism or abuse. The trust system isn't just some "anonymous wall" where people can post things about you. It is designed to give more weight to people who have already over a long period of time demonstrated their trustworthiness, not random anonymous people. Also take note of the fact that all the mods and staff are completely ignoring this thread. They handle things a little differently when it is one of their own.

And then you'll still be screwed by people who rely on DefaultTrust, who will see you listed as untrusted and not deal with you.

I dont agree that this thread is being ignored because I've gotten two PM's from administrators, but I do agree on your other point. People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight but when the system is misused it screws everything up and this is why I think it isn't fair because people who have that power should be able to display better judgement, so it's up to us and staff to come up with a better solution for the system. If I did a trade and it didn't work out and I received negative feedback from someone like Tbz I'd be 100% fine with it but not for something like this.

^^^

You can disagree all you like. Just because you want something or think it is unfair doesn't make it realistic or obtainable. As far as admins contacting you, that is very convenient that they chose to keep this a private affair for their buddies but are willing to turn this process into a giant public shit show for anyone else that isn't in their buddy club. Funny how when this happened to me not a single mod or admin PMed me about it, they simply attempted to shame me publicly. At any rate nothing is going to happen to Butterzone. Some are more equal than others.

I've never contacted admins with a bullshit request or made a thread about something like this that isn't fully justified, and I rarely talk to staff. I don't think it's just me that thinks it's unfair but a lot of people, you even said yourself the system is unfair with the way it can be used. People who have a higher feedback weight need to use it responsibly or they shouldn't have it because it's not helping th site in any way. I don't know what happened in your situation and I'm on my phone right now but I think the staff would of responded to it if it was justified. TheButterZone has already been removed from the default trust list of a staff member. I don't think staff won't act on matters like this if it seems reasonable to them.

What bullshit requests? You might feel that this is fully justified, and unfair, but my point stands. The feedback system will be "abused" NO MATTER WHAT. There will ALWAYS be some one claiming left trust was unjust and demanding its removal. What defines "abuse" is open to interpretation and is yet another facet of the trust system that can be abused.

Instead of letting users define who is trusted in a decentralized fashion, Theymos has opted to moderate other peoples trust via deciding himself and dictating to others who can and can not be in "his" trust tree. I argue all that is happening is that Theymos is protecting the integrity of the default trust as a way to solidify his own influence over the supposedly decentralized and unmoderated system. If Theymos is dictating to people who are on his trust tree, then its not a trust network, it is a list of Theymos's buddies. Additionally bowing to the demands of individuals who instigate issues, then complain to the staff/mods once they have repercussions for their actions sets an extremely dangerous precedent of policy around here that I GUARANTEE will result in a flood of such harassment, baiting, and following accusations. The end result, in effect trolls have designed a way to make the staff/mods tear the community apart for them, and they refuse to admit they are enforcing a failed policy.

Basically what I am trying to get across to you is, regardless of it being right or wrong, demanding some central authority fix your problems for you is the downfall of every supposedly decentralized system. The fact that they obliged now demonstrates that it is in fact a completely centralized system where one man chooses who is and is not allowed to have "influence".

Yes, and this should occur naturally, because such people naturally obtain good feedback of their own.  This gets weighted into how their own feedback is rated by a trust system.

Without saying anything derogatory about anyone in charge of DefaultTrust, it is absolutely impossible for any person to make decisions other people should trust about things like this, when they clearly have their own conflicting interests, but DefaultTrust is basically rammed down everyone's throat.  Many people don't even realize it should be turned off.

The history of people who have been on that DefaultTrust list who shouldn't have been is so long and familiar to anyone here who has paid any attention that I need not recount it.  Its history speaks for itself.

It benefits nobody except the people on it.

An authority figure on this forum are the only people who are able to fix the problem unless everyone stops misusing the trust system. The people carrying heavier feedback weight should display better judgment than to misuse their powers because of trolls. I'm sure most of the people on the forum could care less if they get unwarranted feedback from someone and it doesn't show up as "Trusted Feedback" for them, but the fact it comes up as trusted and shows -6/-1 and the problem here is so minimal that it shows that some of the people with that power don't have the correct judgment to hold it. IDK why you keep trying to get a point across to me because I've told you about 10 times that I'm not looking for a moderated system or for staff to take time to moderate the trust system. I'm asking for TBZ's default trust to be removed as well as anybody else who's misused it (Which will take about 10 minutes) and stop them from having the power to carry the -6/-1 feedback weight. The people who demonstrated that they're not responsible for holding that status should be removed and members feedback should carry an equal weight except for a handful of members and the trustworthiness of someone's feedback will come naturally like DarkMule just said.

Until a better idea comes out or the trust system is removed all together, this is the best thing to do. What exactly would your plan of action be for handling the trust system? Because from your previous posts you didn't agree with the removal of the trust system and you're not agreeing to keep the trust system so it's hard to determine your stance on this situation.



I agree on most of this although I'm not sure how default trust was set up or how you get the -6/-1 feedback weight. I think it was originally intended for their to be community moderators that weren't necessarily staff that helped the site, but when it started being misused nothing was done about it. On eBay I would get the same feedback from someone with 160000 positive feedback or someone with 5 and this is how I think the trust system here should work. I don't think having the trust system automatically weigh people's trust would help because I think there'd be a lot of ways around it and in a lot of situations a member as active as another member but with less trades feedback should equal the same thing. If there was a way that you could only post negative feedback if there was a button to initiate a trade with the user I think that would really help, but then negative feedback couldn't be given to people who are running Ponzi schemes or are trying to scam people. There's still the scam accusation sub forum though.

Way to just skip over everything I wrote and just repeat yourself and continue to demand some one fix your problems for you rather than just avoiding them to begin with. There will ALWAYS be people demanding trust moderation as long as the mods/staff bend to such demands. There will ALWAYS be users on the default trust that feel their trust rating was justified in spite of the opinions of Theymos and others. My solution is that the trust remain UNMODERATED and self balancing. People who abuse the system will not have as much influence because they use negative trust too flippantly. My solution is to DO LESS.

Your solution requires the whole forum system be overhauled to meet your satisfaction. The only reason the trust list is broken is because it is purported to be an "unmoderated" and decentralized system of trust, but in reality a single central authority is deciding who gets to have influence within this system regardless how how trustworthy people have demonstrated themselves to be. The trust system is being used as a tool for Theymos to maintain his complete influence over the trust system, not as a simple register of who is and who is not trustworthy dependent on user variables. He is claiming it is an unmoderated system while he personally picks and chooses who gets to be on the lsit.

This is disingenuous, and by no means accurate, or fair for people who have worked very hard for the community's trust. Instead Theymos would rather use it as a tool of punitive enforcement so he can coerce people to do what he wants regardless of what it costs users. After all why would Theymos give a shit if people harass trusted users? It doesn't effect him directly. However people using the trust system in a way that erodes his personal authority on this forum is an unforgivable offense. As a result he coerces people using the default trust list as a tool to extort users into acting how he decides under threat of losing ones hard earned reputation, and not even for trading dishonestly, just because Theymos feels like he and his buddy's look bad by being associated with you. In short trolls have learned to turn Theymo's ego against him and use him as a tool of destruction against this community, and instead of admitting this policy is a failure he will continue to rip it apart with his own hands under the guise of protecting the integrity of the trust system.


Note: still not a single post here from staff or moderators about a user trusted by Badbear and Theymos "abusing" the trust in exactly the same manner I did. For me I get a big public shaming shitshow, but for their buddies, they just pretend the complaint threads don't even exist.

Looks like he has been removed so you can stop with your paranoia now, though something tells me this won't happen anytime soon.

Pointing out hypocrisy has nothing to do with paranoia. That is a very disingenuous way of associating my claims with "conspiracy theory" even though there is very real and observable special treatment for buddy's of Theymos. Furthermore removing Butterzone is pretty retarded. All you are doing is feeding into trolls and fueling their desire to continue to bait and make such complaints after users react. You the mods and staff are now ripping the community apart yourselves by insisting on enforcing this failed policy. You can characterize me as disgruntled or paranoid all you like. The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently.

Is there hypocrisy? You were claiming butterzone was a buddy of theymos and Badbear and won't be removed but now he has you're still complaining and are now trying to spin it another way. Whatever happened or does happen you will invent a conspiracy here. You've made and continue to make several hypocritical claims whilst sprinkling it with paranoia so I don't see why you're so concerned with hypocrisy anyway. Seems you don't mind unless it effects you. You're now just doing what every single person does after doing something wrong and something then doesn't go their way or to their liking.

The two people who had TBZ on their trust list were mods. They obviously no longer wish to have the potential personal trust liability associated with having him on their trust list.

I don't think either Wardrick or armis are "buddies" with theymos, at least I have not seen any actual evidence of such.

Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate. Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it.

I feel you're the one repeating yourself over and over again and making everything a larger deal than it actually is. It doesn't matter if you earn your trust, if you're provided with a higher rank but you don't use it responsibly you shouldnt have it. There's no excuse for misuse of the trust system and negative feedback is only suppose to be used for scamming or potential scammers. The butterzone continued to leave me negative feedback after I had apologized for something I knew I shouldn't of but I did anyway because I saw that it upset him for some reason. The trust system is broken because it allows people with a higher rank to misuse it for their personal benefit and not for the benefit of the site and because people use it as a form of attack instead of what it's suppose to be used for.


This and what hilariousandco said are both very true.

You added this bit in after I posted:


Isn't abusing the default trusted position damaging the community? And funny you bring up egos as it was your ego that got you into this mess in the first place. What you really want is for nobody else's "ego" to get involved or make the rules but yours. Everything was fine and dandy apparently until somebody said something you didn't like and you abused your weight of the default feedback to try get your own way. If default trust is such an issue just disregard it, but it seems it was fine whilst you were on it.


Exactly and this is the irony and hypocrisy here. People abuse the trust system then complain when they're removed from it. Users often complain that people on the default trust have a monopoly over it and that they're free to leave feedback for whoever they don't like but if it's unjust clearly this isn't the case and the community responded appropriately. I think this is a good thing.  You can't have it both ways. 

TheButterZone, no your reputation has not been irreparably damaged. It wasn't damaged at all until you started making a fool out of yourself in this very thread.

The reading comprehension force is strong with this forum, LMFAO.


...



and then there's this:


My rating (have you even read it?) is absolutely an indication of my distrust of an aggressive libeler who offered nothing but a hollow BS apology incapable of reversing their own damage. The internet caches everything, dontcha know. So, Quickseller, would you like to have Wardrick run a "joke" scam on the community by trying to paint YOU as a murderer, drug dealer, and/or borderline sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder next? I hope you have absolutely nothing to ever offer bitcoindom as "Quickseller", or have a backup nick like Wardrick has Graven, that you can rinse and repeat with.


Revisionist history BS, the First Class ticket to ignore lists!

Yet you have it both ways, picking and choosing who does and does not get to have influence in the trust system. It has basically now come to a point where people who have dedicated enough time here to be really trusted now are SO TRUSTED that it is unacceptable for them to even defend themselves, and you expect them to sit by idly and be harassed. You sure aren't doing anything about it when it is reported, but again you "have the right to interpret the rules" now don't you. Why would you care if I am being harassed, no skin off of your back.

I never really thought the trust system was a good idea because it gives people a false sense of security, but I never really had a problem with it because what I was told is that the system was UNMODERATED, but clearly that is not the truth. Some one dictating from a central position who is and who is not to be trusted is not a trust NETWORK, it is a trust DICTATORSHIP. Solution: stop dictating to people who they should and should not trust. Of course this all happens behind closed doors so no one ever really gets to witness this coercive process, so how would anyone know unless they experienced it themselves?


Your "abuse" of the trust system is another mans legitimate use of it. Trying to dictate the content of the reason for the trust left is asinine and not something that can be equitably enforced. Furthermore the staff catering to people who are clearly acting in a provocative manner then making complaints to put trusted members in a defensive position is far more destructive than a few posts from me. All you can see is what you see every day moderating. Similar to a cop who just starts seeing every citizen as the enemy you start to see every user whom you have taken action against as making unjust complaints. You don't see I am trying to point out a problem you are creating for yourself and others in this community because you would rather be correct than right.

When what is reported? Someone stating that you're unlikely to sell something? Saying something you don't like isn't against the rules and the report won't be acted upon unless it does. You can say you were 'harassed' and your reputation is being 'tarnished' or whatever but these are all just exaggerations to suit your argument. You see, you would've been fine with us bending the rules on this occasion to remove the posts you reported (even though they broke no rules), but I doubt you would've appreciated staff removing any posts of yours that someone didn't like.


The feedback left is unmoderated, but you were obviously aware of the nature of the system in that people get added to and removed from the list from time to time and you were seemingly fine with that until recently. It's a working trust network until you get removed for abusing the trust then it's suddenly an authoritative bitcoin Illuminati buddy list. Can't have it both ways. If theymos or any other admins really wanted to abuse the system then they would just remove the offending feedback, but I think the system worked well in this example contrary to your belief. What exactly do they have to gain from removing you? It's a good warning to others on there; make sure to not let personal feelings get in the way if you've been trusted with a position of power or your position may be reconsidered.

Thank you to the administators and staff who handled this situation and removed thebutterzone from the default trust list and reduced his feedback weight. Misuse of the trust system should not be tolerated especially for people who are suppose to be setting an example for the forum. I'm glad this was handled appropriately and this shows that if you have a legitimate and justified problem the staff and admins will take care of it. Hopefully in the future this will keep the people with higher feedback weight from misusing it.

Where was that contract where I agreed to set an example for the forum? Oh, it's right next to the one that said that as a decent human being, I agree not to libel people as murderers, borderline sociopaths with narcissistic personality disorder, etc. (and then play the victim and further accuse my victims of "misuse".)

Nemo me impune lacessit.

The only person who decided to label you a murder was yourself, nobody else ever thought that.

Speaking for all of humankind's brains? Brilliant!

You sound kind of mad.  Plus, I was kind of agreeing with you, so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to insult me.

Also, look at what the subject of this thread has been changed to. 

We won!

So let's be happy together.

Chill.

Deal.

Honestly, I don't see why this thread had to become so heated.

This was never an argument over whether or not TBZ should remove his feedback, it was whether or not his rating should be endorsed by default trust. TBZ admitted early on that he had no attachment to being on DT, so it should have been fairly simple to contact theymos and badbear to see whether or not they still wished to lend their weight to TBZ's feedback, given the rating he had left on Wardrick. It's pretty sad to see what this thread devolved into.

This. 

There should be no such thing.

It benefits only scammers.

Where did I insult you? What did we win? My goal wasn't to have Butterzone removed from default trust, it was to point out that moderating trust is a FAILED POLICY that will only result in tearing the community apart for the sake of people who are provoking action to begin with.



I reported it well before things escalated but every report was ignored. He did not simply say I am "unlikely to sell" something, he started like this, was told to leave, he then continued to post not only insults and harassing comments but then continued to post links to similar products on sites that don't even accept BTC to try to prove some how that me asking for the face value of the gift card was "unfair". Him "pointing out" something is just a pretext for his repeated harassment and trolling. I don't really care how much you willfully ignore the reality of the situation. I KNOW what happened, and why I did what I did, and you have ZERO INTEREST in helping me, but you do however have interest in framing me as "paranoid", disgruntled, and "abusive".

It is not like we were having a debate about something, or discussing some project, I IN NO WAY would be inhibiting his ability to speak or speak out against me by asking his harassing posts to be removed from the ONLY PLACE I am allowed to trade here, and your attempt to frame me as someone looking to censor people from speaking out against me is disingenuous at best.



So now you know what I was and what I was not aware of now? Tell me again how I am supposed to know that behind closed doors you and your staff buddies meet in closed forums to discuss the removal of people from the default trust? I am sure it is a common occurrence for you, but the staff have a tendency here to want to enforce unwritten rules and then blame people for not following what was never publicly stated. Just because it is something you are well aware of as a mod does not mean everyone else magically absorbs it via osmosis.

What do they have to gain from removing me? He gets to wield his influence over the default trust system to manipulate it indirectly while publicly proclaiming he does not moderate trust. Clearly he does moderate trust by using his control over the default trust system as a cudgel to force users to submit to his demands. In short he gets more control over a supposedly decentralized trust system allowing for more abuse for his buddies, while using people such as myself to serve as a convenient example to make his point about the trust system.

People such as my self are the ones CREATING the integrity that you claim to be protecting, and I really don't buy that one negative trust rating some how negates my contribution to this community over 3 years. I may have been added to the default trust, but I EARNED MY TRUST, and putting me on the default trust as "untrusted" is taking from me what I earned as a form of punitive action for not obeying your dictates. I never signed up to be a representative for this forum. I got all of my trust because I WORK HARD TO MAKE MY TRADING PARTNERS HAPPY, I don't cheat people, and I operate openly and honestly. Now because you built this default trust system some how now all my hard work is yours and you seem to feel you have the right to take that from me AS IF YOU created it. This is the hypocrisy I am talking about. You point your fingers at me for taking action against one person after 3 years of impeccable trading history here and suddenly I am Stalin oppressing the proletariat, yet you are free to extort me using the trust system as leverage against me.

You use my own hard work and honest efforts as a cudgel against me and others to force them to submit to your commands so you can preserve your illusion of default trust list integrity. We all know there is none, and you throwing honest users under a bus to try to prove that it has integrity is a failing strategy that is destructive to this community far beyond my individual case, and is simply a means to punish anyone who opposes you.

You're still a trustworthy user #TECSHARE but no more in the defaultTrust list , and I think this's not a problem ;). Good luck for everything.

And I'm in complete agreement on that general concept.

DefaultTrust is a horrible idea, and the instant case is simply the most recent example of how horrible an idea it is.  Everyone should turn it off, and the "brain trust" in charge of this site should get rid of it entirely.

Libeler (OP) has default trust T2, libeler's victim (me) was wiped from T2=injustice done. I hereby retract my surrender at #4 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858730.msg9555177#msg9555177) and #24 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858730.msg9556086#msg9556086), as Vod's general reasoning on libel and neg trust is functionally indistinguishable from mine, yet he remains deeply embedded in default trust. I was thrown under the bus; I do not wish Vod to be.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1062052.msg11390387#msg11390387

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1062052.msg11390498#msg11390498

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1062052.msg11390689#msg11390689

You are both in the default trust network at depth 2.

I think BadBear recently added him to his trust list. TBZ was not previously in default trust network (level 2) for a while now.

What do you mean by thrown under the bus? You were never thrown under the bus, you escalated a situation nobody would of ever known about in the first place. I made a comment jokingly, I wasn't posting throughout the forum about you. I wasn't singling you out in any of my posts mentioning you. You are the one that created this situation. I have no clue where you came up with the idea that the FBI will come looking for you and that people will think you're a murderer? You created that in your own head, no prudent person would ever think that or imply that, especially given the circumstances.

You need to learn to take a joke, or get off the internet. And stop saying I was libeling you, or even thinking about you. I had no interest in harming your reputation whatsoever. I contacted you after I saw your feedback to work it out, and you refused. You handled the situation poorly and did everything to escalate the situation as much as you could. You shouldn't be in a position of power at any point given how you handled this benign situation, especially on the internet where you aren't facing the person.


This wasn't a case of libel, slander, harassment, or whatever you want to call it. This was a case of abuse of power, misusing the feedback system, and revenge. I'm surprised that you are back on the default trust list, especially after the attempts I had made prior to posting this thread and after I posted this thread where you acted in very bad faith. You showed no qualities of someone who I would even consider having on a default trust list. I would like to know who currently has you added to the default trust list as I don't know how to check it. By the way, you can send me back that $10.00 BTC I sent you as a tip months after this thread had been posted in for providing me with download links. It's clear you want to keep this going and have no interest in resolving the issue.

Maybe I'm blind? https://i.imgur.com/Upm5ZFv.jpg

Not blind no, but relying on a snapshot of a trust list at a single point in time is going to give you outdated information, trust lists aren't static. I did add you back to my trust list.

At the time I posted:

that was based on not seeing myself on that graph, but that Wardrick was on it (graph modified "May 15, 2015 at 16:04:58")

Took some hacking of my settings to see that I am back on your undertier now.

Thanks! Complaint resolved.

If he was removed before by everyone from the default trust list, why has he been added back onto the default trust list without anything being changed from the original decision? Unless he removes his feedback or is taken off the default trust list I have no interest in being a part of this forum. I have been very active off and on for over two years and have followed all the rules and I won't stand for injustice to be done to me and have it affect my account this way.

He left you a neutral rating. What are you crying about?

Indeed. Note that all I did was revoke my surrender*, originally offered in the false hope that he would stop his libelous posting pattern (including that he would delete his prior libel against me. Perhaps that implication was unclear.)


Setting recent posts aside, in light of the OP remaining as it was 6 months ago with that opening line, et al, and his neglect to delete his libel here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88214.msg9537032#msg9537032) and here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88214.msg9544051#msg9544051) (anywhere else?)...

*I could have decided to ignore the consistency between Vod and I's reasoning yet inconsistent treatment thereof, and said, "I'm going to neg trust him again, even though it won't get anyone justice!", or just had a PTSD attack and started treating the entire forum as my enemies for not removing him from DT for libel or nuking him altogether (which also hasn't happened to those who Vod says libeled him). What a shame, PTSD really shouldn't be weaponized into a communicable disorder.

See Quickseller for the same reason.

So you want me to delete one post, in a thread with dozens of pages, that was originally nothing at all until you posted in the thread? I could of probably done that, I tried contacting you many times to attempt to resolve the issue and you refused to do anything and instead just tried to escalate the situation. Are you reading what I write or are you failing to understand that I have never and never will have a libelous posting pattern, and all you are doing is creating a problem where there is none. How you got back on the default trust list without resolving this issue is confusing me. You are the libeler here, you are creating a situation and ruining my reputation by creating drama where there is none, all I am trying to do is restore my account back to normal. I have no interest in libeling you, nor will I ever have an interest in libeling you. Agree to remove your feedback and I will go and delete my post and lock this thread. You have a chance to resolve the issue right now and this will be done with, I had no problem to begin with.

IMO the only reason they removed him in the first place is because they had just removed me from the default trust list for basically the same situation and they didn't want to look like even bigger hypocrites. This is why they are letting him back on because it was just a show to make it look like that actually enforce the rules for everyone.

TheButterZone also changed his negative rating to a neutral. From what I can see, it appears that you still have a negative rating on armis. TBZ also does not have quite the obsession of being included in default trust and has carried on about his business within the forum

I never asked to be on the default trust list, not once. I harp on the subject because the rules are unwritten and selectively enforced. It is a corrupt system. I don't want to be on it, I want it to end. I left my negative rating because I was told over and over again that trust ratings are not moderated, yet Theymos and other staff members had no problem coercing me into changing my rating by personally seeing to it that I was not only removed from the default trust, but then a new feature was added, so that I could be excluded from it 2x so that others on the default trust list could not re-add me.

That does not sound like an unmoderated trust system, this is a trust dictatorship where Theymos and only Theymos chose who stays and who goes. Furthermore they can't be bothered to post rules, or even uniformly enforce their unwritten rules. Armis was the perpetrator, and Theymos was happy to have an excuse to get personally involved and make sure I was removed and then excluded for the unforgivable crime of not following his orders to change my rating.

Can I ask you again if you really want to be again in the defaultTrust list (depth 2) or do you want only that the whole trust system must be destroyed/removed? Thanks and I think your reply will make all the context clearer.

It sounds like to me that theymos simply doesn't want ratings that are obviously outright inaccurate, and based on a personal dispute, and have zero to do with trust. Sure the trust system is not moderated, but that does not mean that others want to rely on trust ratings given by someone who leaves ratings that are regarding a personal dispute

TECSHARE: If your case is truly what I bolded, then copy and paste the following* to make it absolutely clear that you've received unequal treatment:

Vod says he got libeled. Vod leaves negative trust on libelers. Vod wasn't removed from default trust (DT) for that.
TheButterZone says he got libeled. TheButterZone left 1 negative trust on 1 libeler using, unknowingly at the time, basically the same reasoning as Vod. He was removed from DT T2 for that, and restored only after downgrading it to a neutral. Vod hasn't similarly had to convert his negs on libelers to neutrals to stay in DT.
I, TECSHARE got libeled. I left negative trust on a libeler, using basically the same reasoning as Vod. I was removed from DT (T2?) for that despite Vod not being removed for the same thing.
I petition for myself, and all who leave negative trust on libelers, to receive equal consideration and treatment as Vod.

---

ETA: T1s dooglus and tomatocage appear to be Vod's T2 sponsors, so that's who I would petition first. It only appears that Vod is allowed to neg trust libelers ad infinitum without costing his T2, because of them.

So are you going to answer my question or are you going to keep being an instigator? The misuse of the trust system is fucking disgusting and people like you who are given power are the reason it's broken. There's a HUGE difference between you and everyone else's case. This is a clear case of trust system abuse, and you also went back and corrected your previous abuse after I had called you out on it. The trust system is supposed to be used for trading and conducting trades, not bullshit fucking drama and people who are on power trips. I've always been fair with my ratings and giving people feedback, but this is just disgusting to me. You do not deserve to be on the default trust list nor should your opinion be trusted.

The trust system is not for trading, it is to determine how trustworthy someone is.

You are right that it is not for drama, however the issue has been resolved so there is no real reason why TBZ should not be back in the default trust network

Exactly it's to determine the level of trust of an individual, which is mainly used for trading and business. TBZ has used it because of his own personal opinion and that has nothing to do with whether or not I should be trusted. The reason for my feedback had nothing at all to do with trust. Also I don't think the issue is resolved, TBZ is failing to take any blame or come to a conclusion with me at any point. People like this should not be on the default trust list. TBZ sent me a download link in which I tipped him, where he reduced his rating to a neutral. He didn't do it because of the forum rules or to come to a resolution. The trust system is broken if people can make a comment and have somebody lash out at them using the system because they have more power (At the time I wasn't on D2) That's why people like this need to be axed from D2, or just change the trust system all together.


It's also not a big deal, but I don't take lightly to misuse of the trust system, especially when it's aimed towards me. I'm perfectly fine with leaving the forum because I'm not going to have this crap be done to me and nothing be done about it. I'm curious to see whether or not the forum thinks that TBZ's use of the trust system, based off the two or three comments that were no big deal in the first place, went across the line into abuse of the trust system. There's several uses for the trust system, but I'm positive that's not one of them.

Indeed. He'd proven himself worthy of distrust by aggressive libel, but as he could have reinforced his negative trust by welching on his bounty just because I was the one who claimed it, and he didn't welch, I downgraded it to neutral.

TBZ - I understand you no have no way of knowing this, so I won't blame you for it.

On at least one occasion, I have personally contact by Theymos and told a couple negative ratings left unfair is his opinion.  I changed them to neutral.  Had I not, I may very well have been removed from DT.   :-\   Badbear removed me from his trust list because he didn't agree with my ratings.   I've been given at least one warning from TomatoCage about my ratings.

It's obvious (at least to me) that I am not protected by anyone, nor do I receive special treatment here.

BTW TBZ - you are on default trust, trusted under Badbear.

Ok. So you changed some to neutral, but not 100% of your neg trusts of libelers. And you didn't mention if dooglus had warned you or not. So, BadBear removed you. Theymos might have removed you. You're yellow-carded (sorry, football reference) by TomatoCage, so even if Tomato removed you (RED CARD!), you'd still be on DT via dooglus, assuming nothing changed on his/her end.

TheButterZone is now on default trust list again and he deserve this, I wonder how someone get into default trust list.
Its good to be on default trust list so that whenever they find a scammer(with proofs) they can leave him a negative trust so other people get warned about this, I have to send the message to default trust member to leave neg trust when I find a pot. scammer because my trust doesn't matter or add warning to their account.I have recieved weird response in past from default trust list member when I reported a scammer to him. :P

Why is that?  Because I do a lot more good than I do harm.  I'm an asset to the community, but in no way protected.

I'm not sure about the whole menstrual deal, but he gave me negative feedback too.  Only after my 2nd post with no warning. 

I have never even dealed with him.

I'm trying to run an honest business but with people like this my noob reputation now became untrusted noob.

Sorry, how long am I supposed to wait for PayPal to start reversing all the PayPal Friends and Family payments you send to your customers after you bold-faced lied about those payments being irreversible?


 >:(

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that you don't personally reverse your payments to your customers... as soon as any of your customers have PayPal reverse payment on YOU (or PayPal does it on their own volition, or there's a court order or other legal action), there begins a domino effect well-known to veteran BTC traders, where anyone you paid with those funds (even if you used one account to receive from customers, sent to another separate pay-to-customers account, then paid them from that one), has your payment reversed out of their account, through all accounts back to the original payer/reverser.

That is an outright lie. I've left him a negative rating as well.

I bump this thread, because his last activities got my attention and are clearly abusing the trust system. He tags members because of "violating" his own "auction term" and only wants to remove, when he gets paid a certain amount.
I would name that
"abusing trust system for personal advantages".
Please have a look to his trust page. Two tags of 12/29/2017
The members asked questions, they shouldn't have to ask. But they didn't have a trade with him and didn't scam, as I see this.
I do not speak for certain members, because I do not know them and their activities. But I stand against abuse of the trust system.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=60600
Maybe it was not his intention to abuse the trust system for his own advantages, but it looks like that to me.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2661903.0;all

This thread is a PERFECT example of why theymos needs to seriously look into the DT list and start removing some users.

... who violate auction terms (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2661903.msg27281572#msg27281572).

My Quote was not a Jab at you TBZ.  I'm just pointing out the fact of numerous DT users disagreeing with whats right and wrong.....Seems alot of confusion that needs sorting out and the only person to that is theymos.

It's been years in the making this mess.  It's a good system but definitely needs fine tuning and  Precise clarification from theymos on what is to be expected from this day on.

DT users who stray from his directions on the matter should be removed from the DT and perhaps even more.

Excerpt from auction guidelines:
".....Buyer Tips

Ask the seller any questions you have about the items being auctioned. If you are not sure about the item's condition or if you want more information, you can post your question in the auction thread......"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287020.0

One of your trust feedback 12/29/2017
"Violated auction term:
If you reply to this auction topic with something along the lines of "use an exchange" (in other words, "commit economic suicide"), you agree to receive & NOT complain about my negative trust rating of 21 million BTC (the amount to eventually be lost to economic suicides?) with this topic as reference URL showing you agreed to this. My rating will not be removed until you pay me the exact amount I lost when I did use an exchange - BTC1.84915808 - the only non-trivial loss of BTC I've ever suffered.

by saying:
"why don't you just sell it in a trading platform"

... which is along the lines of "use an exchange"."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=60600
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So if a question was worth red trust of a DT-Member, based on your "auction terms", then your "auction terms" seem to stand in contradiction to the auction guidelines.
Maybe it is also helpful to read Marketplace trust guidelines.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2221664#msg2221664
Also threats of negative DT-trust on certain questions/statements and demanding money to take back the negative feedback does not seem to me to be the proper way to deal with the heavyweight trust as DT-member.

https://i.imgflip.com/ccj0x.jpg

Terms are binding. Guidelines are non-binding. Binding supersedes non-binding.

The proper way to deal with a DT member is the same as every member; don't violate their binding terms & hope the mob will get you out of the terms you agreed to in advance.

This psycho gave me a negative rating for making a starting bid on his auction. (ref: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2664660-

His auction was 50.000 XRP with a starting bid of 165.000$, while today's market value is around 50k$.

I only made a fair opening bid to have the auction going, this narcistic psycho immediatly gave me a negative trust rating, saying on plain sight on his topic he asks 1.8BTC to remove it.

Someone, if not all, should take action against this guy acting like he is God and we should all abide by his rules.

It is very scammy when someone makes a post warning about a significantly above market price being asked of something, and receives negative trust as a result.

Nonwithstanding any posted rules, it is always acceptable to warn others about price discrepancies and shady behavior.  

My goal wasn't to warn others, but just to make a fair opening offer. I noticed not a single reply on his auction and wanted to participate.
Why this shady member is abusing his granted DT powers to leave big, bold, red negative trust - and asking 1.8BTC to remove it - is something i can't really grasp.

@ all bitcointalk founders/moderators, is this really how you want that people with such high granted powers behave?

It's basically extortion. Without warning, reply, message, a big, bold, red negative trust rating and asking money to remove it.
Everyone should leave at least a neutral feedback pointing to this topic. Such insane persons should not be allowed near any power of any weight !!!

I personally demand this trust rating being removed, since this has nothing to do with trust, but with ignorance, and thinking he's God because he is on the DT list.

Unfortunately the forum administration has adopted a 100% hands off policy on the trust system. This has made the trust system become a complete joke. You can contact the person who put TBZ on his trust list, however I would not hold by breath this would result in any action -- SaltySpitton recently disavowed lauda's actions while simultaneously adding lauda to his trust list under the guise of following the 'will of the community' which was quickly debunked.   

As I PMed you, after you first made that clearly false claim of a term applying to you that doesn't:


Kindly cease your repeated libel, revisionist history & flame baiting, tarmi. And to all members of the lynch mob, read my sig.

So you give me feedback stating that i commit 'economical suicide' on your post by placing an opening bid, next you tell me the term you put regarding economical suicide doens't apply to me?
I could be wrong, but you saying you will leave neg trust rating, asking 1.8 to remove it, and effectively doing this is all in the same red line on your own topic.

And if it does no apply to me, then this entire rule should not apply to me and you should not be leaving negative trust without any reason.

Heck, you look the kind of guy that get's a thrill from punishing his kids. You are without any doubt a narcistic person.

Negative trust means:
"You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer."
It doesn't mean "The user violated auction terms".

Maybe leaving neutral trust would be acceptable on those cases, but negative trust is absolutely out of place.

I've left some positive trust to counter the undeserved negative left by TheButterZone. I've also PM'd philipma1957.
I will remove this positive trust if the original negative is removed or if TheButterZone stops being DT.

Couldn't agree with you more.
My trust is still red of course, because of the weight his trust rating has.
He knows it well enough to exploit it by abusing and extorting users if they do not abide by his narcistic behaviour.

And it's a true shame that the moderators give such a person a DT ranking.

Maybe he did at some point but not right now.
I've just re-checked. philipma1957 is the only DT1 member who has TheButterZone in his trust list. He told me he will check it later today.

---

Not really because of the weight his trust rating has (his and my trust rating have the same "weight" at the moment), but because of how the overall rating is calculated (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1066857.0)

It's interesting that you libelously accused me (https://i.imgur.com/D6GXjrd.jpg) (despite being able to ask me & my earliest counterparties details of our trades in a version of The Newlywed Game) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Newlywed_Game) of that which you are self-admittedly guilty. (https://archive.is/RH3Po)

You're continuing to revise history to stir up a lynch mob against the victim of your sabotage (auction posts can only be moderated by forum staff/mods) & libel of my auction & me, respectively. Quoting what I put in your rating & quoted in the last post of my topic, this is your actual violation:


Term violated:

TheButterZone was removed from DT. Thanks philipma1957

As a result I've removed the counter feedback I left (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858730.msg30698437#msg30698437) as it's no longer required.

Thanks for supporting this everyone. Such mindsets do not belong on the DT list in my opinion.

Agree. Nobody with a legal mindset should have to opt-out of the DT list when they never opted-in to all its adverse liability.


Also in my opinion: any person who buys an account & libels others about their doing the same, does not belong on Bitcointalk, but I'm not the forum's majority stakeholder, so, meh.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2059051.0

If you hadn't have brought it up, I wouldn't have known to look you up, baka. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9muK2M36c

<disabled notifications for this topic>

Shut up you looney. You definatly belong in the looney bin! I am going to leave you negative trust for being a total Retard!