Bitcoin Forum

Has anyone seen the trust rating of mprep recently? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=51173

He is a forum global moderator with a negative rating from someone who is on DT. It also seems like he left some retaliatory feedback to bayareacoins https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=137773

Now I'm not saying he deserves the negative rating but the system seems to be failing. This is not even the only case, look at lauda https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872
2 Negative ratings from 2 different people and yet he is still on DT. They also left negative feedbacks to each other, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=181801  I don't know who left the first negative rating first but still, why do they all do this?


What about OgNasty, it seems to me that he leaves a ton of retaliatory negative feedback too. Is it really necessary to give this guy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986  5 Negative ratings?

I know you are going to say that trust is not moderated and bla bla but none of these users seem trustworthy to me, they all act like kids sometimes throwing negative ratings at each other.

I guess you are seeing the rating depending on your personal trust setting. It's different for sure for others. i.e I see green for BayAreaCoins, OgNasty, TMAN.
mprep is the same for me...

https://i.imgur.com/AQYguHA.png
Click here if unable to see image (https://i.imgur.com/AQYguHA.png)

Astargath is talking about DefaultTrust settings, which means that this is applicable in a grand scheme.

Retaliatory feedback is inevitable. However. the part that works is when others jump in to give their opinion about certain sent feedback. If other DT members disagreed with BAC's rating, they could easily send mprep positive feedback to counter the rating.

In the second case about Lauda, there must be a clear distinction made between trust feedback and trust lists. Lauda receiving negative trust from DT members does not mean that they will be excluded from DT.

Rather, for an exclusion to happen, the number of DT1 members that have ~Lauda (an exclusion) in their trust list must exceed the number that have Lauda (an inclusion) in their trust list.

In the third case, if it is justified there is often need to leave multiple feedback. To delete earlier feedback and "edit it in" to a later feedback seems unconstructive.

I know getting a negative rating does not mean you get excluded from DT, im not new here. It just seems counterproductive to have DT members with negative ratings from other DT members. If they can't trust each other why should we?

It seems that on mprep case almost no one really wanted to say anything because of fear.

Seems like personal issues between the users instead of serious accusations of scamming activities, which supposedly are the reasons for giving red trust to anybody.
I think this is normal to have "enemies" when you are a moderator or a "heavy user". Take a look at the meta section, last week we had a "war" between a cryptopussie and The Pharmacist...

Yet, you have a point: discussion of such a kind between DT members seems unserious, but, even so, from my point of view, those are just personal issues, and, as long as don't affect the forum, that's normal, people don't have to engage but to do well their job.

Decentralization. If you have the DT members agree with one another all the time or have some organized community staying in power, that leads to some heavy corruption. Some people may say that the current system still creates corruption, but there are plenty of objective DT members in the system.

The problem is that without a generalized consensus, most people would be afraid to sent ratings. After all, if someone cared about trust, they would strive to keep it as-is and avoid these kinds of confrontations.

@mdayonliner   i see mprep negative as well   and  i think most newbie will see him like that  because we dont  change our trust setting and just leave it by default  .

i had some chat with him when i first come to forum   i asked some questions and he helped  me  .

i dont  know people here and am sure most members here are like me  so  its less likely to change our  default trust   settings .

maybe if theymos  change the default trust network for newbies  from time to time it will be  better  ( idk if he is doing that already ) .

IIRC there was some system that he was testing to randomly add users into one's DT network. If someone has a link they can bring it up but it basically made users pick and choose from a selection of users.

If you are not NEW here then why you are posting and asking like newbie here? This retaliatory feedback means both DT has their own reason for giving it and this is normal since we have different perspective. Later on this issue will be resolved so don't bother anymore on their personal problem and focus on your own life. Read carefully the description of the feedback. You can start there on judging if they are really Trusted or not.

Read my red tag by marlboroza. would you say I deserved it? ignore my name and read the reference. if you think that I don't deserve it after I asked you to review my case, and if you keep quite and say nothing. nobody should ever trust your judgment. if you lie, people would see and nobody would ever trust you.

If you see some powerful people are doing something wrong and if you say nothing, your words would mean nothing for anybody after that.

I'm don't trust all DT members... being in DT1 just means Theymos trusts you - it doesn't mean you are a trustworthy and moral person...

Exactly Vod, not all DT members are trustworthy and have good moral characteristics,

Some of them having shady activities or something abusing and using their powers but I'm not to pointing to anyone. ;D

Same as here I also saw mprep negative feedback, but why we need to change manually our trust settings default? Is it not auto change?

Yes and I personally always tell people to look at the ratings and references and do their research if they are going to engage in any sort of trade. I'm just pointing out some of the ridiculousness of the system like a global moderator with negative trust or DT members throwing negatives to each other.

I have a lot of respect for mprep based on his posts and the job he does, but I think he was in the wrong with that auction and with the negative feedback he left for BAC.  The way I see it is that we all make mistakes if we get emotional about something, and I think that's what he did with the feedback he left.  Hopefully he learns from that auction debacle.  Also, I see green trust when I look at his trust page--but I have a very customized trust list.  BAC is also green.

There certainly is a lot of infighting here, but I'm pretty sure that's unavoidable, given the diversity of people we have here.  Most DT members aren't corrupt, and if they do get caught in a blatant scam they'll get removed.  I've seen that happen with a few former DT members, like Quickseller, Master-P, and most recently TheButterZone (though he requested he himself be removed).  TBZ isn't a scammer, but he has a slight problem with leaving negs--and positives--too readily.  I know there's a lot of others, but I can't remember any more off the top of my head.

I do wish there wasn't so much bickering among DT members and that there wasn't this drama between OGNasty and Lauda that's split not only DT but a lot of members into factions, but that's how it is.  I try to stay out of all of that, but OGNasty excluded me from his trust list, which got me booted off DT the first time.  Ouch.  Nevertheless, my fight has always been with the account sellers, farmers, and shitposters--not DT members.  I'd like to keep it that way.

After reviewing mprep's trust ratings, it seems that some of his neg trust was due to some auctions that he participated in the past.

https://i.imgur.com/05gN1Ej.png

As for me, I'm seeing his trust rating like this:

https://i.imgur.com/rtSEJ86.png

He's also a fellow human being, getting tagged by other people isn't that impossible, he also might have mistaken from what he did before that's why he get that, even if he was already a mod.

recent comments:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2945878.msg30263135#msg30263135
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2945878.msg30265724#msg30265724

original explanation:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0

My fear with this type of semi-randomized system is that it would be abused on a larger scale and would just create smaller groups of centralized (farmed) trusted accounts. I feel like it increases the chances for newbies getting scammed and further cradles or helps hide scammers... there probably isn't ever going to be a perfect solution for decentralizing something like this trust system though.

It's not perfect, but I like the trust system how it is at the moment, even though I do feel like there is a level of corruption that may be attainable and there are not enough current DT members expressing their opinions without fear, but I guess that's their choice.

In the end, scammers have plenty of financial incentive to scam here (not to mention rules are setup somewhat in their favor), so they have plenty of stamina and motivation to keep going. Outside of those who have their own special interests, DT members don't really have any incentive to help others/newbies or to leave any feedback, and they generally have risks of putting their own neck (or their own reputation) on the line when they leave feedback to others, since DT-level feedback can be excessively over-analyzed, debated, etc. So it's not really a good balance in that sense..

What do you get for being a DT2 member? is there any benefit for you? if there is no benefit for you then staying in or out shouldn't cause any trouble for you. if you are afraid of losing something by staying out of it, then you are not an honourable man and you would never achieve anything in your life, you'd Stay the same person with the same life. waking up every day to do what you are doing just for the money. nobody would come to your help when you need it if you don't help others when they need it.

Do you see mprep is doing something wrong? ignore his position and your own, judge him like you judge everybody else. this is another test like
All other tests. I'm asking you now. if nobody has ever asked you for your opinion, this is it, judge or stay quite. whatever you do there will be consequences. your reputation or your DT2 status? there is only one good outcome.

No, you are telling me to not weigh any other factors into people's actions, and I'm not about to do that.  THAT would be unfair.  Plus you're ignoring the importance of politics and forum culture here, which always plays a role.  Hate to say it, but it's true.  That's real life, buddy.

I'm not making money by being on DT.  If you can point me to where that's true, I'll listen.  The importance is in the weight of my feedback when I tag someone--that's basically it.  When I got kicked off DT the first time, it was annoying but I quickly got over it.  If I get kicked off again, I won't even be annoyed.  I will just hope that another DT member look through my sent feedbacks and re-tag those people.

Stop trolling.  You've got to be better than this underneath all your psychosis.  You think you've been tagged inappropriately?  Take a look at my feedback and tell me how many times I've been tagged inappropriately.  I'd put the number in the low hundreds, and some of these idiots made some very specific accusations, too, like I harm animals or have scammed them for 100BTC.  There's no references, and it's all bullshit of course.  But I don't expect anyone to come running to my defense to right the wrongs that have been done.  Fucking be a man.

I don't understand what this is about, people are free to express opinions on other people as they deem it fit based on the situations and circumstances at hand. DT members are not saint neither are they angels, they are individuals with different orientations, from different cultures as well as different levels of maturity. So you don't expect them to always agree on a particular issue.

I have seen threads were DT members have been accused of several things, some have been called alts of each others, others have been labelled clique to frustrate lower rank members just because they made it a responsibility to do what is right and you know the reason for this? Because they only agree on one position.. Now when they have different opinions about situations, complain is still there.

In short what is the essence of decentralisation or freedom if people who matter cannot disagree on issues then agree afterwards?

Why should you trust anyone?

The DT1 simply means people who are trusted by theymos (like TF was); DT2 means people who are trusted by those on DT1. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't trust anyone on the forum and neither should anyone; unless and until you are satisfied or have safeguards in place.

I have no issue about BayAreaCoins leaving negative feedback for me extending the run time of an auction, that is if he strongly believes this makes me a scammer. To me it seems ludicrous, but different people think differently. However, what I do thoroughly disagree with is him leaving negative Trust feedback for my moderation, which is what he did:


The feedback in relations to the actual extension is neutral:


Since he has already shown a disregard towards basic forum rules (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026785.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026785.0); after I called him out recently, he did, after several years, admit he was in the wrong so I'll give him that) and now shown that he's willing to leave negative feedback for someone who moderated his content, I find that incredibly scummy and untrustworthy and as such strongly believe that users should avoid doing business with him as long as this behavior persists hence the "retaliatory" Trust feedback, which reflects that:

---

It's only semi-centralised so infighting is inevitable. The fact that trusted users call out what they perceive as scammy behavior is a good thing IMO. Shows that people are leaving Trust feedback for their actions and not their position / renown / whatever. Whether the feedback is actually justified is a whole different debate.

That's what I'm talking about, you should ignore untrusted feedback until it is trusted, if you are tagging people with the knowledge of that your feedback
Has weight on people's reputation, if you are not listening to reason when you are called out, you are not to be trusted. I called you out to ask your opinion.
What do you think about mprep action in this case? if you think leaving retaliatory feedback is wrong, say it. if you refuse to speak, then you will face the
Same situation someday and nobody would trust your words then.


OK I will stop trolling. you want to know my opinion on this? retaliatory feedback is wrong. if you know it, you should tell that to mprep, let him read your opinion, let him know what you think. refuse to talk and I will confront you next time when you are judging others.


This is me being a man. @mprep, I believe retaliatory feedback, positive feedback to complement each other back and forth is wrong. I also believe they
Are on to you, OP could be a bought account because his email was reset recently. they want you gone and they have the support. reconsider everything you have done and edit sent feedback if necessary. if you think you have made a mistake, correct it.

This is me weighing other factors, my support for him for whatever good he has done for this community. now if anybody else is reading here, facking be a man and speak.

I can guarantee you that I did not sell my account. I happen to see mprep trust in a post and I thought it was funny to see a global moderator with a negative rating. Just like giving retaliatory negative feedback between DT members seem childish. What's the point of the system, then?

Am quoting mdayonliner, but my question is directed towards Astargath

[quote author=mdayonliner link=topic=3617512.msg36583197#msg36583197 date=1525698875]
I guess you are seeing the rating depending on your personal trust setting. It's different for sure for others. i.e I see green for BayAreaCoins, OgNasty, TMAN.
mprep is the same for me...

[img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob4a7cf6cbd978d5b6.png[/img]
[size=7pt]Click here if unable to see image (https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob4a7cf6cbd978d5b6.png)[/size]
[/quote]

I only have Tomatocage removed from my trust list and this is what I see:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob8de11736004a2d0a.jpeg

But who are you really Astargath?  Or, rather, what is your main alt?  There's a few of these "trust" themed threads popping up recently started by sock puppets.

See, this is why people is afraid to speak up, what do you mean who am I really and why would you think this is not my main alt lol, I have like 3k posts here. I have default trust, I never changed the settings and I see that too. You don't think it's weird for a global mod to have negative trust? You and tomatocage also seem to have a negative trust battle as well. I'm just saying that trust is a bit meaningless if people are just going to give it based on personal feelings.

quickscammer has over twelve thousand posts just on their so named account:


yet manages to post on other UID's ~ 5% of the total number of QS' post count just on this one UID:


(I gave QS Red Paint ^TM before even Vod did...)

---

Tomatocage is just Butt Hurt ^TM and went offline when I made comment concerning his alts - (only infrequently returning)

If nothing else, their prolonged absence should be reason enough for their removal from DT.  (no really)

That's what I'm saying, just because someone is butthurt you shouldn't be able to give them negative trust in return, specially DT members. I don't know who did what in your particular case though.

Astargath---didn't you know? if you are critical of the trust system, you must be a "sock puppet" and "alt" of someone else. this is very basic forum policy. are you sure you aren't new here? :P


that's sort of laughable. literally all default trust lines lead back to theymos. it's utterly centralized.


i'm guessing the problem isn't the objective members. and there is no guarantee that an objective member will cancel out an unjust rating left by someone else.


i added ~marlboroza to my trust settings after that. never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red. this is what negative feedback is supposed to be for:

Let us not forget how Tomatocage conveniently returned in February(?) to exclude me from his trust list right after OGNasty did so, thereby bumping me off DT2.  That tells me very clearly that the Tomatocage account is likely controlled by QS.  He has a gripe with me because 1) He knows I don't trust him, and 2) He thinks I'm Lauda.  OGNasty I've never had issues with, and he laid down a BS excuse for excluding me saying something like I'm discouraging newcomers to bitcoin/bitcointalk with the feedback I'm leaving.  I think that was the reason, anyway.  

I had never interacted with him or Tomatocage before this, and Tomatocage has been completely silent on the matter--not surprisingly.  That's enough evidence to convince me that the original TC is likely not in control of that account any longer.
My opinion is that the whole situation stinks to high heaven.  I already stated that I don't think mprep extending that auction was the right move, and leaving a neg for BAC is wrong also.  Happy?

Other stuff aside, I think it's very intriguing that a global moderator is marked as a scammer, no matter what the situation. (Not implying he is one).

I agree with Ibminer and allahabadi's posts.

Many months after I slapped TomatoCage with Red Paint ^TM (and TC had been offline that whole time) he sent me a PM - the vocabulary was stilted as though the account had at that point been hacked.  (I made mention of this apparent hack in two or three threads, but it was ignored)  I refused to remove the negative, so TC gave me negative in kind and went back to being offline.

Mexxer-2 (whom I assert is an older alt of TomatoCage) likewise has gone dark and then months later got slapped by a couple of people on the DT for a totally different reason.


For a person on the DT to be so cut up about a non DT member's negative on their trust wall tells me I'm onto something.

Have you contradicted yourself?

Which new DT2 members?

Can you point us to DT2 members who are leaving useless feedbacks, point us to these useless feedbacks and explain why they are useless?

I thought it was a bit confusing in several of your replies but it seems that you don't know you were included into DT2. Given that you most likely don't care and manage your own custom trust settings, it may have been that you thought the attention was just a coincidental period of activity.

---

This is not a contradiction. Exclusion =/= Negative trust. It simply means you do not trust their feedback. However, you can still trust the person.

no.


it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.

but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.

there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.

No, I don't check trust settings every day and no, I didn't know that I was added to DT  on May 03, 2018, 01:22:39 PM when I posted this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3502223.msg36204157#msg36204157, he mentioned green trust member, that topic was about me being alt of theymos because some of digaran's posts were removed from my topic( while the truth is whole topic was trashed) and by all logic "green trust member" is me(because that topic was about me being alt of theymos), and his next post after my was:

I was included to DT when exactly?
Before or after my post? Timestamp?
Before or after -ve? Timestamp? 2:47 AM? :-\

I came that day and went straight to my topic and I saw that digaran accused me that I am alt of cyrus(post has been removed), I replied to other user, I clicked on digaran's recent posts and noticed that he created topic "Need explanation if possible?"(again, asking whether marlboroza is alt of theymos because his posts were removed and other nonsense" which is now "calling out vod for his trust imput" and I replied to digaran's lies.

And look at this http://prntscr.com/jg64cx.

So, lets make this clear again, I came home, I saw digaran posting lies all over the forum, responded and there is no way that I could have known that I was included in DT at that moment. Look at all timestamps.

Maybe troll is causing confusion? Again, that topic is not original topic.

---

Are you sure you are pointing only at me?   ::)

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

to reiterate:

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Finally some one with logic posting on the forum. He is misusing his powers since the very moment he was added into the DT. 10 merits for you not because you are talking against this scumbag but because you are the first one who is posting some logic here.

Enrolling alt accounts in the same bounties/giveaways even if it is clearly stated "one account is allowed" is cheating people who are paying them for "work".
No, I was tagging them before I become DT and I don't see any reason why should I stop tagging them now.
Are you trying to say whoever tagged alt account cheater misused DT position?

Any particular reason why you are pointing at me, because I am sure there are other DT members who tagged lots more cheaters than I did.

Which supposedly bounty did I cheat, check my other accounts date last login, it is clear they are all abandoned before they received negative feedback. I accepted that I did the error and abandoned all accounts, this is my original account which has some reds because I bought accounts in 2016. Now we are in 2018 and I only have this account active. I think it is an unfair trust rating , anyway I am used to it now.

''is cheating people who are paying them for "work". '' Well, although it obviously breaks the local rules of the bounty itself, it isn't really cheating them since it doesn't matter who is making the posts. Whether he has 2 accounts in the same bounty or 2 different people have 2 accounts enrolled, the final result is really the same since in both cases they would need to post a minimum amount of posts. Now I'm not saying it's ok but if you had to give negative ratings to anyone breaking ''local'' rules of any thread, everyone would have a negative rating.

Look at auctions or similar, how many people do you think fuck up there with bids and whatnot, you could view it as intentional but it could also be a mistake. What about account selling, it was totally ok not long ago, now people get red tagged for it.

I guess for buying forum accounts some years ago. Maybe he should tag Lauda and others who have been caught doing that. Haha, can you imagine that?? Equally applied standards from DT?? What a joke. The trust system is rotten and corrupt. ;)

His account has solid connection with scammer.


I'll quote something which I received in PM recently:
All "users" are connected recently.
Do you see this as mistake?

I didn't know back then as I was an amateur I have said it many times ,first registered here on February 2016. It was an error and I am back to my only original account being this one. Anyway no more time for this, you are distracting me from my tipping service. Last post here, no problem for me wearing red. Good night all.

Well, probably not but I would still focus more on garbage posting than alt hunting. I wouldn't care if someone had 1k accounts as long as he has decent posts. You might as well tag shit posters too.

scams require the existence of victims. again:

bounty managers only list that rule because its customary, to appease forum admins and community. the managers and ICO issuers don't give a flying fuck, and thinking otherwise is laughably naive.

equating a quid quo pro with real scams makes the trust system totally useless.


um, okay....? you're still the most egregious example.

sure, the real root problem is whoever added you to DT and i'd like to remove them from my trust network too. but i don't think that information is public. please correct me if i'm wrong.


i'm saying that---in most cases---it's a misuse of the trust system, period. it does absolutely nothing to prevent scams. fyi, neutral trust exists for situations where a user isn't actually a scammer.


as i've stated multiple times, you are not the only problematic DT member.

and if you would simply read my replies before responding, you'd know precisely why i am "pointing at you". digaran asked specifically about your feedback:

so, i checked the feedback. you literally tagged the guy over one sarcastic remark---nothing at all to do with scamming. WTF? then i took a look at your sent feedback. holy shit, what a pile of garbage......


well, that's actually what he's doing. marlboroza (and anyone with a brain) knows the bounty campaigns aren't getting scammed. it's just an underhanded way to tag shitposters.

but i don't think that's a proper use of the trust system, and i believe theymos has specifically said that. "shitposter" ≠ "scammer".

It absolutely is public. If you temporarily change your trust list to exclusively DefaultTrust then you can enter the hierarchal view of the depth and investigate who excluded/included whom.

In fact, all trust inclusions/exclusions are public and in a document:

haha d'oh, thanks! i sort of knew it was public since you can see who's on DT on the trust page, but i could never figure out how to read who included/excluded who. never noticed the hierarchal view---that's really helpful.

No. An attempted scam with 0 victims is still a scam.

Whether you like bounty campaigns or not is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make it right and all that.

a scam implies a fraud or swindle, which requires a victim. that is, you can't defraud "nobody." if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around and all that.

and you removed the relevant part of the quote:


what are you talking about? my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

and it's not just bounties either; that's just the most obvious example. like the digaran example above. it's normal now to see tags for "saying something untrustworthy once" (even in jest) or "lying" (as if the tagger could prove intent) or generic "untrustworthy" behavior. retaliatory tags. etc.

it's just rare these days to see people tagged for a bona fide scam. it's always stupid petty bullshit.

No. What you're describing is a target, who may or may not become a victim. A scam is a scam even if it's unsuccessful and doesn't defraud anybody, or if it defrauds somebody who you think deserves it.

this tangent is really diverging from the point:

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam). both fraud (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud) and deceit (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deceit) require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#As_a_civil_wrong). the juxtaposition in that article between "fraud" and "hoax" points out the requisite factors:

anyway, these ICOs and their bounties are not being materially damaged. they're not victims. in fact, they're lining their pockets (and probably exit scamming) on the backs of these horribly untrustworthy scamming shitposters. the idea that vaporware cash-grab ICOs are honorable and are "being cheated" employs such upside-down logic that it's painful. and they are the root spam problem too; they provide all the incentive and reinforce the terribly low posting standards. the bounty hunters are just a symptom, yet they get all the ire. the logic here is just totally backwards.

This is a forum, not a court of law, and we are not talking about legal liability. Fraud is about intent.

Nice try with the dictionary but your links to scam/fraud definitions don't indicate that a victim must exist in order for something to be called scam or fraud.

Example IRL: if I get one of those "you won a cruise" letters I can call it a scam with a high degree of certainty without bothering to find out if there are any victims.

@figmentofmyass
The scammer did not just got intention to scam but he created all the necessary tools to harm other ppl  it's not just a thought  .. and DT members  as an experienced  people will for sure  stop the scam before it happen or at least with the minimum  damages  .  ( some deals are worth more than 1 btc  i guess you can't afford to lose that to a potential scammer  ? Don't you  )  

@suchmoon, how would you know if you are making a mistake or not? if nobody tells you that you are making a mistake, you'd keep making the same mistakes and would think that you are doing the right thing. if you see marlboroza made a mistake by tagging me, you should tell him that. it would help him to improve himself.
You have the right to distrust me, but if your distrust of me is going to tag me red by default I don't deserve it

This whining and moaning in unrelated threads is not going to make you more trustworthy. Sort it out with marlboroza.

I think it is ridiculous that you have to wait until after a scam has occurred to do something about it. The idea of that is simply ridiculous: prophylactic action should be made to prevent the possibility of having any victims. From a utilitarian perspective, wouldn't you rather have 0 victims as opposed to 1?

From a hedonistic perspective, the individual would have to be the only one not to be scammed; since he'll be scamming all.  ;D

#NotMyOpinion