Bitcoin Forum

I feel that we are all part of Theymos "ant-farm " experiment.

The unfortunate part of the trust system is that it holds political and potential scam power.

For this reason I think it would be good to create a list of values that the majority on the DT list would like to maintain.

It is interesting that while the list was created as a trust list it appears that distrust is more important.

One of the things that I would like to alert people to is the danger of removing some of the old DTs from the list.

For instance when Lauda was removed from the old list there were numerous scammers that suddenly were untagged. This worried me.

Having a charter of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable will bring both discussion and some agreement.

I feel the idea of the new DT system is to have more eyes and ears out there fighting scams.

Not really. For a start a lot of legendary accounts already have 1000 merit automatically from the merit that was provided to them automatically when the merit system was introduced.  Merit is for post quality and not for trust.

I have merited some users with negative trust because their post was good - sometimes their post was brilliant and very useful.

Trust is based on opinion - so the person placing it feels there is a reason to warn others.

I use a modified trust list to include people I know and trust and exclude people I don't trust.

Negative trust does not necessarily mean that the person is a "written off" in all aspects. This is why it is really important to place a reference link and clear explanation why the rating has been given. (Same applies for positive trust)

Anyone can provide trust or negative trust and people on the DT list is not directly controlled by the forum. They are "independent agents".

Some scams are clearly defined while others are more subjective. For instance - if a business fails due to no illegal activity of the member. Is it a scam because people lost funds - or is it not a scam because no illegal activity was involved ?

Things that can get people negative trust from a DT are:
Attempted or successful fraud or theft.
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others.
Account sales
Merit sales / swapping
Harassing a DT
Offering escrow without a track record
Asking for a no collateral loan
Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi
Escrowing for themselves
Late loan repayments / loan defaults.
Any other untrustworthy or illegal behavior.

Saying "I don't trust you" is subjective. It doesn't mean there has been a judicial process that has found the person to be guilty of a crime.

Sometimes minor dishonesty is a sign of more less obvious stuff. Like Al Capone who was convicted on tax evasion.

Also just because a person has done something in the past (history is something that we rely on to identify patterns of behavior) it doesn't mean that they will repeat their mistake or haven't reformed.  

Some historical scams and failures have also been very good learning processes for the Crypto community.
Some of it resulted in Terms like:
"To get Goxed" Definition: To suffer from mt. gox’s technical glitches; to get screwed over by mt. gox; to lose all your money in a speculative investment . (http://slang.org/goxed-meaning-definition/)
"To take a Big Vern holiday" Definition: To disappear like Paul Vernon - the owner and CEO of the now defunct Cryptsy who "vanished" like the exchange funds. (Also referred to as an "exit scam".
"To receive a (Butterfly Labs) BFL upgrade" Definition: To receive something substandard much later than promised.
"To buy a Yesminer" Definition: To pay for something and never receive it.

There was a thread about why scams are not moderated and it has good reasons:

The ratings did all end up being removed, which I'm happy with, and I appreciate the willingness to de-escalate and forgive from the people involved in this case. The fact that this issue came up at all indicates that the trust system isn't working perfectly (and I am considering future system changes), but it's still a good outcome.

Logged-out users will now see a warning in trust-enabled sections if more DT members neg-trust the topic starter than positive-trust him.

This increases the responsibility of DT members not to give negative trust for stupid reasons, but only for things that cause you to believe that the person is a scammer.

You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters. By giving someone negative trust, you're basically attaching a note to all of their posts telling people "warning: do not trade with this person!". If we can get DT working well enough, in the future I'd like to prevent guests from even viewing topics by negative-trust users in trust-enabled sections, so you have to ask yourself whether your negative trust would warrant this sort of significant effect.

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0). Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.

There are a lot of pointless "summarize something obvious" posts, but IMO btcsmlcmnr's summary added something.

---

Forgiveness and de-escalation are key to getting Trust working smoothly:
 - Forgiveness: Often people make fairly small mistakes, but then they seemingly get red-trusted for life. This isn't really fair, and it discourages participation due to paranoia: if you think that you have a 1% chance of running afoul of some unwritten rule and getting red-trusted for life, you might just avoid the marketplace altogether. Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.
 - De-escalation: If some people end up locked in a feud where they're only really giving negative trust to each other in retaliation for negative trust, then one of them should propose burying the hatchet and removing the negative trust. Otherwise it never gets resolved, and everyone is worse-off for it.

They're not. I decided that too many negative ratings aren't flag-worthy, and there's no way to automatically determine it. If you believe that a past negative rating is flag-worthy, you'll need to create a flag.

Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:

Attempted or successful fraud or theft.
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others.
Account sales
Merit sales / swapping
Harassing a DT
Offering escrow without a track record
Asking for a no collateral loan
Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi
Escrowing for themselves
Late loan repayments / loan defaults.

Harassing a DT
ANN bumping, which is negative to the forum.
Plagiarism.
Ban evasion.

Harassing a DT

Plagiarism - I think a lot of people would argue that this is a moderation issue and not something that members should be taking into their own hands. Simply report and the user will get banned and that's a far more effective way than leaving a tag because its permanent and actually achieves something.

Ban Evasion - Again for the same reason as Plagiarism.

Asking for a no collateral loan / providing fake or insufficient collateral

I didn't mention harassment in my system. Misquote?

Sometimes users plagiarize/ban evade and moderation is slow. We know how slow moderation is. It seems better to at least "soft-ban" these users first.

Some other points for negative trust that I don't think were mentioned:
Unrealistic loan applications

That was a misquote sorry! Fixed it

I guess so there's no harm in leaving the feedback but does seem like a waste of your own time to me.

Your list mentions "lending" to get reputation. Isn't borrowing to obtain reputation looked down on too?

Harassing a DT *Subjective (Extreme harassment)

You have a well deserved list of rules which should be followed before tagging any person with red here.

But I found one of the rule pretty annoying and not Justified in any way.

This is totally Irrelative point for being tagged and can directly pointed as an abuse of power. As if a person tries to complaint against any DT or its action it would be considered as an harassment which looks totally wrong.

I would rather suggest you to upgrade it to Harassment by DT which would better support the people and give them a chance of protesting against abuse.

There is a difference between a person challenging a decision and(e.g.) someone calling Vod a pedophile and making fake reviews about him on external websites.

That sort of behaviour is extreme harassment. (and in my opinion deserves a red tag)

My intent is to take the list and turn it into a poll later for community voting on any subjective topics.

Vod is a DT member and a person trying to harass him would probably not effect Vods account on Bitcointalk in any way as he has the power already and just a troll or a spoken harassment would not matter much and he personally can deal with it by using ignore.

But if a normal user is harassed by a DT he just could not put the DT on ignore and post here normally as he should have got a red on his profile for an undeserved reason which just puts his account to scammer level on the forum.

This proves that normal people are more affected by the red trust fact and should be given an advantage to speak not the onces who already have the power to protect themself.


Yes, a Poll will surely give you a clearer view about what should be on the rules to red-tag.

I have seen some DTs have red tagged few people for trolling but it should not be tagged in my opinion.Those kind of trolls needs to be banned because it is against the forum rules but tagging them be like using their power on someone who don't like.

I don't think it's in the rules that trolls shoukd be banned from the forum,if it is I stand to be corrected,the problem is there are different kind of trolls and one or two minor trolls which almost everyone does is definitely no issue and should not attract any ban.

But when one consistently trolls and argues a case incessantly against the community it then becomes hard for us to ascertain their sanity and hence we need to warn others of them,cos you may never know in real life they could be mentally unstable.

3. No trolling.

Don't forget:
2. Leaving fake negative ratings <- I'm pushing the bar with this as many people are self-censoring themselves and not acting on it.

As if a person tries to complaint against any DT or its action it would be considered as an harassment which looks totally wrong.

Its in the rules, So why they can't be just banned instead of tagging them and warning other to be safe with these trolls.ANd also I don't think anyone banned in this forum for trolling but its against the rule for too long time.

OP you mentioned Offering escrow without a track record.
Do you mean no previous escrow track record or no previous deals/trades at all on Bitcointalk?
Theoretically, if a user wanted to become an escrow here, what would he need to do if he doesn't have a track record?

What I consider not taggable:

Posting an unpopular opinion.

You can add to the "list should not be tagged":

- religious statements

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

I wanted to post an example, but it got too long so I made another topic. It seems to me this user got 3 red tags for his "unpopular opinion": Red trust on Bestmixer: is this justified? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099654.0).

At the other end of the scale, another mixer (who I didn't trust from (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2165755.msg22014405#msg22014405) the (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2165755.msg22058960#msg22058960) start (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2165755.msg34820585#msg34820585)) had to scam 16 Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4469056.0) first because DT (including myself) doesn't tag it without evidence.

Summary: if we keep going at this rate, I think we're damaging the forum and it's users!

<snip>

Lets create a set, or multiple sets of rules that are universal, clear, able to be uniformly enforced, and create a system of redress of grievances. Con artists and power hungry sociopaths have trouble with rules when they aren't the ones dictating them. This forum is amazing when it comes together and upholds the standards that make it great. Lets make some basic, clear, enforceable, and just rules that don't end up causing more trouble than they are preventing. Then we can finally tell the resident forum Barney Fife's to go pound sand when they try to accuse and harass others to increase their own influence.

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?
[//quote]

I agree and will add this to the list of things to discusss.

Question for the more senior members here, and I don't think it's too off-topic, but TECSHARE was on DT once.  Why did he get removed?  TECSHARE can answer this question himself, but I'd rather hear a disinterested but knowledgeable 3rd party's explanation since I know TECSHARE has had a grudge against DT since his removal and don't expect his take on it to be unbiased.

A lot of it will still be subjective - like anything there are always grey areas.

You know I have a grudge, yet you don't even know what happened. Interesting.

One only need to look at your personal message to know you've got a grudge, plus I've had you go so far as to leave neutral feedback on me because I didn't want to continue arguing with you either in posts or via PMs.  I don't know the whole story of why you got removed from DT, though.  It might be instructive for anyone reading this to know the reason, since we're talking about what is and isn't acceptable from DT members--and what could potentially get a DT member booted off.  

I was here when QS got removed (and a couple of others if I'm not mistaken), so I know that whole story but I'm pretty sure you got removed after I registered.  Feel free to give your side of the story if you want.  If not, I'm asking that someone who's been here for longer than me to explain.

Or maybe just an opportunity for you to pursue your own grudge...

Speaking of Master-P, who was it that got him to return about half of the stolen funds using words alone? I forgot...

I assume you mean grudge against you?  While it's true I think you're an arrogant prick with some serious anger issues, I happen to trust you as far as your business goes and would have no thoughts that you were going to scam me.  You also made a recent point that I thought had some validity, which I think was the idea that "transaction trust" is different than "accurate feedback trust", though I don't think Theymos is going to modify the trust system to separate those two things.

I don't think it was scamming that got you removed from DT, so I'm just asking what the reason was.  This isn't a question designed to ensnare you, and I could probably find the answer with enough searching but I figure there's a Legendary member reading this who might know off the top of his head.  If it gets ignored and no one answers it, no prob.  

For the new DT members I do think it would be useful to educate them as to how former members of the old DT system got removed.  Master-P got booted because he pulled a huge scam.  Escrow.ms was removed because he'd spent time in jail on some credit card scam, QS because of the 'self-escrow' thing.  There are more, but I can't think of them--and those ones I mentioned happened since 2015 when I first registered on bitcointalk.  You got booted before that if I'm remembering correctly, though it could have been in my early days and I may not have noticed it.

OP you mentioned Offering escrow without a track record.
Do you mean no previous escrow track record or no previous deals/trades at all on Bitcointalk?
Theoretically, if a user wanted to become an escrow here, what would he need to do if he doesn't have a track record?

They could have a previous reliable trading record. Sales that have generated a reliable record of happy buyers.

Es-crowing is really utilizing an established and trusted person with a history of handling funds.

The amount of $ involved would also be relevant.

More importantly it is not up to 3rd parties to dictate to the rest of the forum what their acceptable level of risk is.

I mean, I agree with you here, but that isn't what Default Trust does. If we were banning these users and deleting their threads, then you would have a completely valid point, but I disagree that simply putting the words "Warning: Trade with extreme caution" under someone's avatar amounts to dictating to other users.

How not to use the negative feedback

[1] Do not leave a negative feedback (red tag) a user for violating forum rules unless on rare occasions. source (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5096971.msg49222346#msg49222346/) e.g Don't red tag a user for ban evasion, plaragism etc instead report user to appropriate authority (moderators)

[2] Do not leave a false negative feedback, offenders might get red tag for this act if proving to be a false red tag.

[3] Do not leave a negative feedback without reference (evidence) this will be seen as an accusation

[4] Do not red tag a user for having alternative account unless the Alt account was bought or used for bad intentions like trust/merit abuse

[5] Do not leave a negative feedback for disliking another user.

[6] Don't turn leaving of negative feedback into a daily job or hobby, only do it when necessary.

[7] Do not leave a negative feedback based on other people judgement (they could be wrong)

I never said it wasn't a deterrent, just that it doesn't amount to dictating to others. It is a warning - if you wish to ignore said warning and trade/invest/whatever anyway, you are free to do so.

<...>

In my opinion, there should either be a forum created and/or endorsed set of guidelines, or a DT1 (at least) consensus on them if not. Creating a list of guidelines, and them voting on them one by one by DT1 (*) could be a thing, but the voting would need to take place elsewhere, since the forum polls cannot be delimited to a selected set of users.

Having said that, I would rather much have the guidelines being forum endorsed, and even forum led, in order for the criteria to be above all shadow of doubt (if they were to be created by current/any DT1, likely many would not like it either).

To sum up unless there is a victim making a claim with some kind of documentation leaving a negative rating should be avoided.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. It doesn't take a detective to see that an ICO or project launched with a whitepaper that is entirely plagiarized or a team made up of fictitious, non-existent people isn't exactly a trustworthy project. Similarly, you don't need to actually be scammed by someone offering a return on investment of 100% a week to know that it is a scam. These kinds of things are obvious to people who have been involved in crypto for more than a few months, but newbies can and do regularly get fooled by these kind of scams.

No, giving all these scams red trust won't protect every newbie and some will get scammed, but not reaching 100% safety isn't a reason to trash the system altogether.

If it doesn't take a detective, why do we need dozens of them to tell us what is obvious? Are you not seeing the gap in your logic here? Oh its obvious its a scam! Well sure, then its obvious to people who are doing ANY sort of even superficial due diligence isn't it?

In that case all it is serving to do is create even more conflict trying to be some kind of Barney Fife Tom Cruise hybrid pre-crime forum police. People who aren't doing any due diligence will ALWAYS BE FUCKED no matter how many nannies want to run around any try to baby proof everything. Respond with a negative after evidence is presented of a crime, not before. If not stick to neutrals and posts in the appropriate reputation and scam accusation areas.

fake negativ rating

If you are consequent to your terms please add a negativ tag to suchmoon who admitted that he tagged me based on poor assumptions

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100071.msg49341080#msg49341080

fake negativ rating

If you are consequent to your terms please add a negativ tag to suchmoon who admitted that he tagged me based on poor assumptions

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100071.msg49341080#msg49341080

SHOW A SINGLE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

An attempt to scam is a crime in most counties. Alerts and discussion prevents people getting scammed. A lot of people go blindly into crypto and fall prey to many scams. While it may be considered baby proofing by some other don't want to stand by and do nothing. Having discussions about what constitutes a clear violation makes it easier for people to understand the ethical values of the forum. It allows them to avoid getting into trouble in the first place and it demonstrates what conduct the majority of people expect.

If you can't see that proof that was presented was a slam dunk, maybe you ought to invest in a seeing-eye dog and a cane.

Busted.

You're the only one out of 2.5 million Bitcointalk users using the same vocabulary and attacking the same people as a red-trusted account trader. These odds are good enough for me to tag a worthless newbie account whose first post was this. But if you're not happy about it please start a thread in Reputation and state your case. This is not the place for that.

If it doesn't take a detective, why do we need dozens of them to tell us what is obvious? Are you not seeing the gap in your logic here?

Because as I said, newbies are regularly fooled by these scams. What may seem like a blatantly obvious scam to you or me is often just convincing enough to lure in someone less familiar with this space, who doesn't know that "bitcoin doublers" aren't a real thing or some users shill their own scam threads with fake accounts.

As is the case in most jurisdictions around the world, where a plan or attempt to commit a crime is a crime itself, we don't need a scam to be successful to know it is a scam. There is no benefit to letting these scammers get one or two "for free" before tagging them.

some picture a retard imagines is amusing

I notice lots of your posts & threads have been removed - have you had a warning yet?

DT is really none of your business - checking your exclusions the whole forum would need to include you now for you to stand half a chance

-snip-

I completely agree with your points regarding teaching people to do their own due diligence, and yes, some noobs will get scammed regardless of how much you try to warn them. There is no helping some people.

However, I completely disagree with your point that because we can never tag 100% of scammers, we should therefore not tag any scammers. It's like saying because seatbelts don't save 100% of lives, we should stop wearing them - all they do is give people a veil of safety, which in turn encourages them to drive more dangerously. I just don't agree. Yes, some scammers will get away with it, but we shouldn't be using that as justification to just let the scammers roam freely.

Also the biggest issue is the subjectivity there allows it to stifle free speech

Subjectivity is protected by free speech.  People are free to form their own opinions and either trust or distrust you accordingly.  Nothing is being stifled.

I completely agree with your points regarding teaching people to do their own due diligence, and yes, some noobs will get scammed regardless of how much you try to warn them. There is no helping some people.

However, I completely disagree with your point that because we can never tag 100% of scammers, we should therefore not tag any scammers. It's like saying because seatbelts don't save 100% of lives, we should stop wearing them - all they do is give people a veil of safety, which in turn encourages them to drive more dangerously. I just don't agree. Yes, some scammers will get away with it, but we shouldn't be using that as justification to just let the scammers roam freely.

Some other points for negative trust that I don't think were mentioned:

Spreading malware

Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:

Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi

Shilling scams.

[...]

Enrolling multiple accounts into signature/bounty campaigns

Using an alt account to abuse bounties/giveaways.

LOL  that makes zero sense. Imagine a police state with no mandate or rules/criteria on how they operate.
Can you imagine how free your speech would be under such a system?

Go here and continue this debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

This isn't a police state.  It's more akin to a neighbourhood watch scheme.  Community standards set by the community.  The fact that you've cross-posted your views over as many topics as you have clearly demonstrates that your free speech isn't suffering at all.



I could, but that topic is mostly just you working yourself up into a state of agitation over something other users deem to be insubstantial.  Then, when just about every reply is subtly hinting at you needing to take it down a notch, you don't listen.  And you clearly aren't going to listen if I add my +1 to everyone else telling you stop making mountains out of molehills.  It doesn't warrant the bump, to be blunt.  This topic serves a better purpose and takes a far more neutral stance, so I'll keep the discussion here.

Let's say that the user wrote a slander (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5091309.msg48974240#msg48974240) that someone stole his money. Does it deserve a red trust?

I may or may not have had my free speech impinged upon but that again does not answer for others who clearly can be effected by the systems of control that I have demonstrated exist and implications arising from those systems.

Now imagine that you are simply presenting facts demonstrating a lie and you get red trusted by that lier and his friends red trust further and admit they did it because you posted those facts again. Don't lie to me and pretend you would simply say that is no big deal. I do not at all believe you.

Actually, it sounds like you're the one who wants a tighter system of control.  The community itself can now act as judge, jury and executioner.  It's quite liberal when you consider the hierarchical alternatives.  I'm sorry if that doesn't suit your preferences.  

Meta is now where the community are coming together to decide how it's going to be and this topic is a part of that decision, so I suggest you rethink your current antagonistic approach and engage in a more civil discourse if you want to have any kind of positive influence here.  It's still early days and things may yet change.



I can see how it's a big deal from your perspective.  We're not refuting that.  The question is how it's viewed by others.  It's now an ongoing decision for everyone else in the community to decide if your treatment was justified or not.  If the community are not happy with the conduct of those who have red-tagged you, they will change their trust lists accordingly.  Or those who have tagged you might be pressured to change those tags if the community deem their actions contrary to (the still evolving) community standards.  Alternatively, you'll need to find a way to come to terms with the community's decision if people don't change their trust lists and the tags against you are deemed appropriate.  But I can assure you that you aren't doing yourself any favours with your constant rage-posting about this matter.  We get it, you're quite indignant about this.  Message received.  Loud and clear.  Now, for your own sake, just simmer down a bit.

snip

Do you guys think if a batch of accounts fill all of these criteria are they worth giving a red trust?

What's the general consensus about thread bumping services?


If pertaining to a scam, it may fall into the "Shilling scams" category.

However, if there's a chance a project isn't a scam, it might fall into either of these categories:

- ANN bumping
- Colluding

<snip>

RESERVED


Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:

Attempted or successful fraud or theft.
Account sales / purchase / taking an account as collateral
Merit sales / swapping / Sending trust/merit between your alt accounts
Offering escrow without a track record
Providing fake or insufficient collateral. (When misleading)
Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi
Escrowing for themselves
Late loan repayments / loan defaults.
Enrolling multiple accounts into signature/bounty campaigns
Lending or borrowing to gain "reputation"
Committing fraud by selling bank details or other sensitive data.
Inherently risky business practices - PayPal and other reversible payments, discouraging escrow use, autobuy sites, locked sales threads etc.
Impersonation of any kind (although this probably falls under outright fraud)
Fake ICOs and other projects - fake teams, plagiarized whitepapers, etc
Any ponzi-related behavior.
Any behavior that involves an involuntary monetary transfer.
Shilling scams.
Using an alt account to abuse bounties/giveaways.
Selling gambling scripts or any "strategy" in a statistically -ev game.
Fake translations.
Hacked account.
Spreading malware
Constant begging
Unrealistic loan applications

Unacceptable conduct that is directly against the forum rules:
Plagiarism. * Should be reported to admin for permaban
Ban evasion.  * Should be reported to admin for permaban

Unacceptable behavior that could result in a red tag:

These items are subjective and require some community discussion.

Extreme harassment *Subjective
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others. *Subjective
Asking for a no collateral loan *Subjective This should only apply if the user has little reputation/is asking for an amount that is way too unreasonable for what reputation they have.
ANN bumping, which is negative to the forum.
Loan defaults (only if unpaid for an unreasonable amount of time)
Colluding *subjective
Leaving fake negative ratings*subjective

Considerations:
Before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

Should not be tagged:

Criticizing others.
Posting an unpopular opinion.
Leaving an unsubstantiated negative rating, if the user is not shady outside of this.
Promoting altcoins.
Using an alt account.
religious statements*subjective
Anything without solid evidence or very strong circumstantial evidence*


Source: xtraelv (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306848#msg49306848) AverageGlabella (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306885#msg49306885) suchmoon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306923#msg49306923) actmyname (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49306947#msg49306947) DarkStar_ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49307018#msg49307018) lauda (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49308290#msg49308290)
LoyceV (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099391.msg49318175#msg49318175)

The problem with the ever expanding list of what people deem negative rateable, is that in a lot of these cases there is no evidence, it is left to the judgement of the individual. So essentially you have a bunch of people running around as judge jury and executioner with no recourse for those swept up in it wrongfully. In the end all this results in is making the negative ratings meaningless anyway giving cover for actual indisputable fraud. You don't have to like it or agree with it, that doesn't mean you should negative rate over it.

This whole "well what about this and what about this" game is simply an attempt at making it look like the sky will fall if we don't have a huge nanny state full of wanna be forum cops shotgunning negative ratings. Freedom and security are exclusive concepts, and your goal of absolute security is unattainable. Lets stick to what can and should be enforced and leave the nitpicking to the lice infested before these trust mobs demand rectal inspections before they give you permission to use the forum uninhibited.

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

That is certainly valid advice, but again it is reduced to the same problem, it is completely subjective, and if it serves the interest of "forum cops" by increasing their profile and influence then there is an explicit conflict of interest inherent.

This is probably something to be discussed with moderators. And theymos. I know he doesn't like using the trust system to enforce forum rules

That is certainly valid advice, but again it is reduced to the same problem, it is completely subjective, and if it serves the interest of "forum cops" by increasing their profile and influence then there is an explicit conflict of interest inherent.

Here is one case i'm not very sure what to do >
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22672;sa=showPosts;start=0
The account is most likely traded. There is a 1 year gap between the posts and from Italian switched to Russian.
He just signed a message to secure the new account.

I really hope that the guy is a polyglot and learned new language during this one year but I highly doubt that this is the case.
Shall I tag him, maybe leave a neutral comment or let him go unpunished ?

^
Possible solution is just don't care about anything let the system work in its way. :)

Sometimes its not subjective. Sometimes scams are committed and all the evidence required to prove it is present on this very forum. I don't know how red tagging "increases" somebody's "profile", in a positive manner anyway.

Here is one case i'm not very sure what to do >
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22672;sa=showPosts;start=0
The account is most likely traded. There is a 1 year gap between the posts and from Italian switched to Russian.
He just signed a message to secure the new account.

Carryout a security research like change of password adding to @TheNewAnon135246 information (of change of email) and if it comes out positive, go ahead and red tag him but if change of password is negative then give him a red tag and if he can prove he's the owner of the account the red tag will be deleted. The red tag will serve as a warning to prove ownership of account that way you'll get his attention.

Also you should info him via trust feedback that if he can proof ownership of account red tag will be removed.

Ultimately all it does is serve to make it EASIER for the real cons because they can hide in the chaos and noise while you go after the "pajeet" scammers. Then after all is said and done we are still left with a huge amount of conflict, disagreement, and fraud as well as a lot of innocent users swept up in it. It is counterproductive.

You don't see how it increases somebody's profile? Tell me, there are some members here that have done little to no trading here yet have stacks of great ratings. What are the majority of them related to? Right "scam busting". Real or not quite so real, it doesn't make much of a difference to some of them... it all makes them look more valuable, and there is no penalty to being wrong for them.

You don't know that "pajeet" scammers aren't part of larger rings of serial scammers. Not doing anything at all is far worse.


Trading shouldn't be the only way to build up a positive reputation. I don't think the majority of non-trade green trust comes from scam busting, but it should be encouraged, not discouraged. If people are rewarded for their positive contributions to the forum, its a motivating factor for them.

Of course the system isn't perfect -- nobody ever said that it was. But the forum shouldn't be regarded as a free for all for scammers any more than it presently is.

all they do is go around stalking users and harassing them with their specific interpretation of the rules while the mob stands by and throws gas on the fire.

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't. If they aren't then it is just a meaningless joke of a popularity contest that will only serve as cover for con artists to use perpetually to rip people off because they can just keep buying/hacking accounts.

Without trade there is no risk. Without risk there is no trust. Without trust it ceases to be a gauge of who is trustworthy and serves only as a system of nepotism and might making right.

Yes, its a pretty much good explanation of what is happening. Everyone trying to put other users down and also some skilled once get effected by this.

Is red tagging people with referral links still a thing? I remembered some members in the forum have been tag by putting up their referral links on their signature code, especially campaigns on gambling site. I know that there is a "no referral code spam" in the forum rules (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0)(Rule # 4) so do DT members here consider referral links in the signature code as a spam because everytime you post it is included in the sig code?

You're starting to sound like you are part of the Quickseller clique with each new post.

Wait, I guess this is also harassment. ::)

I don't remember the last time I saw a fresh tag for that.

FTFY. TECSHARE has been butthurt about all of this for ages; the same goes for Quickseller. They can't handle their own bias. Everything would be fine and dandy if they were (still) in what they call "positions of power".

Slightly offtopic: Have you signed anything from old addresses upon your 'return'? Gotta enjoy how the title "VIP" makes the DT members act differently. :D

I have notice that as well, I remembered most tags from referral links are now turned neutral if not neutral in the first place and most ref link tags I know came from codes coming from gambling sites. So it just makes me wonder what other DT members think about it, will it be a concern in the future or ref links are now allowed in part of the sig code, because I know that some sig campaigns allow it and some do not.

Everyone here has his own openion about other and I think TECHSHARE have some valid points in the converstaion and hence was the support.

There is nothing like a return. I have been away from the  forum many time and every time I login after a long its not necessery to prove a stake address. Still, i have staked one recently due to recover my acccount in case of some lock.

A new address has been staked, without any prior signed message. Quite convenient.

Yes, it is. And I am already known by theymos and other Donators here.

By the way I am using theymos trust list and I can see your trust rating like this -37: -6 / +27

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't. If they aren't then it is just a meaningless joke of a popularity contest that will only serve as cover for con artists to use perpetually to rip people off because they can just keep buying/hacking accounts.

Your first statement is neither a fact nor an argument. It is at best your opinion. Just more hypothetical waxing poetic about more sky falling rhetoric.

Is red tagging people with referral links still a thing? I remembered some members in the forum have been tag by putting up their referral links on their signature code, especially campaigns on gambling site. I know that there is a "no referral code spam" in the forum rules (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0)(Rule # 4) so do DT members here consider referral links in the signature code as a spam because everytime you post it is included in the sig code?

As far as I recall, referral links are permitted in the signature area.  I don't think users should be tagged for that.  Perhaps this is something forum staff could clarify? 

Categorically no referral links in the body of posts, but that's arguably something better suited to being dealt with via the 'report to moderator' button.  Trust doesn't really come into it unless the site they're linking to is a ponzi scheme or something else malicious.

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't.

- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.

Without trade there is no risk. Without risk there is no trust.

I mean, right from day one, the trust system was about more than just trading:

It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade

It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a trade

You're starting to sound like you are part of the Quickseller clique with each new post. Wait, I guess this is also harassment. ::)

FTFY. TECSHARE has been butthurt about all of this for ages; the same goes for Quickseller. They can't handle their own bias. Everything would be fine and dandy if they were (still) in what they call "positions of power".

---

Slightly offtopic: Have you signed anything from old addresses upon your 'return'? Gotta enjoy how the title "VIP" makes the DT members act differently. :D

Outside of his own confirmation bias, he does not, no.

A new address has been staked, without any prior signed message. Quite convenient.

It works both ways buddy.

I mean, right from day one, the trust system was about more than just trading:


This just isn't true. This might be your opinion of trust, but it certainly isn't true for everyone. There are plenty of trolls/crazies/scammers/etc on this forum I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them, and I don't need a failed trade to take place to know that. Similarly, there are a handful of users who I would trust enough to make a trade without escrow, despite not having positive feedbacks for trading. Trust is based on behavior, integrity, character, principles, etc, as well as a good trading history. If you only want to pay attention to feedback left for trades then that's your prerogative, but many other users find feedback left for other reasons useful, as is evidenced by the current list of DT1 members who were voted in by the community based on the perceived usefulness of their feedback.

Not at all the same. The difference is I just explained in detail why this is the case, in addition to oh what, 5 years of history of this to reference since the trust system was implemented? You are pointing to a hypothetical. I am referencing current reality.

You're just giving an opinion like everybody else. Your interpretation of how trust should be used is pretty narrow, but obviously its just an opinion because people use it for much more, and will continue to use it as they see fit (and how is allowed by the forum) regardless of your opinion.

Either the trust system is for trade or it isn't.

I'm coming to the conclusion that this statement isn't as simple as it would appear.

Lets take an actual example. I executed a couple of small purchases of Bitcoin with JackG. They were very quick and easy, and I gave him some positive ratings. That is the primary function of the trust system, and is based on actual events. Now lets move on into the world of conjecture, and consider the possibility of JackG selling his account ( not likely in my opinion ). The buyer would probably pay more for an account with positive trust in double figures, and may consider using it for fraudulent purposes. This means that the sale and purchase of accounts has to be drawn into the trust ranking, and is the reason that I believe that account selling should not be allowed.

Now we have to look at signature spamming and cheating on programme managers. If a member is prepared to do that, then he may be prepared to cheat in his trades in an attempt to increase his "earnings". All of this means that "caveat emptor" rules, and you have to consider trust ratings as just a basic guideline, and a resource for further research before you enter into a trade.

My negative trust for a member, who just posted a quote with no further comment, was based on the fact that he was attempting to cheat the activity and merit systems in the forum, and this indicated a person of low moral fibre in my opinion. This could be an indication of willingness to cheat bounty managers and other members in the future.

My negative trust for a member, who just posted a quote with no further comment, was based on the fact that he was attempting to cheat the activity and merit systems in the forum, and this indicated a person of low moral fibre in my opinion. This could be an indication of willingness to cheat bounty managers and other members in the future.

And for the case of giving positive trust, I think if you have done a legit transaction you may give that user only ONE positive trust then after that if you will have another successful transaction you may just give him a neutral trust instead of giving another positive trust.

Let me quote this for attention:
It seems to me the opposite is happening since the DT-changes.

As I said in the OP, this thread will be updated regularly as new suggestion are been made and here's a reply from theymos that could serve as a possible guidelines towards leaving trust feedbacks on other users account. You should consider reading other response and his replies after this quoted reply (on thread).

Update from theymos

Guys, who can tell how people involved in escrow find customers if they do not already have a track record? Do they first participate in simple transactions on the forum, receive positive feedback in this way and then offer deposit services?

Guys, who can tell how people involved in escrow find customers if they do not already have a track record? Do they first participate in simple transactions on the forum, receive positive feedback in this way and then offer deposit services?

Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:
Lending or borrowing to gain "reputation"

You'd have to do other activities that would make you deemed trustworthy by someone. Then that person would approach you to act as an escrow for them. Then if you did a good job for them, they would recommend you to other people. After a while, you would have a good track record and have many to vouch for you. At that point, you can offer it yourself. That's my guess, at least. It kinda has to drop in your lap, at first.

If you want to offer the escrow service, you must first prove you can be trusted by having a track record of successful transaction from previous trade. This doesn't mean if you want to offer escrow service you should go around forum participating in trade just to get positive trust (gain reputation) doing so might attract red tag.

When it says have good track record here's a possible guess,

Offering escrow service means you're officially announcing your availability to hold fund for large number of users therefore, if you don't have a positive track record for doing that for one or two users unofficially plus other previous successful trade records don't jump right into offering escrow service.

I saw that in this topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.0) is reported on users who have several alternative accounts and participate in different bounty. Do such accounts also get a negative (red) trust?

I saw that in this topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2544574.0) is reported on users who have several alternative accounts and participate in different bounty. Do such accounts also get a negative (red) trust?

That is known alts of any one.

+ i wouldn't take everything in that thread seriously.

Looks hacked.

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=goemon888 password changed twice https://i.imgur.com/o11MHGk.png at exactly the same time on different days?

They should be able to prove it by signing with 1Hxwh8zriyhXGZC5GXGMXm9ym5fgrJDqwz
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23449.msg294515#msg294515
https://archive.fo/IBN5d

Or with his dogecoin address:

D63S4WZtmBMxfbNqA8UTGwLsdL1hqPzsNZ

https://archive.fo/PSFGY
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365665.msg3904382#msg3904382

https://multidoge.org/help/v0.1/help_signAndVerifyMessage.html

thanks! I saw today that my account was hacked, and found this topic whit my username (goemon888).. Thank you for finding my addresses, now I can recover the account; can I use the doge address to sign the message?
thanks

ANN bumping, which is negative to the forum.
Colluding *subjective

Good day, my name is Maxim Zorin
I am the CEO of OneExBit project
You we put a negative review in the subject https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5129693.new#new
let me explain the situation
we are one of the few projects with his finished product on the masternode the market. we do not deceive anyone, our faces are open, we develop a good and high-quality product anyone can download our terminal and use it. https://oneexbit.com/
about trading bots, we have bots, but bots trade 100 percent of projects and exchanges.
Those people who are trying to throw mud at us are real scammers who offered us to collect a lot of money and the abyss without opening faces.

we refused them and now their task is to destroy our project.
here razoblachitelny document which I mean they published

If there is an evos investor here, then the information below is for you.

dear evos investors - they are scammers
this link tells the story of how the scammers tried to deceive the Onex team and presents the data of these people

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZkpE72Zk7JaT_CeyHBGH8L3cDrfcZY8_HOF30RHSDY/edit

I ask you to understand the situation and remove from us the stigma of fraud, we are living people in a working product, we do not deceive anyone.

that's why they're trying to mud us.

About 86% of the trading volume looks to be fake with 65% of that total real volume originating on Binance and Bitfinex, both of which have virtually no regulatory oversight

So here is the dilemma, is this a fraudulent behavior and does it deserve the red paint or not?
Shall we pursue everyone using bots to increase their coin's volume traffic and the exchanges allowing this?

Even the big exchanges like Binance and Bitfinex do it.

1) Not all bots are wash-trading bots; wash-trading bots are likely a minority as they can easily create the required volume.
2) No one involved in the project can prevent others from doing this with their coin/token.
3) It warrants a negative rating only if:
a) There is sufficient evidence that there are bots wash trading and,
b) There is proof/admission/etc. that the team is behind this.

My interpretation is different: based on this, I'd say Binance and Bitfinex only have real trading volume, and together they handle 65% of the real market volume.