Bitcoin Forum

A solution to the drama with the red trust given for any stupid activity can be just a simple change in the system.

As theymos noted, the red trust should be strictly for scammy behaviour.
 For the rest we can leave neutral comments like we do now for merit begging.

The only improvement will be to show the neutral feedback in the profiles, like we have now positive and negative.

This count won't affect the account itself but will warn the other users to read the feedbacks before doing business with the person, again only DT1 and DT2 feedbacks will be counted.

Whilst I agree in principle the average new user is the equivalent of a 4 year old on the street, they need warning and protection from scams and issues that the more senior members just know. People asking for no collateral loans will skam newbies, people refusing escrow or a Ponzi scheme. Even really fucking annoying users like cryptocunt, I mean could you imagine doing a trade with that mentalist?

One thing that is pertinent is forgiveness, if someone hasn’t actually scammed someone then after a period of good sensible behaviour then tags should be removed, people need a chance to learn there lesson and come back form a tag.

GOOD suggestion,shouldnt be red painted a gray mark would be nice for neutral, i suggested that these feedbacks will be shown to trading boards,and other boards which involves trading,buying and selling stuffs.The drama will surely stop IMO.

But these abusive DTs wont allow that why? because their power to bully will stop,they will be normies like most of the red trusted users.
my post will be deleted in few minutes,retarded mods are on the move lol.

@etf it's probably not a good idea to show neutral trust unless people go through ratings. Neutral can be either good or bad.

@iaseko I'd be in support of a button that turns red to neutral... I'd like to do that with a few of mine but don't want the date to change on them...

A couple of issues:

1) Enforcement.
2) Incessant bitching that would ensue if neutrals gain any more visibility.

Not a bad idea but even if only the dt feed backs counts in your suggestions and drawers the looker to the person profile I think if there might be tons of feed back some even born out of sentiment and share beefing.
And on another thought it's just wise and simple to always check the profile of someone you want to do business with regardless of if the trust is visible or not.

I think DT's are handling feedback's carefully since guests are able to see warning. All of drama has been created by couple of users. Overall trust or feedback's are working fine. Problem is, people's are not bothering to read neutral feedback and that's the reason why most of DT members do not bother to leave neutral feedback. Neutral feedback is appropriate on specific case those are really not related with scams. But which feedback's will appropriate like bounty cheaters with multiple accounts? Because it's not related with scam and neutral feedback will not reflect on profile.

Bounty hunters using multiple accounts are stealing from the advertisers so yes they deserve red tags as that is a scam imo

Bad goy, bad.

I like the idea of being able to change the color of a rating without deleting it, personally I think the neutral should be yellow/orange not just un-bolded. I do think that neutral feedback should somehow affect the trust feedback score.

The whole idea behind the neutral feedback is to take away the tension between some members.
They can still fight their wars without ruining each others accounts with baseless accusations.

I personally don't like to give the red paint to people without solid proofs. So accusations based on assumption should be noted with neutral feedback.

Regarding the protection of newbies, it's better to educate them to protect themselves and question everything, not only pointing out the threat.
There should be a warning signs everywhere that there are some scammers operating in the forum and to be aware. Those warning should be visible to everyone below member rank.

The best solutions are born in discussions, do that's why I created this thread.

Theymos clearly raises his opinion on Trust ratings there:


Or LoyceV's:

LoyceV is the only DT member i respect,he/she has some sort of thinking that isnt self centered btw he has contributed a lot on this forum unlike to these gang members who's only knowledge is at the meta section,no technical capacity just a plain text full of shits.

That would make neutral weigh more than just "neutral". I just checked all neutral feedback sent by me, and I don't think any of them has to be announced with user's posts.

---

---

I've been leaving more neutral feedback myself lately, it's like taking public notes on someone's profile.
This forum has never aimed to be a safe place, scam's aren't moderated, freedom prevails. It wouldn't hurt though to make this a bit more obvious, as too many people are still too naive when it comes to securing their own money.

Neutrals are useless in 99.99% of the cases, so no. I'll stick to red.

Yeah and you are their choosen babysitter LOL


Just have a look who is against it.What a surprise

Yes people like you should have a red tag. I couldn’t imagine the pain of trying to transact a simple deal with you, members need a warning that you are not right in the head.

Peace out princess

For things don't relate to trade/ exchange/ financial stuffs / scams, it should be neutral feedback. For minor mistake, it should be neutral feedback.

That's what you think and I'm not frankly interested in your opinion. Unlike you, people actually complain to me about getting scammed somewhere quite often.

I mentioned about scams in my post, scam-related things should be tagged with Red, I agreed.

You don't understand English. A lot of people are getting scammed exactly because people were not tagged with red before because they "didn't scam yet". I will not play into this liberal bullshit; if you're shady you're getting the red.

Prevention is better than cure. Although certain negs will need to be reviewed at a later date.

I'm fine with reverting quickly rather than tagging after a scam has been accomplished. Do I need to remind everyone about that VIP account? Prevent, don't cure; I'm not part of the pharma cartel to do vice versa.

@OP

You digged into a hornet nest.
Thats exectly what we ask for over a year.
But as you can see our beloved group is against it because they would lose their abusive power to discredit people and to destroy their accounts if they would be punished for giving red tags which are only based on bs opinion instead of facts.


And here a nice reply from a DT member to highlight it.


From somebody who self claims to represent the majority of the forum :)

We destroy accounts in the name of prevention because all users on bitcointalk are little monkies acting like a 4 year old.Only TMAN Lauda and Suchmoon will be able to protect these little no brain monkeys /irony

The forum is moving into a wonderfull direction


@OP

Let's assume the change is going to happen.What does it mean ?It means that all abused high ranked members who got their accounts destroyed because of diffrent reasons to discredit them will get their negative chain away.
This would be a disaster for that group.A powerloss they would never recover from.

I couldn't give a flying fuck if I was on DT or not as long as you get tagged to fuck!

You are clearly emotional..........
You are also a pleasure for me.

You and suchmoon will be used to provide proof that DT members can be hold responsible for their negative trust abuse and for the manipulation and abusive words they are writing against other members.

I hope you will take it like a men and stop bitching arround once you see the results of my actions.

The people who like to use their feedback as a weapon or to get one over on people because they have some sort of beef with them aren't going to care about leaving neutrals and it's those that are causing most of the issues, but of course the problem is also 'scammy behaviour' is completely subjective. Some people think certain behaviour is scammy or shady whilst others don't. If a stranger knocks on my door and asks to borrow money from me but promises to pay it back at a later date I would likely find that person very untrustworthy. I think that would be pretty shady behaviour here too and many people leave negative for that and some don't. Sure, they might return at a later date to pay it back but that's probably less likely. Whether you leave a negative, neutral or take no action is up to you, but there are of course many times when a neutral feedback may be more appropriate but sometimes not leaving the negative also lets scams happen. I remember a few times where I've given people the benefit of the doubt and left a neutral only for them to go on to scam and I should have just gone with my gut instinct.

Two examples:

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

Some people think trying to escrow with no previous experience is very shady. Others don't or don't care. The neutral may or may not have been more appropriate but it obviously didn't stop him from scamming. I think every person who I left negative or neutral feedback for trying to escrow went on to either try scam or was successful in doing so, with the exception of mdayonliner. Had anyone sent him $100k to hold on to as an escrow I'm not sure whether he would have stuck around for long after but of course that is something we'll never know, but add that to the fact that his bread and butter prior to this forum was promoting and partaking in ponzis I think the negative feedback was just either way.

Here's another user where I caught someone actively trying to cheat a giveaway:

https://i.imgur.com/DRR4KZt.jpg

In my opinion very untrustworthy behaviour but I left a neutral. It was then later found out that he was connected to multiple scammers and a farming ring.

There's also issues like do you trust a liar? Do you trust someone who behaves like a petulant child or a psychopath? Probably not. Do those sorts of people deserve negative or neutral feedback? You can argue either way. You might find them untrustworthy but they could be an honest nutter. Someone who repeatedly tells lies obviously can't be trusted but they might not be a scammer.

what action? listen stop being a cock tease, you aint a stripper trying to get me off you are some dodgy pajeet attention whore. Fuck off back to pajeet land or actually do something, none of this 10 day countdown tick tock pathetic school girl shit - just do it, please please sue me for being mean to you on the internet - I've even offered you my correct dox (we all know you ain't got a clue where I really am) I want you to actually do it, like seriously I really do want you to attempt to take me to court. I am getting a raging erection just thinking about it - come on Thule, stop talking and do it you fucking pleb

This post is taking on some tiny sample of anecdotal experiences and making wide ranging and broad strokes assumptions, speculations and guesses.

What that post says is. We will create such subjectivity and broad ranging reasons to give red trust that it has obvious implications for free speech and also opens up DT to corruption and payment for red removal. All to protect the very most stupid and greedy. Yeah like most people will go to escrows with no history of being escrows or lend a stranger money over internet?  Perhaps we need to stamp people with red trust on their foreheads in real life? this assumes we need to destroy the board, leave DT open to corruption and power to crush free speech to save the dumbest and greediest people here? NO.

The only people fighting the implementation of "proof of scam" or STRONG case of scam are those that want to continue to have the power to influence others free speech and game the system for their own personal reasons.

Behaves like a petulant child or psychopath (would require professional diagnosis)?  this bullshit reason it transparent. Anyone who says something I do not like or agree with is petulant or psychotic. NO SORRY, prove they are a scammer, or have tried to scam people in financial terms or you don't get to spoil their account with a scam tag.

Most arguments will end with one party saying that person behaves like a petulant child or they are crazy if they do not see things my way. Just wants a license to give red to anyone for their own personal reasons.

You think they are petulant, disagreeable, annoying, don't see everything the same way as you do. Then leave a neutral and explain your case there. That does not give you license to give them a scammers tag.

This subjectivity is the root cause for all of the arguments and infighting. It also allows red trust to be used to facilitate scams and scammers.

So in summary users are being lazy and getting ripped off, trust police are leaving red to overcompensate, and anyone in their paths should bare the cost of all of this corner cutting? As I have been saying for some time now, we need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving negative ratings. The trust system has effectively become a social credit score system, and if you are spamming negative ratings all you are doing is causing inflation in the meaning of being marked a scammer and teaching users that the red ratings don't always mean something. You are literally creating signal noise and training users to ignore negative ratings by using them excessively.

Furthermore there are many users that build their own reputation COMPLETELY off of the fact that they cycle thru lots of users and mark them as scammers, correctly or not. This is not only a serious conflict of interest that needs to be restricted, it is a MAJOR security flaw because once a small handful of sufficiently influential users get in the DT1 list they can push out anyone who dares call out their fraudulent behavior systematically. This is a huge exploit via over use of the negative ratings that has never been addressed. It has literally got to the point where for some users there is zero repercussion for leaving excessive or poorly documented negative ratings. The genuine users get steamrolled and don't come back, and the scammers are back in seconds with a bought account.

Actually it should not be given in first place. But  I think everybody has its own definition of scam.

I guess we should have some kind of jury system so that we have some common ground where the activities can be classified as scam and it should not left to the individual interpretation.

I don't deny the fact and efforts of DT members to help forum users, but generally when we (includes DT members) try to simplify something for forum users, we likely make situation become more complicated. It is a bit objective to stick to discussion on Trust System, so I will switch to the example of investment reports from stock companies, or from crypto groups, something like that.
Lazy investors tend to easily being satisfied with reports or suggestions on projects that probably bring huge profits after short period of investments. Most of such projects are scam ones, but lazy investors like such fake quality, promising projects. It's their faults, it's their responsibilities. We can not do all things for them to prevent and protect them from scam projects. Only they can control their laziness and greediness.
It's nearly the same as neutral feedback. Why they want to invest in a project, but don't care to spend around 10 or 30 minutes to read feedback on project's OP? Scanning all feedbacks, and choosing most warning feedbacks (even they are neutral) to dig deeper. It does not cost so much time to read and help them safe.

But could that be because they know about your track history here and presume you are behind the scam ? can you show us the complaints ?

How about those sensible persons that are not interested in your opinion? I mean why should we be discussing trust and suddenly be very interested in the opinion of a confirmed scammer, a probable extortionist and shady non transparent escrow ?

So you confirm you are telling Theymos you are going to do what you want and not what he is instructing you to do?  he says red trust for confirmed scammers ( we say you fit in there) or those you can present STRONG intention to scam others. You are not interested in Theymos's opinions then? why is that?

Because as far as we can tell tranthidung is repeating what Theymos has said. Red trust for confirmed scammers and those you can present STRONG evidence are going to scam. Everything else should be noted with a neutral tag.

The apprentice became the master, theymos knows very well that I've surpassed him in the dark arts of moderation. :-*

I apologise that I created this mess again. My intentions were different I wanted only to find a way to make people agree with each other, not create confrontations.

To summarize it, the only good idea that came out from this thread was to create a button to switch between the negative to neutral trust feedback.

I'm locking this thread, let's bury the hatchets.