Anyone knows how to exclude TradeFortress with his shifty name?
If I'm not entirely wrong, it's TradeFortress 🏕 |
|
|
|
Neither of us have any misunderstandings of each other No lies, please. You misunderstood me heavily. I told you this (2+ times), and tried to explain what I meant, but you stick to your prejudice. You refused to truly listen to what I had to say, and you kept deliberately understanding my words in the worst possible way. Consensus pretty much is that self-bidding on an auction here is not cool.
I know this and agree completely. I've done all my auctions without vendor bids since I learned that it's not cool here. |
|
|
|
Anduck has been complaining for months how one negative trust can ruin a rating. Now he is doing it to me. I don't see him jumping to remove it. Anyone believe he is not a hypocrite?  You've ignored my PM. I am a reasonable man, we can discuss, but not when you have me ignored. |
|
|
|
I don't really get why someone would add a Jr. Member after buying an item.
There are a bunch of collectibles manufacturers who are trusted regardless of what their rank is in here. (Smartpaymint isn't one of them, though...) |
|
|
|
This narrative that I did not do this "shit, didn't realize that" is misleading. Go look up how it went and stop believing in third hand stories. I am not defiant about it, why would I be. Aren't my actions speaking louder? I've not done a vendor bid since that auction! So stop spreading that bullshit narrative, it has nothing to do with reality.
I don't need to go anywhere, I have followed your whole 20+ page thread any many detours into other threads. The overwhelming consensus has been that you're wrong but you insist that you're potentially honest somewhere outside of Bitcointalk where self-bidding is acceptable so you must be accepted as being honest here as well. I don't think that's how it works. Your self-bid was a dishonest way to cancel the auction without explicitly cancelling it, regardless of what other auction places may or may not allow. That's quite an unfair description of what has happened. |
|
|
|
I learned about Bitcointalk auction standard regarding vendor bids in that auction. Back then, ~3 years ago, I did not know that vendor bids are not cool here. The bitcointalk auction standard is vague and not even described anywhere. I've held countless auctions since, with no complaints. Now two DT'ers are stepping in to rate me for that vendor bid (at least publicly they state that as the reason). Do you see that as reasonable and justified? "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!"
Your trust rating has not so much to do with your self-bidding but rather with you being stubbornly defiant about it. Any reasonable person would have said "shit, I didn't realize that, sorry" and moved on whereas you're never wrong. This speaks to your poor ability to handle disputes or even minor disagreements. You're lucky to get away with two red trusts (so far). This narrative that I did not do this "shit, didn't realize that" is misleading. Go look up how it went and stop believing in third hand stories. I am not defiant about it, why would I be. Aren't my actions speaking louder? I've not done a vendor bid since that auction! So stop spreading that bullshit narrative, it has nothing to do with reality. |
|
|
|
I have given out perfectly reasonable feedbacks.
SaltySpitoon 2018-12-24 If you do business with SaltySpitoon, be careful. Expect problems especially if anything disputable or surprising happens. This person uses twisted logical argumentation when it suits him. Believes prejudice in the face of facts. Finds reasoning to justify whatever activity, regardless of resulting low level of reasonableness, coherence, fairness or even correctness. Applies double standards. Portrays himself as fair and conscientious -- don't fall for that. I've not done business with SaltySpitoon. I think the situation with Salty could have been handled more reasonably. Possibly. Not in Bitcointalk auction standard, obviously.
Then why are you trying to upend the entire trust network to suit what you believe DT should be as a result of you not adhering to the Bitcointalk auction standard as you understand it? These two things are unrelated. The feedbacks I've received merely increased my motivation to get BCT trust system improved. DT people have way too much power. Also FWIW, I've been against DT-including trust system since it was implemented, just not very vocal about it. (See #bitcoin-otc logs.) About that auction issue, I learned about Bitcointalk auction standard regarding vendor bids in that auction. Back then, ~3 years ago, I did not know that vendor bids are not cool here. The bitcointalk auction standard is vague and not even described anywhere. I've held countless auctions since, with no complaints. Now two DT'ers are stepping in to rate me for that vendor bid (at least publicly they state that as the reason). Do you see that as reasonable and justified? "Warning! Trade with extreme caution!" |
|
|
|
You think anyone who is trustworthy should be in default trust. That shows you don’t even understand the system. Trustworthy people have a high trust rating, while those with GOOD JUDGEMENT IN THEIR RATINGS should be in the default trust network. You’ve been shown to have questionable views in regards to auctions and also poor judgement in giving feedback. You’re now lashing out at the system because you refuse to see those 2 truths regardless of how many people take the time to try to point it out to you, further demonstrating your reason for exclusion and the functionality of the current system.
My view of what DT should be has nothing to do with my understanding of how it works currently. Also I am not "lashing out at the system" as you describe. I have given out perfectly reasonable feedbacks. Feel free to PM if you feel that some feedback I've sent is unjust, we can talk about it. And that "questionable views in regards to auctions" -- well, vendor bidding really is a common thing in various auctions around the world. I guess you can call it "questionable", but for some reason it still remains to be an acceptable thing in various auction standards. Not in Bitcointalk auction standard, obviously. |
|
|
|
We listen to your ideas now. However, you could be the Queen of Sheba and we’d still say they were misguided.
My ideas largely align with theymos' ideas. (e.g. here). Main thing being that DT needs to change or go. How am I misguided? |
|
|
|
Reference is not required. Many times the reasons for a rating are complex and not referenceable.
Trust system is used in so many ways. Another reason why DT is skewing up it, as the same applies to DT.
I'm not saying you can't use the trust system that way. Knock yourself out. Anything short of massive spam is allowed. I'm saying you shouldn't be in DT and your opinion on the subject is quite useless due to your abuse and bias. I don't expect you to see it that way, so carry on. See the trust system guidelines here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2221664#msg2221664
I'm not putting words in your mouth? Wtf. Is that a default line you open up with when you want to make an insulting reply?
whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for.
Where did I say that I'm looking for that? Rhetorical question. I didn't say that. To me, it sounds like you're implying that DT'ers need to have loads of rating activity / spam/scambusting. So you brought up how I have only "around a dozen trust ratings" and therefore not qualified. Why did you mention my "around a dozen" ratings when you talked about how I am not qualified, if you don't mean that more ratings activity is needed for DT member? If you want to answer, you can answer me via PM. We should stop derailing this thread. |
|
|
|
If I was Satoshi, would you then listen to these ideas I present?  Look at the first post of this thread. See what makes this DT list and what the DT users do. DT should not be a group that requires whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm talking about (1) abuse/retaliatory feedback and (2) feedback predominantly without references. This is useless and harmful to the trust system. Nothing to do with satoshi or scambusting. If you got nothing to contribute to the system then don't. But if you're making a mockery of it - I think that disqualifies your opinion on the subject, just like a bounty shitposter isn't qualified to provide input on post quality and merits. I'm not putting words in your mouth? Wtf. Is that a default line you open up with when you want to make an insulting reply? My ratings are not sent because of received feedback itself. Hence not retaliatory, I've told you this already, but you keep calling them retaliatory. Reference is not required. Many times the reasons for a rating are complex and not referenceable. Trust system is used in so many ways. Another reason why DT is skewing it up, as the same applies to DT. |
|
|
|
Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA.
You keep saying that and you even "applied" to DT yourself but in the last year or so you posted around a dozen trust ratings, 2 (perhaps 2.5) of which are retaliatory and others have no reference links. That's a horrible contribution to the trust system and you should not be anywhere near DT nor have any say in how it should be changed. If I was Satoshi, would you then listen to these ideas I present? Look at the first post of this thread. See what makes this DT list and what the DT users do. DT should not be a group that requires whatever active spam/scambusting you're looking for. |
|
|
|
This is so totally offtopic, but I feel like I need to respond anyway. This Vod user just doesn't stop his harassing. Blah blah blah. You scammed an auction. I left you negative trust.
I've never scammed anyone. I've honored all my auctions and other business perfectly. Off you go, liar! |
|
|
|
Vod threatened to red-rate me unless I changed my rating.
I red rated you because you scammed.  Don't lie. I decided what you did wasn't untrustworthy to me
After this, you started power tripping when I provoked you. You illogically "misunderstood" me to reason your further wrongdoings and power tripping. Stop being dishonest. Here's the real reason for you red-rating me: I have made it neutral. You have made yours negative. Once of us will have to change it. :/
Which means that you gave me the option to 1) remove my rating to you or 2) be red-rated. I did not remove the rating, so you proceeded with option 2). Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3869593.msg37486761#msg37486761It's also bamboozling how you still haven't shown any acknowledgement of your illogical misunderstanding, even though it has been opened up to you various times. |
|
|
|
|
Changed this to an auction. Starting from face value. No reserve.
|
|
|
|
Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA.
Please explain to my pea brain how this would be so. Also, how would this affect the ability of DT members to warn others? Also also, I thought you wanted to get rid of the DT system altogether. If there were more DT members, the chances that someone else had already tagged a scammer increase, etc. I assume that the "workload" for DT'ers is the source for the pain in your ass. Whoever trusts DT would still see your warnings as "trusted feedback". I'd prefer ditching DT completely. That doesn't mean that I couldn't suggest changes to DT. Vod threatened
Yes, I know you've said this ad nauseam across multiple threads. Sorry I brought it up. It's an example of what sort of "mild, unpunishable" wrongdoings are done by DT members. I can find out many more. Often these things are discussed to the point where it's only frustrating to everyone, so maybe this fresh experiment is enough to get the point? I could bring up cases regarding or brought up by e.g. Deadterra, Lauda, mexxer-2, Lutpin, OgNasty, escrow.ms, etc. etc., but it would only end up like discussions regarding those cases ended before: in frustration, no changes (or small changes after insane amount of arguing), and wasted time. I think the " Force custom lists" idea by theymos is the best step forward. I think that a less dramatic change would be to dilute DT, add a lot more DT1 members, and see what happens. I did see that thread, and I'm not sure how forcing newbies to create a trust list would work, and they're the ones most likely to fall for scams around here, IMO. As to adding more DT1 members--did I miss how those would be chosen? Theymos would have to pick them, since he doesn't like the voting strategy, so it just seems like the DT system would end up being more of a clusterfuck than it already is, unless the DT1 members had to keep very strict trust lists. Diluting the DT2 pool seems like it would end up with more people with more power, more headaches, more internecine squabbles, more bitching about wrongly-left feedback, and more chaos. Or have I got my math wrong again? It could go as you describe, but I doubt it. I'd argue that more decentralization in the DT would end up in more balanced outcome. More people with more power would mean less power per single DT user. The current amount of power that DT'ers carry is way too much compared to what is needed to simply warn newbies about scammers.
Why don't you just post everything with a dedicated thread in reputation? I believe that will be worthy for sure. Everyone will see what is happening here in the name of DT. You should post the proof.
Go read the Reputation and Scam accusations boards. Dive deep into the history. Feel free to compose a list of all the DT'ers who scammed and also try to find out when they were removed from DT if at all.
Would really appreciate having some links. Since you are an old member here, it will be pretty easier for you to link up.
For example check out https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1995886.0, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306301.0 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1359877.0 where a DT user scammed. There are loads and loads of cases there. It's not hard to find DT abuse (not just scams) in there. It just takes time to really go through this stuff. There are only like 60-70 pages in Reputation where this material mostly resides. Scam accusations board is the other one. |
|
|
|
I think the " Force custom lists" idea by theymos is the best step forward. I think that a less dramatic change would be to dilute DT, add a lot more DT1 members, and see what happens. A forced custom list will solve the problem you are talking about but what will happen to the newbies? It has been mentioned by theymos too. What DT exactly is doing? Trying to save people like us a.k.a people who are not familiar with the forum. The majority of the persons will be harmed by either way if no DT is there, IMO. I guess account aged 1 year don't know how the trust system works, in some cases, even some Legendary too. How newbie will save them then? There have been scammers in DT. It amplifies their scamming power a lot when almost everyone sees them as "trusted" only because someone chose that e.g. a long time ago. Account sales happen too, which make this even worse. DT accounts are traded constantly, so how correct is that perceived trust given by DT then? Also, as I said before, scumbags will find their way on to any curated or however small list, if it gives them a position they want. It's how it works. We've seen this happening on DT, too. One solution, the one I mentioned in that quote, is to dilute DT list heavily. Also the sole purpose of it should be defined strictly. If such a default list structure exists, it should solely be a list of people unlikely to scam others, it should be nothing more, nothing less. This would then encourage people to make their own custom trust lists while also securing newbies from getting scammed. It's not for the forum staff / theymos to tell people who to trust. Giving an option to opt-out of that doesn't change this reality where DT has this power. |
|
|
|
Contrary to what a lot of other members think, I don't get off on being on DT2 and in fact it's a pain in the ass half the time. But since bitcointalk doesn't even moderate scammers, there needs to be some mechanism through which unwitting members can avoid being scammed and bad behavior can be punished, so to speak.
Diluting the DT list (=adding more DT users) would reduce that PITA. I'm assuming your gripe is because of Vod's feedback, and he's one of the active ones.
Vod threatened to red-rate me unless I changed my rating. Threatening to abuse DT position, and then abusing it, has nothing to do with one's activity. DT are currently free to abuse as long as they keep it mild and "legit", and sadly some DT members take advantage of that possibility. Be a friend of 100, bully 1, and those 101 will be sticking together and ignore the wrongdoing (or find some unreasonable excuse). It's exactly the same as in politics. Nobody would care if that structure was not pushed on people by default. Such a structure should not exist in trust system, as trust system should not have any means of top-down authority whatsoever. This sort of mixture of trust network and moderation, that the current trust system sadly is, is not excelling at being a trust system or functional moderation. So, if we eliminate the whole DT system right now without having a function that the active DT1/DT2 members serve, what would happen? All the cockroaches would have a field day, that's what. I hear lots of gripes but no suggestions about alternatives, and I'll admit I can't think of a different system that would be better either. I used to like the Scammer Tag thing that was in place when I was a lurker, but I do believe Theymos won't be going back to that.
I think the " Force custom lists" idea by theymos is the best step forward. I think that a less dramatic change would be to dilute DT, add a lot more DT1 members, and see what happens. |
|
|
|
1. our communication was face to face and we both know it.
All the communication happened face to face? You just flew to Peru and randomly approached some dude there and wanted to buy his Titan 1 BTC 2fa coin? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
