What's the rules on double posting? Doesn't seem to be any discussion on it. But I WOULD of thought there would be a policy which would mean you need to edit rather than posting twice.
Even if there's not an actual rule on this, I'm pretty sure it's considered good form to edit rather than repost. Relatedly, I've seen that people can bump their service thread like once a day or something. Does editing the last post also generate a bump in the forum listings? The old bump must be deleted once you make a new one. Editing your post wont bump it but it will make the thread 'unread' to people even if they've already clicked on it (but wont bump it). Got it! Thanks for the clarifications, folks. |
|
|
|
Well, you may be right about the cost-benefit analysis of QS neg-repping to increase account prices. But I don't believe that the conflict of interest has to be the sole motivation for someone in order for that conflict of interest to be valid. COI's are black and white, people may or may not act on them but keeping black-and-white COIs out of default trust seems like it would be important (to me).
Just a thought, but applying the same argument (COI) to you would lead to the conclusion that discussing whether or not QS should be on DT should not be a viable thing. You have a conflict of interest because you directly benefit from their removal from DT. I dont actually think that its a valid point, but I had to put it out there. Of course you're correct that nothing is completely black-and-white. But I still disagree with your application of COI in this case. Assume everyone has an interest in protecting themself. That's fine. COI is usually restricted to clear cases where someone is getting paid by two opposing interests. This isn't the case if I argue that QS should be removed from default trust. Yes, I have an interest in having him removed because he has nefariously slandered me, but I don't have any conflicting interest where say, I'm working for him or something. The idea in conflict of interest assertions is that two forces which are logically in opposition---the most classic case is regulators with ties those they regulate, another is say, wikipedia editors and CEOs of businesses (when the CEO of a business tries to edit the wikipedia article on his business); in those cases there's a clear conflict (CEOs have an obligation to promote their business' image; wp editors have an obligation to present things as objectively as possible). Imagine a case where a father is a regulator for coal industry and his son is the president of a coal mining company. Perhaps the father is ethically fulfilling his role as a regulator and shuts down his son's business without prejudice when it crosses some legal line, but perhaps not. My point is that conflict of interests don't necessarily lead to wrongdoing, someone may or may not succumb to them, but that they should be avoided when they are obvious. Thus, many people would object to father-son regulator-regulatee pairs at the outset. I think the same holds true with account-sellers and default trusters. The default trusters have an obligation to be just in neg-repping accounts, account sellers have an obligation to their own profit. Theirs a clear line connecting neg-repping of accounts to more profit for account sellers thus the conflict of interest exists. I dont think anything is black and white. *resist 50 shades of grey joke*. I think someone can be gradually conflicted in their interest. The person in question might also not be aware of their bias. A healthy discussion whether or not someone is biased and their ratings are affected is important IMHO. Whether this leads to a conclusion or not is something else. I agree, but sometimes the evidence isn't even there at all. In my own case, QS's "evidence" was merely the fact that a known scammer accused me years ago. In any case, I wonder if you'd be feeling any differently if you had to wear a large WARNING on your account (which I know you've had for years because you and I started on this forum around the same time) just because someone got angry at you.
Well, yes the conclusion is very shaky IMHO. Thats what I wrote in your thread as well. For me there is not enough to label you as a scammer. I know that I would be angry about a person leaving injust feedback. I had (and still have) that issue with TradeFortress. Your situation is certainly different though, because QS does not have a trust score of -6000, but just because I understand your motivation or situation does not mean that I agree with your conclusion. When I look at your rating I will be reminded that was an argument in the past and you may or may not have used to bot to gain an advantage. This would barely influence my behaviour when doing business with you. In case of a loan your account has certainly less value, same as if you wanted to sell it. I understand that signature campaign managers are very picky about these things and I honestly dont understand it most of the time. Its either laziness or they are afraid of the imagine problem it might cause if someone "bad" advertises for them. E.g. if you dont care about Microsofts ToS, Vods ratings might not be valueable to you and you can thus discard them. If you agree that violating a companies ToS might lead to problems in the future, the rating is valueable. Even if you are indifferent about the issue, the rating is still valueable because it gives you a point of view you might not have considered yourself.
The other side of the coin is that there are many users who seem unable to look beyond the flashy red WARNING!. I would argue though that those that are unable to understand a rating might not be someone to trade with. In the end, we are talking about nothing more but a warning, an opinion. Different opinions are valueable especially if you disagree with them. I mostly agree with you, but in fact, as someone who participates in signature-ad campaigns, you know that many campaigns will now allow advertizers with a warning from someone on default trust. So in fact there's a very direct connection between the presence of the warning and the economic value of an account. Before QS began his smear campaign against me based on the fact that I had disagreed with him and called him out for being a hothead, I basically felt the way you do, that these warnings are obviously meant to be taken with a grain of salt. And, FWIW, I removed Vod from my trust list some time ago for just the reason you said, I don't find microsoft IP matters interesting or relevant to my world so I don't care to worry about his warnings. I started a thread in meta about how to tone down the warning text so that it more accurately reflects what it means (ie, instead of "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" change it to "This user has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list"). Hillariously, QS actually neg-repped me for merely having that opinion using one of his alts (ACCTSeller). Neg-repping for arguments sake is certainly wrong. I already mentioned signature campaigns above and yes I see their very strict "no neg rep" rules and I dont understand them from a DT perspective. From a marketing perspective it certainly makes sense, because you are afraid to look bad. This is actually a valid point I have not considered in that regard before. Your negative rating by Quickseller is now prohibiting you earning from your posts. Who is to blame though? Should those on DT keep the possible signature earning is mind when leaving a rating? I dont think thats a good idea. Should we force certain practices regarding the signature campaigns? Sounds like a bad idea. Having a higher standard on what is evidence might be a solution though. I dont think its unreasonable to ask for higher quality in terms of evidence. After all being on DT is giving your ratings more influence. On the other hand many ratings are merely hunches, esp towards newbies. I tend to thing that the better solution is to remove or eliminate default trust---as I wrote in another thread in meta. Many of the mods have also complained about people reading too much into the trust system's warnings, using them as a crutch for laziness, etc. A scaled back solution which may also help is going to be changing the text from the inflammatory "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" to something more descriptive "This person has received a negative feedback from someone on your trust list."
I just read your rating again and it seems Vod (as well as r3wt) gave you one to somewhat counter the rating by QS. This is getting very specific though, IIRC the discussion ought to be about trading trust.
Indeed, thanks for pointing that out (about Vod), I don't check my own trust rating at all, if ever, as I don't trade and until last month, I never had any worries about it. I think it is fair to point out, before I leave this, that while Vod and r3wts caveats certainly help to bring some balance to the 3 (not 1) negative ratings from quickseller, as you say, I may pay an economic price because of this slander. While dadice campaign has seen through the silliness of what QS was trying to do, there's no guarantee that future campaigns will take the time to investigate my situation like they did and it appears that I'm going to be wearing this mark publically until the trust system changes or until QS is taken off default trust (like tradefortress eventually was). Okay, back to trading trust. Mainly it seems that Salty and other mods just want to see it happen to really determine the outcome. I appreciate the empirical approach. But I think the OP's main point was to satirize the state of affairs where accounts can be traded outright but appranantly trust cannot. Maybe I should make an account "TRUSTSeller", and offer to escrow such deals and keep them secret (as QS does with account trades). |
|
|
|
IIRC only Newbie, Hero, and Legendary members don't get demoted normally. Maybe I'll fix it at some point, but it's not really a big deal.
True on it not being a big deal. But also fun to finally have the question answered. I wonder if those ranks don't demote normally because of some aftermarket changes you made to them or something else. |
|
|
|
Registered and now hope to make great win for get the big prize..
Thx for creating new site and this great tournament
Big prize, The 12mbc or the freeroll 2mbc? I am waiting for people to realize this is a nice site so we can get the tournaments with big wins, I am sure they will come in the end but I want it now lol It is a tricky one because probably people like me waiting for more players but if we don't go play then there is no new players. Admin be a good idea for some nice promotions,( not freerollS) Indeed, there's a real critical mass problem where until there's always a crowd there it's a bit of a drag to spend too much time waiting for one. It has gotten a little better since the freerolls began, but I still find that action in a ring game is 50/50 (sometimes it's there, sometimes not). I don't really know what the solution is. Maybe the owner can pay about 10 of his best friends to hang out at the ring tables and sit-n-gos for a few days till the ball really gets rolling. |
|
|
|
What's the rules on double posting? Doesn't seem to be any discussion on it. But I WOULD of thought there would be a policy which would mean you need to edit rather than posting twice.
Even if there's not an actual rule on this, I'm pretty sure it's considered good form to edit rather than repost. Relatedly, I've seen that people can bump their service thread like once a day or something. Does editing the last post also generate a bump in the forum listings? |
|
|
|
Should actually be on the top of their list, and should have actually been the first one to launch, since I believe the html client already existed on the previous site which had the same software.
HTML client essentially will allow all operating systems to play, whereas now its only limited to Windows.
SwC doesn't have the same software as Seals did. They bought a Windows client from Grid Poker. (Which is soooo far beyond Mavens it isn't remotely comparable.) I think we're all in favor of having an HTML client as soon as possible, but I for one have no desire to go back to playing on Mavens. Give them the time to develop it. I think that the real shame was that it wasn't possible to use both. Ie, a windows client for you all who use that stuff, but mavens or old seals android or whatever it was for the rest of us. I know I stil haven't been able to find a regular bigcoin poker game in 2015 because of this. |
|
|
|
It's not mine. Leeching traffic for ads, phishing, malware, or maybe just bypassing China/Russia's ban of the forum. I strongly recommend not logging in there in any case.
Well, now we know that it's not something theymos is doing anyway. Interesting suggestion that they might be somehow trying to provide something legit. I certainly won't be logging in there. |
|
|
|
The xyz forum looks exactly like bitcointalk. Is it a frame redirect and not actually phishing?
It doesn't seem like a simple frame. You can check the source of the page and see that the code is similar to the original. Click this image for a screenshot comparing the first lines of source pages from the two websites  Most likely they are mirroring from the back-end. I e, you can run curl and print to stdout if you want to republish the source of another site. I'm also curious if this might be a legit experiment that theymos is doing with changing the TLD or something. |
|
|
|
(btw Vod you sound like a parrot).
How do you know what I sound like, troll?  Vod, this is totally not helping. What do you think of the suggestions in the OP? |
|
|
|
DT seems to have just crashed. Parse-eval was trying to cash out something like 60BTC and then all of a sudden none of my bets were being recorded and then the next thing you know I can't log in.
Anyone else get kicked off just now?
I'm still logged in, or i think so, but can't play or do anything game is totally frozen. Yup, cant log in If parse eval is cashing out 60btc I don't think I'll be playing for a while. lol Actually it seems to be back up onw. So I guess whateverthe glitch was is okay now. |
|
|
|
|
DT seems to have just crashed. Parse-eval was trying to cash out something like 60BTC and then all of a sudden none of my bets were being recorded and then the next thing you know I can't log in.
Anyone else get kicked off just now?
|
|
|
|
-snip-
I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts. In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest.
That is a point. I dont think that the amount of time QS invests in haunting (not a typo) scammers is worth the coins earned through sales to said scammers. I would like to think that the majority of their customers are looking for a spot in a signature campaign. Arguably this would make their actions against spammers a conflict of interest as well. Every spammer banned is a possible future customer. The new account will probably get banned as well, because the do not learn the lesson or dont care because they still ROI. I'm not sure this is correct. Every neg-repped account just makes future customers for farmed accounts with the same rank. Since buying-selling accounts is not considered against the rules, presumably everyone QS gets kicked out of a signature-ad campaign just comes back to him trying to buy in again. I dont think my point came across, my argument is: its not worth it for Quickseller to activly hunt scammers in the way they do. E.g. the TheGambler dox has probably taken several hours, probably weeks worth of research. From a economical perspective it would make no sense to invest so much time if the sole motivator was to sell more accounts. My guess is that its worth more to hunt spammers. They are easier to detect and their motivation to earn through a signature is obvious. They also have a chance to ROI as long as they keep it constructive. Well, you may be right about the cost-benefit analysis of QS neg-repping to increase account prices. But I don't believe that the conflict of interest has to be the sole motivation for someone in order for that conflict of interest to be valid. COI's are black and white, people may or may not act on them but keeping black-and-white COIs out of default trust seems like it would be important (to me). I personally think its part of beeing human to contradict itself.
Okay, your last point is philosophical but there's a real difference between contradictions inherent in human nature (whatever those are) and clear conflicts of interest in which, say, a government regulator has clear ties to the industry he/she regulates, etc. These clear conflicts of interest are system problems that can be identified and avoided, the philosophical stuff you refer to seems much less actionable. Yes[1], but Quickseller is also not in a position where they can just decide on a regulation that would benefit them (long term). From what I have read, they usually have evidence. There are some cases IIRC where the evidence was not publicly disclosed. The evidence might not always be rock solid, but even arguably (in)valid evidence serves a purpose within the trust system. It is vital to understand the person giving the rating in order to understand the rating and how it affects your business. I agree, but sometimes the evidence isn't even there at all. In my own case, QS's "evidence" was merely the fact that a known scammer accused me years ago. In any case, I wonder if you'd be feeling any differently if you had to wear a large WARNING on your account (which I know you've had for years because you and I started on this forum around the same time) just because someone got angry at you. E.g. if you dont care about Microsofts ToS, Vods ratings might not be valueable to you and you can thus discard them. If you agree that violating a companies ToS might lead to problems in the future, the rating is valueable. Even if you are indifferent about the issue, the rating is still valueable because it gives you a point of view you might not have considered yourself.
The other side of the coin is that there are many users who seem unable to look beyond the flashy red WARNING!. I would argue though that those that are unable to understand a rating might not be someone to trade with. In the end, we are talking about nothing more but a warning, an opinion. Different opinions are valueable especially if you disagree with them. I mostly agree with you, but in fact, as someone who participates in signature-ad campaigns, you know that many campaigns will now allow advertizers with a warning from someone on default trust. So in fact there's a very direct connection between the presence of the warning and the economic value of an account. Before QS began his smear campaign against me based on the fact that I had disagreed with him and called him out for being a hothead, I basically felt the way you do, that these warnings are obviously meant to be taken with a grain of salt. And, FWIW, I removed Vod from my trust list some time ago for just the reason you said, I don't find microsoft IP matters interesting or relevant to my world so I don't care to worry about his warnings. I started a thread in meta about how to tone down the warning text so that it more accurately reflects what it means (ie, instead of "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" change it to "This user has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list"). Hillariously, QS actually neg-repped me for merely having that opinion using one of his alts (ACCTSeller). It's not my work to search and show evidences If you don't have 'evidences' then don't make wildly incorrect assumptions based on incorrect hunches. It serves no purpose unless you have evidence. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of being a scammer or farming accounts with poor posts without evidence? Of course not. Well, as far as I can tell, CoinFriend was pointing out the account farming going on, where did he associate it with QS? -snip- In another thread: [1] I will also try to keep philosophy out of the discussion |
|
|
|
The trust system should be disabled completely, since it's a terrible indicator of reliability and if you're new here you might think it actually means something and get tricked.
What does this trust mean when people are selling accounts "with Green Trust" on here? It's not linked to anything like a PGP key.
This is definitely the crux of my OP. So far, wrt mods and others on Default trust, only Salty has given a reply. He was actually interested in supporting the suggestion to at least tone down the "warning" so that it more accurately reflects what what negative trust means. I agree that overconfidence in what the trust system is supposed to mean is the main reason behind most of the drama. |
|
|
|
Wow, I'm amazed at their ability to mirror so quickly if they're aren't actually a legit version of this forum (even your post in meta appears there!). Really interested in what the official word is on this one. Icann wiki says TLD xyz is supposed to be a "truly generic" tld ( http://icannwiki.com/.xyz), I had never heard of it before seeing this thread. |
|
|
|
BTW, congrats to Shorena this week who is, as far as I can tell, gonna be the first one to claim the bonus from Loyalty Points!
You can't tell. There are 3 who will claim it Okay, congrats to all three of them then. I just note that Sho has the highest amount of LP and I thought I would point it out.  |
|
|
|
It's not my work to search and show evidences If you don't have 'evidences' then don't make wildly incorrect assumptions based on incorrect hunches. It serves no purpose unless you have evidence. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of being a scammer or farming accounts with poor posts without evidence? Of course not. Well, as far as I can tell, CoinFriend was pointing out the account farming going on, where did he associate it with QS? With respect to whether it's fair to accuse someone of being a scammer without evidence, that's exactly what Quickseller has done to me. As far as I can tell there have been zero repercussions for him. Not saying it's right, just saying that it seems to happen around here without consequence. about 2) The account "Quickseller" made only decent posts, that right. But that doesn't mean the person behind Quickseller post in the same way from other accounts.
Well he did with the ones I was aware of (both ones he told me about ones he didn't). I don't think he's going to risk having his main account and all his others banned. |
|
|
|
|
BTW, congrats to Shorena this week who is, as far as I can tell, gonna be the first one to claim the bonus from Loyalty Points!
|
|
|
|
Who says that no default trust accounts have never been sold? I can tell you for sure that this account was on default trust when it was sold; I got it removed once it tried to participate in a scam. I can also say with a good amount of certainty that it was purchased for roughly 2.5 btc and probably was able to scam for roughly zero. Apparently I did not think this through in my thought experiment. Maybe because I would consider the sale in that manner a scam already. I dont see it as enabling someone to scam, but a scam in itself. It would be deceiving towards those that put trust into me as the holder of the account. A sale without proper precautions would be to misuse the trust.
I find it fascinating thought that buying an account for the purpose of scamming does not seem to ROI. There's no actual evidence here whether it does or doesn't. This is the usual QS masterbation story, he's linking us to a thread in which he follows up on a Stunna accusation and takes credit for it in order to inflate his ego. It's anecdotal at best, and given that all QS anecdotes are about how great he is in his own eyes, it's certainaly a questionable anecdote w.r.t. facts. |
|
|
|
wow, this thread is literally exploded since i last wrote and watched here. If i have enough time i will read this all. But first, some answers for "hilariousandco": What evidence do you have that links him to Quickseller exactly (assuming that's who you're referring to)? Quickseller was knowledgeable of the rules here and that guy clearly isn't because a) he doesn't seem to be aware that you only need to make 1 post per fortnight and not spam quickly to make 14, and 2) Quickseller always made decent posts and didn't 'farm' them this way.
It's not my work to search and show evidences! That someone knows the rules means not that he also break rules! about a) The accounts i talk about do 14 post on the same day. between the posting days are minimum 14 days to meet the roules about the "activity" raise. He know the rules! I believe, it doesn't work for me, that i have to made only one post per 14 days to get 14 activity points! about 2) The account "Quickseller" made only decent posts, that right. But that doesn't mean the person behind Quickseller post in the same way from other accounts. A person with more than one account plays mostly theater with other users. Thinking that those people doesn't change the writing is hilarious! I saw people before who write big letters only or only few word if the use different accounts, to hide the identity. You can own/create/farm/buy/sell/lend as many accounts as you wish, just as long as you make decent posts/contributions from them.
Sorry, i searched the rules and remembered wrong. Your right. You claim it's QS' and you tell it is not your job to find evidences. Sounds great!  Did he actually claim it was QS? I didn't see that upthread (I did see hillarious replying as if he had made that claim). I thought he was generally talking about farmed accounts, not necessarilly making a claim about who the farmer was. |
|
|
|
Lot of site are closing and opening.
Where to play poker with Bitcoin please ?
You can find several topics on the forum with the same question. The famous alternative sites for poker with bitcoin are Luckyflop , Nitrogensports , BetcoinPoker. And SWC hasn't closed, its still alive https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=962440.1380I was trying to get a working list of bitcoin poker sites going in an overview thread a few weeks ago. It died because I didn't have the time to check every site out and I only got so much participation from others. Feel free to revive it with some info you find https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1006750.0A lot of the alternatives above require some sort of download and/or windows. I think the only non-download, non-windows at the moment is bitcoinpoker.gg, but the action there is very slim---they need players badly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
