|
Based on the user's actions, their responses and the discussion here, I have tagged and excluded the user.
Anyone who is anti account-sale tagging has flawed judgement. This will be my final input on this matter.
|
|
|
|
The only Altcoin worth watching probably
For what reason? Because theymos said so? If this ought to be actually valuable, it would have been deployed as a sidechain.  At least there is money to be made here. |
|
|
|
2. The account can be used as collateral:
= If so, lenders will be responsible for trading that account. If seen any account trading then all accounts buyer/seller/sold account will be tagged.
-snip-
As I have explained earlier in this thread, a lender that does this and ends up selling the account is knowingly scamming the next person (as it will get tagged on sight). Take a moment to think about that. Is there really a need for someone to accept loan requests that involve accounts? If you claim so, then explain why it is absolutely necessary. |
|
|
|
This was reported to me by another member, and I PM'ed grtthegreat asking him to delete the selling posts, as this is a situation much like the one with iluvbitcoins where I don't think the member is deserving of a neg in the face of a lot of other positive trust. I explained that I wasn't going to tag him but that other DT members might feel differently. In his last PM to me, grtthegreat said he was done accepting accounts as collateral and done with account sales.
I'll probably get shit for this either way, but I tried to make a fair call on this one and not repeat the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins. The account that got bought is another story, however. I'm going to have to wake up and drink coffee and reread this thread.
Hmm... delete the evidence... I see... Archived for future reference. http://archive.fo/d8Yzj#selection-2865.47-2865.105This wouldn't be the first time that I've seen/heard of this. However, in this case the user that did it knew that it was wrong. Pathetic DT members.
Bombarding users with scam accusations when they tried to buy an account so someone would be able to post images on his service thread but don't give a single negative feedback to a lender who knows the rules very well.
Its so pathetic.You demand from a newby to uphold the rules claiming he needs to know the rules and from a legendary you don't demand it.
YOU GUYS JUST PROOFED THAT DT MEMBERS ARE THE BIGGEST JOKE EVER HAVING DOUBLE STANDARDS
You're a cute little monkey. Now dance while the adults discuss. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Why are you afraid of retaliation? You would win wouldn't you?
Their are a few of you and you are in control. Why don't you just conspire together and all tag all of them at once?
You are not doing "the right thing to do" in your opinion to "keep the forum safe"?
You can just exclude whoever retaliated to keep your greens anyway..
What is this false bullshit that you are posting? If I were in any control, all of them would be long red and banished and the trolls like Quicksie, TECSHARE etc. banned. Education is the key to scam prevention IMO, just like sex education is the key to AIDS prevention.
Sounds good, doesn't work. Much of the rest of your post contains incorrect information; I ask myself why you have high merit and then I notice who merits such garbage. 3. Please understand that I do not support the act of selling accounts, and also that it was nothing more than a mere act of liquidating the collateral.
Once the account is handed over to the buyer, I completely have no control of its activity.
Ain't collateral meant for liquidation in case the loan is defaulted upon? No one waits hoping for the lendee to pay the loan back!
Similarly, if a loan defaults, its collateral is sold, which in this case was the account, so I put it on sale to stop my loss.
I'm getting a feeling that you don't really understand even the basic premise of the issue. "'Once the gun is handed over to the buyer, I ocmpletely have no control of its activity', thus I am not responsible if/when the buyer kills someone using the gun I provided". Seems like sound logic to me. |
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that Lauda and any other user judging each user's list, and forcing their completely biased opinions is just wrong.. Like, if he wants to include someone that didn't leave a lot of feedback, and another that left local feedback, and you think that's wrong, it's YOUR BIASED opinion. Those people aren't scammers or objectively bad people, so telling another user to change his list based on your personal views is just going to centralize the system, and all lists are going to become copies of Lauda's utopia.
No one forcing here, you know very well there is exclusion (~) option. We can simply exclude them, no need to ask anyone. But I think it's better to solve by discussion here. I don't like just kick out someone suddenly. If you trust any person you can leave positive feedback's. But you should add on your custom list those user's feedback's you trust. This is the main fact. Why you need make big your exclusion list since you can solve it by discuss here ? If DT1 exclude someone then he will removed automatically, is it not centralized? Then what is the problem discuss here ? This is criteria from theymos, user must be an active member. If someone left positive feedback's a years ago and he inactive from long time then why you should add on DT list ? His positive feedback's will reflect green and there is chance happen something wrong. Nevermind if someone not leaving feedback's but he should an active member, so he will know the current situation. Alright, the KingFool thinks that it is more appropriate/less power hungry or whatever he's talking about to not ask someone to revise feedback/fix their list but just instantly exclude them. How many accusations of bullshit do you think we'll see once more than half of DT2 is kicked out? I agree that contacting a person is fine to discuss situations but giving them an ultimatum is sketchy..
Say you include Darkstar, and darkstar included zazarb, but you don't like zazarbs ratings..
You can simply exclude zazarb and not threaten to remove/exclude darkstar unless he removes zazarb, for example..
Or whoever in dt1 included zazarb..
You don't have to go to the DT1 and threaten them to remove zazarb from DT2. Just exclude zazarb yourself and leave them alone..
Wrong. There are no implicit ultimatums, you'd have to actually state 'remove X or I will have to keep you excluded' but even that doesn't have to be an ultimatum. The simpler solution is excluding both; whether he wants to resolve it or not is up to him anyways. |
|
|
|
I can also argue this from another perspective: Lenders that accept accounts knowingly, and are aware that this practice is frowned upon, are indirectly scamming the next person (i.e. whoever buys the account). If the loan/account used is made public along with the default, then you can be pretty sure it is going to get tagged.
Well yeah! this is what you (here you means in general by the way) are practicing. Tagging the accounts which are bought. Whey is everyone so happy when they successfully tag someone? Make no sense. Make this forum a better place by working together not against each others. If the forum lenders weren't greedy children that are only working for their own self-interest which also give zero ducks about the community in general, then they would have stopped this practice long ago. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I hope I was able to make these points that...
- Feel good when you leave a positive feedback.
Yes, people should feel very good when they trust farm feedback for worthless trades and even more good when someone else gets scammed down the road because of this very feedback. |
|
|
|
|
I can also argue this from another perspective: Lenders that accept accounts knowingly, and are aware that this practice is frowned upon, are indirectly scamming the next person (i.e. whoever buys the account). If the loan/account used is made public along with the default, then you can be pretty sure it is going to get tagged.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
..nothing I say matters, and everything you say does...
You are correct in this assesment. The rest is irrelevant. There's a reason certain people are largely excluded, and one day you might realize why that is. Oh look, more veiled threats. I wonder how long it is until you start making straight up threats or trying to dig into my personal affairs? Is everyone watching this dynamic? If you see that as a threat, then I suggest you visit a shrink as soon as possible as there is something very wrong with you. Stop playing the delusional victim card, it won't work. How do you find the time to be a psychologist when you are already a psychic infallible judge jury and executioner all day? No one said anything about being a victim except you. Does it look like your intimidation tactics are effecting me? I am simply pointing out your behavior so others can recognize this pattern that you exhibit literally any time some one tells you some thing you don't like or don't agree with, especially when it comes to questioning your judgement. That is incorrect as what you claim is my behavior is not my behavior. In other words, you are intentionally making up lies about me. Not that this matters much as it happens daily given the amount of butthurt I cause.  Go back to Politics & Society; no need for me to repost the 'murica meme again.
* Lauda expects a whiny snowflake response, as TECSHARE is horribly predictable and places him on ignore.  |
|
|
|
-snip-
I agree that some users who are selling accounts are probably awesome for the forum but it's a double standard to allow them a pass and not everyone else period. If you started tagging users for account sales once the community decided its not ok, then your opinion should not be any different based on the user really. They know what they are doing is not acceptable to the community and choose to do it anyways
If you think it is as simple as that, then go tag all lenders and set a precedence yourself. TBH I can't imagine what a responsible account sale would look like.
There is no such thing. |
|
|
|
-snip-
..nothing I say matters, and everything you say does...
You are correct in this assesment. The rest is irrelevant. There's a reason certain people are largely excluded, and one day you might realize why that is. Oh look, more veiled threats. I wonder how long it is until you start making straight up threats or trying to dig into my personal affairs? Is everyone watching this dynamic? If you see that as a threat, then I suggest you visit a shrink as soon as possible as there is something very wrong with you. Stop playing the delusional victim card, it won't work. |
|
|
|
-snip-
..nothing I say matters, and everything you say does...
You are correct in this assesment. The rest is irrelevant. There's a reason certain people are largely excluded, and one day you might realize why that is. |
|
|
|
This was reported to me by another member, and I PM'ed grtthegreat asking him to delete the selling posts, as this is a situation much like the one with iluvbitcoins where I don't think the member is deserving of a neg in the face of a lot of other positive trust. I explained that I wasn't going to tag him but that other DT members might feel differently. In his last PM to me, grtthegreat said he was done accepting accounts as collateral and done with account sales.
I'll probably get shit for this either way, but I tried to make a fair call on this one and not repeat the mistake I made with iluvbitcoins. The account that got bought is another story, however. I'm going to have to wake up and drink coffee and reread this thread.
This is a question of whether all lenders that accept account collateral need to be tagged or not. The question whether this would be net beneficial to the forum is trivially answered however. |
|
|
|
Look, like you said, you're free to say whatever you want. Just as I am.
And I'm allowed to tell you and everyone else that what you said is objectively bullshit. I'm trying to explain to people how wrong it is for them to listen to every opinion you (and others) write here. You also need to know that you could always be one iteration away from being off the list, in case they all agree that you're more of a nuisance rather than a helpful trust node.
Good luck with that. Maybe thermos will kick me out, who knows. But now look at you forcing 3 more nodes to exclude it, and 2 other nodes doing the same, the whole network basically consists of 2 opinions then. That's exactly how this whole ordeal looks to me.
-snip-
I would ask you to refrain from posting lies about me. Thank you. |
|
|
|
When you include or exclude someone, stand by it. If the MAJORITY of the network calls you out on it, then maybe you should reconsider. Actually, even if you don't, everyone else is going to exclude him, proving my next point ->
Yes, you should wait for 30 people to contact you before correcting something that is objectively wrong and trivially corrected. -snip-
If this line somehow changes from "Each", to "5 people and their proxies" (because if you modify your list according to these 5 people, then you're a proxy to their own judgement), then the whole system falls back to what it was before.
A few people really need to re-assess how much influence they think they have, and a lot of other people need to start losing the inferiority complex if they're an active node of the trust list.
You really need to re-asses your "I can't be wrong" and "5 people can't agree with an opinion that is right, they must be proxies" bullshit. |
|
|
|
Here we are once again, with you unilaterally determining actual trade to be irrelevant in a system of trust designed to protect new traders. No one ranks up in your system without your permission right? New users will rank up starting with small trades. That is just how it works. You don't have psychic powers to tell you who is who, you are just mass hitting people pretending you don't punish any innocents. Do any of you people have actual lives of your own or is your only method of defining self worth involve obsessive compulsively putting users through daily inquisitions?
I believe I have the following two rights: 1) State my strong opinion on any matter. 2) Exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever.
If you disagree with either one, you are either ignorant or have become delusional in your victim play. Either way, you need to realize that what you say matters to almost nobody here (for a reason). I will state this once more, if one leaves positive ratings for useless nonsense I will exclude them. The same goes for negative ratings. |
|
|
|
Use a neutral rating for documentation, don't trust farm with a spam of worthless positive ratings.
Just for the sake of clarity, what difference does it make? According to suchmoon: Multiple positives from the same user count as one for the purposes of trust score.
So there's no "farming", as such, if that's the case. That is the case, and there is indeed farming. Anyone from DT leaving positive feedback for miniscule amounts is just asking for trouble; we've had more than enough scams from green trusted people. Whilst ultimately multiple ratings from the same person do not increase the overall trust score, it does potray a misleading picture of being "very trusted". Who would a newbie trust: 1) A user with 5 feedback from 5 users. 2) A user with 50 feedback from 3 users. It's trivial really. User kingscrown DT2 added by achow101, kingscrown have left lots of positive feedback's but he is inactive from September 02, 2016, I think achow101 should reconsider that user. The positive feedback of this user reflecting now. Notified him; already removed. |
|
|
|
I think if a user made a purchase and seller leaves positive feedback they should have the right to give as many positive feedbacks they want. I’m saying this as an eBay seller. I have repeat customers and I always leave them positive feedback to show appreciation.
If you are not on DT do whatever you want. If you are on DT, and want to remain there, then you have no such right. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
