I've already contacted shdvb about this and other cases.
I have asked also someone on last day about same issue. I don't think it's really necessary to send positive feedback's for every transaction. Is ther any difference with single positive feedback's and with 10 positive feedback's from same DT ? I don't think so, I am not sure if effect it on trust rating. But I think its better just left single feedback's if you want, especially for positive feedback's. It allows for different references tho. Since it does not affect score you might as well document the different transactions. Use a neutral rating for documentation, don't trust farm with a spam of worthless positive ratings. |
|
|
|
Oblivious reasons... such as calling out a long history of abusive behavior? Again, notice the complete reliance on personal attacks, accusation, and inquisition. Zero discussion of the arguments presented. This is all these people know how to do, mob, bully, and intimidate. This is the type of person that seeks positions of power. These type of people need to be leashed by a simple protocol to keep their hunger for control over anyone who questions them in check.
Nobody that knows your history here should waste their time discussing your bullshit. FYI snowflake, this isn't any of the above but rather friendly advice for The Pharmacist, i.e. none of your butthurt business. Go whine somewhere else, you ain't coming back into DT. |
|
|
|
Do you think the DT list would be better with you on it?
-snip-
You're wasting your time here TBH. It is clear that certain users are butthurt that the majority consensus has voted to avoid having anything to do with them (because of obvious reasons). Also, JusticeForYou is almost undoubtedly a compromised account pushing this false narrative. |
|
|
|
No offends guys but I haven't be clarified my questions haven't been answered. If you say an account used for collateral should be tagged for account farming when should the red tag be given? After lone default (to prevent account selling) or immediately it's offered as collateral and should all accounts involved be tagged for account farming?
Both the lender and the user should be immediately tagged. |
|
|
|
|
Don't do that. Whenever you see one of these use the report to moderator button.
|
|
|
|
 An important reminder: 1) For positive feedback: Be very conservative.
2) For negative feedback: Be strict and follow the general standards (what we tag for and what we don't tag for).
3) For trust lists: Not that important unless you are DT1, but I'd say be even more conservative than 1).
I've already contacted shdvb about this and other cases. |
|
|
|
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. Trust.  By the way I am using theymos trust list and I can see your trust rating like this -37: -6 / +27
Bad lists lead to fake ratings having an effect. It's due to the same clique that you seem to be fond of with your "unpopular opinions".  FYI theymos has horrible list maintenance practices, e.g. getting a scammer removed from it takes quite some time. Trivial proof: HostFat and EFS shouldn't be on anyone's list (this is not related to the previous sentence). |
|
|
|
~snip~
I don't remember the last time I saw a fresh tag for that. 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. I don't think that there is an issue with referrals at the moment. 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".
Everyone here has his own openion about other and I think TECHSHARE have some valid points in the converstaion and hence was the support. Outside of his own confirmation bias, he does not, no. Slightly offtopic: Have you signed anything from old addresses upon your 'return'? Gotta enjoy how the title "VIP" makes the DT members act differently.  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. |
|
|
|
Posting a false "opinion".
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. |
|
|
|
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.
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. You're starting to sound like you are part of the Quickseller clique with each new post. Wait, I guess this is also harassment. 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(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? I don't remember the last time I saw a fresh tag for that. |
|
|
|
-snip-
All DT are not tagging them.
This is because the greedy baboons fools would retaliate; I have more important things to do than starting a war against zazarb[1] & co.
[1] Who is trying to get back into the DT1 list using the 'I scratched your back, now scratch mine' method FYI. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Spending $50 for a "Manager" badge would do nothing to reduce spam. Are you aware of the amounts of money flowing through these campaigns and the people managing them?
This is indeed a very stupid suggestion. A single successful campaign could produce a hundred of these "managers". -snip-
Well if the price for Manager badge is high, then bounty management would become centralized with very few trusted and reputable managers. Yes that would be good, but doing so will also make these managers to demand for higher pay rates. $50 is literally very low but having some kind of payment would be better.
No, it would not. As long as you have a small set of honest managers (i.e. non greedy), then that situation would remain fine. Most of the high rates nowadays come from fraudulent advertising, often off-site (plus they enroll their own army). |
|
|
|
Which account did I forget to tag?  |
|
|
|
The problem is that there is a mini cartel-like-group within the lenders, which causes issues: 1) You can't force them to stop doing this. 2) You can tag them. 3) If you do 2), while there is a single lender in DT doing this you will receive fake retaliatory negative ratings.
It was due to this, that it was never possible to make any change in the way that lending is handled. The type of person that you'd likely encounter advocating for this to remain practice is someone who values their own profit over the greater good. So my opinion is, you can't recommend to tag account seller/collateral/traders due to forum allow account sell.
That is absolute nonsense. Forum rules have nothing to do with this. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Love u kitty
 @Quickseller & co: While I respect Kant's views on many things, his view on morality is very wrong. It can and will cause much more evil which could be easily avoided (e.g. "thou shall not kill" applied in driverless cars would lead to letting your car run over 10 people instead of say 1). Not to say that there aren't situations where you should not harm someone/something in any way just because it may cause greater good/lesser evil. Labelling the whole subset of a certain type of actions as equally bad and always wrong is also incorrect. Say stealing to enrich yourself vs. stealing food to keep your children alive (assuming there is no other way). In say the later, the moral choice is stealing. Saying nonsense such as "stealing is always wrong" implies that morality is objective, which is a load of bullshit. Morality is solely a subjective concept that we invented. Anyhow, moving on. @HCP & co: The law system pretty much everywhere at the moment is very corrupt (due to legality of lobbying and whatnot), and laws regarding stuff like theft are just nonsensical ('create a no-theft backdoor which can only be used by a small set of entities'). This is why I explicitly wrote ethical dilemma, as discussing legality is a waste of time; this is whilst ignoring many factors e.g. this is crypto, criminals are not going to sue you etc.
As usual, the situation's complexity makes it impossible to make a satisfiable and quick decision. I'm just going to list a few factors that played a role without discussing them: 1) It is impossible to know whether the payment comes from a previous scam or not. 2) It is impossible to know whether the contact is a proxy, part of the team or a 3rd party (anything they say at this point can be considered dishonest). 3) Luckily, nobody got harmed from this incident (so far).
With all that being said, a decision has been made: The refund is going to be partial. The amount proposed was agreed to by the project. The user has also explicitly stated several times that they are no longer responsible for whatever happens on the forum regarding this (e.g. scam accusations, negative ratings, etc.). I'm locking this thread now, as it has reached some consensus. A full disclosure on who the parties are, who found important information and when this happened will be revealed soon (probably in the form of a scam accusation due to the fake team). I thank everyone for their valuable input on this matter, regardless of whether I disagree with what you said or not. |
|
|
|
|
The bounty has ended. Everything is now up to the WPP team. For any issues/questions/inquiries use the linked Telegram group and/or the official WPP Telegram group. Do not PM - you will not get a response. If you post here you are a spammer and shouldn't get any rewards anyway.
|
|
|
|
Its potentially important for members of the site, I agree. Say I wanted to use the name SaltySpitoon as an artists pseudonym as well as my handle here, and I was an active scam buster, and I was painted with all kinds of negative feedback from people I had picked fights with, I wouldn't want it viewable by anyone who didn't have a complete picture as a member here. If you don't have a complete picture of how the trust system works, I don't think you should have access to it one way or another.
On another note, aren't false positives just as likely as false negatives? If you aren't a member here, I could argue that you might not be aware of the practice of sock puppets leaving fake feedback. What if a new member sees positive trust from all of the scammers aliases?
My main point is that having it not visible at all, is less harmful than having it visible and misleading.
-snip- The Google issue can be mitigated to some extent by making the feedback pages non-indexable. So if someone merely googles your nick they won't see the derogatory info pop up directly in search results. They could still click through and see it but even today they could create an account and see it. Bigger fatter warning next to untrusted feedback could help. Perhaps don't show untrusted feedback to guests at all. -snip- I don't see how this would be necessarily worse than fake accusation threads such as "<Username> is a pedo / pill abuser / etc". Those are already indexed by search engines and tend to show up first. |
|
|
|
|
We should be tagging for all of those actions.
|
|
|
|
I voted for "Refund partially, keep the rest" assuming that the project hasn't actually scammed anyone yet. Two wrongs don't make it right so the person should take the appropriate compensation for the work that's been done and return the rest.
Also assuming that there was no "early termination penalty" or anything like that in the agreement.
This. Also I feel that all of the "donate to charity" options are unethical simply on principle: either the user is entitled to keep the money, or he is not. If he is not entitled to keep the money, he is not entitled to donate it, either. Donating the money serves no purpose except to make stealing from a scammer seem less unconscionable than it is. Fair points. I guess the first thing to do is to wait and see how the project owner(s) respond to this; in the meantime hopefully there will be an option that has reached clear majority support (this could set a precedence for future cases although I'm hoping that people avoid them with the disclaimer that was proposed). Actually this whole thread is bullshit because we don't have any of the facts and this is all just hypothetical without even the clearest hypothetical events to go by.
None of the opinions in this thread should be applied to any specific situation until all of the facts of the actual situation are laid out for all to see..
-snip-
It is not. I hereby ask you to refrain from making this type of comment or you will be added to the local rule list. The situation was described almost 1:1 the way it happened just without revealing any names (and/or specifics - those which aren't really relevant/wouldn't change anything). -snip-
Question: In case of partial return, who will decide how much is partial? And how?
If that is the preferred outcome, that will be the next issue to tackle. |
|
|
|
I voted for "Refund partially, keep the rest" assuming that the project hasn't actually scammed anyone yet. Two wrongs don't make it right so the person should take the appropriate compensation for the work that's been done and return the rest.
Also assuming that there was no "early termination penalty" or anything like that in the agreement.
Unfortunately not. It seems that whenever a disclaimer is expanded, it ends up being insufficient due to unforseen events. For the future I advise everyone to use something like 'if any information is found to be misleading, I reserve the right to abandon the agreement and keep all paid funds' as part of their disclaimer. Working for a project that turns out to be a scam, but this was caught in the very early stages and was immediately stopped.
It's not the same, no. So it should be a small amount of coin for a small amount of effort and only between the scammer and the thread-maker-guy.
The absolute amount of money isn't the problem. The problem is any kind of division (if one of those options is chosen - which is likely given the input so far). I can see doing BBcode work for someone but why would you post their thread for them and put your name on it? This was done before copper memberships were available to post pics and links but now that is solved.
I guess if you don't mind your name being front and center on some random "project" have at it, but not me..
This is done nowadays. It is done via copper memberships usually by fake bounty managers and those that are afraid to make any risks due to recent scrutiny on said bounty managers for externalities that are out of their control (which I have predicted). Between posting with a copper membership and a legendary member, almost all projects will go with the later. It was unclear to me what all the funds were supposed to be for and if their was a large amount of overage.
It was clarified at the start: Edit content -> format into thread/make thread -> publish/keep open. So we don't know who came with the information to stop it? The scam buster... Source of new information..
The guy I would probably give a big tip..
Everyone will be credited in a 'timeline-styled contributions' part of the thread.
Whilst the input is very welcome and constructive, there is no consensus just as I expected: [4] There's no solution that will satisfy everyone..
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
