But how do we know for sure that Jeff Ownby and Sonny Vleisides of BFL fame are not behind Stake.com? This is a teapot argument and lacks substance. It can be treated as a blanket statement. Rhetoric. Recall, the general consensus by others on this forum is that the scammer tag thingy was replaced by the trust thingy In order to allow enforcement when the case is more ambiguous - in the 'grey zone' of scam/not. And all them red trusts given to scammers on this forum are NOT indexed by Google, so nobody outside can see them unless they sign up/login. Not sure why this is relevant when there is no evidence of Stake's scams, or rather lack thereof. |
|
|
|
Just to toss an objective opinion out there: there are bound to be results for every "[casino] scam" google search so there's no point in really trying to put that on blast. The games are provably fair and the site pays out. Also, a lot of the results I'm seeing are crypto sites. Plus, when you get golden sites saying that Stake is a ponzi scheme, I think a lot of these criticisms should be taken with a grain heap of salt. This is, however, not to say that Stake is absolutely legitimate. |
|
|
|
Luckily for me - unluckily for you - I've received PMs from users who are able, willing and ready to pounce on your once positive cred further. Unfortunately, this won't have any noticeable effect for most users. I recommend reading up on the trust system and seeing what DefaultTrust of depth 1 and depth 2 means. (Your feedback will show up as untrusted by 99.99% of forum members) |
|
|
|
The best boards in my opinion are the mining sections. Great insight, no spammers, no trolls, barely any paid sigs in the mining boards. Mining sections have less spam than general discussion but you will still get megathreads and vague, pointless discussion. The fact of the matter is, unless the section requires a degree of sophisticated knowledge, you will get posters who will spam the same redundant common-sense crap everywhere. Something something bitcoin trends go up. Something something house edge. Something something merit is good.
Technical Discussion might be the most spam-free part of the forum because (let's face it) most people here still don't know how Bitcoin works. On the flip-side, you have the spam-ridden "good project sir" Altcoin Discussion sections, which should be set ablaze. (Technical Support is half-half. You'll only get good discussion when the thread is not about "my transaction isn't coming through!") |
|
|
|
Given the circumstances, do you really believe he “bought trust”? I have already given my stance on account trading, where I have a personal equivalence between buying trust, reputation, and hence buying accounts. You can certainly search for it. After all, when you buy an account, you are essentially purchasing its reputation, its trust. Is this wrong? |
|
|
|
I'd like to suggest another DT2 member to counter Vod's second tag and wait to see if Vod is going to counter that as well. There is no second tag. The negative that Vod left after DarkStar_'s was to counter their feedback which I actually agree with. There should only really be one counter-rating. All subsequent ratings should be regarded as regular trust ratings. |
|
|
|
Why I ask from actmyname to remove his positive trust from Anduck? because actmyname has no business countering people's negative trust, that would be favoritism and could result in abuse. How does that make any sense? we don't know whether actmyname took some money to counter Vod's feedback or not, so it would be good if actmyname removes the tag to be clear of suspicion of bribery and misuse of trust system. Simply because there is a possibility, I have to remove it? Then shit, I might as well never send out feedback at all if there's always a possibility that it's because of a bribe.
I'm not removing my counter unless Vod removes his feedback. That's the purpose of the counter. |
|
|
|
Just wondering... i remember Darkstar_ left a +ve trust feedback for Anduck... why did he removed it or changed his mind? Obviously, because digaran's persuasiveness slammed me DarkStar_ so badly that I they realized I they were a trust abuser all along and henceforth deleted my their rating. |
|
|
|
|
When bounty managers must handle hundreds of participants, they get lazy. They compromise. They think to themselves, "I'll be paid regardless of whether I check eligibility or not," thus they just won't.
If you are being paid something for a task, you'd better do it, and do it well. If they're treating it like a job, then they should put in the hours. You can't be expected to pop in an hour a week and be done with it.
|
|
|
|
Do you really think it is necessary to tag this guy for buying the account 9 months after the fact? Just curious. If a user buys trust and isn't caught for x duration that doesn't mean they can get away scot-free purely because of the timeframe. Account trading is akin to buying trust, i.e. reputation.
Didn't think you'd go to this argument. |
|
|
|
|
Due to some unforeseen circumstances, the ICO start date is being pushed back and as such, the weekly campaigns will be on pause (hiatus) for about a month. Translations will still continue as normal (though there may be possible changes in the future).
Thus, the campaign will be paused from the end of Week 2.
|
|
|
|
Remember that you are always a troll when you disagree with them. but as soon as you get on DT, your opinion would be respected by default.  What have I been doing with my feedback to Anduck? What happened between BAC and mprep? Lauda and shorena? |
|
|
|
btw IMO is if forum staff can collect "fee per spam post" from bounty managers will ultimately reduce the shitposters and most importantly bounty managers take their job seriously when doing a ICO bounty campaign. How would this be done? By the number of reported posts a candidate has? But then you would also need to add/remove people to different campaigns and there are dozens if not hundreds of users jumping into signature campaigns on the daily. It doesn't seem scalable. It's a possible temporary solution but will also require a lot of effort on the part of mods. |
|
|
|
I guess exclusion is not going to happen because DT1 members would lose some green trust scores if they exclude Vod, so it's in their best interest if they keep him on DT2. If this is your honest opinion then you need to absolutely rethink the power you give to positive trust scores. If DT1 members don't trust Vod's opinion then they won't include him on their trust list, or potentially exclude him. End of story. You want to get him off DefaultTrust? Talk to DT1 members. Here are the DT1 members that have included Vod: HostFat dooglus Cyrus Here are the DT1 members that have excluded Vod: |
|
|
|
And, sorry to say it but I don't see a change coming unless some members from the DT1 get really pissed at one point and start tagging bounty managers that pay for spam posts.
Some DT2 members have tagged shitposters and the outcome was not exactly what I have expected... Considering the fact that sihtposters would still be allowed to participate in some bounties (because the managers really, really don't care) and that there are red bounty managers... tagging doesn't do much. I'm actually happy that the merit system was implemented in lieu of the negging of shitposters since that leads to a more long-term avenue. Red-tagging is not really scalable and is only a temporary approach. |
|
|
|
Get rid of the dishonest or lazy bounty managers then. "The staff have too much work already" "We don't need more rules" etc. has been the attitude for a while. |
|
|
|
Doesn't that seem a little questionable where a moderator is giving merit to so many posts that are being deleted? Forget the part where they're staff: where's the sensibility in determining quality posts when you rapid-fire merit to users who consistently have deleted posts? (i.e. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1762404) |
|
|
|
What only concerns me right now is that if AJpa94 would say to you and proves that he/she will stop abusing merit system. Is it possible that you are going to remove the tagged? just curious tho That's a bit silly, isn't it? Think about it for a second: How does one, exactly, prove that they won't merit abuse anymore? Why do they deserve a second chance just based on their word? Does the same thing happen when someone says they won't shoplift again?
The tag stays. For a significant amount of time. |
|
|
|
Explicit merit abuse between Ajpa94, Karodozo, Kda2018, Livermore_. May 27, 2018, 02:05:03 AM: 50 to Karodozo May 27, 2018, 02:07:16 AM: 20 from Karodozo (2 minutes apart!) March 12, 2018, 07:23:46 AM: 30 from Karodozo May 27, 2018, 02:31:02 AM: 50 to Kda2018 May 27, 2018, 02:50:37 AM: 25 from Kda2018 June 20, 2018, 11:17:33 AM: 13 to Livermore_ June 20, 2018, 11:19:19 AM: 30 from Livermore_
It's pretty obvious that Aj just sent the merit to those users in order to get a return.  |
|
|
|
Limited offer. Buy next 4 tickets get the 5th free. I'll take the rest, mate. 333 555 000 bbb ccc
That's how I'll pick tickets from now on.  701fa8a9c29ffb01352b5262bc7a8e88bc775f76a1ee3c1134e3a2f529de5c39 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
