Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does.
I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me. Looks like you succeeded in using default trust in order to coerce someone else into removing their negative feedback against you. Good for you. That makes you and CanaryInTheMine look like upstanding people who definitely deserve to be in the default trust network, and certainly doesn't lend any credence to other claims that may or may not be true /s. |
|
|
|
|
Props for searching though.
|
|
|
|
Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?
At the time is was left they carried equal weight and I reached out to der_troll immediately via PM urging him to reread the thread and reconsider his decision. Until he responds to me, then yes, I do think it's appropriate. Would it be appropriate for me to change that feedback just because der_troll's trust level changed though? Given that the topic of this thread is your feedback against those companies, and that it depends on circumstances changing (being able to prove they aren't a ponzi), I would think you would jump at the chance to show you are trustworthy and fair with your ratings, and that you do intend to change feedback as circumstances change. Being in default trust network doesn't mean everyone trusts you, just that the one person who put you on their list does. |
|
|
|
Orrrrrrrr before people throw money into a coin, they could actually read and see if its stupid and non innovative or worth evaluating further as a possible candidate for investment. There is no such thing as a scam coin (with the exception of viruses which are banned here). If the dev is incompetent, or the coin is nothing special and doesn't have a future, DONT BUY IT! [sarcasm on/]We should also disallow threads having to do with Bitcoins because people could potentially lose their money with it. [/sarcasm of] Take a bit of self responsibility, and invest smarter. If you have some primal urge to waste your money you could invest in my happiness and send all of your coins to me  I'll do one better, if you invest in me, I'll even send you a pm saying thank you. That's more than you will get with a sinking coin! Screw that, I might make some money! If I don't though, it's your fault for not protecting me. |
|
|
|
They've found you theymos, CODE MAGENTA, I REPEAT, CODE MAGENTA!  |
|
|
|
|
Well I don't really have an opinion on leaving those companies negative feedback because I know nothing of the circumstances, but what I want to know is, Mabsark, do you feel leaving retaliatory negative feedback to der_troll is appropriate considering yours carries so much more weight?
|
|
|
|
No but there really should be one.
I would think the people who conduct business would have hundreds of pages worth of messages and the search function for PMs is really not very good, and people could create their own DB of their PMs if they could be downloaded
Surely a download feature would be useful but the search function is pretty easy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm;sa=searchIt sucks, you can't search just by user to see any pm's sent or received, have to put something to search for so it's kind of useless. |
|
|
|
...This is why a distributed solution to this is the only solution. Will it ever be exploited? Yes probably, but so is the current system. At least a distributed system has the ability to react and shift reputation to individuals who deserve it and remove it from those who don't THEMSELVES...
That sounds great, but reality doesn't always meet expectations. I hope I'm wrong, I really do. Nothing is stopping you from doing it now, nobody is forced to use default trust. Really the only people who should be using default trust are those who choose to, and new people with no idea who to trust. I don't even use just default trust, I chose to add it along with others to my trust list because I find it to be fairly accurate. I've said it before, but default trust is a good starting point, and that's all it is, and that's all it was intended to be. (example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263067.msg2812517#msg2812517) People seem to be using it as the end all be all for everything, and that isn't what it's for. I'm not a huge fan of default trust either, never have been (and really I could care less if I'm on it, last I checked I was pretty high up on the list of people in custom trust lists, and that's not counting people who didn't add me because I'm already in their list via default, so I'm highly trusted enough without it where I can do good within the community, and that's what's important), but I do recognize why it's needed. You don't see the need because you have been here a long time and know people, but there are a lot of people who haven't been here very long, and don't know anyone. Those are the ones who need the help. I'm not going to derail this thread anymore with talk about defaulttrust though, this thread isn't about that. |
|
|
|
People with multiple accounts would then have greater weight. With your proposed system, you just make 100 accounts, age them, and then become very trusted, and start scamming, or ruin/build up other's trust. That would also give people a free pass to scam newbies and jr.members because they couldn't voice their opinions. As it is now, the trust system is not moderated. Allowing staff to alter trust in any way would leave it completely useless. Staff members could then be influenced to do shady things for others or themselves.
As it is now, the people on the default trust list have a vested interest in the forum. First Theymos, those he picked, and from there those that the 2nd layer has picked, etc. If someone does something wrong with the trust system while on the default trust list, it effects the person above them, discouraging abuse, and encouraging those in a position to add others to the trustlist to think carefully about who they add, and act quickly to fix any situation that comes about. If you don't like the default trust system, individuals can remove the Default Trust list from their own account preferences, and replace it with people they personally trust.
I see your point. You actually touched another vital one - multiple accounts, which IMO shouldn't be allowed. People with multiple accounts are already using them to push their opinions, scam signature campaigns and so on. Not allowing newbies and juniors to leave trust ratings wouldn't be a problem, because it would discourage the most obvious spammers, those too lazy to even write a couple of posts. You're right that it could be abused by people with multiple accounts, but allowing 1 rating per user should be fairly easy. It would only require the software to block multiple ratings by the same user. You should really consider this, even if you're not planning to change the default trust in any way. As for the people on default trust, I'm not completely sure if people are responsible with their ratings. Just take Mr. CanaryInTheMine. He gave positive trust to a lot of people, who participated in his group buy, so in a way by buying something from him they also bought trust. The trust list is also rarely moderated. Mark Karpeles was on the list for months after his exchange imploded. @malaimult I've seen some of these plants who bash certain mining companies while pushing their own through paid or unpaid signatures. A common practice these days  It's naive to think you can stop multiple accounts, you can't. I'm not going to sit here and list all the ways to do it, but suffice it to say the scammers know all of them, and it isn't very hard. It's their livelihood, it's what they do, and most of them are good at what they do. Multiple negative ratings by the same user already do not increase one's negative rating, but they shouldn't be stopped from giving more than one because there may be more than one issue at stake (there are good reasons to leave more than one negative feedback, and there are bad). Trust spam does get removed. Default trust isn't perfect and incorruptible, but a trust list run by someone else (and let's be real here, if default trust didn't exist, someone would make a "default" that everyone would end up using anyway) would be much more corruptible. If the trust list itself didn't exist and all comments were given equal weight, it would just turn into a numbers game, and scammers/spammers would win that game by a large margin. I found a spammer/account farmer in the local boards with over 130 accounts, and they weren't newbie accounts either. Under your system, that guy, if he wanted, would probably be the highest trusted member on the forums, lol. I've found other spammers with similar numbers, or even more. Also newbies wouldn't know who to trust, and just throwing newbies in the water with the sharks when they don't know sharks exist (most forums ban anyone who's even suspected of scamming) isn't right. And if you're going to say ban scammers, we have no interest in banning people from participating in the forum just because they are breaking a law. Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Guy Fawkes, fuck it even Robin Hood just to make the point, all "criminals" who break laws. (Alleged) rapist, (alleged) treasonist, (attempted) mass murder, and theft. All Criminals who should be banned if they posted here? |
|
|
|
malaimult is not default trust. der_troll is. malaimult used his alt to leave feedback as his alt is on default trust but he is not. connecting the dots is fun speculation.
Nah, I don't think so. |
|
|
|
You should definitely play entire Prince of Persia series, it's too good to miss. Some other similar games I'd recommend are: Batman series (3 parts) and Prototype series (2 parts). Also, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is awesome game. They're all kinda similar. Definitely try out, mate.
I would definitely try Prince of Persia to complete in near future. :-) Batman series I have in mind, also. I didn't tried Protoype and Xmen but tnx for recommendation. I'm big fan of this genre - hack'n slash so I want to sort out some list of this type of games. Bundle Stars has all 3 of the Batman games +DLC for 10 bucks. http://www.bundlestars.com/all-bundles/batman-complete-bundle/Steam's Christmas sale starts on the 18th. |
|
|
|
hole trust system should be removed and go back to scammer tags...
Its just a stupid game at this point as we can all see.
Back to the 'centralized communist' system everyone hated? It worked and I found it to be more accurate then the current trust system that is more about kissing ass then it is facts May have worked for you, but you aren't the one who has to spend hours and hours daily on it, with nothing in return. I participated in that a lot, know what I got for it? Either a "Thanks!" or "Fuck off!", and trolled endlessly by those who disagreed. Then the tagged would just make a new account and carry on. |
|
|
|
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2? If you look at hierarchical view of trust, it appears that both der_troll and Mabsark are listed under CanaryInTheMine, who is level 1 default. Yeah, but Canary never left feedback for der_troll. If Canary includes der_troll in his trust list, but doesn't leave a feedback for him, would that add him to the level 2 list? Edit: saw BadBear's post. It would seem so. You don't need to leave someone feedback to have them on your trust list. |
|
|
|
Seems der_troll gave Mabsark negative trust, and that der_troll is in the 2nd level of the default trust list. I can't seem to figure out why though. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=73449He has one trusted negative feedback (from Mabsark) and no untrusted feedback. Why is he in level 2? Because CanaryintheMine has der_troll in his trust list as well. Look at Hierarchical view at the bottom of the page to see who is on who's list. Luke-Jr
Miner-TE
Noitev
eleuthria
luv2drnkbr
Digigami
gmaxwell
E
zapeta
bitpop
Mabsark
redcomet
ipxtreme
Philj
os2sam
yxt
knybe
Trance104
sveetsnelda
conv3rsion
tlr
bitcoin-rigs.com
Vod
dtmcnamara
notme
FCTaiChi
Mushroomized
mainichi
greeners
dribbits
echris1
SaltySpitoon
bitcoiner49er
BadBear
freshzive
arklan
glendall
Pistachio
tarrant_01
tbcoin
ElideN
friedcat
Bees Brothers
Christoban
Stale
af_newbie
eroxors
camolist
MrTeal
cncguru
Mendacium
PsychoticBoy
Dabs
mem
Namworld
lky_svn
420
mr2dave
DobZombie
gektek
johnny5
dyingdreams
Zillions
phrog
Domrada
Mapuo
philipma1957
jborkl
RicRock
jmutch
MonocleMan
b!z
CoinHoarder
absinth
mitty
(^_^)
der_troll
soy
super3
iluvpcs
batt01
xstr8guy
MJGrae
mobile
nubbins
ThickAsThieves
hephaist0s
BitcoinValet
Timzim103
Rounder
Nemo1024
TheXev
ibminer
Mooshire
Benny1985
mrbrt
hanti
ssinc
Kaega
finlof
True___Blue
elchorizo
fewerlaws
bitterdog
Swimmer63
locksmith9
Krellan
Spendulus
MikeMike
statdude
bluespaceant
Hiroaki
keeron
Bigdaddyaz
Polyatomic
palmface
flowdab
SpaceCadet
photon
dwdoc
xzempt
jdany
mackstuart
bmoconno
jdot007
mrtg
maxpower
xjack
CommanderVenus
daddyfatsax
Plesk
helipotte
aurel57
gambitv
boyohi
LaserHorse
joeventura
slashopt
drofdelm
canth
zackclark70
cdogster
DBOD
addzz
DefaultTrust
DustMite
pixl8tr
namoom
blblr
Taugeran
arc45
smscotten
Cilantro
chadtn
kinger1331
guytechie
rumlazy
fractalbc
fforforest
KyrosKrane
ZBC3
rj11248
bitdigger2013
Damnsammit
jaslo
BorisAlt
ASICSAUCE
sidehack
steelcave
Rotorgeek
buyer99
daddyhutch
digeros
west17m
Trillium
ziggysisland
devthedev
ryhan
zac2013
atomriot
metal_jacke1
Apheration
spacebob
2byZi
terrapinflyer
BenTheRighteous
gsr18
Paddy
Jennifer Smith
J_Dubbs
00Smurf
ldh37
thomslik
argakiig
ManeBjorn
Ski72
suchmoon
Thai
Beaten but I included a full list.  |
|
|
|
|
Blocking everyone to stop the occasional bot that makes it through is a little overkill. Not really something to worry about. They get dealt with quickly enough, and if not, more moderators/patrollers is a better solution.
|
|
|
|
|
We've always had bots, any forum does.
|
|
|
|
I prefer minimalist mATX designs these days, and yes it fits the humongous video cards of today.  Don't need a gazillion hard drives, and if you do you should have a file server anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
