(I did notice that you added a custom title)
I'm new and improved. |
|
|
|
I'm just waiting to see how many more posts we get before people notice I changed it.  I don't typically do it but it's the same name, just capitalization that changed, no biggie. |
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan. trojan |
|
|
|
|
Do a tracert on the IP to see where the problem is occuring.
|
|
|
|
I've decided I will show no mercy to these guys because they're clearly spamming, if they have a problem with it they can show themselves as real users and complain.
I've banned several of that type so far. Reviving old threads is fine, there's been a lot of good discussion over the years, and it can be an interesting retrospective sometimes, but some are clearly just spamming. |
|
|
|
|
Someone was botting to manipulate some dumb altcoin poll. Around 12k accounts were deleted, which why there's a large discrepancy in userid numbers vs registered users.
|
|
|
|
|
Malevolent and I have kept it up to date.
|
|
|
|
I'd really like to see a mod commenting on this, because I highly doubt that a user posting an article on a public forum is considered as copyright theft. Can we actually get banned here for quoting an article?
No. |
|
|
|
of someone.he doesnt earn to be admin!
he gave me negative trust too,because he thinks i am alt of timmy or so
me too
 |
|
|
|
|
He says up front they're fake, I don't see the problem. Punish him for being honest?
|
|
|
|
The neutral ratings is something that can be left is someone is acting suspicious but not acting like they are going to outright scam. Prior to trading with someone, you should check their trust rating, and if you share someone else's suspicions then you may want to trade with an elevated level of caution.
Another reason why a neutral rating may want to be used is if you are on default trust, but do not want to leave outright negative trust, for example if someone is requesting a scammy loan however appears to be doing so because they do not know any better. The neutral trust could be used as a "warning" to be used and if similar behavior is used in the future then an outright negative trust may be warranted
What about the guy who starts yet another Ponzi thread: "guaranteed 200% returns in 24 hours, no limit". He hasn't scammed me, but he's obviously trying to scam. There are noobs in the thread asking questions, and my negative rating could well help them not fall victim to his scam. But he didn't scam me, and won't, because I know it's a scam. That doesn't seem like a "neutral" case to me. FWIW, I personally would feel that is warranted, and wouldn't attempt to remove one from default for that. |
|
|
|
|
Yep, he's now excluded, and is no longer in the default trust network.
In the end it's good that things like this happen to highlight deficiencies within the system, and help to bring about change.
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime I see a complaint with that symptom it ends up being adblock or some derivative. Run without extensions/addons and see if it happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Good for you, now we just need CanaryInTheMine to weigh in so this can be resolved. I'm curious to see what he thinks.
|
|
|
|
I hate twitter with the force of a thousand suns, but some of the comments are gold. "In other news, Silk Road 3.0 is now accepting orders." "I'm all for it. Not because he was allegedly running Silk Road, but because he picked the handle "Defcon"" "I imagine @NewYorkFBI meant to say *alleged* operator. But then what's a little presumption of guilt in light of the panopticon." "was it because he was doing a better job cutting down on drug crimes than you were? What's the point of the drug war again?" |
|
|
|
No, 392k is right. Some accounts have been deleted. There was also probably a wipe of inactive accounts at one point, since I remember hearing a couple of reports of people not being able to find or login to their old accounts, though that was before my time so I don't know. Example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2183 |
|
|
|
as an admin is it difficult to reset it for yourself ?
Not really, but untrusted people with an admin account could do a lot of damage that can't easily be undone, and also see a lot of information that shouldn't be seen, so I feel obligated to protect it as much as I can. Global moderator accounts are much safer in those respects. |
|
|
|
This thread is disappointing on so many levels. Default trust, which can be such a good tool, being used as leverage and "make people learn a lesson", and what's more disturbing is that not only are people willing to turn a blind eye, but that some are even defending it. I always thought default trust was a fairly good thing, and the self regulating nature of the community would fix any aberrant behavior, but clearly not. Looks like default trust is turning into a good old boys network. That said, if the community is really okay with feedback being used in this way, then maybe it's time to just change the feedback system to accommodate that, and how the ratings are calculated. A good start would be to change it to where you need to have multiple negatives before it has such an adverse effect on your rating. Maybe people further down on the trust list hierarchy could also have a lesser effect on ratings than those higher up. This would also make using a trust level of 3 more usable than it is now. Bottom line, if you can't trust someone like TECSHARE, who has conducted himself impeccably
Until now... Should never leave negative feedback for personal reasons, esp if you are on the default trust list. I got drunk one night and left negative feedback for someone based on a personal reason. The next day the community ripped me a new one before I apologized and removed it. I have no idea why the same thing is not happening here. I'm also on default trust, but I don't personally reserve feedback for business transactions. You were made aware of this yesterday lol That being said, I don't hand out feedback frivolously. I don't believe TECSHARE does, either. The trust system is just a way to publicly announce who you personally trust or distrust and why. I'm sure TECSHARE is well aware that if he were to frivolously provide negative feedback to a whole bunch of people it would kill his reputation. Accordingly, I perceive this as an anamoly. It's not so much this "anomaly" that bothers me, it's the way it's been (not) handled. Can you really read tecshare's posts here, look at the attitude, and say that he should be in the default trust network? Being a good trader doesn't mean you are a good candidate for default trust anymore than being a good poster means you would make a good moderator (it doesn't). Do you really think that this will be the last time he does something like this, especially with people defending it and saying it's okay? Would you be okay with this "one time anomaly" if it were you on the receiving end? |
|
|
|
He might be a dick, but that's no reason to leave false negative feedback, especially when you're in the default trust network.
I reported the posts and asked for assistance from the moderators. They were ignored. Some how his abuse is ok though. I am not sure why I should tolerate harassment. You guys are always quick to point fingers but you don't care to lift that finger until it becomes a bigger issue. I guess the moderators are too busy pruning my 2 year old threads for bumps I forgot to delete to help here. Or maybe his off topic spamming of my threads is "free speech" and you don't want to censor him. In the end I have to deal with it and it costs moderators nothing to totally ignore my requests for a reasonable solution. Reasonable solution, self moderated thread, not this. Fake negative feedback is petty and childish, and not becoming of someone in default trust. You can try and blame us or whatever, but your actions are your own, nobody else's. |
|
|
|
|
He might be a dick, but that's no reason to leave false negative feedback, especially when you're in the default trust network.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
