The trust system is just another guide to help you make your mind up about a user and to detail the trading history of that person. It's mainly there for newbs really and active members will likely know who to trust or not without it anyway. I don't think it's broken but it could do with some extra attention and/or tweaking. I usually find the majority of people that complain about it only do so when they've fallen foul of it in some way (and mostly it's their own fault - scamming or abusing it etc) but parties that obviously do abuse it in whatever ways should be scutinised and held to account for it.
|
|
|
Do you guys have any idea how much an escrow agent makes? Peace!
Why? If you're getting into escrow here to make money you're doing it for all the wrong reasons. Most escrows do it for free but get small tips every now and again. It's more about helping the community than making a living off of it.
|
|
|
Hmmm, I would say this is probably not appropriate. He claims that it is a possibly hacked account, however his password was not changed in the last 30 days.
I think Vod should remove his trust for Icebreaker as this is more of an example of him trying to silence critics.
I would say this is somewhat of an example of leaving trust because of "trust abuse" and anyone who leaves those kinds of reports should not have any of their trust reports relied upon
Agreed. Vod isn't really helping the situation here and this is just going to add fuel to the fire and perpetuate this entire commotion. I don't know what is this , but let us wait the new improvement of theymos. I understood that trust ratings are not moderated ,so it is not effective open a thread here.
...But default trust is moderated, and VODs actions here are relevant to his standing accusations of default trust abuse. Default Trust is not moderated. Your removal because by the three people that had you on their list for being untrustworthy does not indicate moderation. Think about it, if they trusted you to act accordingly, you would still be there. ~BCX~ The Default trust list is moderated in the sense that theymos and those on it can remove and add people, but feedback left usually isn't. The trust list works by adding those who appear trustworthy and removing those that don't (or cannot handle the responsibility of being on there).
|
|
|
Sign up date is also irrelevant if you don't make at least one post in each of the two week periods so those 30 posts you've done today aren't going to get you more than 14 activity points. You can get another 14 on the 20th.
|
|
|
Bitcoin is all about being anonymous. Not sure many people would go for this.
Yeah, and also scammers obviously aren't going to use this only trustworthy people, or worse people who want to appear trustworthy. I can't see your posts vod, please stop replying. I simply see your name. Lol
Ok child.. in my experience when people go out of their way to post they've ignored someone, they probably haven't. ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) Yeah exactly. If you're 'ignoring' someone it might be a good idea to, you know, actually ignore them. You may be ignoring vod but he isn't ignoring you and is free to comment.
|
|
|
One neg and suddenly you can never make a deal again. Even if it's for a bad reason
Well Candy, you have like six neg reps. Your reasons didn't justify anything. Most inteligent people didn't trust Candy and his alts far before he ever got negative feedback. And people will deal with you, they just won't send first. Use escrow and I can't see why someone wouldn't want to take your money (unless it's on something that could be reversed at a later point).
|
|
|
Yeah, they just copy someone else's post from earlier in a big thread so to appear as if they're putting some effort in when clearly the only effort they're making is a couple of clicks to copy and paste - or even worse using bots to do it for them (but this guy probably wasn't).
|
|
|
I was going to tell you to make more posts like this: Blame yourself for being weak minded not everyone else and wishing them to go to hell. You can only control yourself and not others. I think your problem lies in where you put the blame. If I was you I would take a deep look in the mirror and say "who's fault was this really". If your answer is not yourself you need to be smacked over and over till something clicks in your fucked up head.
And not ones like these: so many multies during the dod freerolls ![Angry](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/angry.gif) payments is too low don't think you will get some royel member's
But something didn't really add up seeing as your language is completely different and you barely speak English in the others. Then I saw this: Blame yourself for being weak minded not everyone else and wishing them to go to hell. You can only control yourself and not others. I think your problem lies in where you put the blame. If I was you I would take a deep look in the mirror and say "who's fault was this really". If your answer is not yourself you need to be smacked over and over till something clicks in your fucked up head.
Well done. You've just got yourself banned.
|
|
|
They have lost ~19'000 bitcoin , due to their mistake.Ha, pretty funny considering redsnow was complaining about this feedback he received recently. Too bad Bitstamp don't have a BadBear to save them from their 'mistake'.
|
|
|
I think they said in the primedice thread that it would be open to everyone and that they had 50 bitcoins for the campaign. They even showed what the rate will be for each section of the forum. But I don't know how much longer they will take before opening up lol. xD
The rates were given as an example only. They will be different. PD is currently only open to Staff but with the re-launch it will be opened up to other Membergroups but likely not all of them. At least the few higher ranks.
|
|
|
It's not the best solution but still better than Default Trust. I voted for Yes.
Why don't we / others brainstorm different models and vote on all of them? There doesn't have to be just one alternative. Nothing to stop you or anyone else. I encourage the discussion of alternative models but people will ever agree on one and there will always be issues. I can't envision any feedback system that will work anywhere near perfectly here.
|
|
|
Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.
How can we view the results or is it just admins? Must be, oops. Looks like any other poll to me. Ha, nice try covering your tracks ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) . Seriously, was wondering whether you didn't realise everyone else couldn't see it. It's not better than Default Trust, so I voted for No. Forcing newbies to pick people to add to their trust list isn't the way to go.
This. Default Trust might not be perfect, but I don't believe the proposed changes would be an improvement. Same. I am all for suggestions for improvements or even an entirely new system, but I don't think this is it. I commend theymos for trying though. It's not an easy task to try create a new system workable/ideal or not but even with its few flaws the current system is probably the best solution. Newbies already forced with Default Trust depth 2 if they don't change it, that's why its default. How couldn't it be better?
But the list is already compiled of (largely) trustable people from the community so it's hard to go wrong. Newbs just joining wont know who to add at all, but once they get the gist of the current system they can add and remove people as they like.
|
|
|
How Much would a legendary account be worth on Bitcointalk.org be worth? 2k+ posts 1k+ activity avatar
Maybe around 1.5-3 btc? Possibly more depending on feedback and its position on the trustlist. Ask Quickseller he knows more about the value of accounts and may be interested in it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=704370.0
|
|
|
Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.
How can we view the results or is it just admins? Well I can't see it as well H@C and since your at staff level it must be an admin only poll. Will just need to trust Badbear on this one. What if BadBear is feeding us false information in an attempt to swing the vote in his favour so he can keep hold of his defaulttrust tyranny? ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) I think that in this case it actually matters who voted for what. One could easily manipulate the poll with many accounts; is that right?
They could and I'm sure theymos will take that into consideration and/or look out for abuse.
|
|
|
Why are they different? Because their job is to police the forum, and after some time that becomes frustrating and builds callousness and unwillingness to listen to people any longer because you simply don't have the time or energy to listen to anyone's complaints any longer. You take your shitty merciless forum policing attitude and apply it to a trust system as a third party with no direct involvement in the situation, and cause MORE HARM, instead of allowing the two parties to achieve a mutually beneficial solution to the issue.
You sure seem to be making grand assumptions about how fatigued the staff are. I suspect you're projecting your frustration and fatigue with the community rather than the staff's viewpoint. It doesn't cause more harm, you just felt the force of it after doing something you thought you were entitled to. A completely neglected system would let anyone with minor or petty gripes get what they want, as in the attempt in your case. The difference is most regular members don't have an obsessive compulsive need to get involved in disputes as a third party like staff and or staff protected users like VOD. If some one is out of line eventually the user base will push back WITHOUT mommy and daddy babysitting. But sometimes mummy and daddy need to get involved when children get out of hand and can't play nice. In my case, if the staff hadn't got involved, Armis would have never been put under the impression that staff would "fix" the rating I left for him and he would have removed his harassing posts, and I would have removed my negative rating, restoring US BOTH to out previous states. Instead staff forced their involvement now I am removed from the default trust and Armis still is marked with negative trust. Wow you guys sure made that issue better. That's what you hoped. And Amis might be still marked with negative but it's untrusted and people will now disregard it once they see who it's from. Seriously I'm done with your whole fiasco. What do you actually attempt to get out of this? All you're doing is making yourself look bad and making people respect you less and less. Now I'm asking why a negative feedback if all was resolved ,nothing else ? I will not provide new escrow service , so people will worry about what ?
I think the bolded part is what's causing the issue. Didn't BadBear remove the negative under the promise you would do no escrow service at all? Yes , I told : I will not provide anymore my escrow service here in the community. I thought I could complete the 3 escrow services and obviously don't start new ones (as it is right). Now the negative feedback will be not never removed , or am I wrong ? From who? I'm sure BadBear will remove it once your current escrows cease and you don't start a new service. Maybe Quickseller will remove or neutralise his over time.
|
|
|
Interesting that default trust has over twice as many votes so far.
How can we view the results or is it just admins?
|
|
|
The remittance market is huge all over the world and there's much more to it than Phillipino nannies. I really think this is an industry where bitcoin can thrive. You don't even need to know bitcoin is involved if you use other companies that take advantage of bitcoin for you, but you could also do it yourself too.
Then you realize none of the local shops in 3rd world countries accept bitcoin nor have the means to. What advantage does a 40 year old nanny who doesn't know a lick of computing have to switch over to bitcoin when they're already being paid in readily usable cash? Good god, the IQ level on this forum is astounding. I'm not sure he's the one who needs to be checking IQ. You don't need to know anything about bitcoin to take advantage of what will likely happen in the remittance market. There will be remittance companies that will do that for you and give you your cash just like western union do except they can cut a decent chunk off fees in doing so. Of course you could always do it yourself as well and cut fees even more. It's not hard to use the blockchain.info app on your smartphone.
|
|
|
I personally don't think campaign operators should be accommodating when dealing with people who spammed so much that it lead to a ban. Being as accommodating only encourages spam like behavior as if they spam a lot then the worse that would happen is they get banned but still get paid for the shit posts they made and can do whatever else while they are waiting for the ban to expire.
I tend to agree, though people should be given a chance to improve (which Joca has already had in this case but the fact he's depending on a loan adds complications). Some signature campaigns do state being banned will cause you to forfeit payment but it's a hard rule for them to enforce as the operators don't usually have access to ban information unless a thread like this gets made.
|
|
|
I doubt it and I don't think you should be proposing deals that are likely going to give him false hope or will likely be agreed to by BadBear. He probably only needs to get back to posting to earn money to pay off his loan so removing the signature probably isn't an option for him anyway. If he wants my advice he should just wait out the ban but check back after each week and maybe BadBear may have a change of heart at some point but he is usually pretty steadfast with bans for good reason, but regardless of that you're going to have to wait out at least some of this ban and continuing to post about it here is likely only going to make it worse. I'll have a word with marco and I'm sure he will accommodate you after you return as long as you don't spam.
|
|
|
IMO the influx of trolling and infighting is due to the fact that STAFF NOW MODERATE TRUST.
Jesus Christ ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) . Sigh. It's embarrassing watching you continually spout this nonsense. I cannot believe you actually think the trolls here are a byproduct of staff 'moderating' trust (which they are not). I'm done with you now. You are clearly not rational. there are 3 types of posters in the speculation sub. 1. To The Moon! 2. Sky Is Falling! 3. Sideways forever!
none of them know what they are talking about.
I don't think anyone does when it comes to the price/valuation. I don't really go/post in the Speculation sub becsuse it seems to be just kids saying the same three things you mentioned day in day out thread after thread. To be fair there are a few members trying to analyse the market using various tools and I found a (very) few threads in the speculation subforum interesting enough to watch. While the majority falls into the before mentioned three groups there are a few notable exceptions. People can try make predictions based on charts or other such 'tools' but have any of them ever been even remotely right? I haven't seen any. Since when do staff moderate trust? I never got that memo... Is it true? Sounds like you got burnt and are taking it out on... Anyone other then yourself. Just my totally unfounded opinion though. It's a bingo (but now yet another thread derailed by Techshare).
|
|
|
|