I agree...However, if those involved didn't show a propensity to engage in aggressive marketing policies and collusive recruitment practices, it would be a more legitimate organization in my mind. Centralized lists, such as this, maintained by pseudonymous entities are easily corruptible and need mechanisms put in place to check the imbalances....I'm not here to FUD the concept, nor those involved, but I do have concerns regarding the motivations that drive it. Spamming may be a problem, I agree....but collusive rings of anonymous thugs who promote, encourage, or otherwise condone reputation abuse is far more consequential in my mind....That's all.
I cannot understand what the problems with this in it's current state are. From that paragraph of needlessly complicated words and pseudo-intellectualism (can I do it too?) I think I gathered that you are worried that this list will be abused for personal gain/grudges. In which case, there is a very simple fix - don't associate yourself with any of the people taking part in this list and their campaigns if you do not agree with the way the SMAS list (and by extension their campaigns) are ran. This list isn't forum endorsed, and I doubt it will ever be. There are multiple campaigns available that are not run by Lauda, Lutpin or Yahoo; if you do not agree with them, the way that they think or the way they deal with things, stay away from them. What mechanisms might we put in place to offset those risks? There has to be some form of remedy. Right?
Don't use the list? As far as I understand this list is no different to how one of the campaign managers involved with SMAS would simply deny a user from participating in their campaigns, instead just putting them in a list to save any issues with having to recheck. Obviously, if the list began to become more widely used throughout signature campaigns this could become more of a problem. Currently, it isn't. Don't worry about it. |
|
|
|
In other words, Lauda removed his negative rating in exchange for you withdrawing your criticism agains him  Of course. Lauda's feedback on the OP was referencing calumny/libel. If the OP withdrew this, there is no basis for a negative feedback to be there anymore. While I wouldn't, it is completely fair to remove the feedback all together. In addition, the feedback on feryjhie (IIRC the account this thread was made over) is still there as it is still arguably valid (though should perhaps be updated if the feedback left on OP has been). What is your point? |
|
|
|
Really? I thought deleting single posts from 14 day activity periods will make you lose activity points regardless of the account rank?
You do lose activity points, however if the rank it's self is Hero or Legendary then the rank is permenant. You can see this on the member stan.distortion. |
|
|
|
|
minifrij, Item 1: 0.045
minifrij, Item 2: 0.015
|
|
|
|
Due to a rewrite condition in the .htaccess file all requests for new folders are handled by the index.php file in the main folder. To find the code that deals with faucet claiming, look at line 313 in that file. There is no faucet folder, but faucet.php in templates folder
That is the template for the faucet page I believe. |
|
|
|
There is not a single DAX 30 or a FTSE 100 company that will let someone "press a few buttons" regarding a transaction/decision involving themselves.
The majority of the time, the person will not even participate in the discussion regarding this kind of discussion, therefore the mere suggestion that a thread about you should be moderated is inappropriate.
There is no solid evidence that the alleged discussion took place before to the moderation action.
Remind me why this is relevant whatsoever? All Lauda did was move the topic to where it belonged, something that would have been done by another moderator had Lauda not. They didn't remove or censor the topic, not even obstructing it from view (as there is a trail that can be followed to find it's new location). Your obvious bias is making you look like nothing other than a school kid, and no amount of irrelevant comparisons or pseudo-knowledge will change that. |
|
|
|
The only way that I can see this being remediated is by removing Lauda from being a moderator.
Of course. If only there were some way to remove them from the DT system, a system completely unrelated to moderation, in order to remove any rogue feedback there may possible be. Theymos should really implement that for situations just like this one. Also, QS, you still haven't answered my questions from the last page. I've been awaiting your answers with bated breath. |
|
|
|
Uh, yes, negative trust is meant for anyone who has scammed someone, who has attempted to scam someone, or who is believed to be a scammer:
That's not true and you know it. If that were the case then why did you post each of these feedbacks, none of which stating that the user was a scammer or was believed to be: 
And my personal favorite:  You were right for tagging that guy. What sort of a lowlife would deceive another party in a deal by acting as both a part of the deal and the escrow?
You tagged these people using the trust system because you do not trust them, as you explicitly said in several of your ratings. This is no different to what Lauda or Lutpin is doing in my opinion. Please stop holding people do a double standard simply just because you dislike them, it's obvious and is extremely childish. |
|
|
|
Put this thought in your head. Lauda has left 64 negative trusts in the last 23 days of being registered. The 1 & 1/2 years before that he left 1 negative trust. He has left more trust in the last 23 days than he has positive and negative together in the pass years he has been a member. Now put this swing on this. He is a trusted default member placing feedback for others that are unfounded. What if he starts placing positive feedback for members of which he owns the accounts? Unless he made a mistake and it is posted somewhere on this forum, no one will know. Others may trust his positive feedback because he is a default trust member, allowing him to scam with his other account(s) and dip out. It is that simple. If his negative feedback can not be proven, what is saying his positive ones are not just there for the purpose of setting up a scam???
Ah yeah, you're right. It makes absolutely no sense that someone would start giving out more trust feedbacks once they become trusted by default, meaning that people actually see and care about said feedback. You're also right about Lauda only leaving positive trust to their alts. I mean, is it not obvious that accounts such as myself, Lutpin, Vod and others are all just pawns in Lauda's master plan to take over the forum and scam for hundreds of BTC? I'm amazed that you're the first one to notice. I mean, there is even blockchain evidence of obvious bribery going on! because there is no order in this forum when a default trust member can abuse the system.
Lauda sees account sales as untrustworthy, which they are. You partake in account sales, therefore they see you as untrustworthy and mark you as such. Doing so is not abuse, it is using the trust system as it is intended. If you don't want this to happen there is a simple solution - stop doing account sales. Ask for collateral in your loans which won't make you look untrustworthy to accept. If not for that reason, then simply because accepting accounts as collateral is stupid anyway. The way that anyone can (rightfully) make the collateral worthless in a few clicks surely makes it obvious that it is a stupid thing to accept in the case of a defaulted loan. Those accounts did not engage in selling accounts, because they were not selling themselves, I was selling them through a third party.
Were the accounts being sold? Yes? Therefore, it is account selling. It's not difficult to understand. |
|
|
|
I am using Electrum
If you press on the 'Addresses' tab between 'Recieve' and 'Contacts' it will show all addresses associated with your wallet. |
|
|
|
I don't think so. The file is the exactly the same as was used previously.
Avatars are deleted from the server once changed. It doesn't matter if it's the same file. I remember the avatar-related security issues in the past. But I'm not aware that these were caused by gif animations.
I'm unsure if it is the same security issue that the forum had, although it seems like it could be the case, you can read about how an attacker can run arbitrary PHP code through gif images here. As said, I'm unsure, however considering that the security exploit was executed by running arbitrary PHP code it could be possible that the two are linked. Note that my animated avatar used less than 1% of the maximum allowed file size. If I'd be mean, I could upload a new 100 KB static avatar just to express my frustration by draining more forum resources...  I don't think that storage space is the problem with your avatar. |
|
|
|
I think you forgot to explain how this guy is a scammer. You posted connections to several accounts that are alleged to be spammer.
Red trust doesn't always make someone a scammer, it shows that the person leaving the feedback doesn't trust the person recieving it. Lutpin has made his reasoning clear for the red mark in his feedback, as did Lauda. Would you trust someone that spams and ban evades, along with little trustworthy things to their name? In addition, would you not consider somebody delivering a sub-par product for what you pay to be scamming? In that case, signature spamming and getting paid is scamming the owner. And all I can say for you is RIP english .
You're not in any place to insult anyone else's literacy. |
|
|
|
Actually I have one more question, If a DT1 person is to give you a positive trust will that automatically add you to the DT2 list or do they need to do it manually, thanks and otherwise I understand now.
It won't; the user must add you to their trust list manually. Trust lists and trust feedback aren't the same. Someone giving you positive trust won't automatically add you to their trust list and vice versa. |
|
|
|
Thanks for this, this helps but how does one end up on the DT2 and can they be removed? Thanks.
A user is put onto DT2 by a member of DT1 putting them onto their trust list. If they need to be removed, the D1 member who put them on their trust list can simply remove it. Otherwise, if several other DT1 users exclude the DT2 user from their trust list (by using a ~ before their name) he will be removed from DT2. To be removed through the second way, 1 more DT1 member must distrust the user than trust them (E.G if they are trusted by 1 DT1 member, 2 must distrust them for them to be removed). You can see the members who are on DT1 by looking at the members under the 'Depth 1' subheading on this page. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
