... lot of Blah ...
Don't forget if you fall off your DT perch, then all your negative trusts become meaningless...
...and I'd like to remind you of my PM reply to your PM to me, I am considering your message to me.
Regards,
Which is why I wrote this Follow up on tomatocage / extraKrispy ...
I got a message from tomatocage about his transactions and why he used extraKrispy's account which sounds plausible, but have to read further into it, (no mention one way or the other about the self escrowing, but am still reading...
the same day you sent your message. |
|
|
|
Yep... and here you are again handing out negative trust / feedback and "suggesting" the user uses escrow - which you have admitted to self escrowing previously. BitcoinGB1106 -8: -3 / +0 2015-09-16 0.00000000 Reference PayPal scammer. Insists that you send PayPal first and he will not fund escrow. I'm confused, so please help me understand this (granted, I did just wake up). How do you interpret my rating with anything remotely resembling a suggestion that he uses escrow (and I'm guessing you're trying to imply that would give me a chance of receiving the job). It clearly states that BitcoinGB1106 will NOT use escrow. I guess I'm confused on how I could have been more clear about it. You'd be best refraining from giving out negative trust to someone using terms such as "won't escrow" or "use escrow" where you haven't first posted such caution in the thread to the OP where all can see (OP included) that you have first advised the OP of the risk of PayPal (or similar reversible payment methods) and then if the OP rejects the advice slapping a negative might be warranted. I say might because the OP might not understand the risk involved in using a reversible payment method and reply politely, however, if the OP were to become belligerent in rejecting the suggestion of escrow, then negative trust would be warranted. Don't forget if you fall off your DT perch, then all your negative trusts become meaningless... ...and I'd like to remind you of my PM reply to your PM to me, I am considering your message to me. Regards, |
|
|
|
An hour after Tomatocage posted the previous to this message this newbie signed up. Scammed me of 235usd, do not trust.... Paypal wont refund as i sent as gift.
...and his first post was to try to buy 50 BTCI would like to buy 50btc... PM me
... and no previous messages from this newbie in this thread to make contact. IDK, it *looks* a little sus...  |
|
|
|
Why did the OP get a negative trust from this? I don't see anything that necessarily made me think that he was trying the send-first PayPal scam.
Tomatocage is one of the users on what's called the Default Trust where they arbitrarily give out negative feedback, in the past he and Quickseller would also attach "use escrow" and then offer themselves up as the escrow agent without revealing that they are both the buyer and the escrow. Tomatocage today has worded his negative feedback very carefully to imply the OP is trying something on (ie PayPal scam) without using the term "use escrow" no doubt another newbie will come on and suggest escrow and months later we'll find out that it was another Alt of Tomatocage. Since Quickseller was outted as an escrow scammer persons on the DT and others have posted advice in the form of replies to the OP's instead of arbitrarily giving the OP negative feedback / trust without a chance to respond (ie using terms "I will remove if they ...") You can add Tomatocage to you list of untrustworthy in the trust --> Trust Settings --> then put ~Tomatocage in your Trust list (as untrustworthy by adding the tilda "~" before his name.. Quoted for preservation, and trust rating has been removed. I'll revisit the matter later, if needed. Yep... and here you are again handing out negative trust / feedback and "suggesting" the user uses escrow - which you have admitted to self escrowing previously. BitcoinGB1106 -8: -3 / +0 2015-09-16 0.00000000 Reference PayPal scammer. Insists that you send PayPal first and he will not fund escrow. |
|
|
|
TimeLord is just sore that I gave one of his scam accounts negative Trust. Damn autocorrect.
...and yet you haven't posted a scam accusation in the scam accusation section, nore have you used the phrase "this user is an alt of Timelord2067..." in your own trust section... ...so no... you haven't. |
|
|
|
|
I totally agree that the colour's alone can get muddled in peoples minds; especially anyone with even a slight colour deficiency could see two near colours the same violet/purple comes to mind.
The x: -y / +z [n] looks like a good suggestion together with tilting the oblique the other way
eg x: -y \ +z [n] to show someone is on Default Trust perhaps? (the n would be zero in that case)
*edit* and in each case it is from each persons own perspective so no two users will necessarily have the same values as they may not necessarily trust the same users (including those on the DT, especially if they have removed the DT list)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and I just recalled read a while ago that placing someone on Ignore holds weight with the trust list as well, but where that explanation is I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Hey thanks, those are indeed the droids links I've been looking for. I've misplaced the actual discussions on Trust (which was cough upgraded about two months ago and people cough splutter like it, it seems.
this and this? also do you need a doctor? Nah, when I play Doctor's and Nurses, I like to make house calls.  |
|
|
|
Because its not high enough to be turned green. It depend on how much trust you have.
From where does this trust come ? Trust comes from doing actions that cause people to trust you. Most commonly, this is from doing transactions. However, the only trust feedback that will really have an impact on your trustworthiness is from DT members, who are members who are considered trustworthy. ...until those on the Default Trust are outted as scammers like Quickseller and Tomatocage (the former has been removed from DT, the later hasn't). |
|
|
|
Some links that I have Why do some users have green text in their trust and others (like me) have not? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174606.0I have a proposal to vary the trust system that is used here. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183190.0Paying for Negative Trust {0.001 BTC} https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174480.0I've misplaced the actual discussions on Trust (which was cough upgraded about two months ago and people cough splutter like it, it seems. If you remove the word DefaultTrust from your list of trusted, then only those you have given good or bad trust to will show up that way... (put a tilda in front of DefaultTrust ie ~DefaultTrust and see what happens...) You can change those settings back and forth and only you will see the end results. I 'm still unsure how a person gets on the DT... (had recent events not occurred, I would have said something flip just then about having had the DT's at times, but I digress) ... but be very very careful how you hand out trust, especially negative trust for it shall comeback to bight you ... hard. Really, really hard. |
|
|
|
Why did the OP get a negative trust from this? I don't see anything that necessarily made me think that he was trying the send-first PayPal scam.
Tomatocage is one of the users on what's called the Default Trust where they arbitrarily give out negative feedback, in the past he and Quickseller would also attach "use escrow" and then offer themselves up as the escrow agent without revealing that they are both the buyer and the escrow. Tomatocage today has worded his negative feedback very carefully to imply the OP is trying something on (ie PayPal scam) without using the term "use escrow" no doubt another newbie will come on and suggest escrow and months later we'll find out that it was another Alt of Tomatocage. Since Quickseller was outted as an escrow scammer persons on the DT and others have posted advice in the form of replies to the OP's instead of arbitrarily giving the OP negative feedback / trust without a chance to respond (ie using terms "I will remove if they ...") You can add Tomatocage to you list of untrustworthy in the trust --> Trust Settings --> then put ~Tomatocage in your Trust list (as untrustworthy by adding the tilda "~" before his name.. |
|
|
|
Hi again,
I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there.
But i wonder why would they adapt your or mine trust system rather than continuing their own made up ? unless it improves and advances the system at an alarming rate ? I'm trying to build on the Trust system that's in place already, I'd like to know that if someone had 12: -0 / +3 [3] that they'd be more trustworthy than 4: -0 / +1 [2] by comparison even though the first one is at trust level three |
|
|
|
Hi again, I wasn't advocating for five levels as such, I just wanted to give an example of what it'd look like. Regardless of whether a user has the DT and two levels of trust or a user defined variation, the level numbers are actually going to be there. I do like the [1] suggestion I couldn't really distinguish which was which. All were dark colors.  How about 0: -0 / +0 [1] for someone in level 1 trust list? Just saying.. Sorry about the colours, there's a limited palate to choose from in the change colour drop down box. |
|
|
|
I have a proposal to vary the trust system that is used here. People can have all kinds of trusts which are shown differently for each person; X doesn't trust Y so any trusts that Y gave out don't show up on X's trust list. A recent glance over the various trust's as they stand on my trust indicator shows examples such as: - Trust: 128: -0 / +16
- Trust: 10: -0 / +1
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -1 / +4
- Trust:
 : -1 / +25 - Trust: -112: -7 / +16
In each case I can gage how trusted someone is with the dark green / lime green / black / orange / red indices, however none of these show me if a user is on the default trust list, is a level one, two three what ever level of trust. Three person's can each have - Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
but in each case, one is a newbie with no trust from any one the second I have had a tiff with and so have manually placed them as untrusted in the trust box and the third is on the default trust list. So, what I propose is this: The oblique (or forward slash) colour be modified to indicate visually if a person is on the default trust list, has been manually added to the untrusted list or is level zero, one, two, three up to (say) a trust level five. Everyone starts as a newbie with black as <zero> if you never transact with anyone else, you keep your black oblique. Trust: 0: -0 / +0The person I have placed on my untrusted list manually eg ~UserXNameHere gets a different colour (say) purple Trust: 0: -0 / +0While someone on the default trust gets another colour again, say brown Trust: 0: -0 / +0which would then give our three users distinct markers - Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0
Then it would simply be a matter of assigning another colour again to each of the five trust levels - Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - blue - trust level 1
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - teal - trust level 2
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - beige - trust level 3
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - maroon - trust level 4
- Trust: 0: -0 / +0 - pink - trust level 5
You could go to ten trust levels, but who's going to trust someone that obscure...? Another variation would be to reverse the direction of the Oblique if someone is on the default trust Trust: 0: -0 \ +0The above could also be used to indicate someone was once on the DT but is no longer on DT list, or could have their oblique greyed Trust: 0: -0 / +0 (just pretend it's grey people) Apologies if I've posted to the wrong forum, I'll shift if someone suggests a better spot for it. Anyways, thanks for reading. |
|
|
|
It begins! Now is the time for a4! Probably, that is. I actually don't know what the best way to launch our attack is, other than that we must launch it now. Rac1 might also be good. But I think the time is right for a4.
I'm leaning towards d4 to make the Rook earn its keep. |
|
|
|
So now it's five votes for Rfd1 (languagehasmeaning, jjacob, abacus, neochiny, and myself) and three for a4 (Timeloard2067, actmyname, and Taras). I hope I've got it right this time.
So has the community decided on Rfd1? Or are people still debating the choice? I don't know why they're talking about how they're going to eventually surrender, my suggestion for a4 hasn't changed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
