Patrollers can moderate newbies no matter what section they're in. A moderator for a specific section can moderate any posts/threads within that section. Thank you as well.
Yeah, I like to handle my reports quickly if I'm able to do so. As a Patroller I can move any thread and remove any thread/post made by a newbie. I can also nuke their account if I deem it to be necessary (spam, bots, etc). I As a moderator of a section (like I am in the ones listed) I can move any thread and remove any thread/post no matter what their rank is. I cannot nuke anyone above the newbie rank, nor can I ban anyone of any rank. I hope this clarifies it for you.
It does. Thank you both for the information. |
|
|
|
OH got that ...but as i see your tag is also shown as staff ' ,i wonder you are a moderator somewhere ?
if not in english ? I'm a Patroller and I moderate the following sections: - Nederlands - Project Development (since yesterday) - Beginners & Help (since yesterday) I see you've moved pretty fast several threads I've reported in Marketplace too ( example). How does it work? Can you do that just because it was posted by a newbie? Can any staff member do that in any board? Or does 'Beginners & Help' let you do that? (Just curious) And congratulations LaudaM! |
|
|
|
Amount: .15BTC
amount to be repayed: .17BTC
Repayment Date: Sept 21, 2015
18Hftg7gAFd7HjNhKHiw8nik8G8ffF9oMW
I can do this. Confirm and I'll send it. I confirm, Ecuamobi is going to give me monies for me loan I guess you're trying to joke but your "monies" really made me change my mind. Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
Amount: .15BTC
amount to be repayed: .17BTC
Repayment Date: Sept 21, 2015
18Hftg7gAFd7HjNhKHiw8nik8G8ffF9oMW
I can do this. Confirm and I'll send it. |
|
|
|
He is tricking the trust system, this is my opinion.
You really think I am? call me up and ask me about it, you got my number. This is tldr of what happened -tspacepilot had negative trust -QS removed from DT -tspacepilot now has neutral trust -i disagree with this -post temporary short feedback note to make him negative -other people leave feedback, I have no control over this -I edit my trust a few times to add/remove details, like I always do -have accusations made against me that I am gaming the system -i can no longer edit my trust to explain myself without looking like im gaming the system -accusations continue even though the feedback has not changed. Moral of the story: It's much too easy for scammers to spread false information/accusations and manipulate and hide the truth. Personally I don't think tspacepilot should have a negative feedback for the old TF issue, a neutral may be more appropriate. But I also really don't think he should have positive ones as 'rewards' for his multiple threads with repetitive claims. And undeserved negatives plus undeserved positives really don't make it right. Who of the people who's left all this trust would be willing to make a truce and remove it if everybody does (and replace with neutral if you really need to)? I guess it would be too difficult. Meanwhile regarding your predicament I'd suggest you to leave your negative trust unchanged and add a new neutral if you really need to add more information. Then you can freely remove your neutral and add a new one. Just don't touch the negative one again. |
|
|
|
xetsr, I noticed you removed your positive feedback from me that you did a long time ago. We did a good trade. Do you not trust me now just because I gave positive feedback to tspacepilot?  He didn't remove it, it's still there. He was removed from DT because he asked it, as stated in his signature. |
|
|
|
I need to borrow 0.001 can pay back 0.002 in 6 days.
Loan is for a service.
I can give this small loan, just confirm I'm doing this and your address. Note I won't leave positive feedback for this. Its fine if you don't leave positive feedback for it I appreciate the loan as it is. Thanks. BTC address 1DMNhttLMq3brkFTTrwQzGdnFXQQXj2h8R -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've sent 0.001 BTC to 1DMNhttLMq3brkFTTrwQzGdnFXQQXj2h8R as a loan to V.Lace - TX: 11aa3c5a670cabece466d9fc0e44e02d32dceb45dc385f5e30ba06e038236bcd Please repay 0.002 BTC to my address 1J1CQS5y6otE9VfWSUuTHEVG2dMzSZyt6p by 2015-09-17 Thanks, EcuaMobi 2015-09-11 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) iQIVAwUBVfLq2rCsztesCz6AAQJNlw/8CGAAU35Wh2pn68DSJmTIvwL3PP9gQFXp SYQIMAPYTTJt0iR8D/oKWMrzQ9ua/ddre5UyeXp0xHQ/6nP191DH3aJJcFkw2xBj auW1gkawtEcht6jS0FflknO6kyFYS21k9ni5CmrNKp9ajavc+5tpqc4uifc+CVwA r51I18ra+LCyf7kqGkGqGknu7HLX6oHVZlwObHMK/Fx3A8nFf/6lCqfa0xbUvpIn 9HF+gc6WVPg6IvIVNHSs/eCVLG14JW5rwA5XOHxqAyS+TjuqSZrJLBP+ZM/Fwvru PESp5UOjoREZUTx4Iwl2M9gImM9l4Q7OhV1ceX+iQ6cUt+H4BYkpG45wYtc0bIpa lYNsMeC2M5oTLjLmZHgK9F6YeAhtuVkp0prsqm0XrcGEPaoDSLJd8b9shFxiD5tG TEi8IZYEMXAPjyNxW4/BZIkJOTieHoLLrgGSlcQvPVvZtfL3hUgW1u8pfv1ygJoj XzfZRkTp/zgQPukA4Sc2rUXcQdugwf8f8tTNvf8TZ+yDbbR00sTh36BF2Qy0GCwj lnz/wOKosYP2s+rBdO2t1CBsDEDwzT+HdncOmDwQfoYo3V3zrH+JvSQx352mTT9A xSjY+XyXGovGBgkyz+KcHmzD/4c88/NW45jkbuxQf69h6cubpQ7Gc6quvitct00M o1Y7H+HbL/c= =jxfP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
I need to borrow 0.001 can pay back 0.002 in 6 days.
Loan is for a service.
I can give this small loan, just confirm I'm doing this and your address. Note I won't leave positive feedback for this. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xzI made it so that'll update every Saturday at 02:52 UTC. -> is "trusts", and -/> is "excludes". Only people with at least 1 post are included. If someone has never touched their trust list, then their trust in DefaultTrust is not shown. This is great!  I mean probably it's not *really* useful but it's definitely cool! I hope soon somebody will come up with a tool to grab that information and generate graphs, interactive trees and more. |
|
|
|
Right before the forum got full of all these shitposts by a bunch of scammers.
(I do escrow seomtimes but never for myself, however I do not see how self escrowing alone constitutes a scam. The scam happens when the escrow and buyer/seller collude, that can happen if they are the same person or not.)
Blazr, I have to respectfully disagree. I think you've got something a little backwards. If the escrow and one of the two parties are the same person, isn't that the definition of collusion? How can I fail to collude with myself? I am myself and my interests are not separate from me nor is my communication separate from me. How can a "third-party" escrow communicate with one party privately if the other party is also the escrow. ... I really think you're overreacting because of your previous problems with QS. Colluding may be understood as just "acting together" with somebody, with that definition escrowing for yourself is definitely a collusion but it's not necessarily a scam. However I think the most accepted definition of collusion includes "with evil or harmful intent" or "to conspire in a fraud", in this case escrowing for yourself is not collusion; you're colluding only if you do harm (i.e. scam) somebody else by acting together with your other self (i.e. your alt). So escrowing for yourself is just the first step that could end on a collusion. That said, I reiterate I'd prefer to use an escrow that never escrows for himself and I'd definitely wouldn't do it myself. I find this activity unacceptable and far from transparent. But saying someone that does that ( and doesn't steal money or do harm while doing it) is necessarily a scammer or similar is an exaggeration. |
|
|
|
So no one know the answer of this including staff and admin?
if it is possible then how and if not then tell me its not possible
I'm pretty sure it's not possible. I've explored the trust settings and profile a lot and I've never found anything like that. That would be pretty cool. Almost certainly you can only see the trust tree up to the 4th level from either default trust or your custom list. |
|
|
|
Becouse this is old accounts without any post or activity. Maybe someone create accout and forget about it? Why he should get red trust ?
I have problem with it, and it is abusing for me.
No, those are accounts that were created by the user symantec with the only purpose of leaving trust spam. Open the profile of a few of those accounts ( 1, 2, 3, ...) and check the received and sent feedback. Probably the only problem with his feedback on those accounts is it's not descriptive enough. Anyway you shouldn't discuss this on this thread. If you have problems with him either PM him or if that fails open a thread on Meta (if you didn't already). |
|
|
|
No, unlike you I am not. I'm telling you how to fill a proper report as you seem lost here. Now as I said either fill the proper report or move this thread somewhere else. Stop your nonsense. Edit: Never mind, I'll just stop feeding the troll. |
|
|
|
If this is a real scam accusation then fill the proper report: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260073.0If it's not and you're just commenting or trolling then move the thread accordingly. Your screenshots just show you trolling via PM and he responding by trolling too, I don't see how it could be seen as a scam or even publicly interesting. |
|
|
|
Hi!
Is anyone who can give me loan 0,1btc. Collateral - opened but not used Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime (original screen stickers are on the phone).
Requested Loan Amount: 0.10 BTC
Return On Investment: 0.125 BTC
Time Of Loan: 7 Days
Reason For Loan: medical expenses (contact lenses)
Collateral: Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime
Address: 1C98nP4YbmgZorQoUqTQqJpxd6GoNWPbqB
You should specify your country/state and start finding a local escrow. Are you aware you have to send the mobile to the escrow before receiving the loan and pay for both shippings? I don't think that little amount justifies all the hassle. It's always better to use digital collateral, especially for low amounts. |
|
|
|
In that situation, the escrow looses no matter what.
Not necessarily, it depends on the escrow's behavior. Granted he is not neutral
That's my main point. The escrow would be much less neutral in this case. Therefore it would be better to have third party instead. however he may be willing to bite the bullet and take the loss. You get the amount of money you thought you got, and the escrow ends up with less money then he was expecting. One job of the escrow is to get these kinds of things clarified before telling either party that it is safe to send money to escrow/the other person. In this case they clearly did not do this and it would therefore be unwise to use that person as an escrow in the future, regardless of if they are trading with an alt. There is an example of something like this happening, and the person was able to talk their way out of it when it was a direct trade. If this was an escrowed deal with me acting as an actual neutral third party, then I would be deserving of a negative rating because I did not clarify exactly how much of what was being traded. I get your point, on the majority of cases there would be little to no difference, but not always. This is a complex problem and it's difficult to come up with the perfect hypothetical example. However I think the point was made: an independent third party would be more neutral so there's no reason to stop using a real third party escrow. |
|
|
|
However it's not transparent at all. If any problem arises (and I mean non-intentional problems due to miscommunication, not necessarily a scam attempt) then the escrow (who is an alt of the other party) can't act neutral, he just can't. If the 2 persons who are dealing forget to agree what to do on an specific circumstance each of them may think differently; I've seen cases when they assume completely different things as obvious. A neutral third party could solve this but in this case there's no third party to do it.
You are correct, there are possibilities to have miscommunication issues. This is a risk that is being taken when escrowing your own deals. However this possibility of this happening is the same as if there is a direct trade between two parties. If you and I are trading, and you are selling 1 BTC for 240 dollars, then what is the difference between you sending me 1 BTC, and me sending you CAD$240 from QS, verses me sending you CAD$240 from an alt? Even if the fact that what currency is being used is not documented properly (an escrow agreement should do this), it is still a scam in both instances. If this would be done as a direct trade, then it would be possible to weasel your way out of it, however if you were acting as an escrow, then your reputation as an escrow would be damaged because you did not properly gather all of the facts prior to advising that it is safe to send money Let's use a not-so-obvious example to explain what I mean: Let's say I'm selling 0.1 BTC for 28.3 dollars (note at the moment 283 is the average between BTC/USD and BTC/CAD). I send 0.1 BTC and you send 28.3 USD to the escrow. We didn't specify the currency and for some reason I think it's obvious it's USD because I charge a fee and you think it's obvious it's CAD because you charge a fee (neither wants to scam, we just disagree). If you are the escrow yourself then the escrow would also find it obvious it's CAD and he could just complete the deal. I may start a scam accusation against both you and the escrow (which I don't know are the same person) and I may win or I may not. Only if I win the escrow risks his reputation and I may get the money back in an attempt of the escrow to keep his reputation. If I lose I just lose. And very probably I wouldn't even bother starting a scam accusation because of the small amount and because I'm aware it was my fault too for not specifying the currency on time. If a real third party would have been used then he wouldn't be biased and I could trust much more his judgment. It's possible he decides it's CAD too; but he may also decide it's USD or he may not know and make an average or cancel the deal completely. I'm just saying a real third party can act neutrally without any bias. If it's a neutral third party I'd feel much more comfortable trusting him. And I repeat I do not think this behavior deserves a trusted negative feedback, but I do prefer to use an escrow that never does this. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure 'No' is going to win. It's clear it's better for it to be a third party. Probably we should include in the discussion how bad it is and whether it deserves negative trust. Personally I'm convinced it's bad and would definitely not use an escrow known to have that behavior, but I wouldn't say he's a scammer and therefore I don't think a negative feedback is deserved [ more]. |
|
|
|
I'm thinking out loud here, but does the escrow necessarily need to be a third party?
What if I want to trade with a higher trust alt of the person instead? I would imagine that people would pay extra for that privilege.
Even if you do use a third party that is a different physical person that person could still collude with the other person and scam you.
The problem is that the seller and escrow must not collude.
Does it really make a difference if they are the same person? it might increase the risk they collude but even that is kind of hard to say.
To be fair if you agree to use someone as escrow it means you trust him enough to be willing to send first to him. Therefore the risk it not significantly (if at all) increased. However it's not transparent at all. If any problem arises (and I mean non-intentional problems due to miscommunication, not necessarily a scam attempt) then the escrow (who is an alt of the other party) can't act neutral, he just can't. If the 2 persons who are dealing forget to agree what to do on an specific circumstance each of them may think differently; I've seen cases when they assume completely different things as obvious. A neutral third party could solve this but in this case there's no third party to do it. As a result I don't think that's a scammy behavior completely (so I don't think it's enough for a trusted negative feedback) but I'd absolutely prefer to use someone else's services as escrow. Looks like BayAreaCoins left QS deserved negative trust.
QS has said that anyone who leaves him negative trust (BayAreaCoins) will be removed from Default Trust.
Let's see what happens.
And on TC's profile too. It's quite strange to see someone on DT level one with a trusted (by default) negative feedback. I'm curious to see what happens too. |
|
|
|
Been wondering this for a while.
Do you mean the black vs light green vs dark green positive trust? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
