Yeah, maybe not right now but he clearly did in the past https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013494.0 so, how come it was ok in the past but you get red tagged in the present?

Yeah, maybe not right now but he clearly did in the past https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013494.0 so, how come it was ok in the past but you get red tagged in the present?

**this post inspired by Annon001**



Hi Sirs,

While looking through the forum Archives, I found a thread entitled [WTS] Senior Account Delete Me Please by DT1 member Blazed. The thread can be viewed by clicking on this link. The last post in the thread indicated the forum account was sold.

Much of the DT controversy is concentrated in those on Blazed's trust list.

Take yahoo62278 for instance. He has created threads such as:

• trying to gain trust via loans -  was asking for small loans to build up trust
• Selling this account - tried to sell his account unsuccessfully
• ITS MY BIRTHDAY!!! - begging for tips, claiming it was his birthday
• i need a reliable escrow - looking for an escrow agent to help with a forum account sale
• Hero Auction - auctioned a "Hero" forum account, clearly a distinct transaction from above
• Yahoos micro loans thread (collateral is a must) - made loans using forum accounts as collateral; ultimately used thread to purchase at least three forum accounts

So this guy is a trust farming, begging, account seller. He has a decent amount of trust, his score is 50: -0 / +5, with 4 of the 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He also runs many signature campaigns, can we be sure he is not enrolling his own accounts to milk the owners of these campaigns?

Here is the kicker, he is now giving negative trust for "sold accounts". This looks a lot like a conflict of interest to me. It looks a lot like he is "red tagging" some of his competition.


Another good example is Lutpin. He created a thread entitled:

• btcmasterZ is extorting me - claimed to be getting extorted by another user

This guy doesn't appear to sell accounts or farm trust, but he is another signature campaign manager. His history indicates he was a little immature in the past, but hey, everyone needs to learn at one point. He seems to have handled a decent amount of other's money, so maybe he is a little trustworthy, his score is 110: -0 / +11 , with 7 of his 11 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list.

A third point of controversy is The Pharmacist. He is not the smartest person, claiming to not know how to take a screenshot. I don't see much evidence he is especially trustworthy, he seems to have done a handful of PayPal deals, each worth $25 or so. From what I can tell, he has done a total of about $1,000 worth of trades over about three years. His trust score is 32: -0 / +5 , with 4 of his 5 ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list. He likes to leave negative trust for those that trade accounts, sometimes years after the fact, yet is inconsistant in what he will Red Tag users for, and will ignore requests to discuss concerns with ratings.


User actmyname is controversial enough, and has a low enough accuracy is his ratings that theymos excluded actmyname from his trust list:

actmyname doesn't run any signature campaigns, but does Red Tag many users who "abuse bounty campaigns" and who trade forum accounts. He has only completed a handful of trades, and his trust score is 18: -0 / +2, with all of his ratings being attributed to other users on Blazed's trust list.

Member mexxer-2, apparently used to sell forum accounts himself, however some people say mexxer-2 is actually a purchased account that was purchased after these types of threads was created. He allegedly failed to repay a loan from Lutpin, although no evidence to support this has been posted, he has negative ratings for this, however has no ratings for his prior activity selling accounts (or buying his account, depending on who you believe).

User Lauda is by far the most controversial user in DT. He enquired about deleting all personal information hosted on the forum, not long before it was exposed that Lauda had attempted to buy forum accounts 10 at a time. He has been involved in at least one extortion attempt. He says he will send merit for any reason he wants, while using his Red Tagging abilities to punish those who he circumstantially believes are sending merit for reasons he does not agree with. He selectively Red Tags people engaged in account trading, even though he previously, without a doubt engaged in this very same activity in the past, and may well still be engaged in this activity.

Lauda's trust score has taken a little bit of a hit since his extortion scheme was exposed, falling to 2: -2 / +13 with two scam reports, with Lauda retaliating with a baseless Red Tag of his own, and smearing both those who left negative trust in relation to this. However if you exclude everyone on Blazed's trust list, his trust score falls to : -2 / +4.


TL;DR: multiple people on Blazed's trust list have sold forum accounts in the past, including Blazed, yet none of them have Red Tagged anyone on Blazed's trust list for this reason, despite many leaving thousands of Red Tags for this reason, sometimes looking back many years to find this activity. Multiple people are on Blazed's trust list that manage signature/bounty campaigns, and many others use their DT status to "help" signature/bounty campaign managers by giving Red Trust to "cheaters".


Lastly, and most importantly, many people on Blazed's trust list seem to all have positive trust from each other, none have negative trust from each other (with the exception of mexxer-2, for a loan default, which should be easy to prove, but hasn't been), despite many engaging in the very behavior that they leave Red Trust for.



I guess I would ask Blazed, What is going on here?

Thank you for reading.

P.S. I am new here    

It's too early to get a clear picture, but my thoughts so far:

First, most people complaining about merit are constantly posting garbage, and should not rank-up. The forum is not a welfare system; you don't run through a few hoops and then get paid for doing something that nobody actually wants. I like that good forum members can make money, especially when said forum members are in poorer countries and this is a major opportunity for them. I very much do not want to destroy the sig-ad/airdrop/bounty "industry". But I am not going to tolerate people posting garbage upon garbage. If the merit system completely fails and I can't think of anything else to replace it, then my next step will probably be to completely remove all ways for forum users to make money from posting (eg. removing signatures entirely).

Maybe there are ways for people who were making money by posting garbage on the forum to make money on other sites with easy bounties, etc. (For example, I don't know if they're actually any good, but https://bountyhive.io is currently advertising on the forum.) But people should use the forum to talk about these money-making ideas, not as a way of making money itself. Once you spend a lot of time here, you may be able to make some money here (which is great!), but you should consider this a far-off hope, not your primary objective.

BTW, if anyone has any ideas for simple things that these ex-nonsense-posters could usefully do to make money, I think that this'd be a good project right now. There are apparently quite a few people who were making money on the forum and could use guidance. Even though their past activities were not good for this forum, I doubt that they are useless in general.

---

Merit awards may be too spotty/uneven currently, though it's still too early to say. In addition to continuously adding more sources, if things could still use improvement in this regard in a couple of months, I may do something like decay old sMerit and unused source merit and randomly redistribute the decayed merit. How the random distribution would work would magnify past merit -- so perhaps you would get an increased chance of winning extra merit for every post you've made which has at least 1 merit, but certainly you would not get any extra merit if none of your posts was ever merited.

Merit sales, transfers to aliases, back-and-forth trading, etc. are not much of an issue. All illegitimate merit will decay, and will account for a tiny and very expensive fraction of the total merit economy. It's basically a rounding error; fight it where convenient, but waste no sleep over it.

I think that actmyname has been too hasty with some of his negatives, but I haven't had time to look carefully enough into it to justify making forceful changes. I did exclude actmyname from my trust list, so another DT1 could remove him from the default trust network by doing the same.

you said you`ll ban this guy for a week : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2186518.0

You are A FUCKING INFECTED LIAR ! ! !


YOU HAVE INFECTED THIS FORUM !

"Account sales is allowed  / Not Forbidden" doesn't mean it is not allowed to give a negative feedback to people trying to buy/sell accounts.
And it doesn't mean the guy(s) running this forum agree with sales accounts
And secondly, the feedback system is not moderated as mentioned in the rules that you perfectly know about...but oh well.

Need Consideration too...
</end>

That means you won't get banned if you're found selling or buying accounts. It doesn't mean you won't get negative trust.

Negative trust should be used when we think someone is untrustworthy.
Personally, I think it is if the sold account had positive trust or is trusted in some way, because the new owner can take advantage of that trust an scam easily.

I wouldn't leave negative trust when selling other kind of accounts, maybe a neutral but that's all.
However, there's no guidelines about this AFAIK, so everyone can have their own opinion about whether or not that's untrustworthy.

Why this request to Blazed
I understand the recent DT inclusions were done due to Blazed's recommendation.

The problem
If we notice most of the DT members are not competing with rest of forum members for selling their signature and avatar spaces.

For example,
hilariousandco and Lutpin are not competing for earning opportunity but accepting offers to show advertisements.
Lauda is intensively looking for earning opportunity in the name of ACE and ALU.

The recent DT members The Pharmacist and actmyname are still competing with rest of forum members for selling their avatar and signature spaces.

(actmyname was in bitsler camp for more than one year and The Pharmacist always competes in Yahoo's altcoin camps.)

Now, after they have the power to disqualify any forum members to lessen the completion to get slots, how we can believe that they will not misuse their DT power ?

(I assume these people must have tons of alt accounts and they want to grab more slots as much as possible)

Until Lauda started managing bitmixer camp, it (the cat) never bothered about account dealing nor shit posting even it was a staff and DT member for years. Why suddenly started giving neg trust to 1000s of accounts along with competing with rest of forum members to earn more.

actmyname is also into lending business by accepting accounts as collateral.
In general, most lenders were known for selling accounts. Now actmyname may misuse his DT power to make accounts non-usable which may lead to more value for the accounts he may be owning.

The clear breach of trust system guidelines for personal benefits

As per theymos' guidelines on trust system, a feedback should not be based on quality of posts.


But these people are providing rating only based on quality of posts whereas "Report to moderator' option is available everywhere or SMAS black-listing also an option against quality of posting.


The request
Please include the members into DT who are not into a situation where they will not misuse their power. When a DT member's behaviors is changing, please monitor them closely.