Bad ratings happen sometimes. Look at the garbage ratings owcatz has left me (who you trust).
Owlcatz is not on my trust list. I've left him a positive rating, because I've traded with him and everything was top notch when doing business with him. I don't agree with all the ratings owlcatz has left, and neither do I agree with all the ratings you've sent. Trust is not like that.  I believe bidding on your own auctions is much more warranting a negative mark on your record.
How so? It's not scamming or dishonest behavior in any way. Nobody was scammed. Auction rules were same for everyone. Different standard was followed than what BCT users are used to. And it was a single occasion almost 3 years ago, never happened when I learned about the auction standard regarding self-bids here. This event warrants wrecking a dark green trust score? In any case, this rating is still not about that auction. Regardless of anything, Vod red-rated me after threatening to do so unless I removed my rating. Is that acceptable rating activity by a DT2 member? One thing is certain though, people who want on DT to gain more bargaining power over others are the exact type of users that DT needs to keep out of the trust network. I think that’s what you aren’t understanding. Maybe in general, yes. My case is not about me wanting "bargaining power". I want fairness, and it's not happening right now. Vod won't be dropped from DT as this is way too "mild" misuse/abuse. Like you say, worse have been swept under the rug. I would see that a resolution to this could be found in practice only if I were on DT2 as well. DT should not be used for anything like this at all, but it is what it is. DT should not be any elite group, but just a group of people perceived to be trustworthy enough to not scam others. But most of all I would want DT system to go away completely. The timing on Vod’s rating is crap, but it’s not like others haven’t received bad ratings for less.
The timing? Vod rated me red because he told me that it would happen unless I changed my rating. It's all in the public PM conversation found in the links earlier in this thread. However, your case is far from the worst abuse, and adding in more members who want to make the problem worse by leveraging their positions to sweep more bad behavior under the rug is not a step in the right direction. That being said, I’m always on the lookout for users with good judgement to add to DT2.
I see that the proper way to make DT better overall is to add a lot more DT1 and DT2 members. Then the perceived trustness of the whole thing would drop, encouraging people to make own custom lists more eagerly. Still DT would do what it's supposed to do: protect new people from getting scammed. More DT members would mean much more active curating and much more opinions and the highly appreciated decentralization. It would make DT much less a tool or a status symbol. People are trusting DT way too much and it's objectively not a good thing. Why not start changing how DT is used and perceived? It would be good if DT didn't give anyone any significant "leverage". More members on DT1/DT2 would mean much less "leverage" and also much easier access to the DT. It's not like there aren't hundreds of members in the forums who are quite trustworthy but for one reason or another not in the list, and can't get on the list either. For example, people would see my attempts to get on DT purely as "wants to get back at Vod, that's bad!". I'm sure Vod knows the dynamics of DT too. But would e.g. you add me on the DT if Vod didn't rate me at all? |
|
|
|
You're making what sounds like a statement of fact but it turns out to be false or at least misleading. Do you really not see a problem with that and with the statements you're making in your thread in general?
Didn't I predict this? It's false and misleading only in your own mind. Statements like that Vod blackmailed/threatened me by giving me an option to remove my rating or be red rated -- what's wrong with that and why are you not saying anything about it even though I've asked you to. You seem to be here only to derail the thread away from the important stuff. Didn't I predict this.. You could have said that (a) you didn't get a response from DT1, or (b) you think they're not responding for the reasons you listed above. It was your own choice to word it in a way that makes you look like a liar, which is not the first time in this thread and also appears to be one of the reasons for your red trust. You could have explained afterwards that it's just your speculation and that would be ok but instead you decided to double down on it. Pro tip: if you don't want to derail your thread with irrelevant stuff - don't post irrelevant stuff.
My disagreement with you doesn't mean I'm bashing you personally, while on the other hand you are trying to make it personal. I have nothing to gain by "siding" with Vod. I do trust his judgement far more that yours though.
I did get responses. They align with what I said. And no, not proving you anything. It doesn't really matter why they're not acting on this. It matters that they have this power. It's quite insane how you still try to change the pointing fingers at me. Guess that's the way of BCT. Again, Vod blackmailed/threatened me and then he red-rated me. Address that for once. You don't need to trust anyone's "judgement" as these are facts, available for you to go and verify. I PM'd you -- we can keep discussing whatever you want in there if you truly want communication between you and me. Otherwise, don't bother. No more derailing of this thread. |
|
|
|
It's useless to discuss with you so I prefer not to. I'll just tell you I haven't even posted here if that's what you mean. And I repeat: This thread is to discuss trust spam (not "shitpost ratings" as you apparently call feedback you disagree with). Please keep it on topic. OK. Then I probably remember it wrong, sorry for that. How is it "useless to discuss" with me? Again, a feedback given as a result of blackmailing attempt is not me "disagreeing" (which I obviously also do) but it's also blatant abuse. Washing it as "disagreeing with a rating" is not cool. It would be the same as calling your received untrusted feedback as something you just "apparently disagree with" and now want deleted. My posts are on-topic. The DT system significantly affects the whole trust system. If it was a real trust network, all untrusted feedback could be ignored 100% whether it was spam or not. In a real trust network, ratings that have *any* value are in your trusted feedback section. Right now it doesn't work like that because of DT twisting how this trust system in practice is used. It's not just that simple to go remove ratings based on them being spam. I would agree that removing them is an OK solution but I understand the reasons to not touch any ratings. You can simply exclude them off your trust network. See #bitcoin-otc Web of Trust for example. |
|
|
|
And no, I'm not OK with Vod or anyone else abusing anything. Do not lie again about me.
However of course we may have different opinions about whether a specific case is an abuse or no.
Blackmailing/threatening and resulting red trust when blackmail was unsuccessful doesn't count as abuse? That's what Vod did to me. I recall you commenting this and siding with Vod, seeing it not as abuse, who knows why. I might be wrong and maybe it was not you, but I am pretty sure it was you. Which way is it? Of course by-default trusted/untrusted, so DT feedback, is related to trust spam. It changes the way the whole trust system is used. If it was more like a real trust network, these spam cases and other total bullshit ratings wouldn't matter to anyone at all. DT's do shitpost ratings too, just like Vod did. Spam and shitposting are alike as we're talking about the effects of those ratings that should carry no value. Trust spam wouldn't be any different from regular spam at all if it's untrusted, right? So apply the same rules as forum applies on regular spam. It's not OK for someone to leave 2,430 lines of trust spam.
I agree. Same policies should apply to that as applies to other spam. |
|
|
|
DT1 members who have added Vod on DT2 are not acting about it, because 1) it's just one case 2) they're inactive 3) this case is too complex, takes a lot time to objectively comprehend what happened 4) they simply don't care.
Is that something DT1 members told you or did you make that up? What's your point? To derail this thread even more with irrelevant stuff to make it even more incomprehensible for everyone to see what Vod is doing? Anyway, DT1's are inactive regarding trust list changes. You know this, you've been around, so why question this? I'm sure people like Cyrus have tons of other things to do than go read some boring & complex situation about one single DT abuse/misuse case. This stands for other DT1's as well as to people in general. There's no point talking with intellectually dishonest and unfair people like you, so I'm not proving you anything, so let's settle your question by me choosing your latter option as an answer. You still haven't commented anything about Vod's wrongdoing. All you do in this thread is trying to bash me. Wonder what's your agenda... I guess it aligns somewhat well with what someone said elsewhere about you: "Suchmoon always sides with people they feel are on the higher position." Think about this, if it's unintentional. |
|
|
|
Edit: After actually examining the OPs situation, I can see were it presents more than a mild nuisance.
Exactly. The problem is the spam. I know all of them are not DT and never will but their spam makes my trust page unusable, at least everything shown below "Untrusted feedback". I don't think OP should worry about untrusted feedback. It will not reflect on your trust rating unless they become DT.
The problem with this is that it is difficult to pressure someone to remove the rating long after they give the rating if they are later included in the DT network. Also, if someone not in DT starting leaving questionable ratings that do not receive pushback, then someone in DT might start leaving similar questionable ratings. That's not really my point here, just the spam. If someone who is not DT leaves a totally incorrect, lying comment on my feedback then I know they'll never be DT so I can ignore it. But if a single user leaves 2,430 lines of spam in my profile as I mention in OP then I would expect an admin to remove it. DT system should not be like this at all. You seem to care way too much about DT (not the trust system itself but *Default Trust list*). Earlier you were totally fine with Vod abusing his DT position against me, and now you're so vocal about the importance of what's shown on "trusted" and "untrusted" feedback. What would you do if someone on DT left a totally unjust shitty lying rating on you? I'd be happy if the whole Default Trust list was removed. It should merely be a list of "unlikely to scam" people, but not represent any higher amount of trust in any case. Right now it seems to be "reserved" for spam fighters etc, which is not the focus or only use of DT. Everyone should make their own lists, and if they did, you nobody would need to care about these things as everyone's trust list was their own. |
|
|
|
|
Speaking of this, sometimes they're not nicksquatting even if at first glance it looks like that. For example a user called Anduck` (that's not me) seems to be legit regardless the nick. Of course most of the nicks with ` are squatters trying to scam.
|
|
|
|
|
Vod still has blocked my PM, so there is no way to even try to resolve this in private -- as was the case before. His rating to me is unfair and dishonest in many ways, a result of his threat/blackmail and big ego.
The current situation is beyond ridiculous. DT1 members who have added Vod on DT2 are not acting about it, because 1) it's just one case 2) they're inactive 3) this case is too complex, takes a lot time to objectively comprehend what happened 4) they simply don't care.
Leads to the current situation: Vod is on DT2 (added by 3x DT1) and won't be removed no matter what he does as long as he only does unfair and bad ratings occasionally and against people who can't be vocal against him. And even then nothing will happen, because DT is so very stagnant.
So what are the options as Vod does not want to resolve this in any way?
1) Change DT dramatically, ie. remove it completely. I would welcome that change...
2) Remove Vod from DT. (Not going to happen as described above.)
3) Add me to DT which would probably make Vod want to resolve this. That happened when Vod thought I was on DT, he was very eager to resolve it. When he found out I was not on DT, his eagerness changed to blocking me.
DT is not meant to be some elite list. It's meant to guard people from getting scammed. Vod's rating towards me has nothing to do with any sort of trustworthiness, as you can go see. Vod stated he didn't believe I did anything untrustworthy. "Suddenly" his opinion changed when *I* didn't want to do as he says, ie. remove my rating towards him. This was when he thought my rating towards him counted (ie was in "trusted feedback"). How in any way is that correct use of the trust system, yet alone correct use of DT ratings??
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you to not peel the one that is unpeeled. Also check out the Collectibles section, that's where all the Casascius trades happen here on the forums. Feel free to ask anything about these coins in there: People interested in Cas coins and other collectibles hang around there and not so much in this section.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, a much better option is to add lots of new DT1 members. Current system is an elite system. It needs more DT1 members so it loses its "high status" it currently has while not serving its purpose properly. Current DT1 members are highly inactive, and those few who are responsive are not really into adding more DT2 members, because apparently current DT1/DT2 is very unwelcome against new members. It's an elite club, and it has tribes, and that is not the purpose of DT at all. To add users to DT1, theymos has to trust them. Since theymos has put much more users on DT2 than DT1, I'd like to believe this is a "trial period" for people he trusts. But then I looked at Tywill, who is on DT2 (by theymos) and was last active in 2013. I had never seen this name before, although he's on DT2. I know at least a few users have been added to DT2 this year (myself included), but I can imagine the burden on DT1 to make good choices. Trust is not binary, and DT should serve primarily to protect the newbies from getting scammed. I guess there are plenty of people around who are trustworthy enough for that, right? It should not be a burden to add DT2 members -- why is it so, anyway? Anyway it's the outcome of DT becoming & being a political elite club.. which it wouldn't be if there were a lot more DT1's. |
|
|
|
[...] let members make their own trust lists. Isn't that how it works now...?  Yes, theoretically. Not in practice, because a default list conveniently exists, and people assume that everyone else uses it too. Maybe you don't (make your own trust list), but I agree with: [...] Members can make their own trust lists, and I would wager that most users who have been around here for more than a few months (excluding the signature spammers who probably don't even know what trust is) do exactly that. I would be against scrapping default trust, as I think it is probably most useful for protecting newbies and junior members who have not yet decided who they would and would not trust themselves, and these junior users are the the ones who are most likely to be scammed. [...] You can go look at peoples trust list, they are public. You can see that pretty much everyone uses DefaultTrust (and some customize it, but still use DT as the base.) |
|
|
|
Nice coin indeed. Where's this located? I think you shouldn't have any problem moving this beauty!!  I'd guess it's quite the contrary! $50k value inside + $10k's of premium.. Not something I'd be comfortable shipping around. It's a bit of work to do a $50k deal securely etc. |
|
|
|
[...] let members make their own trust lists. Isn't that how it works now...? Yes, theoretically. Not in practice, because a default list conveniently exists, and people assume that everyone else uses it too. |
|
|
|
Honestly, sometimes I think we should just get rid of the trust system and just let users leave feedback that doesn't effect a score, but of course this would really only benefit scammers who would then have a field day without their red paint, but maybe we should just let people be reckless with their own money. Whatever we do to try curb abuse people will just abuse that or find a way to game it so there's nothing we can really do to please everyone.
In my opinion, a much better option is to add lots of new DT1 members. Current system is an elite system. It needs more DT1 members so it loses its "high status" it currently has while not serving its purpose properly. Current DT1 members are highly inactive, and those few who are responsive are not really into adding more DT2 members, because apparently current DT1/DT2 is very unwelcome against new members. It's an elite club, and it has tribes, and that is not the purpose of DT at all. I wouldn't be against ditching the whole DT system completely.. and let members make their own trust lists. |
|
|
|
After some time? As opposed to getting a time machine and fixing it before it happened?
I take it as a "yes" then. You're never wrong.
Vod did bad and all you do is defend him no matter what, simultaneously attacking me of course? Got nothing else to say, really? He never acknowledged faking the quote himself, quite the contrary. This is all in there. The fact is that Vod never acknowledged that he faked it himself. He simply said "Looks like the OP was suggesting a post he believes Anadduck should make" and doesn't bother to say that he was the one who attributed the quote to be said by "Anduck". Can you see how Vod is trying to pass the fault on the other guy, not acknowledging he was the one who did it? Funny how this intellectual dishonesty works. Also funny how you are now rating me. |
|
|
|
No, I don't remember saying such. Looks like a fake quote me. Vod, wtf?
Bad choice of verb from Suchmoon. Do you remember POSTING the following words at anytime in the past, whether you deleted them or not? Dear community I have done a mistake by bidding on my own public bidding thread and did not realize that it was wrong.
However now I have realized, it was unethical and should not have done it.
I apologize to all participants and to the community publicly. I will be more open and will clearly announce my intentions properly before any bidding I start or auctions I may place.
Now to Vod, i was little stubborn before, but now since I have realized can we please neutralize the trust. I already promised it won’t happen again.
and that was Vod giving you a get out of jail Anduck... only just seen it in the thread referenced above. It was a good suggestion by shahzadafzal, except that I can't agree with it being unethical. It's not unethical for auctioneer to bid on an auction. Other parts of that suggestion I've already said in one form or another, and agree with. |
|
|
|
You're never wrong, are you? Just checking. Nope. When met with overwhelming consensus on this thread and in the original auction thread that what he did was shady, as well as being told that real auctioneers laughed at the mere suggestion and shown laws that specifically forbid the practice, he comes back with statements like this: It should also be clear that self-bidding is in no way dishonesty or scamming Honestly, if you had come out and said "Hey guys, I made a mistake, won't happen again" I would probably be on your side here given the 2.5 year period since the auction and your otherwise good trading history and trust ratings. Your repeated refusal to even consider any point of view other than your own, despite overwhelming consensus against you, is really not doing you any favors. I actually did say this. It was a mistake and won't happen again. It's however not scamming or dishonesty! And still not related to the misuse of DT done by Vod. |
|
|
|
You're never wrong, are you? Just checking.
Vod was the one who added "Anduck" in there. Vod did not write the quoted text, he attributed it to me. He added that "Anduck" there leading to people think it was said by me. Right? Denying that is stupid, as it's all visible there. Normally such wouldn't really be seen as malicious, as he after some time acknowledged it as a mistake to think it was said by me, yet he doesn't say a thing about him actually faking the attribution. He admits he thought it was said by me, but not that he was the one who actually did the faking too. |
|
|
|
Why are you not commenting the obvious wrongdoing by Vod (the latter part of his rating), but are still commenting the rating for the first part?
For one thing, I haven't gone back to that original thread where you and Vod were discussing this after he'd left his feedback. I recall getting the impression when I first read it that there was something fishy afoot but don't remember what it was. For another thing, not every drama that happens on bitcointalk immediately becomes my issue. I don't get paid to be on DT, and most of the tags I leave on users are for account selling/buying. I'm not required to right every wrong here, and it wouldn't be possible to do so anyway. I have great respect for Vod, as he's done outstanding work in warning people about scammers through the feedback he's left and if you think he's left feedback (or part of a feedback) unfairly, ultimately that's between you and him. I'm not going to neg Vod if he made a mistake in one of his feeedbacks, nor would I leave you a counter-positive as actmyname did, because I think what you did in your auction was wrong. We could argue till the end of time whether bidding on your own auctions is ethical, but I'm not going to change your mind on that and I'm not changing my opinion of it either. The Auction section really should devise a set of rules--instead of "suggestions"--that members need to abide by so as to avoid situations like this in the future. We've got people from all over the world, and a practice that's acceptable in Finland might be baffling (or considered untrustworthy) to other members from other countries. There are no written community standards or rules in place (as far as I can see), and that should be rectified. I mostly agree with your input here. A member of DT has additional responsibility to act fairly when rating others, because those ratings carry additional weight (compared to non-DT). When a DT member acts unfairly and dishonestly, who should do what? Or should it just be ignored? I also do respect Vod for the unquestionable work he has done to improve the forums. I disrespect him for acting dishonestly regarding this case between me and him, and him leveraging his DT position unfairly against me over a personal issue. Again, this auction has little to do with the rating Vod placed on me. The rating is a result of blackmailing attempt Vod did against me, with a mix of huge ego. And I do agree with you about the auction section clarifications, even though that's off-topic for this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
