Of course that drops the "trustness" as perceived e.g. by forum staff, but on the other hand the trust system is supposed to be used in a way where people should make their own trust lists/networks instead of trusting default trust list.
What do you mean by this,emphasis on the " trustness as perceived e.g. by forum staff". I find it a little hard to comprehend, as I am not a native English speaker. I mean the factor of how trusted the DT is (= how trusted are the people in DT) seen from the DT administrator point of view. It is only their view, but they are still in full control of DT. |
|
|
|
|
Bump.
Ideas are needed to make trust system better. As said before, I think adding more DT1 members would improve the situation. Of course that drops the "trustness" as perceived e.g. by forum staff, but on the other hand the trust system is supposed to be used in a way where people should make their own trust lists/networks instead of trusting default trust list. In a way, adding more DT1 members would improve both of these goals: there would be less fear of getting e.g. "dropped" (from the DT list) for arbitrary/silly reasons, more decentralization (wider amount of people "in charge") etc. AND people would want to adjust / make own trust lists because they would detect *individual* wrongdoing making them want to correct it. Such "individual wrongdoing" doesn't affect many in the current system, so it is largely dismissed in the community.
Maybe there should be official guidelines about the *community acceptable* use of trust system. Then people would better know how to use the trust system. E.g. will you rate or will you not rate, who will you exclude, who will you not. Do you want to signal others something or do you want to record something for your own information, what are the "offences" to earn red trust, what means getting positive trust --and so on.
As an example (my personal experience) about the problems, there's this case where Vod rates me provably dishonestly. He also claims other things and presents no evidence, proof or anything to back those claims. And he blackmailed me. Vods standing in the DT system is too strong as people who have added him there are either inactive or do not care. This means that Vod can keep on doing whatever he wants, and everyone knows it. It shouldn't be like this. One shouldn't be able to freely harass others as a salary for doing good deeds for the community. Red trust from DT1/DT2 member has (or can have) significant negative effect on the target, that's the reality right now.
|
|
|
|
Okay, you're doing too much. What are you, digaran's bitch? jk.
On a more serious note, you weren't scammed. Not for 1$ ,and definitely not for 840/960$. Both of the parties involved did questionable things here. You, are twisting words and causing a ruckus here and blackmailed him that you'd open a "Scam Accusation" case against him. Jeremypwr, made a mistake and admitted it. Where he is actually wrong is, him asking you to delete your posts. That is not extortion, he gets nothing from it, not directly at least. Its sort of blackmail. And he should explained why he removed you, it would have made things a little clearer, although he doesn't has to.
The best case scenario here: WaffleMaster gets his money for the last week if he hasn't yet and Jeremypwr and WaffleMaster both apologize to each other for their wrongdoings.
And that sig of yours, that's some next level butthurt trolling.
It's not blackmailing when you tell someone you'll open a scam accusation. If there's no reason for that accusation, there shouldn't be anything to fear. Right? Jeremypwr on the other hand is clearly blackmailing by threatening to not pay what was agreed on if something (which is even unrelated to the payment) is not done in time. |
|
|
|
He then said he would close his false accusations (false since they were rightfully solved).
That doesn't make sense. Accusations were correct if you solved them. Solving accusations doesn't make accusations from true to false. He is only making it more difficult on other participants because I will be canceling my Campaigns soon on account of his actions.
Or in other words, the campaigned party wants to stop dealing with you? Don't blame your campaign participant for that. How can someone fill out a "scam accusation" when they were fully paid for their work?
It's good knowledge for others to know that you're removing people from your signature campaigns for no reason. |
|
|
|
|
It makes no sense to tell scammed people that someone specific is likely/possibly/maybe the scammer when you have no evidence, proof or anything to back any of it whatsoever, OgNasty.
What you're doing here shows quite bad judgement and bad manners, in addition to targeted harassing against Owlcatz.
How can anyone trust your word, OgNasty, when you make and spread conclusions/"beliefs"/"hints" based on nothing but your hunch (if even that...)?
Maybe it's not too late to make things right.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with these ideas, as with everything, is that people don't read.
People google up whatever they want to find and skim over words to find what they want as fast as possible.
And so people get scammed and learn untrue stuff.
If someone wanted to learn something, it should be pretty straightforward and simple to catch those people. They're the same who most often get scammed. I'm afraid some content that's trying to stay as neutral as possible, without mentioning any services and so on, will get skipped by big majority of those who would get scammed i.e. the target.
edit:
Something that was planned earlier elsewhere: Quiz must be passed before access is granted. Then the Quiz would also educate people and one would need to answer correctly to the Quiz questions. It would be quite simple, but still something that requires attention as it has to be passed in order to access whatever resources. E.g. such kind of quiz could be used before one can access marketplace section here.
|
|
|
|
|
Confusing. Can you explain again what is it you're asking or suggesting.
|
|
|
|
What have I lied about?
I consider your incessant use of fallacies intentional and I will therefore refer to it as lying. Feel free to correct me by admitting that you were simply mistaken in your reasoning.
Btw, "suggested" != "can .. if they feel"
NFI what that even means. Did I hurt your feelings? My feelings are not related. You claimed to have done something you didn't. You did not suggest countering the rating. You implied you don't feel like countering it and if someone feels that it should be countered, you pointed out that they can do it. I think that it's counterproductive to redefine meanings of words like "lie". What do you think? |
|
|
|
Now if you could please stop lying that would be awesome. Thank you.
What have I lied about? Btw, "suggested" != "can .. if they feel" |
|
|
|
I'm honestly believe that hilariousandco is involved in some scam projects, hence having the OBVIOUS red-ass toward me. He's well-versed in my scam busting prowess (admitted), and perhaps I've indirectly stepped on his toes or that of an entity he's very closely associated with. How close am I?
Your ICO (or the ICO you're advertising) has so many red flags and looks like a bruno-get-rich scam to me. People just don't want to publicly acknowledge these things even when they feel the same way. If your ICO is not a scam, you've done good job at making it look like one on so many levels. |
|
|
|
If you want to revise that and state the actual reason why you don't trust him (not the loan that no longer exists) then I'll have no choice but to remove my counter.
You seem to be two-faced about these things. When Vod rated me red after blackmailing me (he threatened to red-rate me unless I changed my rating of him), you sided with Vod. Looks like you're completely fine with Vod leaving provably dishonest ratings. Here is more about that case. Of course I understand that you want to protect that positive trust Vod has left you, so you don't want to piss off Vod which would make you lose it. Look what happened to me, when I told Vod I don't particularly trust him --even when it was in private! All in all, I don't see why people should give much value to your thoughts about trust ratings or trust system, because you are inconsistent. This post is just a FYI to people. Also remember that suchmoon held that Gleb account (or still holds / has access?) a few days ago, so it's likely that suchmoon has some extra, private, interest in Gleb's ratings. Your beliefs do not make it scamming, dishonest or untrustworthy behavior. You've proven none of your claims about me calling you a scammer, me scamming, me lying, me admitting lying and so on. You, on the other hand, have done several dishonest and untrustworthy things.
Vod's belief is enough to post a negative feedback for you. Your belief is enough to post a negative feedback for Vod, which you have done. This is not a court of law, it's a community-driven/crowd-sourced/whatchamacallit trust system and Vod clearly does not trust you for a reason. I for one appreciate Vod's feedback as it tells me what kind of auction one can expect from you. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not too familiar with Welsh's input history for the forum, but here's something I've noticed.
One suggestion to improve SnR, and it also stands for many others too: Post less, increase quality of what you do post. Good quality posing posts are shitposts. When commenting complex things, you need to know what you're talking about. Lengthy comment, while maybe properly done itself, if done off the actual present discussion or without sufficient depth or knowledge of what have been discussed, decreases signal-to-noise ratio.
Most of the threads/discussions do not require that sort of stretching, though.
I guess Welsh would be OK as a merit source.
|
|
|
|
Okay, it was suggested that I sign an address associated with me, but I replied that I don't think I can do that via blockchain.info where I've generated addressed for the past several years. He provided me this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2534452.0. Upon review, I think I can now accomplish said task. Please state which address you wish me to sign so that we can once and for all close this episode. Bruno You don't seem to get it. He clearly stated he isn't trusting you no matter who you are now. You don't need to convince anyone. Now start insulting me, it's been a while.  |
|
|
|
|
You're extremely rude. Who cares about your "rep" when you act like a five year old. You're ruining whatever reputation you had earlier. Cooling down wouldn't hurt.
|
|
|
|
There's not a motherfuckin thing I've done wrong to warrant this fucked up abuse.
Shut up or negate his claims. ONCE AGAIN YOU FUCKIN IDIOT ALL HAZ BEEN NEGATED. This episode should've already be closed. Source? |
|
|
|
There's not a motherfuckin thing I've done wrong to warrant this fucked up abuse.
Shut up or negate his claims. |
|
|
|
If anyone has lost their mind here it's you. You used the Gage account as colleteral and never paid the loan back, and then you tried to sell your Gleb account. I think it's highly likely the person controlling or posting from this account now isn't the original Gleb/Gage either. Given the fact that you will happily loan or try sell your accounts means that none of them can be trusted and this should be noted.
Nailed it, bud, given that your cred is better than mind mine ... Oh, wait, for that shit's about to change for ever since I lost my fuckin mind, I started to participate in the trust thingy for the first time resulting in your cred being lowered as depicted below ... [img ]https://i.imgur.com/gEdapZW.png[/img] Luckily for me - unluckily for you - I've received PMs from users who are able, willing and ready to pounce on your once positive cred further. You wanted to play so let's play and see who wins. Bruno I suggest reading up about the trust system a little. Maybe before boasting to wreck someones trust score? (It shows as "? ? ?", because you've negatively rated him and your own ratings are trusted by you. Others, by default, see it as dark green.)Maybe I'll stop commenting now. This is waste of my time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
