So I bolded a few things. First, "You have the ABILITY to take action, but you refuse to" You are completely correct there. If I took action and laid down the law, then it would be the staff controlled trust system you keep claiming it is. I don't have the time nor the desire to moderate the trust system. The community can regulate its own trading practices. Did the staff tell people they have to use escrow, or only loan to people with collateral? Or is that a community founded guideline?

"People do fucked up things like humans do without a frame of reference known as rule of law" again, you are correct once again, but what if moderators do fucked up things like humans and set that frame of reference in a harmful or useless way? Everything is designed so that Moderators have limited involvement in them. We don't need to babysit 400,000 members, nor do we have the overwhelming staff power needed to do so. We keep the boards free of spam (or at least try to) the rest is on you.

" I don't blame staff for everything that happened, I blame them for not having any kind of posted or regularly enforced standards as well as not taking any responsibility for their own part in the disorder caused by the lack of clear rules." I can cite tens of instances where you say the exact opposite. You take no personal responsbility for anything, you just blame it on the staff. If you would like me to cite quotes, I can, it will just take me 10 minutes of looking through any thread in Meta that has anything to do with the trust system. But, again we are blurring lines here, are you talking about moderation policy or default trust?

" They enforce their own personally serving form of "justice", but if it doesn't personally serve them, then suddenly they have more important things to do and they are too busy, or are magically always looking the other way."



Being busy just kind of happens as a result of a website having thousands of members that are free to say whatever they want. At the time of writing this post, I have another 420 reports that are unhandled at this moment. Sometimes they take a while to get to, but as I explained to you back then, I don't handle reports for things that I have a stake in. I don't handle reports by anyone I'm involved with in anyway because I couldn't be fair and do so.

"This is just doublespeak and an excuse to quietly moderate the trust system while also pretending you don't overtly." Again, moderators are busy enough, we have no motivations for quietly moderating the trust system. That would just further involve us in more time consuming crap. What would we have to gain? If we wanted to rule the trust system with an iron fist, we would have just left Theymos in charge of scammer tags, or gone to an explicit staff central trust system. What can I accomplish now being on default trust, that I couldn't just being a moderator if I so wished to abuse people?

"Because it might offend you, suddenly it means I am harassing you for having an opinion you don't agree with and not submitting to your viewpoint?" Isn't that exactly what you left Armis negative feedback for, and that was a single occasion that took place over what, a couple of hours? This has been ongoing for months. I'm not offended by the constant attacks, I'm annoyed. Everyone is welcome to their opinions, but posting your quazi off topic, "Everyone is out to get me!" crap is getting old, especially when your points are debunked and you just continue on with the same arguments. Did you expect that you can just make completely unfounded claims and not have anyone respond to them? Try taking responsibility for yourself, create a new trust branch, get everyone to create their own trust branches, show us that you can rebel and save us time, its a win win.

crossposting this here, since it is relevant.


Eh, ok this will be my last reply as you are entitled to some explanation. If I told someone that I think Bitcoins are going to increase in value and they lose money because they bought Bitcoins on my opinion and it goes down, is it my fault? I didn't tell Quickseller to negative rep you, I would have done it myself if I was certain. I still think you are Supa, and if you are, I dont want to tell you how to fix your mistakes next alt you make. I also said that I dont have any better verification methods than you have, so I no way made a statement that could be taken as fact.

I just said that you said something that caught my attention that made me think that you were Supa, nothing more.



I took your next reply as confirmation to what I had said



Full context: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

Eh, ok this will be my last reply as you are entitled to some explanation. If I told someone that I think Bitcoins are going to increase in value and they lose money because they bought Bitcoins on my opinion and it goes down, is it my fault? I didn't tell Quickseller to negative rep you, I would have done it myself if I was certain. I still think you are Supa, and if you are, I dont want to tell you how to fix your mistakes next alt you make. I also said that I dont have any better verification methods than you have, so I no way made a statement that could be taken as fact.

I just said that you said something that caught my attention that made me think that you were Supa, nothing more.



I took your next reply as confirmation to what I had said



Full context: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1037815.msg11197886#msg11197886

Right, so once again you have proved you don't care about the topic. So this will be my last post. I explained it pretty clearly in the last thread, it was something you had said. Quickseller's actions are their own.

Fine, we are a totalitarian regime. Go elsewhere if you would like to avoid it.

Your reliable source likely knows nothing of the banning process here, again that doesn't matter, I don't care.

You haven't made a single point since your first page of the last thread you started. You have said account selling is bad because rape and murder and buzzwords, also you are embarrased or something. You have yet to point out any specific downside to buying/selling accounts. We have addressed scamming and spamming, but after I answered that, you quickly switched to nonsequitor arguments and empty analogies that have nothing to do with anything. If you want to actually add anything else, you are welcome to do so. Don't make an analogy, you can use single words if you wish to address the issues.

A) Spamming
B) Scamming
C) ...

I honestly don't have a problem ignoring people who just want to scream and hear themselves talk, but on the very slight chance you actually care at all about the topic at hand, I joined the conversation to provide additional info for you to think about. If you don't care, just let me know and I'll stop replying.

There a few things you don't seem to comprehend. Theymos can enforce his trust list as selectively as he likes. I can enforce my trust list as selectively as I like, Tomatocage can do what he wishes with his trust list. Being on default trust isn't a right. Self interest is the motivation to make your own trust lists in the best interest of the community. If I put a bunch of jerks on my trust list, by association, I'm a jerk. I don't want my feedback to be watered down by people who inherit trust from me that then abuse their positions. Perhaps Tomatocage feels that the good that Vod does is worth the controversy, but hence the reason Vod isn't on my trust list, I dont. Lets all go tell Tomatocage he can't trust who he wants because it would be unfair to people who were treated differently by different people.

There are no official guidelines for trust? Leave accurate feedback is one, don't make up BS trade values, does common sense need to be posted? Need I remind people to breathe? As I stated, for things that aren't common sense, it is up for the community to decide. The Staff didn't decide whether or not people could leave feedback if they hadn't traded with that person, others did. Who is popular on the default trust list? Is there a correlation between traits in a person that others like and whether or not they are suitable to help the community? No, as proposed we can't have a decentralized feedback system. Look at forum polls, how much do you trust their results? Without some sort of weight, the feedback system would just be a place for everyone to collect spam feedback from someone's angry socks. Majority rule is not the way to go, centralization isn't the way to go either, but without a better idea, putting faith in people who have some sort of long term stake in the community is a better bet.

The problem is, you are completely disillusioned by your vindictiveness. You blame staff for everything that has happened, because A) a staff member directly removed you from their default trust list B) You made an ass of yourself which lead others to not trust you C) It was all because Staff members didn't help you in a timely fashion. Why would the staff be out to get you at the time? You keep refering to forum staff as the moderators of the trust system that have this presence over others. Have we threatened someone who didn't obey with bans? Are all forum staff members even on Default trust? What reasons would they have for trying to silence you, or bully you? What does the forum staff have to do with anything? Are we talking about default trust here, or deleting posts? If forum staff had this overwhelming power you claim they do, why would we put up with the constant harassment and insults? You can't back any of your statements with anything you can prove as true, you make a theory and base your factual statements on those theories without stopping to think, wait... does any of this make sense in the slightest? What would Theymos or the other staff have to gain by controlling the default trust list? Why would we want to involve ourselves in squabbles between people? Wouldn't it just take up more of our time and drag us into discussions like that are tedious?

If you feel like a written list of rules would help everyone out, why don't you make it?

You are correct, the entire conversation is irrelevant. Account selling isn't against the rules, and it was, there would be no way to enforce it, so the only difference would be our liability. "Well your rules right here say account selling is banned, but someone bought an account and scammed me, why didn't you protect me moderators   " Why give people false expectations? Its the same reason that scams aren't moderated.

Accounts are banned, but that is generally to disuade spamming, or people who have become completely disruptive. You are incorrect when you say that transgressions are punished on a more likely than not basis, anything that is a bannable offense requires 100% proof in plain text. Bans aren't done on a whim. The rules were designed in such a way that moderators couldn't abuse anything more than deleting posts that shouldn't have been (which Theymos monitors and corrects if someone makes a mistake) I've seen one accidental ban in the past 3 years, and that was my bad which was fixed in a few minutes.

As I mentioned before, I dont really have an opinion one way or another about whether accounts should or shouldn't be traded at an ethical level. I do know for a matter of fact that banning people for selling or buying accounts would lead to more trouble than it has caused. Speaking of the trouble account selling/buying has caused, have we been able to point to a single confirmed instance? It is a bad idea to ban account selling whether I agree with it or not.

No, you are using rape/murder's lack of 100% enforcement as justification for your point that even if it is unenforcable, you should try. You say, well rapes and murders aren't 100% solved, but there are still laws! Which is 100% incorrect on all levels.

First, selling accounts whether it is against the rules or not is not a crime, nor is it morally indecent to the same extent a violent crime is. You keep claiming that rape and murder are not 100% stoppable, but there are still laws against them. It is enforcable with life in prison or a death sentence, which is enough to disuade most people. Banning an account wouldn't dissuade anyone who is selling accounts. Second, if you kill someone, there is a body, forensic evidence, etc. If people didn't publicly post about account selling, there would be absolutely no way of knowing that it was happening. What you propose is that moderators scattershot ban people in a completely unfair way, again to solve such a miniscule problem, or what you percieve as a problem.

You are missing the forest for a shrub. Trying to enact a ban on account selling will cause far greater problems. I dont know how you aren't understanding this, but at this point I don't especially care. You have your answer, the community has weighed in. I don't see anyone supporting you, not that it would matter anyway. If you don't like account sales create your own forum, fix the problems you percieve here, and if your rules work better, then survival of the fittest will take its course. I can only argue that the sky is blue so much before it doesn't matter if you keep claiming that it is red.

See, the problem is you keep drawing false equivilancies trying to prove your null point. Rotten food, rape, murder, etc have absolutely no bearing on anything we are talking about here, and you just keep saying the same ideas over and over, even though they have been proven wrong.

Ok, if we ban the sales in general, you are right, people will stop posting about it here. You are correct.

"Just like we enforce the no drugs/guns/CP" Again, correct, we can remove these things from out site. But what you are asking is that we prevent these things from going on on other sites. If people do shady things through IRC or what have you that has absolutely no effect on this forum. If people sell accounts through IRC or what have you that still effects the forum.

Now we are getting somewhere. "If sufficient evidence exists of a user selling accounts, ban it" Ok, who is going to be the judge? Where do we draw the line as to what is sufficient? If I'm 50% sure that you bought that account you are posting on right now, does that give me the right to ban it? What evidence do we use to prove that someone bought an account? Are we going to use our non existant user identification program, or are we going to listen to trolls posting in meta to decide if an account has been purchased or sold?

your proposition opens a whole new can of worms. "If I think so little of their intelligence" to have to warn people that anonymous online non reversable payments can be dangerous if you don't know what you are doing? Isn't it more insulting to someone's intelligence to try to protect them with futile measures against issues that they can prevent themselves? We have two pages of discussion saying that people scamming with purchased accounts is nearly non existant and there are no proven cases besides someone who posted something out of the ordinary before scamming. Why would you want to open up a way for moderator abuse for a nonexistant issue, other than that its "embarassing" to you for whatever reason.

The only way you are going to understand why you are wrong is if you go manage your own forum and try whatever you want to stop account sales. Let me know how that goes.

There are guidelines, solid rules cause issues. I personally don't agree with what Vod does sometimes, but I don't disagree with what he does all the time. I don't feel the need to exclude him nor do I feel the need to add him to my trust list. I could name you a handful of "rules" to default trust, but others might disagree. Its not my place to set rules, and it's not Theymos' place to set rules. Set your own rules, get people to agree, and those are the rules. Talk hypocrisy, you don't think it's fair that one person thinks differently than another person? I must exclude Vod because you want me to? You inherited your default trust position from me. I no longer wished to stake my reputation on the fact that you would make rational decisions, so I removed you from my trust list. Tomatocage is willing to stake his reputation on Vod, and that's his choice. Lets force people to make decisions based on what I think and not what the general consensus is. That's not a very non dictorial approach either. You keep trying to equate different branches of default trust, but each human rationalizes things differently. Perhaps Tomatocage is more patient than I? But regardless, just as Default trust inherits its rules from the community, it also inherits its meaning and trust from the community. If people disagree with Vod and Tomatocage refuses to cut him, Tomatocage looses his trust in the community making his branch worthless. Default trust only means as much as the community as a whole makes it.

In my opinion people are using the trust system wrong, but who am I to tell everyone that they are doing it wrong? I'm responsible only for myself, if you don't like how it works, make your own trust list and get others to use it. "Default" by definition does imply that it is automatically opted in until you change it yourself. Stop fighting default trust and as a community make an attempt to replace it yourself, it is designed to be used however you want to use it.

 
At this comment and after, the topic was ended and everyone, myself included started going off topic.

Can you not look around at the world and see the harm that some laws do? Ok we ban account selling, it can't be enforced, and then it becomes more dangerous because people think it can't happen. Its really a simple concept that can be seen all around the world, although governments and police forces have more stopping power for any laws they inact.

You either aren't going to get it, or you do get it and you think it's funny to keep beating a dead horse. For the sake of maybe help I ng you understand, how would you propose we stop account selling? Keeping in mind that we have no way of checking account ownership, no way of breaking encrypted communications, and no way to enforce a penalty? Sure we could ban anyone stupid enough to post in open that they are selling accounts, but then they would make another and sell via a different method. Figure out an idea that isn't "just ban it, people will listen" because that's not how things work.

I'm talking about the entirety of the system you proposed including the anti fraud scanning features and such.

Yeah, its too bad that someone didn't get to your reports in a timely fashion, make whatever excuses you wish, you still over reacted in my opinion. You would have to talk to Tomatocage about why Vod is on his trust list, as he is the only one who can answer that. I don't have any say with what Tomatocage or anyone else on default trust does with their lists.  I dont know if his negative rating for you is acceptable, and its not for me to judge, because I haven't chosen to add Vod to my trust list so its not my concern. Steadfast rules cause people to seek loopholes. For the same reason forum moderation is left up to the judgment of collective individuals. We can set guidelines, but if we set rules then the system becomes ineffective. Think about Paypal's or Ebay's rules. Because of their policies, representitives are forced to make decisions that are insane. They are willing to give up rational judgement in order to follow those rules, "Oh you have proof you completed this transaction? Oh, well we don't have protocol for this type of transaction, so the other party wins by default, sorry you are boned". As far as trust system rules, the community dictates them. Thats part of the reason I can't say whether or not Vod's feedback for you is fair, I can't say whether its ok for people to leave feedback for those they haven't traded with, etc. The feedback system is regulated by the community, so that it can adapt as new issues arise. The discussions in meta and generally accepted practices set what is Ok for people to do.

Buying trust isn't against any rules, moderators don't have any special say in trust system "rules" or anything else regarding it. I don't know anything about your original negative trust, nor do I care, but to anyone participating, I would be cautious. Buying negative trust would be a clever way to water down the meaning of the original negative trust you recieved.

"Yeah guys, check out my thread, I only have negative trust because I bought it, thought it would be funny LOL"

That or you could be trying to make a point which is fine. I will be curiously watching to see how things play out.

Correct, the staff that are on default trust have better things to do than get involved in Default trust stuff. I can't speak for everyone on default trust, but I can speak for a few staff members/admins here when I say, its a pain in the ass for us. We don't need to manipulate trust, while I disagree that people should trust forum staff just for being staff, that is how it is. I can't control how people think, but whenever I'm trading with people, I'm the one who has to insist on using escrow, so people aren't pressured into sending to me first. Theymos is one of the most trusted people in the bitcoin scene, if he wanted to abuse people's trust, he could have done it far more easily than with the trust system.

Everyone knows the trust system has issues, it is just currently the best system there is. Ears are wide open, and hopefully these types of discussions yield a better result, but it always comes down to a few factors that mess up propositions. It can't be decentralized, because then it is decided by those who have the most accounts. We don't want it ruled by a small group of people like it is now, but you can't trust the majority. feedback can't be moderated by anyone, or its useless. But without any type of moderation its subject to spam. We shouldn't be tagging people frivilously, but we shouldn't wait until after a scam happens to tag someone.  The system needs rules so people aren't confused, but then the system isn't flexible enough to adapt, also who sets the rules?

In any case, I agree with the bolded.

*edit*
and as a side note, in response to the Tecshare MZ conversation that I dont feel like quoting, as a Global Moderator I don't have any special say on anything as far as default trust goes. I'm on default trust because I'm quite neutral and Theymos trusted me enough to give me a shot on it. I feel I do a pretty decent job at addressing all of the heated trust debates as a relatively neutral party. Vod isn't on my trust list, so his actions don't concern me in the slightest. Tecshare wasn't removed from default trust for lying or being untrustworthy, he was removed for losing his temper and being vindictive. Default trust isn't 100% about who is trustworthy, its about who leaves accurate feedback for others. The most trustworthy person in the world who leaves shoddy feedback will be removed.

PS. The Butter Zone, I like your idea but I dont think its very feasible. It sounds like a feature Ebay will spend half a billion dollars developing in the year 2057.

You are fine, its not going to be mistaken for anything NSFW heh.

Well, this topic will probably be locked soon, but last thing I'd like to mention since you have spammed that image a few times now. Come now, if you have been allowed to be as much of a pain in the ass as you have, do you really think Bitcointalk staff are silently banning people? The link here: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcointalk-staff-quietly-bans-people-speaking/

it looks like utter clickbait from a no name crypto currency journal. Did you read the story? From the headline It looks like some guy was banned because he sent unsolicited PMs and his alts were also banned. Then if you keep reading, its no longer about any sort of bans, its about how their organization is legit and has journalistic standards.

Moderators can't ban people, Global moderators can only perma ban people, and Admins are the ones who handle the vast majority of the bans. Come now Supa, you should be ashamed to be promoting an article that is a fraction of the quality that you could write yourself.

Hehe, good one. I did do a trade with quickseller once, was a pretty smooth transaction. We even used PGP so I was sure that he didn't sell his account. Alas, I'm too nervous to ask him to go steady though. Oh well.

I'm actually more impressed with myself that you are Supa. I was pretty sure based on something you had said, but I figured if I was wrong, I could still claim it was my point that it is hard to keep people from trading alt accounts as I can't establish ownership of an account any better than yourself. Moderators don't have access to anything IP related, and we can't check anything about user accounts out of the ordinary.

Scammers scam for the money, not because its fun. What human psychology books are you reading? Again you are trying to pump bullshit into the conversation talking about my kids' lunch. The users here aren't 6 years old kids, I'm just going to stop responding to points you make with misleading comparisons. I don't need to protect the adults on this forum, they are free to be as smart or stupid with their money as they wish.

This isn't my site. I don't get to pick and choose what rules I obey or enforce, if I didn't agree with the rules, I wouldn't be here, and I'd suggest the same for you. If you have a problem with it, you are welcome to leave. You are also welcome to stay and disagree with the rules, just keep in mind that because you are allowed to disagree with whatever you want doesn't give you the right to spam. (That was premptive, I mention this so you don't have to mention it in your next reply)

And with this, I know that you don't care about the practice of account selling, this is an attempt at bashing Quickseller. There are about 20 other threads doing the same, I'd recommend joining them. You are a week or two late for the Vod threads, but stick around, after Quickseller I'm sure there will be another.


<3 Saltyspitoon

You know Supa, you could just use one of your 30 other Alt accounts, if you haven't been banned on them yet, why would you think you would be banned now?

Correct, a ban on account dealing is unenforcable. If it was enforcable, I dont know, it would then be up to Theymos to decide if there was a rule against it or not. If he decided it was against the rules, I'd enforce that. If it wasn't against the rules, then I wouldn't.