All I did was read the claim and the reference link, and came to the conclusion that you were left negative feedback for something related to your behavior, which isn't trust abuse as long as its subjectively accurate. The subjective part is decided by anyone who reads the claim and either agrees or disagrees.

Yes, I'm on DT. The lemons example was an extreme example of it not being trust abuse as long as its truthful. You can flag someone for being an account farmer, an account seller, or owning multiple accounts for example, all of those things are commonly done. They don't mean that they are scammers, but it is a factor that some people consider worthy of note when determining trustworthiness. Behavior traits that people may find undesirable can also be worth mentioning on someone's feedback if it is a factor that someone might want to know about that person before dealing with them.

People will disregard the negative feedback if they don't care, or they'll avoid trading with you if they feel that any perceived negative trait is valid and a risk.

The only thing that really is trust abuse is lying, with a few exceptions. Neither of your negative feedbacks say anything about doing a trade with you, it just says that you are annoying. Its not really abuse.

If I left you a negative because you said the word lemon, and I have a deep seeded hatred for lemons, its not really "abuse" as long as I don't say, this guy scammed my cat! The feedback that you got is subjectively accurate. My judgement might be called into question over giving out negatives to those who say lemon, but as long as the feedback is transparent and not dishonest, its not really abuse.

Not all negative feedback is weighed equally. Some people have negative feedback for being racist, account farming, owning multiple accounts,being annoying, scamming etc.

I have absolutely no idea. I don't remember being told, deciding, or observing anyone else do it. Obviously I know that at some point, that was the case, but as I said before, its just habit. I don't think, oh it'd be impolite to slam this door in someone's face, its just a boolean, If person coming hold door true, the same way you check for traffic before crossing a road without much thought process. And about your second part, that does happen from time to time. I'll see someone coming but misjudge how fast they are walking, and then I end up standing there for 10 seconds looking like an idiot, or I'll hold a door open for a man, and it'll hurt their pride for some reason.

I don't expect a thanks, I'm doing it mindlessly because its become the same habit as looking both ways before crossing the street. And of course as I said, this was all just support for my theory that someone who does a ton of good deeds could potentially have it end up as just a habit in the same way. I don't consider holding a door for someone selfless, I don't really consider it anything at all. Maybe some Mary Poppinsesque person out there considers helping out everyone that they see in the same fashion.

If you are trying to limit the definition of selfless to a deed that helps others without giving you self satisfaction for doing the good deed, I'd say yes, they exist. To avoid the positive feelings from helping someone, it just needs to be an act that you do so frequently that you don't think about it at all. I grew up holding doors for people, being especially polite to people who have to deal with others for a living, and a handful of other common courtesies that aren't really anything major, but apparently some people notice from time to time. I don't get any satisfaction out of doing things like that, its just habit.

That said, I wouldn't consider those things good deeds or selfless acts, but rather, support for my theory that in order to be selfless by your definition, it must be habit. Consider the case of someone who volunteers 20 hours per week, does good deeds left and right, goes out of their way to help people whenever possible. If rescuing people from a burning building is just their friday evening, something that an average person would go out of their way to do, might just be routine for someone else. In that case, I believe its possible to be selfless by your definition.

Wow, now I feel like an ass. I was just kind of rambling as I was asked to, I didn't actually look anything up, nor did I care about what I was rambling about. I do appreciate the effort though, and will commit the information you went out of your way to provide to memory.

Wow, I don't know what to say. When I was told that I won this award, the first thing I thought was, wow, do I really deserve this? I still haven't come to a conclusion about that, mainly because I'm not entirely certain what this award is for. Something to do with selling the most cookies perhaps? In that case, I certainly do not deserve this award. If I was given thousands of boxes of cookies to sell, not only would I be deep in debt and in diabetic shock, but I'm sure I'd feel pretty lousy as well, and in no condition to offer my acceptance speech to this, what I've chosen to consider as a prestigious award. But I digress. As I continue to ramble through this piece of prose disguised as an acceptance speech, thinking about nothing but cookies, and how many I could eat before I reach serious consequences, I find myself googling how many cookies it takes to overdose. I scan the related topics, as no one is stupid enough to have asked or answered this same question before, and see link after link to FDA guidelines on added sugar intake, information on tree nut allergies, and advertisements and purchase opportunities for those very cookies to which I was searching the intake threshold before deadly consequences are met. You know, its not very gracious of advertising results of this nature to pop up in response to this search criteria. Its sort of like putting a Budweiser sign right outside of an AA meeting place.

It is very important for advertisers to balance the effectiveness of their advertisements with the moral obligations that they must uphold as a business. Throughout history, with only a handful of product types has it been acceptable for the industry to blatantly operate against the public's well being. Of course, there is the subject of personal responsibility to consider, but where do we draw the line? If a company is selling rat poison made specifically for human consumption, it is pretty well understood that the business would fail, as not too many people would be interested in poisoning themselves for a good time. However, the alcohol and tobacco industry have somehow found a way to avoid the bans of products that are considered harmful to humans. Perhaps its because of human history. Its hard to ban something that is so deeply ingrained in human history and culture, as such that it would become a standard of social interaction, as is the case with alcohol. I'm not for the second coming of prohibition of course, but its just a thought that I've considered every so often. Why ban trans fats, but not tobacco products? Neither have any redeeming qualities for health, and moderation with either helps to mitigate risks of sure to come ailments, but it does not root out the problem. If I had to cap this idea with a final thought, I suppose its, why ban trans fats? If we are trustworthy enough to moderate ourselves with products laced with addictive chemicals, why can't we make our own decision on how many cookies to eat? Remember when Maccas fries were actually decent? And now the restaurant's modus operandi is to get customers in through the door with the lure of free public restrooms, only to corner them with greasy 6% meat patties, bleached flour, and enough salt to make a salt merchant wealthy.

People should be held accountable for their own choices. Get emphysema from smoking? Well, hey that sucks but I'm sending you no condolences. Get it from working in a mine? My condolences. Eat cookies every day and get fat? I'd recommend you make sure a doctor says you are alright health wise. Cut back on the cookies, or exercise more if you need to. If you don't need to, or just are willing to deal with the health risks, again you get no condolences from me, but you do you.

Find that balance of, thats enough heath, and I'd like another cookie!





I'll take the pine cone in a bottle! That is unless the game rabbit burrito can be accepted pre prepared in the form of a burrito wrapper, a live rabbit, and some habanero sauce. In which case, I'll take the bunny!

DT has very little to do with one's personal trustworthiness. Though, I'd imagine not being a scammer would probably be a good aspect to have if you are going to get picked to join. The point of being on DT is having the ability to leave others accurate feedback. In addition, you should add other people who you believe are also qualified to do so to your DT list to increase the spread. If you are on DT 1 you are responsible for every single piece of feedback given by people on your list. The same is true about being on DT 2 and the people you add to DT 3. Its really not all its cracked up to be.

I excluded you from my trust list before I even knew about the self bidding thing, not because I thought if I did a trade with you I'd get scammed, but because you are way too fixated on retaliation. You want vigilante justice in the form of the ability to silence those who'd disagree with you, and that is completely and unimaginably wrong. I've actually considered whether or not this is all some elaborate joke, because I can't comprehend how someone could convince them self that they are making sense. I can completely understand being swept up in a moment, making a mistake, and being a bit too stubborn to admit it. But it really seems like you've convinced yourself that your plan for DT is for the best, and its not just delusions. The system isn't screwing you over, you are either just somehow failing to understand that its not just 500 unrelated people picking on you for no good reason, or this is a joke of some kind.

I have no personal grudges against you, I'm sure you are a functioning human being that doesn't go around kicking puppies or burning down orphanages, but really, for your own mental health, take a break from the campaign to right wrongs, and just chill. Who cares if Vod and I think you deserve negative feedback, ignore us and carry on. If anyone cares too much about our feedback, use escrow. I just said in my feedback that I wouldn't participate in an auction you run, I didn't say that you are a Bond villain looking to steal the crown jewels.

Finally, someone solved the mystery. Thank you for your work. I shall praise the FSM every day in thanks for saving us from the bad things that'd happen if we weren't pinned down to the ground.

Alright, so you are interested in the marketplace section. What would make it better in your opinion? I mean, marketplace is kind of user driven, so you'd have to take the lack of excitement up with the people buying and selling things there.

If the forum is boring, then the discussion topics aren't one of your interests. In that case, why stick around? I don't frequent makeup forums, because its not my interest. If Bitcoin, Altcoins, or any of the related topics that are often discussed here aren't to your liking, find a forum that caters to your interests.

What images, awards, or "legit activities" were you expecting?

I'll bite. What are the dollar values, mint marks, conditions, etc? Pictures could also clear up all of those questions.

Spot value doesn't have much to do with jewelry prices, its the craftsman's time and material/machinery costs that make jewelry expensive. You'll get nauseous if you run the numbers on a $1000 2 gram 14k gold ring. Much harder to test as well. If you are testing a pure gold bar and find anything out of the ordinary, its fake. With jewelry you can get false positives or negatives depending on whats in the alloys.

That said, people counterfeit gold, not that strange considering the amount of money to be earned doing so. Its not all that hard to test generic gold bars, the trick is with testing things that come in plastic slabs, or collectible things that you don't want to ding.

I've never quite been able to understand why people compare bitcoin, gold, and fiat at all. Fiat is not a store of wealth, its a currency or means of exchange. If you don't like the fiat system, just keep as much cash as you need to pay your bills, and put the rest into a store of wealth. Bitcoin and gold are both stores of wealth, but completely different investments. Gold has traditional commercial and industrial value. Bitcoin has value for all kinds of complex economic reasons I'm sure I'd butcher if I tried to repeat. Bitcoin is more unstable than gold, but it also has a greater gain/loss potential. They are very different investment vehicles.

Mix it up, hold Bitcoins and gold, and buy from reputable dealers if you want piece of mind. Its not worth saving $7 buying a gold bar on Ebay, unless you have all of the materials to accurately test it yourself, and have the time to fight with Ebay customer support when you claim the bar is fake. I've got all of the testing supplies, and will still tell you, I still prefer buying from a large company that is safe.

For anyone interested, I did some follow up with the companies offering $0.40/watt used solar panels. They aren't nearly as great of a deal as they make them out to be, but they are still better than expected.

For the 3KW of Solar panels for $1200, Shipping is $700, Mounting hardware is $1-2k, Inverters, charge controllers and such are about $800, and then whatever wiring you'd need. If you can install them yourself, you are looking at about  $3700-$4700 plus wiring. It gets more than two times more expensive if you need to hire someone to install any of it for you. If you want to tie it into the power grid, you do need someone licensed to do so, and the cost becomes prohibitive.

The solar panels you receive are around 10 years old, and provide 90% of the power they are rated for approximately, so effectively 2700 watts. At a DIY cost of, I'll split the difference and say $4300 for 2700 watts, you are at about $1.60 per watt. Each watt of solar panels will provide 1KWH of power every 1000 hours of peak operation. So, if you are paying $0.08 per KWH, you need 20 * 1,000 hours peak to hit an ROI on your solar panels. ~833 days of continuous sunlight. I think for estimates sake, 8 hours of direct sunlight per day is a slight over approximation, but we'll use it anyway. It takes about 2500 days for your panels to pay themselves off. About 7 years.

Of course, during that time the solar panels will degrade about 1% efficiency per year, winters don't provide the 8 hours of direct sun per day that we were figuring, and such, so I'd say broadly you are talking 7-10 years and the solar panels will pay themselves off at $0.40/watt. That isn't nearly as bad as the 20-30 year estimates that new solar panels try to get you with, but it still isn't fantastic. If you need to have them installed, the cost becomes prohibitive. But! If you own an RV or a Shed and want to have a little bit of backup power or something, and you have enough electrical knowhow to do it safely yourself, go for it.

I still affirm my position that solar panels are somewhat of a waste at the moment, but in theory they are a good idea, and give it some time and they'll be worthwhile. On a side note, I'd be curious what the environmental impact is for the production of the solar panels in the first place, for those that care.

Nope, the rules apply to everyone. Copy and pasting is absolutely not tolerated here. There is never a case where you will accidentally plagiarise. We've previously talked about plagarism spam vs incorrectly cited passages, so I hope we don't need to further discuss what if scenarios. Whether you are a legendary account or not, you shouldn't have any impunity to the rules. If you are here to gain a few bucks promoting some spam campaign, as long as you don't spam, its fine. The second you start spamming, you are detracting from other's forum experience to earn those few bucks, and need to be politely told to leave. A few years ago, the only copy and paste spam reports that I recall seeing were just bots advertising ED medicine or something. People just copy and pasting other people's posts is a relatively new thing. Its started because of signature advertising, its unbelievably lazy, and there can't be any tolerance for it.

The people who have been here for years and have done a lot of great work aren't here for the signature ads that incentive's spamming. Even if they are, they know better than to spam, and can get their post counts up by continuing to be helpful and do the same great work they've been doing all along. Copy and pasting posts is just lazy. If you want an excuse to get your post count up, go help some newbies, don't try to artificially inflate your post count with spam.

Look at that, this upped my post count by 1, but I'm reasonably confident it wont be reported as spam.

The point to politics is that everyone has their own opinion, and in some regard they are probably right. If there was a universal, "right answer" to a political question, it wouldn't be a political question. You can only change someone's political ideology if it comes from mistaken information on their part that they are willing to acknowledge to themselves. When people meet and discuss politics, its a way to become more worldly. You experience things from a different viewpoint, and that enhance your perspective on the matter. It doesn't need to change your opinion, just knowing that there are other opinions out there is valuable. If your intention is to change someone's political views with a persuasive argument, you are not only wasting your time, but you are probably annoying to be around. Politics used to be a gentleman's game, you didn't see those monopoly men beating the hell out of each other and screeching about their views. They just wanted a comfy chair, some scotch, and something to talk about.

The internet brings out the extremes in a lot of people, and that creates a lot of what most people would consider noise. Someone fullheartedly advocating for the massacre of penguins may seem absolutely ridiculous, but there might be something informative about their point of view. Maybe it helps you realize that penguins are bastards, though you still might not advocate their slaying. Ignore the noise, and participate in the conversations that interest you. Who cares if someone on the internet disagrees with you. You don't need to agree with someone to show them the slightest bit of courtesy. If someone is being belligerent, don't respond and let them talk to themselves.

As this forum is a discussion board, I'd say that politics can be an interesting topic to discuss, so yes, there is a point to it being here. On top of that, the crypto community tends to share at least one or two perspectives on things that most people do not. Try to have a discussion about fiat currencies with anyone that isn't a crypto user and see how long your discussion lasts.

It seems they did, and you allegedly left retaliatory negative feedback. Misuse of the trust system?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2535142.msg25849975#msg25849975

Also, yeah, everyone in the collectibles section seems to have supported your decision, no one seems unhappy.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1399824.msg14247949#msg14247949
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1399824.msg14250560#msg14250560
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1399824.msg14250863#msg14250863
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2535142.msg25862499#msg25862499
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2535142.msg25907834#msg25907834
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2535142.msg25959659#msg25959659





Yup, this is a mystery to us both.


Anyway, it seems I'm done answering your questions.

Worry not! The best part about how the feedback system works, is that if anyone disagrees with my comment and the link I provided as proof, has the free will to ignore my remark. Anyone who doesn't think you acted unethically has the right to disregard my warning and participate in your auctions. Those that agree might think twice about participating. Its a win win, then no one who enters will complain when you introduce hidden terms or breach your own auction, because they'll know about it ahead of time, and still participate.

I think I'm pretty well justified, I was just putting it out there as an option for you.

Apparently not, or we wouldn't have had this discussion in the first place.



Had you left it years ago with the bolded and left out the rest, you probably would have been fine, people would have forgiven you and none of this would be an issue. Why was it a mistake? Because it was an untrustworthy action. I'm curious, why do you think it was a mistake if you don't think you did anything wrong?


I feel I have an obligation to explain my feedback to you. I did that, you don't agree. Thats where my obligation in this ends.

I don't know anything about whats gone on between you and Vod, but as I said, I don't get involved in he said she said cases. All of the information I needed regarding this case was straight from you, the source, so I'm not worried about misinterpreting it, or only hearing half truths from one side.

Ask Theymos to remove me from DT if you feel I'm abusing my position, and I'll be completely fine with that. I wouldn't remove my feedback though, because it is completely accurate.

I honored my auction perfectly. Stop lying. Auction rules were followed 100% and nothing shady, unethical, wrong, scammy, untrustworthy or bad was done. It's just your incompetence regarding auctions that led to your rating.

Please red-tag others too, show your skills to everyone! See this (there the auction rules were changed during auction): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3147489.0 More ridiculous ratings would likely lead to changes, I don't want anything bad to mprep. Also tag BTCC official for changing auction rules during auction. No offence, Bobby... I just want to make a point.

I hope that theymos removes DT list.
[/quote]

I do not trust you because you acted shady in my opinion, so I leave you feedback based on my opinion. It just so happens that common sense agrees with me, but thats just my justification. If you don't like it, that sure sucks.

BAC is on my trust list, so don't worry I had 20 PMs about this when it was going on, I've seen it already.

the case came to a conclusion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3147489.msg45657566#msg45657566

I don't like to give out negative feedback except in absolute cases. In he said she said cases where there are two sides of the story, its disproportionately punishing for me to leave negative feedback for someone. The two sides could reconciliate a day later, and there would be lasting damage from the negative feedback, even when all is said and done.

Mistakes happen, people sell damaged goods, or want to accept bids a second after the auction ends, bad judgements are made. I don't need to punish someone for a mistake they made that they can fix. This isn't a mistake, you are willingly defending your wrong position this much time later. I'm not worried about your case being a mistake, because we've thoroughly discussed that you are certain that you didn't make a mistake. I disagree, and would not trust your auctions, because you could "not unethically" invalidate the auction at any point. I believe that its worthy of warning people not to participate in your auctions.

Just because you can justify to yourself not honoring your auctions, doesn't mean anyone will agree with you.