|
Thank you to the administators and staff who handled this situation and removed thebutterzone from the default trust list and reduced his feedback weight. Misuse of the trust system should not be tolerated especially for people who are suppose to be setting an example for the forum. I'm glad this was handled appropriately and this shows that if you have a legitimate and justified problem the staff and admins will take care of it. Hopefully in the future this will keep the people with higher feedback weight from misusing it.
|
|
|
|
Way to just skip over everything I wrote and just repeat yourself and continue to demand some one fix your problems for you rather than just avoiding them to begin with. There will ALWAYS be people demanding trust moderation as long as the mods/staff bend to such demands. There will ALWAYS be users on the default trust that feel their trust rating was justified in spite of the opinions of Theymos and others. My solution is that the trust remain UNMODERATED and self balancing. People who abuse the system will not have as much influence because they use negative trust too flippantly. My solution is to DO LESS. Your solution requires the whole forum system be overhauled to meet your satisfaction. The only reason the trust list is broken is because it is purported to be an "unmoderated" and decentralized system of trust, but in reality a single central authority is deciding who gets to have influence within this system regardless how how trustworthy people have demonstrated themselves to be. The trust system is being used as a tool for Theymos to maintain his complete influence over the trust system, not as a simple register of who is and who is not trustworthy dependent on user variables. He is claiming it is an unmoderated system while he personally picks and chooses who gets to be on the lsit. This is disingenuous, and by no means accurate, or fair for people who have worked very hard for the community's trust. Instead Theymos would rather use it as a tool of punitive enforcement so he can coerce people to do what he wants regardless of what it costs users. After all why would Theymos give a shit if people harass trusted users? It doesn't effect him directly. However people using the trust system in a way that erodes his personal authority on this forum is an unforgivable offense. As a result he coerces people using the default trust list as a tool to extort users into acting how he decides under threat of losing ones hard earned reputation, and not even for trading dishonestly, just because Theymos feels like he and his buddy's look bad by being associated with you. In short trolls have learned to turn Theymo's ego against him and use him as a tool of destruction against this community, and instead of admitting this policy is a failure he will continue to rip it apart with his own hands under the guise of protecting the integrity of the trust system. Note: still not a single post here from staff or moderators about a user trusted by Badbear and Theymos "abusing" the trust in exactly the same manner I did. For me I get a big public shaming shitshow, but for their buddies, they just pretend the complaint threads don't even exist. I feel you're the one repeating yourself over and over again and making everything a larger deal than it actually is. It doesn't matter if you earn your trust, if you're provided with a higher rank but you don't use it responsibly you shouldnt have it. There's no excuse for misuse of the trust system and negative feedback is only suppose to be used for scamming or potential scammers. The butterzone continued to leave me negative feedback after I had apologized for something I knew I shouldn't of but I did anyway because I saw that it upset him for some reason. The trust system is broken because it allows people with a higher rank to misuse it for their personal benefit and not for the benefit of the site and because people use it as a form of attack instead of what it's suppose to be used for. Note: still not a single post here from staff or moderators about a user trusted by Badbear and Theymos "abusing" the trust in exactly the same manner I did. For me I get a big public shaming shitshow, but for their buddies, they just pretend the complaint threads don't even exist.
Looks like he has been removed so you can stop with your paranoia now, though something tells me this won't happen anytime soon. Pointing out hypocrisy has nothing to do with paranoia. That is a very disingenuous way of associating my claims with "conspiracy theory" even though there is very real and observable special treatment for buddy's of Theymos. Furthermore removing Butterzone is pretty retarded. All you are doing is feeding into trolls and fueling their desire to continue to bait and make such complaints after users react. You the mods and staff are now ripping the community apart yourselves by insisting on enforcing this failed policy. You can characterize me as disgruntled or paranoid all you like. The fact is this is causing harm to the community, and either you will come to terms with it now, or after it causes a lot more damage that can't be repaired. Clearly the egos of the staff take precedence currently. The two people who had TBZ on their trust list were mods. They obviously no longer wish to have the potential personal trust liability associated with having him on their trust list. I don't think either Wardrick or armis are "buddies" with theymos, at least I have not seen any actual evidence of such. Trust ratings are intended to be an indication of trust and neither the behavior or arms nor Wardrick are any reflection of their ability to be trusted, no matter how immature their actions were. Unless you have reason to believe that someone has scammed, is trying to scam or is going to try to scam then negative trust is not appropriate. Both you and TBZ were using your position on the default trust list to protect your reputations against claims against it. This and what hilariousandco said are both very true. |
|
|
|
I've never contacted admins with a bullshit request or made a thread about something like this that isn't fully justified, and I rarely talk to staff. I don't think it's just me that thinks it's unfair but a lot of people, you even said yourself the system is unfair with the way it can be used. People who have a higher feedback weight need to use it responsibly or they shouldn't have it because it's not helping th site in any way. I don't know what happened in your situation and I'm on my phone right now but I think the staff would of responded to it if it was justified. TheButterZone has already been removed from the default trust list of a staff member. I don't think staff won't act on matters like this if it seems reasonable to them.
What bullshit requests? You might feel that this is fully justified, and unfair, but my point stands. The feedback system will be "abused" NO MATTER WHAT. There will ALWAYS be some one claiming left trust was unjust and demanding its removal. What defines "abuse" is open to interpretation and is yet another facet of the trust system that can be abused. Instead of letting users define who is trusted in a decentralized fashion, Theymos has opted to moderate other peoples trust via deciding himself and dictating to others who can and can not be in "his" trust tree. I argue all that is happening is that Theymos is protecting the integrity of the default trust as a way to solidify his own influence over the supposedly decentralized and unmoderated system. If Theymos is dictating to people who are on his trust tree, then its not a trust network, it is a list of Theymos's buddies. Additionally bowing to the demands of individuals who instigate issues, then complain to the staff/mods once they have repercussions for their actions sets an extremely dangerous precedent of policy around here that I GUARANTEE will result in a flood of such harassment, baiting, and following accusations. The end result, in effect trolls have designed a way to make the staff/mods tear the community apart for them, and they refuse to admit they are enforcing a failed policy. Basically what I am trying to get across to you is, regardless of it being right or wrong, demanding some central authority fix your problems for you is the downfall of every supposedly decentralized system. The fact that they obliged now demonstrates that it is in fact a completely centralized system where one man chooses who is and is not allowed to have "influence". An authority figure on this forum are the only people who are able to fix the problem unless everyone stops misusing the trust system. The people carrying heavier feedback weight should display better judgment than to misuse their powers because of trolls. I'm sure most of the people on the forum could care less if they get unwarranted feedback from someone and it doesn't show up as "Trusted Feedback" for them, but the fact it comes up as trusted and shows -6/-1 and the problem here is so minimal that it shows that some of the people with that power don't have the correct judgment to hold it. IDK why you keep trying to get a point across to me because I've told you about 10 times that I'm not looking for a moderated system or for staff to take time to moderate the trust system. I'm asking for TBZ's default trust to be removed as well as anybody else who's misused it (Which will take about 10 minutes) and stop them from having the power to carry the -6/-1 feedback weight. The people who demonstrated that they're not responsible for holding that status should be removed and members feedback should carry an equal weight except for a handful of members and the trustworthiness of someone's feedback will come naturally like DarkMule just said. Until a better idea comes out or the trust system is removed all together, this is the best thing to do. What exactly would your plan of action be for handling the trust system? Because from your previous posts you didn't agree with the removal of the trust system and you're not agreeing to keep the trust system so it's hard to determine your stance on this situation. People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight Yes, and this should occur naturally, because such people naturally obtain good feedback of their own. This gets weighted into how their own feedback is rated by a trust system. Without saying anything derogatory about anyone in charge of DefaultTrust, it is absolutely impossible for any person to make decisions other people should trust about things like this, when they clearly have their own conflicting interests, but DefaultTrust is basically rammed down everyone's throat. Many people don't even realize it should be turned off. The history of people who have been on that DefaultTrust list who shouldn't have been is so long and familiar to anyone here who has paid any attention that I need not recount it. Its history speaks for itself. It benefits nobody except the people on it. I agree on most of this although I'm not sure how default trust was set up or how you get the -6/-1 feedback weight. I think it was originally intended for their to be community moderators that weren't necessarily staff that helped the site, but when it started being misused nothing was done about it. On eBay I would get the same feedback from someone with 160000 positive feedback or someone with 5 and this is how I think the trust system here should work. I don't think having the trust system automatically weigh people's trust would help because I think there'd be a lot of ways around it and in a lot of situations a member as active as another member but with less trades feedback should equal the same thing. If there was a way that you could only post negative feedback if there was a button to initiate a trade with the user I think that would really help, but then negative feedback couldn't be given to people who are running Ponzi schemes or are trying to scam people. There's still the scam accusation sub forum though. |
|
|
|
words
words Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke. How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?
words words words words words I dont agree that this thread is being ignored because I've gotten two PM's from administrators, but I do agree on your other point. People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight but when the system is misused it screws everything up and this is why I think it isn't fair because people who have that power should be able to display better judgement, so it's up to us and staff to come up with a better solution for the system. If I did a trade and it didn't work out and I received negative feedback I'd be 100% fine with it but not for something like this. You can disagree all you like. Just because you want something or think it is unfair doesn't make it realistic or obtainable. As far as admins contacting you, that is very convenient that they chose to keep this a
words
words Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke. How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?
words words words words words I dont agree that this thread is being ignored because I've gotten two PM's from administrators, but I do agree on your other point. People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight but when the system is misused it screws everything up and this is why I think it isn't fair because people who have that power should be able to display better judgement, so it's up to us and staff to come up with a better solution for the system. If I did a trade and it didn't work out and I received negative feedback I'd be 100% fine with it but not for something like this. You can disagree all you like. Just because you want something or think it is unfair doesn't make it realistic or obtainable. As far as admins contacting you, that is very convenient that they chose to keep this a private affair for their buddies but are willing to turn this process into a giant public shit show for anyone else that isn't in their buddy club. Funny how when this happened to me not a single mod or admin PMed me about it, they simply attempted to shame me publicly. At any rate nothing is going to happen to Butterzone. Some are more equal than others. private affair for their buddies but are willing to turn this process into a giant public shit show for anyone else that isn't in their buddy club. Funny how when this happened to me not a single mod or admin PMed me about it, they simply attempted to shame me publicly. At any rate nothing is going to happen to Butterzone. Some are more equal than others. I've never contacted admins with a bullshit request or made a thread about something like this that isn't fully justified, and I rarely talk to staff. I don't think it's just me that thinks it's unfair but a lot of people, you even said yourself the system is unfair with the way it can be used. People who have a higher feedback weight need to use it responsibly or they shouldn't have it because it's not helping th site in any way. I don't know what happened in your situation and I'm on my phone right now but I think the staff would of responded to it if it was justified. TheButterZone has already been removed from the default trust list of a staff member. I don't think staff won't act on matters like this if it seems reasonable to them. |
|
|
|
Seeing more new replies to my posts... his/her attempt to apologize was after the damage to my reputation was already irrevocably done, beyond the capacity of any apology to reverse it.
P.S. My craigslist posts started getting flagged down obsessively yesterday. Coincidence?
Quit trolling and just remove my negative feedback please. Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke. How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?
I think this is part of the problem of the mentality of people asking for trust to be moderated. Trust is not supposed to be a fool proof system. It is supposed to be a simple to use superficial indicator of ones trust. Depending on trust scores alone to judge your trading partner is not very wise, and this attitude really shouldn't be catered to. Before there was trust people RESEARCHED THEIR TRADING PARTNERS. There is no substitute for vetting your trading partner. Unfortunately since your trust score is attached to your account it's easy for most new members to go off of it. The "untrusted feedback" you get is barely looked at because I don't think very many people know there's a button for it. I think this sub-forum to keep track of your trades ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0) is just fine and the trust system should just be removed. Or people like you could learn to mind your own business and research your trading partners. This seems like a much more rational solution to me. At any rate you will never get Butterzone off of the trust list because he was put there by Badbear and Theymos trusting him, and if it is one of their cronies they get a pass from things like this. I was simply trusted by some one easily manipulated by the staff, and not a part of the boys club here so I was expendable. This is a perfect example of how policy is selectively enforced around here. Manually researching your trading partners isn't an efficient method of trading unless you're not doing a lot of trades. If it was every other forum or place that is a trading platform would of adopted that method now instead of either using a feedback system (only for trading) or having a reputation sub forum where people post successful trades. In either situation escrow is mandatory or it's a popular option. Researching your trading partners is good for big trades but isn't needed for 90% of the trades that go on here (Even though it's always a good thing to do), so IMO that's not a rational solution nor should minding your own business contribute to the misuse of the trust system to people who have a higher ranking for it. The trust system right now is actually just an anonymous wall where people can post stuff about you on your own page and you can't do anything about. Well considering it is your money to lose, it is your loss if you choose to be lax in verifying your trading partners. In reality its not that hard and only takes a few minutes in most cases. Furthermore escrow can't protect both parties in all situations. If I buy a $100 gift card from someone and use escrow, but the gift code was bought using a stolen credit card number for example, I lose that value regardless of escrow because I have no way to determine the legitimacy of the code itself, only the user. Any criticisms of the use of the trust system will be completely subjective and impossible to moderate in any fair manner that would prevent favoritism or abuse. The trust system isn't just some "anonymous wall" where people can post things about you. It is designed to give more weight to people who have already over a long period of time demonstrated their trustworthiness, not random anonymous people. Also take note of the fact that all the mods and staff are completely ignoring this thread. They handle things a little differently when it is one of their own. I dont agree that this thread is being ignored because I've gotten two PM's from administrators, but I do agree on your other point. People who demonstrate long term trustworthiness should be able to have a higher feedback weight but when the system is misused it screws everything up and this is why I think it isn't fair because people who have that power should be able to display better judgement, so it's up to us and staff to come up with a better solution for the system. If I did a trade and it didn't work out and I received negative feedback from someone like Tbz I'd be 100% fine with it but not for something like this. Or people like you could learn to mind your own business and research your trading partners. This seems like a much more rational solution to me. And then you'll still be screwed by people who rely on DefaultTrust, who will see you listed as untrusted and not deal with you. ^^^ |
|
|
|
Seeing more new replies to my posts... his/her attempt to apologize was after the damage to my reputation was already irrevocably done, beyond the capacity of any apology to reverse it.
P.S. My craigslist posts started getting flagged down obsessively yesterday. Coincidence?
Quit trolling and just remove my negative feedback please. Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke. How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?
I think this is part of the problem of the mentality of people asking for trust to be moderated. Trust is not supposed to be a fool proof system. It is supposed to be a simple to use superficial indicator of ones trust. Depending on trust scores alone to judge your trading partner is not very wise, and this attitude really shouldn't be catered to. Before there was trust people RESEARCHED THEIR TRADING PARTNERS. There is no substitute for vetting your trading partner. Unfortunately since your trust score is attached to your account it's easy for most new members to go off of it. The "untrusted feedback" you get is barely looked at because I don't think very many people know there's a button for it. I think this sub-forum to keep track of your trades ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0) is just fine and the trust system should just be removed. Or people like you could learn to mind your own business and research your trading partners. This seems like a much more rational solution to me. At any rate you will never get Butterzone off of the trust list because he was put there by Badbear and Theymos trusting him, and if it is one of their cronies they get a pass from things like this. I was simply trusted by some one easily manipulated by the staff, and not a part of the boys club here so I was expendable. This is a perfect example of how policy is selectively enforced around here. Manually researching your trading partners isn't an efficient method of trading unless you're not doing a lot of trades. If it was every other forum or place that is a trading platform would of adopted that method now instead of either using a feedback system (only for trading) or having a reputation sub forum where people post successful trades. In either situation escrow is mandatory or it's a popular option. Researching your trading partners is good for big trades but isn't needed for 90% of the trades that go on here (Even though it's always a good thing to do), so IMO that's not a rational solution nor should minding your own business contribute to the misuse of the trust system to people who have a higher ranking for it. The trust system right now is actually just an anonymous wall where people can post stuff about you on your own page and you can't do anything about. |
|
|
|
Seeing more new replies to my posts... his/her attempt to apologize was after the damage to my reputation was already irrevocably done, beyond the capacity of any apology to reverse it.
P.S. My craigslist posts started getting flagged down obsessively yesterday. Coincidence?
Quit trolling and just remove my negative feedback please. Only an idiot or someone who doesn't know you can turn it off would use DefaultTrust, which is a sick joke. How many scammers and lunatics has that list had?
I think this is part of the problem of the mentality of people asking for trust to be moderated. Trust is not supposed to be a fool proof system. It is supposed to be a simple to use superficial indicator of ones trust. Depending on trust scores alone to judge your trading partner is not very wise, and this attitude really shouldn't be catered to. Before there was trust people RESEARCHED THEIR TRADING PARTNERS. There is no substitute for vetting your trading partner. Unfortunately since your trust score is attached to your account it's easy for most new members to go off of it. The "untrusted feedback" you get is barely looked at because I don't think very many people know there's a button for it. I think this sub-forum to keep track of your trades ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0) is just fine and the trust system should just be removed. |
|
|
|
Thanks for clearing that up. People on the default trust list or however way you get the power to have a -6/-1 feedback rating need to use it responsibly and from what I've seen it's being used for the wrong reasons so the people who have it either need to start using it right or it needs to be deleted all together. Using your forum power because you're mad at somebody doesn't show the maturity level you need to hold that kind of position on the forum no matter how much you've helped the site out because it's ultimately hurting the site.
There is no sensible way to moderate people's trust. What you are demanding is impossible to be delivered without there being other tremendous pitfalls being created by dictating to other people how to use their trust. You might think it is for the wrong reasons, clearly he thinks it was for the right reasons. Uninterested 3rd parties have no stake in making sure justice is done, only in making the drama go away as quickly as possible. Because of this strategy, all a troll has to do is kick ans scream and the mods and staff will come running in an endless self fueling cycle of troll-baiting of trusted members followed by claims of abuse. Trusted members operate IN THE OPEN. Trolls use endless disposable accounts. There is a cost to operating out in the open so that people know you can be trusted, and people who are reputable should be supported, because they are what makes this community work, not the trust system. Being in the default trust is not an elected position. No one on it signed up to be a servant of the community even when it costs them personally. We got on that list for demonstrating we follow through on our agreements and operate in an open an honest manner. A long history of operating in a reputable way does not some how create an obligation on the part of the trusted party to serve you as if they had some kind of capacity of a public officer. Basically what you are saying is you were joking with this user on a professional thread of his, he did not find it amusing and left you a negative trust. Now that you are faced with the consequences of your actions you demand that he uphold the good name of this forum at his expense, but you yourself hold no liability in this circumstance. I am sorry but I am having a hard time having sympathy for you. Maybe if instead of making this big thread about it you simply apologized to him and asked for him to remove it he would respond, but of course not. What fun would that be? You would rather escalate this like all trolls do. Did you read through this thread? I did message him apologizing if I offended him and received no answer after two days. I'm not a troll for making one post on a thread (Where someone else had already posted and it wasn't deleted) and then making a thread about it because I'm not satisfied with how the trust system is set up. I don't go around posting on threads discrediting people or calling people scammers. You even said you think the feedback is irrelevant. I'm not saying the trust system needs to be moderated. I never said that. I'm saying that it needs to be equalized out so people can't use their opinions on someone to hurt their reputation any more than another member can. The feedback system should be used same way as eBay and it shouldn't reflect someone's opinion of a member. |
|
|
|
i have a visa vanilla 25$ i want bitcoin. interested?
No thanks I wouldn't be interested in that right now. |
|
|
|
Butterzone, I think where we agree is that not all critical posts in the marketplace or other areas where people are engaged in professional activities here are accurate or warranted. People who engage in such activity should not be free to do so without repercussion. Being critical of a user for engaging in actual fraudulent or dishonest activity is one thing, and users are free to bring light to anyone engaged in these acts pretty much on the entire forum. For the rest of the dedicated users operating here professionally and obeying posting guidelines, allowing this kind of activity or furthermore punishing users for acting against it is a slap in the face. Letting some one control their own marketplace thread does not some how silence critics because they have the ENTIRE FORUM to be critical of users. Not letting some one take a crap all over your storefront is not equivalent to silencing free speech.
Unless you own the property that someone is making speaking on, then you do not have any right to "punish" them for what they say. You do not own the thread in which you are selling your goods, and therefore you do not have any right to punish anyone who says anything in your thread (provided they are not attempting to scam). It is a valid question to ask why you are charging a certain price when others are charging a lower price. If you feel your price is appropriate then you should respond to then why they are appropriate and any potential customer can see both of your arguments in a transparent way. Yeah that works great in fantasy land. In reality trolls don't give a crap about logical arguments, and regardless it doesn't stop the damage done. Also I love the misquoting of the actual words I used about the mods "punishing" me for the trust I left, and attributing it to me as if I claimed I want to "punish" others. Quite disingenuous. You want a fair trading environment but also want to let people operate on this forum as if it were 4chan. I am not claiming the thread itself is my property, I am claiming it SHOULD be, at least within the confines of the marketplace section. Even if every single marketplace posting was self moderated it would not stop others from calling out fraud or abuse elsewhere in the forum. Additionally it costs you nothing to allow people to harass me, therefore you have no interest in protecting me to begin with, and neither do the mods. However there is plenty of incentive for people to drift from thread to thread and pretend like they are righting wrongs so they can look like social justice warriors and also entertain themselves with trolling in the process. People can cause harm with their words and by invading and hijacking otherwise productive threads. These people thrive off of destroying the work of others and due so under a guise of pointing out a wrong to put their victims on the defensive from the beginning of their perpetration of this harassment. This will continue to be exploited by disingenuous people until the moderators and staff correct their failed attempts at moderating trust in any way. As long as you comply to it, they will keep harassing then demanding the staff correct it for them. Neutral trust isn't going to fix anything, because the problem isn't the trust system, it is your attempts at moderating it. Staff/moderators your strategy is a failing one. Unfortunately you decided to punish me and others instead of accepting that fact. It does not matter if a troll is going to act logically or not. The troll can make their invalid argument then you can respond with logic to counter their argument. Unless they bring up an additional point there is no reason to respond further, if you do then you are only feeding the trolls. If the troll bumps their argument or continues to post trolling without you or anyone responding then you can report the post and it should be deleted and/or they will get banned. If you continue to respond to them then they are responding to you and their posts will likely not get deleted and will likely not get banned. It may not be easy to do this however if you ignore the troll they will eventually go away. Also if you leave a logical response to the troll then your potential customers will be able to see your response and can see that your trolls concerns are invalid (if this is actually the case). There is no reason for your marketplace threads to be your property. You did not invest any money in the development of the forum nor did you invest anything to get the forum to be as popular.used as it is today. If you were to pay the forum for the right to list what you are selling in the marketplace then it would be a different story, but you do not and it is not. Although it is a good practice to check places like scam accusations prior to buying from someone, I do not think that most/many people do and as a result all that a potential buyer can see is what is on the selling thread. If someone's concerns are not there then a buyer will probably not see them. Well, this topic was a massive waste of time and energy. I'm not on Default Trust (#19-20), nor am I/would I be attached to being on it (#4). Subjective systems are subjective. /unsubscribe
You are on default trust. You are trusted by both theymos and badbear. If you do not have any custom trust list then you can see who is on default trust by going to your trust settings. These are the people who are on default trust and who will impact anyone's trust in the eyes of anyone that has not customized their trust list; the positive numbers are the number of people who are on the root level of default trust have you on their trusted list: HostFat (2)
mikegogulski (1)
Luke-Jr (2)
dooglus (1)
Raize (2)
Maged (4)
gmaxwell (2)
Carnth (2)
TECSHARE (-2)
Caesium (1)
dilatedPixel (1)
phantastisch (1)
OgNasty (3)
CanaryInTheMine (1)
ckolivas (2)
paraipan (1)
John (John K.) (5)
danieldaniel (1)
dree12 (3)
Tomatocage (3)
SaltySpitoon (4)
ineededausername (1)
DeaDTerra (1)
BadBear (5)
El Cabron (-2)
Blazr (3)
LouReed (1)
xkrikl (1)
BCB (3)
PsychoticBoy (2)
btharper (1)
burnside (1)
Akka (1)
TheButterZone (2)
LoweryCBS (2)
stenkross (1)
Benson Samuel (2)
johnniewalker (1)
escrow.ms (3)
shiftybugger (1)
ThickAsThieves (2)
fluidjax (1)
binaryFate (1)
TomUnderSea (-1)
dwdoc (2)
Tywill (1)
DefaultTrust (7)
BayAreaCoins (1)
mitzie (1)
Jaaawsh (-1)
theymos (4)
rb1205 (1)
paci (1)
Stemby (1)
ziomik (1)
ercolinux (1)
diego1000 (1)
GIANNAT (1)
bertani (1)
Cripto (1)
ghibly79 (1)
sirius (1)
Gavin Andresen (3)
casascius (3)
Stunna (3)
OldScammerTag (1)
tysat (3)
piuk (1)
sveetsnelda (2)
nonnakip (1)
Miner-TE (1)
Noitev (1)
eleuthria (1)
luv2drnkbr (1)
Digigami (1)
E (1)
zapeta (1)
bitpop (1)
Mabsark (1)
redcomet (1)
ipxtreme (1)
Philj (1)
os2sam (1)
yxt (1)
knybe (1)
Trance104 (1)
conv3rsion (1)
tlr (1)
bitcoin-rigs.com (1)
Vod (3)
dtmcnamara (1)
notme (1)
FCTaiChi (1)
Mushroomized (2)
mainichi (1)
greeners (1)
dribbits (1)
echris1 (1)
bitcoiner49er (1)
freshzive (1)
arklan (1)
glendall (1)
Pistachio (1)
tarrant_01 (1)
tbcoin (1)
ElideN (1)
friedcat (1)
Bees Brothers (2)
Christoban (1)
Stale (1)
af_newbie (1)
eroxors (1)
camolist (1)
MrTeal (1)
cncguru (1)
Mendacium (1)
Dabs (2)
mem (1)
Namworld (1)
lky_svn (1)
420 (1)
mr2dave (1)
DobZombie (1)
gektek (1)
johnny5 (1)
dyingdreams (1)
Zillions (1)
phrog (1)
Domrada (1)
Mapuo (1)
philipma1957 (1)
jborkl (1)
RicRock (1)
jmutch (1)
MonocleMan (1)
b!z (1)
CoinHoarder (1)
absinth (1)
mitty (1)
(^_^) (1)
der_troll (1)
soy (1)
super3 (1)
iluvpcs (1)
batt01 (1)
xstr8guy (1)
MJGrae (1)
mobile (1)
nubbins (1)
hephaist0s (1)
BitcoinValet (1)
Timzim103 (1)
Rounder (1)
Nemo1024 (1)
TheXev (1)
ibminer (1)
Mooshire (1)
Benny1985 (1)
mrbrt (1)
hanti (1)
ssinc (1)
Kaega (1)
finlof (1)
True___Blue (1)
elchorizo (1)
fewerlaws (1)
bitterdog (1)
Swimmer63 (1)
locksmith9 (1)
Krellan (1)
Spendulus (1)
MikeMike (1)
statdude (1)
bluespaceant (1)
Hiroaki (1)
keeron (1)
Bigdaddyaz (1)
Polyatomic (1)
palmface (1)
flowdab (1)
SpaceCadet (1)
photon (1)
xzempt (1)
jdany (1)
mackstuart (1)
bmoconno (1)
jdot007 (1)
mrtg (1)
maxpower (1)
xjack (1)
CommanderVenus (1)
daddyfatsax (1)
Plesk (1)
helipotte (1)
aurel57 (1)
gambitv (1)
boyohi (1)
LaserHorse (1)
joeventura (1)
slashopt (1)
drofdelm (1)
canth (1)
zackclark70 (1)
cdogster (1)
DBOD (1)
addzz (1)
DustMite (1)
pixl8tr (1)
namoom (1)
blblr (1)
Taugeran (1)
arc45 (1)
smscotten (1)
Cilantro (1)
chadtn (1)
kinger1331 (1)
guytechie (1)
rumlazy (1)
fractalbc (1)
fforforest (1)
KyrosKrane (1)
ZBC3 (1)
rj11248 (1)
bitdigger2013 (1)
Damnsammit (1)
jaslo (1)
BorisAlt (1)
ASICSAUCE (1)
sidehack (1)
steelcave (1)
Rotorgeek (1)
buyer99 (1)
daddyhutch (1)
digeros (1)
west17m (1)
Trillium (1)
ziggysisland (1)
devthedev (1)
ryhan (1)
zac2013 (1)
atomriot (1)
metal_jacke1 (1)
Apheration (1)
spacebob (1)
2byZi (1)
terrapinflyer (1)
BenTheRighteous (1)
gsr18 (1)
Paddy (1)
Jennifer Smith (1)
J_Dubbs (1)
00Smurf (1)
ldh37 (1)
thomslik (1)
argakiig (1)
ManeBjorn (1)
Ski72 (1)
suchmoon (1)
Thai (1)
Vladimir (1)
grue (1)
Kluge (2)
piotr_n (1)
Mousepotato (1)
jwzguy (1)
Graet (1)
the joint (1)
Michail1 (1)
wallet.dat (1)
KWH (2)
Blazedout419 (1)
Powell (1)
shdvb (-1)
Ryland R. Taylor-Almanza (1)
nanotube (1)
zvs (1)
malevolent (1)
Korbman (1)
Deprived (1)
DiamondCardz (1)
DannyHamilton (2)
Boelens (1)
rarkenin (1)
idee2013 (1)
favdesu (1)
allinvain (1)
datafish (1)
smooth (1)
SebastianJu (1)
Rassah (1)
Otoh (1)
jackjack (1)
Eisenhower34 (1)
btc_jumpnrl (1)
etotheipi (1)
DeathAndTaxes (1)
CIYAM (1)
buysellbitcoin (1)
subvolatil (1)
cooldgamer (1)
shawshankinmate37927 (1)
webr3 (1)
vitalemontea (1)
Chainsaw (1)
BladeRunner (1)
deadley (1)
Dragooon (1)
Evilish (1)
gudmunsn (1)
spartan82 (1)
Badman0316 (1)
goose20 (1)
americandesi (1)
Equate (1)
bobtaj (1)
Sovereign_Curtis (1)
instacash (1)
Clayce (1)
KCmining (1)
@ThisWeeksCoin (1) Here are the people who are on the "root" default trust list and can effectively add/remove people from default trust: sirius
theymos
HostFat
dooglus
Maged
OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
Tomatocage
SaltySpitoon
BadBear
escrow.ms
OldScammerTag It so happens that many people on this list happen to be moderators and may wear multiple hats when posting regarding trust in this section. They may be posting as a moderator or they may be posting as someone who is on the root level of default trust. Can anyone screenshot or otherwise link me to the Default Trust list? The closest I could find was under my user version of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full - scrolled to the bottom (TLOT is one of the 3 on my trust list) and saw: TheLordOfTime serp DefaultTrust sirius
theymos
HostFat
dooglus
Maged
OgNasty
CanaryInTheMine
Tomatocage
SaltySpitoon
BadBear
escrow.ms
OldScammerTagAren't all the names in bold the only ones on Default Trust? I believe that is correct. Because the forum is set to default 2 levels of trust, anyone who trusts you that is on that list also makes you part of the default trust tree. This is not quite correct. The above people must go into their trust settings and add/remove you in order to add/remove you from default trust. The above people can leave positive feedback for you without adding you to default trust Thanks for clearing that up. People on the default trust list or however way you get the power to have a -6/-1 feedback rating need to use it responsibly and from what I've seen it's being used for the wrong reasons so the people who have it either need to start using it right or it needs to be deleted all together. Using your forum power because you're mad at somebody doesn't show the maturity level you need to hold that kind of position on the forum no matter how much you've helped the site out because it's ultimately hurting the site. |
|
|
|
I agree that murder is much worse then theft, however "trying" to damage one's reputation by claiming they have killed someone is not worse then actually stealing from someone. There are plenty of people who have gone on to be successful after being found not guilty of murder (and after being accused of murder by the government).
I would say that some "double negative" trust rating would be appropriate for people who have killed before, for example, altoid/ross/DPR
My reputation has already been damaged by the libel; do you think I need to end up on death row, in prison or under legal defense bills typically exceeding commonly scammed amounts (>$100k vs <$10k) as the end result of the libel, for this to cross your moral line, MilesJohan? First of all, it was just a joke and it was posted in your moderated thread so I knew it was going to be deleted by you and it wasn't intended to hurt your reputation because I think everyone on the forum knows your not a murderer. Secondly, reading the negative rep you left me you're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing except you're not joking about it and you're using your forum status to your personal advantage and not for the well being of the site. "I wouldn't trust this user with a single grain of rice or anything more valuable." is what you left on my profile. I don't think things like this are benefiting the site at all especially since I haven't done anything besides make a joke. Negative repping someone is only suppose to be used for people who are scammers and show suspicions of scamming, and you can't use it for anything else or you're breaking the rules. I don't think this displays enough responsibility to have that kind of power. I've been here for almost two years and I've contributed a lot to the site and for my account to be ruined over something like this is ridiculous. I think if the "Trusted Feedback" were only able to be used for people who've proven they can use it responsibly it would solve a lot of the problems around the forum. My account is branded with negative rep for something that doesn't have anything to do with trading and I believe it will hurt my business around the forums and I don't think that's fair for a member who hasn't scammed or broken any of the rules.
As if you psychically knew that I would be able to delete the "joke" before anyone else but me could see it. Ex post facto BS! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If I can't trust you to not indefensibly "joke" about me being a murderer, then why would I trust you with anything less? For me to become a murder suspect by the community, and your apparent attempts to induce PTSD in me too (1- first time "the people he murders" 2- double down "you act like a murderer" 3- "borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder"), those are no "joke". I don't think you should be able to use your forum status to make your personal opinions affect someone's account more than anyone elses. I think you can make as many threads on it as you want to, but to put negative feedback on my profile and use your forum reputation to discredit me in that way isn't what the system is for. I think you're the only one who took what I said seriously, and I stand by what I say in this thread but I'm not going to negative rep your profile because it doesn't affect your trustworthiness and you're not a threat to anybody. As the rules state, negative trust is only used if "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." and any other use of it isn't being responsible with your privileges. If you will delete your negative you might be able to stay on the default trust list but I don't think with the way it's being used very many people will have that power anymore. I've seen it misused way to much and as it keeps happening there's not anyway to stop it unless the people who have those privileges stop abusing it or there's a punishment for misusing, but the latter would require to much work so if people keep abusing it the DefaultTrust list will either shrink or the weight someone's account carries will change. Or people such as yourself might weigh their need for self gratification over the cost of having their own reputation harmed in the future. People on the default trust got there by demonstrating their ability to be fair and equitable. If they are not free to use it in a way that they feel is frair and equitable then it is useless. There is NO RELIABLE WAY to moderate the trust system. The staff/moderators have painted themselves into a corner with this one by complying to the demands of trolls. So you agree that the weight TBZ's account carries for the feedback he left me is fair and equitable to one post I made on his thread? |
|
|
|
Well, this topic was a massive waste of time and energy. I'm not on Default Trust (#19-20), nor am I/would I be attached to being on it (#4). Subjective systems are subjective. /unsubscribe
I must of mixed up the DefaultTrust and people who carry a -6/-1, -4/-1 feedback score, the second one is what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
I agree that murder is much worse then theft, however "trying" to damage one's reputation by claiming they have killed someone is not worse then actually stealing from someone. There are plenty of people who have gone on to be successful after being found not guilty of murder (and after being accused of murder by the government).
I would say that some "double negative" trust rating would be appropriate for people who have killed before, for example, altoid/ross/DPR
My reputation has already been damaged by the libel; do you think I need to end up on death row, in prison or under legal defense bills typically exceeding commonly scammed amounts (>$100k vs <$10k) as the end result of the libel, for this to cross your moral line, MilesJohan? First of all, it was just a joke and it was posted in your moderated thread so I knew it was going to be deleted by you and it wasn't intended to hurt your reputation because I think everyone on the forum knows your not a murderer. Secondly, reading the negative rep you left me you're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing except you're not joking about it and you're using your forum status to your personal advantage and not for the well being of the site. "I wouldn't trust this user with a single grain of rice or anything more valuable." is what you left on my profile. I don't think things like this are benefiting the site at all especially since I haven't done anything besides make a joke. Negative repping someone is only suppose to be used for people who are scammers and show suspicions of scamming, and you can't use it for anything else or you're breaking the rules. I don't think this displays enough responsibility to have that kind of power. I've been here for almost two years and I've contributed a lot to the site and for my account to be ruined over something like this is ridiculous. I think if the "Trusted Feedback" were only able to be used for people who've proven they can use it responsibly it would solve a lot of the problems around the forum. My account is branded with negative rep for something that doesn't have anything to do with trading and I believe it will hurt my business around the forums and I don't think that's fair for a member who hasn't scammed or broken any of the rules.
As if you psychically knew that I would be able to delete the "joke" before anyone else but me could see it. Ex post facto BS! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If I can't trust you to not indefensibly "joke" about me being a murderer, then why would I trust you with anything less? For me to become a murder suspect by the community, and your apparent attempts to induce PTSD in me too (1- first time "the people he murders" 2- double down "you act like a murderer" 3- "borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder"), those are no "joke". I don't think you should be able to use your forum status to make your personal opinions affect someone's account more than anyone elses. I think you can make as many threads on it as you want to, but to put negative feedback on my profile and use your forum reputation to discredit me in that way isn't what the system is for. I think you're the only one who took what I said seriously, and I stand by what I say in this thread but I'm not going to negative rep your profile because it doesn't affect your trustworthiness and you're not a threat to anybody. As the rules state, negative trust is only used if "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." and any other use of it isn't being responsible with your privileges. If you will delete your negative you might be able to stay on the default trust list but I don't think with the way it's being used very many people will have that power anymore. I've seen it misused way to much and as it keeps happening there's not anyway to stop it unless the people who have those privileges stop abusing it or there's a punishment for misusing, but the latter would require to much work so if people keep abusing it the DefaultTrust list will either shrink or the weight someone's account carries will change. Or people such as yourself might weigh their need for self gratification over the cost of having their own reputation harmed in the future. People on the default trust got there by demonstrating their ability to be fair and equitable. If they are not free to use it in a way that they feel is frair and equitable then it is useless. There is NO RELIABLE WAY to moderate the trust system. The staff/moderators have painted themselves into a corner with this one by complying to the demands of trolls. I just noticed the defaulttrust list varies from person to person and I'm talking about the people who's feedback carries a -6/-1 or -4/-1. I don't know what it's based on but I guess it's something about how many people have you in their default trust list. |
|
|
|
I agree that murder is much worse then theft, however "trying" to damage one's reputation by claiming they have killed someone is not worse then actually stealing from someone. There are plenty of people who have gone on to be successful after being found not guilty of murder (and after being accused of murder by the government).
I would say that some "double negative" trust rating would be appropriate for people who have killed before, for example, altoid/ross/DPR
My reputation has already been damaged by the libel; do you think I need to end up on death row, in prison or under legal defense bills typically exceeding commonly scammed amounts (>$100k vs <$10k) as the end result of the libel, for this to cross your moral line, MilesJohan? First of all, it was just a joke and it was posted in your moderated thread so I knew it was going to be deleted by you and it wasn't intended to hurt your reputation because I think everyone on the forum knows your not a murderer. Secondly, reading the negative rep you left me you're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing except you're not joking about it and you're using your forum status to your personal advantage and not for the well being of the site. "I wouldn't trust this user with a single grain of rice or anything more valuable." is what you left on my profile. I don't think things like this are benefiting the site at all especially since I haven't done anything besides make a joke. Negative repping someone is only suppose to be used for people who are scammers and show suspicions of scamming, and you can't use it for anything else or you're breaking the rules. I don't think this displays enough responsibility to have that kind of power. I've been here for almost two years and I've contributed a lot to the site and for my account to be ruined over something like this is ridiculous. I think if the "Trusted Feedback" were only able to be used for people who've proven they can use it responsibly it would solve a lot of the problems around the forum. My account is branded with negative rep for something that doesn't have anything to do with trading and I believe it will hurt my business around the forums and I don't think that's fair for a member who hasn't scammed or broken any of the rules.
As if you psychically knew that I would be able to delete the "joke" before anyone else but me could see it. Ex post facto BS! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If I can't trust you to not indefensibly "joke" about me being a murderer, then why would I trust you with anything less? For me to become a murder suspect by the community, and your apparent attempts to induce PTSD in me too (1- first time "the people he murders" 2- double down "you act like a murderer" 3- "borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder"), those are no "joke". I don't think you should be able to use your forum status to make your personal opinions affect someone's account more than anyone elses. I think you can make as many threads on it as you want to, but to put negative feedback on my profile and use your forum reputation to discredit me in that way isn't what the system is for. I think you're the only one who took what I said seriously, and I stand by what I say in this thread but I'm not going to negative rep your profile because it doesn't affect your trustworthiness and you're not a threat to anybody. As the rules state, negative trust is only used if "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." and any other use of it isn't being responsible with your privileges. If you will delete your negative you might be able to stay on the default trust list but I don't think with the way it's being used very many people will have that power anymore. I've seen it misused way to much and as it keeps happening there's not anyway to stop it unless the people who have those privileges stop abusing it or there's a punishment for misusing, but the latter would require to much work so if people keep abusing it the DefaultTrust list will either shrink or the weight someone's account carries will change. |
|
|
|
TECSHARE: /nods I think that 3-prong test varies by jurisdiction/legal system. I was just going by the OED; libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
It's never acceptable to "joke" about someone being a murderer unless you suspect them of being a murderer or everyone can see public records they have been convicted of same.
The first two was from my understanding of the libel laws in the US and the standard of proof that must be presented in order for someone to be 'liable' for libel. The third bullet is my interpretation of US supreme court rulings on first amendment issues regarding satire of 'famous' people and libel. I really cannot argue the moral issue of "joking" that someone is a murderer as this is not the appropriate venue for that and I do not have a strong enough of an opinion. I would say that if you truly think there is a connection between his two comments and his ability to be trusted then the negative trust is appropriate. If you cannot make a strong logical connection between someone making this empty claim and their ability to be trusted then the negative trust is not appropriate. Remember that negative trust should be given if "you were scammed or if you strongly believe this person is a scammer" Well, as I cannot afford to bring a libel suit, my use of the word "libel" is only for OED (non-lawyers' common understanding) purposes, not Black's Law/statutes/case law. If someone is willing to damage someone's reputation by lying about their commission of the ultimate individual crime of violence (second overall only to mass murder), that's far worse IMO than simply committing property crimes, aka scamming. Perhaps there should be a double negative rating that covers accusations and defenses of heinous violent crimes. First of all, it was just a joke and it was posted in your moderated thread so I knew it was going to be deleted by you and it wasn't intended to hurt your reputation because I think everyone on the forum knows your not a murderer. Secondly, reading the negative rep you left me you're doing the exact thing you're accusing me of doing except you're not joking about it and you're using your forum status to your personal advantage and not for the well being of the site. "I wouldn't trust this user with a single grain of rice or anything more valuable." is what you left on my profile. I don't think things like this are benefiting the site at all especially since I haven't done anything besides make a joke. Negative repping someone is only suppose to be used for people who are scammers and show suspicions of scamming, and you can't use it for anything else or you're breaking the rules. I don't think this displays enough responsibility to have that kind of power. I've been here for almost two years and I've contributed a lot to the site and for my account to be ruined over something like this is ridiculous. I think if the "Trusted Feedback" were only able to be used for people who've proven they can use it responsibly it would solve a lot of the problems around the forum. My account is branded with negative rep for something that doesn't have anything to do with trading and I believe it will hurt my business around the forums and I don't think that's fair for a member who hasn't scammed or broken any of the rules. |
|
|
|
Unless you have some kind of actual evidence of someone being a criminal then you should not post as such. I do think that it is an overreaction for him to give you negative trust over two posts (this is much less of a threshold then what TECSHARE) had when giving negative trust to armis).
I do think that his many self moderated threads are very sketchy as they prevent people from asking honest questions about what he is selling.
I initially left a neutral on Wardrick, but his/her persistence in "joking" that I was a murderer (libel) left me no choice but to escalate it to a negative trust. To say that distrusting a libeler, "a plain asshole" in other words, is "an overreaction"... /shakeshead Wardrick seems to want us to believe simultaneously that he/she doesn't have a pattern of "joking" (libeling) about people other than me being criminals (when others could just be self-moderating or reporting to mods his/her libel away), but also that this isn't just laser-focused aggression against me (I guess I can give him a partial pass on J.Socal after discovering some previous trades they did). Then, I received a PM from Graven, claiming to be Wardrick. Something was alleged in there, that if I were a medical professional, would be prohibited by HIPAA from disclosing. However, despite only having medical stuff as a hobby, I added Graven to my PM ignore list because it sounded like BS. Graven, will you allow me to quote the PM you sent me in this topic, for peer review? I do think that his many self moderated threads are very sketchy as they prevent people from asking honest questions about what he is selling.
Self-moderation does not prevent people from asking honest questions. There is no "pending approval" stage like you'd see on a Wordpress or Disqus comment section. Self-moderation does however allow people to interfere with business by libeling the OP, spamming, etc... until such time as the OP chooses to delete the abusive replies. PS: I either forgot or was unaware I was on default trust. Not that there absolutely has to be a crosslinking, but theymos didn't rate me on http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=TheButterZone&sign=ANY&type=RECV - if it will stop Wardrick from his abusive posting activity, I have no attachment to being on DT. If I saw that you had left me a neutral feedback I wouldn't have joked around about it after I posted my last post on it. I had only made a post to your self-moderated thread and a post to J.Socal's thread jokingly not knowing it would be taken seriously which is why I feel this way. Being on your ignore list I had to create another account to message you so that's why I did that, and yes you can go ahead and post the message. I didn't intend to come off as an asshole but if I did I apologize which is the reason I sent you a message and the reason I posted this thread because I didn't receive a response. |
|
|
|
Unless you have some kind of actual evidence of someone being a criminal then you should not post as such. I do think that it is an overreaction for him to give you negative trust over two posts (this is much less of a threshold then what TECSHARE) had when giving negative trust to armis).
I do think that his many self moderated threads are very sketchy as they prevent people from asking honest questions about what he is selling.
I understand that and it was meant to be as a joke and I messaged him apologizing if I offended him and that I'd watch what I posted in the marketplace in the future but never received a response after waiting two days. I think he's overreacted given that he's misusing the trust system to ruin my standing by saying not to trust me (That I'm a criminal) and using the negative rep that's only supposed to be used for "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.". I've seen TBZ in OTC and read his posts on the forum and I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't strongly suspect it. Not only with TBZ but like you said with TECHSHARE, people will use their opinions to ruin other legitimate members reputation's for nothing at all and I don't think that helps the site. Obviously I thought I was joking and I didn't think anyone would take offense to my post or else I wouldn't of posted it because I have nothing against TBZ or J.Socal. I don't think it displays good judgment to ruin my reputation over something so small and then retaliate by editing his original post when I negative repped him for misusing the trust system. I think in order to have your account show up as negative you have to scam someone, show strong tendencies to scam, or just be a plain asshole around the forums like El Cabron. I think there should be a handful of people that carry that weight on the forum and you'd have to go through them and they will decide if it's warranted or not, because with all these people it's impossible to tell if it's warranted or not. I don't think allowing people to post to have their negative feedback removed is a good idea because it'd require a lot of work but I think if my account is going to show up as -6/-1 , I should have to do something a lot worse. |
|
|
|
I think TheButterZone needs to be taken off the default trust list because I think he's a borderline sociopath and has narcissistic personality disorder. I've seen he enjoys having control over other people and is easily angered and wants to make people look stupid to make himself look smarter and I don't think that's someone who's opinion should carry as much weight as it does on the forum. I don't think it's fair that my forum reputation is ruined from a joke I made in a post after I've been a dedicated member for almost two years. I sent him a message to work it out and never received a response because I think he enjoys being in a higher position than someone to make them look lesser. Theymos implemented the trust system shortly after I messaged him awhile back about the benefits it could have but I don't think giving a non staff member the ability to ruin someone's account because of their personal opinion is very beneficial for the site. I would agree on a few people who truly care about the site like Tomatocage and DannyHamilton and a handful of others, but for other people it allows them to ruin other people's reputations because of their opinions in which I doubt the motives to very often. More information on the default trust settings on page two: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858730.msg9557990#msg9557990 |
|
|
|
Haven't posted on here in forever. Crosby was in lobby saying mook getting out on tuesday and having a freeroll to welcome him back. Is this true? Free Mook! Don't really care about the freeroll nice to have Mook back if true.
Release Date: 12/23/2014 Release date for what? bigmooky is a player who is currently incarcerated for selling oxys from an ice cream truck. To be fair, he was selling oxys to someone at the same time he was working in an ice cream truck and the articles make it sound like it was a menu item. http://www.oneidadispatch.com/general-news/20131222/feds-ny-ice-cream-truck-drug-dealer-gets-prisonThat sounds like something mooky would of done though haha. |
|
|
|
30 btc for trade....Open to offers..Cash.
Are you cashing out because Silk Road got shut down? How much BTC did you lose in the seizure? You seem like a nice guy man...but I have to say, you post the ODDEST most random things LOL
It's stuff he gets from the people he murders. Is it fucking possible for you to reply to a Marketplace topic without "jokingly" accusing the OP of being a criminal? If so, do that 100% of the time, thanks. Thanks for negative repping me over a joke. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
