Requesting CryptoDevil to be removed from DefaultTrust for partial judgement

[Jimmy Wales]

Would be interested in the ultimate outcome of this thread. Has the issue been resolved or it is still pending ?

[dooglus]

Would be interested in the ultimate outcome of this thread. Has the issue been resolved or it is still pending ?

I expect the outcome will be that OP makes new sockpuppet accounts and it'll be business as usual.

[GermanGiant]

Well being on the trust list and having a bit of positive score I have always taken that into consideration when leaving feedback. I think with the current system (not perfect, but not too bad) we have a responsibility when leaving either positive or negative feedback. Posting a public dispute here in meta is definitely the best action you can take if you feel you got shafted. When you look at the number of ratings that happen per day and the amount of issues - the system works fairly well. OP you need to explain in detail the dispute or there is no way we can give you an opinion.

OP updated with dispute details.

[Jimmy Wales]

Would be interested in the ultimate outcome of this thread. Has the issue been resolved or it is still pending ?

I expect the outcome will be that OP makes new sockpuppet accounts and it'll be business as usual.

It seems thread owner has updated the situation in opening post and you are involved in it.

[favdesu]

let's talk about the trust. it's not about your signature, but about your shilling if I understand it correctly.

Code:

Other shill accounts include: 
- RussianRaibow 
- SpanishSoldier 
- GermanGiant

^ is that correct? It's one thing to get paid for a signature but a complete negative turn if you come up with socks to promote the ponzi.

[tmfp]

The whole premise of OP's argument is faulty.
It's just an extension of the standard Ponzi promoter's argument that any critics are shills for the "competition".

[GermanGiant]

let's talk about the trust. it's not about your signature, but about your shilling if I understand it correctly.

Code:

Other shill accounts include: 
- RussianRaibow 
- SpanishSoldier 
- GermanGiant

^ is that correct? It's one thing to get paid for a signature but a complete negative turn if you come up with socks to promote the ponzi.

Long ago a few accounts (most probably owned by the same person) were promoting AM hash in CMW's thread. Me and a few others opposed this. Most of us who did it aggressively was tagged as shill by one of those accounts. As that account was not in DefaultTrust, I did not bother. Now, this DefaultTrust guy has left me the same feedback copying from that report. This is rediculous. There is absolutely no proof to support this shilling allegation.

[Jimmy Wales]

The whole premise of OP's argument is faulty.
It's just an extension of the standard Ponzi promoter's argument that any critics are shills for the "competition".

I beg to disagree with you, though I disagree with OP as well. Probable Ponzis or their promoters, i.e. when the Ponzi has not yet fallen, should not be marked -ve, because this only give advantage to the Ponzis having hold of DefaultTrust (level 1 & 2) accounts. Theymos has introduced neutral trust for this and that should be used for probable Ponzis or their promoters. Otherwise, the whole concept of neutral trust become falacy.

[tmfp]

The whole premise of OP's argument is faulty.
It's just an extension of the standard Ponzi promoter's argument that any critics are shills for the "competition".

I beg to disagree with you, though I disagree with OP as well. Probable Ponzis or their promoters, i.e. when the Ponzi has not yet fallen, should not be marked -ve, because this only give advantage to the Ponzis having hold of DefaultTrust (level 1 & 2) accounts.

I don't understand what you are saying really. If I see a scheme being touted on here which makes me "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" then leaving negative trust is appropriate. Why should that person's trust rating, Default or otherwise, affect that decision? 

Theymos has introduced neutral trust for this and that should be used for probable Ponzis or their promoters. Otherwise, the whole concept of neutral trust become falacy.

I can't speak for Theymos and his reasoning.
Neutral trust is what it says: neutral comment. Why should I or anyone leave a neutral comment on someone whose actions are believed to be untrustworthy?

[Jimmy Wales]

The whole premise of OP's argument is faulty.
It's just an extension of the standard Ponzi promoter's argument that any critics are shills for the "competition".

I beg to disagree with you, though I disagree with OP as well. Probable Ponzis or their promoters, i.e. when the Ponzi has not yet fallen, should not be marked -ve, because this only give advantage to the Ponzis having hold of DefaultTrust (level 1 & 2) accounts.

I don't understand what you are saying really. If I see a scheme being touted on here which makes me "strongly believe that this person is a scammer" then leaving negative trust is appropriate. Why should that person's trust rating, Default or otherwise, affect that decision? 

Because DefaultTrust people are supposed to hand out judgement that would be seen by the rest of the forum by default. So, from natural logic, it needs to be handed to everyone doing the same thing, in the same way. Ponzis in disguise only turn out to scam, when they fail. When you are labelling a running program as Ponzi, relying on your "strong believe" and NOT labelling another one because of "no evidence", then you are acrually showing discriminatory nature, which is not supposed to be coming from people on DefaultTrust.

Theymos has introduced neutral trust for this and that should be used for probable Ponzis or their promoters. Otherwise, the whole concept of neutral trust become falacy.

I can't speak for Theymos and his reasoning.
Neutral trust is what it says: neutral comment. Why should I or anyone leave a neutral comment on someone whose actions are believed to be untrustworthy?

Because it is believed to be untrustworthy, not proven. Right now, you can leave any feedback, because you are not on DT. But, once you'll be on DT, you need to revise those feedback and be sure that you are not being partial to anyone, i.e. giving -ve to one but not to another for the same thing, which is the case in this thread, as I "strongly believe".

[Keyser Soze]

Because DefaultTrust people are supposed to hand out judgement that would be seen by the rest of the forum by default. So, from natural logic, it needs to be handed to everyone doing the same thing, in the same way. Ponzis in disguise only turn out to scam, when they fail. When you are labelling a running program as Ponzi, relying on your "strong believe" and NOT labelling another one because of "no evidence", then you are acrually showing discriminatory nature, which is not supposed to be coming from people on DefaultTrust.

A ponzi scam is a scam from the beginning, they don't "suddenly scam" when they can't pay. Their model is designed to scam from the start.

Because it is believed to be untrustworthy, not proven. Right now, you can leave any feedback, because you are not on DT. But, once you'll be on DT, you need to revise those feedback and be sure that you are not being partial to anyone, i.e. giving -ve to one but not to another for the same thing, which is the case in this thread, as I "strongly believe".

Read the description of the trust options:



Why should this apply differently for different people? If someone is promoting an obvious ponzi scam, they should get marked negative for that.

[dothebeats]

-snip-
Why should this apply differently for different people? If someone is promoting an obvious ponzi scam, they should get marked negative for that.

My opinion is that one shouldn't be marked -ve right away if in case they are promoting an obvious ponzi scam. They might not know what they are promoting though, so giving them -ve straight would be too rude and too judgmental. The case would be different if the user in question would promote the thread annoyingly and suspiciously, that's when they should receive -ve trust.

[dooglus]

-snip-
Why should this apply differently for different people? If someone is promoting an obvious ponzi scam, they should get marked negative for that.

My opinion is that one shouldn't be marked -ve right away if in case they are promoting an obvious ponzi scam. They might not know what they are promoting though, so giving them -ve straight would be too rude and too judgmental. The case would be different if the user in question would promote the thread annoyingly and suspiciously, that's when they should receive -ve trust.

There is no point leaving negative feedback only after the Ponzi has run off with the money.

The time for warnings is before they run off, when the warning can actually do some good.

[Jimmy Wales]

-snip-
Why should this apply differently for different people? If someone is promoting an obvious ponzi scam, they should get marked negative for that.

My opinion is that one shouldn't be marked -ve right away if in case they are promoting an obvious ponzi scam. They might not know what they are promoting though, so giving them -ve straight would be too rude and too judgmental. The case would be different if the user in question would promote the thread annoyingly and suspiciously, that's when they should receive -ve trust.

There is no point leaving negative feedback only after the Ponzi has run off with the money.

The time for warnings is before they run off, when the warning can actually do some good.

Yes. You are right. The warning should come before they run away. But, there is a catch. How do you decide a Ponzi? When you or your descendents are marking someone as a Ponzi, there must be some criteria that they are not satisfying and hence they are marked as a Ponzi. But, when the same criteria is not met by others, if you either turn them a blind eye or give them a benefit of doubt, you are not justifying your position in DefaultTrust. This is how you are simply allowing some business (possible Ponzis) to suck more while clearing their competition (possible Ponzis).

Please note that, previously CITM was also removed from DT for doing such partiality. It took time and a massive million dollar scam by his beloved FriedCat, but it did happen. Now, I see him crying on reddit that this forum is a BS etc. I do respect you for your contribution in this forum or as in bitcoin and I do seriously hope, you give a second thought to your judgement procedure.

[Quickseller]

Please note that, previously CITM was also removed from DT for doing such partiality. It took time and a massive million dollar scam by his beloved FriedCat, but it did happen. Now, I see him crying on reddit that this forum is a BS etc. I do respect you for your contribution in this forum or as in bitcoin and I do seriously hope, you give a second thought to your judgement procedure.

Dooglus has been involved in multiple multi-million dollar scams that were perpetrated with the assistance of dooglus's positive trust ratings, and no one in their right mind would have trust those who were behind the scams if it were not for dooglus's positive ratings and endorsements. Add giving out reputation loans and extortion to the mix in addition to the fact that dooglus personally profited from each of the multi-million dollar scams to the tune of 35 BTC from each scam and you have someone who is a much worse candidate to be on Default Trust then CITM ever was. At least Fred Cat had a long history of doing business honestly....the scammers that were possible because of dooglus did not even have accounts that reached full member status...

If this is not enough to get theymos to remove dooglus from default trust then I can't imagine what would.