[LIST] of user that "abuse" positive and negative trust feedback.

[DadyD]

I'm working on it. I am considering various criteria and if they are not met it is pointless to point out their work.

Thank you much for bringing more visibility towards my profile.  
Please can you make sure that I remain #1 on your thread ? Would much appreciate.
My username starts with a "y", and generally when ordering alphabetically, I am at a disadvantage.

Thanks so much for bringing some justice among the mandatory concept of alphabetical sorting.
Such heresy.

http://prntscr.com/ph4rvn - Which of the three is your case? If you need help with your issue, i can help you.

Personal issue?

1) If this post or its content causes you any emotional problems, please report the post to the moderator.
2) If you do not agree with the post or its content, you can freely express your opinion, in a constructive way without abusing it. I'll put the thread in self-mod, just to keep it clean from any abuses.

Please keep your nose out of the post if you are not interested in contributing constructively.

And just out of curiosity, why shouldn't they look at the number of feedback from others?

Trust ratings should reflect why trading with you is high-risk (or why you're unlikely to scam anyone - on case of a positive trust rating), not what others did or said. If Alice, Bob, and Carol think that you're untrustworthy - it doesn't mean that Ted shouldn't be allowed to say that you're untrustworthy, or that Ted should count the ratings and do something different based on that number. Irrelevant to the purpose of the trust system.

I agree with you, the feedback should reflect the non-reliability (or reliability) of the user in making exchanges. Such a thing can be determined simply by such feedback - https://prnt.sc/ph4voo - Such an abuse - https://prnt.sc/ph4x5j - it is not necessary at all. Dropping a user with 5 negative feedbacks just for an error (or mistake) he made is an abuse. It is as if someone after a successful trade received 5 positive feedbacks ... Would you trust the latter? I dont think..

There is a reason and it's quite clearly stated in your ratings. I don't think it helps your case to say things that are obviously false ("no reason"). It would be more accurate to say that you don't like the reason, which is not surprising but doesn't matter.

False? Are you accusing me of telling a lie?
In a trust system without rules and moderation by upper third parties, whatever the reason for my complaint, it cannot be FALSE. There is no law that forbids my feedback to be present OR NO in my wall. Which is why, since I do not go against my interests anyway, I believe that the next 2 feedbacks have been sent without reason. The first 2 feedbacks have sufficiently made the idea of what "type" of person you think I am.

Please don't accuse me of certain things anymore. And I strongly believe that we have talked enough about going off topic. Please refrain from answering further, if you really can't, you will not receive any reply.

[suchmoon]

False? Are you accusing me of telling a lie?

It depends on whether you are trying to mislead or not. Are you?

In a trust system without rules and moderation by upper third parties, whatever the reason for my complaint, it cannot be FALSE.

Of course it can be false. If you said that yogg's feedback has no word "trust" in it  - that would be false because it has the word "trust" in it. Similarly, saying that there is no reason for yogg's feedback is false because the reason is quite clearly stated in the feedback itself.

There is no law that forbids my feedback to be present OR NO in my wall. Which is why, since I do not go against my interests anyway, I believe that the next 2 feedbacks have been sent without reason. The first 2 feedbacks have sufficiently made the idea of what "type" of person you think I am.

You can believe whatever you want. Perhaps there is a language barrier or a cultural difference but you will not be able to convince me or likely anyone that something doesn't exist simply because you don't like it or disagree with it.

Please don't accuse me of certain things anymore. And I strongly believe that we have talked enough about going off topic. Please refrain from answering further, if you really can't, you will not receive any reply.

Oh crap, too late. Feel free to not reply and/or report my post to moderator for discussing your trust feedback in your thread about your trust feedback.

[marlboroza]

Your proof of trust abuse is me tagging people who knowingly advertised ponzi in signature?

You got me, guilty as charged.
Speaking of topic, can you include account marcotheminer to your positive trust abusers list?



His feedback is trust abuse because he was aware by that date that you borrowed money for only purpose to gain trust, therefore he shouldn't have left you one  

[yogg]

I'm working on it. I am considering various criteria and if they are not met it is pointless to point out their work.

Thank you much for bringing more visibility towards my profile.  
Please can you make sure that I remain #1 on your thread ? Would much appreciate.
My username starts with a "y", and generally when ordering alphabetically, I am at a disadvantage.

Thanks so much for bringing some justice among the mandatory concept of alphabetical sorting.
Such heresy.

http://prntscr.com/ph4rvn - Which of the three is your case? If you need help with your issue, i can help you.

That was not sarcasm.

1) Why would I feel insecure ?
2) I am not angry, but genuinely thankful for giving my profile more exposure.
3) Socially awkward ? Don't think so. I'm very busy with my life.

Thanks for your help, but no thanks. You should help yourself first.

If you think it was sarcasm, so be it. But please, leave me at the top of whatever list you're compiling.

[marcotheminer]

Your proof of trust abuse is me tagging people who knowingly advertised ponzi in signature?

You got me, guilty as charged.
Speaking of topic, can you include account marcotheminer to your positive trust abusers list?



His feedback is trust abuse because he was aware by that date that you borrowed money for only purpose to gain trust, therefore he shouldn't have left you one 

? Loan was successful, transaction was good, trust is deserved according to me. What he did following that was following that.

[morvillz7z]

|| User: marlboroza
|| List of feedback abused: http://prntscr.com/ph3den - ...more precisely: Point 1 and 2 - He used the work of Craige288 as a means to send negative
||                                                                                                                           (Useless) feedback, with the sole purpose of increasing
||                                                                                                                           turst indirectly. http://archive.is/8MfoO#selection

The screenshot that you posted is in no way, shape or form related to Craige288 and his findings. Accounts tagged by marlboroza were promoting at that time a blatant scam / ponzi scheme in their signatures - Bizzilion.

Since when tagging rule-breakers, scammers, ponzi promoters and trust farmers is considered useless feedback? The only thing you can gain/expect when you send -ve feedback is backlash and retaliation. I think that's pretty obvious considering this topic and its purpose.

[suchmoon]

? Loan was successful, transaction was good, trust is deserved according to me. What he did following that was following that.

You posted that feedback after he repeatedly stated that he's farming trust.

[johhnyUA]

Ahahahahaahahah.

> get neg rep
> created self moderated topic about trust abiuse
> include all who neg rep you in this list
.
.
.
Profit  


for honest, sometime i really think that some users don't understand how to use trust feedback, but OP, it's not your case.

? Loan was successful, transaction was good, trust is deserved according to me. What he did following that was following that.

Don't be an idiot, greentrust someone for 0.0015 BTC it's creepy shit. In our local board we have people who didn't get feedbacks for 5000+ dollars of succesful trades. Why 0.0015?  Why so much? I think start sum for feedback must be 500 satoshi.

[DireWolfM14]

How come I didn't make your list?  I was the first to "abuse" you, so I'm really feeling neglected.  
And don't forget, "D" comes before "Y" and "M" in the alphabet...

Your "table" is making my eyes bleed.  It's disorganized and really hard to follow.  So, I fixed it for you.  Feel free to copy it from the code box and paste it into your post.  I promise I won't report you for plagiarism.

Abuser	||.Points.to.Reference	||.Abused.......	||.Evidence	||.Comment
yogg	|| 1, 2, and 4	|| DadyD	|| 1	||
yogg	|| 1 and 2	|| Fatcat	|| 1, 2	||
marlboroza	|| 1 and 2	|| Craige288	|| 1	|| He used the work of Craige288 without being ashamed as a means to send negative
marlboroza	|| N/A	|| cabalism13	|| 1, 2	|| Send negative feedback randomly, without even waiting for the discussion to end.  Then delete its (possible) posts and remove the negative feedback. Trust abuse.

Code:

[table]
[tr][td]Abuser[/td][td] ||[color=transparent].[/color]Points[color=transparent].[/color]to[color=transparent].[/color]Reference[/td][td] ||[color=transparent].[/color]Abused[color=transparent].......[/color][/td][td] ||[color=transparent].[/color]Evidence[/td][td] ||[color=transparent].[/color]Comment[/td][/tr]
[tr][td][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827]yogg[/url][/td][td] || 1, 2, and 4[/td][td] || [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2685086]DadyD[/url][/td][td] || [url=http://prntscr.com/pgn0nx]1[/url][/td][td] || [/td][/tr]
[tr][td][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=140827]yogg[/url][/td][td] || 1 and 2[/td][td] || [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=906410]Fatcat[/url][/td][td] || [url=http://prntscr.com/ph0sm7]1[/url], [url=http://prntscr.com/ph0tig]2[/url][/td][td] || [/td][/tr]
[tr][td][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=787736]marlboroza[/url][/td][td] || 1 and 2[/td][td] || [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=147040]Craige288[/url][/td][td] || [url=http://prntscr.com/ph3den]1[/url][/td][td] || He used the work of Craige288 without being ashamed as a means to send negative[/td][/tr]
[tr][td][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=787736]marlboroza[/url][/td][td] || N/A[/td][td] || [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1605387]cabalism13[/url][/td][td] || [url=http://prntscr.com/ph3mi5]1[/url], [url=http://prntscr.com/ph3n1l]2[/url][/td][td] || Send negative feedback randomly, without even waiting for the discussion to end.  Then delete its (possible) posts and remove the negative feedback. Trust abuse.[/td][/tr]
[/table]

[marcotheminer]

? Loan was successful, transaction was good, trust is deserved according to me. What he did following that was following that.

You posted that feedback after he repeatedly stated that he's farming trust.

I've removed my positive and change into a neutral - good point on the 'low amount' / trust farming yes, but it wasn't implicated with that loan imo.

[DadyD]

Your proof of trust abuse is me tagging people who knowingly advertised ponzi in signature?

You got me, guilty as charged.
Speaking of topic, can you include account marcotheminer to your positive trust abusers list?

https://i.imgur.com/bNShPPV.png

His feedback is trust abuse because he was aware by that date that you borrowed money for only purpose to gain trust, therefore he shouldn't have left you one  

|| User: marlboroza
|| List of feedback abused: http://prntscr.com/ph3den - ...more precisely: Point 1 and 2 - He used the work of Craige288 as a means to send negative
||                                                                                                                           (Useless) feedback, with the sole purpose of increasing
||                                                                                                                           turst indirectly. http://archive.is/8MfoO#selection

The screenshot that you posted is in no way, shape or form related to Craige288 and his findings. Accounts tagged by marlboroza were promoting at that time a blatant scam / ponzi scheme in their signatures - Bizzilion.

I'm positive today so lets speak...Tomorrow is my birthday so sorry if i'm late on posting even if i've read.

I address both of you. My post did not concern the ponzi, be careful, but the work taken and copied without shame on his part ...

I made two mistakes.
1) The copied "list" is from another user, I have mistakenly inserted the name of the OP thinking it was his, instead the list is of reagannn.
2) I have not highlighted the names I referred to in the screenshot, in particular these: http://prntscr.com/phkdgk

Please read better and, trying not to let the situation hang on your side. I apologize for my mistakes.

@marlboroza i'll include marco to, just give me some time i'm really busy.

Since when tagging rule-breakers, scammers, ponzi promoters and trust farmers is considered useless feedback? The only thing you can gain/expect when you send -ve feedback is backlash and retaliation. I think that's pretty obvious considering this topic and its purpose.

Read the posts better. I am not condemning those who report the subjects you mentioned, but those who abuse by continuing to send feedback, with the aim of increasing their trust indirectly, even though the subject has been well framed as "bad" or "good". Do you?

Ahahahahaahahah.

> get neg rep
> created self moderated topic about trust abiuse
> include all who neg rep you in this list
.
.
.
Profit 


for honest, sometime i really think that some users don't understand how to use trust feedback, but OP, it's not your case.

? Loan was successful, transaction was good, trust is deserved according to me. What he did following that was following that.

Don't be an idiot, greentrust someone for 0.0015 BTC it's creepy shit. In our local board we have people who didn't get feedbacks for 5000+ dollars of succesful trades. Why 0.0015?  Why so much? I think start sum for feedback must be 500 satoshi.

Nice story ya? Ahahaha.
I will not make the list only of who sent me the feedback, but of everyone, slowly
I currently agree with your last statement.

How come I didn't make your list?  I was the first to "abuse" you, so I'm really feeling neglected.   
And don't forget, "D" comes before "Y" and "M" in the alphabet...

Your "table" is making my eyes bleed.  It's disorganized and really hard to follow.  So, I fixed it for you.  Feel free to copy it from the code box and paste it into your post.  I promise I won't report you for plagiarism.

You are not on my list because, for now, you have done a good job. You sent me the first negative feedback, and I don't think it's wrong. The feedbacks that I consider wrong are those copied and pasted, those beyond the 2 feedback, posted only to increase the negativity of the user and his trust indirectly.

THANKS! For the list. I tried to use Table codes but in vain ... Your using dots with transparent color code is a wonderful thing ... Thanks again. Yes, the alphabetical order comes when maybe you get lost in the list ... for now it is bare xD

[marlboroza]

Ok, I see some updates, but:

marlboroza

|| 1 and 2

||Craige288reagannn

|| 1, 2

|| He used the work of reagannn without being ashamed as a means to send negative

...I am really having hard time to follow you. Reagannn exposed some cheaters in spectre's campaign and I used that work to tag bizzilion ponzinarians?

[DadyD]

Ok, I see some updates, but:

marlboroza

|| 1 and 2

||Craige288reagannn

|| 1, 2

|| He used the work of reagannn without being ashamed as a means to send negative

...I am really having hard time to follow you. Reagannn exposed some cheaters in spectre's campaign and I used that work to tag bizzilion ponzinarians?

You did a greet work reporting bizzilion ponzinarians...You didnt do a good work copying reagannn post and report the users that he found with hard work ( Or at least, it took time to find adress ecc ) If some of the bizzilion ponzinarians are included in the feedback I'm talking about it's a mere coincidence.

[DireWolfM14]

Ok, I see some updates, but:

marlboroza

|| 1 and 2

||Craige288reagannn

|| 1, 2

|| He used the work of reagannn without being ashamed as a means to send negative

...I am really having hard time to follow you. Reagannn exposed some cheaters in spectre's campaign and I used that work to tag bizzilion ponzinarians?

I think DadyD has his panties in a bunch because you didn't do the investigation work yourself.  In his opinion you're piggybacking on the work of others to elevate your own value in the "trust-network."  

The argument is obviously ridiculous on it's face.  If reagannn isn't a DT member, any review he may have left for all those ponzi promoters would go unnoticed by the rest of the community.  DadyD's argument that repeating reviews for the same offense being unwarranted is also ridiculous.  Trust isn't moderated, and a lot of abusive behavior isn't against the rules.  Therefor trust is largely opinion based, and anyone can leave their opinion on your trust wall for any reason.  As such, anyone is free to ignore those reviews and opinions.

You sent me the first negative feedback, and I don't think it's wrong.

Well, I'm glad you've acknowledge that my review is accurate (or "not wrong,") but are you in agreement that your actions were wrong?

[marlboroza]

You did a greet work reporting bizzilion ponzinarians...You didnt do a good work copying reagannn post and report the users that he found with hard work ( Or at least, it took time to find adress ecc ) If some of the bizzilion ponzinarians are included in the feedback I'm talking about it's a mere coincidence.

What now, you said it is abuse and posted screenshot of accounts I tagged and then you said it is great work 

Let me point few things, maybe you will better understand them:

I need DT members too

Let me point some other things:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5045649.0

If you need anything else, let me know.
Don't forget to add marcotheminer to positive trust abuser list who deleted positive trust.

[DadyD]

You sent me the first negative feedback, and I don't think it's wrong.

Well, I'm glad you've acknowledge that my review is accurate (or "not wrong,") but are you in agreement that your actions were wrong?

I'm not going to talk about the reason for my negative feedback. I understand that the trust farm is badly seen, so I would see it too. I'm not here to complain about the negative feedback I received, but the number of users who sent feedback for no reason.

I even admitted a few posts ago. And yes, I agree that my actions were wrong.

I think DadyD has his panties in a bunch because you didn't do the investigation work yourself.  In his opinion you're piggybacking on the work of others to elevate your own value in the "trust-network." 

This was my opinion ... But wrong. I did a search now and discovered that marlboroza is in the DT list ... So what he did is justified. One mistake of mine.

You did a greet work reporting bizzilion ponzinarians...You didnt do a good work copying reagannn post and report the users that he found with hard work ( Or at least, it took time to find adress ecc ) If some of the bizzilion ponzinarians are included in the feedback I'm talking about it's a mere coincidence.

What now, you said it is abuse and posted screenshot of accounts I tagged and then you said it is great work 

Let me point few things, maybe you will better understand them:

https://i.imgur.com/IIEEhYb.png

I need DT members too

Let me point some other things:

https://i.imgur.com/ON17mpg.png
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5045649.0

If you need anything else, let me know.
Don't forget to add marcotheminer to positive trust abuser list who deleted positive trust.

You still don't understand the point ... but it does matter ...

I formally apologize for the accusation lashed by me!

If you need anything else, let me know.

Sure. Would you explain to me why you don't mention the feedback you made on cabalism13? I'm curious

[marlboroza]

Sure. Would you explain to me why you don't mention the feedback you made on cabalism13? I'm curious

I already did, you just have to find it.

I can not find it...

Not my problem.

[DadyD]

Sure. Would you explain to me why you don't mention the feedback you made on cabalism13? I'm curious

I already did, you just have to find it.

I can not find it...

[cabalism13]

Send negative feedback randomly, without even waiting for the discussion to end.  Then delete its (possible) posts and remove the negative feedback. Trust abuse.

Errr....
I really don't know what's going on here but just to clarify things, I do understand the consequences i have done back then but I already told the public that I wasn't helping yobit to regain their status its more likelythe opposite. Its for the sake of the abused users.
And AFAIK I didn't delete my posts back then, I just sent marlboroza a message by that time explaining things.
(Well, if he didn't remove it that's absolutely the abuse)

Sure. Would you explain to me why you don't mention the feedback you made on cabalism13? I'm curious

I don't know why am I connected to this or what, Just the main reason I can think of, on why marlboroza deleted the negative, is because I am not a scammer, I am not spreading lies, I am not spreading ponzis or any other related bad schemes.
I do understand the negative of marlboroza, for me it was just a warning that I should not continue what am I doing on the past. He left me neutral so I can be wary that I should not be doing it again.

The only abusers left on my account was IconFirm and his alt blurredeye  That was really an abuse on using Trust, I think he did thought I didn't know about his alts.

Edit:PS. I'm not defending marlboroza's feedbacks LoL, just stating my side for I have been mentioned here. Well, I do really not care about your issues so please don't mention my account again. The issue between us was already cleared so moving on...

[DadyD]

Because of busy time, i'm going to lock the thread...Sadly