Trust spam happens

[tspacepilot]

maybe newbie accounts shouldn't be allowed to give trust ratings in the same way they can't vote on polls

I disagree. Newbies do business, in fact a large percentage of gift card market is newbies, because non-bitcoiners find this great deal and sign up for an account here. Disallowing newbies wouldn't fix anything with trust spam since the vast majority of trust left here is by people higher than junior member.

It takes 30 activity points to get a newbie account turn into a Jr. Member...

Which is 3 14 day periods, a month and a half. If the user really wants to get into the bitcoin world I am sure they will wait about 42 days until they can be part of the trust member.

Of course they will.  The point here was that someone or some ones were creating a bunch of accounts just to drop a bunch of negative trust, ie trust spam.  Presuambly if you have to wait a month and a half, you'll have calmed down a bit in that time and so creating a bunch of accounts just to trust spam won't really happen.

Orrrr, you give scammers 42 days of immunity before the newbie they just got scammed or almost scammed can speak out against them. Can anyone show a single example of where trust spam by newbies has caused any effect on anyone in the slightest? Maybe point out a thread where someone refused to deal with someone because they had 50 negatives from untrusted newbies?

This is also a good point.  But doesn't this cut both ways, if everyone ignores trust from newbies then how is removing their ability to put that equivalent to removing their voice to "speak out".  Presumably they can still post issues in "scam accusations".  But if 50 accounts try to post the same scam accusation just to rage-spam the forum, the mods will presumably delete those threads.

I admit, I'm not passionate about this either way, and I haven't had any trust-spam issues.  I just thought that the waiting period on feedback may have made sense.  But I may be wrong...

[SaltySpitoon]

Orrrr, you give scammers 42 days of immunity before the newbie they just got scammed or almost scammed can speak out against them. Can anyone show a single example of where trust spam by newbies has caused any effect on anyone in the slightest? Maybe point out a thread where someone refused to deal with someone because they had 50 negatives from untrusted newbies?

This is also a good point.  But doesn't this cut both ways, if everyone ignores trust from newbies then how is removing their ability to put that equivalent to removing their voice to "speak out".  Presumably they can still post issues in "scam accusations".  But if 50 accounts try to post the same scam accusation just to rage-spam the forum, the mods will presumably delete those threads.

I admit, I'm not passionate about this either way, and I haven't had any trust-spam issues.  I just thought that the waiting period on feedback may have made sense.  But I may be wrong...

The point is, that newbie's feedback (and everyone's for that matter) is pretty much disregarded unless you include a reference link, and an accurate description of what the negative is for. I haven't seen a single case since the trust system was implemented where trust spam has been any sort of issue. I've seen people annoyed that they recieved a negative, but I haven't seen a single case where a false negative from trust spammers has inhibited anyone in any way. I dont see why we need to propose fixes for something that isn't a problem. If it becomes a problem, we should fix it.

[tspacepilot]

Orrrr, you give scammers 42 days of immunity before the newbie they just got scammed or almost scammed can speak out against them. Can anyone show a single example of where trust spam by newbies has caused any effect on anyone in the slightest? Maybe point out a thread where someone refused to deal with someone because they had 50 negatives from untrusted newbies?

This is also a good point.  But doesn't this cut both ways, if everyone ignores trust from newbies then how is removing their ability to put that equivalent to removing their voice to "speak out".  Presumably they can still post issues in "scam accusations".  But if 50 accounts try to post the same scam accusation just to rage-spam the forum, the mods will presumably delete those threads.

I admit, I'm not passionate about this either way, and I haven't had any trust-spam issues.  I just thought that the waiting period on feedback may have made sense.  But I may be wrong...

The point is, that newbie's feedback (and everyone's for that matter) is pretty much disregarded unless you include a reference link, and an accurate description of what the negative is for. I haven't seen a single case since the trust system was implemented where trust spam has been any sort of issue. I've seen people annoyed that they recieved a negative, but I haven't seen a single case where a false negative from trust spammers has inhibited anyone in any way. I dont see why we need to propose fixes for something that isn't a problem. If it becomes a problem, we should fix it.

I understand.  My only reply would be that annoyances are, in a sense, problems.  Minor ones by definition, yes.  But many annoyances can certainly become problematic.  In any case, I won't say anything more on this because I've never been trust spammed and therefore never even been annoyed by it. 

[EcuaMobi]

 I just left a review noting symantec hacks websites to steal keys and resell them (after he publicly admitted so) and I instantly got trust spam from several accounts, very similarly as OP. So I'm pretty sure he's the one who left that spam for OP too.

Edit: After leaving a review on his shill accounts noting they belong to symantec he removed almost all of the spam from my profile.

[Quickseller]

I just left a review noting symantec hacks websites to steal keys and resell them (after he publicly admitted so) and I instantly got trust spam from several accounts, very similarly as OP. So I'm pretty sure he's the one who left that spam for OP too.

haha wow that is a lot of negative feedback. Well I guess we now know who was behind all those spam negatives that Vod got not long ago. None of them have any credibility though, especially considering that they all have negative trust

[symantec]

I just left a review noting symantec hacks websites to steal keys and resell them (after he publicly admitted so) and I instantly got trust spam from several accounts, very similarly as OP. So I'm pretty sure he's the one who left that spam for OP too.

Oh...A dog miserable, why look at things like the others here.

Why when I open toppic scam, you jump into my toppic and give a response -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.0

[symantec]

]haha wow that is a lot of negative feedback. Well I guess we now know who was behind all those spam negatives that Vod got not long ago. None of them have any credibility though, especially considering that they all have negative trust

Behind these negative people who are taking advantage of them as a hobby and with the ignorance of working to impose on everyone here.

Why do not know is he ignorant when using Trust:
- Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
- Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
- Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

[EcuaMobi]

Why when I open toppic scam, you jump into my toppic and give a response -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.0

To try to clear things up. That's what people are supposed to do in a scam accusation. Unfortunately you weren't helpful so I had to give up.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10990891#msg10990891

[chmod755]

I recently (April 4) received many negative ratings from new accounts - that guy copied my own comments --> 0/10 for effort.

I didn't give a bad rating to symantec, but maybe he maintains more than one bitcointalk account

[EcuaMobi]

I recently (April 4) received many negative ratings from new accounts - that guy copied my own comments --> 0/10 for effort.

I didn't give a bad rating to symantec, but maybe he maintains more than one bitcointalk account

Yes I'm pretty sure he has at least 2 additional accounts he uses to sell keys (not 100% sure so I won't mention the accounts) and who knows if others besides those.

[symantec]

To try to clear things up. That's what people are supposed to do in a scam accusation. Unfortunately you weren't helpful so I had to give up.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10990891#msg10990891

Read it before you open your mouth dog here

- Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
- Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
- Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.


This is the last time I speak in this topic:

1. You and the people Indian and China are the same: Because I call this the dog

2. You guys are calling for more people to participate to war with me

3. He and others are abusing the system you trust to apply to everyone

4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548 (This is my topic aims to warn everyone to be careful when trade with him)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for my own: I still staying true to conscience and my man and I is not scam anyone here. Here I always have customers and partners trust me

Those who are taking advantage of trust: Stop the ignorance of him when imposing it for everyone

Especially pay attention to the following topics: This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013646
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=987244.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1007956.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1007795

[Muhammed Zakir]

[ size=12pt]Read it before you open your mouth dog here

- Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.
- Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.
- Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

They are simple rules for leaving feedback. There are many more rules for leaving trust feedback. Don't claim things only with those three lines.

This is the last time I speak in this topic:

I don't want you to stop posting in this thread, I want you to stop using unnecessary BBCodes and speak calmly.

1. You and the people Indian and China are the same: Because I call this the dog

This shows how exactly is your personality.

2. You guys are calling for more people to participate to war with me

I (we) aren't in for a war. It looks like you are in for a war. You even can't talk correctly.

3. He and others are abusing the system you trust to apply to everyone

I didn't understand this. However, I am fairly sure you have misunderstood.

4. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548 (This is my topic aims to warn everyone to be careful when trade with him)

Warning is good but you should clarify all things or atleast the questions asked by members. What you did were reposting same post(s).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for my own: I still staying true to conscience and my man and I is not scam anyone here. Here I always have customers and partners trust me

Negative trust feedback wasn't for scamming, it was for bad attitude and possible-false scam accusation.

Those who are taking advantage of trust: Stop the ignorance of him when imposing it for everyone

You did see his profile, right? We aren't ignoring him, you couldn't even make a truthful scam accusation and came up with bad behavior.

Especially pay attention to the following topics: This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1013646
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=987244.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1007956.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1007795[/size]

Yes, self-moderated threads are bad for sales but there can be good intentions too(not saying FuckIdolPlus has/had good/bad intention).

P.S. You can clearly understand what does the forum warning mean. IMHO you have a few misunderstandings but you aren't ready to ask them.

[symantec]

Yes, self-moderated threads are bad for sales but there can be good intentions too(not saying FuckIdolPlus has/had good/bad intention).

P.S. You can clearly understand what does the forum warning mean. IMHO you have a few misunderstandings but you aren't ready to ask them.

Better go suck travel mouth bitch Indian:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10986221#msg10986221
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10987699#msg10987699
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10987962#msg10987962
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10990204#msg10990204
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10991113#msg10991113
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10991220#msg10991220
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10991683#msg10991683

Important Messages: https://i.imgur.com/OChMSjX.png and https://i.imgur.com/hLDpXFW.png

What is happening when you avoid him questions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10991993#msg10991993

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will find here: Skype: tanya.kuthiala.3 and E-Mail: tanya.kuthiala.3@gmail.com and I'll figure out something like this

https://www.facebook.com/tanya.kuthiala.3 or https://www.facebook.com/tanya.kuthiala (This is Indians, in the state of Kerala)

PS: Here's a bitch in Indians...That is why Muhammad Zakir trying to justify the actions of this scam

Muhammad Zakir - https://i.imgur.com/Rmv7Hju.png (This is Indians, in the state of Kerala)

[Muhammed Zakir]

[ size=12pt]Better go suck travel mouth bitch Indian:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10986221#msg10986221
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10987699#msg10987699
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10987962#msg10987962
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10990204#msg10990204
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10991113#msg10991113
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10991220#msg10991220
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10991683#msg10991683

What is with my messages? I was trying to ask FuckIdolPlus to know more about this. If you look my posts, you can clearly see that I have done the same thing earlier.

Important Messages: https://i.imgur.com/OChMSjX.png

I asked her to give the password to me or a trusted person so that I or anyone else can verify what she is claiming is true or not.

and https://i.imgur.com/hLDpXFW.png

See the reference.

What is happening when you avoid him questions: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012548.msg10991993#msg10991993

If you have checked the time, you can easily know I was sleeping at that time. I checked your thread now and if you unlock it, I can reply. Thank you!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will find here: Skype: tanya.kuthiala.3 and E-Mail: tanya.kuthiala.3@gmail.com and I'll figure out something like this

https://www.facebook.com/tanya.kuthiala.3 or https://www.facebook.com/tanya.kuthiala (This is Indians, in the state of Kerala)

A fair warning: You maybe going for similar names. I can assure you, I don't know here but I know you won't believe it. If you think it is her's, it's okay but probably, it may belong to someone else and you might be breaking their privacy. Anyway, it's always your choice.

PS: Here's a bitch in Indians...That is why Muhammad Zakir trying to justify the actions of this scam

Muhammad Zakir - https://i.imgur.com/Rmv7Hju.png (This is Indians, in the state of Kerala)[/size]

Yes, I am an Indian. I still don't know why should I protect a person(if he/she is bad) even if the person is living in my country.

This is going a little offtopic. If you think my actions are bad or irrelevant, feel free to start a scam accusation and we can discuss it there.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Thanks mate. Whose next or am I the last?

[redsn0w]

Thanks mate. Whose next or am I the last?

Who cares? Negative trusts from brand new/newbie users. I hope no one will trust  their judgments  . will the trust system be (in the new forum software) the same as now?

[BadBear]

...

95 accounts for trust bombing? Really?

[Quickseller]

Thanks mate. Whose next or am I the last?

this is obvious spam. I think this probably qualifies to have them removed, however either way it is not going to affect you.

IMO anyone that attacks someone based on their race is deducted credibility points in my book and are generally not going to be listened to.

[siameze]

IMO anyone that attacks someone based on their race is deducted credibility points in my book and are generally not going to be listened to.

Usually racially charged comments follow from a person that has not legitimate ground to stand on in their accusations. Muhammed Zakir was one of the first people I remembered seeing on here regularly, and although I don't know him well seems like a genuinely nice guy. There are certainly bad actors amongst all races and peoples, so trying to justify this simply because he is an Indian is rather laughable.

[Muhammed Zakir]

...

95 accounts for trust bombing? Really?

Why don't we ban as he/she is clearly spamming. I mean there is ban for post_spam and PM_spam, so why not a ban for "trust_spam"? This will increase if no action is taken and of course, never want a trust moderation. The trust feedback can stay there.