Bitcointalk account

[tspacepilot]

-snip-
Meanwhile, lots of crazy bluster and mudslinging between ebzec and blazr seem to have totally derailed this thread.  I guess there's been some intersting reading about browser security, though.

Yeah, this makes me wonder whether there is an actual interest in finding a possible solution or if this is just an ego game. I did not read this thread for a while because I thought I would need at least 30 minutes to read the posts here. Now that I have the time I skipped most of the posts and find another dead thread.

Whether or not Quickseller is farming accounts whether they are high or low quality is IMHO their own "problem". Its in their best interest to farm accounts with quality posts, since a ban would also impact their main account.

I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts.  In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest.

[shorena]

-snip-
I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts.  In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest.

That is a point. I dont think that the amount of time QS invests in haunting (not a typo) scammers is worth the coins earned through sales to said scammers. I would like to think that the majority of their customers are looking for a spot in a signature campaign. Arguably this would make their actions against spammers a conflict of interest as well. Every spammer banned is a possible future customer. The new account will probably get banned as well, because the do not learn the lesson or dont care because they still ROI.

I personally think its part of beeing human to contradict itself.

[tspacepilot]

-snip-
I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts.  In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest.

That is a point. I dont think that the amount of time QS invests in haunting (not a typo) scammers is worth the coins earned through sales to said scammers. I would like to think that the majority of their customers are looking for a spot in a signature campaign. Arguably this would make their actions against spammers a conflict of interest as well. Every spammer banned is a possible future customer. The new account will probably get banned as well, because the do not learn the lesson or dont care because they still ROI.

I'm not sure this is correct.  Every neg-repped account just makes future customers for farmed accounts with the same rank.  Since buying-selling accounts is not considered against the rules, presumably everyone QS gets kicked out of a signature-ad campaign just comes back to him trying to buy in again.

I personally think its part of beeing human to contradict itself.

Okay, your last point is philosophical but there's a real difference between contradictions inherent in human nature (whatever those are) and clear conflicts of interest in which, say, a government regulator has clear ties to the industry he/she regulates, etc.  These clear conflicts of interest are system problems that can be identified and avoided, the philosophical stuff you refer to seems much less actionable.

[CoinFriend]

wow, this thread is literally exploded since i last wrote and watched here. If i have enough time i will read this all.
But first, some answers for "hilariousandco":

What evidence do you have that links him to Quickseller exactly (assuming that's who you're referring to)? Quickseller was knowledgeable of the rules here and that guy clearly isn't because a) he doesn't seem to be aware that you only need to make 1 post per fortnight and not spam quickly to make 14, and 2) Quickseller always made decent posts and didn't 'farm' them this way.

It's not my work to search and show evidences!
That someone knows the rules means not that he also break rules!
about a) The accounts i talk about do 14 post on the same day. between the posting days are minimum 14 days to meet the roules about the "activity" raise. He know the rules!
I believe, it doesn't work for me, that i have to made only one post per 14 days to get 14 activity points!  
about 2) The account "Quickseller" made only decent posts, that right. But that doesn't mean the person behind Quickseller post in the same way from other accounts. A person with more than one account plays mostly theater with other users.
Thinking that those people doesn't change the writing is hilarious!
I saw people before who write big letters only or only few word if the use different accounts, to hide the identity.

You can own/create/farm/buy/sell/lend as many accounts as you wish, just as long as you make decent posts/contributions from them.

Sorry, i searched the rules and remembered wrong. Your right.

[Muhammed Zakir]

wow, this thread is literally exploded since i last wrote and watched here. If i have enough time i will read this all.
But first, some answers for "hilariousandco":

What evidence do you have that links him to Quickseller exactly (assuming that's who you're referring to)? Quickseller was knowledgeable of the rules here and that guy clearly isn't because a) he doesn't seem to be aware that you only need to make 1 post per fortnight and not spam quickly to make 14, and 2) Quickseller always made decent posts and didn't 'farm' them this way.

It's not my work to search and show evidences!
That someone knows the rules means not that he also break rules!
about a) The accounts i talk about do 14 post on the same day. between the posting days are minimum 14 days to meet the roules about the "activity" raise. He know the rules!
I believe, it doesn't work for me, that i have to made only one post per 14 days to get 14 activity points! 
about 2) The account "Quickseller" made only decent posts, that right. But that doesn't mean the person behind Quickseller post in the same way from other accounts. A person with more than one account plays mostly theater with other users.
Thinking that those people doesn't change the writing is hilarious!
I saw people before who write big letters only or only few word if the use different accounts, to hide the identity.

You can own/create/farm/buy/sell/lend as many accounts as you wish, just as long as you make decent posts/contributions from them.

Sorry, i searched the rules and remembered wrong. Your right.

You claim it's QS' and you tell it is not your job to find evidences. Sounds great!

[tspacepilot]

wow, this thread is literally exploded since i last wrote and watched here. If i have enough time i will read this all.
But first, some answers for "hilariousandco":

What evidence do you have that links him to Quickseller exactly (assuming that's who you're referring to)? Quickseller was knowledgeable of the rules here and that guy clearly isn't because a) he doesn't seem to be aware that you only need to make 1 post per fortnight and not spam quickly to make 14, and 2) Quickseller always made decent posts and didn't 'farm' them this way.

It's not my work to search and show evidences!
That someone knows the rules means not that he also break rules!
about a) The accounts i talk about do 14 post on the same day. between the posting days are minimum 14 days to meet the roules about the "activity" raise. He know the rules!
I believe, it doesn't work for me, that i have to made only one post per 14 days to get 14 activity points! 
about 2) The account "Quickseller" made only decent posts, that right. But that doesn't mean the person behind Quickseller post in the same way from other accounts. A person with more than one account plays mostly theater with other users.
Thinking that those people doesn't change the writing is hilarious!
I saw people before who write big letters only or only few word if the use different accounts, to hide the identity.

You can own/create/farm/buy/sell/lend as many accounts as you wish, just as long as you make decent posts/contributions from them.

Sorry, i searched the rules and remembered wrong. Your right.

You claim it's QS' and you tell it is not your job to find evidences. Sounds great!

Did he actually claim it was QS?  I didn't see that upthread (I did see hillarious replying as if he had made that claim).  I thought he was generally talking about farmed accounts, not necessarilly making a claim about who the farmer was.

[hilariousandco]

It's not my work to search and show evidences

If you don't have 'evidences' then don't make wildly incorrect assumptions based on incorrect hunches. It serves no purpose unless you have evidence. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of being a scammer or farming accounts with poor posts without evidence? Of course not.

about 2) The account "Quickseller" made only decent posts, that right. But that doesn't mean the person behind Quickseller post in the same way from other accounts.

Well he did with the ones I was aware of (both ones he told me about ones he didn't). I don't think he's going to risk having his main account and all his others banned.

[tspacepilot]

It's not my work to search and show evidences

If you don't have 'evidences' then don't make wildly incorrect assumptions based on incorrect hunches. It serves no purpose unless you have evidence. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of being a scammer or farming accounts with poor posts without evidence? Of course not.

Well, as far as I can tell, CoinFriend was pointing out the account farming going on, where did he associate it with QS?  With respect to whether it's fair to accuse someone of being a scammer without evidence, that's exactly what Quickseller has done to me.  As far as I can tell there have been zero repercussions for him.  Not saying it's right, just saying that it seems to happen around here without consequence.

about 2) The account "Quickseller" made only decent posts, that right. But that doesn't mean the person behind Quickseller post in the same way from other accounts.

Well he did with the ones I was aware of (both ones he told me about ones he didn't). I don't think he's going to risk having his main account and all his others banned.

[shorena]

-snip-
I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts.  In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest.

That is a point. I dont think that the amount of time QS invests in haunting (not a typo) scammers is worth the coins earned through sales to said scammers. I would like to think that the majority of their customers are looking for a spot in a signature campaign. Arguably this would make their actions against spammers a conflict of interest as well. Every spammer banned is a possible future customer. The new account will probably get banned as well, because the do not learn the lesson or dont care because they still ROI.

I'm not sure this is correct.  Every neg-repped account just makes future customers for farmed accounts with the same rank.  Since buying-selling accounts is not considered against the rules, presumably everyone QS gets kicked out of a signature-ad campaign just comes back to him trying to buy in again.

I dont think my point came across, my argument is: its not worth it for Quickseller to activly hunt scammers in the way they do. E.g. the TheGambler dox has probably taken several hours, probably weeks worth of research. From a economical perspective it would make no sense to invest so much time if the sole motivator was to sell more accounts. My guess is that its worth more to hunt spammers. They are easier to detect and their motivation to earn through a signature is obvious. They also have a chance to ROI as long as they keep it constructive.

I personally think its part of beeing human to contradict itself.

Okay, your last point is philosophical but there's a real difference between contradictions inherent in human nature (whatever those are) and clear conflicts of interest in which, say, a government regulator has clear ties to the industry he/she regulates, etc.  These clear conflicts of interest are system problems that can be identified and avoided, the philosophical stuff you refer to seems much less actionable.

Yes[1], but Quickseller is also not in a position where they can just decide on a regulation that would benefit them (long term). From what I have read, they usually have evidence. There are some cases IIRC where the evidence was not publicly disclosed. The evidence might not always be rock solid, but even arguably (in)valid evidence serves a purpose within the trust system. It is vital to understand the person giving the rating in order to understand the rating and how it affects your business. E.g. if you dont care about Microsofts ToS, Vods ratings might not be valueable to you and you can thus discard them. If you agree that violating a companies ToS might lead to problems in the future, the rating is valueable. Even if you are indifferent about the issue, the rating is still valueable because it gives you a point of view you might not have considered yourself.

The other side of the coin is that there are many users who seem unable to look beyond the flashy red WARNING!. I would argue though that those that are unable to understand a rating might not be someone to trade with. In the end, we are talking about nothing more but a warning, an opinion. Different opinions are valueable especially if you disagree with them.

It's not my work to search and show evidences

If you don't have 'evidences' then don't make wildly incorrect assumptions based on incorrect hunches. It serves no purpose unless you have evidence. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of being a scammer or farming accounts with poor posts without evidence? Of course not.

Well, as far as I can tell, CoinFriend was pointing out the account farming going on, where did he associate it with QS? 
-snip-

In another thread:

-snip-
See here what i wrote about the account and what i found out about his posting history.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=653271.msg11280915#msg11280915
-snip-

[1] I will also try to keep philosophy out of the discussion

[tspacepilot]

-snip-
I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts.  In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest.

That is a point. I dont think that the amount of time QS invests in haunting (not a typo) scammers is worth the coins earned through sales to said scammers. I would like to think that the majority of their customers are looking for a spot in a signature campaign. Arguably this would make their actions against spammers a conflict of interest as well. Every spammer banned is a possible future customer. The new account will probably get banned as well, because the do not learn the lesson or dont care because they still ROI.

I'm not sure this is correct.  Every neg-repped account just makes future customers for farmed accounts with the same rank.  Since buying-selling accounts is not considered against the rules, presumably everyone QS gets kicked out of a signature-ad campaign just comes back to him trying to buy in again.

I dont think my point came across, my argument is: its not worth it for Quickseller to activly hunt scammers in the way they do. E.g. the TheGambler dox has probably taken several hours, probably weeks worth of research. From a economical perspective it would make no sense to invest so much time if the sole motivator was to sell more accounts. My guess is that its worth more to hunt spammers. They are easier to detect and their motivation to earn through a signature is obvious. They also have a chance to ROI as long as they keep it constructive.

Well, you may be right about the cost-benefit analysis of QS neg-repping to increase account prices.  But I don't believe that the conflict of interest has to be the sole motivation for someone in order for that conflict of interest to be valid.  COI's are black and white, people may or may not act on them but keeping black-and-white COIs out of default trust seems like it would be important (to me).

I personally think its part of beeing human to contradict itself.

Okay, your last point is philosophical but there's a real difference between contradictions inherent in human nature (whatever those are) and clear conflicts of interest in which, say, a government regulator has clear ties to the industry he/she regulates, etc.  These clear conflicts of interest are system problems that can be identified and avoided, the philosophical stuff you refer to seems much less actionable.

Yes[1], but Quickseller is also not in a position where they can just decide on a regulation that would benefit them (long term). From what I have read, they usually have evidence. There are some cases IIRC where the evidence was not publicly disclosed. The evidence might not always be rock solid, but even arguably (in)valid evidence serves a purpose within the trust system.  It is vital to understand the person giving the rating in order to understand the rating and how it affects your business.

I agree, but sometimes the evidence isn't even there at all.  In my own case, QS's "evidence" was merely the fact that a known scammer accused me years ago.  In any case, I wonder if you'd be feeling any differently if you had to wear a large WARNING on your account (which I know you've had for years because you and I started on this forum around the same time) just because someone got angry at you.

E.g. if you dont care about Microsofts ToS, Vods ratings might not be valueable to you and you can thus discard them. If you agree that violating a companies ToS might lead to problems in the future, the rating is valueable. Even if you are indifferent about the issue, the rating is still valueable because it gives you a point of view you might not have considered yourself.

The other side of the coin is that there are many users who seem unable to look beyond the flashy red WARNING!. I would argue though that those that are unable to understand a rating might not be someone to trade with. In the end, we are talking about nothing more but a warning, an opinion. Different opinions are valueable especially if you disagree with them.

I mostly agree with you, but in fact, as someone who participates in signature-ad campaigns, you know that many campaigns will now allow advertizers with a warning from someone on default trust.  So in fact there's a very direct connection between the presence of the warning and the economic value of an account.  Before QS began his smear campaign against me based on the fact that I had disagreed with him and called him out for being a hothead, I basically felt the way you do, that these warnings are obviously meant to be taken with a grain of salt.  And, FWIW, I removed Vod from my trust list some time ago for just the reason you said, I don't find microsoft IP matters interesting or relevant to my world so I don't care to worry about his warnings.  I started a thread in meta about how to tone down the warning text so that it more accurately reflects what it means (ie, instead of "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" change it to "This user has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list").  Hillariously, QS actually neg-repped me for merely having that opinion using one of his alts (ACCTSeller).

It's not my work to search and show evidences

If you don't have 'evidences' then don't make wildly incorrect assumptions based on incorrect hunches. It serves no purpose unless you have evidence. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of being a scammer or farming accounts with poor posts without evidence? Of course not.

Well, as far as I can tell, CoinFriend was pointing out the account farming going on, where did he associate it with QS? 
-snip-

In another thread:

-snip-
See here what i wrote about the account and what i found out about his posting history.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=653271.msg11280915#msg11280915
-snip-

[1] I will also try to keep philosophy out of the discussion

[shorena]

Well, you may be right about the cost-benefit analysis of QS neg-repping to increase account prices.  But I don't believe that the conflict of interest has to be the sole motivation for someone in order for that conflict of interest to be valid.  COI's are black and white, people may or may not act on them but keeping black-and-white COIs out of default trust seems like it would be important (to me).

Just a thought, but applying the same argument (COI) to you would lead to the conclusion that discussing whether or not QS should be on DT should not be a viable thing. You have a conflict of interest because you directly benefit from their removal from DT. I dont actually think that its a valid point, but I had to put it out there.

I dont think anything is black and white. *resist 50 shades of grey joke*. I think someone can be gradually conflicted in their interest. The person in question might also not be aware of their bias. A healthy discussion whether or not someone is biased and their ratings are affected is important IMHO. Whether this leads to a conclusion or not is something else.

I agree, but sometimes the evidence isn't even there at all.  In my own case, QS's "evidence" was merely the fact that a known scammer accused me years ago.  In any case, I wonder if you'd be feeling any differently if you had to wear a large WARNING on your account (which I know you've had for years because you and I started on this forum around the same time) just because someone got angry at you.

Well, yes the conclusion is very shaky IMHO. Thats what I wrote in your thread as well. For me there is not enough to label you as a scammer. I know that I would be angry about a person leaving injust feedback. I had (and still have) that issue with TradeFortress. Your situation is certainly different though, because QS does not have a trust score of -6000, but just because I understand your motivation or situation does not mean that I agree with your conclusion. When I look at your rating I will be reminded that was an argument in the past and you may or may not have used to bot to gain an advantage. This would barely influence my behaviour when doing business with you. In case of a loan your account has certainly less value, same as if you wanted to sell it. I understand that signature campaign managers are very picky about these things and I honestly dont understand it most of the time. Its either laziness or they are afraid of the imagine problem it might cause if someone "bad" advertises for them.

E.g. if you dont care about Microsofts ToS, Vods ratings might not be valueable to you and you can thus discard them. If you agree that violating a companies ToS might lead to problems in the future, the rating is valueable. Even if you are indifferent about the issue, the rating is still valueable because it gives you a point of view you might not have considered yourself.

The other side of the coin is that there are many users who seem unable to look beyond the flashy red WARNING!. I would argue though that those that are unable to understand a rating might not be someone to trade with. In the end, we are talking about nothing more but a warning, an opinion. Different opinions are valueable especially if you disagree with them.

I mostly agree with you, but in fact, as someone who participates in signature-ad campaigns, you know that many campaigns will now allow advertizers with a warning from someone on default trust.  So in fact there's a very direct connection between the presence of the warning and the economic value of an account.  Before QS began his smear campaign against me based on the fact that I had disagreed with him and called him out for being a hothead, I basically felt the way you do, that these warnings are obviously meant to be taken with a grain of salt.  And, FWIW, I removed Vod from my trust list some time ago for just the reason you said, I don't find microsoft IP matters interesting or relevant to my world so I don't care to worry about his warnings.  I started a thread in meta about how to tone down the warning text so that it more accurately reflects what it means (ie, instead of "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" change it to "This user has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list").  Hillariously, QS actually neg-repped me for merely having that opinion using one of his alts (ACCTSeller).

Neg-repping for arguments sake is certainly wrong. I already mentioned signature campaigns above and yes I see their very strict "no neg rep" rules and I dont understand them from a DT perspective. From a marketing perspective it certainly makes sense, because you are afraid to look bad. This is actually a valid point I have not considered in that regard before. Your negative rating by Quickseller is now prohibiting you earning from your posts. Who is to blame though? Should those on DT keep the possible signature earning is mind when leaving a rating? I dont think thats a good idea. Should we force certain practices regarding the signature campaigns? Sounds like a bad idea.
Having a higher standard on what is evidence might be a solution though. I dont think its unreasonable to ask for higher quality in terms of evidence. After all being on DT is giving your ratings more influence. On the other hand many ratings are merely hunches, esp towards newbies.

I just read your rating again and it seems Vod (as well as r3wt) gave you one to somewhat counter the rating by QS. This is getting very specific though, IIRC the discussion ought to be about trading trust.

[tspacepilot]

Well, you may be right about the cost-benefit analysis of QS neg-repping to increase account prices.  But I don't believe that the conflict of interest has to be the sole motivation for someone in order for that conflict of interest to be valid.  COI's are black and white, people may or may not act on them but keeping black-and-white COIs out of default trust seems like it would be important (to me).

Just a thought, but applying the same argument (COI) to you would lead to the conclusion that discussing whether or not QS should be on DT should not be a viable thing. You have a conflict of interest because you directly benefit from their removal from DT. I dont actually think that its a valid point, but I had to put it out there.

Of course you're correct that nothing is completely black-and-white.  But I still disagree with your application of COI in this case.  Assume everyone has an interest in protecting themself.  That's fine.  COI is usually restricted to clear cases where someone is getting paid by two opposing interests.  This isn't the case if I argue that QS should be removed from default trust.  Yes, I have an interest in having him removed because he has nefariously slandered me, but I don't have any conflicting interest where say, I'm working for him or something.  The idea in conflict of interest assertions is that two forces which are logically in opposition---the most classic case is regulators with ties those they regulate, another is say, wikipedia editors and CEOs of businesses (when the CEO of a business tries to edit the wikipedia article on his business); in those cases there's a clear conflict (CEOs have an obligation to promote their business' image; wp editors have an obligation to present things as objectively as possible).  Imagine a case where a father is a regulator for coal industry and his son is the president of a coal mining company.  Perhaps the father is ethically fulfilling his role as a regulator and shuts down his son's business without prejudice when it crosses some legal line, but perhaps not.  My point is that conflict of interests don't necessarily lead to wrongdoing, someone may or may not succumb to them, but that they should be avoided when they are obvious.  Thus, many people would object to father-son regulator-regulatee pairs at the outset.  I think the same holds true with account-sellers and default trusters.  The default trusters have an obligation to be just in neg-repping accounts, account sellers have an obligation to their own profit.  Theirs a clear line connecting neg-repping of accounts to more profit for account sellers thus the conflict of interest exists.

I dont think anything is black and white. *resist 50 shades of grey joke*. I think someone can be gradually conflicted in their interest. The person in question might also not be aware of their bias. A healthy discussion whether or not someone is biased and their ratings are affected is important IMHO. Whether this leads to a conclusion or not is something else.

I agree, but sometimes the evidence isn't even there at all.  In my own case, QS's "evidence" was merely the fact that a known scammer accused me years ago.  In any case, I wonder if you'd be feeling any differently if you had to wear a large WARNING on your account (which I know you've had for years because you and I started on this forum around the same time) just because someone got angry at you.

Well, yes the conclusion is very shaky IMHO. Thats what I wrote in your thread as well. For me there is not enough to label you as a scammer. I know that I would be angry about a person leaving injust feedback. I had (and still have) that issue with TradeFortress. Your situation is certainly different though, because QS does not have a trust score of -6000, but just because I understand your motivation or situation does not mean that I agree with your conclusion. When I look at your rating I will be reminded that was an argument in the past and you may or may not have used to bot to gain an advantage. This would barely influence my behaviour when doing business with you. In case of a loan your account has certainly less value, same as if you wanted to sell it. I understand that signature campaign managers are very picky about these things and I honestly dont understand it most of the time. Its either laziness or they are afraid of the imagine problem it might cause if someone "bad" advertises for them.

E.g. if you dont care about Microsofts ToS, Vods ratings might not be valueable to you and you can thus discard them. If you agree that violating a companies ToS might lead to problems in the future, the rating is valueable. Even if you are indifferent about the issue, the rating is still valueable because it gives you a point of view you might not have considered yourself.

The other side of the coin is that there are many users who seem unable to look beyond the flashy red WARNING!. I would argue though that those that are unable to understand a rating might not be someone to trade with. In the end, we are talking about nothing more but a warning, an opinion. Different opinions are valueable especially if you disagree with them.

I mostly agree with you, but in fact, as someone who participates in signature-ad campaigns, you know that many campaigns will now allow advertizers with a warning from someone on default trust.  So in fact there's a very direct connection between the presence of the warning and the economic value of an account.  Before QS began his smear campaign against me based on the fact that I had disagreed with him and called him out for being a hothead, I basically felt the way you do, that these warnings are obviously meant to be taken with a grain of salt.  And, FWIW, I removed Vod from my trust list some time ago for just the reason you said, I don't find microsoft IP matters interesting or relevant to my world so I don't care to worry about his warnings.  I started a thread in meta about how to tone down the warning text so that it more accurately reflects what it means (ie, instead of "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" change it to "This user has received negative feedback from someone on your trust list").  Hillariously, QS actually neg-repped me for merely having that opinion using one of his alts (ACCTSeller).

Neg-repping for arguments sake is certainly wrong. I already mentioned signature campaigns above and yes I see their very strict "no neg rep" rules and I dont understand them from a DT perspective. From a marketing perspective it certainly makes sense, because you are afraid to look bad. This is actually a valid point I have not considered in that regard before. Your negative rating by Quickseller is now prohibiting you earning from your posts. Who is to blame though? Should those on DT keep the possible signature earning is mind when leaving a rating? I dont think thats a good idea. Should we force certain practices regarding the signature campaigns? Sounds like a bad idea.
Having a higher standard on what is evidence might be a solution though. I dont think its unreasonable to ask for higher quality in terms of evidence. After all being on DT is giving your ratings more influence. On the other hand many ratings are merely hunches, esp towards newbies.

I tend to thing that the better solution is to remove or eliminate default trust---as I wrote in another thread in meta.  Many of the mods have also complained about people reading too much into the trust system's warnings, using them as a crutch for laziness, etc.   A scaled back solution which may also help is going to be changing the text from the inflammatory "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" to something more descriptive "This person has received a negative feedback from someone on your trust list."

I just read your rating again and it seems Vod (as well as r3wt) gave you one to somewhat counter the rating by QS.  This is getting very specific though, IIRC the discussion ought to be about trading trust.

Indeed, thanks for pointing that out (about Vod), I don't check my own trust rating at all, if ever, as I don't trade and until last month, I never had any worries about it.  I think it is fair to point out, before I leave this, that while Vod and r3wts caveats certainly help to bring some balance to the 3 (not 1) negative ratings from quickseller, as you say, I may pay an economic price because of this slander.  While dadice campaign has seen through the silliness of what QS was trying to do, there's no guarantee that future campaigns will take the time to investigate my situation like they did and it appears that I'm going to be wearing this mark publically until the trust system changes or until QS is taken off default trust (like tradefortress eventually was).

Okay, back to trading trust.  Mainly it seems that Salty and other mods just want to see it happen to really determine the outcome.  I appreciate the empirical approach.  But I think the OP's main point was to satirize the state of affairs where accounts can be traded outright but appranantly trust cannot.  Maybe I should make an account "TRUSTSeller", and offer to escrow such deals and keep them secret (as QS does with account trades).

[shorena]

-snip-
Of course you're correct that nothing is completely black-and-white.  But I still disagree with your application of COI in this case.  Assume everyone has an interest in protecting themself.  That's fine.  COI is usually restricted to clear cases where someone is getting paid by two opposing interests.  This isn't the case if I argue that QS should be removed from default trust.  Yes, I have an interest in having him removed because he has nefariously slandered me, but I don't have any conflicting interest where say, I'm working for him or something.  The idea in conflict of interest assertions is that two forces which are logically in opposition---the most classic case is regulators with ties those they regulate, another is say, wikipedia editors and CEOs of businesses (when the CEO of a business tries to edit the wikipedia article on his business); in those cases there's a clear conflict (CEOs have an obligation to promote their business' image; wp editors have an obligation to present things as objectively as possible).  Imagine a case where a father is a regulator for coal industry and his son is the president of a coal mining company.  Perhaps the father is ethically fulfilling his role as a regulator and shuts down his son's business without prejudice when it crosses some legal line, but perhaps not.  My point is that conflict of interests don't necessarily lead to wrongdoing, someone may or may not succumb to them, but that they should be avoided when they are obvious.  Thus, many people would object to father-son regulator-regulatee pairs at the outset.  I think the same holds true with account-sellers and default trusters.  The default trusters have an obligation to be just in neg-repping accounts, account sellers have an obligation to their own profit.  Theirs a clear line connecting neg-repping of accounts to more profit for account sellers thus the conflict of interest exists.

Alright, I think we can agree that QS has a conflict of interest. My understanding of COI was indeed a bit off. I personally dont think they misuse their position on DT for their personal gain from selling accounts.

-snip-
I tend to thing that the better solution is to remove or eliminate default trust---as I wrote in another thread in meta.  Many of the mods have also complained about people reading too much into the trust system's warnings, using them as a crutch for laziness, etc.   A scaled back solution which may also help is going to be changing the text from the inflammatory "WARNING...EXTREME CAUTION" to something more descriptive "This person has received a negative feedback from someone on your trust list."

Its my understanding, and the last attempt to change the system by theymos reinforces this, that the Trust System is mainly a community driven tool. Yes, admins are on DT and add or remove people from it, but its rules are mostly decided by the community and can change over time. IIRC trading accounts lead to neg rep when I started here. Thus a change in the system would have to come from a large userbase or at least from enough influential members.
IMHO higher standards on ratings from those on DT should do the trick.

-snip-
Okay, back to trading trust.  Mainly it seems that Salty and other mods just want to see it happen to really determine the outcome.  I appreciate the empirical approach.  But I think the OP's main point was to satirize the state of affairs where accounts can be traded outright but appranantly trust cannot.  Maybe I should make an account "TRUSTSeller", and offer to escrow such deals and keep them secret (as QS does with account trades).

Yes the hyperbole was amusing for a while, but Im afraid it only resulted in the majority of people that actualy cared about this topic to abandon thread. I dont know, maybe you should. Maybe it turns out that a large portion of the community does not care about bought trust.

[cryptopaths]

I want to ask if i can do more accounts(bitcointalk account) in one IP address?

Yes you can but one thing to keep in mind is if you are banned or your IP is flagged by bitcointalk you will have to pay a fee of a varying small amount for each account you create.

[Quickseller]

-snip-
Of course you're correct that nothing is completely black-and-white.  But I still disagree with your application of COI in this case.  Assume everyone has an interest in protecting themself.  That's fine.  COI is usually restricted to clear cases where someone is getting paid by two opposing interests.  This isn't the case if I argue that QS should be removed from default trust.  Yes, I have an interest in having him removed because he has nefariously slandered me, but I don't have any conflicting interest where say, I'm working for him or something.  The idea in conflict of interest assertions is that two forces which are logically in opposition---the most classic case is regulators with ties those they regulate, another is say, wikipedia editors and CEOs of businesses (when the CEO of a business tries to edit the wikipedia article on his business); in those cases there's a clear conflict (CEOs have an obligation to promote their business' image; wp editors have an obligation to present things as objectively as possible).  Imagine a case where a father is a regulator for coal industry and his son is the president of a coal mining company.  Perhaps the father is ethically fulfilling his role as a regulator and shuts down his son's business without prejudice when it crosses some legal line, but perhaps not.  My point is that conflict of interests don't necessarily lead to wrongdoing, someone may or may not succumb to them, but that they should be avoided when they are obvious.  Thus, many people would object to father-son regulator-regulatee pairs at the outset.  I think the same holds true with account-sellers and default trusters.  The default trusters have an obligation to be just in neg-repping accounts, account sellers have an obligation to their own profit.  Theirs a clear line connecting neg-repping of accounts to more profit for account sellers thus the conflict of interest exists.

Alright, I think we can agree that QS has a conflict of interest. My understanding of COI was indeed a bit off. I personally dont think they misuse their position on DT for their personal gain from selling accounts.  

No.

First of all, wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source in the educational world, in the professional world, in the media world, or pretty much anywhere. The fact that people cite wikipedia as often as they do on here baffles me. Secondly, wikipedia entries cannot come from firsthand knowledge, they must be from researched sources......meaning that just because I fake being sick to get out of going to school on 9/11 (2001), and as a result was able to personally witness the twin towers collapse a mere blocks from where I was standing at age 16, does not mean that I can write that the World Trade Center towers collapsed on 9/11 in a wikipedia article, I would need to find a news (or other) source that says that the WTC towers collapsed, and cite those sources in order for me to publish that fact.

Additionally, it is generally considered to be acceptable to receive a small financial benefit as a(n) (indirect) result of a relationship with you being in a position of authority and the other person being a vendor, customer, or employee. It is generally within the boundaries of the code of ethics of most large companies for someone of authority to receive/accept up to between $25 and $200 (with ~$100 being both the mode and mean acceptable amount) worth of gifts without approval from the ethics board and without violating the code of ethics. In my experience, the limit is on a per customer/vender/employee basis, meaning that I can receive up to $100 worth of gifts from each employee/customer/vendor that I oversee/make decisions regarding. The exemptions to this limit tend to increase as your level of responsibility increases (for example congressmen are able to accept up to $3,000 per campaign cycle in campaign contributions from each person, in addition to other things).

I think it is fair to say that I have received an additional benefit of less then $100 (worth of bitcoin) as a (hypothetical) result (which is likely an invalid conclusion that prices rise as a result of scammer accounts getting tagged as scammers) of me giving negative trust to scammer accounts (tspacepilot for example) on a per customer basis - the price of bitcoin is currently ~$235/BTC which would mean the price of an account would need to rise by ~.42 BTC in order for the above $100 threshold to be breached while senior accounts have generally been selling for barely .3 BTC recently, and heros have barely been selling for .7 BTC recently (I don't think anyone will be able to provide evidence that over 60% of the value of hero accounts is the result of my negative repping scammers).

Additionally, it is common for respected members of various markets to call out scams in their markets. Stunna, for example has been accused to accusing gambling sites of being a scam a number of times (when they turned out to be a scam) in order to hurt his competition; however his ultimate goal was to prevent people from being able to scam in the first place and as a result raising confidence in his industry; this is actually something that I have discussed with him a number of times. Just because you call a competitor of yours a scam does not mean you are trying to quash the competition, as if you were to end up being wrong then your reputation will suffer over the long run. The purpose of pointing out scams in your industry/market is to ensure that people feel safe when dealing in your market/industry.
All of the above ignores the fact that I am no longer in the account selling market and have not been for several months now. I no longer am holding any inventory. The only time I would hold any accounts at all would be either for escrow or for me acting as an agent to a third party (which would actually harm me because I would need to purchase accounts at a higher price on behalf of someone else).

[Quickseller]

Well, you may be right about the cost-benefit analysis of QS neg-repping to increase account prices.  But I don't believe that the conflict of interest has to be the sole motivation for someone in order for that conflict of interest to be valid.  COI's are black and white, people may or may not act on them but keeping black-and-white COIs out of default trust seems like it would be important (to me).

Just a thought, but applying the same argument (COI) to you would lead to the conclusion that discussing whether or not QS should be on DT should not be a viable thing. You have a conflict of interest because you directly benefit from their removal from DT. I dont actually think that its a valid point, but I had to put it out there.

Of course you're correct that nothing is completely black-and-white.  But I still disagree with your application of COI in this case.  Assume everyone has an interest in protecting themself.  That's fine.  COI is usually restricted to clear cases where someone is getting paid by two opposing interests.  This isn't the case if I argue that QS should be removed from default trust.  Yes, I have an interest in having him removed because he has nefariously slandered me, but I don't have any conflicting interest where say, I'm working for him or something. 
-snip-

Yes you do. The value of your spam account would increase in the event that my negative trust rating would go away because I am removed from the default trust network. You would also expect to have a higher signature spam campaign revenue as a result of my ratings not showing up as default.

I dont think anything is black and white. *resist 50 shades of grey joke*. I think someone can be gradually conflicted in their interest. The person in question might also not be aware of their bias. A healthy discussion whether or not someone is biased and their ratings are affected is important IMHO. Whether this leads to a conclusion or not is something else.

I agree, but sometimes the evidence isn't even there at all.  In my own case, QS's "evidence" was merely the fact that a known scammer accused me years ago.  In any case, I wonder if you'd be feeling any differently if you had to wear a large WARNING on your account (which I know you've had for years because you and I started on this forum around the same time) just because someone got angry at you.

Well, yes the conclusion is very shaky IMHO. Thats what I wrote in your thread as well. For me there is not enough to label you as a scammer. I know that I would be angry about a person leaving injust feedback. I had (and still have) that issue with TradeFortress. Your situation is certainly different though, because QS does not have a trust score of -6000, but just because I understand your motivation or situation does not mean that I agree with your conclusion. When I look at your rating I will be reminded that was an argument in the past and you may or may not have used to bot to gain an advantage. This would barely influence my behaviour when doing business with you. In case of a loan your account has certainly less value, same as if you wanted to sell it. I understand that signature campaign managers are very picky about these things and I honestly dont understand it most of the time. Its either laziness or they are afraid of the imagine problem it might cause if someone "bad" advertises for them.

Please see Blazr's post in the thread that tspacepilot locked censored, to both prevent people from disagreeing with his viewpoint and allow him to claim victory (when this is not the case) in an argument. His post essentially says that tspacepilot essentially admits to breaking the rules of coinchat (by blazr's own conclusion - and not relying on any of TF's statements). Just because he scammed what turned out to be a scammer and what turned out to be an extortionist does not mean that what he did was okay.

If you want Bitcoin to succeed over the long run, then you will need to be blind to the fact that someone has scammed in the past or that someone is a scammer when deciding if you are going to be honest with such person (if someone is a scammer then you should still take the appropriate precautions to protect yourself from being scammed). I can say that who is probably the most reputable person on the forum (tomatocage) has refunded/released escrow to scammers a number of times in order to protect the interrogatory of the marketplace on the forum, I can also say that I have done the same and that anyone who will not honor their escrow contract with a scammer is themselves a scammer.
Regarding da dice overlooking the fact that tspacepilot is a scammer/spammer - the fact that they are paying him to advertise their website has caused me to withhold my business with them which is significant, it has also caused me to withhold my recommendation of playing at their site when asked the general question as to if I recommend playing at their site, and the outright recommendation against playing at their site when asked, all due to the fact that they willingly and knowingly choose to associate with a scammer.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
I just read your rating again and it seems Vod (as well as r3wt) gave you one to somewhat counter the rating by QS. {...}

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3252882#msg3252882
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3255011#msg3255011
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3269906#msg3269906

Edit: (one of) the thing that makes me think tspacepilot is lying is

-snip-

Edit* And after thinking it over, I don't really buy that you werent aware of the rules in the first place. Why would you have named your bot b0t rather than bot had you not known that names with bot don't get paid?

I think discussion about tspacepilot-QS should be taken to tspacepilot's thread.

[tspacepilot]

Well, you may be right about the cost-benefit analysis of QS neg-repping to increase account prices.  But I don't believe that the conflict of interest has to be the sole motivation for someone in order for that conflict of interest to be valid.  COI's are black and white, people may or may not act on them but keeping black-and-white COIs out of default trust seems like it would be important (to me).

Just a thought, but applying the same argument (COI) to you would lead to the conclusion that discussing whether or not QS should be on DT should not be a viable thing. You have a conflict of interest because you directly benefit from their removal from DT. I dont actually think that its a valid point, but I had to put it out there.

Of course you're correct that nothing is completely black-and-white.  But I still disagree with your application of COI in this case.  Assume everyone has an interest in protecting themself.  That's fine.  COI is usually restricted to clear cases where someone is getting paid by two opposing interests.  This isn't the case if I argue that QS should be removed from default trust.  Yes, I have an interest in having him removed because he has nefariously slandered me, but I don't have any conflicting interest where say, I'm working for him or something.  
-snip-

Yes you do. The value of your spam account would increase in the event that my negative trust rating would go away because I am removed from the default trust network. You would also expect to have a higher signature spam campaign revenue as a result of my ratings not showing up as default.

You still do not understand conflict of interest.  Yes, I have an interest in having your removed from default trust because your lies have the potential to cost me money.  But this is not a conflict of interest, this is merely my interest.  The conflict of interest would be if I was also in a position to decide who was on default trust.  If I had both the role of deciding who was on default trust (my interest in that role would be justice) and a personal profit interest in having you removed, this would be a conflict of interest.  I don't have any authority over who is on default trust so I don't have any conflict.  I hope you can understand that now.

I dont think anything is black and white. *resist 50 shades of grey joke*. I think someone can be gradually conflicted in their interest. The person in question might also not be aware of their bias. A healthy discussion whether or not someone is biased and their ratings are affected is important IMHO. Whether this leads to a conclusion or not is something else.

I agree, but sometimes the evidence isn't even there at all.  In my own case, QS's "evidence" was merely the fact that a known scammer accused me years ago.  In any case, I wonder if you'd be feeling any differently if you had to wear a large WARNING on your account (which I know you've had for years because you and I started on this forum around the same time) just because someone got angry at you.

Well, yes the conclusion is very shaky IMHO. Thats what I wrote in your thread as well. For me there is not enough to label you as a scammer. I know that I would be angry about a person leaving injust feedback. I had (and still have) that issue with TradeFortress. Your situation is certainly different though, because QS does not have a trust score of -6000, but just because I understand your motivation or situation does not mean that I agree with your conclusion. When I look at your rating I will be reminded that was an argument in the past and you may or may not have used to bot to gain an advantage. This would barely influence my behaviour when doing business with you. In case of a loan your account has certainly less value, same as if you wanted to sell it. I understand that signature campaign managers are very picky about these things and I honestly dont understand it most of the time. Its either laziness or they are afraid of the imagine problem it might cause if someone "bad" advertises for them.

Please see Blazr's post in the thread that tspacepilot locked censored, to both prevent people from disagreeing with his viewpoint and allow him to claim victory (when this is not the case) in an argument. His post essentially says that tspacepilot essentially admits to breaking the rules of coinchat (by blazr's own conclusion - and not relying on any of TF's statements).

In fact, Blazr's opinion very much relies on the statements by TF.  In fact, if anyone fucking cares, you can see in that original thread that I was not given the rules about bots by TF until after he banned me despite me asking him about them in PMs multiple times, despite the fact that he knew I was making a bot because I was asking him for help with it using node.js.  I never admitted to any wrongdoing and I still don't.  The fact that TF accuses me and that Blazr questions me isn't evidence.  It's accusation from TF (a known liar) and speculation from Blazr (a side observer).  Nothing more, nothing lestt.

Just because he scammed what turned out to be a scammer and what turned out to be an extortionist does not mean that what he did was okay.

There's no evidence that I scammed anyone.  On the other hand, there's ample evidence that you're attempting to smear me off this forum and that you're not getting away with it.

Regarding da dice overlooking the fact that tspacepilot is a scammer/spammer - the fact that they are paying him to advertise their website has caused me to withhold my business with them which is significant, it has also caused me to withhold my recommendation of playing at their site when asked the general question as to if I recommend playing at their site, and the outright recommendation against playing at their site when asked, all due to the fact that they willingly and knowingly choose to associate with a scammer.

The fact that you are attempting to smear me, by using multiple accounts to leave multiple feedbacks, by trolling me on the campaign thread and threatening to get me kicked out, the fact that you failed in this vendetta, none of that adds up to me being a scammer.  It adds up to you being an immature hothead who thinks he's God and can't take it when you get called out.  I called you out multiple times for being a hothead, I said it to your face that calling people idiots isn't helpful.  This is the only imaginable reason why you went after me and all your lies and accusations don't add up to a shred of evidence against me.  Now you're getting crazy and you're starting to try to call out other people who have worked with me and continue to work with me?  I hope you don't start frothing at the mouth soon.  Hold yourself together, kid.  You'll grow up one day and realize sometimes you actually have to admit it when you're wrong, not keep digging the grave you're standing in.

-snip-
I just read your rating again and it seems Vod (as well as r3wt) gave you one to somewhat counter the rating by QS. {...}

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3252882#msg3252882
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3255011#msg3255011
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3269906#msg3269906

Edit: (one of) the thing that makes me think tspacepilot is lying is

-snip-

Edit* And after thinking it over, I don't really buy that you werent aware of the rules in the first place. Why would you have named your bot b0t rather than bot had you not known that names with bot don't get paid?

I think discussion about tspacepilot-QS should be taken to tspacepilot's thread.

MZ, I don't understand you.  You are linking us to r3wt's ancient opinions in the thread where practically no one believed me and everyone believed tf and then I walked away.  The context is that TF was on default trust at the time and had not revealed himself to be the liar and theif that he is.  So of course people were suspecting when a newbie like me said "why is this guy coming after me".  It's really stupid to rehash this again and again and again so I don't know why we have to do it.  The obvious conclusion that should be taken from that situation is that while TF scammed people for a huge a mount of money, I spent years on here with absolutely zero issues.  Doing no harm and causing no problems.   If you look at things in context it's quite clear what happened is that TF went of the rails accusing me of taking arbitrary amounts from his site (his amount he demands changes 3 times of the course of the discussion---this clearly shows that he didn't know what was going on, he just felt like someone abused him and he wanted revenge).  I tried to talk with him about this to see if we could figure out what happened and where the misunderstanding was but it was impossible to do so.  He just demands that I pay back everything I ever withdrew from the site and that was blackmail so I left it.

If you look at the situation of QS attacking my reputation it becomes quite clear that QS's only motivation was to troll me and get me kicked from and ad campaign.  Why else would he leave three negative feedbacks using two accounts?  Why else would he be lmaking threats in the campaign thread about getting me kicked out?  Why else would he be spending a day looking through years of posts trying to find some trouble?  Why else would he be taking a known scammer and liar's word as if it was gold?  What motivation would he have for this except that he couldn't handle it when I called him out for being a hothead and calling people idiots.  I made fun of his hot temper and told him it was unhelfpul.  In return, he launched a smear campaign and tried to ruin my reputation.

At this point, I have no recourse other than to repeatedly point out the facts of the situation until  one of: 1) the trustsystem chances 2) QS's slander is no longer on my account (this will never happen, he's the kind of person who will go down in flames rather than admit he was wrong---have you ever found one example of him admitting to being wrong?) 3) QS is removed from default trust.

However, I have to ask why you are bringing this back up in this thread?  Why are you linking to r3wt's opinions?  What does it have to do with anything here?

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
I just read your rating again and it seems Vod (as well as r3wt) gave you one to somewhat counter the rating by QS. {...}

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3252882#msg3252882
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3255011#msg3255011
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3269906#msg3269906

Edit: (one of) the thing that makes me think tspacepilot is lying is

-snip-

Edit* And after thinking it over, I don't really buy that you werent aware of the rules in the first place. Why would you have named your bot b0t rather than bot had you not known that names with bot don't get paid?

I think discussion about tspacepilot-QS should be taken to tspacepilot's thread.

MZ, I don't understand you.  You are linking us to r3wt's ancient opinions in the thread where practically no one believed me and everyone believed tf and then I walked away.
 -snip-
However, I have to ask why you are bringing this back up in this thread?  Why are you linking to r3wt's opinions?  What does it have to do with anything here?

Just replied to the bolded part in shorena's post.

I don't know if a negative for scamming is appropriate or not as you don't have a shady behavior for over a year. It is debatable.

Scamming a scammer is also a scam. We should better take this discussion to your thread(if wanted).

[shorena]

@MZ: yet r3wt left a positive(!) rating. Mabye they dont know how the trust system works? I hope they do.

@QS: Which is IMHO too close to hearsay for negative feedback. Your comparison with Stunna also does not work here, tspacepilot is not actually in the market for anything you are. Unless you consider "sell their signature" as beeing in the same market.

@tspacepilot: it would certainly be better to reopen the thread to allow for a less cluttered discussion. On the other hand I doubt there will be enough people to care about it for it to change anything. As harsh as that may be.