The latest change in the trust system has a flaw making it abusable

[jonald_fyookball]

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.

So if jonald_fyookball reposts his rating and then Wardrick reposts his negative to cancel out the positive, Wardrick should be removed from Default Trust for trust abuse.

Could always try talking it out first. He probably wasn't aware.

So people now leave feedback to offset other feedback? How is that legit exactly?

They shouldn't have to.  A normal trustworthy person shouldn't be getting default trust negative unless something is awry.

Different people have different opinions.

Of course.

And in that case, it IS legit to leave feedback to offset other feedback.

I just meant it won't come up all the time.

[tspacepilot]

giant off-topic wall-o-text

And a bump and signature for it (wrong account?)

^^^This is clearly off-topic in this thread about whether new feedback should override old feedback and the cute little feedback war that Wardick seems to be perpetrating.

@QS: I think you're looking for this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174567.0

Mods: can we get some help in here?

[Quickseller]

giant off-topic wall-o-text

And a bump and signature for it (wrong account?)

^^^This is clearly off-topic in this thread about whether new feedback should override old feedback and the cute little feedback war that Wardick seems to be perpetrating.

@QS: I think you're looking for this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174567.0

Mods: can we get some help in here?

I am not looking for another thread. Although there is a portion of what I said that does not have to do with the OP, at least one statement in my post does (which is the threshold for it being on-topic), and is therefore appropriate. I was responding to a post that responded to P52, and the normal thing to do is to use that same account to issue a response. For clarification, I used the stronger reputation of QS (that has been damaged as of recently, but is still one that contains a large amount of trust that has not been breached  - eg no theft, no information leak), to back a statement made by an alt of mine that was outed.

[ndnh]

No, that's intentional.

- If a person has mostly negatives, then they should clearly have a negative score.
- If a person has only positives, then they should clearly have a non-negative score.
- If someone who previously had lots of positives gets a negative, this is interpreted by the system as "This person could very well be a con man! I can't be sure, though, since it's just one rating. Better show ??? just in case".
- If they then get several more negatives after the first negative, the ??? will turn into a negative score, as it should.
- If they get positives after the first negative, then this is interpreted as "Oh, it looks like that negative is probably wrong. I guess I can now mostly ignore it."

See the full algorithm here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1066857.0

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.

Didn't know trust ratings are that fair and thought out.

Didn't know what ??? represented till now. That explains why Quickseller's rating changed that significantly, and why the latest trust feedback is getting more weight.

[Wardrick]

The only way I can update my feedback to add more info is by deleting and reposting it. My intention was only to clarify my feedback and not to gain the system, I had no idea this was a thing.

I did it just before I read this thread there again by accident, I plan to expand my feedback later so I'll have to do it again.

[jonald_fyookball]

The only way I can update my feedback to add more info is by deleting and reposting it. My intention was only to clarify my feedback and not to gain the system, I had no idea this was a thing.

I did it just before I read this thread there again by accident, I plan to expand my feedback later so I'll have to do it again.

I suspected you may be be trying to edit.

Now I'm not sure what to do, add a third feedback or repost my second one. 

Theymos, please advise.

[BadBear]

I may have crossed some lines in pretending to be banned, however I also believe that the investigation to confirm that I was or was not banned is against forum policy (there was zero money that was claimed to be missing and there was zero money that was claimed to be stolen).

Quite the opposite. I'm the only one who can and will (besides theymos) investigate suspicious activity, and several things about that were suspicious. Two off the top of my head.
A. I was unaware of you being banned, which was odd.
B. Suspicion of ban evasion, this is something I check quite often.

I also skim the modlog from time to time, check recent bans, handle ban appeals, and other things. It's my job to know what goes on, it has to be done due to not disclosing mod identities wrt actions taken.

I'm not sure what money has to do with it. You being banned (or not) was a forum administration issue, not a scam investigation.

I think it was against forum policy to disclose the absence of a ban as the forum has a general policy of not disclosing when someone is banned.

In general I tend to not publicize bans. The exception being when the user publicizes it themselves, hence the many threads in meta where bans are openly discussed. Additionally, I was unwilling to help you deceive other users, particularly when it was related to a scam accusation against you.

I also think that it was against forum policy to disclose this account as being as QS alt (which was at the very least de-facto done with the removal of QS from BB's trust list - this is assuming that such disclose was not done via Personal Message or otherwise....I have no evidence of this, however my initial thoughts after seeing the timeline between when QS was removed and when you posted that if QS was removed then QS=P52 and if QS was not removed then QS=!P52, was that such disclose was made). There were alternatives to outright removing QS from BB's trust list that would not have involved disclosure.

No, I didn't tell anyone it was your alt. You don't qualify under my criteria for that. Escrowing for yourself, to me, is not a scam. I would file it under unethical. I removed you before that post was made, about an hour before I pm'ed you initially.  

[alani123]

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.

So if jonald_fyookball reposts his rating and then Wardrick reposts his negative to cancel out the positive, Wardrick should be removed from Default Trust for trust abuse.

Could always try talking it out first. He probably wasn't aware.

No reason to talk it out. Wardrick's intention are obvious, he's taking advantage of his position in DT to negate positive ratings. He deleted and reposted the same rating, doing what theymos described as not legitimate. He had posted a rating twice by the time I posted the OP, it's the third time now. Crystal clear abuse.

[deadley]

The only way I can update my feedback to add more info is by deleting and reposting it. My intention was only to clarify my feedback and not to gain the system, I had no idea this was a thing.

I did it just before I read this thread there again by accident, I plan to expand my feedback later so I'll have to do it again.

I suspected you may be be trying to edit.

Now I'm not sure what to do, add a third feedback or repost my second one. 

Theymos, please advise.

There is no way we can edit our trust feedback. Either we can delete or keep as it is or give another feedback.

It's clear what wardrick intention.

[jonald_fyookball]

Wardrick, you already edited your feedback for tspacepilot once.  I would suggest you refrain from editing it again because more than one person suspects you of trying to game the trust system. 

[Wardrick]

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.

So if jonald_fyookball reposts his rating and then Wardrick reposts his negative to cancel out the positive, Wardrick should be removed from Default Trust for trust abuse.

Could always try talking it out first. He probably wasn't aware.

No reason to talk it out. Wardrick's intention are obvious, he's taking advantage of his position in DT to negate positive ratings. He deleted and reposted the same rating, doing what theymos described as not legitimate. He had posted a rating twice by the time I posted the OP, it's the third time now. Crystal clear abuse.

No it wasn't the same feedback, the text was changed each time. I really want to change it one more time to expand upon it, but I won't if you're going to accuse me of gaming the system.

I believe another incident involving tspacepliot may warrant a second rating from me however, just a heads up that I may leave another one due to a separate issue. Theymos said before that leaving multiple feedbacks like that is fine.

[tspacepilot]

It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted.

So if jonald_fyookball reposts his rating and then Wardrick reposts his negative to cancel out the positive, Wardrick should be removed from Default Trust for trust abuse.

Could always try talking it out first. He probably wasn't aware.

No reason to talk it out. Wardrick's intention are obvious, he's taking advantage of his position in DT to negate positive ratings. He deleted and reposted the same rating, doing what theymos described as not legitimate. He had posted a rating twice by the time I posted the OP, it's the third time now. Crystal clear abuse.

No it wasn't the same feedback, the text was changed each time. I really want to change it one more time to expand upon it, but I won't if you're going to accuse me of gaming the system.

I believe another incident involving tspacepliot may warrant a second rating from me however, just a heads up that I may leave another one due to a separate issue. Theymos said before that leaving multiple feedbacks like that is fine.

So you've decided to inherit the persecution of tspacepilot job, eh?  Nice legacy: Tradefortress --> Quickseller --> Wardrick!

[alani123]

He posted the rating thrice, he also took information out of it.

The above is the original rating. Not only did he not address ratings he was trying to counter when he deleted and reposted, but he deleted and posted again after someone else tryied to counter him. The latest two are just low effort attempts to negate the latest positive ratings. BadBear, see what kind of immature person you're putting in DT?

[Wardrick]

He posted the rating thrice, he also took information out of it.

The above is the original rating. Not only did he not address ratings he was trying to counter when he deleted and reposted, but he deleted and posted again after someone else tryied to counter him. The latest two are just low effort attempts to negate the latest positive ratings. BadBear, see what kind of immature person you're putting in DT?

Who are you an alt of? why do you care about this issue so much? I suspect you are TF, he's the only person who would care about this. Clearly you must be him.

[alani123]

I don't know who you're talking about, but unless he speaks fluent Greek and frequents the Greek board then we have nothing in common. Now please stop trying to derail this post by spewing baseless accusation againsts me.

[jonald_fyookball]

So let me see if I have this straight:

Wardrick appears out of nowhere and adds negative feedback to tspacepilot
for something that happened a long time ago, and it just so happened
to be at the same time that Quicksellers default negative trust was removed...

..and it just so happened that he decided to edit his feedback after I posted feedback
and it just so happened that after I added a second positive, he needed to edit it again,
and it just so happened that he's warning us he has another negative feedback to post
about another incident, that for some reason he didn't add so far.

Sounds legit.

[Wardrick]

I don't know who you're talking about, but unless he speaks fluent Greek and frequents the Greek board then we have nothing in common. Now please stop trying to derail this post by spewing baseless accusation againsts me.

I assume there must have been weight behind that accusation as the exact same accusation has been made against me by tspacepilot.

[ndnh]

He posted the rating thrice, he also took information out of it.

The above is the original rating. Not only did he not address ratings he was trying to counter when he deleted and reposted, but he deleted and posted again after someone else tryied to counter him. The latest two are just low effort attempts to negate the latest positive ratings. BadBear, see what kind of immature person you're putting in DT?

Who are you an alt of? why do you care about this issue so much? I suspect you are TF, he's the only person who would care about this. Clearly you must be him.

Slightly off-topic and no serious evidence backing the claim,

there is speculation that Wardrick's 5 yo grand kid might be operating his account. 

[jonald_fyookball]

Wardrick, what did you even change from the 2nd feedback to the 3rd one..looks about the same to me.

[Blazed]

Wardrick, what did you even change from the 2nd feedback to the 3rd one..looks about the same to me.

I disagree with the feedback you keep leaving. Do you now trust him because someone else does not? Read what the ratings say...

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.

Not saying I agree with Wardrick's feedback, but offset or comments are supposed to be neutral. I also do not agree with the Dooglus loan either. I do think Tspacepilot has been targeted a bit, but 2 wrongs do not make a right imo.