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

[Vod]

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.

Looks like this is what Wardrick is doing.  

Second time he deleted then re-added the same feedback to keep TSP in the ? ? ?.

Wardrick, please read below what is considered acceptable behavior with what you are doing:

In summary, for people who previously had many positives and no negatives:
- The first negative rating defines a border between pre-controversy and post-controversy.
- Don't move this border unless you have a really good reason. If you must add more info, leave another negative or neutral rating.
- If you agree with the border-negative, leave a negative rating.
- If you disagree with the border-negative, leave a positive rating responding to the negative, even if you already have a positive rating for that person. Don't delete your old rating. You should also consider excluding the inaccurate-rater from your trust list.

[xetsr]

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.

Looks like this is what Wardrick is doing.  

Second time he deleted then re-added the same feedback to keep TSP in the ? ? ?.

so look at the reputation loan feedback and other feedback, which looks more like it was added because of how he putted QS and less that they trust him. all to negate the negative feedback it would appear.

just saying that trust abuse goes both ways.

[tspacepilot]

I do think Tspacepilot has been targeted a bit, but 2 wrongs do not make a right imo.

I'd like to correct that "has been" to "continues to be".  I was targeted for a very long time by someone who finally revealed his true colors to people with power.  Let's not forget that the reason I found that alt account he was using for his escrow scheme is because it was the 4th in a line of sockpuppets he was using to justify his abusive rating on me.  It's very strange to me that as soon as one accuser becomes discredited another one pops out of the woodwork, making even less attempt to pretend to be a neutral party acting on the behalf of the community, Wardrick's posts seem to be straight-up harrassment combined with threats of doxxing and hidden control of default trust (have you looked at what this guy is writing since he reappears?).  Certainly most of this is bluster, but it's not pretty and I appreciate folks calling attention to it.

Also, please keep in mind that I have never traded here.  Who knows, someday I might trade something here but I'm certainly not a service provider/escrow/seller/buyer.  I say this to emphasize that I don't need a green trust rating and I'm not trying to pump up my trust rating or anything else.  I do, however, object to abusive negative ratings being put on my account and the fact that Wardick seems to be continuing the tradition of harasing me based on TF's discredited accusations is certainly shameful behavior.

Theymos has explained why recent feedback throws the trust rating into ? ??, then we have Wardick having edited his feedback back and forth between two texts three times now in 36 hours.  That certainly seems like a blatant attempt from Wardick to game the system.  I understand that you don't think outing Quickseller's scheme should have brought so many trust ratings to my account, but I kinda think that if Wardrick weren't trying to manipulate the system and play games, then people wouldn't be standing up for me.

[Blazed]

I do think Tspacepilot has been targeted a bit, but 2 wrongs do not make a right imo.

I'd like to correct that "has been" to "continues to be".  I was targeted for a very long time by someone who finally revealed his true colors to people with power.  Let's not forget that the reason I found that alt account he was using for his escrow scheme is because it was the 4th in a line of sockpuppets he was using to justify his abusive rating on me.  It's very strange to me that as soon as one accuser becomes discredited another one pops out of the woodwork, making even less attempt to pretend to be a neutral party acting on the behalf of the community, Wardrick's posts seem to be straight-up harrassment combined with threats of doxxing and hidden control of default trust (have you looked at what this guy is writing since he reappears?).  Certainly most of this is bluster, but it's not pretty and I appreciate folks calling attention to it.

Also, please keep in mind that I have never traded here.  Who knows, someday I might trade something here but I'm certainly not a service provider/escrow/seller/buyer.  I say this to emphasize that I don't need a green trust rating and I'm not trying to pump up my trust rating or anything else.  I do, however, object to abusive negative ratings being put on my account and the fact that Wardick seems to be continuing the tradition of harasing me based on TF's discredited accusations is certainly shameful behavior.

Theymos has explained why recent feedback throws the trust rating into ? ??, then we have Wardick having edited his feedback back and forth between two texts three times now in 36 hours.  That certainly seems like a blatant attempt from Wardick to game the system.  I understand that you don't think outing Quickseller's scheme should have brought so many trust ratings to my account, but I kinda think that if Wardrick weren't trying to manipulate the system and play games, then people wouldn't be standing up for me.

Personally I think that even if you gamed the bot - you have more than paid your debt. My question is: If what Wardrick is doing is wrong...how is Jonayld not wrong for doing the same thing basically? I guess I am being too literal with the feedback rules, but I have been extremely careful with how I leave feedback.

[tspacepilot]

I do think Tspacepilot has been targeted a bit, but 2 wrongs do not make a right imo.

I'd like to correct that "has been" to "continues to be".  I was targeted for a very long time by someone who finally revealed his true colors to people with power.  Let's not forget that the reason I found that alt account he was using for his escrow scheme is because it was the 4th in a line of sockpuppets he was using to justify his abusive rating on me.  It's very strange to me that as soon as one accuser becomes discredited another one pops out of the woodwork, making even less attempt to pretend to be a neutral party acting on the behalf of the community, Wardrick's posts seem to be straight-up harrassment combined with threats of doxxing and hidden control of default trust (have you looked at what this guy is writing since he reappears?).  Certainly most of this is bluster, but it's not pretty and I appreciate folks calling attention to it.

Also, please keep in mind that I have never traded here.  Who knows, someday I might trade something here but I'm certainly not a service provider/escrow/seller/buyer.  I say this to emphasize that I don't need a green trust rating and I'm not trying to pump up my trust rating or anything else.  I do, however, object to abusive negative ratings being put on my account and the fact that Wardick seems to be continuing the tradition of harasing me based on TF's discredited accusations is certainly shameful behavior.

Theymos has explained why recent feedback throws the trust rating into ? ??, then we have Wardick having edited his feedback back and forth between two texts three times now in 36 hours.  That certainly seems like a blatant attempt from Wardick to game the system.  I understand that you don't think outing Quickseller's scheme should have brought so many trust ratings to my account, but I kinda think that if Wardrick weren't trying to manipulate the system and play games, then people wouldn't be standing up for me.

Personally I think that even if you gamed the bot - you have more than paid your debt. My question is: If what Wardrick is doing is wrong...how is Jonayld not wrong for doing the same thing basically? I guess I am being to literal with the feedback rules, but I have been extremely careful with how I leave feedback.

It looks to me like W' created a "border between pre-and-post controversy" and that JF replied and that's within the rules.  But W is deleting and readding in order to create a different order of events, which Theymos specifically said you shouldn't be doing.  You might say that JF is trying to restore the original order, although clearly they don't need to keep going back and forth.  To JF's credit he hasn't deleted and readded again, but has merely called out W for threating to continue to add and readd his feedback (he said up thread he'd be adding more).  So, the real question is to Wardrick and Badbear: to W the question is what sort of nonsense are you up to?  Are you even the original W that Badbear added last year?  Could you sign an old bitcoin address to prove it?  To Badbear the question is whether he vouches for these kinds of behaviors and posts.  It may be that given the dramatic threads this weekend regarding QS, BB doesn't really want to get pulled into acting rashly, and that would make sense.  In any case, that's my take on things.

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

Offsets are supposed to be neutral?  That's not how I understood what Theymos just said in this thread.
I haven't had much dealings with tsapcepilot but the quickseller thread made an impression on me and
also the main scam that Wardrick mentioned was from a known scammer (TF), so I believed his (tspacepilot)
story over TF.  If someone leaves an unwarnnted negative, and the other members of DT aren't supposed
to override it, that doesn't make much sense.

[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.

Offsets are supposed to be neutral?  That's not how I understood what Theymos just said in this thread.
I haven't had much dealings with tsapcepilot but the quickseller thread made an impression on me and
also the main scam that Wardrick mentioned was from a known scammer (TF), so I believed his (tspacepilot)
story over TF.  If someone leaves an unwarnnted negative, and the other members of DT aren't supposed
to override it, that doesn't make much sense.

I am not saying that I am right here by any means about this. I was just giving my opinion of how I interpreted the ratings system here to work. In the end each user can leave feedback as they please...

[tspacepilot]

@Jonald & @Blazedout419, I think this quote by theymos from page one means that leaving a positive to offset a negative you disagree with is just fine (emphasis mine):

In summary, for people who previously had many positives and no negatives:
- The first negative rating defines a border between pre-controversy and post-controversy.
- Don't move this border unless you have a really good reason. If you must add more info, leave another negative or neutral rating.
- If you agree with the border-negative, leave a negative rating.
- If you disagree with the border-negative, leave a positive rating responding to the negative, even if you already have a positive rating for that person. Don't delete your old rating. You should also consider excluding the inaccurate-rater from your trust list.

All I'm saying in the above posts is that a simple change could prevent such illegitimate use.

It's not really simple... For performance reasons, I need to keep the trust algorithm fairly limited. It's computed ~20 times per topic page (and hundreds of times if you go to ;all), and this web-of-trust stuff is pretty slow already.

[jonald_fyookball]

I do think Tspacepilot has been targeted a bit, but 2 wrongs do not make a right imo.

I'd like to correct that "has been" to "continues to be".  I was targeted for a very long time by someone who finally revealed his true colors to people with power.  Let's not forget that the reason I found that alt account he was using for his escrow scheme is because it was the 4th in a line of sockpuppets he was using to justify his abusive rating on me.  It's very strange to me that as soon as one accuser becomes discredited another one pops out of the woodwork, making even less attempt to pretend to be a neutral party acting on the behalf of the community, Wardrick's posts seem to be straight-up harrassment combined with threats of doxxing and hidden control of default trust (have you looked at what this guy is writing since he reappears?).  Certainly most of this is bluster, but it's not pretty and I appreciate folks calling attention to it.

Also, please keep in mind that I have never traded here.  Who knows, someday I might trade something here but I'm certainly not a service provider/escrow/seller/buyer.  I say this to emphasize that I don't need a green trust rating and I'm not trying to pump up my trust rating or anything else.  I do, however, object to abusive negative ratings being put on my account and the fact that Wardick seems to be continuing the tradition of harasing me based on TF's discredited accusations is certainly shameful behavior.

Theymos has explained why recent feedback throws the trust rating into ? ??, then we have Wardick having edited his feedback back and forth between two texts three times now in 36 hours.  That certainly seems like a blatant attempt from Wardick to game the system.  I understand that you don't think outing Quickseller's scheme should have brought so many trust ratings to my account, but I kinda think that if Wardrick weren't trying to manipulate the system and play games, then people wouldn't be standing up for me.

Personally I think that even if you gamed the bot - you have more than paid your debt. My question is: If what Wardrick is doing is wrong...how is Jonayld not wrong for doing the same thing basically? I guess I am being to literal with the feedback rules, but I have been extremely careful with how I leave feedback.

It looks to me like W' created a "border between pre-and-post controversy" and that JF replied and that's within the rules.  But W is deleting and readding in order to create a different order of events, which Theymos specifically said you shouldn't be doing.  You might say that JF is trying to restore the original order, although clearly they don't need to keep going back and forth.  To JF's credit he hasn't deleted and readded again, but has merely called out W for threating to continue to add and readd his feedback (he said up thread he'd be adding more).  So, the real question is to Wardrick and Badbear: to W the question is what sort of nonsense are you up to?  Are you even the original W that Badbear added last year?  Could you sign an old bitcoin address to prove it?  To Badbear the question is whether he vouches for these kinds of behaviors and posts.  It may be that given the dramatic threads this weekend regarding QS, BB doesn't really want to get pulled into acting rashly, and that would make sense.  In any case, that's my take on things.

Exactly, I'm not gonna stoop to Wardrick's level and get into a trust war.  In my opinion, he probably has an agenda.
I'm sure you'll have the ? ? ? gone sooner or later.

[dogie]

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 generally think that bans should be published, at least if its a permaban. It saves the inevitable "what happened to x" threads, and its not as if we're not going to find out by their absence anyway. Bans as a temporary punishment makes sense to not publicise as the punishment is the ban, not the 'humiliation'. Maybe we need something similar to mod log to make a record of permabans?

[Wardrick]

Looks like this is what Wardrick is doing.  

I have not edited the feedback since I read this thread.

[BadBear]

Looks like this is what Wardrick is doing.  

I have not edited the feedback since I read this thread.

How many times have you reposted it, and why?

[Wardrick]

Looks like this is what Wardrick is doing.  

I have not edited the feedback since I read this thread.

How many times have you reposted it, and why?

Just twice to edited it. Please check edit logs if those exist.

[tspacepilot]

Looks like this is what Wardrick is doing.   

I have not edited the feedback since I read this thread.

How many times have you reposted it, and why?

Just twice to edited it. Please check edit logs if those exist.

Does this mean that Jonald should delete and repost his reply to Wardick's feedback in order to re-establish the original order of events?  It's unclear to me if Wardick is retracting his threat to keep on editing:

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, wanna try it one more time to see if Wardick is done playing games?

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm not sure.  According to Theymos I should be adding another new feedback which would be three.  wouldn't that be weird?  or would it be a good record showing Wardrick keeps editing?

[Wardrick]

I'm not sure.  According to Theymos I should be adding another new feedback which would be three.  wouldn't that be weird?  or would it be a good record showing Wardrick keeps editing?

Listen to me for one second because I am being very fucking serious here.

I have only edited that feedback twice. I want to edit it again to explain myself but I am not going to ever touch it, I will make a thread with all of my evidence and ask others to leave him negative trust instead.

I am doing that only because you people are accusing me of gaming shit I don't even understand fully. Please do not accuse me of "gaming" the trust system, that is a complete lie and you either know that or you're mistaken as to how many times I have edited my trust.

It has not been edited since 09/09, that is shown on the trust page. So please shut the fuck up or post proof that I am "gaming" the system. Do you have proof I have edited since 09/09? if you do then ppst it as there must be a bug in the trust system as it clearly states the date that the feedback was posted on.

Here look its right there:


What does 2015-09-09 mean to you? Do you not understand that date format? It's 2 days ago, meaning two rotations of the earth. That means my trust has not been edited in two rotations of the earth, so you can convert that back to a date format you can understand.

Does anyone else reading this thread see what is going on here? These are clear attempts to discredit anyone who tries to leave negative feedback on tspacepilot. Even going as far as to tell me I'm not allowed edit my trust to explain myself. I won't be accused of gaming the trust system so that is why I am going to prove to everyone that tspacepilot is a scammer and let others leave the negative trust instead.

[shorena]

I'm not sure.  According to Theymos I should be adding another new feedback which would be three.  wouldn't that be weird?  or would it be a good record showing Wardrick keeps editing?

Listen to me for one second because I am being very fucking serious here.

I have only edited that feedback twice. I want to edit it again to explain myself but I am not going to ever touch it, I will make a thread with all of my evidence and ask others to leave him negative trust instead.

I am doing that only because you people are accusing me of gaming shit I don't even understand fully. Please do not accuse me of "gaming" the trust system, that is a complete lie and you either know that or you're mistaken as to how many times I have edited my trust.

It has not been edited since 09/09, that is shown on the trust page. So please shut the fuck up or post proof that I am "gaming" the system. Do you have proof I have edited since 09/09? if you do then ppst it as there must be a bug in the trust system as it clearly states the date that the feedback was posted on.

If editing trust is the equivalent of gaming it then the system is broken is it not?

It adds a certain dynamic to the trust system that might not be wanted. The way I understood theymos though the system works as intended. The question whether we that use it understand it the same way still remains though.

Does anyone else reading this thread see what is going on here? These are clear attempts to discredit anyone who tries to leave negative feedback on tspacepilot. Even going as far as to tell me I'm not allowed edit my trust to explain myself. I won't be accused of gaming the trust system so that is why I am going to prove to everyone that tspacepilot is a scammer and let others leave the negative trust instead.

The claim that you gamed the system IMHO came up because you left a negative rating at some time in the past which was already responded by a counter rating from jonald_fyookball.

Code:

jonald_fyookball 39: -0 / +5	2015-09-09	0.00000000		I don't agree with Wardrick's feedback that tspacepilot stole from TradeFortress because according to tspacepilot, TF knew he was working on a bot and then demanded an arbitrary sum (1.5 BTC). Since TradeFortress is a known scammer, I believe tspacepilot's side of the story. 

After that you edited your rating which put it on top of the counter rating. My personal opinion on the matter is that this system change is so now and this is probably the first case where its relevant that hardly anyone can blame you for doing something you did not understand. Probably most here (including me) did not understand it was intended to be used that way. I was aware that it was possible when theymos announced the changes, but since most ratings are not left as arguments I did think it would ever come up.

This is btw my current interpretation of the ratings on tsp's profile, the arguments (and opinions) are no longer within a (lengthy) thread, but part of the trust rating. I am not entirely sure I like it. It certainly has positive sides though as its easier for someone to get a rough picture than it would be if you had to read a few hundred posts.

[Wardrick]

Well TF isn't really a known scammer is he? Has anyone come out with any credible proof at all that he wasn't hacked? No? how does that make him a known scammer? was he proven to have scammed?

I think that he is a scammer, but I cannot call him a scammer unless I have proof. He is assumed innocent until proven guilty like everyone else including TSP.

In any case, thats ad hominem. JF did not address the issue at all, he only assumed I was basing my claims off of the words of TF (I am not) and then attacked Tf's character instead of attacking his argument.

But thats beside the point now because the coinchat issue isn't the only issue TSP has had across his many alt accounts here.

[Brad Harrison]

Someone needs to remove wardrick from DT and negative trust his ass

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm not sure.  According to Theymos I should be adding another new feedback which would be three.  wouldn't that be weird?  or would it be a good record showing Wardrick keeps editing?

Listen to me for one second because I am being very fucking serious here.

I have only edited that feedback twice. I want to edit it again to explain myself but I am not going to ever touch it, I will make a thread with all of my evidence and ask others to leave him negative trust instead.

I am doing that only because you people are accusing me of gaming shit I don't even understand fully. Please do not accuse me of "gaming" the trust system, that is a complete lie and you either know that or you're mistaken as to how many times I have edited my trust.

It has not been edited since 09/09, that is shown on the trust page. So please shut the fuck up or post proof that I am "gaming" the system. Do you have proof I have edited since 09/09? if you do then ppst it as there must be a bug in the trust system as it clearly states the date that the feedback was posted on.

Here look its right there:


What does 2015-09-09 mean to you? Do you not understand that date format? It's 2 days ago, meaning two rotations of the earth. That means my trust has not been edited in two rotations of the earth, so you can convert that back to a date format you can understand.

Does anyone else reading this thread see what is going on here? These are clear attempts to discredit anyone who tries to leave negative feedback on tspacepilot. Even going as far as to tell me I'm not allowed edit my trust to explain myself. I won't be accused of gaming the trust system so that is why I am going to prove to everyone that tspacepilot is a scammer and let others leave the negative trust instead.

No one is disputing that you edited your feedback twice.  Shorena explained already about the negating feedback issue.  

To me, it looks a bit like your agenda is to discredit tsp based on you leaving negative feedback when QS' went away, the fact that you edited yours AFTER me (twice), and the fact that you mentioned you intend to leave more negative feedback later for something heretofore unmentioned.

All I am saying is that there are many indicators that point to you wanting to see tsp 'discredited' rather than being content with leaving your feedback and moving on.

I also just noticed you left me neutral feedback about this issue.  It is misleading because the date stamps were never the issue.  If you're going to leave me feedback at least put a reference link so people can read this thread.   Or you can just remove it, or I can I add my own feedback to you to explain.