Message to DT members. Stop abusing your powers. (And regular members)

[EcuaMobi]

Don't take it personally but I'll post here a concern I have about feedback left by cryptodevil and The Pharmacist (among others) regarding what Quickseller said about giving negative trust to all the users who run a specific type of business.
It's true that people should read the feedback and not just check the positive or negative overall trust rating. But too general comments don't help too much. Things like "Running a ponzi 'doubler' scam" on every profile that runs or promotes a ponzi (regardless of whether the ponzi follows the ponzi 'rules' or is just a fake site that steals any deposit) or "Account sales encourage scams, spam, and account farming" for every user that tries to sell or buy an account (regardless of whether the user sells to scammers or is just selling collateral from defaulted loans, among other factors) won't help much. People will open their profile, read the feedback and say "I won't worry, it's just the standard negative trust" and go ahead.

There are people who make related but much worse things. For example this user. He's running a site that fakes stats, deposits and users. He's not just running a ponzi, he's running a plain scam. Even if people understand what a ponzi is and are willing to risk their money that's not what they would get with him. They would just be directly scammed, even the first deposit. However cryptodevil just left the standard "Ponzi 'doubler' scammer". So anyone would just read it, think it's just a regular ponzi and continue.

More specific negative trust given after further analysis and with more details would be much more helpful for everyone.

[1714867702]

1714867702

[1714867702]

1714867702

[1714867702]

1714867702

[1714867702]

1714867702

[1714867702]

1714867702

[1714867702]

1714867702

[Bit_Happy]

Stop abusing your fucking trust. It's meant for marketplace deals, not for what your fucking opinion is....

I am glad to not be part of the trusted elite.
Much better to remain independent and have people wonder about the true nature of my huge plans which will make several people very rich in an honest manner. 

[The Sceptical Chymist]

And most importantly: people should not be on default trust simply for scam-busting. I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

Now that's a first

Quickseller was a scam buster and look what happened there.  I know that's one data point.  Anyone can call people out on scams, no offense intended Lutpin.  Scam busting is a good thing but I don't think it's sufficient for inclusion on DT.  Trustworthiness in deals where you're honest is far more important.  That's just my opinion. 

[Quickseller]

And most importantly: people should not be on default trust simply for scam-busting. I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

Now that's a first

Quickseller was a scam buster and look what happened there.  I know that's one data point.  Anyone can call people out on scams, no offense intended Lutpin.  Scam busting is a good thing but I don't think it's sufficient for inclusion on DT.  Trustworthiness in deals where you're honest is far more important.  That's just my opinion. 

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"), have been entrusted with many thousands of dollars worth of money and property multiple times, by multiple people over extended periods of time, have helped countless numbers of people with pretty much everything imaginable, all in addition to busting scams....

[tommorisonwebdesign]

1 - trust ratings are not for marketplace deals. If you do something in another section of the forum (or even off site) that either shows that you can or cannot (should not) be trusted, or scammed (or attempted to scam), then it would be appropriate to leave trust ratings accordingly. It is also not a requirement to trade with someone personally in order to leave a trust rating as this would allow scammers to simply scam users without existing reputation and be able to maintain their existing reputation.

With the above being said, yes there are many people in the DT network that are leaving trust for no reason other then they do not like the person and/or they do not like what the person is doing. This negative trust is often justified with some comment that is factually accurate, however it would be an understatement to say that it is a stretch to link the comment to the person being an actual scammer.

The heart of the problem is dooglus, as he is the direct reason why two of the biggest offender, cryptodevil and Vod are in the Default Trust network. When dooglus is asked to address concerns about negative ratings left by those who receive unjust negative ratings, dooglus often will make vague comments as to why the negative rating is justified, or says that he does not agree with the negative rating, but does nothing to attempt to hold the person leaving the negative rating accountable. This is in addition to the multiple successful extortion attempts, being involved in, including directly promoting, multiple multi-million dollar scams (1, 2, 3), as well as the glaring conflict of interest in the negative ratings that he often leaves his competitors. Excluding dooglus from the Default Trust network would solve almost all of the issues the DT network currently has.

I agree. If trust was only for marketplace deals, it would be easier for scammers to scam. I think, though, that we can't let the fact that this is the internet. One thing people seem to do here is forget how easy it is to scam with the annoymity of the internet. That's why some people give copies of their iD some (but not most) of the time.

Another issue is that there are many people attempting to make a name for themselves with unclear motives. This is not a problem with the DT system necessarily, however people often brush off trust ratings from these people as "meaningless" when the recipient of such trust attempts to resolve the issue. The problem with brushing this negative trust off as "meaningless" is that some of these people are in some people's trust list, so it does have meaning.

Agian you are right. Some people (like the Pharmacist) are abusing the trust system. A Partial confession on my note, I would hunt around the forum and leave negative trust wherever I can. I quit doing this because I would usually get a PM (or even a new Skype contact) complaining about the trust I left them. I decided then that I have way more time doing more productive things, like watching Laracasts.

It used to be that the forum administration played a more active role in "moderating" the DT network, however now for some reason it appears that the administration's stance on the DT network is "IDGAF what happens or what trust is left by those in the DT network"

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to continue to scam even with negative ratings because it is expected for some people to have negative trust when they have certain types of businesses.  

Most people on dT will remove negetive trust if it is warranted. EucaMobi calls me a scammer once, I fix my mistake, and life goes on. (Again, another confession, I could have been more calm and chill about the whole ordeal and as I don't have negative trust now so there's no problem). That being said there are still good DTers who are at least fair.

[jackg]

I have to agree with this along with other members who do!
In my opinion, if I see a negative trust given by Stunna, I'd believe it more than any of the other DT members as it is really rare tat they give feedback and they use their trust for what it is supposed to be!
Also, every time I review other users' trusts, I find it funny how people have been downgraded from DT for doing exactly this spamming.

It's a problem spanning not just the DT members though!

Also, LutPin marked an account that I was trying to sell That I got as collateral for a loan and had to resell it in order to get my capital back! (though they are usually good at spotting scams)!

[The Sceptical Chymist]

And most importantly: people should not be on default trust simply for scam-busting. I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

Now that's a first

Quickseller was a scam buster and look what happened there.  I know that's one data point.  Anyone can call people out on scams, no offense intended Lutpin.  Scam busting is a good thing but I don't think it's sufficient for inclusion on DT.  Trustworthiness in deals where you're honest is far more important.  That's just my opinion. 

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"), have been entrusted with many thousands of dollars worth of money and property multiple times, by multiple people over extended periods of time, have helped countless numbers of people with pretty much everything imaginable, all in addition to busting scams....

Yeah, and watching you squirm and lie and rationalize about the "self-escrow" debacle you engaged in convinced me you're a lying piece of shit who shouldn't be trusted with anything here.  You obviously don't grasp what you did wrong, which was significant, or you won't admit it.  And my point still holds:  scam busting can be done by anyone, even scammers like you.

[jackg]

And most importantly: people should not be on default trust simply for scam-busting. I think that should be for people who've proven themselves trustworthy in bitcoin transactions.

So you would pick someone who has 100 successfull transactions, but leaves bullshit feedbacks
over someone who has 1 successful tranasction but leaves spot on feedbacks to be on DTX?

Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

Now that's a first

Quickseller was a scam buster and look what happened there.  I know that's one data point.  Anyone can call people out on scams, no offense intended Lutpin.  Scam busting is a good thing but I don't think it's sufficient for inclusion on DT.  Trustworthiness in deals where you're honest is far more important.  That's just my opinion.  

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"), have been entrusted with many thousands of dollars worth of money and property multiple times, by multiple people over extended periods of time, have helped countless numbers of people with pretty much everything imaginable, all in addition to busting scams....

Yeah, and watching you squirm and lie and rationalize about the "self-escrow" debacle you engaged in convinced me you're a lying piece of shit who shouldn't be trusted with anything here.  You obviously don't grasp what you did wrong, which was significant, or you won't admit it.  And my point still holds:  scam busting can be done by anyone, even scammers like you.

Quickseller, I believe, isn't technically a scammer as he didn't have any intentions to steal?
Based on your trust report it seems to be very negative, suggesting that you could be seen as a scammer (based on my guidlines for who I trade with on this forum).
Also, in some ways, people that leave scam reports infrequently are probably more believed on this forum as it is done less often than others so is more believable. Though everyone with valid trust feedback (with a reference link and good reason, should be taken at a similar "severity" (want of a better word) whether it is from a DT member or not)

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"),

You're an outright liar.

You seem to forget that you did trades between your alts, which is the definition of "trust farming".

It's the reason you were removed from Default Trust, remember?

With this I can happily withdraw some of my statement as that is a way of trust farming if it actually happened.
Though I didn't think people can be removed from DT for that as it is not supposed to be based on the forum Administrator's personal opinion?

[Vod]

I had participated in hundreds of trades (none of which could reasonably be interpreted as "trust farming"),

You're an outright liar.

You seem to forget that you did trades between your alts, which is the definition of "trust farming".

It's the reason you were removed from Default Trust, remember?

Who knows how many alt accounts you are currently "providing loans" to on a daily basis, to farm your trust.

[Quickseller]

You seem to forget that you did trades between your alts, which is the definition of "trust farming".

I do not consider a trade in which a third party was involved (and one where I did not send not receive trust to myself) to be trust farming.

The rest of your post is baseless speculation.

This is of course coming from someone who he himself farms trust by trading positive trust with others in the DT network, and removing his sent positive trust when his received trust is removed

Feel free to go back to leaving negative trust that makes it easier for scammers to scam.

[Vod]

This is of course coming from someone who he himself farms trust by trading positive trust with others in the DT network, and removing his sent positive trust when his received trust is removed

That's of course baseless speculation, isn't it?     From a proven scammer no doubt!

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

That's the reason you'll never be on default trust - and the reason you hate me with every fiber in your being - I am fundamentally open and honest.

[Quickseller]

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

I am unsure of any situations when I admitted to lending to myself, nor trading with myself. Scheming is too vague of a term to refute.

Regardless of the above, none of that is relevant here, and is off topic.

Your post is just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your inappropriate negative trust ratings, and is an attempt to avoid accountability.

Vod, are you going to respond to the claims that you are leaving negative ratings that results in scammers having an easier time stealing from others? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust for personal reasons? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust because of your personal opinions and not because of facts that would reasonably lead someone to believe that they are a scammer? Or does your silence mean that all of the above is true?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

I am unsure of any situations when I admitted to lending to myself, nor trading with myself. Scheming is too vague of a term to refute.

Regardless of the above, none of that is relevant here, and is off topic.

Your post is just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your inappropriate negative trust ratings, and is an attempt to avoid accountability.

Vod, are you going to respond to the claims that you are leaving negative ratings that results in scammers having an easier time stealing from others? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust for personal reasons? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust because of your personal opinions and not because of facts that would reasonably lead someone to believe that they are a scammer? Or does your silence mean that all of the above is true?

Witness the master of casuistry, denial, rationalization, distraction, misdirection,  and hairsplitting.  This is a great example of that.  Oh yeah, and scamming.  "Self escrow" is scamming.   Escrow involves 3 independent parties.  If two of them are the same person using different accounts,  it's not fucking escrow, it's a scam.  End of story.

[Quickseller]

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

I am unsure of any situations when I admitted to lending to myself, nor trading with myself. Scheming is too vague of a term to refute.

Regardless of the above, none of that is relevant here, and is off topic.

Your post is just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your inappropriate negative trust ratings, and is an attempt to avoid accountability.

Vod, are you going to respond to the claims that you are leaving negative ratings that results in scammers having an easier time stealing from others? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust for personal reasons? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust because of your personal opinions and not because of facts that would reasonably lead someone to believe that they are a scammer? Or does your silence mean that all of the above is true?

Witness the master of casuistry, denial, rationalization, distraction, misdirection,  and hairsplitting.  This is a great example of that.  Oh yeah, and scamming.  "Self escrow" is scamming.   Escrow involves 3 independent parties.  If two of them are the same person using different accounts,  it's not fucking escrow, it's a scam.  End of story.

Feel free to create your own thread if you feel that this needs to be discussed however they is off topic here.

Some people feel that you are attempting to farm trust with your repetitive negative trust (that is probably deserving of a ban for trust spam), and that you are trying to get yourself a spot in the DT network. Feel free to respond to these concerns and take your off topic, as-honiem attacks elsewhere.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

All we know for sure is that you've admitted to having many alts, and you have been caught trading, loaning, and scheming with said alts on more than one occasion.

I am unsure of any situations when I admitted to lending to myself, nor trading with myself. Scheming is too vague of a term to refute.

Regardless of the above, none of that is relevant here, and is off topic.

Your post is just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your inappropriate negative trust ratings, and is an attempt to avoid accountability.

Vod, are you going to respond to the claims that you are leaving negative ratings that results in scammers having an easier time stealing from others? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust for personal reasons? Vod, are you going to respond to claims that you are leaving negative trust because of your personal opinions and not because of facts that would reasonably lead someone to believe that they are a scammer? Or does your silence mean that all of the above is true?

Witness the master of casuistry, denial, rationalization, distraction, misdirection,  and hairsplitting.  This is a great example of that.  Oh yeah, and scamming.  "Self escrow" is scamming.   Escrow involves 3 independent parties.  If two of them are the same person using different accounts,  it's not fucking escrow, it's a scam.  End of story.

Feel free to create your own thread if you feel that this needs to be discussed however they is off topic here.

Some people feel that you are attempting to farm trust with your repetitive negative trust (that is probably deserving of a ban for trust spam), and that you are trying to get yourself a spot in the DT network. Feel free to respond to these concerns and take your off topic, as-honiem attacks elsewhere.

We just discussed all that needs to be discussed.

As far as responding to your attempt at misdirection, I don't care what you or 99.99% of the folks on this forum think.  I addressed the accusation of DT-seeking in another thread.   If you feel I'm trust farming by leaving negative feedback (I'm sure that's possible in your diseased head), report me and try to get me banned if that's your thing.  Good luck.

[Quickseller]

 If you feel I'm trust farming by leaving negative feedback (I'm sure that's possible in your diseased head), report me and try to get me banned if that's your thing.  Good luck.

Trust farming is not against any kind of rule, and if you are implying that as long as you are not banned that you can proclaim that you are not trust farming then you are mistaken.

The banable offense that I was referring to was you leaving almost the exact same trust rating for a very large number of people, at a very high rate. It is the trust spam that might get you banned....

[ndnh]

Probably most importantly, the negative trust being left by some users is diluting the effect of negative trust on actual scammers, which has resulted in multiple instances of scammers being able to scam

...those who didn't properly read the negative feedbacks.

If everyone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust (and a "WARNING: trade with extreme caution" tag), then it will not come as a surprise when someone who sells MSDN accounts has negative trust. If someone often trades with people who sell MSDN accounts, and the comments on their negative trust always say "this guy is scammin Macrosoft becuz of TOS", which they do not care about, nor do they think is a valid reason to conclude they are a scammer), then it becomes pointless to read the trust comments because they all say the same thing.

Yes, because they didn't properly read the negative feedbacks.

They can't just assume all the negative feedbacks are for this and that and go ahead for a trade.

I am wondering if this trust score is necessary. The people I actually consider trustworthy usually have lower "numbers" than the ones I don't much. Number of feedbacks is overemphasized.
The existence of trust score is undermining the importance of actually reading those trust feedbacks.

A trust score is necessary to measure how many people have had positive financial interactions with the person whose ability to be trusted is being measured. If only one or two people have had a positive trading experience with someone then, all else being equal, they are less likely to be trustworthy then someone who has had positive trading experiences with 30 people (who are in your trust network). One rationale behind this is that the positive trust rating that the one or two people left might be inaccurate, another rationale is that someone might be willing to walk away from a trade (scamming their trading partner) if something goes wrong, and the one or two people who traded with someone just might have been able to avoid anything from going wrong in their trades.

One other reason why trust ratings are important is because they help people measure differences in trust levels at any point in time. For example, if you decide to trust someone today because you have read someone's trust comments extensively, and otherwise researched and determined that is it safe to trust them, and subsequently have a positive trading experience, then a month from now, if a similar trade were to be proposed to you again, and the person you dealt with all of a sudden has negative trust (when they previously had positive trust), then you might want to look into their ability to be trusted again, but if their trust level has not changed, then it might not be necessary to research their ability to be trusted a second time.

All I mean is when a relatively new member sees a member with a dark green trust, he assumes he is a trusted member while he needn't be.

I agree with you.
May be instead of removing the trust score, make it less/no green? (red for negative, black for everything above 0). This might make someone more likely to click and see the feedbacks than assume stuff.

[Lutpin]

Feel free to create your own thread if you feel that this needs to be discussed however they is off topic here.

Was about to say that, welp, I've skipped the qs/vod discussion, let's get back to the thread and the topic at hand.

In my opinion, if I see a negative trust given by Stunna, I'd believe it more than any of the other DT members as it is really rare tat they give feedback and they use their trust for what it is supposed to be

Who left a specific feedback is rather secondary in my opinion.
I prefer to check the reference of it and make myself an (independent) own impression of the situation over which that feedback was left.
Yes, I might be part of a small group that does this, but I think that's how the feedback system is intended to work.
Don't blindly trust users, but take a look at the things those you care about point out.

Also, Lutpin marked an account that I was trying to sell. That I got as collateral for a loan and had to resell it in order to get my capital back! (though they are usually good at spotting scams)!

It's been ages since I've left negative trust over an account being sold. I tag them with a neutral, and in that I don't care for what reason the account gets sold,
as it doesn't change the situation with the new owner. They're behind a bought account either way, whether that account was sold as collateral or from the original owner.
If I've tagged any of your "assets" from defaulted loans with a negative, point it out to me and I'll gladly revise that to a neutral based on my current agenda on how to proceed with account sales.

[jackg]

Feel free to create your own thread if you feel that this needs to be discussed however they is off topic here.

Was about to say that, welp, I've skipped the qs/vod discussion, let's get back to the thread and the topic at hand.

In my opinion, if I see a negative trust given by Stunna, I'd believe it more than any of the other DT members as it is really rare tat they give feedback and they use their trust for what it is supposed to be

Who left a specific feedback is rather secondary in my opinion.
I prefer to check the reference of it and make myself an (independent) own impression of the situation over which that feedback was left.
Yes, I might be part of a small group that does this, but I think that's how the feedback system is intended to work.
Don't blindly trust users, but take a look at the things those you care about point out.

Also, Lutpin marked an account that I was trying to sell. That I got as collateral for a loan and had to resell it in order to get my capital back! (though they are usually good at spotting scams)!

It's been ages since I've left negative trust over an account being sold. I tag them with a neutral, and in that I don't care for what reason the account gets sold,
as it doesn't change the situation with the new owner. They're behind a bought account either way, whether that account was sold as collateral or from the original owner.
If I've tagged any of your "assets" from defaulted loans with a negative, point it out to me and I'll gladly revise that to a neutral based on my current agenda on how to proceed with account sales.

If I had to do a trade quickly and had no time to analyse the situation, a negative from someone like Stunna, is more valuable than a negative from you or Vod.
You did leave it at neutral, but if I sell now then I cannot as I don't want to scam the new owner!
I think (but am not certain) that I've tried to discuss this before and this is the first time I got a response)!

[Monnt]

The Cascading trust system isn't the best one out there, but if you ask me it's the only viable one that I can think of. Some DT members just like to leave negative feedbacks to anyone they can get their hands on to get their periodical "fix".