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

[ndnh]

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.

That may not be true for others.

My Trust list goes literally the other way round. Lutpin and Vod on depth 0, Stunna on depth 1.

[1713449639]

1713449639

[1713449639]

1713449639

[jackg]

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.

That may not be true for others.

My Trust list goes literally the other way round. Lutpin and Vod on depth 0, Stunna on depth 1.

That is how it does go!
However, I still think that members that only use their trust reputation for not spamming others' trust are more valueable than those who do what some would refer to as "spamming".
Also, the example of "stunna" should be of a higher trust rank as they have more positive trust from DT members? (you of all poeple would be someone I wouldn't expect to destroy my example - due to the fact that you were a staff member of primedice)!

[Lutpin]

That is how it does go!

Maybe for you.

However, I still think that members that only use their trust reputation for not spamming others' trust are more valueable than those who do what some would refer to as "spamming".

I wasn't aware that any of the feedbacks being left by Vod or myself would be meeting the requirements of "spam" in any way.
Don't mistake being active on this forum and leaving a huge amount of feedbacks to many different users with "feedback spam".

Also, the example of "stunna" should be of a higher trust rank as they have more positive trust from DT members?

You're confusing being trusted (as in having a lot of positive, aged feedback) with the ability to leave feedback.
You can have no trust ratings at all and still leave valid feedbacks and you can (the other way around) be rock-solidly trusted and leave bullshit feedbacks.

(you of all poeple would be someone I wouldn't expect to destroy my example - due to the fact that you were a staff member of primedice)

lol.

[jackg]

That is how it does go!

Maybe for you.

However, I still think that members that only use their trust reputation for not spamming others' trust are more valueable than those who do what some would refer to as "spamming".

I wasn't aware that any of the feedbacks being left by Vod or myself would be meeting the requirements of "spam" in any way.
Don't mistake being active on this forum and leaving a huge amount of feedbacks to many different users with "feedback spam".

Also, the example of "stunna" should be of a higher trust rank as they have more positive trust from DT members?

You're confusing being trusted (as in having a lot of positive, aged feedback) with the ability to leave feedback.
You can have no trust ratings at all and still leave valid feedbacks and you can (the other way around) be rock-solidly trusted and leave bullshit feedbacks.

(you of all poeple would be someone I wouldn't expect to destroy my example - due to the fact that you were a staff member of primedice)

lol.

That's why I put it in brackets? I am not one to place false accusations on people, however, it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community. I feel that your trust reports are very useful for what I have been doing (especially since you recently flagged lightlord)!
I have no problem with how you and vod eave trust as it doesn't really effect me too much as I look at more than just the member that leaves the feedback and, honestly, I rarely check the username of the people giing the trust but the comment given, the risked btc and the reference given to ensure that these are all valid and corospond with each other!

[tspacepilot]

That's why I put it in brackets? I am not one to place false accusations on people, however, it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community.

Right, unfortunately there's also a lot of "politicization" here, people start developing into camps.  Those in one camp defend their cohort unthinkingly and attack the other camp equally viscously.  People resort to character smears, all kinds of nastiness.  Somehow, you have to kinda know something about who hates who when looking at trust ratings in order to apply the appropriate amount of "grains of salt" to that rating.

[Vod]

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.

Your posts are just another example of you attempting to distract from the issue of your trust farming with your alts.

Or does your silence mean that it is true?

[Lutpin]

it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community.

Really, where?

as I look at more than just the member that leaves the feedback and, honestly, I rarely check the username of the people giing the trust but the comment given, the risked btc and the reference given to ensure that these are all valid and corospond with each other!

That sounds familiar, didn't I already write something similar a few posts above?
Oh right, I did, here we go:

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.

~snip~

It's a shame to see you advertising Betcoin.AG

[jackg]

it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community.

Really, where?

as I look at more than just the member that leaves the feedback and, honestly, I rarely check the username of the people giing the trust but the comment given, the risked btc and the reference given to ensure that these are all valid and corospond with each other!

That sounds familiar, didn't I already write something similar a few posts above?
Oh right, I did, here we go:

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.

~snip~

It's a shame to see you advertising Betcoin.AG

I don't really have the time to start searching for them again in other places on the forum!
That is correct as it is not just useful to look at who gives trust. Though, if you have to look quickly, DT member trust may be useful to look at as ifit was given wrong, they would be removed fom DT!

[Vod]

it has been said many times that you and Vod have been "spamming trust by other members on this thread and in the wider community.

I don't really have the time to start searching for them again in other places on the forum!

If you don't have time to back it up, you shouldn't be propagating the rumor, correct?

Someone can state anything they want, no matter how absurd, and if it gets repeated enough by people like you, suddenly it becomes true?  Come on Jack, you are better than that!

[Lutpin]

If you don't have time to back it up, you shouldn't be propagating the rumor, correct?

I was about to say just this.

[jackg]

If you don't have time to back it up, you shouldn't be propagating the rumor, correct?

I was about to say just this.

My first example:

Examples;
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=224980
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747
Mexxer-2 and Lutpin although they aren't as bad I guess

This is an example that is suggested on this thread that you have been considered to be "spamming" lutpin.

This is also "burried" in your trust record

this asshole goes around giving people negative feedback who he doesn't even know for reasons he is unsure about.

so i am unsure of this guy. he is most likely going to scam you and lie. stay away.

(you asked for me to post these, I'd add that the second one is less stable as there is no evidence given by that user)!

[Lutpin]

This is also "burried" in your trust record

this asshole goes around giving people negative feedback who he doesn't even know for reasons he is unsure about.

so i am unsure of this guy. he is most likely going to scam you and lie. stay away.

(you asked for me to post these, I'd add that the second one is less stable as there is no evidence given by that user)!

That's a feedback from bitmarket.io who was catched redhanded while scamming.
The user left that exactly same feedback to EcuaMobi and Boelens (being controlled by Quickseller at that point), are you saying that those two users are aswell "spamming trust"?
Read back on the situation involving bitmarket.io here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471789.0).

If you're only going to bring up examples of proven scammers, that's not really supporting the point you're trying to make.
In difference, it rather supports "trust spammers" such as EM, QS, Vod and me.

[jackg]

This is also "burried" in your trust record

this asshole goes around giving people negative feedback who he doesn't even know for reasons he is unsure about.

so i am unsure of this guy. he is most likely going to scam you and lie. stay away.

(you asked for me to post these, I'd add that the second one is less stable as there is no evidence given by that user)!

That's a feedback from bitmarket.io who was catched redhanded while scamming.
The user left that exactly same feedback to EcuaMobi and Boelens (being controlled by Quickseller at that point), are you saying that those two users are aswell "spamming trust"?
Read back on the situation involving bitmarket.io here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471789.0).

If you're only going to bring up examples of proven scammers, that's not really supporting the point you're trying to make.
In difference, it rather supports "trust spammers" such as EM, QS, Vod and me.

You wanted me to say how poeple considered you to be tust spamming.
The OP alone stands for itself that that is how a few people believe it is true and only DT members accused of spamming are actually arguing against that!
I was not stating that QS, EM or Vod are trust spammers as I have little information to state that they are.

I anyway feel that you four are great additions to the forum anyway based on the cumulative positive trust you've received!

EDIT: (I will then retract the second example as it was sent to other users who are not accused of "trust spamming" in this thread)

[Lutpin]

You wanted me to say how poeple considered you to be tust spamming.
The OP alone stands for itself that that is how a few people believe it is true and only DT members accused of spamming are actually arguing against that

You were saying this "has been said many times", when in reality, OP is the first to bring up an accusation like that.
You were painting a situation where OP got the support of the community, when in reallity, I don't see many people backing up OP with their accusation against me, being a "trust spammer".

I was not stating that QS, EM or Vod are trust spammers as I have little information to state that they are.

You were bringing up an example from my trust page which can be equally applied to EcuaMobi and Boelens/Quickseller.
If you are not going to retract that example, then your accusations should be carried over in the same matter to those two users.

[Vod]

I'll admit sometimes (very rarely) I have simply copy and pasted someone else's feedback on the same account when I feel the exact same way.  I don't think there is anything wrong with it, considering the frequency it is done.

If the community thinks that is spammy for some odd reason, I'll simply not do it anymore.     But I doubt that is the case.

[Slow death]

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



I've been here for years, this is just a new account so if you're going to say something about my account age go ahead and fucking say it. Can't wait for the retards from countries where they make $0.000001 an hour to reply.

I've been here for years...

apparently you not learned anything these many years have you been here.

this is just a new account so if you're going to say something about my account age go ahead

I suppose you sold your account, this guy? The Pharmacist? this right to give RED TRUST for all selling/buy accounts.
I do not understand why some members want to buy an account, I had 2 accounts

Noni and slow deapth

My Noni account created last year, I remember that I did not know anything about btc and did not know that double sites that were in this forum not paid, I already knew that HYIP sites were dangerous and created by scammers (criminals), but until Lutpin and mexxer-2 gave me Red  trust because I invested in double sites that were in this forum, I thought those sites that were here in the forum were different from what I found on google (where all sites are scam). But then I lost my password NONI account and lost email account password because they were in flash and flash lost in the accident I had.

I created another account Slow Deapth and continued to invest in double sites They were this forum because I thought they paid, but cryptodevil gave me red trust and gave me condition to remove and I fulfilled the condition and never invested in these Double sites, HYIP and Ponzi.

Thanks to cryptodevil, Lutpin and mexxer-2, these guys are good people.


So I think right to RED TRUST for all who sell/buy accounts for all who invest in HYIP, DOUBLE and  PONZI SITE.


These members

- cryptodevil
- dooglus
- Stunna
- Ryan
- Vod
- Lutpin
- The Pharmacist
- SFR10
- shorena
- james.lent
- Lauda

I Love cats and dogs



are good people, smart and has good reviews ... I think all newbies and members should follow their example.

Can't wait for the retards from countries where they make $0.000001 an hour to reply.

You must be an imbecile, Useless, mentally retarded who need help.

You have many people who are hungry, who do not have what to eat, you think that those people who do not have buy food, go purchase computer to read what a retarded and stupid as you write in a forum?

Dude, do you have ever traveled to countries of third world, such as Africa for example?

Oh you never saw pain, death and suffering. You do not know how the lives of those people is.

[actmyname]

-snippy snoop-
Thanks to cryptodevil, Lutpin and mexxer-2, these guys are good people.


So I think right to RED TRUST for all who sell/buy accounts for all who invest in HYIP, DOUBLE and  PONZI SITE.


These members

- cryptodevil
- dooglus
- Stunna
- Ryan
- Vod
- Lutpin
- The Pharmacist
- SFR10
- shorena
- james.lent
- Lauda

I Love cats and dogs



are good people, smart and has good reviews ... I think all newbies and members should follow their example.

It's quite interesting seeing the opinion of someone who was given negative trust, for them to return positive messages to the ones who had sent it to them. I quite like how you understood the underlying factor of how they were against the promotion of scammy sites.

If only more people were like you (reasonable) then perhaps the forum could return to a better state.

I agree with the decision of permitting red trust. Negative feedback is given to those you cannot trust. If someone is selling an account and (directly/indirectly) causing scam/spam behaviors across the server, then it encourages that behavior. Likewise, the promotion of HYIP. Now, you choose where to place your money, so I'm fine with discrete investments so long as they aren't promoting (i.e. replying to the thread, participating in promotions, etc.) because obviously, it won't bring forum attention to it.

The only problem here lies in when someone defaults a loan and the loaner accepts the account as collateral. Is it the fault of the loaner for accepting the account? I'm not stating my opinion on this question.

[Quickseller]

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.

The trust system is intended to protect people in three ways:

• 1 - display a "WARNING: Trade with Extreme Caution" tag in their profile once their negative trust reaches a certain threshold (usually with a single negative rating)
• 2 - With trust scores
• 3 - With trust comments

Ideally people will use all three of these tools when deciding if/how much to trust someone, however in some cases (especially smaller trades), it might be safe to only use one or two of these tools. For example, it might be safe to trust someone who lacks a "trade with extreme caution" tag with $1 as long as they do not appear to be a purchased account, or it might be safe to trust this person with 10 minutes of your time when trying to find information for a small bounty.

However once people in your trust network start leaving a bunch of (negative) ratings (positive ratings are just as bad), then two thirds of your tools suddenly become useless. Also if you are not using 2/3 of the trust system related tools then I think the chances are elevated that someone will not want to use the third tool either.

[xavier77]

I don't hate any DT members. I also respect Lutpin who left a negative comment on my account. It was totally my fault to include a referral link while posting about a giveaway. I am aware now and would never tread to make the same mistake twice. Hence, I would like to be pardoned and would want sir Lutpin to remove my negative feedback. P.S: My only negative trust was given to a user who scammed me through a ponzi

[Lutpin]

I also respect Lutpin who left a negative comment on my account. It was totally my fault to include a referral link while posting about a giveaway. I am aware now and would never tread to make the same mistake twice. Hence, I would like to be pardoned and would want sir Lutpin to remove my negative feedback.

That's a neutral.