what happened with xetsr?

[Timelord2067]

So you don't need to message a mod, it's whichever of those users have xetsr on their trust list.

Indeed. Mods don't mess with the trust system, and only theymos manages DT1 users.
You'd either have to contact Tomatocage to get him to drop xetsr, or two other DT1 users to get them to exclude xetrs.
Both would result in the same, xetsr being removed from DT2

If xetsr is *gone* then there should be no real reason for him to be removed from the Default Trust network. He is not leaving any new (potentially "bad") trust ratings, and the trust ratings he previously left are presumably accurate enough so that he was previously in the Default Trust network, and xetsr defaulting on a loan does not change that.  

Anyone around West Chicago, IL?

I don't think he lives in IL. In fact I am fairly certain that he does not.

At the end of the day it's up to zazarb to take the first step and give xetsr Red Paint ^TM after that anyone else wishing to give negative trust can affect xeter's ranking. http://archive.is/JcPyh

[Timelord2067]

Slightly off topic, how many UID's are on DT2? DT3? DT4? - Is DT4 the last place?

Second slightly off topic DT question, why can't I see the Red Paint ^TM that users I've given positive trust to have splashed out on others shown up as such?  Sorry if that's worded wrong, I give positive trust to someone yet the negative they give someone else doesn't show up as such when I look at the UID with the Red Paint ^TM

[0x0010]

Slightly off topic, how many UID's are on DT2? DT3? DT4? - Is DT4 the last place?

Second slightly off topic DT question, why can't I see the Red Paint ^TM that users I've given positive trust to have splashed out on others shown up as such?  Sorry if that's worded wrong, I give positive trust to someone yet the negative they give someone else doesn't show up as such when I look at the UID with the Red Paint ^TM

No idea how many are on, you'd have to count them all. If you set your trust depth to 4, it'll list them all. Copy and paste and put them on a line counter. Seperate them where it says:
"Default trust 1:"

As for the second part, you need to put them on your trust list to see their trust ratings. If you can't see their ratings, they're not on DT.

[Timelord2067]

Slightly off topic, how many UID's are on DT2? DT3? DT4? - Is DT4 the last place?

Second slightly off topic DT question, why can't I see the Red Paint ^TM that users I've given positive trust to have splashed out on others shown up as such?  Sorry if that's worded wrong, I give positive trust to someone yet the negative they give someone else doesn't show up as such when I look at the UID with the Red Paint ^TM

No idea how many are on, you'd have to count them all. If you set your trust depth to 4, it'll list them all. Copy and paste and put them on a line counter. Seperate them where it says:
"Default trust 1:"

As for the second part, you need to put them on your trust list to see their trust ratings. If you can't see their ratings, they're not on DT.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a go.

Part 2: So, I have to trust wall them *and* add them to the trust list?

[zazarb]

I does not take action against him ,(red paint, kick from DT) until he not log in again,(it may not happen at all)
because it not make sense , since his Feedbacks accurate, In this situation, win only scammers, which he has tagged, while I lose additional some trust score.

[Lauda]

I does not take action against him ,(red paint, kick from DT) until he not log in again,(it may not happen at all)
because it not make sense , since his Feedbacks accurate, In this situation, win only scammers, which he has tagged, while I lose additional some trust score.

You can't kick him from DT and your own 'red paint' isn't effective since you are not in DT2 either. He's under Tomatocage (DT1), thus can be only removed by Tomatocage themselves or via the exclusions of two other DT1 members. Him being inactive will not get him kicked from DT2 because he has left plenty of valid ratings (maybe if someone else confirms all/most of them).
It comes down to you as to how long you want to wait until you label this as a scam. Until such time, I will only leave a neutral rating.

[zazarb]

I does not take action against him ,(red paint, kick from DT) until he not log in again,(it may not happen at all)
because it not make sense , since his Feedbacks accurate, In this situation, win only scammers, which he has tagged, while I lose additional some trust score.

You can't kick him from DT and your own 'red paint' isn't effective since you are not in DT2 either. He's under Tomatocage (DT1), thus can be only removed by Tomatocage themselves or via the exclusions of two other DT1 members. Him being inactive will not get him kicked from DT2 because he has left plenty of valid ratings (maybe if someone else confirms all/most of them).
It comes down to you as to how long you want to wait until you label this as a scam. Until such time, I will only leave a neutral rating.

you incorrectly interpreted my words, I know how to works trust system, and at which level what has.
of course I can not do it myself, but I can initiate this, and I have no doubt a positive result, regardless he has left plenty of valid ratings.

[Lauda]

you incorrectly interpreted my words, I know how to works trust system, and at which level what has.
of course I can not do it myself, but I can initiate this, and I have no doubt a positive result, regardless he has left plenty of valid ratings.

You incorrectly expressed yourself; that's the problem, thus my assumption of a flawed understanding of the trust system. Anyhow, let us know once you are done waiting.

[Huge Black Woman]

I does not take action against him ,(red paint, kick from DT) until he not log in again,(it may not happen at all)
because it not make sense , since his Feedbacks accurate, In this situation, win only scammers, which he has tagged, while I lose additional some trust score.

Lauda, you ain't pimpin' biscuits wit' dat.  I din't unnerstand a dam word he wrote.

Naw s' for as the DT go, shoun't he get kicked out anyway, regardless o' whether his feedback' spot on o'not?

A'ite minifrij, I did not thank o' that.  Bet.

[minifrij]

No idea how many are on, you'd have to count them all. If you set your trust depth to 4, it'll list them all. Copy and paste and put them on a line counter. Seperate them where it says:
"Default trust 1:"

That won't be very accurate; if a user is on several user's trust lists they will be listed multiple times (and even again if that user then has a user already on the DT network on their trust list and so on).
The best way would probably be to make a script that would check for duplicates and count each individual, I can make one if needed.

Part 2: So, I have to trust wall them *and* add them to the trust list?

Leaving a feedback simply shows if you publicly trust or distrust someone. This is essentially for nothing other than vanity.
To actually see feedback left by a user that you trust you must add them to your trust list. This means that you trust their feedback and would like to see it by default in the 'Trusted Feedback' section of user's trust pages.

Naw s' for as the DT go, shoun't he get kicked out anyway, regardless o' whether his feedback' spot on o'not?

Why? That wouldn't help anyone but the scammers that he tagged.

[Cast12]

^^^Not unless multiple accounts within the DT network has already tagged them.

[minifrij]

^^^Not unless multiple accounts within the DT network has already tagged them.

True, however currently this is not the case:

Taken from xetsr's trust page viewed at DT2.
This also does not take into accounts tagged by him that had positive trust originally; leaving them with a score other than -2: -1 / +0 or other such exceptions.

If another DT member took the time to go through, verify and duplicate each of these I doubt there would be any scruples with removing him from the DT network. However, considering no action is being taken against him currently, that would simply be wasted effort.

[game-protect]

In other words, if someone gave presumably enough accurate trust ratings, he is allowed to commit criminal offenses himself and is still a trusted member of this community? Credit fraud is clearly a criminal offense, as you have at least to stay in contact with the creditor.

While I personally do not care about this "trust" system, I can inform that xetsr gave me a proved inaccurate "trust" rating. The funny part is that haters claim I would be untrustworthy because of the feedback of "trusted" members on the DT list, aka xetsr!

[Quickseller]

Credit fraud is clearly a criminal offense, as you have at least to stay in contact with the creditor.

No you don't lol. Have you ever heard of the FDCPA?

[game-protect]

Credit fraud is clearly a criminal offense, as you have at least to stay in contact with the creditor.

No you don't lol. Have you ever heard of the FDCPA?

Xetsr took the loan based on US laws?

O.k., let us consider it as trustworthy to escape while owing a loan. Sun is moon and war is peace  

[Quickseller]

Credit fraud is clearly a criminal offense, as you have at least to stay in contact with the creditor.

No you don't lol. Have you ever heard of the FDCPA?

No, I am in Europe. Did xetsr took the loan based on US laws?

O.k., let us consider it as trustworthy to escape while owing a loan. Sun is moon and war is peace 

I would assume that there are regulations in Europe allowing for borrowers to send a cease and desist letter considering how liberal Europe is (maybe you can quote European debt collection laws that refute this if you disagree).

Xetsr is based in the US, and European courts would not have jurisdiction over him, so EU laws would not apply to him, but US law would.

I did not say that xetsr not paying his loan is trustworthy, I said that it is not criminal. 

[game-protect]

Credit fraud is clearly a criminal offense, as you have at least to stay in contact with the creditor.

No you don't lol. Have you ever heard of the FDCPA?

No, I am in Europe. Did xetsr took the loan based on US laws?

O.k., let us consider it as trustworthy to escape while owing a loan. Sun is moon and war is peace  

I would assume that there are regulations in Europe allowing for borrowers to send a cease and desist letter considering how liberal Europe is (maybe you can quote European debt collection laws that refute this if you disagree).

Under which conditions you can cease the credit, depend on the conditions of the credit contract. If you do not request a private bankruptcy proceeding, then you have to pay the credit back + penalty charges.

Xetsr is based in the US, and European courts would not have jurisdiction over him, so EU laws would not apply to him, but US law would.

If it was an anonymous credit, I have no idea how you could prove that US laws are applicable?

I did not say that xetsr not paying his loan is trustworthy, I said that it is not criminal.

"O.k., let us consider it as trustworthy to escape while owing a loan. Sun is moon and war is peace  " was a general sarcastic suggestion, after you declined credit fraud as a criminal offense.

[Quickseller]

Credit fraud is clearly a criminal offense, as you have at least to stay in contact with the creditor.

No you don't lol. Have you ever heard of the FDCPA?

No, I am in Europe. Did xetsr took the loan based on US laws?

O.k., let us consider it as trustworthy to escape while owing a loan. Sun is moon and war is peace 

I would assume that there are regulations in Europe allowing for borrowers to send a cease and desist letter considering how liberal Europe is (maybe you can quote European debt collection laws that refute this if you disagree).

Under which conditions you can cease the credit, depend on the conditions of the credit contract. If you do not request a private bankruptcy proceeding, then you have to pay the credit back + penalty charges.

I will discuss in terms of US law as this is the jurisdiction that xetsr is under.

If xetsr takes out a signature loan then xetsr owes the lender the amount of the loan plus interest (and other fees depending on the terms of the loan -- this will usually include collection fees/costs). If xetsr fails to pay the loan, then the lender can report xetsr negatively to the credit bureau (which is essentially what zazarb has done by reporting xetsr in this thread), and take xetsr to court to ask the court to issue a judgement in the amount of the unpaid portion of the loan plus interest, and if the judgement is granted, the court can forcefully take xetsr's property that is subject to the court's jurisdiction if property of sufficient value exists with certain limits.

If taking xetsr to court over the loan is not something the lender is willing to do (due to cost issues, or any other reason), then the only remedies of the lender are to ask xetsr to pay (which xetsr can stop via a cease and desist request -- which is not really a "request"), and report xetsr negatively to the credit bureau. If the negative reporting to the credit bureau is not sufficient to get xetsr to pay, then there is nothing else to force xetsr to pay the lender.

Xetsr is based in the US, and European courts would not have jurisdiction over him, so EU laws would not apply to him, but US law would.

If it was an anonymous credit, I have no idea how you could prove that US laws are applicable?

How would a European court get jurisdiction over xetsr if he is not located in Europe, and has never been to Europe?

[game-protect]

I will discuss in terms of US law as this is the jurisdiction that xetsr is under.

If xetsr takes out a signature loan then xetsr owes the lender the amount of the loan plus interest (and other fees depending on the terms of the loan -- this will usually include collection fees/costs). If xetsr fails to pay the loan, then the lender can report xetsr negatively to the credit bureau (which is essentially what zazarb has done by reporting xetsr in this thread), and take xetsr to court to ask the court to issue a judgement in the amount of the unpaid portion of the loan plus interest, and if the judgement is granted, the court can forcefully take xetsr's property that is subject to the court's jurisdiction if property of sufficient value exists with certain limits.

If taking xetsr to court over the loan is not something the lender is willing to do (due to cost issues, or any other reason), then the only remedies of the lender are to ask xetsr to pay (which xetsr can stop via a cease and desist request -- which is not really a "request"), and report xetsr negatively to the credit bureau. If the negative reporting to the credit bureau is not sufficient to get xetsr to pay, then there is nothing else to force xetsr to pay the lender.

Xetsr is based in the US, and European courts would not have jurisdiction over him, so EU laws would not apply to him, but US law would.

If it was an anonymous credit, I have no idea how you could prove that US laws are applicable?

How would a European court get jurisdiction over xetsr if he is not located in Europe, and has never been to Europe?

I did not say that a European court would have jurisdiction over xetsr. My point is I find it strange that someone who would have committed a criminal offense by European law, is still on the DT list. I also did not know that it was a signature loan.

And if the loan was given anonymously, then you will likely have no success with civil court proceedings. Because in civil court proceedings you need to deliver the proof. You can hardly sue a forum account name in civil courts.

[Timelord2067]

The complainant could compel the owners and operators of BitCoinTalk.org to hand over personal details of any UID they required to enable them to then serve papers.

IP / email / "real" name that sort of thing.