Lauda has Broken the GuideLine of the Trust System by theymos own words, ban her

[kiklo]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2221664#msg2221664

On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
- List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
- Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it.
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.
- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

I never traded anything with that Bitch.

She gave me a negative feedback purely because of my opinion in a post.

No Trade, No Risked Bitcoins


 

[1714061252]

1714061252

[the_end_is_near]

The trust system is unmoderated and sucks. The red crap does not show on your avatar on right side of posts, when you are not posting to Altcoin Discussion.

Just continue to limp along using the forum as is, until you have an other better alternative.

There is nothing you can do. You’ve registered your complaint but the 26 year old Theymos does not care to respond to you his 84 year old elder. Ah I see you were banned for raging against the system (even though the Trust system is supposed to be unmoderated  ). So much for consistency from 26 year olds. What can you expect from western millennials.

I hope you use the down time to get in the barbell gym. I guarantee you that stimulation of HGH via weight lifting (even if not so heavy) works wonders for holistic health of the body. It is difficult to make a lifestyle change, but it could possibly drastically increase your quality of life in your advanced years. I got back into the gym this week and I am hella sore, but really helps a lot for overall well being and ability to nonchalantly handle stress.

[minifrij]

Guidelines aren't rules.

[the_end_is_near]

Guidelines aren't rules.

Rules are for Nazis.

We are entering a new decentralized Knowledge Age (Inverse Commons) era in human civilization. Goodbye to fuckard Tangible Age (industrial and agricultural age) authorities and those who cling/ride on their coattails.

[actmyname]

I never traded anything with that Bitch.

By your own definition, you too broke the guideline by sending your retaliatory feedback despite never having a trade. Two wrongs don't make a right (though the first wasn't a wrong, to begin with).

If we are not allowed to place prophylactic feedback ratings then are we to wait until after scammers steal from their victims to warn others about their behavior? It doesn't exactly make sense here.


And wait, isn't Lauda = theymos? How would they possibly ban Lauda?

[the_end_is_near]

(though the first wasn't a wrong, to begin with)

Oh really. Great. Check your Trust rating now.

Let’s clusterfuck.

[qwk]

On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
- List all of the trades that you do with people (or at least the major ones). This is not like #bitcoin-otc where you give people just one score.
- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
- Older ratings count for more, so don't delete old ratings if you can avoid it.
- "Risked BTC" is how much money you could have lost if the person you're rating had turned out to be a scammer. Or, if they are a scammer, it's how much you lost. Use the BTC value at the time of reporting.
- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.
- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

[actmyname]

(though the first wasn't a wrong, to begin with)

Oh really. Great. Check your Trust rating now.

Let’s clusterfuck.

That's fine and dandy. You don't have to trust me and you have the right to post that feedback. But am I wrong in saying that prophylactic trust feedback is a good thing?

If someone is known to have scammed someone, is it wrong to say that such an individual is a scammer?

[Nagadota]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

guideline
noun [ C usually plural ] UK ​ /ˈɡaɪd.laɪn/ US ​ /ˈɡaɪd.laɪn/
​
C1 information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be

Guidelines are not damn rules, they're guidelines.  Not only does theymos give the guideline that it's OK to give trust for a person, not a trade, it's also not actually abuse of the system to use it for anything at all.  The system allows anything to happen.  You can decide not to trust the feedback of someone if you want, but that doesn't stop them from making the damn feedback.  Grr.

[the_end_is_near]

Guidelines are not damn rules, they're guidelines.  Not only does theymos give the guideline that it's OK to give trust for a person, not a trade, it's also not actually abuse of the system to use it for anything at all.  The system allows anything to happen.  You can decide not to trust the feedback of someone if you want, but that doesn't stop them from making the damn feedback.  Grr.

Decentralizing the trust is good, but not when the GUI choice of red text is centralized:

The only reason anyone cares about abuse of the Trust system, is because the database for it is interpreted in one centralized way by the GUI of the system.

Again I posit that my plans for a decentralized database (on a blockchain) for a Bitnet forum will remedy this problem, because we will all choose GUI clients which we want to choose. So the data will be displayed according to what people think it is rational. Thus of course nonsense data in the Trust system will not be highlighted as red by most participants’ clients.

Yoda says trust the decentralized Force, as it is the powerful ally of truth and production and the enemy of time wasting trolls, scammers, and other forms of waste.

The trust system is unmoderated and sucks. The red crap does not show on your avatar on right side of posts, when you are not posting to Altcoin Discussion.

You can not claim you have a decentralized system and that no moderation is necessary, when you have a centralized shitting on others by the fact that GUI is forced on everyone to be one way and that one way is to put really shitty read "Do not trust this person" on their avatar when posting in Altcoin Discussion.

Since I and @kiklo were posting often in Altcoin Discussion (given we are altcoin developers), we did not like the fact that Bitcoin maximalists could put a red crap on our avatar in Altcoin Discussion. We do not like the centralized shitting on altcoiners.

If you had slaved away to develop an altcoin and then some idiot could put this highly conspicuous "Do not trust this person" by default on your avatar and digital reputation/identity that everyone sees, then you also would not be happy about it and would not invest in BCT.

But am I wrong in saying that prophylactic trust feedback is a good thing?

If someone is known to have scammed someone, is it wrong to say that such an individual is a scammer?

Agreed that sharing information about others can be a good thing, but it needs to be entirely decentralized otherwise really abhorrent centralized outcomes manifest, as explained above.

Make a post in Altcoin Discussion and see what I did to your avatar because of this centralized decision to marry decentralized ratings with a centralized choice of shitting on avatars.

I understand the reason they put the shit on the avatar in Altcoin Discussion is that they thought altcoin discussion has more scams. But then it is no longer is congruent with an unmoderated Trust system. It is just improperly contemplated centralized design.

With a decentralized interpretation of Trust, then each user would in effect enable moderation of their choice on Trust ratings. So thus those users who think @Lauda is abusing the system by complaining about the way @kiklo posts, would tend to remove @Lauda from their trusted Trust raters list. Complaining about the way people debate and discuss in a Trust system is inane. Form decentralized groups for discussion instead (except there are no features for that on BCT). I too do not like the way @kiklo uses blue text when he replies thus trying to focus the readers eyes only on his posts (@Dorky is even worse as he embeds his blue text in the quotes he is replying to which is really discombobulating and difficult to quote). He doesn't do that occasionally but nearly always when he is agitated. I would delete his posts from my moderated view (and users who follow my moderation) when they contain that blue text. He would eventually learn not to do that in threads where I am the prominent moderator trusted by most of the readers. There are decentralized ways to anneal these issues without turning the Trust system into a clusterfuck of purposes for which it is not ideally suited.

(Now I understand that @kiklo is 84 years old and has chronic back pain, so that explains why he gets so agitated when he feels someone is wrong or offended his sensibilities. If he can find a way to improve his physical quality of life, probably he will be less agitated more often. I have some empathy and understanding for aging and chronic health problems+pain)

P.S. if you get the point and need me to remove it, just ask in PM. Having you ask is to impart upon you the inefficiency and lack of individual degrees-of-freedom of the current design of it.

[minifrij]

Make a post in Altcoin Discussion and see what I did to your avatar because of this centralized decision to marry decentralized ratings with a centralized choice of shitting on avatars.

Only people who trust you can see your feedback by default on actmyname's avatar. Otherwise, it falls under 'Untrusted Feedback'.
Unlike what people like kiklo seem to think, these aren't directly hidden by theymos. Who can post a feedback that is trusted by default is decided by the user's personal trust list and/or the trust lists of those in the DT network. I can go further into detail about it if needed.

With a decentralized interpretation of Trust, then each user would in effect enable moderation of their choice on Trust ratings. So thus those users who think @Lauda is abusing the system by complaining about the way @kiklo posts, would tend to remove @Lauda from their trusted Trust raters list.

That is how the trust system works currently, which is what a huge amount of people seem to forget. If you do not want to see someone's trust ratings (whether they be trusted or untrusted by default) you can remove them on this page by inputting a ~ followed by their name. For example if you wanted to remove any ratings from Lauda being trusted by default to you, you could add this line to the trust page.

~Lauda

This would put every rating that Lauda gave into the 'Untrusted Feedback' section of the feedback page. It should be noted that, unless you are a part of the first tier of the Default Trust network, this change will only affect you personally.

Complaining about the way people debate and discuss in a Trust system is inane.

Precisely, which is why when users such as kiklo complain about it constantly they are not met with open arms. Being an enormous hypocrite in whilst doing this doesn't help the case whatsoever.

Now I understand that @kiklo is 84 years old and has chronic back pain, so that explains why he gets so agitated when he feels someone is wrong or offended his sensibilities. If he can find a way to improve his physical quality of life, probably he will be less agitated more often.

Physical factors in a person's life shouldn't affect the way that they treat others. Kiklo wouldn't, and shouldn't, get a pass for spamming the forum like a child about some red text even if he was a war veteran with terminal cancer.
If after 84 years of living you haven't managed to grasp the concept that moaning, threatening and abusing the people and systems put in place to try and help you isn't a good way to carry yourself then I don't believe you deserve any respect.

[the_end_is_near]

Make a post in Altcoin Discussion and see what I did to your avatar because of this centralized decision to marry decentralized ratings with a centralized choice of shitting on avatars.

Only people who trust you can see your feedback by default on actmyname's avatar. Otherwise, it falls under 'Untrusted Feedback'.
Unlike what people like kiklo seem to think, these aren't directly hidden by theymos. Who can post a feedback that is trusted by default is decided by the user's personal trust list and/or the trust lists of those in the DT network. I can go further into detail about it if needed.

Except if I am not mistaken, there is a global default trust list, and @Lauda is on that list. Apparently most users are using the default trust list, because trust is not related to anything they would actively need to configure for their priority use cases.

Thus as I said, a centralized GUI presentation of the trust as red text on @kiklo’s avatar on all his posts in the Altcoin Discussion retroactively into the past.

With a decentralized interpretation of Trust, then each user would in effect enable moderation of their choice on Trust ratings. So thus those users who think @Lauda is abusing the system by complaining about the way @kiklo posts, would tend to remove @Lauda from their trusted Trust raters list.

That is how the trust system works currently, which is what a huge amount of people seem to forget.

Incorrect. Because afaik we start with a default list and have to proactively go edit out and nearly no one knows that.

The de facto trust list is centralized.

Complaining about the way people debate and discuss in a Trust system is inane.

Precisely, which is why when users such as @kiklo complain about it constantly they are not met with open arms. Being an enormous hypocrite in whilst doing this doesn't help the case whatsoever.

Four wrongs do not make it right, rather it is a clusterfuck.

1. Centralized de facto trust list for most users.
2. @Lauda knows this thus can abuse @kiklo.
3. @kiklo is told to accept this abuse, so he lashes out.
4. You guys have the wrong of blaming the clusterfuck on @kiklo accusing him of being a hypocrite.

Big mess all made by very poorly contemplated design of a forum system.

Now I understand that @kiklo is 84 years old and has chronic back pain, so that explains why he gets so agitated when he feels someone is wrong or offended his sensibilities. If he can find a way to improve his physical quality of life, probably he will be less agitated more often.

Physical factors in a person's life shouldn't affect the way that they treat others.

Well they do.

You apparently have no comprehension based in actual experience of chronic health issues and effects.

Like most things in life, until you’ve walked in the shoes of another, it is impossible to understand and judge correctly their situation.

Cover your right eye with a patch and try to function (I was blinded in my right eye in 1999). Consume enough rat poison each day to not kill you but to be so sick that you can not think clearly, have a failing liver, have delirum, headaches and barely enough energy to get out of bed. Remove all your finances and all the people who could help you, so that you are forced to work in this condition. Welcome to my life the past years. Until you’ve actually experienced this, then you can not comprehend the reality of it. Even words do not describe what it feels like day after day after day for years, with no respite.

Kiklo wouldn't, and shouldn't, get a pass for spamming the forum like a child about some red text even if he was a war veteran with terminal cancer.
If after 84 years of living you haven't managed to grasp the concept that moaning, threatening and abusing the people and systems put in place to try and help you isn't a good way to carry yourself then I don't believe you deserve any respect.

Sorry but this is the sort of attitude from millennials that makes me want to throw them under a bus.

We can co-exist in a decentralized system where your idealistic collectivist rubric need not interfere with my self-reliant, cynical view of collectivized (group) action.

Compared to previous generation, Millennials focus on larger societal needs rather than individual needs.

Millennials are this strange mix of idealizing the collective, while also being so sheltered and spoiled that they often do not perceive reality.

My generation X had to fight for everything (not spoiled, not sheltered), thus we do not trust the collective and do not place a high value on the collective.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-Generation-X-and-Millennial-Generation/answer/Anne-K.-Halsall
http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t9p555-inflation-or-deflation#4735
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170513102106/http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t9p555-inflation-or-deflation#4735)

[minifrij]

Except if I am not mistaken, there is a global default trust list, and @Lauda is on that list.

Yes, you're correct.

Apparently most users are using the default trust list, because trust is not related to anything they would actively need to configure for their priority use cases.

This is a difficult case to solve. Older members complain that the Default Trust system is flawed (which it is to a degree), but if this trust system was removed then newer members would likely complain that there was nothing in place to stop them getting scammed. theymos did want to replace this system, however this replacement system had the downfall of requiring newbies to choose members that they have never interacted with to trust.

Thus as I said, a centralized GUI presentation of the trust as red text on @kiklo’s avatar on all his posts in the Altcoin Discussion retroactively into the past.

I can agree on this somewhat, however it's arguably useless to try and implement for the use that it would get.

Incorrect. Because afaik we start with a default list and have to proactively go edit out and nearly no one knows that.

The de facto trust list is centralized.

Admittedly it could be easier to find, but there is a fair amount of documentation available to anyone interested in the trust system outlining what it is and how it can be used. It's a problem with the users that they do not care to find or read it.

Four wrongs do not make it right, rather it is a clusterfuck.

1. Centralized de facto trust list for most users.
2. @Lauda knows this thus can abuse @kiklo.
3. @kiklo is told to accept this abuse, so he lashes out.
4. You guys have the wrong of blaming the clusterfuck on @kiklo accusing him of being a hypocrite.

3. kiklo was told exactly how to go about trying to change the trust left by Lauda, by Lauda themselves. It is not the fault of the system, nor the people of the forum that kiklo decided to disregard that advice and throw his toys out his cot.

4. Complaining that a user that you have never traded with has left you negative trust, then leaving negative trust to people you have never traded with makes you a hypocrite. Complaining about defamation of your character, then going to to defame the characters of people not involved makes you a hypocrite.

Cover your right eye with a patch and try to function (I was blinded in my right eye in 1999). Consume enough rat poison each day to not kill you but to be so sick that you can not think clearly, have a failing liver, have delirum, headaches and barely enough energy to get out of bed. Remove all your finances and all the people who could help you, so that you are forced to work in this condition. Welcome to my life the past years. Until you’ve actually experienced this, then you can not comprehend the reality of it. Even words do not describe what it feels like day after day after day for years, with no respite.

And the fact that you can come here and have a sensible conversation with me about these problems, even after all of the things that you have suffered through, gives kiklo no excuse to act like a child about it. Do you not agree?

My generation X had to fight for everything (not spoiled, not sheltered)

And due to certain circumstances in my life, I do not believe that I fit either of those descriptions.

I give respect to people that give respect to others. kiklo has shown through is mass amount of threads, negative feedback spam and threats of legal action that he is incapable of giving respect to others. Therefore, I see no reason to give respect to him.

[coolcoinz]

I think that a guideline is not a rule, so banning someone for not following guidelines is a bit too much.

Of course the trust system is being spammed and abused, and I don't agree with people giving negative trust to people they don't like or consider spammers. Spamming is bannable, so these people should be reported and it's up to a mod to decide their fate. Trust comments should be given only if you transacted with that person or were a witness of an obvious scam attempt.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

wall of bla

Bro, I tend to agree with you that the trust system is broken.  I've said it before, this is why eBay did away with the whole "you can leave feedback for anyone, anytime" thing.  It's just silly IMO.

But there are an astounding number of users on this forum who are not to be trusted, and Lauda has tagged a lot of them.  As have I, with account dealers.  I don't trust any of them (with a few exceptions).  The current system allows this, and it doesn't look like it's ever going to change.  So we all just have to suck it the fuck up and deal with it.  I was pissed the first time some stoonahd left me a neg because he didn't like something I wrote.  I got over that extremely quickly.  I don't think kiklo is the virgin Mary here, by any means.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

wall of bla

Bro, I tend to agree with you that the trust system is broken.  I've said it before, this is why eBay did away with the whole "you can leave feedback for anyone, anytime" thing.  It's just silly IMO.

But there are an astounding number of users on this forum who are not to be trusted, and Lauda has tagged a lot of them.  As have I, with account dealers.  I don't trust any of them (with a few exceptions).  The current system allows this, and it doesn't look like it's ever going to change.  So we all just have to suck it the fuck up and deal with it.  I was pissed the first time some stoonahd left me a neg because he didn't like something I wrote.  I got over that extremely quickly.  I don't think kiklo is the virgin Mary here, by any means.

I have no intent to argue with anyone here, just pointing out what should be noted.

In your rush to persecute @kiklo for his beliefs, you admit the trust system is broken,
but you have not the will to fix it and prefer that @Lauda rule over you, by rating others how he/she sees fit.
Which is your decision, and if everyone feels the same way nothing changes.

But I would say this Forget @kiklo , he is banned and forever gone, so any further complains about him , is just demeaning yourself.
(That Train has left the station.)
 
Focus on the real question to all of this , will the trust system be fixed or left broken, that is the only thing left to be decided.
Because if it is not , don't expect him to be the last peasant that gets pissed off over a broken trust system.
Because he made have been the 1st to go off this loudly, but a broken trust system will guarantee their will be more.

╥AztekPhoenix

Perhaps I'm really old school, but I don't get why people use the @ symbol here.  Is that a Twitter thing?  I honestly don't know what it means.

The way I view the whole thing is that yes, the trust system is broken.  It is what it is.  This is just a frigging forum, and it's just a silly, broken trust system on that forum.  I don't view it as anything even close to a crisis, and it doesn't keep me awake at night.  If nothing changed, I'm totally OK with that--and look at all those red trusts fuckers left me.  I'm so past it.

[criptix]

Uhm lauda doesnt rule over anyone.
You people just give way too much credit to the trust system.

Older members know that you have to take the trust system with a grain of salt.


Btw. Im missing the reference though.

@lauda

Tagging without reference is meh... if you could please update your rating with a reference so users can check for themself it would be much better!

[minifrij]

It is interesting that with a admitted flawed trust system, and an over aggressive ex staff member,
that all of you want to blame the one pointing out the flaws and instead of agreeing something needs to be done to fix the system

Please, enlighten us on how we can fix the system.
It's extremely easy to say that a system is broken. Providing a fix that makes sense and doesn't just move the issues somewhere else is significantly harder.

you all just want @kiklo to shut up and be quiet.
Which he refused to do (many older people stand their ground) and was banned for it (which is further punishment for what many people see as @Lauda's overly aggressive nature.)

I couldn't care about what kiklo does providing he does it in a decent manner. However, he isn't.

When you call @kiklo a hypocrite for hitting everyone associated with @Lauda with negative trust,
I went to look at his account and see for myself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=357609
their are no other negative feedbacks save the one against @Lauda.

kiklo's other negative feedbacks were removed. You would have to ask an admin why.
Previous to this, kiklo left negative feedback to Mitchell, phantastisch, qwk, Zepher, Lutpin, monbux and many others simply because they had relations to Lauda in some way. This isn't a fair way to go about doing things, and is extremely hypocritical when you're complaining about negative feedback being given for little to no reason.

Yet to the casual looker @Lauda is completely trustworthy while @kiklo is covered in red / untrustworthy, when numerically he has less complaints.

Who would have thought, little interaction with the trust system = very few trust scores. Truly groundbreaking analysis.

It would be interesting to see how many of you , have the will to do the same when you believe you have been wronged.

I was given a negative trust when I first started using this forum. You want to know what I did about it? I had a sensible, private discussion with the user that gave me it and we worked out terms on what I had to do to have it removed. What a crazy idea, right?

@The End is Near, has been the only other one with a will strong enough to argue with the peer pressure exerted against @kiko because of a defective trust system

You're a fool if you think that kiklo handled this in a good acceptable way. He may have gotten more people on his side if he acted like an adult.

Normally , I don't have much to say, but seeing a group of elitist attack an 84 year man , that refused to buckle was more that I can in good conscience tolerate.

I truly can't understand why people are constantly bringing up kilko's apparent age as an argument. If anything, I think that it's rather demeaning that the only reason that you are sticking up for him is because he is seen as some frail old man that is incapable of fighting his own battles.
If you're someone that can't handle some punk saying something bad about you online then turn off the computer. Otherwise, age (along with wealth, social status, gender etc) is irrelevant here.

Does @Lauda continue his/her negative rating rampage and the rest continue to assault a man that was banned for life.

I shouldn't think he would be banned for life unless he broke a different rule. I expect him to be back eventually.

Because if it is not , don't expect him to be the last peasant that gets pissed off over a broken trust system.

Once again, please give us this magical fix that will make the trust system great for everyone involved.

Because if it is not , don't expect him to be the last peasant that gets pissed off over a broken trust system.

These people come and go every so often, it happens.

Because he made have been the 1st to go off this loudly, but a broken trust system will guarantee their will be more.

kiklo isn't the first big 'revolt' over the trust system and absolutely won't be the last. All that kiklo has accomplished is making a complete and utter fool of himself over some red text.

I don't view it as anything even close to a crisis, and it doesn't keep me awake at night.

You're telling me that some meaningless red text on an internet forum about magical money isn't you're number 1 priority right now? How insane.

[criptix]

You dont need to use the default trust.
You can make your own trust list.
Majority of people here are just to lazy to do it.

Somehow i dont see much difference or any advantage of your proposal over the private trust list.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

You dont need to use the default trust.
You can make your own trust list.
Majority of people here are just to lazy to do it.

Somehow i dont see much difference or any advantage over your own private trust list?

I do this myself, great idea to do so.

Now I have to say, even though I don't have negative trust from a DT member, I just had my trust score thrown in my fucking face a few hours ago while trying to sell some bitcoin.  I refused to send the bitcoin first, and the dude says he's got better trust than me and blah blah blah.  So having a lot of untrusted negatives does have an effect if you're trying to do deals.  Other than that, this is just a chat forum with a feedback system that allows anyone to neg anyone else, and overall it should be a very small part of anyone's life and shouldn't be a cause for ear-smoking.  Kiklo went off the deep end, just like mixan did.  I'm not surprised he got banned.