Why does having an Alt account deserves negative trust?

[TrustRatingF]

I have some important question about the credential of this forum. Why does many user here receiving negative trust for having an Alt account. But I notice some interesting things. DT just putting negative trust for those low profile people while some high profile user didn't receive feedback even though they proven own 2 or more accounts. Excluding the reason of spamming the forum, Why does rating are using nowaday for feedback that didn't related in scam issue.? And now some DT are fighting each other just because of their principle. The Admin must act now before the problem escalated. Admin must release some general guidelines and rules that applicable for trust feedback. Because trust rating now is just using to caught some attention and to impress people in DT to gain power and not used by it's main purpose when theymos proposed it. I'm not against the trust rating system because it is a good feature of the forum. I'm just concern on the way it is used to put down other people without the presence of scamming.  



Some key point:

DT don't have specific general rule to follow. Even Theymos give rules. Still Don't follow but they create their own rules based on there principle. I noticed that all DT2 has the problem with that matter(Except some DT2 like minerjones, zepher and some.) that purely gave trust feedback in line with trading matters. In result with this, If a DT to DT have some argument. They can apply feedback based on their own rule without following general rules.




Level of Awesomeness:

Sooooon 

Disclaimer:
I will not involving a name/samples here of people who are being shot by this topic. I will just wait them to come on this thread and discuss by them. Community are highly encourage to discuss here.

[1714835762]

1714835762

[1714835762]

1714835762

[warden]

i don't think it's illegal having an Alt account. and i can't see any reason why you should get a neg trust for having a sec account. if you did get a neg trust or you know someone who did can you please provide us with more details ?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Without examples,  your anguished cries of injustice fall on deaf ears.  No idea what exactly you're talking about.

[TrustRatingF]

Without examples,  your anguished cries of injustice fall on deaf ears.  No idea what exactly you're talking about.

Thanks for reaching out here. You are a perfect subject for discussion, You have an alt account too, which means you are a multiple account user. But they didn't give you feedback because you just keep on tagging alt account of others. I don't believe you are only using 1 alt account because you are a signature campaign participants too. But I highly admire you for your dedication on tagging account that encourage selling account here. A+

I'm not crying for injustice. I'm just asking.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Without examples,  your anguished cries of injustice fall on deaf ears.  No idea what exactly you're talking about.

Thanks for reaching out here. You are a perfect subject for discussion, You have an alt account too, which means you are a multiple account user. But they didn't give you feedback because you just keep on tagging alt account of others. I don't believe you are only using 1 alt account because you are a signature campaign participants too. But I highly admire you for your dedication on tagging account that encourage selling account here. A+

I'm not crying for injustice. I'm just asking.

Lol, what alt are you talking about?

Huge Black Woman got her big fat ass blackened by Timelord.  It wasn't reddened because I'm not a scammer or trying to enroll alts into the same campaign.  That's what gets the red.

[TrustRatingF]

Without examples,  your anguished cries of injustice fall on deaf ears.  No idea what exactly you're talking about.

Thanks for reaching out here. You are a perfect subject for discussion, You have an alt account too, which means you are a multiple account user. But they didn't give you feedback because you just keep on tagging alt account of others. I don't believe you are only using 1 alt account because you are a signature campaign participants too. But I highly admire you for your dedication on tagging account that encourage selling account here. A+

I'm not crying for injustice. I'm just asking.

Lol, what alt are you talking about?

Huge Black Woman got her big fat ass blackened by Timelord.  It wasn't reddened because I'm not a scammer or trying to enroll alts into the same campaign.  That's what gets the red.

Do you think all account that got Red paint was joined on same campaign?? Of course not, They just caught because of it's UID is identical with same pattern of names. And also if they join same campaign while there is no rule regarding multiple accounts? Is they deserved to be painted? If they are not committing spam (which is proven by the campaign manager because they are the one in-charge on checking post quality) and they approved/paid them, Why does this is wrong? People put some effort to earn it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I stil don't know exactly what you're talking about.  Without an example, this is pointless.

I get that you don't want to make waves with your main account,  but I'm left scratching my head on this one.  Maybe some other member will stop by and answer this.

Edit: A'ight, it's way past my bedtime and I'm probably stupider than normal.  If you're a DT member I'm really not getting it.

Edit again:  Oh, sloppy reading on my part.  I know the feud of which you speak, but I highly doubt there's going to be new rules or clarification of existing ones by theymos.  He just doesn't care.

[TrustRatingF]

I stil don't know exactly what you're talking about.  Without an example, this is pointless.

I get that you don't want to make waves with your main account,  but I'm left scratching my head on this one.  Maybe some other member will stop by and answer this.

My main account is a DT. You are the living example out here. I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about, Details are clearly included in the OP.
I'm just confused now.  

[Quickseller]

Some people like to use their ability to leave negative trust, and it show up by default/affect the user's trust score as a way to increase their own power and influence.

If they leave negative ratings for someone who already has power/influence, then they will be risking their own power being taken away, so some people will turn a blind eye to a certain group of people.

Unfortunately, theymos also refuses to hold users trusted by DefaultTrust directly accountable in any way, either by theymos personally holding them accountable for the ratings of those on their trust lists, nor by providing an avenue for the "market"/community to hold these people accountable for those on their trust lists.

[TrustRatingF]

Some people like to use their ability to leave negative trust, and it show up by default/affect the user's trust score as a way to increase their own power and influence.

If they leave negative ratings for someone who already has power/influence, then they will be risking their own power being taken away, so some people will turn a blind eye to a certain group of people.

Unfortunately, theymos also refuses to hold users trusted by DefaultTrust directly accountable in any way, either by theymos personally holding them accountable for the ratings of those on their trust lists, nor by providing an avenue for the "market"/community to hold these people accountable for those on their trust lists.

I don't think so that theymos is the problem, Because he just want to let the community free from dictatorship  that's why he intentionally waive his power on trust rating. The problem is on DT itself especially on DT2, In my observation,DT is not acting as whole but just like a government with different teams and goal. If Theymos just imply strict rules to be follow by DT then there will be no overusing of power,This forum will not be in chaos right now.

I think the main problem here is on the DT1. They keep on adding User on their trust list while they can't discipline them and tolerate their ego.





QS "the guardian of META and scam accusation" 

[Vod]

Unfortunately, theymos also refuses to hold users trusted by DefaultTrust directly accountable in any way, either by theymos personally holding them accountable for the ratings of those on their trust lists, nor by providing an avenue for the "market"/community to hold these people accountable for those on their trust lists.

You post like you have access to every PM and know exactly what his agenda is.

[dothebeats]

Some people like to use their ability to leave negative trust, and it show up by default/affect the user's trust score as a way to increase their own power and influence.

If they leave negative ratings for someone who already has power/influence, then they will be risking their own power being taken away, so some people will turn a blind eye to a certain group of people.

Exacrly this. Basic logic but fully reflects what's happening in the trust system. If you cast your doubts to some people whom the DT also doubt, you may receive some kind of recognition and be an 'asset' to the community. It doesn't apply on giving -ve ratings on someone's alt account at all times but again, it happens. But if it's within the members of DT2 and DT1, they'll just ignore the issue and find someone else to cast their -ve on.

Unfortunately, theymos also refuses to hold users trusted by DefaultTrust directly accountable in any way, either by theymos personally holding them accountable for the ratings of those on their trust lists, nor by providing an avenue for the "market"/community to hold these people accountable for those on their trust lists

Being the owner of this forum doesn't hold you accountable on who would people trust. You trust your own circle and I trust my own circle. You can't dictate me to remove something I casted negative on unless you provide me with solid facts that the person is to be trusted.

[Quickseller]

Some people like to use their ability to leave negative trust, and it show up by default/affect the user's trust score as a way to increase their own power and influence.

If they leave negative ratings for someone who already has power/influence, then they will be risking their own power being taken away, so some people will turn a blind eye to a certain group of people.

Unfortunately, theymos also refuses to hold users trusted by DefaultTrust directly accountable in any way, either by theymos personally holding them accountable for the ratings of those on their trust lists, nor by providing an avenue for the "market"/community to hold these people accountable for those on their trust lists.

I don't think so that theymos is the problem, Because he just want to let the community free from dictatorship  that's why he intentionally waive his power on trust rating. The problem is on DT itself especially on DT2, In my observation,DT is not acting as whole but just like a government with different teams and goal. If Theymos just imply strict rules to be follow by DT then there will be no overusing of power,This forum will not be in chaos right now.

I think the main problem here is on the DT1. They keep on adding User on their trust list while they can't discipline them and tolerate their ego.





QS "the guardian of META and scam accusation"  

Well some may argue that theymos personally holding "DT1" users accountable would be/lead to a dictatorship, however this is something he has done in the past up until fairly recently, and this is ultimately what he does anyway as he is the only one with the power to add/remove anyone from "DT1".


The bigger issue is that there is no real mechanism for the community to hold DT1 users accountable for users who are on DT2 as a result of them. Who is on each person's trust list is public information, however the majority (by a very large margin) does not understand how the trust system works, nor do they know how to determine why a particular person is in the default trust network. This means that Blazed can have multiple very shady people on his trust list (for example, Blazed has an extortionist, someone who refuses to honor his auction obligations, and multiple very immature people who have little/no understanding of how to fairly work through disputes) with virtually zero negative repetitional impact to himself. We saw a similar outcome when CITM (when he was in the DT network, and was in 'DT1') had multiple who turned out to be scammers in his trust list, as his reputation and ability to trade was essentially unaffected.

Unfortunately, theymos also refuses to hold users trusted by DefaultTrust directly accountable in any way, either by theymos personally holding them accountable for the ratings of those on their trust lists, nor by providing an avenue for the "market"/community to hold these people accountable for those on their trust lists

Being the owner of this forum doesn't hold you accountable on who would people trust. You trust your own circle and I trust my own circle. You can't dictate me to remove something I casted negative on unless you provide me with solid facts that the person is to be trusted.

theymos controls an account called "DefaultTrust" which has a certain group of people on it's trust list. All users, by default trust this "DefaultTrust" account, who this account trusts, and those accounts that are trusted by accounts trusted by DefaultTrust. This means that theymos has very significant influence on which people will be trusted by default.

[TrustRatingF]

Fun Facts: You can be a DT here by finding tons of alt accounts and managing a campaign without strong background on trading(Congressman are offering free spots on his round table for people who are popular here). I will not mention a name!

Just hyping. Enjoy

[dothebeats]

theymos controls an account called "DefaultTrust" which has a certain group of people on it's trust list. All users, by default trust this "DefaultTrust" account, who this account trusts, and those accounts that are trusted by accounts trusted by DefaultTrust. This means that theymos has very significant influence on which people will be trusted by default.

I see, so subconsciously, theymos controls who would be trusted in this forum then. I understand that this is his forum but shouldn't the trust ratings be left to each user and not be controlled by one person? It's easy to believe in members who have these green +ve ratings on their profile that most users don't even bother to question their motives.

Fun Facts: You can be a DT here by finding tons of alt accounts and managing a campaign without strong background on trading(Congressman are offering free spots on his round table for people who are popular here). I will not mention a name!

Just hyping. Enjoy

That's what's happening here nowadays. A discreet witchhunt of someone's alter ego and counting posts for a campaign would give you the most prestigious (?) award in this forum: being a DT member.

[ProLauda]

I'm glad someone open up again this issue. Most special was the DT case. I can't wait to see some DT involve to come here.
#PHKnowsLaudaBest 

[adam48]

such negative trust I got, they were abusing it. honestly, I really don't know when I join signature campaign about ponzi, but lutpin directly to judge me, whereas when I join a signature campaign that I immediately out After i got know it ponzi and did not get paid any of the signature. lutpin should be able to give me a warning because it was the first time I joined a campaing signature that I don't know is a ponzi campaign.


 

[ProLauda]

such negative trust I got, they were abusing it. honestly, I really don't know when I join signature campaign about ponzi, but lutpin directly to judge me, whereas when I join a signature campaign that I immediately out After i got know it ponzi and did not get paid any of the signature. lutpin should be able to give me a warning because it was the first time I joined a campaing signature that I don't know is a ponzi campaign.


 

Do you try contact him and explain what happened?? Ohhh, I forgot they are not replying on user that are not Noble here. Just accept it. This is justice here. Lutpin is far from Lauda.
#Laudabest

[TrustRatingF]

Fun Facts: You can be a DT here by finding tons of alt accounts and managing a campaign without strong background on trading(Congressman are offering free spots on his round table for people who are popular here). I will not mention a name!

Just hyping. Enjoy

That's what's happening here nowadays. A discreet witchhunt of someone's alter ego and counting posts for a campaign would give you the most prestigious (?) award in this forum: being a DT member.

I don't know what is his intention for doing such things like that, Maybe extension of Power I guess? Since that DT added multiple user in his trust list. The forum become worst and dramatic. And all DT involve in every drama was from his list. 

[coolcoinz]

I honestly think they're overdoing it sometimes with trust. Having an alt account may deserve a comment in the form of neutral trust, so that if the person decides to back his arguments with his alt ol vouch for himself people won't fall for it. Negatives are an overkill.
There are situation when somebody should get a negative on his alt, but this should be limited to certain actions he did with that account (giving his other accounts trust, abusing signature campaigns, evading a ban, escrowing for himself, and other similar infringements).

[dothebeats]

Fun Facts: You can be a DT here by finding tons of alt accounts and managing a campaign without strong background on trading(Congressman are offering free spots on his round table for people who are popular here). I will not mention a name!

Just hyping. Enjoy

That's what's happening here nowadays. A discreet witchhunt of someone's alter ego and counting posts for a campaign would give you the most prestigious (?) award in this forum: being a DT member.

I don't know what is his intention for doing such things like that, Maybe extension of Power I guess? Since that DT added multiple user in his trust list. The forum become worst and dramatic. And all DT involve in every drama was from his list. 

Probably? He has the right to do whatever he wants in this forum since he runs this place, but to force users to trust some egotistic people 'round his circle is something else. But like what theymos said, the trust system needs to be overhauled and be customized for everyone to have their own personal list and DT to be ditched.

I honestly think they're overdoing it sometimes with trust. Having an alt account may deserve a comment in the form of neutral trust, so that if the person decides to back his arguments with his alt ol vouch for himself people won't fall for it. Negatives are an overkill.
There are situation when somebody should get a negative on his alt, but this should be limited to certain actions he did with that account (giving his other accounts trust, abusing signature campaigns, evading a ban, escrowing for himself, and other similar infringements).

It's like you're already convicted without having any trials done. Their powerful circle is allowed to have alts with no questions asked but for the plebs that would be illegal.

[HeroC]

I think the stigma against having an Alt is because they are often used to either bypass a Trust Restriction (IE your main is red, so you make another to get around that) or to farm Signature Campaigns. Otherwise I don't see the purpose of having an alt in the first place

[coolcoinz]

I think the stigma against having an Alt is because they are often used to either bypass a Trust Restriction (IE your main is red, so you make another to get around that) or to farm Signature Campaigns. Otherwise I don't see the purpose of having an alt in the first place

And I see one.
For example, if you're running a campaign, escrow, or any other forum business, you don't want people to know your personal opinions because that might impact your business.
If you, for instance, say you're supporting death penalty, or are against gay marriages, someone might not like it and avoid doing business with you. That's why it's wise to separate business accounts from your casual ones.

Whether someone having 2 accounts in 2 different campaigns deserves negative trust is another topic for discussion I guess. I'd still say no, because that person isn't breaking any campaign or forum rules and isn't acting dishonestly in any way.