Recommendations for additions to Default Trust

[hilariousandco]

Any ETA for the first addition? I'd like to see the impact that it would have and analyze his left ratings/amount of butthurt that will happen.

Fucking sadist  .

[1713403705]

1713403705

[1713403705]

1713403705

[1713403705]

1713403705

[subSTRATA]

The Pharmacist.

i honestly expected him to have already been added when i came back to the forum a few months ago, surprised its only just now happening. i think it's a pretty good move though.

I would recommend also members, who are not too often participants in signature campaigns to avoid conflicts of interest (although there are many honorable members, who are also active in signature campaigns.).

i dont think being a regular participant in sig campaigns would lead to a conflict of interest in the context of leaving reliable ratings; DT members just leave ratings as part of their contribution to the forum, this doesn't at all tie into just making some pocket change off of posting regularly.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The Pharmacist.

i honestly expected him to have already been added when i came back to the forum a few months ago, surprised its only just now happening. i think it's a pretty good move though.

I would recommend also members, who are not too often participants in signature campaigns to avoid conflicts of interest (although there are many honorable members, who are also active in signature campaigns.).

i dont think being a regular participant in sig campaigns would lead to a conflict of interest in the context of leaving reliable ratings; DT members just leave ratings as part of their contribution to the forum, this doesn't at all tie into just making some pocket change off of posting regularly.

Let me just say this:  I have tagged some particularly egregious shitposters, and I have seen them come back and apply for campaigns that I've applied to.  It is not my intention to neg them as a means of securing myself a spot in any campaign--and most of the time, they're newbies who wouldn't be competing for Hero+ spots anyway.  I'm aware that it could look like there's a conflict of interest, but every neg that I've left was not left with the thought that I would be on DT2 someday and would gain from it personally.  They were all left with good intentions, so to speak.

I work in a field where second chances are the norm.  However, this isn't real life and I can't judge people's intentions, just their actions.  It's very clear there are scumbags here who see absolutely nothing wrong with scamming or ruining a great forum for personal gain.  Those people who beg hilariousandco (or Vod,Lauda, and everyone else) for second chances somehow never seem to demonstrate that they understand where they went wrong--it's just juvenile pleading, like you'd hear from a 5 year old who got caught pulling flowers from the garden.  I have seen some people I've given negatives to be relatively good members, like Josephdd1.  If people stop buying & selling accounts and haven't gotten any more negs, I've been known to remove feedback.  But I have to go with evidence and gut instinct when the request is made, and frankly I'm comfortable leaving a rating in place.

Thank you all for the kind words.

I've already got this today:

Can you remove your trust as I don't deal with accounts for a long time. I hate account sellers.

And though he deleted his retaliatory negative trust, I do believe he was totally spamming my trust page with a whole bunch of bullshit at one point.  If there's an archive of it, I'd love to see it again.  And I mean he left many feedbacks on my page over the course of a few months.  Plus he's dealt in accounts more than once, and that's a feedback that I'm not inclined to remove.

[Poboy88]

If people stop buying & selling accounts and haven't gotten any more negs, I've been known to remove feedback.  But I have to go with evidence and gut instinct when the request is made, and frankly I'm comfortable leaving a rating in place.

...

I've already got this today:

Can you remove your trust as I don't deal with accounts for a long time. I hate account sellers.

And though he deleted his retaliatory negative trust, I do believe he was totally spamming my trust page with a whole bunch of bullshit at one point.  If there's an archive of it, I'd love to see it again.  And I mean he left many feedbacks on my page over the course of a few months.  Plus he's dealt in accounts more than once, and that's a feedback that I'm not inclined to remove.

Would you agree that anyone caught buying/selling forum accounts should not be on Default Trust?

Personally, I think anyone caught trading accounts should receive a negative trust. If only some account traders receive negative trust and others don't, it suggests there are unequal standards and favoritism being enforced.

If people really do believe that "Account sales encourage scams, spam, and account farming" then it should be enforced across the board.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Would you agree that anyone caught buying/selling forum accounts should not be on Default Trust?

Not necessarily.  I think Yahoo62278 has sold an account or two, but everything else he's done merits his inclusion on DT.  If you're trying to get me to agree that across-the-board negging of account sellers is deserved, without taking into consideration any other factors, I'm not going for it.  There is a big difference between some scuntbag who's an account farmer and constantly has auctions running and someone who's sold one account and never did it again (that we know of).  As I said, I have removed negs if and when I've seen the member give decent proof that he's not a menace to bitcointalk.  It's rare but does happen.

it suggests there are unequal standards and favoritism being enforced.

Every case is different, plus I could probably spend a year straight going back through all the threads where accounts have been sold.  Not going to happen.  People who whine about unequal rule enforcement drive me insane.  If you got tagged and someone else didn't, suck it the fuck up.  Cops don't chase down every speeder on the highway.  The argument falls upon deaf ears, my man.

[Lauda]

Any ETA for the first addition? I'd like to see the impact that it would have and analyze his left ratings/amount of butthurt that will happen.

Fucking sadist  .

Well.. I *might* be sadist but only when it comes to the people that really deserve it.

Would you agree that anyone caught buying/selling forum accounts should not be on Default Trust?

Not necessarily.  

There is no need to attack such legitimate members at this point. They've long realized that such actions are wrong, and have moved on.

People who whine about unequal rule enforcement drive me insane.  If you got tagged and someone else didn't, suck it the fuck up.  Cops don't chase down every speeder on the highway.  The argument falls upon deaf ears, my man.

I concur. It's just a bullshit excuse from those that got caught doing something.

[maeusi]

The Pharmacist.

I would recommend also members, who are not too often participants in signature campaigns to avoid conflicts of interest (although there are many honorable members, who are also active in signature campaigns.).

i dont think being a regular participant in sig campaigns would lead to a conflict of interest in the context of leaving reliable ratings; DT members just leave ratings as part of their contribution to the forum, this doesn't at all tie into just making some pocket change off of posting regularly.

Let me just say this:  I have tagged some particularly egregious shitposters, and I have seen them come back and apply for campaigns that I've applied to.  It is not my intention to neg them as a means of securing myself a spot in any campaign--and most of the time, they're newbies who wouldn't be competing for Hero+ spots anyway.  I'm aware that it could look like there's a conflict of interest, but every neg that I've left was not left with the thought that I would be on DT2 someday and would gain from it personally.  They were all left with good intentions, so to speak.

I saw members accusing competitors without evidence in the past. But didn't see you giving negative feedback to yours, so I also think, that you are a good choice for default trust.

[Joel_Jantsen]

Does anyone have any recommendations for users who they feel deserve to be on Default Trust? I'm mainly looking for people who are very active in leaving accurate feedback, mostly against scammers and potential scammers etc. I can add people directly to level one via my main account or level 2 with this one, but I'll probably just be using this account to add users for now so I don't have to worry about who they trust as well, but I will likely promote people with good lists over time.

Given the current situations in the forum,I'd gladly recommend myself [Why wouldn't I ?  ]

Being on a DT is a long time responsibility.I would like someone to be on the DT who has ample of time to deal with the critics and negative tag all the open cases by taking an  appropriate decision.Last time I recommended Lutpin and Mexxer who were  an idea choice for the DT [fortunately they did get selected].Can't really think of anyone who deserves to be there..

[Lauda]

Given the current situations in the forum,I'd gladly recommend myself [Why wouldn't I ?  ]

That usually doesn't work and is frowned upon even though rationally it can make sense to suggest oneself. I think I did this one.

Being on a DT is a long time responsibility.

It's quite the burden if you're active.

Last time I recommended Lutpin and Mexxer who were  an idea choice for the DT [fortunately they did get selected].

One of which scammer the other. Ain't it weird how these things work?

Can't really think of anyone who deserves to be there..

I could think of a name or two (other than the Pharmacist), but they are more people that I'd *personally* place there if I could.

[Doc Martin]

I would recommend adding the following to your trust list:

Code:

~lauda

Agreed!!

See Lauda's outed alt connection and various scammy behavior here, which Lauda refuses to add to the OP.

Lauda immediately revenge negged me for even mentioning it.

[Decoded]

Some of the other collectible traders on the forum I would trust with my BTC are already on DT, but how about Zepher, Minerjones, Hhampuz? Or are you guys mainly looking for scam/spam/etc busters?

Now slightly off-topic -

Who has access to/manages default trust? Is it just admins and global mods, just admins, or all staff?

[Quickseller]

Nah, probably not zazarb. [...]

He's also previously sold accounts

I am curious why you have had such a change of heart about this. It was not long ago that you would strongly be in favor of trading accounts.

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.

[Lauda]

Some of the other collectible traders on the forum I would trust with my BTC are already on DT, but how about Zepher, Minerjones, Hhampuz? Or are you guys mainly looking for scam/spam/etc busters?

Zepher and minerjones are already on DT.

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.

I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.

[Quickseller]

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.

I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.

Very strong evidence has been posted that suggests otherwise.

[Lauda]

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.

I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.

Very strong evidence has been posted that suggests otherwise.

If your evidence is a shitpost from the past, then you are very much bamboozled. You don't even realize how pathetic and butthurt gobsmacker must have been to dig up graves, and then read 2-3k posts in order to find nothing.
Case in point: zazarb is not a fit candidate.

[Quickseller]

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.

I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.

Very strong evidence has been posted that suggests otherwise.

If your evidence is a shitpost from the past, then you are very much bamboozled. You don't even realize how pathetic and butthurt gobsmacker must have been to dig up graves, and then read 2-3k posts in order to find nothing.
Case in point: zazarb is not a fit candidate.

From the looks of it, you took the time to delete at least 3,000 posts, which in itself is an indication you were trying to hide something.

here is an example of xanis placing multiple bids on an account.

Why exactly are you saying this is nothing? Are you saying that xanis is not you? Or are you saying that xanis was not buying accounts? Or both?

[Lauda]

From the looks of it, you took the time to delete at least 3,000 posts, which in itself is an indication you were trying to hide something.

Or, unlike the account farmer and account trader such as yourself, I wanted to clean up shitposting which I did.

here is an example of xanis placing multiple bids on an account.

Placing bids != actually buying something. Furthermore, even placing bids != intent to buy something. Non Sequitur

Why exactly are you saying this is nothing? Are you saying that xanis is not you? Or are you saying that xanis was not buying accounts? Or both?

The equivalent of that is finding a very early shitpost of mine, and accusing me of spamming now because of said shitpost. To my knowledge, Xanis was not buying accounts but was rather just shitposting.
Not that said case is on-topic. Zazarb is barely tagging anyone who deserves it, and he left way too many positive ratings before for minuscule deals.

[gobsmacker]

I am also curious to know why you are making this a reason to veto zazarb's position on your trust list, yet you leave Lauda on your trust list when he had dealt in accounts in the past.

I have not. Keep wasting your time with shills and making up lies snowflake.

Very strong evidence has been posted that suggests otherwise.

If your evidence is a shitpost from the past, then you are very much bamboozled. You don't even realize how pathetic and butthurt gobsmacker must have been to dig up graves, and then read 2-3k posts in order to find nothing.
Case in point: zazarb is not a fit candidate.

LOL. You tried to buy a dozen accounts on two occasions (that's what was dug up at a glance)........and a year later you are talking about how you "can easily live from" posting with 4-5 accounts in sig campaigns.

I havent gone through Xanis's posts at all, I just checked your most obvious wallet. Bitcointa.lk, Bitcointalk.to and Hollila are a fucking bitch to parse and I don't have the time or energy right now to deal with it atm. Theyre archived anyway.

I just saw the way youve been negging lots of peoples accounts for the exact same behavior you engage in. I just wanted to start a conversation. Don't worry, snowflake, my account is intact. I also noticed you were online all day, post count dropped instead of rising though. It's nice to see that you squirm just like everyone else.

Placing bids != actually buying something. Furthermore, even placing bids != intent to buy something.

You tag people with negative trust for both actions. So, it's okay for you, but untrustworthy for others?? Is that how things work??

[Quickseller]

From the looks of it, you took the time to delete at least 3,000 posts, which in itself is an indication you were trying to hide something.

Or, unlike the account farmer and account trader such as yourself, I wanted to clean up shitposting which I did.

here is an example of xanis placing multiple bids on an account.

Placing bids != actually buying something. Furthermore, even placing bids != intent to buy something. Non Sequitur

Why exactly are you saying this is nothing? Are you saying that xanis is not you? Or are you saying that xanis was not buying accounts? Or both?

The equivalent of that is finding a very early shitpost of mine, and accusing me of spamming now because of said shitpost. To my knowledge, Xanis was not buying accounts but was rather just shitposting.
Not that said case is on-topic. Zazarb is barely tagging anyone who deserves it, and he left way too many positive ratings before for minuscule deals.

So you admit to both placing the bids to buy that account and that xanis is your alt?

[Lauda]

You tried to buy a dozen accounts on two occasions (that's what was dug up at a glance)

Nope.

..and a year later you are talking about how you "can easily live from" posting with 4-5 accounts in sig campaigns.

If I talk how easy it would be to rob someone in a certain way, does that mean that I've also done it? Non Sequitur.

It's nice to see that you squirm just like everyone else.

I do not.

You tag people with negative trust for both actions. So, it's okay for you, but untrustworthy for others?? Is that how things work??

So that's who you are.

So you admit to both placing the bids to buy that account and that xanis is your alt?

Xanis was banned on my request, but I obviously don't remember every post.
It's nice to see how you like breaking the rules, yet attempt to call out others on certain actions. Can we get back to the actual topic, @OP? Conclusions recap:
The Pharmacist - Yes.
zazarb - Definitely no.

Anyone else?