DefaultTrust (DT) Network - DT1/2 Members

[unyil]

Members of DT bastard like lauda usually only give red trust, even he does not reply to my post here, if you are a member of DT you should be wise do not just give red trust, even you accuse me of spreading lies (even your own suggest me to find address donation VOD) so I can donate VOD (is not that a bribe?) I do not do what you suggest, because I know it should not be done, you yourself ever say that, now you try to protect yourself by not answering my comments here and just put a red paint on me, why yesterday you did not spill your red paint on someone who has plagiarized my design?, LMAO! you are a very unbelievable demon. the only member of DT who does not have a healthy brain is you, you are like a hungry pig.

[1714858559]

1714858559

[1714858559]

1714858559

[1714858559]

1714858559

[1714858559]

1714858559

[actmyname]

Members of DT bastard like lauda usually only give red trust, even he does not reply to my post here, if you are a member of DT you should be wise do not just give red trust, even you accuse me of spreading lies (even your own suggest me to find address donation VOD) so I can donate VOD (is not that a bribe?) I do not do what you suggest, because I know it should not be done, you yourself ever say that, now you try to protect yourself by not answering my comments here and just put a red paint on me, why yesterday you did not spill your red paint on someone who has plagiarized my design?, LMAO! you are a very unbelievable demon. the only member of DT who does not have a healthy brain is you, you are like a hungry pig.

Fuck. That. Styling.

You must be really mad. But why are you concerned about a concurrent feedback? There's the previous one about your trust farming. You should address your concerns there, rather than at this recent one. Unless... you admit that it's true and you deserve the negative trust?

[otrkid70]

I really think DT system should be used to prevent people from scamming (or make it a little more difficult at least).

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.
While it would be fair to tag shitposters somehow and stop them, it's certainly not fair to put both them and scammers in the same group.
Scamming or trying to scam is definitely worst than spamming.

Maybe leaving a neutral to users with extreme poor post quality would help? I guess signature managers would have to place some rules about those neutrals besides the current negative ones.

This sums it up perfectly. Great points about scammers and some person speaking in poor English being grouped together.

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.

I agree.  I only tag accounts as shitposters if it is obvious to even the brain dead fool.  All one or less liners, no contribution to the post.

To date, I have left negative feedback for 61 shitposters, and most, if not all, have never complained about it.

I have seen your TRUST feedbacks and it seems very fair to me. No sign of being an obvious racism or whatsoever. The problem with tagging is that instead of giving a lesson and CLEAR REASON as to why he/she is being tagged, it is now being portrayed as a hatred to the 3rd world, which I don't totally agree.

*Edit: I have encountered a few people (not from this forum) that came from English Speaking Countries yet their English is more worse and than any of those who came from 3rd World.

Vod is absolutely Fair in his feedbacks. If you get a Neg from Vod rest assured he did his research and you deserved it.

Edit: The person you are referring to leaving feedback based on Race is The Pharmacist.



Finally From the Man Himself. Shouldn't this just end the Discussion right here? He's the Boss.

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

[Scam Exposey]

I really think DT system should be used to prevent people from scamming (or make it a little more difficult at least).

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.
While it would be fair to tag shitposters somehow and stop them, it's certainly not fair to put both them and scammers in the same group.
Scamming or trying to scam is definitely worst than spamming.

Maybe leaving a neutral to users with extreme poor post quality would help? I guess signature managers would have to place some rules about those neutrals besides the current negative ones.

This sums it up perfectly. Great points about scammers and some person speaking in poor English being grouped together.

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.

I agree.  I only tag accounts as shitposters if it is obvious to even the brain dead fool.  All one or less liners, no contribution to the post.

To date, I have left negative feedback for 61 shitposters, and most, if not all, have never complained about it.

I have seen your TRUST feedbacks and it seems very fair to me. No sign of being an obvious racism or whatsoever. The problem with tagging is that instead of giving a lesson and CLEAR REASON as to why he/she is being tagged, it is now being portrayed as a hatred to the 3rd world, which I don't totally agree.

*Edit: I have encountered a few people (not from this forum) that came from English Speaking Countries yet their English is more worse and than any of those who came from 3rd World.

Vod is absolutely Fair in his feedbacks. If you get a Neg from Vod rest assured he did his research and you deserved it.

Edit: The person you are referring to leaving feedback based on Race is The Pharmacist.



Finally From the Man Himself. Shouldn't this just end the Discussion right here? He's the Boss.

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

Their will be no end of discussion here until this man stop his early judgement https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017 all need due process as I seen this as abusive act. Old DT member didn't do that one since they know how to scale things.

[otrkid70]

I really think DT system should be used to prevent people from scamming (or make it a little more difficult at least).

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.
While it would be fair to tag shitposters somehow and stop them, it's certainly not fair to put both them and scammers in the same group.
Scamming or trying to scam is definitely worst than spamming.

Maybe leaving a neutral to users with extreme poor post quality would help? I guess signature managers would have to place some rules about those neutrals besides the current negative ones.

This sums it up perfectly. Great points about scammers and some person speaking in poor English being grouped together.

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.

I agree.  I only tag accounts as shitposters if it is obvious to even the brain dead fool.  All one or less liners, no contribution to the post.

To date, I have left negative feedback for 61 shitposters, and most, if not all, have never complained about it.

I have seen your TRUST feedbacks and it seems very fair to me. No sign of being an obvious racism or whatsoever. The problem with tagging is that instead of giving a lesson and CLEAR REASON as to why he/she is being tagged, it is now being portrayed as a hatred to the 3rd world, which I don't totally agree.

*Edit: I have encountered a few people (not from this forum) that came from English Speaking Countries yet their English is more worse and than any of those who came from 3rd World.

Vod is absolutely Fair in his feedbacks. If you get a Neg from Vod rest assured he did his research and you deserved it.

Edit: The person you are referring to leaving feedback based on Race is The Pharmacist.



Finally From the Man Himself. Shouldn't this just end the Discussion right here? He's the Boss.

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

Their will be no end of discussion here until this man stop his early judgement https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017 all need due process as I seen this as abusive act. Old DT member didn't do that one since they know how to scale things.

I disagree actmyname has not abused anything as far as i can see. There are others that have though.

[Scam Exposey]

I really think DT system should be used to prevent people from scamming (or make it a little more difficult at least).

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.
While it would be fair to tag shitposters somehow and stop them, it's certainly not fair to put both them and scammers in the same group.
Scamming or trying to scam is definitely worst than spamming.

Maybe leaving a neutral to users with extreme poor post quality would help? I guess signature managers would have to place some rules about those neutrals besides the current negative ones.

This sums it up perfectly. Great points about scammers and some person speaking in poor English being grouped together.

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.

I agree.  I only tag accounts as shitposters if it is obvious to even the brain dead fool.  All one or less liners, no contribution to the post.

To date, I have left negative feedback for 61 shitposters, and most, if not all, have never complained about it.

I have seen your TRUST feedbacks and it seems very fair to me. No sign of being an obvious racism or whatsoever. The problem with tagging is that instead of giving a lesson and CLEAR REASON as to why he/she is being tagged, it is now being portrayed as a hatred to the 3rd world, which I don't totally agree.

*Edit: I have encountered a few people (not from this forum) that came from English Speaking Countries yet their English is more worse and than any of those who came from 3rd World.

Vod is absolutely Fair in his feedbacks. If you get a Neg from Vod rest assured he did his research and you deserved it.

Edit: The person you are referring to leaving feedback based on Race is The Pharmacist.



Finally From the Man Himself. Shouldn't this just end the Discussion right here? He's the Boss.

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

Their will be no end of discussion here until this man stop his early judgement https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=465017 all need due process as I seen this as abusive act. Old DT member didn't do that one since they know how to scale things.

I disagree actmyname has not abused anything as far as i can see. There are others that have though.

I disagree also and who are the one who's abusing it? Did you check his reputation history there's tons of account tagged for unethical judgement made by him.

[ibminer]

There is not really much communication between Default Trust people that I am aware of (no good ol' boys club). I have reached out the Theymos to get his opinion regarding negative trust and shit posting. This forum has become pretty much useless with the mindless posting for pay that happens. I do not think campaigns will start adding negative trusted users, but eventually they will probably stop advertising here since it is all garbage posts and good users will keep leaving.

I'll accept that there is not communication between most DT members, my communication to other DT members has been minimal, but the potential to abuse seems higher when DT members can mark an account negative for post quality, which I think would open an environment for the controlling of what content is deemed "ok" by DT members.

The quote I posted in OP, which hints that there is some sort sanctioning by "upper level" DT members to tag shitposters was a little surprising considering I was under the impression, like you were, that not a lot of communication happens between DT members.

Finally From the Man Himself. Shouldn't this just end the Discussion right here? He's the Boss.

This is what I was alluding to in my OP, this type of feedback goes against the guidelines set by theymos... and IMO the racist tone on some of the feedback isn't helpful to a forum that has plenty of non-native english speakers and is a discussion board for a worldwide cryptocurrency. I'm sure there are reasons for the guidelines in 2013 but that is part of the reason for this thread, to establish where other DT members may stand, and maybe Blazed will get a response back from theymos on whether his guidelines are any different today.

[HodorHodl]

The issue is that the whole damn thing is based on opinions.

The Pharmacist has a boner for people he feels don't speak English to his standard. This does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Lauda has no time for people she feels don't see as deeply as her. I'm not entirely sure on what map the direction she's looking can be found, but that's my issue. This also does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Actmyname....well, this one is tricky. He's engaged in discussion on this topic, which shows an open mind. But then there are those....rampages...which are also opinion based.

You know, I get that all these people are trying to protect the foremost forum for a subject they care deeply about. And they're working with broken tools. Theymos probably never realised this forum would grow like it has, but there you go - yay, crypto

The practices that are happening at the moment are exclusionary. This is not good. The forum was founded for people to discuss crypto, and this includes the clueless, the stupid, the slow, the rude, the arrogant and the just plain weird.

Warn the abusers. Ban the persistent. Trust tag the scammers.

If they're not scamming, leave the trust button alone. It's not what it's for.

[otrkid70]

The issue is that the whole damn thing is based on opinions.

The Pharmacist has a boner for people he feels don't speak English to his standard. This does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Lauda has no time for people she feels don't see as deeply as her. I'm not entirely sure on what map the direction she's looking can be found, but that's my issue. This also does not make them untrustworthy, and so is misuse of the system.

Actmyname....well, this one is tricky. He's engaged in discussion on this topic, which shows an open mind. But then there are those....rampages...which are also opinion based.

You know, I get that all these people are trying to protect the foremost forum for a subject they care deeply about. And they're working with broken tools. Theymos probably never realised this forum would grow like it has, but there you go - yay, crypto

The practices that are happening at the moment are exclusionary. This is not good. The forum was founded for people to discuss crypto, and this includes the clueless, the stupid, the slow, the rude, the arrogant and the just plain weird.

Warn the abusers. Ban the persistent. Trust tag the scammers.

If they're not scamming, leave the trust button alone. It's not what it's for.

OgNasty just posted this. He is top of the foodchain in regards to DT. It's all good now. 

I have also reached out to Theymos to see what his stance on red trust for shit posting is and will let you guys know.

If his reply is the below, what would be your response? 

- Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.

I think DT users such as yourself Ognasty and Blazed will have to pressure him to get a clear answer on this.  You 2 users are at the top of the DT food chain and i think only users with your status are capable of getting him to crack under pressure. It would be nice to hear his Final view on the matter.

theymos has already given his guidance.  I believe the responsibility of DT users such as myself and Blazed would be to exclude users who engage in this behavior.  I have done so.  Blazed has done the opposite. 

[actmyname]

Actmyname....well, this one is tricky. He's engaged in discussion on this topic, which shows an open mind. But then there are those....rampages...which are also opinion based.

Which rampages? Are you talking about the bulk ratings in which I go to a spam megathread and tag prominent users there?I have already stated that the negative trust will be removed when a week's worth of quality posting occurs.

There is one option that I have which could work: to instill a neutral trust feedback that prompts users to improve their post quality (and to PM them in bulk about it the day of). If they do not improve the quality within 2 weeks a negative tag will be placed upon them. How do you feel about that?

[HodorHodl]

Actmyname....well, this one is tricky. He's engaged in discussion on this topic, which shows an open mind. But then there are those....rampages...which are also opinion based.

Which rampages? Are you talking about the bulk ratings in which I go to a spam megathread and tag prominent users there?I have already stated that the negative trust will be removed when a week's worth of quality posting occurs.

There is one option that I have which could work: to instill a neutral trust feedback that prompts users to improve their post quality (and to PM them in bulk about it the day of). If they do not improve the quality within 2 weeks a negative tag will be placed upon them. How do you feel about that?

Fair enough on the "rampage" comment if it's to do with megathreads - I admit I only scanned. I can edit or remove the comment if you wish. I'm not here to score cheap points.

I like that you are being so open-minded on this - regardless of whatever you infer from my posts, I want you to know I respect this.

Your idea of bulk PMing is excellent. May I suggest that the PM list be shared with the mods also? That way they can filter the ones you have to tag by banning as many as possible before they get loose - if they don't improve, of course. 2 weeks seems more than reasonable - very fair.

Great reply. Thank you

[Ziskinberg]

Actmyname....well, this one is tricky. He's engaged in discussion on this topic, which shows an open mind. But then there are those....rampages...which are also opinion based.

Which rampages? Are you talking about the bulk ratings in which I go to a spam megathread and tag prominent users there?I have already stated that the negative trust will be removed when a week's worth of quality posting occurs.

There is one option that I have which could work: to instill a neutral trust feedback that prompts users to improve their post quality (and to PM them in bulk about it the day of). If they do not improve the quality within 2 weeks a negative tag will be placed upon them. How do you feel about that?

Fair enough on the "rampage" comment if it's to do with megathreads - I admit I only scanned. I can edit or remove the comment if you wish. I'm not here to score cheap points.

I like that you are being so open-minded on this - regardless of whatever you infer from my posts, I want you to know I respect this.

Your idea of bulk PMing is excellent. May I suggest that the PM list be shared with the mods also? That way they can filter the ones you have to tag by banning as many as possible before they get loose - if they don't improve, of course. 2 weeks seems more than reasonable - very fair.

Great reply. Thank you

Now actmyname starting to realize that the decision he made to tagged bunch of accounts was not fair as he considered shifting the from negative to neutral trust which he made some guidelines himself that if not followed based on his evaluation,he will again red tagged certain accounts.

Why not just focus on what Theymos said " Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts." because his words are final, don't make your own judgement which would eventually lead you in making a decision which is against the rules.

The best solution to do IMO is just to put a rating in neutral trust as that is fair, we want to be fair here, as this forum is for everyone who wants to learn.

[Maum]

There is also another DT activity, that got my attention. Maybe you could also discuss this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2672657.msg27279839#msg27279839
This was an auction with rules f.e., what is allowed to ask and what not. Breaking rules would end in red tag That may be ok so far (or not). (A member posted into his thread and got red tag.)
But to demand a high amount for removing red tag, seems strange to me and I didn't see any other DT1/2 member acting like him.
Have also a look on given trust 2017-12-29 by this DT member.

[Bachelorrd]

I really think DT system should be used to prevent people from scamming (or make it a little more difficult at least).

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.
While it would be fair to tag shitposters somehow and stop them, it's certainly not fair to put both them and scammers in the same group.
Scamming or trying to scam is definitely worst than spamming.

Maybe leaving a neutral to users with extreme poor post quality would help? I guess signature managers would have to place some rules about those neutrals besides the current negative ones.

This sums it up perfectly. Great points about scammers and some person speaking in poor English being grouped together.

If we leave negative trust to shitposters I think people can end up ignoring the feedback left to scammers/untrustworthy users.

I agree.  I only tag accounts as shitposters if it is obvious to even the brain dead fool.  All one or less liners, no contribution to the post.

To date, I have left negative feedback for 61 shitposters, and most, if not all, have never complained about it.

I have seen your TRUST feedbacks and it seems very fair to me. No sign of being an obvious racism or whatsoever. The problem with tagging is that instead of giving a lesson and CLEAR REASON as to why he/she is being tagged, it is now being portrayed as a hatred to the 3rd world, which I don't totally agree.

*Edit: I have encountered a few people (not from this forum) that came from English Speaking Countries yet their English is more worse and than any of those who came from 3rd World.

Vod is absolutely Fair in his feedbacks. If you get a Neg from Vod rest assured he did his research and you deserved it.

Edit: The person you are referring to leaving feedback based on Race is The Pharmacist.

Thats is exactly my point, since DT members are entrusted with this kind of power, at least give credibility to your tagging. I don't have a problem with tagging as long as its well research and the reasons are clear as to why he/she had been tagged.

And not as if you have been running a vendetta against the 3rd world people in this forum.

(*for now I've got no problem with the feedback he left me, because thats his opinion and only his. BTW, I am not from the 3rd World Country he was talking about)

[Lauda]

...which I think would open an environment for the controlling of what content is deemed "ok" by DT members.

I don't think any of us really care about the content as long as it isn't illegal or some sort of *libel/defamation*.

..theymos on whether his guidelines are any different today..

They are outdated and wrong, just like most of the policies of this forum. Do I need to remind people why legitimate people jumped ship? Read the prior sentence.

OgNasty just posted this. He is top of the foodchain in regards to DT. It's all good now.  

Remind me again how much time OgNasty has invested in fighting the scum of this forum, either by directly tagging them or *recruiting* DT2 members to do so? Oh right, from what I've seen, almost zero.

And not as if you have been running a vendetta against the 3rd world people in this forum.

Nobody is doing that. I have a game that you might like to play. Guess the sender's nationality:

[SMAS] My list of users banned from sig. campaigns

Sir my username *retracted* is here I don't understand why you banned me I'm not spammer. I'm begging you to remove me in the list. Sir what shall I do so that you will remove me here. Sir Please.

[OgNasty]

Remind me again how much time OgNasty has invested in fighting the scum of this forum, either by directly tagging them or *recruiting* DT2 members to do so? Oh right, from what I've seen, almost zero.

I've protected far more BTC for users on this forum than you ever will and see little value in your harassing new users with negative feedback if their posts aren't of high enough quality for your liking.

[Lauda]

Remind me again how much time OgNasty has invested in fighting the scum of this forum, either by directly tagging them or *recruiting* DT2 members to do so? Oh right, from what I've seen, almost zero.

I've protected far more BTC for users on this forum than you ever will..

Like who, NastyFans? Watch out for the QS kool-aid, it can be damaging.

and see little value in your harassing new users with negative feedback if their posts aren't of high enough quality for your liking.

Which is absolutely not something that I'm doing. It's nice to see that you are actually up-to-date with the stuff when trying to undermine others.
Why did I get a sudden reminder of butter? Wait, that must be spelled differently.

[Bachelorrd]

And not as if you have been running a vendetta against the 3rd world people in this forum.

Nobody is doing that. I have a game that you might like to play. Guess the sender's nationality:

LOL. Have you been blind? As ibminer said this had been a show of "good ol' boys club".

[Lauda]

LOL. Have you been blind? As ibminer said this had been a show of "good ol' boys club".

There is no such thing going on, *yet*.

[minifrij]

I've protected far more BTC for users on this forum than you ever will and see little value in your harassing new users with negative feedback if their posts aren't of high enough quality for your liking.

We're talking about people's contributions to DT, not an escrow service. If we need someone's dick to suck about that, we can hop on yours (providing you can scooch over a bit).


The main question that I have to anyone that is opposed to tagging spammers, what solution to you propose instead? theymos is making decent first steps towards a solution, but it is nowhere near a fix to the issue right now.
Also, 'do nothing' isn't an answer. If I wanted to spend my time around illiterate morons I'd frequent the comment section of Minecraft videos on YouTube. I don't.

Also, don't give me that 'spam = pagerank' nonsense. Bitcointalk is the premier forum for 'discussion about Bitcoin', like it needs to be boosted up the rankings by artificial bullshit.