Well, this is all very interesting... I must apologize in advance for the length of this post, a lot of thoughts.
I do not customize my trust list because I like to experience the same perspective that new members and the majority of this forum experience. I would, however, encourage the use of customized trust lists because that's obviously the way the system was intended to work. I don't think this is as easy for average users to understand though, the trust system gets a little more complicated when you get into customizing trust lists and including/excluding other users, depths, and maintaining the list... so I feel like there is still a need or a reason for DefaultTrust.
I've been seriously thinking about reopening the idea of enforcing user-defined trust lists via
suggestions, etc., deprecating DefaultTrust.
It's certainly a more decentralized option than what exists now but I feel like it has more potential for abuse and less potential for anyone finding and/or tracking potential abusers. Maybe my vision is short-sighted here... decentralized is good but I'm having a tough time accepting that this type of trust system, at this forum, would go well.
Not "a lot", most of them were tagged by other DT members(like ibminer).As for the others, I am sure Quickseller will come up with a good solution to filter them out.
Starting from alt-accounts thread to ICO pumping accounts,I usually see comments from Lauda who investigates the matter and tags the account involved.I don't think ibminer does it on a scale as that of Lauda.
I'm certainly not as active as Lauda and am more reserved in my approach with feedback. I unfortunately do not have the time necessary to devote to reach this level of activity. I have agreed with a good chunk of Lauda's feedback in the past... but it is a lot to go through, and I really didn't leave feedback on each because the accounts were already flagged. I was going to put myself through the task of going into Lauda's list of left feedback (after the exclusion) but it doesn't look like it is as urgent anymore. I need to get into a better habit of leaving feedback even if feedback has already been left...
--snip--
I agree with most of what you said here but, pardon my confusion, are you adding Lauda back because the valuable role s/he has on DT is to help fight scammers? If so, this is hard for me to accept with statements like:
--snip--
I've done successful deals with scammers before, I just made sure to use escrow.
... unless I am misunderstanding your comment, it seems like you are more welcoming to scammers than I (or Lauda?) would care to be and do not seem to have an issue with scammers actively trading here so I'm not sure I fully understand where your motivation came from with the decision?
Most of the arguing going on is between people who have more "
skin in the game" than I do so maybe I shouldn't even respond but I'm going to try and give my honest opinion here since my name has been brought up a couple of times, I do this
fully accepting the risk of myself being excluded from DT2. I've said
some of this in the past and I'm not sure if *all* of this is relevant here but I wanted to give my opinion of those involved.
Og/NastyFansI was fully aware when I purchased a coin (and seats) that I was buying something which was, IMO, highly overpriced for what I was receiving. When questioning Og on why, he was open and upfront with me and I got the answers I needed to hear, which was essentially that my coins, after expenses, were going towards supporting a group who had Bitcoin's best interests in mind.
I'm not yet quite sure if my overall vision back then was flawed or not but Bitcoin is why I came here, because I agreed with the original philosophies and ideology behind it, and from a technology/mathematics perspective, it was impressive. I wanted to learn more and offer support... lacking time, but having coins, NastyFans offered something physical (coin), a stake in potential future distributions, and a way to get involved with a group of Bitcoin enthusiasts - which was the most enticing piece for me back then, not to mention I'd have a fun coin to show people
so I went for it, even later adding in the
no pay signature of NastyFans to try and offer additional support.
At some point I had a run-in with DogeDigital (MoneyPot) and wanted Og's opinion on the situation - I relayed my concerns, which were not responded to. 2 weeks later he took off his NastyFans signature and started advertising for MoneyPot. While OgNasty certainly has a right to do whatever he wants with his signature, the timing and selection of signatures didn't sit right with me and I was a bit surprised, considering the message I had sent.
I expressed my feelings - and was then responded to with an answer I didn't agree with and it really didn't address my original concerns or feedback relating to DogeDigital/Moneypot at all. Since then, I have a hard time bringing myself to openly support NastyFans, however, I do still own 5 seats & a coin. I don't consider Og a scammer, he is certainly still here and hasn't disappeared like many others, but his business ethics are outside of my comfort zone or, at least, not in line with how I would act... then again, maybe this makes me a bad candidate to run an organization like NastyFans
EDIT: What is stated in this post is factual, the prior 2 paragraphs relate to an event which happened a while back (mid2016) which was the last main interaction I really had with Og. However, given new insight relating to the prior 2 paragraphs, I do not believe Og intentionally ignored my concerns with DogeDigital/MP and believe my 2nd message to him was responded to as hate mail/trolling, which gives me reason to believe the concerns were unintentionally overlooked. I had to give Og a little benefit of doubt here, which wasn't too hard for me, because he has a good reputation and has had plenty of successful trades/escrows/holds forum funds/etc. Outside of this situation, I've never really had any other large issue with him.
QuickSellerMy opinion is QuickSeller has a lot of
hidden "skin in the game". QuickSeller certainly has a history of playing with alts (as he's done on this thread), which I've stated plenty of times is shady in and of itself, and the self-escrowing went hand-in-hand with this. However, to my knowledge, I never saw anyone actually get scammed by QS - not that I can guarantee he would not have ended up there, and this doesn't mean I would trust him personally. He certainly makes highly questionable (and shady) decisions - like selling a DT account, which certainly does not resemble someone trying to fight or stop scammers on this forum, but rather someone willing to help them out.
He has also had, for quite some time, an interest in getting Lauda off this forum or
at least as far away from DT & Staff as possible. Some of this may be anger (or jelousy?) that he believes Lauda is doing a similar thing he was, but getting away with it. Some of it may just be revenge for alts that Lauda may have flagged. I used to think QS had a little more authenticity than this, in the sense that he was trying to restore his credibility, but the recent baseless allegation against Lauda and the lack of providing any type of evidence has dampened my perception. I'm still providing some time for QS or his
"source" (mentioned in another thread) to produce something to substantiate those claims.
LaudaLauda and I have had our issues in the past. The extortion
attempt was a huge issue for me, including another concern relating to chat logs where Lauda was using "trust" as some sort of
joke in a coin trade. I've stated my feelings in the past.
What is getting to me recently is the defense used by Lauda when being called out are generally off-putting to me and usually lack substance. "I cannot confirm nor deny", name calling, "go away scammer", etc., which may be a reason why QS gets more traction from others than maybe he deserves, because it makes it look like Lauda is dodging or hiding stuff.
That said, Lauda is certainly more active, but is more "trigger-happy" than I will probably ever be, mainly in the sense that s/he sometimes goes with a gut feeling too quickly and doesn't see a need for
substantial proof in some circumstances, which is Lauda's right, and s/he could be correct or incorrect in some of those gut feelings, a lot of times there isn't evidence to prove one way or the other whether the feedback was justified or not. Other times it is obviously good feedback.
When it comes to DT, I believe Lauda lives in a grey area that can rub people the wrong way for many various reasons, so the exclusion/inclusion back and forth doesn't surprise me, it is actually a
little exciting to see DT1 members using their rights and being active in the trust area. I do not like seeing an active fighter of scammers be removed from DT, and Lauda has certainly touched a few potential scammers, but I'm generally against DT leaving feedback for content-related reasons and am strongly leaning towards being against any "merit abuse" feedback unless other ways develop to provide additional
merit to the abuse claim - no pun intended.
The drop is clearly due to the fact that Bitcoin is backed by drama, and there has been a shortage of drama lately.
... probably not the type of drama theymos was looking for? ... or was it?
