DefaultTrust is BAD. Very bad.

[acs267]

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that. 

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

[1714985594]

1714985594

[1714985594]

1714985594

[1714985594]

1714985594

[1714985594]

1714985594

[BitCoinDream]

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.  

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

The root of the problem u r stating is actually DefaultTrust. Then why saying DefaultTrust isn't the problem ? The green part is well stated and after witnessing numerous abuses, I absolutely stand by this...

[acs267]

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.  

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

The root of the problem u r stating is actually DefaultTrust. Then why saying DefaultTrust isn't the problem ? The green part is well stated and after witnessing numerous abuses, I absolutely stand by this...

I was aiming more so to the fact that, it doesn't matter if it's DefaultTrust or not, once you get a negative rating... There's still that portion of users that tag you off as whatever the accused said. For DefaultTrust, this might happen more often, due to the fact that's its easily seen.

[Vortex20000]

I don't really think the red numbers mean that much. I find the trust system to be more like a personal feedback/suggestion system. If you see someone has negative trusted someone else, you go to the reference, and if its BS you disregard it. That or if someone has been neg'd by Sock9001 I tend to not pay that much attention to that rating either. I'm not sure if the system was meant to work this way, but I believe its evolved into a system where people just leave their thoughts/opinions, and a few times real scam accusations, and whoever is going to make a deal with them is in charge of judging the validity of their trust rating themselves. Even John K has a few negative feedback ratings, and the guy does dare I say tens of thousands of BTC in escrows. The people named NewAccount90210 that say that JohnK scammed them out of 1 BTC tend not to get me to believe it. Just like everything else in this community, you get to judge the validity of peoples claims.

I beg to differ, sir.

Most users on this forum can't be bothered to click the trust rating link and only see the red numbers. Users who have been unfairly given negative trust have to go through the hassle of explaining why they have red lines under their username every single time they do business or even want to be respected properly.

[Vortex20000]

And you neglect to answer it because you know it is true.

He did it again!

[BitCoinDream]

beastlymac should be removed from d. tree and banned for such behaviour, dont you think ?

No, I think there just shouldn't be any default trust, so this wouldn't be an issue anymore.

I agree though, I guess there does need to be a way to see your "default" profile.  Though my first choice would be no default trust at all.  Users should not join the forums and jump into trading.  People can find out who the mods are and decide for themselves if someone, say, Vod is a champion of the people and bane of scammers or a boob licking troll.  Personally, I think the former, but I'm still not sure I'd send first to him.  (No offense Vod.)

Much true.

I sometimes think default trust was just designed to get the mods out of the having to determine if they needed to apply the "scammer" tag or not.
I guess I can understand that.  

Not exact.

The trust system has been designed with that goal in mind, and it would work... but it has been destroyed by this stupid DefaultTrust, and has (needlessly!!!) become something completely different, and deeply broken.

DefaultTrust isn't the problem, necessarily, I guess it's more that when people see a negative trust rating - havoc is involved. Not saying that to all, but there has been times when people were wrongly accused or were being exploited and it didn't just drop. The same goes for a positive trust rating. A small portion of people simply trust anyone with a rating.

The root of the problem u r stating is actually DefaultTrust. Then why saying DefaultTrust isn't the problem ? The green part is well stated and after witnessing numerous abuses, I absolutely stand by this...

I was aiming more so to the fact that, it doesn't matter if it's DefaultTrust or not, once you get a negative rating... There's still that portion of users that tag you off as whatever the accused said. For DefaultTrust, this might happen more often, due to the fact that's its easily seen.

I dont see any logic in the argument u r putting here for DefaultTrust to stay. A red signal from DefaultTrust is always a problem is doing normal business on the forum, because the majority are not going to check why it is red.

If I flip the finger to DefaultTrust and stop using it for x period of time, then during that x period of time if someone on DefaultTrust gives me a negative trusted feedback I have no way of seeing it, while the vast majority of the forum will see me with a nice little red tag under my name. Say what you like, but that affects any jobs I want to do, businesses I want to create, et cetera.

When the trust is NOT moderated, there should not be any DefaultTrust either. U'll give power to certain people to show a red signal by default and then wont moderate it ...is not logical at all.

[bbxx]

And you neglect to answer it because you know it is true.

He did it again!

This is crazy.
I will not answer him here becouse it is off topic.
I am glad that he has been removed from default trust by theymos today.

[galbros]

While I doubt this is the account he is planning on using, I think THIS offer to sell trust ratings highlights the potential abuse of the current trust system.

If the account listed is a shill account for a real account on default trust a lot of damage could be done.

[hilariousandco]

Of course there is always potential for abuse, but I very much doubt that guy has another account on the trust list. He's just trolling. People selling feedbacks in such a fashion would probably get busted very easily or removed from the list when people complain about unjust feedback.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Of course there is always potential for abuse, but I very much doubt that guy has another account on the trust list. He's just trolling. People selling feedbacks in such a fashion would probably get busted very easily or removed from the list when people complain about unjust feedback.

When another people adds a user to trust list, will Theymos or BadBear review it or they just enter into the list?

  ~~MZ~~

[EvilPanda]

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

[hilariousandco]

Of course there is always potential for abuse, but I very much doubt that guy has another account on the trust list. He's just trolling. People selling feedbacks in such a fashion would probably get busted very easily or removed from the list when people complain about unjust feedback.

When another people adds a user to trust list, will Theymos or BadBear review it or they just enter into the list?

  ~~MZ~~

They don't review individual additions by others, but I think theymos has stated he reviews it every so often and adds or removes people. If people abuse it and start leaving silly or unjust feedback they're likely to be removed by someone at some point.

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

Mods don't have access to IPs; only admins. I can't say how frequently the bans are issued but they are used, but it wont stop persistent spammers as they will just use another proxy or tor etc. There's nothing that can be done about completely banning trolls really.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

Perhaps because calling out a scam (who admits in their ToS that it is a scam) is not 'FUD' and you are the one initiating all the personal attacks.

Trading trust ratings is allowed.

[BitCoinDream]

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators Admins have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

[EvilPanda]

Mods don't have access to IPs; only admins. I can't say how frequently the bans are issued but they are used, but it wont stop persistent spammers as they will just use another proxy or tor etc. There's nothing that can be done about completely banning trolls really.

I know they can proxy or use dynamic IP, but you'd at least make their life harder.

Perhaps because calling out a scam (who admits in their ToS that it is a scam) is not 'FUD' and you are the one initiating all the personal attacks.

Trading trust ratings is allowed.

I'll come to you when I need a lesson in scamming

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

I think you have to pay to be allowed to access this forum with TOR, so very few people are using it here. Most trolls aren't as sophisticated.

[peligro]

My question, maybe not completely related to the trust issue:  why permabans (ip bans) are so rarely used on the forum?
I noticed there's a real problem with people making multiple acounts for trolling purposes. They make a thread and populate it with their own posts from newbie accounts. This can be easily spotted if you check their registration dates and post history. I've also seen this done as a ban response in the meta section threads. These accounts are also used for personal attacks, FUD posting, trading trust ratings and so on.
If moderators Admins have access to IP's why not just simply block the puppeteer?

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

I remember reading that only Theymos can access IPs and not even other admins can do that.

[BadBear]

Mods can't, admins can.

Most of them are using proxies/tor, or once they get IP banned they will. 

[BitCoinDream]

-snip-

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

I think you have to pay to be allowed to access this forum with TOR, so very few people are using it here. Most trolls aren't as sophisticated.

I dint discuss about TOR and hence said "let alone the TOR usage". The other means are just explained before as proxies, NAT box etc that allows people to share IP. U wont be able to find the rotten apple among those sharing the IP.

[hilariousandco]

Mods don't have access to IPs; only admins. I can't say how frequently the bans are issued but they are used, but it wont stop persistent spammers as they will just use another proxy or tor etc. There's nothing that can be done about completely banning trolls really.

I know they can proxy or use dynamic IP, but you'd at least make their life harder.

How can we make their life harder without making innocent users' lives harder as well?

In today's internet, most of the online identities are NOT attached with a certain IP or IP range. There are proxies, NAT box and the same person may physically access 2-3 different service providers... let alone the TOR usage. So, it is most likely that IP ban of one bad guy will affect n number of good guy associated with that IP. Hence, I think, IP ban is very very selective in nature and that's for the good reason.

I think you have to pay to be allowed to access this forum with TOR, so very few people are using it here. Most trolls aren't as sophisticated.

You only have to pay to use tor or a banned proxy if you sign up via it. Once you are signed up you can use tor or proxies freely.

[nutildah]

I just would like to add to this thread with my complete agreement with the OP.

MsCollec, who I call a known scammer based on certain evidence, left me a -1 trust rating because they/he/she didn't like me warning others about Iconic Expert and advising the masses to be wary of him since he has been known to cheat people out of their money in the past. Please feel free to do a lil Google for him if you disagree or require immediate evidence.

So anyway, this is b.s. In what way did I ever ask MsCollec that he/she trust me? They had never even conversed with me before taking this action, which I think goes against every aspect of what the trust rating system is supposed to be used for. Here was his reasoning:

Trolls the forum

So this is acceptable because this person has spent more time here than me? In theory this idea should work, but only if the people in charge of such power use it for good instead of evil. Which lets face it, here a lot of the time, they simply don't. No offense to the good ones.