Trust ratings

[mprep]

I have no issue about BayAreaCoins leaving negative feedback for me extending the run time of an auction, that is if he strongly believes this makes me a scammer. To me it seems ludicrous, but different people think differently. However, what I do thoroughly disagree with is him leaving negative Trust feedback for my moderation, which is what he did:

LOL Mprep edited his auction thread (auction thread are unable to be edited for a reason) to remove my calling him out on his bullshit auction extension. I strongly believe this user is a HORRIBLE BitcoinTalk mod and a scammer... hence the negative feedback.

The feedback in relations to the actual extension is neutral:

Changes rules on his auctions that effects bidders negatively for this users own gain. Mprep also sees nothing wrong with violating his own rules... Please see the reference link and make your own judgment.

I would not do business with this user

Since he has already shown a disregard towards basic forum rules (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026785.0; after I called him out recently, he did, after several years, admit he was in the wrong so I'll give him that) and now shown that he's willing to leave negative feedback for someone who moderated his content, I find that incredibly scummy and untrustworthy and as such strongly believe that users should avoid doing business with him as long as this behavior persists hence the "retaliatory" Trust feedback, which reflects that:

Left me negative feedback for enforcing forum rules (splitting a discussion that went too off-topic into it's own thread) despite leaving a clear and unambigious notice containing both the topic of the discussion as well as a link to the new thread in the old thread.

Has anyone seen the trust rating of mprep recently? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=51173

He is a forum global moderator with a negative rating from someone who is on DT. It also seems like he left some retaliatory feedback to bayareacoins https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=137773

Now I'm not saying he deserves the negative rating but the system seems to be failing. This is not even the only case, look at lauda https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872
2 Negative ratings from 2 different people and yet he is still on DT. They also left negative feedbacks to each other, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=181801  I don't know who left the first negative rating first but still, why do they all do this?


What about OgNasty, it seems to me that he leaves a ton of retaliatory negative feedback too. Is it really necessary to give this guy: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=98986  5 Negative ratings?

I know you are going to say that trust is not moderated and bla bla but none of these users seem trustworthy to me, they all act like kids sometimes throwing negative ratings at each other.

It's only semi-centralised so infighting is inevitable. The fact that trusted users call out what they perceive as scammy behavior is a good thing IMO. Shows that people are leaving Trust feedback for their actions and not their position / renown / whatever. Whether the feedback is actually justified is a whole different debate.

[1714852828]

1714852828

[1714852828]

1714852828

[digaran]

I'm not making money by being on DT.  If you can point me to where that's true, I'll listen.  The importance is in the weight of my feedback when I tag someone--that's basically it.

That's what I'm talking about, you should ignore untrusted feedback until it is trusted, if you are tagging people with the knowledge of that your feedback
Has weight on people's reputation, if you are not listening to reason when you are called out, you are not to be trusted. I called you out to ask your opinion.
What do you think about mprep action in this case? if you think leaving retaliatory feedback is wrong, say it. if you refuse to speak, then you will face the
Same situation someday and nobody would trust your words then.

Stop trolling.

OK I will stop trolling. you want to know my opinion on this? retaliatory feedback is wrong. if you know it, you should tell that to mprep, let him read your opinion, let him know what you think. refuse to talk and I will confront you next time when you are judging others.

Fucking be a man.

This is me being a man. @mprep, I believe retaliatory feedback, positive feedback to complement each other back and forth is wrong. I also believe they
Are on to you, OP could be a bought account because his email was reset recently. they want you gone and they have the support. reconsider everything you have done and edit sent feedback if necessary. if you think you have made a mistake, correct it.

This is me weighing other factors, my support for him for whatever good he has done for this community. now if anybody else is reading here, facking be a man and speak.

[Astargath]

I'm not making money by being on DT.  If you can point me to where that's true, I'll listen.  The importance is in the weight of my feedback when I tag someone--that's basically it.

That's what I'm talking about, you should ignore untrusted feedback until it is trusted, if you are tagging people with the knowledge of that your feedback
Has weight on people's reputation, if you are not listening to reason when you are called out, you are not to be trusted. I called you out to ask your opinion.
What do you think about mprep action in this case? if you think leaving retaliatory feedback is wrong, say it. if you refuse to speak, then you will face the
Same situation someday and nobody would trust your words then.

Stop trolling.

OK I will stop trolling. you want to know my opinion on this? retaliatory feedback is wrong. if you know it, you should tell that to mprep, let him read your opinion, let him know what you think. refuse to talk and I will confront you next time when you are judging others.

Fucking be a man.

This is me being a man. @mprep, I believe retaliatory feedback, positive feedback to complement each other back and forth is wrong. I also believe they
Are on to you, OP could be a bought account because his email was reset recently. they want you gone and they have the support. reconsider everything you have done and edit sent feedback if necessary. if you think you have made a mistake, correct it.

This is me weighing other factors, my support for him for whatever good he has done for this community. now if anybody else is reading here, facking be a man and speak.

I can guarantee you that I did not sell my account. I happen to see mprep trust in a post and I thought it was funny to see a global moderator with a negative rating. Just like giving retaliatory negative feedback between DT members seem childish. What's the point of the system, then?

[Timelord2067]

Am quoting mdayonliner, but my question is directed towards Astargath

[quote author=mdayonliner link=topic=3617512.msg36583197#msg36583197 date=1525698875]
I guess you are seeing the rating depending on your personal trust setting. It's different for sure for others. i.e I see green for BayAreaCoins, OgNasty, TMAN.
mprep is the same for me...

[img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob4a7cf6cbd978d5b6.png[/img]
[size=7pt]Click here if unable to see image[/size]
[/quote]

I only have Tomatocage removed from my trust list and this is what I see:



But who are you really Astargath?  Or, rather, what is your main alt?  There's a few of these "trust" themed threads popping up recently started by sock puppets.

[Astargath]

Am quoting mdayonliner, but my question is directed towards Astargath

I guess you are seeing the rating depending on your personal trust setting. It's different for sure for others. i.e I see green for BayAreaCoins, OgNasty, TMAN.
mprep is the same for me...


Click here if unable to see image

I only have Tomatocage removed from my trust list and this is what I see:



But who are you really Astargath?  Or, rather, what is your main alt?  There's a few of these "trust" themed threads popping up recently started by sock puppets.

See, this is why people is afraid to speak up, what do you mean who am I really and why would you think this is not my main alt lol, I have like 3k posts here. I have default trust, I never changed the settings and I see that too. You don't think it's weird for a global mod to have negative trust? You and tomatocage also seem to have a negative trust battle as well. I'm just saying that trust is a bit meaningless if people are just going to give it based on personal feelings.

[Timelord2067]

But who are you really Astargath?  Or, rather, what is your main alt?  There's a few of these "trust" themed threads popping up recently started by sock puppets.

See, this is why people is afraid to speak up, what do you mean who am I really and why would you think this is not my main alt lol, I have like 3k posts here. I have default trust, I never changed the settings and I see that too. You don't think it's weird for a global mod to have negative trust? You and tomatocage also seem to have a negative trust battle as well. I'm just saying that trust is a bit meaningless if people are just going to give it based on personal feelings.

quickscammer has over twelve thousand posts just on their so named account:

Code:

Name: 	Quickseller
Posts: 	12187
Activity: 	1400
Merit: 	1066
Position: 	Copper Member
Date Registered: 	22 July 2014, 15:51:40

yet manages to post on other UID's ~ 5% of the total number of QS' post count just on this one UID:

Code:

Name: 	Panthers52
Posts: 	672
Activity: 	672
Merit: 	501
Position: 	Hero Member
Date Registered: 	21 July 2014, 01:31:08
Last Active: 	06 May 2018, 17:22:55

(I gave QS Red Paint ^TM before even Vod did...)


Tomatocage is just Butt Hurt ^TM and went offline when I made comment concerning his alts - (only infrequently returning)

If nothing else, their prolonged absence should be reason enough for their removal from DT.  (no really)

[Astargath]

But who are you really Astargath?  Or, rather, what is your main alt?  There's a few of these "trust" themed threads popping up recently started by sock puppets.

See, this is why people is afraid to speak up, what do you mean who am I really and why would you think this is not my main alt lol, I have like 3k posts here. I have default trust, I never changed the settings and I see that too. You don't think it's weird for a global mod to have negative trust? You and tomatocage also seem to have a negative trust battle as well. I'm just saying that trust is a bit meaningless if people are just going to give it based on personal feelings.

quickscammer has over twelve thousand posts just on their so named account:

Code:

Name: 	Quickseller
Posts: 	12187
Activity: 	1400
Merit: 	1066
Position: 	Copper Member
Date Registered: 	22 July 2014, 15:51:40

yet manages to post on other UID's ~ 5% of the total number of QS' post count just on this one UID:

Code:

Name: 	Panthers52
Posts: 	672
Activity: 	672
Merit: 	501
Position: 	Hero Member
Date Registered: 	21 July 2014, 01:31:08
Last Active: 	06 May 2018, 17:22:55

(I gave QS Red Paint ^TM before even Vod did...)


Tomatocage is just Butt Hurt ^TM and went offline when I made comment concerning his alts - (only infrequently returning)

If nothing else, their prolonged absence should be reason enough for their removal from DT.  (no really)

That's what I'm saying, just because someone is butthurt you shouldn't be able to give them negative trust in return, specially DT members. I don't know who did what in your particular case though.

[figmentofmyass]

Astargath---didn't you know? if you are critical of the trust system, you must be a "sock puppet" and "alt" of someone else. this is very basic forum policy. are you sure you aren't new here?

i know getting a negative rating does not mean you get excluded from dt, im not new here. it just seems counterproductive to have dt members with negative ratings from other dt members. if they can't trust each other why should we?

decentralization.

that's sort of laughable. literally all default trust lines lead back to theymos. it's utterly centralized.

some people may say that the current system still creates corruption, but there are plenty of objective dt members in the system.

i'm guessing the problem isn't the objective members. and there is no guarantee that an objective member will cancel out an unjust rating left by someone else.

read my red tag by marlboroza. would you say i deserved it?

i added ~marlboroza to my trust settings after that. never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red. this is what negative feedback is supposed to be for:

negative - you were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Tomatocage is just Butt Hurt ^TM and went offline when I made comment concerning his alts - (only infrequently returning)

If nothing else, their prolonged absence should be reason enough for their removal from DT.  (no really)

Let us not forget how Tomatocage conveniently returned in February(?) to exclude me from his trust list right after OGNasty did so, thereby bumping me off DT2.  That tells me very clearly that the Tomatocage account is likely controlled by QS.  He has a gripe with me because 1) He knows I don't trust him, and 2) He thinks I'm Lauda.  OGNasty I've never had issues with, and he laid down a BS excuse for excluding me saying something like I'm discouraging newcomers to bitcoin/bitcointalk with the feedback I'm leaving.  I think that was the reason, anyway.  

I had never interacted with him or Tomatocage before this, and Tomatocage has been completely silent on the matter--not surprisingly.  That's enough evidence to convince me that the original TC is likely not in control of that account any longer.

I called you out to ask your opinion.

My opinion is that the whole situation stinks to high heaven.  I already stated that I don't think mprep extending that auction was the right move, and leaving a neg for BAC is wrong also.  Happy?

[Zapo]

Other stuff aside, I think it's very intriguing that a global moderator is marked as a scammer, no matter what the situation. (Not implying he is one).

I agree with Ibminer and allahabadi's posts.

[Timelord2067]

That's what I'm saying, just because someone is butthurt you shouldn't be able to give them negative trust in return, specially DT members. I don't know who did what in your particular case though.

Many months after I slapped TomatoCage with Red Paint ^TM (and TC had been offline that whole time) he sent me a PM - the vocabulary was stilted as though the account had at that point been hacked.  (I made mention of this apparent hack in two or three threads, but it was ignored)  I refused to remove the negative, so TC gave me negative in kind and went back to being offline.

Mexxer-2 (whom I assert is an older alt of TomatoCage) likewise has gone dark and then months later got slapped by a couple of people on the DT for a totally different reason.

I had never interacted with him or Tomatocage before this, and Tomatocage has been completely silent on the matter--not surprisingly.  That's enough evidence to convince me that the original TC is likely not in control of that account any longer.

For a person on the DT to be so cut up about a non DT member's negative on their trust wall tells me I'm onto something.

[marlboroza]

read my red tag by marlboroza. would you say i deserved it?

i added ~marlboroza to my trust settings after that. never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red. this is what negative feedback is supposed to be for:

negative - you were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Have you contradicted yourself?

but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red

Which new DT2 members?

Can you point us to DT2 members who are leaving useless feedbacks, point us to these useless feedbacks and explain why they are useless?

[actmyname]

Which new DT2 members?

Can you point us to DT2 members who are leaving useless feedbacks, point us to these useless feedbacks and explain why they are useless?

I thought it was a bit confusing in several of your replies but it seems that you don't know you were included into DT2. Given that you most likely don't care and manage your own custom trust settings, it may have been that you thought the attention was just a coincidental period of activity.

Have you contradicted yourself?

This is not a contradiction. Exclusion =/= Negative trust. It simply means you do not trust their feedback. However, you can still trust the person.

[figmentofmyass]

read my red tag by marlboroza. would you say i deserved it?

i added ~marlboroza to my trust settings after that. never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red. this is what negative feedback is supposed to be for:

negative - you were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.

Have you contradicted yourself?

no.

but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red

Which new DT2 members?

Can you point us to DT2 members who are leaving useless feedbacks, point us to these useless feedbacks and explain why they are useless?

it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.

but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.

there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.

[marlboroza]

I thought it was a bit confusing in several of your replies but it seems that you don't know you were included into DT2. Given that you most likely don't care and manage your own custom trust settings, it may have been that you thought the attention was just a coincidental period of activity.

No, I don't check trust settings every day and no, I didn't know that I was added to DT  on May 03, 2018, 01:22:39 PM when I posted this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3502223.msg36204157#msg36204157, he mentioned green trust member, that topic was about me being alt of theymos because some of digaran's posts were removed from my topic( while the truth is whole topic was trashed) and by all logic "green trust member" is me(because that topic was about me being alt of theymos), and his next post after my was:

Look who just included you on DT2. as always[...]

I was included to DT when exactly?
Before or after my post? Timestamp?
Before or after -ve? Timestamp? 2:47 AM?

I came that day and went straight to my topic and I saw that digaran accused me that I am alt of cyrus(post has been removed), I replied to other user, I clicked on digaran's recent posts and noticed that he created topic "Need explanation if possible?"(again, asking whether marlboroza is alt of theymos because his posts were removed and other nonsense" which is now "calling out vod for his trust imput" and I replied to digaran's lies.

And look at this http://prntscr.com/jg64cx.

So, lets make this clear again, I came home, I saw digaran posting lies all over the forum, responded and there is no way that I could have known that I was included in DT at that moment. Look at all timestamps.

Maybe troll is causing confusion? Again, that topic is not original topic.

it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.

but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.

there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.

Are you sure you are pointing only at me?  

[figmentofmyass]

it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.

but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.

there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.

Are you sure you are pointing only at me? 

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

to reiterate:

never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red.

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

[BitcoinSupremo]

Finally some one with logic posting on the forum. He is misusing his powers since the very moment he was added into the DT. 10 merits for you not because you are talking against this scumbag but because you are the first one who is posting some logic here.

[marlboroza]

it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.

but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.

there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.

Are you sure you are pointing only at me?  

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

to reiterate:

never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red.

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Enrolling alt accounts in the same bounties/giveaways even if it is clearly stated "one account is allowed" is cheating people who are paying them for "work".

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

No, I was tagging them before I become DT and I don't see any reason why should I stop tagging them now.

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Are you trying to say whoever tagged alt account cheater misused DT position?

Any particular reason why you are pointing at me, because I am sure there are other DT members who tagged lots more cheaters than I did.

[BitcoinSupremo]

Which supposedly bounty did I cheat, check my other accounts date last login, it is clear they are all abandoned before they received negative feedback. I accepted that I did the error and abandoned all accounts, this is my original account which has some reds because I bought accounts in 2016. Now we are in 2018 and I only have this account active. I think it is an unfair trust rating , anyway I am used to it now.

[Astargath]

it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.

but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.

there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.

Are you sure you are pointing only at me?  

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

to reiterate:

never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red.

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Enrolling alt accounts in the same bounties/giveaways even if it is clearly stated "one account is allowed" is cheating people who are paying them for "work".

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

No, I was tagging them before I become DT and I don't see any reason why should I stop tagging them now.

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

Are you trying to say whoever tagged alt account cheater misused DT position?

Any particular reason why you are pointing at me, because I am sure there are other DT members who tagged lots more cheaters than I did.

''is cheating people who are paying them for "work". '' Well, although it obviously breaks the local rules of the bounty itself, it isn't really cheating them since it doesn't matter who is making the posts. Whether he has 2 accounts in the same bounty or 2 different people have 2 accounts enrolled, the final result is really the same since in both cases they would need to post a minimum amount of posts. Now I'm not saying it's ok but if you had to give negative ratings to anyone breaking ''local'' rules of any thread, everyone would have a negative rating.

Look at auctions or similar, how many people do you think fuck up there with bids and whatnot, you could view it as intentional but it could also be a mistake. What about account selling, it was totally ok not long ago, now people get red tagged for it.