Trust ratings

[gobsmacker]

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.

I guess for buying forum accounts some years ago. Maybe he should tag Lauda and others who have been caught doing that. Haha, can you imagine that?? Equally applied standards from DT?? What a joke. The trust system is rotten and corrupt.

[1714166278]

1714166278

[1714166278]

1714166278

[1714166278]

1714166278

[marlboroza]

~

His account has solid connection with scammer.

''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.

I'll quote something which I received in PM recently:

Hello Sir i am not holding these accounts, I have only this account but these are my friends and we are working together on the forum, We just following the (user) posts as he referred us so we copy his data and the campaigns because of lake of knowledge but posting from our accounts and in some bounty account requirement we use latest post so you can see same posts as well. For the transactions we send our coins to (user) and (user) some times as we need money s o we sell those go them, in which way we can prove our identity? sir (user) account is ban due to signature scam since long time so he created other id named (user) yes (user) is his 2nd account, kindly remove negative trust from my id please I am just working here with my own account.

All "users" are connected recently.
Do you see this as mistake?

[BitcoinSupremo]

~

His account has solid connection with scammer.

''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.

I'll quote something which I received in PM recently:

Hello Sir i am not holding these accounts, I have only this account but these are my friends and we are working together on the forum, We just following the (user) posts as he referred us so we copy his data and the campaigns because of lake of knowledge but posting from our accounts and in some bounty account requirement we use latest post so you can see same posts as well. For the transactions we send our coins to (user) and (user) some times as we need money s o we sell those go them, in which way we can prove our identity? sir (user) account is ban due to signature scam since long time so he created other id named (user) yes (user) is his 2nd account, kindly remove negative trust from my id please I am just working here with my own account.

All "users" are connected recently.
Do you see this as mistake?

I didn't know back then as I was an amateur I have said it many times ,first registered here on February 2016. It was an error and I am back to my only original account being this one. Anyway no more time for this, you are distracting me from my tipping service. Last post here, no problem for me wearing red. Good night all.

[Astargath]

~

His account has solid connection with scammer.

''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.

I'll quote something which I received in PM recently:

Hello Sir i am not holding these accounts, I have only this account but these are my friends and we are working together on the forum, We just following the (user) posts as he referred us so we copy his data and the campaigns because of lake of knowledge but posting from our accounts and in some bounty account requirement we use latest post so you can see same posts as well. For the transactions we send our coins to (user) and (user) some times as we need money s o we sell those go them, in which way we can prove our identity? sir (user) account is ban due to signature scam since long time so he created other id named (user) yes (user) is his 2nd account, kindly remove negative trust from my id please I am just working here with my own account.

All "users" are connected recently.
Do you see this as mistake?

Well, probably not but I would still focus more on garbage posting than alt hunting. I wouldn't care if someone had 1k accounts as long as he has decent posts. You might as well tag shit posters too.

[figmentofmyass]

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".

scams require the existence of victims. again:

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.

bounty managers only list that rule because its customary, to appease forum admins and community. the managers and ICO issuers don't give a flying fuck, and thinking otherwise is laughably naive.

equating a quid quo pro with real scams makes the trust system totally useless.

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.

um, okay....? you're still the most egregious example.

sure, the real root problem is whoever added you to DT and i'd like to remove them from my trust network too. but i don't think that information is public. please correct me if i'm wrong.

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?

i'm saying that---in most cases---it's a misuse of the trust system, period. it does absolutely nothing to prevent scams. fyi, neutral trust exists for situations where a user isn't actually a scammer.

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.

as i've stated multiple times, you are not the only problematic DT member.

and if you would simply read my replies before responding, you'd know precisely why i am "pointing at you". digaran asked specifically about your feedback:

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.

so, i checked the feedback. you literally tagged the guy over one sarcastic remark---nothing at all to do with scamming. WTF? then i took a look at your sent feedback. holy shit, what a pile of garbage......

Well, probably not but I would still focus more on garbage posting than alt hunting. I wouldn't care if someone had 1k accounts as long as he has decent posts. You might as well tag shit posters too.

well, that's actually what he's doing. marlboroza (and anyone with a brain) knows the bounty campaigns aren't getting scammed. it's just an underhanded way to tag shitposters.

but i don't think that's a proper use of the trust system, and i believe theymos has specifically said that. "shitposter" ≠ "scammer".

[actmyname]

sure, the real root problem is whoever added you to DT and i'd like to remove them from my trust network too. but i don't think that information is public. please correct me if i'm wrong.

It absolutely is public. If you temporarily change your trust list to exclusively DefaultTrust then you can enter the hierarchal view of the depth and investigate who excluded/included whom.

In fact, all trust inclusions/exclusions are public and in a document:

https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz

I made it so that'll update every Saturday at 02:52 UTC. -> is "trusts", and -/> is "excludes". Only people with at least 1 post are included. If someone has never touched their trust list, then their trust in DefaultTrust is not shown.

[figmentofmyass]

sure, the real root problem is whoever added you to DT and i'd like to remove them from my trust network too. but i don't think that information is public. please correct me if i'm wrong.

It absolutely is public. If you temporarily change your trust list to exclusively DefaultTrust then you can enter the hierarchal view of the depth and investigate who excluded/included whom.

haha d'oh, thanks! i sort of knew it was public since you can see who's on DT on the trust page, but i could never figure out how to read who included/excluded who. never noticed the hierarchal view---that's really helpful.

[suchmoon]

scams require the existence of victims.

No. An attempted scam with 0 victims is still a scam.

Whether you like bounty campaigns or not is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make it right and all that.

[figmentofmyass]

scams require the existence of victims.

No. An attempted scam with 0 victims is still a scam.

a scam implies a fraud or swindle, which requires a victim. that is, you can't defraud "nobody." if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around and all that.

and you removed the relevant part of the quote:

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.

Whether you like bounty campaigns or not is irrelevant.

what are you talking about? my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

and it's not just bounties either; that's just the most obvious example. like the digaran example above. it's normal now to see tags for "saying something untrustworthy once" (even in jest) or "lying" (as if the tagger could prove intent) or generic "untrustworthy" behavior. retaliatory tags. etc.

it's just rare these days to see people tagged for a bona fide scam. it's always stupid petty bullshit.

[suchmoon]

scams require the existence of victims.

No. An attempted scam with 0 victims is still a scam.

a scam implies a fraud or swindle, which requires a victim. that is, you can't defraud "nobody." if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around and all that.

No. What you're describing is a target, who may or may not become a victim. A scam is a scam even if it's unsuccessful and doesn't defraud anybody, or if it defrauds somebody who you think deserves it.

[figmentofmyass]

scams require the existence of victims.

No. An attempted scam with 0 victims is still a scam.

a scam implies a fraud or swindle, which requires a victim. that is, you can't defraud "nobody." if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around and all that.

No. What you're describing is a target, who may or may not become a victim. A scam is a scam even if it's unsuccessful and doesn't defraud anybody, or if it defrauds somebody who you think deserves it.

this tangent is really diverging from the point:

my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim. the juxtaposition in that article between "fraud" and "hoax" points out the requisite factors:

A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deliberate deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving a victim.

anyway, these ICOs and their bounties are not being materially damaged. they're not victims. in fact, they're lining their pockets (and probably exit scamming) on the backs of these horribly untrustworthy scamming shitposters. the idea that vaporware cash-grab ICOs are honorable and are "being cheated" employs such upside-down logic that it's painful. and they are the root spam problem too; they provide all the incentive and reinforce the terribly low posting standards. the bounty hunters are just a symptom, yet they get all the ire. the logic here is just totally backwards.

[suchmoon]

this tangent is really diverging from the point:

my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim.

This is a forum, not a court of law, and we are not talking about legal liability. Fraud is about intent.

Nice try with the dictionary but your links to scam/fraud definitions don't indicate that a victim must exist in order for something to be called scam or fraud.

Example IRL: if I get one of those "you won a cruise" letters I can call it a scam with a high degree of certainty without bothering to find out if there are any victims.

[iillaa]

@figmentofmyass
The scammer did not just got intention to scam but he created all the necessary tools to harm other ppl  it's not just a thought  .. and DT members  as an experienced  people will for sure  stop the scam before it happen or at least with the minimum  damages  .  ( some deals are worth more than 1 btc  i guess you can't afford to lose that to a potential scammer  ? Don't you  )  

[digaran]

this tangent is really diverging from the point:

my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim.

This is a forum, not a court of law, and we are not talking about legal liability. Fraud is about intent.

Nice try with the dictionary but your links to scam/fraud definitions don't indicate that a victim must exist in order for something to be called scam or fraud.

Example IRL: if I get one of those "you won a cruise" letters I can call it a scam with a high degree of certainty without bothering to find out if there are any victims.

@suchmoon, how would you know if you are making a mistake or not? if nobody tells you that you are making a mistake, you'd keep making the same mistakes and would think that you are doing the right thing. if you see marlboroza made a mistake by tagging me, you should tell him that. it would help him to improve himself.
You have the right to distrust me, but if your distrust of me is going to tag me red by default I don't deserve it

[suchmoon]

@suchmoon, how would you know if you are making a mistake or not? if nobody tells you that you are making a mistake, you'd keep making the same mistakes and would think that you are doing the right thing. if you see marlboroza made a mistake by tagging me, you should tell him that. it would help him to improve himself.
You have the right to distrust me, but if your distrust of me is going to tag me red by default I don't deserve it

This whining and moaning in unrelated threads is not going to make you more trustworthy. Sort it out with marlboroza.

[actmyname]

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim. the juxtaposition in that article between "fraud" and "hoax" points out the requisite factors:

A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deliberate deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving a victim.

I think it is ridiculous that you have to wait until after a scam has occurred to do something about it. The idea of that is simply ridiculous: prophylactic action should be made to prevent the possibility of having any victims. From a utilitarian perspective, wouldn't you rather have 0 victims as opposed to 1?

[allahabadi]

-snip-
From a utilitarian perspective, wouldn't you rather have 0 victims as opposed to 1?

From a hedonistic perspective, the individual would have to be the only one not to be scammed; since he'll be scamming all. 

#NotMyOpinion