🤔🤔🤔

[bill gator]

Especially considering the lack of willingness to even discuss trust ratings by those in DT, and the lack of consideration of verifiable facts and the opinion of the community of a whole of those in DT when handing out ratings.

I see the point you are making, but in this particular instance I don't see this being relevant. There certainly is no lack of willingness to discuss the ratings left on digaran. I don't believe anyone here to be lacking consideration for verifiable facts, besides digaran, and it seems like the general opinion of the community is that he's an untrustworthy troll. If the system is at fault for other problems, then that is to be discussed there; the grievances you claim in your post with the system and DT members are not applicable in this case. Unless, I'm missing something, in which case I'd love to hear it.

[pugman]

I would not put that much trust in the "system". Especially considering the lack of willingness to even discuss trust ratings by those in DT, and the lack of consideration of verifiable facts and the opinion of the community of a whole of those in DT when handing out ratings.

The trust system is too over-rated,yes. But it is what it is. People trust that green shit too much. Some DT members don't bother to explain their ratings sometimes,but suchmoon is fair in his ratings and judgement,from what I have seen. Suchmoon explained this case very well,whilst digaran didn't even bother to look at the reference.

Imagine if DT network gets even more decentralized,shit will get fucked up even more. Maybe a whole redo of DT network may change things for the better.

I guess some people just don't trust trolls and I don't blame them. Is diagran a scammer? There's no evidence for that. Is he untrustworthy? I wouldn't trust him exactly because of his behaviour. He's done several shady (or at the very least stupid) things and this is what happens when you spend your time acting like a buffoon and trolling because people don't know whether to take you seriously or not. I kinda felt sorry for him at first but I think he probably enjoys the attention of being an outcast now and isn't going to change so he's likely a lost cause.

He wants more than just mere attention. He wants to help the community(?). Probably not,but you never know. He almost left bitcointalk but alas.

[digaran]

Stop stalking me. soon you all will lose the trust of this community. we can see that you all are using merit and trust system for your own personal gains.  for example a known extortionist who is also a merit source has merited "yes" with 5 sMerits. why? because he doesn't know how not to use merit/trust as a personal tool.

The fact that I have offered a service in exchange for money and got tagged for it shows that suchmoon is trying to sabotage me here. who the fuck are any of you to tell me that my time is not worth money and I can't ask for money in exchange for my time?

Why are you blind? suchmoon didn't tag me accurately the first time, he only tagged me for the second time after I pointed out his misuse of the DT power. then he said that he wont remove his tag under any circumstances. no chance of appeal and no chance of changing his mind. he wants me tagged no matter what I do. tell me if that is not abuse of power. we live in a civilized world, acting like this is barbaric. I have asked him to remove his first tag on me to discuss terms about removing the second tag, he said in a PM that I have a meltdown and he is not going to remove them.

What he wants is that I should earn his trust, how can I do that? by doing a trade with him? that is wrong and trust farming. by agreeing with him and suck for him? I wont do it. I want him to tag me for the right reason, not because he doesn't trust me. whatever I do to earn his trust would be wrong. I don't need his trust or respect. I don't want to have anything to do with him. he is an irresponsible person and a bully, he should be removed from DT. even if he removes his tags on me, he still should be removed. all he is doing is holding people down.

[suchmoon]

I would not put that much trust in the "system". Especially considering the lack of willingness to even discuss trust ratings by those in DT, and the lack of consideration of verifiable facts and the opinion of the community of a whole of those in DT when handing out ratings.

I'm not going to remove my feedback.

The reason I stated this is that digaran started that thread (the one I negged him for) AFTER he got marlboroza to reconsider the first neg. That is a very deliberate action that makes me think digaran is unable to stay out of trouble, and that's pretty much what I stated in my feedback.

Not everything has to fit your made-up DT template, Mr. Know-It-All-Escrow-Scammer.

What he wants is that I should earn his trust

Stop lying. I don't want that. For reasons stated above.

he should be removed from DT

Yet you're refusing to contact DT1 members. Let's get it over with.

[HCP]

I want him to tag me for the right reason, not because he doesn't trust me.

Ummm... that's the whole point behind the trust system... he doesn't trust you, so he gave you negative trust.

The fact that I have offered a service in exchange for money and got tagged for it shows that suchmoon is trying to sabotage me here. who the fuck are any of you to tell me that my time is not worth money and I can't ask for money in exchange for my time?

Suchmoon didn't tag you for trying to offer a service in exchange for money... they tagged you for offering a service that you could not possibly provide in exchange for money (with no refunds). There is quite a large distinction between those two things.

I believe that suchmoon has made this distinction pretty clear.

[Quickseller]

You show you are trustworthy over time by acting in a trustworthy way, or at least in a way in which others view you as trustworthy.

Yeah, which explains the current trust rating that is being portrayed in digaran's account. The negative trust that DT members have left him are only because of digaran's behavior. Had he been straightforward from start, who knows things would have been different.

I guess some people just don't trust trolls and I don't blame them. Is diagran a scammer? There's no evidence for that. Is he untrustworthy? I wouldn't trust him exactly because of his behaviour. He's done several shady (or at the very least stupid) things and this is what happens when you spend your time acting like a buffoon and trolling because people don't know whether to take you seriously or not. I kinda felt sorry for him at first but I think he probably enjoys the attention of being an outcast now and isn't going to change so he's likely a lost cause.

Here is the problem. When someone is deciding if they want to trade with him, they will know that a negative rating means “~this person scammed you or you strongly believe he is a scammer” and when they review his ratings they will see this doesn’t really match the situation so they might decide to trust him, at least a little bit. Next this person trading with diagran reviews the ratings of someone else they are considering to trade with and it is the same situation, they aren’t really a scammer but have negative ratings. Eventually this person will stop relying on negative ratings because they do frequently are given for those who aren’t really scammers and eventually trust an actual scammer with negative trust.

If you don’t find someone trustworthy but have no evidence they are a scammer, you should not give them positive trust and you can warn others in sales threads if you wish. Pretty much everyone has no reason to be trusted but shouldn’t have negative trust and isn’t necessarily a scammer. If someone doesn’t have positive ratings from reputable sources anyone trading with them should take precautions to protect themselves, no premptative negative rating is required for this.

[Lauda]

-snip-

A hypocrite scammer and his concern trolling at its finest:

Not everything has to fit your made-up DT template, Mr. Know-It-All-Escrow-Scammer.

It's time to let these threads go or at least consolidate them into one.

[suchmoon]

Here is the problem. When someone is deciding if they want to trade with him, they will know that a negative rating means “~this person scammed you or you strongly believe he is a scammer” and when they review his ratings they will see this doesn’t really match the situation so they might decide to trust him, at least a little bit. Next this person trading with diagran reviews the ratings of someone else they are considering to trade with and it is the same situation, they aren’t really a scammer but have negative ratings. Eventually this person will stop relying on negative ratings because they do frequently are given for those who aren’t really scammers and eventually trust an actual scammer with negative trust.

If you don’t find someone trustworthy but have no evidence they are a scammer, you should not give them positive trust and you can warn others in sales threads if you wish. Pretty much everyone has no reason to be trusted but shouldn’t have negative trust and isn’t necessarily a scammer. If someone doesn’t have positive ratings from reputable sources anyone trading with them should take precautions to protect themselves, no premptative negative rating is required for this.

Slippery slope fallacy with no basis in fact. I could say that the hypothetical "someone" would appreciate the early warning regarding shady shit involving their potential trading partner and that would make DT more useful as a prevention tool in addition to being a scammer labeling tool. On the other hand the hypothetical scenario that you're describing is a good use case for an exclusion. So why don't you exclude me with all your alts and move on.

Not sure WTF "premptative" means but if you need to invent new words to make a point then you lost the argument.

[digaran]

We can see that at least one of the DT1 members has an alt account included on DT2, what makes you think that other DT1 members are not doing the same? normal members are giving their alt accounts merits, what makes you think that DT members are not giving their own alt accounts positive trust?

I'd like to advise against trusting suchmoon, actmyname and marlboroza with anything. this is based on my own personal interactions with them, I believe that they are not honest and are abusing merit and trust system for their own personal gains, whether it to be for bullying other forum members or to give their friends merits and +trust. suchmoon has given positive trust to counter a negative trust given by a reputable forum member. he/she is abusing his DT power.

If you read the reference of his red trust on me, there is no attempt of scam. I have asked for money in exchange for my time, however after seeing the community's reaction to my behavior I have decided to change my behavior and now am offering a free service, yet suchmoon insists on holding my reputation hostage. this person shouldn't be trusted.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

Your concerns regarding suchmoon, actmyname and marlboroza have been noted. Any chance you could stop endlessly spamming nonsense now?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

When someone is deciding if they want to trade with him, they will know that a negative rating means “~this person scammed you or you strongly believe he is a scammer”

Eh, yeah that's probably true and I realize digaran hasn't scammed anyone that I know of, but I'm not sure if he's a person I'd want to trade with--imagine trying to do a deal with someone as mentally unstable as he is.  I didn't tag him because, as I've said before, I think he's basically a harmless nincompoop who barks a lot but hasn't yet bit anyone hard enough to make the skin bleed.  I don't think he's been tagged inappropriately, because his taggers don't trust him.  Period. 

That quote from the trust page "this person scammed you or you strongly believe he is a scammer" has become just a guideline and we all know it.  Bitcointalk doesn't have a tool to alert people that a member is a shitposter, or a merit beggar, or an insane person who hasn't scammed anyone but probably shouldn't be trusted.  It's a one-size-fits-all trust system, and people should look into any comments on anyone's trust page and make their own decision based on what is said and what's in the reference link (if one is given).

[suchmoon]

We can see that at least one of the DT1 members has an alt account included on DT2

No, we can't see that. Who is that?

what makes you think that other DT1 members are not doing the same? normal members are giving their alt accounts merits, what makes you think that DT members are not giving their own alt accounts positive trust?

Lack of facts would make me think that.

I'd like to advise against trusting suchmoon, actmyname and marlboroza with anything. this is based on my own personal interactions with them, I believe that they are not honest and are abusing merit and trust system for their own personal gains, whether it to be for bullying other forum members or to give their friends merits and +trust. suchmoon has given positive trust to counter a negative trust given by a reputable forum member. he/she is abusing his DT power.

Countering neg trust is not abuse.

If you read the reference of his red trust on me, there is no attempt of scam. I have asked for money in exchange for my time, however after seeing the community's reaction to my behavior I have decided to change my behavior and now am offering a free service, yet suchmoon insists on holding my reputation hostage. this person shouldn't be trusted.

The feedback is factual. It will stay.

[pugman]

We can see that at least one of the DT1 members has an alt account included on DT2

No, we can't see that. Who is that?

Probably hilariousandco/hilariousetc.

It's a one-size-fits-all trust system, and people should look into any comments on anyone's trust page and make their own decision based on what is said and what's in the reference link (if one is given).

People don't look at the comments. People just look at the something that just freaks them out,and they just flip out without giving the benefit of the doubt. People are like that in general,they don't know shit. They just react rather than respond. So general people would just assume digaran to be a scammer. We all know that digaran is a nuts but you can give him the benefit of the doubt to see for yourself what he wants to do actually by converting the tag from negative to neutral? I am not siding on him,though.

[suchmoon]

We all know that digaran is a nuts but you can give him the benefit of the doubt to see for yourself what he wants to do actually by converting the tag from negative to neutral? I am not siding on him,though.

The reason I'm not doing that is because he already flipped once after he neutralized marlboroza's feedback. Here is the sequence of events IIRC:

1) digaran suggests to collect payments to remove red trust.
2) digaran gets negative trust from marlboroza, which becomes red trust once marlboroza is added to DT2.
4) digaran manages to convince marlboroza that he was "joking" (?) and red trust becomes neutral.
5) digaran starts a thread offering dodgy "service" promising to remove red trust for a fee.
6) digaran gets permanent negative trust from me.

Based on this pattern I was quite certain that if I removed my neg digaran would continue to ramp up his shady activities involving trust, merits, or other forum facilities and I clearly stated in response to his initial complaint that my feedback will stay. Since then digaran has doubled down on lies and conspiracy theories, which is reinforcing my opinion. I don't believe in third chances except for my kids and to the best of my knowledge digaran does not qualify for that exemption.

[digaran]

We all know that digaran is a nuts but you can give him the benefit of the doubt to see for yourself what he wants to do actually by converting the tag from negative to neutral? I am not siding on him,though.

The reason I'm not doing that is because he already flipped once after he neutralized marlboroza's feedback. Here is the sequence of events IIRC:

1) digaran suggests to collect payments to remove red trust.
2) digaran gets negative trust from marlboroza, which becomes red trust once marlboroza is added to DT2.
4) digaran manages to convince marlboroza that he was "joking" (?) and red trust becomes neutral.
5) digaran starts a thread offering dodgy "service" promising to remove red trust for a fee.
6) digaran gets permanent negative trust from me.

Based on this pattern I was quite certain that if I removed my neg digaran would continue to ramp up his shady activities involving trust, merits, or other forum facilities and I clearly stated in response to his initial complaint that my feedback will stay. Since then digaran has doubled down on lies and conspiracy theories, which is reinforcing my opinion. I don't believe in third chances except for my kids and to the best of my knowledge digaran does not qualify for that exemption.

Except I never asked to remove my own tags on people in exchange of money for myself. it was marlboroza's action that made me think we could have a chance reasoning with people.

I asked for money in exchange for my service representing other people, I would have wanted to act as their representative instead of them acting alone on their own. however I have decided to offer a free service after you judged me.

I will not engage in any discussion with you anymore because it is useless to discuss anything after you have said that you wont remove the tags under any circumstances. I would let people to decide for themselves and see if there was any attempt at scamming by me.

[suchmoon]

Except I never asked to remove my own tags on people in exchange of money for myself. it was marlboroza's action that made me think we could have a chance reasoning with people.

Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being alts or in collusion or otherwise "abusing" the system is not reasoning. Nice attempt at whitewashing though.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being alts or in collusion or otherwise "abusing" the system is not reasoning. Nice attempt at whitewashing though.

That's exactly what an alt of actmyname/marlboroza/blazed/me/theymos/satoshi/every hero member/every legendary member/every DT1/every DT2/the cartel/the mafia/Jesus would say!

[Lauda]

Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being alts or in collusion or otherwise "abusing" the system is not reasoning. Nice attempt at whitewashing though.

That's exactly what an alt of actmyname/marlboroza/blazed/me/theymos/satoshi/every hero member/every legendary member/every DT1/every DT2/the cartel/the mafia/Jesus would say!

Wait, where is my name? I thought I was the master of these alt collusion things

[o_e_l_e_o]

Wait, where is my name? I thought I was the master of these alt collusion things

Shit, my bad. Although we have previously established that you are an alt of Satoshi (and The Pharmacist, and nullius, and god knows how many others), so I guess you are included by proxy.

[digaran]

@suchmoon, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you in any way, tell me what can I do to fix this and then we could move forward together improving the trust system and the forum as a whole?