I'm just curious about a negative feedback

[lukeburchill]

I'm just curious about a negative feedback, I see in illustrating the negative feedback is "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." but I see many members have negative feedback by describing outside the scammer. I know that DT members when giving trust are not moderated and depend on each member of DT itself.

please give me an explanation.

Edit:
I think now have the answer from Negative feedback on outside Type: already specified

Up until the merit system got rolled out, I was tagging shitposters along with actmyname, and it was controversial to say the least.  But it was obvious that something needed to be done to combat spam.  It wasn't a good use of the trust system, but that was the only tool DT members (or anyone) had at the time.  If someone got a shitposter tag, that would make it harder for them to join a sig campaign and they would thereby lose their incentive to keep shitposting.

and

Trust is subjective. The rating you give or receive , from a DT or non DT-member, is all dependent upon the circumstances.

Initially the trust system was just to tag scammers or to give out positive trust to those who people have trades with. But now, its more than just that. Personal feuds, account buying/selling, Counters, merit/trust abuse, lying, promoting a ponzi et al have become a part of the ratings that people send/ receive.

There is constant misuse of the system, by DT and non-DT members, but it is usually because of the system being too complicated. Sometimes people act out of their mind, if you feel that any rating by a DT member is not fair or valid, do create a thread in Reputation.

thanks all for replies.

... locked thread

[mdayonliner]

I know that DT members when giving trust are not moderated and depend on each member of DT itself.

It's not only for DT it's for all. Trusts are not moderated by mod or staffs or anyone else except the person who left the trust.

I'm just curious about a negative feedback, I see in illustrating the negative feedback is "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." but I see many members have negative feedback by describing outside the scammer.

Every trust is relative, depends on the person's observation who left the trust. It does not have to be the same for you. What I do is, I do a little research on the references and then I make my decision, instead of blindly depending on the red paints.

[TheUltraElite]

The fact they were added to DT is a proof that they leave "accurate" feedback and not based on emotion/conspiracy theories. Their judgement is generally fair and backed up with evidence which show the suspicious nature of the person being marked with a red.

As long as you dont deal in anything shady in the forum you can be safe from getting a negative trust from DT. It is a mark of shame for the potential and proven scammers.

I know that DT members when giving trust are not moderated and depend on each member of DT itself.

Depends on DT correct. But as a general consensus with the person who added them to DT they have to follow some guidelines about what to tag as red and what not to.
I might be wrong though. Any DT member is free to correct me if they wish to.

[Joel_Jantsen]

The fact they were added to DT is a proof that they leave "accurate" feedback and not based on emotion/conspiracy theories. Their judgement is generally fair and backed up with evidence which show the suspicious nature of the person being marked with a red.

That's not always true. If the DT feedback were so perfect, why would we have a thread about an 'unfair' feedback every other day? The Feedback left by the DT members in most of the cases are rather personal. The judgement doesn't have to be fair nor it is in most of the cases. Giving the ability to a few members to add anybody to the list just shows how centralised the DT system is. To sum it up, people sucking up to each other are often added to the list by biased means. I can show you number of actual contributors to the forum who work hard to keep the forum free of spam/scam and they are no where near that list.

As long as you dont deal in anything shady in the forum you can be safe from getting a negative trust from DT. It is a mark of shame for the potential and proven scammers.

You can literally get a negative feedback from the DT member for anything.

Having said that, you can always customise your DT settings by adding only members whose feedback your consider appropriate.

[khufuking]

I'm just curious about a negative feedback, I see in illustrating the negative feedback is "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." but I see many members have negative feedback by describing outside the scammer. I know that DT members when giving trust are not moderated and depend on each member of DT itself.

please give me an explanation.

Edit:
I'm reading the explanation answer from the members below me

Not all feedback left by DT members is 100% accurate, we are humans and that is our nature we are not perfect and we make mistakes . But let me point out to you that the statement you quoted above should be taken as it is and what falls below it, for example DT member can leave negative feedback based on shady behavior, account selling, ponzi projects, and so on .. while all this mentioned is not a direct scam they will probably led to a scam and DT just tagged a negative trust to protect others that didn't notice this actions from this specific member . If you open some feedback you will notice this words ( Deal with caution ) so there is probably no scam happen as DT are experienced and hard to get scammed but they are warning others that there might be something wrong with this member and they need to be careful while dealing with him .

[lukeburchill]

You can literally get a negative feedback from the DT member for anything.

does that mean DT members can provide negative feedback outside (Type:) already specified?

[allahabadi]

You can literally get a negative feedback from the DT member for anything.

does that mean DT members can provide negative feedback outside (Type:) already specified?

Definitely, read mine.

They can even leave feedback for poor English skills and have done so.

[lukeburchill]

I hope bad English skills like me never get negative feedback because of this forum isn't only for members with good English skills.

[DaftAjax]

I hope bad English skills like me never get negative feedback because of this forum isn't only for members with good English skills.

Well that is true, being fluent in English is not exactly a requirement for you to join this forum. It just so happen that most of the contents of this forum is in English language, so might as well learn the skill. Not just making you express clear statements from your thoughts but also to have better understanding to the topics in hand.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I hope bad English skills like me never get negative feedback because of this forum isn't only for members with good English skills.

If you can't write in coherent English and yet insist on doing it for the purposes of making money here, you deserve a ban--and there is plenty of that going on here.  Most of the people who can't write English flock to spam megathreads and might as well be bots, because not only can you not understand what they're writing, it isn't useful or interesting anyway.

Up until the merit system got rolled out, I was tagging shitposters along with actmyname, and it was controversial to say the least.  But it was obvious that something needed to be done to combat spam.  It wasn't a good use of the trust system, but that was the only tool DT members (or anyone) had at the time.  If someone got a shitposter tag, that would make it harder for them to join a sig campaign and they would thereby lose their incentive to keep shitposting.

I have no regrets about doing it, but I'm very happy the merit system now exists.  That's why I try to give out my sMerits pretty much as soon as I get some to give.

[Joel_Jantsen]

You can literally get a negative feedback from the DT member for anything.

does that mean DT members can provide negative feedback outside (Type:) already specified?

Definitely, read mine.

They can even leave feedback for poor English skills and have done so.

Your feedback literally says :

I don't trust this user due to their obvious biased malicious nature. Do your own diligence before dealing with them.

I don't understand the co-relation between  having poor English skills and being biased or whatever Lauda has tagged you for. Either way, their feedback is neutral I don't know what you're talking about.

[digaran]

For example: read my red tags, I dare you to find a single scam victim of mine, this forum is operating based of giving freedom of everything to people including freedom of abuse and harassment. once you speak against a DT member they'll find something on you to tag you red.
Usually scammers would do that, when you try to expose them for what they really are, they get stupid and would try to bash you with everything they've got, in our case it's DT red tag.

[pugman]

I'm just curious about a negative feedback, I see in illustrating the negative feedback is "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer." but I see many members have negative feedback by describing outside the scammer. I know that DT members when giving trust are not moderated and depend on each member of DT itself.

please give me an explanation.

Edit:
I'm reading the explanation answer from the members below me

Trust is subjective. The rating you give or receive , from a DT or non DT-member, is all dependent upon the circumstances.

Initially the trust system was just to tag scammers or to give out positive trust to those who people have trades with. But now, its more than just that. Personal feuds, account buying/selling, Counters, merit/trust abuse, lying, promoting a ponzi et al have become a part of the ratings that people send/ receive.

There is constant misuse of the system, by DT and non-DT members, but it is usually because of the system being too complicated. Sometimes people act out of their mind, if you feel that any rating by a DT member is not fair or valid, do create a thread in Reputation.

For example: read my red tags, I dare you to find a single scam victim of mine, this forum is operating based of giving freedom of everything to people including freedom of abuse and harassment. once you speak against a DT member they'll find something on you to tag you red.
Usually scammers would do that, when you try to expose them for what they really are, they get stupid and would try to bash you with everything they've got, in our case it's DT red tag.

The tags you received are justified and have been explained on numerous occasions. No one can do anything, if you're too stupid to understand anything or if you don't realize why you got tagged in the first place. You were lying, you were offering a service for money for which you gave a guarantee(?)and you were accusing every DT member with many many allegations without any proof.

Refer here:
Marlboroza changed email address after getting on DT2!
Voluntary service to defend your case!
Do not trust suchmoon, a blatant trust abuser.
Do not trust actmyname.
@DT1 and DT2 members.
According to TP it's OK to tag hacked accounts.

[digaran]

if you feel that any rating by a DT member is not fair or valid, do create a thread in Reputation.

You are a funny comedian I'll give you that, creating a thread in reputation usually earns you more negative trust because DT members don't like it when you speak against their fuck buddies.

[pugman]

if you feel that any rating by a DT member is not fair or valid, do create a thread in Reputation.

You are a funny comedian I'll give you that, creating a thread in reputation usually earns you more negative trust because DT members don't like it when you speak against their fuck buddies.

Thanks! I'll be honest too, you were a good troll before, but now you ruined that too. Your jokes turned into mere paragraphs with no wit,as time flew.

But creating a thread in reputation doesn't warrant you a negative trust. That is a stereotype. If you have valid concerns, do voice it out. DT members might speak against it, but if you have undeniable proof, either they'll agree with you, or they'll be removed from DT because of their lack of mature understanding.

I'll give you an example or two about this:

People defended aTriz left and right(including me because I thought he was a good manager) before he was tagged and I stood corrected.

People defended alia(because of her/him being a great contributor) until theymos made the possibility of the con attempt true.

TheButterZone was removed from DT because of his auction rules and his strict tags.

There are more cases, just because you didn't know how to handle a situation, doesn't mean others don't.

[xtraelv]

That's not always true. If the DT feedback were so perfect, why would we have a thread about an 'unfair' feedback every other day? The Feedback left by the DT members in most of the cases are rather personal. The judgement doesn't have to be fair nor it is in most of the cases. Giving the ability to a few members to add anybody to the list just shows how centralised the DT system is. To sum it up, people sucking up to each other are often added to the list by biased means. I can show you number of actual contributors to the forum who work hard to keep the forum free of spam/scam and they are no where near that list.

The DT system is centralized but I think while it is not perfect it works 99% of the time.
As long as a clear reason is given a reader of that feedback can determine whether to trust that person or not.
It is only a warning. It doesn't stop them from posting or conducting trades.

Too many DT2s also can be an issue. When there has been a fight among them the negatives can really fly - and that can be detrimental for the whole system. For such reasons it is good to keep it as a small group that respect and trust each other - regardless of whether others agree.

This way at least most DT2 feedback is consistent. I have seen the DT2s in action and while I don't agree with everything I have not seen them being extremely unfair. I have seen a number of times where they have asked for more proof or  given the benefit of doubt or have not tagged a person because they consider them to be a contributor (despite their obvious flaws).  Ultimately it is their personal decision as to whether they want to tag, warn others or punish the user.

You can literally get a negative feedback from the DT member for anything.

Having said that, you can always customise your DT settings by adding only members whose feedback your consider appropriate.

You can get a negative for a variety of things. It is up to that person to determine whether they trust you. That can be highly subjective.
Things like merit abuse, account sales, participation in the hype of a dodgy coin all are dodgy but subjective and dependent on the damage done.
For instance - I have strong views on account sales, ponzis, dodgy ICOs and phishing scams. I have less strong views on merit abuse.
(Rather than tagging merit abusers it is better to "report their shitposts" and if they get perma-banned the merits are permanently gone)
Eventually the airdropped merits will run out and merit abusers will become history.

It doesn't mean that they don't all deserve to be tagged but it is up to that individual DT.

Customizing your setting will only determine what you see on other peoples profiles. Other users on default settings will always see your trust if it is from a DT.

For example: read my red tags, I dare you to find a single scam victim of mine, this forum is operating based of giving freedom of everything to people including freedom of abuse and harassment. once you speak against a DT member they'll find something on you to tag you red.
Usually scammers would do that, when you try to expose them for what they really are, they get stupid and would try to bash you with everything they've got, in our case it's DT red tag.

I thought you wore the negative trust like medals.

Firstly - I have no issue with you. I think that some of the DT2s might even like you a little bit as a form of stockholm syndrome or masochism.

From what I read is that  you got the negatives initially for advocating for other users that got negative feedback. It meant that you were representing people that were classified as scammers.

While this may have been of noble intent but the DT2s found that untrustworthy. Tagged users are able to put their case themselves in the reputation thread.

It is a bit like if you start picketing a police station because someone unfairly received a conviction. You may get arrested for being a public nuisance.

Whether it has been fairly given - I'm staying out of that discussion - but I'm not sure whether your feedback does you much harm. It states that they find you a troll. It isn't visible in Meta and I doubt it would stop people from doing a trade with you since there is nothing there that indicates that you would steal.

It may even give you more credibility with those that feel they have been unfairly tagged.

[digaran]

I think that some of the DT2s might even like you a little bit as a form of stockholm syndrome or masochism.

So you are saying that I'm their cute little bitch? they like to torture me but at the same time they like me?

It meant that you were representing people that were classified as scammers.

I never said that, I have stated that I'd only defend a case if I find them innocent and unfairly tagged, I never said that I would defend scammers unlike some DT2 members who'd give free pass to scammers by countering negative feedbacks, I'm not even a DT member, my feedbacks are untrusted. good for you for staying out of that discussion because once you step in and try to defend me, you'll get tagged eventually by the cartel members.

@Puggy, have you forgotten that you included my thread as one of the ten posts in your merit source application? now you are saying that you think a post of mine which got me red tagged also deserves some merits or are you trolling or are you now somebody else? since people share their accounts all the time to do the garbage posting and get paid 24/7. I like the other pugman more.

[xtraelv]

I think that some of the DT2s might even like you a little bit as a form of stockholm syndrome or masochism.

So you are saying that I'm their cute little bitch? they like to torture me but at the same time they like me?

Yeah but I think it is more like a bit of mutual torture.

It is possible to find someone annoying and likable at the same time.
I'm sure some of them used the ignore function but others like at least some of the content you post.

I like this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3008745.msg30939289#msg30939289

So you are saying that I'm their cute little bitch?

I have a very suggestible mind. When you say something like that I picture it.
Like a song that gets stuck in your head.

Someone compared some of the shitposts to a Haiku. Whenever I see a shitpost it looks like a Haiku now. Not sure if that is good or bad.

[digaran]

I like this post:

You don't get to merit what you like (thanks though I'd appreciate it keep them coming ), this is what I'm saying, people shouldn't tag others just because they don't like somebody and their actions/posts.
You merit somewhat high quality posts, or you tag people if you see that they are trying to scam others. I never scammed anybody and will never do.

1- I never said that I could remove trust feedbacks or counter them in exchange of money.
2- I'm not a DT member, so my feedback could never make people paying money (to the forum).
3- I'm not a DT member, so my feedback is untrusted, regardless Vod wanted something to retaliate against my untrusted feedback.
4- Marlboroza was included on DT2 by hilariousandco, I spoke against them and they tagged me. my neutral tag still remains on marlboroza. I'm waiting for him to change pass and writing style to call him out for selling a DT2 account.

[xtraelv]

I like this post:

You don't get to merit what you like (thanks though I'd appreciate it keep them coming )
You merit somewhat high quality posts, or you tag people if you see that they are trying to scam others. I never scammed anybody and will never do.

I didn't discuss any merits. Liking a post doesn't mean it doesn't have meritable quality. I realise you were saying it in jest but I've become very fussy with giving out merits ever since I was accused here .

I tend to avoid merit topics and generally avoid giving merits to topics with merit in the title since I think a lot of them are over merited and attracted merit farming (posting for the purpose of harvesting merits).
Unless it has some clever analytics like what DdmrDdmr does - that is meritable stuff.

I do enjoy getting merits because it is a recognition that people like the effort it took to make the post. Also I enjoy being able to give the merits to others that deserve them. (Although I don't think I would enjoy being a merit source - the begging would annoy me)

I also don't believe you would try to scam someone. But it is a bit like a protester that gets arrested for public disobedience or public nuisance. They get a conviction but not for dishonesty.

A DT placing trust is no different to a non DT placing trust except for one difference - it shows by default.

Anyone can modify their settings to show no trust or run their own trust list. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

It wouldn't show others from seeing the default trust that others placed - but if someone clicks the untrusted link they see trust left by others too.

According to trust placed on me by a scammer that has since been nuked -  I'm some bad former silkroad drug dealer because I wrote an article about silk road and advocated for free speech.
Not bad for someone who drinks alcohol perhaps once a year and has never tied weed. But I wish I had known about bitcoin when Silkroad existed. I wouldn't have used it on Silkroad but I'd have a bigger Bitcoin HODL stash.