LoyceV's reputation thread

[LoyceV]

Ever since I was put on DT2 (around March I think), I've been thinking about how to use it without abusing it. So far, I've only used my DT2 red trust for hacked accounts, scammers and spambots. Yesterday, I left the first green trust to 8 people who joined my 10-10-10 altcoin experiment 10 months earlier, and paid when required. I left neutral trust for a nineth person who has 3 non-DT ponzi-accusations against him. It didn't feel right to leave him green trust, even though our deal went well.

I think I'm being fair with my trust, and if anyone disagrees, feel free to post here.

Today, user elsie34 left me this feedback, which made me decide to open this topic:

I don't recognize the username, and I don't think I've ever interacted with this person. The Comments sounds positive, but the color is negative. I've left a PM earlier today from LoyceMobile, asking if this was some how a mistake, but so far without getting a response.

I kinda want to leave red trust in response, but it doesn't feel right to (ab)use DT-powers to do so. On the other hand, I obviously don't trust someone who leaves me random red trust without any reference link.
So, I'll leave this question for the community: what to do? This question has been answered ("do nothing"), thanks!

Update 2: it was a mistake and the red trust has been removed.


No spam
Contrary to most of my threads, this one won't be self-moderated. I don't want to be able to censor this thread.
Local rules
I don't want any (signature) spam in here.
Insubstantial posts will be reported.
Do not quote the entire OP.

[digaran]

Don't leave retaliatory feedback, even if they're wrong let them be. if you want to tag people like that then you are no different than ogy and other trust abusers. I can vouch for you to be fair with your trust ratings, you don't bully people, you don't use DT for financial benefit of your own business like almost every other DT.
IMO other DT members should ask the opinions of community members first before tagging anybody but they all think that they own this place and that they are always right.

My zero satoshi.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I would advise you not to leave a retaliatory feedback just for that.  If you were not on DT, it might be arguably OK but my feeling is that you have to pull back a lot when you're on DT.  I don't even look at my feedback much; I'm sure I've got negs from people I've never dealt with or even left trust for.

When I occasionally make sales threads, I usually specify in the terms that it'll be a neutral-feedback transaction so that I don't get people wanting to deal with me for a positive one.  I haven't given out a lot of green trust since I got on DT, maybe 3 or 4.  I think that's being prudent.

It's good you're asking about this.  When I got put on DT, Lauda made some very useful suggestions, but he/she doesn't seem to be around much anymore and it'd be great if she/he responded to your dilemma here.

[Quickseller]

I would ignore that person. I don’t give much credence to those who leave retaliatory negative trust. Those types of ratings are common and abbr ignored. If there is any evidence to backup his claims in his reference (he didn’t leave one, but if he did) you would want to respond to defend yourself, not leave a negative in retaliation.

In general, I would say a negative rating in response to any kind of criticism is inappropriate and would look at anyone who leaves a single such rating with skepticism. In extreme cases, this may be appropriate though.


In regards to your positive trust policy, I would suggest that you not give a positive rating for every transaction you are involved in. If you risked money in a transaction (intentionally or not), you should leave a positive rating. If you have traded with someone many times (either directly or as an escrow agent), and the person acts professional and otherwise appears trustworthy, you may want to consider leaving a positive rating— you need to use good judgment in these cases, and you should be confident this person is not trading with you to get a trust rating.

[DarkStar_]

In regards to your positive trust policy, I would suggest that you not give a positive rating for every transaction you are involved in. If you risked money in a transaction (intentionally or not), you should leave a positive rating. If you have traded with someone many times (either directly or as an escrow agent), and the person acts professional and otherwise appears trustworthy, you may want to consider leaving a positive rating— you need to use good judgment in these cases, and you should be confident this person is not trading with you to get a trust rating.

I agree with this; the people who took part in your 10 person experiment did not do anything notably trustworthy.

[mdayonliner]

I wouldn't say I understand the trust system very well, if I would then perhaps I could save my account from the neg by hilariousandco. Anyway it's irrelevant here.

Being a DT is a great responsibility. You are one of those trusted member who are representing the entire forum reputation. It's good to see that you think twice before leaving a feedback and I hope all the DTs do the same, even after they leave a feedback (heads up to marlboroza). There could be situations where you could be wrong for your judgement and admitting it - is not gonna make you less respectful.

The feedback from elsie34 is an untrusted feedback so it does not matter. Seems like the person wanted to give you a positive one but end up selecting the wrong option. I used to leave a neutral trust if I felt that I was given red for a wrong reason (now a days I don't even care ever since I got the red and another neutral from Lutpin. The Lutpin one did not affect me much mentally but the hilari one destroyed me mentally) to explain why I was misjudged. I think leaving neutral is ok when you see you need to defend a red. Leaving red to defend an unnecessary red is kind of abusing the trust system especially when you are a DT coz your trust counts.

Well-done on the topic.

I would advise you not to leave a retaliatory feedback just for that.  If you were not on DT, it might be arguably OK but my feeling is that you have to pull back a lot when you're on DT. 

Correct, for a non DT it's ok to do whatever they want (use/abuse of anything), nobody counts but once someone become a DT then they are basically a role model/an example for the forum.

[suchmoon]

what to do?

You're overthinking it. Nobody cares about those garbage negs. Nobody that matters I mean. Forget it.

I would advise you not to leave a retaliatory feedback just for that.  If you were not on DT, it might be arguably OK but my feeling is that you have to pull back a lot when you're on DT.

Correct, for a non DT it's ok to do whatever they want (use/abuse of anything), nobody counts but once someone become a DT then they are basically a role model/an example for the forum.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but I think that's wrong. The trust system should be used responsibly at any level.

[mdayonliner]

Correct, for a non DT it's ok to do whatever they want (use/abuse of anything), nobody counts but once someone become a DT then they are basically a role model/an example for the forum.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but I think that's wrong. The trust system should be used responsibly at any level.

No it's real. I did not mean that it should not be used responsibly at any level, my emphasis was on DTs  
A DT should feel (be) more responsible and accurate on leaving their feedback.

[LoyceV]

Thanks for sharing so many opinions already, it's much appreciated.
I like how there's more or less consensus not to respond with red trust. This answers my question, I'll just ignore the weird unexplained red trust I got.

In regards to your positive trust policy, I would suggest that you not give a positive rating for every transaction you are involved in. If you risked money in a transaction (intentionally or not), you should leave a positive rating. If you have traded with someone many times (either directly or as an escrow agent), and the person acts professional and otherwise appears trustworthy, you may want to consider leaving a positive rating— you need to use good judgment in these cases, and you should be confident this person is not trading with you to get a trust rating.

I agree with this; the people who took part in your 10 person experiment did not do anything notably trustworthy.

I thought about this, and will explain my reasoning:

• I've seen hilariousandco leave trust "Paid and participating in the BitcoinTalk Premier League betting pool." to a dozen users in a smiliar thing, and I've seen minerjones leave for example this feedback: "Won auction, paid directly. Good communication. Thanks!!"
  Since I'm new to leaving positive DT-trust, I used these users as my main example.
• I've read more discussion about whether or not DT should leave positive trust after deals, and the opinions seemed to vary. The trust I left shows "Risked BTC amount 0", which is supposed to be used to weigh the trust.
• All people involved joined before I was put on DT. My plan (from the start) was to leave trust afterwards, just like I did to the people who (last year) joined my airdrop sharing service for 3 months in a row (I didn't leave trust for people who joined 1 or 2 months only). I probably won't do it again after ROUND 2, as I don't want people to join just to earn DT-trust.

Would I have left the positive trust to them if I would have started this thread earlier? I'm not sure now. But I do know I don't want to remove it now either.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Regarding the negative trust, I have seen people leaving only neutral "comment" like : "I've never dealt with this person."
You can do the same and explain what happen without painting it in RED.

Just to add >

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=elsie34

The users has one post and one Thread deleted. Maybe it is something in this direction.

[xolxol]

LoyceV you are far greater than any other DT member here!

Especially those who are abusing the current TRUST SYSTEM..negative trust should be given to those scammers like what Theymos has told those fuckers to do so,SPAMMERS? this is just BULLSHIT spam wont stop and thats the fact tell me a forum which doesnt have spam ...merit abusers?FUCK THEYMOS..he already said that this is not moderated why Default trust users are giving redtrusts to those people who are giving their alts merits whats the fucking business? Theymos doesnt care why would these shitty little babies care?? SHITPOSTERS? oh hell the fuckin world was created not once,not with only one language,english shouldnt be the standard language of this forum yes it was created by a well trained native speaker,but he should know what others will fucking feel about these racism...MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS? if Theymos wanted to ban these multi-account users why he didnt put it on the rules?


These DT members are fucked up,they do have their own rules which clearly violate everyone's shitholes.

I dont blame theymos but i do blame these DT's for not being fair to users,these fuckers should listen to the bible of this forum,RULES OF RULES.
If these morons wanted you to have REDS....they would search for some good reason and if they have found a single good reason,the paint would yours.

I do only admire Hilariousco/etc and you LoyceV as a DT member which is quite fair for most of the users....others are fucked up by their own beliefs.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

english shouldnt be the standard language of this forum

Stop whining.  There are forums that are English-language ones, and you're complaining about that?  Not to mention that there are many local boards where people can post if they don't speak English.

If people would stop trying to write in a language they don't know, there wouldn't be any problems, but we all know there IS a problem and we all know why it exists. 

You complain that we should only tag scammers (not prohibited by the forum) but complain that some spammers get tagged because it's not a forum rule.  Yeah, that makes sense.

[xolxol]

Just want to remind you that this is not a place to discuss the DTs right or wrong actions.
Please read the OP carefully before you post more # that way.

@LoyceV. I'll delete this comment in 24 hours. Hope the other posting off-topics will respect your rules and do the same.

No spam
Contrary to most of my threads, this one won't be self-moderated. I don't want to be able to censor this thread.
Local rules
I don't want any (signature) spam in here.
Insubstantial posts will be reported.
Do not quote the entire OP.

Its a compliment to LoyceV,you should be telling this to the butthurt The Pharmacist. 

[pugman]

In regards to your positive trust policy, I would suggest that you not give a positive rating for every transaction you are involved in. If you risked money in a transaction (intentionally or not), you should leave a positive rating. If you have traded with someone many times (either directly or as an escrow agent), and the person acts professional and otherwise appears trustworthy, you may want to consider leaving a positive rating— you need to use good judgment in these cases, and you should be confident this person is not trading with you to get a trust rating.

I agree with this; the people who took part in your 10 person experiment did not do anything notably trustworthy.

Although one could argue with that by saying that the people who involved with Loyce here trusted him with their money for 10 whole months, and that sometimes is considered to be a fact,after all it is a trust system. The amount involved was fairly small, but nonetheless, I don't think anything would be wrong in giving those people a positive trust.

[marlboroza]

Ever since I was put on DT2 (around March I think), I've been thinking about how to use it without abusing it. So far, I've only used my DT2 red trust for hacked accounts, scammers and spambots. Yesterday, I left the first green trust to 8 people who joined my 10-10-10 altcoin experiment 10 months earlier, and paid when required. I left neutral trust for a nineth person who has 3 non-DT ponzi-accusations against him. It didn't feel right to leave him green trust, even though our deal went well.

You are one of the people on this forum who I respect and trust although I have never left you green trust. You don't really need to explain to anyone why you left positive trust to people you trust, they can find link in reference, and even if they can't...
As for this account with neutral feedback, have you lost your mind    This guy is scammer, read "non-DT accustions" pointing to ponzi threads operated by them.

[The Cryptovator]

As well you become DT member, now you need to grow a thicker skin to accept this kind of untrusted feedback. Because when you leave red trust to some one , may be they will also leave a negetive feed back. It doesn't reflect on your trust rating you know very well. So forget aboutunteustes feedback, let them do it.

You can send green trust any one if there is appropriate reson. If some one have green trust there is reason on comment. It might be for dealing crypto or for behavior. You leave green trust means you trust him/her for a specifics reason. If you leave green trust for like "Helping new people to understand forum"  or " Fighting against scam/spam " , This green trust doesn't mean some one can dealing money with him/her. Absolutely it's not abuse of green trust. Because you leave green trust appropriate and a specific reason.

[digaran]

I would like to propose a new voting system, pick 3 neutral forum members and post a poll everytime you want to tag somebody with red, ask these 3 individuals to vote, if they voted against a red tag then don't leave a negative trust.

[pugman]

I would like to propose a new voting system, pick 3 neutral forum members and post a poll everytime you want to tag somebody with red, ask these 3 individuals to vote, if they voted against a red tag then don't leave a negative trust.

Polls can be abused. 

[suchmoon]

I would like to propose a new voting system, pick 3 neutral forum members and post a poll everytime you want to tag somebody with red, ask these 3 individuals to vote, if they voted against a red tag then don't leave a negative trust.

Stupid idea. Basically you're suggesting to reduce the trust system to 3 members.

[LoyceV]

There's an update on the red trust I received. I received a PM from elsie34, saying it was a mistake and should have been positive trust. It's now deleted.

LoyceV you are far greater than any other DT member here!

Thanks, I guess

~snip long story~

I'm glad you got that off your chest! Now chill

You are one of the people on this forum who I respect and trust although I have never left you green trust.

Thanks!

You don't really need to explain to anyone why you left positive trust to people you trust, they can find link in reference, and even if they can't...

Positive trust can be left for 2 reasons:

Positive - You trust this person or had a successful trade.

I left it because I had a successful trade.

As for this account with neutral feedback, have you lost your mind    This guy is scammer, read "non-DT accustions" pointing to ponzi threads operated by them.

Isn't that what "Neutral" is supposed to be?

Neutral - Comments. Your rating will not affect this person's trust score.

I didn't want to leave him positive trust, but leaving negative trust after a successful trade doesn't feel right either. No other DT-member felt the need to tag him, and in general I don't tag people who run ponzis.

As well you become DT member, now you need to grow a thicker skin to accept this kind of untrusted feedback.

I think my skin thickness if just fine. But that doesn't mean I look away when I feel something isn't right.

Because when you leave red trust to some one , may be they will also leave a negetive feed back.

That's happened to me only once. And that's why I leave a reference link with my red trust (except for my very first one, more than 3 years ago), while their retaliation feedback doesn't have one.

I would like to propose a new voting system, pick 3 neutral forum members and post a poll everytime you want to tag somebody with red, ask these 3 individuals to vote, if they voted against a red tag then don't leave a negative trust.

It's going to be a lot of work to check evidence on all cases. I think the large majority of all DT-trust is valid.