@theymos

[suchmoon]

It was good before but from last few years this whole trust system turned into a big joke.

Let me guess. This event coincided with you being kicked out of DT?

[1713572678]

1713572678

[1713572678]

1713572678

[1713572678]

1713572678

[Ardavan2150]

Wow a lot of hostility. I think the moderators of the forum are trying their best and I appreciate their work.

To be honest, for a "senior member" like you, you shouldn't even care. Just start a new alt account and get merited by being helpful. And you can start doing your shitposting in no time by another "senior member" account.

[S_Therapist]

To be honest, for a "senior member" like you, you shouldn't even care. Just start a new alt account and get merited by being helpful.

You are wrong at some point and also encouraging someone to do the same with new identity. Why he would create a new account?
Isn't it better to do something trusted from this account and get trust back from DT. I personally believe in admitting my faults and try to do some better in next and that's how everyone should be. Why do I need to act with a new identity?

[Quickseller]

It was good before but from last few years this whole trust system turned into a big joke.

theymos said around the time trust exclusions were implemented that those who give negative ratings to those who are not scammers will not be in the Default Trust network.

Today, users who regularly give out negative ratings to their enemies who are clearly not scammers, and who otherwise regularly give negative trust who can in no reasonable way be described as a scammer, are regularly not only added to the DT network, but will receive additional inclusions by those on DT1 when others exclude them.

[marlboroza]

~

Tell me, what is purpose of buying forum accounts:

1) to scam
2) to spam
3) to run legit business which you can't do with :
   a) new account
   b) new account and cooper membership
   c) already existing account

[suchmoon]

theymos said around the time trust exclusions were implemented that those who give negative ratings to those who are not scammers will not be in the Default Trust network.

Wrong link? Doesn't say anything of the sort.

[S_Therapist]

Wrong link? Doesn't say anything of the sort.

Trust me, I thought I could not see anything related because I am drunk and that's why I didn't make any comment, lol.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Dealing in accounts contributes to the continued shittiness of bitcointalk.

by thepharmacist
Where do i deal with accounts  ?Accounts means multiple ones ?

Are you seriously using some insignificant semantics to try to bolster your arugment?  The above quote by me is equivalent to stating: "When a person deals in accounts, they contribute to the continued shittiness of bitcointalk".  I did not accuse you of buying or selling multiple accounts.

You seem to fail to grasp that there are written bitcointalk rules, and then there are the community standards which differ from what Theymos has decreed.  It became sort of the general consensus back in 2016 or so that account sales were leading to people getting scammed, since a purchased account with a good trust history could fool someone into thinking they were dealing with an honest member--and that it was allowing garbage shitposters to increase their earnings through signature campaigns. 

Being defamed here as scammer is not something i will accept.

I'd be interested to know what you think your options are here, other than accepting the feedback you've been given.  You can leave all the retaliatory feedback you like, but since you're not on DT it won't get taken seriously.

[Quickseller]

theymos said around the time trust exclusions were implemented that those who give negative ratings to those who are not scammers will not be in the Default Trust network.

Wrong link? Doesn't say anything of the sort.

If you read my post, you would see that I said it was around that time....

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account.

Any inaccuracies will eventually be fixed. I'm not going to allow the default trust network to contain inaccurate ratings for long.

Being defamed here as scammer is not something i will accept.

I'd be interested to know what you think your options are here, other than accepting the feedback you've been given. 

I think it is interesting to see you didn't pose publicly debating the rating as an option.

This is exactly what happens when many people are added to DT who don't have any serious amount of trading experience.

[suchmoon]

If you read my post, you would see that I said it was around that time....

Like what, the same year?

That quote still doesn't say what you insinuated. You should probably leave it to theymos to explain what his current view of the trust system is as opposed to your interpretation of a 4-year-old message from a different context.

[hilariousetc]

~

Tell me, what is purpose of buying forum accounts:

1) to scam
2) to spam
3) to run legit business which you can't do with :
   a) new account
   b) new account and cooper membership
   c) already existing account

I really don't get why we just don't let people buy higher donator titles that come with the benefits of ranks (like bigger signatures and avatars etc). The account market is just such a shady business now and only really causes scams and spam. Most people are either just selling non-existent accounts that they don't even have or hacked ones if they do. I'd bet that most of the people who even try buy accounts these days get scammed as there's no protection for them as most escrows wont want to get involved. If we're going to allow account sales then just let users buy the benefits of the rank from the forum and we essentially shut down the market in the process. It's win-win to me. We already have Copper Membership so Silver and Gold ones should be added. It would also shut up all the whiners who complain at merit because at least there's a legal fix for them to bypass ranks; they just have to cough up for it.

[LoyceMobile]

You should probably leave it to theymos to explain what his current view of the trust system is

Although related to merit abuse, this is his most recent comment about trust:

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

[suchmoon]

You should probably leave it to theymos to explain what his current view of the trust system is

Although related to merit abuse, this is his most recent comment about trust:

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

This was said to a merit source, which may or may not matter.

I really dislike this blunt statement as it's now going to be dragged around by Quicksy et al claiming that e.g. sending merits between alts is ok because theymos didn't explicitly name it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I think it is interesting to see you didn't pose publicly debating the rating as an option.

This is exactly what happens when many people are added to DT who don't have any serious amount of trading experience.

He's obviously already debating his trust rating, the removal of which is not something that's under his control.  He stated that he's not going to accept the negative feedback he received, and I don't see how he has many options here as far as that goes. 

It's like being arrested and telling the cop that wearing handcuffs is unacceptable to you.

As far as the part of your post that I've bolded above:  My trading experience has nothing to do with any of this, but since you brought it up I'd like to point out that at least I've never escrowed any of my own trades with people.  In addition, you have no knowledge of the extent of my trading experience anyway. 

If you have serious doubts as to whether I should be on DT, start a new thread.