The Pharmacist,actmyname,Vod.. The mafia trying to get controll of bitcointalk ?

[Lauda]

I don't usually look for people who have lots of trading experience, but for people who can leave what I believe to be accurate ratings. I have done very little actual trading here in the grand scheme of things, and was put on DT initially by BadBear probably for my ratings on scammers which he must have thought were accurate enough. At the time of that I'd probably only engaged in one or two actual trades here other than earnings from signature campaigns etc. 

This is kind of at the essence of the problem, the people the rating system effects the most, traders, are pushed to the side and lots of political games are played to the point it becomes less useful for those that need and use it the most. IMO there needs to be a requirement of some kind of material loss that can be documented to leave valid ratings. Either this or some other form of feedback that is purely for anything OTHER THAN trade.

It's not a trade system, it's a system-of-trust. Stop spewing nonsense.

[1715517175]

1715517175

[TECSHARE]

I don't usually look for people who have lots of trading experience, but for people who can leave what I believe to be accurate ratings. I have done very little actual trading here in the grand scheme of things, and was put on DT initially by BadBear probably for my ratings on scammers which he must have thought were accurate enough. At the time of that I'd probably only engaged in one or two actual trades here other than earnings from signature campaigns etc.  

This is kind of at the essence of the problem, the people the rating system effects the most, traders, are pushed to the side and lots of political games are played to the point it becomes less useful for those that need and use it the most. IMO there needs to be a requirement of some kind of material loss that can be documented to leave valid ratings. Either this or some other form of feedback that is purely for anything OTHER THAN trade.

It's not a trade system, it's a system-of-trust. Stop spewing nonsense.

Yeah what do I know I have only been here since before it existed and watched it degrade every step of the way from pretty much every angle. The only real way to demonstrate trust is by having an exchange where the ability to steal is there, but does not happen. Otherwise what you are describing is a system of belief, not a system of trust. By the way, speaking of trust, you think you might find that missing BCH any time soon?

[Lauda]

Yeah what do I know I have only been here since before it existed and watched it degrade every step of the way from pretty much every angle. The only real way to demonstrate trust is by having an exchange where the ability to steal is there, but does not happen. Otherwise what you are describing is a system of belief, not a system of trust. By the way, speaking of trust, you think you might find that missing BCH any time soon?

So your argument is: appeal to authority && ad hominem filled with lies? Nice rebuttal. It's lovely how you are trying to let go thousands of abusers, cheaters and attempted scammers because it suits your biased narrative. Not similar to OP at all.
You're the exact type that would let semi-fraudulent people appear trustworthy here due to their pajeet trades (Oh right, it's not like we've already had examples of people buying stuff from DT members that leave positive ratings for minuscule amounts).
It's worth placing this here again.

[hilariousetc]

I don't usually look for people who have lots of trading experience, but for people who can leave what I believe to be accurate ratings. I have done very little actual trading here in the grand scheme of things, and was put on DT initially by BadBear probably for my ratings on scammers which he must have thought were accurate enough. At the time of that I'd probably only engaged in one or two actual trades here other than earnings from signature campaigns etc. 

This is kind of at the essence of the problem, the people the rating system effects the most, traders, are pushed to the side and lots of political games are played to the point it becomes less useful for those that need and use it the most. IMO there needs to be a requirement of some kind of material loss that can be documented to leave valid ratings. Either this or some other form of feedback that is purely for anything OTHER THAN trade.

I think the trust system works pretty well in most cases, and these issues of reputable users falling foul of it for whatever are probably in the minority though, it's just that when they do happen they obviously cause the most drama and controversy and then suddenly the whole system is broke according to them because of that. Requiring that a user actually be scammed though is counter-productive and does nothing for preventing scams. Sometimes people come here and their only intention is to scam and when that's pretty blatant or highly likely they should be tagged as such rather than waiting for them to scam then leave them it by at which point they've probably just abandoned the account as mission accomplished. I think the system should probably be tweaked a little and people doing tiny trades of say things like $10-50 shouldn't count for much and certainly shouldn't make people 'green' trusted. As for higher ranked users with lots of trust/feedback who end up with a negative feedback or two for some dispute or petty quibble perhaps their long-history or trades should be taken more into consideration and it effects them less or not at all unless quite a few 'trusted' users also leave them feedback (in the cases of someone pulling off a long con or whatever (and sometimes some highly trusted users he do pull a dirty for whatever reason)). Whatever we do (or don't do) there's just no way we can satisfy anyone with anything we do regarding trust and as I've said multiple times before I've never seen a perfect feedback system any where. I remember years ago on eBay when both parties could leave negative feedback, but if you ever did leave the seller negative feedback for whatever reason they just neg-bombed you straight back. People have suggested in the past that two people have to 'agree' to a trade first before negative feedback can be left by either party but we'd just run into the same problem. Just look at all the retaliatory feedback people already get on here and it'd just be the same, though luckily feedback from 'unreputable' people doesn't effect your score, but then of course people also complain about that.

I honestly don't know what we could do other than get rid of the scoring system and there's just a log of trades but I think that would just cause far more issues than it solves and make scammners lives easier whilst reputable users with lots of trades look less reputable or 'trusted' in the process.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Further, many on both Blazed's and hilariousandco's trust lists have little to no trading experience

In another thread you leveled this same statement at me personally, and I'll point out again that you don't know me and assume you know my trading experience based on what I've posted on bitcointalk (but it is true that I don't do a lot of trades here).  I would also challenge your assertion that there's some sort of minimum amount of trading that needs to be done before someone is qualified to be on DT--that's what you seem to be saying, anyway. 

I don't see how one needs trading experience to spot scammers anyway, and I would also like to point out that I mainly tag account dealers and I've given my reasons for doing so many times before. 

I have always said that the trust system here is a broken mess, and I still think that's the case.  When anyone can leave feedback for anyone for any reason, there's going to be abuse, mistakes, and everything else.  It'd be nice if there had to be a record of trade between two parties before feedback could be given (like eBay), but there are too many drawbacks to that idea on bitcointalk and I understand why the trust system wasn't set up that way.

A select few people in power around here seem to be very power hungry.

Sure would be nice if you'd tell us exactly who you're talking about.  I can say for myself that being on DT is not something I get off on, and a lot of times it's a pain in the ass.  Sometimes there are judgement calls that I hate making when deciding to leave a neg on someone, and there have been many times where I've second guessed myself.  I do in fact try to give people the benefit of the doubt, which is why I don't tag suspected merit abusers and also why I've removed some feedbacks I've left for account sellers and others.

I tend to stick to tagging account sellers, but I do tag others if there's enough evidence to do so.  I try to stay out of the feuds between some of the older members (the Lauda-OgNasty one comes to mind immediately) and I'm not a part of anyone's "gang". 

IMO there needs to be a requirement of some kind of material loss that can be documented to leave valid ratings.

As I said above, I wish this was a viable option but I don't think it is unless an addition to the trust system was made for "verifiable trades".  There does need to be a way to warn people about shady members and potential scammers, and it's unfortunate that the trust system is currently the only way to do it.

[TECSHARE]

As usual the same characters have trouble having a discussion like adults and resort to personal attacks. I didn't even say this guy was innocent, I said I could see how he could be. Lets not pretend like you all carefully investigate each and every claim before rating. Sorry what happened 4 years ago or whatever it was does not invalidate my words in perpetuity. Especially in consideration of what the system has turned into since then (but who knew it would happen, not me!). I find it hilarious people pointing out the speck in my eye when they have a redwood lodged in their own. I have opinions you don't always agree with. Deal with it.

Yeah what do I know I have only been here since before it existed and watched it degrade every step of the way from pretty much every angle. The only real way to demonstrate trust is by having an exchange where the ability to steal is there, but does not happen. Otherwise what you are describing is a system of belief, not a system of trust. By the way, speaking of trust, you think you might find that missing BCH any time soon?

So your argument is: appeal to authority && ad hominem filled with lies? Nice rebuttal. It's lovely how you are trying to let go thousands of abusers, cheaters and attempted scammers because it suits your biased narrative. Not similar to OP at all.
You're the exact type that would let semi-fraudulent people appear trustworthy here due to their pajeet trades (Oh right, it's not like we've already had examples of people buying stuff from DT members that leave positive ratings for minuscule amounts).
It's worth placing this here again.

No, my argument is I have been here for the entirety of the system and before it, hence I have seen its degradation, and warned about much of this early on, and as usual was attacked for pointing this out, much like you are doing now.

Interesting you accuse me of a logical fallacy while in the same breath using a false choice fallacy, as if not shotgunning negatives left and right is equivalent to letting go "thousands of abusers, cheaters, and attempted scammers". Oh, I see now I am the PERPETRATOR here, and after anal retentively searching my ratings that is all you could come up with I'm sure. The Stazi would have loved you.

[Lauda]

Interesting you accuse me of a logical fallacy while in the same breath using a false choice fallacy, as if not shotgunning negatives left and right is equivalent to letting go "thousands of abusers, cheaters, and attempted scammers". Oh, I see now I am the PERPETRATOR here, and after anal retentively searching my ratings that is all you could come up with I'm sure. The Stazi would have loved you.

Yes, you and anyone who wants to let the shady individuals run wild are essentially perpetrators. In certain scenarios, allowing certain actions to be committed can make you worse than the one who actually commits the action. There are plenty of non-forum scenarios where this is objectively correct; now apply accordingly.

..and after anal retentively searching my ratings that is all you could come up with I'm sure. The Stazi would have loved you.

The only thing I can clearly see is that you like slapping the word Nazi on the opposing side. Now where have I seen this before? Hmm.

[TECSHARE]

Interesting you accuse me of a logical fallacy while in the same breath using a false choice fallacy, as if not shotgunning negatives left and right is equivalent to letting go "thousands of abusers, cheaters, and attempted scammers". Oh, I see now I am the PERPETRATOR here, and after anal retentively searching my ratings that is all you could come up with I'm sure. The Stazi would have loved you.

Yes, you and anyone who wants to let the shady individuals run wild are essentially perpetrators. In certain scenarios, allowing certain actions to be committed can make you worse than the one who actually commits the action. There are plenty of non-forum scenarios where this is objectively correct; now apply accordingly.

..and after anal retentively searching my ratings that is all you could come up with I'm sure. The Stazi would have loved you.

The only thing I can clearly see is that you like slapping the word Nazi on the opposing side. Now where have I seen this before? Hmm.

I am sure this bait is just a lame attempt for you to distract from your own issues. BTW, I didn't call you a nazi, I said the Stazi would have loved you. Quite a difference, not like facts are important to you though when you have a narrative to push.

You know what makes the forum worse? Pushing out people before they even get a chance to learn the rules here by shotgunning negative ratings. Scammers will always return, the legit users you burn won't.

[Lauda]

....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.

Sounds about right, don't it lad?

I wonder what AUTOBAN is. Bpip is confusing me.

@Vod what does "profile has been autobanned" mean?
Autobanned from bpip?
Autobanned from sending you PM?
German word for highway

[Quickseller]

....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.

Sounds about right, don't it lad?

I wonder what AUTOBAN is. Bpip is confusing me.

@Vod what does "profile has been autobanned" mean?
Autobanned from bpip?
Autobanned from sending you PM?
German word for highway

It is posts like these make me wonder why other reputable people want to be associated with you. This is probably not a conversation they want to have.

[Lauda]

It is posts like these make me wonder why other reputable people want to be associated with you. This is probably not a conversation they want to have.

Is this how liberalists respond when their arguments get subjectively, anecdotally or objectively crushed (depending on which kind they attempted to use)? "Memes are offensive"; "If you don't use the tone that I want you to, you are [insertSomeWhinyBullshit][1]"? Because that's exactly what happened here. None of the lame excuses that you've made have any basis, neither theoretical nor practical.
Your class A example, i.e. OP, is an example that confirms that the work of the mentioned users is not only warranted, but just, and more necessary than ever before.
[1] This isn't a research paper; grow up and learn to deal with proper usage of language. Classic butthurt-scammer play.

* Lauda has lost its catnip.

[BitcoinSupremo]

Come on, it is funny how butthurt persons link to the same thread every time. It is the thousand time I see people saying that some specific persons are trying to controll bitcointalk forum. Well I can say it and my word is of greater value in the matter since I hold red trust my self but I am not butthurt to anyone, so stop linking people to this bullshit, I am getting bored, imagine the persons who see their names in such stupid threads how they are feeling. Bring solid evidence or stop the madness and the bullshit. End of story.

[Quickseller]

A select few people in power around here seem to be very power hungry.

[...] You tried your best to get numerous positions of power here starting with default trust and then escrowing

It is too bad that I never asked to be put on anyone's trust list, I resisted people who were suggesting that I ask to be put back on after I was removed the 1st time, and resisted requests from multiple people to create alts to be added to their DT1 trust list. It is also too bad that I initially resisted escrowing any transactions when I first started receiving requests to do so, and did not open an escrow thread until I completed dozens of escrow transactions resulting from unsolicited requests from others to me.

Further, many on both Blazed's and hilariousandco's trust lists have little to no trading experience (yet interestingly have a decent amounts of trust ratings ),

I don't usually look for people who have lots of trading experience, but for people who can leave what I believe to be accurate ratings.

That is the problem. Those who lack trading experience lack the incentives to maintain a healthy marketplace, and have nothing to lose when they handle a rating unfairly, or unprofessionally. One could argue there is not even any basis to say they have or can leave accurate ratings.

One thing I have noticed is several instances in which negative ratings have been left for things that was very likely to be not nefarious behavior who attempt to dispute their loss of reputation only to be met with trolling and a refusal to discuss the underlying merits of the rating, and these people essentially rage quit by starting to troll and make transparent scam attempts they likely would not have made if their reputation had been intact.

[TECSHARE]

....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.
....the legit users you burn won't.

Sounds about right, don't it lad?

I wonder what AUTOBAN is. Bpip is confusing me.

@Vod what does "profile has been autobanned" mean?
Autobanned from bpip?
Autobanned from sending you PM?
German word for highway

Nope, not really. Sounds more like a normie trying to force a meme to me.

[Lauda]

One thing I have noticed is several instances in which negative ratings have been left for things that was very likely to be not nefarious behavior who attempt to dispute their loss of reputation only to be met with trolling and a refusal to discuss the underlying merits of the rating, and these people essentially rage quit by starting to troll and make transparent scam attempts they likely would not have made if their reputation had been intact.

It doesn't seem like you've ever opened a psychology book in your life. That assessment is completely backwards.

[hilariousetc]

A select few people in power around here seem to be very power hungry.

[...] You tried your best to get numerous positions of power here starting with default trust and then escrowing

It is too bad that I never asked to be put on anyone's trust list, I resisted people who were suggesting that I ask to be put back on after I was removed the 1st time,

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would know that actually asking to be included on DT is a big no-no. Just like it is with asking to become a staff member. It's too obvious and the wrong way to go about it and if it was a simple as just asking then everyone would do it, and the majority would probably be doing it for entirely the wrong reasons and crave that power for whatever reason or benefits it has. As with default trust, put in the work and if someone thinks you're doing a good job they'll likely include you eventually. That's how it's meant to work. Earn your right to be on there by showing you can use it efficiently and accurately. It works pretty well in most cases, and I'm sure you were fine with it and had no complaints right up until it turned on you, but when it does those people think it's a broken system and complain the most. Again, I'm not saying it's perfect but usually works well the vast majority of times.

and resisted requests from multiple people to create alts to be added to their DT1 trust list.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if you already had another account on DT back then or still even do now. You know how to work the system and it's not terribly difficult to get onto if you stick at it enough and leave accurate ratings.

It is also too bad that I initially resisted escrowing any transactions when I first started receiving requests to do so, and did not open an escrow thread until I completed dozens of escrow transactions resulting from unsolicited requests from others to me.

Well that's something you can easily and conveniently say now and all we have is your word for it, but again, anyone with an ounce of intelligence wouldn't offer to start escrowing straight away and build up confidence slowly and over time, but most escrowers naturally fall into it due to being asked repeatedly and I think that's how it should be.

Further, many on both Blazed's and hilariousandco's trust lists have little to no trading experience (yet interestingly have a decent amounts of trust ratings ),

I don't usually look for people who have lots of trading experience, but for people who can leave what I believe to be accurate ratings.

That is the problem. Those who lack trading experience lack the incentives to maintain a healthy marketplace, and have nothing to lose when they handle a rating unfairly, or unprofessionally.

I disagree. You don't have to be involved with trading to want to maintain a healthy environment. That's like saying people who don't drive don't want or care about speed limits or safety systems put in place to protect everyone. It's not always about the money to be made from trading either. Some people just don't want a scam-rife marketplace and want to do the right thing. There is also a lot to lose. If you leave inaccurate ratings then you can either be removed from default trust or get negative yourself if you abuse the system and that can cause loss of earnings from signature campaigns etc. Being on DT is probably more hassle than it's worth, especially when you use it to try prevent scams because all it does it cause you headaches via the abuse and hassle you get.  

One could argue there is not even any basis to say they have or can leave accurate ratings.

Again, I would disagree. Someone can be very good at preventing scams without having much trades here. Also, most people probably do have some trading history, but I don't think we should be exclusively looking for people who have done hundreds of trades before they can be considered for inclusion. Those people will get on there also, but there needs to be a mix. A system full of people just patting each other on the back and giving themselves positive feedback for trades isn't much good either, especially if they care little about trades or scams that don't involve them.  

[BitcoinSupremo]

While you maybe right about the trades, honestly I trust much more a rating from "minerjones" than I do from "marlboroza", just sayin. So probably I also think that a person like minerjones who has had a lot more time spent in the forum and done so many deals through this time it is much more trusted than a person who sent a message to me (that I don't do what I do for a signature campaign) meaning of the message in brackets, you find real one below and a few days later ,strangely joined Chipmixer  
Also why should I trust more a person who almost had never any trade with anyone here compared to one who have had a lot of them like in the case of the 2 persons mentioned above.
Yeah the trust system has many flaws into it. Just pointing them out and do not want to engage in further discussion.
That while in the message ended very early  

Hi, just out of curiosity why did you remove FortuneJack signature ? Are they conducting shady behavior ?

I am taking vacation of signature campaigns for a while.

[marlboroza]

While you maybe right about the trades, honestly I trust much more a rating from "minerjones" than I do from "marlboroza", just sayin. So probably I also think that a person like minerjones who has had a lot more time spent in the forum and done so many deals through this time it is much more trusted than a person who sent a message to me (that I don't do what I do for a signature campaign) meaning of the message in brackets, you find real one below and a few days later ,strangely joined Chipmixer  
Also why should I trust more a person who almost had never any trade with anyone here compared to one who have had a lot of them like in the case of the 2 persons mentioned above.
Yeah the trust system has many flaws into it. Just pointing them out and do not want to engage in further discussion.
That while in the message ended very early  

Hi, just out of curiosity why did you remove FortuneJack signature ? Are they conducting shady behavior ?

I am taking vacation of signature campaigns for a while.

Few days later....

Any particular reason you decided to leave the Campaign?

Username: marlboroza
Post Count: 4661
BTC Address (must be SegWit)

Oh, few days later was 2 months later. Have you been living on Mars? Time doesn't work there like it works on Earth? Few days =/= 2 months.

Few days later you say?  

Why is this bothering you? You have solid connection to well known scammer, and yet you didn't provide single solid proof to beat this.

While you maybe right about the trades, honestly I trust much more a rating from "minerjones" than I do from "marlboroza", just sayin. So probably I also think that a person like minerjones who has had a lot more time spent in the forum and done so many deals

People who don't know to read reference usually make such stupid conclusions. Trust system isn't trade system, as lauda pointed.

Btw, why have you changed your fake retaliation negative to false positive and then removed it?

Oh, sharing PM's I see?

Hi

Congrats on reaching DT membership. You have left me a negative for me buying accounts in 2016 which I counteracted by leaving you a negative. Can you change it to neutral and I will remove my negative to you. This is not for signatures campaign as you know I have many mining rigs but it is about reputation. Also I have completely quit all 3 accounts bought several months ago if you check them.
Hoping in a good judgment from your side.

What does this bold part mean?

Why don't you share everything, since you obviously like to share PM's which doesn't make much sense without further investigation?

How about this:

Ok. Now another question and I would like it to ask it in a funny way.
Do I have to trade with half of the forum in order for you to change your feedback for me in neutral ? I can fully understand if you will keep it negative although is totally irrelevant for this time.

Have you traded with half of forum yet?

How about to fuck off and stop mentioning my name from time to time in specific topics?

[Lauda]

While you maybe right about the trades, honestly I trust much more a rating from "minerjones" than I do from "marlboroza", just sayin.

Because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are very naive. I know minerjones very well, marlboroza not at all[1]. While you can come to the irrational conclusion that ratings from minerjones are better, and live in that delusion (since it is a choice), it is objectively false.  Heck, some of these people don't even properly understand how it even works.

Why is this bothering you? You have solid connection to well known scammer, and yet you didn't provide single solid proof to beat this.

That's exactly why. If you gave him a positive rating, he'd trust your ratings more than most others'. They're that kind of user.
[1] These are just names that are used as an example; there's nothing special about this case. The same applies for most people solely involved in trading (with little-to no involvement elsewhere) when you compare their ratings to those of someone who actively reviews and handles reputation issues. The latter group is also much more likely to frequently review their sent ratings, and avoid potential issues down the road (e.g. inactive account hacked).

[lotfiuser]

take a look https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5037540