DefaultTrust changes

[suchmoon]

Have you pressured others into removing their DT trust of me?

I don't recall doing that but I may have said something along the lines of "timelord's ratings are sometimes iffy". I'll try to find examples of the "iffy" ones for you.

[1714482231]

1714482231

[1714482231]

1714482231

[peloso]

In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness. If they're disrupting discussion or never adding anything, then that's something for moderators to deal with, and you should report their posts and/or complain in Meta about it.

good! but..

Lauda gave me red tag just for opinion ( she not agree with me )
with this text
"Merit abuser (see rating by actmyname). Publicly conspiring to overthrow some of the most valuable (new and past) DT members in order to gain "strength". If a user is willing to overturn thousands of ratings on scammers and farmers just to gain "strength", then their intentions can only be seen as malicious and untrustworthy."
see reference ( even its wrong)  and not showing my blame

TMAN gave me red tag for same reason and copypasted same reference as Lauda ( later he retagged me caling deranged and crazy ) he tagged me because not agree with me ( just for opinion)

TheNewAnon135246
tagged me the same reason ( he also copyed reference and text) yesteday he retagged me and changed to neutral  with this text "Publicly conspiring to overthrow DT members, potentially causing reported scams to go unnoticed (see reference link)" reference copypasted and not showing my blame

and those members in DT1 what the double standarts?

how can i trust DT1  if here such an injustice ?

[nutildah]

What I wrote for you is:



So no.  I probably won't be removing that post - as I said a couple of posts (half hour or so) ago.

I haven't given any of Bruno's alts negative trust wall trust as yet.

Just FYI this person definitely is not Bruno.

Full disclosure: I'm not cryptohunter in spite of some users claiming otherwise.

[Timelord2067]

[quote author=nutildah link=topic=5095156.msg49605813#msg49605813 date=1549431534]
[quote author=Timelord2067 link=topic=5095156.msg49605050#msg49605050 date=1549424294]

What I wrote for you is:

[img width=400]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob17b6f69d35e631d2.jpeg[/img]

So no.  I probably won't be removing that post - as I said a couple of posts (half hour or so) ago.

I haven't given any of Bruno's alts negative trust wall trust as yet.
[/quote]

Just FYI this person definitely is not Bruno.

[quote author=Phinnaeus Gage link=topic=5096017.msg49196859#msg49196859 date=1547317060]
Full disclosure: I'm not cryptohunter in spite of some users claiming otherwise.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Hmm... IDK - I might wait for someone with a bit more credibility to come along:  WTS Hero Member account (this one) (Archive - #2)


Phinnaeus Gage scammer tag request 17 June 2013, 16:03:49 (Archive)


I can't fit them in one screen shot, but you or the previous owner of your account has given BiPolarBob, YuTü.Co.in, Zin-Zang (who has given me red trust out of the blue not that long ago) Phinnaeus Gage, Gleb Gamow all glowing trust wall trust (to name but a few)

[Quickseller]

[...]
A contribution from my side would be a bunch of merits, as per the discussion in this thread merit is one of the most important part to vote for the DT and change it. I have some smerits to award for all the trust abuse supportive here.

You need 10 earned merits to vote right?

I can provide you with that to be eligible for voting. [...]

Is stingers still a merit source?

Not anymore. That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality. Only because he was a source, I effectively undid those merit sends. If he had not been a merit source, I still would've blacklisted anyone who got into DT1 through that type of shenanigans.

I can't say I disagree with this decision, however I think this highlights a problem with the current DT system, and to a lesser extent, the merit system.

I reviewed the posts he gave merit to on Feb 5, and I would say a good 40% of the posts reasonably had a fairly high amount of effort put into them, another 40% were good enough to receive merit if someone was being aggressive in giving away merit, and two or three were not reasonably deserving of merit (unless you agreed with what they were saying). This is a problem because the only reason he was caught was because he was openly trying to meddle with the trust system voting. If he had not made this public statement, no one would have any idea what he was doing, and all that merit would be sent for political reasons.

On the merit system, I have seen few controversial posts with large amounts of effort put into them that have merit, especially from merit sources. Conversely, I have seen many reasonably low-effort posts that make a "popular" statement with merit from multiple people.

[nutildah]

I can't fit them in one screen shot, but you or the previous owner of your account has given BiPolarBob, YuTü.Co.in, Zin-Zang (who has given me red trust out of the blue not that long ago) Phinnaeus Gage, Gleb Gamow all glowing trust wall trust (to name but a few)

Uhh...

1. My account was never sold, I can sign messages proving it.
2. I gave Zin-Zang a red trust, might want to look at that again, detective. 

What I wrote for you is:



So no.  I probably won't be removing that post - as I said a couple of posts (half hour or so) ago.

I haven't given any of Bruno's alts negative trust wall trust as yet.

Just FYI this person definitely is not Bruno.

Full disclosure: I'm not cryptohunter in spite of some users claiming otherwise.

Hmm... IDK - I might wait for someone with a bit more credibility to come along

More credibility than Bruno regarding his own alt accounts? Like who? He's been extremely forthright in which alts are his -- there's no reason to suspect he has _yet another_ alt account with OVER 10,000 POSTS, and he'd be keeping that one a secret (unlike the other 2).

[H8bussesNbicycles]

how can i trust DT1  if here such an injustice ?

laudas tyrannical behavior and politics are not what this forum is about but if you speak up to resist lauda he will red tag you and get the cult to red tag you


ironically on laudas profile it says
'This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance.' https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872


i will not calmly take the consequences of this resistance
i will go to the front lines of the war
to the trenches


the red trust on my profile from the cult that disappoints theymos is proof of the resistances legitimacy
i hope they do not delete them


Cult members should start to reason why and make reply before they are marched into the valley of death to do and die at the blunder of their leader
all the world is wondering

[Quickseller]

In particular, in my view:
 <snip>

Just wanted to thank you for giving some guidance as far as feedback-giving goes.  What I get from your input is that trust feedback really should be about trust, but we've all got different standards on that.  TECSHARE wants trust to be solely about documented trades and such, whereas I tend to not trust [people for issues not related to a specific trade]

IMO.....

You should be able to articulate why it is dangerous to trade with someone you are giving negative trust to. The word "dangerous" would mean this person will attempt to steal money/property they are not entitled to in an average sized trade OR this person has tried to do this in the past (successfully or otherwise).

So if you observe someone doing x, and you leave a negative rating because they did "x", you should be able to explain why "x" means someone is likely to attempt to steal money/property in the future ("x" could be a scam attempt, in which case, it would be pretty self- explanatory).

Someone engaging in a long con might successfully complete some trades before trying to steal from others, so successful trades should not automatically mean negative trust is wrong. However many successful trades should work in a person's favor if they have not tried to scam in the past.

[Timelord2067]

[quote author=nutildah link=topic=5095156.msg49606025#msg49606025 date=1549433305]
[quote author=Timelord2067 link=topic=5095156.msg49605883#msg49605883 date=1549432136]
I can't fit them in one screen shot, but you or the previous owner of your account has given BiPolarBob, YuTü.Co.in, Zin-Zang (who has given me red trust out of the blue not that long ago) Phinnaeus Gage, Gleb Gamow all glowing trust wall trust (to name but a few)
[/quote]

Uhh...

1. My account was never sold, I can sign messages proving it.
2. I gave Zin-Zang a red trust, might want to look at that again, detective. 

[/quote]

Touché - at least you won't be able to use your account for dubious loans anymore:

[img width=800]https://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/17/blob82a990f7ef080bf2.jpeg[/img]

More credibility than Bruno regarding his own alt accounts? Like who? He's been extremely forthright in which alts are his -- there's no reason to suspect he has _yet another_ alt account with OVER 10,000 POSTS, and he'd be keeping that one a secret (unlike the other 2).

I'd rather read a poster that's posted just one thousand quality post versus ten thousand unbalanced posts such as your hero "Bruno".

(I'll leave the asking for proof of your continued ownership of your UID to others at this point)


And then I found this: http://archive.fo/sJKrb#selection-439.9-445.25

[Lauda]

taikuri13
WhiteManWhite

What are these people doing in DT1? Looks like the ruskis have succesfully colluded their way into DT1.

I have been working with Taikuri13 for quite some time. If you look at some of his posts and my posts you will see that he has done translations for me regarding some of the historic topics and scam warnings. He has helped me a lot behind the scenes and is a highly merited user on the Russian forum. I don't see any collusion there.

I've been contacted about it already; I'll take another look and reconsider. Being merited in any local section means absolutely zero to me if a member is useless outside of the section just an FYI.

[nutildah]

I'd rather read a poster that's posted just one thousand quality post versus ten thousand unbalanced posts such as your hero "Bruno".

What does that have to do with the fact that you're wrong about Cryptohunter being Bruno?

[LoyceV]

Let me quote this for attention:

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

It seems to me the opposite is happening since the DT-changes.

[Lauda]

Let me quote this for attention:

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

It seems to me the opposite is happening since the DT-changes.

Where exactly is this happening? Link?

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

Good luck convincing a certain people about this. I've been privately suggesting a downgrade to neutral in a few disputes recently.

[Thule]

That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality

So the guy who received 78 mertis mainly from DT members for a short movie descrediting us are legit based on the idea of quality ?

Its funny cause based on the users history you can clearly see he creates threads which gets him quickly merits like giveaways.
Of course the massiv meriting of that crap has no political reason.
I guess 2 more such videos and the guy will be with a 1 month old account in DT1

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105303.0

[asche]

That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality

So the guy who received 78 mertis mainly from DT members for a short movie descrediting us are legit based on the idea of quality ?

Its funny cause based on the users history you can clearly see he creates threads which gets him quickly merits like giveaways.
Of course the massiv meriting of that crap has no political reason.
I guess 2 more such videos and the guy will be with a 1 month old account in DT1

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105303.0

Well I didn't actually watch the movie. But still he went through the trouble to actually create something.

While you might disagree with his views I don't see why this doesn't deserver 78 merits.

I have seen one liners "deserve" 50 merits at once. Don't get me started on memes.

Edit:

I see it as unlikely that an account tied to a service as this one seems will ever be made DT.
I would personally exclude it to avoid any risk of collusion.
Moreover said account doesn't even have a trust list and I don't believe he even cares about merit/trust.

[Thule]

That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality

So the guy who received 78 mertis mainly from DT members for a short movie descrediting us are legit based on the idea of quality ?

Its funny cause based on the users history you can clearly see he creates threads which gets him quickly merits like giveaways.
Of course the massiv meriting of that crap has no political reason.
I guess 2 more such videos and the guy will be with a 1 month old account in DT1

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105303.0

Well I didn't actually watch the movie. But still he went through the trouble to actually create something.

While you might disagree with his views I don't see why this doesn't deserver 78 merits.

I have seen one liners "deserve" 50 merits at once. Don't get me started on memes.

And at the same time you call it abuse when somebody merits other user 2-5 merits for their actions against a group he belives is corrupt.
And sorry to say it but that user would never get 79 merits if that topic wouldn't be about us.

But i guess thats also in accordance to that

That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality

If theymos thinks that a single video is worth more (in voting power as closer to 250) than what majority of users have done on bitcointalk over years than i feel sorry for this board.

Am waiting for a statement on this.If this will be approved as allowed i'm going to ehwore myself up to 250 merits withing a week by offering giveaways.

[KingZee]

Let me quote this for attention:

All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have.

- You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

It seems to me the opposite is happening since the DT-changes.

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

I'm only mentioning him because I interacted with him through his signature campaign, which he pays out on time, and since he's currently managing 2 campaigns it generally means he can be trusted with a decent sum of money. The first time I've seen his trust rating I thought it was hilarious for him to be tagged for something he did 5 years ago, even it being a ponzi promotion.

I'm sure there are a shitload of similar examples, especially red ratings for one-time actions that aren't straight up thefts, and more like lack of knowledge or better judgement. But if anything, theymos's message should mean future ratings should be more focused on the time being rather than digging up small dirt on people from distant past actions.

[Lauda]

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

Very bad example. His stuff is very fresh.

[KingZee]

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

Very bad example. His stuff is very fresh.

What are you even talking about? I've read this one before but how is it related to a scam? A user blackmailed bbc.reporter, got an emotional reaction from jeremypwr, but then he regretted it and added him back into the campaign. bbc.reporter (the blackmailed) and jeremypwr are on good terms now, so I seriously fail to see how is this even worthy of mention???

[Lauda]

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

Very bad example. His stuff is very fresh.

What are you even talking about? I've read this one before but how is it related to a scam? A user blackmailed bbc.reporter, got an emotional reaction from jeremypwr, but then he regretted it and added him back into the campaign. bbc.reporter (the blackmailed) and jeremypwr are on good terms now, so I seriously fail to see how is this even worthy of mention???

Because a good and trustworthy campaign manager kicks you out for calling him a "a little child". Right, not worth mentioning at all. Stick to managers that are actually good e.g. Yahoo and Hhampuz; the forum doesn't need ponzi children.