DefaultTrust changes

[TECSHARE]

Sure, you can do lots of things. That doesn't maker them a good idea.

I see so it is not at all possible you are incorrect in this judgement? Still you wonder why I criticize your behavior when you operate as if your decisions are infallible and every interaction is one focused on an attempt at intimidation. Too bad your sad little jedi mind tricks don't work on me isn't it? It would make things a lot easier for you to push people around without any criticism if I just bought your horse shit that nothing I say matters, and everything you say does, wouldn't it? People like you don't belong in positions of authority.

May I suggest to invest in a mirror?

You are one to talk my friend, you are complicit in all of these same games, which frankly confuses me because you seem to be more sensible than that. The difference is I don't spend all day every day "policing" this forum, so no, I don't think a mirror is required in this particular instance thank you. If anyone had some basic logical arguments to refute mine with I would be happy to hear them. So far I have seen little but a bunch of two-bit intimidation tactics, personal attacks, and accusations against anyone who dares point out this dynamic.

[1714178149]

1714178149

[1714178149]

1714178149

[suchmoon]

You are one to talk my friend, you are complicit in all of these same games, which frankly confuses me because you seem to be more sensible than that. The difference is I don't spend all day every day "policing" this forum, so no, I don't think a mirror is required in this particular instance thank you. If anyone had some basic logical arguments to refute mine with I would be happy to hear them. So far I have seen little but a bunch of two-bit intimidation tactics, personal attacks, and accusations against anyone who dares point out this dynamic.

I'm simply pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in your diatribe where you accuse someone else (Lauda in this case) of doing things that you're doing. Kinda distracts from whatever point you're trying to make.

I'm not sure what games I'm complicit in. I disagree with Lauda on some stuff, just like with pretty much anyone on DT1 or the forum in general. You're one of the very few people here who seems to be completely unable to even acknowledge the right to exist for opposing opinions or anything that doesn't go your way, which combines nicely with your total lack of self-awareness, but it doesn't really make you a good judge of what is "logical".

You, Og, and Quicksy make a good team so perhaps you can push through to DT and show us how the... whatever it is you're advocating can actually work in practice. I'm rooting for you.

[Gunthar]

because if you modify your list according to these 5 people, then you're a proxy to their own judgement

A few people really need to re-assess how much influence they think they have, and a lot of other people need to start losing the inferiority complex if they're an active node of the trust list.

Speaking for myself here I sincerely have 2 things to say about this, I hope you will agree with me:
1.- i am not Lauda proxy and still I am in Lauda list. I dont change my opinion on you or others based on Lauda opinion: this is your assumption and I invite you to honestly review the way you think about it. Read my trust list and read Lauda list, you will find people in my trust list (like OG) that are excluded in Lauda list. You will find people excluded in my trust list that are excluded in Lauda list (like QS). Both examples above come from my personal interaction with mentioned users and I (as I'm sure 100% of DT members do) compile this list based on our personal opinions, thoughts and experience. I have Lauda on my list because I'm 100% sure if I let him handle my personal money, It would be cared like it was myself doing it. I have OG in my list because I am 100% sure I can do the same with him, based on my past and present interaction with him. Still Lauda tildes OG and viceversa. This is what you call "Each one opinion counts" and it is real buddy, I'm not anyone proxy, there ain't any inferiority complex here, think again!
2.- Why people that have something to say to Lauda keep hijacking this post instead to get a motel room with him?

~Gun

[KingZee]

because if you modify your list according to these 5 people, then you're a proxy to their own judgement

A few people really need to re-assess how much influence they think they have, and a lot of other people need to start losing the inferiority complex if they're an active node of the trust list.

Speaking for myself here I sincerely have 2 things to say about this, I hope you will agree with me:
1.- i am not Lauda proxy and still I am in Lauda list. I dont change my opinion on you or others based on Lauda opinion: this is your assumption and I invite you to honestly review the way you think about it. Read my trust list and read Lauda list, you will find people in my trust list (like OG) that are excluded in Lauda list. You will find people excluded in my trust list that are excluded in Lauda list (like QS). Both examples above come from my personal interaction with mentioned users and I (as I'm sure 100% of DT members do) compile this list based on our personal opinions, thoughts and experience. I have Lauda on my list because I'm 100% sure if I let him handle my personal money, It would be cared like it was myself doing it. I have OG in my list because I am 100% sure I can do the same with him, based on my past and present interaction with him. Still Lauda tildes OG and viceversa. This is what you call "Each one opinion counts" and it is real buddy, I'm not anyone proxy, there ain't any inferiority complex here, think again!
2.- Why people that have something to say to Lauda keep hijacking this post instead to get a motel room with him?

~Gun

This is your second post on this thread so you're obviously not included. To understand who I mean, you can just scroll backwards past the pages of this thread to see a complete mess of micro-adjustments and judgements, not just from Lauda, but from another handful of users.

You explained who and why you include/exclude in your list, that's great, but a lot of other people here got fingers pointed on, contacted through PM and quoted, in a never-ending spam of "why did you include this and why did you exclude that". I almost regret commenting on this thread in the first place, which I did in an attempt to further understand, improve and help the new trust system; but this thread now just turned into a never-ending spam of a few users judging another handful of users based on who they included in their lists.

My last comments were not strictly directed to Lauda, but he/she just so happens to get their nose into the trust list of every other user, judge it, and actively push them to change it through PMs or public shaming. That is something I feel goes completely against the point of this new system.

In my opinion I just would love to see this thread discuss the trust system itself, and its implementation, maybe propose further suggestions, rather than this mindless witch hunt, which will obviously never end. Even theymos who was actively commenting in the first few pages; when people were actually trying to brainstorm improvements to the system; stopped commenting here for almost 2 weeks now.

They make it look like there's nothing to say anymore on this thread. It became just pointless spam of list judgements that go nowhere, and benefit only the centralized people handing out those judgements, be it Lauda, or anyone else. For all I care go make your own thread and start judging and calling people out on it based on your subjective opinions, because for me, you've totally missed AND ruined the point of this one.

[TECSHARE]

You are one to talk my friend, you are complicit in all of these same games, which frankly confuses me because you seem to be more sensible than that. The difference is I don't spend all day every day "policing" this forum, so no, I don't think a mirror is required in this particular instance thank you. If anyone had some basic logical arguments to refute mine with I would be happy to hear them. So far I have seen little but a bunch of two-bit intimidation tactics, personal attacks, and accusations against anyone who dares point out this dynamic.

I'm simply pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in your diatribe where you accuse someone else (Lauda in this case) of doing things that you're doing. Kinda distracts from whatever point you're trying to make.

I'm not sure what games I'm complicit in. I disagree with Lauda on some stuff, just like with pretty much anyone on DT1 or the forum in general. You're one of the very few people here who seems to be completely unable to even acknowledge the right to exist for opposing opinions or anything that doesn't go your way, which combines nicely with your total lack of self-awareness, but it doesn't really make you a good judge of what is "logical".

You, Og, and Quicksy make a good team so perhaps you can push through to DT and show us how the... whatever it is you're advocating can actually work in practice. I'm rooting for you.

What kind of things am I doing? Tell me what are my crimes? I am dying to know.

The thing you call a distraction is exactly my point. The same people who want to essentially have the most authority on the forum can not even engage in a very simple critical discussion about protocol without IMMEDIATELY going directly to personal attacks, accusations of wrongdoing, or other petty intimidation or mobbing tactics.

You are complicit because you enable this behavior by joining ranks with these people and covering for them when they are clearly out of line. Maybe you are a follower type not a leader type, I don't know why you do this, but you have a different mentality towards these issues at least and are capable of engaging in a discussion.

Tell me, what is things "going my way" exactly? What do I get out of this other than a gang of stalkers digging through my personal effects? I get penalized for raising these issues, and that is the point, yet we all pretend that in an environment like this there will ever be fair redress of grievances from abuse by these members?

What I was and still am advocating for is a protocol for negative ratings that requires a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I have in detail described why this is needed here, and in other posts.

Quickseller and I both exclude and don't like each other, and I can't say OgNasty and I are best buds either. I think we are all just tired of this horse shit after so many years of it.

[suchmoon]

What I was and still am advocating for is a protocol for negative ratings that requires a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I have in detail described why this is needed here, and in other posts.

That sounds very reasonable if I quote it like this, separately from the rest of your "personal attacks", which you amazingly engage in AND accuse others of engaging in, all within the same post. So unfortunately I have to keep excluding you because of your inconsistency but I would definitely be watching how you would apply all this in practice should you get into DT next week.

[TECSHARE]

What I was and still am advocating for is a protocol for negative ratings that requires a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I have in detail described why this is needed here, and in other posts.

That sounds very reasonable if I quote it like this, separately from the rest of your "personal attacks", which you amazingly engage in AND accuse others of engaging in, all within the same post. So unfortunately I have to keep excluding you because of your inconsistency but I would definitely be watching how you would apply all this in practice should you get into DT next week.

Except everything I brought up was about the topic at hand. You call it "personal attacks", I call it calling out their abusive behavior in direct relation to the topic at hand. If you will notice as well it was not myself that engaged in hostilities in spite of the hostile reaction to my points.

Frankly I think this argument is nonsense and just a lame attempt at putting the onus on me for causing a disruption for simply engaging these people like I just should have expected them to act in such a hostile way for suggesting things be done differently. I have been very consistent with my principals, and I find it fairly amusing that again there is always some kind of false equivalency any time any one dares question one of the forum grand inquisitors.

We should be able to be critical of them without it being labeled "a personal attack", and what they were doing was in no way the same thing. It would make it much easier to argue against me if this could all be simply dismissed as yet another personal flame war now couldn't it? I find it interesting you are so set on this narrative, ready to put me on that same bus simply because I don't kowtow to this uncontrolled bullying behavior by submitting to it.

[Gunthar]

~snip

IMO it is not a "pointing fingers and threat in PM thing" or I can assure you I would have been the first one to know as by the nature of my business over this forum I'm mostly in contact with all the "gangs" you are talking about. In this thread I have seen, instead, attempts to address trust ratings of people that didnt even know they got in DT after the new rules and experienced DT members tried to give suggestions over some disputable feedbacks that have been left in the past and now became obsolete/uncalled/dangerous (hence some members have been ~tilded by some DT1 and advised in PM of the inconsistency of some of their past ratings.

Example:
this user  has been tagged by Lesbian Cow without reference
The same user posted here and then prolly to avoid the red paint, he posted here

I'm assuming Lesbian Cow being or being not in DT would make no difference: they should have posted a reference for that "Skamaroo" tag, now we dont know why that's a Skamaroo or we would be immediately able to tag even the second account that Skamaroo created. This is just an example in this case the Skamaroo just attempted to void the neg rep and he shouldn't have done that: new red paint coming.
But in case of more serious scam accusations or frauds, it is very important to provide DT members and the entire community a solid reference (or most of DT wont even bother to tag)

Some experienced DT tho have PMd cases like this kindly asking them to revise their feedback and ~tilded them until solved

Where is the #gang in yoru opinion?

[suchmoon]

~

One of the greatest life lessons I learned around grade 3 or 4 was that in order to be able to dish it out I should learn to take it as well. And I thought I was very late with that revelation. So it amuses me to no end how these days, on the intertubes of all places, there are presumably adult (sorry if I'm wrong here) individuals unable to grasp such a simple concept. Other than that, again - you're making very good points. Shame that you seem to be incapable of following your own rules or advice. Feel free to prove me wrong. One week to go. Tick tock.

[owlcatz]

~snip

IMO it is not a "pointing fingers and threat in PM thing" or I can assure you I would have been the first one to know as by the nature of my business over this forum I'm mostly in contact with all the "gangs" you are talking about. In this thread I have seen, instead, attempts to address trust ratings of people that didnt even know they got in DT after the new rules and experienced DT members tried to give suggestions over some disputable feedbacks that have been left in the past and now became obsolete/uncalled/dangerous (hence some members have been ~tilded by some DT1 and advised in PM of the inconsistency of some of their past ratings.

Example:
this user  has been tagged by Lesbian Cow without reference
The same user posted here and then prolly to avoid the red paint, he posted here

I'm assuming Lesbian Cow being or being not in DT would make no difference: they should have posted a reference for that "Skamaroo" tag, now we dont know why that's a Skamaroo or we would be immediately able to tag even the second account that Skamaroo created. This is just an example in this case the Skamaroo just attempted to void the neg rep and he shouldn't have done that: new red paint coming.
But in case of more serious scam accusations or frauds, it is very important to provide DT members and the entire community a solid reference (or most of DT wont even bother to tag)

Some experienced DT tho have PMd cases like this kindly asking them to revise their feedback and ~tilded them until solved

Where is the #gang in yoru opinion?

Lesbian cow was referencing this post I suppose. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4542163.msg42182892#msg42182892

A lot of people in collectibles section here are very well trusted and have made huge deals with people. Many of them did not envision being on DT1/DT2 so that's why you won't find all ref links - my trust history is a lot of the same. Sure, we may have made some huge deals, but sometimes it's not here, and sometimes it's nobodies business but ours/theirs either, so no reflinks exist for positive trust. 🤷‍♀️

I guess on negs we sometimes got lazy. I was excluded by certain nasty individuals (lol) for a long time so I didn't care much about the system. I've tried to review and fix my ratings, but some are "historical" to me and give me chuckles and so I just can't.

[KingZee]

---
Where is the #gang in yoru opinion?

I wasn't talking about leaving feedback, I was talking about including/excluding people in lists. Here's an example of two users telling another user to change his list because it includes people they don't agree with :

User duesoldi added by coinlocket$,
He have left 9 positive feedback starting from 2019-01-11, and also by local language. No any reference link or no any negative feedback.

User Micio  added by coinlocket$,
Although his all feedback old. He does not leaving feedback from last 2 month but all the feedback is positive, no any negative feedback there.  

@coinlocket$ can you please revise your custom list (DT2) ?

I've sent him a PM about this. Hopefully he will respond soon.

You could just scroll through page 43 and below to see a lot more example of this, I just remembered the message above because it was the one that caused me to comment the first time about this issue.

What I'm saying is that Lauda and any other user judging each user's list, and forcing their completely biased opinions is just wrong.. Like, if he wants to include someone that didn't leave a lot of feedback, and another that left local feedback, and you think that's wrong, it's YOUR BIASED opinion. Those people aren't scammers or objectively bad people, so telling another user to change his list based on your personal views is just going to centralize the system, and all lists are going to become copies of Lauda's utopia.

This is my one and only point that I'm going to stand for. It's because it affects everyone on the forums, because it changes the default trust list. Anything else I couldn't give half a fuck about, you guys can leave red or positive feedback to each other all you want, because it's just interpersonal drama, and it doesn't affect every user on the forums.

[JusticeForYou]

~snip

Most of the thighs you listed clearly state that the trust is manipulated and monopolized by this "cult" of people to satisfy there power hunger. Much proves have already been listed here by some individuals and pointing to the abuse of trust but its just ignored by saying its subjective in some sense.

I know some of them could not be posting there views as they could be harassed with just some self-made accusations, and abuse of power but I think this system should be use for the same reason to let your voice roll out and let everyone know who is right or wrong and each opinion counts. That is the way trust list should be used in a better way not just by getting afraid of someone removing you if you don't remove someone else.

[The Cryptovator]

What I'm saying is that Lauda and any other user judging each user's list, and forcing their completely biased opinions is just wrong.. Like, if he wants to include someone that didn't leave a lot of feedback, and another that left local feedback, and you think that's wrong, it's YOUR BIASED opinion. Those people aren't scammers or objectively bad people, so telling another user to change his list based on your personal views is just going to centralize the system, and all lists are going to become copies of Lauda's utopia.

No one forcing here, you know very well there is exclusion (~) option. We can simply exclude them, no need to ask anyone. But I think it's better to solve by discussion here. I don't like just kick out someone suddenly. If you trust any person you can leave positive feedback's. But you should add on your custom list those user's feedback's you trust. This is the main fact. Why you need make big your  exclusion list since you can solve it by discuss here ? If DT1 exclude someone then he will removed automatically, is it not centralized? Then what is the problem discuss here ? This is criteria from theymos, user must be an active member. If someone left positive feedback's a years ago and he inactive from long time then why you should add on DT list ? His positive feedback's will reflect green and there is chance happen something wrong. Nevermind if someone not leaving feedback's but he should an active member, so he will know the current situation.

[Chris!]

After not being active for a while and trying to understand the new default trust I'm just to the point where it doesn't really matter. I'm just going to keep on doing what I've always done. If you're a scammer you'll get red tagged and if you're genuine and trustworthy you'll be green. Simple.

[eddie13]

If someone left positive feedback's a years ago and he inactive from long time then why you should add on DT list ?

Because they trust their feedback maybe?
Just because history happened before you showed up doesn't mean that the history should be voided.

The older the positive feedback the better and you just want to remove it? No..
Why do you think the feedback score grows by age?
You haven't even been here long enough for a score to mature..

Even if the person that left trust is inactive it doesn't matter because a new negative today destroys his score anyway.
Just because someone gets a negative doesn't mean all of their old positive feedback should be removed either. The negatives cover it.

I actually wish feedback could not be deleted period and once it was left it was there for good..
I for one read a lot of old threads and feedback is very helpful to understand past situations.

This is criteria from theymos, user must be an active member.

Only to get on DT1

so he will know the current situation.

The current situation is just temporary and just a drop in the bucket of the history of Bitcoin.. It is also outstandingly unusual.

You haven't even been here a year, lol
You have no business being on DT1 IMO.. Maybe DT2

Feedback disagreements should be solved with exclusions..
If you don't like it, exclude it.
I don't think people should be sticking their noses in other people's trust lists, threatening others to change their lists, not to mention their votes..

Theymos should make trust lists anonymous..

[suchmoon]

Feedback disagreements should be solved with exclusions..
If you don't like it, exclude it.
I don't think people should be sticking their noses in other people's trust lists, not to mention their votes..

I've done both, i.e. excluding quietly and discussing it, and I think there are pros and cons for each approach. Prior to this "redesign" of DT I didn't feel a particular need to discuss anything, mainly because my decisions were inconsequential. Now I think contacting the person makes sense in certain situations. Completely excluding someone for a minor disagreement or misunderstanding might be an overkill.

[eddie13]

Feedback disagreements should be solved with exclusions..
If you don't like it, exclude it.
I don't think people should be sticking their noses in other people's trust lists, not to mention their votes..

I've done both, i.e. excluding quietly and discussing it, and I think there are pros and cons for each approach. Prior to this "redesign" of DT I didn't feel a particular need to discuss anything, mainly because my decisions were inconsequential. Now I think contacting the person makes sense in certain situations. Completely excluding someone for a minor disagreement or misunderstanding might be an overkill.

I agree that contacting a person is fine to discuss situations but giving them an ultimatum is sketchy..

Say you include Darkstar, and darkstar included zazarb, but you don't like zazarbs ratings..
You can simply exclude zazarb and not threaten to remove/exclude darkstar unless he removes zazarb, for example..

Or whoever in dt1 included zazarb..
You don't have to go to the DT1 and threaten them to remove zazarb from DT2. Just exclude zazarb yourself and leave them alone..

[The Cryptovator]

You don't have to go to the DT1 and threaten them to remove zazarb from DT2. Just exclude zazarb yourself and leave them alone..

No one threaten here for remove someone. And all the case isn't posting here. I don't like someone its doesn't mean he have to remove. But in specific case it's better to discuss here. So other DT also will able to see and they can deside what is the solution. I am not agree to force anyone for remove or exclude. It's their own business. That's the reason I never PM DT1 for this kind of issue. But I sent PM DT2 who is only on my custom list if I found wrong on their trust rating. If someone (DT2) misuse trust system from my list then I have right to ask him, if I am not agree with his feedback's then obviously I will remove him from list especially those are new.

But I don't like to bother any others (DT1) list. So which is look very much unfair to me I wrote here so other DT1 can decide what is the solution. For example, If I misuse power then you should not ask here ?

[TECSHARE]

After not being active for a while and trying to understand the new default trust I'm just to the point where it doesn't really matter. I'm just going to keep on doing what I've always done. If you're a scammer you'll get red tagged and if you're genuine and trustworthy you'll be green. Simple.

Its almost like the trust system is so convoluted it is completely useless for the intended purpose of protecting noobs and should be used explicitly for ratings involving trade. Who knew?

[Lauda]

What I'm saying is that Lauda and any other user judging each user's list, and forcing their completely biased opinions is just wrong.. Like, if he wants to include someone that didn't leave a lot of feedback, and another that left local feedback, and you think that's wrong, it's YOUR BIASED opinion. Those people aren't scammers or objectively bad people, so telling another user to change his list based on your personal views is just going to centralize the system, and all lists are going to become copies of Lauda's utopia.

No one forcing here, you know very well there is exclusion (~) option. We can simply exclude them, no need to ask anyone. But I think it's better to solve by discussion here. I don't like just kick out someone suddenly. If you trust any person you can leave positive feedback's. But you should add on your custom list those user's feedback's you trust. This is the main fact. Why you need make big your  exclusion list since you can solve it by discuss here ? If DT1 exclude someone then he will removed automatically, is it not centralized? Then what is the problem discuss here ? This is criteria from theymos, user must be an active member. If someone left positive feedback's a years ago and he inactive from long time then why you should add on DT list ? His positive feedback's will reflect green and there is chance happen something wrong. Nevermind if someone not leaving feedback's but he should an active member, so he will know the current situation.

Alright, the KingFool thinks that it is more appropriate/less power hungry or whatever he's talking about to not ask someone to revise feedback/fix their list but just instantly exclude them. How many accusations of bullshit do you think we'll see once more than half of DT2 is kicked out?

I agree that contacting a person is fine to discuss situations but giving them an ultimatum is sketchy..

Say you include Darkstar, and darkstar included zazarb, but you don't like zazarbs ratings..
You can simply exclude zazarb and not threaten to remove/exclude darkstar unless he removes zazarb, for example..

Or whoever in dt1 included zazarb..
You don't have to go to the DT1 and threaten them to remove zazarb from DT2. Just exclude zazarb yourself and leave them alone..

Wrong. There are no implicit ultimatums, you'd have to actually state 'remove X or I will have to keep you excluded' but even that doesn't have to be an ultimatum. The simpler solution is excluding both; whether he wants to resolve it or not is up to him anyways.