DefaultTrust changes

[ac2eugenio]

~

I am glad that you are back on the DT1 list,shouldnt be excluded in the first place.The gang's hierarchy will end soon.Theymos wont allow these abuse and unrightful feedbacks to those who oppose other's opinion.

[1714125351]

1714125351

[1714125351]

1714125351

[Thule]

if you exclude ognasty again im coming for you next too
my next list will include all who include ognasty and ~ all who ~ ognasty if you kick him out again !

I appreciate the support and I would question anyone's motivations who finds me to be untrustworthy considering my long history of trustworthy actions on this forum.  However, I would urge people to trust no individual blindly, and try to avoid the politics of this new system while trying to create the most accurate representation of your trust possible.

Based only on past business experience Ognasty was always my favorite escrow over the years always doing an awesome job and most important always standing at the right side of conflicts.At least these i'm aware of.Never had any problems with Ognasty and always considered his opinion as very important.
I saw many times in the past that there is a conflict between him and Lauda's group as Ognasty very often wrote facts about Lauda and his cult which they didn't liked.

Looking at the distrust list against Ognasty its just what everyone knows


Lauda
TMAN
Owlcatz
Lutpin
the phamacist
suchmoon
atriz (alt of lauda)


So to the new young DT members .You know which members we accuse of being a gang supporting each other and creating a lot of abuse and scams.
You think its a coincidence that exectly these people distrust OgNasty ?
You call us manipulators trying to kick them out because of their heavy abuse but what about their coordinated abuse against any member even DT who doesn't play under their scammy rules.

And Lauda already posted many times that the newbie DT members as thats the name he uses for you guys are just allowed to stay in DT as long as you don't interfere with their actions.
Any DT member interfering with their actions will instantly get him into their distrust list and out of DT.

[OgNasty]

I don't think it matters who makes the thread.  If you still trust Lauda after the extortion of zeroxal for joining a community organization Lauda wanted to see fail, or the non-transparent escrow where he unilaterally decided to release a huge portion of funds to the scammer behind the failed project that cost users millions of dollars, or him constantly promoting one scam after another with his signature, or his removing/replacing feedback on rmcdermott927's profile so it is always at the top to punish him for standing up for what's right, then nothing is going to convince you what he is or all the wrongdoing that has been done.  One thing I'm certain of, this community has lost far more $ as a result of Lauda's activities than any scam attempt he's ever thwarted.

LOL.  I made my comment about Lauda being untrustworthy and he retaliated instantly with negative trust.  This is actually great news for the forum, as I suspect the sooner theymos blacklists Lauda/TMAN for their trust abuse, the better off this forum will be.

[Lauda]

LOL.  I made my comment about Lauda being untrustworthy and he retaliated instantly with negative trust.  This is actually great news for the forum, as I suspect the sooner theymos blacklists Lauda/TMAN for their trust abuse, the better off this forum will be.

Nah I tagged you before you commented; no retaliation, you're not worth it so don't worry.  

[TECSHARE]

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.
 - Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 - You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.
 - It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views, since a big point of this new system is to get me less involved, but if a culture somewhat compatible with my views does not eventually develop, then I will consider this more freeform DT selection to be a failure, and I'll probably get rid of it in favor of enforcing custom trust lists.

Thank you for making clear or reiterating some of your stances on the use of these tools. I appreciate your goal here of trying to make this community largely self managing, but I would like to point something out.

Currently most of the standards you just iterated are enforced already to one degree or another by the community as it is. You and the staff almost never need to pick thru these ratings except in extreme cases. I think everyone agrees minimal overlap with the trust system and the staff is preferable for pretty much all involved.

The problem with this logic is your rubric is still extremely subjective, and this ambiguity is very exploitable. I would compare it to the US federal code. People commit felonies every day and they just don't know it because the laws are so obscure and countless. It creates an atmosphere of not only selective enforcement, but ambiguity in what the real rules are because penalties are applied arbitrarily. Stalin once said under his own rule "Show me the man I will show you the crime." While this is largely hyperbolic, it still demonstrates the notion that the forum exists under an atmosphere of constant fear of retaliation over any kind of dissent.

As the system is now it will likely just turn into a giant toxic tumor. I have pretty much said the same for a very long time, and here we are at golf ball size. There is still time to fix it before it is just a total fucking mess that needs to be brought out back and shot in the head. I suggest you ask people to observe a standard of evidence theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.

This could be enforced exactly as your above guidelines are, and people who don't follow them simply get removed from trust lists. The trust system mostly is self managing, and as it is now intervention is minimal from staff. All the scam hunters can still do everything they are doing, they just will not get the dopamine hit from dropping red ratings all day and lording over people with no evidence.

Just as we as a community decide if some one is guilty of a crime or scam of some kind will be exactly how it will continue, only the rating needs to be the penalty applied after some factual evidence is presented, not before. This change will fix a lot of the rift we currently have forming in this community, and help return us to having a more productive core community. As a result people will trust it more to invest resources into it as they will not fear that they will be the next one burnt at the stake for pissing off the wrong person.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

the phamacist
<snip>
you guys are just allowed to stay in DT as long as you don't interfere with their actions.
Any DT member interfering with their actions will instantly get him into their distrust list and out of DT.

Leave me the fuck out of this.  I'm not making any trust inclusion/exclusion changes based on who's on the new DT list, so what you wrote is absolutely not true. 

[ac2eugenio]

I don't think it matters who makes the thread.  If you still trust Lauda after the extortion of zeroxal for joining a community organization Lauda wanted to see fail, or the non-transparent escrow where he unilaterally decided to release a huge portion of funds to the scammer behind the failed project that cost users millions of dollars, or him constantly promoting one scam after another with his signature, or his removing/replacing feedback on rmcdermott927's profile so it is always at the top to punish him for standing up for what's right, then nothing is going to convince you what he is or all the wrongdoing that has been done.  One thing I'm certain of, this community has lost far more $ as a result of Lauda's activities than any scam attempt he's ever thwarted.

LOL.  I made my comment about Lauda being untrustworthy and he retaliated instantly with negative trust.  This is actually great news for the forum, as I suspect the sooner theymos blacklists Lauda/TMAN for their trust abuse, the better off this forum will be.

~

I am glad that you are back on the DT1 list,shouldnt be excluded in the first place.The gang's hierarchy will end soon.Theymos wont allow these abuse and unrightful feedbacks to those who oppose other's opinion.

Looks like someone got to Gunthar and had him remove me from his inclusion list so I'd be off again.  The desperation grows...  

Definitely Theymos sooner or later will blacklist people from  the list.I just disagree with what you have said if a newbie will create a thread like to exclude the gang from the list there will be a big difference if someone like OgNasty will create one remember cats has only 9 lives  

[Thule]

LOL.  I made my comment about Lauda being untrustworthy and he retaliated instantly with negative trust.  This is actually great news for the forum, as I suspect the sooner theymos blacklists Lauda/TMAN for their trust abuse, the better off this forum will be.

When excluding Lauda and its group from your own trust list somebody needs to check OGNasty's trust list.
Only black positiv feedbacks of real trades (massiv amount)

And after that check the trust feedback of Lauda.Nearly only red and a by far more massiv red amount.

So since DT members represents trust of community how is it possible that Lauda has based on the system more trust than Ognasty even Laudas feedback are all negative and Ognasty's feedback all positiv?


Maybe system manipulation ?

Maybe a reason why Lauda is accusing us of manipulation since he knows exectly he has no support from the community and is only holding in DT as long as his DT buddies will support him.
But the majority of the forum is clearly against Lauda and thats where he makes into his pants trying every movement to keep down.

Thats also the reason Lauda and his group got so nasty about the russian who excluded them from their trust list and their main demand was/is to be included.

Theymos is clearly supporting to implement the will of the community and thats something Lauda is fighting against.

[H8bussesNbicycles]

LOL.  I made my comment about Lauda being untrustworthy and he retaliated instantly with negative trust.  This is actually great news for the forum, as I suspect the sooner theymos blacklists Lauda/TMAN for their trust abuse, the better off this forum will be.

When excluding Lauda and its group from your own trust list somebody needs to check OGNasty's trust list.
Only black positiv feedbacks of real trades (massiv amount)

And after that check the trust feedback of Lauda.Nearly only red and a by far more massiv red amount.

So since DT members represents trust of community how is it possible that Lauda has based on the system more trust than Ognasty even Laudas feedback are all negative and Ognasty's feedback all positiv?


Maybe system manipulation ?

Maybe a reason why Lauda is accusing us of manipulation since he knows exectly he has no support from the community and is only holding in DT as long as his DT buddies will support him.
But the majority of the forum is clearly against Lauda and thats where he makes into his pants trying every movement to keep down.

Thats also the reason Lauda and his group got so nasty about the russian who excluded them from their trust list and their main demand was/is to be included.

Theymos is clearly supporting to implement the will of the community and thats something Lauda is fighting against.

Theymos doesnt like lauda but he wants us users to sort it out for him
Theymos agrees with ognasty
Theymos trusts ognasty

[Foxpup]

Look at my trust right now,does their feedback appropriate? accused me of conspiracy by distrusting people that i wanted to? looks like they are abusing the trust system..I am not active for months but i logged in everyday and read some useful threads and then by customizing my trustlist gives me a redtrust?

You know, you might have had a chance at convincing me to remove your negative trust had you not got your accounts mixed up when PMing me about it. What a way to burn an alt.

I think everyone here is taking the "easy" way out. It's VERY easy to take the side of the one with power rather than a red-trusted newbie.

But imagine if it were OgNasty that made the thread of removing Lauda from DT?

It would have made no difference, at least not to me. H8bussesNbicycles didn't even have negative trust before making that thread, and I didn't even know who he was (I still don't, but I'm pretty sure he's no newbie).

[suchmoon]

You call us manipulators

I'll call you a candidate for the blacklist. Better?

Let's see what kind of information we will get

I see this as an attempt to intimidate. Not going to work but feel free to waste your money.

[Thule]

Look at my trust right now,does their feedback appropriate? accused me of conspiracy by distrusting people that i wanted to? looks like they are abusing the trust system..I am not active for months but i logged in everyday and read some useful threads and then by customizing my trustlist gives me a redtrust?

You know, you might have had a chance at convincing me to remove your negative trust had you not got your accounts mixed up when PMing me about it. What a way to burn an alt.

I think everyone here is taking the "easy" way out. It's VERY easy to take the side of the one with power rather than a red-trusted newbie.

But imagine if it were OgNasty that made the thread of removing Lauda from DT?

It would have made no difference, at least not to me. H8bussesNbicycles didn't even have negative trust before making that thread, and I didn't even know who he was (I still don't, but I'm pretty sure he's no newbie).

since when its not allowed to have multiple accounts ?

You call us manipulators

I'll call you a candidate for the blacklist. Better?

Let's see what kind of information we will get

I see this as an attempt to intimidate. Not going to work but feel free to waste your money.

Actually its not.
Person wrote me he is going to send some screenshots as proof and made some nasty claims i don't want to post in public before seeing any evidance
(since i'm not working like you to post first accusations and later search for any kind of evidence)

[Foxpup]

since when its not allowed to have alts?

It's perfectly allowed for untrustworthy users to have alts; that's why I only gave them negative trust instead of reporting the tell-tale PMs and getting them both banned.

[Thule]

since when its not allowed to have alts?

It's perfectly allowed for untrustworthy users to have alts; that's why I only gave them negative trust instead of reporting the tell-tale PMs and getting them both banned.

Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.

So why did he get tagged  ?
If you tagg him you should also tagg the accounts of suchmoon such as glem or tagg any other known alt.

Also who are you to decide if somebody is untrustworthy or not ?Based on what evidence are you making these taggs ?

Cause currently i can only see that you are abusing the trust system which has been confirmed by theymos.

[minifrij]

Also who are you to decide if somebody is untrustworthy or not ?

Foxpup: Is put onto a system defined by the community to measure the accuracy of ratings

Thule: 'excuse me who put you in charge, mr?!?'

[theymos]

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 hadn't read into the thread deeply enough to see that stuff. Those are better arguments against the trustworthiness of H8bussesNbicycles & co., but note that the current negative-trust-ratings were sent long before that. Before February, the thread looks like politics to me.

I'm wondering whether you specifically disapprove of account dealers being tagged--not necessarily your opinion on the matter, but whether you'd consider that an inappropriate use of the trust system.

Since some people view account sales as fundamentally untrustworthy, I think it's an appropriate use.

I have no problem with your (theymos) conclusion that "H8bussesNbicycles's thread looks like [politics] to me", but isn't there a bit of a problem with the self-moderation aspect of certain kinds of threads, especially when dealing with seemingly meta issues? 

For example, I had 6 posts deleted from that thread so of course, now I don't even attempt to participate or pay attention to postings in that particular thread, since I could not even contribute if I wanted to, except if I were to exclude Lauda from my trust list, then they might allow my posts, and I thought that my posts were innocuous, even though obviously the contents of my posts likely distracted from the message that they want to promote in that thread and spread through the forum if they are able, inaccurate as some other members might find such thread messages to be.

I don't find it unreasonable to have a restrictive selfmod thread. You can guess from the banner & deletion stats that it's going to be a restrictive, single-viewpoint thread. You could always start another topic.

That said, using selfmod topics in a deceptive way can be an appropriate reason for negative trust.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

So why did he get tagged  ?
If you tagg him you should also tagg the accounts of suchmoon such as glem or tagg any other known alt.

Take this up in a new thread if you have an issue with tagging of alts/account sales.  Alts are allowed and are not automatically red-trusted by anyone unless the main account is red-trusted.  Timelord2067 is/was giving neutral trust for alts, though I'm not sure if he's still doing that.

Theymos answered my question about account sales, and I appreciate it.  Every case should be judged individually, IMO, which I waffled on for quite some time--and that's one reason why suchmoon's purchase of Gleb's account didn't result in me tagging either one of them; why I removed my tag on iluvbitcoins; why I didn't tag OmegaStarScream; and so on.  Those peeps are otherwise trustworthy, even if they did engage in a behavior I disagree with.

[Thule]

Also who are you to decide if somebody is untrustworthy or not ?

Foxpup: Is put onto a system defined by the community to measure the accuracy of ratings

Thule: 'excuse me who put you in charge, mr?!?'

I am the community asking questions on which facts he makes his ratings if a person is untrustworthy or not.
A problem with that ?

[minifrij]

I am the community asking questions on which facts he makes his ratings if a person is untrustworthy or not.
A problem with that ?

Yes. You are a person, not a community.

[Thule]

So why did he get tagged  ?
If you tagg him you should also tagg the accounts of suchmoon such as glem or tagg any other known alt.

Take this up in a new thread if you have an issue with tagging of alts/account sales.  Alts are allowed and are not automatically red-trusted by anyone unless the main account is red-trusted.  Timelord2067 is/was giving neutral trust for alts, though I'm not sure if he's still doing that.

Theymos answered my question about account sales, and I appreciate it.  Every case should be judged individually, IMO, which I waffled on for quite some time--and that's one reason why suchmoon's purchase of Gleb's account didn't result in me tagging either one of them; why I removed my tag on iluvbitcoins; why I didn't tag OmegaStarScream; and so on.  Those peeps are otherwise trustworthy, even if they did engage in a behavior I disagree with.

So to receive the right to buy an alt without getting a negative feedback is that you need to know that user.
Seems very centralised to me.How many of all users do you know on that forum to make a proper judgement ?

Yes. You are a person, not a community.
[/quote][/quote]
Actually i'm part of the community and represent a group with diffrent opinions



@theymos

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 hadn't read into the thread deeply enough to see that stuff. Those are better arguments against the trustworthiness of H8bussesNbicycles & co., but note that the current negative-trust-ratings were sent long before that. Before February, the thread looks like politics to me.

If you get active on stinger how does it come you didn't get activ on these merit abusers ?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2829282.0

Oh right OP , you'd still complain because you're a butthurt idiot

You call that quality which deserved 50 merits ?
From atriz (alt of Lauda) to Lauda himself ?

I really see you trying to change that forum into a decentralised place run by the community.However acting on DT's member request (like stinger) but being at the same time blind of merit abuse from Lauda and other DT members instantly puts an imbalance between community power and current DT members who have circled merits for a longer time which is a known fact.


I mean show me any quality threads of TMAN or Vod as example ?
How did they mainly get their merits ?
Surely not for posting quality posts but people supporting their actions like tagging someone.Calling someone out etc.
So if they got their main merit from supporters of actions why do you put the community in a disadvantage that we are not allowed to merit peoples action we support ?

I still would've blacklisted anyone who got into DT1 through that type of shenanigans.

Many DT members have majority of their merit from people supporting their actions instead of post quality.Didn't see any actions on that?
Maybe someone can show me the quality posts where Lauda earned his merits.