DefaultTrust changes

[DarkStar_]

Exactly. People we want around are fed up and just walking away. Cool try with your cliche meme though.

I agree that that's an issue; I posted the xkcd because cryptohunter talked about "implications for free speech".

[1713956911]

1713956911

[1713956911]

1713956911

[1713956911]

1713956911

[1713956911]

1713956911

[marlboroza]

marlboroza where'd you go?  This was your scam fight...

Sorry, I was busy, "trying to keep newbie accounts off the forum".

However, unless I’m vastly mistaken, I believe my thoughts and actions are in line with how the administration of this forum would like to see things being done. If I’m wrong, please theymos or Cobra reach out to me via PM and help me see the error of my ways.

You don't need theymos and Cobra to PM you something that many people see. It was presented to you many times, it is just you have ignored everything people have told you.

You don't appreciate anyone nor anyone's work here. It's only about you, you and you and how great and trustworthy you are. This is impression I got about you lately. Just read your replies.

And to be honest, you have completely lost it, sending merit to someone who is suggesting people in reputation to exclude all people who are actively tagging scammers and to add several scammers to their trust network? Just because you have this fight with Lauda?

You want to talk about:

EDIT: Where are all the scam busters when an ACTUAL THREAT appears?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 So where are you?

You have time to reply in scam accusation against fortune jack several times for reason which is very well known to everyone here, but when someone has real problem with cashing out 33BTC from another gambling site, where are you?

I am asking you, where are you?

I don’t spend my time looking for people to tag... who scam

FTFY
Then don't insult people who do with your "questions", "assumptions" and "conclusions".

Great example.  I've excluded the user who was promoting this operation from my trust network.  I see you went the opposite way and included him in yours.

I like the way how you cut half post. Edited with full quote. Point - missed. I don't see why you have excluded Hhampuz based on thread which was locked exactly 4 months before scam accusation, but as I said you missed point. Maybe to re-read few posts again.

Because someone is tagging those they consider "scammers" does not mean they should be allowed to use the trust system for personal selfish reasons or to stifle free speech. I consider those sorts of persons very dangerous to this movement. If they must remain then they need to be tagging scammers only not tagging anyone they choose for any reason they choose. This is the main issue here.

You mean someone like this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49514571#msg49514571 ?

Oh, again you didn't see this post which was pointed to you many times.

I see you have no problem now advertising the other gambling house mentioned in marlboroza's quote as facing a scam accusation.  How convenient.

Strange to mention Fortunejack:

If you take a compensation (in this case a bug bounty), you are legally entitled to nothing.

This is my current opinion on bugs and compensations and we can leave it at that.

Of course it is...  Considering it is the exact opposite response you would and have had if/when you weren't wearing their signature.  Funny how your ethics depend on whether or not you're paid by the offender.  Your word is meaningless and your opinions clouded by greed.  This is yet another example of why you belong nowhere near any sort of position of trust.

You really need to stop spreading unecessary lies and derailing the thread. Thanks.

You really need to stop being tied to scams.  Literally everything you touch turns into a scam.  ICOs you escrow, signatures you wear, somehow people always end up having their money stolen, and it always seems to not be your fault, then it happens again.

However, it seemed a good opportunity to display how useless the current tagging efforts are, that they literally don’t even tag actual scam threats because they’re too busy trying to keep newbies off the forum.

Sounds like something for you, others are too busy with newbies.

So you won't be changing anything about the paused campaign for a scam, as alleged by marlboroza?  I assume marlboroza has no issue with this and will keep Hhampuz in his trust network, but has an issue I didn't spend the time to research this issue to tag whoever was behind it (because I wasn't aware of it)?  Wow...

I see you have no problem now advertising the other gambling house mentioned in marlboroza's quote as facing a scam accusation.  How convenient.  Yes, ignore away.  That'll fix the problem here...

marlboroza where'd you go?  This was your scam fight...

You were not aware of it, yet you just said you excluded me from your trust network due to it? That seems... conflicting. No?

That's not the reason I've excluded you, but it does seem to reinforce my judgement as being correct.

Cutting quotes again?

You want to talk about:

EDIT: Where are all the scam busters when an ACTUAL THREAT appears?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 So where are you?

You have time to reply in scam accusation against fortune jack several times for reason which is very well known to everyone here, but when someone has real problem with cashing out 33BTC from another gambling site, where are you?

I am asking you, where are you?

Great example.  I've excluded the user who was promoting this operation from my trust network.  I see you went the opposite way and included him in yours.

http://loyce.club/trust/2019-01-25_Fri_22.33h/18321.html



This confused me!

OG excluded Hhampuz for this reason but didn't excluded Hhampuz for this reason, and wasn't aware of this but excluded Hhampuz for it 

Best part - scam accusations have been opened after January 25. 2019 

You guys are just pointing out how much more trustworthy my actions have been than yours and how hypocritical your trust networks are...

[OgNasty]

OG excluded Hhampuz for this reason but didn't excluded Hhampuz for this reason

You were not aware of it, yet you just said you excluded me from your trust network due to it? That seems... conflicting. No?

That's not the reason I've excluded you, but it does seem to reinforce my judgement as being correct.

Because reading is hard for marlboroza...

You want to talk about:

EDIT: Where are all the scam busters when an ACTUAL THREAT appears?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 So where are you?

You have time to reply in scam accusation against fortune jack several times for reason which is very well known to everyone here, but when someone has real problem with cashing out 33BTC from another gambling site, where are you?

I am asking you, where are you?

Great example.  I've excluded the user who was promoting this operation from my trust network.  I see you went the opposite way and included him in yours.

Walk us through your logic on this again?  You seemed to overlook it in your rant of nonsense.    You seemed adamant not enough was being done about this scam, but trust the user who promoted it and lambast a user who has them excluded.

[marlboroza]

You seemed to overlook it in your rant of nonsense.

You mean, this nonsense https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.msg49514571#msg49514571 ?

As I said, read again posts starting from "question" and you will eventually end up here

Hey Og, why don't you message my clients again telling them they should stop working with me? That went so well last time 

The scams you've been promoting?  Why would they kick their golden goose?

You seems using word scam many times but I can't find anything related in your trust ratings. Don't you want to warn community about these scams you are aware of?
Isn't that important part of default trust network, to tag scammers when spotted?

[The Cryptovator]

I think the trust system does way more harm to the community than good, it should be removed IMO. The amount of people I get direct messaging me on Twitter complaining how they stopped using this forum because of issues around trust is noticeable, or ranting about Lauda. I don't think these people are necessarily scammers either.

If I am not wrong you are very less active on forum I mean you are not spending much time on this forum. So your thoughts isn't wrong, because you are not aware about current situation of forum. It's true people's leavening this forum, let them leave. We don't need too much scammers here. For example, many ICO's scammer has been trying to promote their project on this forum. But unfortunately their scam activity exposed and got tag by DT1 members. So eventually they leave this forum and choose other forum to promote. So let them leave this kind of people's.

Better to just remove it. I'm sure the overall happiness of the community would go way up. Let people figure out for themselves if someone or a business is trustworthy, as they do on the rest of the internet.

In my opinion current scam rating on forum is 10% overall. If removed trust system no doubts it will be 80%. Perhaps even people's will try to scam you(LOL). There is lot of negativity about bitcoin, so will we leave bitcoin?

Trust scores are mostly meaningless, it's closer to a popularity contest than a true measure of someone's trustworthiness. Just by using this site, all of you are implicitly trusting me, but that isn't reflected at all in my trust score, in fact I probably seem less trustworthy on first observation than some actual shady people on here. There's so much angst with the whole system, maybe there's a way to make it work better, and tweaking it could eventually lead to that.

No doubts we are trusting you by using this forum. But it's by default, not for any specific reason that's why no one left you positive rating and other reason is your inactivity. Perhaps you are talking about green trust that you think meaningless. But did you think red trust really meaningless? No one here is not getting tag without proper reason. I am not telling 100% feedback's are accurate but most of them are accurate.

but for now it just looks like something that's dividing the community.

Wrong. Not dividing community, its dividing scammers and community. If 10 people's make sound  against trust system from more then 2 million users then it doesn't mean community is dividing. That means 10 people's is virus and they should leave.

[TECSHARE]

I think the trust system does way more harm to the community than good, it should be removed IMO. The amount of people I get direct messaging me on Twitter complaining how they stopped using this forum because of issues around trust is noticeable, or ranting about Lauda. I don't think these people are necessarily scammers either.

If I am not wrong you are very less active on forum I mean you are not spending much time on this forum. So your thoughts isn't wrong, because you are not aware about current situation of forum. It's true people's leavening this forum, let them leave. We don't need too much scammers here. For example, many ICO's scammer has been trying to promote their project on this forum. But unfortunately their scam activity exposed and got tag by DT1 members. So eventually they leave this forum and choose other forum to promote. So let them leave this kind of people's.

Better to just remove it. I'm sure the overall happiness of the community would go way up. Let people figure out for themselves if someone or a business is trustworthy, as they do on the rest of the internet.

In my opinion current scam rating on forum is 10% overall. If removed trust system no doubts it will be 80%. Perhaps even people's will try to scam you(LOL). There is lot of negativity about bitcoin, so will we leave bitcoin?

That's the problem, scammers aren't leaving, productive members are. Scammers just buy a new account and return instantly. Wrongly accused people just watch months or years of effort get wasted and say fuck this place.

[Thule]

It's true people's leavening this forum, let them leave. We don't need too much scammers here. For example, many ICO's scammer has been trying to promote their project on this forum. But unfortunately their scam activity exposed and got tag by DT1 members. So eventually they leave this forum and choose other forum to promote. So let them leave this kind of people's.

You are a complete ignorant idiot

In my opinion current scam rating on forum is 10% overall. If removed trust system no doubts it will be 80%. Perhaps even people's will try to scam you(LOL). There is lot of negativity about bitcoin, so will we leave bitcoin?

These numbers you took out of your stupidity ?80% scams.You are a fucking idiot

Wrong. Not dividing community, its dividing scammers and community. If 10 people's make sound  against trust system from more then 2 million users then it doesn't mean community is dividing. That means 10 people's is virus and they should leave.

So i guess thats the reason many bounty managers stopped looking at trust ratings .They are trusting your trust feedback or are they also scammers?


Get a brain fucking idiot
And yes i'm using bad words because this kind of ignorance and stupidity on this forum is enough and it needs to be made clear to everyone

[cryptohunter]

That could  be true but it does not mean over all it is net positive. You have to take into account the innocent accounts destroyed in this and the fall out from that ie the forum is getting a hostile environment and it will only get worse while persons are using red tags for anything other than scams or direct scammers. The possible implications for free speech.

nobody is violating your rights of free speech just because you got a red tag, you are doing more speech than most other members.

 joining signature campaign or trading on the forum is what the negative tags you got " which i again say that you shouldn't get" - affects you most.

This again is not a sensible argument.

Do you claim getting red trust is an encouraging thing ? or perhaps useful to a new person using this board wishing to earn money or trade here?

I keep telling you over and over that anecdotal accounts mean nothing. I am lucky to be a legend and already wealthy so need no sig.

This does not apply to a huge proportion of the board so the threat of having their income cut off if they say something out of line or that gets them red is certain a big consideration to them which influences their free speech without doubt.

Also you argument is broken because of course once you have red tags there is nothing to lose by speaking out... it is prior the tags that the red stifles free speech. There can be no denial of this.

[peloso]

You don't need theymos and Cobra to PM you something that many people see. It was presented to you many times, it is just you have ignored everything people have told you.

You don't appreciate anyone nor anyone's work here. It's only about you, you and you and how great and trustworthy you are. This is impression I got about you lately. Just read your replies.

And to be honest, you have completely lost it, sending merit to someone who is suggesting people in reputation to exclude all people who are actively tagging scammers and to add several scammers to their trust network? Just because you have this fight with Lauda?

ti si pokvareni licemjer

look at my profile and tell me why your fucking friends tagged  me? im scammer?
your friends tagged folks JUST FOR OPINION

[mikeywith]

Also you argument is broken because of course once you have red tags there is nothing to lose by speaking out... it is prior the tags that the red stifles free speech. There can be no denial of this.

since day one for me on Meta i keep on saying that most DT member don't know how to use the trust system, i have argued with many of them,i remember once in your topic i argued with suchmoon for a good period of time and i kept telling suchmoon and everybody else that i think the way they use the trust system for non-trust related stuff is terrible, nobody gave me any negative for that, and i will always keep fighting for what i think right.

unlike you i did not point fingers, i did not go out of my way to accuse every person for conspiracy, i do not discuss my disliking on every single topic including those that are not related to the topic, i am pretty sure you got tagged simply for the way you handle your stuff and not just because you disagree to them.

TECSHARE does more disagreeing than you do and nobody tagged him for that, many other members do ,you do have every right not to agree with any member here, but don't be annoying. demand your rights in a proper manner.

[cryptohunter]

Also you argument is broken because of course once you have red tags there is nothing to lose by speaking out... it is prior the tags that the red stifles free speech. There can be no denial of this.

since day one for me on Meta i keep on saying that most DT member don't know how to use the trust system, i have argued with many of them,i remember once in your topic i argued with suchmoon for a good period of time and i kept telling suchmoon and everybody else that i think the way they use the trust system for non-trust related stuff is terrible, nobody gave me any negative for that, and i will always keep fighting for what i think right.

unlike you i did not point fingers, i did not go out of my way to accuse every person for conspiracy, i do not discuss my disliking on every single topic including those that are not related to the topic, i am pretty sure you got tagged simply for the way you handle your stuff and not just because you disagree to them.

TECSHARE does more disagreeing than you do and nobody tagged him for that, many other members do ,you do have every right not to agree with any member here, but don't be annoying. demand your rights in a proper manner.

Well again you are incorrect.

You can not use anecdotal experiences to make refutation of a proven point. Please review my most important thread of the year to understand why and continue to discuss it there.  

Of course if people are allowed to red trust for anything including the dislike of lemons then they will be influencing free speech.

Again you are making false accusations. Please provide evidence of

1. accusations I made without providing grounding and case to substantiate these reasonable statements.

2.where my opinions are voiced off topic and are not relevant.

3. I think you will find that i got my red tag for the reasons i stated already.

Lauda came to ME first calling me  LIAR  2 X and would NOT provide any evidence or grounding. I did not search that snake out.
I then was fully within my rights to tell him in what ever manner i choose that if he continued with his MANNER that i will encourage others to review his post history (where i know full well he is a PROVEN liar) That was why i got red trust. He says he can call me a liar 3x without any evidence and then if i tell him to stop it else I will encourage others to review his post history I am a blackmailer. What a bunch of crap. He is trying to use red trust to silence me and allow himself to continue to call me a liar over and over with no evidence.

If you follow the time line with in the merit threads here you will clearly see they became hostile first and their MANNER was hostile first.  

I have no care for my MANNER after I am given red trust for defending myself and suggesting people look into the truth of the matter.

Red trust is not for taming peoples Manner after they have been red trusted by a liar.

The trust system and the merit system are systems of control with no mandate and no criteria and as such have drastic powers to crush free speech. This is not even deniable except by a person that does not understand how they operate.

Please review the thread of the year to read and clearly understand how you are trying to disagree with an observable presentation of how  they currently function. Sure, bring in criteria for merit and trust, and you can perhaps say this power over free speech has been reduced or removed.

You do realise that in opposing me and my views you are simply fighting against the formation of a transparent, fair and equal system. What else do I ask for other than a clear mandate, clear criteria that is applied fairly to all persons?

If you can find a post where my goal is anything other than that present it here right now. If not then as I say opposing what I say is you fighting to retain a system that is unfair, unequal, open to abuse and that allows the crushing of free speech. This is undeniable. The only reason I hope you persist with this is because you do not fully understand how the systems of control function.

I make no apologies what so ever for getting annoyed for my treatment. I am always nice to those that are nice to me. But be disrespectful to me and be hostile to me.....then sorry I am not going to keep being nice.

I have been here many years and fought huge scams. I am 100x more trustworthy that these pieces of shit on DT that supported these shady scamming projects and lied for financial gain. They are not going to be red trusting me and getting away with it. Sorry for keep going on about it but until something is done then as boring and annoying as it may be for those unaffected by my ill treatment... expect to hear more about it.  I have put huge effort to protect others who have been treated unfairly but for myself I will even go that extra mile.

Can you imagine knowing and proving someone is a proven scum bag liar and scam protector and watching them lecture others on lying or supporting "possible scams". Then punishing people and ruining their accounts as they choose. No way. Look at these known sneaky sock puppet trolling sig spammers lecturing others on financial shit posting. What is this place coming to to knowling sanction such crap. Then even having them admit in black and white, ..yes I will red trust you for presenting facts that reveal my friends are scum.

Sorry for the long post but if you have read this and still do not get it then at least it is on record i tried to furnish you many times with the details.

[mikeywith]

You do realise that in opposing me and my views you are simply fighting against the formation of a transparent , fair and equal system

yes cryptohunter anyone who disagrees with anything you have to say is a fighting against a fair system.

let me correct you on this, I totally agree with your intention of trying to enforce a fair trust system, i bet most members do, but i totally disagree with how you go about achieving it, let's just say we both are fighting the same fight with completely different weapons.

you are more focused on individual members, you are wasting a lot of time on them, for an instance, you have to bring this Lauda thing at every possible post, me on the other hand don't know who lauda is and i honestly don't give a fuck about him/her, and without having to read much, i know he/she must have used the trust system terribly in many cases, including yours, but I also know that he/she must have tagged a good amount of scammers and this is the main reason why other people trust him/her, this applies to many other DT members.

and i personally would rather see lauda or any DT member for that matter being forced by theymos to use the trust system in trust related matters only, instead of seeing them off the list.

my approach is to encourage proper use of trust system ,whereby anybody would look at anybody's negative score knowing those are either scammers or at least potential scammers , rather than having to read stupid feedback that are based on personal issues.

and i am certain that eventually we will get there.

also i would like to point you out to something > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0

do you really think that removing every single member who trusts lauda from DT list will make the forum a safer and better place ?

sorry ,i just can't seem to agree with how many of you are you going about making this a better place.

[cryptohunter]

You do realise that in opposing me and my views you are simply fighting against the formation of a transparent , fair and equal system

yes cryptohunter anyone who disagrees with anything you have to say is a fighting against a fair system.

let me correct you on this, I totally agree with your intention of trying to enforce a fair trust system, i bet most members do, but i totally disagree with how you go about achieving it, let's just say we both are fighting the same fight with completely different weapons.

you are more focused on individual members, you are wasting a lot of time on them, for an instance, you have to bring this Lauda thing at every possible post, me on the other hand don't know who lauda is and i honestly don't give a fuck about him/her, and without having to read much, i know he/she must have used the trust system terribly in many cases, including yours, but I also know that he/she must have tagged a good amount of scammers and this is the main reason why other people trust him/her, this applies to many other DT members.

and i personally would rather see lauda or any DT member for that matter being forced by theymos to use the trust system in trust related matters only, instead of seeing them off the list.

my approach is to encourage proper use of trust system ,whereby anybody would look at anybody's negative score knowing those are either scammers or at least potential scammers , rather than having to read stupid feedback that are based on personal issues.

and i am certain that eventually we will get there.

also i would like to point you out to something > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0

do you really think that removing every single member who trusts lauda from DT list will make the forum a safer and better place ?

sorry ,i just can't seem to agree with how many of you are you going about making this a better place.

well it seems the goal is the same with one difference.

You advocate making it fair but leaving someone proven a liar and trust abuse inside the system so that their tags are not removed from possible real scammers (these could be added by others could they not)

I advocate making it fair but getting untrusted persons out of the system.

I will accept your goal gladly over what we have now hence I believe you have good intentions. However the new rules need to completely eliminate any room for proven abusers to abuse in future and prior abuse removed.

I don't actually hate lauda as many say that I do. I just do not want red trust used as a weapon or have the potential to be used as a weapon against any persons other than scammers.

I said at the start when you first disagreed with me I do believe you want a fair system in the end. At least much fairer than it is now.

You have to accept though that wrong doers even proven wrong doers find it hard to accept punishment from other persons proven to have committed wrong doing in the pasts. It just goes against the grain.

Still yes the goal of a fairer system will be more than good enough for me. Same rules applied to all persons equally. Red trust for scammers and those directly related to scamming only.

I am encouraged many others want a fair system even if they feel I should not post so much. I will leave it here for now.

[tranthidung]

What I saw is the users who run Escrow service or manage campaigns with long prestigious histories tend to get the highest trust in the forum.
Another kind of user is who desgin signatures with BBCodes.
It seems that people tend to leave Green Trust for someone who are trustworthy with their past works (and current ones, of course) on Escrow, bounties, and graphics or BBcode designs).

[Lauda]

@theymos

You used to be DT1. I'm surprised you dropped out instantly, does that mean you can drop from DT1 the moment you don't have 10 users on your trust list anymore?

Is this the intended behavior of the system?

[marlboroza]

@theymos

You used to be DT1. I'm surprised you dropped out instantly, does that mean you can drop from DT1 the moment you don't have 10 users on your trust list anymore?

Is this the intended behavior of the system?

I replied to Timelord, sorry if that made confusion.

[Timelord2067]

I replied to Timelord, sorry if that made confusion.

I'll miss you if/when you go.

[tranthidung]

Update for 6 weeks after the implementation of Default Trust Change:

Colors:
- Red: Decrease
- Green: Increase.

Two week later:
Median: + 37.1
Mean: + 24.2

Three weeks later:
Median: + 15.9
Mean: + 15.5

Four weeks later:
Median: + 15.6
Mean: + 11.1

Five weeks later:
Median: + 6.2
Mean: + 6.4

Six weeks later:
Median: + 4.2
Mean: + 3.5

More details such as methods of the calculation, can be found there, Tracking the difference of merit circulations with Default Trust Changes

[suchmoon]

New DT1:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117330.msg50036133#msg50036133

New members:

Code:

philipma1957
dbshck
hybridsole
minerjones
LFC_Bitcoin
ezeminer
MaoChao
bones261
bL4nkcode
Veleor
chimk
DdmrDdmr
1miau

Removed:

Code:

Blazed
greenplastic
EcuaMobi
JohnUser
marlboroza

[LoyceV]

Removed:

Code:

greenplastic
EcuaMobi
JohnUser

Those users are inactive for more than 3 days.

Code:

marlboroza

Excluded at his own request.

I'm curious to know why minerjones (Most Trusted user) excludes theymos (Admin). Is there a story I missed?