DefaultTrust changes

[actmyname]

How much longer will this attention-seeker hacker1001101001 continue to post trash?

Regardless of what someone does or posts (in 99% of cases) you will seldom find restitution for unsavory behavior. Unless a troll pushes it to such an extreme level that the administration deems it inappropriate (i.e. nudity), you'll barely see any action. Just think about how much spam you get in Reputation and Meta when someone flips out due to a DefaultTrust drama, or when someone gets banned and they blatantly post "from their friend's account".

The only thing rarer than a troll ban is an altcoin being added to a payment method for the forum.

[1714786224]

1714786224

[1714786224]

1714786224

[1714786224]

1714786224

[1714786224]

1714786224

[1714786224]

1714786224

[1714786224]

1714786224

[LoyceV]

~snip~
As with lyno, hedgy73 and I have done PP to BTC trade/s and was one of the original ten that I added to my list.

That could be something to leave feedback for, but in my opinion is no reason to add them to your Trust list:

List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists

Lyno has just seven merits so his side of the "self-scratching" doesn't really make a difference - don't you agree?

It makes your own positive feedback look better. You're not on DT1, so it doesn't influence your global Trust score.

I would appreciate it if you could post an update of my list of persons I trust post today's updates please?

I can only update my Trust list viewer on Saturdays, but I appreciate sharing your reasoning. I don't agree to all of them, but that's okay too

[Timelord2067]

...

Thanks for your understanding, my door is always open.  I'm trying to recall if I ever added a couple of UID's in the past prior to your weekly list, are there any lists out there that I could reference?

[JollyGood]

I understand why many trolls do not face a permanent bad (as general rule within the forum) but when they have been exposed in a manner that is extremely detrimental such as the way hacker1001101001 was, it would be expected that he would be reprimanded in some way other than having a signature ban.

How much longer will this attention-seeker hacker1001101001 continue to post trash?

Regardless of what someone does or posts (in 99% of cases) you will seldom find restitution for unsavory behavior. Unless a troll pushes it to such an extreme level that the administration deems it inappropriate (i.e. nudity), you'll barely see any action. Just think about how much spam you get in Reputation and Meta when someone flips out due to a DefaultTrust drama, or when someone gets banned and they blatantly post "from their friend's account".

The only thing rarer than a troll ban is an altcoin being added to a payment method for the forum.

[LoyceV]

I'm trying to recall if I ever added a couple of UID's in the past prior to your weekly list, are there any lists out there that I could reference?

I haven't seen any older archived versions of trust.txt.xz.

I understand why many trolls do not face a permanent bad (as general rule within the forum) but when they have been exposed in a manner that is extremely detrimental such as the way hacker1001101001 was, it would be expected that he would be reprimanded in some way other than having a signature ban.

I didn't know about this, do you have a link for the reason of his signature ban?

[marlboroza]

This type of dump ChipMixer Legendaries always stir the subject with some nonsense information and perceptions, to keep up with their support and power as they feel weak and on the other hand they are not afraid of publicly asking justice fighter's to keep their mouth shut to begin with. Pretty Toxic in its own way.

I 100% feel the sentiment.... which is why I typically stay out of it unless I notice something that needs pointed out.

Hacker is pissed because he is exposed for what he is, fraudulent ICO bump service account, that's why he is writing hateful things, especially if someone mention account tecshare (tecshare included account hacker1001.. to his trust network btw).

I didn't know about this, do you have a link for the reason of his signature ban?

Perhaps this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5143331.msg51058321#msg51058321 but there are few more hacker's c/p spam which is now removed.

[DooMAD]

This type of dump ChipMixer Legendaries always stir the subject with some nonsense information and perceptions, to keep up with their support and power as they feel weak and on the other hand they are not afraid of publicly asking justice fighter's to keep their mouth shut to begin with. Pretty Toxic in its own way.

And what should "justice" look like in your eyes, exactly?

I've heard several half-baked ideas about objectivity that don't really work out in reality (seeing as you both seem to confuse "objectivity" with "people only using the trust system in a way you personally approve of", which is literally never going to happen).  Maybe you should try figuring out what it is you actually want before you start lashing out at everyone who is suggesting that you're maybe being a little bit annoying by constantly bitching about it.

Do you actually have some constructive criticisms that would legitimately improve the trust system, or do you just have a bunch of whining about how unfair it is that someone on the internet believed you to be untrustworthy and dared to write something down to express that opinion?

Trust is inherently subjective.  Based on feelings and instincts.  I don't see how you would realistically expect to enforce objectivity.

To be fair:  I have witnessed TEC's claim of trust abuse first hand in a recent thread.    
Some of his claims are definitely correct; and my chain of calling out vod in two threads recently paints a clear picture of this exact type of abuse that happens.

I will leave it at that.  Nothing more, nothing less.   Take it as you will.

If the offending trust feedback was removed, what's the problem?  It might not always be as clean a process as we might like, but surely that's proof enough that people can be persuaded to do the right thing and remove inappropriate ratings.

Again, trust is based on feelings and instincts.  People can get it wrong sometimes.  I doubt it's practicable to eradicate that.  

[TECSHARE]

What we have isn't a "trust system" is it a "popularity system". It is amazing how desperate people like you are to make this about me while you simultaneously chastise for making it about me when I attempt to defend myself.

You are making it about you.  People use the trust system to decide whose ratings they want to include and exclude, as they're perfectly entitled to do.  Then you complain that everything they're doing is because they don't like you and that there should be rules in place to prevent people including and excluding who they want because apparently it's all a vendetta against you.  

You accuse others of making it personal, they start accusing you of stuff and it becomes yet another shitty thread full of pointless drama.  You wouldn't need to "defend yourself" if you hadn't opened the hostilities and just kept your mouth shut to begin with.  Again, stop being such a try-hard.  It's annoying.  If you really do believe it's a popularity contest, you'd think you'd be smarter than to piss people off so readily.  Please give it a rest.

No, you are making it about me, then my choice is to defend myself from your bullshit, or simply ignore it and allow you to continuously repeat falsehoods. Of course you do this as you accuse me out of the other side of your mouth as making it about me. It is a transparent shitty little game that exposes your motives completely.

Ah, I see, so the solution is to shut the fuck up is it? That always makes things better doesn't it? The trust system shouldn't be based on who likes who, or who is popular. Ted Bundy was quite charming, I am sure he would be at the top of this trust system. Con artists are experts at manufacturing this kind of popularity. You know what they can't manufacture? Years of reliable and trustworthy behavior.

The trust system as it exists now is not just inequitable, it is a security threat. If anyone who has spent years building their reputation in this sea of fraud known as Bitcointalk can have it stripped so easily with a handful of sock puppets, what is to stop that from being done in order to force silence and complicity to obfuscate fraud? You all stand around and stroke yourselves off over what an asshole I am while you leave your backdoor open and get your place robbed blind because the bad man gave you a boo boo on your feelies with his mean words.

To be fair:  I have witnessed TEC's claim of trust abuse first hand in a recent thread.     
Some of his claims are definitely correct; and my chain of calling out vod in two threads recently paints a clear picture of this exact type of abuse that happens.

I will leave it at that.  Nothing more, nothing less.   Take it as you will.

If the offending trust feedback was removed, what's the problem?  It might not always be as clean a process as we might like, but surely that's proof enough that people can be persuaded to do the right thing and remove inappropriate ratings.

Again, trust is based on feelings and instincts.  People can get it wrong sometimes.  I doubt it's practicable to eradicate that. 

But it wasn't. Sure it is practical. Simply require trust ratings and flags to be based on observable and documented instances of theft, contractual violation, or violation of applicable laws. This is not a lofty or complex goal, in fact it is far more effective and simpler than what we have now, a clusterfuck of band-aids and patches designed primarily to allow fraud and sooth fragile egos.

[JollyGood]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5169264.msg51981743#msg51981743 (clearly re-iterates punishment)
http://web.archive.org/web/20200622155622/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5169264.msg51981743 (archive)

hacker1001101001 suggested in so many places that he learned his lesson after being exposed as receiving payment for bumping ICO threads to generate fake buzz.

He claimed he had nothing else to hide yet thanks to marlboroza digging deeper it became apparent he had multi-accounts and was part of a group of thread bumpers but declined to name names.

I think Lauda deserves a lot of credit too for keeping sustained pressure on him which helped.  

I understand why many trolls do not face a permanent bad (as general rule within the forum) but when they have been exposed in a manner that is extremely detrimental such as the way hacker1001101001 was, it would be expected that he would be reprimanded in some way other than having a signature ban.

I didn't know about this, do you have a link for the reason of his signature ban?

[nutildah]

Con artists are experts at manufacturing this kind of popularity. You know what they can't manufacture? Years of reliable and trustworthy behavior.

The trust system as it exists now is not just inequitable, it is a security threat. If anyone who has spent years building their reputation in this sea of fraud known as Bitcointalk can have it stripped so easily with a handful of sock puppets, what is to stop that from being done in order to force silence and complicity to obfuscate fraud?

You still don't get it.

The trust system isn't just about trust ratings. DT is about having a good sense of judgment of who uses the trust system correctly. As a matter of fact, all the positive trusts anyone has accumulated over the years demonstrates nothing about their own ability to use the trust system correctly. You haven't exactly had "years of reliable and trustworthy behavior" in that regard.

[marlboroza]

^ Sounds like victim card. According to http://loyce.club/trust/2020-06-20_Sat_05.04h/15728.html, tecshare trusts sockpuppeteer account mhanbostanci, but he already knows that, right? He has read 2 topics about it:

~blah~

~blah~

The same forum, different topic and now Techy seems to be worried about sockpuppets:

The trust system as it exists now is not just inequitable, it is a security threat. If anyone who has spent years building their reputation in this sea of fraud known as Bitcointalk can have it stripped so easily with a handful of sock puppets, what is to stop that from being done in order to force silence and complicity to obfuscate fraud?

I won't even mention sockpuppet accounts hacker1001101001, Vispilio, Blacknavy and I don't know what other accounts are in techy's trust list. Maybe it is time for:

Techy, leading by example is more powerful than a decade of complaining.

[suchmoon]

The trust system as it exists now is not just inequitable, it is a security threat. If anyone who has spent years building their reputation in this sea of fraud known as Bitcointalk can have it stripped so easily with a handful of sock puppets, what is to stop that from being done in order to force silence and complicity to obfuscate fraud? You all stand around and stroke yourselves off over what an asshole I am while you leave your backdoor open and get your place robbed blind because the bad man gave you a boo boo on your feelies with his mean words.

If you have proof of someone doing what you're describing (security threat, sockpuppets stripping reputation, obfuscating fraud, etc) you should bring that up and let the trust system do its work. As it stands now you're either making it up or hiding evidence, neither of which is a benefit for the forum or the trust system.

[Timelord2067]

...

Not to worry, I know I had one or two, then added a couple and settled on a list of ten.  Week one I have sixteen, so I'm not sure if there were any prior to that date that I've added, then dropped.


blue Snow might be one to put on a watch list (think Peloso) Week 65 adds 89 names, week 69 removes all 89 names.

[LoyceV]

blue Snow might be one to put on a watch list (think Peloso) Week 65 adds 89 names, week 69 removes all 89 names.

I don't see anything wrong with this: it looks like he tried to create a custom Trust list (which I encourage anyone to do), and then decided to go back to DefaultTrust.

[blue Snow]

blue Snow might be one to put on a watch list (think Peloso) Week 65 adds 89 names, week 69 removes all 89 names.

Because I don't understand how to use DT System at that time. I put all on my trust who I don't know about.

[LoyceV]

Because I don't understand how to use DT System at that time.

If you haven't seen it yet: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

[peloso]

Because I don't understand how to use DT System at that time.

If you haven't seen it yet: LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

this is shit

I do not advise doing everything according to such instructions
with the help of such an instruction, a corruption gang substitutes users

[LoyceMobile]

LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system.

this is shit

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

[suchmoon]

this is shit

I do not advise doing everything according to such instructions
with the help of such an instruction, a corruption gang substitutes users

I would appreciate if you could take your time to create your own guide - how to use the trust system according to peloso. I've always wondered if there is some sort of chemical substance or a woodoo ritual involved in making one think that sending out PMs begging for trust is appropriate.

[LoyceV]

So question: can you understand why I excluded peloso but not Last of the V8s?

I don't think you will get answer to this one

I was really hoping you'd be wrong, but it looks like you're right.

Interesting, I got this instead:

Trust list for: LoyceV (Trust: +27 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (55) 5532 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2020-06-27_Sat_05.02h)
Back to index

LoyceV's judgement is Trusted by:
1. Removed TECSHARE (Trust: +37 / =6 / -2) (913 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.
Get your own Trust list in BBCode at loyce.club/trust.

Now I can only guess how TECSHARE thinks Last of the V8s compares to peloso.

(the links to my Trust list viewer don't work yet, this is my preview before going live)