Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

[TMAN]

I notice lots of your posts & threads have been removed - have you had a warning yet?

DT is really none of your business - checking your exclusions the whole forum would need to include you now for you to stand half a chance

[1715085090]

1715085090

[1715085090]

1715085090

[1715085090]

1715085090

[1715085090]

1715085090

[o_e_l_e_o]

If it doesn't take a detective, why do we need dozens of them to tell us what is obvious? Are you not seeing the gap in your logic here?

Because as I said, newbies are regularly fooled by these scams. What may seem like a blatantly obvious scam to you or me is often just convincing enough to lure in someone less familiar with this space, who doesn't know that "bitcoin doublers" aren't a real thing or some users shill their own scam threads with fake accounts.

As is the case in most jurisdictions around the world, where a plan or attempt to commit a crime is a crime itself, we don't need a scam to be successful to know it is a scam. There is no benefit to letting these scammers get one or two "for free" before tagging them.

[TECSHARE]

If it doesn't take a detective, why do we need dozens of them to tell us what is obvious? Are you not seeing the gap in your logic here?

Because as I said, newbies are regularly fooled by these scams. What may seem like a blatantly obvious scam to you or me is often just convincing enough to lure in someone less familiar with this space, who doesn't know that "bitcoin doublers" aren't a real thing or some users shill their own scam threads with fake accounts.

As is the case in most jurisdictions around the world, where a plan or attempt to commit a crime is a crime itself, we don't need a scam to be successful to know it is a scam. There is no benefit to letting these scammers get one or two "for free" before tagging them.

What is the best way to deal with these noobs? Constantly running after them like mommy and daddy trying to keep them from bumping their heads and padding every sharp corner? Or to we teach them that they need to do their own due diligence?

Some times people need to get robbed before they learn, and the people getting robbed WILL get robbed regardless of how much you preemptively try to protect them. All this policing does is give these scammers a veil of legitimacy to operate under because of the army of half ass forum cops running around professing how much they're protecting the forum. This gives new users the impression that some one has already done this due diligence so they need not.

 In realty their motivation is usually just to give themselves influence. Unfortunately their reputation is usually raised at the cost of people just trying to do voluntary trades with each other they don't agree with for whatever reason.

[cryptohunter]

some picture a retard imagines is amusing

I notice lots of your posts & threads have been removed - have you had a warning yet?

DT is really none of your business - checking your exclusions the whole forum would need to include you now for you to stand half a chance

This is of no interest to me I have no desire to be a DT.

Which threads have been removed? seems like you are trying to derail this thread.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

I completely agree with your points regarding teaching people to do their own due diligence, and yes, some noobs will get scammed regardless of how much you try to warn them. There is no helping some people.

However, I completely disagree with your point that because we can never tag 100% of scammers, we should therefore not tag any scammers. It's like saying because seatbelts don't save 100% of lives, we should stop wearing them - all they do is give people a veil of safety, which in turn encourages them to drive more dangerously. I just don't agree. Yes, some scammers will get away with it, but we shouldn't be using that as justification to just let the scammers roam freely.

[cryptohunter]

-snip-

I completely agree with your points regarding teaching people to do their own due diligence, and yes, some noobs will get scammed regardless of how much you try to warn them. There is no helping some people.

However, I completely disagree with your point that because we can never tag 100% of scammers, we should therefore not tag any scammers. It's like saying because seatbelts don't save 100% of lives, we should stop wearing them - all they do is give people a veil of safety, which in turn encourages them to drive more dangerously. I just don't agree. Yes, some scammers will get away with it, but we shouldn't be using that as justification to just let the scammers roam freely.

Sadly though that is not the complete set of factors that need to be considered.

The system also brings a lot of other negatives like destroying peoples accounts that can prove they should not have had them destroyed.

Also the biggest issue is the subjectivity there allows it to stifle free speech. So you can therefore see the negatives currently outweigh the positives.

The entire picture needs to be considered here.

[DooMAD]

Also the biggest issue is the subjectivity there allows it to stifle free speech

Subjectivity is protected by free speech.  People are free to form their own opinions and either trust or distrust you accordingly.  Nothing is being stifled.

[cryptohunter]

Also the biggest issue is the subjectivity there allows it to stifle free speech

Subjectivity is protected by free speech.  People are free to form their own opinions and either trust or distrust you accordingly.  Nothing is being stifled.

LOL  that makes zero sense. Imagine a police state with no mandate or rules/criteria on how they operate.
Can you imagine how free your speech would be under such a system?

You can not have people who stand to benefit selfishly from a control system being part of that system with no rules to govern their actions. Subjectivity there is the same as saying you trust people to not act selfishly and apply rules fairly to all persons. Please be sensible.

 

Go here and continue this debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

[TECSHARE]

-snip-

I completely agree with your points regarding teaching people to do their own due diligence, and yes, some noobs will get scammed regardless of how much you try to warn them. There is no helping some people.

However, I completely disagree with your point that because we can never tag 100% of scammers, we should therefore not tag any scammers. It's like saying because seatbelts don't save 100% of lives, we should stop wearing them - all they do is give people a veil of safety, which in turn encourages them to drive more dangerously. I just don't agree. Yes, some scammers will get away with it, but we shouldn't be using that as justification to just let the scammers roam freely.

That is not the point I made. That is the point you made then projected on to me. I never said anything about since we can't get them all we shouldn't tag any. This is your own addition not mine. What I said is there should be a standard of evidence of documentation, an agreement violated, and or a law violated before rating.

With this base standard the rating system again becomes an accurate guide of who can be trusted to trade with rather than who washes all the right balls. The alternative, is to continue as it is and have the trust system not only be a joke, but a constant source of conflict serving as cover for con artists to hide in the chaos, steal more, and take retribution on those that exposed them.

[r1s2g3]

Some other points for negative trust that I don't think were mentioned:

Spreading malware

This need to be reported immediately to the moderators. This requires immediate ban.
Red trust can be given but first priority is to get all links/post removed.

[Veleor]

Some items are repeated.

Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:

Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi

Shilling scams.

[...]

Enrolling multiple accounts into signature/bounty campaigns

Using an alt account to abuse bounties/giveaways.

Leaving fake negative ratings*subjective

Let's say that the user wrote a slander that someone stole his money. Does it deserve a red trust?

[DooMAD]

Subjectivity is protected by free speech.  People are free to form their own opinions and either trust or distrust you accordingly.  Nothing is being stifled.

LOL  that makes zero sense. Imagine a police state with no mandate or rules/criteria on how they operate.
Can you imagine how free your speech would be under such a system?

This isn't a police state.  It's more akin to a neighbourhood watch scheme.  Community standards set by the community.  The fact that you've cross-posted your views over as many topics as you have clearly demonstrates that your free speech isn't suffering at all.

Go here and continue this debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

I could, but that topic is mostly just you working yourself up into a state of agitation over something other users deem to be insubstantial.  Then, when just about every reply is subtly hinting at you needing to take it down a notch, you don't listen.  And you clearly aren't going to listen if I add my +1 to everyone else telling you stop making mountains out of molehills.  It doesn't warrant the bump, to be blunt.  This topic serves a better purpose and takes a far more neutral stance, so I'll keep the discussion here.

[cryptohunter]

Subjectivity is protected by free speech.  People are free to form their own opinions and either trust or distrust you accordingly.  Nothing is being stifled.

LOL  that makes zero sense. Imagine a police state with no mandate or rules/criteria on how they operate.
Can you imagine how free your speech would be under such a system?

This isn't a police state.  It's more akin to a neighbourhood watch scheme.  Community standards set by the community.  The fact that you've cross-posted your views over as many topics as you have clearly demonstrates that your free speech isn't suffering at all.

Go here and continue this debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088852.0

I could, but that topic is mostly just you working yourself up into a state of agitation over something other users deem to be insubstantial.  Then, when just about every reply is subtly hinting at you needing to take it down a notch, you don't listen.  And you clearly aren't going to listen if I add my +1 to everyone else telling you stop making mountains out of molehills.  It doesn't warrant the bump, to be blunt.  This topic serves a better purpose and takes a far more neutral stance, so I'll keep the discussion here.

This again is anecdotal nonsense and faux rebuttal. I may or may not have had my free speech impinged upon but that again does not answer for others who clearly can be effected by the systems of control that I have demonstrated exist and implications arising from those systems. I am quite open to debate further on my thread over this. So far I see no refutation to any of my central points.

Nobody here may or may not see them as substantial concerns - this is meta a very small subset of which many benefit from the current systems of control forming and operating as they do.

Come to my thread and debate if you wish. However I do not feel there can be any refutation of observable fact that demonstrate clearly the systems and the implications of systems operating as they do.

Now imagine that you are simply presenting facts demonstrating a lie and you get red trusted by that lier and his friends red trust further and admit they did it because you posted those facts again. Don't lie to me and pretend you would simply say that is no big deal. I do not at all believe you.

[suchmoon]

Leaving fake negative ratings*subjective

Let's say that the user wrote a slander that someone stole his money. Does it deserve a red trust?

I don't think so but that's why it's subjective. If there is a wider context showing the user behaving in other untrustworthy ways - maybe.

I get so much of that garbage that I prefer to just ignore it and not get into a whole set of new debates about retaliation and whatnot.

[DooMAD]

I may or may not have had my free speech impinged upon but that again does not answer for others who clearly can be effected by the systems of control that I have demonstrated exist and implications arising from those systems.

Actually, it sounds like you're the one who wants a tighter system of control.  The community itself can now act as judge, jury and executioner.  It's quite liberal when you consider the hierarchical alternatives.  I'm sorry if that doesn't suit your preferences.  

Meta is now where the community are coming together to decide how it's going to be and this topic is a part of that decision, so I suggest you rethink your current antagonistic approach and engage in a more civil discourse if you want to have any kind of positive influence here.  It's still early days and things may yet change.

Now imagine that you are simply presenting facts demonstrating a lie and you get red trusted by that lier and his friends red trust further and admit they did it because you posted those facts again. Don't lie to me and pretend you would simply say that is no big deal. I do not at all believe you.

I can see how it's a big deal from your perspective.  We're not refuting that.  The question is how it's viewed by others.  It's now an ongoing decision for everyone else in the community to decide if your treatment was justified or not.  If the community are not happy with the conduct of those who have red-tagged you, they will change their trust lists accordingly.  Or those who have tagged you might be pressured to change those tags if the community deem their actions contrary to (the still evolving) community standards.  Alternatively, you'll need to find a way to come to terms with the community's decision if people don't change their trust lists and the tags against you are deemed appropriate.  But I can assure you that you aren't doing yourself any favours with your constant rage-posting about this matter.  We get it, you're quite indignant about this.  Message received.  Loud and clear.  Now, for your own sake, just simmer down a bit.

[cryptohunter]

I may or may not have had my free speech impinged upon but that again does not answer for others who clearly can be effected by the systems of control that I have demonstrated exist and implications arising from those systems.

Actually, it sounds like you're the one who wants a tighter system of control.  The community itself can now act as judge, jury and executioner.  It's quite liberal when you consider the hierarchical alternatives.  I'm sorry if that doesn't suit your preferences.  

Meta is now where the community are coming together to decide how it's going to be and this topic is a part of that decision, so I suggest you rethink your current antagonistic approach and engage in a more civil discourse if you want to have any kind of positive influence here.  It's still early days and things may yet change.

Now imagine that you are simply presenting facts demonstrating a lie and you get red trusted by that lier and his friends red trust further and admit they did it because you posted those facts again. Don't lie to me and pretend you would simply say that is no big deal. I do not at all believe you.

I can see how it's a big deal from your perspective.  We're not refuting that.  The question is how it's viewed by others.  It's now an ongoing decision for everyone else in the community to decide if your treatment was justified or not.  If the community are not happy with the conduct of those who have red-tagged you, they will change their trust lists accordingly.  Or those who have tagged you might be pressured to change those tags if the community deem their actions contrary to (the still evolving) community standards.  Alternatively, you'll need to find a way to come to terms with the community's decision if people don't change their trust lists and the tags against you are deemed appropriate.  But I can assure you that you aren't doing yourself any favours with your constant rage-posting about this matter.  We get it, you're quite indignant about this.  Message received.  Loud and clear.  Now, for your own sake, just simmer down a bit.

The question of how it is viewed by others? The facts are clear and observable. A person (whom is a proven liar) comes to my thread unprovoked and 3x calls me a liar and 3x will not provide evidence. The 3rd time I reply and tell him that will I encourage others to investigate his own post history (where I know full well there is evidence he has lied) if he keeps making these unsubstantiated claims. This proven liar then gives me red trust for merely telling the truth. Then his goon friends admit giving me red trust for stating facts about his lies and his abuse. The entire thing is quite ludicrous. The other DT's are complicit by not booting them out and removing my red trust. I will keep shoving those facts and observable events in their faces until they start to realise that this kind of injustice is not going to just go away. I guess there is no reason not to do this. I refuse to fit in with their agenda to try and hope they may decide I will now be complicit with their shady crap and undo this abuse.

The systems work as I said they work on my other thread. Actually it is far worse now because the DT key positions of power are the 250 earned merits. This subjective and meaningless cycled and gamed junk is dropped to this circle of abusers to do with it as they please with no mandate and no clear criteria. So essentially you just gave full control of the entire DT system to these persons that are cycling this around to themselves as clear on bpip and dt lists.

The long long game may correct itself to a degree ,but I suspect these housewives will just strong arm theymos to keep raising the earned merit threshold so that they alone posses the key positions of power. I have no idea how they forced him to ignore all the older legends airdropped merit as if their contributions for years meant zero and push the earned merit threshold up to a level where they cyclers are the only ones that meet it.

Also there is no point at all starting with a group of PROVEN in black and white bad eggs in a trust system it makes no sense.

As I have said if you wish to refute how the systems operate and the implications of them operating as they do then the other thread is the place for that I am willing to take time and demonstrate just how damaging and dangerous building upon subjective, misleading, and gamed scores derived from merit is.

I have no interest in fitting in with a bunch of people that immediately fail to recognise proven liars red trusting persons for mentioning the FACT they lied is a complete disgrace. Then their pals red trusting further for posting the evidence of that lie and the fact they have abused the trust system. Sorry those accepting this behaviour are complicit and need removing also. You have DT's here refusing to review the evidence that is there in black and white.

[TECSHARE]

snip

Do you believe I have the forum's best interest at heart based on my statements? Then believe me when I say what you are doing is not helping.

[nutildah]

What's the general consensus about thread bumping services?


If pertaining to a scam, it may fall into the "Shilling scams" category.

However, if there's a chance a project isn't a scam, it might fall into either of these categories:

- ANN bumping
- Colluding

There's some pretty obvious giveaway signs about such behavior:

- Accounts are created in clusters, frequently less than one hour apart from one another
- Accounts tend to comment in the same threads together
- More often than not these accounts have zero merits, are all created in the last year, and have less than 100 posts

Do you guys think if a batch of accounts fill all of these criteria are they worth giving a red trust?

I'd like your input on this because I think in general its less-than-decent behavior and obviously manipulation of the forum for the sake of profit, but I want to get some feedback before I go on a tagging spree.

Here's an example for your reference:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095486

All of these accounts are bumping this thread, which is for a coin with no team and a plagiarized white paper:

name        date registered
suzannelavonna   May 27, 2018, 03:18:37 PM
joyalesley   May 27, 2018, 03:35:30 PM
emeritaduncan   May 27, 2018, 04:47:39 PM

esmeraldajenee   May 29, 2018, 05:44:24 PM
vedaji96   May 29, 2018, 06:32:36 PM
sharondakathrine   May 29, 2018, 06:53:53 PM
madisongisele42   May 29, 2018, 07:05:13 PM

shawnnaalita   June 11, 2018, 05:46:59 PM
jacintoleesa   June 11, 2018, 05:54:25 PM
fredericakarissa   June 11, 2018, 06:18:44 PM

maricacarley   June 23, 2018, 11:56:39 AM
collinbessie   June 23, 2018, 12:09:47 PM
randellcorine   June 23, 2018, 12:25:42 PM

pearliejanis571   June 24, 2018, 10:26:14 PM
sixtajanie   June 24, 2018, 10:38:33 PM
fredricphyliss   June 24, 2018, 10:57:23 PM
adrianscotty7   June 24, 2018, 11:03:51 PM
kristoferhershel   June 24, 2018, 11:58:44 PM

tarakai   September 20, 2018, 03:36:55 PM
Linda Lunar   September 20, 2018, 08:34:43 PM
Hartanyan   September 20, 2018, 10:04:14 PM
Serabyan   September 20, 2018, 10:37:04 PM

[suchmoon]

Do you guys think if a batch of accounts fill all of these criteria are they worth giving a red trust?

They deserve to be nuked on sight. This is probably something to be discussed with moderators. And theymos. I know he doesn't like using the trust system to enforce forum rules but in cases like this maybe he can give the moderators better tools to detect bots and account farms. For example let them see IP addresses or at least hashes of IP addresses so that they could see if IPs match.

[xtraelv]

What's the general consensus about thread bumping services?


If pertaining to a scam, it may fall into the "Shilling scams" category.

However, if there's a chance a project isn't a scam, it might fall into either of these categories:

- ANN bumping
- Colluding

<snip>

My personal views on fake customer reviews from a bumping service is that it is investor / consumer fraud.

A fake profile that says "i'm going to invest in this" is fraud if they have no intent of investing or use multiple sock puppets to say the same thing and the result is that someone else is fooled into investing.

A project that endorses deliberate fake reviews to lure investment is a scam.

I think the level of action depends on the conduct of the bumping service. Personally I don't believe that a genuine project should even consider a "bumping service".


I would like to hear from people their opinion about some of the list marked "subjective" . Also if there is anything in the list that should be marked "subjective" or requires further discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to see what the general consensus is regarding the subjective items on the list.

RESERVED


Unacceptable behavior that will result in a red tag:

Attempted or successful fraud or theft.
Account sales / purchase / taking an account as collateral
Merit sales / swapping / Sending trust/merit between your alt accounts
Offering escrow without a track record
Providing fake or insufficient collateral. (When misleading)
Shilling / advertising MLM or ponzi
Escrowing for themselves
Late loan repayments / loan defaults.
Enrolling multiple accounts into signature/bounty campaigns
Lending or borrowing to gain "reputation"
Committing fraud by selling bank details or other sensitive data.
Inherently risky business practices - PayPal and other reversible payments, discouraging escrow use, autobuy sites, locked sales threads etc.
Impersonation of any kind (although this probably falls under outright fraud)
Fake ICOs and other projects - fake teams, plagiarized whitepapers, etc
Any ponzi-related behavior.
Any behavior that involves an involuntary monetary transfer.
Shilling scams.
Using an alt account to abuse bounties/giveaways.
Selling gambling scripts or any "strategy" in a statistically -ev game.
Fake translations.
Hacked account.
Spreading malware
Constant begging
Unrealistic loan applications

Unacceptable conduct that is directly against the forum rules:
Plagiarism. * Should be reported to admin for permaban
Ban evasion.  * Should be reported to admin for permaban

Unacceptable behavior that could result in a red tag:

These items are subjective and require some community discussion.

Extreme harassment *Subjective
Business activity that resulted in the loss of funds by others. *Subjective
Asking for a no collateral loan *Subjective This should only apply if the user has little reputation/is asking for an amount that is way too unreasonable for what reputation they have.
ANN bumping, which is negative to the forum.
Loan defaults (only if unpaid for an unreasonable amount of time)
Colluding *subjective
Leaving fake negative ratings*subjective

Considerations:
Before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

Should not be tagged:

Criticizing others.
Posting an unpopular opinion.
Leaving an unsubstantiated negative rating, if the user is not shady outside of this.
Promoting altcoins.
Using an alt account.
religious statements*subjective
Anything without solid evidence or very strong circumstantial evidence*


Source: xtraelv AverageGlabella suchmoon actmyname DarkStar_ lauda
LoyceV