Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

[o_e_l_e_o]

More importantly it is not up to 3rd parties to dictate to the rest of the forum what their acceptable level of risk is.

I mean, I agree with you here, but that isn't what Default Trust does. If we were banning these users and deleting their threads, then you would have a completely valid point, but I disagree that simply putting the words "Warning: Trade with extreme caution" under someone's avatar amounts to dictating to other users.

[TECSHARE]

More importantly it is not up to 3rd parties to dictate to the rest of the forum what their acceptable level of risk is.

I mean, I agree with you here, but that isn't what Default Trust does. If we were banning these users and deleting their threads, then you would have a completely valid point, but I disagree that simply putting the words "Warning: Trade with extreme caution" under someone's avatar amounts to dictating to other users.

If marking people negative isn't a deterrent, then what is the point? If it is then you are punishing them frivolously. If it isn't then what is the point? What is being accomplished that could not be done with a neutral?

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Here are some reason one shouldn't leave a negative feedback I highlighted on my post on the Beginners & Help board

How not to use the negative feedback

[1] Do not leave a negative feedback (red tag) a user for violating forum rules unless on rare occasions. source e.g Don't red tag a user for ban evasion, plaragism etc instead report user to appropriate authority (moderators)

[2] Do not leave a false negative feedback, offenders might get red tag for this act if proving to be a false red tag.

[3] Do not leave a negative feedback without reference (evidence) this will be seen as an accusation

[4] Do not red tag a user for having alternative account unless the Alt account was bought or used for bad intentions like trust/merit abuse

[5] Do not leave a negative feedback for disliking another user.

[6] Don't turn leaving of negative feedback into a daily job or hobby, only do it when necessary.

[7] Do not leave a negative feedback based on other people judgement (they could be wrong)

[o_e_l_e_o]

I never said it wasn't a deterrent, just that it doesn't amount to dictating to others. It is a warning - if you wish to ignore said warning and trade/invest/whatever anyway, you are free to do so.

[TECSHARE]

I never said it wasn't a deterrent, just that it doesn't amount to dictating to others. It is a warning - if you wish to ignore said warning and trade/invest/whatever anyway, you are free to do so.

No one said you were not free to do so, the question is should you? I mean this forum is one of the very few places on the net where some of these freedoms are allowed. Having an army of self promoting trust police is counterproductive. Victims of theft and fraud tend to be very vocal about being ripped off, focusing on that would be better. To sum up unless there is a victim making a claim with some kind of documentation leaving a negative rating should be avoided.

[JusticeForYou]

@TECHSHARE I would rather support your thought of making official rules for red-tag and it is pretty much necessary to control the miss-use of the current trust system. @LoyceV has already noticed increase in the negative trust rating and me too. Some people just tend to live the forum in some cases if they are tagged for unwilling things. This makes a big part of community to loose interest in forum engagement but rather that people can become a very interesting and helping part of the community later if they are given a chance to adjust here.

You could put @DdmrDdmr as an example. He was going to be nuked once for taking part in shaddy bounty. More details about it can be found in this post. But now he is one of the most merited person on the forum.

Just a official set of rules to red-tag would be a better option for this situation for now. Hope @theymos consider this.

[DdmrDdmr]

<...>

I vouched for that too (see re:Should trust be moderated? (Poll)). In my opinion, there should either be a forum created and/or endorsed set of guidelines, or a DT1 (at least) consensus on them if not. Creating a list of guidelines, and them voting on them one by one by DT1 (*) could be a thing, but the voting would need to take place elsewhere, since the forum polls cannot be delimited to a selected set of users.

Having said that, I would rather much have the guidelines being forum endorsed, and even forum led, in order for the criteria to be above all shadow of doubt (if they were to be created by current/any DT1, likely many would not like it either).

Note: yes, being on a potential nuke list was a strange find for me at the time. It’s not in my nature to spam or alike, but I did join a (very) few bounties at the beginning to see what the hell it was all about, only to find them rather belittling. I have never delete any of the posts, since I don’t believe they should be deleted, and should remain to show a track (I do believe though that people should be able to delete their digital footprint if they wish to, but that’s an other matter).

[JusticeForYou]

In my opinion, there should either be a forum created and/or endorsed set of guidelines, or a DT1 (at least) consensus on them if not. Creating a list of guidelines, and them voting on them one by one by DT1 (*) could be a thing, but the voting would need to take place elsewhere, since the forum polls cannot be delimited to a selected set of users.

I don't think DT voting should work as it would rather make a less dynamic decision as only some people would be putting there views in.

Having said that, I would rather much have the guidelines being forum endorsed, and even forum led, in order for the criteria to be above all shadow of doubt (if they were to be created by current/any DT1, likely many would not like it either).

I too think a forum endorsed set of rules is a very simple solution to apply and it would just not make any drama about the rules as anyone here could just suggest the forum administration, not go against it.

Note: yes, being on a potential nuke list was a strange find for me at the time. It’s not in my nature to spam or alike, but I did join a (very) few bounties at the beginning to see what the hell it was all about, only to find them rather belittling. I have never delete any of the posts, since I don’t believe they should be deleted, and should remain to show a track (I do believe though that people should be able to delete their digital footprint if they wish to, but that’s an other matter).

I found your case very interesting after reading your whole story! very motivating either.

[o_e_l_e_o]

To sum up unless there is a victim making a claim with some kind of documentation leaving a negative rating should be avoided.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. It doesn't take a detective to see that an ICO or project launched with a whitepaper that is entirely plagiarized or a team made up of fictitious, non-existent people isn't exactly a trustworthy project. Similarly, you don't need to actually be scammed by someone offering a return on investment of 100% a week to know that it is a scam. These kinds of things are obvious to people who have been involved in crypto for more than a few months, but newbies can and do regularly get fooled by these kind of scams.

No, giving all these scams red trust won't protect every newbie and some will get scammed, but not reaching 100% safety isn't a reason to trash the system altogether.

[cryptohunter]

Harassing a DT ??

That would need some serious criteria set and enforced.

If there is clear observable evidence the DT has acted in an unfair or untrustworthy manner then they should be removed at once and blacklisted.

Let's devise some rules for DT's first then set up the rules of what THEY think is a reason to dole out the red trust.

You can not allow self regulated controllers to manifest themselves here that are clearly motivated to act selfishly and in an untrustworthy manner.......then allow them to impose what rules they like on others.

First define a mandate and criteria for the system controllers behaviour and actions..... then let them operate within those before they start talking about not being allowed to "harass them"

Seems like saying we can do what we like to further our own interests and nobody can say shit about it.

[TECSHARE]

To sum up unless there is a victim making a claim with some kind of documentation leaving a negative rating should be avoided.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. It doesn't take a detective to see that an ICO or project launched with a whitepaper that is entirely plagiarized or a team made up of fictitious, non-existent people isn't exactly a trustworthy project. Similarly, you don't need to actually be scammed by someone offering a return on investment of 100% a week to know that it is a scam. These kinds of things are obvious to people who have been involved in crypto for more than a few months, but newbies can and do regularly get fooled by these kind of scams.

No, giving all these scams red trust won't protect every newbie and some will get scammed, but not reaching 100% safety isn't a reason to trash the system altogether.

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? Oh its obvious its a scam! Well sure, then its obvious to people who are doing ANY sort of even superficial due diligence isn't it?

In that case all it is serving to do is create even more conflict trying to be some kind of Barney Fife Tom Cruise hybrid pre-crime forum police. People who aren't doing any due diligence will ALWAYS BE FUCKED no matter how many nannies want to run around any try to baby proof everything. Respond with a negative after evidence is presented of a crime, not before. If not stick to neutrals and posts in the appropriate reputation and scam accusation areas.

[xtraelv]

To sum up unless there is a victim making a claim with some kind of documentation leaving a negative rating should be avoided.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. It doesn't take a detective to see that an ICO or project launched with a whitepaper that is entirely plagiarized or a team made up of fictitious, non-existent people isn't exactly a trustworthy project. Similarly, you don't need to actually be scammed by someone offering a return on investment of 100% a week to know that it is a scam. These kinds of things are obvious to people who have been involved in crypto for more than a few months, but newbies can and do regularly get fooled by these kind of scams.

No, giving all these scams red trust won't protect every newbie and some will get scammed, but not reaching 100% safety isn't a reason to trash the system altogether.

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? Oh its obvious its a scam! Well sure, then its obvious to people who are doing ANY sort of even superficial due diligence isn't it?

In that case all it is serving to do is create even more conflict trying to be some kind of Barney Fife Tom Cruise hybrid pre-crime forum police. People who aren't doing any due diligence will ALWAYS BE FUCKED no matter how many nannies want to run around any try to baby proof everything. Respond with a negative after evidence is presented of a crime, not before. If not stick to neutrals and posts in the appropriate reputation and scam accusation areas.

An attempt to scam is a crime in most counties. Alerts and discussion prevents people getting scammed. A lot of people go blindly into crypto and fall prey to many scams. While it may be considered baby proofing by some other don't want to stand by and do nothing. Having discussions about what constitutes a clear violation makes it easier for people to understand the ethical values of the forum. It allows them to avoid getting into trouble in the first place and it demonstrates what conduct the majority of people expect.

[itomarketing]

fake negativ rating

If you are consequent to your terms please add a negativ tag to suchmoon who admitted that he tagged me based on poor assumptions

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100071.msg49341080#msg49341080



Also i disagree on




Account sales / purchase / taking an account as collateral (If you want to tag this as scam first change the rule that its not allowed.
On the public rule from mrep is clearly stated that buying accounts is allowed)

Offering escrow without a track record (Why is that a scam ?Who are you to say someone when he is allowed to open an escrow ?Are you playing plan business aka banks which is the opposite of crypto ?

Late loan repayments / loan defaults (Thats not a scam.Life has diffrent points and having a late loan is nothing to be called a scammer)

Enrolling multiple accounts into signature/bounty campaigns (Thats the decission of bounty starter)

Lending or borrowing to gain "reputation"  (You would need to tag all big old lenders)


Inherently risky business practices - PayPal and other reversible payments, discouraging escrow use, autobuy sites, locked sales threads etc.
Why is that a scam?If there are two parties who agree on these terms how can you call this a scam ?Plan Business gain ?

Unrealistic loan applications (Thats not scam or fraud)

[cryptohunter]

fake negativ rating

If you are consequent to your terms please add a negativ tag to suchmoon who admitted that he tagged me based on poor assumptions

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100071.msg49341080#msg49341080

I can't see this red because he is exclude on my trust list due to not wishing to have untrustworthy persons on there.

What is the reason for his red trust?

[suchmoon]

fake negativ rating

If you are consequent to your terms please add a negativ tag to suchmoon who admitted that he tagged me based on poor assumptions

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5100071.msg49341080#msg49341080

You're the only one out of 2.5 million Bitcointalk users using the same vocabulary and attacking the same people as a red-trusted account trader. These odds are good enough for me to tag a worthless newbie account whose first post was this. But if you're not happy about it please start a thread in Reputation and state your case. This is not the place for that.

[itomarketing]

Here again a poor explanation as proof which he just invented.

If you guys really want to uphold the forum rules i would ask you to start with suchmoon who has completly no proof of his claims.
He just made it to defame me on the whole board because its about his friends.

@suchmoon i never attacked theymos ever.Thats again another poor claim which you can't proof again.
You just put assumptions and nothing more to defame


SHOW A SINGLE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS!!!!
How many innocent people have you abused this way ?

[The Sceptical Chymist]

SHOW A SINGLE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

If you can't see that proof that was presented was a slam dunk, maybe you ought to invest in a seeing-eye dog and a cane.

Busted.

[TECSHARE]

To sum up unless there is a victim making a claim with some kind of documentation leaving a negative rating should be avoided.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. It doesn't take a detective to see that an ICO or project launched with a whitepaper that is entirely plagiarized or a team made up of fictitious, non-existent people isn't exactly a trustworthy project. Similarly, you don't need to actually be scammed by someone offering a return on investment of 100% a week to know that it is a scam. These kinds of things are obvious to people who have been involved in crypto for more than a few months, but newbies can and do regularly get fooled by these kind of scams.

No, giving all these scams red trust won't protect every newbie and some will get scammed, but not reaching 100% safety isn't a reason to trash the system altogether.

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? Oh its obvious its a scam! Well sure, then its obvious to people who are doing ANY sort of even superficial due diligence isn't it?

In that case all it is serving to do is create even more conflict trying to be some kind of Barney Fife Tom Cruise hybrid pre-crime forum police. People who aren't doing any due diligence will ALWAYS BE FUCKED no matter how many nannies want to run around any try to baby proof everything. Respond with a negative after evidence is presented of a crime, not before. If not stick to neutrals and posts in the appropriate reputation and scam accusation areas.

An attempt to scam is a crime in most counties. Alerts and discussion prevents people getting scammed. A lot of people go blindly into crypto and fall prey to many scams. While it may be considered baby proofing by some other don't want to stand by and do nothing. Having discussions about what constitutes a clear violation makes it easier for people to understand the ethical values of the forum. It allows them to avoid getting into trouble in the first place and it demonstrates what conduct the majority of people expect.

I there is clear cut dry documentation of attempted fraud then I would agree a negative rating would be appropriate. However every numpty with a CSI playset around here wants to play Sherlock Holmes to raise their own profiles and entertain themselves at the expense of the reputations and freedoms of others. This isn't ok either. There has to be some basic standard of evidence otherwise this whole forum is little more than a puppet to dance at the pleasure of con artists.

[cryptohunter]

SHOW A SINGLE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIMS!!!!

If you can't see that proof that was presented was a slam dunk, maybe you ought to invest in a seeing-eye dog and a cane.

Busted.

excuse the pharmacist aka huge black woman he can't grasp not everyone here is the same as himself.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1702409.msg17808231#msg17808231

that is more like proof..

Of course if i were to wish to remain anonymous i could adopt someones posting habbits or traits so those alone are not solid proof that it is the same person. I mean I have seen time travel offered as reasonable explanation by legends of repute (apparently) here.

Better to discuss proven facts of sockpuppets like your own than ones that seem possible or probable but as yet unproven.

[itomarketing]

You're the only one out of 2.5 million Bitcointalk users using the same vocabulary and attacking the same people as a red-trusted account trader. These odds are good enough for me to tag a worthless newbie account whose first post was this. But if you're not happy about it please start a thread in Reputation and state your case. This is not the place for that.

Just proofen on that thread that there are thousand other posts using that word.
You are even to dumb to use google properly.
Or are you going to make the assumption that all these accounts also belong to me ?

LOL no wonder so many people call you an abuser.
Your are to stupid to make a proper research.
But thats the result when you tag someone not because he is scamming but because you defend your group to defame someone and search afterwards for a valid explanation of that tag.


Hey that legandary account is using the same word like me.Are you going to tagg him as my alt ?
Since you said you tagged me because of that word i wait that you tag that account too because its using the same word.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4786795.msg43850828#msg43850828


DT members have the rule of tagging for fake negativ trust.Suchmoon admited he had no evidence.
If there won't be a tag on his account because of that it just proofs that the DT members are worthless and are even unable to clean their own small group and executing double standards.
Hero members have been bombarded by these people with negativ trust for far less.