Discussion about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Community values. DT

[TECSHARE]

The problem with the ever expanding list of what people deem negative rateable, is that in a lot of these cases there is no evidence, it is left to the judgement of the individual. So essentially you have a bunch of people running around as judge jury and executioner with no recourse for those swept up in it wrongfully. In the end all this results in is making the negative ratings meaningless anyway giving cover for actual indisputable fraud. You don't have to like it or agree with it, that doesn't mean you should negative rate over it.

This whole "well what about this and what about this" game is simply an attempt at making it look like the sky will fall if we don't have a huge nanny state full of wanna be forum cops shotgunning negative ratings. Freedom and security are exclusive concepts, and your goal of absolute security is unattainable. Lets stick to what can and should be enforced and leave the nitpicking to the lice infested before these trust mobs demand rectal inspections before they give you permission to use the forum uninhibited.

[1715670748]

1715670748

[1715670748]

1715670748

[1715670748]

1715670748

[xtraelv]

The problem with the ever expanding list of what people deem negative rateable, is that in a lot of these cases there is no evidence, it is left to the judgement of the individual. So essentially you have a bunch of people running around as judge jury and executioner with no recourse for those swept up in it wrongfully. In the end all this results in is making the negative ratings meaningless anyway giving cover for actual indisputable fraud. You don't have to like it or agree with it, that doesn't mean you should negative rate over it.

This whole "well what about this and what about this" game is simply an attempt at making it look like the sky will fall if we don't have a huge nanny state full of wanna be forum cops shotgunning negative ratings. Freedom and security are exclusive concepts, and your goal of absolute security is unattainable. Lets stick to what can and should be enforced and leave the nitpicking to the lice infested before these trust mobs demand rectal inspections before they give you permission to use the forum uninhibited.

You have some valid criticism.  It is often difficult to see the difference between those that have been given a negative unfairly complaining about it and those that have been tagged fairly but continue lying about their plight.

I like LoyceVs suggestion:

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

Especially in the scam accusation section of the forum there are quite a few threads of accusations where there is no real proof or a commercial dispute with the same people repeatedly posting in the same threads and bullying anyone that has a different opinion.

The organisations complained of are also not so squeaky clean that they are worthwhile defending in such circumstances.

I think the difficulty is that amateurs with usually good intentions do the "investigations" and the "proof" provided is worse than circumstantial. Positive or negative trust still is just someones opinion and it is for the viewer to interpret the reliability.

There is not  lot that can be done about that. Trust is that individuals perception and interpretation of the situation.

The way I have constructed my custom trust list is to include those that I feel confident that do a quality job with research before tagging and will remove a tag if evidence to the contrary comes available.

[TECSHARE]

That is certainly valid advice, but again it is reduced to the same problem, it is completely subjective, and if it serves the interest of "forum cops" by increasing their profile and influence then there is an explicit conflict of interest inherent.

[nutildah]

That is certainly valid advice, but again it is reduced to the same problem, it is completely subjective, and if it serves the interest of "forum cops" by increasing their profile and influence then there is an explicit conflict of interest inherent.

Sometimes its not subjective. Sometimes scams are committed and all the evidence required to prove it is present on this very forum. I don't know how red tagging "increases" somebody's "profile", in a positive manner anyway.

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

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

Noted, I won't bother tagging them, but will perhaps post more about the problem in Meta later.

This is an instance where its incredibly obvious what is going on -- the chances that a series of accounts all created within hours of each other all have praise for the same projects is statistically round-downable to zero.

[TalkStar]

That is certainly valid advice, but again it is reduced to the same problem, it is completely subjective, and if it serves the interest of "forum cops" by increasing their profile and influence then there is an explicit conflict of interest inherent.

"Forum cops" i think thats a good synonym of our DT members, They are here to protect forum users from any kind of posibble scam. By an inclusive DT selection process we submit our vote and choose them to be the guardian of bitcointalk.

But on the other hand if anyone get red trust by any DT members for commiting scam or inspiring others to fraudulent activities start nasty arguments. Its already been a common topics on our forum. Everyday we wasting our valuable time just gossiping on this kind of tagging related argumental thread. We should find a solution.
 

[Bitcoin Smith]

^
Possible solution is just don't care about anything let the system work in its way.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Here is one case i'm not very sure what to do >
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22672;sa=showPosts;start=0
The account is most likely traded. There is a 1 year gap between the posts and from Italian switched to Russian.
He just signed a message to secure the new account.

I really hope that the guy is a polyglot and learned new language during this one year but I highly doubt that this is the case.
Shall I tag him, maybe leave a neutral comment or let him go unpunished ?

[TheNewAnon135246]

Here is one case i'm not very sure what to do >
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22672;sa=showPosts;start=0
The account is most likely traded. There is a 1 year gap between the posts and from Italian switched to Russian.
He just signed a message to secure the new account.

I really hope that the guy is a polyglot and learned new language during this one year but I highly doubt that this is the case.
Shall I tag him, maybe leave a neutral comment or let him go unpunished ?

It is highly unlikely that it is the same person. The account email address was also recently changed. I've tagged the account and will happily remove the feedback once the owner signs a message from an old address.

[TECSHARE]

^
Possible solution is just don't care about anything let the system work in its way.

Then you won't mind if we throw you on the pile first right?

That is certainly valid advice, but again it is reduced to the same problem, it is completely subjective, and if it serves the interest of "forum cops" by increasing their profile and influence then there is an explicit conflict of interest inherent.

Sometimes its not subjective. Sometimes scams are committed and all the evidence required to prove it is present on this very forum. I don't know how red tagging "increases" somebody's "profile", in a positive manner anyway.

Ok great. If you are producing evidence of a crime or a violation of a contractual agreement between users, negative rate away, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about this fast gunning, frivolous, assembly line, OCD use of ratings as they are now, left for every petty disagreement and things people don't like here.

Ultimately all it does is serve to make it EASIER for the real cons because they can hide in the chaos and noise while you go after the "pajeet" scammers. Then after all is said and done we are still left with a huge amount of conflict, disagreement, and fraud as well as a lot of innocent users swept up in it. It is counterproductive.

You don't see how it increases somebody's profile? Tell me, there are some members here that have done little to no trading here yet have stacks of great ratings. What are the majority of them related to? Right "scam busting". Real or not quite so real, it doesn't make much of a difference to some of them... it all makes them look more valuable, and there is no penalty to being wrong for them.

Also people like me pointing this out potentially takes away their easy faucet of influence, which is why you see some of these people come after myself and other long trusted members of this forum who dare to point out this dynamic. It is not like there are a lot of people here with this much reputation that they are willing to put on the line to be potentially taken by these people, and anyone without reputation saying it is easily dismissed as a con artist.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Here is one case i'm not very sure what to do >
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22672;sa=showPosts;start=0
The account is most likely traded. There is a 1 year gap between the posts and from Italian switched to Russian.
He just signed a message to secure the new account.

Carryout a security research like change of password adding to @TheNewAnon135246 information (of change of email) and if it comes out positive, go ahead and red tag him but if change of password is negative then give him a red tag and if he can prove he's the owner of the account the red tag will be deleted. The red tag will serve as a warning to prove ownership of account that way you'll get his attention.

Also you should info him via trust feedback that if he can proof ownership of account red tag will be removed.

[xtraelv]

Here is one case i'm not very sure what to do >
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=22672;sa=showPosts;start=0
The account is most likely traded. There is a 1 year gap between the posts and from Italian switched to Russian.
He just signed a message to secure the new account.

Carryout a security research like change of password adding to @TheNewAnon135246 information (of change of email) and if it comes out positive, go ahead and red tag him but if change of password is negative then give him a red tag and if he can prove he's the owner of the account the red tag will be deleted. The red tag will serve as a warning to prove ownership of account that way you'll get his attention.

Also you should info him via trust feedback that if he can proof ownership of account red tag will be removed.

Looks hacked.

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=goemon888 password changed twice at exactly the same time on different days?

They should be able to prove it by signing with 1Hxwh8zriyhXGZC5GXGMXm9ym5fgrJDqwz
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23449.msg294515#msg294515
https://archive.fo/IBN5d

Or with his dogecoin address:

D63S4WZtmBMxfbNqA8UTGwLsdL1hqPzsNZ

https://archive.fo/PSFGY
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365665.msg3904382#msg3904382

https://multidoge.org/help/v0.1/help_signAndVerifyMessage.html

[nutildah]

Ultimately all it does is serve to make it EASIER for the real cons because they can hide in the chaos and noise while you go after the "pajeet" scammers. Then after all is said and done we are still left with a huge amount of conflict, disagreement, and fraud as well as a lot of innocent users swept up in it. It is counterproductive.

You don't know that "pajeet" scammers aren't part of larger rings of serial scammers. Not doing anything at all is far worse.

You don't see how it increases somebody's profile? Tell me, there are some members here that have done little to no trading here yet have stacks of great ratings. What are the majority of them related to? Right "scam busting". Real or not quite so real, it doesn't make much of a difference to some of them... it all makes them look more valuable, and there is no penalty to being wrong for them.

Trading shouldn't be the only way to build up a positive reputation. I don't think the majority of non-trade green trust comes from scam busting, but it should be encouraged, not discouraged. If people are rewarded for their positive contributions to the forum, its a motivating factor for them.

Of course the system isn't perfect -- nobody ever said that it was. But the forum shouldn't be regarded as a free for all for scammers any more than it presently is.

[TECSHARE]

Ultimately all it does is serve to make it EASIER for the real cons because they can hide in the chaos and noise while you go after the "pajeet" scammers. Then after all is said and done we are still left with a huge amount of conflict, disagreement, and fraud as well as a lot of innocent users swept up in it. It is counterproductive.

You don't know that "pajeet" scammers aren't part of larger rings of serial scammers. Not doing anything at all is far worse.

You don't see how it increases somebody's profile? Tell me, there are some members here that have done little to no trading here yet have stacks of great ratings. What are the majority of them related to? Right "scam busting". Real or not quite so real, it doesn't make much of a difference to some of them... it all makes them look more valuable, and there is no penalty to being wrong for them.

Trading shouldn't be the only way to build up a positive reputation. I don't think the majority of non-trade green trust comes from scam busting, but it should be encouraged, not discouraged. If people are rewarded for their positive contributions to the forum, its a motivating factor for them.

Of course the system isn't perfect -- nobody ever said that it was. But the forum shouldn't be regarded as a free for all for scammers any more than it presently is.

Your first statement is neither a fact nor an argument. It is at best your opinion. Just more hypothetical waxing poetic about more sky falling rhetoric.

People are free to build their reputation in all kinds of ways. They should not be entitled to abuse a system designed to protect noobs engaging in transactions to make themselves look as if they are trustworthy with funds when all they do is go around stalking users and harassing them with their specific interpretation of the rules while the mob stands by and throws gas on the fire.

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't. If they aren't then it is just a meaningless joke of a popularity contest that will only serve as cover for con artists to use perpetually to rip people off because they can just keep buying/hacking accounts.

Without trade there is no risk. Without risk there is no trust. Without trust it ceases to be a gauge of who is trustworthy and serves only as a system of nepotism and might making right.

[Harlot]

Is red tagging people with referral links still a thing? I remembered some members in the forum have been tag by putting up their referral links on their signature code, especially campaigns on gambling site. I know that there is a "no referral code spam" in the forum rules(Rule # 4) so do DT members here consider referral links in the signature code as a spam because everytime you post it is included in the sig code?

[JusticeForYou]

all they do is go around stalking users and harassing them with their specific interpretation of the rules while the mob stands by and throws gas on the fire.

Yes, its a pretty much good explanation of what is happening. Everyone trying to put other users down and also some skilled once get effected by this.

Either the trust system ratings are primarily for trade or they aren't. If they aren't then it is just a meaningless joke of a popularity contest that will only serve as cover for con artists to use perpetually to rip people off because they can just keep buying/hacking accounts.

Without trade there is no risk. Without risk there is no trust. Without trust it ceases to be a gauge of who is trustworthy and serves only as a system of nepotism and might making right.

I think a highly positive trusted account should be the most traded one. If you know minerjones is the most trusted for now and it simply points to the fact that the trust system is mostly used for trade related feedback and it should be use for the same reason. I don't support the use of trust system to suppress someone or show that how good you are in spotting the spam it should rather indicate a person's trustworthyness for business.

[Lauda]

all they do is go around stalking users and harassing them with their specific interpretation of the rules while the mob stands by and throws gas on the fire.

Yes, its a pretty much good explanation of what is happening. Everyone trying to put other users down and also some skilled once get effected by this.

You're starting to sound like you are part of the Quickseller clique with each new post. Wait, I guess this is also harassment.

Is red tagging people with referral links still a thing? I remembered some members in the forum have been tag by putting up their referral links on their signature code, especially campaigns on gambling site. I know that there is a "no referral code spam" in the forum rules(Rule # 4) so do DT members here consider referral links in the signature code as a spam because everytime you post it is included in the sig code?

I don't remember the last time I saw a fresh tag for that.

[JusticeForYou]

You're starting to sound like you are part of the Quickseller clique with each new post.

Quickseller has a clique? I don't know ! 

Wait, I guess this is also harassment.

No it could be stated as

Posting an unpopular opinion.

[Lauda]

Posting a false "opinion".

FTFY. TECSHARE has been butthurt about all of this for ages; the same goes for Quickseller. They can't handle their own bias. Everything would be fine and dandy if they were (still) in what they call "positions of power".
Slightly offtopic: Have you signed anything from old addresses upon your 'return'? Gotta enjoy how the title "VIP" makes the DT members act differently.

[Harlot]

~snip~

I don't remember the last time I saw a fresh tag for that.

I have notice that as well, I remembered most tags from referral links are now turned neutral if not neutral in the first place and most ref link tags I know came from codes coming from gambling sites. So it just makes me wonder what other DT members think about it, will it be a concern in the future or ref links are now allowed in part of the sig code, because I know that some sig campaigns allow it and some do not.

[JusticeForYou]

FTFY. TECSHARE has been butthurt about all of this for ages; the same goes for Quickseller. They can't handle their own bias. Everything would be fine and dandy if they were (still) in what they call "positions of power".

Everyone here has his own openion about other and I think TECHSHARE have some valid points in the converstaion and hence was the support.

Slightly offtopic: Have you signed anything from old addresses upon your 'return'? Gotta enjoy how the title "VIP" makes the DT members act differently.

There is nothing like a return. I have been away from the  forum many time and every time I login after a long its not necessery to prove a stake address. Still, i have staked one recently due to recover my acccount in case of some lock.