@theymos It's time to make DT blacklist.

[TalkStar]

Hello everyone,

Just few days earlier our honourable forum admin theymos introduced us with new DT selection system. By this new selection system recently we got our new promising DT faces.

But its really annoying that some users of the forum are trying to manipulate the whole DT selection system. Every single person discussing there is untrustworthy and bearing  red trust on their profile. IMO its a combined group members who are doing this together.

Forum honourable admin theymos has promised that he will handle the manipulation directly by himself.

 Even if someone was openly talking about trying to form a strategic DT1 manipulation group for the express purpose of undermining the system, such a topic should not be deleted; rather, I'd look to handle this within the DT1 selection criteria.  

Theymos should take proper steps to stop this kind of activities. This guys are completely manipulating the DT selection system. Even they deleting continiously other members comment from the thread. You can take a look on the thread & i wish you can easily understand how they are manipulting. Even they are discussing to manipulate by posting on local sections too.

Thread link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0;all

Archived: http://archive.is/1aSwL

I think its time to make a DT blacklist for upcoming DT selection. Otherwise situation will be much complicated. DT members are taking actions to stop scam, spam and fraudlent activities but every time some guys putting false blame on them.

[1715365915]

1715365915

[1715365915]

1715365915

[1715365915]

1715365915

[1715365915]

1715365915

[H8bussesNbicycles]

blacklist lauda

[TryNinja]

whoever adds this list will be included + on this list in the next update and take control of dt away from lauda

Basically trading trust votes between themselves so a bunch of scammers/scumbags get into DT1.

But hey, Lauda is the abuser

[H8bussesNbicycles]

whoever adds this list will be included + on this list in the next update and take control of dt away from lauda

Basically trading trust votes between themselves so a bunch of scammers/scumbags get into DT1.

But hey, Lauda is the abuser

it is to force lauda out

lauda can concede any time and ask to be removed

dt can remove luda at any time

or i will pack dt to remove lauda

[TMAN]

whoever adds this list will be included + on this list in the next update and take control of dt away from lauda

Basically trading trust votes between themselves so a bunch of scammers/scumbags get into DT1.

But hey, Lauda is the abuser

it is to force lauda out

lauda can concede any time and ask to be removed

dt can remove luda at any time

or i will pack dt to remove lauda

you goons don't have enough merits to sway anything other than a little bit of piss in the wind.

best of luck though sweetcheeks

[Lauda]

-snip-
But hey, Lauda is the abuser

Depending on who you ask, some might say that there is obviously nothing wrong going on in that thread as it does not include a pro-Lauda statements.  I do kindly ask you to refer to me as if I were in my true form:

As I was initiated into a cryptic cult with rites of the goddess Hecate, the renowned paranormal researcher William Blake caught this photograph of Lauda shapeshifted to the form of a flying catbat:

The witch LAUDA
Identified Flying Object (IFO)
(Better than a UFO.  Much better than an ICO.)

[The Cryptovator]

Seems not only subject to remove Lauda, there are more well reputed DT on exclusion list. Nevermind they have exclude me, I don't care about it since I am not doing anything wrong. But manipulate on publicly is not good practic. Theymos should take action against any manipulation. I have made a thread  since they are deleting also my reply.

you are one of the members suddenly acting like the police in every thread possible, don't worry a lot of users will be removed

Not suddenly, take a look on my trust page. More then 35 Scam ICO's exposed by me, is it suddenly ? and I don't care even removed me, I will continue my job like before.

[Bibite]

Knowing people buy, trade, or call it as you want, merits, why to create a system using the "corrupted" merits.
Some members were hiding in their cave before and when this new system came up, they act like the only police here. they are arrogant, abusive and not friendly at all.
Few smart members start to understand this, and it's not what they want, don't worry it's not finish yet

Seems not only subject to remove Lauda, there are more well reputed DT on exclusion list. Nevermind they have exclude me, I don't care about it since I am not doing anything wrong. But manipulate on publicly is not good practic. Theymos should take action against any manipulation.

you are one of the members suddenly acting like the police in every thread possible, don't worry a lot of users will be removed

[Thule]

Basically trading trust votes between themselves so a bunch of scammers/scumbags get into DT1.

Where do you see we are trading between each other ?Anyone can get our votes who puts TMAN,Lauda,thepharmacist and owlcatz into the distrust list even YOU.
We don't trade between each other but we unite against somebody.None of us has the intention to get a DT member.But if it will be needed to get these mentioned DT abusers out of the group than we are going to use the voting system and support members who are against these people.

This is the result of their past abuse and ignorance.

You created this movement yourself by acting like you did.


Theymos gave us the power to unvote people from DT who are not considered trustworthy by the community

[LTU_btc]

I don't agree with your suggestion. Such DT blacklist just would make trust system more centralized. I don't support these users who are trying to manipulate system. But they are see their own reasons why some users shouldn't be on DT. It's normal that not everyone can be part of Lauda cult. But I highly doubt that they are going to achieve what they want with such methods.

[suchmoon]

Theymos gave us the power to unvote people from DT who are not considered trustworthy by the community

You're trying too hard. You'd be "unvoted" even without asking for it so blatantly.

[TMAN]

Theymos gave us the power to unvote people from DT who are not considered trustworthy by the community

Yes.. the exact reason that you wouldn't last more than 40 seconds on DT if you even managed to pull something like your plan off!

[khaled0111]

As any other member, they have the right to choose whom to trust. That's the whole point of the new trust system. 

Let them try, I doubt they can make a change... they have no weight.

[Thule]

Theymos gave us the power to unvote people from DT who are not considered trustworthy by the community

You're trying too hard. You'd be "unvoted" even without asking for it so blatantly.

Trying hard of what ?I clearly mentioned several times i have no intention in getting a DT.All i care is that DT abusers will leave that group.
So try again to discredit me with false claims seems your major repetroir

[TalkStar]

I don't agree with your suggestion. Such DT blacklist just would make trust system more centralized. I don't support these users who are trying to manipulate system. But they are see their own reasons why some users shouldn't be on DT. It's normal that not everyone can be part of Lauda cult. But I highly doubt that they are going to achieve what they want with such methods.

I don't know why you beleive that DT blacklist would make the trust system centralized. In new DT system there's been option for excluding someone from the DT list. But i think you haven't visit the thread link yet where a combine group of untruthworthy users are trying to remove lauda from DT1 list to fullfill their future scam dream.

Whatever it is i beleive its just not an attempt to remove someone specially, its an combined attack to manipulate the whole DT system.

[Thule]

to fullfill their future scam dream.

And this claim you made based on what ?

Diffrent as you punk i'm not on BCT for months but since 2012.7 years passed and who did i scammed ?

[stompix]

I don't know why you beleive that DT blacklist would make the trust system centralized.

The system was centralized if Theymos was the only one deciding who was on DT.
The system will also be centralized if Theymos will decide who doesn't belong there.

Let's exclude for a moment the fact that the ones voting for a scammer are also scammers and they have pushed him through abuse on DT, the fact that somebody can block their action while ignoring others makes it is centralized, just like in the case of centralized coins where payments can be reversed or tokens blocked.

Not that it would be a bad idea to have an emergency nuke button in case the clones win the war but it will still give the system a centralized flavor.

[cruso]

Members can add whomever they like to their trust list. DT and trust manipulation have been in play for ages and sometimes publicly. Having read the thread, what is going on there is no different from what some more experienced members have been doing, albeit in a brazen manner. They are bound to fail unless it catches on.

It is also worth noting that the posters on that thread more or less have grudges against certain DT members. Nonetheless, after reading their ratings, what struck me was that none of them actually stole from other members. Their ratings for, and against, seem more like smear than anything else.

If DT members can stick to busting real scams and attempted scams rather than leave negative ratings to people with opinions they don’t like, these dramas will stop and the forum would a better place. I often wonder why some DT members are never part of these endless rows, could it be because their ratings are seen as fair?

[Findingnemo]

I think we actually have that in rule of DT1 selection,right?

- You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection.

So all the people who got selected for DT1 will go through selection process by admin and there is no need to make that blacklist pubic.

[cryptohunter]

whoever adds this list will be included + on this list in the next update and take control of dt away from lauda

Basically trading trust votes between themselves so a bunch of scammers/scumbags get into DT1.

But hey, Lauda is the abuser

Well let's examine the FACTS

1. lauda is a proven liar.
2. Lauda is a proven trust abuser
3. so are his buddies from the extortion scheme undercover agents attempt tman and owlcatz
4. People supporting proven liars, trust abusers and such are the real scum bags
5. If you are supporting lauda or anyone else on DT that evidence can be produced to demonstrate they are untrustworthy you are a scumbag.

Next

Look on Bpip.org
Go to the DT trust list and watch who includes/excludes who on DT1 (wish we could see DT2 also)

Start hunting around on the receivers and fans of each of these scum suckers, their merit is all cycled around amongst these colluding scum bags

Those are the facts. The scumbags you refer to are not scumbags they are people that are sick of the open collusion of this gang and also mostly people that have received red trust for grey areas (not rule breaking) and far less untrustworthy that proven liars, trust abusers and sneaky greedy  sock puppet racist trolling sig spammers.

Starting to understand now?

For once though Tman the imbecile has correctly noticed theymos just broke the entire system by being pushed into 250 earned merits threshold - - which sadly the real bunch of colluding scum make sure they cycle only to those they can pull on side.  Needing 2 persons with 250 earned merits (subjective, misleading, cycled junk, meaningless in suchmoons own words) now pushed control of both systems of control firmly into the hands of individuals that are are proven liars, and system abusers or those that kiss up to them hoping to join their gang.

These are simply facts and once you dig down and start looking at the same crew that show up to every thread to all back each other up and merit each other over and over again. Look at who they predominantly cycle their merits around to and who they include exclude on DT. There is no sensible person here that is not either an asslicker or an imbecile that can not clearly see what is happening. Theymos is actually either unable to see the terrible flaws of being pushed to the 250 earned merits from 2 persons.. or is fully aware and for some reason wishes to see the board dominated by a bunch of  PROVEN liars, trust abusers, greedy sneaky sock puppet racist sig spammers and their supporters. Perhaps the entire thing is a honey pot for these people. Who can say.

There is no other sensible explanation.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I often wonder why some DT members are never part of these endless rows, could it be because their ratings are seen as fair?

Which level of DT are we talking about here?  DT1?  It gets confusing these days. 

Some DT1 members don't jump into the drama because they likely know it's a never-ending fight and it's more or less just wasted energy to keep engaging in the troll wars.  Even if their ratings are fair (or more fair than others), the people on the other side of the fence will never see them as such, because it's just a battle for power and no one is prepared to give up an inch of ground.  This whole situation is just silly.  Theymos set the criteria for getting onto DT1.  I didn't fight to get on it.  Lauda wasn't even on DT2 at the time, nor was TMAN and some of the others. 

As far as the trust lists and "votes" DT1 members have cast, I'm not seeing where this grand conspiracy is coming from--maybe because I'm not in the loop, but who knows.  But those who are yelling the loudest about how unfair it all is (cryptohunter, Thule, etc.) will never stand a chance of getting on to even DT2.  All they do is whine and scream, while the rest of the upstanding DT1/2 members are actually trying to fix some of the problems bitcointalk has, i.e., finding scammers, account dealers, and all the other stuff that landed them on DT in the first place.

[Theb]

The good thing about the DT system right now is the merit requirement that comes with it, this system until now is fending off the removal of members deserving to be in the DT list. Most of the voters ganging up don't even have the leverage of merit right now to remove a DT members. And even if they succeed on having a DT member of their own a lot of members in the DT list can quickly put them on their distrust list which would quickly remove them, that is why you will see a lot of names crossed-out from the trust list page.

you are one of the members suddenly acting like the police in every thread possible, don't worry a lot of users will be removed

Not suddenly, take a look on my trust page. More then 35 Scam ICO's exposed by me, is it suddenly ? and I don't care even removed me, I will continue my job like before.

It's funny how they use their reference links and it will just redirect to the ANN Thread of the scam coin you have busted, as if it will prove that you are deserving to receive their negative feedback. But the truth is they are just incriminating themselves more of what they are doing.

[Jet Cash]

Identified Flying Object (IFO)
(Better than a UFO.  Much better than an ICO.)

I take exception to that comment. An ICO ( Identified Cat Object ) is far superior.

[cryptohunter]

I often wonder why some DT members are never part of these endless rows, could it be because their ratings are seen as fair?

Which level of DT are we talking about here?  DT1?  It gets confusing these days.  

Some DT1 members don't jump into the drama because they likely know it's a never-ending fight and it's more or less just wasted energy to keep engaging in the troll wars.  Even if their ratings are fair (or more fair than others), the people on the other side of the fence will never see them as such, because it's just a battle for power and no one is prepared to give up an inch of ground.  This whole situation is just silly.  Theymos set the criteria for getting onto DT1.  I didn't fight to get on it.  Lauda wasn't even on DT2 at the time, nor was TMAN and some of the others.  

As far as the trust lists and "votes" DT1 members have cast, I'm not seeing where this grand conspiracy is coming from--maybe because I'm not in the loop, but who knows.  But those who are yelling the loudest about how unfair it all is (cryptohunter, Thule, etc.) will never stand a chance of getting on to even DT2.  All they do is whine and scream, while the rest of the upstanding DT1/2 members are actually trying to fix some of the problems bitcointalk has, i.e., finding scammers, account dealers, and all the other stuff that landed them on DT in the first place.

You see this is the problem with people like the pharmacist. He tries to set terms like "whining" "screaming" "trolling"

Actually he does not want the presentation of facts that demonstrate clearly he himself is so greedy and sneaky he set up a sock puppet racist trolling account called Huge Black Woman to sig spam for more btc dust. He got busted because he was trying to get to a better paid sig campaign for his sneaky sig spamming racist sock puppet account. Whilst if you notice a lot of his posts are addressing the problem of "financially motivated posters"

Sorry that is not trolling, whining, screaming. That is the presentation of fact that demonstrates how greedy and sneaky and untrustworthy these people really are.

Other FACTS like lauda is a proven liar, or TMAN Admits in black and white he gives red trust to people presenting facts about wrongdoing and untrustworthy behaviour. That is not trolling, whining, screaming. That is the presentation of facts.

Want evidence. Just ask.


Theb - The merit requirement of 250 earned merits is not the good thing. It is the most damaging thing theymos has done yet to this board. He has given total control of both systems of control here to the same gang of colluders and scum bags.

The fact you believe this is a good thing to make collusion and centralised control easier tells me you have learned nothing since you have been here.  Those 2 systems of control should have been separated and given strict criteria.

The mere fact you think this is a good idea is ludicrous and proves to me

1. you have not examined the evidence regarding the people that are on Dt1 and dt2
2. you have idea what the 250 earned merits threshold does.

[LoyceV]

Am I the only one who doesn't really worry about this just yet?

Theymos said this:

~
But if it looks like a "scammer's cartel" is forming, then I'd change the criteria to fix it. For example, one obvious weak point is that you can try to push an infinite number of people into DT1 by trusting as many people as you want; one way to try to fix this would be to take only a fixed-size random subset of everyone's trust list into account, perhaps with the size determined by the truster's merit.

This part has been implemented already, DT1 "voting power" is determined by Merit.

But for now I am very much inclined to just let it roll for a while and see exactly where the cracks appear.

Theymos wants to see where this ends up, if it goes south, he'll adjust things. I'm very curious to see under which conditions the community can be more or less self-regulating when it comes to DT-power.

This summarizes it nicely:

I feel that we are all part of Theymos "ant-farm " experiment.

Don't forget: the DT1-update isn't automated yet, theymos has to manually run it. I can only assume he'll check for extreme abuse before pushing the update live.

This seems like a good place to promote [New and Updated] LoyceV's Trust list viewer (updated weekly).

[Jet Cash]

Theymos is really a department in the IMF, and it has the responsibility of controlling the second phase of Bitcoin, Satoshi was another department, and it was disbanded once the genesis block was laid. The whole thing was predicted in the names of the books of the Old Testament.

Genesis - Satoshi laid the first block and collected 1 million Bitcoin
Exodus - All of the disciples who created Bitcoin leave as wealthy men, or disillusioned posters.
Leviticus - The rise of the bankers.
Numbers - Gaining control of mining. This stage is only just starting with the confiscation of mining rigs that are imported into Iran, once the US gains control of Iran, they can use the oil and the mining rigs to take control of the Bitcoin network
Deuteronomy - The farewell address as the controlling elite enter the land of silk and money.

I'll let you guys finish this  post, as I don't want to get into the "Judges" bit.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Am I the only one who doesn't really worry about this just yet?

Not at all. I'm just watching the whole thing with some mild amusement.

These trolls will get nowhere. To get someone voted on to DT1, they need votes from 2 members with 250 merit each, amongst other things. These trolls currently spamming Meta and Reputation don't have 250 merit between them, let alone on one account, doubly let alone on two accounts. Even if they bought enough merit (because lets be fair, they are never going to earn enough) to give them enough voting power to get one of them to meet the DT1 criteria, that person would probably be excluded long before theymos recalculated the list. cryptohunter, for example, already has 11 DT1 exclusions.

This is before any of it even reaches theymos, who, as LoyceV has pointed out, would step in if these scammers somehow did achieve all this.

[cryptohunter]

Am I the only one who doesn't really worry about this just yet?

Not at all. I'm just watching the whole thing with some mild amusement.

These trolls will get nowhere. To get someone voted on to DT1, they need votes from 2 members with 250 merit each, amongst other things. These trolls currently spamming Meta and Reputation don't have 250 merit between them, let alone on one account, doubly let alone on two accounts. Even if they bought enough merit (because lets be fair, they are never going to earn enough) to give them enough voting power to get one of them to meet the DT1 criteria, that person would probably be excluded long before theymos recalculated the list. cryptohunter, for example, already has 11 DT1 exclusions.

This is before any of it even reaches theymos, who, as LoyceV has pointed out, would step in if these scammers somehow did achieve all this.

Scammers? err please remain just a moron and not a liar now also. Prove I have scammed anyone ever.

Whilst I can prove DT members are liars, trust abusers and sneaky sock puppet racist trolling sig spammers.

I have proof you have nothing.

DT exclusions right now are like endorsements for being honest. Calling me a scammer is ludicrous.

You olieoe are the untrustworthy one for supporting proven liars and self confessed trust abusers.

Actually you are just a noob fool who has zero clue about most things here. Just another sig spammer gaming the system for your own ends.

[otrkid1970]

The trust system is and will always be BROKEN.  If you put a few names on the so called "Trust" list and let them go wild with their own assumptions and allegations people will suffer.

I would not trust a single Fucker on the trust list with a $1  That is what trust is all about.

It was meant for the Market place...Not for spammers and Account buyers or for anything else.

Get rid of it. You can't fix Stupid.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

These trolls currently spamming Meta and Reputation don't have 250 merit between them, let alone on one account, doubly let alone on two accounts.

And that's exactly why they're whining about it, claiming it's unfair and blah blah blah.  

Meanwhile, I'm more concerned about finding decent posts (especially from lower-ranked members) to give merits to.  Every time I take the plunge and visit Bitcoin Discussion looking for hidden gems I end up finding plagiarism or bought accounts instead.  This concerns me far more than this petty power struggle with the army of newbie trolls.  The only thing they're capable of doing is making a lot of noise and making fools out of themselves.

I keep hearing about how merits get circulated amongst the DT members.  Can anyone show me how I'm a part of that?  It's true I've given merits to some of them, but most of my earned merits didn't come from members like Lauda, LoyceV, Vod, or any of them.  Most of the sMerits I've given out haven't been to DT1 members.  I think in general this is an argument that's been debunked, and yet it keeps surfacing.

It was meant for the Market place...Not for spammers and Account buyers or for anything else.

Funny, that's the argument TECSHARE keeps making--likely because if it were true he'd be back on DT, since he has done a lot of successful trades.  The truth is that this trust system isn't set up like eBay's and never was about just the marketplace.  I won't argue that the system is broken or that successful trades and being able to trust someone with money ought to be rewarded with positive trust.  At the same time, some individuals who can be trusted with money might themselves abuse the trust system (TECSHARE) and thus might not be fit to be on DT.  True story.

Edit:

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=The%20Pharmacist

Go look at all his fans and recipients.... then look at their fans and recipients....

Yeah, and look at the total number of merits I've given to and received from the DT members.  They represent a small fraction of the merits I've earned and the ones I've given out.  Sorry I peeped at your post, but obviously you're trying to make it look like I give most of my sMerits to DT members and get most of my earned merits from them.  That isn't true by a long shot, kiddo.

[cryptohunter]

These trolls currently spamming Meta and Reputation don't have 250 merit between them, let alone on one account, doubly let alone on two accounts.

And that's exactly why they're whining about it, claiming it's unfair and blah blah blah.  

Meanwhile, I'm more concerned about finding decent posts (especially from lower-ranked members) to give merits to.  Every time I take the plunge and visit Bitcoin Discussion looking for hidden gems I end up finding plagiarism or bought accounts instead.  This concerns me far more than this petty power struggle with the army of newbie trolls.  The only thing they're capable of doing is making a lot of noise and making fools out of themselves.

I keep hearing about how merits get circulated amongst the DT members.  Can anyone show me how I'm a part of that?  It's true I've given merits to some of them, but most of my earned merits didn't come from members like Lauda, LoyceV, Vod, or any of them.  Most of the sMerits I've given out haven't been to DT1 members.  I think in general this is an argument that's been debunked, and yet it keeps surfacing.

LOL this guy thinks people are blind

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=The%20Pharmacist

Go look at all his fans and recipients.... then look at their fans and recipients....


I mean then go to the DT list of includes excludes.....

These people are fucking morons if they think we do not see them all cycling their merits and supporting each other on DT

Imagine the top 20 they would all be there cycling merit round and round and round.

Out of 150k users imagine these bunch that turn up in every thread together if one is called out all infested on their fans and recipients and all including each other for DT.

LOL what collusion

Notice how the pharmacist is not discussing his proven sneaky greedy actions of using a sock puppet racist trolling sig spamming for extra btc dust. However just keeps trying to cast these FACT as trolling or conspiracy theories haha Please fool start realising this will not wash. People can see what is clearly happening here now and now that theymos got pushed into this 250 cycled merits crap everyone can see just how corrupt and broken the entire thing is.


So you have a bunch of people giving out merit to each other  so they can gain the key positions in the DT system and all vote for each other to be included in that.

So now those 2 systems of control and tied as 1 big control system that controls paid2post and trading. Whilst the people controlling it all have selfish motive to game it as they like for their own financial gain. Look at them all spamming their sigs everywhere.

[otrkid1970]

These trolls currently spamming Meta and Reputation don't have 250 merit between them, let alone on one account, doubly let alone on two accounts.

And that's exactly why they're whining about it, claiming it's unfair and blah blah blah.  

Meanwhile, I'm more concerned about finding decent posts (especially from lower-ranked members) to give merits to.  Every time I take the plunge and visit Bitcoin Discussion looking for hidden gems I end up finding plagiarism or bought accounts instead.  This concerns me far more than this petty power struggle with the army of newbie trolls.  The only thing they're capable of doing is making a lot of noise and making fools out of themselves.

I keep hearing about how merits get circulated amongst the DT members.  Can anyone show me how I'm a part of that?  It's true I've given merits to some of them, but most of my earned merits didn't come from members like Lauda, LoyceV, Vod, or any of them.  Most of the sMerits I've given out haven't been to DT1 members.  I think in general this is an argument that's been debunked, and yet it keeps surfacing.

LOL this guy thinks people are blind

https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=The%20Pharmacist

Go look at all his fans and recipients.... then look at their fans and recipients....


I mean then go to the DT list of includes excludes.....

These people are fucking morons if they think we do not see them all cycling their merits and supporting each other on DT

Look at a

He is one the many many reasons DT is broken. the list is an orgy of fuckwads.

[o_e_l_e_o]

And that's exactly why they're whining about it, claiming it's unfair and blah blah blah.

Agreed, but they fail to offer a credible or workable alternative. The only options I've heard from them are "Ban Lauda and the gang"* and "Use this trust list filled with known scammers and users who have left no ratings instead". In other words, complete nonsense. I can see a couple of ignored posts from cryptohunter up there, which I can only assume are him calling me a liar and part of the aforementioned gang. The last time I read his posts his idea of "fair" was allowing plagiarizers off the hook and saying that all the altcoin spammers deserved more merit but failing to provide a single post to substantiate that claim.

If one of the trolls came up with a system which would actually work, I'd be very keen to discuss it (and I'm certain others would to). The longer they keep talking such nonsense, the more people are going to be utilising that ignore button.


Lauda and the Gang would be a great name for a Kool and the Gang tribute act. I'm not too bad on guitar or keyboards. Anyone else keen?

[Vod]

You can blacklist someone from DT just by adding ~ in front of their name.

Obviously one person alone should not be able to blacklist anyone, so you need to have support for your action.

[LTU_btc]

I don't know why you beleive that DT blacklist would make the trust system centralized. In new DT system there's been option for excluding someone from the DT list. But i think you haven't visit the thread link yet where a combine group of untruthworthy users are trying to remove lauda from DT1 list to fullfill their future scam dream.

Whatever it is i beleive its just not an attempt to remove someone specially, its an combined attack to manipulate the whole DT system.

Blacklisting someone would make system more centralized, instead of leaving all these things for community to judge. And I don't know why how blacklist would change something. Users like cryptohunter, and other people from so called anti-DT gang already don't have chances to appear on DT. In first days when changes in trust system were made, there was some shady users on DT, but it was only matter of time until they were removed from DT by community.

[cryptohunter]

I don't know why you beleive that DT blacklist would make the trust system centralized. In new DT system there's been option for excluding someone from the DT list. But i think you haven't visit the thread link yet where a combine group of untruthworthy users are trying to remove lauda from DT1 list to fullfill their future scam dream.

Whatever it is i beleive its just not an attempt to remove someone specially, its an combined attack to manipulate the whole DT system.

Blacklisting someone would make system more centralized, instead of leaving all these things for community to judge. And I don't know why how blacklist would change something. Users like cryptohunter, and other people from so called anti-DT gang already don't have chances to appear on DT. In first days when changes in trust system were made, there was some shady users on DT, but it was only matter of time until they were removed from DT by community.

Let me walk you through it.

1. lauda is a proven liar
2. lauda is a proven trust abuser.
3. Tman is a proven trust abuser by his own admission
4. The pharmacist is a proven greedy devious sock puppet sig spamming racist troll

They are still on DT they are untrustworthy.

There is no community control there is just a few merit cyclers with 250 merit infesting the key positions of the trust system.

Stop lying and being net negative.

Want proof just ask.

[mikeywith]

There is no community control there is just a few merit cyclers with 250 merit infesting the key positions of the trust system.

as we speak and based on the last update on bpip , there are 155 members with over 250 earned merit. and over a thousand member with 10 earned merit.

i think this is somehow a decent decentralization ratio, if the majority of those members think that the current DT list is untrustworthy they can change it over night, but i don't see that happening simply because

1- the majority don't have a problem with it.
2- the majority don't give a fuck.

[TalkStar]

You can blacklist someone from DT just by adding ~ in front of their name.

Obviously one person alone should not be able to blacklist anyone, so you need to have support for your action.

Its not possible to blacklist someone by only one person but with support of others its possible. IMO thats a clear sign that new DT selection system is decentralized. I don't know why some guys are shouting here its going to be centralized again.

As a forum member i completely support the new DT selection system. There was a time when our honourable admin theymos was the all in all for DT selection. But Its a participatory selection system now where members can submit their own vote to see their favourite person on the DT list.

[Thule]

And that's exactly why they're whining about it, claiming it's unfair and blah blah blah.  

Who is whining ?Its you guys trying to defend the status quo and opening this thread.
We already started the change which can't be stopped anymore.
If you think we don't have support from some DT members you are totaly wrong.

They are currently sitting calm not because they don't support us but because its a power game against Lauda's cult group.
If one of these DT1 members would now put Lauda and his cult group into the distrust list it would instantly lead into a revange action of them and the loss of a DT status.
So they are waiting for the right moment which we are preparing for them.
Lauda knows exectly he has many enemies in DT list and thats why he fears this kind of shit so much and tries to control who gets in.The russians were a good example how furious Lauda got and to resolve the issue his main condition was and still is to put him and his puppets into the russians trust list.


The distrust list will grow quickly and people being aware of a need of 250 merits will make that people will start giving merits more often to people they like myself included who nearly never gave any merits.
Its just a matter of time

[The Cryptovator]

The distrust list will grow quickly and people being aware of a need of 250 merits will make that people will start giving merits more often to people they like myself included who nearly never gave any merits.
Its just a matter of time

Perhaps you forgot about manual blacklist.

However, I reserve the right to remove you and blacklist you from future selection if you engage in egregious and obvious abuse, or if multiple known alt accounts could be selected.

Pass on vote it doesn't mean you will be on DT1. You should be whitelist manually by theymos. Do you think theymos didn't check user history before add on DT1? I don't think so he blindly just add DT1 who have passed on vote. One more thing, if you send merit someone then your merit will exclude from him during selection, so don't try to manipulate by sending merit also.

[Thule]

Pass on vote it doesn't mean you will be on DT1. You should be whitelist manually by theymos. Do you think theymos didn't check user history before add on DT1? I don't think so he blindly just add DT1 who have passed on vote. One more thing, if you send merit someone then your merit will exclude from him during selection, so don't try to manipulate by sending merit also.

I said it 1000 times and still people post me trying to get DT1 .I have no intentions to get DT1.There are enough users out who are legendary ,have a good reputation and already a high amount of merits earned and most important who also have a problem with Lauda and his cult.
I'm going to push them as they represent my opinion.Calling that an abuse is funny.I could claim the same of all Lauda supporters.

But if you wanna start to blacklist all legit users on this forum just because they got merit from people who wanna see them on top.....this will create an even bigger war.
You already lost the game.Its just a matter of time.You got the majority of community against you and the system is build that the majority holds the power once they have 250 merits earned.

[LoyceV]

as we speak and based on the last update on bpip , there are 155 members with over 250 earned merit. and over a thousand member with 10 earned merit.

Make that around 7000 members with 10 earned Merit.

I'm currently working on a "DT1 rank up list", to see which users are getting close for the next "election".

the system is build that the majority holds the power once they have 250 merits earned.

250 Merit gives only one "power vote", that restriction makes it much harder to takeover DT1 with many accounts.

[Jet Cash]

We need to introduce the Jet Cash solar power generator. Only those with a sunny disposition and illuminating posts gain the power.

[cryptohunter]

as we speak and based on the last update on bpip , there are 155 members with over 250 earned merit. and over a thousand member with 10 earned merit.

Make that around 7000 members with 10 earned Merit.

I'm currently working on a "DT1 rank up list", to see which users are getting close for the next "election".

the system is build that the majority holds the power once they have 250 merits earned.

250 Merit gives only one "power vote", that restriction makes it much harder to takeover DT1 with many accounts.

that restriction makes it centralised and gamed easily by a few colluders merit cyclers. However it does not really make too much difference there are plenty of other ways to make it known that red trust abuse will not be tolerated.

[TalkStar]

that restriction makes it centralised and gamed easily by a few colluders merit cyclers. However it does not really make too much difference there are plenty of other ways to make it known that red trust abuse will not be tolerated.

This restriction isn't the sign of centralization. Its a requirement to be eligible for participation. Obviously who have earned 250 merits got much acceptability than others. So here IMO vast experience & previous works history makes the difference only.

 

[cryptohunter]

that restriction makes it centralised and gamed easily by a few colluders merit cyclers. However it does not really make too much difference there are plenty of other ways to make it known that red trust abuse will not be tolerated.

This restriction isn't the sign of centralization. Its a requirement to be eligible for participation. Obviously who have earned 250 merits got much acceptability than others. So here IMO vast experience & previous works history makes the difference only.

 

Yeah in your vast experience and previous works your humble opinion is valid right?

Haha what an entertaining post in so many ways. Previous works and history? yeah that is why there are noobs all over DT. Lol not centralisation just requirement for eligibility... is that some joke? in this case it is the same thing. The people awarding themselves and pals merit support the same pals on DT

Wrong, 250 earned merits are mostly cycled junk from no more than a tiny tiny subset of cyclers for the most part. It is quite observable by bpip and the dt inclusions list these are colluding. There are elder legends here with less than 50 earned merits that are far more trustworthy and make far better posts.

Please stop hanging around meta  merit begging and get out on to the real discussion boards like most noobs here. People don't generally join a board to discuss how the board works.

[TalkStar]

Yeah in your vast experience and previous works your humble opinion is valid right?

Haha what an entertaining post in so many ways. Previous works and history? yeah that is why there are noobs all over DT. Lol not centralisation just requirement for eligibility... is that some joke? in this case it is the same thing. The people awarding themselves and pals merit support the same pals on DT

Wrong, 250 earned merits are mostly cycled junk from no more than a tiny tiny subset of cyclers for the most part. It is quite observable by bpip and the dt inclusions list these are colluding. There are elder legends here with less than 50 earned merits that are far more trustworthy and make far better posts.

Please stop hanging around meta  merit begging and get out on to the real discussion boards like most noobs here. People don't generally join a board to discuss how the board works.

Hey mate i think you will be so glad if anyone selected as a DT who got 250+ red trust.hahaha.lol.

I hope in future there will be another selection system in our forum possible name (untrustworthy user list). Where we can submit our vote to select most untrustworthy members. Perhaps that time you have a chance to be selected there otherwise no chance for sure

[AdolfinWolf]

that restriction makes it centralised and gamed easily by a few colluders merit cyclers. However it does not really make too much difference there are plenty of other ways to make it known that red trust abuse will not be tolerated.

This restriction isn't the sign of centralization. Its a requirement to be eligible for participation. Obviously who have earned 250 merits got much acceptability than others. So here IMO vast experience & previous works history makes the difference only.

  

Yeah in your vast experience and previous works your humble opinion is valid right?

Haha what an entertaining post in so many ways. Previous works and history? yeah that is why there are noobs all over DT. Lol not centralisation just requirement for eligibility... is that some joke? in this case it is the same thing. The people awarding themselves and pals merit support the same pals on DT

Wrong, 250 earned merits are mostly cycled junk from no more than a tiny tiny subset of cyclers for the most part. It is quite observable by bpip and the dt inclusions list these are colluding. There are elder legends here with less than 50 earned merits that are far more trustworthy and make far better posts.

Please stop hanging around meta  merit begging and get out on to the real discussion boards like most noobs here. People don't generally join a board to discuss how the board works.

I'd be inclined to agree, and disagree with OP. -- As others have already mentioned: if there is a need to blacklist people, instead of letting them being voted out by participants of the system, it seems like there would be something wrong with the system, rather than the user.

-- We're not banning scammers either, so why would the forum need to intervene in such a degree in determining who is trustworthy, and who isn't? I can only see this causing problems & irregularities.

[The Cryptovator]

What's going on even abuser are begging merit openly. Also they are abusing merit on their war post. Just now noticed they made post about merit to fulfill 250 merit requirements even they encourage to buy it. See here : http://archive.is/MG4YO

This isn't too much? Everything have a limit. They are Trying to manipulate trust system by begging/buy merit what we can expect from them if they come on DT network. Few stupid supporting them by merit also. I am realising that theymos really need to make blacklist for next DT selection. Otherwise they will continue abusing.

[Rambotnic]

Everything that has begin will have his end.
This "Merit" and "Trust" mafia should be once forever removed.
And that would be possible only with huge changes in this forum.
We don't need "trust system" which is abusive, controlled by group of people.
We don't need "merit system" which is circle of supporting the very same "Mafia".
If you don't agree with them, you will be bullied.
If you don't agree with them, you will be abused.
If you don't agree with them, you will be tagged.

We need changes, or the end is near...
The end has already begin, and for those with closed eyes, take a look at the previous most active sections in this forum...
People not using the marketplaces as before.
People are not active as before.
The income of real new members is not as before.

We don't need anything controlled by Mafia team, but we need more moderation and official rules.

[examplens]

Everything that has begin will have his end.
This "Merit" and "Trust" mafia should be once forever removed.
And that would be possible only with huge changes in this forum.
We don't need "trust system" which is abusive, controlled by group of people.
We don't need "merit system" which is circle of supporting the very same "Mafia".
If you don't agree with them, you will be bullied.
If you don't agree with them, you will be abused.
If you don't agree with them, you will be tagged.

We need changes, or the end is near...
The end has already begin, and for those with closed eyes, take a look at the previous most active sections in this forum...
People not using the marketplaces as before.
People are not active as before.
The income of real new members is not as before.

We don't need anything controlled by Mafia team, but we need more moderation and official rules.

after every end, comes a new beginning. how do you know that "Merit" and "Trust" it's not a new beginning?

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Everything that has begin will have his end.
This "Merit" and "Trust" mafia should be once forever removed.
<***>
We don't need anything controlled by Mafia team, but we need more moderation and official rules.

When the forum gets more moderated and official rule are made for almost everything, you guys will still be the one complaining of the system been harsh and too centralize.
Many accusations will still be made that theymos is still giving power to the same Mafia (as you claim) through those official rules. 

[TalkStar]

When the forum gets more moderated and official rule are made for almost everything, you guys will still be the one complaining of the system been harsh and too centralize.
Many accusations will still be made that theymos is still giving power to the same Mafia (as you claim) through those official rules. 

Yeah you are right. Rules of bitcointalk are always same for everyone. There is no way to beleive that some will get facilities and others will not.

Honestly we should maintain the mentality to accept our wrong. Its not fair to put our own blame to others. This forum not only giving us the opportuinity to learn but also freedom of sharing own thoughts.

[cryptohunter]

When the forum gets more moderated and official rule are made for almost everything, you guys will still be the one complaining of the system been harsh and too centralize.
Many accusations will still be made that theymos is still giving power to the same Mafia (as you claim) through those official rules.  

Yeah you are right. Rules of bitcointalk are always same for everyone. There is no way to beleive that some will get facilities and others will not.

Honestly we should maintain the mentality to accept our wrong. Its not fair to put our own blame to others. This forum not only giving us the opportuinity to learn but also freedom of sharing own thoughts.

I have clearly demonstrated with proof that what you are saying is incorrect.

If you knowingly keep spreading false information then this is a trust issue. This is deliberately spreading false and damaging information. That is called lying. This is untrustworthy behaviour.

If you are a proven liar then the sig campaign employing you must be alerted to the fact it is supporting liars. Do you think they want you spamming lies over and over? if they do then again that is for them to state in public.

From now on proven liars will be shown evidence of their lies. If they continue to lie then this evidence must be presented to their sponsors lying over and over in public is not a great image for them I am sure. Then it is for them to in public condone or strike of persons of an untrustworthy nature from their service.

People need to be made responsible for the proliferation of false information and the damage that it creates.

Do you understand this clearly how I am trying to help you here?

Now do you find a flaw within this logic or do you wish to see evidence provided once again that demonstrates that persons here on DT are

1. proven liars and supporters of lying untrustworthy projects
2. proven and self confessed trust abusers
3. proven sneaky devious and greedy sock puppet racist sig spammers.

DT members red trust for

1. supporting "possible" untrustworthy projects.
2. presenting facts demonstrating untrustworthy actions of other DT members.

read this post several times then think before posting false information again.

It is time to try and assist people to speak only the truth from now on. Sometimes is can be tempting to proliferate and repeat false information over and over for financial gain. This should be stopped really.

Let's not let an environment spring up where there are great rewards for lying and punishments for telling the truth. That would be a disgrace to turn this board into such a place.

[o_e_l_e_o]

What's going on even abuser are begging merit openly. Also they are abusing merit on their war post. Just now noticed they made post about merit to fulfill 250 merit requirements even they encourage to buy it. See here : http://archive.is/MG4YO

I still doubt it will make any difference. Even if he manages to beg/buy/trade up to 250 merits, that only gives him a single vote. They would have to get another account up to 250 merits to be able to vote one single person on to DT1. I would bet all the bitcoin I own that that person would be instantly excluded by other DT1 members.

For this "union of conspirators" to overthrow the system like they are planning, then they need enough DT1 members voted on to outnumber the DT1 members who would exclude them - given that there are currently 47 DT1 members, even if only half were to exclude these idiots, they would still need 25 DT1 accounts. The probability of this happening is effectively 0.

And that's not even considering that DT1 is likely to grow in size whenever theymos does the first recalculation.

[suchmoon]

I still doubt it will make any difference. Even if he manages to beg/buy/trade up to 250 merits, that only gives him a single vote. They would have to get another account up to 250 merits to be able to vote one single person on to DT1. I would bet all the bitcoin I own that that person would be instantly excluded by other DT1 members.

For this "union of conspirators" to overthrow the system like they are planning, then they need enough DT1 members voted on to outnumber the DT1 members who would exclude them - given that there are currently 47 DT1 members, even if only half were to exclude these idiots, they would still need 25 DT1 accounts. The probability of this happening is effectively 0.

And that's not even considering that DT1 is likely to grow in size whenever theymos does the first recalculation.

Shhhhh... let them waste their merits.

BTW their new sugar daddy stingers is or was a merit source. Sent out way more than the 200 sMerit airdrop for Legendaries.

Has given 445 merit 137 times, to 110 profiles ( 4.0 merit/profile)
Has received 13 merit 8 times, from 7 profiles

[o_e_l_e_o]

BTW their new sugar daddy stingers is or was a merit source. Sent out way more than the 200 sMerit airdrop for Legendaries.

Another user who has no idea how the voting system works, apparently. Observe his recently sent merit:



9 merit to hoop to bring him to 10 merit. hoop distrusts Lauda.
9 merit to TheCoinFinder to bring him to 10 merit. TheCoinFinder distrusts Lauda.
7 merit to Tupsu to bring him to 10 merit. Tupsu distrusts Lauda.
8 merit to LiQio to bring him to 10 merit. LiQio distrusts Lauda.
2 merit to mich to bring him to 10 merit. mich distrusts Lauda.

He obviously thinks that the "10 merit vote" rule applies to exclusions as well as inclusions, and is trying to manipulate the system.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The probability of this happening is effectively 0.

Solar-powered calculators don't work in dark, festering troll caves.  They must have gotten a different number.

I had to go back and read Theymos's original post about how the voting thing works, and I get it now (more or less).  How these jokers plan to get even one member onto DT1 baffles me, and their claims of an overthrow are ludicrous--unless Theymos steps in, which would make their claims of a centralized trust system ironically self-serving.  Don't think he's going to do that, however.

Now we're hearing new claims about suchmoon buying Gleb's acount, but although I'd love to respond to those, scunter edit: Thule (I can't keep 'em straight) made the accusations in their self-moderated thread and any replies I make are going to get deleted.  They'll try anything.

[o_e_l_e_o]

made the accusations in their self-moderated thread and any replies I make are going to get deleted.

Yeah, I don't know why some folk are still wasting their time even trying to reason with them. They have repeatedly shown they are not in the least bit interested in having any form of discussion - they just want to live in their echo chamber and delete any post they disagree with, regardless of facts.

They have already responded to suchmoon and actmyname regarding that issue in their usual eloquent fashion, and I also have no doubt that those posts will be deleted anyway as soon as H8bussesNfacts next logs on:

DOUBLE STANDARDS YOU FAGGOT

[H8bussesNbicycles]

I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post.

looks like you are on the wrong side of this forum
you should think long and hard about your principles

[marlboroza]

I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post.

looks like you are on the wrong side of this forum
you should think long and hard about your principles

Maybe you are https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105765.msg49590942#msg49590942

[o_e_l_e_o]

looks like you are on the wrong side of this forum
you should think long and hard about your principles

My principles are just fine, thanks. You have repeatedly shown you don't understand how the trust system works, your misguided attempts to "overthrow" it would give literally thousands of scammers a clean trust rating to go out and scam again, and you live in an echo chamber by deleting every reply you don't agree with and adding the poster to your exclusion list. I happen to agree with theymos' point regarding the trust system, which is why I haven't red tagged any of you, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking you and your fellow "union of conspirators" are a bunch of morons.

[H8bussesNbicycles]

You have repeatedly shown you don't understand how the trust system works

i continue to decimate all on the workings of the trust system and you here too


your statements in this thread about the working of the trust system are foolishly incorrect
you look like a moron saying i dont understand the system

[TalkStar]

i continue to decimate all on the workings of the trust system and you here too

your statements in this thread about the working of the trust system are foolishly incorrect
you look like a moron saying i dont understand the system

Current trust system is proper enough to make entrance for trustworthy users. I don't know why you thinking its not fair enough. Trust system only build for keep the forum secure from scammers. Its not bulid for welcoming untrusted people around here.

I beleive this trust system will be much updated with more effective rules in future but there will be no chances for scammers. IMO Obviously forum admin will appreciate the safety of users first.

[TECSHARE]

looks like you are on the wrong side of this forum
you should think long and hard about your principles

My principles are just fine, thanks. You have repeatedly shown you don't understand how the trust system works, your misguided attempts to "overthrow" it would give literally thousands of scammers a clean trust rating to go out and scam again, and you live in an echo chamber by deleting every reply you don't agree with and adding the poster to your exclusion list. I happen to agree with theymos' point regarding the trust system, which is why I haven't red tagged any of you, but that doesn't prevent me from thinking you and your fellow "union of conspirators" are a bunch of morons.

Can you explain to me why these people can not be rated again if appropriate? Also what is preventing these scammers from just buying a new account and returning moments later? The question is not if the trust police are helpful, it is at what cost, and is it worth it? I would argue they are doing more to divide the community and provide cover for scammers because everywhere is a sea of red over the most petty disputes. This makes it EASIER for these con artists to blend in.

We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings. If this was the standard a LARGE portion of all of these disputes, if not the majority of them would simply cease to exist. Any disputes would be handled in scam accusations and reviewed by the community as all scams are without much problem. This system of arbitrary enforcement and abuse needs to stop.

[Jet Cash]

It's interesting to see who awards and receives merits in tht thread.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

It's interesting to see who awards and receives merits in tht thread.

Good idea!
I left most of them red trust. What’s your opinion Jet Cash? theymos doesn’t think that publicly manipulating the DT list is worthy of red trust.

I’m wondering if I should change my feedbacks to neutral. The thing is most of them have Distrusted me just for having Lauda in my trust list & some have left me red trust too (I know their feedbacks mean jack shit but it’s annoying to be painted red - I’m a trustworthy poster of over 4 years).

[TECSHARE]

It's interesting to see who awards and receives merits in tht thread.

Good idea!
I left most of them red trust. What’s your opinion Jet Cash? theymos doesn’t think that publicly manipulating the DT list is worthy of red trust.

I’m wondering if I should change my feedbacks to neutral. The thing is most of them have Distrusted me just for having Lauda in my trust list & some have left me red trust too (I know their feedbacks mean jack shit but it’s annoying to be painted red - I’m a trustworthy poster of over 4 years).

It is almost like we could use an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings so all of this could be avoided.

[Jet Cash]

I'm still not sure of the trust system's purpose. At first, I thought it was about trading, and apart from a couple of minor transactions with JackG, I haven't done any trading here. It seems it has now become a measure of reputation, rather than a guide for the evaluation of trust. I'm just pleased that I haven't been hit too badly. CryptoHunter gave me a tilde in his ranking, and I think this indicates the current weakness of the system. I have had no interaction with him, other than playing with some of his posts - hardly a reason for casting aspersions on my honesty.

I form my own opinions about the trustworthiness of members when it comes to trading with members, but I've been here long enough to do this. It must be difficult for a new member to make a similar judgement.

[TECSHARE]

I'm still not sure of the trust system's purpose. At first, I thought it was about trading, and apart from a couple of minor transactions with JackG, I haven't done any trading here. It seems it has now become a measure of reputation, rather than a guide for the evaluation of trust. I'm just pleased that I haven't been hit too badly. CryptoHunter gave me a tilde in his ranking, and I think this indicates the current weakness of the system. I have had no interaction with him, other than playing with some of his posts - hardly a reason for casting aspersions on my honesty.

I form my own opinions about the trustworthiness of members when it comes to trading with members, but I've been here long enough to do this. It must be difficult for a new member to make a similar judgement.

This is something that also confuses me and makes me question the real intent of all of these systems. I see a pattern of wanting to look decentralized while actually a small handful of people control everything from the top with no means of redress of grievances in any uniform way. This inherently breeds contempt for the general "rule of law" of the forum as well as any authority figures within it. People tend to not react well to the "rules for thee and not for me" type justice systems.

You bring up a good point about how convoluted this whole system is. Members who have been here for years still barely know how it works, yet some how we expect new users to understand all of this and that the ratings can mean various things. Instead of teaching these new users to rely on red and green numbers we should be teaching them to use that as a quick reference, and then do due diligence looking into a user before doing any trade. With all these self proclaimed scambusters running around shouting their virtues from the mountain tops, it also gives new users the impression that they will be protected from scams. The status quo is currently creating a lot of issues that are quite counterproductive to the intended purpose of the trust system. Then all the conflict created on top with the rating disputes and infighting is completely eating the community from the inside out. I am warning you all, this is exactly how communities are destroyed...

We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings.

[suchmoon]

we should be teaching them to use that as a quick reference, and then do due diligence looking into a user before doing any trade.

That's how it's been since before you found Jesus and switched from posting bullshit ratings to preaching how proper ratings should be posted. The trust system and DefaultTrust don't prevent or discourage this in any way, and provide the tools (ratings with references) for due diligence.

What you're doing now seems to be aimed at reducing the amount of trust ratings available and only posting them after a scam has actually occurred. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me, it actually sounds like an impediment for due diligence. But you can set it up that way for yourself by building your custom trust list and I encourage anyone who agrees with that approach to do the same. That's how it's supposed to work. Not by implementing top-down rules.

[TECSHARE]

we should be teaching them to use that as a quick reference, and then do due diligence looking into a user before doing any trade.

That's how it's been since before you found Jesus and switched from posting bullshit ratings to preaching how proper ratings should be posted. The trust system and DefaultTrust don't prevent or discourage this in any way, and provide the tools (ratings with references) for due diligence.

What you're doing now seems to be aimed at reducing the amount of trust ratings available and only posting them after a scam has actually occurred. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me, it actually sounds like an impediment for due diligence. But you can set it up that way for yourself by building your custom trust list and I encourage anyone who agrees with that approach to do the same. That's how it's supposed to work. Not by implementing top-down rules.

Here is Captain Toadie right on cue to derail more. More trust ratings does not equal more protection, it means LESS as I already explained. If they are for petty reasons all you are doing is conditioning people to ignore them, justified or not. If this objective standard is set then the only ratings left will ACTUALLY MEAN something, and will have proof that can be referenced, you know like one looks for when they are doing due diligence?

Just because it is supposed to work that way doesn't mean it does or that it ever will, and after years of this horse shit it is not looking good. This standard will only work if it is implemented top down. That is how standards work. Unless Theymos comes out and says this is how it should be the confusion, conflict, and scamming will continue to grow.

We need an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for negative ratings.

[suchmoon]

More trust ratings does not equal more protection, it means LESS as I already explained.

I didn't say anything about "protection", only about due diligence. If people want to be reckless that's their right. And no, you haven't actually explained your theory that more ratings "provide cover for scammers". It would help to have some examples of scammers who are scamming in the current system and would be prevented from scamming in your proposed system.

Just because it is supposed to work that way doesn't mean it does or that it ever will, and after years of this horse shit it is not looking good. This standard will only work if it is implemented top down. That is how standards work.

This implies that someone would need to moderate the trust ratings and either remove non-compliant ones or exclude the users who post non-compliant ratings, i.e. enforce the standard.

At that point might as well get rid of the trust system and ban scammers instead.

[TECSHARE]

More trust ratings does not equal more protection, it means LESS as I already explained.

I didn't say anything about "protection", only about due diligence. If people want to be reckless that's their right. And no, you haven't actually explained your theory that more ratings "provide cover for scammers". It would help to have some examples of scammers who are scamming in the current system and would be prevented from scamming in your proposed system.

Just because it is supposed to work that way doesn't mean it does or that it ever will, and after years of this horse shit it is not looking good. This standard will only work if it is implemented top down. That is how standards work.

This implies that someone would need to moderate the trust ratings and either remove non-compliant ones or exclude the users who post non-compliant ratings, i.e. enforce the standard.

At that point might as well get rid of the trust system and ban scammers instead.

No you said this...

What you're doing now seems to be aimed at reducing the amount of trust ratings available and only posting them after a scam has actually occurred. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me, it actually sounds like an impediment for due diligence.

This statement makes a direct implication that more ratings is desirable and would offer more protection. It would not as I explained above. Furthermore your statement also implies that leaving arbitrary negative ratings will some how prevent scams. It will not. EVEN IF that was a valid argument, nothing is stopping anyone from leaving NEUTRAL ratings as a warning and making posts warning the forum in the appropriate "Reputation" or "Scam Accusation" subforums.

Your entire argument consists of "BUT THE SKY WILL FALL!", personal attacks, and thread derailing.



Yet I did explain it, above and and more detail elsewhere in threads I know you have red but for the sake of appearing like you don't understand you pretend you don't know..

Also what is preventing these scammers from just buying a new account and returning moments later? The question is not if the trust police are helpful, it is at what cost, and is it worth it? I would argue they are doing more to divide the community and provide cover for scammers because everywhere is a sea of red over the most petty disputes. This makes it EASIER for these con artists to blend in.

Lots of frivolous red ratings. People go hey we aren't scammers. People learn red ratings don't always mean scammer. Red ratings now no longer useful warning. You understand?

In summary if the ratings actually have an objective standard they will ACTUALLY SERVE THEIR PURPOSE not just be a constant source of conflict, confusion, and cover for even more theft. Any remaining disputes would be handled by the community as they already are currently by public review, only using the standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am not going to entertain your hypothetical bait to try to turn this into more interpersonal petty bickering. If you can't bring an argument against the logic itself then you have none.

[suchmoon]

No you said this...

What you're doing now seems to be aimed at reducing the amount of trust ratings available and only posting them after a scam has actually occurred. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me, it actually sounds like an impediment for due diligence.

This statement makes a direct implication that more ratings is desirable and would offer more protection.

I clearly said "due diligence". You're insinuating "protection".

It would not as I explained above. Furthermore your statement also implies that leaving arbitrary negative ratings will some how prevent scams.

I clearly said "due diligence". You're insinuating "prevent scams".

It will not. EVEN IF that was a valid argument, nothing is stopping anyone from leaving NEUTRAL ratings as a warning and making posts warning the forum in the appropriate "Reputation" or "Scam Accusation" subforums.

Your entire argument consists of "BUT THE SKY WILL FALL!", personal attacks, and thread derailing.

My argument consists of "more due diligence is better than less due diligence". Your inability of acknowledging different opinions is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

Lots of frivolous red ratings. People go hey we aren't scammers. People learn red ratings don't always mean scammer. Red ratings now no longer useful warning. You understand?

I understand that this is your opinion. It would be nice to have facts supporting it, such as

examples of scammers who are scamming in the current system and would be prevented from scamming in your proposed system.

In summary if the ratings actually have an objective standard they will ACTUALLY SERVE THEIR PURPOSE not just be a constant source of conflict, confusion, and cover for even more theft. Any remaining disputes would be handled by the community as they already are currently by public review, only using the standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am not going to entertain your hypothetical bait to try to turn this into more interpersonal petty bickering. If you can't bring an argument against the logic itself then you have none.

Yet you completely avoided explaining how this would be enforced in practice. For example, I could say that it would be really great if people didn't scam at all but it would be a useless statement if I didn't offer any plausible way to achieve that.

[TECSHARE]

No you said this...

What you're doing now seems to be aimed at reducing the amount of trust ratings available and only posting them after a scam has actually occurred. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me, it actually sounds like an impediment for due diligence.

This statement makes a direct implication that more ratings is desirable and would offer more protection.

I clearly said "due diligence". You're insinuating "protection".

It would not as I explained above. Furthermore your statement also implies that leaving arbitrary negative ratings will some how prevent scams.

I clearly said "due diligence". You're insinuating "prevent scams".

It will not. EVEN IF that was a valid argument, nothing is stopping anyone from leaving NEUTRAL ratings as a warning and making posts warning the forum in the appropriate "Reputation" or "Scam Accusation" subforums.

Your entire argument consists of "BUT THE SKY WILL FALL!", personal attacks, and thread derailing.

My argument consists of "more due diligence is better than less due diligence". Your inability of acknowledging different opinions is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

Lots of frivolous red ratings. People go hey we aren't scammers. People learn red ratings don't always mean scammer. Red ratings now no longer useful warning. You understand?

I understand that this is your opinion. It would be nice to have facts supporting it, such as

examples of scammers who are scamming in the current system and would be prevented from scamming in your proposed system.

In summary if the ratings actually have an objective standard they will ACTUALLY SERVE THEIR PURPOSE not just be a constant source of conflict, confusion, and cover for even more theft. Any remaining disputes would be handled by the community as they already are currently by public review, only using the standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am not going to entertain your hypothetical bait to try to turn this into more interpersonal petty bickering. If you can't bring an argument against the logic itself then you have none.

Yet you completely avoided explaining how this would be enforced in practice. For example, I could say that it would be really great if people didn't scam at all but it would be a useless statement if I didn't offer any plausible way to achieve that.

So you are saying then your intent was to imply more ratings = due diligence? That makes sense? Also you then proceeded to say the standard I advocate for would only react after the fact, again making the implication that more ratings would prevent scams.

You made the implication of it being desirable, and there is really only one meaning it could have. You are trying to say more ratings protect people but without actually saying it otherwise you might have to demonstrate how it is true. Since it does not that would be difficult. There comes a point where quality is more important than quantity.

There also comes a point where your feigned ignorance becomes increasingly transparent.

Any remaining disputes would be handled by the community as they already are currently by public review, only using the standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

We already do this every day. Only now we would try to meet the objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as opposed to whatever anyone feels like. People can still leave ratings for whatever anyone feels like, but those people will quickly find themselves with no influence in that system.

[suchmoon]

We already do this every day. Only now we would try to meet the objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as opposed to whatever anyone feels like. People can still leave ratings for whatever anyone feels like, but those people will quickly find themselves with no influence in that system.

You're still failing to address the obvious issue of how this would be enforced.

[TECSHARE]

We already do this every day. Only now we would try to meet the objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws as opposed to whatever anyone feels like. People can still leave ratings for whatever anyone feels like, but those people will quickly find themselves with no influence in that system.

You're still failing to address the obvious issue of how this would be enforced.

I am sorry if your reading comprehension is so poor you can not see I have repeatedly answered your question. It is right there in the quote you selectively edited.

The community would enforce it as it already does, only now we would have an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

[suchmoon]

The community would enforce it as it already does, only now we would have an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

"The community" seems to be ambivalent at best towards your idea, seeing how you're excluded from DT1. So let me rephrase that: how would you force the community to enforce this?

[TECSHARE]

The community would enforce it as it already does, only now we would have an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

"The community" seems to be ambivalent at best towards your idea, seeing how you're excluded from DT1. So let me rephrase that: how would you force the community to enforce this?

So you speak for "the community" now? Oh wow you mean a group of entrenched trust system overlords which abuse their power excluded me for reasons they will never publicly define or justify? Clearly I am a bad man and am wrong because I choose to present an argument that would put a serious check on their abusive behavior. I explained at least 3 times now how the standard would be enforced. Your feigned ignorance is now pretty overt at this point.

[suchmoon]

The community would enforce it as it already does, only now we would have an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

"The community" seems to be ambivalent at best towards your idea, seeing how you're excluded from DT1. So let me rephrase that: how would you force the community to enforce this?

So you speak for "the community" now? Oh wow you mean a group of entrenched trust system overlords which abuse their power excluded me for reasons they will never publicly define or justify? Clearly I am a bad man and am wrong because I choose to present an argument that would put a serious check on their abusive behavior. I explained at least 3 times now how the standard would be enforced. Your feigned ignorance is now pretty overt at this point.

I simply stated the fact that you're excluded. That doesn't require me to speak for the community, rather the community has already spoken.

Let me guess, if I tried to dispute your conspiracy theory about "trust system overlords" it would constitute a personal attack, derailing, etc?

And no, you haven't explained shit. Somehow magically everybody is supposed to follow your rules... which you can't be bothered to follow yourself, and you can't even formulate those rules without throwing a fit when a question is asked.

[TECSHARE]

The community would enforce it as it already does, only now we would have an objective standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

"The community" seems to be ambivalent at best towards your idea, seeing how you're excluded from DT1. So let me rephrase that: how would you force the community to enforce this?

So you speak for "the community" now? Oh wow you mean a group of entrenched trust system overlords which abuse their power excluded me for reasons they will never publicly define or justify? Clearly I am a bad man and am wrong because I choose to present an argument that would put a serious check on their abusive behavior. I explained at least 3 times now how the standard would be enforced. Your feigned ignorance is now pretty overt at this point.

I simply stated the fact that you're excluded. That doesn't require me to speak for the community, rather the community has already spoken.

Let me guess, if I tried to dispute your conspiracy theory about "trust system overloads" it would constitute a personal attack, derailing, etc?

And no, you haven't explained shit. Somehow magically everybody is supposed to follow your rules... which you can't be bothered to follow yourself, and you can't even formulate those rules without throwing a fit when a question is asked.

Oh I see, more implying then pretending you aren't implying so you don't have to actually justify your words. You are dictating to me what you think "the community" has decided, therefore you are explicitly speaking for "the community". "The community has spoken" after all, and of course in your view "the community" is a small handful of abusive users who all shore up each others power in this system.

What conspiracy theory? This is really simple stuff here. There are clear financial motivations to maintain this status of arbitrary application of force over the community. Gay frogs need not be involved. The fact is a small handful of people lord over the entire community with zero ability for users to have reliable redress of grievances.

I never demanded anyone follow my rules. I am however presenting a very viable solution to the vast majority of these issues with minimal change or effort. I have no problem staying on point with the topic. You are the one with motivations to derail this discussion, not me. I have nothing to gain but a more viable community here. You have your little trust cartel to protect.

[suchmoon]

I never demanded anyone follow my rules. I am however presenting a very viable solution to the vast majority of these issues with minimal change or effort. I have no problem staying on point with the topic. You are the one with motivations to derail this discussion, not me. I have nothing to gain but a more viable community here. You have your little trust cartel to protect.

In order for that to be true you would have to prove that I control, or am part of, the "little trust cartel" that you're talking about. Otherwise it is indeed a conspiracy theory.

And your solution is not viable unless you could at least show how it can be enforced. Insinuations about some "small handful" are meaningless when there are 60+ users in DT1 and you can't muster 5 inclusions.

[TECSHARE]

I never demanded anyone follow my rules. I am however presenting a very viable solution to the vast majority of these issues with minimal change or effort. I have no problem staying on point with the topic. You are the one with motivations to derail this discussion, not me. I have nothing to gain but a more viable community here. You have your little trust cartel to protect.

In order for that to be true you would have to prove that I control, or am part of, the "little trust cartel" that you're talking about. Otherwise it is indeed a conspiracy theory.

And your solution is not viable unless you could at least show how it can be enforced. Insinuations about some "small handful" are meaningless when there are 60+ users in DT1 and you can't muster 5 inclusions.

Yeah. No. I really don't. This is again more pathetic derailing tactics from the fact that the current system is widely abused with no recourse for anyone to have that abuse adressed. It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

The small handful of people I refer to are you and your pals that operate in lockstep attacking anyone who has any sort of complaint about your abusive behaviors. Just like corrupt cops behind your thin blue line you back each other up even when you know they are being abusive, inventing whatever narrative you need to create to discredit all complaints.

After all there is no penalty for you and your little pals abusing whomever you like around here is there? Because you make up your own standards as you go along arbitrarily enforcing them depending on who it is and what you feel like you get to selectively enforce rules against your opponents and competitors to your hearts content. This is what needs to end.

The trust system needs an objective standard for users to be held accountable to or this rift is going to destroy this community and turn it into a complete wasteland of fraud and trolling. I warned about this years ago, and here we are as it metastasizes and the little power thirsty trust cops are spinning the same exact tales to avoid their own accountability...

[suchmoon]

They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws

A standard can't enforce itself. There needs to be some action, some... I don't know... perhaps

penalty

for non-compliant behavior. So what would it be? Blacklisting? Exclusions? Are you going to get theymos and/or 50% of DT1 on-board?

you and your little pals abusing whomever you like around here is there? Because you make up your own standards as you go along arbitrarily enforcing them depending on who it is and what you feel like you get to selectively enforce rules against your opponents and competitors to your hearts content. This is what needs to end.

If you had facts of me doing the above you could knock me down quite quickly. But you don't so you resort to insinuations. Poor show for someone so vocal about "standard of evidence".

[nutildah]

Yeah. No. I really don't. This is again more pathetic derailing tactics from the fact that the current system is widely abused with no recourse for anyone to have that abuse adressed. It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

The small handful of people I refer to are you and your pals that operate in lockstep attacking anyone who has any sort of complaint about your abusive behaviors. Just like corrupt cops behind your thin blue line you back each other up even when you know they are being abusive, inventing whatever narrative you need to create to discredit all complaints.

After all there is no penalty for you and your little pals abusing whomever you like around here is there? Because you make up your own standards as you go along arbitrarily enforcing them depending on who it is and what you feel like you get to selectively enforce rules against your opponents and competitors to your hearts content. This is what needs to end.

The trust system needs an objective standard for users to be held accountable to or this rift is going to destroy this community and turn it into a complete wasteland of fraud and trolling. I warned about this years ago, and here we are as it metastasizes and the little power thirsty trust cops are spinning the same exact tales to avoid their own accountability...

Wait... Hold on a minute... I just got TECSHARE Bingo on this thread! BINGO!

[suchmoon]

I just got TECSHARE Bingo on this thread! BINGO!

That's unfair and a gross abuse of my constitutional rights. I did all the hard work and you just swoop in for the kill.

You could easily win a 6x6 here though.

[nutildah]

I just got TECSHARE Bingo on this thread! BINGO!

That's unfair and a gross abuse of my constitutional rights. I did all the hard work and you just swoop in for the kill.

You could easily win a 6x6 here though.

Probably but I already invested enough time in making a 3x3 card. It's more like TECSHARE tic-tac-toe.

I deeply apologize for derailing the thread by my lack of reading comprehension and creating a hostile environment in the process.

[Lauda]

-snip-
Wait... Hold on a minute... I just got TECSHARE Bingo on this thread! BINGO!

I'm getting cryptohunter vibes here, but I guess this statement is also harassment/abuse.

[TECSHARE]

Everyone take a good look at them all closing ranks in a really pathetic attempt at marginalization and derailing. Take a note of who left merits too. Hey I thought leaving "political" oriented merits was not ok. I guess it is just another case of rules for thee and not for me right?

Suchmoon ran out his feigned ignorance card and called in reinforcements to make sure they preserve the illusion this is just me and no one else agrees. Also it is a nice bonus chill effect to any one else thinking of speaking up. These are the people responsible for deciding who can and can't trade here, with zero oversight or repercussions to their abuse. After all, who is going to disagree with them and make themselves targets of their harassment and exclusions just for advocating for a change in the trust system?

We need a standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.



P.S. Nutilda I know you are embarrassed you made yourself look dumb in Politics & Society, but this is too cute. Also "snarky" is your buzzword not mine.

[bones261]

Take a note of who left merits too.

Fell better now?

[TECSHARE]

Take a note of who left merits too.

Fell better now?

Kind of ashamed of you frankly, you usually are one to promote logical discourse instead of this mob hectoring that these control freaks depend on to constantly dismantle any discussion of changing the system that doesn't serve them personally. This place is just a big joke to them, and the user base toys to be played with. This is why they need standards applied to them, because they can't regulate themselves.


Especially since you merited this post...

Neutral trust with a warning the account "may be" changed hands is enough.

The only problem with Neutral trust is if a person has a zero trust rating,  many people don't even bother to check the trust comments. Perhaps a message under trust to "click here to read peer comments" should be warranted.

That is the issue. The trust system is supposed to be a simple guide for noobs right? Unfortunately though no system is free from exploitation. We should be encouraging users to use the green and red numbers as a QUICK REFERENCE, then to do their own due diligence before trading. By overly applying the ratings we are just creating signal noise and confusion allowing this kind of manufactured crime of suspicion creating complete ambiguity as to who is actually a scammer and who is not. The net is too wide so you catch too many innocents, or for very petty reasons, people notice, then the whole system becomes useless for its intended purpose.

We need a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating, otherwise it can never be a useful quick reference as explained above. Even if it WAS a good quick reference, teaching noobs to just use those numbers and not do due diligence is feeding them into a wood chipper of fraud by teaching them to trust a system that can be manipulated. Furthermore these trust police feed into this feeling by giving the perception that they actively stop scams.

I am sorry but this whole thing that has arisen here is what we call a clusterfuck and it needs to stop. I can't even imagine how much more we could have accomplished if all of this energy was redirected towards constructive things rather than playing cops and robbers and ripping apart the foundation of the cohesiveness of the culture of the forum itself.

I guess being part of "the in crowd" is more important than principles huh?

[nutildah]

P.S. Nutilda I know you are embarrassed you made yourself look dumb in Politics & Society, but this is too cute. Also "snarky" is your buzzword not mine.

Actually its yours, you've been using it for at least 3 years... both "snark" and "snarky." Just come up with some new phrases man. Its ridiculous how much you harp on the same subjects, year after year. I've concluded that you'll never be happy regardless of who changes what, so I promise not to interfere with your mission any more.

[bones261]

Kind of ashamed of you frankly, you usually are one to promote logical discourse instead of this mob hectoring that these control freaks depend on to constantly dismantle any discussion of changing the system that doesn't serve them personally. This place is just a big joke to them, and the user base toys to be played with. This is why they need standards applied to them, because they can't regulate themselves.

     Well that's a surprising assessment from you. I thought you regarded me as a patronizing asshat.
     I'm still not certain who you propose is going to regulate this "mob." If the administration somehow puts them all on a DT blacklist, how do we know that their replacements will be any better once they gain power? As the trite saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." In the end, it's probably going to be another clique. Like it or not, people form alliances here with like-minded individuals. This clique will likely seek to exclude those that disagree with their particular point of view. You'd be surprised what a group of people can do to twist simple guidelines like you propose and have it work to their advantage.

Especially since you merited this post...

Just because I give something merit, does not necessarily mean that I agree. I gave realr0ach a total of 12 merits. Now as a gay man who has a brown skin tone, among other things, do you think for a moment that I agree with anything that he spews forth on the page?

I guess being part of "the in crowd" is more important than principles huh?

      What does "principles" have anything to do with meriting a post that I found amusing? If something makes me chuckle, it has a high chance of getting a merit from me. Sorry that the joke happened to be at your expense this time.

[TalkStar]

Take a note of who left merits too. Hey I thought leaving "political" oriented merits was not ok.

I don't know why you think that those merits are political oriented. There's no way to be agree with this i think. Merit doesn't mean alltime support. I always prefer to give someone merits only for his  quality works. It doesn't mean that i will support him in every single time in the future.  If i find him done something which doesn't meet the rules of forum i will definitely raise my hand against him.

[TECSHARE]

Take a note of who left merits too. Hey I thought leaving "political" oriented merits was not ok.

I don't know why you think that those merits are political oriented. There's no way to be agree with this i think. Merit doesn't mean alltime support. I always prefer to give someone merits only for his  quality works. It doesn't mean that i will support him in every single time in the future.  If i find him done something which doesn't meet the rules of forum i will definitely raise my hand against him.

It doesn't really matter, it is just yet another example of how the rules are for some but not for others around here. There needs to be an objective standard set around here for trust ratings or else the community will continue to eat its own face. Eventually it will go past the point of no return. The trust system is too easily corruptible and open to unaccountable abuse. There is no reason people can not leave neutral ratings an open threads if they want to warn people of users rather than negative rating them without evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or facetious here, but I would like some clarification on this.

Scam accusations are currently enforced in the following manner:
1) The accuser posts a thread outlining their accusation and supporting evidence in the Scam Accusations board
2) Users discuss the issue, and frequently more supporting or refuting evidence is found
3) One or several users (which may include DT members) may tag the accused provided the evidence is sufficient

Now let's say I find an ICO who is advertising with a fake team - using made up names, stock photos, and fictitious LinkedIn profiles with fake qualifications, job histories and business links. In my opinion, they are breaking the covenant of good faith by being dishonest with their potential customers/victims. I tag them as such. You disagree with my judgement and make a post saying as such, stating that we need evidence of theft to have occurred before a negative tag can be left. (This is just an example - we could substitute in 100 difference scenarios here.)

Who decides who is right? If it is the community who decides, then the system is no different to what it is now. Trust ratings are countered and people are excluded over disagreements already - how would this change under your proposed system? If it is theymos who decides, then are you suggesting we simply move to a trust system based entirely on theymos' decision in every case (which would never happen as the workload would be insurmountable). Is there a third option I haven't considered?


Edit: Spelling

[Flying Hellfish]

Is there a third option I haven't considered?

Of course there is a 3rd option, since TECSHARE is the smartest person on the forum (probably the world) we should all just agree with him.  

I personally think we should just forget all the in between horseshit about regulations and stuff, vote TECSHARE Supreme leader of the forum!

So once we get this "must break a law" to get red tag are we going to have forum police to investigate accusations, we will need lawyers (prosecutors and defense), then we need judges to adjudicate disputes.  Then we will need an appellate court (or course we have to be able to appeal a decision) and then of course we finally need a supreme court for an ultimate decision.  You know come to think of it we should make all users deposit 1000 BTC and full KYC including DNA samples so we can make sure we have a legal way to enforce any penalties.

Bonus question, under the new Supreme Leader TECSHARE is being a liberal a capital offence?

TECSHARE Supreme Leader 2020, he gets my vote!!!!!!!!!!!
 

[nutildah]

Who decides who is right? If it is the community who decides, then the system is no different to what it is now. Trust ratings are countered and people are excluded over disagreements already - how would this change under your proposed system? If it is theymos who decides, then are you suggesting we simply move to a trust system based entirely on theymos' decision in every case (which would never happen as the workload would be insurmountable). Is there a third option I haven't considered?

You're exactly right, and hit the nail on the head. The guy just likes bitching above everything else. He works in "objective standards" for DT rules every chance he gets, but he never explains what they are or how they would be enforced. Theymos just made a move towards what he wants and now he's bitchier than ever.

Why does he think everything has to be "political"? Am I a fucking senator or something? I'm barely interesting in the scheme of things.

Furthermore, there is already a DT blacklist, and Tecshare is on it. The system allows for this situation to be reversed should he garner the votes to make it so. There's not much left to discuss.

[suchmoon]

called in reinforcements

standard of objective evidence

Do you really have no shred of self-awareness? Gonna whine about merits now? Make a good post and it'll get some. Hypocritical diatribes - probably not so much, ask cryptohunter.

cryptohunter vibes

QFT

~

~

Please stop interfering with TECSHARE's political campaign by digging into boring specifics. All that matters is that it sounds great. "Standard of Objective Evidence". "Take Back Control". "Drain the Swamp".

[Flying Hellfish]

All that matters is that it sounds great. "Standard of Objective Evidence". "Take Back Control". "Drain the Swamp".

BUILD THE WALL 

[Lauda]

Please stop interfering with TECSHARE's political campaign by digging into boring specifics. All that matters is that it sounds great. "Standard of Objective Evidence". "Take Back Control". "Drain the Swamp".

Everyone look at the harassment, also how they are trying to control the narrative. Is this the manifestation of democracy?

[Jet Cash]

Ah! Democrazy - the will of the people demonstrating their control by destroying the local commerce that provides them with jobs.

[TECSHARE]

Well that's a surprising assessment from you. I thought you regarded me as a patronizing asshat.
     I'm still not certain who you propose is going to regulate this "mob." If the administration somehow puts them all on a DT blacklist, how do we know that their replacements will be any better once they gain power? As the trite saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." In the end, it's probably going to be another clique. Like it or not, people form alliances here with like-minded individuals. This clique will likely seek to exclude those that disagree with their particular point of view. You'd be surprised what a group of people can do to twist simple guidelines like you propose and have it work to their advantage.

I actually pegged you for a pretty well rounded individual in spite of our disagreement about some topics. You know how logic and debate work unlike most people here. I found it sad you felt the need to feel like part of the in crowd over supporting my statements you already demonstrated agreement with meriting. I am not sure how a completely dry post about the trust system is entertaining... but whatever excuse you need to make so you are sure you don't find yourself out of the "cool kids" club by admitting you agreed with me once publicly on this topic.

The VERY POINT is they will not have absolute power. They have that now because the rules are COMPLETELY arbitrary because they are all subjective standards open to so much interpretation to be meaningless. These standards are not, they are objective, and everyone can look and decide for themselves based on objective things, not what some one suspects, feels, or guesses arbitrarily. In effect they can abuse and then just pretend they don't via wide interpretation. This narrows that ability for interpretation significantly, and reduces the ability for arbitrary and abusive use of the system.

It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced, as I repeatedly explained and you continue to pretend to not understand because you are desperately seeking for anything to grasp on to in lieu of a logical argument. They would be enforced with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws instead of whatever the trust police feel like arbitrarily.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic or facetious here, but I would like some clarification on this.

Scam accusations are currently enforced in the following manner:
1) The accuser posts a thread outlining their accusation and supporting evidence in the Scam Accusations board
2) Users discuss the issue, and frequently more supporting or refuting evidence is found
3) One or several users (which may include DT members) may tag the accused provided the evidence is sufficient

Now let's say I find an ICO who is advertising with a fake team - using made up names, stock photos, and fictitious LinkedIn profiles with fake qualifications, job histories and business links. In my opinion, they are breaking the covenant of good faith by being dishonest with their potential customers/victims. I tag them as such. You disagree with my judgement and make a post saying as such, stating that we need evidence of theft to have occurred before a negative tag can be left. (This is just an example - we could substitute in 100 difference scenarios here.)

Who decides who is right? If it is the community who decides, then the system is no different to what it is now. Trust ratings are countered and people are excluded over disagreements already - how would this change under your proposed system? If it is theymos who decides, then are you suggesting we simply move to a trust system based entirely on theymos' decision in every case (which would never happen as the workload would be insurmountable). Is there a third option I haven't considered?


Edit: Spelling

Then you collect the evidence of either actual theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of the law and present it. If you have none of those things you either leave a neutral rating as a warning and or create threads warning about them in the reputation or scam accusation areas. I already said the system would be no different than it is now, EXCEPT we would be operating on a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. That's it.

All Theymos has to do is declare that his preferred standard, then the community then bases their trust list off of who follows it. He doesn't need to officiate over every fucking case, or really any, and I think you know that is not what I meant, but any opportunity to discredit you gotta take right? Or they can rate how they like and find themselves with no power in the trust system via community exclusion. All this other stuff is garbage designed to confuse the fact that this is a simply implemented solution to many problems.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Then you collect the evidence of either actual theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of the law and present it. If you have none of those things you either leave a neutral rating as a warning and or create threads warning about them in the reputation or scam accusation areas. I already said the system would be no different than it is now, EXCEPT we would be operating on a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. That's it.

All Theymos has to do is declare that his preferred standard, then the community then bases their trust list off of who follows it.

So in my example, in which I have presented evidence I deem is sufficient, but you disagree and state my evidence is insufficient, then you agree it would left up to the community to decide who is correct, and by extension, who to place on their trust lists and who to exclude, which is what we have now. Right. We have some common ground from which to start.

So now you want theymos to enact a set of standards which he wishes people to follow, but he won't actually enforce them. I'm afraid I fail to see how that will work. If you want a set of standards to be enforced, then someone has to enforce them. If you want the community to decide for themselves, then that's exactly what's happening at the moment. You can't have both. This is what I don't understand in your argument.

If you want people who don't follow the standards to be kicked off, then theymos has to officiate over every disagreement. If you don't want the people who don't follow the standards to be kicked off, then what's the point in having the standards in the first place?

He doesn't need to officiate over every fucking case, or really any, and I think you know that is not what I meant, but any opportunity to discredit you gotta take right?

I was perfectly civil in my reply to you, and I would expect the same in return. I'm genuinely trying to understand your system, because I (and most others) currently don't see how it would work. Being aggressive with someone who is simply asking for clarification isn't going to win anyone to your cause.

[TalkStar]

It doesn't really matter, it is just yet another example of how the rules are for some but not for others around here. There needs to be an objective standard set around here for trust ratings or else the community will continue to eat its own face. Eventually it will go past the point of no return. The trust system is too easily corruptible and open to unaccountable abuse. There is no reason people can not leave neutral ratings an open threads if they want to warn people of users rather than negative rating them without evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws.

Current trust system is good enough IMO. I don't know why do you think that its corruptible or open to unaccountable abuse. For positive feedback every user got theur own ideology to give someone or not. But for the negative feedback its common to everyone. Its pretty much simple that negative ratings are only for scammers, spammers or trollers who continuing their fraudlent activities to spoil our forum.

I beleive no one here giving someone trust for their own intention. Trust is only achievable not purchaseable 

[TECSHARE]

Then you collect the evidence of either actual theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of the law and present it. If you have none of those things you either leave a neutral rating as a warning and or create threads warning about them in the reputation or scam accusation areas. I already said the system would be no different than it is now, EXCEPT we would be operating on a standard of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. That's it.

All Theymos has to do is declare that his preferred standard, then the community then bases their trust list off of who follows it.

So in my example, in which I have presented evidence I deem is sufficient, but you disagree and state my evidence is insufficient, then you agree it would left up to the community to decide who is correct, and by extension, who to place on their trust lists and who to exclude, which is what we have now. Right. We have some common ground from which to start.

So now you want theymos to enact a set of standards which he wishes people to follow, but he won't actually enforce them. I'm afraid I fail to see how that will work. If you want a set of standards to be enforced, then someone has to enforce them. If you want the community to decide for themselves, then that's exactly what's happening at the moment. You can't have both. This is what I don't understand in your argument.

If you want people who don't follow the standards to be kicked off, then theymos has to officiate over every disagreement. If you don't want the people who don't follow the standards to be kicked off, then what's the point in having the standards in the first place?

He doesn't need to officiate over every fucking case, or really any, and I think you know that is not what I meant, but any opportunity to discredit you gotta take right?

I was perfectly civil in my reply to you, and I would expect the same in return. I'm genuinely trying to understand your system, because I (and most others) currently don't see how it would work. Being aggressive with someone who is simply asking for clarification isn't going to win anyone to your cause.

Exactly. Common ground. Instead of suspicion and guesses, you don't act to harm some ones ratings without a review of evidence. I would say the best way to do it frankly would be to present any evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to the community in the scam accusation area, then allow others to review it. If the evidence presented is sufficient naturally people will want to negative rate them. The standard should be evidence, review, then penalty of negative rating. It is not just a warning system it is also a penalty and this can not be glossed over. I genuinely effects people's ability to trade here and that should be accounted for. You know, the due process everyone in free countries enjoy so much?

Your assertion that Theymos will be required to officiate over every dispute is false, and provably so. Does Theymos currently run around enforcing the "guideline" that it is not acceptable to leave ratings for disagreeing with people's opinions every time some one does this? No, of course not. People point out to them that it is not acceptable and either they change it or they lose their own reputation and or are excluded. You can have both, because we already have both. The only difference is the standard becomes more exclusive, and less open to interpretation leading to less disputes and selective enforcement.

We need a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Exactly. Common ground. Instead of suspicion and guesses, you don't act to harm some ones ratings without a review of evidence. I would say the best way to do it frankly would be to present any evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to the community in the scam accusation area, then allow others to review it. If the evidence presented is sufficient naturally people will want to negative rate them.

I disagree with you here. Many scammers rely on pulling in as many customers as possible over a short period of time, before they are exposed. If we require every suspicion to be first posted, and then wait for the community to review before tagging, you are now giving them an extra 24-48 hours to continue scamming until they get tagged. It also simply isn't feasible to start a new thread and have a discussion about every suspected scammer - the board would be overrun with new threads and being a DT member would become a full time job to read and review every accusation.

I think your method is correct and workable in marginal or uncertain cases, but these are the minority. Trying to apply this to every case would rapidly overload the system.

Does Theymos currently run around enforcing the "guideline" that it is not acceptable to leave ratings for disagreeing with people's opinions every time some one does this? No, of course not. People point out to them that it is not acceptable and either they change it or they lose their own reputation and or are excluded. You can have both, because we already have both.

Fair point, which I accept. However, you seem to be arguing against yourself here. Many DT users pre-emptively tag account sellers, Ponzi promoters, loan requests with no/fake collateral, fake ICOs, etc, before they are successful in their scamming. By your metric, none of these people would be tagged until after they had scammed and there was evidence of theft. Now, if the community decided this was "not acceptable", as you put it, then the users who leave these ratings should be "losing their reputation and/or being excluded". This isn't happening, so the only conclusion is that a majority of the community supports this position. You, of course, can completely disagree with this stance, but as theymos has more-or-less made DT a democracy, the majority view wins.


I agree with you that we shouldn't be tagging people for disagreements or differing points of view, but I disagree that we should be waiting for evidence of a scam being successful before we tag the scammers. I also don't think theymos just giving a top down declaration, but leaving the system as is - inclusions and exclusions based on community votes - would actually result in the change you are looking for.

[greeklogos]

Is Lauda the only one?
OP you should perform to theymos all of your candidates with proves and maybe he will react somehow. But honestly, I doubt that something will be changed here.

[TECSHARE]

Exactly. Common ground. Instead of suspicion and guesses, you don't act to harm some ones ratings without a review of evidence. I would say the best way to do it frankly would be to present any evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws to the community in the scam accusation area, then allow others to review it. If the evidence presented is sufficient naturally people will want to negative rate them.

I disagree with you here. Many scammers rely on pulling in as many customers as possible over a short period of time, before they are exposed. If we require every suspicion to be first posted, and then wait for the community to review before tagging, you are now giving them an extra 24-48 hours to continue scamming until they get tagged. It also simply isn't feasible to start a new thread and have a discussion about every suspected scammer - the board would be overrun with new threads and being a DT member would become a full time job to read and review every accusation.

I think your method is correct and workable in marginal or uncertain cases, but these are the minority. Trying to apply this to every case would rapidly overload the system.

Does Theymos currently run around enforcing the "guideline" that it is not acceptable to leave ratings for disagreeing with people's opinions every time some one does this? No, of course not. People point out to them that it is not acceptable and either they change it or they lose their own reputation and or are excluded. You can have both, because we already have both.

Fair point, which I accept. However, you seem to be arguing against yourself here. Many DT users pre-emptively tag account sellers, Ponzi promoters, loan requests with no/fake collateral, fake ICOs, etc, before they are successful in their scamming. By your metric, none of these people would be tagged until after they had scammed and there was evidence of theft. Now, if the community decided this was "not acceptable", as you put it, then the users who leave these ratings should be "losing their reputation and/or being excluded". This isn't happening, so the only conclusion is that a majority of the community supports this position. You, of course, can completely disagree with this stance, but as theymos has more-or-less made DT a democracy, the majority view wins.


I agree with you that we shouldn't be tagging people for disagreements or differing points of view, but I disagree that we should be waiting for evidence of a scam being successful before we tag the scammers. I also don't think theymos just giving a top down declaration, but leaving the system as is - inclusions and exclusions based on community votes - would actually result in the change you are looking for.

Oh you disagree do you? Based on what expertise exactly gained in your 2 whole years of activity here with zero trading under your belt?

Again this goes back to due diligence. We should be teaching users to do it and READ RATINGS not just the number which is largely now meaningless anyway. There is NOTHING stopping you from making a post in the scam accusations area and referencing it with a neutral rating in their trust. This has become more about the feeling of influence and giving the perception they are doing more than they are by seeing those little red numbers flash on an account and watching people react. They are all running around trying to get their dopamine hits and bulldozing thru anyone in your path with zero recourse for anyone wronged. It has been this way from the beginning but with the lack of any rules whatsoever just "guidelines" it has just increasingly deteriorated over the years. This is driving the people we want out and the people we don't want just keep buying accounts. Maybe that's the profit model now?

Think about what you said for a minute. You called this place a Democracy. In  a pure Democracy individual rights don't exist. Pure Democracy is literally mob rule. Is that how this place should best be run in what was originally a largely libertarian community? Ok, well then you can pretty much count on this becoming dogecointalk as the people who built this whole market bail and you are left with the jokers LAARPing Game of Thrones over trust ratings. Again, nothing is stopping people from utilizing neutral ratings and posts in the appropriate sections for preemptive warnings. New users will be better off being taught the protocol of due diligence, rating reading, and checking out their partner before trading instead of blindly trusting the trust overlords.

[Flying Hellfish]

Ok, well then you can pretty much count on this becoming dogecointalk as the people who built this whole market bail

Ironically people have been saying similar for a long time, still waiting for the sky to fall...  Good and bad people come and go for lots of different reasons, you of course seem to know the answer to everything so why not just go make the perfect forum and stop whining like a fucking bitch for a while.

[Quickseller]

Every single person discussing there is untrustworthy and bearing  red trust on their profile. IMO its a combined group members who are doing this together.

[...]



Thread link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0;all

I am not aware of any allegation that anyone in that thread has stolen money/property, or tried doing the same, nor am I aware of any of those people doing anything that might be consistent with a long con. Do you care to explain why you believe these people are untrustworthy?

looks like you are on the wrong side of this forum
you should think long and hard about your principles

My principles are just fine, thanks. You have repeatedly shown you don't understand how the trust system works, your misguided attempts to "overthrow" it would give literally thousands of scammers a clean trust rating to go out and scam again,

Perhaps you should review Lauda's sent trust and evaluate that statement again.

Most of his sent trust ratings are for SMAS blacklist (a potential moderation issue, not a trust issue), someone potentially having a lot of alts, sometimes in signature campaigns (not reasonably a "scammer" by any reasonable definition), criticizing him (not in any way a scammer), breaking forum rules (a moderation issue, not a trust issue), and disagreeing with him (not in any way a scammer).

[TalkStar]

Thread link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0;all


I am not aware of any allegation that anyone in that thread has stolen money/property, or tried doing the same, nor am I aware of any of those people doing anything that might be consistent with a long con. Do you care to explain why you believe these people are untrustworthy?

I think there's no explanation need about those guys but you wanna hear from my side . yeah they are untrustworthy and there's no reason here to hide it. These guys have got several negative feedback on their trust section and have enough referrence link there to know their past records.I don't know why are you feeling so jealous with that,,,Maybe in your eyes they are trustworhthy because you also bearing multiple red colour on your trust section.

[TECSHARE]

Ok, well then you can pretty much count on this becoming dogecointalk as the people who built this whole market bail

Ironically people have been saying similar for a long time, still waiting for the sky to fall...  Good and bad people come and go for lots of different reasons, you of course seem to know the answer to everything so why not just go make the perfect forum and stop whining like a fucking bitch for a while.

First of all you have little if any trade under your belt here, so this is policy change is of little concern to you since you pay no costs for it being as it is. Second as staff, you are fairly protected from this kind of abuse, so really your word doesn't mean much in this arena. Stick to calling anyone who disagrees with you racist in P&S.

[nutildah]

First of all you have little if any trade under your belt here, so this is policy change is of little concern to you since you pay no costs for it being as it is.

From the very beginning:

- It's OK to post a rating about the person in general, not tied to a specific trade.

What "costs" are you paying? How does this effect what you do?

[o_e_l_e_o]

Oh you disagree do you? Based on what expertise exactly gained in your 2 whole years of activity here with zero trading under your belt?

Your argument from authority is a logical fallacy. My "expertise" is irrelevant to the points I have made. If you are unable to defend your position logically, it suggests that your position does not posses sufficient merit to be defended. Once again, I was perfectly civil in my reply to you, and I would expect the same in return.

The rest of your post regarding due diligence is completely correct. We should be teaching all users to read individual trust ratings. But this is not an argument against leaving negative trust. Someone promoting a Ponzi scam is not trustworthy and deserves a negative rating, not a neutral one, regardless of whether he has yet managed to lure in any users or not.

You completely ignored the other points I made about your suggested system, so I will ask them again:
1) Under your system, starting a new thread to discuss every suspected scammer is a non-viable solution - the workload for DT1 would be insurmountable. How would you address this?
2) The community already have the ability to include and exclude people who don't follow your rules, but that's not happening. I don't think a simple post from theymos, with no other intervention, would result in the change you are looking for. Do you?

[TECSHARE]

Oh you disagree do you? Based on what expertise exactly gained in your 2 whole years of activity here with zero trading under your belt?

Your argument from authority is a logical fallacy. My "expertise" is irrelevant to the points I have made. If you are unable to defend your position logically, it suggests that your position does not posses sufficient merit to be defended. Once again, I was perfectly civil in my reply to you, and I would expect the same in return.

The rest of your post regarding due diligence is completely correct. We should be teaching all users to read individual trust ratings. But this is not an argument against leaving negative trust. Someone promoting a Ponzi scam is not trustworthy and deserves a negative rating, not a neutral one, regardless of whether he has yet managed to lure in any users or not.

You completely ignored the other points I made about your suggested system, so I will ask them again:
1) Under your system, starting a new thread to discuss every suspected scammer is a non-viable solution - the workload for DT1 would be insurmountable. How would you address this?
2) The community already have the ability to include and exclude people who don't follow your rules, but that's not happening. I don't think a simple post from theymos, with no other intervention, would result in the change you are looking for. Do you?

It is not a logical fallacy first of all because I made other arguments in support of my premise, and second because your experience in the system here is relevant to your understanding of it.

1. You make a conclusion which you assume to be true then expect me to operate from that assumption as a given. No. You don't just get to declare it a non-viable solution. I already explained the use of neutral ratings and warning threads. The ratings are overused and therefore ignored and meaningless anyway. Restricting their use to objective standards returns the standard back to quality not quantity so when you see a negative rating it means something.

2. Again you are repeating your argument from before only from another perspective. The community already follows Theymos's guidelines to a large degree as I already demonstrated. At the end of the day all this talk of decentralization is meaningless because this is a centralized site, and he is the ultimate authority here. So yes a simple post from him making this the standard would change things.

[o_e_l_e_o]

1) Under your system, starting a new thread to discuss every suspected scammer is a non-viable solution - the workload for DT1 would be insurmountable. How would you address this?

1. You make a conclusion which you assume to be true then expect me to operate from that assumption as a given. No. You don't just get to declare it a non-viable solution. I already explained the use of neutral ratings and warning threads. The ratings are overused and therefore ignored and meaningless anyway. Restricting their use to objective standards returns the standard back to quality not quantity so when you see a negative rating it means something.

Except it is true.

You have previously stated multiple times that for each negative rating you want users to first present their evidence in a Scam Accusations thread:

It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced

Then you collect the evidence of either actual theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of the law and present it.

In the last 7 days, DT1 members left 273 negative ratings. That's 273 new threads in Scam Accusations which you want DT1 members to read, review, reach a conclusion, and act upon. And that's only ratings from the 54 DT1 members. There are 372 DT2 members I did not bother to pull data for.

It is impossible to expect DT1 members to reach a conclusion on literally hundreds, if not a thousand or so, new Scam Accusations threads every week. How would you address this?

2. Again you are repeating your argument from before only from another perspective. The community already follows Theymos's guidelines to a large degree as I already demonstrated. At the end of the day all this talk of decentralization is meaningless because this is a centralized site, and he is the ultimate authority here. So yes a simple post from him making this the standard would change things.

Fair enough. I think it would result in some change, yes, but not the radical change you are looking for. Agree to disagree.

[Jet Cash]

This system is becoming far too complex. Can't we have a system which helps us to decide if a member can be trusted in a financial deal?

[TECSHARE]

1) Under your system, starting a new thread to discuss every suspected scammer is a non-viable solution - the workload for DT1 would be insurmountable. How would you address this?

1. You make a conclusion which you assume to be true then expect me to operate from that assumption as a given. No. You don't just get to declare it a non-viable solution. I already explained the use of neutral ratings and warning threads. The ratings are overused and therefore ignored and meaningless anyway. Restricting their use to objective standards returns the standard back to quality not quantity so when you see a negative rating it means something.

Except it is true.

You have previously stated multiple times that for each negative rating you want users to first present their evidence in a Scam Accusations thread:

It would be enforced the same way scam accusations are already enforced

Then you collect the evidence of either actual theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of the law and present it.

In the last 7 days, DT1 members left 273 negative ratings. That's 273 new threads in Scam Accusations which you want DT1 members to read, review, reach a conclusion, and act upon. And that's only ratings from the 54 DT1 members. There are 372 DT2 members I did not bother to pull data for.

It is impossible to expect DT1 members to reach a conclusion on literally hundreds, if not a thousand or so, new Scam Accusations threads every week. How would you address this?

You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best. If people aren't even going to read the person's ratings having a red mark in a sea of red marks is not going to signal much and actually ends up providing cover for them. Furthermore that level of complete lack of due diligence guarantees a user will eventually be robbed regardless of what anyone else does.

Second you are assuming that every one of those ratings was valid, beneficial, and needed to be made. That I highly doubt. Also the whole point is there are less negative ratings left. Now only instead of any crime they can imagine happening being justification for a rating, they will have to document it first. The result is then higher regularity and quality of ratings and oh suddenly those red and green numbers have meaning again don't they? After all they are practically meaningless as quick indicators as they are currently used.

Last you are arguing from a point of view that the forum can even be actively protected from these scams, and attempting to do so pre-emptively is desirable. The fact is even if these people spend all day running accounts through the meat grinder negging them, at best it slows down these people. The question is at what cost to the contributing user base?

[OgNasty]

This system is becoming far too complex. Can't we have a system which helps us to decide if a member can be trusted in a financial deal?

Not with users like TMAN, owlcatz, & Lauda in DT1 we can't.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Sold or hacked?

[o_e_l_e_o]

You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best.

I never made that assumption. I simply pointed out the number of negative feedbacks being left which, under your system, would each require discussion.

If people aren't even going to read the person's ratings having a red mark in a sea of red marks is not going to signal much and actually ends up providing cover for them. Furthermore that level of complete lack of due diligence guarantees a user will eventually be robbed regardless of what anyone else does.

I see your point, but we have no evidence that too many red ratings provide cover. I agree there are a minority of users who will robbed/scammed regardless, but that's not an argument to remove the ratings from the majority of users who find them helpful.

Second you are assuming that every one of those ratings was valid, beneficial, and needed to be made.

Again, I never stated that. Those ratings could all be nonsense, but they would still all require discussion prior to reaching that conclusion under your system.

Also the whole point is there are less negative ratings left.

I would like that too. I think there are too many negative ratings left (i.e. all of them) for differing opinions or points of view. I just don't think the system or methods you have outlined are going to get us there.

[Quickseller]

Thread link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103988.0;all


I am not aware of any allegation that anyone in that thread has stolen money/property, or tried doing the same, nor am I aware of any of those people doing anything that might be consistent with a long con. Do you care to explain why you believe these people are untrustworthy?

I think there's no explanation need about those guys but you wanna hear from my side . yeah they are untrustworthy and there's no reason here to hide it. These guys have got several negative feedback on their trust section and have enough referrence link there to know their past records.I don't know why are you feeling so jealous with that,,,Maybe in your eyes they are trustworhthy because you also bearing multiple red colour on your trust section.

Actually there isn’t any allegation that they have done anything that is reasonably described as a scam or scam attempt, not on their trust page or elsewhere. The negative feedback they have is from people not liking trying to get people to distrust Lauda and using negative trust to discourage others from siding with them. 

I don’t think any of them are particularly trustworthy, don’t have any of them on my trust list and certainly would not trust them with money. I would treat them as any other person with neutral trust and little/no trading history.

I don’t really understand why so many people are willing to defend lauda. He is a scammer who has extorted at least one person (unsuccessfully), is not transparent in his business dealings to the extent it is likely he was advertising multiple scams and stole hundreds of bitcoin (priced at 10k+) in his escrow dealings and is very immature. I have not seen him provide any original research in finding alleged scammers, as he is mostly reacting to reports found in reputation and scam accusations. If you ask my opinion, I would say he is using his title of “scam buster” to shield himself from criticism and from being held accountable for stealing from others.

[suchmoon]

Lauda Lauda Lauda

You forgot to mention "pill addict" and "witch". You can't be trusted if you're deliberately hiding important details.

[Lauda]

Lauda Lauda Lauda

You forgot to mention "pill addict" and "witch". You can't be trusted if you're deliberately hiding important details.

At some point this turned into petty envy; they are nobodies anymore especially in the crypto sphere outside of the forum. Gotta love delusional leftists. #Harassment, #Abuse, #Blacklist

[TECSHARE]

At some point this turned into petty envy; they are nobodies anymore especially in the crypto sphere outside of the forum. Gotta love delusional leftists. #Harassment, #Abuse, #Blacklist

And you are somebody? No delusional sense of grandiosity here... Also I can say fairly confidently most of the last people posting are no where near leftists, but whatever fits the meme you want to try to force go for it.

You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best.

I never made that assumption. I simply pointed out the number of negative feedbacks being left which, under your system, would each require discussion.

If people aren't even going to read the person's ratings having a red mark in a sea of red marks is not going to signal much and actually ends up providing cover for them. Furthermore that level of complete lack of due diligence guarantees a user will eventually be robbed regardless of what anyone else does.

I see your point, but we have no evidence that too many red ratings provide cover. I agree there are a minority of users who will robbed/scammed regardless, but that's not an argument to remove the ratings from the majority of users who find them helpful.

Second you are assuming that every one of those ratings was valid, beneficial, and needed to be made.

Again, I never stated that. Those ratings could all be nonsense, but they would still all require discussion prior to reaching that conclusion under your system.

Also the whole point is there are less negative ratings left.

I would like that too. I think there are too many negative ratings left (i.e. all of them) for differing opinions or points of view. I just don't think the system or methods you have outlined are going to get us there.

Yes, actually you did make the assumption, and you did it again by stating it as a given that there would again be the same number of ratings needing review. Not at all true. If you aren't suggesting they help prevent scams what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it.

No evidence? How about simple logic. more signal noise = less reliable signal = more people ignoring signal. It is not a complicated concept. Again, you are assuming these ratings are some how helpful, but in a way you refuse to define or demonstrate. Ratings for petty subjective issues are not helpful. That is why we need an objective standard for leaving ratings.

The objective standard also conveniently gets rid of the majority of cases of disputes over what is an acceptable rating so, no they will not all require discussion. Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.

I see you criticizing, I don't see you offering solutions or even arguing my logic, just making repeated assumptions to justify your position.

[o_e_l_e_o]

what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it.

I mean, I didn't say that in the slightest. In fact, I said the exact opposite:

I think there are too many negative ratings left

No evidence? How about simple logic.

If you have no proof of your statement, then you are making an assumption that it is ture.

Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.

How is the community supposed to decide if they meet your "standards" without first having a discussion? Either there is a discussion for every case before any action is taken, in which case the workload is insurmountable and your system fails, or DT1 members are free to tag people without presenting their case first, in which case your system is no different to what we have now.


You can get caught up on whatever assumptions you think I have made but it doesn't change my points. The system you have outlined either doesn't change anything or doesn't work. This conversation is probably now moot, however, given this recent post from theymos:

But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases.

[TECSHARE]

what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it.

I mean, I didn't say that in the slightest. In fact, I said the exact opposite:

I think there are too many negative ratings left

No evidence? How about simple logic.

If you have no proof of your statement, then you are making an assumption that it is ture.

Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.

How is the community supposed to decide if they meet your "standards" without first having a discussion? Either there is a discussion for every case before any action is taken, in which case the workload is insurmountable and your system fails, or DT1 members are free to tag people without presenting their case first, in which case your system is no different to what we have now.


You can get caught up on whatever assumptions you think I have made but it doesn't change my points. The system you have outlined either doesn't change anything or doesn't work. This conversation is probably now moot, however, given this recent post from theymos:

But I don't believe in having a set of hard rules which is to be applied to all cases.

A+ selective editing. Now try logic.

[o_e_l_e_o]

A+ selective editing. Now try logic.

Your first paragraph claims I said something I didn't, when in fact I said the exact opposite, as I demonstrated in my last post.

Your second paragraph simply fails to provide evidence I asked for, and then again states I made an assumption I previously pointed out I didn't - there is nothing to respond to here.

Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system.

Your fourth paragraph doesn't require a response - I am not offering a solution because I'm not the one trying to change the system, and the assumptions you keep claiming I have made I have shown to be false.

A+ responding. Now trying addressing the points. Or don't. I'm kinda bored of going in circles as you attack me/fake assumptions/things I never said, instead of actually clarifying how you want your system to work.

[TECSHARE]

Your first paragraph claims I said something I didn't, when in fact I said the exact opposite, as I demonstrated in my last post.

Your second paragraph simply fails to provide evidence I asked for, and then again states I made an assumption I previously pointed out I didn't - there is nothing to respond to here.

Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system.

Your fourth paragraph doesn't require a response - I am not offering a solution because I'm not the one trying to change the system, and the assumptions you keep claiming I have made I have shown to be false.

A+ responding. Now trying addressing the points. Or don't. I'm kinda bored of going in circles as you attack me/fake assumptions/things I never said, instead of actually clarifying how you want your system to work.

Excuse me if your little selective editing game does not engender confidence in your unbiased examination of the topic. This is the same game Suchmoon likes to play. I answer the same question 8 times and each time they  pretend as if I never even attempted to address it. You can continue along with this strategy if you like but I will just start using quotes if so.

Your first paragraph claims I said something I didn't, when in fact I said the exact opposite, as I demonstrated in my last post.

Yes, actually you did make the assumption, and you did it again by stating it as a given that there would again be the same number of ratings needing review. Not at all true. If you aren't suggesting they help prevent scams what are you suggesting is the benefit of having more negative ratings? ...right... you assumed it.

More exclusives standard for rating = less negative ratings = less dispute = no need for EVERY one to be disputed. If you feel you have case closing evidence against some one nothing is stopping you from rating, just know it will then be you under the microscope if you are wrong.

You are operating from the assumption first of all that these ratings stop scams from happening. That is arguable at best.

I never made that assumption. I simply pointed out the number of negative feedbacks being left which, under your system, would each require discussion.

Here you are again insisting that the number of ratings disputes will HAVE to be the same for some undefined reason, I explained above why it will not be the case. Your insistence that there must be more ratings directly implies that more ratings are desirable for some reason. If not, then why exactly must we have the excessive amount we currently have? This is another case of trying to say something without saying it. This question has been answered, several times.

Your second paragraph simply fails to provide evidence I asked for, and then again states I made an assumption I previously pointed out I didn't - there is nothing to respond to here.

No evidence? How about simple logic. more signal noise = less reliable signal = more people ignoring signal. It is not a complicated concept. Again, you are assuming these ratings are some how helpful, but in a way you refuse to define or demonstrate. Ratings for petty subjective issues are not helpful. That is why we need an objective standard for leaving ratings.

Rather convenient you need not reply to a simple logical formula. After all it does not fit the definition YOU wanted, therefore it MUST be invalid right? I am sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that you have no argument against the logic itself. No it is just nonsense and beneath you to reply is it?

How about this. How about you define an attainable metric under which

"evidence that too many red ratings provide cover." is potentially obtained.

Then we will operate from there. Of course you didn't purposely word this in such a way that you could later add qualifiers making answering this question to your satisfaction impossible now did you? Of course you could provide a metric under which this is possible to prove right? Oh no? Then lets use simple logic, like the kind you just summarily dismissed and declared you need not respond to.

Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system.

Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.

How is the community supposed to decide if they meet your "standards" without first having a discussion? Either there is a discussion for every case before any action is taken, in which case the workload is insurmountable and your system fails, or DT1 members are free to tag people without presenting their case first, in which case your system is no different to what we have now.

Again this is just a rephrasing of the same argument you made above in a different way. Every rating will not result in a dispute or a discussion. It is not a hearing, it is a presentation of evidence upon which a proposed rating will be given. Nothing is stopping anyone from rating at any time as long as they are willing to endorse the evidence. In short this is what happens in scam accusations every single day, only now you would be expected to have evidence before damaging some ones trust ratings.

Your third paragraph I demonstrated either doesn't work or doesn't change the system.

The objective standard also conveniently gets rid of the majority of cases of disputes over what is an acceptable rating so, no they will not all require discussion. Either they will meet the standard of evidence or they don't. If they don't or this is disputed then that's when more discussion will be needed.

How many ways are you going to rephrase the same argument? You didn't demonstrate anything. You made assumptions then operate from those assumptions while completely ignoring the explanations why your assumptions are wrong. You are assuming. You are assuming it "doesn't work" because "overload" which I explained  in detail will not happen above because every rating will not be disputed. It does in fact change the system because the standard will be evidence instead of "I feel like [insert crime here] prove me wrong." That means we start from an objective point, not a guaranteed dispute point as is standard now.

In summary you haven't shown anything to be false. Essentially you have one argument you repeated in three different ways then proceeded to pretend I had not already answered all of these arguments. Here they are. Refute them, or keep repeating yourself then blame me for talking in circles as you rephrase the same argument 8 different ways.