@theymos It's time to make DT blacklist.

[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?