@theymos It's time to make DT blacklist.

[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.