An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)

[suchmoon]

What sounds insulting?

I meant Lucius' feedback, the reason for this thread. I have edited my post to clarify that.

Let's just give Lucius some time to respond. Then we can decide what to do next.

[1713528229]

1713528229

[1713528229]

1713528229

[1713528229]

1713528229

[o_e_l_e_o]

Does posting 200 times per week make you inherently untrustworthy? No. Therefore Lucius' feedback is incorrect.

However, does tagging you for posting 200 times per week make Lucius inherently untrustworthy? Also no, and so your request for him to be tagged is also incorrect.

Neither of you have done anything untrustworthy here, and so neither of you deserve to be red tagged. If Lucius does not remove his red tag, he might find himself excluded from many users' trusts lists, but he is highly unlikely to find himself red tagged as "retribution".

[Patatas]

As I consider it an obvious example of trust abuse, I ask DT members to tag this user appropriately. I'm not going to retaliate personally as I don't see a lot of sense in that, but it doesn't mean I will let it go. And while we are at it, anyone who has any issues with my posts on the forum (whether it be their quality, number, arrangement, or whatever is on your mind) speak it out here

From what I know, you were signature spamming by making over 200 posts for that Coinroll signature campaign (If I spelled it correctly). There was a discussion regarding this and people agreed you indeed were spamming. Having said that, I don't think you deserve inappropriate negative feedback. Especially if the risked amount is a garbage value. I wouldn't take that DT or his ratings seriously.

[Findingnemo]

Does posting 200 times per week make you inherently untrustworthy? No. Therefore Lucius' feedback is incorrect.

However, does tagging you for posting 200 times per week make Lucius inherently untrustworthy? Also no, and so your request for him to be tagged is also incorrect.

Neither of you have done anything untrustworthy here, and so neither of you deserve to be red tagged. If Lucius does not remove his red tag, he might find himself excluded from many users' trusts lists, but he is highly unlikely to find himself red tagged as "retribution".

It means,he is not able to give the right feedback which clearly shows that he is not a suitable member to be in DT member and DT1 members were doing it correct.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It means,he is not able to give the right feedback which clearly shows that he is not a suitable member to be in DT member and DT1 members were doing it correct.

He isn't in DT1, and if he was voted in by the community after leaving inappropriate feedback, he would be promptly voted out by other DT1 members.

Being unable to give accurate feedback is a criteria for being not included or even excluded from other users' trust lists. It does not warrant retaliatory red trust in this case.

[deisik]

He wasn't saying YOU sounded insulting... or accusing you of any wrongdoing... he was saying that it might sound insulting TO you

What exactly might sound insulting to me?

From what I know, you were signature spamming by making over 200 posts for that Coinroll signature campaign (If I spelled it correctly). There was a discussion regarding this and people agreed you indeed were spamming. Having said that, I don't think you deserve inappropriate negative feedback. Especially if the risked amount is a garbage value. I wouldn't take that DT or his ratings seriously.

You know it wrong

So stop spreading false information as no one agreed that I was spamming. This issue had been raised by just one person - the campaign manager (several times), and I don't even remember him calling me a spammer (he called me a posting nut, if my memory serves we right). Anyway, all my posts are open for everyone to see them, so instead of making unsubstantiated claims, go and try to find even a single example of me spamming in the last few years (just in case, we had all been posting garbage in 2013-2014)

Does posting 200 times per week make you inherently untrustworthy? No. Therefore Lucius' feedback is incorrect.

However, does tagging you for posting 200 times per week make Lucius inherently untrustworthy?

Actually, yes, it does. I wouldn't trust anybody who is as irresponsible as deliberately giving people incorrect negative feedback. Would you trust that person yourself?

Anyway, what's to be done here?

[Slow death]

As I consider it an obvious example of trust abuse

Negative feedback should be used to alert other members about something abnormal, but unfortunately it is being used as a weapon. In your case, it was an exaggeration on the part of lucius

I ask DT members to tag this user appropriately.

It is best to look for solutions that do not involve negative feedback

[deisik]

but after making this public, you should have contacted Lucius directly. Your stubbornness in consistently refusing to do so is somewhat confusing?

I'm really fascinated at how some people can't see the forest for the trees here

Here's an analogy. You were robbed and then I suggest you should go to the robber first and ask him why he decided to rob you. How do you like this idea? It is essentially the same here. If someone does something wrong to you (e.g. steals from you), you go to the police, not the offender

It is best to look for solutions that do not involve negative feedback

Whatever the solution, this case should be handled appropriately

[Lucius]

I just get PM from one member about this thread.

Reason for give this negative trust is that deisik is part of stake.com signature campaign and posting up to 200 posts per week. To reach that amount of posts, he reply (quote) to many post individually instead to use multi-quote option. I write this very clear in my sent feedback, and I do not see any problem in that, maybe only amount risked is to big.

I see most of you think that I abuse trust in this case, did anyone actually read what I posted and check deisik post history?

Example 1 : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107721.20

deisik is quote&post :

here is the likely scenario that always happen;

half the noobs will buy now at 3700$, the other half will buy when the price goes pass 4000$, the smart will start selling the 4-5 area to the noobs, price will fall back to 3-3.4k , the noobs will freak out, sell for lose , the smart buy and make profit, rinse and and repeat , shut up and take my money

I basically agree with this scenario

Though I don't actually expect prices to break out beyond 4k any time soon. The market doesn't look strong now, so the smart ones will likely start selling earlier if they haven't already. We had been staying for too long in a very tight range to penetrate easily current resistance levels as they had likely also been going lower over time (read, it may take time as well as some effort and a few up and down cycles)

Put differently, we should now start thinking in terms of hundreds of dollars, not in thousands, when analyzing possible price action. This may be our new base scale

Then he find another post from exstasie which is just few post above, and quote that in new post :

I said a week or two ago that if bears couldn't dump through the $3,400 area, that the pump to $5K is still on. I think that's where we are now

We have risen measly $200

And now you are saying that we are on our way to 5k. We will be there if we reliably break the 4k resistance and stand there, with it becoming a new major support level. But considering for how long we had been stuck at 3.5k, it doesn't look like a plausible assumption unless there is some major news (positive, naturally) followed by real events that add value to Bitcoin (I don't know what it could be). Obviously, some random comment won't cut it

This is how he is increased the number of posts, just by checking his post history anyone can find many cases of such posting.

So why is wrong to tag such user as signature spammer? http://archive.li/YH7DJ

[Findingnemo]

So why is wrong to tag such user as signature spammer? http://archive.li/YH7DJ

It is something should be handled by the mods if they are replying in multiple posts,DT don't have any business with these kind of things.But you also have freedom too to five feedback on anyone if you want but if it is something inappropriate feedback is given by you one someone it will make your reputation to be lower.

[qwk]

but after making this public, you should have contacted Lucius directly. Your stubbornness in consistently refusing to do so is somewhat confusing?

Here's an analogy. You were robbed and then I suggest you should go to the robber first and ask him why he decided to rob you.

Your analogy is inherently flawed.
You were not robbed.
Someone on the internet said something mean about you.

https://xkcd.com/386/

It doesn't even do you any harm, since it is outside the scope of the Default Trust network.
Quite a few of the users on bitcointalk have insulting and obviously "wrong" feedback on their profile, including me:

THIS DUDE HAD SEX WITH MY SISTER AND DIDNT EVEN CALL HER AFTER THE FIRST DATE. DISRESPECTFUL, ARROGANT AND AN OBVIOUS FUTURE SCAMMER. DO NOT TRADE WITH!

I can honestly quote former U.S. president Bill Clinton:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

but I'm not in the least offended by this feedback, simply because it is wrong and doesn't show up in "trusted feedback".

[deisik]

This is how he is increased the number of posts, just by checking his post history anyone can find many cases of such posting

That's really pathetic

These posts were made even on different dates. But you are welcome to post here more examples to show how ridiculous your accusations are. But don't forget to also include my posts where I combine replies to different posters in one post, like this one:

First, we should create "frozen" or lockable addresses

Most hacks happen over the secondary market mostly centralized exchanges, the chances of a wallet address getting hacked is very low, you can secure it further by using a hardware wallet

And what does it change?

Centralized exchanges hold most of their funds in cold wallets anyway, so keeping such wallets locked with a forward timer (say, set for 1 hour) will prevent these hacks from happening. On the flip side, though, there is another catch here. For example, it becomes known that the keys have been compromised, but the hacker can't steal the coins as it has a timer counting. So how can a legitimate owner claim his coins and not let the hacker claim them before him? That's an interesting implication which I didn't think of when starting this thread

you get to also stipulate how many people are needed to spend. hense a 1 of 2 means out of 2 chosen people only one is needed to spend the funds. thus allowing equal oppertunity to spend the funds. thus if the recipient does not spend it, you can get it back

the result is exactly what you want. funds are put into an address which you or the recipient can then claim.. EG the recipient can claim or you can claim(refund)

Okay, I will look into it. Can I set a timeout with this approach, i.e. when the recipient doesn't claim the coins after a specified amount of time, can I claim them back?

What you're asking for is Centralization.
An overseer to decide what is allowed and not allowed

Blockchain is that overseer. It decides what is allowed and what not

In simple terms, it is none of your business how I arrange my posts. If you still feel like there's something wrong with my posts (or their count or whatever), you are free to report them

It is something should be handled by the mods if they are replying in multiple posts

There is nothing to handle as you can always find someone replying to someone else's posts and not just once. This is what a dialogue is about

[Findingnemo]

It is something should be handled by the mods if they are replying in multiple posts

There is nothing to handle as you can always find someone replying to someone else's posts and not just once. This what a dialogue is about

When we are replying proper to someone's comment then this is can be a good discussion get going,I didn't said it is against the rule but if still there is something it should be dealt by Mods,since DTs are not here to fight with spams.

[deisik]

It is something should be handled by the mods if they are replying in multiple posts

There is nothing to handle as you can always find someone replying to someone else's posts and not just once. This what a dialogue is about

When we are replying proper to someone's comment then this is can be a good discussion get going,I didn't said it is against the rule but if still there is something it should be dealt by Mods,since DTs are not here to fight with spams.

This has nothing to do with spam either

When I'm giving a thorough and detailed reply to someone I always try to make a separate post to keep things neat and tidy. And as you can see in the example above, when there is no need for such a reply and a one-liner would do just fine, I combine these replies in one post

Such accusations are really ridiculous. In fact, I won't be surprised if one day someone actually accuses me of following a certain pattern in arranging my posts like adding a short preface or conclusion (which I almost always do)

but after making this public, you should have contacted Lucius directly. Your stubbornness in consistently refusing to do so is somewhat confusing?

Here's an analogy. You were robbed and then I suggest you should go to the robber first and ask him why he decided to rob you.

Your analogy is inherently flawed.
You were not robbed

I was not robbed but a) I was wrongfully accused, and b) the accusation itself is a trust abuse. So I for one find my analogy quite fitting here (read, there is nothing to discuss with that dude)

Now I'm waiting for DT members' action (whatever that could be)

[suchmoon]

So why is wrong to tag such user as signature spammer? http://archive.li/YH7DJ

That's not what the trust system is for. Spam needs to be reported to moderators. If there is something in the gray area that doesn't quite violate the rules you might want to use neutral feedback and/or report to the campaign manager.

This is actually for your own benefit. You can't be prevented from posting any feedback you want but using negative feedback in this manner might disqualify you from getting into trust lists of other people, kinda defeating the purpose of the neg rating - the red score resulting from your rating is visible only to you and to people who directly include you.

[Lucius]

deisik, you should send me PM, and ask what is the reason for that negative trust, and I'm pretty sure it would be resolved in mutual benefit. Instead, you're looking for DT members to red tag me because of my opinion that you abuse stake.com signature campaign in a way how you are posting, just for simple reason to increase number of posts.

Neither of you have done anything untrustworthy here, and so neither of you deserve to be red tagged. If Lucius does not remove his red tag, he might find himself excluded from many users' trusts lists, but he is highly unlikely to find himself red tagged as "retribution".

As for this, I am not important user on this forum, and I bet I will never be on DT1&DT2 list, it is free to choose to who you will trust, and in anyone think I am untrusted users or that I abuse trust system act by the forum rules.

~snip!

I reported him to his campaing manager, no response at all - and to report 100+ posts only from one user as spam would certainly be characterized as spamming the report button. Since most of his post are in Economy board (no moderator), I doubt reports would have too much effect.

[deisik]

So why is wrong to tag such user as signature spammer? http://archive.li/YH7DJ

That's not what the trust system is for. Spam needs to be reported to moderators. If there is something in the gray area that doesn't quite violate the rules you might want to use neutral feedback and/or report to the campaign manager

There is no gray area here

As this is all complete bullshit. When things get hot, you can give like 3-4 replies to the same post in a matter of minutes and receive as many replies to your single post from the same fellow. Yeah, the thread gets clumsy (you likely saw such conversations yourself here and there), but that has nothing to do with spamming (as this is the opposite of it)

Note that it is not even remotely the case here as I was replying to different posts made on different dates, most likely, as I kept reading the thread (I honestly don't remember). You read the thread, you post replies. If your reply as you think requires a separate post, you submit a separate post. What's wrong with that?

deisik, you should send me PM, and ask what is the reason for that negative trust, and I'm pretty sure it would be resolved in mutual benefit. Instead, you're looking for DT members to red tag me because of my opinion that you abuse stake.com signature campaign in a way how you are posting, just for simple reason to increase number of posts

You have already stated your reason here

If your true reason is different from what you said here (read, what you accused me of), then it would be a double abuse of the trust system. And as I already implied, you put yourself in a position when there is no reason whatsoever for me to ask you anything. Simply put, it is not up to me to deal with this issue

Basically, you are to face the consequences of your actions as this is what being responsible is about. You started it, not me. It is not like you first accuse someone of something and then negotiate your way out of it when things start looking grim for you. Things don't work that way

[suchmoon]

I reported him to his campaing manager, no response at all - and to report 100+ posts only from one user as spam would certainly be characterized as spamming the report button. Since most of his post are in Economy board (no moderator), I doubt reports would have too much effect.

You don't have to report 100. Report a few and in the comments ask to look at the post history. And even if the moderators disagree it's still not a good use of the trust system to tag suspected spammers. "Ignore" would be a more appropriate option in this case.

Reports on the Economics board work just fine BTW. Global mods handle it.

[Steamtyme]

I'm really fascinated at how some people can't see the forest for the trees here

I find it funny you use this saying, as i feel you've fallen into that trap. You are so focused on what you want people to do for you, as this is an issue you have with what someone has said about you. That you haven't paid attention to the forest of information,options or ways to resolve this yourself.

I refer you to my previous post about this. I will go so far as to say that if you are not willing to take any action such as leaving a neutral or engaging with lucius, i would not be willing to leave a neutral myself in your place, as others have considered.
 
Lucius i would really reconsider using negatives for behaviour/posting issues you have with people. That is a good place for neutral to use as a comment. In your case it will be seen the same to the rest of the world. With the added benefit that others may find your feedback useful

[marlboroza]

Reason for give this negative trust is that deisik is part of stake.com signature campaign and posting up to 200 posts per week. To reach that amount of posts, he reply (quote) to many post individually instead to use multi-quote option. I write this very clear in my sent feedback, and I do not see any problem in that, maybe only amount risked is to big.

I see most of you think that I abuse trust in this case, did anyone actually read what I posted and check deisik post history?

Example 1 : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107721.20

So report post to moderator and moderator will merge posts into one if it is necessary or remove second post and you should really change this feedback to neutral.
Just tell me something, why is it important for you to tag account deisik but it is not important for you to tag all these spam accounts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108597.msg49691649#msg49691649 ? Or any other spammer? Does it make any sense to you?