An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)

[Thule]

But I find it amusing (to say the least) to actually see someone spending so much time and effort reading all that bullshit we were writing 5 years ago (release your inner Sherlock, huh).

Just have a look at their signature and you know why.These kind of posts are considered high quality thanks to some dumb DT members.Its basicly merit whoring and increase of post count.Nothing more

[LoyceV]

I'm not sure which specific part of the rules it is against

Bumping:

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

As an aside, it is really pathetic when someone accuses you of using a "method" with which you allegedly boost your post count by not merging a few separated replies to different posts into a single one, and then someone else is not quite happy with you doing the exact opposite (i.e. merging your posts into one)

You should edit your existing post,  and add text there, instead of reposting it with an addition (example).
I sometimes bend the posting rules a bit though, especially for very long posts. I don't think the rules are meant to be strict limitations, they're meant to stop spammers. If you look at the post above the example I showed, you'll see I'm slightly bending the 24 hour rules by bumping a bit early, and turning my bump into a bigger post.
From my records, I can see you "bumped" this thread 3 times in 60 minutes:

Code:

deisik
156665
50035958
<a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php#3">Economy</a> / <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0">Reputation</a> / <b><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50035958#msg50035958">Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)</a></b>

<br />I did not negotiate the purchase of an account in 2014 as it hadn&#039;t been sold. I was negotiating but it ended with nothing:<br /><br /><br />Why did you omit that part? It was just a couple posts below. Anyway, someone bought this account later (like in 2016), though I&#039;m not sure as I didn&#039;t follow it. But it wasn&#039;t me. As I said, I&#039;m not involved in this kind of activities and back in the day it was more like entertainment because you could actually buy a Hero account and legitimately get away with it, which I specifically mentioned (you may want to translate that part for me)<br /><br /><br />Yes, I wrote about that particular case in other topics, and so what? Are you making an accusation of me buying and selling accounts in the forum? If this is the case, I think you should start a new thread

Code:

deisik
156665
50036322
<a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php#3">Economy</a> / <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0">Reputation</a> / <b><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50036322#msg50036322">Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)</a></b>

<br />I did not negotiate the purchase of an account in 2014 as it hadn&#039;t been sold. I was negotiating but it ended with nothing:<br /><br /><br />Why did you omit that part? It was just a couple posts below. Anyway, someone bought this account later (like in 2016), though I&#039;m not sure as I didn&#039;t follow it. But it wasn&#039;t me. As I said, I&#039;m not involved in this kind of activities and back in the day it was more like entertainment because you could actually buy a Hero account and legitimately get away with it, which I specifically mentioned (you may want to translate that part for me)<br /><br /><br />Yes, I wrote about that particular case in other topics, and so what? Are you making an accusation of me buying and selling accounts in the forum? If this is the case, I think you should start a new thread<br /><br /><br />I actually support this view (other than it being a hidden accusation, of course), and I&#039;m happy that I didn&#039;t buy that account as it would now have turned into a toxic asset<br /><br /><br />The truth is I never bought an account here or sold one, in 2014 or any other year<br /><br />

Code:

deisik
156665
50036535
<a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php#3">Economy</a> / <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0">Reputation</a> / <b><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115410.msg50036535#msg50036535">Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)</a></b>

<br />I did not negotiate the purchase of an account in 2014 as it hadn&#039;t been sold. I was negotiating but it ended with nothing:<br /><br /><br />Why did you omit that part? It was just a couple posts below. Anyway, someone bought this account later (like in 2016), though I&#039;m not sure as I didn&#039;t follow it. But it wasn&#039;t me. As I said, I&#039;m not involved in this kind of activities and back in the day it was more like entertainment because you could actually buy a Hero account and legitimately get away with it, which I specifically mentioned (you may want to translate that part for me)<br /><br /><br />The real problem is that I didn&#039;t buy any accounts in any place over here (to begin with)<br />&nbsp;<br />And yes, I wrote about that particular case in other topics, and so what? If you are trying to build a case against me or discredit me somehow (which tells more about yourself than me, just in case), you may want to start a new thread, really. But you are welcome, anyway. It will be fun to watch as you fail miserably<br /><br /><br />I actually support this view (other than it being a foul accusation, of course), and I&#039;m happy that I didn&#039;t buy that account (or any other account, for the record) as it would now have turned into a toxic asset, a liability<br /><br /><br />The truth is that I never bought (or sold) any accounts here, neither in 2014 nor in any other year, whether it was allowed or not

[deisik]

I'm not sure which specific part of the rules it is against

Bumping:

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

Well, that was not intended as bumping

As I was basically rearranging my post by adding new content (replies) to it (as I often do when I see it appropriate). And while we are at it, can you please check your records and see what posts in my post history have been deleted by me, say, within the last few days (other than in this thread)? If you have such information, I ask you to reveal it here. Take it as my official and unconditional agreement to release this information in public

As an aside, it is really pathetic when someone accuses you of using a "method" with which you allegedly boost your post count by not merging a few separated replies to different posts into a single one, and then someone else is not quite happy with you doing the exact opposite (i.e. merging your posts into one)

You should edit your existing post,  and add text there, instead of reposting it with an addition

Actually, I do something like that, but it doesn't look good or proper, especially when I merge my reply to a next post with my preceding reply (like here). Otherwise, you see me accused of boosting post count by using "a method"

[Lucius]

I agree that retaliatory feedback is not the right thing to do, which I stated in the OP myself. But as I was asking DT members to give negative rating to the offender, it started to look like I had been trying to hide behind their backs which is not a good thing, obviously. And I gave that dude a neutral rating anyway, so it is not strictly a retaliatory feedback, though they definitely deserve red paint on their chest, at least until they accept being flat-out wrong in this case

You opened this thread with only one intention, to try red tag my account with help of DT member/s, which would be trust abuse by your own standards. Now you change your mind regarding that, but in same time you still think that I deserve red paint on their chest.

For example, let's look at how many times you asked publicly that other members abuse trust system for you :

As I consider it an obvious example of trust abuse, I ask DT members to tag this user appropriately.

That's why I'm asking a DT member to tag this user appropriately until he chooses to remove his feedback..

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

Okay, I decided to tag them with a neutral rating with a link to this thread/If anyone is with me on that, you can do something to that tune

Other members have recognized your intentions :

You want DT members to tag Lucius. Retaliatory ratings seem more like abuse than prevention of abuse.

As I said, I never considered deisik a shitposter.  He did crank out a huge number of posts in a short period of time, but as far as quality goes, I've seen much worse.  It is possible for someone to devote a tremendous amount of time to posting and in the process churn out 250 posts in a week and still manage to make most of them relatively decent.  I still don't think it's right to tag you for the amount of posts you made, but since it's  untrusted feedback, I would recommend just rolling with it and move on.  Retaliatory feedback is usually not justified, btw. Be the bigger person and maybe Lucius will cool down and reconsider.  If not, it's not the end of the world.

I agree it is possible to make even 1000 posts per week, but is it normal to do that? OP is obviously changing his posting habits in relation to how much is possible to earn in signature campaign. Some will call such users "paid poster" and nothing else, other have other opinion.

Your advice that he should be the bigger person then me means exactly what? If deisik show even 1% of interest to solve this with me, it would be solved, so far he is just using this thread to show me as bad person and abuser.

I'm always ready for every reasonable way of cooperation with any member, removing trust feedback is the smallest problem.

[LoyceV]

can you please check your records and see what posts in my post history have been deleted by me, say, within the last few days (other than in this thread)? If you have such information, I ask you to reveal it here.

I can't see who deleted a file, it can be you, a Mod, or the creator of a self-moderated thread.
Since Feb 27, 08:11h (Dutch time), you've posted these posts:
    1. Re: Bitcoin factors drop in 2019 and now.
    2. Re: Public Benefit Corporations
    3. Re: Ways to Raise Prices bitcoin
    4. Re: Bitcoin up to 4100$
    5. Re: Bitcoin up to 4100$
    6. Re: Ways to Raise Prices bitcoin
    7. Re: Win one bitcoin
    8. Re: Free betting contest and new platform kings.ag
    9. Re: On value dilution
   10. Re: Ways to Raise Prices bitcoin
   11. Re: JPMorgan is launching its own cryptocurrency
   12. Re: 🔥 Devilchain - first graphic crypto casino in Telegram
   13. Re: Free betting contest and new platform kings.ag
   14. Re: Ways to Raise Prices bitcoin
   15. Re: Bitcoin factors drop in 2019 and now.
   16. Re: Win one bitcoin
   17. Re: Bitcoin factors drop in 2019 and now.
   18. Re: Bitcoin factors drop in 2019 and now.
   19. Re: Blackjack.fun - PROVABLY FAIR Blackjack Accepts Dash/Bitcoin/Litecoin
   20. Re: Cryptocurrency lending business.
   21. Re: POLL: Did we hit the bottom?
   22. Re: I expect the market to be in green throughout this month.
   23. Re: ‘Crypto not meant for humans’ says Anthony Pompliano
   24. Re: FreeBitco.in - Contest with $30,000 in GUARANTEED PRIZES now live!
   25. Re: Will people come back to gold
   26. Re: FreeBitco.in - Contest with $30,000 in GUARANTEED PRIZES now live!
   27. Re: Быстрые и качественные переводы English ⬄ Russian
   28. An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   29. Re: ➤ Top-notch translation services: English ⬄ Russian
   30. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   31. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   32. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   33. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   34. Re: On value dilution
   35. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   36. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   37. Re: BITCLOAK BITCOIN MIXER [SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN] [OPEN][Merit ++]
   38. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   39. Re: ➤ Top-notch translation services: English ⬄ Russian
   40. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   41. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   42. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   43. Re: BITCLOAK BITCOIN MIXER [SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN] [OPEN][Merit ++]
   44. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   45. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   46. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   47. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   48. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   49. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   50. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   51. Re: On evolution of prices
   52. Re: On evolution of prices
   53. Re: How much Bitcoin to accumulate now to be financially set after the next boom?
   54. Re: Are You The INTELLIGENT Cryptocurrency Investor?
   55. Re: Are You The INTELLIGENT Cryptocurrency Investor?
   56. Re: The point of no return
   57. Re: The point of no return
   58. Re: The point of no return
   59. Re: Hodler, you motherfucker.
   60. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   61. Re: On value dilution
   62. Re: On value dilution
   63. Re:  Stake.com (SteveStake) is encouraging spam.
   64. Re: On evolution of prices
   65. Re: On value dilution
   66. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   67. Re: Do you think Institutions secretly HODL Bitcoin?
   68. Re: On value dilution
   69. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   70. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   71. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   72. Re: Hodler, you motherfucker.
   73. Re: Do you think Bitcoin matured as a currency?
   74. Re: Why did Bitcoin hit $4,000?
   75. Re: Lightning Network effect on Bitcoin's price
   76. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   77. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   78. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   79. Re: Bitcoin vs. Gold, Fiat and Altcoins (Updated: Traits of Money)
   80. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)
   81. Re: Bitcoin vs. Gold, Fiat and Altcoins (Updated: Traits of Money)
   82. Re: An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)

I didn't check which posts are deleted.

[deisik]

I agree it is possible to make even 1000 posts per week, but is it normal to do that? OP is obviously changing his posting habits in relation to how much is possible to earn in signature campaign. Some will call such users "paid poster" and nothing else, other have other opinion

That's none of your business

can you please check your records and see what posts in my post history have been deleted by me, say, within the last few days (other than in this thread)? If you have such information, I ask you to reveal it here.

I can't see who deleted a file, it can be you, a Mod, or the creator of a self-moderated thread

It's not what I'm asking

Basically, I'm asking what posts have been recently deleted by me irrespective of when exactly they were contributed (i.e. a month or a year ago). If it is possible to compile such a list, then it will be clear whether or not I recently deleted any posts from my post history (as some people here claim) and which posts specifically have been deleted (i.e. what has been deleted). Ironically, during my 8 week journey in the stake.com signature campaign only 1 (one) post has been actually deleted by a mod (despite a multitude of reports mods had seemingly received during that period):

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Unfortunately i've never used BTC-e so I have never frequented their trollbox

As it turned out, you were quite lucky that you never used BTC-e and their trollbox

I traded at Polo for some time (before they started to require that all users should provide verification docs) and their trollbox was excruciatingly annoying. But the most annoying thing was that you couldn't get rid of it if I remember correctly. Since I often used this exchange on a low-end computer (having a few other exchanges open in the browser tabs), it was nearly impossible to use Poloniex with all their fancy but mostly useless bells and whistles

Indeed, I disagree with its deletion but I agree that it was somewhat off-topic in that thread. It also shows how hard it was for me to post in that board (even though it was only 15 posts weekly)

[suchmoon]

I'm not sure which specific part of the rules it is against

Bumping:

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

Well, that was not intended as bumping

But it did bump. So stop doing that.

Is deleting/reposting allowed?

If they're doing that in a way that is substantially annoying, or in order to bypass rules such as the bump limit, then it's not allowed.

[LoyceV]

I'm asking what posts have been recently deleted by me irrespective of when exactly they were contributed (i.e. a month or a year ago).

Sorry, I misread it. Users can't know this, unless they've scraped your post history already.

[Thule]

I'm not sure which specific part of the rules it is against

Bumping:

13. Bumps, "updates" are limited to once per 24 hours.[2]

Well, that was not intended as bumping

But it did bump. So stop doing that.

Is deleting/reposting allowed?

If they're doing that in a way that is substantially annoying, or in order to bypass rules such as the bump limit, then it's not allowed.

Its about thread bumping which i doubt was here the intention.

[actmyname]

Its about thread bumping which i doubt was here the intention.

The edit function of posts allows one to add new content to it, as desired.

I assume, from the context, that the post thereof was also the most recent one. There should be no reason to delete and repost instead of editing.

In any case where someone has responded afterward, one can subsequently insert details into their following reply.

[pixie85]

There's just one thing that I find worth mentioning. Lucius said that deisik should have sent a PM to resolve the matter before starting this thread and got angry at deisik for trying to get dt on his side instead of talking to him. Why didn't Lucius PM deisik about his annoying bumping before painting him red?

I don't know why this thread is being escalated so much if you are able to resolve it for mutual benefit. Maybe deisik will learn to use the edit button and the trust will get changed to neutral or deleted? Just an idea you'll do as you please

[deisik]

Why didn't Lucius PM deisik about his annoying bumping before painting him red?

This is not about annoying bumping

It is a minor issue and I'm not sure at all if it is actually as annoying as reported. But you make a totally legit point which I'm trying to convey in this topic myself. People are asking me to contact the offender and now even the offender himself seems to be asking exactly that but man this is preposterous if you ask me

It is not me who started this controversy to begin with and if someone screwed up here, it is his fault, not mine, and it is his unconditional duty and obligation to fix things and redeem himself. Really, why should I care about someone who didn't care about me at all in the fist place and whose intention was clearly to hurt me?

[Lauda]

There's just one thing that I find worth mentioning. Lucius said that deisik should have sent a PM to resolve the matter before starting this thread and got angry at deisik for trying to get dt on his side instead of talking to him. Why didn't Lucius PM deisik about his annoying bumping before painting him red?

It usually works in reverse, that's why. Lucius is not in dt from what I can see, thus I see no issue here.

[actmyname]

It usually works in reverse, that's why. Lucius is not in dt from what I can see, thus I see no issue here.

I don't really see what anyone can do in this situation to change the result.

I don't think Lucius deserves a negative. An exclusion at most, but they aren't in the DT system and will be largely unaffected by it.I don't hunt down the scores of users that hound me with negative feedback. It's a waste of time. (Most of them being retaliatory, anyway)

[TECSHARE]

You don't get it. Such things are destroying the trust system. Not that I'm quite happy with it at all (I made my point pretty clear about it long ago) but it was basically none of my business. Now it is

Funny how everyone stands on the sideline until it is their own ass isn't it?

[DireWolfM14]

Kinda feels like spamming your watch list, doesn't it?

So it is now about spamming watch lists. Okay then, but I'm more interested in what you are still doing here, in this very thread. Haven't you already spent more time on this subject than it deserves?

When I said that it was in reference to your request that I dig through 21K of your posts to pick out ones I thought are spam.  Again, I admit you're not the typical shitposter so it does sound like daunting task, one I do not care to spend any time doing.  However, prior to that I had given you some sane advice which you made very clear was not welcome.  So, no I won't be spending any more time trying to help you, but watching you implode under the weight of your own ego does lend some entertainment value to this thread. 

[deisik]

You don't get it. Such things are destroying the trust system. Not that I'm quite happy with it at all (I made my point pretty clear about it long ago) but it was basically none of my business. Now it is

Funny how everyone stands on the sideline until it is their own ass isn't it?

I've been always telling that this system does more harm than good

Kinda feels like spamming your watch list, doesn't it?

So it is now about spamming watch lists. Okay then, but I'm more interested in what you are still doing here, in this very thread. Haven't you already spent more time on this subject than it deserves?

When I said that it was in reference to your request that I dig through 21K of your posts to pick out ones I thought are spam.  Again, I admit you're not the typical shitposter so it does sound like daunting task, one I do not care to spend any time doing

So you weren't actually going to prove anything in the first place, were you?

You wrote a lengthy post (and even received some merits for it from the abuser), but now you basically admit that it was nothing more than an effort at slandering as your post is stocked with foul insinuations but it has never been your intention to prove them. And even in this post you are still continuing to insinuate ("you're not the typical shitposter"). Why am I not surprised at all?

Other than that, to prove me a spammer you don't need to go through all my 21k posts as the posts made in the last couple months should suffice (according to the negative rating I received). Simply put, with each post you make here, you are falling deeper and deeper into this rabbit hole, and I'm not sure if it is not your ego which is going to get hurt in the end. And now you can't even call it a day anymore

[actmyname]

What, exactly, are you looking for in this situation? Lucius is not going to receive negative feedback for his. Even if he does, it won't rid of the feedback itself. Not directly, anyway.

[DireWolfM14]

You wrote a lengthy post (and even received some merits for it from the abuser), but now you basically admit that it was nothing more than an effort at slandering as your post is stocked with foul insinuations but it has never been your intention to prove them. And even in this post you are still continuing to insinuate ("you're not the typical shitposter"). Why am I not surprised at all?

No, you're not a typical shitposter, but now you're starting to resemble a typical troll.  Actually my first post in this thread was more critical of Lucius than you.  I called his review frivolous, so no there was no intention to slander you.  It wasn't until you got belligerent with other contributors that I started calling you out for being overly butthurt.  I did just enough research to try show you why someone might have come to Lucius' conclusion.  It was an attempt at mitigation, but seeing the other side of the story wasn't in your interest.

Like actmyname, I don't know what you expect to achieve by continuing to beat this dead horse.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

You don't get it. Such things are destroying the trust system. Not that I'm quite happy with it at all (I made my point pretty clear about it long ago) but it was basically none of my business. Now it is

Funny how everyone stands on the sideline until it is their own ass isn't it?

Stand on the sidelines of what?  Deisik got a neg from someone not on DT, which I think he shouldn't have received but nevertheless should just accept and move on.  If I got upset every time I got negged, I'd be in a straitjacket, locked in a room with padded walls. 

Deisik may post way more than the average member, but his grasp of English is above average and his posts aren't crappy like you typically see with sig spammers.  It is certainly possible to make as many posts as he has and still not be a shitposter--you just have to be able to write (which deisik can) and spend enough time (which deisik apparently does).  I don't think it's reasonable to call him a spammer based on post count alone.