An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)

[DireWolfM14]

I didn't do anything which could even remotely justify the negative feedback.

You are entitled to that opinion, ans Lucius is entitled to his.  I agree it seems frivolous, and maybe malicious, but that's a risk inherent in any public trust system.

The burden of proof lies with the person who is making the accusation, and I'm the one who is being accused here in case you didn't notice. And if this is left as it is, i.e. without being taken care of (whatever that "care" might come down to), it will be a source of future harm

Again, I agree.  The burden of proof is the accuser's, and in this case Lucius has left no proof.  Furthermore he claims to have risked 1000BTC which is unsupported by his allegation, and once again lacking credible evidence.  The whole community can see this as plain as day.  In my opinion the review reflects poorly on Lucius far more than you.

The only thing you can do is discuss this rationally with Lucius in an attempt to convince him to remove the review.  If he refuses he'll have to live with the ramifications as well.

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.

Starting a rational discussion could easily have resolved this situation satisfactorily for both parties.

@deisik, If I were in your situation I would lock this thread and stat a civil discussion with Lucius about the issue you have with his feedback.  YMMV.

[1715205109]

1715205109

[1715205109]

1715205109

[1715205109]

1715205109

[Lucius]

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

I did not ask you now to send me PM, but that the problem could be solved through PM without opening this thread. So read better, I do not want anything from you, and I do not try to make any way out of this situation.

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?

Funny that you ask that, but I will answer to that question. Reason is simple, he was user with most post per week in that campaign, and he is using method for reply on posts, which I have already described. So it makes no sense for you to tag only one account, I should tag them all to make some sense?

Starting a rational discussion could easily have resolved this situation satisfactorily for both parties.
@deisik, If I were in your situation I would lock this thread and stat a civil discussion with Lucius about the issue you have with his feedback.  YMMV.

I agree, but OP is not asking nothing but that DT members tag my account with red trust because of abusing trust system.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I wouldn't trust anybody who is as irresponsible as deliberately giving people incorrect negative feedback.

Then you are free to tag Lucius with a negative rating saying as much, but you cannot reasonably expect DT members to tag him on your behalf. Trust is not moderated, as you can see by the plethora if completely nonsense ratings on most DT members' trust pages. On the other hand, spam (perceived or real) is an issue to be dealt with by the moderators, not by using the trust system. In short, the rating is incorrect, but no one is going to remove it on your behalf.

Also, trusting someone to do a deal, hold money, or not try to scam you is different from trusting someone to leave accurate ratings on other users. The former is reflected by positive/negative trust ratings, the latter is reflected by inclusions/exclusions on trust lists.

[Patatas]

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)

1. I'm not spreading any information. Everything is just public here. Can you find that thread where this was being discussed? I'll appreciate that.
2. Your campaign manager was Yahoo, right? Before he took over you were managed by an inexperienced campaign manager if I remember.
3. Making over 200+ posts just to get a good income from the signature campaigns is called well-qualified shit-posting and not really contributing constructively. Like if you did, you'd have much higher merits than what you have now.

[deisik]

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)

1. I'm not spreading any information. Everything is just public here. Can you find that thread where this was being discussed? I'll appreciate that

You'll appreciate what?

That's fucking hilarious if you ask me. You are spreading misinformation (read, outright lies) and now I should go find that thread? No, that's definitely not how it is gonna work out. You make a claim and it is up to you to substantiate it (read, if you don't prove it, you will go as a liar)

2. Your campaign manager was Yahoo, right? Before he took over you were managed by an inexperienced campaign manager if I remember

You evidently remember it wrong. I joined the Coinroll signature campaign when Yahoo was already the campaign manager (I just didn't know he was the one). Now think how much of what else you could remember is actually true (and how much of that is just your "unbiased" imagination)

Making over 200+ posts just to get a good income from the signature campaigns is called well-qualified shit-posting and not really contributing constructively. Like if you did, you'd have much higher merits than what you have now

You are stepping on a very thin ice here. Basically, you are walking right into a minefield as I'm neither the top poster here (in terms of total post count), nor the most active one (in terms of posts contributed daily). So tread carefully here as with such generalizations you may not end very well as you evidently don't know who is posting that much, if not more (this is not a threat, this is a warning). She is a real bitch (this is not an insult)

Anyway, this campaign lasted for 8 weeks. For me, it started with this post and ended with this one. That makes a total of 1100 posts which produces less than 140 posts per week. So much for "making over 200+ posts", huh. Apart from that, you may actually want to visit my profile to see how many merits I earned during the last couple of months (read, a lot more than you). It seems like you desperately need a good reality check right now

As you can see, in all your three points, you are either severely distorting the facts or just outright lying. So what are you actually doing here? What is your agenda?

That attitude is exactly the reason why I believe you were/are considered as a spammer. I don't fuckin need to find any threads. If you think you're not a spammer, convince the dude that left you a negative trust and not me. I give two flying fucks about your existence on this forum because you clearly haven't contributed shit

So you can't substantiate your claims. Okay then

As you can see, in all your three points, you are either severely distorting the facts or just outright lying. So what are you actually doing here? What is your agenda?

My agenda - Leave you the fuck alone and stop trying to post my opinions on why you don't deserve a negative tag.

That's not how it looks and feels. So much for "well-qualified shit-posting"

[Patatas]

You'll appreciate what?

That's fucking hilarious if you ask me. You are spreading misinformation (read, outright lies) and now I should go find that thread? No, that's definitely not how it is gonna work out. You make a claim and it is up to you to substantiate it (read, if you don't prove it, you will go as a liar)

That attitude is exactly the reason why I believe you were/are considered as a spammer. I don't fuckin need to find any threads. If you think you're not a spammer, convince the dude that left you a negative trust and not me. I give two flying fucks about your existence on this forum because you clearly haven't contributed shit.

As you can see, in all your three points, you are either severely distorting the facts or just outright lying. So what are you actually doing here? What is your agenda?

My agenda - Leave you the fuck alone and stop trying to post my opinions on why you don't deserve a negative tag.

[deisik]

Then you are free to tag Lucius with a negative rating saying as much, but you cannot reasonably expect DT members to tag him on your behalf. Trust is not moderated, as you can see by the plethora if completely nonsense ratings on most DT members' trust pages. On the other hand, spam (perceived or real) is an issue to be dealt with by the moderators, not by using the trust system. In short, the rating is incorrect, but no one is going to remove it on your behalf

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

Also, trusting someone to do a deal, hold money, or not try to scam you is different from trusting someone to leave accurate ratings on other users. The former is reflected by positive/negative trust ratings, the latter is reflected by inclusions/exclusions on trust lists

Well, that's not what I meant

If someone is irresponsible, you can't trust them as it is essentially synonymous with being untrustworthy (by and large). You can't trust such people (as in I would trust him with my life and with my wife) because you can't reliably expect them to make rational decisions and choices. It is like two sides of the same coin, where the one side is impossible without the other. If this is not what Trust is about, then I stand corrected

[suchmoon]

If someone is irresponsible, you can't trust them as it is essentially synonymous with being untrustworthy (by and large). You can't trust such people (as in I would trust him with my life and with my wife) because you can't reliably expect them to make rational decisions and choices. It is like two sides of the same coin, where the one side is impossible without the other. If this is not what Trust is about, then I stand corrected

Often there is a difference between being trusted with money and being trusted to have good judgement, like e.g. a difference between a business person and a judge, or between wife trusting husband with $1000 and trusting his answer on how she looks in that dress .

I don't know if you or Lucius can be trusted with money. It's possible. But you both don't seem to have good judgement. Bitcointalk trust system has two different albeit somewhat related features for that - trust lists for people whose judgement you trust/distrust, and trust ratings for people whom you would trust (or not) with money. You both seem to be misusing the latter one.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

If you can't resist leaving feedback in cases like this, then the "neutral tag" ignored by most members (including myself until I was notified) should be encourage to be used. Just as the below user stated on one of my previous thread

If it is your intention to enlighten others on the use of the system, perhaps promote the 3rd option. I personally see Neutral as a tool for notes on the account/users behavior whether positive or negative, but not a scam/trade dispute.

I believe leaving feedback for that offend isn't worth Red tagged but again the trust system isn't moderated so what can we say.

The trust sender should note,

Update from theymos

I do not view it as appropriate for trust ratings to relate primarily to non-trust matters.
In particular, in my view:
 - Giving negative trust for being an annoying poster is inappropriate, since this has nothing to do with their trustworthiness.

[deisik]

You both seem to be misusing the latter one

What do you mean by me misusing the trust rating?

I gave them a neutral rating but that's primarily because I didn't feel it quite right asking other people to tag this user appropriately without myself actually doing anything to that end. If you mean something else, then what is the possible course of action that should be taken here?

It seems obvious (well, at least to me) that such cases of trust abuse should not be neglected by the community as they destroy or massively erode the idea behind the trust system. theymos made it quite clear but without a means to actually prevent people from abusing this system, it is no more than a wish

[suchmoon]

You both seem to be misusing the latter one

What do you mean by me misusing the trust rating?

I gave them a neutral rating but that's primarily because I didn't feel it quite right asking other people to tag this user appropriately without myself actually doing anything to that end. If you mean something else, then what is the possible course of action that should be taken here?

It seems obvious (well, at least to me) that such cases of trust abuse should not be neglected by the community as they destroy or massively erode the idea behind the trust system. theymos made it quite clear but without a means to actually prevent people from abusing this system, it is no more than a wish

You want DT members to tag Lucius. Retaliatory ratings seem more like abuse than prevention of abuse. The right way to handle this would be to exclude users who post ratings incompatible with the purpose of the trust system. That's been pretty much the consensus of this thread. Since neither of you wants to budge you should probably lock the thread and move on.

[The Cryptovator]

Reason for give this negative trust is that deisik is part of stake.com signature campaign and posting up to 200 posts per week.

So why you didn't tag manager? According to your logic you should tag first campaign manager who have encouraged for spam. Not is it ?

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

Is he promoting scam ? Handle shitpost is really job of moderators. You should report his spam post instead of leave feedback. Shitpost is not related with trust system.

I gave them a neutral rating but that's primarily because I didn't feel it quite right asking other people to tag this user appropriately without myself actually doing anything to that end. If you mean something else, then what is the possible course of action that should be taken here?

What action are you expecting from DT's ? Leave retailonary feedback? You already did it. Since both of you are not part of default trust system, I don't think we need counter tag you or tag to deisik for his opinion. If someone want to exclude him then that's different case. We can't force anyone to remove feedback.

I did not ask you now to send me PM, but that the problem could be solved through PM without opening this thread. So read better, I do not want anything from you, and I do not try to make any way out of this situation.

That's what I asked on my first post.

[deisik]

You both seem to be misusing the latter one

What do you mean by me misusing the trust rating?

I gave them a neutral rating but that's primarily because I didn't feel it quite right asking other people to tag this user appropriately without myself actually doing anything to that end. If you mean something else, then what is the possible course of action that should be taken here?

It seems obvious (well, at least to me) that such cases of trust abuse should not be neglected by the community as they destroy or massively erode the idea behind the trust system. theymos made it quite clear but without a means to actually prevent people from abusing this system, it is no more than a wish

You want DT members to tag Lucius. Retaliatory ratings seem more like abuse than prevention of abuse. The right way to handle this would be to exclude users who post ratings incompatible with the purpose of the trust system. That's been pretty much the consensus of this thread. Since neither of you wants to budge you should probably lock the thread and move on

What do you mean by "budging" here (in respect to me)?

In other words, how do you actually imagine me budging? Further, if you think that the right way to handle this matter would be to exclude such users from the Trust lists (which may well be the case), how are the folks going to learn about this and similar cases if we were not to start such threads (which seems to be your point)? If anything, letting it go would only promote such behavior in the future, wouldn't it?

I gave them a neutral rating but that's primarily because I didn't feel it quite right asking other people to tag this user appropriately without myself actually doing anything to that end. If you mean something else, then what is the possible course of action that should be taken here?

What action are you expecting from DT's ? Leave retailonary feedback? You already did it. Since both of you are not part of default trust system, I don't think we need counter tag you or tag to deisik for his opinion. If someone want to exclude him then that's different case. We can't force anyone to remove feedback

I'm not sure whom you refer to here. Anyway, having no means to handle this situation (i.e. effectively prevent users from abusing the trust system) means it basically failed in its purpose (as theymos himself seems to be about to accept)

[LoyceV]

I've been following this topic for a while, and want to add my 2 3 Satoshis:

In general:

• I don't think you should tag something that should be handled by Mods.
• Before leaving feedback, ask yourself if it makes the forum better.
• Try to make the feedback and tags you leave as accurate as possible. It's a reference for later on, and it's your "business card" as you present your judgement to the forum.

Lucius isn't included by anyone who matters for DT-voting:

Trust list for: Lucius (141 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2019-03-02_Sat_05.56h)
Back to index

Lucius Trusts:
-

Lucius Distrusts:
-


Lucius is Trusted by:
1. KeySeller (0 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. rkandrades (1 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. bkxpress2015 (0 Merit earned) (Trust feedback) (Trust list) (BPIP)

~Lucius is Distrusted by:
-


Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.
Get your own Trust list in BBCode at loyce.club/trust.

Excluding Lucius would change nothing at this point, and that's probably why nobody did that after this topic was created.

[marlboroza]

Funny that you ask that

Why is it funny?

Reason is simple, he was user with most post per week in that campaign, and he is using method for reply on posts, which I have already described.

Most other spammers (I am not saying OP is or isn't spammer) are also payed but they don't use "method" you mentioned. They simply spam, and what is most important, to repeat again, is that they are payed. I am pretty sure you noticed "couple" of them in last 3-4 years.

So it makes no sense for you to tag only one account, I should tag them all to make some sense?

I didn't say that, read my post again and please response with appropriate answer (for example, "I tagged OP for spam but I didn't tag any other spammer because.....")

Besides, I suggested you what you should do, I mean, everyone told you what you should do (remove -ve or change it to neutral).

[Lucius]

~snip!

Thank you for showing all users of this forum how worthless/useless I really am on this forum, and accordingly to that my feedback worth less then 0.

[LoyceV]

Thank you for showing all users of this forum how worthless/useless I really am on this forum, and accordingly to that my feedback worth less then 0.

That's not what I meant to say, I've rephrased my post a bit, please read it again.

[marlboroza]

maybe only amount risked is to big.

If it is worth to mention, someone reads DT and not-DT feedbacks and can come to conclusion that they scammed someone for more or less 4 million dollars.
Intentionally putting wrong numbers there is simple wrong, so where exactly is line between trust abuse and not trust abuse? One fake risked amount? 2? 100?

[LoyceV]

Intentionally putting wrong numbers there is simple wrong, so where exactly is line between trust abuse and not trust abuse? One fake risked amount? 2? 100?

I read this post only recently:

- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

I'm not sure if this still applies at current Bitcoin prices.

[suchmoon]

Intentionally putting wrong numbers there is simple wrong, so where exactly is line between trust abuse and not trust abuse? One fake risked amount? 2? 100?

I read this post only recently:

- If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating.

I'm not sure if this still applies at current Bitcoin prices.

It does not apply at all, i.e. the score is no longer affected by the amount risked.

What do you mean by "budging" here (in respect to me)?

In other words, how do you actually imagine me budging? Further, if you think that the right way to handle this matter would be to exclude such users from the Trust lists (which may well be the case), how are the folks going to learn about this and similar cases if we were not to start such threads (which seems to be your point)? If anything, letting it go would only promote such behavior in the future, wouldn't it?

You posted the thread. You made your point. There is nothing else to do here.

I'm not sure whom you refer to here. Anyway, having no means to handle this situation (i.e. effectively prevent users from abusing the trust system) means it basically failed in its purpose (as theymos himself seems to be about to accept)

The situation has been handled. Users (including DT members) looked at it, the counterparty responded. The outcome not being what you wanted doesn't mean the system failed. It actually shows that the system works properly as opposed to bending to your will.