An obvious case of trust abuse (DT members welcome)

[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?

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.

Conveniently for you though your received negative ratings are meaningless because you conduct little to no trade here. Must be great to take no risks while handing out negs like candy. It is quite magnanimous of you to tell him to accept it and move on, again this having no cost to you personally.

You are the sidelines. The path of least resistance. The people who stand by and shrug when this abuse happens and tell them to move on. Then the problem gets out of control for everyone, but what do you have to worry about? You aren't taking any risks after all.

[1714793848]

1714793848

[1714793848]

1714793848

[actmyname]

Conveniently for you though your received negative ratings are meaningless because you conduct little to no trade here. Must be great to take no risks while handing out negs like candy. It is quite magnanimous of you to tell him to accept it and move on, again this having no cost to you personally.

I've done trades on the forum. I have a large number of negative feedbacks sent to my profile. It has had an insignificant effect, or an effect that I have not yet perceived.

Perhaps I don't trade as much as I could, but I hardly think that the feedback given to me has affected me at all.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Looks like deisik doesn't do much trading here either, based on his feedback, so TECSHARE is making an agenda-driven mountain out of deisik's molehill.  I would suggest that deisik would have little trouble trying to do business with a neg that's untrusted and is not because he's a scammer--just like I've never had trouble.  And TECSHARE, I don't know how many trades I've done here, but I bet you didn't either when you wrote that nonsense.  Ask gameristo how many trades we've done, count up my feedback from deals and then get back to me, eh?

[actmyname]

This side discussion is moot if we don't consider the end-goal.

What do you exactly want to be done?Negative feedback can proliferate from any stream, be it a high-ranking member of a newly-created account. To someone who doesn't check the source, it's more-or-less equivalent (recognizable names may skew results).

If they do check the source, odds are that they will have read the comment and concluded that the feedback has little to do with the user's actual trustworthiness.

[TECSHARE]

I've done trades on the forum. I have a large number of negative feedbacks sent to my profile. It has had an insignificant effect, or an effect that I have not yet perceived.

Perhaps I don't trade as much as I could, but I hardly think that the feedback given to me has affected me at all.

Just because this is the case for you does not mean it is the case for everyone. Again you are a more casual trader, some people depend heavily on their reputation. As some one who makes a point to try to trade with new users, they often don't know the difference between an invalid or a valid rating. When it comes to high value trades it doesn't take much to spook people. I have literally had users walk on large deals over a single retaliatory rating from an abandoned red marked account.

I tried to explain, but their mind was made up and they were already spooked. No one is going to send first to new users, and I don't use escrow for what should be pretty obvious reasons by now. That means I am regularly in a position to have completely new users to this forum and Bitcoin, and asking them to trust sending me large amounts of value based ONLY upon my trust ratings here. Yes, they do make a difference, I have personally witnessed it with so few in what is otherwise a stellar trust history.

Looks like deisik doesn't do much trading here either, based on his feedback, so TECSHARE is making an agenda-driven mountain out of deisik's molehill.  I would suggest that deisik would have little trouble trying to do business with a neg that's untrusted and is not because he's a scammer--just like I've never had trouble.  And TECSHARE, I don't know how many trades I've done here, but I bet you didn't either when you wrote that nonsense.  Ask gameristo how many trades we've done, count up my feedback from deals and then get back to me, eh?

Yes, the handful of documented trades in your ratings over the past 2 years are impressive. Especially the one for the coke points. You are a trust cop first, and for such a prolific trader as you claim to be your ratings seem to be mostly ass kissing over your trust policing. The point stands, the trust system doesn't effect you at all because you don't depend on it to function here like others who take it more seriously and conduct regular transactions.

This side discussion is moot if we don't consider the end-goal.

What do you exactly want to be done?Negative feedback can proliferate from any stream, be it a high-ranking member of a newly-created account. To someone who doesn't check the source, it's more-or-less equivalent (recognizable names may skew results).

If they do check the source, odds are that they will have read the comment and concluded that the feedback has little to do with the user's actual trustworthiness.

But they usually don't check, or if they do they don't even look into any of the ratings. What I want is for this forums user base to snap out of the "its not my problem" mode next time you see people abusing their authority, along with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. Everyone just eats their popcorn and watches the struggles, until it is their ass, then suddenly they get it.

[actmyname]

What I want is for this forums user base to snap out of the "its not my problem" mode next time you see people abusing their authority, along with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.

I've always agreed with the idea of a foundation for decisions in terms of trust ratings.

Where is the enforceability, though? Even in this case, for example.

[TECSHARE]

What I want is for this forums user base to snap out of the "its not my problem" mode next time you see people abusing their authority, along with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating.

I've always agreed with the idea of a foundation for decisions in terms of trust ratings.

Where is the enforceability, though? Even in this case, for example.

You are looking at it. We are. If the standard of evidence was of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws, the rating party could be informed of this standard and that their rating is not considered acceptable. If they refuse to modify it or present evidence according to the very basic standard, then they should, and will likely be excluded by anyone with any influence within the trust network. The rating will continue to exist, just hidden from most users and having minimal effect on the recipient.

The important part is all this bullshit argument over it being valid or not just gets to get skipped, and either evidence is presented or it is not. The entire point being to clarify what ratings are acceptable, reduce disputes over nonsense, and reduce signal noise of frivolous ratings making them once again mean something.

[deisik]

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

Well, this horse is quite alive and kicking

You are the sidelines. The path of least resistance. The people who stand by and shrug when this abuse happens and tell them to move on. Then the problem gets out of control for everyone, but what do you have to worry about? You aren't taking any risks after all

Basically, that's the reason why the current system should be dismantled altogether

Now we see that it's been patched here and there but without addressing its core issues, it will continue to do more harm than good, which it does. In fact, it doesn't work even in the best scenario as we all know quite a few examples from the forum history when highly-trusted members ended up stealing money from people here. And their high trust actually helped them in stealing more money than they would have stolen otherwise

I don't know what the new system should be and whether it should be at all but a) you can't solve a problem by relying on those who create it (read, the overhead of separating the wheat from the chaff is unacceptable as this thread clearly shows), and b) whatever the solution might be it should effectively address the shortcomings and pitfalls of the current system (read, it may well be a catch-22)

[coolcoinz]

Basically, that's the reason why the current system should be dismantled altogether

So what is your idea of a perfect system?
I see 3 possible ways.
The first one is the current unmoderated system, where I can write what I want on your trust page, even if it's a lie, and it will remain there until I decide to remove it.
The second is a moderated system, or an approval-based system, where someone is watching over (very time consuming).
The third one is no trust system at all.

Out of these three, the first one is still the best, at least in my view. It has its flaws, but you have to learn to adapt and work around it, and people are doing just that. For instance, if I saw you being called a spammer I'd ignore it, because I've read plenty of your posts. You should also ignore it, unless Lucius is someone you think highly of and his feedback is important to you.

If Lucius advances to dt, I'm sure you'll find someone who will give you a positive to counter his feedback.

[BitcoinSupremo]

I've done trades on the forum. I have a large number of negative feedbacks sent to my profile. It has had an insignificant effect, or an effect that I have not yet perceived.

Perhaps I don't trade as much as I could, but I hardly think that the feedback given to me has affected me at all.

Just because this is the case for you does not mean it is the case for everyone. Again you are a more casual trader, some people depend heavily on their reputation. As some one who makes a point to try to trade with new users, they often don't know the difference between an invalid or a valid rating. When it comes to high value trades it doesn't take much to spook people. I have literally had users walk on large deals over a single retaliatory rating from an abandoned red marked account.

I tried to explain, but their mind was made up and they were already spooked. No one is going to send first to new users, and I don't use escrow for what should be pretty obvious reasons by now. That means I am regularly in a position to have completely new users to this forum and Bitcoin, and asking them to trust sending me large amounts of value based ONLY upon my trust ratings here. Yes, they do make a difference, I have personally witnessed it with so few in what is otherwise a stellar trust history.

Looks like deisik doesn't do much trading here either, based on his feedback, so TECSHARE is making an agenda-driven mountain out of deisik's molehill.  I would suggest that deisik would have little trouble trying to do business with a neg that's untrusted and is not because he's a scammer--just like I've never had trouble.  And TECSHARE, I don't know how many trades I've done here, but I bet you didn't either when you wrote that nonsense.  Ask gameristo how many trades we've done, count up my feedback from deals and then get back to me, eh?

Yes, the handful of documented trades in your ratings over the past 2 years are impressive. Especially the one for the coke points. You are a trust cop first, and for such a prolific trader as you claim to be your ratings seem to be mostly ass kissing over your trust policing. The point stands, the trust system doesn't effect you at all because you don't depend on it to function here like others who take it more seriously and conduct regular transactions.

This side discussion is moot if we don't consider the end-goal.

What do you exactly want to be done?Negative feedback can proliferate from any stream, be it a high-ranking member of a newly-created account. To someone who doesn't check the source, it's more-or-less equivalent (recognizable names may skew results).

If they do check the source, odds are that they will have read the comment and concluded that the feedback has little to do with the user's actual trustworthiness.

But they usually don't check, or if they do they don't even look into any of the ratings. What I want is for this forums user base to snap out of the "its not my problem" mode next time you see people abusing their authority, along with a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws before negative rating. Everyone just eats their popcorn and watches the struggles, until it is their ass, then suddenly they get it.

That is the most correct statement I have ever read on this forum, I have always had respect for people who are active in Computer Hardware and related physical goods that have done a lot of trades physically like you but now that I see , you speak the truth and only the truth here, I gave you my last merits I had to give because this is how it should be, people should express their opinion freely. You are right that many DT members are giving trust to each other like "a good cop and I trust this person" and shit like that which cannot be compared to a feedback received from a real physical trade in different cities of a country or even between two user of different countries.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yes, the handful of documented trades in your ratings over the past 2 years are impressive.

Well, nothing is every going to meet your standards because you're comparing everyone to yourself.  In your mind, you're the ideal DT member who's done tons of trades, blah blah blah....end of story.  Meanwhile, what I said still stands.  Deisik isn't being inhibited from doing trades; he doesn't do many, anyway; and the negative he got is essentially meaningless for trading purposes.  You go right ahead and tell yourself you won this argument, but this is why it's pointless arguing with you.  You just changed the goalposts and cherry picked one trade I did to minimize everything.  Nice job.

[actmyname]

I need an answer: what do you want to have happen to Lucius?

If it's a matter of the system itself, that's up to theymos.Remember neither negative trust nor exclusions will get rid of the feedback on your trust page.

Like I said:

This side discussion is moot if we don't consider the end-goal.

[Vod]

In your mind, you're the ideal DT member who's done tons of trades, blah blah blah....end of story.

Have you looked at his trust ratings? Most of them are people who sent second, so they risked nothing, but they gave him trust anyway.

[deisik]

Basically, that's the reason why the current system should be dismantled altogether

So what is your idea of a perfect system?

The one which doesn't exist (read, there is no need for it)

I can tell exactly what the problem with the current system is. It is based on the assumption that people act in a responsible manner. But they act so only if they risk to suffer negative consequences for their irresponsible behavior. If there is no such risk, the total majority of people will soon start to behave badly and this is what happens in practice and real life. Whenever there is no more authority and law enforcement, humans quickly turn into animals. Simply put, you can't actually expect people to be responsible until and unless they are forced to be responsible. But then you won't need this system as you can enforce the rules directly (read, make people pay for their evil actions)

That's basically the key reason why any such system is set to fail and eventually turn into its opposite (remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions). Technically, the current system encourages its abuse as the abusers easily get away with their wrongdoings, while it doesn't protect those who fall victim to these criminals. Thus, the overall effect is net negative. Apart from that, I don't see any reason in "learning to adapt to it" (let alone "working around it") as I'm not doing anything wrong in the first place. And such attitude only confirms that the damage the current implementation produces by far outweighs the good it does (if there is any at all)

I need an answer: what do you want to have happen to Lucius?

The answer to this question has already been given in the thread. In fact, it is given in the OP itself. Just in case, I will be satisfied if forum members leave them a neutral rating with a reference to this thread like what I already did

If it's a matter of the system itself, that's up to theymos

Someone asked and I replied

[Lauda]

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

Which is you spreading false information. You are absolutely not harmed in any way from this case.

The answer to this question has already been given in the thread. In fact, it is given in the OP itself. Just in case, I will be satisfied if forum members leave them a neutral rating with a reference to this thread like what I already did

No.

[Lucius]

I need an answer: what do you want to have happen to Lucius?

He only wants one thing, that any of DT members tag my account with negative / neutral feedback, in retaliation for my negative feedback, which is in no case affect his status on this forum. If you read the whole thread you can see that some DT members and others gave a very clear answer regarding his request and ask him to lock this thread.

Continuous repetition of the same request clearly shows only one intent, and in the same time shows that he encourages others to abuse their positions of DT members for the purpose of his private issue.

Is the request to abuse DT system because of some private thing perhaps deserves that this user is get at least neutral tag?

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

I will be satisfied if forum members leave them a neutral rating with a reference to this thread like what I already did

[LoyceV]

Is the request to abuse DT system because of some private thing perhaps deserves that this user is get at least neutral tag?

No.

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

I will be satisfied if forum members leave them a neutral rating with a reference to this thread like what I already did

Rephrasing the same text over and over again might be against forum rules, and in that case you could report the posts to be deleted. But it's probably better if you just click "Ignore" and stop reading the posts you don't like.

[deisik]

Hey I understand your frustration. There are a few facts you can take comfort in.

They are not DT so this shows as untrusted feedback

They seem to have made into DT2

It's not beyond the realm of possibilities that Lucius will end up on DT2, but if he continues to leave frivolous reviews such as this the odds are getting smaller and smaller

Okay, we are there. Now what?

Since he isn't on DT so we don't need counter tag and we can't ask directly to remove his feedback

It loos like circumstances have changed

The only appropriate thing a DT member could do, would be to include Lucius in their trust list with a "~".
Which would basically render his feedback invisible

Time for action?

I'm sure that if Lucius refuses to remove/alter the trust, then DT member will take appropriate action (as the new changes to the DT system were designed... theymos wanted there to be potential consequences for leaving false/inappropriate ratings)

Let's see how it goes in practice

[marlboroza]

Oh, you've been tagged in "old" system and you got yourself a "scammer sign" on top of your topics. Anyway, I countered this , please send PM to Lucius and let me know when he either removes it/change it to neutral/get excluded from DT.

[deisik]

Oh, you've been tagged in "old" system and you got yourself a "scammer sign" on top of your topics. Anyway, I countered this , please send PM to Lucius and let me know when he either removes it/change it to neutral/get excluded from DT

I sent them a PM asking to remove the negative feedback. Will keep everyone posted