DT members - ethical to sell DT services?

[Vod]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5117739.0

Getting financially rewarded for being in DT seems shady to me...  what do others think?

[1714785036]

1714785036

[1714785036]

1714785036

[1714785036]

1714785036

[suchmoon]

Clearly trying to buy trust.

[Vod]

Clearly trying to buy trust.

Obvious.  but what of community reactions to the DT that sell it?

We can no longer count on DT members to be honest...

[cryptohunter]

Clearly trying to buy trust.

Obvious.  but what of community reactions to the DT that sell it?

We can no longer count on DT members to be honest...

This is without doubt the case.

There will always be concerns here where you have systems of control that are open to abuse where that abuse can result in financial reward. I guess just for now dt and every member needs to be a diligent as possible. The more DT the more likely you may consider it to catch them or notice it and  it does make it harder to collude successfully, but then you have more persons to watch and higher odds that some may fall into temptation. As I have said i believe an anonymous forum is a difficult one for decentralised control sytems even with very stringent criteria and a mandate (although that would vastly improve the reliability and credibility of the ratings)

Perhaps better to just flash red under all accounts so people are terrified to trade without DDE or something similar. Something like beware this person could well be a scammer.

Have their been any big scams conducted from accounts with LOTS of DT green in the past? if not then perhaps not as worrying as it may seem although certainly something to think about.

[Steamtyme]

I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I feel like they are trying to buy "reputation" as opposed to trust. This is just because they way it is worded, in that it doesn't ask for feedback or that is has to be a positive post about the experience.

Personally I wouldn't tag/remove a DT member for partaking and leaving an honest post of their experience in a thread. I would not trust their judgement if they were to leave positive feedback in the trust system for this interaction though. As soon as they take the payment for providing their opinion as a member of DT that should be off the table. I would aslo hope that these members kept an eye on the program to make sure it wasn't a fancy show at the beginning and an exit scam to follow.

Getting financially rewarded for being in DT seems shady to me...  what do others think?

I guess it depends on why they are in DT. If they are one of the people grinding and striving for a position in DT then yeah seems like they want to leverage the position. If they were a member who just so happens to have found themselves on DT by using the system, should they be denied the opportunity. I think everything needs to be looked at case by case and judged accordingly.

[suchmoon]

Obvious.  but what of community reactions to the DT that sell it?

We can no longer count on DT members to be honest...

Did any DT member actually do it? The DT members who commented in that thread (LoyceV, Coolcryptovator, Jet Cash, ...) seem to share your opinion.

I wouldn't do it. I don't think it's appropriate for a DT member.

I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I feel like they are trying to buy "reputation" as opposed to trust. This is just because they way it is worded, in that it doesn't ask for feedback or that is has to be a positive post about the experience.

They're not asking for it, but I don't think it's a coincidence that of all possible ways to word it ("trusted users", "trusted gamblers", "expert degenerates", etc) they chose to solicit default trust members.

[bones261]

I'm curious how these paid reviews work. If I think the service is God awful and leave a terrible review, do I still get the payment? How about if it results in malware infecting my computer? If I give negative trust to boot, would I still get payment?

[Quickseller]

It is unethical, and is one more reason why those without trading experience should not be on DT.

It may be what that casino is doing is trying to prevent a bunch of people whose sole purpose is to claim giveaways to claim the rewards. The concern is that these people may be willing to look the other way if the casino starts to act shady, such as what happened here, and here.

[suchmoon]

I'm curious how these paid reviews work. If I think the service is God awful and leave a terrible review, do I still get the payment? How about if it results in malware infecting my computer? If I give negative trust to boot, would I still get payment?

LOL, come on, you've answered your own questions right there.

I just realized it's 0.02 ETH not BTC... WTF that's like two bucks. I'd hope even the current diluted DT is not that desperate.

It is unethical, and is one more reason why those without trading experience should be on DT.

What does that have to do with the topic? Doesn't make sense even if I replace "should" with "shouldn't".

[bones261]

@ quickseller. I assume you forgot the word not in your above comment. I guess my 22 years of experience in both hard and soft collections still renders me clueless when spotting a scammer/deadbeat.   I guess only buying and selling trinkets on the collectibles board would make me qualified to be on DT. Let us not forget the 5 years that I've seen people get screwed over every which way but Sunday (including myself) in this space nor the 51 years that I have been on this planet should count either.

[TECSHARE]

I don't see this user explicitly asking for trust ratings do you? They are asking for a review. This is not uncommon. Perhaps it could have been worded better and people are reading into it too much. Maybe he is actually fishing for positive ratings. Maybe he is an 8 story tall crustacean from the protozoic era. I doubt we will ever know for sure.

This frankly is the kind of thing that demonstrates to me this forum is full of a bunch of busybodies that have nothing better to do than interfere in the lives of others over the most inconsequential things they SUSPECT MIGHT be happening. This is all lots of fun until it is your turn to have the forum crawl up your ass just because some one is bored. Good thing for them there are no penalties for wrongly rating people who have no influence within this system... so win win.

[bones261]

I don't see this user explicitly asking for trust ratings do you? They are asking for a review. This is not uncommon. Perhaps it could have been worded better and people are reading into it too much. Maybe he is actually fishing for positive ratings. Maybe he is an 8 story tall crustacean from the protozoic era. I doubt we will ever know for sure.

This frankly is the kind of thing that demonstrates to me this forum is full of a bunch of busybodies that have nothing better to do than interfere in the lives of others over the most inconsequential things they SUSPECT MIGHT be happening. This is all lots of fun until it is your turn to have the forum crawl up your ass just because some one is bored. Good thing for them there are no penalties for wrongly rating people who have no influence within this system... so win win.

     I thought discussions like this are what you are advocating for. I don't see that any DT member has given a neg rating to the OP or anyone else participating in that thread at this time.

[hacker1001101001]

Even if a DT reviews the Gambling service there are two ways of reacting to it.

1. After reviewing, if the DT puts some positive trust on the profile. This is surely a shady activity from both parties.

2. After reviewing, if the DT just vouches for the service and does not use any trust rating. Or reacts to it as LoyceV reacted here by giving a feedback from a non DT alt would be a decent way around.

[The Cryptovator]

I replied on their thread. Actually they are trying to get few positive feedback's and few positive reviews from DT member to build their reputation very quick (IMO). Obviously I think this is a shady attempt. DT doesn't mean that they are all gambling expert or something like this.

If any DT leave positive feedback's for that kind of work then I will consider it a trust abuse.

[Vod]

I don't see this user explicitly asking for trust ratings do you?

No... nor did I explicitly accuse him, did I?. 

I'm trying to get a feel on the communities stance for when the abuse of positive trust or merit starts becoming sneaky.

It seems everyday someone comes up with a new ponzi idea, eventually their scams will involve something other than crypto currency.

[TECSHARE]

I don't see this user explicitly asking for trust ratings do you? They are asking for a review. This is not uncommon. Perhaps it could have been worded better and people are reading into it too much. Maybe he is actually fishing for positive ratings. Maybe he is an 8 story tall crustacean from the protozoic era. I doubt we will ever know for sure.

This frankly is the kind of thing that demonstrates to me this forum is full of a bunch of busybodies that have nothing better to do than interfere in the lives of others over the most inconsequential things they SUSPECT MIGHT be happening. This is all lots of fun until it is your turn to have the forum crawl up your ass just because some one is bored. Good thing for them there are no penalties for wrongly rating people who have no influence within this system... so win win.

     I thought discussions like this are what you are advocating for. I don't see that any DT member has given a neg rating to the OP or anyone else participating in that thread at this time.

You are right, I do want discussion before rating. Except you will note the distinct lack of a standard of evidence, substituted in its place is mere suspicion. Really even if he was up to what is suspected, how long do you think it would last before the people rating him would figure it out and notify everyone who rated him to remove them? My point is this is kind of a non-issue even if it was true.

No... nor did I explicitly accuse him, did I?.  

I'm trying to get a feel on the communities stance for when the abuse of positive trust or merit starts becoming sneaky.

It seems everyday someone comes up with a new ponzi idea, eventually their scams will involve something other than crypto currency.

No, you didn't explicitly accuse him, you also provided no evidence that he should be subject to suspicion at all either (other than what you imagine may be true). There is a reason most of the legal systems of the industrialized world require a warrant, because fishing expeditions themselves even if no other action is taken are a violation of privacy and can bring other repercussions against entirely innocent people.

[bones261]

I don't see this user explicitly asking for trust ratings do you? They are asking for a review. This is not uncommon. Perhaps it could have been worded better and people are reading into it too much. Maybe he is actually fishing for positive ratings. Maybe he is an 8 story tall crustacean from the protozoic era. I doubt we will ever know for sure.

This frankly is the kind of thing that demonstrates to me this forum is full of a bunch of busybodies that have nothing better to do than interfere in the lives of others over the most inconsequential things they SUSPECT MIGHT be happening. This is all lots of fun until it is your turn to have the forum crawl up your ass just because some one is bored. Good thing for them there are no penalties for wrongly rating people who have no influence within this system... so win win.

     I thought discussions like this are what you are advocating for. I don't see that any DT member has given a neg rating to the OP or anyone else participating in that thread at this time.

You are right, I do want discussion before rating. Except you will note the distinct lack of a standard of evidence, substituted in its place is mere suspicion. Really even if he was up to what is suspected, how long do you think it would last before the people rating him would figure it out and notify everyone who rated him to remove them? My point is this is kind of a non-issue even if it was true.

    Most of us here are not lawyers. What lawyer is bitcointalk going to hire to write out a detailed explanation of standards of evidence for idiots? (It would probably be preferable to write it in multiple languages too.)After all, I see in another thread you chiming in on negative trust given by someone not even on DT1 or DT2. Therefore, all members would need the standards explained to them. Also, what measure are we going to take for those members that leave inappropriate trust feedback? In my case, I have three comments claiming that I spread doomsday virus, suck ass the best, and am an alt of yogg.

[Vod]

No, you didn't explicitly accuse him, you also provided no evidence that he should be subject to suspicion at all either (other than what you imagine may be true).

I was just gathering community feedback.  Stop seeing battles everywhere. 

[TalkStar]

Personally I respect them who are in the DT list. In my opinion this service shouldn't be a sale material. Honestly how our society being protected by cops like that bitcointalk community being protected by DT members I think. Its a service which means a lot for us and obviously we respect this position holders.

Selling DT services could rise a lot of questions about giving someone postive or negative feedback. There could be a slogan like that:

DT-------> NOT FOR SALE

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I’m not interested in it at all, I don’t think it’s something fellow DT members should be doing but that’s just my opinion.