DT members - ethical to sell DT services?

[LoyceV]

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.

That was my assumption indeed when I posted this:

I recommend changing your requirement: asking for DT only to join looks a lot like you're buying trust. You should ask for trusted members instead.

I've seen many services ask for reviews or testing something, and I've joined a few too. The ones that don't ask for a higher rank are easily abused by account farmers, so it makes sense to ask for more trusted users too.
I think it's the first time I've seen someone ask for "DT members", hence my warning. It could just be naivety.

2. After reviewing, if the DT just vouches for the service and does not use any trust rating.

I think "vouching" for it is too much already. Being able to withdraw $2.70 is no reason to trust the site with a larger amount.

Or reacts to it as LoyceV reacted here by giving a feedback from a non DT alt would be a decent way around.

My alt is put on DT3 now. The ratings are "maturing", and there's no reason to distrust the accounts. If someone puts it on DT2 at some point, I think I'll just leave the existing ratings, but will have to use another alt for new non-DT ratings.

[1713541164]

1713541164

[1713541164]

1713541164

[1713541164]

1713541164

[1713541164]

1713541164

[1713541164]

1713541164

[Jet Cash]

I hope it has a negative effect. If DT members who have a concern for the system "tilderate" the members who do leave trust, then that will reduce the advantage of buying trust ( if that was the intention), and it will lead to the trust sellers losing their ranking.

[bernardos]

Asking only DT members to review the service is not the way to do it. Since when does being a DT mean having an expertise in gambling and casino services? I they wanted to do it properly they would have asked for members who are long time gamblers or have experience working or operating casinos or casino games. 

[Thule]

Aren't gambling signatures from DT members an indirect recommendation of a specific gambling website ?

[The Cryptovator]

Aren't gambling signatures from DT members an indirect recommendation of a specific gambling website ?

Yes, but there is no any specific campaign or advertising opportunities for DT members only. But OP mentioned about a thread who had asked specifically for DT members only which will consider trust sell. Wear signature and leave positive feedback's or review is not same. They actually tried to buy positive ratings. They aren't asking for signature campaign.

I don't agree.

Edited post already. You quoted before complete my edit  

However I was just looking into Google about advertisment,

   advertisement
/ədˈvəːtɪzm(ə)nt,ədˈvəːtɪsm(ə)nt/Submit
 Learn to pronounce
noun
a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.
"advertisements for alcoholic drinks"
synonyms:   notice, announcement, bulletin; More
INFORMAL
a person or thing regarded as a means of recommending something.
"unhappy clients are not a good advertisement for the firm"

[Jet Cash]

Signature campaign isn't recommendation.

I don't agree. Whether or not you have done the research, promoting a product in your signature is an endorsement of that product, and your reputation is influenced by the legitimacy of the campaign. Members should realise this, and take responsibility for their signatures, rather than just prostituting themselves.

[marlboroza]

Wants positive reviews for unknown reason, in my opinion.

promoting a product in your signature is an endorsement of that product

TV commercials are not endorsed by TV companies and they are advertising various products, but:

and your reputation is influenced by the legitimacy of the campaign. Members should realise this, and take responsibility for their signatures, rather than just prostituting themselves.

...it might negatively reflect on their reputation. I am pretty sure most people here can't even explain what they are advertising (based on PM's I have received).

[electronicash]

there is a dealing though.

i have it in mind that when both made some dealings and agreed to make transactions and both are happy with it, it think its reasonable to give + trust rep. but then if the deal includes the +trust as fee, its going to be something.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Aren't gambling signatures from DT members an indirect recommendation of a specific gambling website ?

Technically they are although lets not forget, DT members are also forum users and should be allowed to benefit from wearing a signature. Those campaign didn't reserve a special bonus for been a DT member or leaving reviews, the DT members applied themselves to promote the project therefore they aren't buying the trust of DT members.

[erikoy]

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

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

It is easily done if a DT member needs money theb O would settle giving a positive trust in return. Telegran is one of the best tool for.the negotiations and for transactions that will going to happen. Now that it has already had been something fishy then there is a high chance that it is happening already.

[Jet Cash]

i have it in mind that when both made some dealings and agreed to make transactions and both are happy with it, it think its reasonable to give + trust rep. but then if the deal includes the +trust as fee, its going to be something.

You don't need to include a fee. There have been cases when members will enter into a number of small transactions to buyild up a trust history, and then go for the big ticket scams. Fortunately the Bitcoin Talk trust system includes a risked amount field, so it is possible to check on this.

[Hhampuz]

I would expect, or hope, that if any DT member would take that deal they would not be swayed by the amount received in order to give an honest review. If there ever comes any point where they (the ones asking for the review) starts talking about receiving trust that would be the big no-no. But just for a review, why not? As long as it is objective I don't see any big issues with it.

[Flying Hellfish]

I would expect, or hope, that if any DT member would take that deal they would not be swayed by the amount received in order to give an honest review. If there ever comes any point where they (the ones asking for the review) starts talking about receiving trust that would be the big no-no. But just for a review, why not? As long as it is objective I don't see any big issues with it.

IOW quid pro quo!

Paid reviews and paid advertisement are not new or inherently bad.  As you say it's not a problem if it's objective (ie no quid pro quo).  It's obviously really hard to figure out the quid pro quo part so everyone should probably assume (until proven otherwise) that all reviews and the like are paid reviews.  Once a person has proven themselves to provide honest reviews folks can better trust the independence of reviewers by reputation!

This specific case is a bit of a joke just based on .02 ETH and I would be quite surprised if he got any live DT'ers, there are just way to many red flags for any sane DT member to seriously consider hooking up to this train wreck in the making!

[suchmoon]

I would expect, or hope, that if any DT member would take that deal they would not be swayed by the amount received in order to give an honest review. If there ever comes any point where they (the ones asking for the review) starts talking about receiving trust that would be the big no-no. But just for a review, why not? As long as it is objective I don't see any big issues with it.

Well, I guess I could put up an honest review like this "This site was offering to pay default trust members to review it, which I consider shady AF."

Seriously, there is no reason to want default trust reviewers unless you want something only default trust can provide... likewise, if you want an honest review of a gambling site you'd be looking for known gambling experts, etc.

Imagine if someone put up a sig campaign or an auction allowing only DT members to participate. I think that would be fishy too.

[Hhampuz]

I would expect, or hope, that if any DT member would take that deal they would not be swayed by the amount received in order to give an honest review. If there ever comes any point where they (the ones asking for the review) starts talking about receiving trust that would be the big no-no. But just for a review, why not? As long as it is objective I don't see any big issues with it.

Well, I guess I could put up an honest review like this "This site was offering to pay default trust members to review it, which I consider shady AF."

Seriously, there is no reason to want default trust reviewers unless you want something only default trust can provide... likewise, if you want an honest review of a gambling site you'd be looking for known gambling experts, etc.

Imagine if someone put up a sig campaign or an auction allowing only DT members to participate. I think that would be fishy too.

I would argue that it depends. Perhaps they've just been lurking for a few weeks/months and now decided that they wanted to launch a project and get reviews on it. There's a lot of attention towards DT lately, and it's members so naturally they'd want high profile users. If it would be reworded to "Top Users according to Bpip.org", would that be better? I'm just saying I get where they are coming from and it doesn't necessarily have to be shady although I see your point as well.

[TECSHARE]

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.

I am aware, and I don't expect the user base to be lawyers. However these laws didn't just fall out of the sky. They were put into place for a reason. People witnessed the horrible flaws and abuses that happened without these protections and created a system to fix it. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel perhaps we should examine existing functional systems and at least attempt to follow them where it is beneficial to the forum overall. Regardless, even if we don't implement it, it still serves as a template of what we should be striving for if we really want to run a just system here, as well as a map of the common pitfalls.

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. 

I enjoy how what I actually said is invisible to you, you reject reality, and substitute your own. Also this is an interesting comment from some one who was only forced to stop stalking me after staff intervention.

I would argue that it depends. Perhaps they've just been lurking for a few weeks/months and now decided that they wanted to launch a project and get reviews on it. There's a lot of attention towards DT lately, and it's members so naturally they'd want high profile users. If it would be reworded to "Top Users according to Bpip.org", would that be better? I'm just saying I get where they are coming from and it doesn't necessarily have to be shady although I see your point as well.

Exactly. They are essentially soliciting to pay known trusted people for their time. This is not at all new, but usually they phrase it as "legendary" members or something along those lines. I don't think this user even had any idea the implication of using that language and simply thought it would be a good way to distinguish trustworthy users who would be acceptable for his goals of having trusted users review his service. Nothing happened, he didn't explicitly ask for trust ratings, this is a non-event.

This is a perfect example of the constant struggle around here between people who REALLY want and need to find crimes to justify their existence at the expense of the entire community, and those who are genuinely attempting to stop abuse. You give people enough power suddenly everyone is suspect and subject to summary judgement.

[Vod]

I enjoy how what I actually said is invisible to you, you reject reality, and substitute your own. Also this is an interesting comment from some one who was only forced to stop stalking me after staff intervention.

You don't act like you enjoy it, so I'll call bullshit.

I would have thought you'd mature in two years on ignore, but no, you still stand behind more respected people while taking potshots at everyone.

If you hate this forum so much, go away??

lol - you ignorant fool.  Stay on topic (this is NOT ABOUT YOU)  or stop posting :  local rule

[TECSHARE]

I enjoy how what I actually said is invisible to you, you reject reality, and substitute your own. Also this is an interesting comment from some one who was only forced to stop stalking me after staff intervention.

You don't act like you enjoy it, so I'll call bullshit.

I would have thought you'd mature in two years on ignore, but no, you still stand behind more respected people while taking potshots at everyone.

If you hate this forum so much, go away??

lol - you ignorant fool.  Stay on topic (this is NOT ABOUT YOU)  or stop posting :  local rule

We were actually having a nice little productive discussion before you interjected yourself to make this about you as you chastised me for making it about me in the same breath.

There seems to be some what of a consensus among those who were more interested in an actual discussion that this could be explained by perfectly innocent behavior. I am sorry you are having trouble controlling yourself rather than participating in this discussion in a constructive manner.

[Lauda]

I would expect, or hope, that if any DT member would take that deal they would not be swayed by the amount received in order to give an honest review. If there ever comes any point where they (the ones asking for the review) starts talking about receiving trust that would be the big no-no. But just for a review, why not? As long as it is objective I don't see any big issues with it.

Well, I guess I could put up an honest review like this "This site was offering to pay default trust members to review it, which I consider shady AF."

Seriously, there is no reason to want default trust reviewers unless you want something only default trust can provide... likewise, if you want an honest review of a gambling site you'd be looking for known gambling experts, etc.

Imagine if someone put up a sig campaign or an auction allowing only DT members to participate. I think that would be fishy too.

How different would it be if he was only asking for a different subset of people, e.g. people with > 500 merits?

[suchmoon]

How different would it be if he was only asking for a different subset of people, e.g. people with > 500 merits?

Meh. Albeit with less stink of implied corruption. I don't really get the whole paid review business, maybe that's my problem.