@theymos your board sinking in chaos

[actmyname]

If you "LIKE" the appeal in that format, then why not have "REPORT" in same format?

That would be an incorrect usage of the report system. Unlike others, I have respect for the staff and I do not wish to add more to their already-high workload.

If I begin showing "HOW" lovely some Feedback are then probably it will take days to get even 50% of it. And I am sorry I am not going to waste my time on that.

Note that I asked for "AN EXAMPLE" meaning "ONE EXAMPLE" rather "THAN" all of the "POSSIBLE" cases "THAT" exist on the "FORUM"

It's called DT1. [...] It's called Reputation.

So, basically you want to "TEACH" things here. Do you seriously think I am not aware of it? So, please talk sense if you can.

You asked for systems. I responded accordingly.

An action by Admin or Mod is far more "RESPECTABLE" than done by these genius and self-claimed admins.

All you're doing is just changing the title, not the definition. If we tautologically redefine the words 'admin' and 'moderator' to what the DT1 title currently handles then we essentially have what you want.

Lastly, IF you read my post "AGAIN" you should understand I NEVER said that it should be checked "DEEPLY", but just a moment of overview to see anything really wrong while there should be record of appeal against anyone, so if there are too many appeals against someone, then that person can be checked properly for once, at least.

Surface-level reviews will do more harm than higher workloads. When we're talking about a trust system, I don't think it's very pragmatic to skim over the details.

[Thule]

Judging by the number of rage posts Thue recently posted and his seemingly recent inactivity, I am guessing he recently had a temp ban expire.

I wasn't temp banned on that forum.The inactivity comes that sometimes there are more important staff to do than trying to change the forum into a better one where the admin keeps ignorant even it seems he has good intentions at all but that doesn't change the fact that the value to protect the status quo is way more on the side which has benefit from current situation.

but I really don't know what anyone expects someone like Thue to act when in his situation. Most of his negative trust was received as a result of him defending himself, and he originally received negative trust for doing something that is explicitly allowed per the forum rules.

Fully agree on that.Its a fight on my good name.I know many of DT members gives a shit about a clean name hiding in anonimity but i'm an old schooler who doesn't accept and never will accept the fact to be marked as big scammer where i never scammed a single person being here 6 years.I asked DT members several times to show me proof that i scammed someone here or tried to scam and i will delete my account myself from that forum.Of course i never received a reply.

The worst part is i received my negative tagg for trying to buy back in early 2017 an account for a friend so he would be able to post images on his service thread .During that time there was no copper memberships and paying someone for posting each time an image on his thread would also make no sense.

I checked the forum rules since i know many forums don't allow to buy accounts but i saw at that time that many people had alt accounts so i thought it might be allowed.After checking the forum rules i even PM'ed a Mod of that forum asking if i'm allowed to buy an account.I got the confirmation from a Mod.Not a single word about that i could get a negative tagg.I didn't even read at that time Meta a single time.

So i tried buying that account didn't get it and later my friend told me he got one from somebody else.So the case was closed for me till after several months later i got tagged by actmyname.

I opened a thread questioning that red tag being marked on that forum as scammer for something what was allowed and for what i even got permission from a Mod.
What happened is like always the gang quickly joined that thread calling me as scammer because i tried to scam people with that account and they are protecting the community from me.
Of course i instantly received 3 more negative feedbacks from Lauda and Co .

Somebody going to explain me why some people receive one tagg for trying to buy an account and some people tons of taggs ?Does it have the intention to destroy an account or to discredit somebody to death so he will be instantly seen as scammer by any other member ?

How would you feel haven't done anything shady and being marked now as one of the worst scammer on the forum ?

You would just accept it ?When being a forum member here since 2012 ?

I explained my situation explaining that i checked the forum rules and even got the permission of a mod.
You think somebody cared ?
They always changed their argumentation.ALWAYS.If its not a red tagg because of that than its a red tagg because of something else.
Suchmoon and co explaining they can red tagg based on their opinion.And since their opinion is that i'm not trustworthy they can tagg me as scammer on Default without having to show any proof of their claim....

Something like that is called unjustice and it's against the main idea of crypto that an individual can't be harmed by a small group with no evidence.I'm somebody who hates unjustice and am not somebody who just chooses the easy way to open a new account and let it go.

They abused their power and i'm not going to break because of that.Not going to happen.You can find it annoying as much as you want.You created me by abusing your power against me and defaming me.
I'm the product of your actions.

About the other negative trust feedbacks from

@Foxpup
@TMAN
@yogg
@Timelord2067
@asche
@LFC_Bitcoin

Theymos clearly stated that giving negative trust for trying to push our own representives up which we trust is abuse of the trust feedback.
He clearly stated it and these people know it.
But still they give a shit about it ?Even theymos openly called it abuse they stick to their abuse.
Why ?Because no other DT members have the balls to demand to not abuse the trust feedback and to remove their abusive feedback.
More important what majority of you don't know.We were in talk with theymos and asked for permission for doing so and even planned a signature campaign which approvement we had from Theymos if it would inform people how to use the trustsystem and to choose their real trusted members without manipulations.

So if i conspired maybe you should also add negative taggs to our admin ?

@hilarious

Sometimes I honestly think we should just do away with it because of all the drama it causes but it would only lead to more scams against the newer members.

I know you like to manipulate giving only two options.Nobody is against tagging scammers.NOBODY .
But tagging people who didn't scammed anyone based on opinions or other staff is abuse.
So instead of abusing it would be enough just tagging real scammers and the Drama would end instantly.

But it seems somehow to be difficult for you guys to accept it.

And no Suchmoon didn't gave back that account

Also Bruno tried to sell that account to someone else without informing about it.Why do you hide or ignore that fact ?

ere is no fight. I have clearly stated numerous times that I would not retaliate against a neg trust rating. And there are plenty of DT members whom I can't "damage" even if I wanted to.

How does it come you asked all members who red tagged that account to remove that red tagg till everyone removed it even some were against it at the beginnig ?

Playing the saint ?You borrowed money to Bruno for so long ?Over a year now ?

I have nothing against Bruno but he is a good example what liars you are.When being asked to threat everybody equal you are the first always to find an explanation to not tagg friends who have hard proof against them for the same reason you destroy other peoples account based on your opinion only.

[The-One-Above-All]

some objectivity and accountability will return free speech to the board and ensure scammers can not brand honest members with a scam tag.

I disagree with the idea of giving out negatives for contrasting beliefs. I'm assuming that's what you're describing: am I correct?

the implications you mention are likely mitigated to a large extent with a couple of simple tweaks.

If you can elaborate on your ideas then I would be glad to discuss the ramifications and consequential effects of your tweaks. I enjoy playing devil's advocate in all cases and believe that no idea begins in its final state: it must be polished thoroughly.

rushing to judgement is at times potentially useful, but for the judgement to stand it must be accompanied by a strong case. Those failing to provide after a sensible time frame are removed from DT if they do not remove the red tag.

I can agree with that. Sometimes, potentially compromised accounts or incredibly likely scams (that have yet to be proven) should be given an initial block as to safeguard the general public from malicious entities.

We are against red trust (that sticks) being given for anything other than scamming or strongly intending to scam. Anything after that is a slippery slope. Account sales (when discovered) should perhaps be given a different tag " this account is not under the control of the original owner". This is sensible as it can be leveraged to gain trust.

Sorry, yes, the tweak was just allowing a temp red trust whilst further examination is conducted in the case of hacked accounts etc before they are locked down.

Our main concern is free speech, then the protection of innocent members from false charges and punishment, saving the greedy and stupid from themselves should be a lower concern. Still all that can be done to save them should be done without negatively impacting on the first two.

Universally adhered to standards and guidelines. No double standards which breed contempt and loathing of the corruption freely observable in the systems now.

We believe you had a similar discussion with cryptohunter on his thread of the year. We notice you do not accept the systems of control have any impact upon free speech. We do not think we can reach much common ground until you take another look at that part.

Decentralizing anything successfully in terms of governance is very complex, compounded by the anonymous nature of this forum,and far beyond the scope of 99.99% of this board to design. Far more concern should be given to preserving free speech than to prevent some spammers and low level scammers. One member that probably could have taken a good shot at it is sadly banned for a non scamming related issue.


Sensible guidelines for red trust that are at least under threat of being enforced should be enough to discourage flagrant abuse. Those that do continue must be blacklisted.  Merit has its own powerful influence on free speech, it is the carrot to DT's stick. Putting those 2 together was ridiculous, as cryptohunter correctly recognized and stated before theymos for an unknown reason tied them together. He essentially seemed to create a system that is as easy as possible for a few members to collude and take total and complete control of free speech. Very strange.

I had previously thought that the long game may improve things. It will but not much. MAD between the main controlling factions will ensure fair treatment for them by other factions. But the general member with no connections and no WMD's will be as vulnerable as ever and far more likely to run fowl of one of the corrupt and selfish DT members as that number swells and pickings become slimmer at the top.

Scrap merit after snr and decouple it from trust. Provide clear guidelines for red trust and ensure they are universally upheld or blacklisting will start taking place, a couple of persons made examples of will get them in line. Pushing for merit to represent the real value of a post is likely impossible due to the sheer scale and the fact most peoples abilities to discern real value from specious dirt vary hugely  and always meant merit was doomed to be a very low value metric. To try to build upon it as some kind of objective metric of high value was folly.  Snitchmoon I believe said it best: good post or bad post are meaningless terms without criteria or definition. Merit is not meaningless it just has very low value. It can likely distinguish bot from human but that is probably all. It is misleading and dangerous when you start pairing it with financial value in the form of paid2post rates.

These are in part why the board is struggling to juggle upholding free speech, and stopping spammers and low level scammers. There is likely no magic fix but as it is now is as bad as things can get. When an observable liar and scammer can red trust an honest member because they say they will create a thread to examine their past and the rest of DT condone and sanction it. You know the board is fucked.

When the most disliked member in meta challenges the entire meta board to present one example of incorrect information they have presented and they all  fail to present one instance then you know the board is fucked.

When the most disliked member in meta challenges the entire meta board to present any other clear agenda they have other than to bring some clear transparent rules to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all members, and they can not present anything. You know the board is fucked.

Pretty sad times for BTT. Although historically it is there for public examination, when those people who care to look back at some of the early believers in creating an end to end decentralized trust less arena.

[suchmoon]

Suchmoon and co explaining they can red tagg based on their opinion.

The reference link on my feedback points to you abusing the trust system by neg-trusting another user for expressing an opinion that you didn't like. Quite some irony there. And yes, it's based on that fact and on my opinion that you're unstable dangerous individual and everything you've done since then confirms that.

How does it come you asked all members who red tagged that account to remove that red tagg till everyone removed it even some were against it at the beginnig ?

I asked for Bruno's red trust to be removed so that he could join a sig campaign. That didn't work, red trust remains. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

Playing the saint ?You borrowed money to Bruno for so long ?Over a year now ?

If you keep whipping yourself into a frenzy over things that don't concern you - you'll be dead of a heart attack long before that loan is due. Take a breath and have a drink.

[Thule]

The reference link on my feedback points to you abusing the trust system by neg-trusting another user for expressing an opinion that you didn't like. Quite some irony there. And yes, it's based on that fact and on my opinion that you're unstable dangerous individual and everything you've done since then confirms that.

No no no i'm asking about the red trust you had before and you changed it to this one......

I asked for Bruno's red trust to be removed so that he could join a sig campaign. That didn't work, red trust remains. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm not talking about Brunos account but the account he gave to you gleb gamow.....But you know it exectly

If you keep whipping yourself into a frenzy over things that don't concern you - you'll be dead of a heart attack long before that loan is due. Take a breath and have a drink.

Abuse concerns me expecially if i'm one of your vicitms.


You even admitted in the past that you tagg people based on your opinion and demand at the same time for known members hard proof.What you accept as proof by somebody else you won't accept as proof to a known member.
You admitted it yourself doing so.

So why are you denying your abuse?

The reference link on my feedback points to you abusing the trust system by neg-trusting another user for expressing an opinion that you didn't like. Quite some irony there. And yes, it's based on that fact and on my opinion that you're unstable dangerous individual and everything you've done since then confirms that.

How does it come you claim i abused it ?You explained on that thread you are allowed to negative tagg based on your opinion which doesn't need to be accurate.That user supported you so i showed him how it feels getting a false negative tagg where he instantly complained once it was him who got abused.

The diffrence between me and you is i removed his tagg long time ago since i know it was abusive even it was based on your claim to be allowed to tagg based on poor opinions which he supported

[suchmoon]

The reference link on my feedback points to you abusing the trust system by neg-trusting another user for expressing an opinion that you didn't like. Quite some irony there. And yes, it's based on that fact and on my opinion that you're unstable dangerous individual and everything you've done since then confirms that.

No no no i'm asking about the red trust you had before and you changed it to this one......

I didn't change the trust rating that I posted for you.

I asked for Bruno's red trust to be removed so that he could join a sig campaign. That didn't work, red trust remains. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm not talking about Brunos account but the account he gave to you gleb gamow.....But you know it exectly

No, I don't. Bruno has multiple accounts. At least three of them had red trust at the time and I petitioned for all those ratings to be removed, and last I checked all three still had red DT ratings.

Abuse concern me expecially if i'm one of your vicitms.

You're a victim of your own behavior. You'll keep struggling until you change it.

[yahoo62278]

Why isn't this rule enforced more often?

3. No trolling.

Thule is talking about how everyone is abusing the system. DT users do this and Laudas crew does that, yet he trolls users every day he is online and nothing is done about it. I think the forum has let him go on long enough.

Obviously he is not gonna learn anything. He thinks his way and does not care to see it any other way.

[Thule]

Why isn't this rule enforced more often?

3. No trolling.

Thule is talking about how everyone is abusing the system. DT users do this and Laudas crew does that, yet he trolls users every day he is online and nothing is done about it. I think the forum has let him go on long enough.

Obviously he is not gonna learn anything. He thinks his way and does not care to see it any other way.

Afraid people will start a conversation about that topic that you instantly try to discredit that thread with your trolling claim ?
Just leave if you are unable to have a normal conversation.Noone forcing you to participate here.


You have a clear agenda when writing here.

[yahoo62278]

You have a clear agenda when writing here.

Again with the little potshots. I have no issue with you or anyone having a logical discussion/conversation about any topic you wish.

What you fail to understand is you yourself cannot have a logical conversation. You spout off accusations like the whole forum has a big conspiracy against you. DT hates you or whatever is what's in your brain. If we disagree with you and your thoughts then we are just retarded and part of the conspiracy. If it was 1 or 2 users attacking you, then you might have a legitimate case, but as you can see quite a few disagree with your thoughts.

You cannot say you're not trolling either.

Of course he would.He would get Yobit to pay a better price (i guess the highest current price on bitcointalk) for high ranked members which would need to post signigicantly less and would add all his buddies and supporters into the campaign.



Thats the truth

What buddies am I adding to campaigns? When I launch a campaign ALL users must apply to it. I look at applications starting from the 1st guy who applies. I have to look at their quality, if they're active in the last month, merit earned, rank, sections they post in, and if they followed the instructions to apply.

Some campaigns allow local board posters, some do not want them. Some campaigns want users that post in a certain section more often then others. Some campaigns want users who earn a lot of merits.

As far as my supporters, you must not pay attention to people on here. My "supporters" will leave my ass high and dry in a heartbeat if they see another campaign open that pays 1 satoshi more then a campaign I manage. Supporters are only praising managers and kissing ass hoping to get a slot in the campaign. If they applied and are qualified they'll get a spot depending on if all the slots for their rank are taken.

Yahoo being one of the best campaign manager ?LOL

The only diffrence between him and the other is that he is in favour of some high ranked member which returns this favour always having a spot for them on high paid campaigns.

I do not hold slots for anyone. I fill slots depending on the ranks needed. NOONE HAS A RESERVED SPOT. Noone returns any favours either bud. Take a look at my history and you'll see I have not been in a signature campaign for over a year and the last 1 I was the manager who had a private deal with the company to wear their signature. I haven't been in another managers campaign for 3 years.

I could continue to browse your post history and put more examples of you trolling not only me but other members of the forum as well, but it's really pointless. You won't listen to my text or anyone else's for that matter.

Bitcointalk will be just fine with or without you and the users you are trying to represent. A lot of the users whom have been tagged have deserved it. Of course there probably are some users that do not deserve a neg. Every DT member is not on the same page. We are not robots and we do not all think alike.

If anything is hurting the forum it's users that have a toxic attitude such as yourself most times. If you want to have a discussion, don't start it with instant accusation or trash talking forum users. State your issue nicely and take the time to read others replies. Don't instantly disregard their opinions because it's not the same as yours.

[Quickseller]

I wonder how much drama would actually stop if the feedback system was removed (or negative feedback doesn't paint you 'red'). No more hilariousandco vs mdayonliner? No more Lauda vs Quickseller? No more Cryptohunter vs Everybody? Sometimes I honestly think we should just do away with it because of all the drama it causes but it would only lead to more scams against the newer members. I wonder if we did remove it would we get threads every other day asking WHY ISNT THERE A FEEDBACK SYSTEM HERE in some variation or another.

If the trust system is removed, the marketplace would likely have to be fairly substantially curtailed, or at least changed.

One option could be for people to more commonly open reputation or scam accusation threads about a given person in which people could present their evidence against a person, and the person would be free to defend themselves and refute the evidence. Similarly, people could create a reputation thread for positive vouches. There could be something somewhat similar to the current DT implementation to prevent fake positive and negative ratings, but a person would be forced to review the evidence and decide for themselves if they want to believe someone is a scammer or not.

In effect, trust scores would be removed, and it would be much easier to dispute a rating. Controversial ratings would not have the same negative effects they have now.

I don't think suchmoon should get tagged for buying one of Bruno's accounts. Suchmoon does have a decent amount of trust, a lot of merit, and is on many people's trust lists. If someone was looking from the outside, and saw suchmoon do something, they would reasonably think, based on her stats that it would be acceptable to engage in similar behavior. Suchmoon is not the only person who has bought/sold forum accounts that can be described this way.

Some have argued they don't want to go back "far in time" to tag people who have engaged in this activity. However I would ask those who regularly tag these types of people what they would say if someone saw that a very "senior" (lot of good trust related stats) forum member did something, and assumed this was acceptable behavior, and proceeds to engage in similar behavior? 

That was a fairly unique case and I think they should be taken on a case by case basis. I think suchmoon stepped in to try take the account off the market because bruno was trying to sell it and suchmoon effectively gave him a loan so he didn't have to and the account didn't fall into the wrong hands (which would be a good thing or net positive). I could be wrong though. Isn't the account returned to the original owner now anyway? There are plenty of other users that used to take loans out with accounts as collateral but that practice seems to have fizzled out (especially by more notable members probably since account trading became frowned upon).

Bruno was trying to sell his Gleb Gamow account, and suchmoon stepped in to buy it, and confirmed the sale here; in this thread, she says she will give the Gleb account back to Bruno if he pays her back, but it appears Brunos intentions were to sell the account, not take a loan out against it. IIRC, he took out a loan against Phinnaeus Gage from BurtW, and didn't make any serious attempts to repay Burt until Burt got into some legal trouble and was in need of money to pay for lawyers.

Even if you are against forum account sales in general, I don't think you would be against this particular account sale, as suchmoon appeared to buy it specifically to prevent someone else from doing damage with it, and to help a long standing forum member out with a financial problem.

My concern about this is that someone who does not follow forum politics closely might see those threads, look at the forum rules, try to buy or sell an account, and be genuinely surprised when they get blown up with multiple negative ratings. (I don't know him, but this guy has 6 DT negative ratings, which is just excessive, but it sets up people like this who are apparently actually scamming, and interestingly, this guy doesn't even have negative trust....but all that is off topic here). My concern is not only about suchmoon's transaction (hers is often brought up), I have similar concerns about many others, including multiple current staff members (but also other reputable members) who have previously engaged in similar activity.

Or perhaps would you like every feedback to be peer-reviewed before it is published, giving time for scammers to proliferate and the opportunity for the system to be spammed?

As long as the SLA for the peer review process is short, it will have little positive effect on scammers. Alternatively, ratings could be published, but must pass a peer review process within x time in order for them to remain to remove this altogether. Only certain ratings could be subject to a peer review process.

Obviously the above will be worthless unless there is an agreed upon set of rules for which ratings can be left in order for the above to work. As it stands now, what is and is not acceptable reasons to leave ratings is not agreed upon, with one sided shouting very loudly. If there was any real consensus as to what ratings are acceptable, I don't think the trust system would have 5% of the problems it has today.