What's wrong with Vod, and Hhampuz

[btcsmlcmnr]

Today, I saw Trust issues of Vod, and Hhampuz. Vod has contributed lots of thing to bitcointalk.org community, whilst Hhampuz has been one of the most reputable campaign managers in the forum. Both of them actually contribute lots of things, so what's wrong with them last hours?
They both received negative feedback from teeGUMES, that in turn results in ?? ? in their Trust.
Additionally, Reference in Hhampuz's  Trust page leads to this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140813.0, that does not relate to things mentioned in feedback. It looks like back-and-forth negative feedbacks.



Theymos' opinion:

- Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.
 It is absolutely not appropriate to give someone negative trust because you disagree with them. I'm disappointed in the reaction to this post. Although H8bussesNbicycles is perhaps not particularly trustworthy for other reasons, the reasons many people gave for neg-trusting him are inappropriate. You can argue that what he's advocating is bad on a utilitarian level, but he would disagree, and his advocacy of a certain Trust philosophy doesn't by itself mean that he's an untrustworthy person. DT selection is meant to be affected by user lists, and it is totally legitimate to try to honestly convince other (real) people to use a list more in-line with your views.
 
I'm not going to blacklist people from DT selection due to not following my views

Is this one of the most vulnerable things of Trust sytem, and easily to abuse and do personal attacks?

[1713991009]

1713991009

[1713991009]

1713991009

[Privcy Foundation]

OG deserves to have his personal info leaked, that tax evading scamming piece of shit.  People are just scared because he is holding forum funds. many are afraid to challenge him fearing that he will  "lose it to a "hacker"

[suchmoon]

Why is this in Meta and why do you feel the need to stir this drama further? PM teeGUMES if you're curious.

[teeGUMES]

I don't consider my personal stance on 'doxxing' a personal attack on any of these members. I think a precedent needs to be set and this should be further frowned upon. Many people have been killed/murdered from public doxxing whether it was correct or incorrect. The dox post also conveniently included the fact that OgNasty was holding onto 500bitcoin, this is extremely dangerous and I actually fear for whomever lives at the address that Vod had posted.
We have law enforcement all around the world for a reason. Let them do their jobs.
Even though personal information is allowed in the Investigations sub forum, the question should remain "Should it be?"

I have nothing further to add and I am surprised more people haven't risen up to speak out about this.

[suchmoon]

~

You shouldn't be red-trusting people for sending merits though. That's fucked up.

[Privcy Foundation]

I don't consider my personal stance on 'doxxing' a personal attack on any of these members. I think a precedent needs to be set and this should be further frowned upon. Many people have been killed/murdered from public doxxing whether it was correct or incorrect. The dox post also conveniently included the fact that OgNasty was holding onto 500bitcoin, this is extremely dangerous and I actually fear for whomever lives at the address that Vod had posted.
We have law enforcement all around the world for a reason. Let them do their jobs.
Even though personal information is allowed in the Investigations sub forum, the question should remain "Should it be?"

I have nothing further to add and I am surprised more people haven't risen up to speak out about this.

go red tag all those other investigation threads then, people are posting a bunch of personal info on people. OG is a scammer, he deserves to have his public info leaked.

[khaled0111]

Vod has contributed lots of thing to bitcointalk.org community, whilst Hhampuz has been one of the most reputable campaign managers in the forum.

Trust is unmoderated.
If you think teeGUMES feedbacks are inaccurate then create your own custom trust list and exclude him.

[yahoo62278]

~

You shouldn't be red-trusting people for sending merits though. That's fucked up.

I agree with this 100%. Teegumes you wanna tag Vod for creating the thread that's on you but tagging users for meriting it is ridiculous.

[teeGUMES]

~

You shouldn't be red-trusting people for sending merits though. That's fucked up.

I agree with this 100%. Teegumes you wanna tag Vod for creating the thread that's on you but tagging users for meriting it is ridiculous.

So you both think that a pat on the back in the form of merit for doxxing someone is trustworthy behavior? I understand the people that I have left red tags for are great respectable people and if merit could be removed I would have personally asked them to remove it before it even got to the tagging.. but that isn't an option currently. If someone ends up hurt or worse at that location do you think these people would still want their name at the top of the post that potentially caused it?

[yahoo62278]

~

You shouldn't be red-trusting people for sending merits though. That's fucked up.

I agree with this 100%. Teegumes you wanna tag Vod for creating the thread that's on you but tagging users for meriting it is ridiculous.

So you both think that a pat on the back in the form of merit for doxxing someone is trustworthy behavior? I understand the people that I have left red tags for are great respectable people and if merit could be removed I would have personally asked them to remove it before it even got to the tagging.. but that isn't an option currently. If someone ends up hurt or worse at that location do you think these people would still want their name at the top of the post that potentially caused it?

Those useds did not start the thread period. They merited it. Maybe they share Vods opinion, maybe they're just ass kissers. We do not know, but no reason for the tag on those who haven't posted a thing in the thread.

Of course I don't agree with meriting any post in that section for doxing but i do not feel its tagworthy.

I think theymos should disable merits for that section and maybe clear all the merits given for doxxing.

[btcsmlcmnr]

Those useds did not start the thread period. They merited it.

In general, theymos does not strongly support ideas to give negative trust on merit issues, if it is not serious merit abusements. If it is reason of such red trust, it was inappropriately used because I don't think that sending 1 to 3 merits to a post should be considered as merit abusements.

- Giving negative trust for merit trading and deceptive alt-account use may be appropriate, but you should use a light touch so that people don't feel paranoid.

If you have to pay $20 per merit plus a risk of getting red trust, then that's a situation that doesn't concern me at all. I'm not going to lose sleep over people going to ridiculous lengths to buy merit, since only a small number of people will be willing and able to do that.

As long as merit sales are a black market, I'm happy, since that makes it far more difficult and expensive to buy merit. If that's the case, then the small volume of black-market merit trades don't themselves bother me much, and I think that it does more harm than good to get too witch-hunty about it.

Aside from that, if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that. You don't need to stress about it or defend yourself constantly. It's conceivable that someday you and I will end up disagreeing too much about this stuff and I'll remove your source status, but it's really not a big deal.

I don't have intention to involve too much with Trust system, so I don't have intention to customize my Trust list. I would prefer to use Default Trust system. And, theymos emphasizes many times that Trust should be used for things relate to trade/ exchange.

Trust is unmoderated.
If you think teeGUMES feedbacks are inaccurate then create your own custom trust list and exclude him.

[suchmoon]

So you both think that a pat on the back in the form of merit for doxxing someone is trustworthy behavior? I understand the people that I have left red tags for are great respectable people and if merit could be removed I would have personally asked them to remove it before it even got to the tagging.. but that isn't an option currently. If someone ends up hurt or worse at that location do you think these people would still want their name at the top of the post that potentially caused it?

Your red trust doesn't solve any of that. It just discredits the trust system and shows you're not fit for DT1.

Merit is not an endorsement and not "a pat on the back" despite your dictionary quote. On this forum it's a "good post" mark. Whatever those users were thinking, EVEN IF THEY'RE WRONG, it is inappropriate to use red trust to show your disagreement.

[bones261]

~

You shouldn't be red-trusting people for sending merits though. That's fucked up.

I agree with this 100%. Teegumes you wanna tag Vod for creating the thread that's on you but tagging users for meriting it is ridiculous.

So you both think that a pat on the back in the form of merit for doxxing someone is trustworthy behavior? I understand the people that I have left red tags for are great respectable people and if merit could be removed I would have personally asked them to remove it before it even got to the tagging.. but that isn't an option currently. If someone ends up hurt or worse at that location do you think these people would still want their name at the top of the post that potentially caused it?

Here is part of response to me a while ago when I was paranoid about people giving me red trust for merits that I may give.

Well, it appears that your source merit either wasn't upped to 250 a month ago like me, or you are just letting it expire. Theymos gave me instructions to try and do my best to distribute all of it. I'm doing the best that I can; yet have already had complaints. I really despise this statistic. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=topsendban Now I am on the list that appears to point out merit abuse suspects. I was originally very honored to become a merit source. But now I feel that my reputation is at stake with every single merit that I am obligated to distribute. I know that I only have black trust at the moment. However, I keep checking my trust rating to make sure some DT member doesn't decide to red tag me because they feel that I am being "abusive" or derelict in my duty.

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down.

If a DT member tags you for something stupid involving merit (ie. probably anything less than selling merit), then they're not going to be a DT member for much longer.

Aside from that, if people complain about whether things deserve merit at all, then that's something to perhaps think about, but if you conclude that they're wrong, then that's that. You don't need to stress about it or defend yourself constantly. It's conceivable that someday you and I will end up disagreeing too much about this stuff and I'll remove your source status, but it's really not a big deal.

The topsendban list is just a first indication of abuse, and many excellent people are on it. Your place on there acts as a sort of benchmark: eg. chandra12 has a similar score there, but whereas you are an extremely active merit-giver with a diverse selection of posts merited (most of which anyone would agree with), chandra12 only has two large merit sends. His behavior in comparison to yours while having a similar topsendban score is what creates a strong abuse impression.

I appreciate the work of you and other sources who take it seriously!

I have taken the liberty to bold the pertinent part in your particular case. Therefore, I have distrusted you. Your actions of red trusting people for a post that they merit is not acceptable, at all.

[teeGUMES]

It is interesting to see so many supporters of public doxxing. The merit they left is nothing more than clear instigation. You know it and I know it.
Wait til an investigation takes place and if a conviction for a crime happens, sure go nuts.. I'd even commend Vod for a job well done(with some merit)

imo this would be the best thing to do here:

I think theymos should disable merits for that section and maybe clear all the merits given for doxxing.

edit: to add, your bolded part says "for something stupid other than..." please include where you think public doxxing falls into the something stupid category

[bones261]

It is interesting to see so many supporters of public doxxing. The merit they left is nothing more than clear instigation. You know it and I know it.
Wait til an investigation takes place and if a conviction for a crime happens, sure go nuts.. I'd even commend Vod for a job well done(with some merit)

My actions against you has nothing to do on whether I support Vod's doxing post or not. As a merit source, I am not going to be hampered on my merit giving with having to take into consideration whether or not someone on DT is going to give me red trust or not. This is not acceptable.  

edit: to add, your bolded part says "for something stupid other than..." please include where you think public doxxing falls into the something stupid category

You forgot to include the important part.

(ie. probably anything less than selling merit)

[Vod]

I have taken the liberty to bold the pertinent part in your particular case. Therefore, I have distrusted you. Your actions of red trusting people for a post that they merit is not acceptable, at all.

I have also distrusted his views on morality for calling people who like my posts scammers. He is now at -1.

OG will prob trust him simply because he dislikes me, so that will keep him in DT1, where he does not belong.  

It is interesting to see so many supporters of public doxxing. The merit they left is nothing more than clear instigation. You know it and I know it.
Wait til an investigation takes place and if a conviction for a crime happens, sure go nuts.. I'd even commend Vod for a job well done(with some merit)

It needed to happen.  It could not happen on this forum.  There is no accountability for lying here.

OG says he will sue me for defamation.  QS says he has (maybe) reported me to the police.  Thule threatens to sue everybody.  BUT NOTHING HAPPENS AND THE BULLSHIT CONTINUES!  I took a stand and will take responsibility for the outcome.

That being said, I should not have posted his physical address on this forum.  But anyone who wanted it could get it easily.

[suchmoon]

It is interesting to see so many supporters of public doxxing. The merit they left is nothing more than clear instigation. You know it and I know it.

Nonsense. I don't "know it". I don't support doxing OgNasty. And now you're out of DT, which is a shame.

[r1s2g3]

 You simply distrust the user if you do not approve the user's action but giving feedback on it is not the correct approach.

Doxxing comes under the forum policy rules, if you do not agree with that post then use "Report to Moderator" and let them decide.

[teeGUMES]

It is interesting to see so many supporters of public doxxing. The merit they left is nothing more than clear instigation. You know it and I know it.

Nonsense. I don't "know it". I don't support doxing OgNasty. And now you're out of DT, which is a shame.

True, it is much like sarcasm over the internet.. hard to distinguish. DT means nothing to me tbh and in the future I will continue to take a stance against public doxxing before an investigation happens. Yes there are past cases I have clearly missed but this one has taken over multiple threads and countless posts so it was very hard to miss.

I understand where many of you are coming from with your statements and I don't fault you for it, but I would hope the conversation here might lead to bettering the forum. We are talking about two very prominent members of the community going pretty much nuclear here.. Vod appears to be taking it through its courses and to the end so time will tell.

Thanks all for your input, I think something needed to happen to spark a conversation like this. For the merit tagging I am open to communicating with the individuals.. I'd like it to be known that if it was "you" in the same situation I would have your back until it is proven that you were indeed doing something criminal.

[theymos]

I was disgusted by the reckless and vicious doxing in this case, where:
 - The evidence was very thin.
 - Even if all of the allegations were true, it'd likely result only in civil penalties, not criminal.
 - The whole thing was motivated merely by past arguments. OgNasty never caused Vod to even lose anything, as far as I know. An utterly ridiculous & disproportionate escalation.
 - It's based on the premise that purely statutory crimes are directly unethical, which I don't agree with at all, though I'm willing to mostly look past this as subjective.

It's good that Vod came to his senses on this after the fact, though doing it at all certainly blemishes his reputation in my mind, and I added to my notes the fact that those users merited such a post. Meriting it is saying basically that we need more posts like this on the forum, and we do not need more posts like this on the forum.

Red-trusting Vod over this is an appropriate usage of red-trust, since his actions here are highly trust-relevant. But I tend to think that since he edited his post and seems to genuinely regret at least the public doxxing part, it'd be best to forgive.

For the meriters, I can understand the argument for red-trust, but I tend to think that it's at the wrong level. If the meriter was meriting it because they were actively thinking, "I want to make the forum really vicious, where everyone is constantly tearing each other apart for stupid things, and this post moves in that direction," even that's not really a trust-relevant motive, just a very unhelpful motive. And probably the meriters were thinking more innocent things than that.