DireWolfM14's Trust Setting and Tag Review

[DireWolfM14]

I was recently promoted to DT1.  I didn't ask for it, but I take the responsibility seriously.  If any of you believe my reviews, flags, inclusions, or exclusions are out of line, please feel free to discuss it here.


The reason I'm creating this thread right now is because I just left a negative rating for member Csmiami due to his handling of this situation.  I had originally left him a neutral review, but after consideration I decided a negative review is warranted.

[1713499999]

1713499999

[1713499999]

1713499999

[1713499999]

1713499999

[1713499999]

1713499999

[Joel_Jantsen]

The reason I'm creating this thread right now is because I just left a negative rating for member Csmiami due to his handling of this situation.  I had originally left him a neutral review, but after consideration I decided a negative review is warranted.

I'd stand by your feedback. I don't really like how the entire situation was handled. I don't know if OP of that thread had any intentions of scamming or is just plain stupid but the experienced members of bitcointalk should not be playing with someone's money even if it means punishing them. CSMaimai's intentions to keep the money for 2 days is just hilarious. At one point Op actually gave up on his 0.003 which I assume wouldn't have been returned if not for you and DarkStar.

It's a silly mistake though. Maybe you should watch them for a few weeks and then change the feedback? I'd be more open to having the feedback removed right now if CSMiami accepts their mistake. 

[Steamtyme]

I read into it a little and was trying to figure out more about how the fees worked into it but I've never used that service. Either way it was a gross overestimate in an attempt to withhold, as shown by Darkstar_  so the feedback makes sense. Whether you review it at a later time or they make amends it's up to you how to proceed in the future.

A few points for you to consider, or ignore that's fine to. Your earlier interaction didn't really seem to give off the vibe that you didn't approve. I know you've said you were joking and I believe you, but in an instance like this it may have been prudent to actually point it out. This seemed like after the fact csmiami was feeding off the jokes made at the newbies expense and the suggestions of what to do with the funds. In the end what they did was still untrustworthy and disrespectful.

It also would have been nice to see a negative come to mind here first once it was realized theft was involved. You have corrected that and owned up to the whole process so well done, and I'm sure with time you will have firmed up your lines on what feedback is deserved for what actions.

Edit: Should you be interested I created a newbie warning flag given the events and that this was a newbie involved.

[Timelord2067]

If you're being honest about having a discussion about your trust settings, I would appreciate it if you could walk me through the reasoning behind giving me distrust on your trust settings ?

AFAIK we've never exchanged pleasantries so I would appreciate some insight into the rationale you used.

Thank you.

*Edit* my own distrust of you is a tit-for-tat response. Nothing more.

Thanks for reading.

[suchmoon]

FWIW I don't think Csmiami had any ill intent in the situation. I saw my name mentioned in that thread, here is the actual PM I sent:

I'd say since the terms were absurd to begin with you should probably return it, minus a reasonable TX fee, after giving the other person a few days to comply

Another option would be to offer to lend 0.0015 BTC to them.

You also gotta keep in mind that Armadillo-whatshisname is a total lunatic. It's not like there was any deception in the "deal" he was offered, it was just plain ridiculous and he was too eager to scam 0.15 or 0.015 or 0.0015 BTC or whatever he was expecting there.

[Csmiami]

First of all I thank Darkstar_ for mentioning this thread, since I didn't even think it would have reached the Reputation board so fast. DireWolf should have a PM coming from me because of that same reason, I first wanted to talk to him and Darkstar about the feedback and then move it to the reputation board if I was not satisfied (less people involved, means less mess).

I didn't answer the original thread right away since I was having some drinks with some friends when everything was going on. I admit my actions may not have been the best ones, but at no moment did I think this would go this far; as I have stated a couple of times. I did repeat the stupid offer of "0.03 for 0.015" on each message on porpuse (and with smileys), trying to make the OP realize what a stupid situation he was offering. That did not happen, and I was actually sent some funds. At first I took that as something funny, but after giving it some thought, I realized how quickly and badly the situation could scalate, so I PM'd bot suchmoon and DireWolf (both had been active on the thread) to ask for some advice.

The first one to reply was suchmoon with this:

I'd say since the terms were absurd to begin with you should probably return it, minus a reasonable TX fee, after giving the other person a few days to comply

Another option would be to offer to lend 0.0015 BTC to them.

So, I have already PM'd Direwolf regarding the last open thread on Lending (I'm sure you know which one), because even if the whole thing is absurd, I'm holding 0.003BTC that don't actually "belong" to me, and I'm not quite sure as how to proceed.

One part of me tells me to teach all those scammers a lesson, but I'm not quite sure of if I should listen to that dark side of me

Sorry to bother you with this, but it's kind of a tricky situation

Kind Regards

It did not sound bad at the time to hold for some days to the funds to make the "likely scammer" sweat a bit. Direwolf replied quite similarly, and since it was almost 4 am, I went to sleep.

In the morning, I gave the situation some more thought, a fresher view, and posted on my local board about the situation . Then, seeing that the original thread was turning rather dark for me, I decided to get rid of the funds ASAP. That's were I made the mistake of mentally calculating satoshis while having a few beers.

Now, I arrive home, do some stuff, open BTT, and realize I have a double neg, and that the situation at the original thread has scalated faster and worse than expected. The moment I saw the situation.... well, you can all read the original thread. I did totally panic, but luckily it was just a few satoshi "problem"

I don't usually interact with newbies asking for a no collateral loan more than to leave some red trust, but as this particular one had been spamming my personal lending thread, and had created several other threads to ask for money (giving a different version on each), I had kind of some personal hard feeling against him, which I exploited on the first opportunity that showed up

I'd stand by your feedback. I don't really like how the entire situation was handled. I don't know if OP of that thread had any intentions of scamming or is just plain stupid but the experienced members of bitcointalk should not be playing with someone's money even if it means punishing them. CSMaimai's intentions to keep the money for 2 days is just hilarious. At one point Op actually gave up on his 0.003 which I assume wouldn't have been returned if not for you and DarkStar.

It's a silly mistake though. Maybe you should watch them for a few weeks and then change the feedback? I'd be more open to having the feedback removed right now if CSMiami accepts their mistake.  

You may be right at me not handling the situation the best way, but I think I've made pretty clear that I wanted to have nothing to do with those funds, since I considered them quite a hot potato. The only thing Darkstar and Direwolf have triggered was an almost heart attack on me when I opent the forum

[DireWolfM14]

A few points for you to consider, or ignore that's fine to. Your earlier interaction didn't really seem to give off the vibe that you didn't approve. I know you've said you were joking and I believe you, but in an instance like this it may have been prudent to actually point it out. This seemed like after the fact csmiami was feeding off the jokes made at the newbies expense and the suggestions of what to do with the funds. In the end what they did was still untrustworthy and disrespectful.

I can't argue with that logic, and looking back my public behavior in that it thread I do feel some shame.  In my defense I did PM Csmiami 23 seconds after I made this post telling him that I would send the money back (minus tx fees.)  I should have been more responsible in public, and shouldn't have needed DarkStar_ to point out that out.

It also would have been nice to see a negative come to mind here first once it was realized theft was involved. You have corrected that and owned up to the whole process so well done, and I'm sure with time you will have firmed up your lines on what feedback is deserved for what actions.

This is also a very good point, and I was putting things into a narrow minded perspective due to the amount.  Integrity shouldn't depend on amount; $3 is essentially one 24oz Coors Light to me (which my waistline will attest I can live without,) but could be someone else's daily wages.  Thank you for your feedback, Steamtyme, it is really helpful.

FWIW I don't think Csmiami had any ill intent in the situation.

I agree.  The fact that he PM'd the two of us to ask our advice is commendable, but I also think he should be more careful with other people's money.  Even if that individual is a fuckstick.

[DireWolfM14]

At the risk of multi posting, I think responding to @Timelord2067 deserves it's own post.  Although I value the work you've done to expose alternate accounts, which is a tremendous help in exposing scammers, I think your judgement can be flawed at times.  

This:

my own distrust of you is a tit-for-tat response. Nothing more.

...is big part of it.  The tit-for-tat attitude is akin to retaliatory feedback.  I don't remember when I excluded you but it could have been around the time that you made this post.  It gave reasons to believe you are not a good judge of character.  The way you reacted to me referring to that post as trolling was also a bit over the top, in my opinion.

Many times while discussing the trust system and custom trust lists I've mentioned that my exclusions should not be considered as a personal affront.  My list is solely based on whether I value your list, and your judgment in its construction.  I can still see the benefit you provide to the community, and value your contributions to the discussions here, even if you're in my exclusions.  In your case I see a lot of value as a contributing member.

To point to an extreme example, look at QS.  I quite enjoy bantering with him about a verity of subjects, we even tend to agree more often than not when it comes to politics.  And I often enjoy some of his contributions to discussions, whether we agree or not.  But, rest assured he's earned a permanent spot on my exclusion list.  

[LoyceV]

It's obvious it's not really serious, but since you say you take it seriously, your feedback on satoshi could be improved. It says: My BTC for his PayPal, and he still hasn't charged back. Thanks!, which I highly doubt

But I'm just nitpicking, this is the only thing I noticed (on your first feedback page).

[Quickseller]

1 - I think giving negative trust (and supporting a flag) against Csmiami, and subsequently removing both once he made his victim whole was is an entirely appropriate use of the trust system, and this is exactly how it is supposed to be used. That is to put pressure on people to repay what is owed to others, and to reword them once they have made their victims whole (via the lesser of the actual amount owed, or an amount the victim agrees to accept to be considered made whole).

2 - I think you should reconsider the negative rating against Thule. I don't think he is going to scam 1 out of x people he trades with, which I believe should be the criteria for negative trust (and the type 1 flags). His controversy was ignited by a single event that he was "caught" doing (IIRC) > a year after the fact, and I don't believe he had sufficient support to help him navigate the situation, which eventually escalated, in part because he was getting trolled by certain members. I don't particularly like him personally, but I do think he deserves to be treated fairly, and with respect, and the same as everyone else.

3 - Regarding:

QS[...] earned a permanent spot on my exclusion list.  

I strongly disagree with this stance. If you have reviewed by stances on trust related matters, you will see that i employ the same standards to everyone, regardless of their position. You will also see that I have a long history going back years of risking my reputation to call out things that I believe to be wrong. I also would say there are few of my sent trust ratings that a do not explain why the person has scammed, or will very likely scam 1 out of x people he does business with.

[DireWolfM14]

It's obvious it's not really serious, but since you say you take it seriously, your feedback on satoshi could be improved. It says: My BTC for his PayPal, and he still hasn't charged back. Thanks!, which I highly doubt

I do take it seriously, but I left that review before I was on DT1.  Also, the date I left the review should be considered.    But of course you're right, I shouldn't be using the system for clowning around.

2 - I think you should reconsider the negative rating against Thule. I don't think he is going to scam 1 out of x people he trades with, which I believe should be the criteria for negative trust (and the type 1 flags). His controversy was ignited by a single event that he was "caught" doing (IIRC) > a year after the fact, and I don't believe he had sufficient support to help him navigate the situation, which eventually escalated, in part because he was getting trolled by certain members. I don't particularly like him personally, but I do think he deserves to be treated fairly, and with respect, and the same as everyone else.

I vehemently disagree wit this.  Thule has proven himself to take a personal vendetta against forum members way too seriously and way too far.  I've done several trades on this forum for physical goods and PayPal, each time exposing my real name (which is uncommon,) and, in some cases my address.  Thule's propensity to dox those with whom he's taken issue puts those people at risk.  Anyone who deals with Thule in those ways can very easily suffer financial or physical risk.  I highly encourage people to avoid any dealings with him.  He may not scam one directly, but he very likely may put a member or his family in danger.

Then there's the defamation itself, which is a type of scam.  Thule convinced me to remove his red-tag once, and then he went on a bigger libelous rant including posting a photo which may have actually been that of a forum member and her family.  There's no fucking way I could ever trust a shithead like that, and I believe no one should.  That red-tag will remain.

3 - Regarding:

QS[...] earned a permanent spot on my exclusion list.

I strongly disagree with this stance. If you have reviewed by stances on trust related matters, you will see that i employ the same standards to everyone, regardless of their position. You will also see that I have a long history going back years of risking my reputation to call out things that I believe to be wrong. I also would say there are few of my sent trust ratings that a do not explain why the person has scammed, or will very likely scam 1 out of x people he does business with.

I tend to agree; the rigidity of the word permanent is probably a bit extreme, people can change.  When I first arrived here I was puzzled by your trust rating since you do seem to be an established and contributing member of the forum, and take proactive steps to expose scammers.  I did a little research and found the reasons for the negative reviews are based on the community's aversions to account sellers.  I don't recall you denying those accusations, let alone disproving them.  Selling accounts can only serve to counter-act the efforts you make to stop scammers.  Your actions can (which appear to be true,) and likely do put the community at risk.

Again, your position on my exclusion list isn't personal, but I do feel it's better position for the overall health of the community.

[Timelord2067]

At the risk of multi posting, I think responding to @Timelord2067 deserves it's own post.  

I appreciate the reply you have given and it has given me pause to think how I approach the various goings on in the forum.

Regards,

[Steamtyme]

I can't argue with that logic, and looking back my public behavior in that it thread I do feel some shame.  In my defense I did PM Csmiami 23 seconds after I made this post telling him that I would send the money back (minus tx fees.)  I should have been more responsible in public, and shouldn't have needed DarkStar_ to point out that out.

No, worries. You obviously take these things seriously and it's always a chance to learn adapt and improve. I would just take from this (and it's something I work on as well) to try and not let rank or a bias(good/bad or both) towards someone cloud your judgement with the totality of what's happening in any situation.

This is also a very good point, and I was putting things into a narrow minded perspective due to the amount.  Integrity shouldn't depend on amount; $3 is essentially one 24oz Coors Light to me (which my waistline will attest I can live without,) but could be someone else's daily wages.  Thank you for your feedback, Steamtyme, it is really helpful.

Always happy to help or lend an opinion, especially with those willing to listen or enlighten as well. I hear yah on the cans full of sweet sweet nectar, couldn't help but grab a couple of cold ones after reading that. All this talk of drinks and other peoples things made me think of that guy at the party who was always conveniently drinking whatever booze was least guarded.

I feel like I missed a reply in the threads from csmiami if so I'll post in my rep thread about it and my reasoning so as to not hijack this one, or continuously bump the original.

[Quickseller]

3 - Regarding:

QS[...] earned a permanent spot on my exclusion list.

I strongly disagree with this stance. If you have reviewed by stances on trust related matters, you will see that i employ the same standards to everyone, regardless of their position. You will also see that I have a long history going back years of risking my reputation to call out things that I believe to be wrong. I also would say there are few of my sent trust ratings that a do not explain why the person has scammed, or will very likely scam 1 out of x people he does business with.

[...]  I did a little research and found the reasons for the negative reviews are based on the community's aversions to account sellers.  I don't recall you denying those accusations, let alone disproving them.  Selling accounts can only serve to counter-act the efforts you make to stop scammers.  Your actions can (which appear to be true,) and likely do put the community at risk.

This is incorrect.

When I started (check the thread title of the post), selling forum accounts, was widely accepted and done by many, none of which received any kind of negative trust. It was so widely accepted that Vod removed a negative rating he had against an account after he learned it was sold.

Further, I stopped selling forum accounts in or around March 2015 (see the changed title to my thread), around 5 months prior to my receiving my first negative rating, and months after I had many positive ratings, and was well known by many to have previously sold forum accounts. The exception to this was when I was scammed by Chris Boelens (whose real name is public) when he used his account as collateral for a loan he had no intention of repaying (he confirmed this to me via email fairly recently) -- he claimed that he was having drug problems at the time. The negative trust I have is in regards to $12 in escrow fees I received that I promptly refunded when requested (one of those involved initially declined a refund, but asked for one once pushed, but once he requested the refund, he was given one).

Separately, you should remove bob123 from your trust list. He is a scammer based on information he personally stipulated to, such as posting a telegram chat in which he said he would buy an account if he received a PM from the account that was being sold, and subsequently did not buy said account. He also admitted to intentionally causing financial harm to someone after obtaining information under what can only be described as false pretenses. It is unacceptable to turn a blind eye to someone scamming just because the victim is doing something that is legal but you do not like.

If you were selling something such as alcohol or guns or something else some people do not like being sold, while following all relevant laws, and someone stole from you, I think you would be rightfully upset if the police had a confession from the thief, but declined pursue the matter -- you would probably be calling for the resignation or firing of the police chief.

[bob123]

Separately, you should remove bob123 from your trust list. He is a scammer based on information he personally stipulated to, such as posting a telegram chat in which he said he would buy an account if he received a PM from the account that was being sold, and subsequently did not buy said account.

Scammer because of rescinding from a trade? 

He also admitted to intentionally causing financial harm to someone after obtaining information under what can only be described as false pretenses.

Where did i admit that? 

If you were selling something such as alcohol or guns or something else some people do not like being sold, while following all relevant laws, and someone stole from you, I think you would be rightfully upset if the police had a confession from the thief, but declined pursue the matter -- you would probably be calling for the resignation or firing of the police chief.

Please.. please tell me.. what did i steal?

Oh... now i understand.
I wanted to buy alcohol or guns and rescinded from it. Then afterwards i posted publicly that this specific alcohol/gun is low quality / from country X / made of plastic / basically any non-confidential information.

I see.. i stole... the possibility from the seller to scam people with worthless goods.


How many more threads do you want with this topic ?  Aren't 3 already enough? Do we need 4 ?

[Timelord2067]

What does quickseller's latest navel gazing have to do with DireWolfM14's thread?

[bones261]

What does quickseller's latest navel gazing have to do with DireWolfM14's thread?

bob123 is included on DirewolfM14's trust list, making bob123 DT2.

[bob123]

What does quickseller's latest navel gazing have to do with DireWolfM14's thread?

bob123 is included on DirewolfM14's trust list, making bob123 DT2.

There is no way you can know this?

Also.. i believe i am not on his trust list, not sure though.

[bones261]

There is no way you can know this?

Also.. i believe i am not on his trust list, not sure though.

Sure there is a way that someone can know this. Simply go to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;full;dt and find out who your name is under.  Also, LoyceV publishes information about people's trust lists, weekly. http://loyce.club/trust/ It appear's Direwolf added you recently because your name is not on his list in Loyce's latest data, which was last updated on 06/22/2019.

[DireWolfM14]

I added bob yesterday.