IS GIVING RED-TRUST THAT NON-EXPLANATORY ?

[eddie13]

Merited OP
Merited the TS post
Countered
~Lauda added

Lauda is clearly flying off the handle with abusive negative feedback most recently including abusive trust against TS.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210651.0
And abusive trust against me.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5206862.0
And now this..

It's well past time to ~Lauda people..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust
Do it..

BayAreaCoins, Hhampuz, subSTRATA, AT101ET, teeGUMES, Steamtyme, Blazed, Lesbian Cow, chronicsky, dazedfool, minerjones, DaveF, ezeminer, notserp, wheelz1200, OgNasty, Gyfts, monbux, DiamondCardz, monkeynuts...

army of pajeets

You are all just "pajeets" to Lauda..

Do you really think that I care what theymos said

--and leaving somebody a neg based on that isn't what Theymos wants the trust system used for.

Have most of you guys forgot the lessening of the guidelines post the introduction of the flag system? Yes, you can now leave negatives for many more things (and no, it isn't abuse/misuse like it was before - to a lesser extent now). It is the flag system that's for scams nowadays, and the trust system for more "opinionated-things".

Trust flags

you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions

Lauda has no respect for the guidelines given by theymos and is running around belligerently abusing their DT2 position..

It's time to end it..
We should not accept such runaway authoritarians here staying on DT..

Good outweighs the bad my ass.. DT should be held to a MUCH higher standard than that..

And my favorite..

I am completely against freedom of speech when it is used by virtue signallers like eddie13

[1714839161]

1714839161

[1714839161]

1714839161

[1714839161]

1714839161

[1714839161]

1714839161

[1714839161]

1714839161

[Lauda]

By your own standard here you are objectively a liar and we should all red trust you over it. Of course in many cases you leave ratings for people "lying" there is no objective evidence, just lots of disagreement in opinion and dislike that certain individuals are getting support that you would like to stop.

Changed my mind later after the flag-system was introduced.

Right.

We should not accept such runaway authoritarians here staying on DT..

Good outweighs the bad my ass.. DT should be held to a MUCH higher standard than that..

I'm not DT nor authoritarians. You on the other hand, pushing your bullshit magic-wand guidelines on me, are both. I quit DT precisely to avoid these flush standards while members look away when their buddies steal here and there. Yet you keep trying to push these standards even when I quit DT. Will you fucking get a life already and do what you do best?

It's well past time to ~Lauda people..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Excellent. This is what people should be doing, and not crying like their mommy just forbade them from playing outside. These libtard cunts need to fucking grow up already.

~ or not, I will absolutely make no changes to these ratings. Therefore, do everyone a favour and stop being so butthurt about your rating get it over with already: ~Lauda and fucking shut up. I'm not the old cunt that produced you and therefore not here to comfort you when you're crying.

[TECSHARE]

By your own standard here you are objectively a liar and we should all red trust you over it. Of course in many cases you leave ratings for people "lying" there is no objective evidence, just lots of disagreement in opinion and dislike that certain individuals are getting support that you would like to stop.

Changed my mind later after the flag-system was introduced.

Right.

We should not accept such runaway authoritarians here staying on DT..

Good outweighs the bad my ass.. DT should be held to a MUCH higher standard than that..

I'm not DT nor authoritarians. You on the other hand, pushing your bullshit magic-wand guidelines on me, are both. I quit DT precisely to avoid these flush standards while members look away when their buddies steal here and there. Yet you keep trying to push these standards even when I quit DT. Will you fucking get a life already and do what you do best?

It's well past time to ~Lauda people..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust

Excellent. This is what people should be doing, and not crying like their mommy just forbade them from playing outside. These libtard cunts need to fucking grow up already.

~ or not, I will absolutely make no changes to these ratings. Therefore, do everyone a favour and stop being so butthurt about your rating get it over with already: ~Lauda and fucking shut up. I'm not the old cunt that produced you and therefore not here to comfort you when you're crying.

You claim you changed your mind, I say you are a liar. Of course there is no problem with using this logic to negative rate people right?

[Lauda]

You claim you changed your mind, I say you are a liar. Of course there is no problem with using this logic to negative rate people right?

If you think so, go ahead and rate. I will not be screaming, nor shouting nor crying like yall folk are. This is easy if you aren't a sensitive bitch, innit?

[eddie13]

I'm not DT nor authoritarians.

How far removed from reality can you possibly be?
You are both DT and a tyrannical authoritarian..

I think the only reason you are on DT is that users are afraid to stand up against you..
"Good outweighs the bad" is a piss poor excuse to keep letting this go on..

~Lauda and fucking shut up

I finally did, and I'll shut up when I please (never)..

You are the one wasting everyone's time with this BS..

I am nut "butthurt" about my rating, lol..
I'm "butthurt" about you constantly intimidating other good users threatening to do to them what you have done to us..
Your power of intimidation needs to be removed from you.. Then you can go tagging/flagging whatever you want at your heart's content for all I care.. 

[TECSHARE]

You claim you changed your mind, I say you are a liar. Of course there is no problem with using this logic to negative rate people right?

If you think so, go ahead and rate. I will not be screaming, nor shouting nor crying like yall folk are. This is easy if you aren't a sensitive bitch, innit?

Its easy if you have no stake in the system and are willing to trash it out of spite from being rejected by it. I just think its great you are stuck in a position to argue against yourself using your own words in order to justify your actions. This is what inevitably happens to real liars. Much like the people you choose to abuse, you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don't.

I'm not DT nor authoritarians.

How far removed from reality can you possibly be?
You are both DT and a tyrannical authoritarian..

I think the only reason you are on DT is that users are afraid to stand up against you..
"Good outweighs the bad" is a piss poor excuse to keep letting this go on..

~Lauda and fucking shut up

I finally did, and I'll shut up when I please (never)..

You are the one wasting everyone's time with this BS..

I am nut "butthurt" about my rating, lol..
I'm "butthurt" about you constantly intimidating other good users threatening to do to them what you have done to us..
Your power of intimidation needs to be removed from you.. Then you can go tagging/flagging whatever you want at your heart's content for all I care.. 

I think Lauda is arguing that they are not multiple authoritarians, just one. Of course this might change with a psychological break.

[eddie13]

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.

You decide..
Who are you with?
theymos or Lauda?

[Quickseller]

At the end of the day, Lauda is horribly corrupt and he should be condemned in the strongest way possible. He has a very long history of giving negative trust to people critical of him for trivial and/or questionable reasons. He has a history of using his position of power/authority to personally profit (that would not otherwise be available if not for the position of authority/power).

Lauda should be blacklisted from being on anyone’s trust list unless they explicitly add him to their trust list, and ditto for any of his alts. The same should be done for any other person who similarly gives trust.  

Lauda has done some good things for the forum before and has blindly supported the bitcoin core team for a long time. Neither of these are a sufficient reason to excuse his behavior at other times.

[Steamtyme]

Lauda should be blacklisted from being on anyone’s trust list unless they explicitly add him to their trust list, and ditto for any of his alts. The same should be done for any other person who similarly gives trust. 

I disagree. The second we go all blacklisty on things it's no longer a community controlled system. People just need to continue to show how the system should be used, and point out when it is clearly being used outside of what is acceptable. Then informed of their options. ~ should be used as opposed to blacklisting. I also don't think we should be deciding who people can and can't add to their list, it's their choice if that's the sort of rating system they think has value.

[Quickseller]

Lauda should be blacklisted from being on anyone’s trust list unless they explicitly add him to their trust list, and ditto for any of his alts. The same should be done for any other person who similarly gives trust. 

I disagree. The second we go all blacklisty on things it's no longer a community controlled system. People just need to continue to show how the system should be used, and point out when it is clearly being used outside of what is acceptable. Then informed of their options. ~ should be used as opposed to blacklisting. I also don't think we should be deciding who people can and can't add to their list, it's their choice if that's the sort of rating system they think has value.

Well the thing is that once a person has a strong grip on being on DT, as Lauda does, it is very difficult to get them off, even if they are scamming or doing something very unethical or illegal.

Lauda should have been excluded from DT when he tried to extort zeroaxl, and anyone who kept Lauda on their trust lists should have been excluded themselves. Lauda basically avoided this by denying he did anything wrong, even though the facts were undisputed and by using strong language that removing him from DT was amounting to helping scammers.

The same is true when he was part of an escrow team and over a million dollars worth of various coins were unaccounted for and none of the escrow agents would answer any questions. Again Lauda denied doing anything wrong and said there wasn’t anything requiring him to give an accounting of what happened to all the money he collected.

If you can come away unscathed and still be on DT after being entrusted with a million dollars that goes missing without even giving an explanation or answering any meaningful questions, there isn’t anything that will cause Lauda to be removed from DT.

[TECSHARE]

Lauda should be blacklisted from being on anyone’s trust list unless they explicitly add him to their trust list, and ditto for any of his alts. The same should be done for any other person who similarly gives trust.  

I disagree. The second we go all blacklisty on things it's no longer a community controlled system. People just need to continue to show how the system should be used, and point out when it is clearly being used outside of what is acceptable. Then informed of their options. ~ should be used as opposed to blacklisting. I also don't think we should be deciding who people can and can't add to their list, it's their choice if that's the sort of rating system they think has value.

Complete decentralization is a pipe dream. Total decentralization assumes everyone is operating within the community set standards and is not abusing the mechanisms available within it for self serving and or fraudulent purposes. Expecting humans to not do this is quite naive. The most robust systems have both aspects of centralization and decentralization. There is a good book about it if you want to read more.

Even if you don't agree with this argument, the fact is this forum is an inherently centralized entity. You can want it to be decentralized all you like, that doesn't change the fact it runs on a centralized server, is administrated by a centralized group of people, and requires a centralized set of rules to govern it. This whole game where we pretend the forum is can be completely decentralized is childish and more destructive to this community than helpful.

Theymos, being the centralized administrator of this forum has put forth a set of standards we are all supposed to operate within. He really hasn't set the bar that high. All he is requiring is that we operate within a set format, he doesn't dictate the content of the system, only its organizational structure. We don't have to agree with those standards, but if we are intentionally and willfully disregarding those standards, then it is pretty clear exclusion from this system is warranted.

This is exactly why I have been advocating for some more clearly defined rules and standards around here for some time. I don't mind following the rules, but if the rules are ambiguous, unwritten, and arbitrarily enforced, then even if you want to operate within the system it is quite impossible. This inevitably leads to more chaos and conflict than approaching absolutely everything on a case by case basis.

[Quickseller]

Even without making subjective, case by case judgements, if you control what the algorithm is, you control the outcome. If you control the inputs of the algorithm (such as by controlling who the merit sources are), you have even greater control over the outcome. Making the algorithm public reduces control somewhat but it makes it somewhat subject to manipulation.

[eddie13]

I still have faith in the community to do the right thing in setting and applying good standards..

The more and more such cases pile up the harder and harder it will be for them to pretend to ignore it and still feel good about themselves in their actions..
Also, the more people that stand up to it the less intimidated the rest will be..

Edit-

Even without making subjective, case by case judgements, if you control what the algorithm is, you control the outcome. If you control the inputs of the algorithm (such as by controlling who the merit sources are), you have even greater control over the outcome. Making the algorithm public reduces control somewhat but it makes it somewhat subject to manipulation.

I agree that merit, and therefore voting power, are poorly distributed.. Especially at first but it is improving I think..

Another factor is that those who were at odds with and rejecting the old trust system at the time, creating their own trust lists before the new trust system happened, got a huge jump start into DT, and a huge jump start into acquiring merits for voting power..

I think mostly the "scambuster" crowd, who have/had loyalty to Lauda, and I find tend to be more authoritarian and power-seeking in nature, those gunning to become DT and to create their reputations, who got the head start..
It has and will take time for us libertarian minded folk to balance that out, but will happen..

But it has sense been slowly balancing and the initial head start is loosing its advantage.. Very slowly.. Maybe another year..

[TECSHARE]

I still have faith in the community to do the right thing in setting and applying good standards..

The more and more such cases pile up the harder and harder it will be for them to pretend to ignore it and still feel good about themselves in their actions..
Also, the more people that stand up to it the less intimidated the rest will be..

Exactly. I realize many people find my incessant and perpetual need to beat my skull against these types of people quite agitating, many seeing it as pointless and disruptive, but I do it for a good reason. The reason is to set an example and show other people they don't have to just put up with it. There are more people that oppose this type of behavior than support it, just most of them aren't willing to be the first ones to speak up about it. You too can prevent forest fires. A single droplet is meaningless, one drop dripping over and over again is torture, but enough of them together is a flood.

[Rizzrack]

I totally understand why we have more guidelines than rules here ... and the concept is great, but some times the definitions of good/bad, correct/WTF , logic/"in my opinion" is way too subjective.

In my own personal opinion trust ratings should be for actions, not words.

I would add one more column to the rank requirements.

Rank	Required activity	Required merit	Extra requirements
Brand new	0	0	none
Newbie	1	0	none
Jr Member	30	1	none
Member	60	10	none
Full Member	120	100	Custom trust list min 10 users[1]
Sr. Member	240	250	Custom trust list min 25 users[1]
Hero Member	480	500	Custom trust list min 40 users[1]
Legendary	Random in the range 775-1030	1000	Custom trust list min 75 users[1]

[1] - Total number of users added to your custom trust list including ~ and non~ users (numbers are subject to change). Also defaultTrust is automatically ~ed and cannot be changed

Searched and could not find in the first few tried something similar so there. Might be a step in the right direction IMHO.  I doubt the DT concept was thought as a long term solution even from the beginning

[dragonvslinux]

What a surprise, another ~Lauda thread.

Today I got a navigate trust rating for sending merits to a post I found informative...yes read again sending merits, and it was by someone who has lots of inclusions from well-known members here.
Mine is not the only example, many users are just buried under this type of trust abuse.

Unlucky for you, I only really post in Speculation that doesn't show trust, so I couldn't give a fuck.

Lauda is the only one that is able to do something about the negative feedback you have received.

Not true. DT1 could stop trusting this member for starters, so that ~Lauda is no longer a flag-abusing DT2 member

Just ~Lauda and fuck off if you don't agree with it.

More people (like you) should take Lauda's advise way more often, this isn't the first recommendation:

I have to say, leaving negative feedback for sending a single merit for something a person likes is a bit much not? Lauda?
Like it involved some very good members and stuff.... I also wouldn't appreciate some negative trust for just a difference in opinion ...

Just ~Lauda and fuck off if you don't agree with it.

Lauda's one liners are best, period.

(crushed)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Frengki_cisco]

I see this topic getting hotter to be discussed between Lauda vs hacker1001101001.

What i see.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1021758

Honestly I am not on the side of Lauda and hacker1001101001, the solution, middle, very touching someone's heart.

It would be nice if Lauda considered what @LoyceV said,
If Lauda doesn't believe what @LoyceV says, it means that no one else reconciles Lauda with hacker1001101001.

Be the bigger man!
With great power comes great responsibility (source unknown). Especially when you're on DefaultTrust (or if you want to be on DefaultTrust in the future), you shouldn't (ab)use that power by leaving (negative) feedback when someone does something you don't like. Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement.
If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5191802.0

If I were in a DT position, of course, considering some of the things I had to plant in my soul.
Red trust, preferably for those who really make mistakes and threaten the community especially the Forum and others.
Red trust is not, in a state of revenge, hate, it is definitely based on the file to the evidence in the trial.
A deer dies in the forest all of a sudden, not necessarily the tiger that killed it, it could have starved to death or got caught in a trap.

Basically people have a definite reason, what they do, surely, very professional if they do something with the existing procedure.

[LeGaulois]

@hacker1001101001

I usually stay away from the dramas in the forum but I see you created a trap to create the mess between members and they failed in it. You're trying to get as many people on your side as you can to defend yourself. This text is pathetic because it's done to provoke the hate between members.

I didn't know this topic before, but after reading it I find amusing, knowing what I know. I believe people need to know your double standard concerning what could be good or bad for a community.

edit
@TECSHARE

I didn't say what is acceptable or not, I said "people need to know your double standard concerning what could be good or bad for a community. "

and I will post it!

[TECSHARE]

@hacker1001101001

I usually stay away from the dramas in the forum but I see you created a trap to create the mess between members and they failed in it. You're trying to get as many people on your side as you can to defend yourself.

I didn't know this topic before, but after reading it I find amusing, knowing what I know. I believe people need to know your double standard concerning what could be good or bad for a community.

So you are really arguing that it is an acceptable use of the trust system to negative rate people for giving merits to opinions they don't agree with? You aren't making any sense.

[El duderino_]

I don't know but for Lauda is still a person that catches a lot of spammers and did helped the forum on many ways, with continuously searching spammers/scammers and whatsoever then of-course you will be a hated person by a lot of members as well and many will try to stop that person and....
So I think he/she earned a lot of credit by helping out, I do remember having a question and being answered prompt (don't remember the matter instantly, but it was fast) Then again if the red-feedback was only on that merit post that was saying something over highly respected members then I would say thats over the line.... Imo I would say its fair to remove the red and maybe make a neutral in which you say something but red-feedback isn't at its place (for me).