Are the negative trusts you have given so far really necessary?

[vycl87]

I have not been following the "meta" board for a long time. Because I often think that the purpose of the forum is out of the way and that people are trying to make obvious cold war. Here I see a lot of unnecessary negative trust activities that appear at the end of the correspondence. Are these really necessary? Have you ever reevaluated the negative feedbacks you have made so far?

First of all, I think it is necessary to accept that everyone may have differences of opinion. So I think it's not right to give negative feedback to someone just because one thinks differently from you. Also, there is no logical explanation for going out of the subject and breaking each other. I think the energy spent here would be better for all of us if it really focused on the right points like blockchain tech or something. I think everyone should re-consider this negative feedback thing again.

I think that if we use both the trust system and the merit system correctly, it can be so useful and beneficial for all of us. I'm even very sure. I ask you, please review all the negative feedback you provided. I'm sure you will notice what you need to ignore.

Let me briefly tell you my own story. When the merit system arrived I was just a "member" and had only 10 merits. It took me a long time to come to where I am now. In the early days, I was far from contributing to the forum since I was just trying for bounty. Therefore, I continued as a member for a long time. Moreover, we did not have many merit resources on the local board. And since I usually write on the local board, it took quite a while to become a Full Member. But then I suddenly realized that the contributions made were somehow appreciated. When I came up with something good, I was somehow rewarded. And now I'm here. And now I think of being able to contribute to the forum rather than having merit, and somehow being rewarded.

I am very sorry to see that an account has received negative feedback because I have come this long way. I think those who come to their places by struggling like me will understand me very easily. I think it's best to stay away from personal conflicts and quarrels. Thus, those who manage the forum can deal with more correct issues. If it is not really a big problem, let them go, ignore them. If it is really trouble then you should consider giving trust both negative or positive.

I hope I was able to tell you what I was thinking about correctly.

[1714077678]

1714077678

[1714077678]

1714077678

[The Cryptovator]

If you do not abuse forum trust system then you shouldn't get tag. There would be few retaliatory feedback but it's very low. Whoever abuse trust system by false feedback's they have been removing from DT network by other DT members. Trust actually using for prevent abuse/likely scam. Most of DT members leaving feedback's with reference links, so if there is not appropriate reason for tag you might open thread on reputation about it so other DT members would see and they might counter or distrust. But if DT members just ignore likely scam or abuse then forum will full by scammers/abuser. Will you like make a heaven for scammers on this forum?

Personally I have been trying to use negative feedback very carefully. I never left feedback if someone express their opinions against me. Everyone have freedom of speech, so let them speak. Eventually they will get return same as they done for others.

[vycl87]

If you do not abuse forum trust system then you shouldn't get tag. There would be few retaliatory feedback but it's very low. Whoever abuse trust system by false feedback's they have been removing from DT network by other DT members. Trust actually using for prevent abuse/likely scam. Most of DT members leaving feedback's with reference links, so if there is not appropriate reason for tag you might open thread on reputation about it so other DT members would see and they might counter or distrust. But if DT members just ignore likely scam or abuse then forum will full by scammers/abuser. Will you like make a heaven for scammers on this forum?

Personally I have been trying to use negative feedback very carefully. I never left feedback if someone express their opinions against me. Everyone have freedom of speech, so let them speak. Eventually they will get return same as they done for others.

Of course, nothing I mentioned here is about those who use the system correctly. But there are also those given unnecessary as a result of personal fights. Everything I mentioned above is about them. I did not need to say that we do not want anyone who create SCAM and/or SPAM content here.

[HCP]

Your post gave me pause to go and check on my trust history... I didn't recall giving any "unnecessary" negative feedback, even in the cases of rambotnic and game-protect who both left a false negative on my profile.

Indeed, in the case of rambotnic, I even sent them a PM asking them to reconsider the red trust (it was my first) and they told me that I had to "suffer"... C'est la vie.

In the case of game-protect, they tagged me because I supported a flag (that had overwhelming evidence). Given their history and behaviour, I didn't even bother trying to reason with them.


As far as I can tell, all my negatives are for scammers, shills promoting scams and/or malware or folks with active scam accusations (with what I consider adequate evidence of said scam).

I believe this is the correct usage of trust feedback.

[erikalui]

I have only given negative trust to people who have scammed me and not to those who have scammed others as sometimes those accusations cannot be trusted else they get resolved and it gets troublesome to follow them up.  For personal conflicts, a neutral rating would be fine but not a negative feedback. Trolls and spammers especially have to be given neutral feedback.

[LoyceV]

I strongly believe in this:

Do's and Don'ts

• Don't leave positive feedback for your own alt account (use neutral comments for this).
• Don't leave negative feedback when someone violates the forum rules. Instead, use Report to moderator for rule violations.
• Do leave mutual neutral feedback if you want to show which alt account(s) belong to you.
• Don't leave (negative) feedback based on retaliation.
• Don't leave (positive) feedback just because someone left it to you.

And this:

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.

And this:

It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.

I invite anyone to review my the feedback I've left, and if there's anything worth discussing, please post in my reputation thread.

Some of my negative feedback is no longer needed, because the accounts have been Nuked, but I leave them as reference anyway.

[suchmoon]

I have not been following the "meta" board for a long time. Because I often think that the purpose of the forum is out of the way and that people are trying to make obvious cold war. Here I see a lot of unnecessary negative trust activities that appear at the end of the correspondence. Are these really necessary? Have you ever reevaluated the negative feedbacks you have made so far?

I review my trust ratings roughly twice a year and sometimes remove or revise some of them. I used to advocate others to review their ratings but have largely given up on that. Nobody wants to be told what to do, even in the most polite terms.

Sending red trust for opinions is an unfortunate new habit that has developed here, along with a laundry-list of excuses for it (and no, "lying" is not a valid excuse). Trust list exclusion is a more suitable and a more effective way of dealing with someone's flawed judgement. Neutral rating can be added if you really feel the need to say something about the person. Other than that the trust system should be left out of flame wars.

[vycl87]

I strongly believe in this:

Do's and Don'ts

• Don't leave positive feedback for your own alt account (use neutral comments for this).
• Don't leave negative feedback when someone violates the forum rules. Instead, use Report to moderator for rule violations.
• Do leave mutual neutral feedback if you want to show which alt account(s) belong to you.
• Don't leave (negative) feedback based on retaliation.
• Don't leave (positive) feedback just because someone left it to you.

And this:

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.

And this:

It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.

I invite anyone to review my the feedback I've left, and if there's anything worth discussing, please post in my reputation thread.

Some of my negative feedback is no longer needed, because the accounts have been Nuked, but I leave them as reference anyway.

I think only you've understood me completely.

And I like this sentence, I think it is a summary of my topics;

It's also wise to ask yourself before leaving feedback: "Does my feedback make Bitcointalk a better place? And if it's negative: is it worth destroying someone's account and reputation over this?". Consider using Neutral feedback if neither Positive nor Negative is justified.

Thank you a lot for the clarification.


And, if you are completely ok with your feedback, there is no issue. Just I wanted to re-consider again if someone really deserved it or not! So like LoyceV said above, your feedback will be usefull or make this forum better? Just think about it. What I wanted to tell you was not to give negative feedback to anyone! Just give it to the one who truly deserves it!

I have not been following the "meta" board for a long time. Because I often think that the purpose of the forum is out of the way and that people are trying to make obvious cold war. Here I see a lot of unnecessary negative trust activities that appear at the end of the correspondence. Are these really necessary? Have you ever reevaluated the negative feedbacks you have made so far?

I review my trust ratings roughly twice a year and sometimes remove or revise some of them. I used to advocate others to review their ratings but have largely given up on that. Nobody wants to be told what to do, even in the most polite terms.

Sending red trust for opinions is an unfortunate new habit that has developed here, along with a laundry-list of excuses for it (and no, "lying" is not a valid excuse). Trust list exclusion is a more suitable and a more effective way of dealing with someone's flawed judgement. Neutral rating can be added if you really feel the need to say something about the person. Other than that the trust system should be left out of flame wars.

Again, I think you understand what I'm saying. Thank you for your clarification.

[mu_enrico]

For me, I'm not a fan of the current feedback system since there is a reason why, for example, Facebook, Twitter, etc., don't have a dislike button. So I'm a bit reluctant to give negative feedback. Also, positive feedback is somewhat similar to merit. For me, the feedback system should be used for trading purposes only.

However, even if you have decided to "not participate," there will be a person who just likes to troll you with random negative feedback. I think my negative feedbacks are fair, and I hope I don't have to give more of it in the future.

[Stedsm]

For me, I'm not a fan of the current feedback system since there is a reason why, for example, Facebook, Twitter, etc., don't have a dislike button. So I'm a bit reluctant to give negative feedback. Also, positive feedback is somewhat similar to merit. For me, the feedback system should be used for trading purposes only.

--snip--

Exactly, the trust system was solely made with the purpose of giving it to those upon whom we risked or we got risked some coins to/by someone and we trust them/they trust us that we can be used as an exchanger or that we can use them for that very same purpose because one/few of our trades were successful. I don't know how mudding each other for some personal reasons, spam, giving stupid trust feedbacks (see my profile for a few by game-protect) justifies to be sitting there in our profile. I know that spam needs to be reported and I'm completely with the spambusters but those who give red marks for spamming, is it really the best place to land your opinion?

[Lauda]

For me, I'm not a fan of the current feedback system since there is a reason why, for example, Facebook, Twitter, etc., don't have a dislike button.

Just because 99% of the humanity can't be trusted to rationally assess other people's behavior, that doesn't mean that nobody can. People who use Facebook & co. are very ignorant and sheep to begin with.
Answer to OP: More than necessary, restraint is more often exercised than not.

[UserU]

However, even if you have decided to "not participate," there will be a person who just likes to troll you with random negative feedback. I think my negative feedbacks are fair, and I hope I don't have to give more of it in the future.

Usually those trolls hardly hold any weight, since they're either not in any DT or they don't link any reference(s).

[xolxol]

DT abusers be like yeah you abused the system thats why you have red not knowing they abused it too by giving shit feedbacks to protect their crimes.

[cabalism13]

Just because 99% of the humanity can't be trusted to rationally assess other people's behavior

Well said for a Cat.

DT abusers be like yeah you abused the system thats why you have red not knowing they abused it too by giving shit feedbacks to protect their crimes.

Someone is triggered with the discussion...

Usually those trolls hardly hold any weight, since they're either not in any DT or they don't link any reference(s).

Also don't forget those users who just make unnecessary feedback just because you offended them, also there are some users who provide links but their feedback are just copy/pasted from the other users. I simply disagree with copy pasting of feedback. Its too obviously biased, someone should still create their own feedback even though the reason for tagging is the same.

[dannybrown]

I'm really sorry.
Every day, I began to walk away from this forum, which I fell in love with because of unfair accusations and slander.
I really don't understand why they're doing this.
I have always enjoyed being a part of this forum.I've seen everybody blame each other lately .this is painful.

[Lauda]

I'm really sorry.
Every day, I began to walk away from this forum, which I fell in love with because of unfair accusations and slander.
I really don't understand why they're doing this.
I have always enjoyed being a part of this forum.I've seen everybody blame each other lately .this is painful.

Stop abusing the forum and you won't be "unfairly accused".

[Stedsm]

Stop abusing the forum and you won't be "unfairly accused".

Please don't mind when I try to point this out, but isn't it true that there were DTs who abused their authority of giving bad trusts by trying to show their power on the forum through false/baseless accusations? I don't want to get involved in all this drama anymore because the trust system became too obsolete that even theymos had to come up with a new thing we now see as "Trust flags". TBH, I only see the best in the interest of an individual to have a trust list maintained here, though it doesn't make any difference at first but once a DT (of any depth) is proven wrong, this might turn out to be a win-win situation for that person who was accused either due to jealousy or baseless assumptions.

[Lauda]

Stop abusing the forum and you won't be "unfairly accused".

Please don't mind when I try to point this out, but isn't it true that there were DTs who abused their authority of giving bad trusts by trying to show their power on the forum through false/baseless accusations? I don't want to get involved in all this drama anymore because the trust system became too obsolete that even theymos had to come up with a new thing we now see as "Trust flags". TBH, I only see the best in the interest of an individual to have a trust list maintained here, though it doesn't make any difference at first but once a DT (of any depth) is proven wrong, this might turn out to be a win-win situation for that person who was accused either due to jealousy or baseless assumptions.

He's reply, whilst trying to hide it, is solely based because his own abuse among his own Turkish gang got called out:

Blacknavy
Kalemder
Vispilio

Your argument on its own is valid, but in relation to my response is invalid.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

the trust system became too obsolete that even theymos had to come up with a new thing we now see as "Trust flags".

I don't think that's why he came up with the flag system, though I have to admit I haven't paid much attention to it and have yet to make a flag against a member here.  TECSHARE has always brought up the issue of the difference between dispicable behavior and trustworthiness in business deals--and sometimes, but not always, they're the same thing.  As an example, I think TECSHARE is an angry loon but I would do business with him with no hesitation because of his track record on the forum of not screwing people over.

There have always been allegations of trust abuse by DT members, but the fact is if that happens those DT members would be called on it and probably would be kicked off DT via exclusions by other DT members.  TECSHARE is actually one example of that happening (years ago), but there have been others too. 

I'm comfortable with all the negs I've left for members, which mostly deal with account sales.  But back in 2017-18 before the merit system was launched, I was leaving negs for shitposters because there were no other tools available to combat them.  I was never comfortable doing that and ended up removing all of those feedbacks after the merit system came along.  If you're on DT, you have to be careful about leaving either positive or negative trust just because of the weight it carries.  Hopefully new DT members realize this and act accordingly.

[Stedsm]

--snip--

There have always been allegations of trust abuse by DT members, but the fact is if that happens those DT members would be called on it and probably would be kicked off DT via exclusions by other DT members.  TECSHARE is actually one example of that happening (years ago), but there have been others too. 

I'm comfortable with all the negs I've left for members, which mostly deal with account sales.  But back in 2017-18 before the merit system was launched, I was leaving negs for shitposters because there were no other tools available to combat them.  I was never comfortable doing that and ended up removing all of those feedbacks after the merit system came along.  If you're on DT, you have to be careful about leaving either positive or negative trust just because of the weight it carries.  Hopefully new DT members realize this and act accordingly.

I like people like you who actually either change or remove trust feedbacks whenever needed, but there were people on DT and some are still on DT who went dormant after leaving negative feedbacks and not coming back to the forum. I know that their feedbacks shouldn't really be a priority for them to come on the forum, but then, such feedbacks completely ruin an account if their negative trust is either baseless or is not relevant anymore to what they were given it for. Let's say someone defaulted on a loan a few years before and you leave a red tag to him back then, but he manages to repay it by time and settles it with the lender, shouldn't it be your responsibility to either remove your rating or neutral tag him? But if you are too busy in your real life and can't come online, who will take the responsibility to counter tag that person or exclude you from their list so that the borrower's account doesn't get wasted?

[Deathwing]

-snip-

-snip-
Shouldn't it be your responsibility to either remove your rating or neutral tag him? But if you are too busy in your real life and can't come online, who will take the responsibility to counter tag that person or exclude you from their list so that the borrower's account doesn't get wasted?

Some people don't like to just delete their negative rating, some rightfully so. Although the neutral rating is a thing, most people prefer to keep the big red "negative" trust for years. For people in situations like you've given an example for, the trust rating mostly serves to warn people who are planning to do any business with the member. A negative trust might be bad in comparison to neutral trust, albeit more efficient.

Looking back at the negative trusts I've given in over 7 years, I see none that requires any rectification. I do also have some "defaulting on loan" neg trusts. After checking their profile I see that they literally vanished around the same time the trust was given. Not to mention it's a hassle to constantly check your trust list to see if someone is back on the track. I would say that if there is anyone out there who solved their problems regarding a previously given neg trust, they should contact the person who gave it, rather than complaining per se.

But for over 95% of the time, what Lauda has said is correct. Don't abuse the forum (don't violate the rules, don't find loopholes to give yourself an advantage etc.), don't get tagged with red trust.

[vycl87]

Guys, I created this topic to discuss something right. Please do not go beyond the subject. I don't think the personal conflicts I criticized in the first place could affect the overall forum. Already when I said it in the beginning, LoyceV, and suchmoon said the same thing. Negative trust should be given only for problems concerning the forum, not yours.

If your personal conflicts has special importance to you, you can indicate this by giving trust/distrust in your trust list.

Again, I would like to point out that nothing I mentioned here is for encouraging violation of forum rules, spam and scam content! Rather, it is because this system should be against violation of forum rules, scam and spamming.

Unfortunately, there is no 100% absolute distribution of justice. But it is necessary to start somewhere. And please choose to use your judgments in favor of the forum! I'm sure that if everyone tries to do the right things, the forum will become a much nicer place for all of us.

[TECSHARE]

the trust system became too obsolete that even theymos had to come up with a new thing we now see as "Trust flags".

I don't think that's why he came up with the flag system, though I have to admit I haven't paid much attention to it and have yet to make a flag against a member here.  TECSHARE has always brought up the issue of the difference between dispicable behavior and trustworthiness in business deals--and sometimes, but not always, they're the same thing.  As an example, I think TECSHARE is an angry loon but I would do business with him with no hesitation because of his track record on the forum of not screwing people over.

There have always been allegations of trust abuse by DT members, but the fact is if that happens those DT members would be called on it and probably would be kicked off DT via exclusions by other DT members.  TECSHARE is actually one example of that happening (years ago), but there have been others too.  

I'm comfortable with all the negs I've left for members, which mostly deal with account sales.  But back in 2017-18 before the merit system was launched, I was leaving negs for shitposters because there were no other tools available to combat them.  I was never comfortable doing that and ended up removing all of those feedbacks after the merit system came along.  If you're on DT, you have to be careful about leaving either positive or negative trust just because of the weight it carries.  Hopefully new DT members realize this and act accordingly.

You really are obsessed with me aren't you? This is why I rarely back off people like you, because even when I do they still can never let their obsession go. Maybe you can regale us all with the story of how I left you that neutral rating that one time. The problem with your logic is you might know to ignore those frivolous ratings and that I am safe to trade with, but new users, a large percentage of my trade base don't. As a result those abusive ratings have a direct impact on my ability to trade even though they are left for dumb shit like accusations of "trolling" or stories about "trust abuse". The trust system is still used to punish people for criticizing certain members on a daily basis and no one kicks them off the DT.

[Stedsm]

You really are obsessed with me aren't you? This is why I rarely back off people like you, because even when I do they still can never let their obsession go. Maybe you can regale us all with the story of how I left you that neutral rating that one time. The problem with your logic is you might know to ignore those frivolous ratings and that I am safe to trade with, but new users, a large percentage of my trade base don't. As a result those abusive ratings have a direct impact on my ability to trade even though they are left for dumb shit like accusations of "trolling" or stories about "trust abuse". The trust system is still used to punish people for criticizing certain members on a daily basis and no one kicks them off the DT.

Ehmmm... Sorry to interrupt here but I guess there's no need to go nuts here because he's given an example here and even when I checked your ratings, I can see a +31 / =5 / -3, so 10 times the green trust and you are still in a condition where none of the new people would suspect you that you'll scam 'em away. I know you're talking about some of your personal issues but there are many good ratings in your list which can defend you in your case.

[wolwoo]

selamun aleykum
trust system in the forum collapsed
Giving feedback is legal and normal for one and suspicious for others
While preparing a trustlist, one is free while others have to "get permission"

merit system is also wrong
completely subjective and vulnerable
somebody contracts multi accounts and makes a living from the forum
people move away from the forum as they see injustice and double standards

[TECSHARE]

You really are obsessed with me aren't you? This is why I rarely back off people like you, because even when I do they still can never let their obsession go. Maybe you can regale us all with the story of how I left you that neutral rating that one time. The problem with your logic is you might know to ignore those frivolous ratings and that I am safe to trade with, but new users, a large percentage of my trade base don't. As a result those abusive ratings have a direct impact on my ability to trade even though they are left for dumb shit like accusations of "trolling" or stories about "trust abuse". The trust system is still used to punish people for criticizing certain members on a daily basis and no one kicks them off the DT.

Ehmmm... Sorry to interrupt here but I guess there's no need to go nuts here because he's given an example here and even when I checked your ratings, I can see a +31 / =5 / -3, so 10 times the green trust and you are still in a condition where none of the new people would suspect you that you'll scam 'em away. I know you're talking about some of your personal issues but there are many good ratings in your list which can defend you in your case.

Since we are projecting emotional states upon one another, please don't have a psychotic break down. Do yourself a favor and pull your nose out of situations you have no knowledge about. This is not about a single post but a long time pattern of antipathy from The Pharmacist, and you imagining this is about a single post is based in ignorance. Also, very good of you to tell me what I experience, I appreciate it. Just totally ignore the whole point of my statement that new users don't know any better, but its not a problem because you do. I guess all my problems are solved because you tell me they don't exist in your eyes.

[Timelord2067]

People will criticise me for giving negatives months or years after the event, but none of you good people will ever utter how I am wrong, where I am wrong, nore why I am wrong.

When I took over the Known Alts thread I took a mostly hands off approach and yet you talk as though my negatives were posted yesterday, not years ago.

I am not interested in playing 2000 questions in the hope that you might deign your good selves to answer me.

[nutildah]

Ehmmm... Sorry to interrupt here but I guess there's no need to go nuts here because he's given an example here and even when I checked your ratings, I can see a +31 / =5 / -3, so 10 times the green trust and you are still in a condition where none of the new people would suspect you that you'll scam 'em away. I know you're talking about some of your personal issues but there are many good ratings in your list which can defend you in your case.

My first interaction with TS that I can recall having was asking him why he was so upset with the trust system given his great rating, and this was back during the time of the old scoring system, when he had zero DT negatives. I was just trying to ask him an honest question and he proceeded to be extremely condescending in his answer, going so far as to compare himself to Morpheus. Long story short: you can't stop some people from going nuts.

People will criticise me for giving negatives months or years after the event, but none of you good people will ever utter how I am wrong, where I am wrong, nore why I am wrong.

Not true. I've pointed out several times to you how you were wrong, more than I can remember. This isn't exactly the thread to get into it though.

[Timelord2067]

Not true. I've pointed out several times to you how you were wrong, more than I can remember. This isn't exactly the thread to get into it though.

No. No you haven't. Next.

[nutildah]

Not true. I've pointed out several times to you how you were wrong, more than I can remember. This isn't exactly the thread to get into it though.

No. No you haven't. Next.

I have, many times. Most recently I can remember the case of irfan_pak who you incorrectly linked to a wallet not belonging to him, your 8 flags against the Turkish community (only 1 other member supported 1 of your flags, the rest are all opposed by over a dozen other members), and of course when I brought up this gem in which you refuse to remove a negative feedback after explaining to you they were joking about having hacked cryptopia.

Here's some other examples of your erroneous negative feedback:

Thule   2020-01-10   Reference   Narcissist.

Do you really think its appropriate to leave a negative feedback for being a narcissist, especially when the account has already been tagged to shreds?

humanrightsfoundation   2019-08-27   Reference   Who creates a self-moderated thread in the *Reputation* section?

This guy was in all likelihood a scammer for other reasons but making a self-moderated thread in Reputation is hardly grounds for a negative.

Lauda   2019-07-09   Reference   ~85% of all Flags Lauda has created are without basis or proof. I do not trust this behavior.

Again, not a good reason for leaving a negative feedback. Instead of leaving a negative, simply oppose the flags and perhaps voice the reasoning behind your opposition in their reference threads.

Sandwiched between these dates are dozens of other ratings which I disagree with but I don't have time to go over all of them individually. But I feel referencing 13 instances of misuse of the trust system should suffice for the time being.

[Timelord2067]

...

Perhaps you should go back and finish reading the irfan_pak for the rest of the information provided instead of flying off the handle as suchmoon did with his "last straw" comment having also not read the whole thread.

There are many flags that are unsupported or opposed - the majority in fact which have not had their creator withdraw support. Perhaps you should go back and read the additional information concerning the connection that some are alts (which was proved by others, hence there aren't even 8 in total). We have seen at least two others prove their unworthyness to be on DT1 with their unreasonable posts. (and thanks for confirming that you don't have issue with the rest of my flags, perhaps now you would like to support them as you haven't aired any objection to them?)

No charges have been laid in the Cryptopia case, so I cannot comment any further while a criminal investigation is ongoing. (make of that what you will).

I had previously given Thule multiple negative posts and had condensed them into just one post.  I have been slowly working on my entire back catalogue of feedback's as evidenced in this post where I had six feedbacks for quickseller and have condensed them into just one.  I don't expect you will have seen my various comments concerning my reviewing all previous posts to ensure they pass the litmus test, I have already reviewed ~ 400 of my 2,400 posts, (about 1/6^th) so although I have a way to go I'm happy with my progress even though you didn't seem to noticed the clumping together of similarly themed posts. My feedback to you is the starting point.

humanrightsfoundation is pre-the review point.  Would you like me to review them next?

As with quickseller, I have multiple feedback posts against Lauda - some of which are before the review point.  Would you like me to review them next?


Sandwiched between these dates are dozens of other ratings which *you* disagree with - but, clearly they are not wrong - you would have said they are wrong. (QED)  You can join the school yard threads of "this is a counter to X, Y and Z's counters" if you like.  From your multiple reactions I have no doubt you do or will.

[Timelord2o67]

In my haste to finish the response earlier, I neglected to point out of the couple of posts mentioned by nutildah, the majority of his posts were trolling that he distrusts me and the few other posts of his didn't offer any contradictory evidence to the proof I had offered.

Indeed trolling me in this tread is yet more proof nutildah has no genuine concern for my feedbacks given instead he just wants to troll me...

Saying someone is wrong is not the same as providing proof or a contradictory view.

...and if he is prepared to troll me then he'll do the same to you.

[suchmoon]

Perhaps you should go back and finish reading the irfan_pak for the rest of the information provided instead of flying off the handle as suchmoon did with his "last straw" comment having also not read the whole thread.

Ok, I'll bite, since you keep bringing this up. What is this "last straw" you want to talk about?

There are many flags that are unsupported or opposed - the majority in fact which have not had their creator withdraw support. Perhaps you should go back and read the additional information concerning the connection that some are alts (which was proved by others, hence there aren't even 8 in total). We have seen at least two others prove their unworthyness to be on DT1 with their unreasonable posts.

Unworthiness to be on DT1 calls for an exclusion, not for a flag.

No charges have been laid in the Cryptopia case, so I cannot comment any further while a criminal investigation is ongoing. (make of that what you will).

Remove the rating if you can't comment.

[TECSHARE]

Ehmmm... Sorry to interrupt here but I guess there's no need to go nuts here because he's given an example here and even when I checked your ratings, I can see a +31 / =5 / -3, so 10 times the green trust and you are still in a condition where none of the new people would suspect you that you'll scam 'em away. I know you're talking about some of your personal issues but there are many good ratings in your list which can defend you in your case.

My first interaction with TS that I can recall having was asking him why he was so upset with the trust system given his great rating, and this was back during the time of the old scoring system, when he had zero DT negatives. I was just trying to ask him an honest question and he proceeded to be extremely condescending in his answer, going so far as to compare himself to Morpheus. Long story short: you can't stop some people from going nuts.

Actually the first time we interacted was when I was passing through the local red light district, and I saw you in an alley eating your own feces. I tried to tell you to stop, but you insisted it was delicious Belgian chocolate. Story time is fun isn't it? Why recall reality when you can just make up whatever you want without substantiation?

If you were being honest our first interactions were in Politics & Society where you got very upset at some of the ideas I discussed, then later saw fit to inject yourself into trust system related disputes I was involved in with concern trolling to fight your political battles via other methods since you can't muster a reasonable debate. You aren't a victim little girl, you are a perpetrator, as evidenced by your baseless accusations here.

[Vod]

The trust system is still used to punish people for criticizing certain members on a daily basis

Aha - the motive behind your trust abuse to get on DT is revealed.

[TECSHARE]

The trust system is still used to punish people for criticizing certain members on a daily basis

Aha - the motive behind your trust abuse to get on DT is revealed.

You should take your meds Vod, you are clearly having another OCD episode. It is not good for your heart condition to get all worked up and obsessed like this.

[Vod]

You should take your meds Vod, you are clearly having another OCD episode. It is not good for your heart condition to get all worked up and obsessed like this.

OG says deflection is a common tactic of pehophiles.  :/

What is your medical degree in?  Why didn't you practice medicine instead of reselling garbage?

The trust system is still used to punish people for criticizing certain members on a daily basis

Aha - the motive behind your trust abuse to get on DT is revealed.

[OgNasty]

OG says

[Vod]

^^ Sex with children is a topic you don't LOL about, you sick fuck.

You did post that deflection is a common tactic of pedophiles, right?  Even though it seems you have deleted it, Google is still referencing it

Search Google for "OgNasty vod pedophile common site:bitcointalk.org"

I was just pointing out that Techy is acting like a pervert.  Then you run over and defend him.

 

[Timelord2067]

Perhaps you should go back and finish reading the irfan_pak for the rest of the information provided instead of flying off the handle as suchmoon did with his "last straw" comment having also not read the whole thread.

Ok, I'll bite, since you keep bringing this up. What is this "last straw" you want to talk about?

I'm baffled why you would quote the very thing I've tried to get you to review and you claim you know not what I refer to.

There are many flags that are unsupported or opposed - the majority in fact which have not had their creator withdraw support. Perhaps you should go back and read the additional information concerning the connection that some are alts (which was proved by others, hence there aren't even 8 in total). We have seen at least two others prove their unworthyness to be on DT1 with their unreasonable posts.

Unworthiness to be on DT1 calls for an exclusion, not for a flag.

You are confusing two separate issues. 

I was responding to a question concerning a flag.  If you genuinely had concerns about an exclusion as opposed to a flag, you would have voiced those concerns, but you haven't.

No charges have been laid in the Cryptopia case, so I cannot comment any further while a criminal investigation is ongoing. (make of that what you will).

Remove the rating if you can't comment.

Which Cryptopia comment are you demanding I remove?

This one:



this one:



or this one:



In removing the post, what is wrong or untruthful about these posts? (Have you even seen those posts prior to today?)

[nutildah]

Ehmmm... Sorry to interrupt here but I guess there's no need to go nuts here because he's given an example here and even when I checked your ratings, I can see a +31 / =5 / -3, so 10 times the green trust and you are still in a condition where none of the new people would suspect you that you'll scam 'em away. I know you're talking about some of your personal issues but there are many good ratings in your list which can defend you in your case.

My first interaction with TS that I can recall having was asking him why he was so upset with the trust system given his great rating, and this was back during the time of the old scoring system, when he had zero DT negatives. I was just trying to ask him an honest question and he proceeded to be extremely condescending in his answer, going so far as to compare himself to Morpheus. Long story short: you can't stop some people from going nuts.

Actually the first time we interacted was when I was passing through the local red light district, and I saw you in an alley eating your own feces. I tried to tell you to stop, but you insisted it was delicious Belgian chocolate. Story time is fun isn't it? Why recall reality when you can just make up whatever you want without substantiation?

If you were being honest our first interactions were in Politics & Society where you got very upset at some of the ideas I discussed, then later saw fit to inject yourself into trust system related disputes I was involved in with concern trolling to fight your political battles via other methods since you can't muster a reasonable debate. You aren't a victim little girl, you are a perpetrator, as evidenced by your baseless accusations here.

Incorrect. The first interaction I ever had with you was in Meta (feel free to prove me wrong if you'd like). I think our first disagreement (and one of the reasons I decided to add you to my distrust list) was because of your overall approach to the trust system. Then a few replies later you posted a lengthy meme about what the trust system meant to you. That may be the one I was thinking of; regardless, I felt your reply was overly pompous while simultaneously unclear, and it was then that I knew I didn't agree with your judgment.

Only after a couple of months of interacting with you did I realize you were always displeased and arrogant about everything, and in our first interaction you were only exhibiting your natural demeanor.

[TECSHARE]

Incorrect. The first interaction I ever had with you was in Meta (feel free to prove me wrong if you'd like). I think our first disagreement (and one of the reasons I decided to add you to my distrust list) was because of your overall approach to the trust system. Then a few replies later you posted a lengthy meme about what the trust system meant to you. That may be the one I was thinking of; regardless, I felt your reply was overly pompous while simultaneously unclear, and it was then that I knew I didn't agree with your judgment.

Only after a couple of months of interacting with you did I realize you were always displeased and arrogant about everything, and in our first interaction you were only exhibiting your natural demeanor.

Our first direct interaction was here. What a coincidence 6 hours before you injected yourself into my conversation with another user there, I posted a thread about the attacks and threats on the Covington kids in Politics & Society. This was a thread you were clearly aware of as you later posted in it with clear disdain for even acknowledging death threats against children as being a serious topic of discussion just because they happen to be Trump supporters. I am sure it is just a coincidence...

BTW, where was the part about Morpheus, I was looking forward to that part of your narrative. I don't see anything wrong with my comments in meta you replied to, and clearly others found it productive. As I implied earlier, I think you have some serious issues with projecting upon people who have different political view points than you, and your little Morpheus fairy tale and accusations of "going nuts" being "pompous" and "unclear" demonstrate that. Clearly you just have trouble tolerating people having ideas other than what you approve of as evidenced by your attempts to manufacture baseless narratives about me in order to impugn my character.

[nutildah]

What a coincidence 6 hours before you injected yourself into my conversation with another user there, I posted a thread about the attacks and threats on the Covington kids in Politics & Society. This was a thread you were clearly aware of as you later posted in it with clear disdain for even acknowledging death threats against children as being a serious topic of discussion just because they happen to be Trump supporters. I am sure it is just a coincidence...

I don't really remember what you're talking about, and even though it does sound funny, its not relevant here.

BTW, where was the part about Morpheus, I was looking forward to that part of your narrative.

Perhaps I confused Captain Kirk with Morpheus. I coulda sworn I asked you specifically about why you didn't like the trust system earlier, but I may be mistaken, as I can't seem to find the post.

[TECSHARE]

What a coincidence 6 hours before you injected yourself into my conversation with another user there, I posted a thread about the attacks and threats on the Covington kids in Politics & Society. This was a thread you were clearly aware of as you later posted in it with clear disdain for even acknowledging death threats against children as being a serious topic of discussion just because they happen to be Trump supporters. I am sure it is just a coincidence...

I don't really remember what you're talking about, and even though it does sound funny, its not relevant here.

BTW, where was the part about Morpheus, I was looking forward to that part of your narrative.

Perhaps I confused Captain Kirk with Morpheus. I coulda sworn I asked you specifically about why you didn't like the trust system earlier, but I may be mistaken, as I can't seem to find the post.

Of course you don't remember now I pointed all of this out. How convenient that, as well as your declaration of irrelevance even though it clearly demonstrates your disdain for my political views as well as the suspicious timing of your antipathy with me in meta beginning mere hours after that post. You could have swore you asked me about it earlier? Was this our first interaction or not? Make up your mind. It is hard to keep your story straight when you make it up as you go along isn't it? Also, where does Captain Kirk come in to all of this? Oh right, in your imagination just like the rest of your fairy tale.

[nutildah]

What a coincidence 6 hours before you injected yourself into my conversation with another user there, I posted a thread about the attacks and threats on the Covington kids in Politics & Society. This was a thread you were clearly aware of as you later posted in it with clear disdain for even acknowledging death threats against children as being a serious topic of discussion just because they happen to be Trump supporters. I am sure it is just a coincidence...

I don't really remember what you're talking about, and even though it does sound funny, its not relevant here.

BTW, where was the part about Morpheus, I was looking forward to that part of your narrative.

Perhaps I confused Captain Kirk with Morpheus. I coulda sworn I asked you specifically about why you didn't like the trust system earlier, but I may be mistaken, as I can't seem to find the post.

Of course you don't remember now I pointed all of this out. How convenient that, as well as your declaration of irrelevance even though it clearly demonstrates your disdain for my political views as well as the suspicious timing of your antipathy with me in meta beginning mere hours after that post. You could have swore you asked me about it earlier? Was this our first interaction or not? Make up your mind. It is hard to keep your story straight when you make it up as you go along isn't it? Also, where does Captain Kirk come in to all of this? Oh right, in your imagination just like the rest of your fairy tale.

If you think mixing up a meme with Morpheus and a Star Trek captain (they're all the same to me as I don't watch the show) is a criminal offense, open a flag against me about it. It will fit in nicely with my 13 other inactive flags. Like me, you can't seem to find an interaction previous to this one, so yes, let's just declare it our first.

None of this is relevant to the topic of this thread. I know you could do this all night, but I don't really care to, so I'll let you have the last word.

[TECSHARE]

If you think mixing up a meme with Morpheus and a Star Trek captain (they're all the same to me as I don't watch the show) is a criminal offense, open a flag against me about it. It will fit in nicely with my 13 other inactive flags. Like me, you can't seem to find an interaction previous to this one, so yes, let's just declare it our first.

None of this is relevant to the topic of this thread. I know you could do this all night, but I don't really care to, so I'll let you have the last word.

Not a criminal offense, just a demonstration of how you repeatedly project your imagination on to me as if it were factual. Even people who don't like Star Trek know who William Shatner is. If none of it is relevant, why did you bring me up to begin with? Oh right. More projection.

[TIDOVEE]

That's thoughtful of you, I have also said things like this before
1. We need to understand here that we all respond with different opinion, even if you have a similar opinion , you are not even permitted to write it the same way as any body.
Another person's opinion here is responded to as rubbish...., Though we have some people who make very poor contributions. But we can't all thinks the same way.
2. I have not been on the negative trust but I have always kept myself busy trying to make good post enough to keep me on positive thrust.

[suchmoon]

I'm baffled why you would quote the very thing I've tried to get you to review and you claim you know not what I refer to.

I don't care about any reviews. What's the "last straw" about?

You are confusing two separate issues.  

I was responding to a question concerning a flag.  If you genuinely had concerns about an exclusion as opposed to a flag, you would have voiced those concerns, but you haven't.

I'm not confusing anything. I opposed the flags because there was no basis for high-risk of losing money, a requirement for a type 1 flag. Now your latest excuse for having those flags is that those users are unworthy to be in DT. Exclusion, not a flag is the correct answer to that.

Which Cryptopia comment are you demanding I remove?

Demanding? More like suggesting based on your assertion that you can't comment on it. And of course I'm talking about the one that nutildah linked to, what else could I be talking about?

But thanks for bringing up the others, those look frivolous too. Negative trust because there is a user with a similar name on another site, does that really look acceptable to you?

[Timelord2067]

...

Deflection

Deflection

In removing the post, what is wrong or untruthful about these posts? (Have you even seen those posts prior to today?)

Didn't answer my question. (which proves you don't know which one it is)


Next.

[vycl87]

I think theymos made a  clarification for us all in other topic;

LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.

The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.

In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.

For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
 
Flags

 - Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
 - Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
 - Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.

Trust lists

 - If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
 - If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)

[Natalim]

Do you intend to create this thread for the DT members only? if not, I would like to share my opinion.

Of course I can also give negative trust but the difference is that it will not reflect to account's profile since I am not a DT.
To be honest, I also see accounts with negative feedback which I disagree, but that's life, people give negative feedback based on their own judgment or evaluation but if the DT members that added them care for their system, they would certainly remove those who are abusing trust.

Of the numbers of DT here, I only have a small number of DTs in my list which I admire because I feel they give fair judgment and they use what the system is for.

[vycl87]

Do you intend to create this thread for the DT members only? if not, I would like to share my opinion.

Of course I can also give negative trust but the difference is that it will not reflect to account's profile since I am not a DT.
To be honest, I also see accounts with negative feedback which I disagree, but that's life, people give negative feedback based on their own judgment or evaluation but if the DT members that added them care for their system, they would certainly remove those who are abusing trust.

Of the numbers of DT here, I only have a small number of DTs in my list which I admire because I feel they give fair judgment and they use what the system is for.

Is it really matter if someone gives you negative feedback?
I don't like it if it happens. And I definitely will try to solve the problems and understand why he sent me the negative.
Actually, I think theymos made a great clarification above.
There is no need to give negative feedback to someone because of your personal conflicts. Just use the system for trade and forum's favor.

I translated all forum rules to my native. And I didn't see any rules that someone can give negative trust to anyone because of his/her personal expedience.

[Timelord2067]

My first negative feedback is on sardasa's main account stating I do not trust the hacker in a trade thus I believe I am using the trust feedback in the New! and Improved! fashion as outlined by theymos a few days ago.

(still no response from him concerning my question in his newest thread)