Remove red trust, it is nothing but noise. Getting sickening to watch.

[truth or dare]

The recent red trust bartering between PN7/quickseller and Laura and friends, is only another demonstration of the mess red trust creates. A very short time before both sides were claiming the other was dangerous, escrow scammers, extortionist and they would not trust them as far as they could throw them.

We now witness the "forgiveness" mutually as suddenly red trust is no longer required by either side. This is now how trust works. You don't go from claiming how dangerous and scammy you believe each other are to trading red marks for mutual alerations and editing of threads presenting evidence you were sure about days before.

Time to remove the red trust system and rely upon flags. If you do not have clear objective evidence of scamming or strong evidence of attempted/ setting up scamming then the trust system need not be bothered with your personal grievances and personal squabbles.

[LoyceV]

Time to remove the red trust system and rely upon flags.

Let me guess: your main account has negative feedback, but no Flags yet?

There's a lot wrong with the Trust system, but one example of 1 user changing something won't make it in my Top 10.

[hilariousetc]

I hope this isn't Cryptohunter/The-One-Above-All back from his fantasy vacation.

The recent red trust bartering between PN7/quickseller and Laura and friends, is only another demonstration of the mess red trust creates. A very short time before both sides were claiming the other was dangerous, escrow scammers, extortionist and they would not trust them as far as they could throw them.

We now witness the "forgiveness" mutually as suddenly red trust is no longer required by either side. This is now how trust works. You don't go from claiming how dangerous and scammy you believe each other are to trading red marks for mutual alerations and editing of threads presenting evidence you were sure about days before.

Jay-z and Nas used to say the same things and now they're best pals. Beefs get squashed. I think this is just more proof that you can't really win with what you do here. People leave negative to attack others and complain about that. Then people decide to remove it and call a truce and people also complain about that. I think what they did is better than just letting the quarrelling escalate and the tit for tat battling go on forever. If theymos removed the trust system - or just negative - I can guarantee you people will also cry about that, especially all those that then go on to get scammed because there were no warnings in place.

[truth or dare]

Time to remove the red trust system and rely upon flags.

Let me guess: your main account has negative feedback, but no Flags yet?

There's a lot wrong with the Trust system, but one example of 1 user changing something won't make it in my Top 10.

Your speculation is incorrect and off topic.

Your comment demonstrates you do not have the forums best interests at heart. It further demonstrates you have no understanding of the intended purpose of a trust system.

It is a statement of truth. That if you do not have clear objective evidence of scamming or attempting to / setting up a scam, all other information is subjective personal noise that serves only to dilute and destroy the credibility of the trust score.

There are many other clear examples of red trust being given that are clearly for personal grievances. Those are more than enough reaason to abolish a system that provides no additional benefit.

I have seen no credible argument that demonstrates the old red trust system is now anything other than a tool for manipulation rather than to protect the members of our forum from being scammed.

The point being made by the poster directly above is not relevant. If you claim you are sure someone is dangerous and a scammer, forgiveness is not a factor. You don't mutually then both claim that other members do not deserve a warning now that those claiming you were a dangerous scammer decided to make a truce. If someone has scammed or been dangerous then it is impossible to reason they should have tags removed for recently playing ball.

This is exactly why subjective personal opions are not to be tolerated.

Those arguing against the requisite of objective evidence of scamming or strong evidence of attempting or setting up a scam need to present their argument.

[suchmoon]

I hope this isn't Cryptohunter/The-One-Above-All back from his fantasy vacation.

Can't tell for sure without the royal "we". Let's see if he calls CH a "legend".

I have seen no credible argument that demonstrates the old red trust system is now anything other than a tool for manipulation rather than to protect the members of our forum from being scammed.

You've only been on this forum for about an hour. That's not enough time to see the beneficial uses of red trust. Feel free to look around and report back with proper arguments and evidence when you're ready.

[LoyceV]

I hope this isn't Cryptohunter/The-One-Above-All back from his fantasy vacation.

It sure looks like it. I'm not taking any chances: I'm ignoring the troll before this turns into a 12 month drama again.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If someone has scammed or been dangerous then it is impossible to reason they should have tags removed for recently playing ball.

You would have a point, if theymos hadn't explicitly said on multiple occasions that he encourages forgiveness.

You should be willing to forgive past mistakes if the person seems unlikely to do it again.

Red trust should mostly be based on an evaluation of what the person is likely to do in the future moreso than a punishment/mark-of-shame.

It is entirely possible to think someone has been dangerous in the past, and to also think that person has reformed and is unlikely to behave dangerously again in the future. If it weren't, then every crime should carry a life sentence since reformation is impossible in your worldview.


His posts are relatively to the point, there aren't any randomly capitalized words, and he has gone more than 2 posts without throwing out any childish insults. He's obviously an alt, but I don't think it's CH/TOAA on this occasion.

[truth or dare]

I hope this isn't Cryptohunter/The-One-Above-All back from his fantasy vacation.

Can't tell for sure without the royal "we". Let's see if he calls CH a "legend".

I have seen no credible argument that demonstrates the old red trust system is now anything other than a tool for manipulation rather than to protect the members of our forum from being scammed.

You've only been on this forum for about an hour. That's not enough time to see the beneficial uses of red trust. Feel free to look around and report back with proper arguments and evidence when you're ready.

I have been reading this forum sporadically for 9 years. Recently I wish to prevent what I view as a move to discredit this forum. Personal vendettas accrued over years of petty squabbling is ruining this forum.

There is no argument possible. To prevent scamming, only prior scamming or strong evidence of attempting to or setting up a scam are relevant.

Other subjective indicators of possible scammer traits are infested with pretty squabbling and clear abuse.  They devalue the strong objective scoring that requires objective evidence.

This is an insoluble problem.

Additionally, it pollutes the forum with intense drama and bile.

The flags are here. The tagging system is of no further benefit.

[Lafu]

The posting style looks like cryptohunter /toaa.
This text walls that we dont have missed.
And Yeah suchmoon is right about for just a few hours registered and complaining about the trust system the same as Ch and toaa has done.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I hope this isn't Cryptohunter/The-One-Above-All back from his fantasy vacation.

Funny you should mention that, since it's the first thing I thought of upon reading OP's post.  Sounds very much like him, and we definitely don't need more of that drama, no matter what new account may be sparking it. 

I will immediately put OP on ignore just as a prophylactic measure--and I just read Lauda's peace treaty with Quickseller a few minutes ago.  For some reason I'd avoided opening that thread, but I'm glad they buried the hatchet.  I'm sure we're not all going to be on the same page about everything and there are going to be feuds, but trying to minimize those and patching old wounds is a good thing.  We'll see how it goes, I guess.

The posting style looks like cryptohunter /toaa.

Yep, and I bet you that if OP keeps posting, those posts will keep getting longer and longer until it becomes obvious that CH/TOAA didn't go very far after all.

[truth or dare]

Many off topic posts preventing discussion of the specific points that my opening post seeks to address.

I am waiting for a member to present a credible opposition to my request. Sensible support is welcome.

Off topic speculation and personal attacks are to be reported and deleted from here onwards.

[JeromeTash]

No system is perfect because there will always be people who are not happy about it. If the trust system was to be removed to day, very many scammers who were previously red tagged would be let lose and you don't want to see that happen.

Yes there are a few instances where it's being missed used because of personal egos and disagreements but you are ignoring the countless thousands of real scammers where the trust has correctly been used.
It's like suggesting scrapping the prison/jail system and releasing all the prisoners just because there was one case where someone was falsely convicted.

[TECSHARE]

No system is perfect because there will always be people who are not happy about it. If the trust system was to be removed to day, very many scammers who were previously red tagged would be let lose and you don't want to see that happen.

Yes there are a few instances where it's being missed used because of personal egos and disagreements but you are ignoring the countless thousands of real scammers where the trust has correctly been used.
It's like suggesting scrapping the prison/jail system and releasing all the prisoners just because there was one case where someone was falsely convicted.

The number of actual scammers tagged isn't a valid metric of useful effects. It needs to be taken in the context of how many innocent users are abused using it, driving legitimate people away and increasing the con artist to legitimate user ratio. After all scammers simply return in seconds with a bought account. Legitimate users that spend the time to build a reputation just to have it be destroyed over petty shit simply leave and never come back.

[truth or dare]

No system is perfect because there will always be people who are not happy about it. If the trust system was to be removed to day, very many scammers who were previously red tagged would be let lose and you don't want to see that happen.

Yes there are a few instances where it's being missed used because of personal egos and disagreements but you are ignoring the countless thousands of real scammers where the trust has correctly been used.
It's like suggesting scrapping the prison/jail system and releasing all the prisoners just because there was one case where someone was falsely convicted.

Any real scammer would be eligible for a flag.
I don't agree with the accuracy of your analogy at all.

A better one would be not relying on a court of law because mob justice has previously taken care of plenty of criminals. Also killed a lot of innocent people along the way.

Objective evidence of scamming or attempted scamming and setting up a scam. Allowing other subjective data is crushing the value of the trust system to prevent scammers and creating a myriad of other issues.

The threat to free speech here is another huge consideration.

Delete it or present a sensible and credible case to keep it.

[eddie13]

Removing long standing red tags in trade (I remove, you remove) does seem like a bit of an admission that the tags were probably just personal bullshit the entire time..

On the other hand, if a user has reformed from their past ways that warranted a warning, changing them to neutral or removing them could just be a sign that the user is no longer as high risk as he previously was..

Lot of attacks on the messenger and not the message here..

[truth or dare]

The first valuable reply by eddie13.

The specific cases I am refering to fall clearly into the first category. There is a long and detailed history of these members demonstrating both their sure belief the other is a dangerous scammer, and objective evidence that presents a strong case to support their assertions. There are long detailed history of quickseller stating lauda has attempted to extort, conducted dishonest escrowing on a large scale, and lauda has been certain quickseller is a dangerous self escrowing scammer, and claims he could not trust him as far as he could throw him.  Owlcatz has said the same for years. The same with owlcatz has been certain OGnasty is a scammer and visa versa. Now requesting OGnasty remove his red tags because he has decided to forgive OGnasty for being a dangerous scammer.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224240.0

If you start the time with Lauda giving PN7 a red tag on the speculation that is quickseller's alt. Then all of a sudden quickseller retracting the pill accusation against lauda. Redacting a selection of his extortion case thread and removing the names of owlcatz after years. Then lauda suddenly forgiving PN7 and removing his red tags from quickseller and quickseller do the same for lauda. Then owlcatz doing the same and then asking quickseller to ask OGnasty to remove his red tags?

This is clear trust bartering and years of claiming they have solid evidence each other are dangerous scammers mutually just vanish.

This is not in the best interest of this forum. It is in the mutual best interests of those people playing around with the holes in the red tagging system.

Those certain for years each other are scammers and it is in the best interests of the forum to place a warning on their accounts suddenly forgive if they get something in return or request it.

Remove red tagging and rely on flags alone.
There is no benefit to red tags. The only persons here attempting to detail with off topic speculation are those that want to continue to enjoy the power the broken subjective red tagging system provides.

I will be reporting all off topic posts that seek to derail my threads in the future. If your post does not address the specific points I have detailed in my opening post then you are off topic.

[Quickseller]

If someone does not have victims to repay (or has repaid their victims), and have not repeated previous mistakes, why brand them for life? If branded for life, what incentives do they have to not repeat previous mistakes, or to further escalate a dispute with a person?

The specific cases I am refering to fall clearly into the first category. There is a long and detailed history of these members demonstrating both their sure belief the other is a dangerous scammer, and objective evidence that presents a strong case to support their assertions. There are long detailed history of quickseller stating lauda has attempted to extort, conducted dishonest escrowing on a large scale, and lauda has been certain quickseller is a dangerous self escrowing scammer, and claims he could not trust him as far as he could throw him.  Owlcatz has said the same for years. The same with owlcatz has been certain OGnasty is a scammer and visa versa. Now requesting OGnasty remove his red tags because he has decided to forgive OGnasty for being a dangerous scammer.

Perhaps some of what you describe was petty fighting among all involved, and some was involving things that happened long enough ago that it is appropriate to forgive past transgressions.

Redacting a selection of his extortion case thread and removing the names of owlcatz after years.

I am curious how many people would be aware of these types of changes to a thread, and out of those who would be aware, who would want to complain about something like this.

[truth or dare]

If someone does not have victims to repay (or has repaid their victims), and have not repeated previous mistakes, why brand them for life? If branded for life, what incentives do they have to not repeat previous mistakes, or to further escalate a dispute with a person?

The specific cases I am refering to fall clearly into the first category. There is a long and detailed history of these members demonstrating both their sure belief the other is a dangerous scammer, and objective evidence that presents a strong case to support their assertions. There are long detailed history of quickseller stating lauda has attempted to extort, conducted dishonest escrowing on a large scale, and lauda has been certain quickseller is a dangerous self escrowing scammer, and claims he could not trust him as far as he could throw him.  Owlcatz has said the same for years. The same with owlcatz has been certain OGnasty is a scammer and visa versa. Now requesting OGnasty remove his red tags because he has decided to forgive OGnasty for being a dangerous scammer.

Perhaps some of what you describe was petty fighting among all involved, and some was involving things that happened long enough ago that it is appropriate to forgive past transgressions.

Redacting a selection of his extortion case thread and removing the names of owlcatz after years.

I am curious how many people would be aware of these types of changes to a thread, and out of those who would be aware, who would want to complain about something like this.

ARE you curious? I would speculate perhaps those that pay attention, and don't like to see members retract/redact evidence of purported financially dangerous behaviors in return for their own red tags being removed.

Please be specific. Are you claiming that because an extortion attempt or scam fails and there are no persons to financially reimburse that no warning should be applied to their account if they remove a warning they have placed on your account(s) ?

That the entire purpose of the trust system is not to provide warning and increase the safety of the wider community against scammers, rather it is to ensure that those with red tags get along working nicely with one another and have more fun?

What incentive is there for senior accounts not to scam if a period of good behavior will result in a clean sheet. Or if you can simply act as a group to throw red around until you force others to remove their red on you?

What incentive is there to speak the truth or present evidence of wrong doing if I will have my account flagged red for doing so.  Then I may have to react it all and pretend it was all a big mistake and I promise never to do it again.

Do you perhaps have a good argument to retain red tags? or should we move to a fully objective system like the flags? best ask lauda first to check what you are permitted to say. I don't wish to see redacted posts here or suffer more of you begging forgiveness and promises not to repeat telling the truth ever again.

[TECSHARE]

What incentive is there for senior accounts not to scam if a period of good behavior will result in a clean sheet. Or if you can simply act as a group to throw red around until you force others to remove their red on you?

AKA the clown car, and the sad children's party magician Vod strategy.

[TMAN]

AKA the clown car

Yes the one that CH is driving, you are in the shotgun and all of CH's alts are in the backseat. I have heard its a shitty ride to be honest, with all that Bukkake action in the back seat the back of your head must be covered in spunk.

anyway to OP why not just post from your main account? unless you want us all to believe you are a newbie who has scanned the forum for years and already decided what is best for this place?