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

[Jet Cash]

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

All my opions (sic) are subjective and personal. Anything else would compromise my morality. If you don't agree with me, then you can use discussion to attempt to change my opinion, or just put me on ignore. I agree that trust shouldn't be a weapon, but most of those weaponising it seem to be those wielding broken swords, after they have been exposed.

[1714815224]

1714815224

[1714815224]

1714815224

[TECSHARE]

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

All my opions (sic) are subjective and personal. Anything else would compromise my morality. If you don't agree with me, then you can use discussion to attempt to change my opinion, or just put me on ignore. I agree that trust shouldn't be a weapon, but most of those weaponising it seem to be those wielding broken swords, after they have been exposed.

He is clearly referring to subjective and personal opinions when leaving trust ratings, not general discussion.

[hilariousetc]

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.

I wouldn't go as far to say it's ruining the forum and their are bigger issues here than beefs, but isn't it then better that people are trying to put their petty squabbling behind them? I only hope more people will put their disagreements aside and move on. People should have never been using the feedback system to wage these battles in the first place though but I still think people should be able to use the feedback system to comment on trustworthiness but neutrals are often much better unless there is strong suspicion or evidence of bad behaviour.

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.

I think there's a fair few similarities but obviously too early to tell right now and could just be coincidences. I think if CH/TOAA was going to re-appear on a new account though he'd likely try hide the fact as best as he could.

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..

.

It's pretty obvious that's what they were fueled by. It's hard to look objectively at this when the people involved really disliked each other and were just looking for things to try drag the other party down and that's what this was but I'm glad they've called a truce. Threads like this though just seem to be trying to stoke up more drama for something that should just be buried.

[Vod]

If someone does not have victims to repay (or has repaid their victims), and have not repeated previous mistakes, why brand them for life?

So, you could have said "I had already spent the coin, TF said I could keep it but we said I returned it to keep Vod quiet.   Sorry, but I am changing."

Instead you are propagating your lie.    

I wish your actions spoke louder than your empty words.

[truth or dare]

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.

I wouldn't go as far to say it's ruining the forum and their are bigger issues here than beefs, but isn't it then better that people are trying to put their petty squabbling behind them? I only hope more people will put their disagreements aside and move on. People should have never been using the feedback system to wage these battles in the first place though but I still think people should be able to use the feedback system to comment on trustworthiness but neutrals are often much better unless there is strong suspicion or evidence of bad behaviour.

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.

I think there's a fair few similarities but obviously too early to tell right now and could just be coincidences. I think if CH/TOAA was going to re-appear on a new account though he'd likely try hide the fact as best as he could.

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..

.

It's pretty obvious that's what they were fueled by. It's hard to look objectively at this when the people involved really disliked each other and were just looking for things to try drag the other party down and that's what this was but I'm glad they've called a truce. Threads like this though just seem to be trying to stoke up more drama for something that should just be buried.

Petty squabbles would not reach to scamming, attempted extortion, and such behaviors. These types of behaviors should not be buried for the sake of more cordial relationships between members that have been adamant for years and standing behind their evidence presented to the board.

The red trust removal bartering is disturbing.

The specific individuals prior scamming actions are not as concerning as the trust system being used as a tool for leverage and manipulation, to prevent and discourage people speaking out.

Red tags serve no additional purpose. They are the Achilles heel of this forum going forward. Let's get them removed.

Members still appear to be approaching this from a what-is-best-for-red-trusted-scammers pov. We should be approaching this from the what is best for protecting honest members from financially dangerous individuals.

If they were not serious, as you are suggesting, and were using the trust system for their own personal vendettas then again they were abusing the trust system, devaluing and misleading honest members. This is yet another reason to remove the subjectivity that permits this abuse and leverage / manipulation.

Having looked at both sets of claims. Both seem compelling but quickseller's actions look far less dangerous and ruthless. Of course now that he is willing to sweep this under the carpet for his own selfish gain, the margin between them had narrowed.

Either way this is dishonest, self serving and dangerous for honest members. Red trust should be removed immediately. Only those that enjoy having this abusive weapon are pushing to retain it.

There is no member producing a valid reason to retain Red tagging now that we have the flags, so let's have it removed.

[Quickseller]

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.

Well, I actually have a pretty strong suspicion, but I will keep that to myself now. I don't think many people are in a position to notice a chance in a thread that has not been posted in for 3 months.

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) ?

If someone is likely to repeat the attempt, a warning would remain appropriate. If there is good reason to believe they won't try again, I don't see a good reason to continue branding the person.

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.

I don't think he is CH. But I also didn't initially think TOAA was CH but I turned out to be wrong about that. Maybe theymos will eventually have to say something to the effect of:

You (cryptohunter)

[truth or dare]

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.

Well, I actually have a pretty strong suspicion, but I will keep that to myself now. I don't think many people are in a position to notice a chance in a thread that has not been posted in for 3 months.

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) ?

If someone is likely to repeat the attempt, a warning would remain appropriate. If there is good reason to believe they won't try again, I don't see a good reason to continue branding the person.

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.

I don't think he is CH. But I also didn't initially think TOAA was CH but I turned out to be wrong about that. Maybe theymos will eventually have to say something to the effect of:

You (cryptohunter)

How would a member go about determining the exact probability of a someone who was willing to try such a ruthless extortion attempt, a very dirty looking escrow, and scamming, not trying something similar in the future?
How do repeat offenders suddenly become trustworthy to the point where the wider community benefits from warnings being removed?


How could a warning being removed for such a member ever be in the best interests of honest members of this forum?

How do you explain the improbable change of heart of both you and lauda after years at exactly the same time?

Do you and primenumber7 actually believe that people here don't notice how the red trust removal bartering and redacted pill and extortion thread adaprions went down?

This cryptohunter / tooa point is irrelevant. It is being used as some kind of deflection by those that feel uncomfortable being placed under scrutiny. Don't focus on this point here. Create your own thread if those members are of interest to you.

There can be little doubt that your desperation to preserve your sig on PN7 has forced you to sellout to a scammer/ extortionist,  that you know posed a financial risk to this forum and continues to do so.

It is good to see that since owlcatz told you to try to influence OGnasty to remove his red tags, in another red trust Removal trade that OGnasty has not been willing to sell out as you have done. Presumably this is due to OGnasty not being desperate to be permitted into the sig spamming crew by those that control those positions.

[nutildah]

Oh please. Its obviously cryptohunter, refreshed from their "vacation."

The constant posting in Meta and Reputation.
The obvious dislike of Lauda, TMAN and suchmoon.
The 6th grader nicknames.
The long-winded spiels about the trust system and forum injustices.

Though I am happy they haven't tried to shit down my neck thus far let's not pretend this might not be cryptohunter.

As for the subject at hand: red trust has already been removed. Its now orange trust.

Can't remove the negative sign. Can't get people to always leave negatives only for scammers.

I think the recent Default Trust changes are a good idea, however I do think the merit requirements for voting need to be upped at a rate proportional to that being introduced into the system.

OK trust or dare, I've said all I need to say. I won't be negging you just as I didn't neg PN7. Have at it so long as you can remain un-cunty.

[TMAN]

Oh please. Its obviously cryptohunter, refreshed from their "vacation."

The constant posting in Meta and Reputation.
The obvious dislike of Lauda, TMAN and suchmoon.
The 6th grader nicknames.
The long-winded spiels about the trust system and forum injustices.

Though I am happy they haven't tried to shit down my neck thus far let's not pretend this might not be cryptohunter.

As for the subject at hand: red trust has already been removed. Its now orange trust.

Can't remove the negative sign. Can't get people to always leave negatives only for scammers.

I think the recent Default Trust changes are a good idea, however I do think the merit requirements for voting need to be upped at a rate proportional to that being introduced into the system.

OK trust or dare, I've said all I need to say. I won't be negging you just as I didn't neg PN7. Have at it so long as you can remain un-cunty.

Just put the disgusting cunt on ignore dude. Life is better when that negativity is blocked outs

I do wonder about the users mental state after all this behaviour

[Quickseller]

Re https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224780.msg53831608#msg53831608

I can use my good judgement to see if I believe they will reoffend or attempt a similar negative scheme again. Based on my good judgment, I don’t think Lauda will try a similar scheme in the future.

You are free to disagree with me if you choose. If you are who I think you are, you don’t like to criticize people with a lot of influence, at least not from your primary account. If you disagree, you are free to leave Lauda a negative rating for his previous misdeeds.

Let’s be honest though, I don’t think you actually care about warning the community about Lauda. My rating was not on the first page of Laudas trust wall, and probably wasn’t on the second. I think it would be unlikely for anyone unaware of his past to ever see my rating.

[TECSHARE]

I won't be negging you just as I didn't neg PN7. Have at it so long as you can remain un-cunty.

I.E. "Stop saying things I don't like or I will use the trust system against you to force you into silence."

[eddie13]

Complete removal of negative tags would be less than fair to users like me, and most others, that have gone their entire histories here NOT raising any cause for a red warning.. Similar to canceling student debt isn't fair to all those who have no student debt, or have paid it..
A long standing perfectly clean account (like mine) having no history of mischief or "financially motivated wrongdoing" is hard earned and only accomplished with great care and great etiquette, which the vast majority of red tagged accounts have breached in some way shape or form..

On the other hand, I might be in favor of removing the negative tag feature, and rolling them all into neutrals, and from then on relying solely on the Flag system with it's higher standards (maybe even increasing those standards also), because these negative ratings are all too often abused for persona grudges and used with far too low of standards..

Do you have any idea how many likely valuable members I have seen ran off this forum by red-tag addicts for at many times simple mistakes or etiquette infractions? Tons!!
Running off all these likely valuable future members over such petty shit over the years has almost certainly been a detriment to this community and likely even pushed many out of Cryptocurrency entirely.. Going back to the point of how difficult it has been for users to maintain perfectly clean accounts over the past years, not making any mistakes, and having the education of etiquette to even know what mistakes not to make..

Far too much of a "safe space" mentality has also been created..
Tagging ALL sold accounts in attempt to keep everyone safe from possibly being scammed by a sold account?
Like you are actually going to stop users vulnerable to being scammed from being scammed.. They'll just go buy an ICO and be scammed by that..
Probably a better chance of being scammed by an ICO than by a sold account, but they all don't get automatic red tags, lol.. And they scam in the $$ Millions ($Billions?)
Hardly anyone would consider all of the digital value in this community has been basically burned by tagging all those accounts (akin to burning Bitcoins), and all the likely valuable users that have been ran out of here tagging ALL of their accounts because one of them has been found to be purchased so they could, heaven forbid, earn some crypto posting..
"Account buyers are not to be trusted" - OMG thank you sooo much for padding the walls incase I bump my elbow!!
Poor decision IMO..

Liberal use of red tags has probably cost this community the loss of more valuable users than scammers have..
Users tend to come back or not leave after getting themselves scammed, they learn from it.. Users that have been ran off over the possible chance of scam probably aren't coming back.. Users that have been ran off because they didn't know what not to do, are probably not coming back..


A lot of the reason I am so hard on DT taggers is that I have seen them destroy hundreds and hundreds of accounts over a lot of petty shit over the years and have ran those users out of here, so they damn well better not be hypocrites!

But oh no!! What's this? The good outweighs the bad? So they are just allowed to be hypocrites?
Can't run them out of here with red tags because they have ran so many users out of here with red tags? Or because they do business? Can't hold them to their own inflicted standards?
Nah..

The trust system should not have been so liberalized in the first place, reserved only for truly bad and dangerous users..
Maybe it should just be completely removed..

[truth or dare]

Re https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224780.msg53831608#msg53831608

I can use my good judgement to see if I believe they will reoffend or attempt a similar negative scheme again. Based on my good judgment, I don’t think Lauda will try a similar scheme in the future.

You are free to disagree with me if you choose. If you are who I think you are, you don’t like to criticize people with a lot of influence, at least not from your primary account. If you disagree, you are free to leave Lauda a negative rating for his previous misdeeds.

Let’s be honest though, I don’t think you actually care about warning the community about Lauda. My rating was not on the first page of Laudas trust wall, and probably wasn’t on the second. I think it would be unlikely for anyone unaware of his past to ever see my rating.

We get it, you worked hard to build a new account PN7 and lauda put a red tag on it jeopardizing your new sig revenue. So your ' good judgement ' to apologize and retract the pill accusations, redact and soften the extortion thread and now start claiming lauda is not a danger to the community all happens as his ' good judgement ' removed your red tags from PN7 and quickseller. Which happens at the same time owlcatz ' good judgement' to remove your tags and your good judgement to remove owlcatz name from the extortion thread. After years of certainty each other are among the most dangerous scammers here all of a sudden and at the very same time your ' good judgements' all benefit each other.

That's a great story.

Those using theymos ' forgive and de-esculate' instructions are taking this out of context, a proven scammer does not need to de-esculate with their tagger. There is no forgiveness for trying to extort or scam another member.

Theymos was obviously talking about the petty individual squabbles that the tagging system is abused with.
There is no way to argue the safety of the forum is increased by the removal of warnings on repeat scammers and offenders.
You have cut a deal with lauda and remain forever now his bitch.
Let's stick with Ch toaa, I don't wish for this to turn into who's alt is it and detail the true purpose of this thread.

There remains no sign of a single valid reply or reason to retain the flagging system is there?
So there is no good reason to keep it and clearly it is abused and manipulated to crush free speech and also leveraged by scammers to ensure they can not be correctly branded as scammers. it can be used to punish persons speaking the truth about scammers.
Theymos where are you? why have you retained this mess of a tagging system and appear to have lowered the responsibilty to leave tags? are you sleeping at the wheel or intending to drive us all over the cliff edge ?

Move to the flag system, and give clear guidance that even the thought crimes yellow flag must only be given / supported when there is clear and strong evidence of direct financial risk.

[Quickseller]

Owlcatz, based on evidence and testimony I have reviewed, played a minor role in the extortion scheme. Even though in a conspiracy, the crimes of one are the crimes of all, I believe it is appropriate to remove his name from the thread. If you disagree, or if you disagree with removing the tag against Lauda, you are free to add one yourself.

I don’t think moving to a flag system exclusively would solve the trust system problems. The flag system, and the smaller impact of negative ratings make it so an individual cannot unilaterally ruin a persons reputation.

There is still the problem of mob justice and the lack of accountability in the trust system. The excuse of many has frequently been that xx is a net benefit to the trust system and this is why a controversial rating can be overlooked. I don’t think this should be an acceptable answer, especially if the controversial rating in question is actually many ratings regarding many distinct situations. Over time people have been tagged, and when they had no realistic chance of defending themselves nor remediating their reputation after a mistake, they would rage quit, sometimes with a scam attempt that was either not serious or had no reasonable chance of succeeding. There are many guilty of doing this and more that defended this.

Many people have made mistakes in the past, and I would not suggest a permanent scarlet letter for most people that engaged in the above, especially if they are trying to be a benefit to the trust system. I have seen some people improve their behavior on a limited basis, even if I still disagree with their past behavior and some of their current ratings. 

[Lauda]

There is still the problem of mob justice and the lack of accountability in the trust system. The excuse of many has frequently been that xx is a net benefit to the trust system and this is why a controversial rating can be overlooked. I don’t think this should be an acceptable answer, especially if the controversial rating in question is actually many ratings regarding many distinct situations.

This. I have grown to agree with this excuse being improper for overlooking something. An occasions or two perhaps, but over many distinct situations no. OP's suggestion doesn't do much, red trust has barely any effect nowadays. I'm also sorry that you're being attacked over this, but as some others have pointed out: Wage war - you get attacked for it, make peace - you get attacked for it. Nothing one does is correct.

[Quickseller]

There are multiple people that are guilty of this and these add up.

This empowers some other people to just go crazy with ratings that really don’t have any basis in fact or reality and act in bad faith when someone tries to talk about it.

People should have the right to express their opinion on if someone is a scammer or a high risk to deal with. If these opinions are not in line with the community as a whole, they shouldn’t be on DT, or they should leave ratings not in line with community consensus from an alt not on DT.

[TECSHARE]

There is still the problem of mob justice and the lack of accountability in the trust system. The excuse of many has frequently been that xx is a net benefit to the trust system and this is why a controversial rating can be overlooked. I don’t think this should be an acceptable answer, especially if the controversial rating in question is actually many ratings regarding many distinct situations.

This. I have grown to agree with this excuse being improper for overlooking something. An occasions or two perhaps, but over many distinct situations no. OP's suggestion doesn't do much, red trust has barely any effect nowadays. I'm also sorry that you're being attacked over this, but as some others have pointed out: Wage war - you get attacked for it, make peace - you get attacked for it. Nothing one does is correct.

*Barely has any effect on people like you who do little to no trading here anyway. Why should you give a fuck when other people are paying the cost?

[TMAN]

I have seen some people improve their behavior on a limited basis

I have just left QS a positive trust, all this peace and love shit has got to me. I dont know if its my inner hippy, or the fact I want to engage in the QS, Lauda, TMAN sexual 3 way.. anyway - giving him a chance, not that it matters with 22000 negs against him, but if a few more people remove negs (I in no way at all fucking advise to change trust lists, until the reformed character has really proved his worth) but a small piece from TMAN is sent.

peace and love from the middle east you fucko's

[truth or dare]

Owlcatz, based on evidence and testimony I have reviewed, played a minor role in the extortion scheme. Even though in a conspiracy, the crimes of one are the crimes of all, I believe it is appropriate to remove his name from the thread. If you disagree, or if you disagree with removing the tag against Lauda, you are free to add one yourself.

I don’t think moving to a flag system exclusively would solve the trust system problems. The flag system, and the smaller impact of negative ratings make it so an individual cannot unilaterally ruin a persons reputation.

There is still the problem of mob justice and the lack of accountability in the trust system. The excuse of many has frequently been that xx is a net benefit to the trust system and this is why a controversial rating can be overlooked. I don’t think this should be an acceptable answer, especially if the controversial rating in question is actually many ratings regarding many distinct situations. Over time people have been tagged, and when they had no realistic chance of defending themselves nor remediating their reputation after a mistake, they would rage quit, sometimes with a scam attempt that was either not serious or had no reasonable chance of succeeding. There are many guilty of doing this and more that defended this.

Many people have made mistakes in the past, and I would not suggest a permanent scarlet letter for most people that engaged in the above, especially if they are trying to be a benefit to the trust system. I have seen some people improve their behavior on a limited basis, even if I still disagree with their past behavior and some of their current ratings.  

If you are willing to play a minor role in trying to extort another member of the forum, and then for years support those that played a major role in that extortion, and one that performed a very dirty looking escrow. Then it is quite foolish to say that it increases the safety of other members to remove those warnings. This is nonsense.

What you had previously done was nothing near as bad as trying to ruthlessly extort a member. I had always thought with the self escrowing that the person duped lost nothing compared to using any other escrow and you could do so placing him at no greater risk because you knew you would uphold your end. It was sneaky but nothing like threatening people and attempting to extort large amounts of money from them.

This deal you have cut is obscene and anyone can see how it went down.

Leaving this aside since specific examples are not of prime interest to me.

Let me say that your post makes no sense to anyone who has been here for years and know things really work.

I will present some inviolable truths.

* the vast majority want to earn with sigs
* red tags can jeopardize or prevent earning with a sig and trading
* red tags or threat thereof can prevent people from enjoying freedom of speech and create echo chambers
* lack of freedom of speech prevents powerful scammers being outed and taken down
* If you do not have objective evidence to present of scamming and no strong objective corroborating evidence that clearly demonstrates attempting to scam or setting up a scam. There is no reason to damage their account
* allowing people to leave red tags on others without requiring objective. evidence leaves it dude open to abuse and manipulation which again leads to crushing of free speech, powerful scammers getting a free pass, innocent members incorrectly tagged and a general devaluing of the ratings and increase risk.

Those are insoluble problems without moving to the flagging system. People will only be able to ruin your account if it deserves to be ruined.

The only persons wishing to retain tagging are those that either can not grasp those inviolable truths or wish to keep abusing the trust system for their own ends.

Move to an objective standards based trust system that only targets scammers that are clearly a direct financial threat, and cut back on the individual swuabbles. This would be optimal in terms of retaining free speech and providing a sensible and accurate warning system for those posing a financial threat.

Your points for retaining the tagging system are invalid. That is not an opinion, the  net benefit of removal is crystal clear.

When can we see tagging removed. This subjective damaging nonsense has surely had it's time. All the problems that existed with it have been increased since reducing the threshold to anything goes. Could you design something to crush free
speech with greater efficiency. You can for any reason you like take away a persons sig and trading potential.  What a stupid design.

What a coincidence,  lauda decided QS deal was a go, owlcatz and tman are right there like with the extortion. Not that you'd know that now because QS has redacted his name. I guess that correlation being hidden from view makes everyone far more safe. Thanks QS.

Imagine the probability of after years with people adamant each other were scammers. Then all in a small space in time with no deals cut and using only their idividual ' good judgement ' poof it's all gone and was all just one big mistskr. Rather than red trust they should have positive trust. They shot through neutral and are certainly to be trusted. This is a very useful trust system.

[kulmena]

A long standing perfectly clean account (like mine) having no history of mischief or "financially motivated wrongdoing" is hard earned and only accomplished with great care and great etiquette,

This is pretty funny... You never had a single positive review in your trust list since 2017. You tried to get one by taking a loan from DarkStar_ in 2016 (around $4-10) to get a positive review, but it did't work coz lenders are giving neutral trust for loans. After that, you sold something  (there is no reference) to RealHummer and received positive review for god knows what. Finally U used OG escrow for selling for buying some cheap staff to yourself or for your alt account and he granted you with a positive review.(there is no reference) Also you were involved in some scams together with a scam master Jim Basko (All his social accounts are abandoned)  Of course you called  Unbreakablecoin a failed project (You was a head of their twitter campaign and a team member) Do you know how much money so called failed projects stole from gullible investors? Hundreds of millions. I do not know why suchmoon is supporting you in any case. My problem is that I know names. Almost all of them and yours too. I will not publish them because I don't want to dox anyone.