DT1 and DT2 members who have negative feedback (or are banned)

[babo]

That's exactly why references are used: to help people easily remember the reason for a certain red flag. If you can't remember why you left feedback, how complicated is it for others to understand it?
There may be a valid reason for the red feedback, but the one you left is incorrect.

As for the negative tag by Vod, it's probably excessive, because it's just your ignorance or misunderstanding of the DT system. If punishment is already necessary in such a case, it would be more appropriate to exclude you from the DT selection.

OH LOL... AMAZING .. REALLY
You even have to exclude me from the DT, and who do we keep you and vod?
definitely a good buy for the community

I have proven over the years to be a reliable person who works hard for the forum and the community, I think your comment makes it clear that there is hatred towards me

are you sure you never made a mistake? or vod?
I will search the past to find where you went wrong and bring it to light

I don't have any problems, I know the skeletons in everyone's closet

[examplens]

OH LOL... AMAZING .. REALLY
You even have to exclude me from the DT, and who do we keep you and vod?
definitely a good buy for the community

I have proven over the years to be a reliable person who works hard for the forum and the community, I think your comment makes it clear that there is hatred towards me

I don't know why such a reaction. I just stated how I see the whole thing.

I don't know how you realized that something was against you and how you understood that "As for the negative tag by Vod, it's probably excessive" was hatred toward you.
As you can see, I neither put you on the ~ list nor left any tag.

are you sure you never made a mistake? or vod?
I will search the past to find where you went wrong and bring it to light

I don't have any problems, I know the skeletons in everyone's closet

Now you are creating a personal conflict and acting vengefully, which makes you biased in the further discussion.
I have neither the time nor the interest in internet warfare.

[babo]

I'm not interested in revenge or anything else either, I don't have the time, I have a job and a family and unfortunately bitcoin is just a technical hobby
you yourself said, since you didn't put the reference it means you don't know the DT system

I took the trusts you left



you too have left trusts without reference and yet I did not attack you, knowing WHO YOU ARE and WHAT YOU HAVE DONE for the community, even saying that you should be excluded from the DT
It would be stupid to exclude you from the DT just because you didn't leave some references


yet it's easy to point the finger at others and not ourselves when we make the same mistakes

in any case, I repeat I have no problems, if you want to play... we will play I'm not the type to back down

if you read my first post it was very humble and I even asked: "what do you recommend to do" reference

[Lillominato89]

Calm down, everyone — we’re on the verge of starting an unnecessary conflict.
There’s no real reason for this, and above all, it lacks sense.

As already mentioned, Babo initially gave neutral feedback, which he later changed to negative (admittedly a mistake) in an effort to protect the forum and the community — something he has always done and will likely continue to do. He acknowledged his error from the beginning.

Vod’s negative trust feedback appears to be an abuse of the system. Leaving such feedback without knowing the full context feels more like a personal attack on Babo, which seems excessive. It sets a precedent that could lead others to do the same in the future.

You are all respected members of the forum. Surely we can resolve this without resorting to personal attacks — don’t you agree?

[logfiles]

What do you recommend doing?

Removing it was the right thing to do, which is OK. We are not perfect and stand to be corrected once in a while. What matters most is how you respond to the situation. Given the development, vod might also review his feedback given that the reference was pointing to your trust profile, which has now changed.

I hope the immediate neutral/note to self you just sent to him won't complicate things even more. Let's hope this gets resolved ASAP.

[LoyceV]

Hi guys, honestly I don't even remember since it's a feedback from January

That's one of the reasons why you should add a Reference link to your feedback.

I never give feedback on my own but I follow someone to reinforce

That doesn't sound good. You should at least be able to explain why you left certain feedback (even though you're in no way required to defend yourself).

What do you recommend doing?

If you don't know why you left feedback, it shouldn't be there.

As for the negative tag by Vod, it's probably excessive, because it's just your ignorance or misunderstanding of the DT system. If punishment is already necessary in such a case, it would be more appropriate to exclude you from the DT selection.

Agreed. If you want to leave feedback for Trust abuse, it should be neutral. I don't see how this incident makes trading with babo high-risk.

You even have to exclude me from the DT

Relax
The way I read examplens' post, he wrote: "If punishment is already necessary", and I don't think he thinks that's necessary. His argument was against the red tag on your account, not to exlude you.
But in general, a Trust list exclusion is the appropriate action to take when you disagree with the feedback someone left.

May I suggest:
Vod: remove the negative on babo. If you insist on keeping a record on his Trust list for this incident (which I don't think is necessary), make it neutral.
babo and examplens: get a virtual beer together. Intonation is lost in written text, I see no reason for the two of you to fight over this.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

[...]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5235038.msg65348686#msg65348686

why should i be afraid of him? who is he?

I don't blame you to be afraid of him. You are, aren't you?

You should be afraid of a liar and extortionist. Especially when he claims that he is the longest running DT and use it for his abuse of feedback justification. He has +7 DT1 power, so you need to think many times before taking a step that will go against him. The group will stay silent.

Anyone does not dare to speak against him. Hack Bot even started to change his teaching method in his feedback leaving guideline for forum members. The Sceptical Chymist is one step ahead to be under his mercy worships him as his God. None has their own voice built up unfortunately.

Have anyone dared to talk about doing "~Vod". No one would. Theymos must give a special certificate to Vod to do whatever he wants whenever he wants after all a mental patient is not easy to handle.

[LoyceV]

@BitcoinGirl.Club: this is not the place to expand your feud with Vod. You have 2 topics for that in Reputation already.

Update: 2 follow-up posts deleted.

[Vod]

Calm down, everyone — we’re on the verge of starting an unnecessary conflict.
There’s no real reason for this, and above all, it lacks sense.

Vod’s negative trust feedback appears to be an abuse of the system. Leaving such feedback without knowing the full context feels more like a personal attack on Babo, which seems excessive.

I left valid negative trust, but it was late at night for me and the reason was simply to get him to review his trust.    He now understands it is abuse and will not do it again, so I removed my negative trust.

His temper concerns me though, and the quick threat to " if you want to play... we will play I'm not the type to back down" reminds me of the millions OgNasty cost me with his game.

Removing it was the right thing to do, which is OK. We are not perfect and stand to be corrected once in a while. What matters most is how you respond to the situation. Given the development, vod might also review his feedback given that the reference was pointing to your trust profile, which has now changed.
I hope the immediate neutral/note to self you just sent to him won't complicate things even more. Let's hope this gets resolved ASAP.

I don't know Babo, so I will not disagree when he claims leaving feedback without communication is bad, as he left me feedback without communication.      He has removed it and no harm done.  

Ninja edit:  I've now removed the neutral trust.  I understand impulse control better than most...

[Lillominato89]

Calm down, everyone — we’re on the verge of starting an unnecessary conflict.
There’s no real reason for this, and above all, it lacks sense.

Vod’s negative trust feedback appears to be an abuse of the system. Leaving such feedback without knowing the full context feels more like a personal attack on Babo, which seems excessive.

I left valid negative trust, but it was late at night for me and the reason was simply to get him to review his trust.    He now understands it is abuse and will not do it again, so I removed my negative trust.

His temper concerns me though, and the quick threat to " if you want to play... we will play I'm not the type to back down" reminds me of the millions OgNasty cost me with his game.

Removing it was the right thing to do, which is OK. We are not perfect and stand to be corrected once in a while. What matters most is how you respond to the situation. Given the development, vod might also review his feedback given that the reference was pointing to your trust profile, which has now changed.
I hope the immediate neutral/note to self you just sent to him won't complicate things even more. Let's hope this gets resolved ASAP.

I don't know Babo, so I will not disagree when he claims leaving feedback without communication is bad, as he left me feedback without communication.      He has removed it and no harm done.  

Ninja edit:  I've now removed the neutral trust.  I understand impulse control better than most...

I'm sure you know how to use the trust system — you're not new to the forum. I understand that your action was made in good faith, but the way it was done could be misleading.
I know Babo well; he's a good person and has contributed a lot to this forum, and in my opinion, his reaction is understandable.
If you were in his place, how would you have reacted? I think you would have been a bit upset too!
In any case, I hope this dispute ends here and that we can return to a peaceful atmosphere.

[Vod]

I'm sure you know how to use the trust system — you're not new to the forum. I understand that your action was made in good faith, but the way it was done could be misleading.

People learn from experience.  I keep police videos streaming while I program (reminds me of my good old days lol) and when they warn a person not to drink and drive (for example), the person is less likely to listen then if they get their car towed and spend a night in the drunk tank.    It's not misleading - it's what happens when you make mistakes.

I know Babo well; he's a good person and has contributed a lot to this forum, and in my opinion, his reaction is understandable.

So his time online is important - more important than everyone else here?    I have noted your understanding, and wish you would drop it.

(Edited instead of reposting to not stir drama)

[nutildah]

I actually want to apologize to babo. I had no idea bringing this up would cause any sort of drama. Since the account he left the red trust on has been inactive since 2021, the action of leaving the trust was harmless either way. It just caught my eye because a new entry appeared on LoyceV's list maintained in this thread. Anyway, I'm glad the situation has now been resolved.

[Vod]

I actually want to apologize to babo. I had no idea bringing this up would cause any sort of drama. Since the account he left the red trust on has been inactive since 2021, the action of leaving the trust was harmless either way. It just caught my eye because a new entry appeared on LoyceV's list maintained in this thread. Anyway, I'm glad the situation has now been resolved.

In regards to my last post, modern investigations techniques have changed so much - I could never be a detective today.   I've always known I have impulse controls, but as long as I didn't leave questionable trust in the moment, I felt OK.   There is nothing wrong with an occasional show of consequence to maintain the rules, and I left that feedback knowing it would probably lead to the feedback removal and an apology not to do it again.    That indeed was the result and I don't think anyone will try that again (soon).

I want to apologize to examplens and nutildah - it was my action that caused babo's reaction.   I also want to apologize to Lillominato89, who was defending his friend that should not have needed to be defended.

Long story short - things have changed and I'm able to move on to Project Development.  I will still watch for scams and leave appropriate trust, but I will no longer assume trust is needed until it has been investigated.    That was the cause of all this; if I am too lazy to investigate or verify, I should not be picking and choosing examples.  I should also not assume everyone will react as I expect.   Sorry babo.  

 

[Lillominato89]

I actually want to apologize to babo. I had no idea bringing this up would cause any sort of drama. Since the account he left the red trust on has been inactive since 2021, the action of leaving the trust was harmless either way. It just caught my eye because a new entry appeared on LoyceV's list maintained in this thread. Anyway, I'm glad the situation has now been resolved.

In regards to my last post, modern investigations techniques have changed so much - I could never be a detective today.   I've always known I have impulse controls, but as long as I didn't leave questionable trust in the moment, I felt OK.   There is nothing wrong with an occasional show of consequence to maintain the rules, and I left that feedback knowing it would probably lead to the feedback removal and an apology not to do it again.    That indeed was the result and I don't think anyone will try that again (soon).

I want to apologize to examplens and nutildah - it was my action that caused babo's reaction.   I also want to apologize to Lillominato89, who was defending his friend that should not have needed to be defended.

Long story short - things have changed and I'm able to move on to Project Development.  I will still watch for scams and leave appropriate trust, but I will no longer assume trust is needed until it has been investigated.    That was the cause of all this; if I am too lazy to investigate or verify, I should not be picking and choosing examples.  I should also not assume everyone will react as I expect.   Sorry babo.  

 

Yeah, Babo didn’t need to be defended by me, but friends are friends.
The most important thing is that the situation has returned to a peaceful state, and I’m glad you were able to own up to your mistakes.
Alright guys, now all that’s left is to share a virtual beer together and put this whole thing behind you.

[babo]

I actually want to apologize to babo. I had no idea bringing this up would cause any sort of drama. Since the account he left the red trust on has been inactive since 2021, the action of leaving the trust was harmless either way. It just caught my eye because a new entry appeared on LoyceV's list maintained in this thread. Anyway, I'm glad the situation has now been resolved.

In regards to my last post, modern investigations techniques have changed so much - I could never be a detective today.   I've always known I have impulse controls, but as long as I didn't leave questionable trust in the moment, I felt OK.   There is nothing wrong with an occasional show of consequence to maintain the rules, and I left that feedback knowing it would probably lead to the feedback removal and an apology not to do it again.    That indeed was the result and I don't think anyone will try that again (soon).

I want to apologize to examplens and nutildah - it was my action that caused babo's reaction.   I also want to apologize to Lillominato89, who was defending his friend that should not have needed to be defended.

Long story short - things have changed and I'm able to move on to Project Development.  I will still watch for scams and leave appropriate trust, but I will no longer assume trust is needed until it has been investigated.    That was the cause of all this; if I am too lazy to investigate or verify, I should not be picking and choosing examples.  I should also not assume everyone will react as I expect.   Sorry babo.  

 

serene vod, I have no reason to have it with you or to fight again, once we understand each other
Unfortunately I am an instinctive and passionate person, so I lose patience easily and become angry easily
but with the same ease I return to normal

this character of mine has its strengths and weaknesses as always
once we understood each other and made things clear for me it was as if nothing had happened

thanks to everyone, the fact that you always check for me is a source of pride, I often point it out to others as a sign of a community that works

[LoyceV]

Update:
     1. 18321: OgNasty (Trust: +67 / =3 / -7) (DT1! (0) 4360 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. 30747: Vod (Trust: +28 / =2 / -1) (DT1! (7) 2254 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. 35: theymos (Trust: +31 / =1 / -1) (13226 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. 23324: Balthazar (Trust: +2 / =1 / -1) (362 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. 65317: bigtimespaghetti (Trust: +19 / =0 / -1) (57 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. 98986: TMAN (Trust: +22 / =1 / -1) (1308 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. 115423: Micio (Trust: +11 / =0 / -1) (283 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. 125517: shadallion (Trust: +5 / =0 / -1) (2 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. 139084: Danydee (Trust: +3 / =3 / -1) (277 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. 143168: TheQuin (Trust: +2 / =1 / -2) (633 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. 180162: montreal (Trust: +3 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. 201654: DrBeer (Trust: +4 / =1 / -1) (1454 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. 222376: shogun47 Banned! (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (69 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. 224980: cryptodevil (Trust: +9 / =0 / -1) (254 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    15. 241548: Rizzrack (Trust: +1 / =1 / -1) (720 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    16. 249495: Cøbra (Trust: +4 / =0 / -1) (464 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    17. 314910: bitkilo (Trust: +4 / =1 / -1) (10 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    18. 344390: MovieBTC (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    19. 458393: harizen (Trust: #  +4 / =1 / -3) (398 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    20. 487377: Kalemder (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (1227 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    21. 520313: Lutpin (Trust: +31 / =2 / -1) (874 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    22. 547991: phishead (Trust: +14 / =0 / -1) (341 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    23. 765632: bL4nkcode (Trust: #  +15 / =2 / -3) (808 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    24. 849090: tomahawk9 (Trust: +2 / =1 / -1) (744 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    25. 984384: Baofeng (Trust: +2 / =1 / -2) (1447 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    26. 1580039: asche (Trust: +8 / =0 / -1) (1491 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    27. 1668017: anonymousminer (Trust: +35 / =0 / -1) (1242 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    28. 1856285: Leviathan.007 Banned! (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (722 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    29. 2601646: gabecoin (Trust: +1 / =0 / -1) (35 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

[logfiles]

Update:
    25. 984384: Baofeng (Trust: +2 / =1 / -2) (1447 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Baofeng, was recently discovered to have used alt accounts to enroll in signature campaigns. I removed him from my trustlist recently. He's still on DT. I don't think someone who cheats should be part of DT.
Perhaps other members who have him on their trust lists should look into this and review their lists if they feel like.

Trust list for: Baofeng (Trust: +2 / =1 / -2) (1447 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP) (created 2025-05-10_Sat_05.18h)
Back to index
Baofeng's judgement is Trusted by:
1. peloso (Trust: +1 / =3 / -5) (187 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
2. thandie (Trust: neutral) (360 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
3. s0nix (Trust: neutral) (11 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
4. ralle14 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (952 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
5. blurryeyed (Trust: +1 / =3 / -4) (20 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
6. CryptopreneurBrainboss (Trust: +19 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (15) 4590 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
7. Bttzed03 (Trust: #  +0 / =0 / -1) (1140 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. Removed logfiles (Trust: +7 / =1 / -0) (DT1! (9) 1955 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
8. bisdak40 (Trust: +1 / =0 / -0) (561 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
9. Bthd (Trust: +2 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (6) 2594 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
10. TalkStar (Trust: +11 / =0 / -0) (737 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
11. ScamViruS (Trust: +1 / =2 / -0) (721 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
12. CryptoYar (Trust: neutral) (639 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

Trust list: backscratchers: users agree, they trust or distrust each other.
Trust list: backstabbers: users disagree, one user trust the other, while the other distrust him.


Source: LoyceV's Trust list viewer.
Get your own Trust list in BBCode at loyce.club/trust.

[babo]

Baofeng, was recently discovered to have used alt accounts to enroll in signature campaigns. I removed him from my trustlist recently. He's still on DT. I don't think someone who cheats should be part of DT.

I'm not experienced and I don't want to cause damage, ruin things and get tagged red for inexperience.
I have always avoided this kind of confrontation, so I'm just asking to understand how the big members of this forum would proceed (like LoyceV)
In this case of mass dis-trust? As happened with nullius?

[LoyceV]

In this case of mass dis-trust?

I guess it depends on how you look at it: his Trust list and the feedback he left didn't change. So as long as those are still valid, you could argue it's worth seeing by default.

But I also think logfiles has a point here:

I don't think someone who cheats should be part of DT.

From what I've seen, exclusions usually take a while. Look at yogg's Trust list: for weeks after his scam got exposed he lost Trust inclusions and gained more exclusions.
Bringing it up here probably helps too, as Baofeng is no longer on DT now.

[LoyceV]

Update:
     1. 18321: OgNasty (Trust: +67 / =3 / -7) (DT1! (0) 4434 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     2. 30747: Vod (Trust: +28 / =2 / -1) (DT1! (7) 2258 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     3. 35: theymos (Trust: +30 / =1 / -1) (13232 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     4. 23324: Balthazar (Trust: +2 / =1 / -1) (362 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     5. 65317: bigtimespaghetti (Trust: +19 / =0 / -1) (57 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     6. 98986: TMAN (Trust: +22 / =1 / -1) (1308 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     7. 115423: Micio (Trust: +11 / =0 / -1) (283 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     8. 125517: shadallion (Trust: +5 / =0 / -1) (2 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
     9. 139084: Danydee (Trust: +3 / =3 / -1) (277 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    10. 143168: TheQuin (Trust: +2 / =1 / -2) (633 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    11. 180162: montreal (Trust: +3 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    12. 201654: DrBeer (Trust: +4 / =1 / -1) (1474 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    13. 222376: shogun47 Banned! (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (69 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    14. 224980: cryptodevil (Trust: +9 / =0 / -1) (254 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    15. 241548: Rizzrack (Trust: +1 / =1 / -1) (720 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    16. 249495: Cøbra (Trust: +4 / =0 / -1) (464 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    17. 314910: bitkilo (Trust: +4 / =1 / -1) (10 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    18. 344390: MovieBTC (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (0 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    19. 458393: harizen (Trust: #  +4 / =1 / -3) (398 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    20. 487377: Kalemder (Trust: +0 / =0 / -1) (1227 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    21. 520313: Lutpin (Trust: +31 / =2 / -1) (874 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    22. 547991: phishead (Trust: +14 / =0 / -1) (341 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    23. 765632: bL4nkcode (Trust: #  +15 / =2 / -3) (808 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    24. 849090: tomahawk9 (Trust: +2 / =1 / -1) (744 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    25. 1580039: asche (Trust: +8 / =0 / -1) (1491 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    26. 1668017: anonymousminer (Trust: +35 / =0 / -1) (1242 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    27. 1856285: Leviathan.007 Banned! (Trust: +1 / =1 / -0) (722 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)
    28. 2601646: gabecoin (Trust: +1 / =0 / -1) (35 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)