Any moderator online?

[spy100]

If Any Moderator online please check my topic here

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5271565

And here

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5271866

Constant attacked by trolls

Also they left negative feedback on my profile without making a trade with me

Sry for posting here

[jackg]

Move to reputation.

People get annoyed if you try to be an escrow without good trust or any sort of trading history. I'd recommend discontinuing the gambling offerings and if that happens, you'd then have something to complain about.

Ftr: a flag was probably a bit excessive (this is really something for negative trust ratings only imo).

@spy you post exclusively in economics anyway clearly so why does it matter?

[spy100]

Move to reputation.

People get annoyed if you try to be an escrow without good trust or any sort of trading history. I'd recommend discontinuing the gambling offerings and if that happens, you'd then have something to complain about.

Ftr: a flag was probably a bit excessive (this is really something for negative trust ratings only imo).

@spy you post exclusively in economics anyway clearly so why does it matter?

well i do have trading history and it's not fake like some users have it here...it's earned in time ...

My trading history
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=341733


Look at does guys trust that left negative feedback  today without making a transaction and compare .... what i suspect they are frustrated do to fact they have a escrow biz and i am not using them .... i am not going to use anyone as escrow ,i am going to escrow my self as i can't trust anyone with people's money ,i started that betting service topic so i am responsible to keep peoples eth safe....pretty much my reputation on the line .

[suchmoon]

Look at does guys trust that left negative feedback  today without making a transaction and compare .... what i suspect they are frustrated do to fact they have a escrow biz and i am not using them .... i am not going to use anyone as escrow ,i am going to escrow my self as i can't trust anyone with people's money ,i started that betting service topic so i am responsible to keep peoples eth safe....pretty much my reputation on the line .

I don't have an escrow business. And no one gives a shit whom you trust or not, you're not putting any of your own money into this betting nonsense. You're asking for money from other people, claiming that you will put it into escrow, but you're just going to hold it yourself, or more likely just run with it. You're essentially a newbie as far as reputation is concerned despite your 5-year old account, and these kinds of shenanigans - lying about escrow / refusing to use a reputable escrow - are major red flags for any account, particularly one with no reputation.

Ftr: a flag was probably a bit excessive (this is really something for negative trust ratings only imo).

Neg trust is for "high risk", flag is for "high risk of losing money". Since this person is asking to send them money under false pretenses I'd say "losing money" is relevant here.

[spy100]

Look at does guys trust that left negative feedback  today without making a transaction and compare .... what i suspect they are frustrated do to fact they have a escrow biz and i am not using them .... i am not going to use anyone as escrow ,i am going to escrow my self as i can't trust anyone with people's money ,i started that betting service topic so i am responsible to keep peoples eth safe....pretty much my reputation on the line .

I don't have an escrow business. And no one gives a shit whom you trust or not, you're not putting any of your own money into this betting nonsense. You're asking for money from other people, claiming that you will put it into escrow, but you're just going to hold it yourself, or more likely just run with it. You're essentially a newbie as far as reputation is concerned despite your 5-year old account, and these kinds of shenanigans - lying about escrow / refusing to use a reputable escrow - are major red flags for any account, particularly one with no reputation.

Ftr: a flag was probably a bit excessive (this is really something for negative trust ratings only imo).

Neg trust is for "high risk", flag is for "high risk of losing money". Since this person is asking to send them money under false pretenses I'd say "losing money" is relevant here.

Kid learn a lesson from old spy100: you give feedback / trust to someone if you make a trade with him or if you buy something from that person or if you sold something to that person . Check all forums ... check ebay,amazon ...

"What is customer feedback?
Customer feedback is information provided by customers about their experience with a product or service. Its purpose is to reveal their level of satisfaction and help product, customer success, and marketing teams understand where there is room for improvement. " --- https://www.pendo.io/glossary/customer-feedback/


You did not bought anything from me or you did not sold anything to me and you left a negative feedback without doing a transaction with me via 3 accounts you own.

What you did: is calling someone a scammer without any proof , in real life i would sue you for millions of USD and drag you to court for years ,just for trying to ruin my reputation without proof.
You are lucky that your protected by your country laws. And that you are not in a european country ... in EU i can drag you to court.

[suchmoon]

Check all forums

Perhaps instead you should check the rules on this particular forum.

[jackg]

Ftr: a flag was probably a bit excessive (this is really something for negative trust ratings only imo).

Neg trust is for "high risk", flag is for "high risk of losing money". Since this person is asking to send them money under false pretenses I'd say "losing money" is relevant here.

Should trust be anything other than being at risk of losing money? Trust isn't a "downvote"?

I think personal opinion comes into it somewhere but we ought to start making those things a neutral or were going to start needing a super negative for those who scam.

You're just going to make flags seem minor if so many people are marked with them and thus is counterproductive for literally everyone (especially newbies). If someone sees extreme caution warnings on enough peoples threads they'll start to think you have to do sonething (ie rank up) to get rid of it?

[spy100]

Ftr: a flag was probably a bit excessive (this is really something for negative trust ratings only imo).

Neg trust is for "high risk", flag is for "high risk of losing money". Since this person is asking to send them money under false pretenses I'd say "losing money" is relevant here.

Should trust be anything other than being at risk of losing money? Trust isn't a "downvote"?

I think personal opinion comes into it somewhere but we ought to start making those things a neutral or were going to start needing a super negative for those who scam.

You're just going to make flags seem minor if so many people are marked with them and thus is counterproductive for literally everyone (especially newbies). If someone sees extreme caution warnings on enough peoples threads they'll start to think you have to do sonething (ie rank up) to get rid of it?

it wasn't like that back in 2015 ,a positive/negative feedback was given on bitcointalk like a normal feedback ... you knew how you can trust or not ...now kids give them like it's their own toy or something like that .

2015
You gave a positive feedback if the customer/client and vice versa was satisfied and transaction went smooth .
You gave a negative feedback if  someone scammed you or if they did a bad service etc ...

2020
Now they give feedbacks  like this:
Positive Feedback:Look he is my biz partner you can trust him
I don't like that guy he could be a killer/scammer i am going to leave a negative feedback
Without even a single transaction ... no proof

This forum changed a lot in 5 years  ,and not in a good way i see...

[suchmoon]

I think personal opinion comes into it somewhere but we ought to start making those things a neutral or were going to start needing a super negative for those who scam.

There are type 2/3 flags for that. Implied contract and written contract violations, which would cover any scam I think. Those are the ones that cause "extreme caution" and big red banners above threads. Type 1 (which is what the OP got) does not. It shows a yellow banner to newbies/guests, and merely a "#" next to the trust score.

I do use neutral ratings when it doesn't involve money or high risk or is not relevant to trading.

[jackg]

2015
You gave a positive feedback if the customer/client and vice versa was satisfied and transaction went smooth .
You gave a negative feedback if  someone scammed you or if they did a bad service etc ...

2020
Now they give feedbacks  like this:
Positive Feedback:Look he is my biz partner you can trust him
I don't like that guy he could be a killer/scammer i am going to leave a negative feedback
Without even a single transaction ... no proof

This forum changed a lot in 5 years  ,and not in a good way i see...

It was definitely a growing culture back then though (or maybe that was 2016). I remember some scam busters just busting everything at one stage (scam or not) but they'd get dropped from dt - maybe that's what we're waiting on now....

There are type 2/3 flags for that. Implied contract and written contract violations, which would cover any scam I think. Those are the ones that cause "extreme caution" and big red banners above threads. Type 1 (which is what the OP got) does not. It shows a yellow banner to newbies/guests, and merely a "#" next to the trust score.

I do use neutral ratings when it doesn't involve money or high risk or is not relevant to trading.

But high risk of what exactly? Why bother marking them if you're not going to lose anything to them?

[suchmoon]

But high risk of what exactly? Why bother marking them if you're not going to lose anything to them?

Not sure what you're saying here. Is it that I'm personally not scammed by the OP? True. But that's what the type 1 flag is for - a warning, not necessarily a proven scam.

If you're saying that an average person is unlikely to get scammed by the OP then you should oppose the flag. If enough users do it that would make it inactive.

[HCP]

But high risk of what exactly? Why bother marking them if you're not going to lose anything to them?

Because if you don't mark people... then we get complaints that we're letting scammers "roam free" on the board... which we essentially are because scams are not moderated and scammers are not banned (unless they break forum rules).

Sometimes even marking them as a scammer still isn't enough... If I had 0.001 BTC for every time I see a scam accusation posted in the accusations board, go and check the user in question and they have 3 negative feedbacks from X months prior saying they are scammers, I'd have at least 1 BTC

You did not bought anything from me or you did not sold anything to me and you left a negative feedback without doing a transaction with me via 3 accounts you own.

What you did: is calling someone a scammer without any proof , in real life i would sue you for millions of USD and drag you to court for years ,just for trying to ruin my reputation without proof.
You are lucky that your protected by your country laws. And that you are not in a european country ... in EU i can drag you to court.

What you did: is calling someone a "multi-accounter" without any proof , in real life they would not bother suing you for millions of USD and drag you to court for years ,because the courts don't care that your feelings got hurt by an "anonymous" person on the internet.


The simple fact is, that you are asking people to trust you with money because you "don't trust anyone with money"... and that your "reputation" is on the line... but your reputation here is basically zero. Sure, you have a couple of positive feedbacks for some low value design jobs, but that's from five years ago... then basically no activity... and then suddenly people should trust you to hold funds for a betting scheme that you have no risk in?

[Vod]

spy - you cannot escrow for yourself- look at the trust of Quickseller when he did.  

Trust from five years ago is hardly relevant anymore.  If you are still the same physical person, your financial situation could have changed.

You ask to hold people's money and you offer a worthless guarantee.  Don't get upset when someone calls you on it.

Finally - you don't need to trade with someone to not trust them.  

[The Sceptical Chymist]

what i suspect they are frustrated do to fact they have a escrow biz and i am not using them

I highly doubt that's the case here.  I'm not exactly sure who's doing most of the escrow business on the forum (never having used one myself), but I don't think the members who negged you did it because of perceived competition.

i am not going to use anyone as escrow ,i am going to escrow my self as i can't trust anyone with people's money ,i started that betting service topic so i am responsible to keep peoples eth safe....pretty much my reputation on the line .

That's your point of view, but you have to be able to see the situation from other people's viewpoint.  When someone is dealing with other people's money, their refusal to use an escrow sets off lots of red flags in the community.  Why?  Because there have been so many scams over the years, which is why the need to use escrow evolved in the first place.  You'll even see campaign managers/owners getting negged for not escrowing funds for their campaign participants, so don't take this personally and think there's some reason why you're being targeted other than the fact that you won't escrow funds.

spy - you cannot escrow for yourself- look at the trust of Quickseller when he did. 

Exactly, and if I had a link to that whole debacle I would provide it....but I don't know where the thread is anymore.

Trust from five years ago is hardly relevant anymore.  If you are still the same physical person, your financial situation could have changed.

That's true, plus some of the feedbacks have no reference threads anyway.

[jackg]

spy - you cannot escrow for yourself- look at the trust of Quickseller when he did. 

Trust from five years ago is hardly relevant anymore.  If you are still the same physical person, your financial situation could have changed.

I thought QS's negs came from him using alt accounts to escrow his trades - this was the sentiment I got at the time... Still greatly dishonest and probably a good reason to flag imo..

I opposed the flag but I also noticed none of the trust ratings seemed to deal with spy taking any sort of risk. Most lacked references so it wasn't possible to see who went first and the most recent ones were for graphic designs.


The argument of scammer running rampant was a strange point. These complaints are egenerally often made against the moderators and not the people on default trust and a tougher moderation policy is normally adopted to delete scams (or has in the past) .

[suchmoon]

The argument of scammer running rampant was a strange point. These complaints are egenerally often made against the moderators and not the people on default trust and a tougher moderation policy is normally adopted to delete scams (or has in the past) .

At no point in this forum's history (well, at least the ~6 years I've been here) moderators were deleting scams. That's the whole purpose of the trust system.

Edit - spelling.

[DireWolfM14]

But high risk of what exactly?

I think suchmoon's concerns are legitimate, and the flag is appropriate.  The user was completely absent for four years, then comes back with horror stories of compulsive gambling, losing everything, and episodes of depression.  To me that sounds like a high-risk individual to be holding people's money, even it is only $4 worth of ETH.

Why bother marking them if you're not going to lose anything to them?

suchmoon explained that and you quoted him doing so.  Type 1 flags are intended and appropriate for this type of situation. 

There are type 2/3 flags for that. Implied contract and written contract violations, which would cover any scam I think. Those are the ones that cause "extreme caution" and big red banners above threads. Type 1 (which is what the OP got) does not. It shows a yellow banner to newbies/guests, and merely a "#" next to the trust score.