Incorrect use of the Trust system - dkbit98

[Lucius]

I thought at least DT1/2 members knew how to use the Trust system properly, and giving someone negative feedback for spamming is completely wrong. I did it once and half the forum crashed on me because of it, and I wasn’t even in DT.

In this particular case, it is a member who is definitely very irritating with his constant repetition of questions, but in the worst case he deserves only neutral feedback. I’ve seen some other DT members do the same thing and most members turn their heads away from it as if it’s a normal occurrence.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1152036

[1715034151]

1715034151

[1715034151]

1715034151

[1715034151]

1715034151

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I thought at least DT1/2 members knew how to use the Trust system properly

That's never been the case across the board, not even before we started this rotating system (which hasn't helped matters).

I agree, that's a wrongly-left feedback on dkbit98's part.  Members shouldn't be getting negative feedback because of perceived trolling, especially not by anyone who's on DT 1 or 2.  And as far as I'm concerned, Jerry0 might be a little bit paranoid as far as hardware wallets are concerned, but he's not a troll.  He just writes a lot of posts and tends not to take to heart the things other members are telling him--he certainly doesn't deserve a tag for that, and hopefully dkbit98 will reconsider it.

Edit: After looking at some of the feedback dkbit98 has left for others, I decided to exclude him from my trust list.  If he removes all of those "spammer" and related negs, I would reconsider this if it's a big deal (but it's probably not).

[logfiles]

If someone is a spammer I think the best thing would be to report their posts to the mods. I personally have never bothered tagging spammers even with a neutral. I just report their posts and let the mods decide whether to delete the post or not.

If red tagging spammers was a thing in the forum, then I think I would also be having at least one since I have had some of my posts deleted in the past as off-topic or perhaps spam.

[Charles-Tim]

In this particular case, it is a member who is definitely very irritating with his constant repetition of questions, but in the worst case he deserves only neutral feedback. I’ve seen some other DT members do the same thing and most members turn their heads away from it as if it’s a normal occurrence.

I think spamming and trust system are entirely different, if the post of the member is considered spam, the best is to report to moderators, even it does not deserve either neutral or negative trust. Like you implied, trust system are for people you trust which you can award +ve, while the -ve should be for people that are likely moving towards scamming people or that can harm members of this forum. Someone can be tagged neutral if you think he can be trusted but not solid reason(s), although it can be otherwise in which there are many other reasons someone can be tagged neutral in which he is not that trusted but not deserving -ve trust, such person can be tagged neutral also. In these cases, jerry0 has done nothing that deserves him the negative trust, neither has he done anything that deserves him a neutral trust, all to do regarding spamming is to report to moderators, it is moderators that will consider if the account should be temporary banned, permanently banned, or have some posts deleted.

[savetheFORUM]

The real problem is those who added him to their trust setting because dkbit98 doesn't understand the difference between death threats and hate. I admire all the good work he does here in the forum but tagging someone for their post quality or frequency of posts is just an abuse of the power he has.

My comment on the situation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5323868.msg56565872#msg56565872

Either dkbit98 does not have faith in the moderators or he believes he knows better than them, either of which is incorrect and reflects self-esteem more than anything else.

Someone who joins the forum might consider jerry0 as a scammer because that's what it shows to a new user. Instead, neutral feedback like actmyname leaves for spammers would have been a better choice.

Even worst is that despite everyone explaining him, dkbit98 doesn't move which makes him being on the DT even more worthless. DT should have the ability to see the situation from a neutral point of view, which this guy doesn't possess.

[suchmoon]

While I disagree with dkbit98's trust rating for the spammer, I gotta laugh at the OPs conversion from a trust abuser to a lecturer on the correct use of the trust system. It sounds fake and contrived, based entirely on their personal dislike of each other more than anything else.

[savetheFORUM]

While I disagree with dkbit98's trust rating for the spammer, I gotta laugh at the OPs conversion from a trust abuser to a lecturer on the correct use of the trust system. It sounds fake and contrived, based entirely on their personal dislike of each other more than anything else.

Good catch! But he changed it to neutral and I don't think anyone would have problems if dkbit98 just changes it to neutral too. He just doesn't understand the point, does dkbit98.

[suchmoon]

While I disagree with dkbit98's trust rating for the spammer, I gotta laugh at the OPs conversion from a trust abuser to a lecturer on the correct use of the trust system. It sounds fake and contrived, based entirely on their personal dislike of each other more than anything else.

Good catch! But he changed it to neutral and I don't think anyone would have problems if dkbit98 just changes it to neutral too. He just doesn't understand the point, does dkbit98.

What if he changed his avatar to an angry cat with goggles... that should make it all right.

[savetheFORUM]

While I disagree with dkbit98's trust rating for the spammer, I gotta laugh at the OPs conversion from a trust abuser to a lecturer on the correct use of the trust system. It sounds fake and contrived, based entirely on their personal dislike of each other more than anything else.

Good catch! But he changed it to neutral and I don't think anyone would have problems if dkbit98 just changes it to neutral too. He just doesn't understand the point, does dkbit98.

What if he changed his avatar to an angry cat with goggles... that should make it all right.

I do miss Lauda but let's be honest we don't need another one, be honest with yourself.

[Stalker22]

While I disagree with dkbit98's trust rating for the spammer, I gotta laugh at the OPs conversion from a trust abuser to a lecturer on the correct use of the trust system. It sounds fake and contrived, based entirely on their personal dislike of each other more than anything else.

Good catch! But he changed it to neutral and I don't think anyone would have problems if dkbit98 just changes it to neutral too. He just doesn't understand the point, does dkbit98.

As far as I can see, dkbit98 has already changed it to neutral. In addition, I inferred from his reference that the negative tag was more of a warning than a permanent trust rating.

...
And you are doing this all the time, so I am temp-tagging you as a spammer.

I can't say if this is the proper use of the trust system or not, but since we don't have a de-merit system available, we would certainly benefit from the new anti-spam methods on the forum. 

[hugeblack]

Although I think that it is wrong to use trust system like this, trust system trying to be decentralized, even if people are wrong, society must determine whether they are right or not.
@theymos believes that using the trust system is such a mistake, but nevertheless when he decided to remove a member he asked the community to vote for it.

If you see someone misusing the trust system, remove him from your trust list.

[Lucius]

Edit: After looking at some of the feedback dkbit98 has left for others, I decided to exclude him from my trust list.  If he removes all of those "spammer" and related negs, I would reconsider this if it's a big deal (but it's probably not).

Thanks for your time, I really appreciate your reaction as a DT member who not only uses words but also acts concretely. In this particular case, I was really sorry that someone got negative feedback just because he was paranoid and confused, and I think this was the only way to point out that someone more than obviously doesn't understand how the trust system should work.

I also don't think it's appropriate to leave someone even neutral feedback if that same member is asking for help, and someone sees that same help as a waste of time. For example, the following topic according to dkbit98, it's a waste of time, and he left a neutral feedback to that member in 2019.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5323426.0 (his deleted post from this topic - https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5655/56558510.html)

The real problem is those who added him to their trust setting because dkbit98 doesn't understand the difference between death threats and hate. I admire all the good work he does here in the forum but tagging someone for their post quality or frequency of posts is just an abuse of the power he has.

I've written this before, but the easiest way to become a respected member of this community is to expose as many scammers as possible - which automatically means that the community gives you their trust, even if you're doing things you shouldn't be doing. I also appreciate anyone who fights spammers and scammers, and there is no doubt that he has done a good job in this regard - but you have seen the situation quite clearly and objectively and everything you have written makes sense.

Someone who has more than obviously made a mistake (and not just once) opens a new thread in retaliation accusing me of death threats and reporting to the moderators asking for my perma-ban - it's not hard to tell what kind of person he is.

While I disagree with dkbit98's trust rating for the spammer, I gotta laugh at the OPs conversion from a trust abuser to a lecturer on the correct use of the trust system. It sounds fake and contrived, based entirely on their personal dislike of each other more than anything else.

I made a mistake, I admitted it several times and as a punishment for what I did was kicked out of DT as many as 2 times, and all DT members who left me positive feedback (even for crypto trade) were forced to delete the same feedbacks. According to you, I only did this because I have something against dkbit98, so while it is true that there is no good relationship between us, should I keep quiet if I see that he is doing something wrong?

After all that had happened, I offered a hand of reconciliation that he did not want to accept.

[suchmoon]

I made a mistake, I admitted it several times and as a punishment for what I did was kicked out of DT as many as 2 times, and all DT members who left me positive feedback (even for crypto trade) were forced to delete the same feedbacks.

Revisionist history. You were arguing for years how you're right and everyone else is wrong. You're still playing the victim LOL. You're the one who abused the trust system.

According to you, I only did this because I have something against dkbit98, so while it is true that there is no good relationship between us, should I keep quiet if I see that he is doing something wrong?

That's not what I said but I found a photo of you on the internet,  sorry for doxing:

After all that had happened, I offered a hand of reconciliation that he did not want to accept.

Yeah, I wonder why

[Lucius]

suchmoon, I know what kind of game you're playing here - you want to relativize someone else's power abuse by constantly attacking me for something that happened in the past. I admitted my mistake and that story is over, the one you try to protect with these posts gets the legitimacy to do what he's really best at - you use the same rhetoric as him - Lucius is bad for the forum, and Lucius is a trust abuser, on the other hand, the one who has abused his position dozens of times is not guilty of anything - and while you are both doing that, ask yourself why the forum has less than 3000 active users a day? Maybe because DT members are constantly destroying users profiles with completely unjustified feedbacks - unfortunately no one wants to defend them.

[actmyname]

How many threads do we need? Does a PM not suffice anymore?

[Lucius]

How many threads do we need? Does a PM not suffice anymore?

To whom should I send a PM regarding someone not using the Trust system properly? If someone thinks that the thread is unnecessary, the report to moderator button is available to everyone.

[savetheFORUM]

How many threads do we need? Does a PM not suffice anymore?

To whom should I send a PM regarding someone not using the Trust system properly? If someone thinks that the thread is unnecessary, the report to moderator button is available to everyone.

You need to calm down here. He made a mistake, he corrected it and I guess that should be it. We all know he was wrong leaving that feedback but now that it is corrected, I don't see why you need to stretch it.

I suggest you to lock the topic and once you have more evidence of the same mistake from him, you should post again

[suchmoon]

suchmoon, I know what kind of game you're playing here - you want to relativize someone else's power abuse by constantly attacking me for something that happened in the past. I admitted my mistake and that story is over, the one you try to protect with these posts gets the legitimacy to do what he's really best at - you use the same rhetoric as him - Lucius is bad for the forum, and Lucius is a trust abuser, on the other hand, the one who has abused his position dozens of times is not guilty of anything - and while you are both doing that, ask yourself why the forum has less than 3000 active users a day? Maybe because DT members are constantly destroying users profiles with completely unjustified feedbacks - unfortunately no one wants to defend them.

Seeing how you only took this job of a public defender when you found an opportunity to use it against your nemesis I have no reason to believe you. But hey, good luck in your Campaign against Unjustified Negative Trust.