(pastet89 reputation) Rules/criteria to change feedback on request

[Poker Player]

I just received a PM requesting me to delete a negative feedback I wrote almost a year ago, in good manners. When I wrote it I wasn't in DT and the person didn't give it any importance, but now he does. I have reviewed the case and it is not clear to me. I thought I would ask those of you who have been in DT for a longer time if you have any criteria or experiences you would like to share in this regard.

[Charles-Tim]

No adequate information yet, you tagged many people which are actually scammers and the likes. You can begin with its username of the tagged account and the reason for the negative trust, but probably that would have a reference.

If you have a valid and a good reason to remove a negative trust, it is up to you.

[Little Mouse]

I'm not on DT.
If you have sent a feedback which is not backed by enough proof, I think you should review the feedback and at minimum, you can turn that into neutral. I received a negative feedback just because I shared the truth I know. I tried to contact him but he didn’t response. Even though he is not on DT, it's still a pain for me because I don’t deserve that feedback at all. So, if someone doesn’t deserve a feedback, you should think about that and change your mind.

However, instead of suggesting you something, it would be better to evaluate the case if you share the issue.

[LoyceV]

When I wrote it I wasn't in DT

My stance on the Trust system is that everyone should use it, being on DT or not shouldn't matter. If you believe the feedback shouldn't have been left if you'd been on DT, you shouldn't have left it in the first place. And if you do leave inaccurate feedback, you shouldn't have reached DT.
That being said, you can always improve on mistakes you made in the past.

I thought I would ask those of you who have been in DT for a longer time if you have any criteria or experiences you would like to share in this regard.

I barely remove feedback. I like to believe I'm quite conservative in tagging people, so I only do it when I'm sure (disclaimer: exceptions exist).

[o_e_l_e_o]

A relevant snippet from theymos:

Ratings

 - Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
 - Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
 - Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
 - Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
 - Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.

Notably: Exercise a lot of forgiveness.

Do you still actively think that this person is high risk to trade with?
Has the person corrected their mistake or seems unlikely to do it again?
Could the red rating be replaced with a neutral?

On the flip side, I also agree with Loyce - ratings should be accurate whether or not you are in DT. If you would let this rating stand if you weren't in DT, then you should let it stand regardless that you are now in DT.

[Poker Player]

I don't know where you get that the feedback is different for being in DT or not. I didn't say that. I said that it seems that this person gives importance now that I am in DT because the feedback is visible. I stand by my feedback, which I don't know if I would detail it more now. I think if I change it it's going to be from negative to negative explaining in more detail. What makes me doubt and I do not see clear is that in the PM he sounds to me like an honest person and I have seen his post history and it makes me doubt too. I don't know whether to share the details or what.

[Charles-Tim]

I don't know whether to share the details or what.

I think you want to make this transparent, there is nothing bad to share his details. Anyone can post honestly for not to be removed from a campaign  .

Like I have implied, it is left to you. You can change it, or change it to a neutral tag first if the reason you left the negative trust can not harm any member of this forum.

But I am surprised you brought this up but not revealing the account.

[examplens]

the only criteria are whether your decision is correct or not. Especially if you give someone a negative tag, you probably must be sure that is the right decision. If you are not 100% sure, neutral is always okay, you will warn people but you will not ruin someone's reputation if you have any doubt.
You always can ask the community in some cases, if you are in doubt that you have misinterpreted something.
btw. I changed feedback several times when I noticed it was not appropriate to the case.

[Igebotz]

When in doubt, use Neutral, which is how I feel the DT should be utilized and why the Neutral was created. Because you're already in doubt, I recommend changing it to neutral, but you can do anything you like!

The user isn't being honest since he hasn't given a fvck about your feedback for years, and now that you're a DT member, he's acting like a victim. DT is not a life in jail sentence people do change.

I don't know where you get that the feedback is different for being in DT or not. I didn't say that. I said that it seems that this person gives importance now that I am in DT because the feedback is visible. I stand by my feedback, which I don't know if I would detail it more now. I think if I change it it's going to be from negative to negative explaining in more detail. What makes me doubt and I do not see clear is that in the PM he sounds to me like an honest person and I have seen his post history and it makes me doubt too. I don't know whether to share the details or what.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Notably: Exercise a lot of forgiveness.

I take that as a suggestion which sometimes has to be completely discarded.  More often than not I've found myself in an unforgiving frame of mind when dealing with PMs asking for negative trust removal--but that's not to say I don't remove feedback, because I've removed many. 

But if the feedback was given a year or more since the appeal via PM, I always look to see if there's any evidence that the member has improved in any way, or at the very least hasn't repeated whatever it was I negged him for.  So I would suggest to Poker Player that he try to step back and look at the reason(s) why he left the feedback in the first place, why the member thinks he needs that neg removed (is he a sig spammer or bounty hunter-spammer?), and what's the person done in all that time you weren't on DT?  People can rehabilitate, but I find that it's rare.

In any case it's your call, Poker Player.  Be bold and be confident--or at least fake it until you're rollin' around bitcointalk with a Cuban stogie a-smokin' in a Bentley like a boss.  You've got the potential to be that guy.

[lovesmayfamilis]

I like Royse777's strategy. In his negative tags left by some accounts, there is a condition that if a person changes after a certain time, he will be able to change the tag to neutral.
Marlboroza worked the same way. He wrote in his reviews that the negative review was changed, with some other events.
I also try to stick to the fact that negative tags can be changed. But of course, there is a difference. Cancel the tag of a cheater who previously promised to leave one account and kill the rest. Or cancel the tag for a person who was caught in financial fraud, no pardon is suitable here.

[Poker Player]

Ok so, this is the guy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=201237

This is the post.

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5664/56646227.html

At the time I simply put "scammer" because I am sick and tired of seeing these types of offers from trading systems, bots, etc. that promise incredible returns.

According to my criteria, if you create a thread for this, you are a scammer until you prove otherwise, and the OP did not give a single answer in that thread where, except for a seemingly fake newbie, we all doubted his system.

In all the time I have been on the forums not a single one of those offers turned out to be real, and the OP either disappeared or after a while I found out that he had managed to scam someone with his supposed system.

Today he wrote me:

Hello,

I haven't logged since long time and just saw that you have posted a note on my Trust reputation page that I am a scammer just because I have offered my trading bot.

My profile was created back in 2013, I have over 1,000 posts and I have never scammed anyone here. You can see from my profile history that back in the years when I was organizing a contest and I worked with a trusted member to use them for escrow and everything went smooth: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678335.0 . I did that especially because I do not want to hold anyone's money. That was my intention with the bot as well - as all bots on the markets, the users money are supposed to be on the users' exchange own account and the bot is trading with their keys. So if anyone could get scammed this is me, because I can not even be guaranteed the user will pay the percentage at the end.

Would you mind removing the bad note, please? It is absolutely soul crushing when you have not done anything bad to see your old profile being marked as scammers one, it just feels unfair.

I am not offering the bot anymore now but if you need more details regarding the post in question let's do a video Skype call about it please. I have nothing to hide, including my face. You have a good reputation so based on that I believe you are an honest person with good intentions and you will not leave things this way because that's really unfair.

Best regards,

I'm going to tell him that I created this thread in case he wants to defend himself here.

[LoyceV]

This is the post.

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/5664/56646227.html

I'd say this fits a type 1 Flag:

I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money.

[suchmoon]

~

Someone who can 50x their bitcoins in ~300 trades should be a billionaire already instead of begging for handouts here. It's utter bullshit and you don't need to worry about that trust feedback.

[bananahunter67]

~

Someone who can 50x their bitcoins in ~300 trades should be a billionaire already instead of begging for handouts here. It's utter bullshit and you don't need to worry about that trust feedback.

The accused user here.

Please, reread my post again. I stand behind it and I never claimed I have 50x-ed my capital until that point. All I said was the real truth: I have developed the bot, backtested it to get this results (backtesting means testing with back data mathematically without real money trading), and suggested someone to enter with bigger capital to kickstart me due to my low capital.

If you think that my offer sounds suspicious - good for you, that's your right but that does not make me a scammer.

To summarize:

1) I got a negative trust review "Scammer" literally for posting an offer on the forum. For nothing else. Without a single interaction with any user based on that. Let alone scamming someone. As subjective suspicious and not pleasant my post looks to someone, I think it at most deserved neutral warning with reference. Because in this case "Scammer" with red letters is anything but truth and can actually mislead the users from an objective point of view.

2) My 9 years old profile has history of good interactions with positive trust members like Maidak https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35312 and cryptostats.es https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1388494. The former hold an escrow for a game organized by me and the latter suggested to me to pay me to put his website in my signature back in 2017, for which I refused the money and did it for free.

3) I can immediately prove the above with screenshots from my PMs with them but I will not do that as I do find it moral/loyal/legal to post private messages in public without the user consent. Related to that, I hereby kindly ask my personal message to be removed from the public forum which is my privacy and legal right. I see that all of you here really care about the community transparency and I actually appreciate that. So I suggest that if you seek the truth to personally reach out to these users to confirm that for me. Or to reach out to anyone who you think I might have scammed (how could I even be a scammer  without a suspected victim)?

4) I will not make more efforts trying to convince anyone into anything from this point on. I know the truth myself and I don't care that much actually. I have dignity though and I will not keep trying to prove my innocence based on a bare subjective suspicious.

6) I will be honest, this whole story feels annoying as it is unfair to me. But as hard as it is for me, I keep the good tone because I am impressed by the serious way you look into things and really appreciate the time of all of you. Regardless of whether my bad trust will be removed or not, if anyone can take anything from that case, as @igehhh suggested it should be: when in doubt, please at least use neutral. When you caught a proven scammer, use negative. That is being transparent, which is the goal of whole trust system.

All the best to all of you and thanks again for looking into that.

[Igebotz]

@igehhh suggested it should be: when in doubt, please at least use neutral. When you caught a proven scammer, use negative. That is being transparent, which is the goal of whole trust system.

That's just my opinion and strategy, but after reading the feedback left on you, I believe you are the only one who can save yourself from this situation; you must persuade Poker Player that your 20x Roi super Bot in a few hours actually works by providing valuable proof, which is fucking impossible!! Making money has never been this easy.

Our responsibility as DT members is to keep people out of situations like this, and Poker has done just that, and anyone who utilizes your service after that does so at his own peril. Good luck

[suchmoon]

Please, reread my post again. I stand behind it and I never claimed I have 50x-ed my capital until that point. All I said was the real truth: I have developed the bot, backtested it to get this results (backtesting means testing with back data mathematically without real money trading), and suggested someone to enter with bigger capital to kickstart me due to my low capital.

Defending it as some sort legitimate project just makes it worse. The only information you posted about that bot is that your backtest ended up with 50 BTC (and even that is just your words). You did not disclose any of the risks. You're asking for a percentage of profits but obviously not offering to cover the losses. Thus the "high risk" warning on your account is fully deserved.

We've seen these types of backtested bots here and they always result in a loss when real money is involved.

[Findingnemo]

If you feel that a feedback you left in the past becomes in appropriate now or worth to give a review and there is no certain rules that enforces you shouldn't leave a feedback for this reason but don't misuse it as well. If you left feedback for someone who was keep spamming in the past and now he completely changed his posting behaviour now become good contributor to the forum then its worth to change.

[Igebotz]

The DT system was not designed for spammers, but rather for high-risk trade users, and the user in question was not flagged for being a shitposter; rather, he was flagged for promoting a high-risk trading bot.

The ignore and Report buttons works perfectly well for shit posters.

If you feel that a feedback you left in the past becomes in appropriate now or worth to give a review and there is no certain rules that enforces you shouldn't leave a feedback for this reason but don't misuse it as well. If you left feedback for someone who was keep spamming in the past and now he completely changed his posting behaviour now become good contributor to the forum then its worth to change.

[Poker Player]

Well, I am going to lock the thread. At first I thought this thread could be used to share experiences on removing old feedback, and in some cases they have been shared, but as the thread is already focused on a person in question and I have it clear, I will not leave the thread open.

The defense of pastet89 is based on two arguments:

1) He is a good forum member who has never scammed anyone, etc.

That argument does not work because we have seen many cases on the forum of people who had never scammed anyone previously and ended up doing it, in some cases people with a previous great reputation on the forum, much more than pastet89.

2) His bot/trading system does not try to scam anyone.

Bullshit. And the fact that LoyceV and suchmoon have seen it clearly reaffirms my idea. The only doubt I had was whether to replace the old feedback with a new (negative) one giving more explanations instead of just saying "scammer", but as they both have seen it clear as well, I don't think explanations of anything are needed. Anyone with a minimum idea of mathematics and with a minimum experience in the forums knows that it is the typical system that promises incredible returns and does not explain why the person offering it is in a forum for supposed lack of capital instead of being on his yacht on his way to the Bahamas, because no matter how little capital he has, with that profitability it is very easy to get rich quick.