Main account is in DT1 and the other in DT2, user ends up with “2 inclusion votes” for the Trust system.
This on it's own isn't such a bad thing. My
LoyceMobile has been on and off DT2 several times.
This is unfair towards the rest of the forum users.
In my opinion, it becomes unfair if you use both accounts to leave feedback for the same user. That gives it double the strength (and it doesn't matter if it's positive, neutral or negative).
What’s the reasoning behind giving a Trust inclusion to his alt from his main, and another Trust inclusion to his main from his alt ?
I used my LoyceMobile to leave non-DT feedback, but I can imagine a user trusts their own alt's judgement, and wants to see it by default.
Both accounts are currently in DT… Wonderful
Can I do that as well ?
Technically: yes. Hilariousandco has been doing it for a long time:
I wouldn't do it though.
To quote myself:
Do's and Don'ts- Don't add users to your Trust list because they've added you!
- Don't exclude users from your Trust list based on retaliation. It's okay to trust someone's judgement, even when he doesn't trust yours.
- Don't add someone to your Trust list because you had a trade with them. Even if you trust them with money, that doesn't mean you should trust their judgement on others. I think this is the most common mistake made on Trust lists!
- It's okay to include your alt-account on your own Trust list. This means you trust the feedback you left from that account. Example:
- Don't include your main account from your alt account(s). This could influence DT1-voting, and although that's not part of this guide, it's bad.
krog is also abusing the feedback system as he left himself a positive feedback from his DT1 account to his alt.
This is definitely a big no-go for me. I've seen neutral, and I've even seen negative used for alts (for instance because they're used on a public computer). But leaving positive to yourself is cheating the feedback system.
It's even worse to leave positive feedback to an account created to be used from unsecure connections. Such an account should not be trusted. I'm amazed
7 other DT-members left the same alt positive feedback too:
Then again, the entire
Collectibles board seems to have it's own use of the Trust system. I'm not even sure that's a bad thing: unlike the rest of the forum, the Collectibles board has many users who trade without scamming. I get that their view the Trust system is different than users who for instance visit
Scam Accusations.
WHY does krog intentionally make his ALT account look more trusted than it is ?
Valid question.
Doing so defies the purpose of using an alt as this alt is used for trading purposes.
In this situation, If the alt account is compromised because the user logged in from a compromised network/device (which is the “purpose” of an alt really);
it is nearly as bad as if the main account was compromised.
True.
You should have already taken the steps so your alt does not end up in DT2.
There's not much any user can do to prevent that, other than excluding it by yourself.
2/ Using both accounts to Trust exclude a single user
That's bad. Even though only one of them is on DT1, I consider this trust abuse. @krog: you may want to read
LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system:
LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.
I believe that krog is dangerous as he puts other’s people funds at risk, demonstrating he has no clue about what he’s dealing with.
That's one of the reasons why you should never trust anyone else to create a private key for you. It's also completely "normal" in the collectibles scene. I'm pretty sure the collectors know the risk.
After seeing several demonstrations from this user, it is quite obvious that not only would I not trust them, I also tend to seek to prevent other users from possibly losing their BTC.
I mean, he is more than trustworthy when it comes to buying or selling an item, or even escrowing funds for other users, but this is not what my point is about.
First: I disagree with the negative feedback you left krogothmanhattan:
Default Trust abuser. Address reference.
The forum's description for negative feedback is this:
Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk.
Your feedback doesn't reflect this, so it shouldn't be negative. You even said it yourself:
he is more than trustworthy when it comes to buying or selling an item
I can understand a negative warning on "unsecure" krogoth, but not for "Default Trust abuser". If anything, it should be a reminder that the account is used from unsecure connections and shouldn't be trusted. But even in that case I think I'd prefer neutral.
Individual DT users can exclude the alt on their own, which should easily enough remove it from DT.
That's not enough: If someone included LoyceMobile, my exclusion would give it DT2 strength (0). That means it's still on DT2.
My red will stay for now until krog addresses the situation AND rectifies his double Trust exclusion towards me.
I don't think a bad Trust list should result in negative feedback, but instead you should exclude the user from your Trust list.
krog can have all the trust feedbacks he deserves and wants, but my opinion is that neither his main or alt belongs in DT.
Great! Then exclude them.
LoyceV's datascrape must have happened around the same time.
This data is from theymos' data dump (last Saturday morning).
Allow me to quote theymos (slightly out of context):
I'm sick and tired of big escalations and never-ending feuds
The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
~
- Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
I'm pretty sure both krogothmanhattan and yogg are much safer to trade with than a random person.
This user contributed big times to my mental health deterioration last year
Although it seems slightly off-topic: nobody on the whole big internet should be able to touch your mental health. If you don't like someone: ignore them and forget about them. Why torture yourself by giving power to someone you don't know?
Get well
Hang in there @yogg - don't ever let this place get the better of you.
I agree with Timelord2067
I'm (for now at least) not commenting on the mud slinging: I see unverifiable accusations in both directions.
