I'm sorry, but Inaba has just gone too far...

[dogie]

He has left me negative feedback by for "conning newbies into buying from scam companies", aka by recommending NOT to buy from BFL. The guide is MY opinion about the state of manufacturers, and because I choose not to recommend BFL (for obvious reasons), he calls me a scammer and tells people not to deal with me. He even made up a 'risked' bitcoin amount ($50,000) which is just TOTALLY false.

And because he is in default trust network (I think), I get a negative rating.... for trying to help the 1000s of newbies who come on here each month make informed decisions. BFL managed to set back the bitcoin world 9 months, why is this sort of behaviour STILL allowed?

[1714125038]

1714125038

[1714125038]

1714125038

[1714125038]

1714125038

[NotLambchop]

He's not.  I haven't touched my trust and this is what I see:



You're also pretty well known here, so...

[btcton]

He has left me negative feedback by for "conning newbies into buying from scam companies", aka by recommending NOT to buy from BFL. The guide is MY opinion about the state of manufacturers...

And that is his opinion about you. That's how the trust system works, it's just mere opinions. Although, just so you know, I totally agree with you about BFL.

EDIT: And really, DefaultTrust shouldn't exist.

[dogie]

He has left me negative feedback by for "conning newbies into buying from scam companies", aka by recommending NOT to buy from BFL. The guide is MY opinion about the state of manufacturers...

And that is his opinion about you. That's how the trust system works, it's just mere opinions. Although, just so you know, I totally agree with you about BFL.

EDIT: And really, DefaultTrust shouldn't exist.

Yes he is entitled to an opinion, but not a lie about me 'stealing' 50 btc and being a scammer.

[dogie]

He's not.  I haven't touched my trust and this is what I see:



You're also pretty well known here, so...

Ah okay, I thought someone had defaulted him in January. Its just annoying because I spend so much time dedicated to trying to clean up the manufacturers game, including the shift to in hand markets. And from it I lose trust rating -_-.

Edit: Actually what is most annoying is that the community continues to facilitate him (/moderators). Its just plain fact that BFL screwed over the vast majority of customers, and I have no financial incentive or personal dealings with that company at all. But still, they aren't banned, they haven't been close to being banned, their advertising money to swindle new buyers into buying more hyper overpriced hardware is accepted.

He even pays PG not to post in his threads, yet has the audacity to accuse me of being a paid shill (I'm assuming by every non BFL company)? Just ban him and be done with it, then we can evolve and move forward. Let them run their stuff in their own forums.

[koshgel]

He's not in the default trust network. You come up on 0/+1 for me. If he's a scammer, open up a scam accusation thread against him and have him become red permanently.

[Swordsoffreedom]

The trust system is weird although I sometimes do wonder who really trusts BFL

[hilariousandco]

He even pays PG not to post in his threads, yet has the audacity to accuse me of being a paid shill (I'm assuming by every non BFL company)? Just ban him and be done with it, then we can evolve and move on.

Somebody pays Phineas not to post? Can we get a collection going for everywhere else?

[dogie]

He's not in the default trust network. You come up on 0/+1 for me. If he's a scammer, open up a scam accusation thread against him and have him become red permanently.

He's had threads in here of 100 pages but nothing happens because he (at the time anyway), was putting up 10+btc a week in advertising. I don't particular care about getting him banned, but I do care about the system doesn't even moderately support those trying to protect others. In fact it facilitates those with less ethics.

The trust system is weird although I sometimes do wonder who really trusts BFL

New buyers who come into the market, see an established company promising in hand shipping and "2 weeks" delivery on their next generation.

[tysat]

Just so people know... the trust system is not moderated, anyone is allowed to leave feedback for anyone else.

[dogie]

Just so people know... the trust system is not moderated, anyone is allowed to leave feedback for anyone else.

I am aware of that, but its also facilitating lies more than anything. Its just absolutely false, there has been no money ever exchanged between us so why is he allowed to enter 50btc in the amount I've 'scammed' from him?

[BadBear]

There's not enough time in the world to verify every single feedback for all users. If we do it for you, then we have to do it for everyone, then we might as well be back to handing out scammer tags and figuring out who's "guilty" or not.

[squall1066]

Heads up

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549403.0

[Bicknellski]

When Inaba LIES in the trust ratings and then tries to buy positive and negative trust ratings you know what you really have to wonder why this forum even allows BFL and Inaba access. Simply the tip of the iceberg here. All you have to do is take a look at the negative trust posts Inaba has made to really see what is going on here. Basically slander in some cases and probably actionable. What I want to see is someone shut down his BTC wallets ala HashFast. That is what needs to be done. Cut his access to the coins he has stolen. Millions of dollars are owed people and this guys keeps walking around these forums like he has some mandate from the community to resolve the trust rating issues?

The many failed attempts to misdirect and create confusion and the lies posted  at every turn should give this forum pause and the moderators and owners of the forum do need to do more to exclude them from this forum. It is clear that BFL and Inaba are not here to build up the community or support bitcoin in a positive manner. Your call bitcointalk it is time to do more than take their coins and ignore their blatant disregard for the rules you have set in place here.

[Swordsoffreedom]

They paid for their ads and that's what counts also why they have these disclaimers

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

[Bicknellski]

They paid for their ads and that's what counts also why they have these disclaimers

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

Do those disclaimers include false advertising or slander? Cause from where I sit it is time for the community to fight back on this and get the real story out into the media on BFL. This should not stand. There is a huge difference between failing to deliver product on time and outright gaming of the trust ratings and slander of people. At some point we as a community need to stand up and face these bullies and push back.

[bitmarket.io]

Get a life dude.

[dogie]

There's not enough time in the world to verify every single feedback for all users. If we do it for you, then we have to do it for everyone, then we might as well be back to handing out scammer tags and figuring out who's "guilty" or not.

You could do it for hero members, and put a limit on the amount of appeals. Simple things like this one would take 20 seconds of reading the trust left and you'd know it was fake.

[DobZombie]

Get a life dude.

who was that aimed at? and why?

[SaltySpitoon]

There's not enough time in the world to verify every single feedback for all users. If we do it for you, then we have to do it for everyone, then we might as well be back to handing out scammer tags and figuring out who's "guilty" or not.

You could do it for hero members, and put a limit on the amount of appeals. Simple things like this one would take 20 seconds of reading the trust left and you'd know it was fake.

But what happens when there is a conflict of interests? As it sits now, moderators can't delete their own feedback, friends of moderators can't have their feedback removed, etc. Theymos is the only one who can remove feedback, and even he understands the implications of what could happen if trust was selectively enforced. In an ideal world, people could leave whatever lies they wanted, but with no support or no proof, it would just reflect poorly upon them. There is no plausible way that I can think of, where we can have a moderated trust sytem, because then it is no longer a trust system, then its having trust in whoever is in charge of reviewing appeals. I believe a WOT like OTC is going to be added with the new forum software, which I suppose is the best option at the time being.

[Bicknellski]

There's not enough time in the world to verify every single feedback for all users. If we do it for you, then we have to do it for everyone, then we might as well be back to handing out scammer tags and figuring out who's "guilty" or not.

You could do it for hero members, and put a limit on the amount of appeals. Simple things like this one would take 20 seconds of reading the trust left and you'd know it was fake.

But what happens when there is a conflict of interests? As it sits now, moderators can't delete their own feedback, friends of moderators can't have their feedback removed, etc. Theymos is the only one who can remove feedback, and even he understands the implications of what could happen if trust was selectively enforced. In an ideal world, people could leave whatever lies they wanted, but with no support or no proof, it would just reflect poorly upon them. There is no plausible way that I can think of, where we can have a moderated trust sytem, because then it is no longer a trust system, then its having trust in whoever is in charge of reviewing appeals. I believe a WOT like OTC is going to be added with the new forum software, which I suppose is the best option at the time being.

That is what the courts are for particularly when there is slander in dem dar hills.