Update: Locking this thread now because all abusers mentioned in our research are now removed from DT2.
Giving out positive trust just because you like a person is already an issue because it somehow undermines what trust is about: documenting trades and therefore giving an indication if this account is trustworthy and unlikely to scam in a trade.
There are very strict guidelines if you give out positive trust in case no trade occurred: the account needs to be very trustworthy already and have a history of succesful trades. In some cases, positive trust is also justified for accounts making big contributions to the forum for quite a while, like exposing spam and scam and other outstanding contributions.
I’m all for keeping these requirements very high to give out a positive trust because if we lower our standards, positive trust will get a meaningless metric and carelessly distributed positive trust will encourage scams and abuse.
A positive trust should be well considered! If in doubt, give out a neutral trust!
But giving out positive trust for shitposters is a new level of inapropriate use of trust, happening recently in our German local board.
I’ve tried to solve this case by negotiations via PM but the affected accounts didn’t show any willingness to change it to neutral (my recommendation).
In opposite: there were only cheeky replies to my PM and the abusers didn’t care at all.
Background: We have a few shitposters in our local board and they have no decency, like
Unknown01, who was called out earlier by other members and I also added a neutral trust for Unknown01 recently for continued shitposting.
In regards of the new spots for ChipMixer in April 2022, I made a statement about general posting quality in the German discussion thread about signature campaigns. I wrote: "the posting quality should always be high, no matter if someone is in a signature campaign currently or wants to get / stay in one.".
I believe my viewpoint is very resonable because we all know what shitposters want: a quick buck in exchange for effort as low as possible, what often translates to shitposting. Shitposting needs to be discouraged.
I got attacked immediately by shitposter Unknown01 because I triggered him obviously. Instead of backing down and admitting his wrongdoing, he doubled down and spew a bunch of lies and defamations against myself.
He even insisted on posting his pyramid quotes, which are against the rules and there’s a separate thread for it, explaining that pyramid quotes are bad. I replied to him by pointing out to avoid pyramid quotes but he continued his childish behavior and didn’t even show any guilt.
Obviously, he was prouf of his shitposting.
Now, shitpost apologist
MinoRaiola sided with Unknown01 and gave out a positive trust to “counter” my neutral trust.
Yes, he really countered a neutral trust with a positive trust on a shitposter account. He wrote (in German and he used no reference link):
"He is advocating for a harmonious community in the German local board. With such an empathetic nature and commitment to other users, my trust belongs to him. Nice to have you here. In a few months Unknown01 is active in the forum for 5 years and started with a sympathetic posting "I’ve no clue, I want to learn""
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1280964 (sent feedback).
Positive trust both from MinoRaiola and s0nix at Unknown01 account:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1041310This positive trust is a fucking joke. Of course Unknown01 is active for five years and constantly shitposting for a few bucks. If that’s a positive trust, everyone can give out positive trust for every 5 year old shitposter account.
In addition, Unknown01 sent a positive trust back to MinoRaiola for giving him a positive trust and his repeated shitpost apologia. According to them, a harmonious community is a community where shitposting is tolerated or encouraged.
Later, shitpost apologist and off-topic troll-poster
s0nix joined their positive trust misuse and also added a positive feedback to Unknown01, which should be technically a neutral trust because it’s not justified to be positive.
s0nix and his friends are only using positive trust to bolster their accounts.
The discussion happened in our Bounty Signature thread and was merged by mole0815 afterwards into a new topic, so my post about posting quailty is the first comment in this newly created topic by mole0815:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5392188.0And I even PMed MinoRaiola, reminding him, that his behaviour is inappropriate use of Trust and his rating should be changed to neutral. I liked him the guide of LoyceV but he didn't care. MinoRaiola didn’t back down and instead sent an insulting PM back.
I’m not saying MinoRaiola, Unknown01 and s0nix committed a trust abuse, but it’s clearly not how the trust system should be used because it would get useless (and therefore dangerous) very quickly. It’s inappropriate use of trust and accounts misusing positive trust should be excluded from our trust lists as soon as possible.
In addition, encouraging shitposters by handing them out a positive trust is INSANE!
It’s encouraging spam and scam.
Every shitposter would start to increase their trust-score by farming trust with each other.
If MinoRaiola doesn’t like my neutral trust for Unknown01’s shitposting he should also use a neutral trust. That’s how it works, if he wants to show his support for shitposters but he refused to change it to neutral, when I PMed him.
MinoRaiola has zero understanding of how the trust system works and should stay far away from it. Countering neutral trust with positive Trust on a Shitposter account is dangerous and inappropriate.
MinoRaiola was accused as a shitposter recently, too. I'm open to debate wether there should be further punishment like trust entries for bolstering their trustscores to get thier shitposter accounts into better signature campaigns and subvert the trust system.
See also BitcoinArena's research:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5404157.msg60449756#msg60449756Conclusion: ~MinoRaiola
~Unknown01
~s0nix
~thandie