Antonpans should be given red trust

[LoyceV]

I told him to escrow it as I wanted to do the escrow for free so far it is a free giveaway, he did not listen.

Wow. I think you should read eddie13's post, he was spot on (when you were still a Newbie):

How many countless good and intelligent users have been chased away because they “might” scam..

A new startup can’t come here and start a signature campaign for example without completely being bullied into “trusting” some escrow they have probably never heard of, so heaven forbid they couldn’t possibly scam some users willing to take the risk..

A new user can hardly post anything for sale here without being bullied into some 3rd party “idiot protection” scheme because OMG they might try to scam you..

A new user here can’t start lending on any sort of collateral because holy shot they might scam the collateral..

All new economics here CRUSHED by regulatory bullying in the name of “protecting idiots”...

I think Antonpans should be given red trust.

I think it should be neutral. I'll quote myself on the reason why:

Bitcointalk is all about freedom, and if someone wants to give away $25 in a non-transparent way, that's fine. If you don't like it, don't join.
~
I don't want to annoy a new user with questions and hoops to jump through. If he doesn't select a winner, we'll know it was fake. But I don't want to discourage genuine users from running giveaways.

Giving away in a non-transparent way is fine by you but not fine by all. Some members want transparency.

I really don't see the relevance. If someone doesn't like something on the internet, that doesn't mean someone else has to change what they're doing.

I have seen newbies get tagged red for simply asking for a loan in the Lending board

I've seen it too, and don't like it. To quote eddie13 again: "protecting idiots". If someone wants to send his money to a Newbie, let them! They'll learn a valuable lesson.

yet there seems to be a different mindset when it comes to giveaways.

Luckily, I might add. Bitcointalk wouldn't be nicer if someone starts tagging Newbies just for offering a giveway.

If a newbie comes along and says he is giving away 10 BTC, will you avoid asking questions (and expect others to not ask questions) purely on the basis you do not want them to jump through hoops just in the event he is genuinely going to give away 10 BTC? If that is your stance then that is for you but not everybody feels that way.

I'd have a lot of questions But that shouldn't stop a Newbie from doing what they want.
I remember the Newbie who gave away 1 Bitcoin to many users years ago. If I remember correctly he later started asking for money.

Remember:

the forum's mission to be as free as possible.

I'm more and more starting to get theymos' stance (and eddie13's frustration) with this. The freedoms Bitcointalk offers are really rare on the internet. Cherish it!

[SamReomo]

The voice of truth. Why don't people think that someone on the forum is just pretending to be an important person, intentionally creating certain expectations for others? His neutral reviews already suggest that he cannot be trusted. But anyone who decides to contact him should be prepared to receive nothing.

Let's recall the story of one user who promised a prize in the form of his merits for a certain price of bitcoin on a particular day. In the end, he didn't keep his promise.

I had some merits lying around with me for some time. So thought to do a contest here for this.

As a reply on this thread, you have to post the exact possible price for bitcoin on 22-2-24 , 8 pm Indian time.

The member with the closest estimate will win this contest.

A good member of the forum will not care much about gaining merits or getting fame by pretending instead of that, he/she will continue to post on the forum and share his/her honest opinion and knowledge with others. I believe each member of the forum has something to say, and that applies to newbies as well if they're not alt accounts.

Being honest with the forum, and sharing your own opinion and knowledge is more important than gaining any attention or merits. All of us know that merits play very important role and I believe if someone is active on the forum and contributes something then he/she will get merits and attention without any need of pretending.

Although, some good and genuine members of the forum also done giveaways and some generous merit sources have helped low rank members of the forum to get some merits if their post deserve some merits, or by doing some tasks. Those are exceptions, but in a similar way a new account or in inactive accounts with neutral tags launches raffles or merit giveaways should not be trusted.

[_act_]

Wow. I think you should read eddie13's post, he was spot on (when you were still a Newbie):

You are right about this. DireWolfM14 have also posted the same in his previous post, so I accept this. What I will do next time is to just track the giveaway only and see how it goes.

I think it should be neutral. I'll quote myself on the reason why...

I have changed it to neutral tag so far people can still easily see it and know what he did. Although some neutral tags are just like red tags and I believe this is just one of them.

[Kazkaz27]

Wow. I think you should read eddie13's post, he was spot on (when you were still a Newbie):

You are right about this. DireWolfM14 have also posted the same in his previous post, so I accept this. What I will do next time is to just track the giveaway only and see how it goes.

I think it should be neutral. I'll quote myself on the reason why...

I have changed it to neutral tag so far people can still easily see it and know what he did. Although some neutral tags are just like red tags and I believe this is just one of them.

It’s amusing how I was the second person to respond to this post and the first to suggest using a neutral tag instead of a red one…

I don’t believe antonpans deserves a red trust.

a neutral rating would probably suffice

Yet DireWolfM14 gets majority of the credit while hurling accusations and insults my way. It’s quite revealing. Members can offer solid advice—or even echo the same suggestions as others—but it often boils down to circle jerks and popularity contests. You might call it loyalty, but honestly, it’s precisely the kind of biased behavior I like to highlight.

Two thumbs down 👎 👎 for that.

Although, I am glad you decided to take the advice and assign a neutral tag instead of a red one. That said, I’m still unclear on whether the prize was paid or not.

[yahoo62278]

Wow. I think you should read eddie13's post, he was spot on (when you were still a Newbie):

You are right about this. DireWolfM14 have also posted the same in his previous post, so I accept this. What I will do next time is to just track the giveaway only and see how it goes.

I think it should be neutral. I'll quote myself on the reason why...

I have changed it to neutral tag so far people can still easily see it and know what he did. Although some neutral tags are just like red tags and I believe this is just one of them.

It’s amusing how I was the second person to respond to this post and the first to suggest using a neutral tag instead of a red one…

I don’t believe antonpans deserves a red trust.

a neutral rating would probably suffice

Yet DireWolfM14 gets majority of the credit while hurling accusations and insults my way. It’s quite revealing. Members can offer solid advice—or even echo the same suggestions as others—but it often boils down to circle jerks and popularity contests. You might call it loyalty, but honestly, it’s precisely the kind of biased behavior I like to highlight.

Two thumbs down 👎 👎 for that.

Although, I am glad you decided to take the advice and assign a neutral tag instead of a red one. That said, I’m still unclear on whether the prize was paid or not.

Does it really matter who suggests what? I think the guy held a fake contest and should be tagged for it, do you see me crying because noone tagged him in red? It all boils down to what you do. Can't really complain if I haven't tagged him myself, nor can you. Your goal shouldn't be to look for credit, but to be happy that the right thing is done.

[Kazkaz27]

Does it really matter who suggests what? I think the guy held a fake contest and should be tagged for it, do you see me crying because noone tagged him in red? It all boils down to what you do. Can't really complain if I haven't tagged him myself, nor can you. Your goal shouldn't be to look for credit, but to be happy that the right thing is done.

I think you missed my point. I really don’t care about credit, but I do care about biased behavior—especially when it comes from DT1 members. That kind of favoritism fosters a negative perception, which ultimately leads to a decline in participation from others.

[nutildah]

Yet DireWolfM14 gets majority of the credit while hurling accusations and insults my way. It’s quite revealing. Members can offer solid advice—or even echo the same suggestions as others—but it often boils down to circle jerks and popularity contests.

Again, as with the other thread, his word means something here and yours... well, not so much. I kinda see what happened: you got red tagged and so now you've ventured out of Collectibles to Meta and Reputation in search of some kind of justice. Well I'm afraid to have to tell you that you haven't changed anybody's opinions about the trust system thus far. We're pretty familiar with the circle jerk and popularity contest comments. And yeah, there is seniority and favoritism here. You might not like it, but ideally it exists for a reason: some peoples' word is worth more than another's.

[Kazkaz27]

Again, as with the other thread, his word means something here and yours... well, not so much. I kinda see what happened: you got red tagged and so now you've ventured out of Collectibles to Meta and Reputation in search of some kind of justice. Well I'm afraid to have to tell you that you haven't changed anybody's opinions about the trust system thus far. We're pretty familiar with the circle jerk and popularity contest comments. And yeah, there is seniority and favoritism here. You might not like it, but ideally it exists for a reason: some peoples' word is worth more than another's.

I stated my case. I truly beg to differ.

Your goal shouldn't be to look for credit, but to be happy that the right thing is done.

Right…

I am glad you decided to take the advice and assign a neutral tag instead of a red one.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Does it really matter who suggests what? I think the guy held a fake contest and should be tagged for it, do you see me crying because noone tagged him in red? It all boils down to what you do. Can't really complain if I haven't tagged him myself, nor can you. Your goal shouldn't be to look for credit, but to be happy that the right thing is done.

I also believe that at least one red tag on his profile is justified because he didn't fulfill his part of the deal. It's the same as not paying back a $25 loan. And if we look at the previous neutral ones, they suggest that he is not trustworthy. But the OP has changed his tag, you're not going to leave him a red tag either, and since I'm here, I'm not going to bother either.

That's a shitty account that has only earned 5 merits in all the time it's been on the forum, and that was precisely because of that giveaway. The profile, even without red tags, doesn't look good either. The most likely scenario is that he won't show up here again.

[coupable]

I also don't think he deserves a red tag for not paying the prize since he didn't put assets of users at risk or ask them to perform tasks. However, he deserves a neutral tag to warn others being cautious in their possibly future dealings with him. We still don't know his reason for not paying the $25 prize but I really wish he will comme and fulfill his promise because the amount isn't that big.

What I find strange is his reason for deciding this initiative, which seems to have benefited him nothing more than losing his credibility. This incident rises more suspicions about the account has really changed hands.