[RfF] Vod's use of negative trust

[dragonvslinux]

Request for Feedback (RfF): Is this an appropriate use of red trust?

Stage 1 (June 11–18): DT1 sponsors [You are here]
Stage 2 (June 19–25): DT1 sponsors & hopefuls [Completed]
Stage 3 (June 28–): DT voting class [In progress]




Red trust link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5585350.msg66821527#msg66821527
Neutral trust link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5585350.msg66821644#msg66821644

For reference sake the doxx was indeed nuked by me, there was also this follow up topic regarding it: https://www.altcoinstalks.com/index.php?topic=342763.0 (created by reputable member philipma1957 who would be able to confirm it's existence)

Some other members from here who posted in it can also confirm it existed, if there is any doubt. Hate to tag DT member @jokers10 but he can also confirm it existed as another reviewing mod there, should that be necessary.

Edit 28/06: See bottom of this post for the access to evidence of the 2024 doxx, along with bounty for personal info on theymos.

Pinging current DT members who are sponsoring this tag:
@HostFat, @babo, @Cyrus, @ibminer, @jeremypwr, @stompix, @JayJuanGee, @examplens, @LFC_Bitcoin, @LoyceV, @TryNinja, @Lafu, @icopress, @Lakai01, @YOSHIE, @bullrun2024bro, @Charles-Tim.

Note: Stuck users = no longer sponsoring.

Are you all OK with retaliatory tagging against moderators of another forum who nuke doxxing of a member of this forum ? If so, I must be in the wrong place.

Regards,
-dragon


Updated: 28/06/26

Based on the feedback from solicited members of the RfF. Does not include commentary.

Summary of Stage 1 & 2 feedback*:

• bullrun2024bro: "Not getting involved in 3rd party drama."
• LoyceV: "I can't really know that, if it came from a third party site. That's why I'm not getting involved. I can't verify what was or wasn't posted and censored."
• examplens: "No red trust that is based on the fact that, someone does not like someone or because of any differences of opinion, cannot be correct, period."

Summary of Stage 3 feedback*:

• nutildah: "[...] my answer is No, its not appropriate use of red trust. The author doesn't bother trying to tie it to any kind of trade-related context, [...]"
• yahoo62278: "The tag should be neutral at best. We see so many cases of personal feelings getting in the way of appropriate tags."
• bitmover: "I think neutral would fit well in this case as well. But I don't have all information which was "censored" (or not)"

*Note: any members as part of the RfF is welcome to have their summary amended, improved, or corrected; within character limits.


Archives: 1 | 2 | 3A | 3B

[JustBeKause]

Because he didn't doxx? I read Vod's thread on there. Everything in that thread was already public info. He didn't release anything new. You just needed an excuse to get rid of it because you're tired of Vod vs Og (everyone is), and couldn't stand for it bleeding onto altcoinstalks. At least be honest with yourself. I thought you said you didn't give a fuck about Vod feedback?

I'll see if I can convince him to remove those tags on you dragon. He made them out of stress and anger (I THINK) thanks to Bitcoingirl.club making her thread, Ognasty meriting/bumping tecshare old threads, and pedophile accusations happening (STILL).

Maybe you can put his mind at ease by updating your vod dt strength topic?

[LoyceV]

Pinging current DT members who are sponsoring this tag:

I'm not "sponsoring" this tag, and I like to stay out of any drama coming from that third-party forum.

[bullrun2024bro]

Same here. Not getting involved in 3rd party drama.

[dragonvslinux]

In case there is any confusion here, the trust feedback is on this forum, not on any third party forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1170966

Pinging current DT members who are sponsoring this tag:

I'm not "sponsoring" this tag, and I like to stay out of any drama coming from that third-party forum.

As you yourself wrote, when you include members into your trust list, you are doing so because of the following (emphasis included):

You should add users who left accurate feedback and have good Trust lists to your Trust list, and you should exclude users who leave inaccurate feedback.
This means your Trust list should be based on how you value the users' judgement on others, and it should not be based on whether or not you Trust those users (with money) or traded with them.

The primary question was: "Is this an appropriate use of red trust?" specifically directed towards those who are sponsoring the member providing it. I think that's a pretty reasonable question isn't it? The semantics would agree you are not sponsoring the tag directly, the support is indirect at best, but each DT1 inclusion holds 6-9% of the weight towards it's existence here at present (depending on how you'd like to calculate it). If you agree with the tag, that's fine, thanks for your feedback. If you don't, then you know what to do. I don't understand the diminishment of responsibility as playing any role as that's not how trust lists work on this forum. You are also welcome to argue "the good outweighs the bad", but I shouldn't have to provide justification hand outs to experienced users who know full well how the trust system works here. In absence of an answer to the question, I'll wait for further feedback.

Maybe you can put his mind at ease by updating your vod dt strength topic?

Nobody should have to "earn" a tag to be removed based on completely unrelated activity, that's utterly ridiculous and the suggestion is an abuse of the system in itself. The feedback from each user is either considered accurate by DT1 members, or it is not.

[LoyceV]

As you yourself wrote, when you include members into your trust list, you are doing so because of the following (emphasis included):
~

I've also said that it's impossible to agree with all feedback. The way you said "I sponsor the feedback" made it look as if I actively choose to support feedback left the day before.

The primary question was: "Is this an appropriate use of red trust?"

I can't really know that, if it came from a third party site. That's why I'm not getting involved. I can't verify what was or wasn't posted and censored.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

This is why I tend to avoid forum drama as much as possible. I usually try to chip in when reputation issues involve an actual scammer or something along those lines and not personal fights/beef/fueds. I recently thought your return was awesome but just a few weeks in, we are already having such threads/issues 

My suggestion for now is to talk this out with Vod when he is back from his break. I believe he can remove/change the feedback he left on your profile. Don't escalate it into another long-lasting feud. To be honest, I don't like it when high-ranking members keep hating on each other, but I guess we are all different personalities here.

[dragonvslinux]

I recently thought your return was awesome but just a few weeks in, we are already having such threads/issues 

Thanks for the kind words, I guess, but maybe you got the wrong perception of me? As early as being a regular Member I confronted (now former) DT members for their trust abuse (mosprognoz) or documented their downfalls (Lauda), temporarily paying the price as expected. Sure I didn't prong the moose personally so to speak, I was too inexperienced, also back then the "old guard" would more so unquestionably keep their own in check to be fair, even if it'd still take several weeks, and/or for someone to go completely off the rails while under scrutiny. With Lauda it took months, even years really. It's sad to see so many of the original DT1 members no longer active (or passed away). It is what it is I guess, a different era. I'll just try and stick to the same standards though, that's all I know. So it's a bit weird to think of me as someone who doesn't have a history confronting trust abuse to be honest, bizarre if anything. As if I used to bury my head in the sand or something. Pretty sure most of my contributions here were while being on -1, even -2, before DT members got rightfully dropped; or removed their feedback, or both. Not my first rodeo you could say.

My suggestion for now is to talk this out with Vod when he is back from his break. I believe he can remove/change the feedback he left on your profile. Don't escalate it into another long-lasting feud. To be honest, I don't like it when high-ranking members keep hating on each other, but I guess we are all different personalities here.

I don't have an interest in a long-lasting feud, nor do I have an interest in retaliating per the 'bigger person' theory, especially when it'd be retaliating to retaliation (that's just pointless and dumb). This only started because I opposed a flag that Vod created and added him to my distrust list because of it. The right thing to do would of just been to withdraw the flag like any other rationale DT member when it's opposed and lacks support, remove the justification for being added to my distrust list as it were. It was so close to just being a nothingburger  

Edit:   Dragon had a valid point about trust and it was my ignorance so I've removed the ~distrust I had.   I've always had positive feedback on his profile because he's able to maintain without escalation.

Maybe I just forgot to thank him, congratulate him, point out the flag hadn't been withdrawn, or something similar? Imagine that, if it was all just based on crossed wires, a basic misunderstanding, blown out of proportion.

This is otherwise merely the feedback stage for DT members (for lack of a better description), as advised by theymos, with the caevet that I'm not actually asking for any DT1 members to remove Vod from their trust list at the moment, or for others to exclude him, that wouldn't be quite fair imo when someone is having a mental health break (which I can fully respect), even if it's a bit awkward when still accountable after a tag and run. Hence it's addressed to those who support his feedback, not Vod himself, or any other DT members for that matter. I'm happy to give him a chance here to do the right thing, especially given the feedback I've received from him has now changed 3 times, so it could easily change again, I'm not that naive. Also to give any DT1 sponsors time to do their thing, should they feel the need to.

[OgNasty]

Pinging current DT members who are sponsoring this tag:

I'm not "sponsoring" this tag, and I like to stay out of any drama coming from that third-party forum.

Yes you are. Do you not understand how the trust system works? You and the others mentioned are also sponsoring a negative rating against me with a lie claiming I stole 7 BTC from the forum. It even directly mentions you by name. It is a shame you’ve dedicated so much of your time to a trust network just to actively manipulate it towards dishonesty.

[JustBeKause]

Yes you are. Do you not understand how the trust system works?

No, he is not. Do you understand how the trust system works? I don't think you do, for several reasons. Namely, you fail to have good judgment on the basis of general consensus alone! Here, let me quote the administrator you can't decide whether to hate on or dickride -

There are 94 DT1-candidates who trust icopress, and only 2 DT1-candidates who distrust him. So on the matter of of whether icopress should be in DT1, you are in the vast minority, and you'd have to do a lot of convincing.

Guess who's part of the vast minority?

You and the others mentioned are also sponsoring a negative rating against me with a lie claiming I stole 7 BTC from the forum. It even directly mentions you by name. It is a shame you’ve dedicated so much of your time to a trust network just to actively manipulate it towards dishonesty.

Here @LoyceV, allow me to help you conserve energy -

The guy on my ignore list loves going off-topic to smear my reputation. He's been doing that for years now, which all started after I didn't support him in his little feud with Vod and got worse after I made his tacky behaviour public. Usually I ignore him, once in a while I post some facts which he never responds to. He could just post in my reputation thread, but instead does it in various topics, so once in a while I feel like I have to go off-topic too to prevent people like yourself from believing him. I don't keep track of all the forum space I've wasted on this matter already, but here's more reading material.

Sorry for going off-topic.

Hey Og, shouldn't you be busy doing other stuff? You've been rather quiet lately, shit posting in sports, shitty trade analysis, dollar-store level free giveaways...let's keep it that way. I hate to constantly feel the need to correct your attempts at deflection, rewriting history, and overall weasel-faced behavior. I get that Karma's a bitch, but let's try to grow up a bit hmm?

[dragonvslinux]

Is this an appropriate use of red trust?



Red trust link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5585350.msg66821527#msg66821527
Neutral trust link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5585350.msg66821644#msg66821644

Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1170966

Moving onto stage two and expanding the feedback request to all DT1 eligible and hopefuls supporting this feedback, given it's been a week and the choir of church mice have been silent so far. It's ironic that there are enough outspoken DT members when it comes to supporting a valid red tag, or criticising bad use of red trust, so where are they here? Yesterday theymos described Vod as being too volatile to be a merit source, so additionally I'll ask, is this volatility consistent with being on DefaultTrust?

I would in principle not be opposed to making you (or OgNasty) a merit source again someday, but:
 1. You are currently too volatile.
 2. In the automated scoring system I use to analyze merit sends as an initial starting point to decide who would make a good merit source, you are ranked 2393 out of 2497. For comparison: LoyceV is #8, and MaxMueller (the top non-source) is #15. So you would not be up for consideration.

Well I'm not saying this is bottom of the barrel qualities, however if you're meriting qualities are considered to be in the bottom percentile (~0.96%) – and you're requesting to be a merit source – what does it tell you about someones judgement overall?
As I didn't quote last time to definitively trigger notifications, pinging all supporters of this feedback from this list: https://bitcointalk.org/dtvote.php?find&includes=30747

These users could be on DT1 if they get enough people to trust them and are randomly selected.

HostFat
babo
KWH
Cyrus
ibminer
jeremypwr
stompix
JayJuanGee
examplens
LFC_Bitcoin
Betwrong
mocacinno
LoyceV
SFR10
TryNinja
Slow death
Lafu
icopress
Lakai01
YOSHIE
bullrun2024bro
Charles-Tim
_act_
alastantiger
xenomorfo
promise444c5

No need to be shy now. Since last week we've had one DT member remove inclusion, still a long way to go yet though.
As a reminder, the primary yet to be answered question is: Is this an appropriate use of red trust?

[JustBeKause]

How are you so intelligent and stupid at the same fucking time?

How are you going to make this post, quoting a snippet of what theymos wrote in that post, without quoting the other important part? You know the part where he talks about removing Og as a merit source due to him sending 50 merits the other day to an anti-vod post made years ago? What does that say about Og judgment? Why isnt Og distrusted for you? What does this say about your judgment? Don't be shy now.

You suck at neutrality and you suck at roleplaying switzerland.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have bumped this. You sound desperate as fuck.

Why couldn't you have just made the data and fucked off?

You had a little spat with Vod, it ended with Vod being like "ohh well Ive been waiting for that for years". Then, instead of making the data, you decide to engage in a...let me tell you...STUPID fucking argument with a clearly sensitive person on the subject. You get the red-tag, and now you still won't stfu about it.

Instead of letting me try and convince Vod myself to remove that shit, you want to carry on with your bullshit "vod use of trust" whatever. But no. U decide to intentionally misunderstand ehat i mean and pretend vod is holding you hostage with the red tag until you make the data. Bro you are a shining example of why people don't like to touch the vod vs ognasty shit.

Have fun cuz I aint helping you anymore. Lost fucking cause.

[examplens]

Moving onto stage two and expanding the feedback request to all DT1 eligible and hopefuls supporting this feedback, given it's been a week and the choir of church mice have been silent so far. It's ironic that there are enough outspoken DT members when it comes to supporting a valid red tag, or criticising bad use of red trust, so where are they here? Yesterday theymos described Vod as being too volatile to be a merit source, so additionally I'll ask, is this volatility consistent with being on DefaultTrust?

I usually avoid responding to this kind of name-calling because these kinds of discussions always go on forever and rarely end with a final conclusion, where all parties are satisfied. Endless drama that I honestly don't have much time for.

First, my trust list is my personal one, and I don't see why anyone else should edit it. All the names on my trust list have a reason why they are there, and I would rather not explain them. I would leave that as my personal choice. There are certainly several factors that influence it.
Also, the fact that a member is on my trust list does not automatically mean that I 100% trust his every assessment, nor do I look at feedback only through red/green.
So, for example, the feedback you are talking about here will certainly not change the status you have with me, and you have built a certain respect based on some of our private discussions on another forum.

I've seen several times that suggestions through editing someone's trust list refer to some of theymos' opinions. With due respect to him, but why is it expected that we all think the same and have the same approach to the forum as theymos?

[dragonvslinux]

Have fun cuz I aint helping you anymore.

Oh no, whatever will I do now  
Thanks anyway, have added this topic to the case study since you can't help bringing up Og. Also a few topics of your own, still plenty more to comb through though... the number of derailed topics is beyond belief.

Moving onto stage two and expanding the feedback request to all DT1 eligible and hopefuls supporting this feedback, given it's been a week and the choir of church mice have been silent so far. It's ironic that there are enough outspoken DT members when it comes to supporting a valid red tag, or criticising bad use of red trust, so where are they here? Yesterday theymos described Vod as being too volatile to be a merit source, so additionally I'll ask, is this volatility consistent with being on DefaultTrust?

I usually avoid responding to this kind of name-calling because these kinds of discussions always go on forever and rarely end with a final conclusion, where all parties are satisfied. Endless drama that I honestly don't have much time for.

I guess you are referring to "choir of church mice". If so, fair enough. Usually criticising the behaviour of others – ie being "as quiet as" with colourful language – wouldn't be considered name-calling, but I can see how I should of worded that more appropriately "as quiet as a choir of church mice", in order to focus on the behaviour of the group and not the group itself. Just didn't have the same ring to it though. But if others feel insulted by their behaviour being given a descriptive metaphor, then these sensitives will be duly noted for the future, so appreciate the feedback. I guess I've otherwise been "lucky" that all my previous disputes have reached their conclusions, even if the other party was't always satisfied with the result; either that of it's becoming a pattern.

First, my trust list is my personal one, and I don't see why anyone else should edit it. All the names on my trust list have a reason why they are there, and I would rather not explain them. I would leave that as my personal choice. There are certainly several factors that influence it.
Also, the fact that a member is on my trust list does not automatically mean that I 100% trust his every assessment, nor do I look at feedback only through red/green.
So, for example, the feedback you are talking about here will certainly not change the status you have with me, and you have built a certain respect based on some of our private discussions on another forum.

As yet another reminder, put in a different way: I'm not asking you to justify your trust list or to change it (well, not yet anyway), nor if it effects your opinion of me. I'm asking: Is this an appropriate use of red trust?
If you either don't have an opinion on that like others, or are unwilling to share an opinion on that, then there is really no need to elaborate on how you maintain your trust list (as no-one was asking you) or your feelings about me  

I've seen several times that suggestions through editing someone's trust list refer to some of theymos' opinions. With due respect to him, but why is it expected that we all think the same and have the same approach to the forum as theymos?

As far as I can tell, he's the only DT member who's been vocal enough to provide an honest critique regarding Vod's behaviour of late. If other members had said anything relevant, I would of added it as part of the update.

[examplens]

I'm not asking you to justify your trust list or to change it (well, not yet anyway)

Just because you mentioned only a specific part of the DT members, you have some kind of expectations from them.

I'm asking: Is this an appropriate use of red trust?
If you either don't have an opinion on that like others, or are unwilling to share an opinion on that, then there is really no need to elaborate on how you maintain your trust list (as no-one was asking you) or your feelings about me  

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is trying to avoid. Whatever the answer here is, it can always be answered more dramatically and prolong the drama. I was hoping this would be enough, but it seems I wasn't concise enough.

Also, the fact that a member is on my trust list does not automatically mean that I 100% trust his every assessment, nor do I look at feedback only through red/green.

So, let me try the most direct way.
No red trust that is based on the fact that, someone does not like someone or because of any differences of opinion, cannot be correct, period.
To prevent the question of why someone who left an incorrect red trust is still on my list, the explanation is in the previous post.

I exclude myself from further discussion here.

[dragonvslinux]

I'm not asking you to justify your trust list or to change it (well, not yet anyway)

Just because you mentioned only a specific part of the DT members, you have some kind of expectations from them.

Right, I can understand the confusion here, especially with how other topics are created. I've updated the OP to try and clarify this:

Feedback request: Is this an appropriate use of red trust?

The only expectation is that DT1 members are competent in not only providing accurate feedback, but also assessing if feedback is accurate or not, especially from those who they support the feedback of. Not a difficult task, but granted, maybe I'm asking for too much here even though the request for feedback is nonetheless optional. At least if those members support it, there wouldn't be much logic to questioning it further would there? Unless there is pushback from other DT members that is. The reason for asking the select group of users is to give those users the opportunity to justify why the red trust is indeed accurate/correct if that's what they believe; call it a courtesy prior to expanding the request for feedback should there be a lack conclusive feedback from this stage of the process.

I'm asking: Is this an appropriate use of red trust?
If you either don't have an opinion on that like others, or are unwilling to share an opinion on that, then there is really no need to elaborate on how you maintain your trust list (as no-one was asking you) or your feelings about me  

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is trying to avoid. Whatever the answer here is, it can always be answered more dramatically and prolong the drama. I was hoping this would be enough, but it seems I wasn't concise enough.

Reading between the lines, this is what I am the most concerned about: the chilling effect of expressing criticism and it's repercussions due to someone being embroiled in drama. Whether it's receiving red trust for meriting or being labelled as a pervert for opposing a flag for example. I'm not sure how DT got into this mess, where expressing simple yes/no support/oppose opinions was considered dramatic, controversial, and/or part of The Great Conspiracy; but it needs to climb itself out of it this hole it has dug itself. Members should feel not only welcome to express their opinions but also encouraged to do so so that the relevant feedback from peers can be taken on board. Look at this this topic for example. A prime example of DT members expressing their opinion, with little to no concern over the repercussions or getting sucked into any drama. I think the reason for that is obvious, as does everyone else no doubt.

Also, the fact that a member is on my trust list does not automatically mean that I 100% trust his every assessment, nor do I look at feedback only through red/green.

So, let me try the most direct way.
No red trust that is based on the fact that, someone does not like someone or because of any differences of opinion, cannot be correct, period.

By paraphrasing the answer, this certainly answers the question that no-one asked: "Is red trust left for someone who does not like someone or because of any differences of opinion correct?". But we already knew that...

To prevent the question of why someone who left an incorrect red trust is still on my list, the explanation is in the previous post.

Thank you your feedback, although naturally I'm not comfortable assuming you are referring to this feedback in question or not, based on the sentence above and the previous post, as it appears like a generic opinion (because that's what it is). It's more of a politicians answers that weaves it way around the question rather actually answering it directly. As it's therefore not possible to attribute your feedback I'm afraid I'm unable to accept it as part of the process, even if it can still be interpreted, and it's still nonetheless appreciated. It's undoubtedly the closest anyone has got to a yes/no answer in the past week. You give me hope that if may be possible to get a direct answer to a very simple question here without any deflections.

I exclude myself from further discussion here.

Understood. Given all of the above, I don't blame you one bit either. You did your best to answer the question and got closer than anyone else, this is no doubt progress so I appreciate that.

[mindrust]

Why would you possibly care about Vod's red rating anyhow? Red ratings don't mean what it used to mean. I don't think you'll get booted out of sig camps because of that rating if that's what you were worried about.

Unless you get bombed by neg trust ratings, you are fine. (at that stage you'd receive flags too) Pretty much anyone can have a stray red rating on their profile page nowadays. Some people hand neg ratings just because the other user annoyed him/her in a political topic. No sane sig camp manager takes those ratings seriously imo.

[Vod]

I've seen several times that suggestions through editing someone's trust list refer to some of theymos' opinions. With due respect to him, but why is it expected that we all think the same and have the same approach to the forum as theymos?

As far as I can tell, he's the only DT member who's been vocal enough to provide an honest critique regarding Vod's behaviour of late. If other members had said anything relevant, I would of added it as part of the update.

So you trust Theymos' words?   They do carry a lot of weight, but he's obviously on OgNasty's side helping him remove evidence.

[nutildah]

Some people hand neg ratings just because the other user annoyed him/her in a political topic. No sane sig camp manager takes those ratings seriously imo.

This is an apt way of putting things, because its based on real life events. What happens when the trust leaver is also the campaign manager?

As far as I can tell, he's the only DT member who's been vocal enough to provide an honest critique regarding Vod's behaviour of late. If other members had said anything relevant, I would of added it as part of the update.

You haven't really been paying attention, if that's the case. You missed the part where I opposed Vod's flag on BitcoinGirlClub and explained why. You also missed other DT members basically raising the same points as me; if not recently then over the last few years. Most DT would rather ignore the entire issue, which is understandable. But there have been plenty of critics now and in the past.

[mindrust]

Some people hand neg ratings just because the other user annoyed him/her in a political topic. No sane sig camp manager takes those ratings seriously imo.

This is an apt way of putting things, because its based on real life events. What happens when the trust leaver is also the campaign manager?

The manager is free to pick campaign participants for whatever reason he/she deemed worthy... This is not any different than Ignoring the person and avoiding his/her campaign applications completely.

However, Icopress in fact, is also harming his own reputation by using the trust system inappropriately there. Maybe he is not seeing it clearly, or he thinks he is doing the right thing or, he simply doesn't care.

I don't think other managers agree with that trust rating Icopress left on Darude. If they do, that would be major structural problem.