Why do all the sr. and hero members with negative trust hate on the trust system

[precrime3]

Like how come all I see if a high member with a negative trust rating is "the trust rating is dumb" or "the trust rating is a scam"?

[1714789284]

1714789284

[1714789284]

1714789284

[1714789284]

1714789284

[1714789284]

1714789284

[1714789284]

1714789284

[Hazir]

Haters gonna hate. Nothing is perfect, let them come with better idea so they can love the new system...

[grue]

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

[precrime3]

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

So basically a giveaway if you put trust ere and negative here? That's awful. But dogie has positive trust still, so it didnt work completely yes?

[mprep]

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

So basically a giveaway if you put trust ere and negative here? That's awful. But dogie has positive trust still, so it didnt work completely yes?

That atrocious contest backfired and  has only shown that the trust system copes with such problems pretty well.

[precrime3]

What was purpose? To make BFL "haters" seem like scammers?

[BadBear]

Like how come all I see if a high member with a negative trust rating is "the trust rating is dumb" or "the trust rating is a scam"?

What else are they gonna say? "Yeah I'm a liar, scammer, and overall scumbag."

[jambola2]

What was purpose? To make BFL "haters" seem like scammers?

That was their aim , to make all nay-sayers of BFL be flooded with negs.

However , this disgusted most older members who gave negatives to BFL and all of those that entered the contest.
Now , I've seen some of the people in the contest with -2000 trust.

[fsb4000]

Like how come all I see if a high member with a negative trust rating is "the trust rating is dumb" or "the trust rating is a scam"?

Before this contest started, I was green for everyone who had DefaultTrust....
So people with positive trust rating also can be dissatisfied works of the trust system.

Just people from DefaultTrust can not take criticism....
And now liars say that I deceived them for 999 BTC and 140 BTC...

[Xian01]

Just people from DefaultTrust can not take criticism....

 DefaultTrust is the problem. IMO, each forums user should be responsible for creating their own trust list based on their own interactions and research.

[Bicknellski]

Just people from DefaultTrust can not take criticism....

 DefaultTrust is the problem. IMO, each forums user should be responsible for creating their own trust list based on their own interactions and research.

Agreed.

However anyone SPAMMING or getting others to SPAM any services in the forum needs a ban. Why these buffoons get a free ride every time they do something shady is beyond me. At some point this forum is going to, through inaction, either end up in court as a co-defendant in a fraud case or lose it's base of users. They may want to seriously think about getting a LLP or LLC going to protect their own interests.

[meawleir21]

because well -they have negative trusts- And most of the ones angry are because they have trusted feedbacks and most of them did something "considered by others as scamming"

[/dev/null]

Before this contest started, I was green for everyone who had DefaultTrust....
So people with positive trust rating also can be dissatisfied works of the trust system.

Just people from DefaultTrust can not take criticism....
And now liars say that I deceived them for 999 BTC and 140 BTC...

Its funny that you are crying over here. Who started it first?
You gave fake negative feedback, you got fake negative feedback.

[Kluge]

I effectively disabled it a few months ago. It's too distracting, but I see its merits. I think it "generally works" when there's only one or two ratings... but it's much more like democracy than Bitcoin. You have to vote, you have to stay up to date, you're supposed to follow guidelines for doling out votes, and there are more than a handful of people dishing out votes outside the guidelines, which isn't moderated. I'm conflicted on whether or not it should be given legitimacy through participation outside of labeling obvious scammers targeting newbies who have no established reputation under the assumption that new members would place more weight on the "trade with extreme caution" tag.

[koshgel]

Maybe because they are scammers?

As far as trust goes in the marketplace, it has been a valuable tool for me in executing trades.  I can see how it can easily be abused but at the same time, the person reading through the trust can follow references and users to see if the feedback if merited or not.

[Lauda]

Maybe because they are scammers?

As far as trust goes in the marketplace, it has been a valuable tool for me in executing trades.  I can see how it can easily be abused but at the same time, the person reading through the trust can follow references and users to see if the feedback if merited or not.

I had negative rating because I was 'bashing' a coin. Yes, that makes me a scammer.
After a while I asked the guy to remove it, luckily he did.

[Bicknellski]

http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/butterfly-labs-and-bf-labs-inc-bitcoin-miners <-- got anything to add to the case against BFL? If we can't resolve the trust rating issue with Mods doing more we can punish a company that is both abusing this forums policy on spam and nailing to the wall in court for fraud.

[precrime3]

http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/butterfly-labs-and-bf-labs-inc-bitcoin-miners <-- got anything to add to the case against BFL? If we can't resolve the trust rating issue with Mods doing more we can punish a company that is both abusing this forums policy on spam and nailing to the wall in court for fraud.

What would they be classified under? Idk if you can really bring that to legal status...

[Bicknellski]

http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/butterfly-labs-and-bf-labs-inc-bitcoin-miners <-- got anything to add to the case against BFL? If we can't resolve the trust rating issue with Mods doing more we can punish a company that is both abusing this forums policy on spam and nailing to the wall in court for fraud.

What would they be classified under? Idk if you can really bring that to legal status...

Read the case filed here: http://www.woodlaw.com/sites/default/files/casedocs/2014-04-04%20Complaint.pdf

Pretty much outlines what 100s have already posted in these forums and is now going to be argued in court.

The point to their abuse of the trust system is to mainly drive more traffic to their site to get sales. This sort of spam is in direct contradiction of the rules of these forums but I guess the only real way to combat that is put out as much information as possible on how BFL has being carrying out business and let the community decide. It would be helpful if more of the community here did use the trust system appropriately and people like Josh_BFL would have had a -3000 Trust rating over a year ago when the scams he was pulling became apparent.

[precrime3]

http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/butterfly-labs-and-bf-labs-inc-bitcoin-miners <-- got anything to add to the case against BFL? If we can't resolve the trust rating issue with Mods doing more we can punish a company that is both abusing this forums policy on spam and nailing to the wall in court for fraud.

What would they be classified under? Idk if you can really bring that to legal status...

Read the case filed here: http://www.woodlaw.com/sites/default/files/casedocs/2014-04-04%20Complaint.pdf

Pretty much outlines what 100s have already posted in these forums and is now going to be argued in court.

The point to their abuse of the trust system is to mainly drive more traffic to their site to get sales. This sort of spam is in direct contradiction of the rules of these forums but I guess the only real way to combat that is put out as much information as possible on who BFL has being carrying out business and let the community decide. It would be helpful if more of the community here did use the trust system appropriately and people like Josh_BFL would have had a -3000 Trust rating over a year ago when the scams he was pulling became apparent.

Wonder if they have to be "pre-ordered" to court