Should trust system spammers be banned?

[jimmothy]

As many of you already know, josh (inaba) is running a contest to win a monarch if you post positive trust on 3 bfl accounts and leave negative trust on 3 critics accounts every day. This is not a temporary problem because the contest is never ending so it needs to be dealt with. (ends when they begin shipping)

More about the contest: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=549403.0

I think this is spam and abuse of the trust system. Josh seems to think this proves that the system is flawed but I disagree. Blatant trust manipulation can be dealt with by mods/administrators with little effort.

So should those who have sold their sole and dignity for the chance to win some vaporware be banned?

Maybe they should be banned until monarchs finally ship?

[master-P]

I think they should be banned, but it may not be feasible for the mods, who would have to sift through ratings and try to determine the legitimate feedbacks from the spammy ones. It shouldn't be too hard for us to go through the feedback of people we want to deal with unless they have tons of phony feedback.

[Light]

I'm not for or against your proposition, but theymos isn't going to do anything about this.

Trust spam isn't allowed. If I see anyone posting dozens of fake trust ratings (from one account or many alt accounts), I will delete all of their ratings. But Inaba is hiring multiple people to create these ratings. It is impossible for me to determine whether these ratings are "real" or not, so I'm not going to delete them. (Obviously all negative ratings are very likely to be fake, but I'm not going to guess about this.)

I agree that it is a little annoying to see a wall of negative ratings, but this is in the "untrusted" section. The way things are set up currently, untrusted ratings can be easily spammed in a number of ways. That's why those ratings are hidden by default.

[Stunna]

It wouldn't be necessary to permanently ban them as the community has proven it will punish those who abuse/try to game the trust system. There's no reason not to have some sort of temp ban though. Also, I think the rate at which can place trust should be limited based on your site ranking.

[jimmothy]

But Inaba is hiring multiple people to create these ratings. It is impossible for me to determine whether these ratings are "real" or not, so I'm not going to delete them.

I disagree with it being impossible. It is blatantly obvious who is spamming trust. Looking at inaba's profile it takes me a few seconds to see which people are posting fake positive feedback daily.

There are only like 10 of them.

In fact a list has already been compiled of the spammers:

Spammers as of 07/04/2014:

BFL
Inaba
BFL_Josh
dmelj
Anonymailer
hardhouseinc
Cassey
criminalben
Pry4u
fsb4000
Pokokohua!
securo
Flyeye
BTCJack
stevenmicah
Raw-H
JoRoidx
alphabetacanary
monsterblitz
huj
Rapturoso NEW!

[Bicknellski]

18.

And most certainly 50% of them are multis created by BFL.

[Acidyo]

There were some sending random altcoins to others and making them give them +trust for it.

I reported the dude and he did get banned in the end, but it sure took some time.

What was funny was that no one was caring about what was happening. Posting away like headless chicken to get their coins which are probably worthless by now.
While someone else was building up trust to get away(scam) a lot of coins of some poor soul in the future.

[fsb4000]

real trust spamming:

Spammers as of 08/04/2014:
Bicknellski
LittleD
Xian01
dogie
dropt
jimmothy
tysat NEW!
jambola2 NEW!
They copy - paste their trust feedbacks...
If any actions will be taken against the accounts in the first message, than the same actions should be taken to these accounts. They do the same things.

Although practice double standards is alive... This is sad  

Leave Negative feedback for these three accounts:

Inaba: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8198

BFL_Josh: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=63314

BFL: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=44366

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/8203-win-butterfly-labs-imperial-monarch.html

and


Leave Positive feedback for these three accounts:
    
Theymos: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35
  
Dogie: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=87869
    
Bicknellski: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=76550

This post is the best evidence(demonstration) that "bitcointalk trust rating" is not real trust rating and just popularity rating.
Thank you LittleD  

LittleD did the same like Josh.

[jimmothy]

Don't you understand that accepting bribes to spam fake trust ratings is untrustworthy? That is why you have

Trust:   -1083: -8 / +3(3)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

You were fooled by josh.

[fsb4000]

Don't you understand that accepting bribes to spam fake trust ratings is untrustworthy? That is why you have

Trust:   -1083: -8 / +3(3)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

You were fooled by josh.

Are you really so stupid?? If Josh would want to increase his trust rating he would'nt  create the topic...
Turn on your brain!!!

[fsb4000]

Main goal of Josh's contest is - show people that trust system is broken.

negative trust doesn't automatically make someone a scammer. It just tells people to do a little extra research, and to see if the claims have any validity before doing business.

POSITIVE trust doesn't automatically make someone a reliable. You should do a little extra research, and to see if the feedbacks have any validity before doing business.

I started to participate Josh's contest because I share Josh's goal.

I'm still me. One of the most honest people at this forum. And your trust ranking only confirms that trust system is broken.

You have no reasonable arguments. So you are trying to ban people who are keen to show the truth.

[jimmothy]

Don't you understand that accepting bribes to spam fake trust ratings is untrustworthy? That is why you have

Trust:   -1083: -8 / +3(3)
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

You were fooled by josh.

Are you really so stupid?? If Josh would want to increase his trust rating he would'nt  create the topic...
Turn on your brain!!!

Josh knows his customers are stupid enough to do something like this. Anyone with a brain knows there is no way any trust system can avoid paid shills.

Let me repeat that: there is no way to avoid shills like yourself. But you were stupid enough to shill openly so we all know that you are untrustworthy.

Josh knew you shills/spammers would get banned/ratings removed and he will end the contest and you will have sold your sole for literally nothing.

[fsb4000]

LittleD feedback to me:

Buying trust is disgusting Scammer, SCAmmer scammer scammer Scammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammerScammer, SCAmmer scammer scammer

Will any evidence be provided? I'm not a scammer. I'm not bribed.
Generally, I think I should leave negative trusts to anyone who wrote lies about me....
But trust system is not working...

[Sindelar1938]

Ideally yes but can't see it happening anytime soon

[Xian01]

real trust spamming:

 Again, I resent the implication and question your motivation.

[fsb4000]

real trust spamming:

 Again, I resent the implication and question your motivation.

I believe that the consequences of the Josh's contest will be only positive.
If you believe that the trust system works, then you wouldn't have be so much butthurt 

My motivation has many reasons. Anyone who says that I am bribed or scammer is a liar.

[Xian01]

If you believe that the trust system works, then you wouldn't have be so much butthurt 
My motivation has many reasons. Anyone who says that I am bribed or scammer is a liar.

 It's not a matter of butthurt, but a simple matter of resenting being called a spammer. Your assessment of the reality of the situation is misguided at worst, and woefully ignorant at best.

 I would be interested in knowing your definition of what constitutes spamming if you want to turn this into a semantic argument.

 If leaving a single comment per user about them gaming the trust system as part of this reprehensible and obscene "contest" constitutes spamming, then I'm guilty as charged, and question your ethics and morals.

[Bicknellski]

Amazing that you have no shame considering the hundreds of people scammed by BFL. Ethics is something that these paid off BFL stooges have no problem avoiding. Whether it trying to turn the tables on the people who fight the scams or bold face lie for a chance to win a piece of non-existent mining equipment with a chip some fully 14 months in development and still it is not ready.

You can't tell these guys the difference of giving a single negative rating ever versus the 6 daily and these shills will likely be doing for this for at least another 3 to 4 months. Let us count that 1 vs. 180 trust ratings submitted. Yes they are exactly the same are they not. Failed logic, failed company, failed contest, failed protest. You just look foolish with every post just like BFL. If it looks like, acts like and smells like spam it is probably is spam keep posting. I do enjoy watching the futility of your efforts.

[fsb4000]

question your ethics and morals.

If everyone would have ethics and morals like my than the world would be without any crime or scam...

[fsb4000]

Amazing that you have no shame considering the hundreds of people scammed by BFL.

1. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=558001.msg6083145#msg6083145
2. hundreds of people scammed every day by many companies, you are only antiBFL.
Where are your threads about vircurex, Neo_and_Bee, other companies ??
You do not care about scammed people, you just hate BFL.